Oops! Another case of our rights slipping away!

[fossten]

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Calls Out USA Today For Thursday’s NSA Leak
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 13, 2006 - 18:25.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan) wrote an op-ed in Saturday’s Los Angeles Times that should be must reading for all Americans, especially those that believe the leaking of national security information is actually a good thing if it helps your party regain power. In it, Hoekstra practically attacked USA Today for its recent front-page article concerning the National Security Agency collecting domestic phone records:

“WE ARE IN the first war of the Information Age, and we have a critical advantage over our enemy: We are far better at gathering intelligence. It's an advantage we must utilize, and it's keeping us safe. But every time classified national security information is leaked, our ability to gather information on those who would do us harm is eroded.”

Hoekstra continued: “We suffered a setback Thursday when USA Today ran a front-page story alleging that the National Security Agency was collecting domestic phone records. This article hurt our efforts to protect Americans by giving the enemy valuable insights into the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which has been focused like a laser beam on Al Qaeda and its known associates.”

Hoekstra then stepped forward to defend the actions of the NSA and the president:

“President Bush's job is to defend our nation and prevent another terrorist attack. He has taken many vital steps to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Terrorist Surveillance Program does not target ordinary U.S. citizens. This is a valuable program that I strongly support because it is protecting American lives.”

He continued: “First, to protect the American people, our government needs to know whether individuals already in the U.S. are communicating with known Al Qaeda terrorists or associates. The program disrupts terrorist planning and the organizing of terrorist attacks.”

Hoekstra then countered the almost incessant media contentions about the illegality of this program: “It has been reviewed by executive branch attorneys, and congressional leaders from both parties — including my friend and colleague Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice) — have been regularly briefed. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have been aware of this program for several years yet never expressed any concerns until it was illegally leaked.”

Maybe most important, Hoekstra stated definitively what appears so obvious to the overwhelming majority of Americans, yet is lost on most media members:

“And third, persons entrusted with extremely sensitive information about this program have taken it upon themselves to jeopardize it by leaking to the news media. This is a breach of trust with the American public, and I am concerned that my Democratic colleagues are turning a blind eye to this illegal activity. As Americans, we should all be ashamed that Al Qaeda can learn about our efforts to defend our nation just by picking up the morning paper.”

Hoekstra then enunciated the difficulty the administration has in defending its actions without further compromising national security: “The problem for responsible members of the administration, and the intelligence committees in Congress, is that we are not allowed to discuss intelligence leaks. We cannot tell the public details of the damage that has been done to our ability to stay a step ahead of Al Qaeda because to do so would confirm that damage — and that would help the enemy just as much as a leak.”

He continued with this train of thought:

“We cannot tell the public whether American intelligence officers have died since 9/11 protecting the secrets that are being cavalierly leaked. We cannot discuss the financial losses incurred when top-secret technologies developed at huge cost to taxpayers are revealed on Page 1, rendering them useless against our foes. What I can assure you is that leaks are costly in every sense of the word. They endanger all Americans.”

Then, Hoekstra lashed out at his colleagues on the left side of the aisle who seem to have ceded their responsibility to protect the sanctity and privacy of national intelligence for their own political interests:

“I regret that I see little sign of intolerance for unauthorized disclosures of intelligence to the media from some of my Democratic colleagues today. If an individual with knowledge of the Terrorist Surveillance Program thought it was wrong or illegal, he or she could have gone to the intelligence oversight committees under the procedures established by law. By going to the media, the leaker broke the law and the oath he or she swore to protect the nation's legitimate secrets.

“This was a grave crime that helped Al Qaeda and its allies in the information war by providing an understanding of our defenses and vulnerabilities against terrorist attacks.”

Hoekstra correctly concluded, though again stating what is likely obvious to the overwhelming majority of Americans: “We are a nation at war. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information only help terrorists and our enemies — and put American lives at risk.”

Bravo, Congressman. It’s about time somebody stood up to speak the truth about this issue.

 

[97silverlsc]

"Yeah he did" - Cafferty's a real HATER, and a leftist wacko kook besides. He doesn't have a clue.

But you guys keep on idolizing him while we enlightened individuals laugh ourselves silly.

.

Think you laughed yourself Delusional.

 

[97silverlsc]

Former NSA Officer Alleges Illegal Activities Under Hayden
By Chris Strohm
CongressDaily
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=34075
Friday 12 May 2006

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens.

Russell Tice, who worked on what are known as "special access programs," has wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December that he had secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order. In an interview late Thursday, Tice said the Senate Armed Services Committee finally asked him to meet next week in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

Tice was fired from the NSA last May. He said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden, who has been nominated to become director of the CIA. Tice said one of his co-workers personally informed Hayden that illegal and unconstitutional activity was occurring.

The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to hold Hayden's confirmation hearing next week. "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they'll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now."

Tice originally asked to meet with the Senate and House Intelligence committees, but they did not respond to his request. The NSA did not reply to written questions seeking comment for this story.

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans.

"It's an angle that you haven't heard about yet," he said.

According to an unclassified resume, Tice was a specialist in space operations systems, command and control warfare, advanced technology and all-source collection analysis. During an 18-year career, he worked on some of the most secretive programs in the government.

Tice would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he "will not confirm or deny" if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Tice said he would raise concerns that illegal activity was occurring in electronic reports, but that his comments were deleted from those reports.

Tice was fired last May after the NSA ordered him to undergo psychological evaluations following a separate clash with agency leadership, and psychologists diagnosed him as being paranoid. Tice claimed the order to undergo the evaluations was retaliation for raising concerns. He also said he saw an independent psychologist who found no evidence that he has a mental disorder.

Hayden, on Capitol Hill Friday visiting with lawmakers, defended the secret surveillance programs he oversaw while head of the NSA as lawful and designed to "preserve the security and the liberty of the American people."

Hayden declined to comment on news reports about the NSA's database on private telephone calls, but spoke about the NSA's work in general terms, the Associated Press reported.

"Everything that the agency has done has been lawful. It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress," Hayden told reporters. "The only purpose of the agency's activities is to preserve the security and the liberty of the American people. And I think we've done that," he said.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "We're 100 percent behind Michael Hayden. ... There's no question about that, and [we are] confident that he is going to comport himself well and answer all the questions and concerns that members of the United States Senate may have in the process of confirmation."

 

[97silverlsc]

This Time, It Really Is Orwellian
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051106.html
By Robert Parry
May 12, 2006

Given George W. Bush’s history of outright lying, especially on national security matters, it may seem silly to dissect his words about the new disclosure that his administration has collected phone records of some 200 million Americans.

But Bush made two parse-able points in reacting to USA Today’s story about the National Security Agency building a vast database of domestic phone calls. “We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” Bush said, adding “the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.”

In his brief remarks, however, Bush didn’t define what he meant by “ordinary Americans” nor whether the data-mining might cover, say, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, just not “millions.”

For instance, would a journalist covering national security be regarded as an “ordinary American”? What about a political opponent or an anti-war activist who has criticized administration policies in the Middle East? Such “unordinary” people might number in the tens of thousands, but perhaps not into the millions.

Also, isn’t it reasonable to suspect that the Bush administration would be tempted to tap into its huge database to, say, check on who might have been calling reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker – or now USA Today – where significant national security stories have been published?

Or during Campaign 2004, wouldn’t the White House political apparatchiks have been eager to know whether, say, Sen. John Kerry had been in touch with foreign officials who might have confided that they were worried about Bush gaining a second term?

Or what about calls to and from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald while he investigates a White House leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, the CIA officer married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq War critic?

What if one of these “unordinary” Americans had placed a lot of calls to an illicit lover or a psychiatrist? Wouldn’t Bush’s aggressive political operatives know just how to make the most of such information?

Paranoia?

While such concerns might seem paranoid to some observers, Bush has blurred his political fortunes with the national interest before, such as his authorization to Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff in mid-2003 to put out classified material on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to undercut Ambassador Wilson.

Though Plame was an undercover CIA officer working on sensitive WMD investigations, her classified identity was bandied about – and ultimately disclosed – by the likes of White House political adviser Karl Rove, who had no real “need to know” a discrete intelligence secret that sensitive.

In a court filing on April 5, 2006, Fitzgerald said his investigation uncovered government documents that “could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson” because of his criticism of the administration’s handling of the evidence on Iraq’s alleged pursuit of enriched uranium in Africa.

There are also historical reasons to suspect that the administration might be inclined to use its huge database against its critics. Some senior administration officials, such as Cheney, held key government jobs in the 1970s when one of the goals of spying on Americans was to ferret out suspected links between U.S. dissidents and foreign powers.

It had become an article of faith for some government officials that the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War protests must have been orchestrated and financed by some international enemy of the United States.

Some of the excesses in those investigations, such as the bugging of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and break-ins targeting Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, led to new laws in the 1970s limiting the power of the Executive.

For instance, in 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which tried to balance the government’s legitimate interest in tracking foreign agents and the citizens’ constitutional right of protection against unreasonable searches.

However, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush asserted “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as Commander in Chief and brushed aside legal requirements that the government obtain a warrant through a special FISA court before eavesdropping on phone calls inside the United States.

Cover-up

After making that decision, Bush lied to conceal what he had done. On April 20, 2004, he told a crowd in Buffalo, N.Y., that warrants were still required for all wiretaps.

“By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order,” Bush said. “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

After the New York Times disclosed the warrantless wiretapping program in December 2005, Bush continued to misrepresent the program, calling it “limited” to “taking known al-Qaeda numbers – numbers from known al-Qaeda people – and just trying to find out why the phone calls are being made.”

In his folksy style, he told an audience in Louisville, Kentucky, on Jan. 11, 2006, that “it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al-Qaeda, we want to know why.”

But the program that Bush described could easily have been accomplished through warrants under the FISA law, which lets the government wiretap for 72 hours before going to a secret court for a warrant.

Even before the USA Today disclosure on May 11, 2006, it was clear that Bush’s spying program was much larger than he had let on. Indeed, the operation was reportedly big enough to generate thousands of tips each month, which were passed on to the FBI.

“But virtually all of [the tips], current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans,” the New York Times reported. “FBI officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. … Some FBI officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.” [NYT, Jan. 17, 2006]

Also, undermining Bush’s claims about the limited nature of the NSA’s activities is why the administration would need to possess the complete phone records of the 200 million customers of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – if the government were only conducting what Bush and his aides have called a “targeted terrorist surveillance program.”

(Qwest, a Colorado-based company with about 14 million customers, refused to turn over its records to the government because there was no court order, USA Today reported.)

The stated goal of tracking phone numbers that had been called by al-Qaeda operatives could be easily done with warrants from the FISA court. There would be no need to compile every personal and business call made by 200 million Americans.

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” one person told USA Today. The program’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation's borders, the person said. [USA Today, May 11, 2006]

In describing Bush’s policies over the past several years, the word “Orwellian” has sometimes been overused. But a government decision to electronically warehouse the trillions of phone numbers called by its citizens over their lifetimes is the essence of George Orwell’s Big Brother nightmare.

 

[raVeneyes]

Every year, you file a form that tells the federal government exactly how much money you make and from where. If you file a long form, you volunteer even more information, including where you spent it, how much you spent on entertainment, and how much was medical.

Every ten years you fill out a census form that has questions in it that are so personal you wouldn't be comfortable answering it in person.

Yet, when the government collects unattributed phone numbers for a data base you flip out?


This is another where you can have valid debate. It's reasonable to have a degree of concern about this program. Classically, government programs never go away, they just expand. So the long term implications of a program like this, or more broadly, the changes TECHNOLOGY are making to our world and privacy should be addressed.

But the media, once again, is totally off the mark. Jack Cafferty is a loon. I remember growing up with him on the local ABC news.

Well thank you for posting a response that is both insightful and draws attention to the true issues of the situation.

I *personally* don't end up filling out all those forms every year. I've only participated in the census once, and at that time I only answered questions about my household size race and gender makeup. My money is made by my company, I personally only make money from myself, and I typically only file the short form.

Again though, these forms can only legally be used by the IRS...which is NOT a law enforcement agency (hence the rash of problems the IRS has had with conducting property seizure)...they can not be used by law enforcement other than in creating a case against me for violating tax law.

Yes when the government collects data on a scale that is clearly too large to have a focused reason or goal it concerns me. Once this law enforcement agency (the NSA) has this data, it becomes part of their toolset. They don't *have* to use it for what they intended to use it for so the scale of the data collection is alarming. Combine the fact that the NSA is now being encouraged to work with the CIA and the FBI and that barriers previously erected to keep them from cooperating and to make the distinction between investigating the actions of citizens of the United States and NON citizens have now been torn down. (Before someone bitches, *I* never supported taking those barriers away, I have always fully understood why they were in place and I believe that they should be in place to this day) Suddenly you have a database of all calls made in the US (thank you QWest for not participating and making it truly all calls) available to all law enforcement agencies for whatever purpose they see fit.

1) I can't see a good reason for that tool to be available to anyone
2) Why can't they just request calling records the old fashioned way on a case by case basis...

It is a serious problem, and if ANY citizens are concerned about it, then they have the right to know why this data is being collected about them. I am a customer of these companies and I want to know why my personal data is being given out...that is all the reason that should be necessary for me to know why my data is being given out. If it is too "secret" to be discussed with the average citizen then it shouldn't be done.

 

[Calabrio]

Are you concerned that the information obtained by the NSA will be used in prosecution?

Which also highlights another one of the challenges assocatiated with this war on terror. Are we fighting a war or are we pursuing a prosecution? Are we trying to prevent attacks or are we trying to convict conspirators?

I was going to originally respond that any information obtained by the NSA will not be admissible to use when prosecuting an American citizen. But, I had to stop myself, because I'm not exactly sure how that applies anymore. This gets very complicated, because if the case if any subsequent conventional evidence is discovered as a result of these programs, we're probably looking at a constitutional battle over it.

-Side note, a point that keeps being forgotten, these programs aren't new. They weren't conceived recently. They were implemented immediately after 9/11. Even liberals and pacifists had yet to fall into the false sense of security and complacency that has since overcome the country. When you think of these programs, you need to think about the atmosphere in the winter of 2001, not the summer of 2006.

 

[raVeneyes]

Are you concerned that the information obtained by the NSA will be used in prosecution?

I think this question really points to my concern the best of anything that has been said. In answer to your question I say; I'm concerned that the information obtained by the NSA doesn't have a clear purpose.

What in the he-double hockey sticks are they planning on doing with a list of phone calls I've made over the last few years? What possible purpose could they think it would serve?

The only use I can even conceive (being a tech guy and knowing how databases work) is a boolean -or- pattern search that would allow the NSA to use a set of numbers or a pattern of phone calls that they've compiled from a search of known Al Quieda member's phone records to obtain possible information on the locations and identities of other Al Quieda members.

That kind of tool just becomes a witch hunt tool..ambiguous and ridiculous in the extreme.

Not to mention such a search would make the president's words on the matter a bald faced lie.

What else do you do with a list of phone calls everyone in the country has made though?

Which also highlights another one of the challenges assocatiated with this war on terror. Are we fighting a war or are we pursuing a prosecution? Are we trying to prevent attacks or are we trying to convict conspirators?

Are those two goals not one in the same? How does our legal system prevent crime? Only by either jailing or executing the criminal.

I was going to originally respond that any information obtained by the NSA will not be admissible to use when prosecuting an American citizen. But, I had to stop myself, because I'm not exactly sure how that applies anymore. This gets very complicated, because if the case if any subsequent conventional evidence is discovered as a result of these programs, we're probably looking at a constitutional battle over it.

-Side note, a point that keeps being forgotten, these programs aren't new. They weren't conceived recently. They were implemented immediately after 9/11. Even liberals and pacifists had yet to fall into the false sense of security and complacency that has since overcome the country. When you think of these programs, you need to think about the atmosphere in the winter of 2001, not the summer of 2006.

I understand that there was an overreaction in the wake of 9-11, but those overreactions must be corrected, they can't stand just because the country was willing to let go its freedoms for security at one time.

 

[MAC1]

I think this question really points to my concern the best of anything that has been said. In answer to your question I say; I'm concerned that the information obtained by the NSA doesn't have a clear purpose.

What in the he-double hockey sticks are they planning on doing with a list of phone calls I've made over the last few years? What possible purpose could they think it would serve?

The only use I can even conceive (being a tech guy and knowing how databases work) is a boolean -or- pattern search that would allow the NSA to use a set of numbers or a pattern of phone calls that they've compiled from a search of known Al Quieda member's phone records to obtain possible information on the locations and identities of other Al Quieda members.

That kind of tool just becomes a witch hunt tool..ambiguous and ridiculous in the extreme.

Not to mention such a search would make the president's words on the matter a bald faced lie.

What else do you do with a list of phone calls everyone in the country has made though?

Don’t you think it's superficial to be making judgment calls about U.S. intelligence gathering simply because you doubt the intelligence being gathered has a "clear purpose?" Don’t you think the NSA considered whether telephone numbers could yield useful intelligence before obtaining telephone records in the first place?

Nothing personal, but being a tech guy doesn’t mean you're in a position to analyze U.S. intelligence programs.

 

[Calabrio]

The only use I can even conceive (being a tech guy and knowing how databases work) is a boolean -or- pattern search that would allow the NSA to use a set of numbers or a pattern of phone calls that they've compiled from a search of known Al Quieda member's phone records to obtain possible information on the locations and identities of other Al Quieda members.

I don't see this as being ambiguous, ridiculous, or a contradiction of anything the President has said. On a very simple, I'll make a silly example. "Bin Laden calls 555-1234 frequently." Who is 555-1234, and who does he call after speaking with Bin Laden? That's not arbitrary and it's helps identify and establish networks.

Are those two goals not one in the same? How does our legal system prevent crime? Only by either jailing or executing the criminal.

Actually, they are very different. The rules associated with prosecution and building a case that can stand up in court is very different. It's one of the big cultural conflicts between the FBI and the CIA.

I understand that there was an overreaction in the wake of 9-11, but those overreactions must be corrected, they can't stand just because the country was willing to let go its freedoms for security at one time.

I don't agree that these were over reactions, but that's fair enough to debate. What I take offense with is people who attribute ridiculous and evil motivations to these actions, when if they were viewed in context, they seem completely normal.

Five years feels like an eternity. But, in the event of the next attack, the public is going to want to know why we couldn't stop it again. Those phone call networks might identify a sleeper cell and prevent a dirty bomb from being detonated in a major city. And if we don't use them, we'll again see the public outraged that the government DIDN'T know. The public has completely unreal expectations.

There are no easy solutions. But it's critical that all of these issues and challenges are addressed honestly. When Democrats become opportunistic and just attack them because they perceive political vulnerability, they undermine the security of this country. When they mislead the public and distort the debate, they ruin the ability for any real debate to exist and they create a poisonous enviroment that will exist after the issue is resolved.

 

[fossten]

I don't see this as being ambiguous, ridiculous, or a contradiction of anything the President has said. On a very simple, I'll make a silly example. "Bin Laden calls 555-1234 frequently." Who is 555-1234, and who does he call after speaking with Bin Laden? That's not arbitrary and it's helps identify and establish networks.



Actually, they are very different. The rules associated with prosecution and building a case that can stand up in court is very different. It's one of the big cultural conflicts between the FBI and the CIA.


I don't agree that these were over reactions, but that's fair enough to debate. What I take offense with is people who attribute ridiculous and evil motivations to these actions, when if they were viewed in context, they seem completely normal.

Five years feels like an eternity. But, in the event of the next attack, the public is going to want to know why we couldn't stop it again. Those phone call networks might identify a sleeper cell and prevent a dirty bomb from being detonated in a major city. And if we don't use them, we'll again see the public outraged that the government DIDN'T know. The public has completely unreal expectations.

There are no easy solutions. But it's critical that all of these issues and challenges are addressed honestly. When Democrats become opportunistic and just attack them because they perceive political vulnerability, they undermine the security of this country. When they mislead the public and distort the debate, they ruin the ability for any real debate to exist and they create a poisonous enviroment that will exist after the issue is resolved.

Excellent explanation. By the way, I used to work for the NSA in intercept, and I can vouch for the fact that interceptors hardly ever know what they're picking up. It's the job of the analysts to figure all that out, and that's only when all the "stars are aligned correctly." Most of the time interceptors never find out the significance of what they found. It's all based on need-to-know.

 

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:09 p.m. EDT

Sen. Orrin Hatch: Court Briefed on NSA Program

Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

President Bush, meanwhile, insisted the government does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans. But he declined to specifically discuss the compiling of phone records, or whether that would amount to an invasion of privacy.

USA Today reported last week that three of the four major telephone companies had provided information about millions of Americans' calls to the National Security Agency. However, Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) denied on Tuesday that it had been asked by the agency for customer information, one day after BellSouth said the same thing.

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of White House-approved National Security Agency monitoring operations.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, a member of a special Intelligence Committee panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.

Hatch made the comment in answering a question in an interview about recent reports of the government compiling lists of Americans' phone calls. When pressed later, Hatch suggested he was also speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring.

Asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

An aide later said Hatch's comments should in no way be considered confirmation of any efforts to collect phone records.

The surveillance court, whose 11 members are chosen by the chief justice of the United States, was set up after Congress rewrote key laws in 1978 that govern intelligence collection inside the U.S.

The court is charged with secretly considering individual warrants for physical searches, wiretaps and traces on phone records when someone is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power. Making such requests to a regular court might reveal highly classified information.

Since 9/11, the court has been led by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, and then by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who succeeded him.

In December, U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned from the court, in an apparent protest of the Bush administration's surveillance work.

Bush reiterated Tuesday that the government does not "listen to domestic phone calls without court approval."

He appeared to acknowledge the NSA sweep of phone records indirectly, saying that the program referred to by a questioner "is one that has been fully briefed to members of the United States Congress in both political parties."

"They're very aware of what is taking place. The American people expect their government to protect them within the laws of this country and I'm going to continue to do just that," Bush said.

Spokesman Tony Snow later said Bush's comments did not amount to a confirmation of published reports that the NSA's surveillance included secretly collecting millions of phone-call records.

Verizon, meanwhile, called into question key points of a USA Today story that has led to wide coverage by other news media in the past week.

"Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records," the New York-based phone company said in an e-mail statement.

A day earlier, BellSouth Corp. (BLS) had said NSA had never requested customer call data, nor had the company provided any.

A story in USA Today last Thursday said Verizon, AT&T Inc. (T) and BellSouth had complied with an NSA request for tens of millions of customer phone records after the 2001 terror attacks.

USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson said Tuesday the paper is confident in its story, "but we won't summarily dismiss BellSouth's and Verizon's denials without taking a closer look."

 

[fossten]

Is NSA Phone Story Another Journalistic Fraud?
Posted by Greg Sheffield on May 17, 2006 - 16:18.
http://newsbusters.org/node/5407

Part-Time Pundit says "another drive-by media attempt to discredit" Bush and claim the Republicans "are trying to usher in a new era of fascism has fallen flat on its face."

Claims by USA Today using sources with “direct knowledge of the program” that the NSA has been collecting massive databases of phone calls don’t appear to match with the records of two of the three apparent participants, Verizon and Bell South....

Once again, we are faced with an “objective” journalistic medium that didn’t do enough footwork to verify the claims that were made before it splashed them on the front page and riled the population. The irony is that it appears the population would support such a database if it existed.

Time after time there are those who continue to make up claims (i.e. KoranGate and RatherGate) in the media who never seem to be held to account on their frauds. If the media wishes to continue to be seen as a serious medium of information (and more and more people are turning elsewhere for news) it needs to take seriously its responsibility to report accurately the news instead of pandering to the worst elements of the left.


*owned*

 

[fossten]

And the beat goes on...

Bell South Demands Retraction from USA Today
Posted by Greg Sheffield on May 18, 2006 - 17:55.

Reports Marketwatch:

BellSouth Corp. has sent a letter to USA Today and the newspaper's parent company, Gannett, demanding the retraction of a story which said the phone company shared its customers calling records with a federal spy agency, according to a Thursday report in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal. The letter demanded that the newspaper retract the "faults and unsubstantiated statements" in the May 11 article, which said BellSouth and some of its rivals shared bulk calling data with the National Security Agency, the Journal said. The story ignited a firestorm about government intrusion into consumer privacy and led to lawsuits against BellSouth, Verizon Communications Inc., and AT&T Inc. A phone call to BellSouth wasn't immediately returned.
*owned*

 

[fossten]

USA Today Reporter a Democratic Donor; Phone Company Demands Retraction
Posted by Rich Noyes on May 19, 2006 - 10:43.

Leslie Cauley, the USA Today reporter who last week “broke” the news that three major U.S. telecommunications companies were assisting the National Security Agency in building a database to more easily track any communications by potential terrorists, is listed as a donor to former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, according to a search of The Center for Responsive Politics Web site, www.opensecrets.org

A search found a listing for "writer and journalist" Leslie Cauley, indicating she gave $2,000 to Gephardt on June 30, 2003, when Gephardt was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Cauley's link to a Democratic campaign seems likely to further cloud the credibility of her story. Two of the three phone companies Cauley fingered, BellSouth and Verizon, have since denied the accuracy of the May 11 USA Today story, and BellSouth yesterday went so far as to demand the newspaper “retract the false and unsubstantiated statements” made by Cauley in her piece.

There have also been questions about the timing of the story, which was given huge play on USA Today’s front-pages shortly before the former head of the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden, was due to face confirmation hearings to be the next CIA director, and given the fact that many of the key points of the story were actually reported last December by the New York Times.

Friday’s USA Today carries BellSouth’s demand of a retraction on page 4A, below a more prominent story headlined “Senators challenge Hayden on surveillance,” with partial transcripts of General Hayden being asked yesterday about the claimed NSA database program.

According to today’s USA Today:


“BellSouth asked USA Today on Thursday to ‘retract the false and unsubstantiated statements’ about the company that it contends were in a May 11 story about a database of domestic calling records maintained by the National Security Agency.

In a letter to the newspaper's publisher, Craig Moon, the company noted that the story said BellSouth is ‘working under contract with the NSA’ to provide ‘phone call records of tens of millions of Americans’ that have been incorporated into the database.

‘No such proof was offered by your newspaper because no such contracts exist,’ stated the letter, portions of which were read by spokesman Jeff Battcher. ‘You have offered no proof that BellSouth provided massive calling data to the NSA as part of a warrantless program because it simply did not happen.’

Steve Anderson, a USA Today spokesman, said ‘We did receive the letter this afternoon. We are reviewing it, and we will be responding.’...

The paper also included this background that seemed designed to justify their earlier publication:

USA Today first contacted BellSouth more than five weeks ago. [yeah, right - just like Dan Rather contacted Bush right before he broke the fake National Guard story] On the night before the story was published, the newspaper described the story in detail to BellSouth, and the company did not challenge the newspaper's account. The company's official response at that time: ‘BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.’

Since the story broke, Cauley herself has made the rounds. The Washingtonian magazine’s Harry Jaffe wrote a gushing profile applauding her “victory for beat reporting.” He quoted Cauley as saying her USA Today “scoop” demonstrated the usefulness of unnamed sources:

“Like any reporter,” she says, “one thread leads to another leads to another” in the “messy process of reporting.”

Part of the messy process was clearing the use of anonymous sources, on which the story was based.

Says Cauley: “This further validates the use of confidential, unnamed sources. They have a real value in our business.”

With the phone companies demanding a retraction and her own Democratic connections now revealed, the “value” of her unnamed sources seems increasingly dubious. Could Leslie Cauley may be on her way to becoming a print version of CBS’s disgraced Mary Mapes?

Where are you, barry? Are you going to 'stick by your story' just like USA Today is doing, despite all the evidence debunking it?

 

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, May 19, 2006 12:49 a.m. EDT
Pat "Leaky" Leahy Aided NSA Phone Taps


In 1994 Sen. Pat "Leaky" Leahy co-wrote a law that forced telecommunications carriers to build convenient wiretap features into their networks enabling the kind of telephone records collection now at the heart of the controversy over the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance operation.

In recent days Leahy has called the NSA's actions troubling and potentially illegal - saying they show that the Bush administration is treating Americans like terrorists.

"'The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans?" he exclaimed after USA Today blew the lid off the program last week. "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?"

But according to the Rutland Herald, Leahy was singing a different tune 12 years ago, when he was pushing the Senate to pass his bill, the Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].

"I suggest to senators if anybody does want to hold [CALEA] up, I hope that at this time next year, neither they nor their constituents, nor anybody they know, is a kidnap victim or victim of a terrorist, and have somebody ask why nothing can be done, and be told because a law that had probably 99 percent support in the House and the Senate did not pass."

Contacted by the Herald earlier this week, Leahy said there was an important difference between what his law authorized and the actions taken by the Bush administration.

"That law talks of the technology of the interception and what technology can be used to intercept and it assumes very clearly that it can only be done with a warrant," the Vermont Democrat insisted.

Some legal experts say, however, said that assumption is not as clear as Leahy claims. Analyzing CALEA in 2003, the Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal explained:

"CALEA requires a telecommunications provider to make 'its equipment, facilities, or services ... capable of ... enabling the government ... [without a warrant] to intercept ... all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier.'"

Civil libertarians are also troubled by Leahy's law.

"The secret search and wiretap provisions could lead to an age of Big Brother-like surveillance," the American Civil Liberties Union complained in the same Law Journal report. "Americans who oppose U.S. policies and who are believed to have ties to foreign powers could find their homes broken into and their telephones tapped."

 

[fossten]

Spinning, spying and USA Today

With Verizon and BellSouth both challenging USA Today's report on their alleged participation in NSA's surveillance programs, it's not yet clear whether or to what extent the claims in the Gannett daily's much-discussed article are true. What's clearer is that USA Today reporter Leslie Cauley has ties to the Democratic Party, which the Media Research Center's "NewsBusters" Web site unearthed yesterday.

Searching through campaign-filing records, Rich Noyes discovered that Miss Cauley gave $2,000 to then-Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt in 2003. That's the type of activity that journalists normally avoid if they wish to be perceived as objective. Part of the explanation could be that Miss Cauley apparently was between jobs at the Wall Street Journal and USA Today at the time of the donation, which would make Miss Cauley's boost to Mr. Gephardt nominally justifiable. But even that doesn't disprove the perception that such political actions are unbecoming of an unbiased reporter.

Another noteworthy connection is Miss Cauley's collaboration with Democratic fund-raising heavyweight Leo Hindery, with whom she coauthored a 2003 book, "The Biggest Game of All: The Inside Strategies, Tactics and Temperaments That Make Great Dealmakers Great." Mr. Hindery, the former chair of the New York Yankees' YES Network, is among a handful of the biggest players in the country in Democratic fund raising. Federal Election Commission documents show that he has given nearly $1.5 million in political contributions to a variety of candidates and committees -- mostly Democrats but also a handful of Republicans -- since 1997. The single largest donation went to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2002 in the amount of $500,000.

This doesn't prove anything about Miss Cauley, of course, except to provide further evidence that she travels in Democratic circles and in one case saw nothing wrong about collaborating professionally with a Democratic heavyweight.

Miss Cauley is considered by peers to be one of the top telecommunications reporters in the country. A rather fawning profile this week by Washingtonian magazine's Harry Jaffe asserted that "Cauley might have better leads and sources than any reporter on the telecom beat. She's been covering telecommunications for 20 years. She has collected five beat-up Rolodexes." In the process, the piece quotes Miss Cauley on the virtues of unnamed sources: "Like any reporter," she told Mr. Jaffe, "one thread leads to another leads to another" in the "messy process of reporting... This further validates the use of confidential, unnamed sources. They have a real value in our business."

And sometimes they open a range of questions, including: To what extent could the NSA story be a lot of Democratic spin?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060519-085303-6794r