Ancient Purple - May 12, 2006 | 9:29 am · Link

Here is the original article in USAToday that kicked off the news cycle.

I won’t be hysterical, but just angry. There is absolutely no reason why a list of my or your phone calls (even if just my name and phone numbers and the numbers I called) should be in the hands of the government without either 1) my consent, 2) a warrant, or 3) probable cause.

There are not 10 million Americans with potential ties to Al Qaeda. Not now. Not ever.

Tim F. - May 12, 2006 | 9:34 am · Link

It is not a very complicated a story. The NSA asked major telecom operators for the complete records of every American’s phone calls, to which all bu one complied. Qwest asked the NSA to check with the FISA court to verify the request’s legality and the NSA refused. Qwest asked the NSA to provide a legal opinion from the DOJ and NSA refused that as well, so Qwest denied the request. Unless you do business with Qwest (which you do not since Qwest does not operate in WV) they have your records as well. Bush hasn’t confirmed or denied the story although Trent Lott has, so we can be fairly confident that it exists as reported. Moving into rumor country, apparently the idea was to use Americans’ calling patterns to guide the “other” program where the NSA would tap phone conversations without court approval. The source of the “hit” would explain why the government had such a hard time meeting the probable cause standard for a wiretapping warrant.

That’s pretty much it as far as substance goes, the rest is reaction.

searp - May 12, 2006 | 9:36 am · Link

Great idea, John. We’d all love to have a more informed opinion on this program. However, this administration classified it precisely so that we wouldn’t know anything about it.

Programs are supposed to be classified because revelation of the program would harm national security. This obviously applies to much foreign intelligence. Here, we’re talking domestic intelligence. We’re the targets. OK, call records, what have you, but we are, in fact, the targets. The only issue is the depth of our information that is used.

So suppose you address this: why was this program classified? How is national security compromised if it is known that the gov has all of OUR phone records?

You have a hard time getting excited? You are in a very distinct minority, presumably because you trust the gov with this sort of data. Well, I work in these areas, and I do not.

Jim Allen - May 12, 2006 | 9:40 am · Link

Can I get on the “Do Not Tap List”?

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 9:48 am · Link

Here is an explanation of why it was illegal to turn over these records.

Probably because many of them have seen the same kind of thing on the CBS show Numb3rs. Where they analyze the call patterns of known terrorists and everyone they call, to look for OTHER terrorists.

That’s actually a great point. People probably assume it’s a rational program like they see on TV, where the NSA spies on known terrorists (anyone got a problem with that?) and the people the known terrorists communicate with (anyone got a problem with that?) as opposed to a vacuum-cleaner sweep where they just spy on all Americans, looking for suspicious activity.

If nobody has a problem with the phone company turning over everyone’s records then why do you suppose there is a statute making it illegal?

Marcus Wellby - May 12, 2006 | 9:50 am · Link

BTW, an overnight ABC poll found 66% of Americans, get this, approving of this program.

What I find interesting is that on that same page, the web poll had the following results:

No, it is not acceptable no matter what the government says. 2,177
Yes, if the government says it is necessary to fight terrorism. 745
Total Vote: 2,922

Now, I know the difference between a scientific poll and an unscientific one. However, such a drastic difference is rather interesting. I would like to see the actual sampling of the ABC poll and the question(s) asked.

Marcus Wellby - May 12, 2006 | 10:00 am · Link

Probably because many of them have seen the same kind of thing on the CBS show Numb3rs. Where they analyze the call patterns of known terrorists and everyone they call, to look for OTHER terrorists. God forbid.

And who needs the Constitution when we can base our Republic on subpar TV shows? Hell, why not just turn over the Judicial Branch to Judge Judy, the Legislative to Simon Cowell/Randy Jackson/Paula Abdul, and the Executive to Donald Trump?

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 10:09 am · Link

I can see John’s point – those of us who ‘have the vapors’ now were simply insufficiently cynical when the original NSA story came out last year.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 10:10 am · Link

You know, let’s put aside civil liberties, the Constitution, all that stuff for a minute. I just have my serious doubts that a program like this one actually WORKS - at least for its stated purpose, i.e. catching terrorists. The broader you cast the net, the more false positives you turn up, the more time you waste chasing down loose ends. We’ve already heard stories about FBI agents being sent to investigate Pizza Huts instead of catching real criminals.

Yes, I know, I’m not very knowledgeable about this stuff, not like the security experts in our government who brought us 9/11. But what I honestly think is that after 9/11 these guys simply panicked. All of a sudden, every possible surveillance technique, no matter how overbroad or ineffective, had to be implemented, because gosh, what if we DIDN’T do it and something bad happened. And now they reflexively cling to it all because, again, no one wants to take the blame because they stopped a program and then something bad happened.

I still, call it my silly affectation, want to get the bad guys who attacked us on 9/11. But it’s like, because there’s no clear path that ends up with Osama’s head on a pike, we’re running around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to look like we’re doing SOMETHING about it. Hey, let’s start this new surveillance program, that might work! Hey, let’s invade this country over here, that might work! The whole situation calls for some grownups to sit down and calmly assess the threat and what to do about it, but unfortunately, our political system is not really designed to bring grownups to the fore.

Jcricket - May 12, 2006 | 10:11 am · Link

I suspect, like most of these issues, there’s a large segment of the public that reflexively wants to support the president and assumes he’s telling the truth (even after all this time) that it’s only terrorists who are being surveilled. There’s also a large group of people who “lazily” fall into the “I’ve never done anything wrong so even if it’s illegal, I have nothing to worry about” when confronted with these types of issues These are the people that the ACLU protects our country from :-)

At any rate, most people are just too busy to really understand the details of these issues, and therefore don’t realize the possible implications of warrant-less spying on all American domestic calls. The very reason FISA was created was in reaction to the abuse and misuse of this type of data in the past. With technological advances in the last 30 years the potential for abuse is far, far worse.

The “good thing” is that as these issues unfold (like the warrantless wiretapping), public support falls pretty dramatically. The public isn’t stupid, they just presume that people like the president, NSA, CIA and FBI are on the up-and-up until really shown otherwise. The pollsters also do a better job of phrasing neutral questions or asking better follow-ups to see where the true opinion lies about what actually happened (not what the President claims is happening).

Speaking of polls, as Bush’s approval rating heads to the 20s and disapproval heads well into the high 60s it’s interesting to note that Clinton’s lowest approval was 43 and highest disapproval was somewhere in the 40s, and that wasn’t during Monica/impeachment. His approval during impeachment was in the 60s, and actually increased during and after impeachment (my source) Not saying that makes his actions right, but it’s an interest set of data points to consider when compared to how Bush and the GOP are faring.

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 10:14 am · Link

That’s actually a great point. People probably assume it’s a rational program like they see on TV, where the NSA spies on known terrorists (anyone got a problem with that?) and the people the known terrorists communicate with (anyone got a problem with that?) as opposed to a vacuum-cleaner sweep where they just spy on all Americans, looking for suspicious activity.

That’s the part I don’t understand.

See, that makes sense.

I just don’t see how you can look at calling patterns for the entire population and go. Oh my god, there’s an increase in phone traffic in Boise! What’s that mean! Quick, get the bat signal out.

Turns out it’s because Susie finally got it on with Tim, and now she’s calling all her friends at school.

Frankly, this thing sounds like a fuking waste of money, and I’m more dissapointed in the phone companies for gladly handing over their info. (except Al Qwestaeda who loves terrorists)

Mr Furious - May 12, 2006 | 10:15 am · Link

An interesting wrinke on this that I heard on NPR yesterday focused less on the actual activity, than on the manner in which it was done. Rather than ask for those records as a national security-related, court-mandated or -approved matter, the NSA simply bought the lists from the companies as a simple commercial transaction.

I have a big-ass problem with that. How much did they pay? Why did they handle it this way? Would the phone companies sold this data to anyone else? Cell companies obviously have…

I also have a problem with the fact that there is no oversight, approval or review on what the Bush Administration wants to do… This is the reason why they bought the information. so they wouldn’t have to answer to anyone.

Once again we are left relying on the word of the NSA and the Bush Administration and nothing else. The DOJ simply dropped an investigation into the NSA this week, simply because the NSA said it’s too secret. For the FBI.

What the fuck was John bolton doing with the phone records of Bill richardson—a sitting governor

Why should I believe that they aren’t monitoing the activity of political opponents?

What the fuck is going on around here? Can you get some vapors going on that, John?

Pug - May 12, 2006 | 10:17 am · Link

This strikes me as another example of incompetence. Do they really think they will find terrorists by sifting through the phone records of every American? Seems that this is what’s known as too much information. Really just seems like kind of a hare-brained idea.

Jcricket - May 12, 2006 | 10:18 am · Link

If this doesn’t give you the vapors, what will? Where does the line stop? How much farther has the government gone, all in the name of protecting us against an unknown, unseen enemy?

Two words. Jose Padilla. The next step has already happened. The administration has declared the right to unilaterally declare American citizens “enemy combatants” in the WOT, stripping them of their rights and protections, and holding them indefinitely in any number of detention facilities. Now I ask. What’s left? Nothing, really? I guess mass arrests of protesters or martial law (neither of which I believe are likely).

You don’t have to be an alarmist to think that there are already enough facts to doubt any explanation/justification given to you by the Bush administration regarding their actions in the WOT. They simply aren’t credible. Their actions in the Padilla case (hold him indefinitely and then when threatened with losing their case, transfer him to a different prison and change the charges). More importantly, we should vigorously oppose the unwarranted expansion of “presidential powers” they have claimed justification for in the last 5 years. It’s that expansion that’s at the root of all these issues.

Punchy - May 12, 2006 | 10:23 am · Link

We’ve already heard stories about FBI agents being sent to investigate Pizza Huts instead of catching real criminals.

Do you have a link? This promises to be hilarious reading. As long as they stay away from Gumby’s and Papa Johns, I ain’t got no beef with them chasing down PHs….

Mr Furious - May 12, 2006 | 10:24 am · Link

Speaking of the confluence of this phone data-mining and American Idol, doesn’t FOX know that running “American Idol” makes defending the country against attack more difficult?

All the terrorists should conduct their phone activity during the two-hours after the show, when the sysrtem is handling an extra sixty million calls…

Why does Rupert Murdoch love the terrorists?

Lee - May 12, 2006 | 10:25 am · Link

...subpar TV shows.

Those are fighting words :)

Numb3rs is an excellent show. After a screening, we typically watch then show with our kids (girls 9 & 6).

Slide. - May 12, 2006 | 10:27 am · Link

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

Benjamin Franklin

Never has anything our founding fathers said been more prescient.

Slide. - May 12, 2006 | 10:31 am · Link

Do you have a link? This promises to be hilarious reading. As long as they stay away from Gumby’s and Papa Johns, I ain’t got no beef with them chasing down PHs….

Try this:

here is a taste:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 – In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans’ international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 10:35 am · Link

Punchy: check here.

“We’d chase a number, find it’s a school teacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism – case closed,” said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. “After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.”

Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program’s results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the director of national intelligence’s office. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country’s second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the eavesdropping program was started.

“I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available,” General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.

Also note an interesting quote from a gentleman who was cited on BJ’s front page recently.

“It isn’t at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, ‘Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information,’ ” Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. “But the rejoinder to that is: Have you got anything better?”

Well, good question. I hope we’ve got something better!

Jack Roy - May 12, 2006 | 10:36 am · Link

I’m with searp—-why would you expect that any hard evidence would be available? That’s the reason this, like the CIA black sites in Europe, were classified: To make sure Americans didn’t know that the government was willfully doing stuff that might piss off voters Because media coverage of our super-important and super-secret intelligence activities jeopardizes our national security

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 10:37 am · Link

There are not 10 million Americans with potential ties to Al Qaeda. Not now. Not ever.

Is that what they are looking for? Because the query they used was based on looking for calls to people named “Al.”

For example, if you called Al Maviva, that would set a flag.

As far as NSA is concerned, Al Maviva is a terrorist sleeper cell somewhere in Branson, Missouri.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 10:45 am · Link

Well, all you whining, hippy, liberals can just go sign up for Qu’est if you have something to hide.

Punchy - May 12, 2006 | 10:46 am · Link

Well, perhaps you should since it seems to tie up a lot of limited resources

Of course I’m concerned. I was trying to be snarky.

Krista - May 12, 2006 | 10:50 am · Link

Sorry neil, that was definitely rude, uncivil, derogatory, and sarcastic of me. Have I just completely screwed over any argument that anybody on the left might make on this thread?

Tractarian - May 12, 2006 | 10:57 am · Link

First of all, Mr. Cole, you shouldn’t keep repeating that you thought all along that the NSA collected intelligence on purely domestic communications. It shows you haven’t got the first clue about what the NSA has historically been about.

Second, I have no problem with the NSA having a database of all the telephone calls made within the US. They are a spy agency – they are supposed to know things that no one else knows.

But third, and most importantly, people must recognize what Bush is trying to do here by appointing Hayden – he is trying to conflate the issues of “what the NSA should be doing” with “what the NSA is legally permitted to do.” I think the public would approve of a program like this, but certainly the public would not approve of a government agency violating the laws enacted by their duly elected representatives in Congress!

I recognize that the question of whether this program is legal or illegal is still an open one. Here’s a good legal analysis. The gist is that we don’t know if the program is illegal – we don’t know because the whole thing is secret!

The real problem here is not the threat to privacy. The real problem is the threat to separation of powers, to the rule of law, to the concepts of limited government and open democracy.

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 11:02 am · Link

What stage is John in today? It sounds a little 4ish with a touch of 1 to me

I’ve revised my 5 stages of Republicans dealing with Bush grief so that it’s more generally applicable:

Stage 1—Denial (what about the secret meetings in Prague?)

Stage 2—Anger (They put a horse trainer in charge of FEMA?!)

Stage 3—Bargaining (If we survive the next 2 years, I’ll never vote for someone this stupid again, I promise)

Stage 4—Depression (the only that keeps me going now are my Lee Greenwood records and my “Red Dawn” DVD)

Stage 5—Acceptance (the moonbats are right—he really is the worst president ever!)

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 11:13 am · Link

Don’t you love it, John? You ask a direct question, and (with the exception of Mona) you get exactly what you said you didn’t want, even from your own blogging colleague. Fucking pathetic commentariat.

Anyway, here’s a link. It’s the same source Mona linked to, but a more recent post, and from a strictly legal angle, so there’s lots of legalese. I’ll keep looking for some credible material from the military/spook establishment side of the equation.

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 11:16 am · Link

Stage 6—Gleeful (my blog traffic is way up)

You may be right. Half the email I saw on CNN about the call tracing said some variant of “those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear”. Have I got my finger on the pulse of the wingnuts or what?

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 11:22 am · Link

The Other Steve, the thing is, you have a few numbers that are known to belong to Bad People. You want to use this information to find other Bad People, so you analyze the network of calls originating from Bad Person #1. In this way you might be able to draw a chain all the way from Bad Person #1 to Big Boss, roping in the Henchmen in between.

I’ve watched Columbo. Back in the 1970’s what they’d do is get a warrant, go to the phone company and say “Give us the phone records for Bad Person #1”

Then Columbo would get this print out. And he’d show it to the Bad Person, and suddenly they’d confess to killing he heiress and stealing the fortune.

So are we arguing that this NSA program is simply a way to streamline that? They’ve replicated the data, so they don’t have to go to the phone company every time they find a bad person?

Why not just have the phone company give them a login ID to their system?

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 11:23 am · Link

Why not just have the phone company give them a login ID to their system?

Anybody who watches ‘24’ knows that they are already logging into the phone providers’ systems.

C’mon, get real.

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 11:27 am · Link

Is that what they are looking for? Because the query they used was based on looking for calls to people named “Al.”

Actually this reminds me of the story where some guy was asking why they hadn’t caught some crook yet. They’d had a warrant for his arrest for a long time, and when he asked he was told “We got no idea where he is”.

So the guy goes to the phone book, looks… and there’s his name, number and address.

This example led to the Federal Marshall round-up program, where’d they would go out and nab a thousand or so of these guys with outstanding warrants who were actually pretty easy to find, just nobody went looking.

Which begs the question.

Has anybody looked for ‘Osama Bin Laden’ int he phone book? Maybe call directory assistance?

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 11:28 am · Link

John: So if any of you have factual links, and not links to hysterical reactions on both sides of the aisle, it would be much appreciated.

Brian: Don’t you love it, John? You ask a direct question, and (with the exception of Mona) you get exactly what you said you didn’t want, even from your own blogging colleague. Fucking pathetic commentariat.

Yet there is not a single link, anywhere in this thread, to any kind of partisan reaction, let alone a “hysterical” one.

Isn’t Brian adorable?

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 11:29 am · Link

Anybody who watches ‘24’ knows that they are already logging into the phone providers’ systems.

C’mon, get real.

Have you noticed how quiet the wingnuts got about 24, when the Republican President in the show turned out to be the bad guy?

:-)

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 11:33 am · Link

Has anybody looked for ‘Osama Bin Laden’ int he phone book? Maybe call directory assistance?

I think they at least ought to send him a registered letter, stating that he has won some virgins, and that he needs to present himself to a kiosk in Times Square to pick up his prize.

They catch deadbeat dads and bail jumpers this way, surely they can catch a fundamentalist raghead this way.

Okay, for the deadbeat dads they use a $10k Prepaid Master Card as the bait, but it’s the same principle.

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 11:34 am · Link

JoeTx, precisesly.

John, enter Marty Lederman. Warning, dense law-like substance behind that link.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 11:35 am · Link

Did anyone else notice yesterday when President Bush said the government doesn’t troll? How does he explain Frist?

Punchy - May 12, 2006 | 11:35 am · Link

Anybody who watches ‘24’ knows that they are already logging into the phone providers’ systems.

And anyone that’s seen “Get Smart” knows that shoe phones aren’t traceable. So I’m moving to Nike’s new product, “Air Time”, which should foil the NSA until they bug the laces…

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 11:36 am · Link

Yet there is not a single link, anywhere in this thread, to any kind of partisan reaction, let alone a “hysterical” one.

Oh really? Not ONE? How about your own comment on this very thread at 9:48am? ThinkProgress is not hysterical? Now THAT’s hysterical.

Next!

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 11:37 am · Link

Have you guys seen the Usual Suspects? Do you think that Osama might be a Keyser Soze type, just a regular looking guy who walks among us, coming and going as he pleases, toying with dim-witted Chaz Palmiteri-like policemen? Wouldn’t we need an extensive surveillance program to catch a guy like that?

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 11:38 am · Link

Thank goodness some of us still have our hand on the stick

I’m pretty sure Brian does have his (cheetoh-stained) hand on the stick.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 11:38 am · Link

Speaking of Battlestar Galactica, I bet Commander Adama has every one of those funky 1970s-era phones bugged. How come I never hear any of you moonbats complaining about that?

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 11:41 am · Link

I’m pretty sure Brian does have his (cheetoh-stained) hand on the stick.

The danger with Brain is that he might try to get his hand on your stick.

If you get my drift, which I am sure that you do.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 11:43 am · Link

The danger with Brain is that he might try to get his hand on your stick.

No wonder Darrell won’t go camping with Brian.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 11:46 am · Link

Not that there’s anything wrong with that

Yeaaaaaah, you might want to go back and review the relevant Seinfeld episodes. See, the “not that there’s anything wrong with that” was always other-directed.

It wasn’t an invitation to the nearest gay caballero.

I’m just saying, watch your six.

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 11:49 am · Link

unless you don’t want cheetohs-stains down there.

I happen to eat Flaming Hot Cheetohs. Provides an extra-special kick, if you know what I mean.

Fair warning.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 11:53 am · Link

No more talk about Brian’s flaming hot cheetoh. It’s close to lunchtime.

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 11:55 am · Link

I happen to eat Flaming Hot Cheetohs. Provides an extra-special kick, if you know what I mean.

Solid reply, Brian. Sometimes it makes me sad that you’re a Republican.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 11:56 am · Link

Just stay away from Brian when he’s been eating barbecqued ribs.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 12:03 pm · Link

Oh really? Not ONE? How about your own comment on this very thread at 9:48am? ThinkProgress is not hysterical? Now THAT’s hysterical.

Uh, you’re the one that’s sounding a bit hysterical, friend. ThinkProgress provided an analysis of the exact same statute that every other lawblogger is talking about.

I’d challenge you to find one false and/or hysterical statement in the ThinkProgress post. It’s a simple statutory analysis.

Krista - May 12, 2006 | 12:08 pm · Link

Sometimes it makes me sad that you’re a Republican

Me too.

Damn, Brian. Just when I completely write you off, this sly little sense of humour comes out to play. Is this your Friday gift to us?

Bone-In RibEye - May 12, 2006 | 12:10 pm · Link

The guys who brought us Watergate (what was that about again?) are now gathering the phone records of every american citizen. I’m sure it will only be used to fight terrorism even though its probably the least efficient or effective way of fighting terrorism.

Tim F. - May 12, 2006 | 12:12 pm · Link

The link which is broken in my comment above.

slickdpdx - May 12, 2006 | 12:19 pm · Link

For a good analysis of why you would need “non-terrorist” call data for this database see Probabilities and the NSA Call Data Base at OTB.

Basically, in order to train a spam filter (or in this case a terror filter) you need to be able to create rules ditinguishing “spam” (junk email, terror communications) from “ham” (legitimate email, non terror-communications). For that you need a lot of “ham” data too.

Mr Furious - May 12, 2006 | 12:25 pm · Link

Brian: Have you been watching your fantasy administrations (“West Wing”) for so long…

No, more like living with my nightmare Administration in real life, Bri.

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 12:28 pm · Link

more like living with my nightmare Administration in real life

Heh

Davebo - May 12, 2006 | 12:34 pm · Link

Off topic but…

Feds raid Foggo’s house… Conflict with Negroponte my ass…

VidaLoca - May 12, 2006 | 12:44 pm · Link

Davebo,

From the article you linked:

The agents refused to answer other questions about the raid, including what agencies were involved.

What “agents”? Were they there for the purposes of advancing the criminal investigation—or were they there to get the evidence out of the place before the investigation could get to it?

[/tinfoil hat]

Davebo - May 12, 2006 | 1:01 pm · Link

Vida,

This offers more details. Not only his home but his office at Langley. Also lists FBI, CIA Inspector General, IRS and Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

Seems everybody is picking on poor Dusty.

neil - May 12, 2006 | 1:13 pm · Link

You guys make me weep for this country. Have you been watching your fantasy administrations (“West Wing”) for so long that you now don’t know the difference?

I thought they were all making fun of Sherard, who explained to us that Americans approve of this program because it reminds them of Numb3rs. (Except The Other Steve, who was making fun of Tom Clancy.)

PeterJ - May 12, 2006 | 1:42 pm · Link

Shepard said:

BTW, an overnight ABC poll found 66% of Americans, get this, approving of this program.

From ABC:

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 11, 2006, among a random national sample of 502 adults.

A poll by phone asking people what they think about the government collecting information about who they are talking with over the phone…

Probably time to end every phone call with the Pledge of Allegiance, you never know who is listening…

Oh, and the EU is giving access to their phone logs to US authorities.

http://euobserver.com/9/21580

I wonder what they got in return…

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 1:58 pm · Link

You know I was thinking. What’s the big deal anyhow with all these criminal charges and indictments?

Bush is just going to pardon all of them anyhow when he leaves office, just like his pappy did.

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 2:08 pm · Link

Au contraire, not once have I thought you were flaming or hot.

If only I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard that from a lady.

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 2:22 pm · Link

KC Says:

For the record: I just find it amazing at how much conservatives, the “small government” people, love big government.
KC, we don’t think govt should be handing out billions in agricultural subsidies nor should it be permitting people to stay on welfare for years on end.. but we do believe that one of the few things the govt should do is to protect us from foreign enemies, including the control of our borders. Reasonable expenses in those areas do not make one a “big government” lover.

I hope this clears things up for you, as you’re undoubtedly congratulating yourself on pointing out this glaring example of conservative ‘hypocrisy’

Mr Furious - May 12, 2006 | 2:36 pm · Link

Flaming, maybe…

:-)

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 2:37 pm · Link

I stated the facts as reported in USA Today and confirmed by Trent Lott

What important ‘facts’ did Lott “confirm”? According to the Bloomberg article, all he did was make a couple of very general, non-specific comments that the NSA program was legal

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 2:41 pm · Link

Darrell Says:

[Something or other]The Senator’s fax-machine has spoken, step right up and get your talking points here, kids!

JoeTx - May 12, 2006 | 2:43 pm · Link

nor should it be permitting people to stay on welfare for years on end..

If I had a choice, I’d rather spend millions on welfare for the poor, than billions on corporate and defence contractors welfare. Honestly Darrell, what is the difference?

Darrell, why don’t you tell us about the conservative principle of “States Rights”, Bush has pretty much gutted that one too.

It is painfully obvious that the current crop of republicans do not govern for the good of the nation. They only govern for the power and enrichment that comes from holding office. Its not about what is in the best interests of the Country, its about what is in the best interest of their “party”.

Here is a recent quote about Bob Ney that sums up their mindset.

“If the Democrats are going to use the indictment against him, and his polling numbers plummet, and we’re in danger of losing the seat, then he should absolutely step down for the good of the party,” said a Republican leadership aide

Its not about whats good for the country, only whats best for the party. Hiel Hitler!

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 2:47 pm · Link

erm, ‘argument’ you can make a compelling argument for such things.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 2:51 pm · Link

Reasonable expenses in those areas do not make one a “big government” lover.

How about having government try to co-opt the definition of marriage, taking it away from the churches, where it came from, and trying to write sexual preference discrimination into the Constitution?

Is that an example of “big government?”

How about blurring the distinctions between church and state? “Faith-based” public programs? Big government?

How about midnight Sunday sessions of Congress to interfere with tragic medical cases? Big government?

Circumvention of laws designed to prevent abuse of surveillance, instead of working with Congress to reform the laws if necessary …. consolidation of executive power. Big government?

Refusal to veto a spending bill in over 5 years, and raising spending at the greatest rate since the 1960’s …. big government?

Slashing taxes while winking at profligate spending and earmarks, and saddling Americans with mountains of new federal debt … big government?

Arranging for more and more K-Street government, intrusion by moneyed and corporate interests …. big government?

Conservatives are now the demographic abandoning this president with their approval at the fastest rate. Why? Are they tired of more and more lip service to conservative principles while pumping up an already too-big government?

Don’t answer, Darrell. Everybody knows the answers, and nobody cares about yours anyway.

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 2:56 pm · Link

JoeTx wrote:

Its not about whats good for the country, only whats best for the party. Hiel Hitler!

yeah, yeah, every good lefty knows “Bush=Hitler”. We saw all the signs at your protest marches

Brian - May 12, 2006 | 3:00 pm · Link

Or King Cole, maybe?

Cole Porter? Nah.

Kenneth Cole? Krista can get a new handbag.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 3:02 pm · Link

Kind of like when the left runs around screaming that our troops are using “chemical weapons” to undermine the war effort, when they ‘discover’ our troops have been using White Phosphorous

Kinda like when the right runs around screaming that al-Qerry wants to be more sensitive to the terrorists, and that liberals should all be stuffed and mounted in museums… I’m sorry, your point was?

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 3:06 pm · Link

$10 trillion, bitches. Small government Republicans in action.

slickdpdx - May 12, 2006 | 3:09 pm · Link

Someone expressed a concern about “false positives”: setting aside the debate about lawfulness and public policy, that concern is addressed by collecting as much data as possible so that your screen is as finely tuned and trained as it can be. So while more data means more information that receives the next level of attention in the continuum, whatever that might be, more data also means higher accuracy in what information receives that next level of attention.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 3:13 pm · Link

It hasn’t been demonstrated that the Bush administration was “circumventing” the law with the NSA program

To whom has it not been demonstrated?

Are you arguing that FISA has been followed?

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 3:14 pm · Link

Are you arguing that FISA has been followed?

No, I’m arguing that FISA doesn’t necessarily have a say in telling Bush how to monitor suspected foreign enemies overseas

Pb - May 12, 2006 | 3:16 pm · Link

Darrell,

if your side was serious about such abuse of surveillance, they would have reacted initially something like this: “Mr. President, we’re all for giving you the tools you need to hunt terrorists, but we’re concerned about potential abuses, and we want to work on increasing oversight to help prevent any such abuses”

Which was, you know, precisely what happened, quite some time ago.

Right out of the gate, Dems started screaming

If you were serious, period, maybe you’d get your facts straight once in a while. Or, you know, once. Now I’m not your nana, so I’m not going to be there to go straightening up behind you all the time. Sooner or later you’ll have to learn how to do it all by yourself.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 3:20 pm · Link

FISA doesn’t necessarily have a say in telling Bush how to monitor suspected foreign enemies overseas

What about monitoring domestic communications? You know, like collecting a massive database of when and where all domestic calls went?

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 3:24 pm · Link

Actually, it was Kerry himself who said he wanted to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror. I hope this new information helps

Actually, saying you want to fight a more “sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations” is quite different from saying you want to be “more sensitive to the terrorists.” I hope this new information about the English language helps.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 3:39 pm · Link

Actually, it was Kerry himself who said he wanted to fight a more “sensitive” war on terror. I hope this new information helps

Yeah, face it, lefties: John Kerry wanted to provide mandatory back rubs, expensive chocolates, roses, and scented candles for terrorists.

That’s the only fair, honest, accurate, and completely in-context reading of the remarks that Darrell linked to, and you’ll admit it unless you’re a dishonest moonbat.

Krista - May 12, 2006 | 3:50 pm · Link

Kenneth Cole? Krista can get a new handbag

Best idea I’ve heard all day. I wonder if Kenneth Cole has a blog…hmmmm…

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 3:53 pm · Link

Nothing sends a strong message to Al Queda terrorists that we mean business

We “mean business?” You mean, like attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911 sends a message that we “mean business?”

You are totally full of shit.

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 3:56 pm · Link

Nothing sends a strong message to Al Queda terrorists that we mean business like announcing that you want to fight a more “thoughtful”, more “sensitive” war on terror.

Right, because it’s far more effective to fight a half-assed, stupid war on terror.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 3:58 pm · Link

Daaaaamn. Scarborough and Gingrich speaking out against the NSA spying. Why do they America and want to give Osama a massage with a happy ending?

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 4:01 pm · Link

You can find exceptions, but THIS was the party line.

I recall a lot of talk demanding Bush’s impeachment over th NSA program.. Ted Kennedy screaming how it was an example of big brother running ‘amok’, Senator Feingold demanding Bush be ‘censured’.. and upping the ante claiming the NSA program was an ‘impeachable offense’.. a sentiment shared by Dick Durbin

But if you what to claim that one quote by Kerry was THE party line at the time..

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 4:05 pm · Link

If the Left was in charge, “sending a strong message” would entail flowery greeting cards politely asking Al-Queda not to blow up any more of our buildings

Well, you are talking about the same Left which went running around screaming how our troops were ‘violating’ the Geneva convention using ‘chemical weapons’ when they learned that white phosphorous had been used in combat

Darrell - May 12, 2006 | 4:08 pm · Link

JoeTx, thanks for that ever so informative post. If you would have just made your argument just 6 paragraphs longer, you could have convinced me

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 4:12 pm · Link

Slick, I largely agree with RSA - the increase in data only serves to decrease the false positives IF the increased data coincides with a accuracy-increasing refinement of whatever sorting algorythm is being used.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 4:14 pm · Link

Dammit. Now we are going to be invaded by Canadian tourists looking for cheap US goods.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 4:17 pm · Link

Christ, Darrell. You said:

upping the ante claiming the NSA program was an ‘impeachable offense’.. a sentiment shared by Dick Durbin

How does Durbin saying “I’m not ruling it in or out at this point in time” equate to “Durbin shares the sentiment that the NSA program is an impeachable offense”?

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 4:21 pm · Link

Do you understand the meaning of the word “if,” Darrell?

Yes I do. Do you understand the meaning of unhinged Leftists?ZING! No really, your best effort yet! PoTD (short bus edition)!

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 4:22 pm · Link

I fear it’s only a matter of time before they outnumber us and we’re all speaking Canadian.

Eh?

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 4:24 pm · Link

Is it my imagination, or is this website crashing a lot lately?

Today has seemed especially bad.

Not just you – it’s been touchy today.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 4:25 pm · Link

Eh?

You hoser.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 4:31 pm · Link

I had the same trouble about 20 minutes ago

It’s those damned gummint snoopers!

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 4:36 pm · Link

Slick, no it is absolutely the NUMBER of false positives – considering that by any reasonable estimate the number of non-terrorist dwarfs the number of terrorists, any non-negligible rate of false positives is going to turn up a ton of innocents. And adding more data doesn’t help that much.

Consider as an example:

Suppose we had a group of 1,000 people we were interested in monitoring and 900 of them are terrorists. The program will correctly itentify 810 terrorists as terrorists. 10 terrorists will evade its clutches. Out of the 100 non-terrorists, 90 will be correctly identified as innocent, and 10 will be wrongly labeled as terrorists. That seems pretty useful.

But say we have a group of 1,000 suspects and only 100 of them are terrorists. A ten percent shot that a given person is a terrorists doesn’t reach the “probable cause” standard, but seeing as how thousands of lives could easily be on the line, maybe we want to relax the burden of proof and run the 1,000 through the program. Well, we’ll catch 90 terrorists out of the 100, which is good. But out of the 900 non-terrorists, 90 innocent people are going to get labeled terrorists. In other words, out of the 180 people the program will say are terrorists, we can expect half to actually be innocent. Thus, even though the algorithm only has a very small 10 percent error rate, the overall surveillance program makes a lot of mistakes.

If we expand the program things get worse. Say we want to monitor a group of 10,000 people that includes 200 terrorists. We’re going to catch 180 actual terrorists plus a whopping 980 innocent people. Thus, out of our total pool of 1,160 “terrorists” only 15.5 percent will genuinely be terrorists.

And I think Yglesias’s example (in the context of the more targeted ‘wiretapping’ story) vastly overstates the ratio of Terrorists to Nots in the nationwide database. Just throwing more ‘data’ at the problem doesn’t help much I fear.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 4:53 pm · Link

(Shakes head sadly) Sad that the only way that our neighbours learn anything about us is via beer movie.

Just funnin’ ya, Krista. I do know that Quetico Park is amazing, and it made me eternally fond of Canada. Especially since I didn’t get eaten by a bear.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 5:06 pm · Link

Tip of the iceberg.

(these things always are)

Pb - May 12, 2006 | 5:11 pm · Link

Perry Como,

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.

Dude, how many of these allegedly ‘separate’ secret illegal spying programs do they have (in the NSA alone)? Yeah, I know, that’s allegedly a secret too…

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 5:21 pm · Link

Dude, how many of these allegedly ‘separate’ secret illegal spying programs do they have (in the NSA alone)?

TIA had at least a dozen projects, some that might be illegal if they actually used real data (and why wouldn’t they take their shiny new toys for a test drive?). While the tech is cool from the geek side of the aisle, letting a government use it is absolutely frightening.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 5:36 pm · Link

Democrats were briefed! Democrats were briefed! The administration has repeatedly asserted that Democrats were fully briefed about the NSA surveillance program, so how dare they complain now.

Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to the National Security Advisor asking for a list of which Senators and Congressmen were briefed about the program. The answer? Sorry, that list of names is classified.

That’s right, we’ll mount an aggressive public defense by claiming the right people were briefed, but when you actually ask us to identify who was briefed… uh, we’d rather not admit that.

As for the latest program that was revealed? Once again, the usual suspects all came forward to assert that the Democrats had been briefed all along. We might have even seen that allegation made here on Balloon Juice. Is it true? No idea, but Senator Leahy said yesterday that he had been asking around and he hadn’t been able to find a single person who was briefed.

Pb - May 12, 2006 | 5:55 pm · Link

Heh, this was a good one too:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told a key House Democrat yesterday that the administration is not conducting any warrantless domestic surveillance programs beyond the one that President Bush has acknowledged

What a shock.

To date, the administration has given extensive briefings to only eight lawmakers: the House speaker and minority leader, the Senate majority and minority leader, and the top Republican and top Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

That’s why Trent Lott would have been briefed, back in 2003 or so… of course, those briefings are highly classified.

KCinDC - May 12, 2006 | 6:05 pm · Link

Oh, I should have linked to this article instead:

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a member of the intelligence committee who’s been briefed about the secret NSA program, said Specter should back off.

“Do we want security . . . or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?” he said.

Davis - May 12, 2006 | 6:13 pm · Link

Apparently QWest did not participate in the program. Why weren’t they forced to do so, as a matter of national security? Why haven’t their executives been charged for refusing to help the President win the War on Terror?

capelza - May 12, 2006 | 6:15 pm · Link

FBI RAIDS CIA! Banner headline on Harball just now. It’s about Twatergate, but who the hell cares anymore. I’m easily amused by this stuff, the outrage meter is long gone.

I looked to see if this had been posted but didn’t see it.

The Other Steve - May 12, 2006 | 6:23 pm · Link

You know, there’s lots of other interesting news out in blogoland.

Rupert Murdoch doing a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

Howard Dean making a fool out of himself on the 700 Club.

Trent “Tort Reform King” Lott sueing State Farm for denying his claim.

NCLB declaring all of our schools suck. (Watch this one used by the GOP to promote private schools)

Why spend all this time listening to Darrell defend the NSA spying on your children?

Punchy - May 12, 2006 | 6:29 pm · Link

Uh…a top diary on dKos, cross-referenced with some site called Truthout.org and apparently repeated on Air America (I know, I know….all the most liberal sites…) has announced that Rove is about to be indicted. Like…SOON. And he’s going to resign immeidiately (put that in the “that should be a no-brainer, but in this Admin, not so much” catagory)

good luck discussing this.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 6:35 pm · Link

Yes, Punch, and the Justice Dept shakedowns of CIA officials today has pushed the phone-record story off the front page on Hardball and other MSM cable outlets today.

It appears that the scandals and the pending legal tangles are going to be the ongoing story of 2006.

I assume that Decider Darrell is conferring now with top officials to ascertain how to handle this story on the blogs over the weekend.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 6:38 pm · Link

Congress is taking up a bill to restrict the use of SSNs too.

I assume that OBL is using his SSN appropriately.

Slide - May 12, 2006 | 6:41 pm · Link

hey.. punchy may have something:

Within the last week, Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

Details of Rove’s discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, sources confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on “wildly speculative rumors.”

Its beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas…

Mona - May 12, 2006 | 6:46 pm · Link

Darrell writes:

However, on the point of Bush’s “illegalities”, could you direct us to any judicial findings which declared Bush’s NSA program to be ‘illegal’ or ‘unconstitutional’?

In addition to Mr. Como’s point that the Bush DoJ has denied security clearances to the Office of Professional Responsibility so it can investigate the matter, Bush won’t let the matter come before the federal courts. His DoJ knows they’d lose in the SCOTUS, and so they refuse to appeal any FIS Court decisions that implicate the warrantless surveillance.

Even an avid Bush supporter like Hugh Hewitt has noted that this refusal to appeal hints at a lack of confidence in their legal position.

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 6:50 pm · Link

Darrell—I know that some Bush supporters say that it would be best for Rove to get indicted since the president’s current political predicament is largely the result of Karl’s ineptitude as a peace time (non-campaign season) consiglieri, as it were. I think they’re probably right. What do you think about this? Wouldn’t getting rid of Rove allow Bush to have a bit of a fresh start. I’m curious to hear what you think.

DougJ - May 12, 2006 | 6:59 pm · Link

The Manolo is the closest thing I know of.

Okay, no one with such troglyditic views about politics know what a Manolo is. Are you really ppgaz?

KCinDC - May 12, 2006 | 7:33 pm · Link

Wouldn’t getting rid of Rove allow Bush to have a bit of a fresh start.

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, but you’ll then have problems with depth perception. A Roveless start is going to be pretty hard, and it won’t be very fresh as long as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Rice are still hanging around.

slickdpdx - May 12, 2006 | 7:39 pm · Link

Regarding “false positives”: like I said context is important, if the increased scrutiny applied to the data that rings the first bell is marginal,you’d actually want to tune your system to err on the side of false positives. As you weeded out you’d want to start erring the other way (toward false negatives) only when you were reaching the point of making a really significant decision like devoting personnel to investigating a lead or eavesdropping or enter a home etc. The stuff we’re really really concerned about.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 7:46 pm · Link

Its beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas…

It’s just more of the criminalization of politics. No one outside the beltway cares about this kind of stuff.

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 7:54 pm · Link

Slick, I’m by no means an expert on this, but there is not neccesarily a direct relationship between false positves and false negatives. It’s not like you just turn a dial.

At a certain point it becomes an empirical question of whether any additional ‘targeting’ you might be able to get from this program is worth the cost, in terms of both expense/manpower and civil liberties costs (both direct, the gov’t having your info in one place, and the risk of someone getting a bunch of info illicitly. Gov’t systems have been hacked a non-trivial amount.) So the underlying issue isn’t necessarily the program itself (though it is certainly problematic almost per se) but the bypass of legal and legislative process. And these things are starting to add up.

Steve - May 12, 2006 | 7:54 pm · Link

Clearly just a fart in a tornado.

demimondian - May 12, 2006 | 7:57 pm · Link

Slick, you really ought to go back and read Yglesias’ posting.

The problem is that if you’ve got 50 positives and 300 million negatives in your database, your algorithm has to have an intrinsic false positive rate of less than one in 600,000 to even get 10% of its hits be real positives. That kind of sensitivity is unheard of in machine learning; most algorithms have sensititivities of many false positives per accurate detect in evenly divided sample populations.

What that means, functionally, is that if you pick the top fifteen hundred hits, you are overwhelmingly likely to have no accurate hits whatsoever. None—but you’ll have dragged 15000 people’s names through the dirt to no end.

Perry Como - May 12, 2006 | 8:00 pm · Link

/me looks around for beer blogging

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 8:07 pm · Link

Oh man, Clinton wins for honesty over W, (though within the polling margin, barely) that has to sting…

Pooh - May 12, 2006 | 8:22 pm · Link

Pooh, don’t forget misuse of the data by government employees for their own purposes (identity theft, blackmail, etc.). No hacking is necessary in that case.

Damn, turn my cynicism about this crowd off for one second…

Slide - May 12, 2006 | 8:29 pm · Link

Oh man, Clinton wins for honesty over W, (though within the polling margin, barely) that has to sting…

that ain’t all

Poll: Clinton outperformed Bush

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton’s favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

KCinDC - May 12, 2006 | 8:36 pm · Link

Pooh, we’re not all spoofs—at least, not always.

Speaking of which, what do y’all think of this?

Old news. Nothing to see here. This sort of thing has been going on forever, and we’ve always known it was happening. Anyone with half a brain knew the NSA was doing this. In fact, it’s practically the definition of what they’re supposed to be doing. No one would expect them not to be doing it.

Oh, and USA Today and the other media outlets reporting the story are traitors. Those so-called journalists should be hanged for endangering the country by revealing important secrets to our enemies—things our enemies had no way of knowing and could never have guessed.

CaseyL - May 12, 2006 | 8:46 pm · Link

Before I leap to any conclusions, does anyone have the definitive link to what exactly the NSA was doing, what they were tracking, how farreaching it was, etc.

There are no definitive links because there has been no investigation.

There has been no investigation in the Senate because the relevent committee(s) have voted along party lines not to hold one.

There has been no investigation by the Justice Department because the Office of Professional Responsibility (which tried to learn whether Justice Department lawyers broke any laws or otherwise behaved unethically) was refused the necessary security clearances by the NSA.

There is, however, one fairly definitive piece of evidence. The definitive piece of evidence is a statement by Bush that his Administration bypassed FISA in ordering the surveillance program to proceed. FISA warrants are necessary to eavesdrop on phone conversations.

Bush later tried to get around his own admission by insisting that the NSA surveillance program only targeted international calls. However, that statement was contradicted early on by people who were involved in the program.

Bush supporters, and supporters of the NSA surveillance program, discounted what the NSA people said, on the basis that the NSA people were lying or didn’t know what they were talking about.

However, the more we learn about the NSA surveillance program, the more it becomes clear that domestic communications were targeted as well. This is also a clear violation of the FISA law.

Bush and his supporters have tried to get around that by insisting that the domestic calls were by or to suspected terrorists, or people who know suspected terrorists, or people who are acquainted with terrorists, or people who are terrorist sympathizers.

However, the latest news is that as many as 10,000,000 people have been targeted by the NSA surveillance program. It seems unlikely that there are that many terrorists, friends of terrorists, and/or terrorist sympathizers in the US. (Unless your definition of “terrorist sympathizer” is so flexible as to include anyone who opposes Bush, or any member of the Bush Admin, or any of the Bush Admin’s policies. If that’s the case, though, then apparently 71% of Americans are terrorist sympathizers.)

So the question is, how specific does the information need to be before you can make any judgments about the program?

If you’re basing your judgment on what Bush says about the program, then you can rest assured the program is not wide-spread, does not target the wrong people, and isn’t illegal.

If you’re basing your judgment on your dislike of Bush’s opponents, or anti-Bush bloggers, or Cindy Sheehan, then you can again rest assured that there’s nothing wrong with the program.

But if you’re basing your judgment on statements by members of Congress, lawyers, judges, oversight agencies, NSA personnel, and telecom companies, then the only conclusion you can reasonably readch is that the NSA surveillance program is widespread, indiscriminate, carried out without warrants, carried out without considerations of probable cause, and in violation of the FISA law specifically and the 4th Amendment generally.

Which would mean it’s illegal.

tBone - May 12, 2006 | 9:04 pm · Link

Let me know if you’re planning on it, and I’ll send you some links and give you some recommendations.

Krista – I should have said “I’ll put it on the list of places to go . . . when my kids are old enough to take a cross-country trip without making my head explode.” A two-week vacation last year with lots of air travel and kids under 5 was enough to convince me that closer-to-home vacations are the rule for the next few years. I’ll definitely keep it in mind for the future though. Always wanted to see Maine during the fall, might as well hit Nova Scotia too.

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 9:33 pm · Link

Those so-called journalists should be hanged for endangering the country

Who said it? Tony Snow? Scrutator?

Bob Woodward?

John Kyl?

ppGaz - May 12, 2006 | 10:20 pm · Link

But maybe Scrutator will pick up the idea, or DougJ.

When I first saw it I thought GOP4me had written it.

It’s her style of over-the-top trollapalooza.

Bob In Pacifica - May 12, 2006 | 10:25 pm · Link

Dave Nelson? Rick’s older brother.

Ancient Purple - May 13, 2006 | 12:06 am · Link

First lawsuit filed against Verizon. This should get interesting.

Thanks for the link, Perry. I heard that on the radio a few minutes ago.

Ah, can’t wait for the next Verizon shareholders meeting. Can’t wait for the Board of Trustees, the CEO, the CIO and the COO all try to explain the number of lost contracts, plus the cost of litigation in a $50 Billion suit, and just an explanation of how Verizon thought it should give the info to the NSA.

Damn, I should buy 100 shares of stock just so I can attend.

JoeTx - May 13, 2006 | 12:35 am · Link

for the Board of Trustees, the CEO, the CIO and the COO all try to explain the number of lost contracts, plus the cost of litigation in a $50 Billion suit,

So how is Bush gonna weasel out of this one? Can they claim “National Security” in a civil class action, and have the case dropped? Can Verizon turn around and sue the government?

Bush cannot afford to have these programs in the courts, they KNOW they are not legal, what can they do to short circuit the process?

Steve - May 13, 2006 | 12:50 am · Link

Can they claim “National Security” in a civil class action, and have the case dropped?

Well, that’s what they’ve tried to do in the EFF class action against AT&T. There’s not a lot of precedent for this so it’s pretty unclear what the courts will do. My sense is that the more they try to play this card, the greater the likelihood that a court will cry foul.

Can Verizon turn around and sue the government?

That’s a very good question. If I’m Verizon, having presumably received an opinion from my legal department that turning over the records would be pretty frickin’ illegal, I’m going to be like “Gee, government guys, I sure do want to help you catch the terrorists, but there’s no way we can expose our company to that kind of liability.” At which point the government does… what? Promises to invoke the state secret doctrine if a case gets filed? Promises to indemnify Verizon if they get sued? (You can’t typically indemnify illegal conduct… but presumably Uncle Sam will make good on the promise, even if it’s technically unenforceable.)

I think it will be very, very interesting to see how this plays out in the courts. There are a lot of new issues here… and perhaps some that are not so new.

Krista - May 13, 2006 | 7:59 am · Link

A two-week vacation last year with lots of air travel and kids under 5

(Shudder) You brave soul.

Gray - May 13, 2006 | 8:21 am · Link

“Before I leap to any conclusions, does anyone have the definitive link to what exactly the NSA was doing, what they were tracking, how farreaching it was, etc.”

For god’s sake, John, you’re talking about the NSA, the most secretive agency of all. They even blocked the DoJ from investigating their operations. We can be happy that at least some infos about this Big Brother Inc. made it into the public.You really seem to be living in dreamland sometimes.

Davebo - May 13, 2006 | 10:18 am · Link

Shorter Perfessor Cole

I realize Tim has basically laid out all the facts right here on my own blog but… Before I leapfrog to any silly conclusion I should probably grade these papers, pull my head out of my ass, and stick my thumb in my ear.

Monitoring every freaking call in the country and those fucktards at the NSA couldn’t track down Cindy Sheehan!

Don’t they know she’s the only thing keeping me strapped to the freaking GOP???

Slide. - May 13, 2006 | 11:30 am · Link

Well so much for that bogus Washington Post poll on the NSA data mining program, Newsweek just came out with a poll that has quite some different results:

May 13, 2006 – Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 11:41 am · Link

The government is requesting phone call records without names associated to those numbers, and without listening in to the conversation. Presumably, these call records will be fed into some sort of pattern recognition software to help identify possible terrorist activity. At that point, unless someone has different info, the govt would be required to convince a judge that a warrant is justified if they wanted to actually wiretap a phone call. This is the J. Edgar Hoover/Watergate-like shredding of our rights that the left is screaming about? Please

On a related issue, I would like to hear the opinion of lawyers on this – I read that the Supreme Court has already found that the govt can collect such phone #’s in Smith vs. Maryland, 1979, on the basis that callers who know they will be billed by the phone co. have no reasonable expectatation of privacy regarding those phone records. Is that a reasonable legal interpretation of that Supreme court case? I’m asking, not stating. And do police need a warrant to obtain phone records in a criminal investigation?

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 12:24 pm · Link

The government is requesting phone call records without names associated to those numbers, and without listening in to the conversation.

I don’t believe that. Every step of the way we’ve found out that the government has been getting more and more information. First it was on calls that were wholly overseas. Then it was on calls that had one party overseas. Then it accidently may have caught some wholly domestic calls. Now it’s targetting wholly domestic calls. And one of the NSA whistle blowers from the NSA is now saying that what we’ve heard so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

Besides, having access to the numbers only is useless. Sure, you can datamine for patterns, but those patterns have no meaning without context. And a SELECT * FROM us_citizen WHERE phone_number = 12345678 is way too easy to do.

The fucks you voted for have presided over the greatest expansion of federal government since FDR. The debt ceiling has doubled under their watch. While you hide under the bed, frightened that al Qaeda may come and get you, make sure you clap louder Darrell. You’re an enabler to an administration drunk on power.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 12:38 pm · Link

First it was on calls that were wholly overseas. Then it was on calls that had one party overseas. Then it accidently may have caught some wholly domestic calls. Now it’s targetting wholly domestic calls.

Uh no, Bush made it clear that the overseas calls could be subject to warrantless monitoring of the actual conversation. He explicity stated that the govt does not listen to strictly domestic calls without court approval.

And one of the NSA whistle blowers from the NSA is now saying that what we’ve heard so far is only the tip of the iceberg

Yes, vague allegations with details or specifics whatsoever. Well then, that certainly settles that. But you “feel” it must be true, right? that’s all that matters

make sure you clap louder

You know what I like? How you lefties think of yourselves as such ‘independent’ thinkers, yet so many of you mindlesslessly recite leftwing talking points like “clap louder” over and over and over again. Before that, it was “Dear leader”, and “party before country”. Hilarious

ppGaz - May 13, 2006 | 12:42 pm · Link

You know what I like? How you lefties think of yourselves as such ‘independent’ thinkers, yet so many of you mindlesslessly recite leftwing talking points like “clap louder” over and over and over again. Before that, it was “Dear leader”, and “party before country”. Hilarious

And thus what’s left of Balloon-Juice’s righty representation makes his ding in the door for today.

“You lefties.”

That’s it, every fucking day. “You lefties.”

SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS think that the country’s government is doing a lousy job, but around here, it’s “you lefties.”

Someday when people ask whatever happened to this blog, remember Darrell. He will be your answer.

“YOU LEFTIES.”

Otto Man - May 13, 2006 | 12:43 pm · Link

Uh no, Bush made it clear that the overseas calls could be subject to warrantless monitoring of the actual conversation. He explicity stated that the govt does not listen to strictly domestic calls without court approval.

Bush gave his word? Well, golly, we all know he’s a straight-shooter and would never ever lie to us. Good enough for Darrell, at least.

Yes, vague allegations with details or specifics whatsoever. Well then, that certainly settles that. But you “feel” it must be true, right? that’s all that matters

But enough about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq…

You know what I like? How you lefties think of yourselves as such ‘independent’ thinkers, yet so many of you mindlesslessly recite leftwing talking points like “clap louder” over and over and over again. Before that, it was “Dear leader”, and “party before country”.

If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

ppGaz - May 13, 2006 | 12:51 pm · Link

If there are no lawyers reading who want to answer my question above

You arrogant fuck. You ingore simple, straightforward questions put you every day here.

Why should anyone be obligated to answer your goddam questions?

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 12:54 pm · Link

You know what I like? How you lefties think of yourselves as such ‘independent’ thinkers, yet so many of you mindlesslessly recite leftwing talking points like “clap louder” over and over and over again. Before that, it was “Dear leader”, and “party before country”. Hilarious

I actually deleted a bit in my last post about the “Brian’s of the Right calling me an Angry Lefty”. Of course you have to bring up that tired old meme because it’s difficult to justify the statist fucks you support. Here’s a hint Darrell—I’m not a lefty. I’m a person who despises a $10 trillion deficit. Someone that loves guns and hates government intrusion into our private lives.

So go shove your left/right bullshit squarely up your ass (which is perfectly fine with me if it’s in your bedroom and consensual). There are alot of people out there that are sick and tired of this administration for perfectly rational reasons.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 12:58 pm · Link

Federal law enforcement officials may tap telephone lines only after showing “probable cause” of unlawful activity

I didn’t ask whether they could “tap” telephone lines. I asked if they could obtain phone records of calls made without a warrant.

Steve - May 13, 2006 | 1:04 pm · Link

I think the answer, Darrell, is that the Patriot Act lets them do it with a National Security Letter, without going to court first. That’s one of the enumerated exceptions to the Stored Communications Act.

ppGaz - May 13, 2006 | 1:14 pm · Link

does the Patriot act supercede Smith v. Maryland? and was the legal opinion summary of that case that I wrote above accurate?

Why do you only post factiness when the factiness supports your dubious claims, but stonewall factual inquiries when they are embarassing to your dubious claims?

PeterJ - May 13, 2006 | 1:21 pm · Link

Do phone companies give away phone records to anyone who says that they are cops and need them for an investigation?

Does the Global War on Terror include a major investigation where everyone living in the US (and soon the EU) is a suspect?

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 1:28 pm · Link

Since I’m in a mood, another thing that bugs the hell out of me about President Bush is his constant yammering about his top priority is to protect the people in the US. For fuck’s sake, he’s taken the oath twice. His top priority is to protect the Constituion of the United States. People die in the US every day. The misguided notion that government can solve every problem is the exact type of nannystatism that I despise.

Steve - May 13, 2006 | 1:30 pm · Link

I think that’s an accurate summary of Smith v. Maryland. However, after that case was decided, Congress statutorily overruled it by passing the two statutes Orin Kerr has been talking about – the pen register statute and the Stored Communications Act.

But as far as I can tell, there’s no violation of your constitutional rights because the government has this information. The phone companies, on the other hand, seem to have violated the Stored Communications Act by turning it over.

The FBI is allowed to make a formal request for records if it needs them for counterterrorism purposes, without getting a court order – 18 USC 2709 is the statutory section that applies. This was part of FISA, and modified by the Patriot Act, but I’m not sure exactly how it looked before the Patriot Act came along.

Steve - May 13, 2006 | 2:06 pm · Link

To break it down, the pen register statute covers real-time tracking of phone calls, and the Stored Communications Act covers turning over records of phone calls after they’ve already happened. We don’t know the details of the NSA program but it seems more likely that the latter was involved.

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 2:31 pm · Link

Do we really want to trust these people?

WASHINGTON, May 13 — In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

why does Cheney hate what America stands for.

ppGaz - May 13, 2006 | 2:35 pm · Link

Well if the facts support my claims, those claims wouldn’t be “dubious”, would they?

Whoosh.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 2:51 pm · Link

As a law enforcement officer, a lot of what I described above I can approve of.. with one provision. Judicial oversight

As a law enforcement officer, can you tell us whether you and your fellow officers have Judicial oversight whenever you obtain phone records during the course of an investigation? If not, isn’t it extremely hypocritical to criticize Bush for doing the same, or less, since names are not associated with tel numbers in the NSA program unlike with police investigations?

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 2:55 pm · Link

Please make sure to scream your ass off at anyone, even those who don’t usually agree with Bush, that they are ‘sycophants’ if they support ANY of Bush’s initiatives. It will remind then what they can look forward to if the left gains control

This coming from the “side” of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Mike Savage et al. Yeah, the left is so mean and nasty heh Darrell? wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhh… lol.. you gotta love these little pant wetting tough guys don’t you. They’ve attacked liberals for years and year with the most vile and vicious attacks, traitors… treason…. etc. and they get their panties all in a buch if they are called sycophants and they warn the world of what the LEFT will do when they get into power…lol.. fucking hysterical. Absolutely fucking hysterical

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 3:03 pm · Link

Yes, we have to get a subpoena to get phone records.

Not according to this

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 3:08 pm · Link

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > § 2703 Prev | Next

§ 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records

(c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.—

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity—

(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;

(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;

(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or [1]

(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title);

or

(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).

(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—

(A) name;

(B) address;

(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;

(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and

(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).

(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer. ..

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 3:09 pm · Link

The fact that you will go to any length to justify the expansion of Federal power does not make me a lefty.

I don’t see think it’s reasonable to characterize the NSA program which is the topic of this thread as an extreme overreach/expansion of Federal power for reasons already stated.

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 3:19 pm · Link

Of course you don’t, Darrell. You are the Defender. Prior to the year 2000 the NSA was not tracking the phone call activity of the vast majority of Americans. Post year 2000 the NSA is tracking the phone call activity of the vast majority of Americans. No expansion there.

And my grandkids would like to thank you for the crippling debt that makes it all possible.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 3:19 pm · Link

Slide, your citation does not pertain to phone records, but “Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service”

Talk about not reading more carefully. Did you intentionally deceive?

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 3:24 pm · Link

Darrell all the lawyers here have explained this to you IN DETAIL about a dozen times

Pooh, you are confused. I have never had anyone on any BJ thread explain Smith v. Maryland to me before today. But if it makes you feel better to lie your ass off, blather onward

Pooh - May 13, 2006 | 3:28 pm · Link

You have asked for explanantion after explanation and ignored them all. You are out of phone a lawyer lifelines.

Mike - May 13, 2006 | 3:33 pm · Link

Before I leap to any conclusions, does anyone have the definitive link to what exactly the NSA was doing, what they were tracking, how farreaching it was

Well, that pretty much defines the problem, doesn’t it? Nobody outside the administration really knows what the NSA is doing. Maybe its on the up and up. But maybe not. That’s why we have checks and balances, oversight, court reviews: to keep the program honest.

President Bush is making the case that he can do whatever he pleases and that no-one outside his circle is trustworthy. Not the congress, not the courts, certainly not the rest of us peons. I’m amazed the Congress has shrugged off these insults for as long as they have.

We’ve had enough history in this country of abuses of power. Are you really willing to wait for conclusive evidence before you start worrying?

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 3:43 pm · Link

Darrell, obviously you have no experience reading law statutes do you? There are several sections to the law. One involves the content:

(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.— A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication

but another section deals with records:

(C)Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.—
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications)

hint hint provider of electronic communication service = phone company.

I don’t know how much clearer it could possibly be. Aren’t you even a little bit embarassed to be so dense Darrell?

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 3:58 pm · Link

While Darrell is furiously googling to find some arcane tangential rebuttal that will be rebutted moments after he hits the Submit Comment button, I will again ask, why can’t we have a review of what they are doing by the FISA court. The FISA court are judges that are, unlike Darrell and myself, the experts in this field of law. They are also top secret and I have not seen one reference that showed they have EVER violated that secrecy. They are on our side aren’t they? Good Americans I would presume? As interested in keeping us safe as anyone? So, let the President run his whole program before the entire FISA panel and lets get a ruling on this. What is the objection to that?

Steve - May 13, 2006 | 4:06 pm · Link

There’s some confusion here between (1) the situation where law enforcement is investigating a specific crime and needs records from a specific phone number or numbers; and (2) the situation where law enforcement wants records from millions of numbers, in case they turn out to be relevant to an investigation someday, or in case they provide the basis for starting an investigation.

When a statute authorizes the police to get phone records without a warrant, there is a statutory limit on which records they may request – for example, a statute may provide that the police can get records “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” But the fact that the police could get Slide’s phone records without a warrant, if they were deemed relevant to some specific investigation, doesn’t mean the police can just get Slide’s records because they feel like it.

Section 2709 of the Stored Communications Act, which I linked above, describes when the FBI can get phone records for counterterrorism investigations and when they can disseminate them to other agencies. Since there’s been no indication so far that the NSA got the records by using the FBI as an intermediary, I don’t think that section applies to the program we’re talking about – although it does relate to Darrell’s question of when law enforcement can get your phone records.

I frankly haven’t seen a good argument yet as to how it could be legal for the phone companies to turn over the records they did; it seems like a clear violation of the Stored Communications Act. I’m keeping my eyes open because frankly, these are huge companies with lots of good lawyers, and I find it hard to believe all of them would voluntarily expose themselves to millions or billions of dollars in potential liability unless they felt they had some sort of legal defense.

KCinDC - May 13, 2006 | 4:10 pm · Link

Darrell, do you think there could possibly be a difference between getting the phone records of a few specific people connected with a particular case for a limited time and getting the phone records of every single customer (with no names or specificity) over a period of years, with no suggestion that any of them are connected to what you’re investigating at all?

Also, if all of this is normal and legal, why on earth would the NSA not have just given Qwest the legal justification it requested so that it could turn the records over? Rather than let the courts hear about it, the NSA (after a few threats) said “never mind” and decided this essential investigation to save us all from nuclear annihilation could get along without having Qwest’s records after all.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 4:26 pm · Link

Darrell, do you think there could possibly be a difference between getting the phone records of a few specific people connected with a particular case for a limited time and getting the phone records of every single customer (with no names or specificity) over a period of years, with no suggestion that any of them are connected to what you’re investigating at all?

Yes, there is a difference, as what the NSA wants to do is datamining. I am not entirely comfortable with datamining, but in this case, they are doing so based on telephone records not associated with any names, and without listening to any telephone conversations unless they can convince a judge to get a warrant on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential benefits in breaking up terrorist plots, I see this as a miniscule intrusion which does not appear unreasonable.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 4:34 pm · Link

So goes the logic of the nannystatist “conservatives”.

You think the police need a warrant to put you under surveillance? No?

I blame Bush

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 4:57 pm · Link

But keep justifying the expansion of government power and scope

Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, as I don’t see how what the NSA is doing, from information available so far, qualifies as some big overreach/expansion. And as John C has posted, I thought the NSA had been doing this sort of thing for years anyway.

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 5:11 pm · Link

Darrell:

It doesn’t help though, when Slide furiously copies and pastes to ‘prove’ that judicial oversight is always required to obtain telephone records when that is not the case

Please show me where I said that judicial oversight is always required to obtain telephone records. An administrative subpoena does not necessarily require a judge but it does require a reason as to why the records are necessary. It has to state what the purpose the records will have. The blanket collection of EVERYONE’s records is quite another thing.

Darrell:

but in this case, they are doing so based on telephone records not associated with any names

what a ridiculous distinction when the names are available in other databases the government has access to.

Darrell:

and without listening to any telephone conversations unless they can convince a judge to get a warrant on a case-by-case basis.

huh? wrong again Darrell, we know that they have been monitoring calls of Americans WITHOUT going to the FISA court and getting a warrant. Thats what started this whole NSA scandal. They claim they don’t have to when one party is International. The law says otherwise.

Darrell:

Given the potential benefits in breaking up terrorist plots, I see this as a miniscule intrusion which does not appear unreasonable

I’m not so sure of the potential benefits and I sure as hell won’t call this a miniscule intrustion to have the records of every American’s associates. Just think about that. You are willing to let the President, ANY President, know of all of your associates. Who you talk to. How often. Miniscule intrusion? lol

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 5:17 pm · Link

Any evidence that what the NSA is doing is “illegal”?

Well, the DoJ is looking into it…oh wait. They can’t get the security clearances to look into it. But don’t worry, it’s the government, they’re here to help. Out of curiousity, at what point did you decide to blindly trust the government? Have you always put your faith in the government doing the right thing? Or is this a recent conversion to nannystatism?

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 5:27 pm · Link

Apparently a lot of the individuals approving of the NSA program take for granted that we have a benign governement. Our forefathers were a lot smarter than that, and they wrote the constitution fearing the worst, a potential despot, another King George. Now, I am not saying that Bush personally would use this data for the wrong reasons but that is a very shortsighted way of looking at things. If this is allowed every future President would have this data on its citizens. Every call they make. Every call they receive. Everyone that they associate with. Every organization that they belong to. What potential for abuse. What a weapon to have againt any and all opponents. You REALLY want to trust all future Presidents with that power? Without the ability of either Congress or the Judiciary to have any say or even knowledge of what is going on? I find that both incredible and sad at the same time.

Time for my Ben Franklin quote:

people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

.

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 5:34 pm · Link

I feel sorry for people like Darrell that are so scared, so afraid, that they will let the daddy government do anything to protect them. Every dictator uses fear to impose their “security laws” because they know there are the Darrells of the world so afraid of the Jews or the commies or the capitalists or the terrorists that will let them do anything in the name of security. We lost our heads in the McCarthy days out of fear of communism. We interned Japanese Americans out of fear. I’m sure Darrell would be right there as one of the staunchest supporters of Joe McCarthy. He would be the first to argue to put the Japs in concentration camps. There will always be Darrells to comfort those that are anxious to take our rights away.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 5:46 pm · Link

I feel sorry for people like Darrell that are so scared, so afraid, that they will let the daddy government do anything to protect them.

C’mon, what we’re talking about are tradeoffs. You and others on your side don’t seem to want to admit that we as a society have made, and are making all the time, tradeoffs between privacy and security. That’s why most people don’t go into hysterics when having their bags X-rayed at the airport, or if they’re asked to show a driver’s license or passport, or willingly submit to a credit background check in order to buy a house

That doesn’t mean that those who disagree with your absolutist worldview are heading towards concentration camps or dictatorships. Get a grip man

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 5:54 pm · Link

That’s why most people don’t go into hysterics when having their bags X-rayed at the airport

Voluntary.

or if they’re asked to show a driver’s license or passport

That shouldn’t be required without wrong doing, but unfortunately your fellow nannystatists are winning that battle.

or willingly submit to a credit background check in order to buy a house

Private transaction and voluntary.

The NSA now has a record of my phone calls. I never volunteered that information to them. Verizon violated the law by providing it to them. But it’s for the children, so I guess it’s okay.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 6:01 pm · Link

I’m a cop. I could go down every street in America and search through every house. I’m sure I will find some pretty bad people. Wanted felons. Confiscate tons of drugs. It would undoubtably save lives to be able to do that. But we don’t do that.

But you do run speed traps. And I sure as hell don’t consent to those.

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 6:14 pm · Link

To any person or company at their discretion. Anyone. But Bush is shredding the constitution by using that same info to hunt terrorists, right?

You just don’t get it do you Darrell. You really are very ignorant of the nature of our government. Yes, there are laws that prohibit governmental entities that do not apply to non-governmental organizations. That is because of the potential misuse by the government.

For example if I arrest someone I can’t question him without his waving his Miranda rights. A security guard can arrest someone and ask him whatever he wants. And they can use that in a court of law Why? because he is not a governmental entity.

Back to phone records – if AT&T wants to give your records to another commerical enterprise and that did not violate their agreement with you (but all phone companies have agreed not to do so), there is no law against it. The law is against giving it to the government without a warrant. The government has to demonstrate a need to intrude into your privacy. Lots of Federal law is enacted to protect us from the government, something that you don’t seem to understand.

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 6:20 pm · Link

The government has alot of restrictions put on it that businesses and individuals don’t have

Just to be clear, any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy these ‘secret’ phone records, but if the NSA uses them, they’re abusing their authority. How rational of you

I know, I know. Conservatives have always trusted the government

Conservatives have strong national security leanings, and probably recognize this kind of info is probably valuable in hunting terrorists that are already here. This isn’t a wiretapping initiative, and I think the risk of abuse is small. But then again, I’m just a Bushbot Defender of nannystatism

Perry Como - May 13, 2006 | 6:28 pm · Link

But then again, I’m just a Bushbot Defender of nannystatism

Admiting it is the first step. Now we can move on.

this kind of info is probably valuable in hunting terrorists that are already here. This isn’t a wiretapping initiative, and I think the risk of abuse is small.

Those ideas contradict each other. If the program is useful for tracking terrorists, then it is useful in tracking non-terrorists too. When you are doing social network analysis you can set the type of behavior you are looking for to be anything you want. The NSA under Bush may just be using it to map patterns of terrorist activity. The NSA under Hillary Clinton may use it to map patterns of gun owners.

If the tool is useful, it can be abused. If the tool is not useful, why the hell is the NSA wasting my money on it?

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 6:36 pm · Link

The NSA under Bush may just be using it to map patterns of terrorist activity. The NSA under Hillary Clinton may use it to map patterns of gun owners.

In case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m very much in favor of Congressional oversight of these programs. There is a risk of abuse, just as some municipalities abuse speed traps as a revenue generator

Slide - May 13, 2006 | 7:06 pm · Link

hmmmmm…. as much as I want to belive the Rove indictment story, the fact that nobody else seems to be reporting this gives me some pause. Oh well, guess we will just have to wait and see, in either case it will induce some pleasant dreams tonight… frog march… frog march…

Darrell - May 13, 2006 | 8:33 pm · Link

You seem to think it’s no big deal because, after all, the phone companies can sell your records to whoever they please

I think the expectation of privacy regarding phone records is overblown given that anyone or any company can acquire your phone records. Again, these are call records, not wiretaps of phone conversations. As for the $1,000/violation, you already pointed out that it’s highly unlikely the legal depts. of these large telecom companies would have approved turning over phone records to the government if it was in fact illegal. Only scandal-plagued Qwest refused, perhaps holding out for money, or perhaps they had valid legal concerns. We’ll see

As for my ‘shredding the constitution’ hyperbole, in this case I wasn’t directing it at you, but at those who are reacting completely over the top imo, using this issue as another excuse to Bush bash (you better not disagree with them, or you’ll be a sycophant too)

I also think you’re guilty of a little hyperbole yourself in characterizing the Bush administration’s attitude as “we’re not going to even try and make it legal”, as if the program has already been demonstrated to be illegal. Also, are you suggesting that there is less Congressional oversight on this program than in the past under similar programs involving national security? as I’ve seen no evidence of that and I don’t think you have either

Remfin - May 14, 2006 | 4:18 am · Link

As Steve pointed out, the FBI doesn’t always need ‘judicial oversight’ either before getting access to phone records:

That’s a subpeona but instead of committing perjury to a judge to get it illegaly, you have to commit perjury by signing an affidavit. It’s the exact same penalty for abuse. It’s also obviously for time-sensitive things

Any non-judical procedure involves someone having to sign their ass and job onto everything they do. You’ll notice no one has had to sign a damn thing for this giant program you claim can be justified because sometimes non-judical ways exist

To any person or company at their discretion. Anyone. But Bush is shredding the constitution by using that same info to hunt terrorists, right?

Well maybe you didn’t read what you pasted…it specifically saying you can NOT give it to the government unless it meets one of the OTHER exceptions…can you not read or what? Or are you confused about the fact that the Constitution is about the government and not private companies?

Slide - May 15, 2006 | 10:29 am · Link

If this is true, it will prove exactly my point, that the government can abuse the information it is collecting. This is BIG fucking news if true. Government spying on the news media? Ladies and Gentlemen we are heading towards a totalitarian state. Be scared. Be very scared.

ABC News’ press office just sent out this release to news organizations, RAW STORY has learned. The story has been posted at the ABC NEWS blog

ABC’s Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.

We do not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA’s secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

DEVELOPING…