Glenn Greenwald does an impressive job detailing the implications of the latest administration leak. The leak went out to Scott Shane and David Johnston at the New York Times and to Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick at the Washington Post. So, what’s the leak? The leak is that data mining was at the heart of the Gonzales/Card visit to Ashcroft’s hospital bed. Never mind that, in January 2006, then NSA director Michael Hayden denied data mining had anything to do with it, this new leak should not surprise us. When Risen and Lichtblau first broke this story they made it clear that there was more going on than just some phone or email wiretaps.
In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.
The expanding chain soon led to a giant wild goose chase that chewed up impossible amounts of FBI man-hours.
But we need to keep our eye on the ball. The reason this program’s existence leaked was because many people (at the NSA, in the DOJ, in Congress, and one of the FISA court judges) felt the program was illegal. It really doesn’t matter what aspect of the program they found illicit. When the Bush administration crafted their defense they emphasized, again and again, that the program was strictly for monitoring al-Qaeda and that it did not involve data mining. Now they say that it did involve data mining. How is this exculpatory?
remember what one of the liars said- paraphrasing- every time you think you can follow us we change the reality9 or something like that1)
Well, who gives a shit. This is what they do and the dems keep stepping in it. What they should be worrying about is the up coming Aug break. Firstof all- who is going to get a recess appointment?
Second, what phony pretense is going to be used to move this country closer to war with Iraq?
Third, what area of the country will become the target of a”terrorist attack”?
AND, I bet there is more being planned.
I don’t think that the dems should take off this August. I think pelosi and reid should keep congress in session. How about a rolling recess? figure out the minimum needed to keep cong in session and then divide it up equally so that all members get a chance to go home to their families and districts.
Hows that?
.
Feb. 3, 2006 – Unless, of course, the NSA request for a warrant would be denied by the courts. And that’s where it becomes interesting. The constitutional standard for issuing a search warrant is defined by the fourth amendment, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The constitutional standard for issuing a warrant for a particular search involves “probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation.” If NSA searches don’t involve probable cause, then they would be denied a warrant. And if they are tapping American’s phone calls under this warrantless program, they are tapping the phones of people who, by definition, are probably not terrorists. Thus, the most appropriate name for the program is the “Probably Not a Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Note that the President no longer talks about warrants, though he told the American people many times that “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property.” The word “warrant” is no longer in the administration’s vocabulary when discussing the NSA program.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary —
Data Mining Programs and Cheney/Rumsfeld TIA – ARDA – DTO ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(AnonymousLiberal) – It’s also worth pointing how breathtakingly hypocritical these leaks are. For years, the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge that it was involved in data-mining activities. When the USA Today reported in May 2006 that the administration was engaged in widespread data-mining, President Bush hastily convened a press conference in which he claimed that his administration was “not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.” He also noted angrily that “every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy.”
Now the existence of data-mining activities is being confirmed by anonymous administration officials–almost surely at the behest of the White House–solely in an effort to defend Alberto Gonzales from perjury charges.
H/T to RandyH
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."As I recall, all the assurances made to the public from Bush and Hayden, etc. were all made through the media. Not under oath in front of Congress or in a Court. Rule number one in the Bush PR playbook is that it is always acceptable to lie to the press, so long as you keep your story straight from reporter to reporter. And that’s what they do. Never fully trust words from these guys that were said to any media outlet, whether they were named or anonymous. The goal of the PR is to get their authoritarian followers to fire up the outrage machine and get people confused about what they were even looking for.
AG is being used as a shield to protect Cheney & Bush, just like Scooter was used. He knows it. Right now they’re trying to confuse the debate and make some of AG’s statements under oath sound a little more plausible, while still deceptive. They are also counting on Americans having a memory of under 6 months. It usually works… But I’m not sure it will this time. Even Fox News Sunday couldn’t find a single Republican member of the Judiciary committee to come on their show to defend AG this morning.
What comes next, who knows?
It would be interesting to subpoena Michael Hayden, put him under oath and read back each of the “assurances” he made at that National Press Club back when. Ask him to certify or correct each statement under oath. Then ask him about any discrepancies between his and AG’s sworn testimony.
There are very very few people who have full knowledge of how this program operated during its different phases. He is one of them.
data mining is PRECISELY what produces grist for the entire surveillance program… data mining – what i refer to as sniffing – is an automated program designed to “sniff” through multi-terabytes of real-time electronic transactions and untold mountains of stored data looking for certain pre-programmed patterns – words, phrases, data-strings, and hex code – which, if found, are then spit out for further analysis… if further analysis, probably also automated, confirms the initial analysis, the information is further spit out to a human analyst who makes a determination about what to do with it… the determination may include such options as further investigation, real-time data interception (wiretaps, et al), additional database searches, personal surveillance, etc… this is happening 24/7/365 and has been going on for years… the bush administration is simply banking on the fact that most members of congress, most journalists and most americans are simply too stupid to figure out what’s REALLY going on…
p.s. and, in case you would like to see how it’s all done, click here…
Laura Rozen finds Conservatives on Attack – a Michael Isikoff’s piece in Newsweek with Gonzo Sticking to his story and pulls this graph:
So quoting from Isikoff’s sub-header (Newsweek)
Republicans don’t believe him. The FBI director contradicted him. How does Gonzales hang on?
Perhaps Gonzo should heed Rep Shays’ call, do us a favor or Sen. Leahy
Not likely, lies beget lies and the Bushies and cronies are masterful.
For those visiting from Jupiter, Mojo produced a handy timeline, “questions of the Bush era” – Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline (8/1/90 – 6/21/03)
.
Goldsmith is a conservative lawyer who understands the imperative of averting another 9/11. But his unflinching insistence that we abide by the law put him on a collision course with powerful figures in the administration. Goldsmith’s fascinating analysis of parallel legal crises in the Lincoln and Roosevelt administrations shows why Bush’s apparent indifference to human rights has damaged his presidency and, perhaps, his standing in history.
Jack L. Goldsmith is the Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law at Harvard University. From October 2003 to June 2004 he was assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Fuck exculpatory. That’s not even REMOTELY relevant.
This is just another “hey, no, look over THERE!” moment to run out the clock. Now the D’s will have to hold hearings for a week or two to decide if there’s enough technical cause to hold a hearing to decide whether they really actually ought to hold a week of hearings on figuring out who should be in charge of holding a hearing on whether to look into the possibility of supoenaing minor officials to testify in hearings about which of the pack of liars spun them THIS time.
And you know, and I know, and I suspect the D’s and the public at large know it don’t mean a thing, because even if they were to impeach and convict Abu, Cheney, and Shrub, when push comes to shove the Sergeant at Arms will go to deliver the writ and be told to toddle off home since his Shrubberiness isn’t in the mood to recognize the authority of the Constitution or Congress…
It’s all kabuki to keep the peasants quiet until whatever day between now and 1/20/09 when RoveCheney decides to actually pull the trigger and call out the troops to support the newly declared Holy Rovan Empire. The minor functionaries are jockeying for position amongst the courtiers and viziers, and blowing smoke up the servants so the mumblings don’t develop into a torches-and-pitchforks sort of problem.
We didn’t. Er..yes we did, but it’s for your own good. Trust us…would we lie to you??