| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/1/26-28 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41542 Activity:kinda low |
1/26 "There's no doubt in my mind it is legal." -GW Bush (Jan 26, 2006)
[warrantless eavesdropping on communications, where one end is
international and with a reasonable basis to believe there is a
Al Qaeda link during a declared war on Al Qaeda]
\_ Bush administration rejected an amendment offered by Mike Dewine
in 2002 that would have made this legal because the Justice Dept.
said it would be unconstitutional.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html
http://csua.org/u/esc [wapo]
Really. They simply don't want ANYONE to know what they're doing.
Not even in sealed records in the court. Wake up.
\_ Dubya, in the same interview today, also said that he would be
cautious about passing a law which explicitly makes it legal:
"... if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate
it, it'll help the enemy"
\_ Bull... Shit...
\_ Ok smarty pants, tell us why Osama stopped using his
satellite phone, then? Didn't like the color anymore?
\_ Well, he heard we were busting into his carrier pigeon
network, so he figured we might apply the same
techniques elsewhere.
\_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/bmvja (washingtonpost.com)
Seriously, fuck you.
\_ Ok, I read your article and it's got nothing to do
with anything. I won't stoop to your childish
level and spew some random junior high level noise
in response.
\_ You're joking, right? His article answered your
question completely. What are you talking about?
\_ No it didn't. It was chock full of "appears"
and "might have" and other conjecture. Once
you strip the noise out, there isn't much left
and frankly even if you assumed it was all
true, the whole thing doesn't deny that Osama
stopped using his phone due to them figuring
out we could find them that way, which was the
whole point of this in the first place. If we
tell them how our intel gathering works, then
they'll change their methods. This seems so
obvious I can't believe we're discussing it.
\_ The Post article is confusing and misses some key
elements. This fills out the rest:
http://www.slate.com/id/2132975/?nav=navoa
Answer:
(1) The Daily News (of Pakistan) broke the news a day
after the missile strike, reporting that 30 minutes
after Al-Zawahiri called the newspaper from his sat
phone, U.S. missiles landed on their camp.
(2) The same day, the Washington Times had reported in
the 21st paragraph of an article that Osama uses sat
phones -- but, unlike the Pakistani newspaper, did not
link the use of sat phones with the missile strike.
(3) An intelligent person would conclude that bin Laden
made the "A-ha!" connection from (1), not (2),
especially because it's (a) a Pakistani paper, and (b)
the link is spelled out, unlike in the Wash Times.
(4) The meme that the Wash Times was responsible for
bin Laden's stopping his use of his sat phone was
propagated and perhaps largely initiated by two Clinton
people in a 2002 book which stated as fact the
accusation against the conservative Wash Times.
(5) The 9/11 commission further propagated the meme,
and cited three "very responsible, very senior
intelligence officers" as confirming the accusation in
the 9/11 commission report.
(6) In all likelihood, the sources in (4) and (5) are
mistaken. Definitive evidence of (1) would make this
almost certain.
\_ Are you sure the amendment refers to the same thing?
It looks to me like the amendment was for all aspects of
surveilling and wiretapping non-U.S. citizens, period, not just
intl<->domestic calls.
\_ Do you think Al-Queda employs constitutional law legal
scholars?
surveilling and wiretapping non-U.S. citizens (obtaining warrants
based on a "reasonable suspicion" of terrorist activity), not
not just intl<->domestic calls.
\_ "I am not a crook!" -Richard Nixon |
| 5/23 |
|
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html More White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A04 The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-US citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants. Politics Trivia Which President had sons named Abraham, Martin and John? The administration has contended that it launched a secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency in part because of the time it takes to obtain such secret warrants from federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The wiretapping program, ordered by President Bush in 2001, is used when intelligence agents have a "reasonable basis to believe" that a target is tied to al Qaeda or related groups, according to recent statements by administration officials. It can be used on US citizens as well as foreign nationals, without court oversight. Democrats and national security law experts who oppose the NSA program say the Justice Department's opposition to the DeWine legislation seriously undermines arguments by Attorney General Alberto R Gonzales and others, who have said the NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are often too cumbersome to obtain. "It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. But Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department opposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA. "The FISA 'probable cause' standard is essentially the same as the 'reasonable basis' standard used in the terrorist surveillance program," said spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted. "The 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program." Justice officials also said that even under a different standard, the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant would take longer than is necessary for the NSA to efficiently track suspected terrorists. The DeWine amendment -- first highlighted this week by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists -- is the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program. Many Democrats and some Republicans, along with legal experts from both sides, have criticized the program as a clear violation of the 1978 FISA law, which makes it a crime to conduct domestic surveillance without a criminal or intelligence warrant. The administration argues that Bush acted legally under the congressional authorization to use military force against al Qaeda, and that FISA would be unconstitutional if it constrains his power as commander in chief. During separate appearances this week, Gonzales and Gen. Michael V Hayden, the deputy intelligence chief, also said the legal requirements under FISA made it difficult for intelligence agents to act quickly enough in many cases. Under the NSA program, Hayden said, "the trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant." During Senate debate over DeWine's amendment in July 2002, James A Baker, the Justice Department's counsel for intelligence policy, said in a statement that the Bush administration did not support the proposal "because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues." Baker said it was "not clear cut" whether the proposal would "pass constitutional muster," and "we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions" if the amendment was later struck down by the courts. He also said Justice had been using FISA aggressively and played down the notion that the probable cause standard was too high. A DeWine spokesman declined to comment on the issue yesterday. Specter asks, among other things, why the government did not ask Congress for new legislation to allow the spying. |
| csua.org/u/esc -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html More White House Dismissed '02 Surveillance Proposal By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A04 The Bush administration rejected a 2002 Senate proposal that would have made it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases, concluding that the system was working well and that it would likely be unconstitutional to lower the legal standard. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) would have allowed the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants for non-US citizens if they had a "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism -- a lower standard than the "probable cause" requirement in the statute that governs the warrants. Politics Trivia Which President had sons named Abraham, Martin and John? The administration has contended that it launched a secret program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency in part because of the time it takes to obtain such secret warrants from federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The wiretapping program, ordered by President Bush in 2001, is used when intelligence agents have a "reasonable basis to believe" that a target is tied to al Qaeda or related groups, according to recent statements by administration officials. It can be used on US citizens as well as foreign nationals, without court oversight. Democrats and national security law experts who oppose the NSA program say the Justice Department's opposition to the DeWine legislation seriously undermines arguments by Attorney General Alberto R Gonzales and others, who have said the NSA spying is constitutional and that surveillance warrants are often too cumbersome to obtain. "It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. But Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department opposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA. "The FISA 'probable cause' standard is essentially the same as the 'reasonable basis' standard used in the terrorist surveillance program," said spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted. "The 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program." Justice officials also said that even under a different standard, the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant would take longer than is necessary for the NSA to efficiently track suspected terrorists. The DeWine amendment -- first highlighted this week by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists -- is the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program. Many Democrats and some Republicans, along with legal experts from both sides, have criticized the program as a clear violation of the 1978 FISA law, which makes it a crime to conduct domestic surveillance without a criminal or intelligence warrant. The administration argues that Bush acted legally under the congressional authorization to use military force against al Qaeda, and that FISA would be unconstitutional if it constrains his power as commander in chief. During separate appearances this week, Gonzales and Gen. Michael V Hayden, the deputy intelligence chief, also said the legal requirements under FISA made it difficult for intelligence agents to act quickly enough in many cases. Under the NSA program, Hayden said, "the trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant." During Senate debate over DeWine's amendment in July 2002, James A Baker, the Justice Department's counsel for intelligence policy, said in a statement that the Bush administration did not support the proposal "because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues." Baker said it was "not clear cut" whether the proposal would "pass constitutional muster," and "we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions" if the amendment was later struck down by the courts. He also said Justice had been using FISA aggressively and played down the notion that the probable cause standard was too high. A DeWine spokesman declined to comment on the issue yesterday. Specter asks, among other things, why the government did not ask Congress for new legislation to allow the spying. |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html More File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths' By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A02 President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a US government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device. The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. A leak alerted Osama bin Laden to telephone surveillance, according to President Bush and others. A leak alerted Osama bin Laden to telephone surveillance, according to President Bush and others. The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time. The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself. Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours. Bush made his assertion at a news conference Monday, in which he defended his authorization of warrantless monitoring of communications between some US citizens and suspected terrorists overseas. He fumed that "the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak." He berated the media for "revealing sources, methods and what we use the information for" and thus helping "the enemy" change its operations. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that the president was referring to an article that appeared in the Washington Times on Aug. Two former Clinton administration officials first fingered the Times article in a 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror." Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that after the "unabashed right-wing newspaper" published the story, bin Laden "stopped using the satellite phone instantly" and "the United States lost its best chance to find him." The article, a profile of bin Laden, buried the information about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as the president alleged. The writer, Martin Sieff, said yesterday that the information about the phone was "already in the public domain" when he wrote the story. A search of media databases shows that Time magazine had first reported on Dec. Taliban officials provided the information, with one official -- security chief Mulla Abdul Mannan Niazi -- telling Time, "He's in high spirits." The day before the Washington Times article was published -- and the day of the attacks -- CNN producer Peter Bergen appeared on the network to talk about an interview he had with bin Laden in 1997. |
| tinyurl.com/bmvja -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html More File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths' By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A02 President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a US government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device. The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. A leak alerted Osama bin Laden to telephone surveillance, according to President Bush and others. A leak alerted Osama bin Laden to telephone surveillance, according to President Bush and others. The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time. The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself. Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours. Bush made his assertion at a news conference Monday, in which he defended his authorization of warrantless monitoring of communications between some US citizens and suspected terrorists overseas. He fumed that "the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak." He berated the media for "revealing sources, methods and what we use the information for" and thus helping "the enemy" change its operations. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that the president was referring to an article that appeared in the Washington Times on Aug. Two former Clinton administration officials first fingered the Times article in a 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror." Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that after the "unabashed right-wing newspaper" published the story, bin Laden "stopped using the satellite phone instantly" and "the United States lost its best chance to find him." The article, a profile of bin Laden, buried the information about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as the president alleged. The writer, Martin Sieff, said yesterday that the information about the phone was "already in the public domain" when he wrote the story. A search of media databases shows that Time magazine had first reported on Dec. Taliban officials provided the information, with one official -- security chief Mulla Abdul Mannan Niazi -- telling Time, "He's in high spirits." The day before the Washington Times article was published -- and the day of the attacks -- CNN producer Peter Bergen appeared on the network to talk about an interview he had with bin Laden in 1997. |
| www.slate.com/id/2132975/?nav=navoa Daniel Benjamin have all blamed the Washington Times for publishing a "leak" in an Aug. The Washington Times story, "Terrorist Is Driven By Hatred for US, Israel," purportedly alerted Osama Bin Laden to the fact that the United States knew about his satellite phone use, and by doing so diminished the capacity to monitor him. confirmed with the White House that Bush was talking about the Washington Times story when he said: And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. The 9/11 commission made the same claim in its report, stating on Page 127: Worst of all, al Qaeda's senior leadership had stopped using a particular means of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times. book refer reads: He keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones and has given occasional interviews to international news organizations, including Time magazine and CNN News. I'm prepared to believe that Bin Laden--or at least his open-source intelligence center--read the newspaper controlled by convicted felon Rev. Sun Myung Moon as part of their daily news diet, and then turned off their satellite phones and computers after reading the controversial story. The paper's reputation for breaking intelligence stories might, indeed, make it a must-read in al-Qaida circles. But before I'm willing to point fingers, I'd like to see a stronger chain of causation. To begin with, isn't it a no-brainer that Bin Laden, camped out in the wilds of Afghanistan in August 1998, would rely on satellite phones and computers if he wanted to communicate in real time with his network? Even if Bin Laden's satellite phone was considered a state secret, it wasn't very well kept. The Washington Times wasn't the first news organization to report on it. Boarding the Nexis Wayback Machine, we find a reference to Bin Laden's satphone in a Time magazine story titled "Home Away From Home: The Taliban Allow a Top 'Sponsor' of Terrorism to Stay In Afghanistan." uses satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. "He's in high spirits," says a Taliban security chief, Mulla Abdul Mannan Niazi. Japan's Daily Yomiuri quoted the Time revelation later that month (Dec. From Time's lede paragraph: He keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones and gives occasional interviews to international news organizations including TIME and CNN. He had interviewed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in March 1997 and portrayed the Bin Laden gang as technologically savvy, saying: They scanned us electronically to make sure we didn't have any kind of tracking device; they're very concerned about anybody who might meet bin Laden, might have some tracking device from some intelligence agency. He communicates by satellite phone, even though Afghanistan in some levels is back in the middle ages and a country that barely functions. It said that minutes before US missiles hit the terrorist camps, Osama Bin Laden had called for a continued jihad through Ayman Al-Zawahiri. From the Deutsche Presse-Agentur story: Osama bin Laden, described by President Clinton as a "pre-eminent" terrorist, however denied that he was behind the August 7 bombings of two US embassies in Africa which prompted the missile attack, the paper said, quoting his Egyptian confidant, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Zawahiri conveyed Osama's "message" to the daily's correspondent in Peshawar using a satellite phone "somewhere in Afghanistan," barely 30 minutes before the missile attack was launched against his "terrorist base" in Khowst in eastern Afghanistan. The Philadelphia Daily News gives the terrorist's name a unique spelling in this Aug. His tools are computers, fax machines, satellite phones and a terrorist network with a global reach. It makes it much easier to travel, move money or communicate by satellite phones or Internet. Ramzi Yousef kept track of all his plots on a Toshiba laptop. Osama bin Laden was running a multinational JOL, Jihad Online. was understood to be the story responsible for him turning off his phone." Perhaps the intelligence establishment has conclusive evidence up its sleeve that proves the Washington Times article caused Bin Laden to abandon his satphone. But that would mean that 1) Bin Laden and his people didn't read about it in either Time article; and 2) they didn't hear Peter Bergen make reference to it on CNN the day before the Washington Times published its story. Also, by 1996 your garden variety terrorist already knew from reading press accounts that he could be tracked--and killed, as Chechen leader Dzhokar Dudayev was--by the signal emitted by his satphone. Any way you look at it, the satphone facts were in the public domain the week the Washington Times published its story. For Bush--or anybody else--to blame the story on a leak just doesn't hold water. |
| washingtonpost.com -> www.washingtonpost.com/ Numbers, History Cast Shadow on Bush Hopes Despite close horse race with Kerry, president's approval ratings trail those of predecessors who won reelection. Soldier Details Iraq Abuse Defendant in prison scandal gives account of detainee treatment, offers to plead guilty. IN MOVIES New releases: "Troy," "Breakin' All the Rules," "Young Adam," "Godzilla: Uncut," "Word Wars," "With All Deliberate Speed." IN STYLE Fox issued a stunning news release for a reality special called "Seriously, Dude, I'm Gay" in which, two heterosexual men will try to convince people that they are gay. |