Right On, LuckyLady!

This has certainly proven to be an interesting day. Thank you for your part in it.

This thread was not started to discuss individual personalities of the women on this site. It was started to discuss Bush, NSA and Civil Liberties. I, therefore, return to the topic.

In addition to the sources I have quoted, mentioned in an above post, I have also included articles from Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor, The Associated Press, National Review and USA Today. As mentioned previously, your articles are welcome.


The first article I submit for your perusal today addresses the divide, the differing opinions on Boomer Women Speak - it speaks to and for all of us . . . even the men.

The Last Hurrah
The baby boomers tacked left, then right. Where will their politics go in the golden years? The 'I want it all and I want it now' crowd confronts its hardest campaigns.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10855757/site/newsweek/

Very interesting and telling article (as you'll see by the number and length of quotes and comments). I wonder if all the "innocents" will somehow now be on record with the FBI for things they are "innocent" of.

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?th&emc=th

quote:
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 that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
Some conclusions reached by those actually doing the investigating:

quote:
President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
A counter statement from one who defends the program - unfortunately, they only make a statement and do not substantiate it with anything.

quote:
Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program's results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. 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 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.
Additionally:

quote:
"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,' " said Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. "But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better?"

Several of the law enforcement officials acknowledged that they might not know of arrests or intelligence activities overseas that grew out of the domestic spying program. And because the program was a closely guarded secret, its role in specific cases may have been disguised or hidden even from key investigators.

Still, the comments on the N.S.A. program from the law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, many of them high level, are the first indication that the program was viewed with skepticism by key figures at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency responsible for disrupting plots and investigating terrorism on American soil.
And again from those who do not see this as a fruitful venture:

quote:
The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.
The administration feels, however, that there might (keyword "might") have been some results gained:

quote:
Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.
And a rebuttal by FBI, British and other officials:

quote:
But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.
As an aside, I find it interesting that none of this unwarranted spying since October 2001 (well before we invaded Iraq) addresses any efforts to find out the truth about Iraq's WMDs, or any of the "other" reasons given to invade that country - after all, we did have over a year to do as much spying as we liked . . . but then again, if no information was discovered to support a war and the country was invaded anyway, wouldn't that only be done by an imperialistic dictator?

Back to basics: another point of frustration for those involved in the unwarranted search:

quote:
F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, the N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.
From the NYTimes - an article on what looks like the beginning of what will no doubt become a number of deep probes into the legality of unwarranted eavesdropping:

Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17nsa.html

quote:
The lawsuits seek to answer one of the major questions surrounding the eavesdropping program: has it been used solely to single out the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people with known links to Al Qaeda, as President Bush and his most senior advisers have maintained, or has it been abused in ways that civil rights advocates say could hark back to the political spying abuses of the 1960's and 70's?
And the Associated Press' version of the story - much shorter than the NYTimes version:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060117/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying_lawsuit_5


From USA Today - An opinion piece - A question of Bush's authority and a statement to those who agree with him:

President's power grab threatens rule of law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060117/cm_usatoday/presidentspowergrabthreatensruleoflaw

quote:
Five years ago this week, the Bush administration came into office determined to reverse what Vice President Cheney and others regarded as undue limits on presidential power. The administration's power grab has reached such brazen heights that President Bush now claims he is above the law.

For any American who thinks presidents should have the power of czars and kings, this is good news. For the rest of us, it should raise deep concern.
An interesting comment from Rep. Bob Barr, a conservative Republican:

quote:
Though Bush should use all legal means to protect against terror attacks, his "the law is what I say it is" attitude threatens the rights of all Americans and the constitutional system of checks and balances. In the words of former representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican from Georgia: "President George W. Bush has ... dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
The article concludes:

quote:
It's up to Congress and the courts to preserve the Founders' careful balancing of executive and legislative power. The Republican-controlled Congress has been reluctant to challenge Bush's excesses, but that might be changing. The Senate Judiciary Committee is planning hearings next month on the warrantless wiretapping. Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and committee members of both parties have joined the growing chorus of skepticism about the legality of the eavesdropping program.

That should send a message to the White House: Unless Bush scales back his administration's power grabs and obeys the laws Congress has written, a constitutional showdown could well be in his future.
From USA Today - another opinion piece with an opposing view to the last article. What I find interesting is that while the previous article scored 4 stars out of 5, this one scored 2 stars out of 5. I wonder, is that at all representative of the numbers of people supporting each view?

Americans deserve no less
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060117/cm_usatoday/americansdeservenoless


From the Associated Press, presented on MSNBC - The Administration fights back on remarks made by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton:
White House blasts Gore’s ‘hypocrisy’
Bush spokesman cites former VP's comments on domestic spying
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891443/

However, note this quote:

quote:
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

“I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds,” McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
AG Gonzales also used McClellan's argument (but the above already addresses his uninformed statement - it happened "before" there was a law against it, so Clinton did act within his authority. Makes me think Gonzales wasn't a very good attorney if he missed that little fact.)

quote:
On CNN’s “Larry King Live,” Gonzales said Gore’s comments were inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.

“It’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants,” Gonzales said. “I can also say it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant. And so, those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.”
Like I’ve said before this is a fascinating time to be alive.

[ January 18, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]