Q&A: NSA Domestic Surveillance Program

Q&A: NSA Domestic Surveillance Program - Yahoo! News by Katherine Shrader/AP writer

Well, if this ain’t just dandy. Some excerpts for our enjoyment:

Q: Can the NSA eavesdrop on Americans?

A: Generally, it is prohibited without a court order. But under a directive signed by
President Bush, and renewed more than 30 times, the National Security Agency can monitor the international communications of people inside the country, when one party to the call or e-mail is believed to be involved with al-Qaida.

Except that the president used deception and coersion to get his directive approved…hmmm.

Q: How many people are affected?

A: Only a tight-knit group of government officials know, and they won’t say. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other senior officials have insisted the program is “targeted” to go after only the most dangerous types of communications â€” those that may involve al-Qaida inside the United States.

Sure, like Greenpeace and Quakers. Really dangerous. Oh and Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

Q: What did Bush’s directive change?

A: In national security investigations, the program eliminated the need to go before a judge for approval of surveillance on U.S. residents.

Previously, government lawyers had to show the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there was “probable cause” a targeted person was an agent of a foreign power. A federal judge had to approve a warrant, and typically did. Bush’s order allowed the NSA â€” not a judge â€” to approve the monitoring when officials had a “reasonable basis to believe” one party to the call or e-mail was linked to al-Qaida.

Without a warrant? Why? And how can Quakers [see above link] be linked to Al-Qaida? Oh yeah, they both have “Q” in their name.

Q: Was Congress told?

A: The administration says that members of Congress were briefed more than a dozen times. However, only select lawmakers were present. Called the “Gang of Eight,” they include the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees.

In the program’s four years, the lawmakers included in that group have changed, so few â€” if any â€” attended all the briefings. And some privately say they weren’t given all the information they needed.

Nor were they allowed to disclose what they were told, who was present, or anything else even remotely relevent. So we really don’t know if Congress was really told anything.

Q: Has anyone who has been briefed on the program called for its halt?

No. Democrats, including California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), the intelligence committee’s top Democrat, have complained about the size of the briefings and legal questions they want answered.

But none has said the program should end. Harman says she believes the program “is essential to U.S. national security.”

How do we know for sure? No one is allowed to talk about what went on in those meetings. And “privately” doesn’t include published papers and appearing on national television.

Q: Did the White House consider asking Congress to change the law?

A: Yes. Although Bush says he has adequate legal authority now, Gonzales said the administration considered proposing changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2004. The attorney general said congressional leaders believed that move would jeopardize the program.

Some Democrats are quietly arguing the administration thought it was on shaky ground in 2003. A draft bill proposed giving legal cover to federal officials who conduct unauthorized surveillance ordered by the president or attorney general. That update to the Patriot Act, leaked to an interest group, was never introduced in Congress.

It was 2002 and it was Bob Ney (R-Ohio)” who proposed the legislation. But the Bush administration felt that it would be unconstitutional.

I guess this is just another example of the “liberal” media spinning for Bush? No, it’s an obvious example of the Bush Administration trying to use propaganda to further their own agenda.

The arguments presented in this piece have been torn apart over the last weeks on the web, but I guess the AP (particulary Katherine Schrader) doesn’t think that bloggers pay attention to newspapers. She’s wrong. We do. Our lives aren’t all about keyboards and blogs.

I’m disappointed that this was featured so prominently in my hometown newspaper (though you can’t see it online- terrible website) with nothing to rebut it. Anyone who reads that piece will believe what’s written and won’t bother to do the research themselves. Of course, those who printed it didn’t do the fact checking either- plainly depending on the ignorance of their readers.

I’m writing a letter to the editor of The Times-Reporter, but I’m very doubtful that it’ll be published. They’re so far right they should be called “The Republican Times”.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Sphere: Related Content