NID Admits ATT/Verizon Help With Wiretaps 299
Unlikely_Hero writes "National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has confirmed in an interview with the El Paso Times that AT&T and Verizon have both been helping the Bush Administration conduct wiretaps. He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance, that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a telephone number and suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue."
Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
Due Process.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it perfect? No, probably not. But it's what we have setup now and short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.
Re:Unless (Score:2, Insightful)
I think I hear the Secret Service calling you...
Re:Unless (Score:1, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.
We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
We cut off their cash cow...of course they're pissed.
Same things happening with Russian and Iran.
You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?
Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.
Still using that tired, sad old line? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism [wikipedia.org] have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion [cnn.com] or good ol' anti-government paranoia [wkrn.com] as they are about U.S. support for Israel. [cnn.com] If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money [wikipedia.org] that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.
Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.
Re:Due Process.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:100 americans denied due process (Score:2, Insightful)
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.
Re:Um, wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the admission that they have to spend an additional 200 hours gathering evidence is a clear admission of wrongdoing on their part. Our Constitution provides security against arbitrary searches and seizures; if it takes 200 additional hours to gather enough evidence to form a mere suspicion of wrongdoing, then the initial justification for the wiretap must be fairly flimsy.
Re:Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:100 americans denied due process (Score:3, Insightful)
Separation of Powers (Score:2, Insightful)
This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court. If this administration won't stand up to that responsibility, I can't imagine any other administration will in this day and age.
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon. We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
The unanswered question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.
Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)
Understandable Misunderstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
Every intel collector and analyst is trained from day one in the law, whether they be military or civilian. They can all quote the name and contents of the document that governs the ways the NSA and our government may designate intel targets both within and without our own borders. Anyone who collects on a target that has not been sanctioned from on-high, even if it is his or her own phone number, is on a fast track to prison.
The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them. The foreign phone would already be under surveillance, and of course the connection to the USA should raise questions for any sane law enforcement agency. The law provides for monitoring US citizens in this and other very narrowly-defined cases, though they must still be officially designated as targets, which is not a simple process. Even the warrantless taps only give a day or so of leeway, the government must prove in a hurry that they really need to be listening in or all data must be purged.
And perhaps the most important reason that you can go through your day without worrying if someone is listening in to you asking your Aunt Bea to bring her special blueberry pie to the family reunion is that analysts are Americans and have Aunt Bea's too, and they have the same expectation of privacy that you have. If they participate in a big-brother system that monitors our populace at a whim, then it's only a matter of time before that system grows and starts to eat its own.
The intel community is a very paranoid place - both about what others are doing, but incredibly more so about that activities of its own members.
The Key: Under FISA warrants (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unless (Score:1, Insightful)
A simple lesson needs to be taught (Score:5, Insightful)
Illegal surveillance of Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Nixon pulled this when he was in office. Misusing the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans who did not agree with the Republican party.
I cannot say the Democrats are any better. Clinton used the IRS to harass those he hated as well.
I said it before and I will say it again...if I get one of those National Security Letters, it will be posted right here on slashdot.org and I will take out an Ad in the local paper, get it on dailykos.com, anyone who'll take it. I ain't afraid of these Republican/Christian government fucks.
HEEEELLLLLLL NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough already with this "You so something bad for us and you're safe" bit.
Soap (check) -> Ballot (Check) -> Jury (Forbidden by Law) -> Ammo?
I'm not one to advocate for violence, but ya'know... when you have eliminated the impossible (or ineffective in this case) whatever remains...
this makes me mad
Am I nuts or has tinfoil really become necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
When did we the people give permission to a company (ANY company), the right to spy on us? IANAL but my god everything I do know about law treats a corporate entity as a person when it comes to political speech, etc... How can one person legally spy on another? Short answer: They CAN'T!!
This is NOT about due process at all, this is about constitutionally protected RIGHTS! Where is the outrage? How can we be sitting here on
The NID and his cronies can get these warrants retroactively, due process only enters into it after our rights have been violated in the first place. STOP CRYING ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE WARRANTS! What the **** does that have to do with the color of the sky? I don't care if it takes you 40000000000000 hours to get your warrants, I pay taxes to pay for that. But I guess I'm another nut job who cries every time the wind blows. Fine...
I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with retroactive warrants.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with a company of my government's choosing being allowed to conduct surveillance on me without consent or due process.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll pretend I don't notice camera's in every public place, satellites looking down on my every move, and a government funded spy agency directed at its citizenry.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll choose not to remember that my president (or any of his friends) are at any time able to label a citizen as an Enemy Combatant and lock them away without access to the courts.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll shut my mouth while the president is allowed to conduct war againsst anyone he chooses, regardless of intent or purpose, despite the will of the people.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll just swallow my frustrations as my government provides HUGE tax incentives and monies to HIGHLY PROFITABLE companies run by friends of political figures.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll just not pay attention as our government writes more and more laws in an attempt to control behavior and actions of it citizens.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll just ignore that more and more of our citizens are being locked away in prisons for arbitrary crimes and that our prison system has a greater percentage of the population housed within those prisons that any other time in history.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll just look the other way as we round up classes of citizens and non-citizens and place them in camps so as to protect the public.
I won't be unreasonable. I'll be quiet as our once great and noble country is thrown away at the behest of those who have managed to dupe the public into believing that they are at all in control of themselves anymore.
I cry for our children and the mess we have ALL made.
Re:Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is something to be proud of...
FWIW, French intervention was required in order for the American Revolution to succeed.
Besides, the Americans were YEARS late joining WWI and WWII. The US made an important contribution, but why the delay in getting involved, if these wars were so important? I believe it was Churchill who said that the Americans never get involved in a war until they have determined which side is going to win...
So? It is speculated that GWB's grandfather made his fortune selling ammunition to the Nazis. Arms manufacturers will sell to anyone with money. If they were ethically inclined in the first place, they would probably not be dealing in weaponry.
Fraud larger than Enron or Worldcom? I hope not, because the oil-for-food program was overseen by American administrators...
So, because they do something bad, it's OK for your government to do something bad too?
What a witty retort. I was going to make a remark that all neo-cons were inbred rednecks, but I suppose that would be equally understood as well.
Re:Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
We are having and will continue to have major stability problems in the Middle East because of the mess Europe left behind when they ran home with their tails between their legs in the 40's and 50's. Unfortunately, and as usual the US is left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills in both dollars and lives. Now we are hearing COMPLAINTS from the Europeans on how it is being handled? Well, it is YOUR mess, get in there and clean it up.
What a bunch of hypocritical idiots.
Re:My guess.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So 200 hours could mean that someone entered something onto a screen in a computer system in five minutes and it was done. But they go back and count the time it takes to maintain the system, the techs to actually do the work, the approval process with multiple people, etc etc.
Or it could mean that from the time the process started, it takes 8 days for the wiretap to be in place.
Either way, I think this is a number used to create an impression rather than to convey any meaningful information.
Re:Unless (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason the US stepped into the European campaign of WWII was to prevent Russia from liberating France (and rest of Europe).
Re:Unless (Score:5, Insightful)
No you didn't. To begin with I do not think you (singular) served in both WWI and WWII, so stop bragging about "We".
In WWI the US had hardly a modern army to speak of. The US entered the war late and did little. It may be debated whether they tipped the balance, but it is a fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary were already at the brink of collapse in 1917. And anyway, Germany in WWI was just any nation at war, no better or worse than the other ones. They had not even started the war (Austria-Hungary did), so what's the point in talking of "liberation"? From what? In any case, the US sacrificed very little compared to the British, yet I don't hear the British whine so much about the French being ungrateful.
In WWII, most of the work to win the war was done by the Soviets. On any reasonable scale (soldiers dead, enemy soldiers killed, land lost, land gained, overall number of dead, ...), the Soviet Union sacrificed much more than the US, even counting in the Pacific theatre where only the US were active. The eastern front saw the two most bloody battles in human history at the same time (Leningrad and Stalingrad), each three times larger than the one in third place (battle of Wuhan). Had the US stayed out, France would have been liberated by the USSR instead of the USA, or it would simply have risen up and taken back sovereignty when Berlin would eventually have fallen to the Red Army.
So cut the "we saved the world"-crap. The reason the US emerged as a superpower after WWII was that they had gone through two world wars without a single enemy soldier on their terrain, and had entered only when the outcome was almost guaranteed. Just like Switzerland, the US found out that not having armies marching through your country is beneficial to the economy.
According to Transparency International, the most corrupt politician ever was Suharto, dictator of Indonesia. Do I have to tell you who installed the guy, let him carry genocidal policies including but not limited to the invasion of East Timor?
I don't "hate America", I think people (Americans, French, Congolese, Tikopians) who refuse to hear criticism of their own country, stick by the motto "good or bad it's my country", or trust the government (any government) are stupid and a threat to democracy.
Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the reason the current administration is so secretive, they feel that the American people wouldn't stand for some of the things they are doing if it was known.
They feel that they have to do it whatever way they are doing it to do it right.
Therefore, the American public doesn't need to know.
Although I don't agree, I have to say there is some merit to this idea. This is our fault, though, not the administrations. We, as a whole, have a lemming mentality. The group is easily manipulated by fear, and by spin. It's too much to ask for, I suppose, that the average American spend as much time thinking about personal rights and freedoms as they do on a new car purchase. Come to think of it, I don't want that either. I was looking for an example of something the average Joe would think on a lot before making a purchase, and the realization hit me that we, again as gross averages, buy cars, hire doctors, buy food.... All on impulse.... I'm so depressed....
My girlfriend just pointed out that we spend a lot of time thinking about Celebrity sex. I could use that as a comparison.... Now, I'm REALLY depressed...
Re:Unless (Score:5, Insightful)
Without an explicit acceptance of what your country ended up doing wrong, there is little hope of avoiding a repeat of the exact same thing in some other context. How are you, as a nation, going to educate your children so that they don't fall for the exact same trap when some tragedy strikes their country when THEY are the electorate? How is it possible to do this when every single time someone brings up a criticism, some weasel pops out of the waxwork to distract attention towards irrelevant actions by others? How is your personal apology going to combat that?
Your attitude seems to be one of putting things behind you and moving on.. which is understandable considering the embarassing trauma I'm sure you are suffering from.. but this is the wrong reaction to have. At the very least, your country owes it to the millions of people whose lives were ruined in part because of its actions, to examine what went wrong, reconcile with it, and put in place measures to avoid it. And don't for a second let yourself think that this expectation is somehow limited to just America. Every country has that obligation. Some may live up to that obligation, and others may not, but whether or not some other country holds itself up to a high standard shouldn't be a basis for excusing your own. It may seem to many that America receives an unfair amount of attention on this front.. but for christ's sake.. you're the most powerful nation in the world. Your influence affects EVERYBODY.. so OF COURSE people are going to scrutinize your actions more than the actions of others. You should welcome that, and rise to the challenge, and not run up a tree like a flayed cat.
Also, don't take this as me personally addressing you. I am speaking towards general tendencies I identify in your country's population, in your media, in your national social identity.
Now, I'm not sure abut your claim about America being the world's "greatest country", but I'd agree that your country has a many qualities that others could learn from, and that you have great potential.. for both good and bad. Your history is full of examples of both, and pointing out the bad does not detract from the good. Likewise, pointing out the good does not excuse the bad (and neither does pointing out the bad in others), and does not excuse the need for an honest self-appraisal amongst your citizens on the role their country plays in the world. This is one area where your people have been far too lax.
Re:The unanswered question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?
you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.
Pretty subtle, except that this debate is based around the fact that Americans (as represented by the EFF) are suing ATT/Verizon. Not foreign adversaries. Americans. That's the crux of the issue. American citizens claim that they have been monitored by the US government without due process being followed. If true, that is almost certainly illegal & unconstitutional, despite the Administration's claims of privilege or national security. If it is not, I feel that Congress needs to address whatever legal loophole allows such actions. Others have stated they feel the same. You have avoided voicing your opinion on the matter, choosing instead to weigh in on an orthogonal issue. Which is no more relevant to the discussion at hand than my pizza topping preferences.
Re:Unless (Score:2, Insightful)
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Without A Court Order [wikipedia.org]
The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.
*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments
US CODE: Title 50, 1801. Definitions [cornell.edu]
Re:How sad some of you are (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting... (Score:1, Insightful)
And now we have government authority, backed up by guns, to not care.
FTSummary ... suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue.
And I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_r
Yes. that's why we helped the Brits depose the democracy in Iran and set up the shah. The whole rationale was that the democratic government there wanted to boot out the British oil companies and run their natural resource exploitation locally on better terms for the locals. You know, a free market, not a demand-side imperial market. Small wonder that bit of hypocrisy (we claim to love democracy and to want to spread it, but topple it when the locals elect leaders that do stuff we don't like) earned us a dark place in the hearts of Iranians.
We've also done it in Latin America.
I love hearing interventionist conservatives claim we're spreading democracy and how that's such a good thing when our history is full of American interventionists toppling democracies. It's the elephant in the room that isn't spoken of: they'll blab platitudes about our noble objectives until those we're "helping" decide to do something we don't like. Then we find it more advantageous to throw them back into the tender mercies of despotism.
And for the record, I'm not a "lib" or "commie" or whatever loaded word you care to use because you disagree with me: I'm an independent with fiscally-conservative, anti-authoritarian, anti-interventionist, libertarian, and constitutionalist leanings.
Re:Understandable Misunderstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
You could easily say in 1968, "Oh don't worry, this stuff is very complicated, we are only using it to protect America from Moscow." Surprise, surprise, by the middle of the 70s it's been revealed that in fact intelligence has been taken on all kinds of people, from Martin Luther King to Nixon's political enemies, far outside the scope of what most Americans find reasonable. That's why we passed the FISA law in 1978, all it says is that you need to get a warrant from a special court to eavesdrop, and you can do it retroactively. This is simply to keep a record and keep tabs on government surveillance. Since 2002 our president has admitted to openly defying this law, which is a felony. It's really that simple.
Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know it's fashionable these days to pretend that anything the Bush administration does is unconstitutional, but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.
Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reread the article and pay attention to the warrantless part, it means without a warrant.
Reread the constitution and pay attention to the warrant part, it means with a warrant.
Put the those together and come up with two, not three.
but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.
but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about reading comprehension.