Comments on: Arkin on NSA, Plus: I Finally Take A Position (Kind Of)

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Fineman on Snoopgate: Ay, Caramba!

Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Fineman on Snoopgate: Ay, Caramba! — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:34:16 +0000

[...] What’s the problem with all this? First, what Fineman gets right – yes, we will hear a lot more of this, from the fringes (and sadly, I do consider Howard Dean and Harry Reid to be operating from the fringe; they may have mainstream job titles, but they’re playing to the hardcore activists)…but it will not stick, and I explained why in an earlier post (and I do realize that Fineman, as usual, takes the cowardly way out and doesn’t claim these dictatorial, Nixonian views as his own – but if it quacks like a duck, etc., etc.). [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:35:36 +0000

Oh, I agree…that’s why I’m still hedging a little…but those statements would certainly be odd if there wasn’t a technological component…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:25:25 +0000

Sorry, I didn’t put the emphasis on the word I wanted to emphasize. I haven’t seen anything that necessarily indicates that. Anything that places that conclusion beyond doubt for me. That’s all I meant.

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Hold Tight, Folks, The Water May Get Rough

Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:21:59 +0000

[...] I argued earlier tonight that I don’t see Snoopgate, as some wags are already calling it, as being a cloud over the remainder of Bush’s presidency, and I stick by that. I also said that there is every indication that this will be the subject of hearings quite soon, and this story only adds fuel to that fire: A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources. [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:06:13 +0000

Fargus, from the Kevin Drum piece I cited yesterday:

# Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, telling reporters why Bush didn’t simply ask Congress to pass a law making the program clearly legal: “We’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.”

# President Bush, answering questions at Monday’s press conference: “We use FISA still….But FISA is for long-term monitoring….There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it’s important to know the distinction between the two….We used the [FISA] process to monitor. But also….we’ve got to be able to detect and prevent.”

# Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a letter to Dick Cheney after being briefed on the program in 2003: “As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.”

# New York Times editor Bill Keller, explaining why the Times finally published its story last week after holding it back for over a year: “In the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program — withholding a number of technical details — in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record.”

What’s the common thread, as Drum asks? The program, distinction between monitoring and detecting, Rockefeller’s mention of the TIA, the technical details – we’re not talking things that are related to individuals. Unless all these people are wrong, and notice they come from both sides of the fence. Scott McClellan has made similar comments, and Bob Graham talked of the briefing by Cheney as signaling a new technological approach…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:05:45 +0000

Let me just say, as an addendum, that I’m not trying to espouse any kind of conspiracy theory here, and I think that in all likelihood he probably did have the national security in mind. All I’m trying to say is that, with what we’ve been getting from the White House, there’s no clearly about any of this. At least not yet.

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:00:08 +0000

I’ve seen nothing to indicate to me that the reasoning behind this was necessarily technologically based. Could it not just as easily have been that the Administration didn’t feel that they’d get the warrants for the specific people they were targeting? Until we know (and they’re certainly not letting on, by claiming that the President can do whatever he wants during “wartime,”), I think it’s somewhat irresponsible to say that the President clearly was operating strictly in the interests of national security here. The facts just don’t bear that clearly out yet.