Listen - do you want to know a secret?
Robert Rouse
February 07, 2006
One of the biggest arguments that George W. Bush and his supporters have used in the recent wire-tap scandal has been that the wire-taps have only been aimed at people on American soil who are speaking to terrorists. But even if that was the case (and it doesn't appear to be), the law - that thing we are ALL supposed to obey - says that a court warrant is required.
In yesterday's Washington Post, there was an article revealing that out of the thousands of calls that were intercepted, intelligence officers have dismissed most of of them as impertinent. When officials involved in the program are asked if there are terrorists are on either end of the conversations, the answer is, "no".
Another question I would have to ask is - if there are no terrorists involved in the conversations, then why are we listening and how many Americans have been targeted?
According to the Post article, Bush has not revealed publicly or in closed sessions with Congress how many Americans have had their conversations or e-mails intercepted by the program. One insider source placed the number at 5,000. That's fascinating. That ends up being roughly 1,250 a year in the four years since the taps began. Yet another reason the administration and NSA have given for why they didn't seek wiretaps is there were too many cases and not enough time to get the warrants. The way I read that . . . even if they only had one man working every day of the year, he would only have to get a little over three warrants a day. Three men working every day of the year would only have to get one each. Now, I'm no expert on the number of people who work at the National Security Agency, but according to the NSA web site, if they were a corporation, they would rank in the top 10% of the Fortune 500. So, I would have to guess they have more than enough staff to handle the less than four intercepts a day.
According to one official, fewer than 10 American citizens or residents have aroused enough suspicion to warrant domestic surveillance. Sounds like the program has pretty much been a bust.
Sen. Arlen Specter said, "If we were really sure that you were dealing only with the communication where you have a member of al Qaeda, an agent of al Qaeda or an affiliate of al Qaeda terrorist organization, it would be one thing, because the concern is that there is a broad sweep which includes people who have no connection with al Qaeda." The Pennsylvania, five-term Republican Senator also believes that Bush has violated the law.
And Specter isn't the only Republican Senator who is questioning the program:
So much for Bush supporters taking pot shots at the Democrats for questioning his methods. Besides, I don't care which side of the argument you're on, if my job was to write laws and regulations, I think I'd be a little ticked off at someone else trying to do my job for me. The last I heard, it was the legislative branch who writes the laws, but the changes in regulations to allow warrant-less wire-taps came directly from the executive branch of the government. Next thing you know the judicial branch will be choosing our leaders instead of the people . . . oops, too late!
Another thing Bush told us was that there were key members of congress that knew about the wire-taps and that they should have said something if they had any reservations about the program. Number one, they couldn't take notes or bring aides to the classified meetings and were told not to talk about it. Number two, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller (WV) did write a letter to Dick Cheney announcing reservations about the program back in July 2003. In the letter he warned of “profound oversight issues,” and said he was “unable to evaluate, much less endorse these activities.” (you can read the contents of the handwritten letter in pdf format HERE.)
Rockefeller revealed the contents of that letter because, "For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees."
Of course, the Republicans will now cry out that you have to go down a lot of blind alleys before you find a real threat. But to me that is the same as saying that if you arrest enough men you'll eventually arrest a criminal.
In yesterday's Washington Post, there was an article revealing that out of the thousands of calls that were intercepted, intelligence officers have dismissed most of of them as impertinent. When officials involved in the program are asked if there are terrorists are on either end of the conversations, the answer is, "no".
Another question I would have to ask is - if there are no terrorists involved in the conversations, then why are we listening and how many Americans have been targeted?
According to the Post article, Bush has not revealed publicly or in closed sessions with Congress how many Americans have had their conversations or e-mails intercepted by the program. One insider source placed the number at 5,000. That's fascinating. That ends up being roughly 1,250 a year in the four years since the taps began. Yet another reason the administration and NSA have given for why they didn't seek wiretaps is there were too many cases and not enough time to get the warrants. The way I read that . . . even if they only had one man working every day of the year, he would only have to get a little over three warrants a day. Three men working every day of the year would only have to get one each. Now, I'm no expert on the number of people who work at the National Security Agency, but according to the NSA web site, if they were a corporation, they would rank in the top 10% of the Fortune 500. So, I would have to guess they have more than enough staff to handle the less than four intercepts a day.
According to one official, fewer than 10 American citizens or residents have aroused enough suspicion to warrant domestic surveillance. Sounds like the program has pretty much been a bust.
Sen. Arlen Specter said, "If we were really sure that you were dealing only with the communication where you have a member of al Qaeda, an agent of al Qaeda or an affiliate of al Qaeda terrorist organization, it would be one thing, because the concern is that there is a broad sweep which includes people who have no connection with al Qaeda." The Pennsylvania, five-term Republican Senator also believes that Bush has violated the law.
And Specter isn't the only Republican Senator who is questioning the program:
- Lindsey Graham (SC) - "If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.
And here’s the concern I have. We can’t become an outcome-based democracy. Even in a time of war, you have to follow the process, because that’s what a democracy is all about: a process." - Richard Luger (IN) - "I think we want to see what in the course of time really works best and the FISA Act has worked pretty well from the time of President Carter’s day to the current time."
- Sam Brownback (KS) - "I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal."
So much for Bush supporters taking pot shots at the Democrats for questioning his methods. Besides, I don't care which side of the argument you're on, if my job was to write laws and regulations, I think I'd be a little ticked off at someone else trying to do my job for me. The last I heard, it was the legislative branch who writes the laws, but the changes in regulations to allow warrant-less wire-taps came directly from the executive branch of the government. Next thing you know the judicial branch will be choosing our leaders instead of the people . . . oops, too late!
Another thing Bush told us was that there were key members of congress that knew about the wire-taps and that they should have said something if they had any reservations about the program. Number one, they couldn't take notes or bring aides to the classified meetings and were told not to talk about it. Number two, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller (WV) did write a letter to Dick Cheney announcing reservations about the program back in July 2003. In the letter he warned of “profound oversight issues,” and said he was “unable to evaluate, much less endorse these activities.” (you can read the contents of the handwritten letter in pdf format HERE.)
Rockefeller revealed the contents of that letter because, "For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees."
Of course, the Republicans will now cry out that you have to go down a lot of blind alleys before you find a real threat. But to me that is the same as saying that if you arrest enough men you'll eventually arrest a criminal.