Bush Administration Accused of Illegally Spying on Americans
Jim Kouri, CPP
December 16, 2005
Within the Washington Beltway, timing is everything. So it's no surprise that during the heated debate by US Senators over the extension of the so-called Patriot Act, the mainstream news media come out with stories that accuse the Bush Administration of authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans and foreigners living within US borders. For instance, here's how the Washington Post reporters lead their story:
"President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on US citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.
"The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night."
No where in the lead does the reader discover that the reason these people were targeted for surveillance is that their names and other information about them came up in intelligence intercepts or were culled from phone records and computer databases of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives overseas.
The Washington Post and others in the media who began to salivate over this additional ammunition to be used against the Bush terrorism war, also failed to highlight the fact that the administration jumped quickly in order to garner as much information as possible in as short a time as possible. It's the nature of wartime intelligence. Of course, the liberals and the news media really don't believe we're in a war -- they may pay lip service about supporting our troops, yada, yada, yada, but they treat the war on terrorism the way they treated the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on breast cancer.
Further in the article, the Post does mention that the purpose of this spying operation was "to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials."
The NSA, which is the technological arm of the intelligence community, fretted over the likelihood that information could be lost if the agency wrote and submitted an affidavit to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. And what happens if the judge reviewing the warrant affidavit is a Clinton appointee? Or worse, what if the judge is a Carter appointee who refuses to issue a warrant over his or her signature?
Of course, the Democrats, working in collusion with the news media were well-prepared to make their "I'm shocked and concerned" statements. For example, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is already formulating a political strategy in order to use this report against President Bush. This is the same Rockefeller who, prior to the Iraq invasion, flew to Syria and Saudi Arabia to inform them about Bush's war plans.
Liberals are already talking about the possibility that Bush violated the law. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity. Of course, readers are not told that Ms. Martin is a liberal-left policy wonk and that the CNSS is a left-wing policy think-tank.
But back to my point about timing being everything. The New York Times, which broke the story, admits that they sat on the story for about a year due to claims by Bush's staff that the publication of the story could negatively affect national security. Sounds almost patriotic until you start to question why the Times decided to break the story on the day the Senate addressed the Patriot Act extension? In fact, today's Democrat talking points included references to the NSA spy story during any televised debate on the Patriot Act.
There is also the fact that the New York Times reporter has a book coming out within the next couple of weeks on this very subject. Look for an exclusive interview on CBS's 60 Minutes.
The NSA spy operation actually began within days after the 9-11 attacks. Part of the operation included the monitoring of domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as being connected to Al-Qaeda or other known terrorist groups. At the time, fear was mounting that there were other terrorist cells involved in planning attacks within the US.
Since the US was on high alert, the Bush Administration used all resources at its disposal including teams of Defense Intelligence Agency operatives in major cities conducting the type of surveillance usually within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: surveillance of persons of interest using technological means rather than human assets.
The Washington Post reports that "Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions." Which means in Beltway-talk: Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy or other loose-lipped Democrat will leak the information at the right time.
And then the Washington Post ends it's story with the rantings of the usual left-wing national security expert, being careful not to identify her as a liberal:
"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."
And what news story is complete without a quote from the ACLU? Without so much as a feigned investigation, the ACLU spokesperson talks about criminal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration:
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report.
"It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity," Fredrickson said.
"President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on US citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.
"The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night."
No where in the lead does the reader discover that the reason these people were targeted for surveillance is that their names and other information about them came up in intelligence intercepts or were culled from phone records and computer databases of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives overseas.
The Washington Post and others in the media who began to salivate over this additional ammunition to be used against the Bush terrorism war, also failed to highlight the fact that the administration jumped quickly in order to garner as much information as possible in as short a time as possible. It's the nature of wartime intelligence. Of course, the liberals and the news media really don't believe we're in a war -- they may pay lip service about supporting our troops, yada, yada, yada, but they treat the war on terrorism the way they treated the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and the war on breast cancer.
Further in the article, the Post does mention that the purpose of this spying operation was "to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials."
The NSA, which is the technological arm of the intelligence community, fretted over the likelihood that information could be lost if the agency wrote and submitted an affidavit to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. And what happens if the judge reviewing the warrant affidavit is a Clinton appointee? Or worse, what if the judge is a Carter appointee who refuses to issue a warrant over his or her signature?
Of course, the Democrats, working in collusion with the news media were well-prepared to make their "I'm shocked and concerned" statements. For example, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is already formulating a political strategy in order to use this report against President Bush. This is the same Rockefeller who, prior to the Iraq invasion, flew to Syria and Saudi Arabia to inform them about Bush's war plans.
Liberals are already talking about the possibility that Bush violated the law. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity. Of course, readers are not told that Ms. Martin is a liberal-left policy wonk and that the CNSS is a left-wing policy think-tank.
But back to my point about timing being everything. The New York Times, which broke the story, admits that they sat on the story for about a year due to claims by Bush's staff that the publication of the story could negatively affect national security. Sounds almost patriotic until you start to question why the Times decided to break the story on the day the Senate addressed the Patriot Act extension? In fact, today's Democrat talking points included references to the NSA spy story during any televised debate on the Patriot Act.
There is also the fact that the New York Times reporter has a book coming out within the next couple of weeks on this very subject. Look for an exclusive interview on CBS's 60 Minutes.
The NSA spy operation actually began within days after the 9-11 attacks. Part of the operation included the monitoring of domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as being connected to Al-Qaeda or other known terrorist groups. At the time, fear was mounting that there were other terrorist cells involved in planning attacks within the US.
Since the US was on high alert, the Bush Administration used all resources at its disposal including teams of Defense Intelligence Agency operatives in major cities conducting the type of surveillance usually within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: surveillance of persons of interest using technological means rather than human assets.
The Washington Post reports that "Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions." Which means in Beltway-talk: Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy or other loose-lipped Democrat will leak the information at the right time.
And then the Washington Post ends it's story with the rantings of the usual left-wing national security expert, being careful not to identify her as a liberal:
"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."
And what news story is complete without a quote from the ACLU? Without so much as a feigned investigation, the ACLU spokesperson talks about criminal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration:
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report.
"It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity," Fredrickson said.
Print
Email
