Monitoring telephone calls into the US by suspected terrorists

[swansont]

I've explained this in sufficient detail. Soldiers work with other soldiers secure areas. They stand on the front line alongside other soldiers in battle. They guard VIPs and diplomats' date=' and they guard each other. We already had one case of a soldier blowing himself up in anger during the build-up to the Iraq war. Not to mention the case of the Filipino spy in the White House who was a former US soldier.

[/quote']

 

 

By that logic, we should monitor the higher-ranked people even more closely, since they can do even more damage. And I didn't think you intended to make that point.

[Pangloss]

Nonsense. You implied that we wouldn't want to monitor them, and I'm pointing out why we would. That's it. I said nothing about MORE monitoring, and I object to your continued obfuscation and spin.

 

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

 

You owe me an acknolwedgement that I have made my prima facie case. You don't have to agree with it, but if you're a reasonable person you'll at least acknolwedge it.

[pcs]

By that logic, we should monitor the higher-ranked people even more closely, since they can do even more damage. And I didn't think you intended to make that point.

 

1. Rank roughly correlates with increased clearance and classifying authority if for no other reason than the process is more involved, so higher ranked enlisted and officers are generally watched more closely.

 

2. If you're suggesting that senior civilian officials are not monitored as closely as the military or civilian middle and lower grades, then consider that political appointees generally generate more work-related, recorded communication than their career counterparts.

 

3. The enemy has no easy task penetrating an organization like a Western government. It's easier to attract or plant assets in lower grades than higher ones.

[Jim]

The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 168: "In March 2000,Atta emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States. Atta requested information about the cost of the training, potential financing, and accommodations." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

 

Even if the NSA knew that Atta was a terrorist and was sending emails into the United States, under FISA, no warrant could be issued to intercept these communications because there was no basis for believing the flight schools were agents of foreign powers. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

 

If Bush had come to Congress and proposed a rewrite of the FISA, it would have been a matter of public record and media attention. Reading the 9/11 commission, I'm struck with the intelligence and education of our adversaries. It would have been foolish for Bush to believe that they would not have paid attention to this public legislative process. Therefore, instead of the full legislative process, Bush invoked his Constitutional power as commander in chief during a time of war and Congress' authorization of the use of force. He briefed the so-called "gang of eight" and quietly put a program in place to intercept exactly this kind of communication by terrorists into this country.

 

Democrats would do well not to bet the ranch on this issue.

[swansont]

Nonsense. You implied that we wouldn't want to monitor them' date=' and I'm pointing out why we would. That's it. I said nothing about MORE monitoring, and I object to your continued obfuscation and spin.

 

 

 

You owe me an acknolwedgement that I have made my prima facie case. You don't have to agree with it, but if you're a reasonable person you'll at least acknolwedge it.[/quote']

 

 

"would have to be monitored with at least the same level of circumspection you would give to any other phone call in or out of that country" (emphasis added)

 

That, to me, implies that you want to monitor them more.

 

As to whether you've made your case, I don't know. You seem to be arguing a completely different topic. If you were going to pick 500 people and tap their phones to monitor their calls to the US, would you pick terrorists or military members?

[Jim]

The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 168: "In March 2000,Atta emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States. Atta requested information about the cost of the training, potential financing, and accommodations." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

 

To continue the analysis, please note that this incident would require 31 different FISA application because it involves 31 different United States citizens/firms. All of the applications would fail because the flight schools were not agents of foreign powers.

[swansont]

To continue the analysis, please note that this incident would require 31 different FISA application because it involves 31 different United States citizens/firms. All of the applications would fail because the flight schools were not agents of foreign powers.

 

Out of how many total inquiries that the flight schools got from foreign applicants?

[bascule]

All of the applications would fail because the flight schools were not agents of foreign powers.

 

Haven't only 6 requests been deferred or rejected in the history of the court? (all under Bush, but...)

[Jim]

Haven't only 6 requests been deferred or rejected in the history of the court? (all under Bush, but...)

 

These applications could not be under FISA law because the recipients of the communication - the flight schools - were not agents of foreign powers.

[Jim]

Out of how many total inquiries that the flight schools got from foreign applicants?

 

I'm not being clear. If information had connected Atta to El Queda, under the current program, we could intercept the communications merely because they were communications from El Queda into the U.S. It doesn't matter how many non-El Queda foreign inquiries are made to U.S. fligh schools.

 

This program kicks in when the NSA has an email address or phone # linked to El Queda. They follow that number and, in this example, find out that El Queda has called 31 flight schools in America. The next logical question would be why El Queda agents needs to learn to fly jets.

 

However, even if we had known Atta was with El Queda and even if we had known he was emailing into the United States, FISA would not allow a warrant to issue so we could read those communications because the U.S. recepients were not "agent of a foreign power." Therefore, if El Queda were planning another attack which used U.S. resources such as a flight school, FISA would not let the NSA monitor those communications.

 

The Bush adminstration has repeatedly stated that it can't discuss the operational details of this program. This is an example of how getting into the nuts and bolts can apprise our enemy. Having a full blown congressional debate on FISA, even to the largest degree in secret, would likewise have potentially revealed information.

 

Rather than assume Bush is motivated to infringe civil liberties, it is more reasonable to me after reading quite a bit of material to believe that he was motivated to protect the national interest.

[swansont]

I'm not being clear. If information had connected Atta to El Queda, under the current program, we could intercept the communications merely because they were communications from El Queda into the U.S. It doesn't matter how many non-El Queda foreign inquiries are made to U.S. fligh schools.

 

You are looking at the problem with the benefit of hindsight, though, and seem to be using the assumption that any given plot against the US can been averted.

 

Can't you ask the flight schools about the inquiries? Further, if information had connected Atta to El Queda, you could then go and gather the information in other ways. It is my understanding that the law prohibits intercepting the emails, but not in going and obtaining them after the fact. (from here, under "Email on the Internet: Open Systems, Open Messages") A fair fraction of email doesn't fall under the FISA provision anyway, since it only covers communication that carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most emails involving corporations doesn't carry that expectation, AFAIK.

 

Rather than assume Bush is motivated to infringe civil liberties, it is more reasonable to me after reading quite a bit of material to believe that he was motivated to protect the national interest.

 

You assume too much. I have not assumed that Bush is motivated to infringe civil liberties. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't infringed on them anyway. Talking about motivation just seems to me to be another way of saying "the ends justifies the means."

[Jim]

You are looking at the problem with the benefit of hindsight' date=' though, and seem to be using the assumption that any given plot against the US can been averted.

[/quote']

 

You assume too much. I never said that every plot can be averted. The best we can do is to minimize the risks. One way to do this is to use hindsight and make sure we do not repeat mistakes.

 

FISA's requirement which would have precluded the NSA from intercepting this kind of email from El Queda operatitives is a mistake. The quote makes an excellent example of what I was talking about earlier of the number of ways terrorists might communicate into the United State

 

Can't you ask the flight schools about the inquiries? Further, if information had connected Atta to El Queda, you could then go and gather the information in other ways. It is my understanding that the law prohibits intercepting the emails, but not in going and obtaining them after the fact. (from here, under "Email on the Internet: Open Systems, Open Messages") A fair fraction of email doesn't fall under the FISA provision anyway, since it only covers communication that carries a reasonable expectation of privacy. Most emails involving corporations doesn't carry that expectation, AFAIK.

 

I can't figure out why you are resisting this. Didn't you say that you "absolutely" wanted to monitor the communications into the United States by El Queda? Yes, I suppose that the government could ask for information from 31 different sources, but why? If the communication is from El Queda suspects, why not just get the email? As the 9/11 report makes clear, sometimes time is of the essense in these kind of investigations as some of the leads were coming in as late as 8/01.

 

I'll look into your legal claims tomorrow. Today is my old guy basketball league!

 

You assume too much. I have not assumed that Bush is motivated to infringe civil liberties. But that doesn't mean that he hasn't infringed on them anyway. Talking about motivation just seems to me to be another way of saying "the ends justifies the means."

 

I was speaking to my personal take on the situation, not yours. I do know that earlier in these threads I've tried to elicit the concession that Bush did not do this for grins but was instead trying to protect the national interest. I seem to recall getting some resistance on this point from some sources.

 

Motivation is almost always relevant in criminal proceedings, if nothing else in the sentencing phase. I sense from the left some sort of validation in this episode as to Bush's ill will. I'm glad you don't share in this mindset but there certainly is a ABB crowd.

 

Bottom line: Whether it be via email or telephone calls, a terrorist may well need to marshall resources inside of the U.S. to mount a spectacular attack. I want to monitor every communication by El Queda into the U.S.. FISA does not allow this, instead permitting only communications with agents of foreign powers to be monitored.

 

President Bush acted in the best interests of the country and on the basis of a good faith legal argument that he had the power. He may well not have wanted the terrorists to know we were pluggint his hole in FISA.

 

This is an extremly modest restriction of civil liberties in proportion to the reduction of risk obtained.

[swansont]

I was speaking to my personal take on the situation' date=' not yours. I do know that earlier in these threads I've tried to elicit the concession that Bush did not do this for grins but was instead trying to protect the national interest. I seem to recall getting some resistance on this point from some sources.

[/quote']

 

The resistance you got from me was in the context of there not being any checks and balances; nothing to stop someone (not necessarily this president) from "deciding" that a wider group were potential threats to national security. Things that have happened before.

[Pangloss]

If you were going to pick 500 people and tap their phones to monitor their calls to the US' date=' would you pick terrorists or military members?[/quote']

 

That is an interesting question, but you're still dodging and refusing to acknowledge that I had a point.

 

You implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

[swansont]

That is an interesting question' date=' but you're still dodging and refusing to acknowledge that I had a point.

 

[b']You[/b] implied that there's something wrong with monitoring "US service members serving in Afghanistan". Wouldn't that be the exact sort of person you would *want* to monitor, given the obvious security vulnerability they represent?

 

Also, didn't you include that phrase solely to raise a spector of evilness in this policy by implying that these would in fact be the LAST people you'd want to monitor?

 

Within the context of the discussion at hand, no, you didn't have a point. I'm not dodging, I'm trying to stay somewhat focused on the topic at hand.

 

You have a point if you broaden the context of the discussion to security in general. And it's only in that context that my statements imply there's something wrong with monitoring troops, but that's not the context of my statement.

[Jim]

The resistance you got from me was in the context of there not being any checks and balances; nothing to stop someone (not necessarily this president) from "deciding" that a wider group were potential threats to national security. Things that have happened before.

 

My recent posts have gone to the need, not the lawfulness, of the terrorist surveillance program. I have previously posted why I believe the administration has a good faith legal position.

[Severian]

My recent posts have gone to the need, not the lawfulness, of the terrorist surveillance program. I have previously posted why I believe the administration has a good faith legal position.

 

So do I get to bug your telephone too? Judging frm your opinions in this post, I regard you as a threat to my liberal rights, so I think I have 'need'.

[Jim]

So do I get to bug your telephone too? Judging frm your opinions in this post, I regard you as a threat to my liberal rights, so I think I have 'need'.

 

I have no problem with the NSA bugging any phone calls I have with suspected El Queda agents.

 

FWIW, I hope you will not judge my opinion based on that one post as I have provided a lot of detail in previous posts as to why I think the program may well be lawful.

[Severian]

I have no problem with the NSA bugging any phone calls I have with suspected El Queda agents.

 

It is not Al'qaeda I am worried about' date=' it is people like you.

 

FWIW, I hope you will not judge my opinion based on that one post as I have provided a lot of detail in previous posts as to why I think the program may well be lawful.

 

I don't care if its 'lawful' or not - it is still wrong.

[Pangloss]

Within the context of the discussion at hand' date=' no, you didn't have a point. I'm not dodging, I'm trying to stay somewhat focused on the topic at hand.

 

You have a point if you broaden the context of the discussion to security in general. And it's only in that context that my statements imply there's something wrong with monitoring troops, but that's not the context of my statement.[/quote']

 

Uh huh. Fine, fine, I'll drop it, but I know a tap-dance when I see one.

 

Are you sure you didn't work in the White House during the 1990s???

[Jim]

It is not Al'qaeda I am worried about' date=' it is people like you.

 

 

 

I don't care if its 'lawful' or not - it is still wrong.[/quote']

 

Lol. You've not dealt in any of the substance of this thread yet here you are at the end passing judgment.

 

I'd try to draw you into a specific discussin but you sound like a man who is not going to be bothered by details about the facts or law.

 

You do understand, at least, that the program only monitors communications between suspected El Qaeda operatives into the United States?

[Severian]

I'm serious! I truly think that the people who are trying to take away our civil liberties at home in the name of security are actually a bigger threat to my way of life than any member of Al'qaeda ever could be.

[Jim]

I'm serious! I truly think that the people who are trying to take away our civil liberties at home in the name of security are actually a bigger threat to my way of life than any member of Al'qaeda[/i'] ever could be.

 

I'll take you seriously when you are prepared to descend from lofty generalities and get with the rest of us in the trenches of detail.

 

Did you understand that the program is designed to catch communications into the U.S. by El Qaeda?

[Pangloss]

Just as the sky did not fall when we submitted to a draft at various times in our history, the sky will not fall when our phone calls to nations where terrorists are prolific are monitored.

 

Want to know something that's also a far greater danger to society than Al Qaeda will ever be? Misleading overgeneralizations and ideological demagoguery.

[Severian]

Did you understand that the program is designed to catch communications into the U.S. by El Qaeda?

 

Of course I did' date=' but given that I don't believe that everyone held in Guantanamo Bay is a member of Al'qaeda why should I trust the US authorities to be able to tell an 'Al'qeada operative' from a hole in the ground? Who knows, maybe [b']I[/b] am already on a blacklist for expressing my opinions on this site. I certainly wouldn't appreciate my phone being tapped (although they would be pretty bored listening to my phonecalls).

 

Today they are bugging Al'qeada operatives, tomorrow they bug Al'qaeda supporters and the day after they will bug anyone who disagrees with them.