J.D. Investigates Eavesdropping Leak

[Nbadan]

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation to see who disclosed a secret NSA eavesdropping operation, department officials said on Friday.

"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," one official said

reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-30T153012Z_01_EIC055795_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&rpc=22)


Yes, let's focus on the leaker and not what was leaked? Isn't this sort of akeen to the Fox investigating who ate the chickens?

[Nbadan]

From the ACLU


ACLU Slams DOJ Investigation of NSA Whistleblower, Says Government Must Independently Investigate Violation of Wiretap Laws (12/30/2005)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today sharply criticized a Justice Department investigation into the disclosure of an illegal National Security Agency domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush.


In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as two full-page advertisements in the New York Times, the ACLU has called for the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether President Bush violated federal wiretapping laws by authorizing illegal surveillance of domestic targets.

...

"President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss. Our nation is strengthened, not weakened, by those whistleblowers who are courageous enough to speak out on violations of the law."


"To avoid further charges of cronyism, Attorney General Gonzales should call off the investigation. Better yet, Mr. Gonzales ought to fulfill his own oath of office and appoint a special counsel to determine whether federal laws were violated."

ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23288prs20051230.html)

[JoeChalupa]

Damn that Robert Novak!! :cuss

[Vashner]

Whoever leaked should be shot.

[Nbadan]

If you're a pollyanna, you'll think the inquiry is limited to the leaker, whoever that is. And in public, that's what the Busheviks will repeat ad nauseum.

But if you've paid any attention to the right wing blogs since the story broke two weeks ago, you know they don't give a rat's ass about the leaker. They want to get the leakee - the New York Times.

But this declaration of war on the Times by the Busheviks threatens the very existence of the Times, and the very idea of a free press using the First Amendment to expose the crimes of the government.

This is a historic battle between Freedom and Fascism - and we must defend Freedom.

After Downing Street (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6173)

[xrayzebra]

From the ACLU



ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23288prs20051230.html)

Yeah, the great and mighty ACLU, don't worry about the country's
security, just protect the whistle blower.

I hope and pray that whoever leaked this highly sensitive information gets
their ass nailed to the wall. I wonder what part of international does the
ACLU not understand. This was not domestic spying. And leaking this
information borders on treason not whistle blowing.

[SA210]

Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex


"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....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.

This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.

==================================

Your President speaking.

[exstatic]

reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-30T153012Z_01_EIC055795_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&rpc=22)


Yes, let's focus on the leaker and not what was leaked? Isn't this sort of akeen to the Fox investigating who ate the chickens?

Actually, it would be akin to Nixon investigating Deep Throat.

[Nbadan]

Actually, it would be akin to Nixon investigating Deep Throat.

It's clear to me that W broke the law, but these poor conservative's have been lied to much by sources that they trust that I'm worried the truth may not matter as much as the political spin in this case. After all, what if Nixon was able to use a propaganda station like FAUX to spin the Water-gate break-in as a investigation into a still sealed and classified DNC relationship with either Vietnam or Korea? If there is no public demand and out-cry for an independent investigation and the Senate is neutered was a law really broken? Not to this WH.

[RandomGuy]

reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-30T153012Z_01_EIC055795_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&rpc=22)


Yes, let's focus on the leaker and not what was leaked? Isn't this sort of akeen to the Fox investigating who ate the chickens?


Because the important part is of course that the information was leaked, not that the government was secretly spying on it's own citizens...

Gotta git them terrorists. Yer rights are safe with me. :rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Just in case your wondering why AG Alberto Gonzales is so interested in investigating this leak case and not so much the Valarie Plame leak case...

ustice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN


WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 - The top deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused two years ago to approve important parts of the secret program that allows domestic eavesdropping without warrants, prompting two leading White House aides to try to win the needed approval from Mr. Ashcroft himself while he was hospitalized after a gall bladder operation, according to officials knowledgeable about the episode.

With Mr. Ashcroft recuperating from gall bladder surgery in March 2004, his deputy, James B. Comey, who was then acting as attorney general, was unwilling to give his certification to crucial aspects of the classified program, as required under the procedures set up by the White House, said the officials, who asked for anonymity because the program is classified and they are not authorized to discuss it publicly.

That prompted two of President Bush's top aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now the attorney general - to make an emergency visit to George Washington University Hospital to review the program with Mr. Ashcroft during what aides have described as a difficult recovery, the officials said.

The White House and Mr. Ashcroft, through spokesmen, declined to comment Saturday on the emergency meeting. "As the president has stated, the intelligence activities that have been under way to prevent future terrorist attacks have been approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department," said Jeannie Mamo, a White House spokeswoman.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?ei=5088&en=bb5519c0752494c0&ex=1293771600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

C.Y.A.

:lol

[Nbadan]

Leak Hypocrisy
by Larry C. Johnson on December 31, 2005


The Bush Administration's new offensive against leakers just reminds us that when the President's political standing is at stake all is fair if the purpose is to protect the Pres...., er I mean the nation. Too bad George Bush did not express the same outrage when Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and others in his employ, told eager journalists that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. I guess divulging secrets is okay if the White House needs to discredit Joe Wilson and his claim (subsequently proved true) that the President had misled the nation during his January 2004 State of the Union address. Plus, it offers the added benefit of warning the rest of the intelligence community--shut up or else. You can't have whistle blowers coming out that would tarnish the President's image as a tough guy waging war on the terrorists.

I also seem to recall that the Bush White House used leaks in the midst of the 2004 Presidential campaign to burnish the President's image and keep Americans on edge. Remember the name of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan? His name was leaked to the New York Times in August of 2004 while Khan was still cooperating with Pakistani, CIA, and British authorities as part of a sting operation against Osama bin Laden's network. On the eve of the Republican convention, unnamed senior NSC officials told New York Times reporters that Mr Khan was being used to send e-mails to al-Qaida members as part of a coordinated effort to identify and dismantle terrorist networks. Just because this leak destroyed the secret program's effectiveness was no big deal because he helped remind Americans that George Bush was the only one who could keep us safe.

So, what's really behind the latest anti-leak crusade?

For those outside the Beltway it is essential to recognize there are two kinds of leaks--officially sanctioned and whistle blowers. The ones described in the previous paragraphs are the "officially sanctioned" variety. These are not unique to the Bush Administration or Republicans. Politicians through the years have shared classified information with journalists as part of a public relations effort to build support for a policy or attack critics.

Then there is the whistle blower variant. This is more important and, in my opinion, the most valuable. It exists to keep politicians honest and alert the public to serious policy disputes. The two most recent examples are the revelations that the United States was holding possible terrorists in secret prisons around the world and that George Bush was circumventing the law and approving illegal electronic surveillance inside the United States. While the Bush White House is certain that those responsible for these leaks are political partisans hell bent on damaging the President, it is really a sign that folks on the inside with a conscience finally decided to speak out.

<clip>

No Quarter (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/12/leak_hypocrisy.html)

[xrayzebra]

You know one of these days, you dimm-o-craps and Libs are going to figure out
why you are always on the losing side. Naw, I doubt it. Most of you are born
losers. Bush ratings are much higher than the congress ratings are. But, what
the heck I am sure the Dimm-o-craps will filibuster those poll numbers too.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_massdeception.jpg

[xrayzebra]

SA210=still stuck under that old bridge. Need to let some air out of your tires
SA210. Know it going to be hard to do, the dimm-o-craps keep blowing smoke up
your rear end.

[SA210]

I thought it was Bush blowing smoke.

[xrayzebra]

I thought it was Bush blowing smoke.

What you get from thinking. I know it is hard for you to do, but if you
exercise your mind a little bit everyday, oneday, real soon, you will have
an original thought. :lol

[SA210]

George, the greatest President ever.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_miers_fema.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

Yeah, the great and mighty ACLU, don't worry about the country's
security, just protect the whistle blower.

I hope and pray that whoever leaked this highly sensitive information gets
their ass nailed to the wall. I wonder what part of international does the
ACLU not understand. This was not domestic spying. And leaking this
information borders on treason not whistle blowing.

Yeah -- silly ACLU; believing that the words in the Constitution mean anything and should actually apply to everyone no matter what.

Don't they know that Bush won the election and should be allowed to do whatever he wishes, no matter what the Constitution says, so long as he can couch it as a matter of national security.

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_manipulation_accomplished.jpg

[xrayzebra]

Yeah -- silly ACLU; believing that the words in the Constitution mean anything and should actually apply to everyone no matter what.

Don't they know that Bush won the election and should be allowed to do whatever he wishes, no matter what the Constitution says, so long as he can couch it as a matter of national security.

Live in your dream world. ACLU could care less about the Constitution,
only about their agenda. They want what they want, not what is good
for this country.

[SA210]

Live in your dream world. ACLU could care less about the Constitution,
only about their agenda. They want what they want, not what is good
for this country.
Wow Xray, sounds like ppl we know


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/absolut_corruption.jpg

[FromWayDowntown]

Live in your dream world. ACLU could care less about the Constitution,
only about their agenda. They want what they want, not what is good
for this country.

Precisely why they came to Rush Limbaugh's defense. Excellent point, xray.

[xrayzebra]

Precisely why they came to Rush Limbaugh's defense. Excellent point, xray.

Again, they could care less about the people they side with, so long as
it is within their agenda. You really think they care about Rush, of all
people. I don't think so.

[SA210]

Again, they could care less about the people they side with, so long as
it is within their agenda.

How dare you talk about Republicans that way. That's a secret. You must be against the troops.

[xrayzebra]

How dare you talk about Republicans that way. That's a secret. You must be against the troops.

SA210=still stuck under a bridge. :lol

[SA210]

SA210=still stuck under a bridge.

Xray=Say anything that has nothing to do with changing the fact that Bush is a liar and is the most horrible US President ever. :lol

[FromWayDowntown]

Again, they could care less about the people they side with, so long as
it is within their agenda. You really think they care about Rush, of all
people. I don't think so.

But that's precisely the point: it's not about WHO the ACLU defends; it's about what the ACLU defends. Whether its Rush Limbaugh or white supremacists or Nazis, the ACLU has defended all kinds of right wing ideologues when the Constitutional rights of those ideologues have been threatened. Their agenda IS defending (and, in some cases, defining) what the Constitution protects.

The ACLU defends the Constitutional rights of individuals, no matter who they are or what they believe, from infringement by the goverment. They do argue to extend Constitutional rights in some circumstances, but our society would be a worse place if we all stood by and let the executive and legislative branches have the final say on what our rights are -- if nobody ever challenged decisions that might interfere with broader rights.

The ACLU defended Rush because the Constitution guarantees and individual's right to privacy and the State of Florida was threatening to invade on Rush's right to privacy by compelling disclosure of his medical records. If that's not fighting an issue of constitutional law, I don't know what is.

Frankly, I suspect that you repeat this mantra of ACLU hatred because you've been lead to believe that the ACLU threatens conservative values. I doubt, in most cases, that you could even describe what it is that the ACLU has done wrong -- you just have decided that the ACLU can do nothing worthwhile.

What the ACLU does is prevent Constitutional rights from being threatened by the whim of the majority. That is precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent -- but it works only if someone is willing to fight to ensure that minorities aren't trampled by the whim of those who are more powerful. Unless you believe that the rights of a social, religious, racial, or economic minority should be subject to whatever the majority wishes those rights to be, you shouldn't have any real problem with the ACLU's work.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But, but, but.....Clinton got a blowjob!! In the oval office!!

[SA210]

^^^ on EASTER!!!

[boutons_]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpnan/2005/wpnan051230.gif

[xrayzebra]

Ah, yes. Here is another example of how your favorite newspaper does their
thing.



Monday, Jan. 2, 2006 3:15 p.m. EST
NY Times 'Stonewalling' on NSA Leak


New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.

"The New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.

In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.

But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."

"For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making," he lamented.

Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."

He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.

He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."



================================================== =============

Guess they are going to take the "high road". Of course, couldn't be that they
want to sell books, could it?

[SA210]

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,

-President Bush

[gtownspur]

Well seems to me like he was talking about the patriot act authorizing the fbi to wiretap terrorist. That was the subject, not wether the US secret agencies wiretap at all, that's allready a known fact.

But ofcourse you'd be wise enough to know about those matters.

[ChumpDumper]

Guess they are going to take the "high road". Of course, couldn't be that they
want to sell books, could it?Don't know. Is there a list of this 28 questions? Why does this guy need to know anyway?

[FromWayDowntown]

Well seems to me like he was talking about the patriot act authorizing the fbi to wiretap terrorist. That was the subject, not wether the US secret agencies wiretap at all, that's allready a known fact.

But ofcourse you'd be wise enough to know about those matters.

That's an interesting way to parse the statement -- the Constitutional warrant requirement applies to executive branch agencies like FBI (which is governed by Article II of the Constitution), but not to the executive (who is governed by Article II of the Constitution)?

Any wiretap, by any US agency (whether secret or not) in the United States requires a warrant. Whether that warrant comes from a federal court or from the FISC, there still must be a warrant. The Patriot Act does not eliminate that requirement.

THAT is what the President was saying in the passage that is quoted in this forum repeatedly.

Quite obviously, now that his statement is rather inconvenient to defending the position he's taken on domestic spying, it's not what the President is currently trying to sell.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't know. Is there a list of this 28 questions? Why does this guy need to know anyway?

Curious also that this is the New York Times questioning its own editorial policy.

[SA210]

Well seems to me like he was talking about the patriot act authorizing the fbi to wiretap terrorist. That was the subject, not wether the US secret agencies wiretap at all, that's allready a known fact.

But ofcourse you'd be wise enough to know about those matters.
Please take a read on this , Your Gayness,

Your quite wise enough to know about these matters. :lmao


Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex


"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....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.

This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/JB/00017548.jpg

[exstatic]

The thing that blows me away is Bush's continued pimping of the Patriot Act. Why have that when he's going to do whatever the fuck he wants anyway? Burn the fucking Patriot Act.