I spent the bulk of my day today reading congressional testimony and otherwise researching the history of the NSA’s so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). You can expect a broader piece on this issue soon…perhaps later tonight after I get back to Philly. In the meantime, the New York Times has a piece up that endeavors to provide Alberto Gonzales with a semblance of cover for his dissembling before Congress. On the issue of internal debate on the legality of the TSP:
The first known assertion by administration officials that there had been no serious disagreement within the government about the legality of the N.S.A. program came in talks with New York Times editors in 2004. In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program’s lawfulness.
Of course, this was a lie. It was A Huge Lie considering that the leadership of the Justice Department threatened to resign over the issue. And, yet, the New York Times apparently swallowed this line of bullshit whole and spiked their story until over a year after the critical 2004 elections.
More later.
Just like stealing candy from a baby.
an apology would be nice…and perhaps the rolling of a few heads for good measure.
l’ll hold my breath.
if you haven’t encountered poindexter’s TIA program in your research, it may lead to some discoveries, or suppositions, that you might not have considered.
google comes up with 25,900,000 hits.
personally, l would not be surprised if this massive data mining operation is the missing 2nd piece of the abu puzzle, and a large part of the reason documents and testimony regarding this entire issue have been sheltered by the dubious claim of, executive priviledge.
looking forward to your essay.
later
lTMF’sA
I haven’t seen any really obvious linkage between TIA and the TSP, but there could be overlaps.
.
Unless, of course, the NSA request for a warrant would be denied by the courts. And that’s where it becomes interesting. The constitutional standard for issuing a search warrant is defined by the fourth amendment, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The constitutional standard for issuing a warrant for a particular search involves “probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation.” If NSA searches don’t involve probable cause, then they would be denied a warrant. And if they are tapping American’s phone calls under this warrantless program, they are tapping the phones of people who, by definition, are probably not terrorists. Thus, the most appropriate name for the program is the “Probably Not a Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Note that the President no longer talks about warrants, though he told the American people many times that “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone, or to track his calls, or to search his property.” The word “warrant” is no longer in the administration’s vocabulary when discussing the NSA program.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary —
Data Mining Programs and Cheney/Rumsfeld TIA – ARDA – DTO ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
Port of Baltimore July 20, 2005
BUSH:
“Congress also oversees the use of the Patriot Act. Our Attorney General, Al Gonzales, delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate. The Department of Justice has answered hundreds of questions from members of the Congress. In other words, there is a strong oversight role.
I want you to hear what Senator Dianne Feinstein, of California, said the other day. She said, “We have scrubbed the area and have no reported abuses.” She was speaking about the Patriot Act. I want you to remember that the next time you hear someone make an unfair criticism of this important, good law. The Patriot Act hasn’t diminished American liberties; it has helped to defend American liberties.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2002 — The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which oversees the Total Information Awareness System (TIA), awarded 13 contracts to Booz Allen & Hamilton amounting to more than $23 million. Lockheed Martin Corporation had 23 contracts worth $27 million; the Schafer Corporation had 9 contracts totaling $15 million. Other prominent contractors involved in the TIA program include SRS Technologies, Adroit Systems, CACI Dynamic Systems, Syntek Technologies, and ASI Systems International.
John Poindexter, a former national security adviser, brought the idea for the Terrorism Information Awareness surveillance system to the Pentagon. (Photo/ Alex Brandon -- AP)TIA itself was first proposed by an employee of a private contractor. John Poindexter, who worked on DARPA projects for Syntek, an Arlington, Va.-based technical and engineering services firm, suggested the program in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Poindexter, who headed the National Security Council during the Reagan administration, was convicted in 1990 on five felony counts for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. The convictions were overturned in 1991 because he had been given immunity for his testimony during the congressional investigation of the affair. On Jan. 14, 2002, he returned to the government as the director of the Information Awareness Office.
Total “Terrorism” Information Awareness
● ARDA@NSA: Novel Intelligence from Massive Data
● Disruptive Technology Office (DTO) @NSA
● Pentagon Surveillance System (TIA) Is Reborn in Asia – 2007
Risk Assessment and Horizon Scanning (RAHS)
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."It seems to me that providing Gonzales with cover may just be a side effect of the NYT’s giving themselves cover.
Boo-
You should go and read the last few of Anonymous Liberal’s posts re: Alberto Gonzales. Both of you are starting to get it right, I think. On his latest post I left a log-ass comment to help him along, which you have already read most of (cut-n-paste.) Bottom line – don’t entirely believe what you read from WaPo and NYT today on this. They got leaked some selective info, some of which is bogus, in order to help Abu G.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/