January 12, 2006
The Domestic Lying Scandal
ABC News still can't basic facts about the NSA surveillance story correct, as ABC reporter Jessica Yellin proves in her story, Ex-CIA Lawyer, No Legal Basic for NSA Spying.
She stumbles—or perhaps intentionally misleads—in the very first paragraph of her story:
Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith will testify in House hearings that there is no legal basis for President Bush's controversial National Security Agency domestic surveillance program, ABC News has learned.
The section I bolded highlights a key factual error in Yellin's article, which is this fact that the NSA intercept program was decidedly non-domestic in nature.
Yellin's incorrect assertion is one common to many in the media.
Deb Reichmann of the Associated Press, makes the claim as well, even though she contradicts herself by noting, that Bush "…gave the NSA permission to eavesdrop without a warrant on communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people inside the United States."
Josh Meyer and Daryl Strickland get it wrong in the LA Times, as does Scott Shane of the NY Times and literally dozens of other journalists.
Someone please alert the media that a call between people in two countries is, by definition, not domestic. This is sloppy reporting, betraying the fact that the journalists covering this story are ignorant of the subject matter they are covering. Or could another factor be in play?
Certainly, our crack corps of media professionals wouldn't dream of purposefully trying to muddy the waters to push a certain political agenda… would they?
Me thinks this is not sloppy journalism - it is agenda-izing hard at work! The only way to keep the "issue" alive is if the people perceive the monitoring was done internal to the US borders. This is misdirection intended to herd people to a conclusion that the program was illegal. The truth is in the way of trying to hurt the president - so it has to go.
Posted by: Old Soldier at January 12, 2006 05:27 PMI'd say, it is pretty sloppy to confuse the the NSA with the DOD!
Posted by: Fred at January 12, 2006 05:42 PMYes Fred, it is very sloppy... of you.
The sources I cited were all talking about the NSA story, which has nothing to do with the generic link you provided, that might as well have blamed "America" in gneral. I know it is difficult, but do try to stay on subject...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 12, 2006 06:06 PMI don't know how to break this to you, Fred, but the NSA is a DoD organization. I don't see that anyone has confused the two - except you. Did you remember to take your meds today?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 12, 2006 07:45 PMSo get a warrant.
What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
Posted by: ArthurStone at January 13, 2006 10:04 AMYou're showing your ignorance again, Artie.
So get a warrant.What's the big difficulty? Our intelligence folks have 72 hours AFTER they begin survellance to do just that.
From a secret court no less.
You don't understand the dynamics of the warrant process, nor do you have a clue as to how the NSA collection effort really works.
Getting a warrant through a FISA Court is a bureaucratic process. NSA doesn't just go to the FISA Court. There are many hoops to jump through in the process, and that requires an expenditure of a great deal of very valuable time.
Your new poster boy - soon to become a candidate for someone's butt boy in the slammer - Russell Tice, does not understand how the whole process really works. He was only at the NSA for 6 months before getting the pink slip. And you think you can write with authority on how the process works? Not too likely, Pookie.
You may want to read THIS if you really want to have a clearer insight. I know you won't, but I thought I would extend the invitation, nonetheless.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 01:30 PMThe warrant process is no where near so onerous as you would have us think. About like dropping off the dry cleaning.
And exceedingly rare to have a warrent denied.
Why are you so willing to suspend the rules?
Posted by: ArthurSTone at January 14, 2006 02:11 PMYou didn't bother to check out the little reading assignment I left for you, did you, Artie?
The rules have not been suspended, Artie. There is no requirement under the provisions of FISA to get warrants for targeting foreign communications. Furthermore, FISA Section 1801 allows for warrantless surveillance with an OK from the Attorney General - and that includes targeting American ends of said foreign communications.
You have not read through FISA, either, have you, Artie. I am reasonably sure that you have not read through the Articles and Amendments of/to the U.S. Constitution, either. I am a certain that you have not reviewed the laws under USC 18, 798, as they pertain to the unauthorized release of classified information and the penalties exacted for such violations.
Come back when you have a bit more of a learned perspective to share - not just more spouting of stuff read at the Daily KOS.
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 02:49 PM
