NSA Programs

[Sonic Youth]

Obama stares down Patriot Act criticism
By Susan Crabtree - 11/12/09 06:00 AM ET
TheHill.com

The Obama administration is standing firm in its support of several George W. Bush-era Patriot Act powers in the face of sharp criticism from civil rights groups, liberal Democrats and a Dec. 31 deadline to extend key provisions of the bill.

The Justice Department recently reiterated its request for Congress to extend with few changes key provisions of the Patriot Act: sections that allow roving wiretaps on multiple phones, seizing of business records and a never-used authority to spy on non-Americans suspected of being terrorists even though they have no connection to a recognized terrorist group.

In late October the Justice Department provided a written response to dozens of senators’ detailed questions posed to Attorney General Eric Holder following his June 17 appearance before the Judiciary Committee.

In the 55-page document, obtained by The Hill, Holder said the administration had recently completed its review of the Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire by the end of the year, a process that involved consulting with national security experts and “other stakeholders.”

In response to a question posed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Holder referred to a “comprehensive assessment of these tools” that the DOJ had provided to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in mid-September and attached a copy of the letter.

“We believe the basic justification offered to Congress in 2001 for the roving authority remains valid today,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Leahy. “The roving electronic surveillance provision has functioned as intended and has addressed an investigative requirement that will continue to be critical to national security operations.”

Weich provided similar support for the seizing of business records and the power to monitor foreigners even though they are not affiliated with a terrorist group, the so-called “lone wolf” provision.

Weary from months of clashes over healthcare, Democratic leaders have been quietly trying to avoid a public battle within their ranks on the Patriot Act extension. They also are aware that any effort that appears to weaken the law significantly will leave them vulnerable to Republican attacks heading into an election year that Democrats are weak on national security issues.

At least six bills to reauthorize the act have been offered in the House and Senate, revealing Democratic divisions that must be overcome.

The administration appears to have convinced Leahy and his Senate colleagues on Judiciary, which passed a bill in early October that would renew the expiring powers for four years, with modest changes.

The House Judiciary bill includes slightly stricter standards that the government must meet to win approval for a roving wiretap, access library or bookstore records and issue national security letters, demands for information without a court order.

Despite the limited differences between the two bills, with so few legislative weeks left in the calendar this year, significant opposition remains and could force Congress to pass a short-term extension of the law to buy more time.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Kit Bond (R-Mo.) oppose the Judiciary Committee bill, arguing that any changes could hinder the pursuit of terrorist suspects.

Other than the letter to Leahy, so far the Justice Department has not publicly provided detailed reasons for keeping the Patriot Act provisions largely intact. In recent weeks, however, the administration has hailed its interception of an alleged domestic terrorism plot involving a legal U.S. resident from Afghanistan — Najibullah Zazi, whom the government says is linked to al Qaeda — as proof that the Patriot Act needs to be renewed.

Disclosure of the 55-page written response from the Justice Department comes one week before Holder is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on general oversight issues.

Earlier this week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a Judiciary Committee member, railed about the lack of responsiveness in the answers it received from Holder following his June 17 testimony.

“Instead of answering 24 questions, the Department responded with a five-paragraph recitation of publicly available facts and information,” Grassley said.

“This is a prime example of what is wrong with the inadequate response to all of our questions; they avoid the questions and filibuster with public facts.”
Grassley also threatened to start holding up judicial nominees if Justice is not more forthcoming.

“This administration rode into town on a campaign of accountability and transparency,” he continued. “Attorney General Holder told all of us that he respected congressional oversight. Yet, in his first set of oversight questions submitted by the committee, he gave us the same non-response responses we’ve seen from the Department.”

In answering other senators’ questions, Holder did not say whether the Obama administration had completed a review that would decide whether or not to withdraw a January 2006 white paper and other classified White House Office of Legal Counsel memos providing legal justification for the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program.

He also gave no indication of when the Justice Department plans to release a highly anticipated report by its internal ethics office regarding the conduct and legal conclusions of Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel lawyers.


Source:
http://thehill.com/homenew....iticism
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.

[criddic3]

That is your opinion, and I respect that.

[OscarGuy]

We can easily assume NYT is more honest than the administration because the administration has already proven its lack of trustworthiness.

[criddic3]

They have done nothing of the sort. They say that their actions are legal. I have never heard them say that they have violated any law.

And I never said that innocent civilians were the enemy. They are not doing any of this to innocent civilians. The bank's in Belgium. Do you honestly believe they are targeting U.S. civilians? Don't make me laugh! That's utterly absurd. This argument has been stupid from the very start. It is something that papers like the Times use as an excuse to tear down everything the administration does. It's a fear tactic. "Oooh, the Big Bad Gov't is Spying on You, so don't support them!!" It's the equivalent of the Joe McCarthy smear campaigns of the 1950's, only it's directed AT the gov't.

I can't believe you can fall for such an absurd notion. Look, i agree that politicians can be corrupt, but the presumption that the New York Times is automatically more trustworthy than President Bush is grossly unfair considering the Times' penchant for manipulating its readers' emotions to attack the president.

In the original article, the Times says that there is no evidence that the program is illegal, but they printed the article on principle rather than on legal grounds.

The purpose is clear: Persuade our readers that the gov't is targeting innocent people and not terrorists. This message is, I believe, unsubstantiated and hurts our national security by broadcasting the security measures of the U.S. Gov't.

[OscarGuy]

It has already confirmed the activities are not legal. Especially in the wiretapping offense as the administration has admitted that it doesn't have to get the approval of the secret court though the law says it does...

And if you consider ordinary citizens the enemy, then you need to find another country to live in because we're all free to live as we want to live and the government has no right to interfere in our lives like they have been.

[criddic3]

If you felt the goverment were in the right, you wouldn't be broadcasting its activities for all to see, you'd be keeping it to yourself for national security.

Not necessarily. The people who are leaking this information may simply want to bring down the administration. Whatever their motives are, they aren't to secure the nation. I mean, they are broadcasting this so the enemy can clearly see what the gov't is doing to prevent them from being able to commit their acts. Doesn't that seem contrary to what you are suggesting they're doing? How can we be protected if our gov't can't do anything?

It seems to me there are other ways to go about checking whether or not the administration has the authority to do these programs without splashing it on the front pages of newspapers before verifying its legal applications. Shouldn't a newspaper have the responsibility to check that out before it reveals classified info? Or do they just assume that the administration doesn't have the authority and therefore they arbitrarily print the story regardless of what that might mean for the country?

[OscarGuy]

Bush ignores laws he inks, vexing Congress

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) thought he had a deal when
President Bush, faced with a veto-proof margin in Congress, agreed to sign a bill banning the torture of detainees. Not quite. While Bush signed the new law, he also quietly approved another document: a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law. McCain was furious, and so were other lawmakers.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Senate Judiciary Committee is opening hearings this week into what has become the White House's favorite tool for overriding Congress in the name of wartime national security.

"It's a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution," the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I'm interested to hear from the administration just what research they've done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick."

Apparently, enough to challenge more than 750 statutes passed by Congress, far more than any other president, Specter's committee says. The White House does not dispute that number, but points out that Bush is far from the nation's first chief executive to issue them.

"Signing statements have long been issued by presidents, dating back to Andrew Jackson all the way through
President Clinton," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday.

Specter's first hearing Tuesday is about more than the statements. He's been keeping a laundry list of White House practices he bluntly says could amount to abuses of executive power — from warrantless domestic wiretapping program to sending up officials who refuse on national security grounds to answer questions at hearings.

But the hearing also is about countering any influence Bush's signing statements may have on court decisions regarding the new laws. Courts can be expected to look to the legislature for intent, not the executive, said Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas., a former state judge.

"There's less here than meets the eye," Cornyn said. "The president is entitled to express his opinion. It's the courts that determine what the law is."

But Specter and his allies maintain that Bush, in practical terms, is doing an end-run around the veto process in the name of national security. In the sixth year of his presidency, Bush has yet to issue a single veto.

Rather than give Congress the opportunity to override a veto with a two-thirds majority in each house, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret the law on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the USA Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons — such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. When a president issues such a document, it's usually inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act particularly riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration gave in on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the
FBI searches for terrorists.

Bush signed the bill with much flag-waving fanfare. Then he issued a signing statement asserting his right to bypass the oversight provisions in certain circumstances.

Specter isn't sure how much Congress can do check the practice. "We may figure out a way to tie it to the confirmation process or budgetary matters," he said.

[OscarGuy]

but they ARE subverting their rights, numbskull. Apparently, YOU are the blind one in all this.

You are truly naive if you think these people telling the press are doing so for any other reason than for it to get out so the government can be brought to justice for its illegal activities. Obviously these people aren't doing it for the money or the attention (because they aren't getting anything out of it nor are they getting their names in the papers). If you felt the goverment were in the right, you wouldn't be broadcasting its activities for all to see, you'd be keeping it to yourself for national security. It seems clear to me that these individuals who are leaking the information believe it in the best interests of the country at large for the despicable acts of debauchery hefted upon our constitution are served by these leaks.

Hell, even the Republicans are starting to wise up. I'm posting a separate article about the end runs the administration is doing with Congress, who, understandably, are getting upset.

Blind loyalty is how Hitler got his power.

[criddic3]

Actually they aren't getting caught. They are telling the NY Times and others what they doing, and asking them not to print the stories. The Times didn't listen to them, several times. This is unforgiveable. The administration would be wise not to let them in on their activities from now on. That is why these newspapers are dumb. They will lose the confidence of the administration.

Yes, they are legal. If they weren't the Times would say so. They actually say in their article that the program is actually legal, but they question its use anyway. This is a tactic by the Times to scare the readers. This is the flip of what Oscarguy was saying, accusing the administration of scare tactics, when in actuality the paper is doing that. They want people to feel like this administration is subverting their rights. This is "playing on their fears" of gov't.

[Sabin]

(God, I'm so glad some things never change! I love you all.)

I fully expect the government to monitor phone calls, bank accounts, whatever. The great progressing trend in society is the further compartmentalization of information processing into smaller, more efficient units, which wouldn't be allowed to continue if it were not A) profitable and B) controllable (to some extent; I still do believe the country is to a large degree run by fossils and incompetents). So, while it's wholly unconstitutional for them to do so, I can't do more than shrug it off. I mean, why wouldn't they?

My problem is that they so clearly suck at what they're doing. Criddic, you say that the newspaper's are "dumb" for revealing this. How ####ing "dumb" are these people for getting caught in the first place? These are wiretappers employed by the government who got caught by the press -- really, who's the dumb one? How is this a sad misuse of the press? Come to terms with this, criddic: whether or not this is in the country's best interest, THIS IS NOT LEGAL. This is one of many illegal practices in the administration's storied histories of the like . It's too easy and the press is making up for lost time.

Incidentally, you say "I suspect that if anyone other than Bush were president, this would not be happening as it is today." You're both kind of right and entirely wrong. You are correct in saying that this would not be happening AS IT IS today. You're entirely wrong in that it absolutely would be happening, but probably not quite as badly. And do you really think that Bush is the only man with the only team forthwit enough to be doing such an act? Not at all. The only one to get caught? That I believe entirely.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I'm genuinely astonished that you just refuse to be swayed in Bush's competence, ne divinity. On any level! Not an iota! I'm amazed because eight years is going to be a long time for unabashed idealization and hero-worship. I remember eventually growing out of the Ninja Turtles and taking my poster down and I'm wondering -- seriously -- when that day is going to come for you.

[criddic3]

This is an argument that will likely never be resolved in our country, but i do not agree that this gov't is taking undue "advantage of our fears." I think they are acting responsibly to protect us from our enemies and these leak articles are harming their ability to do so.

You think that telling us every gov't secret is wonderful because you think we need to know everything our gov't does no matter what the reason is or if it's even legal. You are wrong. There are some things the gov't must do in order to stay ahead of our enemies that should not be announced to them through the media. I suspect that if anyone other than Bush were president, this would not be happening as it is today. This is a sad, irresponsible misuse of the freedom of the press.

[OscarGuy]

They ARE providing a service. When our government takes advantage of our fears in order to take away our rights, then we have a right to know. If the government were actually doing what it's supposed to be doing and PROTECTING the rights of Americans instead of spying on them, then maybe leaks wouldn't need to occur.

[criddic3]

All of this leaking is going to bite us in the ass one of these days, and those brilliant newspaper people who think they are doing a service better wake up and smell the coffee fast. Incredible how dumb they are.

[Sonic Youth]

Here I go, again reading only the headlines and not the articles, unlike some very well-read people on this board.


Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers
The Treasury Dept. program, begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, attempts to monitor terrorist financing but raises privacy concerns.
By Josh Meyer and Greg Miller, LA Times Staff Writers
12:06 PM PDT, June 23, 2006


WASHINGTON — The U.S. government, without the knowledge of many banks and their customers, has engaged for years in a secret effort to track terrorist financing by accessing a vast database of confidential information on transfers of money between banks worldwide.

The program, run by the Treasury Department, is considered a potent weapon in the war on terrorism because of its ability to clandestinely monitor financial transactions and map terrorist webs.

It is part of an arsenal of aggressive measures the government has adopted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that yield new intelligence, but also circumvent traditional safeguards against abuse and raise concerns about intrusions on privacy.

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted today that the program offers "abstract harms" but "concrete benefits."

"It works," he said.

He added that it has contributed to indictments of would-be terrorists and to investigations of acts of terrorism.

"This is government at its best," said Treasury Secretary John W. Snow. "It's responsible government. It's government that works. This is a program that makes Americans and the world safer."

John Snow called it "regrettable" that the program had been made public. "That can only help the terrorists," said Snow, whose department runs the program.

Under this effort, Treasury routinely acquires information about bank transfers from the world's largest financial communication network, which is run by a consortium of financial institutions called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT.

The SWIFT network carries up to 12.7 million messages a day containing instructions on many of the international transfers of money between banks. The messages typically include the names and account numbers of bank customers — from U.S. citizens to major corporations — who are sending or receiving funds.

Through the program, Treasury has built an enormous — and ever-growing — repository of financial records drawn from what is essentially the central nervous system of international banking.

In a major departure from traditional methods of obtaining financial records, the Treasury Department uses a little-known power — administrative subpoenas — to collect data from the SWIFT network, which has operations in the U.S., including a main computer hub in Manassas, Va. The subpoenas are secret and not reviewed by judges or grand juries, as are most criminal subpoenas.

"It's hard to overstate the value of this information," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said Thursday in a statement he issued after The Times and other media outlets reported the existence of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

SWIFT acknowledged Thursday in response to questions from The Times that it has provided data under subpoena since shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, a striking leap in cooperation from international bankers, who long resisted such law enforcement intrusions into the confidentiality of their communications.

But SWIFT said in a statement that it has worked with U.S. officials to restrict the use of the data to terrorism investigations.

The program is part of the Bush administration's dramatic expansion of intelligence-gathering capabilities, which includes warrantless eavesdropping on the international phone calls of some U.S. residents. Critics complain that these efforts are not subject to independent governmental reviews designed to prevent abuse, and charge that they collide with privacy and consumer protection laws in the United States.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the SWIFT program raises similar issues. "It boils down to a question of oversight, both internal and external. And in the current circumstances, it is hard to have confidence in the efficacy of their oversight," he said. "Their policy is, 'Trust us,' and that may not be good enough anymore."

A former senior Treasury official expressed concern that the SWIFT program allows access to vast quantities of sensitive data that could be abused without safeguards. The official, who said he did not have independent knowledge of the program, questioned what becomes of the data, some of it presumably related to innocent banking customers.

"How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?" the former official said. "And what do you do with the chaff?"

[criddic3]

Quote (criddic3 @ May 17 2006,17:25) If that's your way of thinking I feel sorry for you. That is the most cynical and dishonest thought pattern I ever heard. If you think people like me think that way, then maybe you are the one who thinks that way. You have no concept of how people like me think. Defensive, defensive... You must really be in a panic, looking at all those poll numbers and seeing other Republicans jumping ship. Stop hiding behind the skirts of "people like you". Nice straw man. I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about YOU. Quote A simple little principle? Yeah i see your phone records are more important than potentially stopping other attacks on us. Great priorities. What you just trivialized is called the Constitution. Forgive me for insisting on the niceties, but I'm not so eager to sell out our country and all it stands as quickly as a coward like you is.

You just don't get it do you? And you never will, so it's okay. You think that being against everything makes you "courageous" and "high-minded," "thoughtful" and "nuanced." This can be true in some cases, but when it's done simply because you don't like the President or his supporters, or because you think that the principle you're espousing is somehow more important than the reality of the situation it's just you acting elitist. But i don't mind. Really i don't.

Your rants about cowardice and "selling out" my country are so over the top they just prove how desperate you are to prove you are more intellectually tuned-in.

You aren't really hearing the other arguments and what the opposite side of the debate really is. You aren't really interested in what the facts are. You see the headlines, you hate the President, and then you see me supporting most of the programs. With all of that you figure there must be something wrong in what is going on and you don't bother to actually hear what I'm saying or posting or quoting.

But you see I am really looking at what is being said and done, reading the articles (both news and editorials), seeing the clips on TV and the interviews on all the major channels (as well as c-span). I'm seeing the debate play out in blogs and message boards. My conclusion is more a wait and see attitude, though I am inclined to believe that these programs are legal. If they turn out to be illegal, and if it turns out that the President knew that in advance, then of course he should be censured. I don't think that is the case. I believe that the outcry from some people about civil liberties is more a knee-jerk reaction than a thought-out one from people who have the facts. Everything I'm hearing about these programs sounds logical and within the confines of our civil liberties, which is why I am not threatened by them.

This is not the talk of a coward, or even of someone who just follows blindly. I was apprehensive at first about the stories, about the possibility that the gov't had overstepped its bounds, but having heard more information about what really took place I feel that these concerns were addressed when the President decided to approve these measures. Just because I have more confidence than you doesn't make me a coward or that I want to sell-out the country, or that I think the President is above reproach even in a time of war. Clearly he's not. The facts will speak for themselves in time.