What the Jason Leopold "Truthout" Story Says
since there seems to be some confusion over it, even in putatively friendly quarters.
To make it real simple:
1) after taking office, Bush loosened the rules on how NSA eavesdropping data could be handled, by not blacking out names and by allowing "senior" people in his administration access to the dat with the names attached:
2) after 9/11, Bush loosened these rules even more, by allowing other government agencies access to the data WITH THE NAMES STILL ATTACHED:
To make it more simple:
1) Prior to 9-11, Bush asked the NSA to retain information that that they normally wouldn't (the US names connected to the data), and this was done without first obtaining FISA approval, probably in violation of the law (and therefore probably "illegal spying").
2) This action was NOT done by the Clinton administration, it was a step uniquely taken by the Bush administration.
3) After 9/11, senior Bush administration officials wanted to share this information with outside agencies such as FBI, CIA and DIA, clearly in violation of FISA and thus clearly against the law.
As far as I can tell, the confusion is whether the first step taken by Bush, allowing names of Americans to remain with intercepts and then distributing this amongst his senior people, was clearly in violation of FISA.
Sadly, rather than see what happened for what it was-- illegal spying-- Bushbots are going after the whistleblowers in a sad attempt to discredit them.
To their credit, at least a few Republicans are taking this overall NSA spying story seriously.
It seems as though every patriotic American should care about major executive branch over-reach, particularly when the rationale for the over-reach is based on lies (i.e. the war on terror is bogus).
And I can guarantee that there is much more to this story than trying to intercept terrorist communications.
By the way, officially, why exactly is it that they couldn't stop 9/11?
To make it real simple:
1) after taking office, Bush loosened the rules on how NSA eavesdropping data could be handled, by not blacking out names and by allowing "senior" people in his administration access to the dat with the names attached:
What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration...
2) after 9/11, Bush loosened these rules even more, by allowing other government agencies access to the data WITH THE NAMES STILL ATTACHED:
The NSA's domestic surveillance activities that began in early 2001 reached a boiling point shortly after 9/11, when senior administration officials and top intelligence officials asked the NSA to share that data with other intelligence officials who worked for the FBI and the CIA to hunt down terrorists that might be in the United States.
To make it more simple:
1) Prior to 9-11, Bush asked the NSA to retain information that that they normally wouldn't (the US names connected to the data), and this was done without first obtaining FISA approval, probably in violation of the law (and therefore probably "illegal spying").
2) This action was NOT done by the Clinton administration, it was a step uniquely taken by the Bush administration.
3) After 9/11, senior Bush administration officials wanted to share this information with outside agencies such as FBI, CIA and DIA, clearly in violation of FISA and thus clearly against the law.
As far as I can tell, the confusion is whether the first step taken by Bush, allowing names of Americans to remain with intercepts and then distributing this amongst his senior people, was clearly in violation of FISA.
Sadly, rather than see what happened for what it was-- illegal spying-- Bushbots are going after the whistleblowers in a sad attempt to discredit them.
To their credit, at least a few Republicans are taking this overall NSA spying story seriously.
It seems as though every patriotic American should care about major executive branch over-reach, particularly when the rationale for the over-reach is based on lies (i.e. the war on terror is bogus).
And I can guarantee that there is much more to this story than trying to intercept terrorist communications.
By the way, officially, why exactly is it that they couldn't stop 9/11?
posted by spooked at 10:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home