DCAWD.com

Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, Americans won't just get a new president; they might finally learn the full extent of George W. Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping.

Since the New York Times first revealed in 2005 that the NSA was eavesdropping on citizen's overseas phone calls and e-mails, few additional details about the massive "Terrorist Surveillance Program" have emerged. That's because the Bush Administration has stonewalled, misled and denied documents to Congress, and subpoenaed the phone records of the investigative reporters.

Now privacy advocates are hopeful that a President Obama will be more forthcoming with information. But for the quickest and most honest account of Bush's illegal policies, they say don't look to the incoming president. Watch instead for the hidden army of would-be whistle-blowers who've been waiting for Inauguration Day to open the spigot on the truth.

Full WIRED Article

I'll hope for some truth, but not foolishly so...

Mr Kleen wrote: When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, Americans won't just get a new president; they might finally learn the full extent of George W. Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping.

Since the New York Times first revealed in 2005 that the NSA was eavesdropping on citizen's overseas phone calls and e-mails, few additional details about the massive "Terrorist Surveillance Program" have emerged. That's because the Bush Administration has stonewalled, misled and denied documents to Congress, and subpoenaed the phone records of the investigative reporters.

I may be missing the whole point of this, but as Joe Biden served on the foreign intelligence committee, (chair at that) isn't knowing these things also meaning you can't disclose them? I mean, sure, he's president, but Biden never came forward and said, "I heard xyz thing I didn't like the CIA doing in congress today."

Why in the hell would a president do that, other than to curry political favor, which is disgusting from a man who claims to not have constituents, to not be about needing to impress a party, and reducing the divisiveness in the country? What the fuck?

avriette wrote:I may be missing the whole point of this, but as Joe Biden served on the foreign intelligence committee, (chair at that) isn't knowing these things also meaning you can't disclose them? I mean, sure, he's president, but Biden never came forward and said, "I heard xyz thing I didn't like the CIA doing in congress today."

Why in the hell would a president do that, other than to curry political favor, which is disgusting from a man who claims to not have constituents, to not be about needing to impress a party, and reducing the divisiveness in the country? What the fuck?

But hasn't the Bush administration followed the Cheney thought process when it comes to keeping Congress informed? That would be NOT keeping them informed. Cheney had long felt that the Congress exerted too much control over the President. He felt that the President should be free to run the country as he sees fit with much less oversight. As such, these "briefings" to Congress have left out tremendous amounts of detail when it comes to things like warrant-less wiretaps, etc. So yes, Biden may have been given intelligence briefings, but who's to say that they were entirely accurate or that they provided full disclosure?

Disclosing some of what went on is not necessarily a bad thing especially if what occurred was illegal. If it doesn't come out now it will it a few years. Does it matter if disclosure happens now as opposed to 10 years from now? Ten years from now may mean that the people responsible for egregious violations may not be prosecuted. Wouldn't it be better to get these revelations now so justice can be fulfilled?

--Alan

the story is about whistle blowers coming forward, not elected members of the Government.

this is the loop hole that the Bush administration has been exploiting: if they declare something "secret" then you can't investigate without divulging "secret" information.

WRXWagon2112 wrote:He felt that the President should be free to run the country as he sees fit with much less oversight.

Hence the term "executive branch."

As such, these "briefings" to Congress have left out tremendous amounts of detail when it comes to things like warrant-less wiretaps, etc.

But you don't know that, Biden might know that, and "airing it out" for the public is a good idea why?

Disclosing some of what went on is not necessarily a bad thing especially if what occurred was illegal.

The killing of Mohammed Farrah Aidid was illegal. I'll give you two guesses who pulled that shot off.

Does it matter if disclosure happens now as opposed to 10 years from now?

This is why we have FOIA, and the DSS. DSS and NSA decide what's okay to release. Not the new president.

Ten years from now may mean that the people responsible for egregious violations may not be prosecuted.

Let's hang 'em from a tree and shove a fork up their asses.

justice

A word used by the victor when beheading the loser. Caesar brought justice to those who refused to pass under the yoke. If only Obama had half the smarts of Caesar.

^-- I take it you support the warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens.

I take it you feel no one should ever question authority. Just march in step with the current rulers regardless of what reality is. Don't you like the emperor's new clothes? They're gorgeous, aren't they?

--Alan

Mr Kleen wrote:^-- I take it you support the warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens.

Yes. Have you ever been cased by FIS? How would you know? I'd rather they did tap, find that I wasn't cooperating with Senator Palpatine, and go after his ass rather than mine. I mean, really, we remark constantly about how strange it is that we all work in this same field, have these same sorts of clearances, and so on. Any single one of us could be an Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanson; more to the point, any of us is exploitable.

I am not certain how wiretapping me without my knowledge actually does damage to me. I submit, every single year, an enormous amount of information about myself to the government. So, they listen to me talking to my wife? Or they use parabolic mikes on my apartment? WGAF?

It's a straw man. It sounds so sinister, but it amounts to nothing.

WRXWagon2112 wrote:I take it you feel no one should ever question authority.

This is not what I said. What I said was that not everyone should question authority. This is why we have clearance investigations. Joe Biden can question authority because he has a lot better picture of things than you or I do. If I had been given privileged information on the nuclear weapons program of Japan, I believe it is within my rights to question either Japan, or those not acting on that information. People who have not been given that information, however, cannot simply say "there is information out there, we want it, we know you have it, gimme."

Just march in step with the current rulers regardless of what reality is. Don't you like the emperor's new clothes? They're gorgeous, aren't they?

Damn. I got shorted a hitler reference. Instead I got an ad hominem. I feel short-changed.

I guess I'm old school and believe in Constitutional protections for citizens even in the internet age. I see your argument but I disagree. and I'm not going to throw out Hitler references.

I doubt we will ever hear much publicly about how much was done. The practice may be scaled back, but I'm betting it will not stop all together. The government has been doing this for years and I don't see it coming to an end just because of a new administration. Do you think the president gives the OK for a wire tap on a mafia suspect? I think what's really going on here is a big pissing contest. Certain folks (Congress, the press) want more information and feel they are entitled to it, and the executive branch either doesn't give everything they want or just says no.

I hear a lot of talk about it being a "Constitutional issue" but it is significantly more complicated than that. The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. Some argue that it is an "Unenumerated Right" under Amendment 9, but that is still a matter of debate. The other issue at hand is Executive Privilege. This is even more complicated as it has been used by nearly every President for a wide variety of purposes. Washington asserted the privilege when the House requested details of the Jay Treaty. Washington claimed that the House has no role in treaty-making and hence no right to request the documents. Bill Clinton used Executive Privilege to refuse to comply with an order to appear before a grand jury. The Supreme Court recognized that there exists a need for secrecy in the executive branch, but that the secrecy cannot be absolute. The minutes and records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force were requested and denied based on executive privilege. This case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court deflected the case and sent it back to a lower court for further adjudication.

Beyond the merits on both sides of the argument, I do take issue with some aspects of the article:

"I'd bet there are a lot of career employees in the intelligence agencies who'll be glad to see Obama take the oath so they can finally speak out against all this illegal spying and get back to their real mission," says Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's Washington D.C. legislative director.

I don't mean to be glib, but when do we lend much credence to an ACLU director telling us what they "bet" about employees in the intelligence agencies? The quote is basically a non-sequitur unless, she has more to add that she isn't telling. But I've never known the ACLU to hold back information, unless it doesn't support their position. She could just have easily said "I bet there are a lot of career employees in the intelligence agencies who'll be glad to see Obama take the oath so they can . . . get whitey off their back." except that would just be laughable, right?

New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh already has a slew of sources waiting to spill the Bush administration's darkest secrets, he said in an interview last month. "You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20. [They say,] 'You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.'"

This sounds like an "axe grinding" quote, with a bit of self righteousness built in. It smacks of hearsay which isn't viable evidence, but it can be backed-up with "confidentiality" because he can't possibly quote his sources since he's an honorable journalist. But not so honorable that he won't give a quote to WIRED without any real facts.

But even if the anticipated flood of leaks doesn't materialize, advocates hope that Obama and the Democratic Congress will get around to airing out the White House closet anyway.

Again, this sounds more like axe grinding on the level of "We just know you did something wrong! And even if we can't get people to come forward to help us prove it, we want to be able to run though all the records to see if we can't find something ourselves." Why, so we can all be shocked and dismayed when we find out that our own government did arguably unethical things in the name of national security? The horror!

The article does point out. . .

Obama voted with the majority in Congress to legalize the Bush spying program in July, but the constitutionality of the measure is yet untested.

So it looks like we can get an idea where the President "elect" stands on this.

An Obama administration is less likely than Bush to devise convoluted legal end-runs around the Constitution, according to Marc Rotenberg, the head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

I think we know what side of the "Constitutional" right to privacy debate Mr. Rotenberg stands on.

"It's hard to imagine that an Obama administration would support ... warrantless wiretapping."

Hard to imagine, but still possible.

as always Doc brings up good points. however, I don't see it as a privacy issue so much as an unreasonable search and seizure issue. just as it was wrong for the FBI to keep secret files on people who's only crime was being a peace activist during the Vietnam war it's wrong for the NSA to keep secret files on millions of citizens who's only crime was to send an email. it feels like the first step towards The Great Firewall to me.

Mr Kleen wrote:I don't see it as a privacy issue so much as an unreasonable search and seizure issue. just as it was wrong for the FBI to keep secret files on people who's only crime was being a peace activist during the Vietnam war it's wrong for the NSA to keep secret files on millions of citizens who's only crime was to send an email.

I completely understand this viewpoint and I actually feel the same way. I think the fear of Big Brother is a legitimate one in this day and age and I certainly hope that Government snooping into private citizens lives would be held to a minimum. The practice doesn't shock me at all, and I am not naive enough to think it isn't going to happen or come to a halt. My biggest concern is the scope. That being said, it's unlikely that there is some great organized crackdown going on. For example, it's unlikely that you or I will suddenly become a target of a criminal investigation because some NSA agent hears one of us remark about fudging numbers on our taxes because we couldn't find receipts. Few government employees are out trying to find more work or share information with other agencies.

lol polotics.




nuff said.