« Hoekstra's Leaks/Cheney's Leaks | Main | None of the Above »

August 11, 2007


"But all of it begs the question: why isn't the DNI giving Congress enough information to appropriately legislate? And what else isn't he telling us?"

and why isn't congress demanding answers?

And why aren't the Democrats making this the issue?

Q. And what else isn't he telling us? A. Pretty much everything, especially the critical and necessary information.

Q. Why isn't the DNI giving Congress enough information to appropriately legislate? A. Their BS scam would be exposed and they would never get the unconstitutional and unnecessary powers they crave.

Q. Why isn't congress demanding answers? A. The Republicans don't want the answers; the Democrats are to timid, weak and concerned about their own petty political posture, and vacation/fundraising time, to be bothered.

Q. And why aren't the Democrats making this the issue? A. See above.

"The Administration had first explained the problems to Congress in "April", but held off describing the scope of the problem for three more months."
Should it not read "May" in the preceding paragraph as mentioned in the New York Times' article( the relevant paragraph,as reported by you,is listed below)?
"Intelligence Committee members acknowledged that they learned in "May" that the secret court ruling had caused some problems, but it was not until last month that the administration reported the gaps."

Why did DNI wait so long before telling congress the extent of the problem? Why because then he couldn't have shoved it through a panicked congress. It's.All.About>Manipulation, And. Control.


No, elsewhere in the article it says April. It sounds like a slow drip of increasingly more information.

Hillary will never be My gal
The queen of lobbying.....

Don't worry Bush and Iraqi war lovers
If you liked George, you are going to love Hitlery Clinton.

And lobbyists take heart
You can save some of your hard-earned money and still get your laws passed by Hitlery
I know it cost 200,00 to be a Bush ranger but you can be a Hillraiser for the bargain price of only 100,000.

You will soon be calling her "Lady Dubya"

"could not verify took place outside of the United States" ?? I call bullshit. The phone company knows exactly where these calls are - they never have trouble billing you. I still don't understand why the original FISA does not work for international surveillance.

indeed:"could not verify took place outside of the United States". Mr Obvious here, but that is either disinformation or reveals that there are ways that some phone calls origins go unknown. It suggests 75% which is huge. johno's scepticism is appropriate. And maybe, just maybe they never did know where many phone calls come from and had to "wiretap" them before they actually know, and maybe that's the big problem and internal source of friction, and would be something to keep a secret.
Also, could some of these be throw away phones or internet phone calls?

"American eavesdroppers were collecting just 25 percent of the foreign-based communications they had been receiving a few months earlier."
This could mean that they then chose not to eavesdrop because of the FISA judge's ruling, implying they weren't knowledgeable before of where the call originated. That also would seem to say that many calls were domestic-domestic, and as they could not determine that, they were eavesdropping anyway (whatever THAT really means) before, and could be a good explanation of why some were freaked out about the program, and threatened resignation. That many calls were wiretapped (whatever THAT means) and were domestic-domestic would be so clearly illegal under the '78 FISA law, I'm not surprised they have tried to legalize and immunize the practice. Whistleblowers and internal discord must have been/is a problem they are trying to fix preemptively.
I think that's what we're getting to understand here, right?
Nice catch EW.

The need for secrecy is problematic at best. Surely everyone, including the bad guys, thinks they are being tapped whenever they use electronic communication. I think some of the claims are vaporware, and maybe the exact extent of what we really can do is a bona fide secret. If I were trying to use electronic communication for some nefarious or even just some really private purpose now, I would go with simple codes, tear sheets, pgp encryption, or mail. Given that, I think the balance of interests points to finding out what the hell those people are doing. I think they are spying on us, and getting squat on the bad guys, and wasting money in the bargain.

You got that right Masaccio. Even assuming that the appropriate technology existed, I picture Gonzales in the role of Ernestine the Switchboard Operator from Rowan and Martin's Laugh In absentmindedly plugging the wrong wire in the wrong hole at the switching station. It is absolutely incredible that anyone gives these guys the benefit of the doubt to put their pants on correctly in the morning, much less to faithfully protect our civil liberties.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad