We're Watching You!

I am now officially sick and tired of calls from Congressional leaders, non-profit groups, and mud-slinging politicians to investigate "President Bush's domestic spying program." Completely and utterly sick. So I'm going to set a few facts straight right here and now.

Firstly, next time a "key Congressional leader" protests this program, remember that all key Congressional leaders were repeatedly briefed on the specifics of the program. Anyone who claims they didn't know about it is either a lying bastard or just plain Ollie Northing the issue.

Secondly, previous Presidents, to include former President Clinton, have used the authority to initiate intelligence collection against entities within the United States without a court order. So when you hear Hillary spouting that it's illegal, keep that in mind.

Thirdly, it's not illegal. You may hear that the "wiretaps" were not in compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Yes. However, this post isn't in compliance with that Act either, and it's legal. That law doesn't apply in this case -- that doesn't mean the activity is illegal. This program has been approved by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General as well as literally hundreds of lawyers in various government agencies, and subjected to a review every ninety days to ensure that it has remained in compliance with the law. Even the Democrats admit that no law was broken, even as they bash President Bush for not staying within the confines of FISA.

Lastly, and most importantly, the program in question is not "domestic spying." Domestic communications are defined as communications originating and terminating within the United States. This is the same definition of domestic used for domestic flights, domestic mail, domestic commerce, etc. Domestic communications require a court order to be intercepted and analyzed.

The program in question allows the National Security Agency to intercept communications of a known terrorist, not within the United States, even if the terrorist contacts a person located within the boundaries of the United States. Under rules in effect prior to September 11th, if a known terrorist in Afghanistan placed a phone call to New York, the NSA could not intercept and process the phone call. The program in question does nothing more than to correct that.

This national security vulnerability was pointed out by the 9/11 Commission. They specifically criticized the intelligence community for not linking events in the United States to events overseas. What could possibly be more important to analyze than a phone call between a known terrorist and a person located within our borders? Yet prior to 9/11, such phone calls were "protected."

General Hayden was the director of the NSA when the program was established, and has since moved on to become the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He spoke recently about this program, and I strongly urge everyone to read his speech. There is no one who knows this program better than General Hayden. For those who won't follow the link, I'll quote a few choice sections:

NSA has an existential problem. In order to protect American lives and liberties, it has to be two things: powerful in its capabilities, and secretive in its methods. And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.... Look, this is not unlike things that happened in other areas. Prior to September 11th, airline passengers were screened in one way. After September 11th, we changed how we screen passengers. In the same way, okay, although prior to September 11th certain communications weren't considered valuable intelligence, it became immediately clear after September 11th that intercepting and reporting these same communications were in fact critical to defending the homeland. Now let me make this point. These decisions were easily within my authorities as the director of NSA under and executive order; known as Executive Order 12333, that was signed in 1981, an executive order that has governed NSA for nearly a quarter century.... I testified in open session to the House Intel Committee in April of the year 2000. At the time, I created some looks of disbelief when I said that if Osama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, there were provisions of U.S. law that would kick in, offer him protections and affect how NSA could now cover him. At the time, I was just using this as some of sort of stark hypothetical; 17 months later, this is about life and death.... You know, the 9/11 commission criticized our ability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. In that light, there are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.... Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.... So let me make this clear. When you're talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications.... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such....

Labels: domestic spying, nsa, privacy

Permalink