Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Politico: Bush admin: U.S. has 'lost intelligence'


heyholetsgogrant

Recommended Posts

Bush admin: U.S. has 'lost intelligence'

By: Mike Allen

Feb 22, 2008 04:28 PM EST

The Bush administration informed Congress on Friday that the government has “lost intelligence” because of the expiration of surveillance legislation caught in a political tug of war.

“We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act,” says an underlined passage of a six-page letter signed by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell.

The letter does not give details. A copy of the letter is here.

The assertion is an effort by President Bush to ratchet up pressure on the House and Senate to pass a new version of the Protect America Act, which gave the government enhanced powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

The enhancements, which make it easier for the government to monitor communications of suspected terrorists without obtaining a warrant, were passed in August and expired last weekend.

Democratic congressional leaders, who are negotiating the provisions of a new version, have charged the administration with using “scare tactics.”

Democrats also contend that administration officials dragged their feet in making available records that lawmakers needed to work on the legislation.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a letter to Bush on Feb. 14 that he takes “strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program.”

Current intelligence activities are not affected by the expiration for a year. But the government contends that new intelligence targets cannot be certified for surveillance, creating potential gaps in intelligence.

“Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation,” the administration letter says. “We are working to mitigate these problems. ... This uncertainty may well continue to cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be collecting.”

Source: Politico

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8643.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolute crap. Im-****ing-peach already.

This administration is not only criminally incompetent, but trying to strong-arm Congress into 'permission' to continue violating the Constitution CERTAINLY equates to high crimes.

Worst...president...ever.

:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolute crap. Im-****ing-peach already.

This administration is not only criminally incompetent, but trying to strong-arm Congress into 'permission' to continue violating the Constitution CERTAINLY equates to high crimes.

Worst...president...ever.

:mad:

:applause::cheers:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if Bush hadn't been willing to allow the telecom cos. to commit illegal acts with impunity...:rolleyes:

IT'S YOUR FAULT DUMBASS! :mad:

Between your frothing, try to understand something

First, the comm companies just allow the NSA and a few others to use the equipment. Now, sometimes there is no one there from the NSA while this is going on, everything is being recorded automatically for future harvesting and anaylisis.

Second, as has been stated numerous times ad nauseum here, it's not like they are listening to your conversation at 1-800 Spank Me. They are listeniong to calls and internet comm from OTHER COUNTRIES COMING INTO THE US. A lot of times it's from known ******* entities to known ******* entities here in this country

I have no problem with citizen or non-citizens being monitored who are talking to *******s from overseas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolute crap. Im-****ing-peach already.

This administration is not only criminally incompetent, but trying to strong-arm Congress into 'permission' to continue violating the Constitution CERTAINLY equates to high crimes.

Worst...president...ever.

:mad:

You were probably just young enough to not remember Carter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were probably just young enough to not remember Carter

I remember bits and pieces, Sarge, and certainly Carter was no world-beater himself (literally or figuratively.)

But the president's primary job, before he even thinks about doing anything else, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in my lifetime no one has shredded that document like George W. Bush.

Hell, Lincoln is probably the only that got close. And I believe that in large part, Lincoln was doing what he felt he had to to preserve the Union. Bush is circumventing the Constitution for himself. Period.

How bout the USPS signing statement? You know, where Bush decided he could open ANY American's mail for ANY reason. Do you really believe Al Qaeda suspects are mailing plans back and forth, or is there an ulterior motive here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember bits and pieces, Sarge, and certainly Carter was no world-beater himself (literally or figuratively.)

But the president's primary job, before he even thinks about doing anything else, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And in my lifetime no one has shredded that document like George W. Bush.

Hell, Lincoln is probably the only that got close. And I believe that in large part, Lincoln was doing what he felt he had to to preserve the Union. Bush is circumventing the Constitution for himself. Period.

How bout the USPS signing statement? You know, where Bush decided he could open ANY American's mail for ANY reason. Do you really believe Al Qaeda suspects are mailing plans back and forth, or is there an ulterior motive here?

Who knows?

What I do know is that communication is instantaneous nowadays, and if we intercept some ******* making plans, I don't want to waste time getting a "Mother May I?" from the court.

Now, granted the court is pretty easy to get along with, but they are also VERY specific about what can be recorded and when. If Muhammad Imanutajob is on the phone and chats for a half an hour, but the court says we can only record from teh ten after mark to the thirty mark, then we miss ten minutes.

Yeah, we heard him say he would nuke us in the first ten minutes, but we can't keep the recording or use what we heard him say in court.

BTW, I would have no problem with Bush recinding all the programs and laws he has enacted on the way out the door.

Watch the Dems **** themselves trying ot re-instate the Patriot Act

I mean, how else are you supposed keep track of all the domestic terrorists, other-wise known as gun owners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows?

What I do know is that communication is instantaneous nowadays, and if we intercept some ******* making plans, I don't want to waste time getting a "Mother May I?" from the court.

Now, granted the court is pretty easy to get along with, but they are also VERY specific about what can be recorded and when. If Muhammad Imanutajob is on the phone and chats for a half an hour, but the court says we can only record from teh ten after mark to the thirty mark, then we miss ten minutes.

Yeah, we heard him say he would nuke us in the first ten minutes, but we can't keep the recording or use what we heard him say in court.

BTW, I would have no problem with Bush recinding all the programs and laws he has enacted on the way out the door.

Watch the Dems **** themselves trying ot re-instate the Patriot Act

I mean, how else are you supposed keep track of all the domestic terrorists, other-wise known as gun owners

No one, Sarge, and I mean NO ONE....not you, not me, not Larry, not Predicto. NO ONE wants us dropping calls to or from suspected terrorists; especially if they're as immediate as the example you provided.

But as you know, there's no requirement to get the warrant first. You have 48 hours AFTER the fact to obtain it, and if you don't, then I have to believe you've got something to hide.

I know you better than to say you don't respect the Constitution or our civil liberties. But I truly don't understand your position on this. If we can protect the American public, and protect their rights at the same time, why not do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, Sarge, and I mean NO ONE....not you, not me, not Larry, not Predicto. NO ONE wants us dropping calls to or from suspected terrorists; especially if they're as immediate as the example you provided.

But as you know, there's no requirement to get the warrant first. You have 48 hours AFTER the fact to obtain it, and if you don't, then I have to believe you've got something to hide.

I know you better than to say you don't respect the Constitution or our civil liberties. But I truly don't understand your position on this. If we can protect the American public, and protect their rights at the same time, why not do that?

And again, after going to the court and saying "we have muhammad asshollio that we've been monitoring since 0900 this morning" the court can give you a warrant, except maybe it starts at 0930 because he was talking to Larry about the ACLU for the first half hour. Maybe during that half an hour he wa also giving away something else that is goig down.

You see, intel is not mohammad coming right out and saying "I'm going to nuke New York at 0900 tomorrow morning" over the phone

Intel is usually a compliation of info. Maybe mohammad is just telling some one to rent him a car tomorrow in one call

In another, he asks to meet Larry at a certain restaurant.

In another he asks Chommie to go on the intenet and buy as many widgets as he can.

Three separate, innocent calls, right?

Together, they tell me that mohammad is coming to town tomorrow night and that we can start watching him at a certain restaurant. It also puts us onto someone that is going to buy a lot of widgets

If we get all of this from the get go without the court, then we're good. IF we miss call number two because soemone is worried about Larry's civil rights, then we could be hosed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes if the Government had all the information about everything they would be able to prevent 100% of terrorist attacks.

No this does not mean the Governmnet should have all the information about everything.

Some kind of compromise must be reached. This compromise must involve having a freaking warrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, after going to the court and saying "we have muhammad asshollio that we've been monitoring since 0900 this morning" the court can give you a warrant, except maybe it starts at 0930 because he was talking to Larry about the ACLU for the first half hour. Maybe during that half an hour he wa also giving away something else that is goig down.

You see, intel is not mohammad coming right out and saying "I'm going to nuke New York at 0900 tomorrow morning" over the phone

Intel is usually a compliation of info. Maybe mohammad is just telling some one to rent him a car tomorrow in one call

In another, he asks to meet Larry at a certain restaurant.

In another he asks Chommie to go on the intenet and buy as many widgets as he can.

Three separate, innocent calls, right?

Together, they tell me that mohammad is coming to town tomorrow night and that we can start watching him at a certain restaurant. It also puts us onto someone that is going to buy a lot of widgets

If we get all of this from the get go without the court, then we're good. IF we miss call number two because soemone is worried about Larry's civil rights, then we could be hosed

Look, I spent enough time in the military and in law forcement and now in corporate security to understand intelligence gathering, and also the importance of looking at the "totality of the circumstances." But compiling a comprehensive database of the calls of EVERY American simply does violate the Fourth Amendment.

And like I said, speaking of the totality of the circumstances, combine the lack of desire to get a warrant for eavesdropping, with the lack of desire to get a warrant for mail-opening, and I fail to see how you can come to any other conclusion than there's something shady going on.

But hey, if you're comfortable with Clinton or Obama listening to your calls and reading your mail, who am I to stop you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I would have no problem with Bush recinding all the programs and laws he has enacted on the way out the door.

That's because to you, terms like National Security, Freedom, the Constitution, (and truth and integrity) are simply buzzwords you use as tools for the goal of maximum political power for the Republican Party.

It doesn't matter if a law is Good or Evil. What matters is which spin will make your Party look better.

(The Bush Administration agrees with you.)

(And yeah, so does Congress.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I spent enough time in the military and in law forcement and now in corporate security to understand intelligence gathering, and also the importance of looking at the "totality of the circumstances." But compiling a comprehensive database of the calls of EVERY American simply does violate the Fourth Amendment.

And like I said, speaking of the totality of the circumstances, combine the lack of desire to get a warrant for eavesdropping, with the lack of desire to get a warrant for mail-opening, and I fail to see how you can come to any other conclusion than there's something shady going on.

But hey, if you're comfortable with Clinton or Obama listening to your calls and reading your mail, who am I to stop you. :)

Again, it's the ABILITY to listen. It's not like your every call is being monitored. We barely have the people to listen to that stuff.

It's select individuals, usually *******s.

And I have no doubt that the Dems would use it to listen into gun owners. AS soon as Obama gets in, I know I can count on everyone's support that is opposing this now to call for it's repeal.

And the Dems will do it, right? :rolleyes:

I mean they've whined and cried about it for long enough, surely their own kind will get rid of this, right? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because to you, terms like National Security, Freedom, the Constitution, (and truth and integrity) are simply buzzwords you use as tools for the goal of maximum political power for the Republican Party.

It doesn't matter if a law is Good or Evil. What matters is which spin will make your Party look better.

(The Bush Administration agrees with you.)

(And yeah, so does Congress.)

No, it's because the left has whined and cried and seethed over this for years now

"WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!IT'S UN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!"

So, get rid of it.

Like I said, watch the Dems shirt themselves to put it back in place because it's a useful tool in the real world, which is something they'll have to deal this time next year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if Bush hadn't made this a major issue by LYING about the wire tapping situation we wouldn't be experiencing this uncertainty at the moment. If the President was even a decent politician and knew how to get what he wanted done... well then he wouldn't be Bush would he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if Bush hadn't made this a major issue by LYING about the wire tapping situation we wouldn't be experiencing this uncertainty at the moment. If the President was even a decent politician and knew how to get what he wanted done... well then he wouldn't be Bush would he.

You're right. He should have just announced to the world, hell, called Imanutajob, and told everyone on the planet that we listen to all calls coming in from overseas.

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's the ABILITY to listen. It's not like your every call is being monitored. We barely have the people to listen to that stuff.

It's select individuals, usually *******s.

And again, that's an utter lie.

The major issue that's holding this bill up is Bush's demand that Congress retroactively grant immunity from prosecution for the tracking of every single phone call in the US, since 9/11. A monitoring which was not only unconstitutional, but was a Federal crime.

It's unconstitutional. Always has been. It was a federal crime, and every one of those telcos knew it. And they had four years time in which to change the law, and didn't (because they decided that covering it up was easier, politically, than actually using the government the way it's supposed to work.)

Our ability to listen to the communbications of known terrorists has not been compromised in any way. Suspected terrorists, ditto. (Because "suspected" = "good enough for a warrant" where FISA's concerned.)

And all of your attempts to change the topic with mystical scenarios of known terrorists, and "well, they didn't actually listen to every phone call you made" won't change the actual issue.

-----

And no, I agree with you. This Treasonous abuse of power isn't going to be rescinded. Ever. Governments never give up power. Last generation's rounding up of citizens into ethnic detention camps becomes this generation's "well, that was legal, so that implies it's OK for the government to do this, too."

This outrage is not only not going to go away, it's going to become the precedent that somebody points to when they decide that more power would make things Really Convenient and Safe.

Which is why it shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...