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

[twa]

I want to know how they convinced them in the first place. Did the Bush admin threaten companies if they didn't agree to break the law?

If you received a nation security letter directing you to do so signed by Bush and the AG would it be legal?...Keeping in mind there is a FISA exemption for the AG

How would you respond?(naturally the letter is classified)

[Sarge]

Federal law states that it's a crime for a communications company to give customer's records to any party without a subpoena. The law, I believe, is 20 years old. Every single company that agreed with the government's request knowingly violated that law. (A law which they helped write.)

Yes, telecommunications company are obligated to know, and follow, telecommunications law. Or they get taken to court. And lose.

(And all citizens have the obligation to, at the least, know the Constitution. Do you know what the punishment for ignorance is?)

(You're living it.)

It's also against Federal law to publish material classified Top Secret, but that's never stopped the New York Times

[flashback]

Well, there sure are more questions than answers. Why did some telcos refuse to cooperate? What did Gonzo take to Ashcroft's hospital room? What did the DoJ know and when did they know it? How much have the telcos given to Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid to get the bill they wanted through the Senate?

[Thiebear]

The Senate Democrats got it.

[Larry]

It's also against Federal law to publish material classified Top Secret, but that's never stopped the New York Times

It's also against board rules to attempt to hijack threads with off-topic posts, but that never stops Sarge.

[Destino]

It's also against Federal law to publish material classified Top Secret, but that's never stopped the New York Times

So in your opinion the government should be able to keep anything they want to from the american people?

[Sarge]

So in your opinion the government should be able to keep anything they want to from the american people?

I really don't know where to draw the line. There are things that should never be released because of national security.

[ACW]

I really don't know where to draw the line. There are things that should never be released because of national security.

What things (I agree, just want an example). OTOH, the Bush admin loses the benefit of the doubt to me because of their excessive secrecy.

[Sarge]

What things (I agree, just want an example). OTOH, the Bush admin loses the benefit of the doubt to me because of their excessive secrecy.

Foreign spying comes to mind. No one in the civilan world needs to know a thing about that

[alexey]

I sent a short email from Barbara Mikulski's site about this saying something like: "please do not grant retroactive immunity because the law is the law." Here is het response, in case Marylanders want to know where she stands:

Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your concerns about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I appreciate learning of your views about this important matter .

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am very aware that terrorists plan and intend to harm the United States and the American people. I hear about these threats every day - and I take them very seriously. Yet I agree with you - that even as our nation faces new threats, Constitutional prote ctions must be safeguarded.

The FISA Act was created in 1978 to regulate how electronic surveillance was conducted in the United States . This law needs to be updated to account for changes in communications technology over the last thirty years.

That's why I voted for a bipartisan bill that updates a number of pr oblems with the existing law. This new legislation (S. 2248) strengthens national security while protecting civil liberties. The bill also strengthens the role of the FISA Court by requiring greater judicial review and improves oversight and accountability of the entire FISA proces s. The Senate passed S. 2248 by a vote of 68 - 29 on February 12, 2008. One key provision I fought to include in this bill was a requirement that a warrant must be approved by the FISA Court to monitor a U.S. person anywhere in the world. This new protection means that the Constitution travels with you - even beyond the borders of the United States .

I understand your concerns about providing limited liability protection to telecommunication companies who assisted the government's efforts to disrupt terrorist plots in the days following the attacks on September 11, 2001. While the Bush Administration wanted full retroactive immunity for these companies and any White House employee or government official involved in the warrantless wiretapping program, S. 2248 provides a more narro w, focused, and limited liability protection . I strongly supported an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have required the FISA Court to determine if liability protection should be afforded to these telecommunications companies. Unfortunately, that amendment failed to get enough votes to become part of the bill.

When the Senate debated this bill, I supported this protection because those companies were acting in good faith under assurances from the President and the Attorney General that what they were being asked to do was legal. You should know that I also support holding accountable those Bush Administration officials who disregarded the law under the President's secret wiretapping program.

I have heard from many Marylanders on this important issue and I appreciate hearing of your concerns. While we may disagree on some parts of this reform, we both share the same goal of strengthen ing national security while protecting our civil liberties . \

Again, thanks for keeping in touch with me. Please let me know if I may be of assistance to you in the future.

[Teller]

I know she's getting a lot of mail on this, but did Mikulski send you something personal, or hand-signed? I disagree with a lot of her politics, but in terms of compassion for her constituents, Ms. Mikulski is first-rate.

My grandma has written to her several times for problems with medicare and the like, and each time she has received hand-written correspondence and actual action.

Just want to give credit where it's due. A lot of us don't agree with her politically, but she most certainly gives a damn what you think. And that's pretty special these days, IMO.

[ACW]

Cato made an interesting point:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9223

Funny how the same people wanting immunity for the telco companies weren't as generous when it came to illegal immigrants.

[Larry]

Funny how the same people wanting immunity for the telco companies weren't as generous when it came to illegal immigrants.

1) Wow. There's just no limit to the lengths people will go to bring off-topic topic into a thread.

2) Very few illegal immigrants came to the US because the US Government gave them classified orders to do so.

3) Very few illegal immigrants have donated millions in soft money to the GOP.

Edit: Just read part of (the very good and well-thought-out, IMO) the cato article linked. And it does actually draw a parallel between the immunity issue and amnesty for illegals.

[ACW]

1) Wow. There's just no limit to the lengths people will go to bring off-topic topic into a thread.

2) Very few illegal immigrants came to the US because the US Government gave them classified orders to do so.

3) Very few illegal immigrants have donated millions in soft money to the GOP.

Um, dude? Cato's against the immunity.

[twa]

1) Wow. There's just no limit to the lengths people will go to bring off-topic topic into a thread.

It IS the tailgate

2) Very few illegal immigrants came to the US because the US Government gave them classified orders to do so.

Well I don't see Congress passing laws making them legal either...yet

3) Very few illegal immigrants have donated millions in soft money to the GOP.

If you are referring to the Telephone co's it is the Dems who raked in the cash.

Look it up ...welcome to the twilight zone.

Edit: Just read part of (the very good and well-thought-out, IMO) the cato article linked. And it does actually draw a parallel between the immunity issue and amnesty for illegals.

[MurrayH81]

And just out of curiousity, who is your representative?

The honorable David Wu.

[MurrayH81]

So I guess the shear stupidity of suing private companies for cooperating with the government eludes you?

So what your saying is that private individuals, and corporations have the right and responsibility to decide on an individual basis wether or not a given law or government instruction should be followed? :doh:

All citizens and corporations have obligation to follow the laws of the Republic. Your argument is slightly flawed, because as a former telcom security and fraud person, we simple said No to requests for records or wiretaps that were not accompanied by a warrant, unless it was a matter of supreme, life-threatening emergency, and the law enforcement body was in the process of obtaining a warrant. The warrant arrived after the fact, just like the old process of FISA court warrants worked. For a telco to a request from the President, in secret, without warrant or other legal backing for "years", is actionable, and should be.

[MurrayH81]

I really don't know where to draw the line. There are things that should never be released because of national security.

Unfortunately, one of those things that any government (of the People) doesn't get to classify is evidence of their violating the law, and hiding it behind classification or executive privilege.

[Destino]

I really don't know where to draw the line. There are things that should never be released because of national security.

The line is supposed to be controlled by the system of checks and balances. When one branch makes a power grab to exclude the others the entire system fails and suddenly voters have no control.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

First of all, Bush is playing the fear card again.

Second of all, if it was just about being able to gather intelligence in the FUTURE, Bush wouldn't even threaten to veto a bill b/c of what it says or doesn't say about illegal activity in the past. So, if anyone has caused future intelligence to be lost, it is the president, not the congress.

[BlueTalon]

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

That precedent has already been set. Turn the way-back machine to 1993... remember the Clinton White House having over 1000 FBI files in their possession, mostly of people they didn't like politically. (Chuck Colson under Nixon went to prison for having one FBI file in his possession without proper authorization -- remind me, who went to prison for the Clinton misappropriation?)

Skip ahead a bit, and we find Democrats Alice and John Martin tailing Republican Congressman John Boehner and recording his private cell phone conversation with Newt Gingrich and others. They (the Republicans) were not discussing any future acts of terrorism or any such thing, neither did the Martins have a warrant of any kind, but that didn't stop them from forwarding their recording to Democrats to use for their own purposes. Jim McDermott, then ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee! not only used this tape for political purposes, he leaked the contents of something known to be illegally recorded to the press, something which by itself was illegal (and currently owes around half a million dollars in civil penalties and legal fees as a result).

I find it highly ironic, and more than a little entertaining, that people on the left talk about Bush like he's the second coming of Mussollini, and fear the potential abuses of something like the Patriot Act, while ignoring or excusing the blatant political abuses and criminal violations of privacy when the perps happen to be Democrats.

As much as I would hate to see a President Hillary Clinton or President Barrack Hussein Obama (or President McCain or President Huckabee, for that matter), whoever is President is going to need all the tools for collecting intelligence that is possible for them to have. I hope nobody is stupid enough to re-establish that Gorelick wall of seperation, but that's exactly the sort of common sense I don't trust most liberal Democrats to have.