Cheney to NSA: Disregard the Fourth Amendment

[bascule]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/14nsa.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1147579200&en=9a442ce4901ab0c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

 

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

 

But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.

[Jim]

[url']http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/14nsa.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1147579200&en=9a442ce4901ab0c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin[/url]

 

 

Yes, I'm sure that's a fair summary of what he said.

[Pangloss]

What's your opinion on that story, please, Bascule?

[bascule]

It serves as yet another example of an executive agency casually reminding the administration of the civil rights they're supposed to be upholding.

[Jim]

[url']http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/14nsa.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1147579200&en=9a442ce4901ab0c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin[/url]

 

First, note that this was during the "weeks" after 9/11. Hardly a typical period.

 

The spying that would become such a divisive issue for the White House and for General Hayden grew out of a meeting days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush gathered his senior intelligence aides to brainstorm about ways to head off another attack.

 

"Is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws?" the president later recalled asking.

 

Bush should be impeached if he had not asked precisely that question after 9/11.

 

Second, we are talking about hearsay from anonymous sources. Who knows what subtleties in the dialogue are not relayed from this one side years later without even the courage or conviction to give their names.

 

Third , the article states "legal adviser, David S. Addington, . . .believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country." Okay, but note the article does not explain the legal reasoning but just seems to assume Addington was incorrect. The two anonymous officials say Addington took an "aggressive," not a friviolous view.

 

You have to get into the guts of the article to get any inkling that this was not willy nilly interception of random domestic phone calls. Half way down it says:

If people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, the vice president and Mr. Addington thought eavesdropping without warrants "could be done and should be done," one of them said.

 

He added: "That's not what the N.S.A. lawyers think."

 

In other words, yes, Cheney was talking about purely domestic calls according to the story but there was to be a link between the call and Al Qaeda. I'd have to do a lot of research before coming to the conclusion that it would be frivolous to say that FDR could not intercept the communications of two Americans who might have a connection to the Nazis even if probable cause might not be established.

 

Finally, if we start holding the administration responsible for policies considered, not just those enacted, say good bye to brainstorming.

 

All of this is to say that the headline of this thread "Cheney to NSA: Disregard the Fourth Amendment" is not apt.

[Callipygous]

i understand the prinicple behind it, but as always i have to wonder, who cares, and why do they care?

 

does anyone really think that the govt. has an interest in their personal emails?

[Nevermore]

Well, some people fit the criteria with which the administration decides who's life to ruin, and thus would rather not have the government reading our email and listening to our phone calls. ::cough:: my family ::cough::

[Jim]

Well, some people fit the criteria with which the administration decides who's life to ruin, and thus would rather not have the government reading our email and listening to our phone calls. ::cough:: my family ::cough::

 

I too do not want the government randomly searching emails; however, even the NYTs report did not claim Cheney advocated such an approach. You have to dig into the article but you will see that he was only arguing for review of domestic to domestic communications where there was a perceived Al Qaeda link (albeit one not strong enough apparently to provide probable cause for a warrant). Seriously, we do not have any context for Cheney's alleged position as advocated while the twin towers were still smouldering.

[Franklin]

[url']http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/14nsa.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1147579200&en=9a442ce4901ab0c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin[/url]

 

OK for some to throw up links when it suits em,eh!

[john5746]

It serves as yet another example of an executive agency casually reminding the administration of the civil rights they're supposed to be upholding.

 

Citizens security and the rights of same are two sides of the same coin. I can see where flipping the coin to tails after an attack like this would be appropriate. To suggest that every situation can be outlined and maintained within the letter of the law is naive, IMO.

 

As with any program, the problem is keeping it from getting out of control and when to lean the coin back to heads.