Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87


Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Can you point out where and when Starr was given the authority to conduct an investigation into anything and everything he might decide at some time in the future to investigate?

I mean, you Bushies are generally against such investigations, aren't you? For example, when Patrick Fitzgerals charged Libby with perjury there were Bushies screaming at the top of their lungs here that the investigation was about leaking a covert agent's identity, not about perjury! It was deemed by them a witch hunt because the target of the investigation changed!

I believe that even the right wing demigod and junked out hypocrite hero Limbaugh was wailing the same garbage incessantly.

Hypocrites.

I never said anything of the type with Fitzgerald. I have always kept my distance and let the investigation play out.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: BBond

I've never in my life seen the kind of anti-American, dictatorial, totalitarian actions like those of this current administration and their partners in crime in the congress and judiciary.

My brother-in-law heard voices that ultimately led him to commit suicide. From his perspective they were real and I will never discount someone's perception of the demons they see/hear/feel. Even though I may roll my eyes at your rhetoric, but I do also understand they agony you must be feeling--therefore I give you my pity.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh you asked about indictments and plea agreements to which I responded with convictions. I believe the total number of indictments was well over 150 handed out, some of them sticking, some of them not.

I think getting 12 convictions isnt what I would call a witchhunt. Spending 8 years chasing Clinton around because of a BJ would. But there were legitimate reasons for the Starr investigations that yielded real results.

But this is getting way OT, if you want to continue, I suggest making a new thread.

There are legitamate reasons to investigate Bush too, and a lot better ones then they used as an excuse to investigate Clinton, whom they never did get.

Like?

Clintons exploits were known previous his campaign run in 92 and they were indeed real.
Trying to investigate a sitting president because you think he lied about WMD, or he recieved a political donation from a guy, or you just hate his guts is not the same as the Clinton matter.

Susan McDougal rotting jail is what probably kept Clinton out of jail. Him giving her a pardon seems like it should be against the law as she didnt testify against him and instead took a contempt charge.

At the very least that should be considered an abuse of power.

Oh please. Bush abuses his power as usual and all you can do is talk ancient history.

Uh you brought Clinton up bunkie lmao.

Yes I did and they never got him for anything except trying to keep his private sex life just that, private. Nice, $70 million and that's the best they could do. You were more then willing to waste that money and time then, but now you want proof?

They certainly didn't need it to investigate Clinton, so all you Bush fanbois are showing what hacks you really are. Anyone with any sense can see this is nothing but ripe for abuse by the powers that be and you have to be a little slow in my book to try and justify it.

Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Hey, quit being a Bush hack. They didn't get Clinton, did they. Now stop the diverting and explain why they need "proof" to start an investigation. 😀

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: BBond

For example, when Patrick Fitzgerals charged Libby with perjury there were Bushies screaming at the top of their lungs here that the investigation was about leaking a covert agent's identity, not about perjury! It was deemed by them a witch hunt because the target of the investigation changed!

Got link?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh you asked about indictments and plea agreements to which I responded with convictions. I believe the total number of indictments was well over 150 handed out, some of them sticking, some of them not.

I think getting 12 convictions isnt what I would call a witchhunt. Spending 8 years chasing Clinton around because of a BJ would. But there were legitimate reasons for the Starr investigations that yielded real results.

But this is getting way OT, if you want to continue, I suggest making a new thread.

There are legitamate reasons to investigate Bush too, and a lot better ones then they used as an excuse to investigate Clinton, whom they never did get.

Like?

Clintons exploits were known previous his campaign run in 92 and they were indeed real.
Trying to investigate a sitting president because you think he lied about WMD, or he recieved a political donation from a guy, or you just hate his guts is not the same as the Clinton matter.

Susan McDougal rotting jail is what probably kept Clinton out of jail. Him giving her a pardon seems like it should be against the law as she didnt testify against him and instead took a contempt charge.

At the very least that should be considered an abuse of power.

Oh please. Bush abuses his power as usual and all you can do is talk ancient history.

Uh you brought Clinton up bunkie lmao.

Yes I did and they never got him for anything except trying to keep his private sex life just that, private. Nice, $70 million and that's the best they could do. You were more then willing to waste that money and time then, but now you want proof?

They certainly didn't need it to investigate Clinton, so all you Bush fanbois are showing what hacks you really are. Anyone with any sense can see this is nothing but ripe for abuse by the powers that be and you have to be a little slow in my book to try and justify it.

Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Hey, quit being a Bush hack. They didn't get Clinton, did they. Now stop the diverting and explain why they need "proof" to start an investigation. 😀

You brought it up and got slapped by your own question, dont take it out on me.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BBond


Can you point out where and when Starr was given the authority to conduct an investigation into anything and everything he might decide at some time in the future to investigate?

Hypocrites.

I second that motion. Political hypocrites willing to sell out everyone else to try and keep "their guy" smelling like a rose.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh you asked about indictments and plea agreements to which I responded with convictions. I believe the total number of indictments was well over 150 handed out, some of them sticking, some of them not.

I think getting 12 convictions isnt what I would call a witchhunt. Spending 8 years chasing Clinton around because of a BJ would. But there were legitimate reasons for the Starr investigations that yielded real results.

But this is getting way OT, if you want to continue, I suggest making a new thread.

There are legitamate reasons to investigate Bush too, and a lot better ones then they used as an excuse to investigate Clinton, whom they never did get.

Like?

Clintons exploits were known previous his campaign run in 92 and they were indeed real.
Trying to investigate a sitting president because you think he lied about WMD, or he recieved a political donation from a guy, or you just hate his guts is not the same as the Clinton matter.

Susan McDougal rotting jail is what probably kept Clinton out of jail. Him giving her a pardon seems like it should be against the law as she didnt testify against him and instead took a contempt charge.

At the very least that should be considered an abuse of power.

Oh please. Bush abuses his power as usual and all you can do is talk ancient history.

Uh you brought Clinton up bunkie lmao.

Yes I did and they never got him for anything except trying to keep his private sex life just that, private. Nice, $70 million and that's the best they could do. You were more then willing to waste that money and time then, but now you want proof?

They certainly didn't need it to investigate Clinton, so all you Bush fanbois are showing what hacks you really are. Anyone with any sense can see this is nothing but ripe for abuse by the powers that be and you have to be a little slow in my book to try and justify it.

Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Hey, quit being a Bush hack. They didn't get Clinton, did they. Now stop the diverting and explain why they need "proof" to start an investigation. 😀

You brought it up and got slapped by your own question, dont take it out on me.

You haven't addressed my point because you can't. Your pathetic.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87
Uh you asked about indictments and plea agreements to which I responded with convictions. I believe the total number of indictments was well over 150 handed out, some of them sticking, some of them not.

I think getting 12 convictions isnt what I would call a witchhunt. Spending 8 years chasing Clinton around because of a BJ would. But there were legitimate reasons for the Starr investigations that yielded real results.

But this is getting way OT, if you want to continue, I suggest making a new thread.

There are legitamate reasons to investigate Bush too, and a lot better ones then they used as an excuse to investigate Clinton, whom they never did get.

Like?

Clintons exploits were known previous his campaign run in 92 and they were indeed real.
Trying to investigate a sitting president because you think he lied about WMD, or he recieved a political donation from a guy, or you just hate his guts is not the same as the Clinton matter.

Susan McDougal rotting jail is what probably kept Clinton out of jail. Him giving her a pardon seems like it should be against the law as she didnt testify against him and instead took a contempt charge.

At the very least that should be considered an abuse of power.

Oh please. Bush abuses his power as usual and all you can do is talk ancient history.

Uh you brought Clinton up bunkie lmao.

Yes I did and they never got him for anything except trying to keep his private sex life just that, private. Nice, $70 million and that's the best they could do. You were more then willing to waste that money and time then, but now you want proof?

They certainly didn't need it to investigate Clinton, so all you Bush fanbois are showing what hacks you really are. Anyone with any sense can see this is nothing but ripe for abuse by the powers that be and you have to be a little slow in my book to try and justify it.

Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Hey, quit being a Bush hack. They didn't get Clinton, did they. Now stop the diverting and explain why they need "proof" to start an investigation. 😀

I don't think that anyone has stated that proof is needed to start an investigation. If you can, by all means quote it. What has been questioned is how some people have stated with certainty that Bush spied on "ordinary" (whatever that means) citizens. Bush has been called a liar because he stated he knew Iraq had WMD's, when in fact it appears they did not. I believe it wasn't the fact that Iraq didn't have them as the proof of the supposed "lie", but that Bush claimed he knew they did.

So, as GeneX has pointed out, people are stating with certainty that Bush spied on "ordinary" citizens. My question is, got proof? If not, well then, I guess that makes some people as much a liar as they accuse Bush. It really is *that* simple.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Corn

So, as GeneX has pointed out, people are stating with certainty that Bush spied on "ordinary" citizens. My question is, got proof? If not, well then, I guess that makes some people as much a liar as they accuse Bush. It really is *that* simple.

If you have proof, you don't start an investigation, you bring charges.

By the way, see my sig for "proof" that Bush lies. 6 months to the day was all it took.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: BBond

I've never in my life seen the kind of anti-American, dictatorial, totalitarian actions like those of this current administration and their partners in crime in the congress and judiciary.

My brother-in-law heard voices that ultimately led him to commit suicide. From his perspective they were real and I will never discount someone's perception of the demons they see/hear/feel. Even though I may roll my eyes at your rhetoric, but I do also understand they agony you must be feeling--therefore I give you my pity.

I'm sorry to hear that. They say that sort of thing usually runs in families.

Speaking of hearing things that aren't there where did you hear about my agony?

I don't feel any agony so you can save your pity. If you people are too ignorant to see what's being done right under your noses then that's your problem. It is you who are in need of pity.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87


Did you miss the 12 convictions I posted in this thread? The investigations was more than just Clinton.

Can you point out where and when Starr was given the authority to conduct an investigation into anything and everything he might decide at some time in the future to investigate?

I mean, you Bushies are generally against such investigations, aren't you? For example, when Patrick Fitzgerals charged Libby with perjury there were Bushies screaming at the top of their lungs here that the investigation was about leaking a covert agent's identity, not about perjury! It was deemed by them a witch hunt because the target of the investigation changed!

I believe that even the right wing demigod and junked out hypocrite hero Limbaugh was wailing the same garbage incessantly.

Hypocrites.

I never said anything of the type with Fitzgerald. I have always kept my distance and let the investigation play out.

But there were so many Bushies here saying exactly that. Do you think everyone has stopped believing everything they post too?

And who is this "us" you refer to?

Spare us the drama

How many of you are in there?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87


You and Dave are considered one in the same.

Do the math.

for you guys 1+1=0

You're speaking for yourself and other Bushies here of course. I mean, you have no way of knowing what everyone is thinking, do you? After all, you're not Bush and the NSA are you?

:roll:

You seem worried.

Don't give up your day job to become a mind reader. I'm not worried. America needs to be worried.

I would like to know who gave you the authority to speak for everyone here though. That does worry me. But I'm worried about you, not me. You're delusional if you think everyone here agrees with your idea of reality.

If you dont believe me, just watch what kind of responses you get from your near worthless posts.

If they're so worthless why are you responding to them?

It's your replies that are worthless.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87


You and Dave are considered one in the same.

Do the math.

for you guys 1+1=0

You're speaking for yourself and other Bushies here of course. I mean, you have no way of knowing what everyone is thinking, do you? After all, you're not Bush and the NSA are you?

:roll:

You seem worried.

Don't give up your day job to become a mind reader. I'm not worried. America needs to be worried.

I would like to know who gave you the authority to speak for everyone here though. That does worry me. But I'm worried about you, not me. You're delusional if you think everyone here agrees with your idea of reality.

If you dont believe me, just watch what kind of responses you get from your near worthless posts.

If they're so worthless why are you responding to them?

It's your replies that are worthless.

I am responding to these because it is fun to watch you dig bigger holes to jump into.
Now watch as the rest of your garbage is simply ignored in other threads.

Good day

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87


I am responding to these because it is fun to watch you dig bigger holes to jump into.
Now watch as the rest of your garbage is simply ignored in other threads.

Good day

I like the way you're in here ignoring it. :roll:

If "Good day" means you're leaving then yes, it is now a good day.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: BBond

They say that sort of thing usually runs in families.

Speaking of hearing things that aren't there where did you hear about my agony?

Well then, I guess since he was my brother-in-law, I don't have much to worry about myself. Maybe my soon aproaching baby son could be affected, but that's not too much of a worry either. You see, I'm a Republican. I eat babies. He doesn't stand a chance.

...and your agony is apparent every day you post. This is your life, spending hours a day endlessly proclaiming your hatred of Bush on a meaningless messageboard.

 

[BBond]

In the interest of digging bigger holes to jump in and posting more garbage I offer the following...

"Everyone" is free to ignore it -- at their own peril. 😉

Congressional Agency Questions Legality of Wiretaps

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A05

The Bush administration appears to have violated the National Security Act by limiting its briefings about a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program to congressional leaders, according to a memo from Congress's research arm released yesterday.

The Congressional Research Service opinion said that the amended 1947 law requires President Bush to keep all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees "fully and currently informed" of such intelligence activities as the domestic surveillance effort.

The memo from national security specialist Alfred Cumming is the second report this month from CRS to question the legality of aspects of Bush's domestic spying program. A Jan. 6 report concluded that the administration's justifications for the program conflicted with current law.

Yesterday's analysis was requested by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who wrote in a letter to Bush earlier this month that limiting information about the eavesdropping program violated the law and provided for poor oversight.

The White House has said it informed congressional leaders about the NSA program in more than a dozen briefings, but has refused to provide further details. At a minimum, the briefings included the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two ranking Democrats, known collectively as the "Gang of Four," according to various sources.

"We believe that Congress was appropriately briefed," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement last night.

Bush has publicly acknowledged issuing an order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that allowed the National Security Agency to intercept telephone and e-mail exchanges between the United States and overseas without court authorization. The cases were limited to people suspected of al Qaeda ties, Bush and his aides said.

Cumming's analysis found that both intelligence committees should have been briefed because the program involved intelligence collection activities.

The only exception in the law applies to covert actions, Cumming found, and those programs must be reported to the "Gang of Eight," which includes House and Senate leaders in addition to heads of the intelligence panels. The administration can also withhold some operational details in rare circumstances, but that does not apply to the existence of entire programs, he wrote.

Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

Also yesterday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center said it would file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit today demanding information about the NSA spying. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits Tuesday asserting that Bush exceeded his authority and violated Fourth Amendment guarantees in authorizing the NSA surveillance.

 

[OrByte]

It seems to me that if intelligence agencies are being flooded by information (as a result of this NSA operation) to the point that they are chasing "thousands of dead ends" that we can safely assume that alot of american citizens (ordinary or not) private phone calls/emails/letters/smoke signals/whatever were included in said data mining operation.

Unless these Al Q operatives spend every moment of every living day chatting on the phone and email. No wonder they haven't struck us since 9/11!!!

🙂


common sense, some folks here should try it sometime.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: BBond

They say that sort of thing usually runs in families.

Speaking of hearing things that aren't there where did you hear about my agony?

Well then, I guess since he was my brother-in-law, I don't have much to worry about myself. Maybe my soon aproaching baby son could be affected, but that's not too much of a worry either. You see, I'm a Republican. I eat babies. He doesn't stand a chance.

...and your agony is apparent every day you post. This is your life, spending hours a day endlessly proclaiming your hatred of Bush on a meaningless messageboard.

I know you said brother in law.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: OrByte
It seems to me that if intelligence agencies are being flooded by information (as a result of this NSA operation) to the point that they are chasing "thousands of dead ends" that we can safely assume that alot of american citizens (ordinary or not) private phone calls/emails/letters/smoke signals/whatever were included in said data mining operation.

Unless these Al Q operatives spend every moment of every living day chatting on the phone and email. No wonder they haven't struck us since 9/11!!!

🙂


common sense, some folks here should try it sometime.

Makes one wonder if all those "terror alerts" were true. If they're so busy wasting resources chasing dead ends it seems that, just like prior to 9/11, the Bush administration is ignoring the real threats and chasing after ghosts -- just like Iraq too.

Am I sensing a theme?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Corn
spending hours a day endlessly proclaiming your hatred of Bush on a meaningless messageboard.

Your doing the same -- unless you're getting paid. 😉

*edit for clarity*

Only difference is, you're spending yours endlessly defending the scum.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BBond
The NSA shared information on U.S. citizens gleaned from Bush's illegal wiretaps with the FBI.

That serial liar Cheney claims the NSA spying saved "thousands of lives" yet all of the information the NSA supplied the FBI led to DEAD ENDS. It's bad enough they spied on U.S. citizens without warrants. It's bad enough they lied and said they only spied on U.S. citizens who were in contact with al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. But now we find out that they shared info on U.S. citizens illegally obtained with the FBI and IT WAS ALL JUST A WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program's results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country's second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the program was started.

"I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available," General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.

The differing views of the value of the N.S.A.'s foray into intelligence-gathering in the United States may reflect both bureaucratic rivalry and a culture clash. The N.S.A., an intelligence agency, routinely collects huge amounts of data from across the globe that may yield only tiny nuggets of useful information; the F.B.I., while charged with fighting terrorism, retains the traditions of a law enforcement agency more focused on solving crimes.

"It isn't at all surprising to me that people not accustomed to doing this would say, 'Boy, this is an awful lot of work to get a tiny bit of information,' " said Adm. Bobby R. Inman, a former N.S.A. director. "But the rejoinder to that is, Have you got anything better?"

Several of the law enforcement officials acknowledged that they might not know of arrests or intelligence activities overseas that grew out of the domestic spying program. And because the program was a closely guarded secret, its role in specific cases may have been disguised or hidden even from key investigators.

Still, the comments on the N.S.A. program from the law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, many of them high level, are the first indication that the program was viewed with skepticism by key figures at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency responsible for disrupting plots and investigating terrorism on American soil.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the program is classified. It is coming under scrutiny next month in hearings on Capitol Hill, which were planned after members of Congress raised questions about the legality of the eavesdropping. The program was disclosed in December by The New York Times.

The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.

Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration pressed the nation's intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to move urgently to thwart any more plots. The N.S.A., whose mission is to spy overseas, began monitoring the international e-mail messages and phone calls of people inside the United States who were linked, even indirectly, to suspected Qaeda figures.

Under a presidential order, the agency conducted the domestic eavesdropping without seeking the warrants ordinarily required from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles national security matters. The administration has defended the legality of the program, pointing to what it says is the president's inherent constitutional power to defend the country and to legislation passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials told Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, of the eavesdropping program, and his agency was enlisted to run down leads from it, several current and former officials said.

While he and some bureau officials discussed the fact that the program bypassed the intelligence surveillance court, Mr. Mueller expressed no concerns about that to them, those officials said. But another government official said Mr. Mueller had questioned the administration about the legal authority for the program.

Officials who were briefed on the N.S.A. program said the agency collected much of the data passed on to the F.B.I. as tips by tracing phone numbers in the United States called by suspects overseas, and then by following the domestic numbers to other numbers called. In other cases, lists of phone numbers appeared to result from the agency's computerized scanning of communications coming into and going out of the country for names and keywords that might be of interest. The deliberate blurring of the source of the tips caused some frustration among those who had to follow up.

F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

In response to the F.B.I. complaints, the N.S.A. eventually began ranking its tips on a three-point scale, with 3 being the highest priority and 1 the lowest, the officials said. Some tips were considered so hot that they were carried by hand to top F.B.I. officials. But in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.

The views of some bureau officials about the value of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance offers a revealing glimpse of the difficulties law enforcement and intelligence agencies have had cooperating since Sept. 11.

The N.S.A., criticized by the national Sept. 11 commission for its "avoidance of anything domestic" before the attacks, moved aggressively into the domestic realm after them. But the legal debate over its warrantless eavesdropping has embroiled the agency in just the kind of controversy its secretive managers abhor. The F.B.I., meanwhile, has struggled over the last four years to expand its traditional mission of criminal investigation to meet the larger menace of terrorism.

Admiral Inman, the former N.S.A. director and deputy director of C.I.A., said the F.B.I. complaints about thousands of dead-end leads revealed a chasm between very different disciplines. Signals intelligence, the technical term for N.S.A.'s communications intercepts, rarely produces "the complete information you're going to get from a document or a witness" in a traditional F.B.I. investigation, he said.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were uncomfortable with the expanded domestic role played by the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, saying most intelligence officers lacked the training needed to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights. They said some protections had to be waived temporarily in the months after Sept. 11 to detect a feared second wave of attacks, but they questioned whether emergency procedures like the eavesdropping should become permanent.

That discomfort may explain why some F.B.I. officials may seek to minimize the benefits of the N.S.A. program or distance themselves from the agency. "This wasn't our program," an F.B.I. official said. "It's not our mess, and we're not going to clean it up."

The N.S.A.'s legal authority for collecting the information it passed to the F.B.I. is uncertain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for the use of so-called pen register equipment that records American phone numbers, even if the contents of the calls are not intercepted. But officials with knowledge of the program said no warrants were sought to collect the numbers, and it is unclear whether the secret executive order signed by Mr. President Bush in 2002 to authorize eavesdropping without warrants also covered the collection of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Aside from the director, F.B.I. officials did not question the legal status of the tips, assuming that N.S.A. lawyers had approved. They were more concerned about the quality and quantity of the material, which produced "mountains of paperwork" often more like raw data than conventional investigative leads.

"It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads," the former senior prosecutor said. "A trained investigator never would have devoted the resources to take those leads to the next level, but after 9/11, you had to."

By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

By contrast, different officials agree that the N.S.A.'s domestic operations played a role in the arrest of an imam and another man in Albany in August 2004 as part of an F.B.I. counterterrorism sting investigation. The men, Yassin Aref, 35, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, are awaiting trial on charges that they attempted to engineer the sale of missile launchers to an F.B.I. undercover informant.

In addition, government officials said the N.S.A. eavesdropping program might have assisted in the investigations of people with suspected Qaeda ties in Portland and Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis case, charges of supporting terrorism were filed in 2004 against Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, a Canadian citizen. Six people in the Portland case were convicted of crimes that included money laundering and conspiracy to wage war against the United States.

Even senior administration officials with access to classified operations suggest that drawing a clear link between a particular source and the unmasking of a potential terrorist is not always possible.

When Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, was asked last week on "The Charlie Rose Show" whether the N.S.A. wiretapping program was important in deterring terrorism, he said, "I don't know that it's ever possible to attribute one strand of intelligence from a particular program."

But Mr. Chertoff added, "I can tell you in general the process of doing whatever you can do technologically to find out what is being said by a known terrorist to other people, and who that person is communicating with, that is without a doubt one of the critical tools we've used time and again."

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York for this article.

And the NY Times editorial opinion of this whole sticking affair...

Spying on Ordinary Americans

In times of extreme fear, American leaders have sometimes scrapped civil liberties in the name of civil protection. It's only later that the country can see that the choice was a false one and that citizens' rights were sacrificed to carry out extreme measures that were at best useless and at worst counterproductive. There are enough examples of this in American history - the Alien and Sedition Acts and the World War II internment camps both come to mind - that the lesson should be woven into the nation's fabric. But it's hard to think of a more graphic example than President Bush's secret program of spying on Americans.

The White House has offered steadily weaker arguments to defend the decision to eavesdrop on Americans' telephone calls and e-mail without getting warrants. One argument is that the spying produced unique and highly valuable information. Vice President Dick Cheney, who never shrinks from trying to prey on Americans' deepest fears, said that the spying had saved "thousands of lives" and could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks had it existed then.

Given the lack of good, hard examples, that argument sounded dubious from the start. A chilling article in yesterday's Times confirmed our fears.

According to the article, the eavesdropping swept up vast quantities of Americans' private communications without any reasonable belief that they could be related to terrorism. The National Security Agency flooded the Federal Bureau of Investigation with thousands of names, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and other tips that virtually all led to dead ends or to innocent Americans.

About the only result the administration has been able to dredge up on behalf of the spying program is the claim that the information it gained helped disrupt two plots: one to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and one to detonate fertilizer bombs in London. But officials in Washington and Britain disputed the connection. And that plot to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch has been trotted out so many times that it would be comical if the issue were not so serious.

This was not just a tragic waste of the F.B.I.'s resources in dangerous times. It was an outrageous and pointless intrusion into individuals' privacy. Anyone who read the original reports on the spying operation and thought, "Well, so what, I have nothing to hide," should think about the uncounted innocent Americans who had F.B.I. officers knocking on their doors because of secret and possibly illegal surveillance. The National Security Agency was originally barred from domestic surveillance without court supervision to avoid just this sort of abuse.

The first lawsuits challenging the legality of the domestic spying operation were filed this week, and Congress plans hearings. We hope that lawmakers are more diligent about reining in Mr. Bush now than they have been about his other abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

I just thought I'd bump the OP in a (likely futile) hope that it, along with BBond's article a few posts above, might bring this thread back on-topic. 🙂

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: OrByte
It seems to me that if intelligence agencies are being flooded by information (as a result of this NSA operation) to the point that they are chasing "thousands of dead ends" that we can safely assume that alot of american citizens (ordinary or not) private phone calls/emails/letters/smoke signals/whatever were included in said data mining operation.

Unless these Al Q operatives spend every moment of every living day chatting on the phone and email. No wonder they haven't struck us since 9/11!!!

🙂


common sense, some folks here should try it sometime.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that if they're hitting "thousands of dead ends", they're not limiting their intrusions to al Qaeda contacts. Either that, or we have a much bigger problem with terrorist infiltration than even Dick "The Boogeyman" Cheney suggests.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: OrByte
It seems to me that if intelligence agencies are being flooded by information (as a result of this NSA operation) to the point that they are chasing "thousands of dead ends" that we can safely assume that alot of american citizens (ordinary or not) private phone calls/emails/letters/smoke signals/whatever were included in said data mining operation.

Unless these Al Q operatives spend every moment of every living day chatting on the phone and email. No wonder they haven't struck us since 9/11!!!

🙂


common sense, some folks here should try it sometime.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that if they're hitting "thousands of dead ends", they're not limiting their intrusions to al Qaeda contacts. Either that, or we have a much bigger problem with terrorist infiltration than even Dick "The Boogeyman" Cheney suggests.

More on those dead ends and why they mean average Americans are being illegally spied on. Here are a few quotes from the OP, which as usual some people around here didn't even bother to read.

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

Hence my comment about the knock on the door. These people were actually spying on American citizens then passing along info to the FBI who actually contacted the people whose lives were being pointlessly intruded upon.

Now that's freedom and democracy. :roll:

How can we export what we don't have?

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,"

I wonder how that school teacher or any of the thousands of others who were "interviewed" by the FBI felt. Do you think they felt like citizens of the USSR felt when they were "interviewed" by government agents? Do you think they wondered what they could possibly have done to deserve such heavy handed, threatening, coercive treatment? Do you think their idea of U.S. government power and the suppposed ideals America stands for has changed? Do you think they wondered where their Constitutional rights had gone?

Officials who were briefed on the N.S.A. program said the agency collected much of the data passed on to the F.B.I. as tips by tracing phone numbers in the United States called by suspects overseas, and then by following the domestic numbers to other numbers called. In other cases, lists of phone numbers appeared to result from the agency's computerized scanning of communications coming into and going out of the country for names and keywords that might be of interest.

In other words, they were spying on average Americans INSIDE the U.S.

F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

In other words, no evidence, no warrant, no probable cause, just go get Citizen X and see what you can find out. Knock on the door, flash your ID and put the pressure on. Welcome to the Bush dictatorship.

Some F.B.I. officials said they were uncomfortable with the expanded domestic role played by the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, saying most intelligence officers lacked the training needed to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights.

Pretty funny, "safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights." What privacy and civil rights? Those have been rendered quaint and obsolete by the Bush regime.

The N.S.A.'s legal authority for collecting the information it passed to the F.B.I. is uncertain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for the use of so-called pen register equipment that records American phone numbers, even if the contents of the calls are not intercepted. But officials with knowledge of the program said no warrants were sought to collect the numbers, and it is unclear whether the secret executive order signed by Mr. President Bush in 2002 to authorize eavesdropping without warrants also covered the collection of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

No question, an illegal as hell impeachable, indicdtable offense. Maybe that's why the Bushies are squealing so loudly. They KNOW their man just committed those very offenses.

 

[Rainsford]

I do not understand how any reasonable person can read this article and suggest that we can trust that only people related to terrorist activities have been targeted. It says right in the article that the NSA gave a large number of leads to the FBI, the vast majority of which proved to be dead ends or innocent Americans.

Now, perhaps my logic skills have been killed by beer, but that statement would suggest to me that the vast majority of the data gathered was about people who had no real links to terrorism, in other words, innocent Americans. Think about it, out of all the data gathered, the distilled analysis still mostly led the FBI to innocent Americans. Given that, how could the data be only gathered about Americans who have a clear link to terrorists (calling known AQ numbers, as one poster suggested)? If that were the case, shouldn't the FBI have had a better success rate?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I do not understand how any reasonable person can read this article and suggest that we can trust that only people related to terrorist activities have been targeted. It says right in the article that the NSA gave a large number of leads to the FBI, the vast majority of which proved to be dead ends or innocent Americans.

Now, perhaps my logic skills have been killed by beer, but that statement would suggest to me that the vast majority of the data gathered was about people who had no real links to terrorism, in other words, innocent Americans. Think about it, out of all the data gathered, the distilled analysis still mostly led the FBI to innocent Americans. Given that, how could the data be only gathered about Americans who have a clear link to terrorists (calling known AQ numbers, as one poster suggested)? If that were the case, shouldn't the FBI have had a better success rate?

Ignoring irrefutable logic is the main Bushie defense mechanism. If they admitted the truth to themselves their heads would explode.

That's why they resort to attacking people who post the truth about the Bush regime instead of discussing the facts. They can't win so they take the focus off of the facts and attack the messenger.

It is exactly as you say, Rainsford. George W. Bush approved spying on innocent U.S. citizens by the NSA who then shared that illegally obtained information with the FBI and probably other agencies who then used it to harass innocent Americans. NOT only people with "suspected links" to al Qaeda. NOT only people who communicated with "suspected" terrorists. Just plain ordinary average Americans who were then "interviewed" for absolutely no reason by the FBI.