New Facts on NSA Surveillance

Interesting. Explain to me why they could not get a warrant within the 72-hour window.

[quote]dermo wrote:
Interesting. Explain to me why they could not get a warrant within the 72-hour window.[/quote]

I’m afraid that to explain that I would need more details on the program.

From what I can gather, the problem is from the information that comes from data-mining requiring immediate follow-up. Without knowing more, I’d guess that this means getting agents to listen in immediately based upon some computer algorithm’s judgment – however, it could be that the data is stored at the time, and then flagged to be reviewed, in which case the time between its collection and review could easily be longer than 72 hours. Those two situations would lead to different analyses, assuming the interception of the communication was even subject to a warrant requirement in the first instance.

Is there such a term as Bush apologist or perhaps administration apologist? Cheerleader is not a descriptive enough tag.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
dermo wrote:
Go to jail for what? The Plame investigation was for a specific crime - outing a CIA agent. How is revealing warrantless eavesdropping espionage, or “helping the enemy” (as the president said). Are we to believe that terrorists were not aware that we used wire taps? How does the presence or lack of a warrant affect how terrorists do business? And how does revealing the warrantless eavesdropping compromise national security? Is it because the leaker leaked classified info?

Yes, it is the leaking of highly classified information.

Revealing the existence of a highly classified program fits much more specifically under the Espionage Act than does revealing the identity of a no-longer-undercover analyst.

BTW, it’s “helping the enemy” to publicize classified, previously unknown information that helps the enemy to understand how our tracking/surveillance system works. I’m sure that most of us know a heck of a lot more about data mining programs than we did previously – and about how such data-mining programs could be applied to cell phone communications.

Even more valuable is information on our own analysis of the legal limits of such a program.[/quote]

Classification doesn’t protect illegal actions such as this one. At least, that would be the rational argument for anybody accused of “leaking”. Also, it’s odd that President Bush has know for a year that the NYT had obtained this information (which they sat on) and yet only now has chosen to find the source of the information.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Classification doesn’t protect illegal actions such as this one. At least, that would be the rational argument for anybody accused of “leaking”. Also, it’s odd that President Bush has know for a year that the NYT had obtained this information (which they sat on) and yet only now has chosen to find the source of the information.[/quote]

And whistleblower statutes only protect people who “blow the whistle” on illegal activity – so this kind of begs the question as to whether the program is illegal, your conclusory statement notwithstanding.

The fact that Tice has asked to speak on the hill does not mean that Tice leaked anything…

It could merely be the fact that the shit has hit the fan, with respect to publication, that he has decided to take action and speak on the (now public) issue.

I could have missed something in the articles I read though… if I have, just point me to it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
The fact that Tice has asked to speak on the hill does not mean that Tice leaked anything…

It could merely be the fact that the shit has hit the fan, with respect to publication, that he has decided to take action and speak on the (now public) issue.

I could have missed something in the articles I read though… if I have, just point me to it.[/quote]

RE: Tice as leaker:

Story: NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying - ABC News

and some nice commentary: