NSA Surveillance: Not Really News To Those Paying Attention, Not Illegal, But Still A Matter of Concern

June 6, 2013 — Ron Chusid

The major topic of discussion today has clearly been the data mining of cell phone records on numerous blogs and news sites. On the one hand, I share in the opposition to the concept of a government program which we cannot even evaluate because of the secrecy surrounding it. On the other hand, did anyone really think that their cell phone call records were secret items which the government couldn’t review with ease? This is exactly the type of thing which many of us blogged about during the Bush years. From May 11, 2006 USA Today reported:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

There’s one difference between the program under Obama compare to Bush. Obama is using the FISA courts and following the law, while Bush did not:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

“This is really a sea change,” said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. “It’s almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches.”

Of course being legal does not mean it is right. While I do prefer to see judicial oversight, there is a huge difference between true oversight and a rubber stamp.

In theory there is also Congressional oversight. The top Senators on the Intelligence Committee say this is to protect America:

The top two senators on the Intelligence Committee on Thursday defended the National Security Agency’s collection of Americans’ phone records after it was reported in The Guardian.

“It is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress,” Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told reporters at an impromptu news conference in the Capitol. “This is just meta data. There is no content involved. In other words, no content of a communication. … The records can only be accessed under heightened standards.”

“I read intelligence carefully. And I know that people are trying to get to us,” Feinstein said. “This is the reason we keep TSA doing what it’s doing. This the reason the FBI now has 10,000 people doing intelligence on counter-terrorism. This is the reason for the national counter-terrorism center that’s been set up in the time we’ve been active.”

“And it’s to ferret this out before it happens,” she said. “It’s called protecting America.”

Senate Intelligence Vice Chair Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) backed up Feinstein, saying, “This is nothing particularly new. This has been going on for seven years under the auspices of the FISA authority, and every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this.”

I guess we can discuss this in thirty years when the information is declassified.

Personally I have no problem with the government seeking a warrant to obtain phone records (and more) regarding individual who they have reasonable cause to suspect of plotting acts of terrorism. Maybe there is even a chance that having these records did put them on the trail of a potential terrorist who they otherwise did not suspect. In a free society it is necessary to place limits on what information the government can obtain and it is necessary to have some degree of transparency about how the information is used, even if we must give up having one-hundred percent security to maintain liberty.

Posted in Barack Obama, Civil Liberties, Foreign Policy & National Security, George Bush, Terrorism. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Senate Votes To Double Fines On Marijuana Brownies

July 30, 2010 — Ron Chusid

Congress has been near paralyzed by the manner in which the Republicans have made 60 the new 50 and have filibustered virtually everything proposed by Democrats. There’s still one thing which was able to pass by unanimous consent–a bill to double the penalties for marijuana brownies. Talking Points Memo reports:

If you thought that the Republican filibuster of the tax-cutting small business bill meant that the Senate didn’t have a particularly productive day Thusday, you’d be wrong. In fact, the Senate authorized the issuance of a conservation stamp, created Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week, gave a little money to the Patent and Trademark office and, oh yeah, doubled the penalties for making pot brownies. Yes, the same week that Congress significantly reduced the racially-charged crack-powder sentencing disparity, they also voted to create one between pot brownies and dime bags.

The Senate voted to pass by unanimous consent (that it, without a roll call vote) S. 258, known colloquially as the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and co-sponsored by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Charles Grassley (R-IA). While the bill is intended to keep drug dealers from cutting their product with sweets in order to make them more marketable to children, it applies to any drug mixed with with something that modifies its flavor — as making pot brownies does — if the person making the brownies “intends” to give it to someone under 18. At that point, the person making the pot brownies would be subject to twice the normal penalty of any person caught distributing weed.

Michael Whitney of Firedoglake believes that Diane Feinstein’s real goal is to stop medical marijuana. Jacob Sullum at Reason thinks this is giving Feinstein too much credit, not believing that Feinstein put that much thought into the bill she sponsored.

Posted in Congress, Drug Policy. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »

Mixed Assessment On Preventive Detention

September 24, 2009 — Ron Chusid

The Obama administration has announced it will use current law to justify the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges as opposed to seeking a new law.  Putting this in perspective, Glenn Greenwald calls this an incremental, perhaps only cosmetic, improvement. He does find some positives in this:

Regardless of what motivated this, and no matter how bad the current detention scheme is, this development is very positive, and should be considered a victory for those who spent the last four months loudly protesting Obama’s proposal.  Here’s why:

A new preventive detention law would have permanently institutionalized that power, almost certainly applying not only to the “war on Terror” but all future conflicts.  It would have endowed preventive detention with the legitimizing force of explicit statutory authority, which it currently lacks.  It would have caused preventive detention to ascend to the cherished status of official bipartisan consensus — and thus, for all practical purposes, been placed off limits from meaningful debate — as not only the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, but also Obama and the Democratic Congress, would have formally embraced it.  It would have created new and far more permissive standards for when an individual could be detained without charges and without trials.  And it would have forced Constitutional challenges to begin from scratch, ensuring that current detainees would suffer years and years more imprisonment with no due process.

Beyond that, as a purely practical matter, nothing good — and plenty of bad — could come from having Congress write a new detention law.  As bad as the Obama administration is on detention issues, the Congress is far worse.  Any time the words “Terrorism” or “Al Qaeda” are uttered, they leap to the most extreme and authoritarian measures.  Congress is intended to be a check on presidential powers, but each time Terrorism is the issue, the ironic opposite occurs:  when the Obama administration and Congress are at odds, it is Congress demanding greater powers of executive detention (as happened when Congress blocked Obama from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.).  Any process that lets Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein anywhere near presidential detention powers is one that is to be avoided at all costs.  Whatever else is true, anyone who believes in the Far Left doctrines known as the Constitution, due process and what Thomas Jefferson called “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution” (i.e., jury trials) should consider it a very good thing that the Congress is not going to write a new law authorizing presidential preventive detentions.  However bad things are now, that would have made everything much worse.

This assessment comes a day after Greenwald called yesterday’s announced changes to the state secrets policy a “farce.”

Posted in Barack Obama, Civil Liberties, Terrorism. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Will the Left or Right Kill Health Care Reform?

June 28, 2009 — Ron Chusid

It is far from certain at this point whether health care reform will succeed. Most insiders believe that Congress will enact some form of comprehensive health care reform but it is easy to envision scenarios where they are not successful. The opposition comes mainly from the right, but there is also the view (perhaps as this is more of a man bites dog storyline) that it is the left which will cause health care reform to fail. Cici Connolly of The Washington Post examines how some activists are targeting Democrats:

In recent days — and during this week’s congressional recess — left-leaning bloggers and grass-roots organizations such as MoveOn.org, Health Care for America Now and the Service Employees International Union have singled out Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) for the criticism more often reserved for opposition party members…

Much of the sparring centers around whether to create a government-managed health insurance program that would compete with private insurers. Obama supports the concept, dubbed the “public option,” but he has been vague on details. Left-of-center activists want a powerful entity with the ability to set prices for doctors and hospitals.

But in the Senate, where the Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, members are weighing alternatives such as a nonprofit cooperative or a “fallback” provision that would kick in only if market reforms fail.

Pushing for the public plan does have popular support but Connolly notes that this does not mean that a majority supports the entire agenda of those on the left who see a public plan as a means of transitioning to a single payer plan. She notes that, “While recent polls show high initial support for a government option, the number declines if told the insurance industry could fold as a result.” Many who support providing the option of a public plan also desire to continue with their current insurance.

There are signs that this pressure is influencing some Democrats but others fear this is counterproductive:

One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations.

The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: “These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn’t helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?”

If this effort is based upon pushing Democrats to support the public plan there should not necessarily be adverse consequences on the success of health care reform. Of greater concern is talk among some progressives of voting against a health care reform bill which does not contain a public plan. I can envision scenarios where Republicans have enough votes to filibuster a bill which contains a public plan, but a bill without a public plan could also fail if both Republicans and some progressives vote against it.

The goals should be to reduce the number of people who lack insurance and to reduce insurance problems such as people being cut off when they develop a serious illness. These are serious problems which need to be addressed and there are multiple possible solutions. Ideological battles such as over whether to have a single payer plan should not be used to prevent meaningful reform, even if the reform will inevitably fall short of what some desire.

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Health Care. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 24 Comments »

Dianne Feinstein’s Logic

January 6, 2009 — Ron Chusid

I’m having difficulty following Dianne Feinstein’s logic in opposing the nomination of Leon Panetta to head the CIA–just like I had difficulty following her logic in supporting the Iraq war and in voting for Bush’s Medicare plan.

Maybe Panetta isn’t her first choice, but she didn’t stop that from backing George Bush’s choices. Think Progress points out that Feinstein didn’t vote against any of George Bush’s key appointments. They also note that in defending her vote in favor of Porter Goss to be Director of  Central Intelligence  (DCI), Feinstein said:

I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job.

If she could vote for Bush’s appointees, why is there any question as to whether she will vote for this nomination by Obama? Not being a career  CIA official is hardly a meaningful reason considering all the pertinent experience Panetta does have. Matthew Yglesias points out that Porter Goss, George Tenent, John Deutsch, James Woolsey, William Webster, and George H. W. Bush were all chosen to head the CIA despite not being career intelligence officials. Panetta’s experience as White House chief of staff gave him more experience in handling intelligence than most people in government.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Congress, Foreign Policy & National Security. Tags: , , . No Comments »

Obama to Fight Internet Smears

June 10, 2008 — Ron Chusid

The Guardian reports that Obama’s campaign is forming a unit to combat internet rumors:

Barack Obama is recruiting senior staff to a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election against John McCain.

The unit is part of a huge expansion of Obama’s campaign team as he shifts from the Democratic nomination race to the campaign for November’s election.

As well as the rumour-mongering problem, units are being set up to deal with other perceived vulnerable points, including off-the-cuff remarks by his wife Michelle. McCain’s wife, Cindy, questioned Michelle’s patriotism in February after she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Brooks Jackson, director of the Washington-based FactCheck.org, an independent academic organisation set up in 2003 to monitor the factual accuracy of statements made in elections, said yesterday there had been false rumours on the internet about George Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 election.

“With Obama, it is particularly vicious,” Jackson said. He added that one of the most persistent is that Obama, a Christian, is “some kind of Muslim Manchurian candidate, planted by Islamic fundamentalists to betray the country and it is very widespread”.

The real question is how they combat these rumors. John Kerry’s campaign had a web site debunking all the attacks on Kerry, but this only has an impact on the people who actually read the site. Rapid response has been an important part of campaigns at least since Bill Clinton. Under the fold I’ve placed the transcript of a report on NPR’s Morning Edition on rapid response efforts of the presidential campaigns.

Obama has been highly successful in many aspects of his campaign. Hopefully he can be more successful than previous campaigns in fighting all the untrue rumors which have been too large a part of politics.

(more…)

Posted in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Politics. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Obama Wins Superdelegate and Takes Lead in Senate Endorsements

April 28, 2008 — Ron Chusid

Earlier in the race it was about delegates. Currently the Clinton campaign stresses the popular vote. At one time Hillary even jokingly suggested gong by bowling scores. Although the Clinton campaign changes the metric by which they claim Clinton should get the nomination there’s one measure which they won’t be using for now–endorsements from their fellow Senators. The endorsement today by New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman now gives Obama the lead (14 to 13) over Clinton.  In endorsing Obama Bingaman wrote:

Our nation faces a daunting number of critical challenges: reasserting America’s leadership in the world, meeting our needs for energy independence, addressing global warming, making healthcare accessible and affordable, positioning our economy to effectively compete globally, and extricating ourselves from the war in Iraq, to name a few.

To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction.

I strongly believe Barack Obama is best positioned to lead the nation in that new direction.

The race for Senate endorsements will continue as eighteen Senators still have not made an endorsement. The endorsements to date are under the fold.

(more…)

Posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Politics. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Keith Olbermann’s Special Investigation of the Months Leading to 9/11

September 28, 2006 — Ron Chusid

Keith Olbermann takes a look back at the Bush Administration in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. He shows that, despite several warnings, they did nothing. The sure have no business now trying to blame Clinton or anyone other than themselves for the lack of preparation. Crooks and Liars has the video. Transcript below the fold.

(more…)

Posted in George Bush, News Media, Terrorism. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 84 Comments »

ACLU Rebukes Judiciary Committee on NSA Wiretaps

September 13, 2006 — Ron Chusid

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly rebuked the Senate Judiciary Committee for adopting legislation that approves warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency. The move follows a recent court decision finding the surveillance both illegal and unconstitutional. The Bush administration has thus far stonewalled efforts by the committee to conduct meaningful oversight over the program.

“Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee acted as a rubber stamp for the administration’s abuse of power,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Congress has a right and obligation to conduct meaningful oversight on the unlawful actions of the president. But instead of investigating lawbreaking, the Senate Judiciary Committee wants to make it legal. We urge the full Senate to reject any attempts to ratify this illegal program.”

By a vote of 10 to 8, the committee approved S.2453, the “National Security Surveillance Act.” That bill, crafted by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) gives the president the option of complying – or not – with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the protections of the Fourth Amendment.The bill would also: vastly increase the government’s statutory power to examine all international phone conversations and emails, making warrantless surveillance of Americans’ conversations the rule rather then the exception and expand the ability to conduct warrantless physical searches of Americans’ homes.

(more…)

Posted in Civil Liberties, Congress. Tags: , , , , , . No Comments »
«
Newer posts » »