Posted on 01/28/2006 9:13:58 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration faces daily questions about a highly secretive program at the National Security Agency aimed at monitoring terror suspects. Is it legal? Who's targeted?
Some questions and answers about the domestic surveillance program launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001:
Q: Can the NSA eavesdrop on Americans?
A: Generally, it is prohibited without a court order. But under a directive signed by President Bush, and renewed more than 30 times, the National Security Agency can monitor the international communications of people inside the country, when one party to the call or e-mail is believed to be involved with al-Qaida.
Q: How many people are affected?
A: Only a tight-knit group of government officials know, and they won't say. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other senior officials have insisted the program is "targeted" to go after only the most dangerous types of communications — those that may involve al-Qaida inside the United States.
Civil rights groups, scholars, lawyers for Muslim Americans, Democrats and others fear communications may have been more widely monitored.
Q: What did Bush's directive change?
A: In national security investigations, the program eliminated the need to go before a judge for approval of surveillance on U.S. residents.
Previously, government lawyers had to show the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there was "probable cause" a targeted person was an agent of a foreign power. A federal judge had to approve a warrant, and typically did. Bush's order allowed the NSA — not a judge — to approve the monitoring when officials had a "reasonable basis to believe" one party to the call or e-mail was linked to al-Qaida.
Q: Who decides who is monitored?
A: Last month, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the government's No. 2 intelligence official, said an NSA shift supervisor makes the call. The former NSA director rephrased his answer this week, saying only a small group of senior military officers or civilian counterterror experts at NSA get to decide, using criteria that has not been disclosed.
Q: How does the surveillance work?
A: Officials won't say. But Hayden said the NSA is not vacuuming up vast amounts of communications and running searches on it. In 2003 alone, U.S. citizens spent 200 billion minutes on international calls. Ethically and practically, he said, the NSA can't be a "drift net."
Despite his words, opponents are concerned the NSA captures a lot.
Q: Has the program foiled terrorist attacks?
A: Administration officials say they have gotten valuable information that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. For security reasons, they do not provide specifics.
Q: Why the uproar?
A: For the administration's critics, the program harkens back to the Nixon administration's wiretapping. It also raises constitutional questions about whether the monitoring is an unreasonable search, prohibited under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
Q: Was Congress told?
A: The administration says that members of Congress were briefed more than a dozen times. However, only select lawmakers were present. Called the "Gang of Eight," they include the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate and on the intelligence committees.
In the program's four years, the lawmakers included in that group have changed, so few — if any — attended all the briefings. And some privately say they weren't given all the information they needed.
Q: Has anyone who has been briefed on the program called for its halt?
No. Democrats, including California Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), the intelligence committee's top Democrat, have complained about the size of the briefings and legal questions they want answered.
But none has said the program should end. Harman says she believes the program "is essential to U.S. national security."
Q: Did the White House consider asking Congress to change the law?
A: Yes. Although Bush says he has adequate legal authority now, Gonzales said the administration considered proposing changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2004. The attorney general said congressional leaders believed that move would jeopardize the program.
Some Democrats are quietly arguing the administration thought it was on shaky ground in 2003. A draft bill proposed giving legal cover to federal officials who conduct unauthorized surveillance ordered by the president or attorney general. That update to the Patriot Act, leaked to an interest group, was never introduced in Congress.
Q: Some people have sued the government, saying they believe their conversations might have been intercepted. How can they know?
A: They can't. At least two federal lawsuits are based on a belief that the individuals may have engaged in conversations that would have attracted the NSA's attention. If the courts allow the cases to proceed, the government may be forced to disclose information about the program and its targets.
Q: What is the NSA anyway?
A: The NSA is the largest of the nation's 15 spy agencies. Its 30,000 workers worldwide are charged with protecting U.S. information systems and eavesdropping on adversaries. They take pride in the nickname, "Never Say Anything," and adequate distance from Washington — the headquarters is at Fort Meade, Md. — to ensure a healthy population of Baltimore Ravens football fans.
Yes, that is what he said. What all of them said. And FYI, I think the show started last week. It is Wallstreet's Opinion Journal. Interesting, huh?
I didn't see it last week...it is a good show...but at 30 minutes...I think they aren't giving them enough time.
They will..depending on ratings. :)
I was a bit surprised to see this Q&A pop-up myself. Of course, it comes out on a Saturday evening, but..
I wanted to make sure it got posted, and as you said , it is progress in that it does define basics behind the program and is not a complete fudgejob as has been most of the reporting to date re: the NSA "Domestic" "spying" "scandal" ..
Wow...I am impressed...you really know your stuff...maybe you should apply to help out.
Regardless of the "legality" of this...as was pointed out in other posts...these taps are not being used to gather evidence for a trial per se...it is to stop another attack...or find out where the cells are, in and out of the US...IMHO..
And...I can't believe the democrats and some Rinos, like Specter and McCain, are going to force hearings that will just harm our clandestine terrorism fight more than it already has been...
It is a lose-lose plan for them....and ultimately a possible lose situation for the US...if this causes us to miss some intelligence that we might have had..if this had been kept secret.
RATZ have selective memory.
You took the words right out of my mouth....these liberals don't realize that these people want our heads in a basket, or, if they do, their insatible desire for power has blinded them completly.
Refresh my memory...I was so excited about their take on the NSA "scandal"...that I have forgotten what they said about Alito...
It may be really about the commerce clause, which the Democrats used heavily for much of their legislation when they controlled the House.
Rehnquist in 1995 had an opinion on the overreaching of Congress on that....not sure of my details though.
NYT/CBS Poll Undersamples Republicans, Still Shows Approval For NSA Program
January 27, 2006
Oh...okay....I remember Feinstein spent almost as much time grilling him about the commerce clause as his abortion stance.
I think the commerce clause concern is mostly about guns...
**********AN EXCERPT ******************************************
Once again, The New York Times and CBS News have released a poll suggesting electoral doom for the GOP and the President, as well as saying the public's views are "mixed" when it comes to the NSA Surveillance program depending on how the questions are asked.
That's true in any poll, but what the NYT doesn't tell you is that the questions they asked were misleading and did not accurately reflect the nature of the NSA program. Oh, and the demographics were once again weighted in favor of Democrats.
Click READ MORE to see us (once again) utterly demolish an "Old Media" poll.
But here's what you won't see in the news stories. - the demography of the poll respondents
First, 13% of respondents aren't even registerd to vote, and of those that were registered, 19% didn't go to the polls in 2004. So right away you know that 32% of the total respondents didn't vote in 2004.
The Commerce Clause is used heavily to regulate all kinds of things....the democrats favorite technique....and they don't want it shut down.
You can say that again!
"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
|
"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."
|
"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
|
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.