The National Security Red Herring
"Definition: A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."
Caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar, President Bush is working feverishly to divert attention from the fact that he has subverted the FISA law by claiming that the revelation in the New York Times of the NSA spying program has jeopardized national security and given the terrorists a hand. Sorry Mr. President that dog don't hunt.
The fact that the NSA has the ability to listen to electronic conversations, such as phone calls and emails, has been public knowledge since the 1970s. Al Qaeda has known this for more than ten years. The authors of the Al Qaeda training manual dealt specifically with the need to take precautions to prevent their conversations from being captured by U.S. listening posts. If we are dealing with terrorists who don't realize their conversations could be intercepted then we are after people who really must be living in a cave.
Could our National Security have been jeopardized? Yes, but only if the New York Times had divulged how the conversations were being intercepted. That knowledge would allow the targets of the intercepts to change their method of communicating. (In this case the President would be right to be upset.) But, that is not what happened. The Times did not reveal a methodology. The fact that the Government has the power to intercept conversations is why we have the FISA law in the first place. Telling the American people that the President is circumventing the law does not harm National Security in any fashion, but it could threaten George Bush's job security.
Let's be clear, Bush is upset because he has been discovered violating his oath of office. Instead of protecting the Constitution, he has authorized procedures that violate the Fourth Amendment ostensibly in the name of saving the nation. The inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Bush Administration on this issue is breathtaking. They only scream about damage to national security when it suits their purpose. They had no qualms about outing Valerie Plame or Mohammed Noor.
The Government itself is very inconsistent on what can and cannot be told to the public. Robert Baer, for example, received permission from the CIA in 2002 to publish SEE NO EVIL (which is a terrific book). A careful reader, especially one who has held a Top Secret Special Access Program (SAP) clearance can quickly pick out information in his book about a signal intercept program that is highly sensitive. Bob Baer was not trying to hurt the United States, he was just telling a great story and trusted the CIA to take out all damaging material. CIA censors, however, dropped the ball. In the latest battle over what the public can and cannot be told, CIA reviewers prohibited Gary Berntsen from telling certain facts in his book, JAWBREAKER, which another CIA officer, Gary Schroen, was permitted to include in his 2004 work, FIRST IN.
The search for the leakers who have blown the whistle on the surveillance story is not about protecting national security. This is an effort to intimidate real investigative reporters who tell the American people the stories they need to hear. Unlike a Judith Miller, who provided highly paid stenography services to the Bush Administration, Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau have a done a public service by alerting us to the fact that President Bush was ignoring the Constitution and acting like a King with a divine right to decide unilaterally what is and is not in the national interest.
Right on Larry, good for you, you hit the nail on the head
The presidents contempt for his subjects and the law should be exposed. how long did he run guard for the Plame leak?
How long did he run defense against the 9-11 Commission because he knew it would expose his failure?
January 2, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your essays have raised my level awareness about our government and its privacy issues. Talk about public service!
While looking for information on the Sony DRM debacle today, I came across Is Your Printer Spying On You?
I mean c'mon. How many terrorist are going to join United for Peace and Justice? Only if that was the name of a gym.
Have any of these agencies actually caught a "real" terrorist yet?
January 2, 2006 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Is your printer spying on you?
I work for a company that makes copiers and engineering printers (not the X). Just the other day, I was speaking to one of our service technicians about the 10 year old who got busted recently for printing money on his home printer.
The tech told me that one of our local clients had been doing the same thing, and one of our printers got impounded by the FBI, because they had been able to track what machine the bills had been printed from. So this is real.
He also told me one other thing I never realized - any company which makes color copiers or printers, has to make sure that those printers cannot duplicate the exact color green on US currency. What's more, our newer color printers also have a fail-safe which prints an all-black page if anyone attempts to copy money, stamps, stock documents, etc on them.
Who knew?
January 2, 2006 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who knew?"
Certainly not the public, that's for sure. EFF has a list of the printers that they have been able to verify are spies, or not. See if your company is on there.Then come back and report immediately. :)
Have you noticed lately that we, the citizens, usually find out about our most important policy decisions from the media, not from our government? And then, mostly what we know about that policy is what we don't know.
I find that I don't believe ANYTHING the Bush admin says, or doesn't say.
Thanks for your post. It was informative.
January 2, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing clear here is your hypocrisy, President Bush is using the same techniques under the same executive powers that President Clinton used in investigating and captureing Aldrige Aimes, and President Carter used while he was in office. The only reason you raise any concern is because it is President Bush who is doing it. That is the defenition of hypocrisy.
January 2, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Chucklehead,
News flash. Bill Clinton is not President right now. If he was and was doing this I would write the exact same thing. You are the hypocrite. I apply the same standard to Clinton and Bush. Not you bozo.
January 2, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
President Bush is using the same techniques under the same executive powers that President Clinton used in investigating and captureing Aldrige Aimes, and President Carter used while he was in office.
Fact check:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512210012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/A R2005122102253_pf.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10565905/ (See anchor's comment beginning "MITCHELL: Let me just clear the record up, Senator...")
January 2, 2006 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between Clinton, Carter and Bush:
Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless spying on foreigners (who are NOT protected by the Constitituion).
Bush has athorized the spying (warrantless) on U.S. ciitizens.
See the links from nascardaughter for more info.
January 2, 2006 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have any of these agencies actually caught a "real" terrorist yet?
I think the answer is "no", but I'm sure if I am, someone will be happy to correct me. By the way, what is a "terrorist"? As far as I know, there is no definition. So, one could say that a stop sign runner is a terrorist, or a shop lifter, or a car thief. Then there are always lots of "drug dealers" to be caught and called "terrorists". And, when did the NSA or CIA or FBI get a copy of the al Qaeda membership list, and their mailing lists? Without that how would they know that a person being spied upon is an al Qaeda member or an affiliate? But, I suppose questions like those are really examples of sedition.
January 2, 2006 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
it turns out to have been the perfect introduction to you.
we can count on you to repeat, reliably, whatever spin points the propaganda masters hand out on any given topic. here in the real world, as others have already noted, you're full of it.
aren't you ever at least embarassed at how many factually incorrect charges you level?
January 2, 2006 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
HoppyCalif,
By the way, what is a "terrorist"?
Funny you asked that because I hesitated for a long moment before typing it. But, I couldn't think of another word where the meaning would at least be "common" to all of us. And my personal definition would point to the majority party in Congress, but I'm not stuck on that either.
And, when did the NSA or CIA or FBI get a copy of the al Qaeda membership list, and their mailing lists? Without that how would they know that a person being spied upon is an al Qaeda member or an affiliate? But, I suppose questions like those are really examples of sedition.
And the answer came out today in James Risen's new book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration:
What word would you have used?
January 2, 2006 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
<span>Thanks for this link
Allen admits that the prior presidents didn't use the NSA but instead used the FBI. They tried to mislead America
Allen says "ok it was the FBI" like nonchalantly fine you caught me stretching the truth
</span><span>Chuckie: OK! You and your party tried to mislead America and all you can say after getting caught in your lies is OK
Then Allen says no ones actually been hurt
Mitchell says how do we know?
Allen then says "being detained its okay….
Chuckie: Allen thinks its okay to be detained. Does he know if US Citizens are being renditioned, flown around the country with hoods on and electrodes attached to genitals.
Mitchell then mentions or suggests that information could be out there invading privacy…
Allen then says "that’s true that’s true...its one of those risks ....
the president must take to allow flexibility
Chuckie: Forgive, me but I don't trust this president to carefully execute his office and defend my rights. He has a record of lies and he thinks torture is okay.
Could he ever see a time in the interest of National Security to torture American citizens or call them enemy combatants held without trial </span>
January 2, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush was so upset over the security leak, he would have initiated a leak investigation over a year ago, when the NYT first tried to print the story.
January 2, 2006 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What word would you have used?
I use many words, depending on what I am trying to say. I'm not sure what you are saying, so I can't answer the question.
I'm sure the CIA has captured a few people who might be involved with bin Laden's al Qaeda, but I doubt that the word "many" is appropriate - I remember too well the many times we hear about the CIA once again capturing a man who is number two below bin Laden. The few real al Qaeda operatives captured may well have had written materials or computers that allowed some sort of list to be generated. My doubt is that only that list defines the people being illegally spied upon by the NSA. If that were the case there would have been zero difficulty in getting a FISC warrant for the spying. And, that apparently wasn't the case. So, it is very rational to assume that far more names are involved, most of whom the FISC would not authorize a warrant for, obviously disbelieving that they are al Qaeda affiliates or members.
January 2, 2006 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have any of these agencies actually caught a "real" terrorist yet?
While I was under surveillance, I was threatened, stalked and the threats were carried out. When I called police they did not follow departmental policy, violated my civil rights and did not file factual police reports. They made it look like there was no crime. I think that's called obstruction of justice.
I plan to ask the DOJ to open a civil rights investigation into the police based on the surveillance evidence from the JTTF.
January 2, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The puerile arguments of Bush and his supporters are just mind-numbing and entirely predictable. So one might disagree with the conclusion because their inconsistency and hypocrisy are not breathtaking, but as common place as a two-year-old's temper tantrums and his or her inability to spell. No substance; just name calling. No facts; just fantasy or fiction. No critical thinking; just zombie-like adherence to the party line. Their blissful ignorance is what is truly breathtaking. Even William Safire's not on board with the illegal wiretapping. Hell, he got wiretapped! If Bush can do whatever he wants anytime he wants, why have a Constitution? Why have a Congress? Why have any laws at all? In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the whole of government consists in the art of being honest." He also said that "a democracy is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind." And John Locke wrote that wherever law ends, tyranny begins" to which might be added Montesquieu's statement that "there is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." So Bush supporters, eternal patriots and lovers of democracy, should determine whether his actions are consistent with any of these truisms?
January 2, 2006 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern, brought even more to bear with revelation that the NSA program is skirting FISA, is exactly that - the term "terrorist" has not been clearly defined, presenting the ever-real possibility that if the administration continues to have free reign in defining the legalities of war on terror, anyone could conceivably fit the mould (as the FBI is seemingly already exercising its own ability to confuse who the enemy really is).
Larry, a question, if I may - how much more do you think there is? Given your experience, what other executive wartime liberties could be sitting in the wings, waiting to become public knowledge? I fear that we know oh so little, given the administration's arrogance and teflon coating, and its almost guaranteed that what the public is becoming aware of, there are many other questionable (or downright illegal) programs that we will likely never learn about (and as such, are even more likely to directly affect us).
For someone with a desire to pound through a lot of research, it may be an interesting education, reading through the various writings of John Yoo to predict where the next surprise might come from.
January 2, 2006 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
HoppyCalif,
I'm feeling a disconnect here. We are on the same side.
When I asked How many terrorist[s](sic) are going to join United for Peace and Justice, it was in the context of Larry's statement, If we are dealing with terrorists who don't realize their conversations could be intercepted...and my article on printers where so far, the FBI's biggest catch seems to be the peaceful group United for Peace and Justice.
Like you,I've noticed that the US has captured/killed the #2 al Qaeda guy at least as often as Cheney had Atta in Prague meeting with phantom al Qaeda members.
All of which had me wondering, how many real, versus well-killed, terrorists have been caught? (That #2 guy must be having a hard enjoying his 70 virgins.)
January 2, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent some time in Pakistan in 1984-85, and met up with all sorts of characters involved in this and that. I went to Pakistan on a couple of archeological tours -- with some time to waste between one and another, and an attitude of being interested.
One of the more interesting afternoons I spent was at Dean's Hotel in Peshwar -- The novelist Doris Lessing was also a guest, and she put up a notice that she would be available for tea one afternoon to discuss her tour of Afghani Refugee Camps, particularly her conversations with Afghani women. Of course I went to her tea. It was of course in the midst of the war against the Soviet v MUJ war in Afghanistan, but her concern was the attitude of the MUJ toward Women, and she had collected her evidence. Eventually she wrote it up in her book, "The Wind Blows away Our Words" (Vintage) where she nailed the matter long before it became evident in the Taliban's Afghanistan.
What concerns me is that in trying to comprehend -- in buying the books through Barnes and Noble, or through Amazon -- in checking through google for web sites that have the interesting materials -- one becomes a target. Indeed the more one might want to know by reading -- the more suspect one might become even if you never make any phone calls.
Back during the Church Committee Hearings in 1975, I heard a report on NPR about how my College had been targeted by Hoover and the COINTELPRO program. Lots of us had been involved in the Civil Rights movement -- and apparently Hoover had a thing about us. My Senator, Walter Mondale was on the Church Committee, so I called a staffer I knew who worked for him and got the documents. It was then I came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a scam. Hoover wanted to take down Antioch College -- but if you followed the directions in the first paragraph of the 301 documents -- they took you from the Cincinnati office of the FBI to Ohio Wesylin in Deleware Ohio.
It was sloppy stuff -- I could never get Mondale or the others to make the argument about slop -- but it needs making, and my guess is that a lot of what these "Wiretaps" are about now is equally slop. For instance did they spend lots of effort on my reading Doris Lessing's publication (She was profoundly anti MUJ). In fact in 1985 she was singlehandedly raising objections to the MUJ culture with the help of Afghani women. She had them with her at the tea at Dean's Hotel.
January 2, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen the fact mentioned, except on Daily KOs and Drudge, that James Risen's book, "State at War: The Secret History of the Bush Administration and the CIA" is due to be published on Jan. 3. I checked Amazon and sure enough, the book will be available on 1/3/06. Since Risen was one of the reporters who broke the NSA story in the NYT, his book should contain some excellent material on the NSA case and Bush's involvement. I'm hoping it will be explosive. There was also commentary on NPR concerning the NYT and its lack of valor in publishing the NSA story. They knew Risen's book was coming out in January. They could hardly sit on the story any longer.
January 3, 2006 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the domestic spying program leaks, the secret prisons leaks, toture(Bush's comments while signing the Defense bill last Friday) are all part of a Hail Mary political ploy to lift Bush's saggy poll numbers.
There seem to be quite a few people in this country who applaud every violation of our Constitution and the treaties we've signed.
I spend a fair amount of time reading and commenting on fringe-right blogs. The latest civil rights horror is always greeted with a round of applause in wingnut land...
It's hard to say what percentage of Americans agree with this kind of behavior, but if Karl Rove thinks it's worth a try (make the Democrats look weak complaining and investigating these issues), the the Democrats should be very careful how they handle themselves this election year.
January 3, 2006 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure SFWallace didn't bother to follow the links that pretty clearly dispute his winger talking points.
As for him and other wingers being embarrassed by being repeatedly proven wrong by the facts, I think Al Franken convincingly demonstrated on his radio show that dittoheads, Fox watchers and their ilk don't really care about what the rest of us refer to as reality. It's not their stupdity as I once believed. It's some kind of faith based, ideological, personality cult, tribal thing with them that is beyond understanding on a rational level.
January 3, 2006 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just described 98% of the people who post to this site, if you go back and check my comments I don't call names, I'm called them, when I make a clai it is usually linked to the article where I read it. Like this one. How can Larry Johnson claim to be an "expert" on terrorism when he said in an op-ed in July 2001 that:
Americans were "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism" and, in truth, had "little to fear" from terrorism. And, in turn, he rebuked his former colleagues in the national security bureaucracy for using the "fiction" of the terrorist threat to pump up their budgets.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005 /883raiiu.asp
I don't just say that he isn't as smart as he claims to be, I show the facts. Now sit back and watch as he, and others, will throw tantrums, call names and say things that require (how did you put it?) "No critical thinking just zombie-like adherence to the party line. Their blissful ignorance is what is truly breathtaking."
January 3, 2006 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Is it your position that it is ok for the FBI to conduct warrentless searches, but not the NSA. Does one have any more or less 4th Ammendment implications than the other?
January 3, 2006 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
News flash. Bill Clinton is not President right now. If he was and was doing this I would write the exact same thing. You are the hypocrite. I apply the same standard to Clinton and Bush. Not you bozo.
Well, my mistake. Simply supply the link to your Op-ed piece that condemed the Clinton administration for using the FBI to conduct warrantless searches in violation of the 4th Ammendment and I will gladly apologize for my ignorance.
(Cricket chirp, cricket chirp, )
Uh... hello?
January 3, 2006 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was using the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance? I am flabbergasted. If so, it reflects, once again, the extent of paranoia in our political culture. There is little uplifting left in it. So I can see why so many people show disinterest to contempt for politics.
Moreover, I would venture, that the persistent nastiness is one of the primary reasons for why the best ideas have been coming from outside this political arena. Unfortunately, people try to co-opt them for their own self-aggrandizement, using less than transparent means. They may make a few bucks on them; but i think it is becoming more and more evident that we have legimitized and commodified corruption too. What an irony.
I hope to take part in producing something so original and refreshing. And take credit for it this time.
January 3, 2006 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geeze, this Cafe is displaying some fine humour.
Babe, you ain't seen nuttin' YET. Time to go into the 2nd act of our net script. ahem!
wink
lol
January 3, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
<h2>'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented</h2>By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
January 3, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pressed for time today (sigh, back to work), but wanted to pass on this excellent NSA spying post from Glen Greenwald:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/breaking-daou-cycle-co
nservative.html
I never read Greenwald prior to the NSA story breaking, but his coverage has been excellent on both the political and legal fronts. Give it a read.
January 3, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many people in this country are really committed to civil liberties?
January 3, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
'm feeling a disconnect here. We are on the same side.
I apologize for misunderstanding your comment - as I said, I didn't understand what your question referred to.
As far as the 70 virgins goes, as I count them, assuming there are 70 assigned to "al Qaeda Man #2", they are now just about at the point where they may have to begin sharing one virgin per two men, possibly an easier task anyway for these men of questionable manliness. Or, maybe Allah knows who the real #2 man is, and all 70 are still waiting in the harem for him to arrive. But, that leaves open the question of what treat Allah has awaiting the #75 man? I'm really confused here, you see. In any case, I apologize. (Including to any Moslem who is offended by my frivolity here.)
January 3, 2006 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it is so clear that Bush violated the law, how do you explain these differing opinions?
President had legal authority to OK taps
By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0, 3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
"Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence."
Again the only thing clear cut is your objection to anything Bush.
January 3, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be pretty high up there in clearance level to know the scoop on this!
dc
January 3, 2006 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and the Rev Moon is God incarnate
January 3, 2006 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and the Rev Moon is God incarnate
I always enjoy the intelectual debate that is welcomed by the members of this site.
January 3, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't just say that he isn't as smart as he claims to be, I show the facts.
SFCWallace, did you read the links I provided and the comments by other participants such as seashell? Your facts are wrong, and I don't think this is the first time this has been pointed out to you. Nevertheless, you persist in making the same claims. You have been given multiple chances by generous members of this community to participate in this forum in good faith, yet you continue to revert to trolling. When you post a comment at TPMCafe, there is a line above the comment box stating "'Trolls' are not tolerated at TPMCafe... And trolls themselves will have their accounts revoked."
At this point, I don't think there is any question that you are more interested in "fruitless confrontation" than in engagement with other participants' ideas. I am reporting you to TPM management as a troll, and I suggest that other participants do the same.
January 3, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, what is a "terrorist"? As far as I know, there is no definition. So, one could say that a stop sign runner is a terrorist, or a shop lifter, or a car thief. Then there are always lots of "drug dealers" to be caught and called "terrorists". And, when did the NSA or CIA or FBI get a copy of the al Qaeda membership list, and their mailing lists? Without that how would they know that a person being spied upon is an al Qaeda member or an affiliate? But, I suppose questions like those are really examples of sedition.
Nope it's just another example of why you guys will never "get it."
January 3, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply |