Investigation?

[Cal Smith]

Do you think there should be an investigation about who leaked the info. of the overseas wiretapping?

[siberianxkiss]

yes, and there should also be an investigation of why Bush didnt go through the FISA courts before authorizing the wiretaps

[Cal Smith]

I dont have a problem with that, and I'd put my money down that it's within his powers.

[turtlefootrx]

it doesnt really matter. its not like theyll pay any attention to this in a month or two.

[lightcollapse]

I dont have a problem with that, and I'd put my money down that it's within his powers.

i do have a problem with it, and you're on.

[Justin_stacy]

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage



During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.
But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.

In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."

"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."

During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.


"We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.
Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity.

"[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry.

But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses.

"The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999.

"The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."

[siberianxkiss]

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage



During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.
But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.

In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."

"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."

During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.


"We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.
Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity.

"[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry.

But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses.

"The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999.

"The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."


or not http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

[theESCO]

I love how anytime Bush gets himself into some shit, people are so quick to point to someone else and say "he did it first".

That excuse doesn't wash away crimes, which I'm not saying there was in this case. It sure seems like there was though, and I hope there is an investigation that finds out.

And newsmax.com doesn't really strike me as the most reputable source.

[Justin_stacy]

I love how anytime Bush gets himself into some shit, people are so quick to point to someone else and say "he did it first"..
I love how anytime bush does something remotely questionable that numerous other presidents have done (notably carter and clinton) that all of a sudden its "evil" or "impeachable" but yet perfectly fine when someone of the opposing party has done it.....ironic right?

That excuse doesn't wash away crimes, which I'm not saying there was in this case. It sure seems like there was though, and I hope there is an investigation that finds out..

Not to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.........

Bush gets key backing on spy policy
By MATT STEARNSThe Star’s Washington CorrespondentWASHINGTON — The Bush administration found a key ally on Capitol Hill Monday as it broadened its aggressive defense of a recently revealed domestic spying program that used warrantless surveillance.

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “believes the program is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution,” Sarah Little, Roberts’ spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Roberts, in his first public remarks on the electronic surveillance program, indicated he has known about the program since he took over the committee in 2003. He said he believes the administration has taken proper safeguards to preserve Americans’ civil liberties and is in talks with Senate leaders on what additional oversight steps Congress should take, Little said.

“Senator Roberts believes that in a time of war, the president should have every lawful authority to protect the American people,” Little said.


nd newsmax.com doesn't really strike me as the most reputable source.
i say the same thing about extremely liberal sources like the NYTIMES........but oh well, take it how you wish.....

[splitsecond]

People fail to realize that when it comes to things like this, the White House has numerous, extremely intelligent lawyers on staff who advise them as to what they can do under the law. Sometimes it may be a stretch in some peoples eyes, but its 99.9% likely that this is all perfectly legal. Whether you agree with that or not is another issue, but the bottom line is that its idiotic to think that a probe is required every time you disagree with the actions of the government.

[theESCO]

i say the same thing about extremely liberal sources like the NYTIMES........but oh well, take it how you wish.....
Dude, they have a banner for "Defend Delay". Come on..

This all just seems a little "big brother" to me. Maybe I'm just crazy.

[siberianxkiss]

hypocrisy?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/

also i heard somewhere that in the past the FISA court has approved over 9000 wiretaps and only denied about 9. so why wasnt it done in these cases?

and nothing will come out of these "probes" its a big story in the media now, but give it a couple weeks, a new story will break and everyone, including Congress, will forget about it

[dangets]

People fail to realize that when it comes to things like this, the White House has numerous, extremely intelligent lawyers on staff who advise them as to what they can do under the law. Sometimes it may be a stretch in some peoples eyes, but its 99.9% likely that this is all perfectly legal. Whether you agree with that or not is another issue, but the bottom line is that its idiotic to think that a probe is required every time you disagree with the actions of the government.

since when is it ok for the government to assume that the people don't disagree with something and then do it without telling them? shouldn't people be given the chance to at least consider the question "are you ok with the government spying on you without a warrant" before it starts to happen?

the government thinking it is autonomous from the citizenry is bad... kings are autonomous from the people. elected officials not. not even the president.

[Justin_stacy]

Dude, they have a banner for "Defend Delay". Come on...

Against highly questionable and obviously politically motivated charges........and that's somehow "wrong"?

(Note: I understand your problem with NewsMax, and it’s totally fair, but the traditional media in this country is so one sided and bias that sometime one has no other choice then to use sites like NewsMax (whom normally sources their stuff) because the elite media doesn't show all sides to a story.)

Example,
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

This all just seems a little "big brother" to me. Maybe I'm just crazy.

If one corresponds with terrorist maybe they are undeserving of certain privacy.......Is that legitimate.

[theESCO]

If one corresponds with terrorist maybe they are undeserving of certain privacy..Is that legitimate.
and if one doesn't?

[Justin_stacy]

and if one doesn't?

then they wouldn't have been effected by this...........

[splitsecond]

since when is it ok for the government to assume that the people don't disagree with something and then do it without telling them? shouldn't people be given the chance to at least consider the question "are you ok with the government spying on you without a warrant" before it starts to happen?

the government thinking it is autonomous from the citizenry is bad... kings are autonomous from the people. elected officials not. not even the president.

I dont disagree with you. But that is why they have attorneys on staff to tell them what they can and cannot do. That is why there are elections. I am not saying don't disagree, but every time someone screams "PROBE!" it implies that there is some sort of illegal action being taken, and not just one they disagree with. People are very quick to judge actions without knowing the law as well - I am willing to bet very very very few people on this site, and in this country, actually know what the President can authorize the NSA to do, and what the Patriot Act actually says.

[Paul Tao]

you know, the difference between the clinton and bush stories is that bush's is on u.s. citizens. clinton's wasn't.

[Cal Smith]

you know, the difference between the clinton and bush stories is that bush's is on u.s. citizens. clinton's wasn't.

Arent the Bush taps originated from overseas suspected terorrists?

[Paul Tao]

Arent the Bush taps originated from overseas suspected terorrists?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html

"The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html

"President Bush defended Monday a secretive program that eavesdrops on some international phone calls involving U.S. citizens..."

[Cal Smith]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html

"The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html

"President Bush defended Monday a secretive program that eavesdrops on some international phone calls involving U.S. citizens..."

I mean that the calls originated overseas from suspected terrorists.

[Paul Tao]

I mean that the calls originated overseas from suspected terrorists.
I don't think so. I have more links and stuff but this will do for now since I'm busy today with family stuff. If you want more, I'll get more later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?ei=5094&en=7e76956223502390&hp=&ex=1135486800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

"The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States..."

[Cal Smith]

I don't think so. I have more links and stuff but this will do for now since I'm busy today with family stuff. If you want more, I'll get more later.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?ei=5094&en=7e76956223502390&hp=&ex=1135486800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

"The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States..."

that doesnt mean they neccesarily started in the US, i've been away and havent had much of a chance to read much, but from what I've watched on television i was under the assumption that all the calls came from overseas.

[Paul Tao]

that doesnt mean they neccesarily started in the US.

what else would "flowing OUT OF the United States" mean?

[selftitled85]

Against highly questionable and obviously politically motivated charges........and that's somehow "wrong"?

(Note: I understand your problem with NewsMax, and it’s totally fair, but the traditional media in this country is so one sided and bias that sometime one has no other choice then to use sites like NewsMax (whom normally sources their stuff) because the elite media doesn't show all sides to a story.)

Example,
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm



If one corresponds with terrorist maybe they are undeserving of certain privacy.......Is that legitimate.

maybe they are...but do you want your party head by a guy who has done "questionable" activity numerous times?

[Justin_stacy]

maybe they are...but do you want your party head by a guy who has done "questionable" activity numerous times?

our concept of "questionable" activities i think differs greatly.......but ya i think that's fair, and i've said numerous times that Bush is more bad then good, but that still doesn't change anything about this topic or that it seems to have been legal done.

I'd note too who is controling your party and the large amount of questionable activities that surround them....Bush is not an exception by any means.

[Jason Tate]

Because so much came out of the last "investigation" dealing with leaks. O wait, Rove, still working?

[Jason Tate]

I dont disagree with you. But that is why they have attorneys on staff to tell them what they can and cannot do. That is why there are elections. I am not saying don't disagree, but every time someone screams "PROBE!" it implies that there is some sort of illegal action being taken, and not just one they disagree with. People are very quick to judge actions without knowing the law as well - I am willing to bet very very very few people on this site, and in this country, actually know what the President can authorize the NSA to do, and what the Patriot Act actually says.
I do, and you're out of your mind.

[Jason Tate]

People fail to realize that when it comes to things like this, the White House has numerous, extremely intelligent lawyers on staff who advise them as to what they can do under the law. Sometimes it may be a stretch in some peoples eyes, but its 99.9% likely that this is all perfectly legal. Whether you agree with that or not is another issue, but the bottom line is that its idiotic to think that a probe is required every time you disagree with the actions of the government.
Bwahahahhahaahaha..

:stfu:

[Cal Smith]

Because so much came out of the last "investigation" dealing with leaks. O wait, Rove, still working?

What a year and a half, two year investigation (one indicted) and simply because Rove was not indicted you don't believe the investigation was legit or useful?

Seems more partisan of a view than anything else...........

[gillianhsieh]

i don't know why this isn't a bigger deal. didn't that one circuit judge resign because of domestic syping? isn't that kind of a big deal?

[Trainsaw]

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3398375

[richter915]

no of course not, it would make the current Bush adminstration look bad which means the terrorists win and god won't bless america anymore.