Comments on: Droning Cell Phone Calls http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Sedgequill http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56591 Sedgequill Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:58:45 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56591 <p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/spying-fight-ab.html" rel="nofollow">Spying Fight about Emails, Not Phone Calls, DOJ Reveals</a>, writes Threat Level’s Ryan Singel.</p> Spying Fight about Emails, Not Phone Calls, DOJ Reveals, writes Threat Level’s Ryan Singel.

]]> By: JohnLopresti http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56567 JohnLopresti Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:33:36 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56567 <p>Yes, to @36, that was the incident.</p> Yes, to @36, that was the incident.

]]> By: earlofhuntingdon http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56551 earlofhuntingdon Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:27:38 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56551 <p>This Congressional “debate” has become a farce; the Dems are really demanding nothing from this administration and getting less. Forgive me if I conclude from that that this Democratic leadership is going out of its way to avoid the very inquiry that should be tops on its list. </p> <p>Presumably, they are doing so in order to argue that they acted “in good faith” but were “fooled” by that nasty Bush, rather than that they <em>agree </em>with these extra-constitutional domestic surveillance powers, which their new Democratic president <em>surely </em>won’t abuse.</p> <p>This has become a farce. The public has been put into the position of being the youngest sailor on board, terrified and bent over a barrel while two old salts argue over who gets to explain to him what two years before the mast really means.</p> This Congressional “debate” has become a farce; the Dems are really demanding nothing from this administration and getting less. Forgive me if I conclude from that that this Democratic leadership is going out of its way to avoid the very inquiry that should be tops on its list.

Presumably, they are doing so in order to argue that they acted “in good faith” but were “fooled” by that nasty Bush, rather than that they agree with these extra-constitutional domestic surveillance powers, which their new Democratic president surely won’t abuse.

This has become a farce. The public has been put into the position of being the youngest sailor on board, terrified and bent over a barrel while two old salts argue over who gets to explain to him what two years before the mast really means.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56547 Mary Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:02:45 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56547 <p>32 - OOPS! Sorry - I didn’t scroll back first.</p> <p>31 - bmaz, that is what is making me nuts. For one thing, if they’ve been briefed, by now they absolutely know for a fact that the public representations of Hayden and Bush about a “targeted” program that only involves situations where “al-Qaeda is calling” is nonsense. Utter claptrap. And yet, nothing prevented them from saying it and no one has ever corrected what they said. </p> <p>They know that they are talking to people who have vested interests. They have NOT asked to speak with either Lamberth or Kollar-Kotelly in closed sessions to discuss the classified info shared with them and the way the program was being run. They haven’t had the kind of under oath closed sessions with Hayden, Wainstein, online analsysts at NSA, telecom frontline guys actually handling the program, etc. and they haven’t turned an IG or anyone with any kind of authority loose to get all the info they need. </p> <p>33 - Poor you. I wouldn’t say you are off at all.</p> 32 – OOPS! Sorry – I didn’t scroll back first.

31 – bmaz, that is what is making me nuts. For one thing, if they’ve been briefed, by now they absolutely know for a fact that the public representations of Hayden and Bush about a “targeted” program that only involves situations where “al-Qaeda is calling” is nonsense. Utter claptrap. And yet, nothing prevented them from saying it and no one has ever corrected what they said.

They know that they are talking to people who have vested interests. They have NOT asked to speak with either Lamberth or Kollar-Kotelly in closed sessions to discuss the classified info shared with them and the way the program was being run. They haven’t had the kind of under oath closed sessions with Hayden, Wainstein, online analsysts at NSA, telecom frontline guys actually handling the program, etc. and they haven’t turned an IG or anyone with any kind of authority loose to get all the info they need.

33 – Poor you. I wouldn’t say you are off at all.

]]> By: john in sacramento http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56539 john in sacramento Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:11:49 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56539 <p>Are you talking about the Orion that that Chinese pilot crashed into back in 2001?</p> Are you talking about the Orion that that Chinese pilot crashed into back in 2001?

]]> By: john in sacramento http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56534 john in sacramento Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:04:14 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56534 <p><a href="http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003/feature_koerner_julaug03.msp" rel="nofollow">A good article</a> I ran across when I first joined a Repeal the Patriot Act group five years ago</p> A good article I ran across when I first joined a Repeal the Patriot Act group five years ago

]]> By: JohnLopresti http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56532 JohnLopresti Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:00:02 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56532 <p>Probably <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302814.html" rel="nofollow">this Wyndee</a>: “Wyndee R. Parker, general counsel of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”<br /> Somewhat more OnTopic, probably predator technology is different from gps, but gps helps; p3c’s have been vacuuming cell calls since 1990s; that onboard capability is what caused WClinton such agitation when one craft made emergency landing in area China controlled; China complained it knew of us activity, flying outside coastal waters but at altitude sufficient to have line of sight reception onshore. China argument was planes were over territory in sense that the sphere of influence extends 100s of miles offshore. There had been online information on a military website for several years following the incident, until shortly following the nyc TowersDebaclein 2001, but it was erased from that website; until then, the site contianed photos of the airplane after it was shipped back to Seattle for reverse detective work to see how many consoles the crew had no time to destroy during descent. Likely the techonolgies are miniaturized in predator.</p> Probably this Wyndee: “Wyndee R. Parker, general counsel of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.”
Somewhat more OnTopic, probably predator technology is different from gps, but gps helps; p3c’s have been vacuuming cell calls since 1990s; that onboard capability is what caused WClinton such agitation when one craft made emergency landing in area China controlled; China complained it knew of us activity, flying outside coastal waters but at altitude sufficient to have line of sight reception onshore. China argument was planes were over territory in sense that the sphere of influence extends 100s of miles offshore. There had been online information on a military website for several years following the incident, until shortly following the nyc TowersDebaclein 2001, but it was erased from that website; until then, the site contianed photos of the airplane after it was shipped back to Seattle for reverse detective work to see how many consoles the crew had no time to destroy during descent. Likely the techonolgies are miniaturized in predator.

]]> By: john in sacramento http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56531 john in sacramento Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:58:46 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56531 <p>Mary,</p> <p>If you’re still here …</p> <p>How far off am I with <a href="http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/?q=node/view/15501" rel="nofollow">this</a>? (The Dan Lungren I’m referring to is my Congressman)</p> Mary,

If you’re still here …

How far off am I with this? (The Dan Lungren I’m referring to is my Congressman)

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56523 emptywheel Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:41:06 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56523 <p><a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/iran-contra-20/" rel="nofollow">http://emptywheel.firedoglake......contra-20/</a></p> http://emptywheel.firedoglake……contra-20/

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56521 bmaz Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:25:29 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/03/04/droning-cell-phone-calls/#comment-56521 <blockquote><p>The question no one asked and that is very central is: how does anyone on any of the Congressional committees know they have received truthful and accurate information with respect to the information actually given to them?</p></blockquote> <p>And we have a winner! Come on down and collect your prize! Exactly. And exactly what I have been saying for a long, long time. In the first place, culling and cherry picking information, documents and legal arguments, to present only what is helpful to them, is the hallmark of the Bush Administration. When have they NOT done that? Secondly, if you read their statements made around the time they first made their disclosure to the Senate Intel Committee, it is quite clear that they refused to state that they had made a full and complete disclosure. Obviously, they did not. Before Congress acts, they should have either a sworn statement, or sworn testimony, that at a minimum, the respective Intel Committees and/or Gang of Eight have been provided full and complete disclosure of all legal opinions, agreements with telco and other providers, FISC documents and rulings and all other pertinent information. The Bushies are gaming this the way they do everything else; how can Congress not assume this and act accordingly in light of the history?</p>

The question no one asked and that is very central is: how does anyone on any of the Congressional committees know they have received truthful and accurate information with respect to the information actually given to them?

And we have a winner! Come on down and collect your prize! Exactly. And exactly what I have been saying for a long, long time. In the first place, culling and cherry picking information, documents and legal arguments, to present only what is helpful to them, is the hallmark of the Bush Administration. When have they NOT done that? Secondly, if you read their statements made around the time they first made their disclosure to the Senate Intel Committee, it is quite clear that they refused to state that they had made a full and complete disclosure. Obviously, they did not. Before Congress acts, they should have either a sworn statement, or sworn testimony, that at a minimum, the respective Intel Committees and/or Gang of Eight have been provided full and complete disclosure of all legal opinions, agreements with telco and other providers, FISC documents and rulings and all other pertinent information. The Bushies are gaming this the way they do everything else; how can Congress not assume this and act accordingly in light of the history?

]]>