Comments on: Lichtblau and Risen Report Illegal Wiretapping of Americans … Again

By: Smgumby

Smgumby — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:44:27 +0000

The key, however, is that they DIDN’T target the congressman. They realized THAT would cross the line.

Spying on millions of Americans is OK, but only when it starts to target one of their OWN they decide to police themselves.

Makes me sick.

By: pdaly

pdaly — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:55:11 +0000

Thanks. Groups could be defined many ways with emails, I suppose: connected via email lists, or by same domain, or same carrier, etc.

By: MidnightWalker

MidnightWalker — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:06:03 +0000

Here it is, I found it…boy, do I have a good memory:

1998:

DID THE MOSSAD BUG MONICA (HONEY TRAP) LEWINSKY’S PHONE?

The New Federalist
September 21, 1998

What Was the Mossad Role in the Lewinsky Affair?
by Edward Spannaus

Sept. 16 (EIRNS)–According to a little-noticed passage in the Starr Report, during March 1997, President Clinton told Monica Lewinsky that he suspected a foreign embassy was tapping his telephone conversations.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/.....adbug.html

By: MidnightWalker

MidnightWalker — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:04:00 +0000

Didn’t Clinton say to Monica Lewinsky on a tapped phone conversation, something along the lines of: be careful what you say, a foreign country is listening in?

By: Nell

Nell — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:11:03 +0000

with references to only “believed to be” in contact and only “possible ties” to terrorists despite full blown surveillance, and especially the contact being somehow a part of the congressional delegation, it sure sounds odd.

Doesn’t it. I read it as: surveillance because they wanted to eavesdrop on him/her, and they’re spinning local contacts the Member had as ‘possible ties’ in order to justify it retrospectively. It was nothing of the kind.

And I’m betting on someone not in the Republian Party, though Weldon is as plausible as anyone else.

By: stryx

stryx — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:11:29 +0000

The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations to gather more intelligence, the official said….the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some officials

So did they follow the network or not? If catching one “node” allows you the cover to follow all connecting “nodes,” who else got swept up? Other congressional reps, staff, donors, lobbyists, constituents?

And their friends, and their friends….

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:16:20 +0000

47 – it seems to come up in particular in connection with emails, that plus the language about targeting “groups” of Americans makes you wonder how much is related to emails. And while they only talk about interception of emails, the omission of any reference to accessing stored emails seems odd. I have to think if they were targeting groups of Americans based off of email intercepts they also accessed stored communications, which isn’t mentioned. But ?? who knows.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:11:28 +0000

38 – almost as if the job isn’t so much to get things right as to frame whatever print their handlers give them. Almost as if the analysts who got promotions where the ones who called the aluminum tubes completely wrong. Almost as if the “torture to Save Americans” of al-Libi wasn’t targeted to a goal that brought Americans home in boxes and without limbs.

By: pdaly

pdaly — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:58:48 +0000

“a member of Congress” implies Senator or Representative. I wonder whether Lichtblau and Risen could narrow it down a bit? or is it better to keep it vague and therefore relevant to both parts of Congress.

the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s inability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mails.

I know I’ve heard this technical problem aired before many months ago. Cannot recall whether it was before or after Congress reassured us that protections would be put in place. If NSA cannot “at times” tell whether a call is inside or outside the US (including overseas), then I suppose it is reasonable for the NSA to assume the person could be overseas. And since “reasonableness” is the new standard for search and seizure, the NSA vacuums away. Why it is not equally “reasonable” to assume the overseas person could be in the US and therefore not tappable– I do not know.

By: brendanx

brendanx — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:37:27 +0000

congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties

This would cover any conversation, by any official, with any member of a Middle East faction the eavesdroppers disfavor.