In The Blogs

Listening in on Congress

| Wed Apr. 15, 2009 5:49 PM PDT

James Risen and Eric Lichtblau report in the New York Times today that the NSA may have exceeded the wiretapping authority it was given by Congress in 2008. The whole story is pretty vague, and introduces the unknown-to-me euphemism "over-collection," which apparently means that technical problems led NSA to " 'target' groups of Americans and collect their domestic communications without proper court authority."

But then there's this buried in the middle of the story, which isn't vague at all:

New details are also emerging about earlier domestic surveillance activities, including the agency’s attempt to wiretap a congressman without court approval on an overseas trip, according to interviews with current and former intelligence officials.

....The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact as part of a congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations to gather more intelligence, the official said.

The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some officials in the intelligence community about the idea of using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.

Jesus. If a member of Congress isn't a "United States person" protected from warrantless surveillance by every version of FISA that's ever been on the books, who is? Shouldn't this have set off alarm bells at every possible level at NSA, rather than merely being "ultimately blocked" because "some" officials had "concerns" about it?

SILVER LINING UPDATE: Looking on the bright side, maybe this will finally motivate Congress to take NSA surveillance more seriously. Having one of their own members come within a hair's breadth of being an NSA target ought to concentrate their minds wonderfully, if anything will.

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

What good are the laws? The

Submitted by MNPundit (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 6:10 PM PDT.

What good are the laws? The NSA will just do it anyway. Seriously, tell me what good a Congressional law would do--it is unenforceable.

Oh come on

Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 6:36 PM PDT.

Anyone that buys this story as being even close to truth needs to grow up. NSA does what they want when they want and couldn't care less about "The Law" except for necessary window dressing. What we are seeing is some leaks to make it appear that there are actual feelings of remorse about "mistakes" because of the fear of "We the people..." actually finding out what they have really been up to. The rot is deep and wide not to mention very old. Tip o the iceberg tis. "Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - Robert F. Kennedy

And really

Submitted by Daddy Love (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 6:49 PM PDT.

Do you think that anyone thought seriously that members of congress (particularly Democrats), journalists, and similar others would NOT be the primary subjects of warrantless wiretapping? After all, what renegade president gives a shit about terrorists when there are political enemies to be spied upon? I mean, really! Honest to God, get a freakin' clue!

There's a bit surprise

Submitted by Cranky Observer (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 6:51 PM PDT.

Raise your hand if you are surprised the the government surveillance agencies are monitoring politicians - particularly Democratic politicians. OK Kevin, you can put your hand down. Congress is an odd place, it is almost impossible for anyone to get elected to Congress unless they are more than a bit odd themselves, and all people including Congressmen do the things they do for a variety of reasons. With all that in mind, there have been a number of VERY odd things that have happened in Congress and national politics generally since 2002 that are very hard to explain - unless one assumes that (1) the NSA and similar agencies have been surveiling politicians (2) the Bush/Cheney Administration obtained and used some of that information for political gain (i.e. blackmail). With that assumption a lot of odd behaviors seem a little less odd. But no, we can't think about things like that. Not sensibly centrist of us to do so; very naughty. Cranky

Thank Goodness Obama's in power

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 7:04 PM PDT.

I'm honestly very glad that Obama stopped their overreaching in the form of Eric Holder, but I'd much rather see that individual prosecuted for this kind of activity.

FISA doesn't apply overseas

Submitted by BigRichard on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 7:27 PM PDT.

Apparently neither the Federal Wiretap Act nor any versions of FISA apply to collections against US citizens while abroad. The prohibition there derives from an executive order signed by Reagan. I got this info from the Center for Democracy Technology, http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html

IIRC the 2008 FISA DOES apply to U.S. citizens abroad

Submitted by MarkH on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 12:05 PM PDT.

I think that was a 'loophole' plugged specifically for the first time in the 2008 FISA Amendment Act.

If a member of Congress

Submitted by Luther on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 7:32 PM PDT.

If a member of Congress isn't a "United States person" protected from warrantless surveillance by every version of FISA that's ever been on the books, who is?

Right, only little people should be subjected to illegal activities by government. Government officials should not have endure their own nefarious activity. Obama is perhaps just as bad as Bush, or maybe worse. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05 "Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect 'State Secrets' San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday."

They can't be trusted

Submitted by A Republican (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 8:25 PM PDT.

I'll bet it was a Democrat.

They can't be trusted

Submitted by A Democrat (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 8:26 PM PDT.

I'll bet it was a Republican.

Universal Surveillance

Submitted by Anon (not verified) on Wed Apr. 15, 2009 10:24 PM PDT.

I always amuses me when the reality of the surveillance state conspicuously runs up against the hollow nostrums of privacy and individual rights. All citizens of Western states are in the same boat to a greater or lesser or extent. We are all under the giant eye of the panopticon. What we do in response is another matter. I am thinking high profile prosecutions might be of assistance. Some of these rigid authoritarian police state people need to spend some quality time as guests of the state institutions of incarceration. If nothing happens along these lines in this matter, democracy is an even bigger fraud than it used to be. Clap them in irons if you please and leave them there for a long long time.

domestic spying abuses

Submitted by steve duncan on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 5:25 AM PDT.

I must echo previous comments. The NSA (and dozens of other agencies) does whatever the hell it pleases. The idea that exising law will be honored as to what is legal or allowed is ridiculous. We see now many Bush admin figures immune from domestic prosecution for what all can see was the commission of war crimes. They had innocent people killed and are free from punishment. The current administration has dropped so many hints they are not going after anyone for anything done in the past you'd need hit in the head with a hammer to not get it. YOU CAN MURDER PEOPLE WITH IMPUNITY. Wiretap a Congressman? Hah, doesn't even rank with running a stop sign.

Still think Bush surveillance was of terrorist acitivity only?

Submitted by Crust (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 6:45 AM PDT.

Kevin, do you still believe that warrantless surveillance under Bush was "tightly focused on international terrorist activity"? Nothing in this piece directly contradicts that view; that's an earnest question not snark. (Frankly, I continue to think you were way off-base then, but I'm just curious if you still hold to that pollyannish view.)

Image

Submitted by tmsynnott (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 6:50 AM PDT.

Coincidentally, this morning I was trying to recall the name of the movie from which the image accompanying Kevin's post is taken - can anyone help me?

Image

Submitted by tmsynnott (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 6:52 AM PDT.

Coincidentally, this morning I was trying to recall the name of the movie from which the image accompanying Kevin's post is taken - can anyone help me?

Movie title

Submitted by Larry (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 2:25 PM PDT.

The movie is "The Lives of Others" (2007). An excellent movie that could as easily be USA 2005 (except for antiquated technology) as East Germany 1985.

Thanks

Submitted by tsynnott (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 10:19 PM PDT.

Larry - thanks

Not so fast...

Submitted by blue22 (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 7:17 AM PDT.

"Looking on the bright side, maybe this will finally motivate Congress to take NSA surveillance more seriously. Having one of their own members come within a hair's breadth of being an NSA target ought to concentrate their minds wonderfully, if anything will." I think this is being overly optimistic about the intelligence of Congress. I'm pretty sure we'll soon hear howls from the right demanding to know the identity of this traitorous Congressman. Maybe he or she is also on Rep. Spencer Bachus' list of 17 Socialists in Congress.

A lot of this story is still

Submitted by AmIDreaming on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 7:24 AM PDT.

A lot of this story is still a tale of technological failure. It's pretty well documented how Michael Hayden's legacy as DIRNSA was a historic failure, the mammoth TRAILBLAZER program. It's also a pretty good conjecture that the followup programs were constructed largely on hope and hype, not sound technology. The upshot, in the 9/11 aftermath, was the need to open the collection spigot on *everything*, since the supposed "minimization" safeguards didn't work. There has also been a significant contigent within the NSA analytical community who believed wholeheartedly in the pony-in-a-dunghill system, despite all evidence to the contrary. So a good part of this narrative -- not all, but a lot -- probably rests on very conventional sources: simple incompetence and bureaucratic inertia. Needless to say, what this provides is a wide-open territory for less-than-benign exploitation.

ooh, I like your picture

Submitted by evermore (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 7:29 AM PDT.

ooh, I like your picture choice, from Das Leben der Anderen

the FBI's primary goal

Submitted by tpx on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 8:06 AM PDT.

Members of Congress have been subjected to surveillance since the Thirties. The FBI's primary goal has always been to gather blackmail evidence of Congresspersons.

What is more troubling: (1)

Submitted by EB (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 8:52 AM PDT.

What is more troubling: (1) NSA thinking about spying on a member of Congress (2) or, that the said member of US Congress was in contact with a Middle East extremist? Am I the only one who thinks #2 is a problem?

I'd Join You, EB

Submitted by Model 62 on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 10:29 AM PDT.

if you could explain why it's a problem. Start with an identity more specific than "middle east extremist" and work your way up through "contact".

Are you kidding me?

Submitted by MarkH on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 12:12 PM PDT.

Everybody in the Middle East is an extremist. Heck, even the leaders of countries are. Didn't you read the recent story of how the Israeli government tried to knock off the PM of Turkey until the U.S. intervened? Extremism: characteristic of many people around the world, especially the powerless and poor, but also of the rich and powerful who are somewhat insulated from retribution, it is seen in acts of outrageous language and real violence instead of peaceful means of settling conflicts. See the Middle East for millions of examples.

How was it I knew this was happening five tears ago?

Submitted by braincrank (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 11:05 AM PDT.

Didn't the neocons telegraph it loud enough? They are intellectual lightweights who would rather be "right" even if it destroys us. It defies words, these egotistical nitwits found democracy inconvenient. They don't want democracy, that would mean they would have to share power and abide by the same rules as everyone else.... how inconvenient!!!!

Movie title

Submitted by Larry (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 2:24 PM PDT.

The movie is "The Lives of Others" (2007). An excellent movie that could as easily be USA 2005 (except for antiquated technology) as East Germany 1985.

Ok, the only info I have is

Submitted by EB (not verified) on Thu Apr. 16, 2009 7:02 PM PDT.

Ok, the only info I have is what's in the article, in other words, an unidentified member of US congress having contacts with an extremist with suspected terrorist ties who is already under surveillance by NSA. If we take this at face value (for argument's sake), then it sounds like NSA was trying to do counterintelligence (members of Congress do get intelligence briefings, and some of them have rather ... exotic ... friends), but then got scared of potential political repercussions ('NSA wiretaps member of Congress!!! fascism!) and dropped the whole thing. Instead of overreach by NSA, sounds to me like major tail-between-NSA-legs underreach.

privacy

Submitted by patience (not verified) on Sun May. 3, 2009 1:10 PM PDT.

There is no privacy in America. The thoughts, ideas that come from our minds and communicated in any form can now be obtained (and have been obtained for a long while now) by those who can and will, any time they desire, use them against us. I'm 57 years old and have always, even as a young child, valued privacy. I grew up reading about Soviet gulags, about a society that gave no privacy to its citizens. I knew they were wrong to do that to their citizens . I remember when I first realized that every keystroke of every email I send, from every site I visit can be found, even if I delete it all. To click on an ad for something, whatever, and from then on, spam emails come in for that particular something....it horrifies me and I want to stop the communications, I want to stop my own freedoms because of the American hypocrisy that says one thing and then most certainly does the exact opposite of that. A nation of laws? No one above the law? I think not. And its so very, very sad. After it became clear that Obama and Holter plan to do nothing about Americans' privacy and will continue the illegal ways of the Bush Adminstration, I felt a deep sense of loss. During Bush I was angry and horrifed, but now I feel that the person who said he would bring hope has brought only the same as the criminal who preceded him.