Centerfield

Thanks for posting this John. Without oversight and transparency we should be very skeptical of how fairly this program is being executed.

Personnally, I'm very confused by the 360-degree turn so many conservatives have taken on this issue. Why, with their previous mistrust of big government, do they say we should trust our government to spy on us fairly?

Posted by: Ryan Somma at December 23, 2005 08:24 AM

Durrrrhhhh... Uh... That should be "180-degree" turn. : )

Posted by: Ryan Somma at December 23, 2005 08:27 AM

Ryan, conservatives are hardly monolithic on many, many issues. There are law and order conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc. While they tend to generally agree on certain things (smaller government being one usually key principle, but not universally), at different times some have different priorities and values. Your language suggests hypocrisy.

I've said in this forum many times that centrists should be the very last group to accuse any politician of being hypocritical, because rigid consistency is the hallmark of the idealogue, the inflexible partisan. If we want to encourage politicians to compromise with each other, to look for the middle way, we should not call them names when they take stands which are sometimes inconsistent with each other.

As to conservatives supporting the President's action, it generally stems from two factors. The second, of lesser importance, is a general assumption that one trusts the President and his office during wartime. That's not a function of personal trust, but simply the fact that too many hands on the rudder make it impossible to steer. Disagree after it's all over, but don't get in the way while it's going on.

The other is that many of us really do believe that the terrorists could easily repeat 9/11. Stopping them is very important to us. We value teh security that comes from knowing the government is doing everything it can to try to stop these evil people.

As for Jon's point about possible misuse by rogue employees or rogue presidents, I urge him to take a look at John Hinderaker's Powerline entry about the legality of the program. One of the points he makes is that the technology and infrastructure is already there; we've paid for it, it's installed and used for legitimate law enforcement purposes every day. We can't stop rogue employees from using it without getting rid of it entirely. And I'm not so sure how "regularly" cash-strapped public employees sell data.

In any event, everything can be misused. Every government power, every machine, every technology. The fact that it has the potential for misuse does not mean that we get rid of it, any more than we get rid of all cars because of the risk of drunk drivers and mechanical defects.

I had an interesting exchange of posts with a Swede one time. He was ranting about the evils of the evil, privacy-invading American government. I pointed out that his government required all citizens to be registered and assigned an ID number at birth, and the law required that they report any change of address throughout their lives almost immediately. I asked how that wasn't far more invasive of privacy than whatever recent American trend he was ranting about. His response was, essentially, "well, that's different. Our government only uses that information to help us, like to provide our social welfare benefits." Not an exact quote, but that was the gist.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 23, 2005 09:45 AM

But, back on the right hand, away from where Posner wants you to look, we still have the issue of public employees looking at data generally considered private like personal phone calls and emails, including lovers' stupid emails, meeting arrangements, financial transactions, credit card info, SSNs.

Public employees looking at our SSN's? Horrors! Oh, wait, they've been doing that since there were SSN's, as they issue the numbers and use them to track our financial benefits and taxes and such. Obviously, Rove and Bushitler have been giving the way-back machine a real workout, setting all this up so they could abuse it today.

In this case, it appears we're specifically talking about the wartime electronic targeting of international emails and phone calls made to or from phone numbers or email accounts associated with known terrorists. From that the reflexive critics have expanded and conflated to hysterically allege and obsess about blanket monitoring of absolutely everything--yet to date, we do not know of a single case of the government using this covert intercept program to prosecute or persecute a single innocent "US person" on domestic soil (or foreign, for that matter).

Which would make the opening paragraphs of both of Shneier's posts patently false-to-fact, and Schneier one of the knee-jerkers, by assuming and proclaiming facts not in evidence. The potential exists, therefore the administration MUST be guilty of abusing it in the most heinous manner! There are other indications that Schneier's rhetoric is somewhat less than honest--he claims that FISA warrants "slowly increased" after 1995, for example. Bull. The number of FISA warrants was steady until after 9-11-2001, after which the number issued doubled. And for a security "expert" he seems to have a very loose grasp on the history and capabilities of NSA. His speculation that NSA wasn't used to handling FISA cases--long before Bush (or even Clinton) came to office, NSA was regularly passing all national security intercepts involving US person and requiring domestic action to the FBI for FISA implementation.

What I see, once again, is a partisan political attempt to make mountains (even entire ranges and continents) out of every molehill, real or imagined. The solemnly apocalyptic Chicken Little-ism and Cry-Wolfism that regularly appears from one side or the other when the targeted officeholder is of the opposite party. Soaring hyperbole and histrionic rhetorical demonization. Impending doom! Truly, we are slouching towards Bethlehem (and I'm a small bit surprised everyone missed the subliminal snark of that post). "What rough beast, its hour come round at last..."

Find a case where the covert program was abused to harrass and/or prosecute an innocent "US person" over and above what occurs in the ordinary course of domestic law enforcement. Or at all. Until then, the cries of abuse are all fluff. Yes, there is abuse potential there, but there is abuse potential in every single area of government, from the White House down to your local car tag office. And that particular potential has existed for decades.

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2005 10:20 AM

In this case, it appears we're specifically talking about the wartime electronic targeting of international emails and phone calls made to or from phone numbers or email accounts associated with known terrorists.

Is it so much to ask that they get a warrant? FISA has denied four warrants out of thousands. Four. I don't think the administration would have a problem getting a warrant, even retroactively. So why circumvent the court? The only real I can see is that they felt FISA would not grant the warrant. Maybe there's a reason FISA wouldn't grant the warrant. Maybe there's a reason we have laws which say courts must grant warrants.

Or not. We should all just trust the President, right? I mean, he's a swell guy.

yet to date, we do not know of a single case of the government using this covert intercept program to prosecute or persecute a single innocent "US person" on domestic soil (or foreign, for that matter).

That's right! And they would tell us, too! Just like they volunteered the information about the wiretaps... oh, wait...

The solemnly apocalyptic Chicken Little-ism and Cry-Wolfism that regularly appears from one side or the other when the targeted officeholder is of the opposite party. Soaring hyperbole and histrionic rhetorical demonization. Impending doom!

Case by case, this makes sense. But one has to look at this issue with the backdrop of all the "scandals" which rock this administration. Torture. Indefinte Detainment. Cheney's talk of the return of the imperial presidency. Now illegal wiretapping. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Yes, there is abuse potential there, but there is abuse potential in every single area of government, from the White House down to your local car tag office. And that particular potential has existed for decades.

Which, again, is why we have oversight, which, again, is why there is a legalized process for obtaining warrants. Are we supposed to let the administration, or for that matter, anyone do anything so long as their intentions are good?

Ultimately, it comes down to arrogance. There is a process. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. No matter your intentions, no matter the legal wrangling, and you can argue they had the right because of this or that, but there was already at the administration's disposal a means to do the very thing they wanted to do, and in their hubris, they opted to break the law -although they argue otherwise- lie, and remove the oversight of another branch of government.

Doesn't that scare you any? Just a little bit? That the Executive feels they don't need anything from the Judicial? Or, for that matter, the Legislature?

Posted by: konfuzed at December 23, 2005 01:10 PM

fourth paragraph from the bottom should be in block quote. Computer, curse your sudden, but inevitable, betrayal.

Posted by: konfuzed at December 23, 2005 01:12 PM

The thing you have to remember about federal employees is that they are just people.

Look around your office and wonder how many you would trust with your credit card number. If there isn't at least one in ten you feel uncomfortable trusting, then you work with a really honest bunch.

During my years of employment I've worked with a child molester, a wife beater and an attempted murder. All had security clearance and all were not caught by the federal government. (Local police made the arrests) We also had an employee arrested for selling SS numbers. (I also worked across the street from a stalker, but he didn't have a clearance.)

When I look at my fellow federal workers I would say that they divide up as about 75% are decent people, while the other 25% I would deem untrustworthy. An these are just first line workers. When you get into management the numbers are much worse.

An don't get me started on political appointees and politicians.

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 23, 2005 05:12 PM

You're right that to some degree we have to trust people to do their jobs. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't throw humps in the way of taking advantage of things. For example, an FBI officer who spends all his time running Predator, the FBI packet sniffer, is likely to be noticed and questioned. An NSA employee in this program is EXPECTED to spent his life in this app; all he has to is add a bit to his workload.

And do note that this is worse than SSA - that's quite bad enough, but this, as I explained in my post, almost amounts to a blackmail machine. IMHO, we should build the institutional barriers to use high - like having to consult FISC.

Well, Tully, just like with J. Edgar, we won't find out about abuses until it's too late. Like konfused said, they won't hold a press release. I can and did cite J. Edgar as precedent. I think one internal-police-chief-for-life is too many.

And I notice that, so far, nobody has said anything about how it's so great in actually catching people or preventing attacks. How much of the data even leaves the NSA? This is likely to be extraordinary risks taken without justifying extraordinary gains.

Posted by: Jon Kay at December 23, 2005 05:35 PM

Jon, according to the NYT the same "anonymous sources" that leaked the info said that the program has stopped several major terrorist plots in the US, including the Brooklyn Bridge plot of Al Qaedist Iyman Faris, who was operating under the direction of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. And several truck-bomb plots in Britain. That they knew of. From the sketchy details of KSM's capture, it looks quite likely that it was also a result of the intercept program. How many didn't they know of? How many US soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and other nation's civilians and soldiers have been saved? We don't know. You don't advertise a classified program, especially a succesful one. So, when do those leakers get arrested?

As I note, it's SO much easier to run around screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!" than it is to produce any evidence of same. As for citing the lack thereof as evidence in itself, Puh-LEASE! Lessee, claim a crime, provide no evidence of crime, cite the lack of evidence as evidence...your personal paranoia is not evidence of anything except your personal paranoia. ("Konfuzed," hysterical conflation is so common from wingnuts and such a sound marker of muddy cognition that I consider it an automatic disqualifier to serious consderation of any posts containing it. Try the other self.)

From that the reflexive critics have expanded and conflated to hysterically allege and obsess about blanket monitoring of absolutely everything

Thank y'all very much for providing such wonderful examples! I couldn't have done better in an hour of cut & paste. :-)

Now, anyone want to claim that the hysterical over-reaction is a political winner for the Dems? Gonna take up a collection to send Ramsey Clarke over to defend KSM?

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2005 06:04 PM

Wow. What's the first rule of Rovian Debate? I couldn't say, but I imagine it goes something like this; "When you can't argue the merits of the debate, attack, attack, attack! Attack the debater, destroy his/her credibility, and then she could say the sky was blue, and it wouldn't matter."

But to do something productive now, and argue the points:

Jon, according to the NYT the same "anonymous sources" that leaked the info said that the program has stopped several major terrorist plots in the US, including the Brooklyn Bridge plot of Al Qaedist Iyman Faris, who was operating under the direction of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. And several truck-bomb plots in Britain. That they knew of. From the sketchy details of KSM's capture, it looks quite likely that it was also a result of the intercept program.

Tully, I see your point! There's no way whatsoever FISA would have granted a warrant for this! Those ACLU loving Socialist FISA bastards...

How many didn't they know of? How many US soldiers, Iraqi civilians, and other nation's civilians and soldiers have been saved? We don't know.

Actually, I would argue very few. But great way to link Iraq to the War on Terrorism. This debate is about domestic wiretappings. I imagine most Iraqi Insurgents don't communicate too much from inside the US, or too often to people inside the US, thus meaning few US soldiers, or Iraqi civilians, were in too much danger from any threat through which a domestic wire tapping could have prevented. But way to tug the emotions! And you accuse others of using straw men??

Lessee, claim a crime, provide no evidence of crime, cite the lack of evidence as evidence...your personal paranoia is not evidence of anything except your personal paranoia.

Unless you're Saddam, right? We had intelligence, but no evidence, but that was enough for that, right? You don't apply your logic evenly. We're supposed to take the Bush Administration on a case by case basis, and not consider past abuses of power relevant? "Well, gosh, Mr so and so, you stole my car, but you've never broken into my house, so I shouldn't consider the previous action in relation to this new crime!" Whatever.

As I note, it's SO much easier to run around screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Please, point me to where I said, or anyone said, anything of the sort? It seems to me the only person here resorting to hysterics is you in a (here it comes) "preemptive" move to render any argument moot. After all, anyone who disagrees with you is hysterical!

("Konfuzed," hysterical conflation is so common from wingnuts and such a sound marker of muddy cognition that I consider it an automatic disqualifier to serious consderation of any posts containing it. Try the other self.)

Personal attacks. And again, linking the opponent to hysteria. I'd like to say I expected better, but since, in this case, it seems you are unable to serve as a Bush apologist in a logical way, you resort to bad mouthing those who disagree. Standard political tactic. And, my "other self"? I could use your tactic here and suggest that you might have problems with multiple personalities, but don't project onto me. But I won't. (sweet smile)

Thank y'all very much for providing such wonderful examples! I couldn't have done better in an hour of cut & paste. :-)

Always glad to help.

Now, anyone want to claim that the hysterical over-reaction is a political winner for the Dems?

And lastly, end with a total misdirection! Take the point of the debate, that Bush broke the law when, in fact, he needn't because FISA would have granted all the warrants he needed for legitimate terror fighting, and thrust it into a different directions; those silly Democrats!

I bow to you Tully, I do. You are good. Your intelligence and ability to down talk others, along with your abundance of free time, has kept you as the defacto final say on this blog. If you disagree, everyone else must be wrong, and spreading wingnut propaganda, at that! Assaulting my cognitive abilities? For shame!

Sometimes, just a few times maybe, people are wrong, and that's all there is to it. This time Bush was wrong. And absolutely nothing you say can change that.

Posted by: konfuzed at December 23, 2005 06:56 PM

LMAO. To fisk that overabundantly conflationary wingnut ramble would require an in-depth (but terribly simple) analysis, so anyone who wants to can bactrack and see how you're misrepresenting what I said. Which is why I made it clear why I wasn't bothering. That wasn't a personal attack, BTW, it was a statement of fact.

I'll give it one small snip for you, though. No, it's not all about domestic surveillance. Nice try. It's about the electronic surveillance of international communications between known AQ/terrorist numbers/emails and American numbers/emails during wartime. And no, I don't argue the merits of wingnut rants that are factual-content-light (at best) and don't squarely address the subject, but try to drag it off into other areas through conflation. Wanna try addressing the facts, or do you prefer to keep making them up? Or trying to drag the discussion off to other topics? We've seen the wing-troll playbook already. We even keep a checklist handy to tick off the tactics in order. (You're up to #5.)

Posted by: Tully at December 23, 2005 11:32 PM

from the washington times - former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein:
President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.

Posted by: Marcus at December 24, 2005 01:05 AM

Everything you don't agree with is "wingnut". Noted.

Posted by: konfuzed at December 24, 2005 12:56 PM

You're unable to present a coherent on-topic argument or position using verifiable factual references, and instead rely on snark, bluster, and ad hominem. Noted.

Posted by: Tully at December 24, 2005 01:02 PM

Konfuzed: Don't be discouraged by the occasional head butting contest. Just because this is called centerfield doesn't mean we don't have “ardently defended” viewpoints.

Regardless of who you are debating, your larger audience is the lurkers and the Internet in general. To make a valid point in a calm and intelligent way is the best revenge.

History will sort the rest out.

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 24, 2005 02:44 PM

The point is not whether there are documented cases of abuse, the point is whether the program as established and administered is illegal and presents a reasonable threat to civil liberties. I can't speak to the legality. But if you repealed the First Amendment, I doubt that the government would immediately start closing down newspapers, but it would certainly present a reasonable threat to free speech.

I'm not saying that every program that involves domestic surveillance is likely to lead to abuse; it might very well not do so. But you have to look at whether it presents a reasonable threat of abuse. Of course, then you have to balance the threat to civil liberties against the danger of terrorism. Reasonable people can look at it both ways, but I don't think that the fact that the program may have helped stop some terrorist plots makes the program immune from scrutiny. Do we know, for example, that the plots would not have been stopped if the government had had to get a warrant? And, in general, I'm a little skeptical about claims that this or that act saved the day. And if you are going that far, where do you stop? If you are going to say that this program is ok and saves us from terrorism, where do you draw the line, if anywhere? I think people defending this program (and, as I have said before, I don't necessarily think a Democratic Administration would have acted differently) need to think about whether there are any legitimate boundaries. It's not enough to say there have been no abuses that we know of. I think you have to ask if the need to prevent terrorism trumps EVERYTHING else.

And I am not asking the question sarcastically. Ben Franklin once said that those who would sacrifice their liberty for their safety deserve neither. A good friend of mine has been repeating that mantra recently. But this isn't the 18th century; we face 21st century threats of mass murder. People have a legitimate concern about security. I think it's very easy for liberals to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that it's a black and white question. But it's not--if thousands or even millions of people are killed in a terrorist attack, it won't be much comfort to the victims and survivors to talk about how we maintained our civil liberties.

But how far are we willing to go for security? Can we realistically expect total security? Are we willing to say that civil liberties have no value in the face of the terrorist threat? Are there ANY limits on what government can or should do to protect us? It's understandable that the Administration--any administration--would want to err on the side of security because it will be blamed if an attack occurs. And, while I don't like Bush, I have no reason to think that this program is aimed at, or could practically be used for, targeting political enemies and such. But, as someone here said, once you start stretching the law (or the spirit)a little, it becomes easier to stretch it again and again, farther and farther.

Posted by: Marc at December 26, 2005 11:55 AM

In times of war, there is a clear and justifiable interest in extraordinary measures to prevent domestic attacks. And there's a clear authority and duty of the C-in-C to work to prevent same by any legal means available, and every single President of the last half-century (and then some) has asserted that the surveillance and intelligence authority is legal. From the facts we have, the program doesn't seem that extraordinary. Indeed, if the Commander-in-Chief were willing to let Americans be attacked and killed just to avoid a potential technical violation of statute by jumping through all the possible hoops to keep his own butt reasonably covered from critics, when he had the tools at his disposal to prevent it without profound violations of civil liberties, I'd be arguing that he should be impeached immediately.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, yet it is doing quite well today. Roosevelt had hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry and origin locked up in camps for years, yet that's not happening today. The "slippery slope" argument is attractive, but in historical context it's looking a good bit overblown right now, an inflatio ad absurdum.

It may be quite a while before we have exact details, but the Brooklyn Bridge plot was prevented because of an intercept between Iyman Faris and KSM obtained through the intercept program, and passed on to the FBI and New York law enforcement. They knew the day it was supposed to occur and tipped the police, who flooded the bridge with officers and started inspecting suspicious vehicles. Subsequent same-day domestic (and warrant-authorized) eavesdropping on Faris by the FBI & NYPD recorded another call from Faris to KSM saying he had to abort the plan that day because of the heavy police presence. Those are the facts as known. How many lives were saved, whether or not Faris could have pulled it off otherwise, we don't know and never will. The prevented disaster is never as spectacular as the succesful one.

Which still brings us back to the political calculus. No matter how a law or politics afficianado may see it, the general public sees it as a reasonable atttempt to prevent domestic terrorist attacks during a time of war. Another flap like this one and Bush will be up to 60% approval.

Posted by: Tully at December 26, 2005 04:17 PM

I don't think that comparing the “War on Terror” to the Civil War and WWII is valid.
Both the Civil War and WWII had very distinct starts and ends. They also started with an actual declaration of war against a geographically distinct enemy and ended with the enemies surrender.

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 27, 2005 09:33 AM

The Civil War had a "distinct" start, Bob? As a Kansan I beg to differ. Our start in the war against slavery was several years earlier than everyone else's. And Roosevelt was quietly assisting the British long before Pearl Harbor made us official combatants. Wars don't generally come out of nowhere. In any case, 9-11 was a pretty distinct event by any calculus, and complaining that an ongoing war doesn't have a distinct end yet would indeed be an invalid comparison--on your part.

Yes, wars are comparable, even when they're not Xeroxes of each other.

Posted by: Tully at December 27, 2005 11:08 AM

One problem I see is treating the so-called War on Terror as a war. While I understand the political use of using war as a metaphor, this is not a war in any legal sense of the term. And the concept of presidential war powers that Bush likes seems to me to imply a more traditional type of war, ie, against an interstate enemy with a likely definable end. The War on Terror is more like the War on Drugs--there is no end because there will always be some threat of terrorism unless humanity undergoes some massive change in psychology. This is important because, it seems to me, the concept of presidential war powers implies a temporal limitation, ie, the president has suprapowers with regard to national security during the term of the war, but these powers terminate when the war ends. But, the War on Terror will probably never end. So does that mean the president's war powers last forever? It seems to me that treating terrorism as a war opens to door to almost unlimited presidential power forever.

I quite agree that the constitution survived times when it was abrogated for various reasons. But these were clearly during specific times of emergency that were going to end. I see no end to the War on Terror. I understand that our constitutional history has been marked by pragmatism and I have no problem with that. But at some point, it's not a satisfactory answer to say, we have done this before with no harm so let's keep doing it.

Posted by: Marc at December 27, 2005 11:25 AM

"Ditto" what Marc said.

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 27, 2005 11:59 AM

While I understand the political use of using war as a metaphor, this is not a war in any legal sense of the term.

Beg to differ completely. You are 100% incorrect. The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, but does not prescribe the form in which they must do so. Congress issued the AUMF. Democratic Senator Joe Biden hisself wrote the AUMF, and has publicly stated that it is a legal declaration of war.

Q: My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?

Senator Biden: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. (Oct 22, 2001)

Is that clear? The Supreme Court has agreed with Senator Biden in a published decision. You don't get any more "legal" than that. Congress has "legally" declared war. No if's, and's, or but's about it. I note that Congress can withdraw that authorization as and when it chooses, regardless of what the executive wants. That is clearly within THEIR authority, and is not subject to executive veto. There's your very practical and legal "temporal limit." And it's not in the hands of the executive. Wars are over when Congress says they are, after which you go back to the "normal" debate over the conflict of Congressional and executive constitutional authorities.

Once again, we end up having to step far beyond actual events to reach the "slippery slope" argument. IOW, speculation is required as the available facts do not support the contention. It's a good discussion to have, but it's completely dishonest to claim that it represents the current state of affairs.

It stills comes back to two things--the legal limits of the executive's constitutional authority as versus Congress' (a dogfight that's been going on for over two centuries) and the political calculus. You don't reach "illegality" on the part of the executive in this case without resolving the first, and you hurt yourself with the electorate if you're on the wrong side of the second.

Posted by: Tully at December 27, 2005 01:14 PM

Which AUMF are we talking about, Iraq or Afghanistan?
And once we destroy their army, capture their capital and install friendly goverments (and the president declares and end to major hostilities) wouldn't those additional powers lapse? Technically we are not at war with the Iraqi or the Afghan governments.

We occupied Germany and Japan for years after the war, but we weren't officially still at war with them.

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 27, 2005 05:11 PM

The AUMF passed on September 18, 2001, authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. (We don't have one for the "War on Drugs," which is policy, not a declared war.)

Posted by: Tully at December 27, 2005 07:35 PM

That section seems to be talking about use of force and the use of the Armed forces, not the NSA.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-
tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sj107-23

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 27, 2005 09:06 PM

pamphlet published in 1776, "Common Sense," written by Tom Paine:

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is."

Posted by: Marcus at December 28, 2005 02:32 AM

Better get a chart of how the military works, Bob. Foreign signals intel is an inherent role of military operations and national security. The NSA is signals intel, the lineal descendant of the Armed Forces Security Agency, responsible for coordinating all communications and electronic intelligence activities of the military intelligence services.

Tom Paine didn't write either the Constitution or US Code, Marcus.

Posted by: Tully at December 28, 2005 10:44 AM

According to their website, they are under the CIA.

“NSA is authorized to produce SIGINT in accordance with objectives, requirements, and priorities established by the Director of Central Intelligence with the advice of the National Foreign Intelligence Board. “

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 28, 2005 12:16 PM

And the CIA reports to the president not the secretary of defense.

“Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives.“

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html

Posted by: Bob J Young at December 28, 2005 12:21 PM

They're not "under" the CIA, Bob. In the gov't TO, they're "under" the Department of Defense, acting at the "direction, operation, and control" of the Sec'y of Defense with "guidance" from the DCI. (Executive Order #12333, 1.11[j])

Just to get a little more confusing, the office of DCI predates the CIA, going back to the OSS days. And the Director of the CIA is no longer the DCI. That post is now actually the DNI, a cabinet-level position held by Negroponte. The CIA is out of the DCI loop, except as a member of the NFIB--given the CIA's recent propensity for playing domestic politics and leaking like a sieve, that's understandable.

How that all works in practice is tough to discover from public sources, as NSA really stands for "Never Say Anything." And they don't.

Posted by: Tully at December 28, 2005 01:20 PM