"If the media wishes to continue to be seen as a serious medium of information (and more and more people are turning elsewhere for news) it needs to take seriously its responsibility to report the news accurately, instead of pandering to the worst elements of the left."

Agree with your article. Disagree with the verbage you used to make this particular point.

"Media" does not mean NBC, CBS, ABC, the NYT, the WaPo, and the USAT. "Media" is just a term used to describe those organizations that offer news/information to the public. Blog qualify. Talk radio qualifies. FOXNEWS qualifies.

What you are actually lamenting is BIG media. The "establishment" or "mainstream" media. It is THAT particular group that continually undermines our national security in the name of winning journalistic awards and damaging our President. THEY are the ones who should be ashamed, not the entire "media" enterprise, which includes people like you and me and millions of others...

The "elite" are the ones who should be called out for their biased reporting, not just everyone who plays a role in the "media"...

Fair enough, I figured it was clear from earlier references.

You two should get a room.

Just one question--are we certain that if this had happened, that there would in fact be "records" on it? Isn't the NSA generally known for being secretive?

So secret that they could get millions of phone records from a private company and **the private company** doesn't even know?

Can you imagine if your work was as sloppy as that of the media. One of my brothers in law died in an uneventful truck crash. The local paper 'pumped up' the story to say he was going over 70mph and not wearing a seat belt. My sister called them and told them their info was wrong. The State police had told her they had to cut his seat belt to get him out and that his speed was about 20-25mph. There was no retraction.

Wild exaggerations sell papers.



John, one correction to your article:

"If the took the time to search.." should be ->
"If they took the time to search.."

re: typo -- fixt, thanks.

Re: exaggeration. It may sell papers, but as time goes on, it's selling less and less of them and more people are less willing to take any "scandalous" piece of information from the MSM seriously... even if it DOES turn out to be true.

John--if they went directly to an upper level executive, who asked the CIO to personally retrieve the data, it's possible only 2 or 3 people would have to be involved. Unlikely, but possible. And in the current political environment, it's one we need to consider.

In this case, it *is* the CXO level that is denying it. They certainly are the ones dealing with it now. It's possible, but if I were there lawyer and there was dirt here, I'd tell them to shut up and say nothing.

Better to stonewall than to lie. Eventually the truth will get found out and lying makes for a damage multiplier in the costs.

A few things the original poster seems to have missed.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that people in those businesses might want to try and establish plausible deniability for the upcoming lawsuits?

Next, you are aware that Verizon now owns MCI, and MCI executives who no longer work for the company have confirmed these reports so far?

Also, the security divisions of each of these telecoms are almost always run and staffed by ex-intelligence or military individuals, as well as ex-law enforcement types. These people would have no problems handing over said documentation if told the NSA wanted it.

Far too early to go about with the usual dittohead style of blame the messenger. But then, it appears from the writing that this person doesn't want a Fourth Estate looking out for the interest of the citizenry, and more than likely enjoys the single party Salinist style rule of the republicans.

To hell with the Constitution, checks and balances or the rule of law, as long as the crooks you want are in power.

Remember that when the tide inevitably shifts.

There is a reason I state things tentatively. We don't know, but it is clear that USA Today didn't do their homework. Let's assume for a moment that it turns out this program existed. It doesn't matter anymore, because the USA Today story was sloppy and went to press without the facts and has by extension discredited the story, even if true.

The story made it seem like it was open and knowing cooperation between the companies, and that simply isn't true. Did they even bother to call those phone companies before rushing to press? Doesn't seem like it.

In the end, the story is certainly suspect, so before we start drawing up articles of impeachment, I got a crazy idea, let's figure out the facts.

John - Indeed they COULD be innocent, but I'm very suspicious. This administration has made that my natural reaction.

John, who said anything about articles of impeachment?

I do applaud you for your clever use of qualifiers like "seem", and your statement of truth with "We don't know".

I can easily agree with your critique of the USA today article, but you do appear to have missed that in a recent press conference W appears to have confirmed the program, which Tony Snow in the next press conference stated the official position was to "neither confirm or deny"

But take it as a pure hypothetical, if said program turns out to be true, and the 1934 law as well as the FISA laws were intentionally and knowingly violated by the Administration, do you consider that an important issue and worth full and proper investigation and prosecutions if warranted?

Of course, assuming the law is applied as law and not politics applied as law.

To help muddy the waters a bit more, it's entirely possible that the NSA still got this info, just not by going through the companies themselves. The same data is available for sale from hundreds of companies on the internet. They could have just paid a few hundred dollars with their NSA Amex and bought all the data.

Dave

That's still against the 1934 law, Dave.

John, decent answer, now for the test; was the Clinton impeachment politics or law in your opinion?

Depends... I think perjury in general should be grounds for impeachment, yes. The trial was a show trial and I don't think one person voted based on the law. Whether the case of Clinton was extreme enough to warrant impeachment, well politics certainly drove that.

I do think it's telling that the entire Supreme Court in the first time in the history of the nation boycotted a State of the Union address by Clinton because of his "creative" use of executive power to thumb his nose at the judiciary.

However, I'm not naive enough to think Republicans were pushing the issue out of prinicple. So in short, yes and no.

A decent enough answer, John, thanks.

The media isn't responsible for the wiretaps, the administration is. Thus, the problem starts with the admin. And it is Defenders Of Liberty who are opposed, not just "liberals". cf. the Libertarians, Lew Rockwell, for instance.

#17 and #18 - Great stuff! It shows that people from different political points of view can come to agreement and come to respect each other, as long as they engage in an honest and logical debate.

Much better than some of the filthy ad-hominem garbage thrown around the blogosphere...

"Much better than some of the filthy ad-hominem garbage thrown around the blogosphere..."

Hopefully, you'll remember that when you write your congratulatory post to Pelosi when she takes over the house.

I believe there is a distinction to be made between mocking a public figure and attacking a fellow poster...

I believe there is a distinction to be made between mocking a public figure and attacking a fellow poster...

Maybe. But you didn't make that particular distinction in your previous comment. You only made a distinction between "honest and logical debate" and "filthy ad-hominem garbage", which is what your Nancy Pelosi post was, regardless of whether or not she's here to engage you in the "debate".

Don't kid yourself, that post was every bit as juvenile and counterproductive as people around here calling each other Nazis and Commies.

That's why you win this week's "pot calling the kettle black" award, RJ. Wait by your mailbox.

Well John, looks like your basic hypothesis has just been shut down completely. On NPR, as I type, there is the hearing for Hayden. Yesterday the entire INtel Committee heard all about the NSA wiretap as well as the domestic data mining operation.

So where USA Today may not have had all the details, they had what facts they published correct.

There goes the 4th and 5th Amendments.

The question is, are we, the people, going to fight back?

This title puzzles me:

"The NSA Database: Yet Another Journalistic Fraud?"

Are you saying that the NSA database is a fraud created by the press? That there is NO NSA database?

It appears he was trying to state that the NSA database was a journalistic mistake, similar to the "Rathergate" fiasco.

As I pointed out on an earlier comment, the hearing going on at this very moment completely destroy such a thesis.

The NSA did it, so did the phone companies, and from what is coming out so far in the public hearing, this appears to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Remember people, Negroponte, the current head of ALL intelligence agencies, was the guy on the ground running Iran-Contra.

More and more, as information comes out, it appears that our Intelligence agency, along with the Attorney General's office, if forming into something that makes the old KGB look like cub scouts.

Yup, that NSA is making the KGB look libe boyscouts. Because looking at a phone bill is SO much worse than sending people to a gulag.

And there was a reason I used tentative language... the question I have is if there was a NSA call database, why don't the phone companies know about it or why would they lie about something that would so quickly be proven to be a lie? I'll looking at that hearing transcripts later. I prefer to look at the text so I can at least not have to suffer through typical congressional bloviating.

Why woudl they lie?

Prosecution and Lawsuits.

As for gulags, can you say GITMO and extrodinairy renditions?

My concern here John, is that at each step the revelations get worse. First it was "these are only international calls to known terrorists", then when busted they go to "these are only the call records".

Read the 1934 Telecom Law as well as FISA. Both of those are duly passed laws according to the Constitution, and both have been broken.

Another example are the signing statements. You are aware that the Executive branch does not get to say what law they will enforce, or what is constitutional? That job is for the Supreme Court and Congress. I know, Bush is not the first to do so, but that doesn't make it right. Add to the fact that he has made more of these statements that ALL other presidents combined.

This makes me concerned for the checks and balances that are supposed to protect the citizens from the government. If you are not also concerned, if not outright alarmed, then you are either not looking at the entire picture or have blind trust in big government.

I can see no other explanations, and me, I don't trust anybody, much less the government.

Wasn't it Reagan who said "trust, but verify"?

Re #22;

"I believe there is a distinction to be made between mocking a public figure and attacking a fellow poster..."

Thus justifying your making fun of the size of Elizabeth Edward's butt?

JP in #12 states:
"Indeed they COULD be innocent, but I'm very suspicious. This administration has made that my natural reaction."

And the other one didn't? Good Gravy! They're ALL rotten to the core.

The gulags weren't used for people caught on the field of battle, Gitmo is. As far as I know, no one caught stateside has ever gone to Gitmo.

Lawsuits? Exactly why they wouldn't lie. Stonewall, sure. They lie, they get caught, you can safely multiply their damages by 3 AT LEAST from what it would have been by stonewalling. Especially considering there was due to be Senate confirmation hearings that touched on the issue.

yahho news doesn't mesh with the claims that the confirmation hearings confirm that the program existed. Why demand a retraction for something that is supposeldy public record?

I'm aware of the claims of FISA, and I'm also aware of the claims about how this is legal. I remain unconvinced because it is clear that the target for the so-called warrantless wiretaps were not US citizens, but phone calls abroad. It wouldn't be against FISA to spy on foreign agents in foreign countries when there happens to be an American in the room. Everything I've seen suggests that this wasn't a truly domestic program and FISA doesn't apply. I can see the arguments both ways, but to state flatly that Bush thumbed his nose at the law goes against case law, the Constitution, and logic. In some things Congress can't tell the President how to do his job. They can defund, sure.

However, it appears this call database doesn't seem to exist. Or at least, no other information has come out, and much has come out against, it's existence.

And it was Hoover, not Reagan.

"More and more, as information comes out, it appears that our Intelligence agency, along with the Attorney General's office, if forming into something that makes the old KGB look like cub scouts."

I was going to respond to this paranoid silliness until I read:

"Yup, that NSA is making the KGB look libe boyscouts. Because looking at a phone bill is SO much worse than sending people to a gulag."

Yeah, that about stole my thunder... ;-)

"As for gulags, can you say GITMO and extrodinairy renditions?"

Gulags were for domestic political enemies. GITMO is a temporary holding facility for foreign terrorists/enemy combatants captured on the field of battle, thousands of miles away...

"Thus justifying your making fun of the size of Elizabeth Edward's butt?"

Yup. It's huge.

John: "...I remain unconvinced because it is clear that the target for the so-called warrantless wiretaps were not US citizens, but phone calls abroad."

How is it "clear"? How do you know this? What visibility is there that would convince the rest of us? Or is this just the claim of admin officials who have a bad record?

Let me ask you a question, do you think a free society should have "national secrets" or organizations that operate out of the public eye?

I've read all the criticism, all the commentary, and despite framing it as "warrantless wiretaps" no one contradicts that the intention was monitoring phone calls entering and leaving the country, something which you can make a good argument doesn't apply to FISA, certainly when the "targetting" was overseas and not domestic.

John, if one end of the calls was in the US, it falls under both FISA and the 4th amendment. In Hayden's testimony yesterday, even he stated that "probable cause" was the criteria, and that the only reason the FISA court was not consulted was due to expediency within the NSA.

Sorry, but expediency is NO reason to bypass constitutional protections of checks and balances.

RJ, you are absolutely correct about my going over the top on the gulag thing. The entire mention of gulags was a distraction from my point about a KGB like police state agency monitoring it's own citizens without the oversight of the Courts as a seperate and equal entity ensuring checks and balances.

That is the crux of the issue, checks and balances. The concern of many americans is that this administration constantly oversteps it's bounds and bypasses constitutional conventions as well as duly passed federal laws.

John, yes there needs to be "secret" organization in this day and age, spies are required for security. However, oversight as well as checks and balances are required in our Republic according to our laws and Constitution.

"...for foreign terrorists/enemy combatants captured on the field of battle, thousands of miles away..."

Oh yeah, that location you're so fearful of...

Oversight? You mean like the President briefing members of Congress (aka what he was doing years before these stories hit the press)?

Get it right, John, the President doesn't brief shit. What you mean to say is that the INtel folks give limited briefings to the "gang of 8" on the INtel committe. They are not aloowed staffers, to ask questions, or to speak about it to anyone else. Thyose briefings are done on a "need to know" basis as determined by those doing the briefing.

Far cry from Judicial review and Congressional oversight as written into the Constitution as part of the checks and balances crucial to our government.

Try not to be so naive and simplistic if you are going to go into the deep end of the pool.

Whether or not a free society has covert intlligence is determined by the actions of the enemies of freedom. If the baddies want to use cover ops against you then if you want to stay free u need counter measures.

A fair assessment, Lumpy. There is definately a need for covert ops. The issue at hand is control and oversight, as well as accountability.

The difference between a totalitarian regime and a free society can be easily determined by just this fact.

In a totalitarian society, there is no accountability, checks and balances if you will, to said tactics. See SAVAK or the KGB for example. In a free society, there is accountability, and external review and oversight, such as MI-6 or what we used to have with the CIA.

When those lines get blurred, even a little bit, you shift from one to the other.

Even in a totalitarian society there's accountability - often a hell of a lot of it. It's just not to the people. Believe me, when you screwed up in the KGB or in SAVAK you were accountable to someone and paid with your life or a nice trip to the gulag.

And regardless of what the Bush administration may or may not be doing, there's plenty of accountability in our current system. We've got not only the constitutional checks and balances in place, with the legislature and the courts watching what's going on, but we've also got an incredibly powerful press providing yet another check on abuse of authority. The reason Bush is getting away with whatever he has been getting away with is that his transgressions, such as they are, live in gray areas where reasonable arguments can be made to support them. And most importantly they don't amount to gross, institutional violations of the rights of the people as a whole, and you can get away with that for a while as long as you don't go further and step on the toes of the general public.

Dave

I luv my guburment.

"...for foreign terrorists/enemy combatants captured on the field of battle, thousands of miles away..."

Oh yeah, that location you're so fearful of...

Rather than (pointlessly) asking Mr. Rose to delete yet another example of your personal vendetta against me, I'd just like to point out that you served in Hawaii, during the Vietnam War, and, according to your own websites, your most memorable moments were playing softball and shooting billiards.

You never once volunteered to go into the "field of battle, thousands of miles away..."

And, let me ask, why not?

I mean, after all, you seem to value battlefield experience. You hero John F. Kerry managed to stay in Vietnam for almost 4 months before requesting to be sent home.

Why didn't you give it a try yourself, my semi-anonymous cyber-stalker, MCH?

You never once volunteered to go into the "field of battle, thousands of miles away..."

Actually, from Hawaii it's much closer. He could have gotten there pretty easily if he'd had an interest.

Dave

Maybe this whole NSA wiretap thing is a fraud perpetrated by the admin! Now, verizon has denied contributing info. Maybe it was just a ploy to scare the Bad Guys. Makes some sense. After all, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that anyone anytime can have secure conversations. The tools are cheap (like, free) and readily available.

Any self-respecting terrorist has to know about PKE and steganography, etc. Why, they've even been featured in movies.

So, if the terrorists have security, why would the NSA collect the data. Unless it's to spy on non-terrorists, like thee and me?

Good point Blif, maybe they just invented something for us to be more outraged about than the war to disstract us politically!

"You never once volunteered to go into the "field of battle, thousands of miles away..."
And, let me ask, why not?"
- RJ Elliott

I guess the difference is, Elliott, you promote sending someone else to fight and die in your battles for you, and I don't. Besides, by enlisting during time of war and serving where ordered, my chances of seeing combat were 100 percent more than yours.

"I'd just like to point out that you served in Hawaii, during the Vietnam War, and, according to your own websites, your most memorable moments were playing softball and shooting billiards."
- RJ Elliott

Mocking my mediocre service is really not that big a deal, considering your history of ridiculing braver men (ie, John Kerry, Max Cleland, etc) than yourself.

"You hero John F. Kerry managed to stay in Vietnam for almost 4 months before requesting to be sent home."
- RJ Elliott

Actually, my hero is John McCain (5 1/2 years POW, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart)...you remember...the guy whose patriotism was slandered by (deserter) GW Bush and (draft-dodger) Karl Rove.

Typical left sytle over subtance argument. Just because someone is a good messenger does not mean that no disagreement with their ideas is allowed.

McCain did serve honorably and I recall no one questioning that, but people certainly question his ideas. No one questioned Max Cleland's service, they questioned his positions.

The idea that every criticism of those people is automatically out of bounds is outrageous and yet another attempt by liberals to dominate political discourse by ruling other ideas of the table.

It is not patriotism by insisting yours are the only ideas that can possibly be true, much less discussed. It is not patriotism to respond to any idea with which you disgree with personal attacks and demonization.

To do so exposes you as a traitor to this nation and an enemy of the Constitution.

guess the difference is, Elliott, you promote sending someone else to fight and die in your battles for you, and I don't.

The basic fallacy here is the use of the word 'your'. It's not RJ's battle or my battle, it's a battle being fought on behalf of America as a whole. And in fact, whether you choose to support the troops or not, they're still fighting for YOU too, MCH.

Now, they may be fighting the wrong battle or in the wrong place at the wrong time, but no matter how much you disagree they're doing it for all of us as they always have.

Dave

Once again you are being slippery with the truth. The newspaper gave the companies a chance to deny
the allegations and told them what they were going to report and the company did not dispute what the story was reporting.

Why not? You say the newspaper did not do their
homework - prove it. They called and asked the
company for comment. What more do you want them to
do?

Why do you assume the phone companies are the
ones being spotty with the truth?

"McCain did serve honorably and I recall no one questioning that, but people certainly question his ideas."
- Bambi

From www.counterpunch.org/madsen...
"The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Karl Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories, including accusing McCain (of being) a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton....Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family."

-----------------------------------

"No one questioned Max Cleland's service, they questioned his positions."
- Bambi

RJ Elliott's mocking of Max Cleland...
"Max Cleland resembles a gigantic thalidamide baby."

Scott-

That information didn't come out til after this article ran, for one.

I'm making assumptions, yes, just like everyone else is because the facts aren't out. I may be wrong, but the way I read the situation, if the phone companies are complicit, there is no way their lawyers would EVER let them speak on it except to say "no comment". Why deny something that's going to come out anyway? Why be explicitly and in the press lie when you have lawsuits pending that are going to get your records? That would just make a bad situation worse for them.

Sure, it's possible, but shoddy reporting is more likely than the phone companies outright lying in public.

Further, calling the PR guy and getting a canned response is not doing your homework. It wasn't like the USA Today called the NSA PR department and found out this information. Journalism is hard work, there is no excuse for laziness... especially for the big stories.

MCH-

First off, no one takes counterpunch seriously as an objective news source.

Second, as far as McCain is concerned, that whole blurb is nothing but speculation and conjecture.

Third, the criticism on Cleland has nothing to do with his service or his patriotism and it shows the exact problem. To you, any criticism of Cleland **is** an attack on his patriotism? Why? Because it gives you the chance to practice the left's time dishonored tradition of sitting in moral judgement of anyone who thinks differently than you.

Tolerance? My ass.

JB: "McCain did serve honorably and I recall no one questioning that,..."

That fellow Buckeley accused McCain of being a bad un-american POW, while GWB stood next to him on the stage. Later, when confronted by McCain on Larry King, GWB refused to renounce Buckeleys statement, and instead accused McCain of attacking him, GWB, unfairly.

"... but people certainly question his ideas."

That's not what they were doing when Rove started rumors in SC in 2000 that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Ideas?

"... No one questioned Max Cleland's service, they questioned his positions."

No, you're wrong again. They belittled Cleland because his injuries occured in a rear area, not on the battlefield. This from guys who weren't even close to the rear areas, let alone the battlefield.

Your credibility is sinking. First you support dirty tricks by dirty politicians, then you deny they occured.

Who's Buckeley? Ok, fine, you got my, some fever swamp assholes talk shit. So what? Unless Buckeley is some GOP staffer, I'm not sure why that's relevant. And I'd like to see the transcript of Larry King to see what he said for myself.

When Rove **supposedly** started those rumors, they had nothing to do with his patriotism. Unless you are saying white people having sex with black people is unpatriotic. You aren't one of those who think that kind of thing should be illegal, are you?

"They" Who is "They"?

I can talk about some generalization I have no way to confirm.

And at what point did I support dirty tricks played by dirty politicians? Is this all you have? Slinging dirt because you disagree with someone?

"No one questioned Max Cleland's service, they questioned his positions."
- Bambi

from www.11alive.com/news:

"If Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta," Ann Coulter said in her column, published on February 11.

"He didn't give his limbs for his country, or leave them on the battlefield," Coulter said. "There was no bravery involved in dropping the grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight."

So, what IS Max Cleland's role in the NSA Database issue. Does he work for the NSA? Is he proposing legislation or an investigation into it?

Dave

Claims by USA Today using sources with "direct knowledge of the program" that the NSA has been collecting massive databases of phone calls don't appear to match with the records of two of the three apparent participants, Verizon and Bell South.

MCH-

At what point did Ann Coulter become the mouthpiece for anything besides Ann Coulter?

Mr. Real Estate-

The article I linked to was Verizon saying they didn't participate in the program the USA Today described.

"At what point did Ann Coulter become the mouthpiece for anything besides Ann Coulter?"

I don't know, Bambi; I was only refuting your statement that "No one questioned Max Cleland's service, they questioned his positions."

I heard there was a Democrat running for AG in Alabama who's a white surpemacist...

Why do all democrats hate black people?

To refute John's prime thesis here's some links; washingtonpost.com
and from the source wired.com I like to share.

[Please make future links active to avoid deletion, Heckler. Thanks. Comments Editor]

So one former technician testifies about stuff happening during the Clinton administration and that proves the NSA bought phone records in 2001?

Right.

Read the links and the PDF supplied in the Wired article.

Then read the Qwest statements made when the sotry first broke.

Then we can talk in an intelligent fashion, I am guessing here that the technical aspect is outside your personal knowledge, since you list yourself as academia and not into physics, electronics, or military style electronic counter measures.

Not a problem, but it makes it difficult to emphasize the import of these revelations if you don't speak the language. Clue for you , John.

I do work in the telecommunications industry.

And to show the problem of why John can't read, I'll quote form the Wired article about the AT&T memo's that were actually posted on the site this morning...

"Klein supports his claim by attaching excerpts of three internal company documents: a Dec. 10, 2002, manual titled "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco," a Jan. 13, 2003, document titled "SIMS, Splitter Cut-In and Test Procedure" and a second "Cut-In and Test Procedure" dated Jan. 24, 2003."

Notice the 2002 and 2003 dates, thus refuting John's claim that this had ANYfuckingTHING to do with Clinton.

Why can't Johnny read?

You're right, I stand corrected. AT&T's ex-technician proves that Quest did in fact lie about selling phone records...

Or maybe that's not quite it at all.

Yup, this is about AT&T not Qwest or Verizon which I did mention.

This is about cut-ins to phone calls, not about buying phone calls.

Nice try coming up with an irrelevant story to redeem this hack job.

Oh, and for the reference, if you read my homepage like you claimed to have, you'd see that I have a BA in Physics and Astronomy prominently listed.

Why can't the Heckler read?