On the heels of President Bush demanding that Congress give and/or restore broader presidential surveillance powers over private citizens, a new wrinkle in the story surfaced today. The U.S. State Department Inspector General’s office revealed that contractors connected with that agency had breached security protocols in order to obtain travel records of the three remaining presidential candidates.
The incidents were reported to the Bush administration only yesterday, despite the fact that news of some of the breaches was brought to the attention of officials several months ago. It also came to light that apparently no upper-level personnel within the State Department were notified of the breaches until Thursday, March 20.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s records were compromised in 2007, apparently during a training exercise. The trainee was supposed to enter a family member’s name, but instead he entered Hillary Clinton’s instead. Information was read concerning the senator’s private itineraries, along with other undisclosed and confidential details.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey balked at demands to look into the incidents and stated he had no plans to investigate the breaches unless the Inspector General asked for it officially. The passport files of Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama had been accessed several times over a period of several months.
McCain, in Paris, was quoted as saying, “If anyone's privacy was breached, then they deserve an apology and a full investigation, and I believe that will take place."
The three who had accessed Obama’s records were said to be low-level employees who were “admonished” for their actions. Senator Obama’s files were accessed on January 9, February 21, and March 14, 2008.
After being apprised of the situation during a campaign stop in Portland, Oregon, Senator Barack Obama was quoted as saying, "One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that it stay personal and stay private. And when you have not just one but a series of attempts to tap into people's personal records, that's a problem not just for me but for how our government is functioning.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
You know, I read about this story elsewhere and now I'm reading it here, and I'm still scratching my head as to why this is of any interest at all.
What could be in the candidates travel records from their passports which isn't already public knowledge? That Obama went to Cuba? We already knew, thanks. I just don't see the controversy here.
Dave
2 - Jet in Columbus
Condoleeza Rice said that whe wouldn't want the information in her passport file revealed, so there must be something to it.
From other reports I've read, apparently those files contain more than just movement records.
3 - Jet in Columbus
Besides, how do we know that this breach of confidential info isn't just the tip of the iceberg?
4 - Whymrhymer
The title of this article is very misleading as is a statement made in the first paragraph.
Bush asking that his surveillance powers of private citizens be restored relates to the government's efforts to detect terrorist activities and has absolutely no connection (except perhaps in your mind) with this other story about contract employees accessing passport records. The story about the passport records is not a "new wrinkle."
I would bet that these contract employees who were either terminated or chastized were digging for dirt to sell to the media, nothing more, nothing less.
Taking your semi-veiled suggestion that the Bush administration has something to do with the passport breaches and your last comment, raising the old "tip of the iceberg" spectre, together I'd say we have a first class conspiracy theorist at work.
Perhaps you should try for a job at the New York Times.
5 - Jet in Columbus
The American right of privacy isn't being taken away in one act, but rather by stealth, a tiny piece at a time, so that no one notices just how far it has gone.
I expected this argument. It's on the line of having 100 pieces of adhesive tape put on your arm and then being asked why you're complaining and which one bothers you the most. When you call attention to it, you're chastised for frivolously complaining about something stupid. Individually they don't amount to much, but taken as a whole they're something more serious.
I put it on the order of when the then-Republican led congress snuck Bush immunity from war crimes that he hadn't commited yet before they were voted out of the majority.
6 - bliffle
Condy fails the management test again. There should be a proper security system in place to protect such data, State doesn't have such a system and Condy has no apparent plans to institute such a system. She fails. It's not enough to say the miscreants have been punished: that accomplishes nothing.
Condy continues her lifelong habit of not doing her job but just using a job to leverage into her next job upward. She should be fired.
Would you want such a do-nothing failure working for you?
As for GWB, he fails too. He wants more power to peek into peoples lives without exhibiting the sense to do the right thing when the evidence is right in front of him: witness the august 2001 PBD report "OBL determined to attack in USA" and the dozen reports warning of the use of airplanes as missiles.
How would such a person recognize an important clue found among private citizens private communications? He doesn't have a clue and doesn't recognize one when it's pinned to the end of his nose.
GWB fails the leadership test.
7 - Jet in Columbus
Blif, the failure isn't where you think it is. According to the Associated Press, these breaches of security were not only noticed, but flagged to the attention of the higher ups at the State Department as they happened between 4 months to 7 days ago.
Conde found out about it only thursday morning... (or so she claims)
That's either a coverup or gross negligence.
8 - Jet in Columbus
Whymrhymer the fact that private information, regardless of how trivial it is or isn't should not have been available to some trainee contractor in the state department and goes to the heart of the Bush Administration's failure to detect and prevent such breaches. What if the wrong people had gotten advance information concerning John McCain's visit to Paris, or the Vice President's visit to Afghanistan?
You bet your ass that every far right winger from Arch Conservative to JOM would be screaming their lungs aout about this. But since the most harm seems to be against democrats, that makes it trivial in their eyes.
As for your crack about writing for the New York Times, I find myself in good company considering that had it been published when I wrote this, I'd have beaten United Press, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post to the byline by hours, because my first source (CNN) was the only one broadcasting the basic story "as details are still coming in" at the time I composed this piece.
9 - Whymrhymer
Jet, Did I say that the passport breach was NOT a failure to implement proper security procedures? No I didn't. You call it a failure of the Bush administration and, in general, you're right but the president himself is as far removed from the workings of the passport office as your comment is removed from the point I was making.
Do you really think that if this was part of some grand plot to take away another "piece" of our privacy we would have even heard about it? Or that it would have been accomplished by low-level contractors? I doubt it!
I stand by my points: 1) This affair has nothing to do with Bush's call for restoration of his surveillance powers and you are misleading your readers by suggesting that it does and 2) You're trying to turn something (the passport breach) that means nothing, into a grand conspiracy.
10 - Whymrhymer
P.S.
But I do like your scotch tape on the arm analogy!
11 - JustOneMan
Gee...Editor - shouldnt these be identifed as a parody and not news? In addition does any body besides the Bush bashing loons really give a shit about someone looking at a passport.
In addition, since these guys are running for the most powerful position on earth I demand to see their passports. In addition, I think I should ne allowed to see the passport of any American especially the author of this post!
JOM
12 - Jet in Columbus
Only JOM could turn a security breach into looking at someone's passport, we're talking travel schedules and other confidential materials.
I'm so glad you didn't disappoint me, and I'm glad to have my biggest fan back on my articles.
love hugs and kisses
Jet
13 - Jet in Columbus
This involves the State Department-not the passport office. If it's so damned trivial, what is Condoleeza Rice doing involved with this whole affair??????
Sure you can downplay this article, but you'll get your smartass kicked if you try to take on people like CNN, The Washinton Post, UPI and every other news organization.
Your remarks reveal that intellect isn't one or your strong points.
Turn on a TV or pick up a paper, and stick your head out into the real world.
14 - JustOneMan
There are others who are also worried about the government looking at their passports. Recentlty the State Department and FBI along with other international agencies have been reviewing the passports of suspected international sex offenders. There have been several recent high profile arrests and prosecutions due to these efforts.
JOM
15 - JustOneMan
Hmmmm is someone a little worried?
16 - Jet in Columbus
According to the latest news reports, The Secretary of State is ordering polygraph tests of all those contractors involved and has pledged full cooperation with Congressional investigations.
Pretty heavy duty action for a few guys looking at passports. I'd say that kind of action probably involves things that the Bush Administration would rather not have revealed.
As I recall the whole Watergate scandal began because a few people were critisized for trying to blow up a simple botched burgularly at a hotel.
As I recall Bill Clinton was originally being investigated for a real estate scheme that he was barely involved in, and turned into impeachment proceedings that the republican congress FOUND HIM INNOCENT OF.
We'll see
We'll see
17 - JustOneMan
Wow a smoking gun of a cover up reported right here on blog critics-
"The Secretary of State is ordering polygraph tests of all those contractors involved and has pledged full cooperation with Congressional investigations"
Gee if that doesnt scream cover up I dont know what does!
JOM
18 - Clavos
A passport is an ID. As such, it is shown all over the world to all manner of people, foreign and domestic. Even hotels demand and hold one's passport during one's stay. The information contained in a passport can hardly be considered confidential when dozens of people see it every time one travels.
The passport incident has nothing whatever to do with Bush's seeking the restoration of the government's ability to conduct surveillance.
19 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos, even you should know that the information provided to obtain a passport, is not included on the document. Ergo birth information social security number and other items.
Also it's nobody's business where John McCain travels, should he or any other of the candidates decide to travel.
I will repeat, if this is so trivial, why is the secretary of state involved, why has she pledged to put the contractors on polygraphs?
20 - troll
why is the secretary of state involved, why has she pledged to put the contractors on polygraphs?
...because it's another great non-issue on which to focus the attention of the brain dead - ?
21 - Jet in Columbus
Troll, trivial as it seems, others repeating a lie that the contractors were democrats over and over again does not make it true.
The contractors worked for a Republican State Department and nowhere were their political affiliation mentioned.
Repeating a lie adnauseum does not make it true.
22 - troll
on the other hand saying that a lie isn't a lie doesn't make it a non-lie...or a truth......is it a lie - ?
in any case it's just bullshit distraction (imo)
23 - Clavos
"Clavos, even you should know that the information provided to obtain a passport, is not included on the document. Ergo birth information social security number and other items."
Jet, One reason I don't often comment on your threads is because you have a tendency to be rude; in this case, "even you" is utterly gratuitous.
In point of fact, birth information (date and place) IS in my passport. I provided my SS # only, no other SS information. It is not in the passport.
"Also it's nobody's business where John McCain travels, should he or any other of the candidates decide to travel."
They are presidential candidates. Where they travel (and why) is everybody's business. In fact, once they declared their candidacies everything in their lives became public
24 - Clavos
"in any case it's just bullshit distraction"
Quoted for Truth.
25 - Krutic A
'What could be in the candidates travel records from their passports which isn't already public knowledge? '
No kidding. The media grabs such things in the hopes that it might turn out to be another watergate. There is nothing to it. If Obama was hospitalized, someone would've sneaked a peek at his medical file. People get curious and against their better judgement do stupid things.
That's all there is to it.