Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has suggested that anyone who questions the controversial National Security Agency programs is ignorant. He laid into critics of the wiretapping and phone records programs Thursday for “making denouncements and condemnations on subjects about which they know little to nothing.”
But as our editorial Friday noted, “Saying the NSA program is lawful still does not make it so, especially when so many legal experts beg to differ. And it does not suffice for Roberts to promise that his committee ‘has been, and will continue, exercising its oversight responsibilities related to the NSA’ — not when the committee’s own members have publicly suggested otherwise.”
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has a better approach: Have a court oversee the programs, letting “the public know the law is being followed and complied with, not just on the word of any one administration.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
28 Comments
Senator Roberts needs to start behaving like a Senator who is charged with oversight of the Executive branch, and to stop sounding like one of the Bush Administration’s lapdogs.
‘Sit down and shut up because WE know what’s good for you’ isn’t a sentiment that I, or many Americans, find acceptable coming from the mouth of an official elected by us, to represent us.
Senator Roberts, stop stonewalling. If you really want to get the American public on board, tell us exactly what is involved in the NSA domestic surveillance program. Failing that, you can hardly complain when your constituents express mistrust in your secrecy and evident dissembling.
And don’t attack your critics with the weaselly ‘arguments’ you have employed so far. Reasonable people think differently than you, and it disgraces your office for you to impugn their patriotism.
i’m wondering… how does one get his name on the list of people “worthy” of being spied upon? Senator Roberts, if you’re paying attention, I would LOVE to have that “honor” bestowed upon me!
Let me reverse your words on you Melissa:
Saying the NSA program is illegal still does not make it so, especially when so many legal experts beg to differ…
Blah…blah…blah…
A point brought up on another board that does seem to be valid, “Bush said we are only spying on those with ties to Al-Qaeda. 5 million phone calls were tracked in America, so either this war on terrorism is pointless as there are 5 million people in this country that have ties to Al-Qaeda if so that mean we could not win. Or he see everyone in the Untied States as an enemy”.
The collection of all those calls would only be valid if you knew whom the terrorist is, if you already know that is would be easier to just track whom they have called. Then see whom those people called. It get tiresome to keep repeating common sense. But then I might just be ignorant, not able to see that in order to find the needle I must collect the haystack! Instead of using a magnet to separate the metal from the straw.Maybe Roberts has some better eye sight then I, able to just stand back and see the shaft from all the straw.
If course again I am ignorant, if I am trying to clean something up I throw the trash in a can as I go. It must make more sense to throw the trash on the floor behind me, then pick it up another time to put it in the can.It might make sense if I am looking for a certain piece of trash to pick up each and every piece. if that piece is not the one I am looking for then it can go behind me. Or I could simple pile all the trash up and stand back to see if I can see something that would tell me which piece is the one I want! The former might make me fairly good at a jigsaw puzzle. But I am not with the NSA, if I were then I would pile all the pieces up and set and look at the pile.
In Police work a suspect is not always plain, so you do a process of elimination. You know what was done and where and when. You eliminate all those that were not in the country at the time, then all those that were not in the state at the time. Then eliminate those not in the county at the time, then those not in the city at the time. Then those not in the area at the time, till those left are a manageable size to eliminate one at a time. That could be their thinking except they are not working from a time frame, if they knew that the terrorist had placed a call at a certain time then it would be a matter of collecting all the calls from that time and eliminate from there. Having to think of the whys only bring one thought on the blind collecting of phone numbers called by Americans….Straw man!
But of course I am ignorant!
What about those hearings we have been promised about the pre-war intelligence on iraq and the bushco lies that led to the current disaster there?
Roberts sure has a convenient memory about his promises for timely and thorough hearings.
And now he is dragging his feet on the NSA?
Bush’s senator. Who represents Kansas?
writerdog
You say 5 million calls were “tracked”. What is the source of that claim?
I WOULDN’T TRUST BROWNBACK TO BE A DOG CATCHER, HE WOULD GIVE THEM A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP!
Unfortunately, the only way to get Repub. Congressmen to fulfill their oversight duties is to hold their feet to the fire, and demand they honor the constitutional separation of powers.
Writerdog,
The problem is that your entire argument starts with the presuption that Bush is “spying” on Americans.
Anyhow, I somehow trust the NSA to be staffed by people immenently more qualified at gathering information and knowing why than you.
Nothing personal.
Steve,
How right you are about seperation of powers!
That is why the President has the authority to do what he is doing.
Guys, Be nice to Melissa Cooley, she is too young to be thinking for herself and just doing what the boss wants.
“Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has suggested that anyone who questions the controversial National Security Agency programs is ignorant”
Okay just for this statement from Roberts, can we get a recall vote on his office?
What a Jackass!!! We need to see him gone next time hes up for re-election.
Luckily we have Senators like Roberts where he is to prevent reactionary, knee-jerk, attack the President with what ever they can people from causing any real damage.
Sorry that not everyone is going to simply roll over and play along with you whiney liberals.
Roberts is going to ride Bush’s coattails right out of office.
Roberts statement sounds hauntingly familiar to the rush to get the WMD’s, anyone questioning the logic and rationale, automatically didn’t know what they were talking about. And, people like Nathan were saying “they’re in a better position than we are to know”, so give them the benefit of the doubt. History has shown what a failed rationale that was!
Nathan, With all due respect, I can see you standing on the deck of the Titanic saying ” This ship is unsinkable. There is nothing wrong with glub, glub, glub…….”
Steve,
I am not sure as to what could have been done differently.
The best intelligence agencies in the world were all in agreement that Saddam had WMD’s.
What oversight was there supposed to be? The Congress voted on the issue.
Actually the best intelligence agencies in the world agreed that there was no conclusive evidence that Saddam had or was developing WMDs. There was however, an administration that was hell bent for war at any price and distorted the evidence to suit their needs.
Saddam was a supporter of terrorism and a threat to Israel and as such he had to go, period.
Shalom.
It was less an Intelligence failure, and more a failure to give all the intelligence a fair sounding.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., has a better approach: Have a court oversee the programs, letting “the public know the law is being followed and complied with, not just on the word of any one administration.”___________________________________
Brownback’s suggestion makes perfect sense. Such a court process could ensure that the program retained its needed secrecy. The only reason for not doing as Brownback suggests is that the program is of questionable legality.
DD,
For a man of logic, I would think that even you would see the error in making the statement that:
“The only reason for not doing as Brownback suggests is that the program is of questionable legality.”
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tomtoles
Heckler, it was a semi-quote from a poster on a message board, though not always the best source for such figures. I did after reading you question search for a exact figure as to just how many calls were tracked.All I could find was a rounding in a phrase “tens of millions of calls”, since the program is still in the secret stage an exact figure is not available. Now as to the phrase “Tracked” if you are to blindly follow one number to the other that is tracking. It would not mean it is being listen to, but it is being recorded as to what number was called by what number.
The point of the quote was that if it is said that the focus is only on known terrorists and their fellows. And yet there is a blind tracking of whom is calling whom, then the suspects are those being tracked.Five million maybe be a general figure, more just a figure to work with. A starting point for the main point that if it is said only these people are of a concern and then those concerns are broader then stated.
It has been said that this type of “Spying” and yes that is spying when you look at what someone does. Is a common practice within marketing. Looking for a blind pattern as to how often people may call certain numbers. But this is not about marketing and it is not the most effective way of determining whom is calling whom. In fact it is so slipshod, it is an embarrassment to think that the NSA and Bush&Co, are using it.It is only effective if you know what number you are looking for, the terrorists have shown that they are perceptive of the weaknesses of how we do things. This begs the question: If the enemy is smart enough to be aware that they more then likely will be spied on. Then whom is not aware that the spying is going on and most likely to be caught by that spying? Spying maybe a game of semantics, “If they are not listening then it is not really spying!”.
If the real target is the terrorists then it is acceptable and furthers the war effort, but if it is a logic conclusion that the terrorists will expect this type of spying. Then who could the real target be?
Nathan, not personal taken, it truly is a matter of trust, you trust that they are only doing what is considered necessary in the war on terrorism. I do not, I look at what is done that I know of and question how that would be necessary? Or smart, you may have read my response to Heckler so rehashing it would be boring.But those are the points that I stand on, the terrorists know us better then we know them. So in this collecting of numbers called by people in a blind matter, is slipshod and does nothing to reach the goal of tracking the terrorists. It make the assumption that the terrorists will not have a clue that it could happen.Since what we do know of Al-Qaeda, they favor personal couriers, tracking phones calls is of little use if any. True we are having to play catch up, they have been studying us for years. We on the other hand have only truly taken them serious since 9-11. Though it turns out that Al-Qaeda has been either behind or had something to do with every terrorist attack in the last almost twenty years. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Chechnya, Somalia, the list goes on. For years is was the assumption of the CIA that Bin Laden was nothing more then like the matronly philanthropist of terrorism. Even during the Clinton administration , though leading experts on terrorism noted that Bin Laden’s name kept coming up with terrorist attacks. The CIA dismissed him as nothing more then a money man, we now know different.Not since the eighties has Al-Qaeda been behind in what we could do to track cell phones and e-mails.
They became quick studies, learning that we could track their use of cell phones and they had adjusted their communication methods.
There may be a point that both of us will agree is questionable, if they were to come to your home and say that in the cause of national security. We must confiscate your weapons, I am sure both of us will say “No, you will not!” Until then I have reached that point and if things keep going the direction down the road that is maybe heading . You will reach that point too. Trust but verify!
From Steven Aftergood’s newsletter:
STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE SHUTS COURTHOUSE DOORS
The state secrets privilege has been invoked by the BushAdministration with greater frequency than ever before in Americanhistory in a wide range of lawsuits that the government says wouldthreaten national security if allowed to proceed.
In virtually every case, the use of the privilege leads to dismissalof the lawsuit and forecloses the opportunity for an injured partyto seek judicial relief.
Most recently, a lawsuit brought by Khaled El-Masri, a Germancitizen who alleged that he was kidnapped by the CIA and torturedover a five month period, was dismissed after the CIA invoked the”state secrets” privilege.
The dismissal was not based on a finding that the allegationsagainst the CIA were false.
“It is in no way an adjudication of, or comment on, the merit orlack of merit of El-Masri’s complaint,” wrote Judge T.S. Ellis, IIIin a May 12 order.
In fact, “It is worth noting that … if El-Masri’s allegations aretrue or essentially true, then all fair-minded people… must alsoagree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of ourcountry’s mistake and deserves a remedy,” he wrote in the orderdismissing the case.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/elmasri051206.pdf
“Yet, it is also clear from the result reached here that the onlysources of that remedy must be the Executive Branch or theLegislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch,” he suggested.
But in this case the executive branch is the alleged perpetrator ofthe offense, and the legislative branch has no procedures foradjudicating allegations such as El-Masri’s, even if it had aninterest in doing so. That’s what courts are for.
Terrorists can kill people and destroy property. But they cannotundermine the rule of law, or deny injured parties access to thecourts. Only the U.S. government can do that.
The state secrets privilege has been invoked lately in a remarkablediversity of lawsuits. See this selection of case files fromrecent state secrets cases:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/index.html
Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive reflected on thegrowing use of the state secrets privilege and how it relates tothe larger climate of secrecy in “The lie behind the secrets,” LosAngeles Times, May 21:
http://tinyurl.com/mkd78
Recently introduced legislation would “provide protection fromfrivolous government claims of state secrets,” the Project onGovernment Oversight noted:
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2006/05/state_secrets_.html
Wired News today published documents pertaining to the alleged roleof AT&T in NSA warrantless surveillance related to another lawsuitin which the state secrets privilege has been invoked. See:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70947-0.html
Sure Brownback wants the courts to oversee the wire taps. The Bushytail adminstration has the court on his side of the bed.
What wire taps are we talking about?