The Spying Started Before September 11 -- That's The Whole Point

In the LA Times today, A Good-Enough Spy Law says,

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks.

No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office -- a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say "political spying?")

One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges.

The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused -- refused because it was illegal -- is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The president can't spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?

Don't forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don 't think they don't do it.

[note- NY Times link added after posting]

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Comments

[aznurse]

For the first four years the Dems had no control of the senate or house. Any investigative meetings they wanted were either denied or had to be held in the bowels of the buildings, with barely andy MSN coverage. the second four years , they've had a tiny majority, with old lieberman always voting against them, as well as the blue dogs.
I don't even care much about the punishment for the telecoms, I just want to know the truth about how corrupt this bush admin has been. Those are the ones to be punished.

[Michale32086]

}}}}I don't even care much about the punishment for the telecoms, I just want to know the truth about how corrupt this bush admin has been. Those are the ones to be punished.{{{{

Fair enough. I am sure many feel as you do, they just are not as honest as you are about it. You want revenge.. It's a natural human reaction.

But, let me ask you...

You say that you just want to know how corrupt the Bush Administration has been.

What is your revenge worth to you?

Because, invariably to learn the info you seek, classified information must be disclosed. Information that, in the hands of terrorists, would lead to an increased likely hood of a successful terrorist attack against US proper...

So, this begs the question.

Is your vengeance worth American lives??

I ask this question in all sincerity and await a like-minded response..

Michale.....

[EspressoAtNoon]

>>>"You say that you just want to know how corrupt the Bush Administration has been.

What is your revenge worth to you?

Because, invariably to learn the info you seek, classified information must be disclosed. Information that, in the hands of terrorists, would lead to an increased likely hood of a successful terrorist attack against US proper..."

[aznurse]

It sounds as if you got yourself quite a Catch 22 going.
We cant learn how we've been screwed over because it would screw us over.
When does truth enter the equation?
How do you know what info they may be hiding hasn't caused American lives as well as others.
As for vengence, that would be up to the courts.
I suppose public shunning would work too.

[aznurse]

BTW, what was wrong with the original FISA court?

[DavidJames]

"Liberty and Justice for All"

This doesn't mean a free pass for telecoms.

[FullChat]

You suppose that any oversight will kill Americans?
This leaves the foxes to police the hen house, as they have.

[Michale32086]

Other than the word of a convicted felon trying to mitigate his crimes, is there any other evidence to support the notion that the Administration was spying on Americans prior to 9/11??

Michale.....

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

NY Times, 10.14.2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html

"At the time of the claimed meeting at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade, Md., headquarters on Feb. 27, 2001, Mr. Nacchio was chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, whose members included top executives of most of the major communications companies. Like nearly every chief executive in the industry, he had been granted a security clearance to work with the government on secret projects.

In the court papers, Mr. Nacchio’s lawyers said he and James F. X. Payne, then Qwest’s head of government business, spoke with N.S.A. officials about the agency’s Groundbreaker project, in which the agency’s non-secret information technology would be contracted to private companies.

At the same meeting, N.S.A. officials made an additional proposal, whose exact nature is not made clear in the censored documents.

“The court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting,” one of the documents states. Another passage says: “The court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.”"

[Michale32086]

That is evidence, I grant you..

But it is grossly circumstantial and is far from conclusive...

It is surely not enough to hang a prosecution on..

Michale.....

[TheIndependenceParty]

Thank you, Dave. Your post makes several points well supported. First, there is sworn testimony on record that the White House asked for illegal wiretapping before we had been attacked. Any pretense the President used later that we were at war loses all of its credibility. This is particularly true if they illegally wiretapped before 9/11 and the attack occurred on their watch anyway. Were their heads turned the other way?

I am hard-pressed to understand Michale's fervor for this particular law and its provisions. I will say he has been working overtime to argue for its acceptance, and against any filibuster or retrenchment by the majority party, and particularly progressives here at HuffPo.

Must be a heavy investor in the Telecomm's, or perhaps it is the reverse. So we are clear, I write here because of my beliefs and not for a paycheck. How about you, Michale?

[texanna]

The fact that the spying began before 9/11 is too often deleted from the conversation. Maybe that's because our Congressional representatives would have a hard time explaining this bill if it were included. I don't know what that wiretapping of the Democratic leadership would reveal, but I can only guess that it must be something REALLLLY BIG. Why else would they be kowtowing to the Bushies on this repugnant piece of legislation that so easily gives away our 4th amendment right and the ability to enforce it?

[EspressoAtNoon]

I'm really disturbed that this spying began before 9-11. I'm sure it was used as a means to just spy on the Democrats, but it does sort of let your imagination make you wonder about even worse motivations.

People who are intent on starting wars coupled with their willingness to break laws suggests anything could have been fair game for them. And the fact that the Dems are complicit in trying to cover up for them makes me wonder why. If they knew the Repubs were spying on them wouldn't they want to expose this and keep telecom companies liable - if for any reason, because the telecoms would be inclined to incriminate the Bush Administration to get themselves off the hook?

It just doesn't make sense, and when things don't add up in a logical manner it makes conspiracy theories formulate. Do the Democrats now know of conspiracies that might completely undermine Americans' confidence and belief in our government? What is the motivation of the Dems?

[DavidJames]

The house and senate are kind like elite clubs. Many of our representatives and senators do not see themselves as our servants, but instead as our rulers. They have been caught looting the country.

I think they are terrified of a "Fight Club" type of rebellion.

[WASanford]

Here's a clue. What is the one thing that the telecoms have plenty of and our politicians cannot get enough of? If you thought money give yourself a gold star.

[CaseyBabes]

We have here the typical example of accusations made, without citing a supporting semblance of truth I might add, and the woeful piling on by the believers. Should this article be challenged to put up (proof) or shut up, the writer -- writers -- will complain of being charged with treason. They will wail how their "questioning" the government is being answered with being unpatriotic, in actuality all anyone with sense is muttering, "damn fools."
Much has been made on these pages about how the Bush Administration "knew" before the 9/11 attack that it was coming and did nothing. Some "damn fools" even hallucinate the government played an active part in the destruction of the WTC. Cutting both ways is common within the "loyal" opposition as their only goal is to diminish the United States, not support it.
Prior to 9/11 there was plenty of electronic traffic indicating something "big" was coming. We can even recall reports of President Clinton advising President Bush of this info. Apparently the USA was on to it but unaware of what, so immense searching was going on to determine the basis, but ultimately too late. Some call the efforts "domestic spying," coining a phrase to cleverly create a furtiveness in what was commonly referred to before as investigating.
Like Pogo once said to be eternally quoted from, "we has met the enemy and they is us." Guess that depends on what is said or written by whom.

[Michale32086]

}}}}Some call the efforts "domestic spying," coining a phrase to cleverly create a furtiveness in what was commonly referred to before as investigating.{{{{

I have made this point many times before..

To whit... Las Vegas, New Years, 2004. Many on the hysterical Left made a huge deal out of federal authorities canvassing and obtaining hotel and motel information because there was credible intel that a bio-terrorist attack was in the works..

My point is that, is if this kind of activities was down by federal authorities in the AFTERMATH of a devastating terrorist attack, no one would have batted an eye... I would think that such investigations would have been DEMANDED by the general populace..

So, someone please explain to me why it is appropriate for such investigations to take place IN RESPONSE to a devastating attack that killed thousands, yet those SAME EXACT METHODs are inappropriate to PREVENT a devastating attack that would kill thousands..

Where is the logic in such a position??

Michale.....

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

The point is that the Bush administration was ignoring terrorism before 9/11. That is why 9/11 HAPPENED.

The wiretapping was about something else.

[laocoon]

You have just admitted to not understanding the fundamental concept of antecedent justification. You want to live in a police state, you really want to. Either you place safety from external enemies above any concern about a police state or you just want an central executive with all the powers the founders denied it.

[TheIndependenceParty]

Dave made it irrefutably clear that the government did not deny the meetings took place, ... Instead they refused to admit into evidence any information about any such meeting, or what was discussed. There is a drastic difference. It is that "states secret" game being played by Bush and his crowd. We were not at war then, in fact Bush was barely a month into office.

Remember then Security Czar Rice's claim before the 9/11 Commission “[If] I needed to do anything, I would have been asked to do it. I was not asked to do it.” And her memorable "... no one could have foreseen airliners being hijacked and used as missles to be flown into buildings..."
when it had been stated and restated in NIEs previously.

They didn't give a damn what our nation's enemies were saying to one another, ... Only what their political enemies were saying.

[CaseyBabes]

Farfetched.

[Michale32086]

@LarBear

Let's make sure we're discussing the same thing here..

Are you debating the issue of immunity from Civil Liability??

Or are you arguing that HR 6304 violates the US Constitution??

Michale.....

[bgregs]

We are arguing that it violates the Constitution, and THEREFORE we need to allow civil lawsuits to continue!

[Michale32086]

Why aren't criminal courts sufficient???

Michale.....

[LarBear]

Michale32086: I respect your strong stance... LarBear
QUOTE: "Or are you arguing that HR 6304 violates the US Constitution??" To use your flawed "logic" and red herring tactics... QUOTE: "Assumes facts not in evidence.."
Of course HR6304 violates the US Constitution... It has NOT proven itself in a Court of Law that it does not, so therefore it does... Also, (Remember your) Coincides with your spin on the Telecom's and Administration violating the Constitution has not been proven in Court yet, so the act does not exist... The act does exist... The Crime has Not been charged is all...
Absolutely I do NOT trust the Democrats (or Republicans)... They co-operated to get our Nation into the mess we're in now... ALL ought be replaced by true Independents and break up this corrupt two Branch Dominant Political Party System..
No Kudos to Obama for spinning why he intends to vote to violate his supposedly sacred sworn Oath of Office either... Those who "blindly" fawn over "well at least he answers" are still "blind" and voting NOT for Obama, but for their false Hope for Change Belief...
We may disagree, but I respect you also consciously chose to put your Life on the Line for this Nation...
You remind me of the Zen student who told his "Master" he had learned Logic at the University and could Logically prove his nose did NOT exist... BAMMMM, "what hurts," replied the Master, drawing back his fist...

[irishgawdess]

Thanks for reminding me of this little crumb. So many other crumbs brushed under the rug, yet if all were swept away at once, we'd forget these little tidbits. Such as cheney's oil summit meeting... what the hell was going on there? Price fixing? Someone get out the Sherman Act please.

I can't keep track of it all and am glad others are doing it to help me out.

[Michale32086]

Going with your premise one can only assume one of two things..

The majority of Democrats in power, including the Democratic Party nominee for President are complicit in this vast spying conspiracy...

or

The majority of Democrats in power, including the Democratic Party nominee for President are completely incompetent to the point of stupidity and are powerless to stop this vast spying conspiracy.

Given this, why would ANYONE vote Democratic???

Now, if we employ Occam's Razor, a 3rd possibility emerges...

The majority of Democrats in power, including the Democratic Party nominee for President are patriotic Americans who are simply doing the best they can in a difficult moment.

I'll go with logic and choose to believe number 3..

Michale.....

[LarBear]

Michale32086
Interesting how you pose on other Blogs as a believer in the Constitution and Rule of Law, but consistently come down as one who wants Congress/Senate to go along with NOT holding those who spied accountable both Civil and Criminal... You're well aware by granting immunity on the Civil, the chances of the Criminal prosecution grow dim...
You're consistent in giving the ones who violated the Peoples Rights a pass... By granting Civil immunity, then those who authorized and co-operated with the Warrant less spying will likely go unpunished... That those who authorized the Warrant less spying also hand picked/appointed many of those who would supposedly investigate them... Just who actually do you work for??? Why this push to co-operate with NO prosecution held consistently by you... You speak of Constitution and Rule of Law, but in practice seek to give a free pass...
QUOTE: "The majority of Democrats in power, including the Democratic Party nominee for President are patriotic Americans who are simply doing the best they can in a difficult moment."
Best they can in a difficult moment? Your idea of "best" of course... Best would be full Civil and Criminal Prosecution of those involved, including involved Administration, Senators and Congress people of both Branches, Dems and Repubs... That being a POWERFUL message to those who would seek to do spying without Warrants and those who co-operate...Those who would spy without Warrants for ANY reason...

[Michale32086]

>>>>Interesting how you pose on other Blogs as a believer in the Constitution and Rule of Law, but consistently come down as one who wants Congress/Senate to go along with NOT holding those who spied accountable both Civil and Criminal.Just who actually do you work for???>Those who would spy without Warrants for ANY reason...

[Michale32086]

Grrrrrr Used the wrong attributes..

Let's try this again...

}}}}}}}}Interesting how you pose on other Blogs as a believer in the Constitution and Rule of Law,{{{{{{{{

First off, there is no "posing" involved and, frankly, I resent your accusation...

}}}}}}but consistently come down as one who wants Congress/Senate to go along with NOT holding those who spied accountable both Civil and Criminal...{{{{{{{{{{{

No one is putting forth the notion that the Telecom receive complete immunity. HR 6304 only allows for civil liability immunity. Which makes sense when you consider the ramifications of what could occur had this not been granted...

}}}}}}By granting Civil immunity, then those who authorized and co-operated with the Warrant less spying will likely go unpunished...{{{{{{

Assumes facts not in evidence..

}}}}Just who actually do you work for???{{{{{

I don't work for anyone.. That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I won't cast aspirations on your reasons for posting, although I could, quite logically and rationally, do so. I would appreciate the same courtesy..

}}}}}}}}}}}}Those who would spy without Warrants for ANY reason...{{{{{{{{{{{{

Please cite your evidence that there is no good reason... According to the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, PLUS the Democratic Nominee for President, there is VERY good reasons..

Or is it your position that ALL of them are wrong and YOU are right?

Michale.....

[BubbaC33]

Political expediency is never a good justification or is it?

[Michale32086]

How about survival of American citizens??

Is that a good "justification"?

Michale.....

[bgregs]

And it looks to the rest of us like they are being complicit!

[Michale32086]

Fine.. Show me some incontrovertible proof that there is a conspiracy and that the Democrats are complicit in said conspiracy.

In lieu of that, logic must prevail..

Michale.....

[laocoon]

Or that the media in this country have determined that there is no need for a 4th amendment because it just hinders getting those criminals/terrorists, that congressmen know how this issue would be spun politically and do not want to risk it in the election. Yeah but that doesnt mean you and the rest are not killing the idea (one of them) on which this place was founded. Does routing call through a satellite strip it of 4th amendment protections under the new FISA? Who really determines and on what basis that a given call is in or out of the US? Last I saw you had only quoted the jurisdictional provisions of the new act. I think you know better.

[ALIMO]

Scary stuff.

[cynara]

EXACTLY.

I don't know what the Bush administration was wiretapping for in July and August of 2001. But I know it was illegal and didn't do squat to prevent September 11th.

The Qwest part of this equation bothers me a lot for two reasons - 1) it blows the excuse "how could we have known it was illegal?" used by ATT and Verizon wide open. If little old Qwest can figure out that the government needs a warrant to spy on the American people, the slew of lawyers at ATT couldn't have thought of this possibility? Whatever documents the government produced weren't official looking enough to pull the wool over Qwest, so why are we letting other companies off the hook who didn't question the documents.

The second reason the Qwest situation bothers me is precedent. The chief of Qwest is in jail, for insider trading. Insider trading is an easy charge to make and the charges came after Qwest refused to help the Bush administration. ATT followed the Bush administration, and Congress is writing legislation to let them off the hook. Now, any reasonable corporate executive following this will receive one message loud and clear - do not question government orders, nothing is illegal if done in coordination with the government, and there are clear consequences for disobeying your government, no matter how illegal the order.

That is facism. And our congress is about to approve it.

[Danny]

It's beginning to look like many D- Dems are really R-Dems. How else to explain their caving in on everything? I, too, am disturbed by the telecoms spying on us BEFORE 9/11. This smacks of McCarthyism (fascism), and good on Qwest for standing up to the admin. Of course. Qwest is paying for it, dearly. It should be made clear to the electorate that the telecoms spied on us BEFORE 9/11, and it was certainly to discover "dirt" on the opposition. Thank you, Dave, for reminding us of that "inconvenient" fact.

[FogBelter]

Exactly Dave ...

[ricchase]

After witnessing, time after time after time, the illogical and baseless collusion by democrats of bowing down to this completely corrupt administration in allowing illegal and unethical legislation to slither through, I can only reach one undeniable conclusion. Whatever reasons and unfathomable objectives are being used to justify being accomplices in reformulating the legal and governmental processes in the United States are being achieved by completely willing legislators and officials on every level. In spite of the deafening outcry from the citizens of this land to stop undermining our way of life and government, Democrat leadership, in concert with republicans have forged ahead with legalizing fraud, tyranny, murder, plundering the treasury and purposely undermining and rendering ineffective our military. These completely counterproductive and destructive acts COULD NOT be achieved without mutual cooperation from dark souled legislators from both sides of the aisle and from both houses of congress. People of America, we are being used, abused, lied to and manipulated by our own government. Democrats and republicans alike. It is time, the time is now.

[benjaminblue]

How is it that everyone -- everyone -- gets this point except the members of Congress?

Mr. Bush and his criminal cronies should have been impeached and incarcerated for life years ago, and yet they continue on their merry spree, shredding the Constitution, raping the land of its resources and the government of its physical and financial assets, shedding crocodile tears on holidays at the thought of the loss of life they caused with their reckless, irresponsible ways and shoving more billions into their own pockets while all but the wealthy few lose ground, lose their inalienable rights and lose their spirit.

If the members of Congress refuse to perform their sworn duty, they should be jailed, as well, for aiding and abetting the crooks who stole the White House.

It is time to return the rule of law to our once-great land.

[Snoop2]

Bingo - you definately have it right. My thoughts as well. Unfortunately, the democrats are as complicit as the republicans. We need a new government, the one we have has sold us out!

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

Until the records are provided and subjected to legislative and judicial, I will assume they wiretapped the Kerry campaign. Why wouldn't they? God wanted them to have perpetual power, and they had it: so they would never be challenged.

I sent the following message to Senator Obama immediately after he announced that he would vote for the Fisa wiretap "compromise":

"The day this passes I'm changing my registration to Independent. I think you will win in a landslide, and I think that will be much better for the country than for McCain to win; but I will not be voting for you if you vote for this "compromise." One of us doesn't compromise with fascism."

Many of us do believe that any further Democratic leadership validation of , and in fact collaboration in, the Bush/Republican subversion of the Constitution is absolutely and irrevocably a "deal-breaker."

There is still time for us to rally behind a progressive candidate.

My fantasy is that Al Gore, fooled as I was, will angrily repudiate his endorsement of Senator Obama and run as the candidate of a new Progressive Party. We may lose, but we can begin to educate our fellow citizens. Putting more Vichy Democrats in place in not winning, either. {"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.")

Alternatively, of course, the Junior Senator from Illinois could come to his senses before this critical vote.

[FearlessFreep]

Or you can rally around Nader.