Did Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program Really Focus on American Journalists?

Did Bush's Terrorist Surveillance Program Really Focus on American Journalists?

www.michaelmoore.com

January 22nd, 2009 10:28 am
By Scott Horton / Harper's

Former NSA analyst Russell Tice, a source for the New York Times disclosure of details of the [communications monitoring] program, appears to offer further details on the program. He reports that under Hayden the NSA was looking at "everyone's" communications—telephone conversations, emails, faxes, IMs—and that in addition to suspect terrorists, the NSA was carefully culling data from Internet and phone lines to track the communications of U.S. journalists. This was done under the pretense of pulling out a control group that was not suspect. But Tice reports that when he started asking questions about why journalists were sorted out for special scrutiny, he found that he himself came under close scrutiny and was removed from involvement in the program.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.harpers.org
www.harpers.org

Former NSA analyst Russell Tice, now a whistle blower of sorts, claims the National Security Agency back in 2004 began closely scrutinizing the communications of journalists.

The implications of these allegations, if true, could have far reaching consequences for certain key members of the former Bush administration. Again, if corroborated, these claims could form the basis of serious felony charges for the implicated individuals.

www.michaelmoore.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If it comes from Michael Moore, rest assured that there is more to the story than he is sharing.

reply to post by jibeho

jibeho said:

...there is more to the story than he is sharing.

Not really sure what this means, except that you are not a fan of Moore. If there's more to it than that, I would genuinely like to hear more about this, of course backed up with current credible references.

I've looked into the gentleman at the center of this story and here's one of the stories I found out there -



Considering that Tice has at least for the past two year been the target of a full-court press government smear campaign to discredit him, my gut tells me there's something, perhaps very big, that's truthful about what he's saying about illegal spying conducted against innocent US citizens, specifically journalists.



It's pretty obvious to me the US government is pretty concerned with what Tice has to say.

Of course not. What would be the point?

If anybody in the government want to know what journalists are say, thinking, or doing, all one has to do is ask them. Lord knows they can keep their yaps shut about anything, why would they start with their own activities?

As if anyone cares?

reply to post by visible_villain


I think it has more far more consequences for every govt. since the existence of the NSA and its potential. Obama is next in line.

Originally posted by Pyros
Of course not. What would be the point? ...

As if anyone cares?

Yeah, nothing to see here people, move along. Surely the Government would never spy on journalists.. what's the point, right?

The Family Jewels is the informal name used to refer to a set of reports that detail activities conducted by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Considered illegal or inappropriate, these actions were conducted over the span of decades, from the 1950s to the mid-1970s.

The reports describe numerous activities conducted by the CIA during the 1950s to 1970s that violated its charter.

Some of these activities include:

* Wiretapping of two syndicated columnists, Robert Allen and Paul Scott, approved by US Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (see also Project Mockingbird)

* Physical surveillance of investigative journalist and muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including Les Whitten of the Washington Post and future Fox News Channel anchor and managing editor Brit Hume. Jack Anderson had written two articles on CIA-backed assassination attempts on Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

* Physical surveillance of then-Washington Post reporter Michael Getler, who later was an ombudsman for the Washington Post and PBS.

source

reply to post by converge


Those reports describe activities from the period 1950 - 1970, well before the provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001 made it a whole lot easier to spy on American citizens.

USA Patriot Act of 2001
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

Source : USA Patiot Act - Wikipedia

reply to post by visible_villain

I was being sarcastic

And using history to prove the point that not only the Government would spy on its citizens (and journalists in this particular case), but it has in the past and admittedly so.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Pyros
Of course not. What would be the point? ...

As if anyone cares?

Yeah, nothing to see here people, move along. Surely the Government would never spy on journalists.. what's the point, right?

The Family Jewels is the informal name used to refer to a set of reports that detail activities conducted by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Considered illegal or inappropriate, these actions were conducted over the span of decades, from the 1950s to the mid-1970s.

The reports describe numerous activities conducted by the CIA during the 1950s to 1970s that violated its charter.

Some of these activities include:

* Wiretapping of two syndicated columnists, Robert Allen and Paul Scott, approved by US Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (see also Project Mockingbird)

* Physical surveillance of investigative journalist and muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including Les Whitten of the Washington Post and future Fox News Channel anchor and managing editor Brit Hume. Jack Anderson had written two articles on CIA-backed assassination attempts on Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

* Physical surveillance of then-Washington Post reporter Michael Getler, who later was an ombudsman for the Washington Post and PBS.

source

OK, since you chose only to include the "headlines" and not any of the "meat" regarding the surveillance of these journalists, I will quote from the declassified reports themselves and offer the readers of this thread a more accurate picture of what was going on:

CELOTEX I

"At the direction of the DCI, a surveillance was conducted of Michael Getler of the Washington Post during the periods of 6-9 October, 27 October - 10 December 1971 and 3 January 1972. In addition to physical surveillance, an observation post was maintained in the Statler Hilton Hotel were observation could be maintained of the building housing his office. The surveillance was designed to determine Getler's sources of classified information of interest to the (Central Intelligence) Agency which had appeared in a number of his columns".

CELOTEX II

"At the direction of the DCI, surveillance was conducted of Jack Anderson and at various times his "leg men", Brit Hume, Leslie Whitten, and Joseph Spear, from 15 February through 12 April 1972. In addition to physical surveillance, an observation post was maintained in the Statler Hilton Hotel directly opposite of Anderson's office. The purpose of this surveillance was to attempt to determine Anderson's source for his highly classified (Central Intelligence) Agency information appearing in his syndicated columns".

Read actual documents here.

So, in reality, the CIA was not actually interested in the journalists themselves, but their sources, who were spies and/or leakers, and who were jeopardizing our national security (in a time of war, mind you). Slightly a different perspective when you actually take the time to read the documents, eh? In my mind there's nothing wrong with trying to catch spies.

But, in any event, we were talking about the NSA, were we not. How did CIA activities from almost 40 years ago come into the conversation? Do you really need to reach that far to attempt to prove a point?

reply to post by Pyros

So, in reality, the CIA was not actually interested in the journalists themselves ...

Of course this opinion is based on information contained in the 'unclassified documents' you cite and have provided links for.

Isn't it rather naive to believe anything the CIA or NSA puts into any kind of a document intended for 'public consumption?'

Since I know of no 'statute of limitation' on the selection of examples for supporting the position that government agencies aren't always truthful in these documents prepared for public consumption, of course I cite one of the best examples ever of 'documentary deception,' the Warren Report.

Regardless if the report is true, monitoring of the press (especially foreign correspondents) should have been conducted. The majority of reports originating from Iraq and Afghanistan did not require vetting from the DoD, and because of that troop location, troop activity, and even future operations were reported about in the Nations periodicals.

I complete understand the 1st Amendment; however, if a journalists reporting could potentially endanger the lives of soldiers overseas, or the citizens at home, then the Government should perform monitoring. Furthermore, unless the journalist, his editor, and his employer want to be tried for treason, the Government should have the right to censor a report based on the journalist liberally divulging sensitive or classified information.

Maybe the Bush Administration did monitor journalist voice and data traffic? Perhaps that is a contributor in regard to why America was never attacked again following 9-11?

Well. if you are going to go into "tin hat" mode, then fine.

I provided real links to actual documents that are marked "Secret". They are not fabrications, and the government didn't go into a tizzy over their declassification and release just as an elaborate ruse to mislead the public at large.

What the public doesn't realize is that NSA is actually very vigilant about protection personal information regarding US persons they may intercept. There have been rules in place for decades against specific targeting of US persons inside or outside the US. If you don't believe me, then look here just for starters:

Declassified NSA Guidelines

reply to post by Pyros

What the public doesn't realize is that NSA is actually very vigilant about protection personal information regarding US persons they may intercept.

I think it would be quite fair to say that many folks are in massive denial about the very real threat these 'security agencies' pose to individuals.

External Link.

8-Year-Old Boy Held From Plane for Appearing on No-Fly List

An 8-year-old boy expecting to catch a plane home is denied entry for appearing on a terrorist no-fly list, reported MyFoxKansasCity.com.

Bryan Moore was set to catch his first plane trip when he arrived at an airport in Cortez, Colorado to fly home after visiting his sister, said the report.

"They almost got me scheduled in and then the lady just bowed her head and said, 'We can't get you on this plane, you're a terrorist,'" Moore said.

The soon-to-be third grader was red flagged as a threat to national security because his name popped up on the national watch list.

According to the Transportation Security Administration, no children are on the terrorist watch list. The TSA said if a child's name matches up, it's up the airline to make the necessary changes and let them board the plane.

If the NSA were a person, that person would be locked up in a padded room, since they are obviously suffering from paranoid-schitzophrenia, thereby having become a danger to themselves and others.

Of course people are entirely free to choose whom they will trust, but I for one feel it quite unwise to trust anything a mentally-ill agency ( NSA ) or person says.

As a great American novelist once said, "Denial is not a river in Egypt." ...

Whatever it takes to take the attention away from democrat/white house controlled media.

This whistle blower guy was confronted about evidence on O'Reilly's show and couldn't cite a single thing. The fact MM is now on this is just icing on the cake.

What the heck does the TSA and a "no fly" watchlist issue have to do with NSA and conducting surveillance against journalists? BTW, read the story a little more carefully: it says that the boy missed his flight because the issue was with the airline, not the TSA.

You make a statement about NSA being a threat to the general public, and then back up your assertion with some lame story about a boy missing his plane. If you are going to disparage and condemn the NSA, you had better come up with better examples than that.

If you must insist on commenting about the NSA, perhaps you should read up a bit first, before diving head-first into the subject. If I could make a recommendation:

The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford

reply to post by Pyros

What the heck does the TSA and a "no fly" watchlist issue have to do with NSA ...

External Link.

Republican Sues Bush, Cheney, NSA, TSA for Illegal Surveillance, Wiretapping
Published: February 17,2006

Scott Tooley, a Republican, and former Congressional aide and law school graduate, educated at renowned Christian universities, has filed suit against the President, Vice President and relevant federal agencies for their illegal surveillance programs.

According to the complaint, the Bush-Cheney Administration initiated numerous illegal and perpetual surveillance methods on Mr. Tooley and his family after he was incorrectly placed on the TSA's "selectee" or watch list.

Mr. Tooley's case is unique because the suit alleges the Bush Administration has used additional illegal surveillance methods on him in addition to the illegal wiretapping. Mr. Tooley is also the first Republican to file suit with regard to the Bush Administration's surveillance programs.

You make a statement about NSA being a threat to the general public ...

External Link.
Paranoid Schizophrenia
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur.

Great idea about the tin-hat, by the way. I think I found a model that will do the trick for me -