Yet more from the New York Times on NSA surveillance — and this latest chapter suggests that far more than a few wiretaps were done without warrants:
The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system’s main arteries, they said.
As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.
There are two ways this is going to be viewed and characterized: (1) It’s heartening that the American telecommunications companies helped out this surveillance because think of what is at stake, and (2) It’s scary that the companies went along with government surveillance without warrants. MORE:
Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.’s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.
What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.
The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.
There are a couple of aspects to this:
- Stories such as this run suggesting that programs such as this are illegal, but it hasn’t been firmly pinned-down yet on the legality. Report say some members of Congress and legal experts say they’re illegal; the administration insists these measures are legal and will be proven to be so in the end. Nothing has been determined yet.
- In the aftermath of 911, Americans were clamoring for measures to shore up national security. Looking for patterns in overseas calls or using a variety of methods to detect possible dirty bombs seems to be in that category. AGAIN: realize that statements from other than a court at this point about it being legal or illegal are opinions (of experts quoted in stories or of bloggers…some of them writing from specific political positions due to their general support of or opposition to the administration.
- The administration’s continuing problem is its credibility. There have been too many instances where it has been raised into question or damaged for its assertions to be taken at face value. When its spokespeople insist warrantless searches were scattered, it does not help its credibility when a new newsreport such as this comes out suggesting that it was in fact comprehensive. In political terms, it almost clouds the other issue — the importance of national security. Sometimes it’s better for spokespeople to say nothing or little as opposed to something that later turns out to be false.
- All of this will guarantee some kind of Congressional oversight hearings.
But the bottom line seems to be this: so far, this administration is under fire for seemingly going too far in spying without warrants. It’s all a national security issue, coupled with concern for civil liberties, and questions about whether laws were followed. That could be a fiery debate, entailing all kinds of issues and conflicts (national security versus civil liberties; demanding strict adherence to laws versus giving your party a pass).
But there is another shoe that could drop. If it doesn’t, debate will be fiery enough. If it ever does — all bets are off.
So far, nothing has come out indicating that warrantless searches were used against any political party or candidate. If that ever emerged, it would push this controversy to another level and raise even more troubling questions and concerns. So far, there’s no indication that has happened. If it does? Watch out.