PDA

View Full Version : Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends




zimv20
Jan 17, 2006, 01:48 AM
link (http://nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?hp&ex=1137560400&en=998d7190aee080f7&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Intelligence officials disagree with any characterization of the program's results as modest, said Judith A. Emmel, a spokeswoman for the office of the director of national intelligence. Ms. Emmel cited a statement at a briefing last month by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the country's second-ranking intelligence official and the director of the N.S.A. when the program was started.

"I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available," General Hayden said. The White House and the F.B.I. declined to comment on the program or its results.

(more)



skunk
Jan 17, 2006, 04:26 AM
"I can say unequivocally that we have gotten information through this program that would not otherwise have been available," General Hayden said.Does that qualify for meaningless claim of the decade?

solvs
Jan 17, 2006, 04:31 AM
You know, I might not mind being spied upon if only they got a warrant. Not even first, just eventually. Because then I'd know they had a reason and weren't just going off a tip by my ex girlfriend or something. Of course, we all know that they got nothing. And even if they did, they'd have a tough time convicting because of due process. I wonder why ~30% of Americans don't get stuff like this.

But then, if Clinton did it, those same people would be outraged. Outraged. So I think I just answered my own question.

mactastic
Jan 17, 2006, 10:28 PM
You know, I might not mind being spied upon if only they got a warrant. Not even first, just eventually. Because then I'd know they had a reason and weren't just going off a tip by my ex girlfriend or something. Of course, we all know that they got nothing. And even if they did, they'd have a tough time convicting because of due process. I wonder why ~30% of Americans don't get stuff like this.

But then, if Clinton did it, those same people would be outraged. Outraged. So I think I just answered my own question.
But haven't you heard? Clinton did the same thing! At least that's the righty talking point. Something about unauthorized physical searches of Aldrich Ames... probably a load of hooey I'm sure.

zimv20
Jan 17, 2006, 11:34 PM
But haven't you heard? Clinton did the same thing! At least that's the righty talking point. Something about unauthorized physical searches of Aldrich Ames... probably a load of hooey I'm sure.
well, whatdya know (http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/17/ap2456266.html):

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.

"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

Thomas Veil
Jan 18, 2006, 12:30 AM
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," Thomas Veil said of McClellan.

mactastic
Jan 18, 2006, 10:14 AM
Look! We're as bad as Clinton was. No, wait... Clinton is as bad as we are. No that's not it either... Wait I got it... We're better than Clinton for doing the same thing -- even though he didn't actually do what we did.

I think that's how they justify it anyway...

solvs
Jan 18, 2006, 11:43 PM
Just because it wasn't illegal, it was still bad for Clinton to do. But he rectified it himself when he signed that law. And electronic surveilance without a warrant is illegal, as is physical now since Clinton apparently signed it into law in '95. Plus Bush did it multiple times. Then hid it. Then lied about it. But this is just like the Abramoff thing. Dems are just as guilty, if not worse, for kinda doing the same things a little bit, only not really. :confused: Wait, what!?!