Feds confirm Bush-era e-mail surveillance

[ProSense]

Feds confirm Bush-era e-mail surveillance

By JOSH GERSTEIN

The U.S. government has acknowledged that it swept up huge volumes of data from emails in the U.S. for several years without any court approval, based solely on the orders of former President George W. Bush.

In a court filings on Monday, government lawyers said that the Internet program ran in parallel with a program gathering so-called metadata about telephone calls. The counterterrorism efforts operated under presidential authority before a judge approved them in July 2004, said a 2007 court filing made public Monday by the Justice Department (and posted here.)

"After the 9/11 attacks and pursuant to an authorization of the President, (redacted) the NSA [redacted] the bulk collection of non-content information about telephone calls and Internet communications (hereafter 'metadata') activities that enable the NSA to uncover the contacts (redacted) of members or agents of al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations," a senior NSA official wrote in an October 2007 declaration originally filed under seal as part of an effort to defeat litigation about the snooping Bush ordered.

<...>

Early press reports on the surveillance, such as The New York Times's groundbreaking account in December 2005, discussed its application to emails. However, when Bush publicly acknowledged the surveillance in 2006, he was vague about the details and did not mention gathering of email data.

- more -

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/03/feds-confirm-bushera-email-surveillance-185283.html

[OnyxCollie]

1. Retroactive immunity is the best!

Thanks, Obama!

[ProSense]

2. "Retroactive immunity" was for the telecomms... you know,

Snowden's new best friends.

[OnyxCollie]

3. How are they Snowden's new best friends?

Please explain.

[Pholus]

7. Yes, the Bushies were protected by somebody else....

THEIR immunity came from a mysterious benefactor who said something on the lines of how we need to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

Surely the mighty Prosense must have a blue linkie to it somewhere and could remind me who was using that phrase to give a mega-gift to the Carlyle Group...

[ProSense]

9. "Surely the mighty Prosense must have a blue linkie to it somewhere"

Need more info on Bush's illegal spying, here you go:

Some efforts took place in public. In May 2002, the surveillance court rejected a request to dismantle a “wall” that inhibited criminal prosecutors from working closely with intelligence investigators using FISA surveillance; that fall, a review court overturned the ruling. Meanwhile, the administration was also pushing in private to get around obstacles to sharing information among intelligence agencies.

<...>

The newly disclosed documents also refer to a decision by the court called Large Content FISA, a term that has not been publicly revealed before. Several current and former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Large Content FISA referred to sweeping but short-lived orders issued on Jan. 10, 2007, that authorized the Bush administration to continue its warrantless wiretapping program.

The Bush administration had sought a ruling to put the program, which had been exposed by The New York Times, on a firmer legal footing. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales disclosed a week after the decision that a judge had issued “innovative” and “complex” orders bringing the program under the surveillance court’s authority. But when they came up for renewal that April, another surveillance court judge balked and began requiring cumbersome paperwork, prompting the administration to seek a legislative solution, an intelligence official later explained.

<...>

Two classification guides say that the N.S.A. used the orders during a transition to the enactment of the Protect America Act, an August 2007 law in which Congress legalized the program. It was replaced with the FISA Amendments Act in 2008.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/how-a-courts-secret-evolution-extended-spies-reach.html

This is what I've been posting about for years. Bush was actually spying on Americans. He bypassed the courts, and Congress briefly made it legal.

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

The major problem with the FISA amendments is that it gave the telecomms immunity. Otherwise, it included several reforms. What it did not do was make Bush's illegal spying legal.

Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Specifically, the Act:[19]

• Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
  
  
• Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
  
  
• Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
  
  
• Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
  
  
• Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
  
  
• Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
  
  
• Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
  
  
• Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
  
  
• Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]
  
  
• Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
  
  
• Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
  
  
• Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
  
  
• Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year

Effects

• The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
  
  
• Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions

[Pholus]

11. Very nice, but not what I asked is it?

Be more precise when selecting your cut-and-paste next time hmmmmm-kay?

[ProSense]

13. LOL! Don't like that "blue linkie"?

Oh well!

[Pholus]

14. What can I say? Irrelevant links are inherently dislikable!

But the benefactor was obviously a pretty bad bargainer, taking prosecutions off the table for basically NOTHING in return.

[ProSense]

17. "Dislikable"? We're even: "Surely the mighty Prosense must have a blue linkie to it somewhere" n/t

[Pholus]

19. I love tap dancing though....

"Heckuva Job" to use the words of a neocon who walked for no really good reason.

[NightWatcher]

4. Ok everyone, do your 'surprised' face.

[sheshe2]

5. Feds confirm Bush-era e-mail surveillance...

Without. Any. Court. Approval.

"based solely on the orders of former President George W. Bush."

[Rex]

6. So what's the next step?

Formal charges?

[neverforget]

8. That'll be the day. Gotta look forward and let the lawbreaking go unpunished.

[Rex]

10. Maybe not, but there is still time.

The BFEE bozos can't travel to just any country they want to anymore. THAT says a lot IMO about how people feel and look toward their leaders to hold their supposed peers responsible for their actions while representing them.

It could happen.

[okaawhatever]

12. It's important to note that the content of the emails wasn't included. Only metadata type info. From

the article:

"Specifically, the President authorized the the NSA to collect metadata related to Internet communications for the purpose of conducting targeted analysis to track Al Qaeda-related networks. Internet metadata is header/router/addressing information, such as the 'to,' 'from,' 'cc,' and 'bcc' lines, as opposed to the body or 're' lines, of a standard e-mail. Since July 2004, the collection of Internet metadata has been conducted pursuant to an Order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," the still-unidentified official from NSA's Signals Intelligence Directorate continued.

______

I don't think this scotus will have a problem with that. I think if we want real privacy reform we need to wait until Scalia/Thomas/Roberts are in the minority.

[Pholus]

15. Probably right. The misleaders win again.

After all, metadata is a convenient way to infer what the content is WITHOUT having to read it.

I like the study described in this blog post. It kind of puts the "just metadata" canard to bed decisively.

http://webpolicy.org/2014/03/12/metaphone-the-sensitivity-of-telephone-metadata/

[ProSense]

16. This was Bush's warantless wiretapping, then

there was the illegal eavesdropping: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024687292#post9

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. So what's your estimate on how long it'll be before President Obama's DOJ indicts?

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If this isn't indictable, I don't know what is. So how long do you think it'll be? Are charges being contemplated? This is VERY exciting!

President Obama's standing will go up tenfold when the indictment is handed down.

[ProSense]

20. I reserve the right to be like Greenwald and not answer questions.

"So what's your estimate on how long it'll be before President Obama's DOJ indicts?"

I have no idea, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Who knows where this is going? I mean, will the Senate investigation of torture lead to criminal charges? One can only hope.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. You wouldn't hold your breath? I don't get it. Why WOULDN'T the DOJ indict?

If that wasn't the point for your posting this, then what was? And what does the Senate have to do with this information? Are the two related somehow?

You reserve the right to be like Greenwald... my turn:

[ProSense]

22. Wait,

"Why WOULDN'T the DOJ indict? If that wasn't the point for your posting this, then what was?"

...what does posting an article have to do with what the DOJ does or doesn't do?

"And what does the Senate have to do with this information? "

Nothing, and if you reread the comment it's related to prosecuting Bush crimes.

"You reserve the right to be like Greenwald... my turn: "

[ProSense]

23. Kick! n/t