Privacy Board OKs Eavesdropping Programs

[cal04]

A White House privacy board has determined that two of the Bush administration's controversial surveillance programs — electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking — do not violate citizens' civil liberties, the Associated Press has learned.

After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week.

The report finds that both the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program and the
Treasury Department's monitoring of international banking transactions have sufficient privacy protections, three board members said in telephone interviews.

Both programs have multiple layers of review before sensitive information is accessed, they said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terror_privacy_1

[orpupilofnature57]

1. It's a wonder their forthcoming now.

[quiet.american]

2. The "Privacy Board" assures their own privacy by operating in secret, the hell with the rest of us.

This passage is so ironic --

"After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week."

As far as I can tell, this is yet another cherry-picked absolutely meaningless exercise in justifying Bush's felonies that took place on our dime.

[ThomCat]

3. You are absolutely right. This is blatant hypocricy.

They get secrecy, but we are denied privacy.

They claim to be protecting us, but they work for, and only really represent the administration. x(

[Supersedeas]

15. Their confidences are more important than your confidences

[Paula Sims]

4. Two points

1. "Privacy Boards" - Orwell-speak, as usual
2. Of course they OK it, there isn't any to violate!

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. They do not have the power to say...

...that when the law says 'don't do X', you can do X anyways.

Only Congress, by appropriate legislation, can do that.

And whether an activity violates citizens' civil liberties can only be determined by a court, pursuant to a suit brought under 42 USC 1983.

Sorry, not good enough.

[The Stranger]

6. They should be held liable for conspiracy to violate people's constitutional rights.

[badgervan]

7. Whose Board?

The "White House Privacy Board", huh? Tells you all you need to know. I'm sure we can trust them to be completely impartial, and to look after our Constitutional guarantees of freedom and privacy. Right.

[originalpckelly]

8. "White House privacy board?"

Isn't that like hiring an advertising firm to advertise your company, then turning around and saying "see they like our stuff! They even made a commercial for it!"?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Ironic.

[alarimer]

10. The White House privacy Board?

Gee, who do they answer to? Not exactly objective.

[VegasWolf]

11. Can't we just send Bush yet to the gallows for crimes against humanity? nt

[Gman]

12. Well I sure feel a whole helluva lot better now

knowing the WH's own said it's ok.

[struggle4progress]

13. Damn! I forget all about the role the Constitution assigns to the White House Privacy Board!

I must be gettin senile ... shit ...

[underpants]

17. They have investigated themselves and determined they have done nothing wrong

Not a big surprise.

The AG won't even answer Congress's questions-says he doesn't have to.

[Sacajawea]

21. That's like Cheney tasked with finding a candidate for VP in '00 and finding himself.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Where's the Congressional OVERSIGHT? They need to lead not "be briefed." n/t

[dkofos]

16. The assholes said torture was OK too!!

WTF is wrong with these people??

[Rose Siding]

18. Ha -Ted Olsen and bush "family friend" Dinkins.

What, Mama Bar was too busy?

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. I swear I'm living in an Orwell book.

[mopinko]

20. bureaucratic masturbation.

nothing to see here, move along.