NOVA program and website based on Bamford's book The Shadow Factory

[noise]

TV program broadcast date: February 3, 2009. I remember reading an interview in which Bamford talked about the program. He said that they actually went and videotaped the infamous Yemen hub.

Companion website launch date: January 21, 2009

Here's what you'll find on the companion website:

Ask the Expert
James Bamford answers viewer questions about the NSA, the movements of 9/11 terrorists before the attacks, the latest surveillance technologies, and more.

Inside Your Head
In this excerpt from The Shadow Factory, Bamford describes how the NSA plans to use two highly sophisticated new systems to monitor people's very thoughts.

Investigating 9/11
In this interview, Eleanor Hill, who lead the Joint Congressional Inquiry on the 9/11 attacks, talks about what the U.S. intelligence community knew, or should have known, about the threat prior to the attacks.

Say Again?
If you think computers can easily recognize and transcribe spoken language, think again. In this audio feature, hear an expert describe the enormous challenges of designing effective speech-recognition software.

The Spy Factory

[seemslikeadream]

1. Excellent

Thanks noise, :hi:

[BunnyBluetimes]

2. DU is ripe with

Productive Information. I Thank You for the heads up!:kick:

[William Seger]

3. I don't think you're gonna like this show

"In this interview, Eleanor Hill, who lead the Joint Congressional Inquiry on the 9/11 attacks, talks about what the U.S. intelligence community knew, or should have known, about the threat prior to the attacks."

Seems to me you'd prefer to discuss how many tons of explosives were used to demolish the buildings after the fake hijackings?

[BunnyBluetimes]

4. I need to know what forces we're dealing with so

all information matters and you can provide me some info if you will. Most of the scrap metal has left the country, so I can only guess the cause,appropriate time frame of 110 story collapse, and our governments slow response to investigate 9/11. We all need to find out what happened pre 9/11, before all free flowing 9/11 intelligence is called "case closed" and pulled off the internet.

[William Seger]

5. You've said you already KNOW what happened on 9/11

... and nothing will change your mind. I don't think you're gonna like this show.

[KJF]

6. Thanks

I guess if there's a special website for it that means they should have the long interview transcripts and so on, as sometimes happens. When the LA Times wrote its piece about the Yemen hub, Hill was quoted and she didn't seem pleased, so her interview should be interesting. It will be great to finally see the damn thing.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. NOVA is one of my series records on the DVR.

The other is the Dog Whisperer. I have problem doggies. :D

This looks interesting.

[noise]

8. The new website is up

Bamford interviewed Eleanor Hill. She repeats all the right talking points...Cold War mentality, real intelligence isn't like the movies, threat perceived outside the US, NSA worried about accusations of spying on Americans, etc.

No mention of Bob Graham and the redacted 28 pages of the JI detailing Saudi support for alHazmi and alMihdhar. Bamford doesn't mention his own research in which he found that Rossini and Miller were ordered by the CIA to withold the alHazmi/alMihdhar US visa information. Neither mentioned the pre-9/11 AT&T spying hub that was setup months before 9/11.

This apparently is the infamous Yemen hub:

[noise]

9. The program airs tomorrow

...

As it turns out, the NSA was eavesdropping on terrorists Kahlid al-Midar and Nawaf Al Hamzi for years in both Yemen and the United States.

"The question was — why didn't NSA pass that information on?" Bamford said. "And one possible reason is that the head of NSA at the time, Gen. Michael Hayden, had to worry about being called before the Senate and asked to explain why he's eavesdropping on Americans. The problem is, he could have eavesdropped on these terrorists in the United States without ever coming into any type of trouble, because he could have gotten a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court to do it. That's why it was set up that way.

"So again, that's the question we pose. And I, as well as a lot of people in Washington and around the country, would like to get that answered."

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705282197,00.html?pg=1">PBS peeks inside NSA

1) Hayden failed to use FISA.

2) Hayden failed to inform the FBI even though they asked to be told about Yemen hub communications.

3) Hayden was involved in pre-9/11 warrantless surveillance programs.

4) After 9/11, Hayden kept his job while helping to (further) implement warrantless surveillance programs. He later received promotions to DDNI and CIA Director. As CIA Director he opposed the declassification of the CIA IG report claiming it would "consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed" and distract CIA from the WoT. He also supported the torture program and launched an investigation of CIA IG Helgerson.

Where was the good faith?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. New York Times review

http://tv.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/arts/television/03spy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

The film, written and co-produced by James Bamford, the author of a number of books about the intelligence establishment, including “The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret N.S.A. From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America,” buries interesting insights in an old and hackneyed documentary format, with ominous voice-over narration and spooky sound effects.

At times the tone is so lurid and foreboding that the film seems like a “Dateline” exposé of sexual predators.

Americans know by now that intelligence experts had a lot on Osama bin Laden and didn’t do enough to stop him. This documentary focuses on the N.S.A.’s sins of omission in particular, citing examples from the time when this agency would not let even the C.I.A. see the raw data it gleaned from intercepted phone calls and e-mail messages. But the film doesn’t explain why the information was withheld, which is the more important lesson.

...(Bamford's) strongest argument is that the agency is already so overwhelmed by the flood of raw data that comes in daily that broadening its surveillance mandate will not make it any more effective in detecting terrorist activity.

[noise]

11. Two agencies protecting al Qaeda operatives inside the US

From the NY Times article:

This documentary focuses on the N.S.A.’s sins of omission in particular, citing examples from the time when this agency would not let even the C.I.A. see the raw data it gleaned from intercepted phone calls and e-mail messages. But the film doesn’t explain why the information was withheld, which is the more important lesson.

Mr. Rossini blames himself for not disregarding those orders, but neither he nor the filmmakers try to piece together why the C.I.A. didn’t trust the F.B.I. with the information in the first place.

Evidently the author of the review doesn't care to mention that these questions are still unanswered over seven years later! Maybe she should consider asking her pals at the NY Times why they haven't found any answers.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Why is only the reviewer drawing your ire?

The reviewer does point out that Bamford himself skirts the question. And here you have been, pumping this piece!

[noise]

13. I posted about the program because

the subject matter is important and Bamford's work is better than nothing. I fully recognize Bamford's expertise in the subject matter. My frustration is with his spin. Bamford is very disappointing because he is pushing the overreaction theory. Like Mayer and Suskind. He sets it up by telling us how committed Hayden was to protecting civil liberties before 9/11. We are to believe he was so upset by his "risk averse" conduct that he went overboard after 9/11. Why didn't Hayden use FISA? The whole point of FISA was to protect civil liberties.

The overreaction theory only works if one is unwilling to question the pre-9/11 conduct of officials like Hayden. Here is a Wired interview exchange with Bamford:

DR (Danger Room): NSA has long had all these relationships with the telecommunications companies, as well. One thing that confused me: Before 9/11, while Hayden was supposedly fighting against any eavesdropping on Americans, you write, the NSA was trying to convince one telecom, Qwest Communications, to help the agency conduct domestic surveillance. Those two don't fit.

JB: It would've been nice if everything fit into a nice little package, but it didn't. That was one of the outlying issues. The time line seemed to be off. You know, I could see doing that after 9/11, but before 9/11 he was very careful. It's hard to say. Again, I'm just one guy trying to write this book. But that's why there really needs to be a congressional investigation into what went on at NSA.

The only thing I can think of is that may not have been trying to get access to the actual voice conversations. What he may have been trying to get from Qwest was their database of subscribers — subscriber names, subscriber telephone numbers. It's one of the things that NSA has always tried to get. I mean, going back to the early days, they had the world's largest collection of telephone books.

Hayden would've known that was at least questionable, if not illegal, because I think he made a comment about that very kind of access before 9/11.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/bamford-intervi.html">Wired Interview with Bamford

AT&T surveillance center:

The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATTÌs long distance network.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html">Qwest CEO Not Alone in Alleging NSA Started Domestic Phone Record Program 7 Months Before 9/11

So it isn't just the reviewer with whom I take issue. What is objectionable about the reviewer is that she works for the NY Times. Pretty big deal news source there. Why haven't their reporters used their access to find out why the CIA, NSA and FBI (ITOS) withheld intel? It just seems sort of bizarre for a NY Times reporter to call out Bamford.

[greyl]

14. Has it aired where you are yet?

I saw it tonight and thought it was half-decent.
Culpability was placed directly on the NSA, and an investigation into that was at least minimally encouraged.

[noise]

15. I watched it

Bamford seemed less willing to spin NSA conduct on the program. He brought up Hayden's failure to use FISA and stated the public simply doesn't know why he didn't.

I'm not sure what to make of Rossini's account. One would think he would have wanted to know (not just guess) why the CIA ordered him to withhold the visa information and why they didn't share it with the FBI until late August '01. He did state that the sharing of the visa information wasn't a hindsight issue, rather such sharing would have complied with proper investigative procedure.

The passport photo of al-Mihdhar sure didn't look like the usual photos we've seen.

[noise]

16. Q&A with Bamford posted

Ask the Expert

Nobody at NSA has to explain their conduct, especially Hayden. Bamford seems unwilling to address the pre-9/11 warrantless surveillance. It's quite simple...pre-9/11 surveillance means Hayden didn't give a damn about civil liberties. Thus we are talking about a fascist powergrab. So the patriotism card goes out the window.

Three intel agencies withheld intel. NSA. CIA. FBI (ITOS). Nobody fired. In fact most of the key agents/officials were promoted.

Yet post 9/11 these agencies whined about needing fascist powers or they couldn't prevent attacks. They have the power to coverup their conduct but it shouldn't be quite so easy to play the patriotism card.

[JuniperLea]

17. They had all the power in the world...

It was clearly all about wanting those fascist powers... and they got them too.

The documentary did a nice job of ripping the scabs off, but there is still more questions than answers.

Fascist power-grab, indeed. That is abundantly clear.