3/1 Eavesdropping Beyond NSA;3/3 More Extensive Spying Denied

[dajoki]

OK Gonzales which one of your stories is true? Probably neither!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201783.html

Gonzales Denies More Extensive Domestic More Extensive

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told a key House Democrat yesterday that the administration is not conducting any warrantless domestic surveillance programs beyond the one that President Bush has acknowledged, the Democrat said in an interview.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said Gonzales was responding to a fax she sent him Wednesday after she read a news account of his Feb. 28 letter to two senators. In the letter, Gonzales appeared to suggest there might be domestic wiretap operations that extend beyond the outlines Bush acknowledged in December. Gonzales asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony that the president's acknowledged use of the National Security Agency for domestic surveillance "is all that he has authorized." "I did not and could not address . . . any other classified intelligence activities," Gonzales wrote to the senators.

Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said she sent Gonzales a fax "seeking clarification about his written testimony, which has left room for the possibility of an additional program or a broader program" of surveillance without court approval.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801587.html

Gonzales Seeks to Clarify Testimony on Spying
Extent of Eavesdropping May Go Beyond NSA Work

By Charles Babington and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 1, 2006

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales appeared to suggest yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that the president acknowledged in mid-December.

In a letter yesterday to senators in which he asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also seemed to imply that the administration's original legal justification for the program was not as clear-cut as he indicated three weeks ago.

At that appearance, Gonzales confined his comments to the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, saying that President Bush had authorized it "and that is all that he has authorized."

<<snip>>

At least one constitutional scholar who testified before the committee yesterday said in an interview that Gonzales appeared to be hinting that the operation disclosed by the New York Times in mid-December is not the full extent of eavesdropping on U.S. residents conducted without court warrants.

[NVMojo]

1. very good ...

thanks for posting!

[originalpckelly]

2. Oh dear!

Well I better say hi to either the NSA operative or computer tapping my phone the next time I talk on it. :-)

Like most Americans, I have an opinion about the NSA wiretapping program. Mine does not arise from the formal legal arguments presented in favor or opposition to the program but from a simple thought: What if a terrorist dials the wrong number? If I were a little old lady, and I received a wrong number from someone in al-Qaeda, how long would my phone have to be tapped before it was realized I am not a terrorist? How long do my phone conversations remain at the NSA on record? Remember, "If al-Qaeda is calling into the US we want to know."

If we the American people (both conservatives and liberals, it will hurt both by the way) don't wake up soon we may not have a nation to live in anymore. Liberals and conservatives have been around since the start of our country (and as much as it may be sour to say) conservatives aren't all that bad (crucify me later.) Our President isn't a conservative; he is a rule breaking cheater. He misunderstands the rules of the game, and then proclaims to be the referee. The fact he is acceptable to some people is the greatest danger to our democracy. He has muddied the water of morality (I don't mean that in the religious way either). America used to be righteous. Now our struggle is not between right and wrong, but simply us and them.

[dajoki]

3. don't worry...

you would be in good company(having your phones tapped). oh, you may not consider * a conservative, but he is a whacko.