NSA: Amanpour, other CNN reporters not targeted for surveillance

[sabra]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/06/nsa.amanpour/

NSA: Amanpour, other CNN reporters not targeted for surveillance

NBC raised the question in an interview with The New York Times reporter James Risen, asking him whether he knew anything about possible surveillance of Amanpour by the NSA. Risen, author of a new book, "State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," said he had not heard anything about it.

NBC posted a transcript of the interview on the MSNBC.com Web site Wednesday, then quickly removed the page. In a statement posted on the industry weblog TVNewser, the network said the transcript was "released prematurely," and that reporting would continue.

...

The senior official said that from time to time NSA surveillance overseas "inadvertently" acquires recordings or copies of communications involving Americans -- or what the government calls "U.S. persons," which includes most U.S. residents and employees of American companies. By law, however, such materials are required to be erased or destroyed immediately, the official said.

Intelligence officials rarely comment on who they may or may not have collected information about, but because of all the speculation on Internet blogs, the senior official agreed to look into the matter for CNN. Another official privately said he was "puzzled" by NBC's decision to publish the raw transcript of the interview.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Sure they weren't. We are supposed to believe this rubbish. nm

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[matcom]

24. i think you are confusing CNN with

Bill O'Reilly :eyes:

[sabra]

25. can you provide some links for your assertions?

btw, welcome to DU

[hang a left]

31. ......

:popcorn:

[Skip Intro]

32. Should ALL citizens be wiretapped too? Some? Political activists?

just curious

[Straight Shooter]

33. Just because you name your dog "terror" gives you no right to beat him.

[movonne]

34. Are you talking about bush???

[leesa]

35. "bad guys" Funny. Do you know your Prez is one of the 'bad guys'?

[Inland]

36. So let's wiretap everyone who collaborated with brutal dictators.

Let's see.  Bush II, Bush I, Rummy, Cheney.......

OH, yeah, let's not forget each dumb fuck who cheers
warrantless searches of Americans and hates our freedoms.

Seeya later,   freepbait.

[DancingBear]

41. Does your mother know you've hijacked her PC again?

Better 'fess up, or she won't cut the crust off your
sandwiches anymore.

[EwokMyWeewok]

2. o RLY? nt

[Skittles]

3. I do not believe anything these f***ers say

not a damn thing

[SharonRB]

4. And we believe them?

I know I don't.

On edit: I was posting when the above responses came through. So far, it's unanimous -- they're lying as usual.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Why would they lie?

:sarcasm:

It will be fifty years before anyone knows the truth of this "super-secret" highly classified program. :grr:

[havocmom]

9. And if you tell others (on phone) you don't believe NSA

NSA will know... but they didn't tap your phone either.. see, they would have destroyed the records. no records of illegal wires = no crime here in Bizarro World

So, go on, rob that bank. Spend the $$ fast and since you don't have the money, no crime! Cool.

[myrna minx]

5. "Released prematurely" or "not thoroughly scrubbed."

:shrug:

[Hissyspit]

6. Oh, brother...

or should I say, oh, big brother...

[Canuckistanian]

8. Considering that disinformation is their official policy

I'd say that this pretty much confirms it.

Thanks, nameless NSA official!

[EFerrari]

14. But we don't have to worry. We have nothing to hide.

Right, Special Agent Mike?

[Canuckistanian]

18. Oh, he's a "Special" Agent now

Congratulation on the promotion, Special Agent Mike!
:toast:

[EFerrari]

39. merh says they're all "Special" agents.

And, they're all traitors.

Good going, guys. :sarcasm:

[blm]

10. NSA (Rice) also said there was no way anyone could know terrorists would

fly planes into buildings.

[KittyWampus]

13. And Reporters Weren't Targeted For Death By Our Military In Iraq, Either

[Rose Siding]

11. Love the official who doesn't quite get the release of actual transcripts

He's "puzzled" :eyes:

[marylanddem]

17. yes, that comment floored me, too! n/t

[Neecy]

12. wow...

Nice to see CNN stand up for their reporters like this - they get a comment from someone who of course is going to say they weren't spied on, and it's case closed, on to the next missing white girl...

What ever happened to reporting? Looking for facts rather than getting an official comment and putting it out as news?

[marylanddem]

15. I can't believe how stupid this "report" is.

It is the absolute equivalent of "nothing to see here, keep moving along..." And the idea that NSA or someone would check their files to assure CNN that Amanpour was not surveilled is totally ridiculous.

This is journalism in the world of Big Brother. CNN is doing a fine job of it.

[Beetwasher]

16. Nice Dodge. They Weren't TARGETED, But, WERE THEY SURVEILLED ANYWAY?????

Non-Denial denial.

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Excellent Point!!!!! The question was asked was not whether

she was "targeted". So, they haven't answered the question, but they're sure making every effort to calm the masses.

[mod mom]

19. It was to target Christine, but her husband!

[Jayhawk Lib]

29. WHY???

Why would anyone in the administration or NSA waste their time with the likes of Christine Amanpour and her husband Jamie Rubin? It would make no sense at all when there are others who really really matter and could make a difference.

[FlaGranny]

38. Jamie Rubin + John Kerry maybe? Hmmm? n/t

[mod mom]

42. Exactly, he worked on Kerry's strategy team after working on the Wesley

Clark team.

[aquart]

43. Because she spoke critically of the Iraq War.

And there is nothing too petty for BushCo.

[bowens43]

20. 'By law,such materials are required to be erased or destroy'

As if this administration gives a flying fuck what the law says.....

[sabra]

21. bingo! they care about the law for a "program" that is against the law?

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. Good excuse to get rid of the evidence they spied on Kerry campaign

and others running in the 2004 election.

[HuffleClaw]

22. suuuuuuure

thats like a statement from the cops about an alleged case of police abuse. or a bush claim of 'wmd intel'

[zann725]

28. Sorry...I believe the FIRST story. Amanpour, or others are NOT above being

"tapped" in the current "system." In fact, IF people such as Amanpour WERE tapped, the Press may suddenly find the 'nads it takes to TOTALLY stand up to the Truth about this Admn.

[Divernan]

30. The trick phrases are multiple in this denial.

Because the law, according to this administration, does not apply to them, particularly in whatever matters they deem to have to do with national security, ie the whole NSA. The whole reason we have courts is to interpret what the law means and how it is to be applied. As President Clinton quite accurately pointed out in his deposition, (from a legal perspective), it depends on the meaning of it. Sometimes laws come into conflict. There's a whole course in law school called Conflict of Laws. We have seen that the Patriot Act is used by Bush to trump all other laws.

Consider the meaning of the terms "overseas", "U.S. residents", "inadvertently" and "materials".

"OVERSEAS" So the administration is not denying spying if the surveillance is NOT "overseas", i.e., a communication wholly within the US.
"U.S. RESIDENTS" And if the surveillance targets U.S. citizens WHO ARE NOT AT THE TIME of the communication residing in the U.S., that weasels out of the admin. denial too. So if Amanpour is overseas, communicating with an overseas office, that's "legal spying" too as far as this NSA denial goes. Even if Amanpour is visiting the states,doesn't she maintain a residence overseas? So all expat Americans are "legal" targets under the NSA rationale.
"INADVERTANTLY" The Oxford English Dictionary defines inadvertent as unintentional, not properly attentive or negligent. So all NSA has to do to get around this preclusion is to DELIBERATELY spy on someone. If you bug an American's phone, it's not inadvertent to spy on his/her communications by that phone.. ..or computer. . . or emails.
"MATERIALS" the nsa operative can erase or destroy information in its physical format, but that is not to say that the operative cannot repeat the content. There is nothing about how many people may read the material before it is destroyed. Perhaps there is a rule that the decision to destroy is referred upward in the agency. How many levels of people are involved in the decision to delete or destroy? And how "immediate" is Immediate? Are records kept of what is destroyed? So let's say that all materials "inadvertently" intercepted are considered by a committee of three which meets once a week to consider whether to delete or destroy. Minutes of the meeting are kept. The minutes are not destroyed. Then who reviews the minutes? There are so many ways to dance through this NSA denial. And we have seen this adminstration pull this for years. When Bush's "Clean Skies" initiative increases the type and level of pollutants in the air we breathe, we learn that what he says is usually the opposite of what he does.

[Inland]

37. But they won't say the the materials are actually destroyed. Too funny.

Condi did the same thing when saying that there were laws prevening torture and that it was against policy. It's all, don't ask don't tell.

[Akoto]

40. To quote Jon Stewart ...

*robotic voice* "The government does not implant chips in my brain which cause me to emit talking points from this mouth-holey region."