"Regarding NSA Domestic Surveillance" - 9/11 Advocates

[reprehensor]

(Mods: this is a press release, shouldn't be any copyright issues.)

September 11th Advocates -- Regarding NSA Domestic Surveillance

January 24, 2006

The Bush Administration has continually used 9/11 as an excuse to break the laws of our great nation. A simple reading of the September 11th story shows that General Michael Hayden and the Bush Administration are, once again, contradicting themselves in their use of 9/11, this time with regard to President Bush's illegal domestic spying program.

1. NSA Director, General Michael Hayden, contradicts his 2002 testimony to the Joint Inquiry of Congress:

January 22, 2006 – General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance Program, stated:

"We're not violating the law ... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States."

October 17, 2002 – Lieutenant Michael Hayden said the following:

"In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the al-Hazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salim, as well as Khalid al-Mihdhar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al Qa'ida, and we shared this information with the community. I've looked at this closely. If we had handled all of the above perfectly, the only new fact that we could have contributed at the time of Kuala Lumpur was that Nawaf's surname (and perhaps that of Salim, who appeared to be Nawaf's brother) was al-Hazmi."

"There is one other area in our pre-September 11th performance that has attracted a great deal of public attention. In the hours just prior to the attacks, NSA did obtain two pieces of information suggesting that individuals with terrorist connections believed something significant would happen on September 11th. This information did not specifically indicate an attack would take place on that day. It did not contain any details on the time, place, or nature of what might happen. It also contained no suggestion of airplanes being used as weapons. Because of the processing involved, we were unable to report the information until September 12th. To put this into some perspective, throughout the summer of 2001 we had more than 30 warnings that something was imminent. We dutifully reported these."

We would greatly appreciate General Hayden reconciling his contradictory statements. We note that President Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program was in effect at the time of Hayden's testimony in 2002. We also note that Hayden was a Lieutenant General in 2002. Since 2002, Hayden has been promoted to a full-fledged General.

2. NSA Director, General Michael Hayden, contradicts statements to Joint Inquiry of Congress regarding the appropriateness of current illegal NSA surveillance on domestic subjects:

January 22, 2006 – General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance program, stated:

"We're not violating the law ... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States."

In 2002 – NSA Director Hayden testified before the Joint Inquiry that:

"the collection of communications between the United States and foreign countries will most likely contain information about domestic activities and thus, is the responsibility of the FBI, not NSA."

According to the Joint Inquiry, Hayden "contrasted the foreign intelligence value of such intercepts and their domestic security value. If the former is at stake, he asserted, NSA should intercept the communications; if the latter, the FBI."

The Joint Inquiry found: "General Hayden, senior NSA managers, NSA legal staff, and NSA analysts made clear in Joint Inquiry testimony and interviews that they do not want to be perceived as focusing NSA capabilities against U.S. persons in the United States. The Director and his staff were UNANIMOUS that lessons NSA learned as a result of Congressional investigations during the 1970's should not be forgotten."

We would appreciate General Hayden explaining why he now deems the illegal surveillance program being carried out by the NSA appropriate and constitutional. Once again, we note that President Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program was in place when General Hayden testified in 2002. Furthermore, we believe that the NSA and in turn the American people would be better served with a Director who understands that agency’s capabilities regarding terrorist surveillance – both past and present. Hayden’s statements indicate one of two things – he is either incompetent or a liar. In either case he should not be heading up the NSA.

Once again, we encourage President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Former President Bush, Attorney General Gonzales and General Hayden – all of whom were recently on TV spouting utter nonsense to the American people regarding the need and justification for this illegal program – to review the findings of facts and conclusions held by the Joint Inquiry of Congress and the 9/11 Commission. As such, their recent statements to the press regarding the need and justification for the current illegal NSA surveillance program can only be perceived as a deliberate attempt to grossly mislead the American public.

-----------------------------

September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

[rpgamerd00d]

1. nice one

[rodeodance]

2. good for them--they have picked up on Gen. Hayden contradictions

......

(Mods: this is a press release, shouldn't be any copyright issues.)

September 11th Advocates -- Regarding NSA Domestic Surveillance

January 24, 2006

The Bush Administration has continually used 9/11 as an excuse to break the laws of our great nation. A simple reading of the September 11th story shows that General Michael Hayden and the Bush Administration are, once again, contradicting themselves in their use of 9/11, this time with regard to President Bush's illegal domestic spying program.

1. NSA Director, General Michael Hayden, contradicts his 2002 testimony to the Joint Inquiry of Congress:

January 22, 2006 – General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance Program, stated:

"We're not violating the law ... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States."


October 17, 2002 – Lieutenant Michael Hayden said the following:

"In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the al-Hazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salim, as well as Khalid al-Mihdhar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al Qa'ida, and we shared this information with the community. I've looked at this closely. If we had handled all of the above perfectly, the only new fact that we could have contributed at the time of Kuala Lumpur was that Nawaf's surname (and perhaps that of Salim, who appeared to be Nawaf's brother) was al-Hazmi."

"There is one other area in our pre-September 11th performance that has attracted a great deal of public attention. In the hours just prior to the attacks, NSA did obtain two pieces of information suggesting that individuals with terrorist connections believed something significant would happen on September 11th. This information did not specifically indicate an attack would take place on that day. It did not contain any details on the time, place, or nature of what might happen. It also contained no suggestion of airplanes being used as weapons. Because of the processing involved, we were unable to report the information until September 12th. To put this into some perspective, throughout the summer of 2001 we had more than 30 warnings that something was imminent. We dutifully reported these."


We would greatly appreciate General Hayden reconciling his contradictory statements. We note that President Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program was in effect at the time of Hayden's testimony in 2002. We also note that Hayden was a Lieutenant General in 2002. Since 2002, Hayden has been promoted to a full-fledged General.

[central scrutinizer]

3. Plus, they WERE spying prior to 9/11

There have been recent revelations that the NSA started spying BEFORE 9/11 so his recent statement is total bullshit.

[RufusEarl]

4. I watched this guy on CSpan, he appeared to be very nervous.

and he should be very nervous IMHO, what he's doing is against the law.

[reprehensor]

5. Yup.

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883620

[RufusEarl]

6. Yup! That's the guy!

shaky little weasel. He was ready to leave when (probable cause) came up, that's the legal phase that should tighten the noose around their pencil necks.