Bush’s domestic surveillance targets remain unknown.

[deminks]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/27/bushs-domestic-surveillance-targets-remain-unknown/

Glenn Greenwald responds to the New York Times’ assertion this morning that President Bush’s domestic surveillance activities “appear so far to have been aimed at mostly people believed to pose a terrorist threat, not a political threat.”

This passage…is simply misleading. There is no basis whatsoever for claiming that Bush’s NSA warrantless (and illegal) eavesdropping activities were “aimed at mostly people believed to pose a terrorist threat, not a political threat.” It is true — as Shane writes — that “there is no evidence” that the administration used its eavesdropping powers against, say, political opponents, but that fact is not exculpatory, because there is “no evidence” at all, one way or the other, regarding how the administration eavesdropped.

There has been no disclosure by the administration of any kind — not to Congress, nor to courts, nor to anyone else — of information revealing who was subjected to the administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program, a program which (by its terms and by design) was conducted in complete secrecy.

Link to Greenwald essay here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/27/nsa_eavesdropping/index.html

[Canuckistanian]

1. I think this is the point

If there's ZERO oversight, there's ZERO control.

He could be spying on every citizen in the US. We JUST DON'T KNOW.

And his word is worth LESS THAN ZERO.

[shance]

2. Not all remain unknown Firstly, any American is vulnerable if any American is being targeted.

Secondly many of us are quite aware of the harassment, the stalking and the attempted intimidation.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Shorter NYT: Trust us - Bush isn't spying on you, mostly.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!

[Vanje]

14. ..nothing whatso-ever to worry about,,....unless ......

unless your name is Pelosi, or Waxman , or Michael Moore... or Palast....or Olberman , or unless you are a Dixie Chick, or you're a host of a fake TV news show on a comedy network,, ... or you're a democratic candidate running for office.....

[ShockediSay]

4. note the use of the propaganda pump

“there is no evidence” that the administration used its eavesdropping powers against, say, political opponents,

Fact is you try to get the evidence and you run into shills like our propaganda pimp Gonzales

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. “appear so far to have been aimed at mostly people believed to pose a terrorist threat, not a

political threat.” HUH?


If that was true, why not turn over the info Congress is asking for? Personally, I think they were spying on all their political enemies...Congress people included (for blackmail purposes). They're hiding this info for a reason.

[Rex]

6. Why do you think Cheney needs man-sized safes to store his

'stuff' in?

[Double T]

7. Be certain bushco is targeting ALL political enemies............

that include ALL Democrats and even many rethugs.

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. We know that the Republicans hacked into Dem congressional computers.

Yet another unprosecuted crime by the Republican mafia. I must believe that Democratic members of congress, Democratic lobbyists, Democratic and other non-Democratic affiliated activists, reporters and bloggers were the real targets. I believe that the Republicans were only wiretapping terrorist suspects like I believe in the Kris Kringle and the Easter Bunny.

Edit: Dem congressional computers

[L. Coyote]

15. Was the Senate File Pilfering Criminal? = Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030)

Was the Senate File Pilfering Criminal?
Monday January 26, 2004 by Ed Felten
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/index.php?p=502


Some people have argued that the Senate file pilfering could not have violated the law, because the files were reportedly on a shared network drive that was not password-protected. (See, for instance, Jack Shafer’s Slate article.) Assuming those facts, were the accesses unlawful?

Here’s the relevant wording from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030):

Whoever … intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any department or agency of the United States … shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) …

…

he term ‘’exceeds authorized access'’ means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter

To my non-lawyer’s eye, this looks like a judgment call. It seems not to matter that the files were on a shared server or that the staffers may have been entitled to access other files on that server.

The key issue is whether the staffers were “entitled to” access the particular files in question. And this issue, to me at least, doesn’t look clear-cut. The fact that it was easy to access the files isn’t dispositive — “entitled to access” is not the same as “able to access”. ...........

PLUS: 13 Responses to “Was the Senate File Pilfering Criminal?”

===================
FROM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x925247#939023

[C_U_L8R]

9. "mostly" is the key word here

implying not all the domestic spying was terror related.

[Edweird]

10. I can think of about 100,000 targets right off the top of my head.......

[lala_rawraw]

11. Not true. Journalists were and are targets n/t

[SeattleGirl]

12. "...appear so far to have been aimed at mosly people believed to

pose a terrorist threat, not a political threat."

Yeah, right. If you believe that, I've got a parcel of beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[L. Coyote]

13. Not if you were one of the targets !!!!!!!!!!

[cassiepriam]

16. Cheney has been spying on the WH staff, why wouldn't he spy on Dems too?

[DemReadingDU]

17. During 2004

It would not surprise me if they spied on the Kerry campaign

[cassiepriam]

18. There is little doubt in my mind, and the Gore campaign before that,

Maybe that explains why both were so reticent to fight the outcome of the so
called elections.

[spanone]

19. ...and probably will. Dictators answer to no one.

[kenny blankenship]

20. A lot of them probably have a "D" after their names.