NY Times: "Intelligence Chief Reveals Details on Surveillance"

[nickgutierrez]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Spy-Chief-Opens-Up.html?ex=1345521600&en=9d1bc2d6a38f368d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON (AP) -- National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

- snip -

-- McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. ''Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,'' McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.

-snip -

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

''Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die,'' he said.

This is frightening. The financial viability of corporations who, until a few weeks ago were absolutely in violation of the law, are more important than the privacy rights of the American people. And not only that, but the fact that we have a public debate about the issue means that somebody's going to die - presumably at the hands of terrorists. This is monstrous, on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

[Kagemusha]

1. It's also a pretty large exaggeration.

There has not yet to date been any proof that there was any serious threat to these corporations' finances. McConnell seems prone to making huge leaps of "logic" (if I can call it that). That 200 man-hours for every warrant is crazy too.. esp. when you consider that foreign to foreign wiretaps don't require any.

[nickgutierrez]

2. It's Orwellian, isn't it?

I mean, the whole article is about how this is supposed to be some completely transparent look into the program, yet he gives no specifics to back up what he asserts. Not only that, but he even makes the claim that asking for evidence is completely out of the question, as it will only end up in the hands of terrorists and end up killing Americans. All in the name of "updating" the FISA law, so that they can spy on who they want, when they want, without any of that bothersome oversight.

[Kagemusha]

3. What also irks me is people calling this stuff "previously classified" material

How do we know it's not still classified and no one in the executive or legislative branches is permitted to contradict the intel chief on this? They've used that trick in the past.