BREAKING! Bush Administration began violating FISA 7 MONTHS before 9-11 !!!!11!!

[elehhhhna]

I know the link's around here somewhere on the internets...they started bugging people in FEBRUARY 2001...which makes one wonder why they didn't prevent 9-11 since they were spying on "terrists" during the whole runup to the disaster...

If one newsperson notices this thread...the info would be a helluva scoop, eh?


See post 15 for link...thanks, JHB!

Edit again to add that the bill DOES specify 9/11/01 at least twice:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ThxMeXePJ50J:www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd%3Fbill%3Dh110-3773%26tab%3Dsummary+September+11,+2001+%22To+amend+the+Foreign+Intelligence+Surveillance+Act+of+1978+to+establish+a+procedure+for+authorizing+certain+acquisitions+of+foreign+intelligence,+and+for+other+purposes%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[tblue]

1. And I doubt very seriously they were spying on "terr-rists"

since AQ was not even on their radar.

Probably political spying, since amassing power is the bottom line with this crew.

[elehhhhna]

4. Imagine the level of corporate espionage that they could fit in on the side...

if I were a biz in competition with any of their conflicts...I mean "interests"...like Halliburtion or the Carlyle Group, I'd be rather concerned about this. Just saying.

[bdamomma]

45. not only spying on us, I bet they started on spying

and wiretapping the Dems too. That would explain alot, no one wants their dirty laundry to be exposed.

[hisownpetard]

2. So now the question should be: how far back does the retroactive immunity go?

Because if it doesn't go back to February 2001, then wouldn't they still be legally liable?

[elehhhhna]

8. I'm hoping the lawyers who drafted the immunity put a date of 9/11/01 in there somewhere..

[onetwo]

37. Yes, they did nt

[elehhhhna]

41. welcome, and thank you!

[elehhhhna]

20. i answered on your thread and edited to add to my OP, above.

[hisownpetard]

24. Thanks so much!

:yourock:

I'm having a bit of a hard time sorting out the different issues involved.

[global1]

3. They Wanted To Know When They Were Coming So They Could Plan.....

for their war.

[AzDar]

5. Kick.... (I don't know WHY this wasn't brought up by Feingold, or other opponents of immunity!)

:kick:

[elehhhhna]

11. That's why I'm bring it up, again. REC THIS PLEASE...

maybe someone who gives a hoot will see it.

[90-percent]

6. Resonance

And this obvious point resonates with absolutely NO ONE in MSM because..................?

I mean, if this fucking wholesale spying was what we needed to prevent 9/11, HOW COME IT DIDN'T PREVENT 9/11?

K&R!!!

-90% Jimmy

[robinlynne]

7. We know. That is one of the court cases the Senate eliminated yesterday:

the Qwest case. That is why Bush needed immunity for the telecomms, to stop the discovery in the 41 (I think) cases already in court.

[EFerrari]

9. Exactly. Anyone who says we needed to update FISA

after 9/11 to protect ourselves is just not paying attention.

[kestrel91316]

10. My dear elehhhhna, they were spying on the terrorists who pulled off

9/11 and knew exactly what was coming down the pike. They just weren't sure WHEN. LIHOP, in a word. That's why Bush looked the way he did in that classroom, sitting there with the kiddies. His face says it all, just like Bobby Kardashian's at the announcement of the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial.

[elehhhhna]

13. I gguess they forgot to spy on Anthrax-guy, too, right? LOL

[Raster]

21. Yep!

Excellent analogy! Bobby K. knew he helped a murderer get away with the crime. So did george w. bush*.

[crikkett]

12. how is this breaking?

[elehhhhna]

14. Honey, it shoudl have "broke" MONTHS ago, but since the MSM is

complicit (Congress, too, evidently), I wanted to share it again, in the hope that it may be noticed.

It is certainly breaking news to the media and our politicians.

[crikkett]

22. so it's not 'breaking' news but 'Broken' news

I remember this story from weeks ago.

[JHB]

15. "One newsperson", eh?

How about Bloomberg.com?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

By Andrew Harris

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.

(more at link)

[elehhhhna]

16. Thanks for posting that. Wonder why it's not on the MSM's radar.

[frogcycle]

17. Not new

Nothing "breaking" here. Maybe new w/respect to AT&T, but since Qwest was asked earlier, this is no surprise.

Links:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/top-spy-asked-t.html

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/nsa-asked-for-p.html

[burythehatchet]

18. If you wish to make your head spin faster, read this article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/they-knew-but-did-nothing/2008/03/07/1204780065676.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/03/08/29_september11_pdf_wideweb__470x386,2.jpg

In this exclusive extract from his new book, Philip Shenon uncovers how the White House tried to hide the truth of its ineptitude leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

THEY KNEW

[elehhhhna]

19. wow. I hadn't seen all those other PDB titles. just wow.

[spanone]

23. the news people are not interested in wrongdoing by bu$h*, hell jesse jackson said something....

[lonestarnot]

25. And Obama might have farted and McSame stepped in a pile.

[Az_lefty]

26. God spoke to little george, in voice sounding much like Karl Rove...

and told him to do it.

[Uncle Joe]

27. Maybe if they hadn't been so focused with spying on the American People,

Bush would've had time to actually his Presidential Daily Briefing, listen to the FBI's warning signals and called Richard Clark in for a brainstorming session; although with Bush it probably would have been a light shower, and caught a few of the alleged perpetrators before they got away with it.

[RC]

28. So if they were spying on us, U.S. 7 months before 9/11, then

how come they didn't know about these guys hijacking the 4 planes...

Tell me again how this is supposed to keep us safe.

[Breeze54]

29. This has been known for a long time.

:shrug:

[elehhhhna]

30. Sure, by about 400 Duers. Let's keep repeating it.

[Breeze54]

33. Seems like we need to.. I know i posted about it many times. n/t

[elehhhhna]

38. Thank you -- that's probably how I learned about it.

Every time FISA comes up we should shout about this.

[KoKo]

31. Yes...that's why we were fighting so hard to stop the Immunity...because it's been all over the

Blogs with Glenn Greenwald and Firedoglake leadign the fight to expose that they were "tapping" illegally BEFORE 9/11.

Most of DU didn't seem to get it no matter how much was posted about it. In fact many DU'ers didn't see anything wrong with FISA Changes & Immmunity passing yesterday. There were several taunting posts asking people to explain why it was bad that they passed it...as if everyone was supposed to do their own work for them.

But, I appreciate your post...problem is that there's nothing we can do about this ...it's passed with only 28 Dems voting against it in the Senate. What does that tell you about why the media didn't report it. They were SILENT because they aleady KNEW our Dems would go along with the Repugs to get this think ramroaded through so BushCo. could get another BIG WIN.

[Breeze54]

34. Ah... yeah, I know....

:P

I'm guessing you haven't seen all my posts about stopping it? ;)

[elehhhhna]

39. I didn't think about it much b/c I naively thought our DEMS in Congress

couldn't possibly cave on our basic rights.

[Lugnut]

32. I'm shocked!

:sarcasm:

[Quantess]

35. Well, well. So this is why they want retroactive immunity.

K&R

[upi402]

36. lol, good ploy. Yep - expose someone to the truth that may be old news to many

is planting a HUGH seed!!1

[elehhhhna]

40. thx

it's all about the headline

the OP may have benefitted froma a sarcasm tag, but I find those annoying

[windoe]

42. That worked out well. Like how well torture works.

They need to fight us over here so they don't have to fight them over there. It's only business, nothing personal. :sarcasm: as if this is needed.

[RufusTFirefly]

43. Reminds me of struggling older restaurants that put up "Grand Opening" signs

It's not new. It's not breaking. It's a "fog fact."

Fog Facts - the important things that nobody seems able to focus on anymore than they can focus on a single droplet in the mist. They are known, but not known; the sort of things that journalists and political junkies know, but somehow the world does not. Such as President Bush’s war record (he doesn’t have one), or how Dick Cheney became that rich. Who really won the election in Florida 2000 and how many people have perished since the invasion of Iraq.

FogFacts.com

[bdamomma]

44. 9/11 was their pearl harbor moment and gave them the green

light for their PNAC agenda.

[Perogie]

46. So the trap is set

If immunity is only good for wiretapping that took place from 9/11 2001 forward than anything prior would not be covered. It's now law (signed by the Pres himself). Now they can go after him for violating the law.

[Divine Discontent]

47. let us hope & pray so! amen! nothing would be better for America & the world! EOM

[On the Road]

48. That is Correct

You mean, they can go after the telecoms for violating the law. (Doesn't affect the president.)

In addition, even AFTER Sep 11, there is no "immunity" for any act determined to be criminal in court. So it's a very conditional and limited immunity.

[July]

49. IOW, they started as soon as they stole the office. nt

[Wizard777]

50. What good is the new FISA Bill if the President can ignore the intelligeces' warnings?

Especially when there are no consequences for his negligence to heed or follow up on warnings if it results in an attack like 9/11. Bush Screwed Up big time and now we are paying the price for his screw ups with our freedoms and liberties. They don't need to infringe upon our freedoms. They need to infringe upon the Presidents freedom to allow our country to be attacked and then do little or nothing about it. They need to infringe the President and Vice Presidents freedom to use an attack upon our country as an excuse to fill their own pockets with our money.