# Who is the leaker in the NSA and CIA prison stories?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [January 1, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000 "2006-01-01T22:13:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/181 "2006-01-10T13:31:23Z")

</div>

> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> 😕 :dubious: :mad: 😛😛😛😛😛
> 
> See posts #165 and 168 above.
> 
> 🆒

I did see them, but “I don’t like one of the lawyers working for the Justice Department” is hardly proof that the Justice Department did not vet the process. Especially as Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi are on record as saying that they were, in fact, notified on multiple occasions of the program in question. (Although they seem now to be weaselling. No doubt they relied on faulty intelligence. 🙂 )

I have no doubt that some of the members of the JD automatically approved, although **BobLibDem** ’s post seems to show that this was not true of the Justice Dept. in its entireity. It is easy enough to dismiss the opinions of the knee-jerkers as meaningless - on either side.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/182 "2006-01-10T14:59:11Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I did see them, but “I don’t like one of the lawyers working for the Justice Department” is hardly proof that the Justice Department did not vet the process. . . . I have no doubt that some of the members of the JD automatically approved, although **BobLibDem** ’s post seems to show that this was not true of the Justice Dept. in its entireity.

:rolleyes: No doubt they did “vet” it, but that’s **meaningless.** Apparently, most DOJ lawyers consulted rubberstamped the idea like yes-men, a few demurred, and the Admin simply did what it wanted anyway. That really is not something you can use in the Admin’s defense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/183 "2006-01-10T15:41:29Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> A search on my user name for “Romero” and “Salvador” did not return anything, so I am not sure what you are talking about either, but I am explicitly saying that I am _not_ well-informed on the subject. As it does not seem to be possible to discuss the topic without automatic accusations of bad faith, perhaps I will satisfy myself by pointing out that you seem to be implying that the ACLU, of all people, are empowered to make findings of fact or of law as regards government operations. Which I misdoubt is the case.

The thread is under the name of “Oscar Romero, liberation theology, and Latin America” circa 2003, for some reason it is not appearing in the search, but I usually save the threads I participate so I have it, suffice to say is that you misrepresented what Romero did.

Regarding the ACLU, there has never been evidence that they bring forth false documentation, specially when obtained thanks to the freedom of information act. The conclusion from the FBI memorandum is proof enough that CISPES was investigated, and with no justification.

And let us not forget that to **BrainGlutton** ’s cite that “CISPES is also a reputed target of COINTELPRO-style domestic espionage” you replied that it seemed to be “an assertion without any evidence” not true, as I already mentioned and it is old news in congress:

[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia\_761569691\_4/Federal\_Bureau\_of\_Investigation.html](http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569691_4/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Other revelations of FBI misconduct surfaced in the 1970s, including COINTELPRO, Hoover’s vendetta against Martin Luther King, Jr., and the fact that Hoover had maintained a secret office file containing damaging personal information on presidents, cabinet officials, members of Congress, and other prominent Americans. The disclosures of abuses hurt the FBI’s image as a highly professional agency. Whereas 84 percent of the public had a “highly favorable” opinion of the FBI in 1966, by 1975 this figure had fallen to only 37 percent.
> 
> In response to the reports of misconduct, the U.S. Senate and House in 1975 each established special committees to investigate abuses in the FBI, CIA, and other American intelligence agencies. The committees detailed the FBI’s abuses of power and illegal investigative techniques, criticized its lack of oversight, and recommended reforms, many of which were carried out. Among other reforms, the FBI implemented guidelines that limited the agency to investigating criminal conduct rather than divergent political beliefs. Acknowledging that some of the bureau’s activities had been “clearly wrong and quite indefensible,” Clarence M. Kelley, who became FBI director in 1973, said that the FBI should never again occupy the “unique position that permitted improper activity without accountability.” Thereafter, Congress supervised the agency more closely; both the Senate and House established permanent intelligence committees to monitor the FBI’s activity.
> 
> …
> 
> Webster complied with many of the reforms that were instituted following the congressional probes, but he was criticized for authorizing the investigation of a left-wing group, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), that raised money in the United States for humanitarian aid to El Salvador. Although the FBI’s investigation of the group was not illegal, it improperly delved into political activities that fell outside of the jurisdiction of the FBI.

[http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/776.html](http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/776.html)

> [@](#):
>
> In response to the excesses of the FBI, in 1972, a congressional committee chaired by Senator Frank Church conducted an investigation of activities of the domestic intelligence agencies in the '50s, '60s and early 70s. After documenting the abuses of COINTELPRO, Congress established guidelines to regulate FBI activity in foreign and domestic intelligence-gathering. Those guidelines required the FBI to have a valid factual basis for opening an investigation, i.e., “information or an allegation whose responsible handling required some further scrutiny.” They also mandated the investigations be “performed with care to protect individual rights and to insure that investigations are confined to matters of legitimate law enforcement interest.” Before opening an investigation, the guidelines required that “the danger to privacy and free expression posed by an investigation” be considered.
> 
> But even with those protective guidelines, the FBI continued to spy on law-abiding people in the United States. In the 1980s, it conducted intensive surveillance of CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador, which was formed to counter the United States government’s support for the brutal Salvadoran dictatorship.

So things like that don’t cause death? Ignorance is bliss:

There is evidence that the lists of names obtained during the CISPES investigation were used by the death squads in El Salvador. The death squads then threatened and terrorized refugees in the USA too.

[http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/covertdo.htm](http://www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/covertdo.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> EXCERPTS FROM INTERVIEW WITH FRANK VARELLI FORMER FBI INFORMER, AND  
> INFILTRATOR OF CISPES.
> 
> …
> 
> The FBI wanted to avoid, wanted to circumvent the normal channels of  
> intelligence. They wanted to make sure that the information that was  
> being sent through the CIA and the state department from El Salvador  
> will get here because they described to me that there was a lot of  
> trouble with the CIA of not trusting each other.
> 
> So I flew to El Salvador in 1981 in April and went directly to the  
> office of the Colonel. I gave him a business card from a special agent  
> Dan Flanagan and I told Colonel Cassanovo that I had been authorized by  
> the FBI and the Justice Department to go and talk to him, that we needed  
> to establish here in the United States a direct link with their  
> intelligence unit because the program that the FBI wanted to implement  
> and the Justice Department wanted to implement and the Reagan  
> administration wanted to implement was to squeeze Communists from both  
> sides. Get them in El Salvador if possible and get them here. Either  
> way.
> 
> …
> 
> Q: Isn’t that dangerous to tell the National Guard in the early  
> eighties?
> 
> A: Yes. It was. And it still is. It is. But I was-I was only  
> obeying orders. My orders-
> 
> Q: From?
> 
> A: From the FBI that came directly from the Attorney General. And even  
> though I am a citizen-well, I was born in El Salvador, and that is my  
> people, I am an American citizen above all. And I felt that my  
> responsibilities, you know, were to my government that had requested my  
> service in a time of need, of danger, because that’s how they present  
> it. So, you know, I was convinced that I was doing right.
> 
> Q: Now, they called you from time to time and asked you for  
> information?
> 
> A: Yes,
> 
> Q: What kind of information did they ask you?
> 
> A: Sometimes if we knew of demonstrations. Remember, there was a big  
> demonstration on June 12th in New York, and there was a other one in  
> Washington, if I’m not wrong. And also-of groups involved in - like  
> CISPES, that were opposing the Reagan Administration. Those names of  
> those individuals were reported there to El Salvador first so they could  
> put them on file, second, because they will make that official statement  
> to the press indicating that there were communists in the United States  
> influencing the United States Congress and opposing the good policy of  
> President Reagan. Therefore, since they are even doing that in the  
> United States, then let’s kill them here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/184 "2006-01-10T15:50:49Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The thread is under the name of “Oscar Romero, liberation theology, and Latin America” circa 2003, for some reason it is not appearing in the search . . .

I’ve noticed that, too . . . Sometimes threads I distinctly remember starting a couple of years ago (and which never were locked down by the Mods) just seem to have vanished, or at least I can’t find them by a “threads started by user” search, nor a keyword search. Does anybody know why?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/185 "2006-01-10T16:05:29Z")

</div>

> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> I’ve noticed that, too . . . Sometimes threads I distinctly remember starting a couple of years ago (and which never were locked down by the Mods) just seem to have vanished, or at least I can’t find them by a “threads started by user” search, nor a keyword search. Does anybody know why?

To add to this request, I can confirm that \*\*Guinastasia \*\* created the thread I’m referring to and it was made on 05-04-2003; so no, it was not lost on the “winter of our lost content.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/186 "2006-01-17T14:13:26Z")

</div>

_:shrugs:_

The thread in question is [right here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=181743) Thirty seconds searching found it - funny how you couldn’t.

As to how badly I misrepresented anyone, that is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I remain totally unconvinced. I suppose the passage in question is this one -

> [@](#):
>
> In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people whose laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuous, I beg you, I ask you, I order you in the name of God: Stop the repression!

> [@](#):
>
> There’s a big difference between that and “Power to the people-God agrees with me!”

Which is easily resolved by pointing out that, no, there isn’t.

Regards,  
Shodan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/187 "2006-01-17T15:19:25Z")

</div>

> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> To add to this request, I can confirm that \*\*Guinastasia \*\* created the thread I’m referring to and it was made on 05-04-2003; so no, it was not lost on the “winter of our lost content.”

“Winter of our **missed** content,” please! Otherwise, the delicious Shakespearian pun doesn’t work!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\
**Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/188 "2006-01-25T01:05:16Z")

</div>

> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I did see them, but “I don’t like one of the lawyers working for the Justice Department” is hardly proof that the Justice Department did not vet the process.

Statement Of James A. Baker Counsel For Intelligence Policy  
Before The Select Committee On Intelligence United States Senate

Concerning

Proposals To Amend The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978

[Presented On July 31, 2002:](http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html)

> [@](#):
>
> S. 2659 as introduced would, for FISA coverage of non-U.S. persons, amend Sections 105(a)(3) and 304(a)(3) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. secs. 1805(a)(3) and 1824(a)(3), to change the standard required for FISA surveillance or search from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion.” Under S. 2659, in other words, the court could authorize electronic surveillance or physical search of a non-U.S. person upon facts constituting “reasonable suspicions” that (1) the non-U. S. person targeted is an agent of a foreign power, and (2) the facilities, places, premises, or property against which electronic surveillance or search is to be directed is used or about to be used by the target. Conforming changes would be made elsewhere in the sections of FISA. Authority for electronic surveillance or physical search of U.S. persons would remain at the current “probable cause” standard.
> 
> The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine’s proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.
> 
> The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to **determine whether a “reasonable suspicion” standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut** , and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a “reasonable suspicion” standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

So the administration took a pass on a legislatively lowered standard for wiretaps because of constitutional concerns, while at the **same time** conducting wiretaps based on that lower standard.

See [Remarks By General Michael V. Hayden Principal Deputy Director Of National Intelligence And Former Director Of The National Security Agency](http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html) for the NSA’s application of a “reasonable” standard, rather than “probable cause”.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000.md?page=9)