# Who is the leaker in the NSA and CIA prison stories? **URL:** \ **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:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/161 "2006-01-07T19:18:51Z")
And, still more recently than that – no cite, but it was fairly common knowledge during the Reagan years that the FBI was keeping tabs on any American organization that sympathized with leftists in Central America and tried to thwart the Administration’s efforts against them, e.g., CISPES (the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISPES](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISPES)). Such surveillance was purely politically motivated and I hope no one in this forum would presume to defend it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/162 "2006-01-07T19:36:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And, still more recently than that – no cite, but it was fairly common knowledge during the Reagan years that the FBI was keeping tabs on any American organization that sympathized with leftists in Central America and tried to thwart the Administration’s efforts against them, e.g., CISPES (the Committee in Support of the People of El Salvador – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISPES](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CISPES)). Such surveillance was purely politically motivated and I hope no one in this forum would presume to defend it. I wouldn’t presume to defend it until it has been established that it occurred. Your cite says only: > [@](#): > > CISPES is also a **reputed** target of COINTELPRO-style domestic espionage. (Bolding mine). Seems to be roughly the equivalent of the “Plame leak led to the death of a CIA operative” - an assertion without any evidence offered to back it up. In a thread where it is asserted with such confidence that the NSA surveillance was - definitely, absolutely, no questions about it, swear-to-God - illegal, and was aimed primarily at US citizens, I wonder at the lack of evidence offered to back other allegations up. As far as I understand it (and I will be the first to admit that I have been paying less attention to this than I might otherwise do - things have been a bit busy for me lately), the NSA was aimed primarily at telephone calls overseas to phone numbers found in connection with investigation of terrorist activities. The difference between this and the same kind of surveillance carried out by previous administrations is, under the Patriot Act, NSA operatives no longer were forced to hang up on calls when they discovered a US citizen was making them. And that the whole process was vetted by the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and senior members of Congress - including Nancy Pelosi - were informed of the process. Is any of this untrue? Or is this another issue that the SDMB as a whole cannot discuss because it hits too many hot buttons? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/163 "2006-01-07T19:45:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I wouldn’t presume to defend it until it has been established that it occurred. > > Your cite says only:(Bolding mine). That’s why I prefaced my comment with “no cite” (including a cite only to provide a bit of background info on CISPES for Dopers who might not have heard of it). If it were established the FBI had been surveilling CISPES, perhaps opening files on known members of it, etc., I hope you would not **defend** such a practice; such activists were merely exercising their right of political participation. ---
**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 7, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/164 "2006-01-07T19:57:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As far as I understand it (and I will be the first to admit that I have been paying less attention to this than I might otherwise do - things have been a bit busy for me lately), the NSA was aimed primarily at telephone calls overseas to phone numbers found in connection with investigation of terrorist activities. The difference between this and the same kind of surveillance carried out by previous administrations is, under the Patriot Act, NSA operatives no longer were forced to hang up on calls when they discovered a US citizen was making them. > > And that the whole process was vetted by the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and senior members of Congress - including Nancy Pelosi - were informed of the process. Is any of this untrue? [http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/](http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/graham-no-reference/) > [@](#): > > Former Intel Chairman Graham: White House Made ‘No Reference’ to NSA Program In Briefings > This morning, Condoleezza Rice defended the NSA evesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders — specifically “leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees” — had been briefed on the activities. > > RICE: It’s been reviewed not just by the White House counsel but by the lawyers of the Justice Department and by the lawyers of the NSA, the National Security Agency, and by the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, and it has to be reauthorized every 45 days. And the Congress, the congressional leaders, including — > > RUSSERT: Those are administration lawyers. Why not go to an objective court? > > RICE: — including leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees have been briefed on this. > > **This is apparently not true**. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday’s “Nightline,” Graham made clear he had never once been briefed by the administration about the program: > > There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to…begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/page/3/](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663996/site/newsweek/page/3/) > [@](#): > > When the NSA eavesdropping story leaked, the Bush administration immediately claimed that it had briefed congressional leaders on several occasions. But the briefings appear to have been sketchy and ultra-secretive. Sen. Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader at the time, recalled being briefed in 2002 and again in 2004. Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, he was reluctant to get into classified details, but he did say, “The presentation was quite different from what is now being reported in the press. I would argue that there were omissions of consequence.” At his briefing in the White House Situation Room, Daschle was forbidden to take notes, bring staff or speak with anyone about what he had been told. “You’re so disadvantaged,” Daschle says. “They know so much more than you do. You don’t even know what questions to ask.” > [@](#): > > Or is this another issue that the SDMB as a whole cannot discuss because it hits too many hot buttons? I may say that you are projecting too much: your lack of attention is typical for someone that does not what to discuss the matter at hand: that eavesdropping is ok as long as there are warrants, if they are not, one has to face that what Bush did and is doing is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/165 "2006-01-07T19:57:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > IAnd that the whole process was vetted by the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and senior members of Congress - including Nancy Pelosi - were informed of the process. I fail to see the significance of the Administration having a whore like Alberto Gonzalez “vet” the legality of any proposed action. :rolleyes: It’s rather like Don Corleone running something past his _consiglieri_ Tom Hagen; Hagen might be a lawyer, but that’s neither here nor there. As for notification of members of Congress, it remains unclear just how many were “notified” and what exactly they were told. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.S.A.\_surveillance\_without\_warrants\_controversy#Notification\_of\_Congressional\_leaders](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.S.A._surveillance_without_warrants_controversy#Notification_of_Congressional_leaders). Furthermore, if any particular members of Congress reassured the Bush Admin that such action was not illegal, that does not mean it was not illegal; that question can be decided only with reference to legislation previously enacted by Congress as a **whole.** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2006, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/166 "2006-01-07T20:02:59Z")
Regarding the FBI probe (and more-than-probe) of CISPES, here’s a good cite: [http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Hunt\_For\_Red\_Menace-12.html](http://www.publiceye.org/huntred/Hunt_For_Red_Menace-12.html) ---
**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 7, 2006, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/167 "2006-01-07T20:09:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s why I prefaced my comment with “no cite” (including a cite only to provide a bit of background info on CISPES for Dopers who might not have heard of it). > > If it were established the FBI had been surveilling CISPES, perhaps opening files on known members of it, etc., I hope you would not **defend** such a practice; such activists were merely exercising their right of political participation. Oh well, that was \*\*Shodan \*\* just showing his typical ignorance on matters regarding El Salvador, In any case the ACLU found that there was indeed surveillance that was not justifiable: > **[ACLU Looks at Domestic Surveillance: Statement of Laura W. Murphy, Director,...](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-looks-domestic-surveillance-statement-laura-w-murphy-director-aclu-washington?redirect=cpredirect%2F11031)** > > ACLU Looks at Domestic SurveillanceAnd the Need to Watch the Watchers in Times of Crisis Statement of Laura W. Murphy, DirectorACLU Washington National OfficeFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWASHINGTON -- > [@](#): > > CISPES: In January of 1988, the full extent of an FBI investigation into the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) began to come to light. Harkening back to the worst excesses of the COINTELPRO operations, the FBI’s own files seem to suggest that the investigation of this group as a terrorist organization had been initiated solely on political grounds. > > Strong evidence suggests that CISPES was targeted for investigation because of its ideological opposition to then-President Reagan’s already controversial foreign policy in Latin America. The FBI persisted in an intensive six-month investigation of CISPES in which it often reported the group’s activities to the Department of Justice in a prejudicial and biased manner. > > The entire CISPES mess finally concluded in a short memorandum - released a full 33 months after the operation was initiated - detailing the FBI’s finding that no justification for the investigation had ever existed in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/168 "2006-01-08T01:39:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I fail to see the significance of the Administration having a whore like Alberto Gonzalez “vet” the legality of any proposed action. :rolleyes: It’s rather like Don Corleone running something past his _consiglieri_ Tom Hagen; Hagen might be a lawyer, but that’s neither here nor there. Regarding that, I’m reminded of a story I read in _The Worldly Philosophers,_ by Robert L. Heilbroner ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068486214X/qid=1136684238/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/104-7487383-3235154?n=507846&s=books&v=glance](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068486214X/qid=1136684238/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7487383-3235154?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)). An attorney of one of the American 19th-Century “robber barons” (I think it was J.P. Morgan) presumed to give his principal a legal caveat about a proposed course of action. Morgan archly replied, “Well, I don’t know as I hire a lawyer to tell me what I can’t do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.” That seems entirely consistent with the Bush Admin’s way of thinking. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/169 "2006-01-08T06:24:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I may say that you are projecting too much: your lack of attention is typical for someone that does not what to discuss the matter at hand:… Let’s leave the personal observations out of the discussion. OK? Rather than pop psych 101 observations about “projection” and what is “typical” of some ill-defined group, just post factual or logical refutations of his observations. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**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 8, 2006, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/170 "2006-01-08T06:57:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Let’s leave the personal observations out of the discussion. OK? > > Rather than pop psych 101 observations about “projection” and what is “typical” of some ill-defined group, just post factual or logical refutations of his observations. > > [/Moderator Mode] I agree on the projection thing, sorry about that, but I disagree on the “typical”. Shodan showed before on a thread about Archbishop Romero that he really did not know what happen in El Salvador, yet he pretended to know about the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/171 "2006-01-08T13:18:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > …eavesdropping is ok as long as there are warrants, if they are not, one has to face that what Bush did and is doing is illegal. Has that been determined? Or is this the great unanswered question amid all the sound and fury? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/172 "2006-01-08T17:34:47Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Has that been determined? Or is this the great unanswered question amid all the sound and fury? You betcha! [Report questions legality of domestic spying program](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3571224.html) > [@](#): > > A report by Congress’ research arm concluded Friday that the administration’s justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/173 "2006-01-08T20:12:53Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > You betcha! > [Report questions legality of domestic spying program](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3571224.html) Your cite also says this. “It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here,” the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration’s legal justification “does not seem … well-grounded,” they said." So we have another source weighing in with an opinion. I think hearings should be held. I think the Supreme Court should eventually rule on the question. The issue is too important, both from a security and civil liberties stance, to leave to ambiguity. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/174 "2006-01-08T20:29:26Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I think the Supreme Court should eventually rule on the question. That can’t happen unless the issue is presented in a court case – either a criminal prosecution of someone involved (what are the chances?), or somebody seeking an injunction to stop the surveillance. I remember from Con Law 101 – George Washington once asked the SC for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed treaty. He was rebuffed. The justices told him, in essence, “We can’t do that; we can only rule on actual cases at bar.” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/175 "2006-01-08T21:40:06Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Your cite also says this. Sorry, the you betcha referred to “is this the great unanswered question…” I meant to cut off the first question from your post. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/176 "2006-01-09T00:36:00Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > You betcha! > [Report questions legality of domestic spying program](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3571224.html) As I read this, the illegality hasn’t been determined; the CRS 's conclusion is that the Administration claims of authorization and oversight are not valid. It doesn’t expressly say anything about the program being illegal. Personally, I’m happy with a ruling of “not valid,” and totally agree with the **OP** that we should have hearings. It’s going to be very interesting year. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/177 "2006-01-09T05:51:46Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > It’s going to be very interesting year. . . . In the Chinese sense . . . ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/178 "2006-01-09T11:01:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And that the whole process was vetted by the Justice Department and the Attorney General, and senior members of Congress - including Nancy Pelosi - were informed of the process. Is any of this untrue? Or is this another issue that the SDMB as a whole cannot discuss because it hits too many hot buttons? Vetted by the Justice Department is an interesting way to put it. Have you not heard about [the visit to then-AG John Ashcroft in the hospital?](http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/01/1spying.html) > [@](#): > > A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate. The worries appear to have played a part in a temporary suspension of the secret program in 2004. > > The concerns prompted two of President Bush’s senior aides — Andrew Card, his chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, who then was White House counsel and is now attorney general — to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program’s future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said. We don’t really know what Ashcroft’s reaction was and he isn’t commenting, but this does illustrate how shaky even the Justice Department thought the operation was. ---
**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, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/179 "2006-01-10T02:20:52Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Vetted by the Justice Department is an interesting way to put it. Have you not heard about [the visit to then-AG John Ashcroft in the hospital?](http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/01/1spying.html) > > We don’t really know what Ashcroft’s reaction was and he isn’t commenting, but this does illustrate how shaky even the Justice Department thought the operation was. I’m not sure what you mean - if Ashcroft refused to approve, would the program have proceeded? It would seem to me that approval by the Attorney General is pretty close to a thorough vetting. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I agree on the projection thing, sorry about that, but I disagree on the “typical”. Shodan showed before on a thread about Archbishop Romero that he really did not know what happen in El Salvador, yet he pretended to know about the subject. 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. Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000/180 "2006-01-10T02:28:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It would seem to me that approval by the Attorney General is pretty close to a thorough vetting. 😕 :dubious: :mad: 😛😛😛😛😛 See posts #165 and 168 above. 🆒 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-the-leaker-in-the-nsa-and-cia-prison-stories/338000.md?page=10)