Report: Bush surveillance program was massive

[quote]
The Bush administration built an unprecedented surveillance operation to pull in mountains of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, a team of federal inspectors general reported Friday, questioning the legal basis for the effort but shielding almost all details on grounds they’re still too secret to reveal.

The report, compiled by five inspectors general, refers to “unprecedented collection activities” by U.S. intelligence agencies under an executive order signed by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be “carefully monitored.”

The report says too few relevant officials knew of the size and depth of the program, let alone signed off on it. They particularly criticize John Yoo, a deputy assistant attorney general who wrote legal memos undergirding the policy. His boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving for the previous two and a half years, the report says.

Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the “President’s Surveillance Program” did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said.

“The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president’s office were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling”

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/ap_ … rveillance[/quote]

I’m running out of words to express my deepening disgust with human garbage like Yoo, Cheney, and Bush.

Its almost funny to think about how the conservatives here prattle on about how the left is supposedly changing the constitution. Most UCB grads I know send back empty annual donation envelopes and write on them “Two words: John Woo” who for some reason is still being protected by some sleazeball dean.

And that’s the only reason why I’ve applied to UCB for an weeklong and quite expensive Executive course :bravo: :bravo: Woo may cause some alumni not to give, but it also causes people that usually wouldn’t attend the university to attend it, especially for moneymakers such as Executive education programs.

John Yoo is a despicable person and I believe he should be punished if he is found to have broken the law. But I oppose the idea of UCB firing or punishing him because of his political views. Intellectual liberty and the free exchange of ideas should be paramount on university campuses.

And that’s the only reason why I’ve applied to UCB for an weeklong and quite expensive Executive course :bravo: :bravo: Woo may cause some alumni not to give, but it also causes people that usually wouldn’t attend the university to attend it, especially for moneymakers such as Executive education programs.[/quote]
Good for you. :bravo: Did you sign up for Waterboarding 101? Employee phone-tapping and email logging? Or the Creative Torture to Motivate Your Sales Force seminar? :roflmao:

A word of advice, I’d avoid their constitutional law course, they don’t seem to understand the bill of rights.

PS maybe you can pick me up one of those T-shirt’s they’re selling on Telegraph Ave. that say “F*ck Yoo!”.

I’m all for it. But the excuses used to keep him on the faculty are quite thin and twisted. The UCB standard seems to be, you can’t have an affair with an adult student (the last Prof. they canned), but its fine to go out and cause hundreds to be tortured or killed. At best Yoo belongs in the Creative Writing program, not the law school.

That is why I, for one, am so happy that Obama has ended the use of enhanced interrogation methods, will close all detention facilities (not just Guantanamo), has banned the use of these wire-tapping programs and wants telecom companies who cooperated in the program to be punished… er… he has, hasn’t he? No? Not yet? Er… Um…

Don’t forget that Obama also promised to keep lobbyists out of the White House, put all bills up on the White House Website for five days before signing and not raise taxes on the proletariat…

oh wait he broke those promises too?

Whine, whine, whine.

“Attorney General Eric Holder is leaning toward launching a probe into the Bush administration’s torture policies, it was reported Saturday.” Maybe after Woo is a convicted felon, UCB Boalt law school will have him teach over closed circuit TV, or bus his students down to Lompoc for lectures… Actually last I heard Woo was hiding out at some other low profile campus. Hey Cheney may be indicted too, maybe he’s back cowering in his bunker too…

Hear me now, believe me later.

Look, either these issues are serious ones that need to be addressed as such or they do not. Now, the loss of rights and the trampling of freedoms that occurred with the Bush administration policies were either something that must be addressed immediately (which they have not) or they are issues that are complicated and involve a lot of gray areas. If the former, how can Obama wait to address these and reverse these policies? If not and the latter is the case, then the condemnation of the Bush administration and its policies would appear to be either highly partisan in nature or hypocrisy on a scale not seen since Jimmy Carter and his “human rights” efforts. The latter is a send out to my good buddy… you know who you are… and P.S. hahahahahaha

What are you talking about? Obama “waited” because this only just now came to light. And when it did it was shut down.

You seem to be saying that you are in favor of a secret spy program run by Cheney out of his bunker, and that if anyone thinks this is a bad idea you label them partisan.

We need to put all this spy stuff on hold. It just so happens that Obama may have looked at a girl’s butt! Call Ken Starr! Get this impeachment thing going.

Guantanamo? enhanced interrogation methods? wiretapping? renditions? military courts? The title of this thread is Bush surveillance program. This was known. Or are you now referring to the CIA al Qaeda effort spearheaded by Cheney?

I will note with amusement that our dear friend Nancy Pelosi seems to have gone awfully silent on “suing” the CIA for claiming that she “knew” about the “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

When pigs play in mud… or is that the wrong quote… and I am starting to enjoy using this tag: hahahahaha

They just found a new assassination program that Cheney ordered be kept secret from the Congress. Panetta has admitted that Pelosi was right.

But none of that matters when we find out that our half-black, Muslim president from Kenya may have looked at a white girl’s butt. Not in my country buddy!

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

Some of us read the newspapers every day.

[quote]But now, a real can of worms has been opened. The New York Times is reporting that Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, actually admitted that the CIA withheld information from Congress on orders from then Vice President Dick Cheney.
The GOP spent two months criticizing Speaker Pelosi, but they now have more media criticism of the Bush Administration to look forward to as a result. In fact, they could be seeing the beginning of something much worse: the prosecution of the Bush Administration.[/quote]

GOP backs off criticism of Pelosi

While you may “read” the newspapers every day, you may not read them with sufficient, er, comprehension…

[quote]Do Panetta’s Comments Vindicate Pelosi?
CIA Director Told Lawmakers That the Agency Did Not Inform Them of a Covert Program
By JONATHAN KARL
July 9, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s war of words with the CIA may not be fully over as the speaker’s allies seize on comments made by CIA Director Leon Panetta that some say could vindicate her charge that the agency routinely misleads Congress. Republicans are delighted that this latest dustup revives the controversy surrounding her war of words with the CIA just when it had seemed to fade away.

At issue is a hastily arranged classified briefing by Panetta to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on June 24. Panetta called the briefing to inform the committee about a covert CIA operation that had begun shortly after Sept. 11, 2001. Panetta himself had just found out about the program and believed Congress should have been informed of it long ago.

The covert operation in question was counterterrorism program. Intelligence officials said it had nothing to do with waterboarding or interrogation, but it was controversial enough that the CIA discontinued it last month, about the time Panetta first learned of it.

Pelosi today seemed to distance herself from the story, except to say that the issue should be left up to the intelligence committee. She said in a news conference that she has not had any personal briefing on the issue.

“I know what you know. I’ve seen the letters from the members, and obviously they have concern,” the speaker said. “The Intelligence Committee has the oversight responsibility for intelligence in the House, and its equivalent committee in the Senate. I’m sure they will be pursuing this in their regular committee process and that’s the way it will go.”

When asked how often she gets briefed by Panetta, Pelosi said, “not much,” and added that she has talked to him twice in recent months, the first time being when he was announced as the CIA head.

House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, is unhappy that the CIA conducted the program for nearly eight years before Panetta told Congress about it June 24.

“These notifications have led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to,” Reyes wrote in a letter to the top Republican on the Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.

To some Democrats, this is a gotcha moment, proof that Pelosi was right when she said in May that the CIA lied to her about waterboarding in September 2002, and that “they mislead Congress all the time.” On May 15, shortly after Pelosi made her allegations, Panetta jumped to the defense of his agency saying, “It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.”

But now, in light of Panetta’s latest revelation, six Democrats on the Intelligence Committee have fired off a letter to Panetta, demanding that he retract his statement and acknowledge Pelosi was right.
“In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009,” the Democrats wrote Panetta.

No dice.

“Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement,” says CIA spokesman George Little. “It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress. This Agency and this Director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta’s actions back that up. As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees.”

“He took decisive steps to inform the oversight committees of something that hadn’t been appropriately briefed in the past,” the official said. “He didn’t attribute motives to that.”

Some Republicans don’t see any wrongdoing.

“I don’t believe the CIA has lied to Congress,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said today. He added that he is still waiting for Pelosi to back up her statement with facts or apologize for her remarks.

And, in fact, not even Reyes, the Democratic chairman of the intelligence committee, sees this as vindication for Pelosi.

In a statement released last night, Reyes tried to navigate his way to a position somewhere between Panetta and Pelosi. He says he agrees with Panetta that “the Agency does not and will not lie to Congress … but, in rare instances, certain officers have not adhered to the high standards held, as a rule, by the CIA with respect to truthfulness in reporting.”

That’s a far cry from Pelosi’s statement in May that “they mislead us all the time,” but it leaves open the possibility they could have fallen short of those “high standards” of “truthfulness in reporting” when they briefed Pelosi back in September 2002.

[/quote]

So… I guess that what is really being discussed for those of us who can read is that the latest issue is one regarding a covert program where the CIA did not advise Congress at all. This is not the same as vindicating Pelosi. The CIA stands by its claim that she was advised that the forces were using enhanced interrogation methods including waterboarding. Other members who were advised of this were at the same meeting as Pelosi. Was she the only one to not “understand” this? Then, either she is lying or she is very dim. Either or. Take your pick.

I don’t get those special education newspapers with the big type.
Basically, Pelosi said that the CIA wasn’t telling congress everything and it turns out they weren’t. It’s not difficult to understand.

Apparently, it IS quite difficult to understand… for you…

May 15: The discussion was one wherein Pelosi denied that she had been advised by the CIA that the US was engaging in harsh, enhanced interrogation including waterboarding. She later stated that the CIA was not to be believed since it always lied to the American people. The emergence of this secret program of which Congress “may or may not have been” informed (let’s wait and see shall we?) was "Aha! See! proof! that the CIA had lied and always does lie in her view. But, unfortunately, for Nancy Pelosi, it was not merely the CIA that was present during these sessions but other members of Congress. Would Nancy Pelosi also like to charge the other members of Congress who were present for being liars and that Congressmen always lie! to the American people! Well, then, we are left with liars lying to liars about lies aren’t we? P.S. hahahahaha

Apparently, it IS quite difficult to understand… for you…

May 15: The discussion was one wherein Pelosi denied that she had been advised by the CIA that the US was engaging in harsh, enhanced interrogation including waterboarding. She later stated that the CIA was not to be believed since it always lied to the American people. The emergence of this secret program of which Congress “may or may not have been” informed (let’s wait and see shall we?) was "Aha! See! proof! that the CIA had lied and always does lie in her view. But, unfortunately, for Nancy Pelosi, it was not merely the CIA that was present during these sessions but other members of Congress. Would Nancy Pelosi also like to charge the other members of Congress who were present for being liars and that Congressmen always lie! to the American people! Well, then, we are left with liars lying to liars about lies aren’t we? P.S. hahahahaha[/quote]
Did Pelosi ever say that the CIA always lied? No.
You are trying to make a point. But you can’t make it without exaggerating and lying. So I would say that your point is pretty weak. Maybe if you stick to the truth, you might gain some credibility.

Just saying.

[quote]Did Pelosi ever say that the CIA always lied? No.
You are trying to make a point. But you can’t make it without exaggerating and lying. So I would say that your point is pretty weak. Maybe if you stick to the truth, you might gain some credibility.

Just saying.[/quote]

Ah… Accusing someone of lying or being a liar… why that is a suspendable offense here on Forumosa, no?