December 24, 2005

The Times' Reach Exceeds Its Grasp

Hatched by Dafydd

At this point, it's not even eyebrow-raising that the New York Times is vigorously trying to destroy the foreign-intelligence gathering program run by the National Security Agency (a.k.a., "No Such Agency"). "America's newspaper" being a traitor to America has actually become ho-hum.

The newest attack -- specifically designed to disrupt relations between the United States and our foreign allies in Europe, Latin America, Canada, and the Orient -- is the "charge" that since 9/11, the NSA has actually (please sit down before you read this) analyzed the communications traffic patterns of phone calls into and out of Afghanistan and other terrorist hot spots. That is, they are actually determining how many international calls running through American phone nodes originate from or route to known terrorist sites, how long they last, and how frequently they occur. And without a warrant, b'dad!

Here is the Times's charge on a nutshell:

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

The New York Times then offers an accusation that I make no doubt must be true:

This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, in many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

This is of course inarguable; just as I can say that my visit to the grocery store today would have required a warrant if I had been searching for clues of artichoke smuggling. And if I'd been a cop, that is.

Now I know you must be shocked and infuriated. Imagine, an intelligence agency monitoring the patterns of phone calls and their connection to terrorist attacks. Outrageous! And without a warrant. The next thing you know, they'll be setting up radiation monitors in public places to guard against nuclear or radiological weapons. Oh, wait, that was yesterday's scandal. (Also without a warrant.)

The Times consistently refers to this as "domestic surveillance," presumably on the grounds that this communication between foreign nations actually passes through phone nodes in the United States. Yet it is clear that the real hope of the Times is to create some international mischief:

The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many international-to-international calls are also routed through such American switches.

One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A. said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches.

The Times editors can already savor the screams of hysteria in France over this revelation: "Sacré Bleu! Les Américains might be tapping into our hostage-ransoming téléphone calls... they shall know toute la saleté! Why, I shall be un gopher avec un nez bleu!" Ambassadors will be withdrawn; insults will fly. Somebody will throw a chair, and the next thing you know, John Kerry will be elected.

Alas for the New York Times, I think they have wildly overplayed their hand. If nobody heaved any furniture over the last twenty-three scandals, what makes them think the Frenchies will do anything but yawn over the twenty-fourth -- with or without warrants?

Unlike some previous stories in the Times attacking America's wartime intelligence efforts, this particular accusation actually has a great many sources. The complete list, in order of appearance:

  1. Current and former government officials
  2. Officials
  3. Some law enforcement and judicial officials
  4. A Justice Department official
  5. Some officials
  6. Current and former government officials (I don't know, but these may be the same fellows as before and might not warrant a separate number)
  7. Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry
  8. Officials familiar with the program (one presumes the others listed above were not familiar with the program)
  9. A former technology manager at a major telecommunications company (but is he or she official?)
  10. Several officials
  11. Officials
  12. Some judges and law enforcement officials (note the distinction between this group and number 3 above)
  13. Current and former government officials
  14. Phil Karn
  15. And one outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A.

It is unknown at this date whether any of these fifteen (or fourteen) sources had warrants.

Naturally, nobody has to tell the New York Times how to argue a case logically....

The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.

Well! Who can argue with that?

I find it a bit hard to shake the apprehension that the Times is hoping for precisely such an ignominious fate for the NSA data-mining operation -- preferably before it actually finds a bona-fide terrorist cell and helps break it up (after which it will be much harder to kill, since it would actually be doing a great job protecting us here at home.)

Isn't there any point at which even the MSM realizes that it's dug itself halfway to China by now, and it's going to start getting powerful hot in just a few more strokes of the spade? First there was the scandal that a few sadistic, exhibitionist prison guards at Abu Ghraib were humiliating probable al-Qaeda members. Then we discovered that guards at Gitmo occasionally handled the Koran without wearing surgical gloves and apologizing afterwards for the passengers of Flight 93 preventing the holy martyrs from completing their mission and earning paradise and seventy-two raisins.

The left-stream media then breathlessly informed us that the CIA had scandalously started keeping the most important terrorist prisoners of war (without warrants) in prisons other than Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Hm....

Subsequently, we were treated to the scandal that the NSA had actually begun doing its job after 9/11, unlike the CIA, which had applied for the new job of leaking classified information to damage American security on the off chance that, like chemotherapy, such leaks would destroy the Bush "cancer" faster than they destroyed the country.

The media reported to us that the FBI domestic counterterrorism bureau was unfathomably keeping tabs on domestic terrorist groups and those who supported them. Then they whispered in our ears that the tyrannical Big Brother at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was deliberately and with malice aforethought checking for possible radiation leakage around various mosques and other Moslem sites in the United States that were well-known for having terrorist sympathies. And now, finally -- actually, while I hope it's "finally," I rather doubt it -- the Times completes its tribute to the late Jack Anderson by telling us that, in addition to eavesdropping on the phone calls and e-mails of known al-Qaeda groups abroad and suspected terrorist agents here at home, the NSA has also been monitoring traffic patterns surrounding these same terrorist plotters. Quelle horreur!

Having nailed down the actual terrorism-supporting vote for the next election, the Times and the rest of the MSM appear determined to seize the entire September 10th population of the United States as well.

Evidently, next November's election bids fair to be the War Between the Dates: the 10th vs. the 11th. I wonder which is stronger in today's America?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, December 24, 2005, at the time of 1:48 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/351

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Times' Reach Exceeds Its Grasp:

» THE NEW YORK TIMES STRIKES AGAIN from Michelle Malkin
'Twas the day before Christmas And all through the Times Hysteria reigned over Bush's impeachable crimes... Yes, the NYTimes continues to show its disregard for our nation's security, publishing additional classified information about the NSA's much-hy... [Read More]

Tracked on December 24, 2005 7:00 AM

» Appealing to the "10th" from Isaac Schrödinger
Dafydd on the patriotic MSM:Isn't there any point at which even the MSM realizes that it's dug itself halfway to [Read More]

Tracked on December 24, 2005 7:25 AM

» "Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report" from protein wisdom

From the New York TimesThe National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the ...

[Read More]

Tracked on December 24, 2005 8:03 AM

» Media Outraged At NSA Doing Its Job from Say Anything
The New York Times has more hyperventilating about NSA intelligence programs today Jeff Goldstein and Michelle Malkin have lengthy reactions up, as does Big Lizards: The left-stream media then breathlessly informed us that the CIA had scandalous... [Read More]

Tracked on December 24, 2005 10:29 AM

» We eavesdropped on the bad guys! Oh, my! -- Part 10 (Updated) from Small Town Veteran
(Click here to see all of my posts in this series.) Another good example of why Osama reads al-NYT:Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials ReportEric Lichtblau and James Risen WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced [Read More]

Tracked on December 24, 2005 12:06 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Bullington

Dafydd,

You've got the Times pegged on this one.

I'm reminded of the old joke about the country politician who charged that his opponent was a "known public masticator whose wife is rumored to be Lebanese."

There's simply no story here, no matter how much the Times wants to create one.

I have to wonder to whom this pitiful attempt at propaganda is directed.

Two possibilities:

1. Times management believes we, the consumers of news, are idiots. We'll accept anything as news that they claim to be news.

2. Times management has decided to target only an idiot demographic. They'll stanch the flow of corporate red ink by appealing to an audience of alien abductees, pro-wrestling fans, and typical Democrats.

Sulzberger and his guys obviously need to get out more--maybe read a newspaper or something.

The above hissed in response by: Bullington [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 8:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi

(((Dafydd)))
that is so excellent.
a lot of the time, you write what i would write if i could.
thank you from the bottom of my heart.

and merry christmas to all the really big lizards.
Snow's up!
;-)

The above hissed in response by: matoko kusanagi [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 8:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: Repack Rider

Cowards. Chickens. I am disgusted by this casual acceptance of abuse of liberty in the name of...what? "Daddy, I'm SCARED!"

When did Americans become such cowards that they would give up their civil rights without even a whimper if someone TOLD them (with no evidence whatsoever) that it would make them "safer?" Passive people like that are just begging for a dictatorship, because there will always be threats that can be used to scare them into compliance. If the NSA can monitor for one thing, they can monitor for another, such as your political or religious views, and no communication will be safe from government snooping.

I would rather take my chances with an attack than surrender to this abuse of the Constitution. Attitudes like this make me regret serving in the United States Army if it was only to protect a bunch of sissies who do not appreciate what I swore to defend. If you're so scared of external enemies, join up yourself, but don't take MY freedom because of your personal cowardice.

If the Second Amendment is important to you, why isn't the Fourth?

The above hissed in response by: Repack Rider [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 9:29 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bullington

Repack Rider,

Must'a been pretty scary, gettin' nabbed by them aliens and all...

The above hissed in response by: Bullington [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 9:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: lmg

Bullington, the Times stories make their way into newspapers and news broadcasts all across the country, if not the world. A story like this is deliberate sabotage. They know what they are doing.

Lots of people never read beyond the headline, and just see "Bush Did X: Admitted Not Having A Warrant". I see otherwise intelligent people swallow the "Bush Is Bad" meme all the time without ever once engaging their critical faculties.

I was more interested in the radiation detectors outside mosques story myself, as reported by ABC News. Last time I checked, nuclear radiation wasn't used for communication, and you don't need a warrant to stand out in a public place with a radiation detector. Yet by running this story in this way, they tell us that, even in the case of a literal ticking bomb (and a radiological or nuclear one at that), they want the Bush Administration straight-jacketed and restrained from performing its duty; that it is imperative to them that the Bush Administration fail, no matter how many lives are lost as a result; and they will then point to the failure as a reason to impeach Bush.

The above hissed in response by: lmg [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 10:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Sachi

Repack Rider,

I would rather take my chances with an attack than surrender to this abuse of the Constitution.

Obviously, you weren't here on September 11th, 2001.

The above hissed in response by: Sachi [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 1:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: The Sanity Inspector

The MSM doesn't seem to realize that the public isn't the soft underbelly anymore of the war effort that it was in Vietnam. Gotta love pushback!

The above hissed in response by: The Sanity Inspector [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 2:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Repack Rider

Obviously, you weren't here on September 11th, 2001.

Yes I was. Remember the president had a PDB warning as month before that about such an attack, as well as a warning by the outgoing president that he should make OBL his highest priority. Even if he couldn't have stopped the attack, he should have had a plan in place in the event that it took place.

Did anyone see any evidence of a plan? Was the "plan" to keep reading a kids' book, pose for a photo op and then fly aimlessly around the country?

It looks to me like the biggest winner on 9/11 was Mr. Bush, because people like you are now so scared that all he has to do is whisper "9/11" and you happily surrender the rights that people like me fought for, and better people than either of us died for.

The MSM doesn't seem to realize that the public isn't the soft underbelly anymore of the war effort that it was in Vietnam.

My Army service took place then. As soon as I became a civilian, I joined the protesters, because as it happened, they were right.

When was your service? What branch? Sure are a lot of Monday-morning QBs among those who didn't serve during that war.

VietNam was a mistake from the beginning, and we got into it because people lied. Does that sound familar?

The most important question though is this: why are you so happy to give up your Fourth Amendment rights? Would you be just as happy to allow Bill Clinton the right to inspect every email and phone call made in the United States?

The above hissed in response by: Repack Rider [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 3:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShoreMark

The most important question though is this: why are you so happy to give up your Fourth Amendment rights? Would you be just as happy to allow Bill Clinton the right to inspect every email and phone call made in the United States?

Yes Repack, yes. If only he had.

Most of the rest of your points appear to be straight out of the DNC playbook, thus aren't worth addressing.

The above hissed in response by: ShoreMark [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 4:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: Sachi

Repack Rider

So you were upset because Bush had no plan to deal with 9/11 before it happened, and now you are upset because Bush has a plan to deal with future 9/11s before they happen.

Some people are just impossible to please!

The above hissed in response by: Sachi [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 5:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patrick Chester

Sachi: Cute, isn't it? How flexible criticism can get... not to mention the slaughter of strawmen in the hope that their sacrifice will make Repack's claims believed.

The above hissed in response by: Patrick Chester [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 24, 2005 8:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: Johan Amedeus Metesky

So Rider, you are saying that you and your fellow American servicemen lost the war in Vietnam? Because it seems to me that the historical record shows otherwise, that not a single significant military engagement ended with a US defeat. The only lying that was going on was by the media and anti war left working at the urging of the North Vietnam govt. Tet was a huge defeat for NVA. For the VC it was worse. Gary Trudeau may have had a cute little VC guy in Doonesberry, but after Tet, the VC wasn't an effective fighting force. Another lie was about Vietnamization. That actually worked. I know because while you were joining the anti war movement in a reprise of the oldest cliche known to warfare, the antiwar veteran, I was up for the draft but you no longer needed a high lottery number to not be drafted. When I was 18 in 1973, I knew one guy who got a draft notice and he got out of it for the same reason pretty much that GWB didn't have to keep flying in the TANG, they no longer needed so many men in the armed forces. By 1972 and certainly 1973 most US ground forces were out of Vietnam and ARVN was doing most of the fighting, successfully too. The did have US military aid and US air support, but ARVN was a competent fighting force and held off the North's offensive in 1973, which was smaller than the 1975 offensive which defeated the South. The difference was that by 1975 a craven US Senate voted to end military aid to South Vietnam.

The above hissed in response by: Johan Amedeus Metesky [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 25, 2005 12:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: Eg

DNC 2005-2006: Psychosis and Chronic Bed-wetting.

Good gawd…talk about train wrecks.

The above hissed in response by: Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 25, 2005 1:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Kay in CA

"Evidently, next November's election bids fair to be the War Between the Dates: the 10th vs. the 11th. I wonder which is stronger in today's America?"

I believe it's the 11th. I had a very non-political friend recently vehemently agree with me when I mentioned I was still very angry about the 9/11 attacks even 4 years later. I think there are lots of Americans just like her and me.

The above hissed in response by: Kay in CA [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 25, 2005 7:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: syn

The NY TImes is doing what their allies expect, following Al Queda's rule of engagement found in their training manual.

The above hissed in response by: syn [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 25, 2005 8:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Exweb

"I would rather take my chances with an attack than surrender to this abuse of the Constitution."

Wow. That has got to make a top ten list somewhere for one of the truly "out to lunch" statements of the year. That kind of thinking which was in effect from at least January 20, 1993 to September 11th, 2001 resulted in multiple terrorist attacks and needless slaughter of more than 3000 people. Why do you think we haven't seen a single attack on the US since September 11th? Did Bin Laden go back to university to finish his degree in International Relations? It is because the NSA is doing its job and doing it well.

The above hissed in response by: Exweb [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 25, 2005 11:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Johan, one minor correction: The last major NVA offensive before '75 was in the spring of '72. I was there. I agree with everything else you wrote. Thanks for being on the right side of the issue.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 26, 2005 12:40 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved