digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at slate.com

Slate Magazine - The Education of a 9/11 Reporter

slate.com — The inside drama behind the Times' warrantless wiretapping story.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SuperVepr308, on 03/28/2008, -12/+3Nothing says unbiased, hard-hitting reporting like Slate magazine...BAWAHAHAHAH!
  • jjive, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Careful, these comments are being tapped.
    • Versh, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I'd dig your comment up, but there's been a pizza delivery van across the street for a whole week... how long does it take to deliver a pizza?...
  • DamnLogins, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5In future news: "Warrant dated Sept 12th found down back of sofa. It's all OK now"
  • redrepublic, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1Wow. Where are all the comments? I thought this is 'popular'!
  • yunus, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10It makes me wonder, what is happening right now that we won't know about for another couple years? Hopefully when the new President takes office we can get all the dirt on the current administration.
    • nanboya, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Not likely... anything that the current administration wants to have kept under lock and key will probably be so for the next 50 years.
    • sigg14, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2don't hold your breath
  • p0s3r, on 03/28/2008, -11/+3The only people who should read this are federal attorneys combing it for evidence of the NYT continued sedition and treason.
  • truthliesverbs, on 03/28/2008, -3/+12I cannot believe how The New York Times actually kept the story secret for 13 months! Okay, thank you NYT for breaking the story after 13 months! A real news source wouldn't give a damn about what the GOVERNMENT thinks at any time. Freedom of the press, baby. At least, that's what it once was. I mean, how can we have faith in NYT if it may or may not keep stories secret that affect every single U.S. Citizen in a negative way? But, I guess you still get an obligatory "thanks" for finally owning up to what you see as "...fit to print.".
    • yunus, on 03/28/2008, -6/+4There are times where responsible journalists do not publish for the sake of national security.
      • truthliesverbs, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5For the sake of national security? How about publishing for the sake of a society about their own government SPYING on them without permission. The only "national security" you are referring to is Orwellian.
        • yunus, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I didn't say this example! But lets say a journalist knows of an ongoing operation with a spy deep undercover in a terrorist group. Should he publish the name/photo of the person undercover so they are killed? Or should he possibly sit on it and let the government know that he knows about the spy so they can either pull the guy out because if the reporter found out so can others or try to tighten security and prevent future leaks.
    • izackcarson, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5There is a myth in this country floating around saying that the press is liberal and the the NY Times is leading all these liberals. So false. The are just slightly less conservative than the media the Republicans like. Way to go 4th estate. Nice to see it failing again.
      • jaxcs, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1A lot of people write as you do and I agree there is plenty of reason to for this sentiment but considered as a whole it's not easy to know when to publish and when to hold back, particularly when it is a matter of national security and the administration is telling you that the information that you possess can cost lives. Still, holding back on the story for over year seems excessive.
  • Thing2, on 03/28/2008, -2/+18What's terrible is - we - the people - are not informed. Journalists actually found a story then *CHECKED* with the white house to make sure it was ok to publish it. Are you serious? They found out the pres. was essentially breaking the law and they went to him for his permission. You've gotta be kidding me. Disgusting.
    • childermass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2No, they went to him with the details of a secret program whose legality was uncertain at the time. The story makes clear that the administration lied to the reporters stating that there was no division within it re: the legality. Once that idea was shown to be false, then NYT then published the story. The press has plenty of stories that they don't publish after consulting with the government if it's deemed to harm national security and there's nothing wrong with that. It's when the government strays that the press needs to be vigilant. Here, they were. 13 months is not too long. The press was not vigilant with regards to other administration claims and look where we are now.
    • thebaron2, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Talk about uninformed! This issue has already been to court a few different times and, wait for it, each time the courts found the warrantless wiretapping DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. Even Clinton's associate attorney general specifically pointed out the executive branches INHERENT power to conduct these searches when they wanted to extend FISA in '94.

      This may ***** a lot of people off, but it's all fact and you can look up the court cases.

      To date, two cases have been brought before federal courts to decide the Constiutionality of "warranteless wiretaps" after FISA -- United States v. Duggan 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984) and United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). Both courts flatly rejected claims that warrantless wiretaps violated the Constitution.

      Furthermore, a special review court for FISA -- the very same court that everyone would have decide whether Bush's acts violated the law -- have already said (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) that “All the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.".

      Here's an article from the WSJ detailing historic use of foreign intelligence surveillance, court case, and the constitutionality thereof, along with some snippets:
      http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ...

      "Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

      I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

      For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. "

      It's a constitutionally granted power to the president folks, and every court to EVER examine the issue has found that that's the case. It's important to maintain 3 EQUALLY POWERFUL branches of government, because anything that happens now to abridge the powers of the president will carry over long past Bush.

      Look up the case law. We may not like it, but the only way to make this wiretapping illegal will be to pass a constitutional amendment, so if you want something to be done start writing your legislators.
    • fireburner23, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3So.....the constitution is already useless....it's just the masses hasn't caught on yet.
  • LeonidasStokely, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I admire the American tradition of investigative yet responsible print journalism, and this is a brilliant example. Dugg!
    • truthliesverbs, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4The RESPONSIBLE action would have been to alert the truth to the people the paper represents. If i'm not mistaken, I thought the NYT represented the people, not the Government.
  • Altotus, on 03/28/2008, -1/+15I have been impressed that the message has not been plainly stated: the terrorists achieved their goals, largely with the complicity of the Bush administration and the press. I'm not talking conspiracy theories about it being an inside job... I'm talking about the fact that the government and press took the initial shock of the 9/11 event and ran with it. It took a while for most of the country to come on board, but the "terror" stemmed from the constant drumbeat of vigilantly facing our tautologically induced fear of some ill-defined spectre. There was trauma, to be sure, but people didn't become terrorized until they started to see beat-cops turning in pistols for machine guns, being frisked and strip-searched for having the audacity to travel on an airplane, and finding out that things had gotten so dire that government considered even them a suspect. When the DOD fingered a Quaker church in Florida as a domestic terrorist threat because they publicly objected to what they saw as the conscription of local high-school students by the US military, that's when you know they've become unhinged.
    When would it ever seem sane to spend 20% of your GDP beating down an impotent third-party nation on the other side of the world and vociferously defend it as prudentia bellicus?
    When it comes down to it, 19 men with $6000 of plane tickets precipitated a series of events that have killed over a million people (6700 Americans or so), cost the developed world trillions of dollars (about 3 of that in the US alone), and pushed the most wide-ranging decline in the integrity and influence of the democratic republic system of government that the world has ever seen. Regardless who you think was behind it, they certainly got a huge return on their investment in terrorism.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Yes, well, the huge crime was what the administration did after 9/12. Agreed.
    • fireburner23, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Besides...all the actions after that are still giving great returns.....
  • oldgal, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8"From the beginning, there were tight controls in place to guard against abuse." I would like to know what the administration said these were. To this day I have heard no explanation what the safeguards or oversight are, which leaves me believing there are none. If one does not worry about the potential abuse from this administration, then there should at least be concerned about abuse from a future democratic administration.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I'm sure someone did not get a big promotion and received a hard talking to as a result of the massive failure. OK, I'm taking that totally on faith that someone didn't get promoted.
  • plytheman, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7Journalistic integrity in my media?
    I can almost remember the days when I was a young naive child and sat firm in the belief that the white house was working in my best interest. Now all I see are a bunch of crooks doing anything they can to cover their own ass. Seems like it might be a good book but reading it will likely just cause me to lose even more faith. Glad to see papers are still willing to butt heads with the White House, even if it did take 13 months - better than nothing, amirite?
    • truthliesverbs, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Yes, better than nothing. But, 13 months is a disgusting amount of time to keep secret a blatant denial of privacy that affects every citizen of this country.
  • aajjcckk, on 03/28/2008, -5/+6However angry or dismissive it may make those on here who want to continue living in their safe little worlds, I have to tell you that it is undeniable that there is an overwhelmingly strong case for 9/11 being an inside job (not necessarily BushCo). This is NOT going to go away. "Truthers" are NOT going to go away.

    Whether shills and dismissives like it or not, the historical trend has been that as time has passed and more facts have come to light the case for 9/11 being an inside job has only grown stronger, and more supported and believed by a greater number of people.

    You may now start with your insults and digg downs, but it's water off a duck's back I'm afraid. The truth is a rock that you cannot break.

    http://www.911truth.com
  • EarlOfLade, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8In typical Cowboy fashion, USA went ape ***** crazy after 9/11 rather than to assess the problem and the situation. If they had done so, they would have found that the 9/11 attacks, were a one-off bullseye operation and that there would be no more such actions. There was plenty of time to calmly deal with the aftermath and get hold of the ones responsible. But, in traditional US style, the answer was a massive military action in Afghanistan and which in reality yielded very little result.

    And the result of the US failures, are that Americans now have no legal protection against their governments ability to wiretap and listen in and to read all your electronic communication without a court order. Bush transformed USA from a failing democracy to a total failure with no legal protections anymore and with a presidency now having more powers than your average dictator. The results of Bush will be felt for the next century and it will not be a good feeling either.

    So, rather than using this unique opportunity to get rid of the terrorists one and for all, USA managed to screw this one up too and invaded Iraq. For the next 50 years, you will pay through the nose for this failure. And in blood too! ***** geniuses!

    • fireburner23, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It's a reoccurring problem with Americans....they call it the Ugly American
  • mrzack, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1AHA!! I KNEW IT!! 9/11 = INSIDIOUS JOB!!!
  • rgersmrk, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Interesting read. Think I may get the book.
  • brooke415, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Video Book Review: "9/11 Contradictions"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBD36MHmawQ
    http://911blogger.com/node/14569
  • FloMonster, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"The administration might be able to stop the presses with an injunction, but they couldn't stop the Internet."

    Probably the best quote in the article.
  • caponumen, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I am somewhat conflicted over these issues.
    A very good argument can be made about the need to protect society from extremists; this is clearly an extremely complex issue. I have grappled with the pros and cons of such a need for many years. Without going into any real detail (this is already too long), I can tell you both views have some rather long lists of issues. A pitting of many attack / counter attacks, based on some of the more dangerous list items, I find many scenarios are gut wrenchingly disastrous and very often lead to the insane regimes such as the Nazis or maybe even worse, the horrendous years of Stalin, where it is very evident just how successful they where in their intelligence operations in controlling the population and attempting to control the world. It took near starvation before the Soviet people where finally forced to rebel out of more or less basic instinct.

    In any case, the only possible conclusion that can be made is that it is absolutely imperative for the US to continually revaluate all aspects of it's new intelligence gathering capabilities with strong unbiased representatives of the people.
    All Americans (the world for that manner) rich or poor must be able to trust that any such extremely powerful system is free from political and financial gaming. Also a system to detect any such gaming is a clear must and those caught must be stopped and prevented from ever having access again. The only other choice is to dismantle it completely but that leaves the government blind to the private gamers with access to parts and pieces of the traffic (this is an amazing large list).

    With this in mind, I believe it is time for the Bush administration to adopt a new tactic and make this happen in the fairest possible fashion ASAP. I believe maintaining the status quo and giving the coming “democrat” monopoly the upper hand is a big mistake or worse a tipping of the hand, either of which would be a step in the wrong direction.
  • WaltDismal, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2A security nanny state can't protect all of us from harm and itself can easily lead to abuse.
    I remember J. Edgar Hoover's safe full of blackmail items on many prominent people. For some odd reason, he seemed to stay in his job for a very long time despite many failings. The Bush administration makes Hoover look like a saint. No wonder Bush gets his way on most legislation. So many Congressmen have been caught with their pants down, and there are still ones running free, security risks all open to blackmail for political reasons, by foreign powers, and even by industries. If there is no independent oversight of the Bush surveillance efforts, the likelihood of abuse is great. Who watches the watchers?
  • freedomwv, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1It takes a big pear of balls to be a good journalist. It was very brave of them to finally run that story; although they should have ran the story much sooner.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.