Christiane Amanpour Of CNN Spied Upon?

Now what - NBC has a "now you see it, now you don't transcript" of a chat between Andrea Mitchell and NSA scooper James Risen that originally included this exchange (from John Aravosis):

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

Now, however, the edited transcript glides right past the specific Amanpour question.

What does it mean?  As we await developments, we note a helpful mix of background and hysteria from Attytood (via Mr. Aravosis).  Let's use this:

The least cynical answer would be because her recent reporting would have brought her into direct contact with members of al Qaeda. In August 2002, not long after Bush began to authorize the warrantless spying program, Amanpour worked with CNN's Nic Robertson on a special that was billed as an inside view of al-Qaeda.

So why is NBC breaking this instead of CNN?  C'mon, this NSA story was launched to delight folks who would otherwise play blind man's bluff in the fog.  At night.  After a few drinks.  But maybe CNN will get to it eventually [They do, and know nothing].

And what does it mean?  On a good day, we would learn that, if there is anything to this report at all, Ms. Amanpour was never specifically targeted, but happened to be called from a "hot" phone number being traced for other reasons.  And if it all happened overseas, well, que sera sera. 

And on a bad day?  We don't have bad days around here.  Good, and better - that's it.

And any White House explanation of deliberate spying on a reporter better be good.

UPDATE:  Does the idea that terrorists call in to news bureaus really surprise people?  Wretchard and Powerline tackled this in Dec 2004 with the AP.

What does it even mean to be an American if Ms. Amanpour cannot take a call in the privacy of her Baghdad office from an Al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan who is being monitored by the NSA?  Good question.

I am having an easy time conjuring deeply untroubling scenarios in which Ms. Amanpour might have been spied upon.  Of course, other scenarios are also possible.

UPDATE:  Clarice Feldman big-times it on Rush, again.

STILL MORE:  Christiane Amanpour is based in London - I know the politics of monitoring a reporter are gruesome, but what is the law on the NSA monitoring US citizens overseas on non-US calls?  I would have said from this definition of "electronic surveillance" that anything goes.

Comments

[Bill Arnold]

Glib possible "explanation": reporters talk to lots of people, and are likely to be "clearly linked" to terrorists (in the x calls y, y calls z sense) as part of their work.

[clarice]

I saw that fantasy flitting in the ether yesterday about the edited transcript. What interested me is that "everybody knew"Plame Mitchell was the one with the story. Perhaps they edited it hoping no one in the DoJ would catch on that once again someone was leaking to her?

[ordi]

She certainly has connections

For FYI purposes only:

CNN's Christiane Amanpour married Clinton State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin in August 1998. Rubin at least at one time was PBS "Wide Angle" host.

[clarice]

I saw that fantasy flitting in the ether yesterday about the edited transcript. What interested me is that "everybody knew Plame" Mitchell was the one with the story. Perhaps they edited it hoping no one in the DoJ would catch on that once again someone was leaking to her?

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Jamie Rubin was a Kerry campaign foreign policy adviser. So he sipped mint tea with Joe Wilson and Rand Beers. Officials close to campaign, that requested anonymity, tell me that the mint tea might have been Fool-Aid.

What's the law say about spying on "world citizens" like Amanpour? If she's a world citizen then which constitution protects her?

[Geek, Esq.]

Either this is a bunch of hysteria, or the biggest story of 2006.

[kim]

GE, it's the Madness of King Pinch the III.
==================================================

[BurkettHead]

does anyone have anyhting resembling a fact to go with this one?

[AJStrata]

Tom,

One aspect of this totally underplayed is the press feels exposed because they are always trying to contact AQ for news.

I think this has nothing to do with 'spying' (see my email) and lots to do with paranoid, overly sensitive, and not too emotionally stable reporters.

[topsecretk9]

Shark bait? Media Blog has this...

"MSNBC later removed that part of the transcript, telling the blog TVNewser, "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

[cathyf]

AJ, good point about the reporters being people who have "relations" with AQ. But don't be so quick to label them paranoid -- if the NSA was monitoring reporters' outgoing overseas calls in order to track down terrorists, then that significantly endangers journalists who have talked to terrorists in the past and might do so in the future.

It might also explain Mitchell's disappearing transcript. She said this on the air, and somebody at MSNBC got a phone call that went, "YOU !$%^#@ IDIOT!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO GET REPORTERS KILLED?!?!? THAT'S THE SECRET AND WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT YOU MISERABLE SORRY MORON JOURNALISTS BY KEEPING AQ FROM FINDING OUT!!!"

The point has been made over and over that the whole Plame Kerfuffle was a bizarre suicidal exercise on the part of the media which needs leaks to survive. Maybe the NSA campaign is going to be literally suicidal and get gobs of journalists killed. Is there anything that can be done to stop them? It's one thing for reporters to go to jail for protecting sources, but this would be the NYT getting reporters killed.

cathy :-)

[topsecretk9]

She said this on the air, and somebody at MSNBC got a phone call that went, "YOU !$%^#@ IDIOT!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO GET REPORTERS KILLED?!?!?

Then Mitchell should be reassigned to the celebrity beat, where her trading and loose lips would be better suited!

[clarice]

Well, I doubt that will happen, but I do hope she gets some visitors with badges one day who ask her about "everybody knew" AND the Amanpour story. But I suppose that is a lot to ask. *sigh*

[epphan]

The reason CNN would not break this story seems simple. Would you want the public to know that one of your folks is chatting it up with terrorists? Legal, illegle, or whatever. That's even a much different public perception than having her "interview" terrorists. Bush is not tapping reporters' phones like Nixon. You'd think they would know by now that Bush doesn't give a crap about reporters. If Amanpour was caught, it was in the wide net and that puts her on the "wrong" side...even for a liberal Bush-hating network.

[Shad]

And any White House explanation of deliberate spying on a reporter better be good.

Here's the simple explanation: Reporters and media conglomerates, despite their protestations to the contrary, are not impartial observers whose seeking of the truth places them above the law and outside the realm of human responsibility.

We already have CNN's admission of its collaboration with Saddam and Iraq for a decade or so to suppress information about that country in order to benefit themselves (i.e. they were privy to information they chose not to share so they could milk more exclusive psuedo-stories, despite the cost in human lives and suffering of their selfish decision). Coupling that fact with Amanpour's globetrotting and rather sympathetic political views, and I wouldn't be surprised if she has a wealth of information about Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that she chooses not to reveal.

It would be nice to think that, just on the basis of humanity, Ms. Amanpour would be willing to supply information voluntarily that might save people's lives from terrorist attacks -- that she would value human lives above "the story" and "access". But we know from experience that this is often not the case. Therefore, I have no problem with the U.S. monitoring communications between her and known/suspected terrorists to gather intelligence just in case she's feeling too reporter-ish and not quite human enough to pass that information along on her own.

I certainly have no more concern about her communication being monitored because she's a "reporter" than I would if she were not. The "reporter" label is a red herring, and your encouragement of its use as a "get out of jail free" card in this instance is disappointing, TM.

[Cecil Turner]

Either this is a bunch of hysteria, or the biggest story of 2006.

Why? If Christiane Amanpour is contacting Al Qaeda, why shouldn't the NSA listen in? I frankly don't see a problem, and I doubt the average American would get overly stressed about it either.

[larwyn]

CNN tapped! Remember Eason Jordan
and his deal with Saddam - hope they have his calls too. The bastard!

Hmmmm..All those "lucky" stringers working for AP, CNN, NYT's and the other LSM who are just at the right place, at the right time to get photos of terrorists attacks.

The murders in the street with shots perfectly timed.

What are the chances that Mohammed the AQ "stringer" calls his LSM bureau to report he is going to have something "big". The bureau in Iraq, bursting with excitment, calls his boss in NYC. The boss
makes "production arrangements" booking appropriate talking heads
so all on hand when scoop comes in.
Boss calls bureau in Iraq. Bureau
calls AQ stringer to make sure event is really going to happen - his butt is on line now.

Event happens - AQ stringer calls bureau with "got it" "bringing it in" and the chain of calls is repeated.

Just one senario for the murders on
Haifa Street (?) last year when three Iraqis were pulled from car and shot in head with photographer
set up close by.

Little Green Footballs had links to all the analysis of the photographs and where the photographer was actually standing.
Determined to be in plain site of
terrorists and also timing of the shots was discussed.

If you are paying any attention, you can think of 100's of "reports"
since we went into Afghanistan.

Little wonder the "press" is scared
and acting out about the NSA monitoring.

Poetic justice if Mrs. Rubin goes
way of Peter Arnett.

[Shad]

To clarify:

[Hypothetical] Bush sending the INS and IRS to harass and audit Amanpour (or another reporter) because she had run a story critical/detrimental to him or his administration = outrage at the clear abuse of power and concern over the chilling effect on other journalists.

[Hypothetical] The NSA monitoring Amanpour's (or another reporter's) communications with terrorists to gather intel = no outrage whatsoever at the NSA doing their job and no concern at all over any chilling effect which keeps people/reporters from collaborating with terrorists in the future.

[kim]

Excellent, Epphan, I think they do know Bush doesn't give a crap about reporters, and that, as much as his ideology, really interferes with their objectivity. He is denying them what they believe to be an important, I won't say God-given, role. Well, they won't say God-given, but many act like it is.
==================================================

[epphan]

Shad:

But then it would be easy to get a warrant. You have a warrant...then so be it. Good work. No warrant and it's a direct tap, you past the gray area and that makes even me uncomfortable...even for a traitor like Amanpour.
...Inside the U.S., of course...

[topsecretk9]

I frankly don't see a problem, and I doubt the average American would get overly stressed about it either.

Nope, and I would applaud the reporter who happily invited the party line.

[topsecretk9]

Event happens - AQ stringer calls bureau with "got it" "bringing it in" and the chain of calls is repeated.

Remember all the press flap when the Admin asked CNN or some such not to air a Bin Laden tape?

So the Gov't could analyze it first or something like that?

Of course the Press was pissed... National Security vs. Scoop...tough one, that bastard Bush.

[TM]

Either this is a bunch of hysteria, or the biggest story of 2006.

I still see an easy middle ground - if someone with an Al Qaeda link occasionally calls her from a monitored number, she will be spied upon without having been targetted.

Here is a link to Powerline (Dec 2004) on the AP photog who was there to "shoot" an execution in Baghdad.

[Cecil Turner]

But then it would be easy to get a warrant . . .

My reading of FISA (section 1805 a.3.(a)) suggests a warrant requires having probable cause to believe Amanpour is an Al Qaeda agent. Since that's dubious, I'd suggest a warrant is unlikely. And I still have no problem listening in to her conversations with terrorists (assuming she's having any).

[Chief RZ]

Remember Walter Duranty? He covered up Joseph (Uncle Joe) Stalin's killing of 7.000,000 Ukranians so he could get an interview.

[BurkettHead]

Maybe CNN is being quiet about this because it could lead to questions they don't want to answer. Maybe NBC isn't being quiet about it because thay know it will lead to questions CNN doesn't want to answer.

If this does become the biggest story of 2006, won't we have to (get to?) delve into CNN contacts with al-Qaeda?

[clarice]

Oh, Burkett, you just made my day brighter.

[Sue]

I don't have a problem with Amanpour being caught up, so to speak, by the NSA, but I certainly hope she has not been singled out to listen in on. Unless of course she is part of AQ.

On another note, I just heard Rush Limbaugh praising our very own Clarice at American Thinker. Hip-hip-hooray...Clarice made the big time. I post with a celebrity. ::grin::

[larwyn]

TM - Tks for Powerline post link.
It is chilling to reread it and I am going to put it here to refresh the memories of those that don't like to think about these things.
Read and go to the trackbacks for real education.

When one realizes that all those
"talking heads" are not permanently
miked - lots of communications involved to set up these "breaking"
stories - lots of opportunies for the "reporters" and their bosses to get their butts in a wringer if NSA is monitoring the calls and emails.

"Sloppy seconds" quote comes to mind regarding embarassment to these "sophisticates" if we could read their emails setting up the breaking news such as "The Murders
on Haifa Street".

NOTE WHEN YOU READ THIS - AP WOULD NOT RELEASE THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S NAME. IS HE ON A WANTED LIST??

POWERLINE:
December 25, 2004
AP Admits Relationship With Terrorists

We have written a couple of times about the accusations of complicity with terrorists in Iraq which were made recently by Belmont Club and others. The issue relates to the shocking photo, recently published by the AP, showing three terrorists in the act of murdering two Iraqi election workers on a street during daylight. The photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?

Salon printed a defense of the AP (and an attack on conservative bloggers) that included this anonymous comment from an AP spokesman:

A source at the Associated Press knowledgeable about the events covered in Baghdad on Sunday told Salon that accusations that the photographer was aware of the militants' plans are "ridiculous." The photographer, whose identity the AP is withholding due to safety concerns, was likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street," said the AP source, who was not at liberty to comment by name. But the photographer "definitely would not have had foreknowledge" of a violent event like an execution, the source said.
So the AP admitted that its photographer was "tipped off" by the terrorists. The only quibble asserted by the AP was that the photographer expected only a "demonstration," not a murder. So the terrorists wanted to be photographed carrying out the murder, to sow more terror in Iraq and to demoralize American voters. That's why they tipped off the photographer, and that's why they dragged the two election workers from their car, so they could be shot in front of the AP's obliging camera. And the AP was happy to cooperate with the terrorists in all respects. We'd like to ask some more questions of the photographer, of course, but that's impossible since the AP won't identify him because of "safety concerns." Really? Who would endanger his safety? The terrorists? They could have shot him on Sunday if they were unhappy about having their picture taken. But they weren't, which is why they "tipped off" the photographer. Belmont Club responded to the Salon defense here, in a post we linked to a day or two ago.

Now there's more: Jim Romanesko got an email from another AP spokesman, this time Jack Stokes, the AP's director of media relations. Here it is:

Several brave Iraqi photographers work for The Associated Press in places that only Iraqis can cover. Many are covering the communities they live in where family and tribal relations give them access that would not be available to Western photographers, or even Iraqi photographers who are not from the area.
Insurgents want their stories told as much as other people and some are willing to let Iraqi photographers take their pictures. It's important to note, though, that the photographers are not "embedded" with the insurgents. They do not have to swear allegiance or otherwise join up philosophically with them just to take their pictures.

That makes the admission pretty well complete, I think. The AP is using photographers who have relationships with the terrorists; this is for the purpose of helping to tell the terrorists' "stories." The photographers don't have to swear allegiance to the terrorists--gosh, that's reassuring--but they have "family and tribal relations" with them. And they aren't embedded--I'm not sure I believe that--but they don't need to be either, since the terrorists tip them off when they are about to commit an act that they want filmed.

Am I missing something, or has the AP now admitted everything it was charged with by Wretchard?

Posted by John at 03:24 PM

Click here: Power Line: AP Admits Relationship With Terrorists
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009026.php

My Stupid Question:
If these people are on wanted lists, and have been indicted with warrants out for them, does that mean anything regarding "reporter"
communications with these people
as we AT WAR and they are foreign agents?

Common sense leads me astray when I come up against the application of the "law".

[maryrose]

Kudos Clarice!

[maryrose]

larwyn,
Thanks for the post. Very disturbing content.

[cathyf]

I don't have a problem with Amanpour being caught up, so to speak, by the NSA, but I certainly hope she has not been singled out to listen in on. Unless of course she is part of AQ.

Well, I don't have a problem even if she isn't part of AQ. Imagine that a mafia hitman is a fugitive, and the cops get a warrant and tap the phone of the hitman's favorite pizza joint. Then when the hitman phones in an order the cops follow the delivery guy and arrest the hitman. I'm not outraged that the pizza guy has been singled out even though he is not part of the mafia.

If the NSA program works by tapping Amanpour's outgoing international calls waiting for an AQ operative to appear at the other end, and then using the signal to drop a cruise missile down the shorts of the AQ guy holding the cell phone, then I think that this is not unreasonable. And if all of the calls had one end in a foreign country, then as has been explained numerous times by the legal eagles, it's legal to do it without a warrant. (In the pizza delivery case a warrantless wiretap would be legal only if one end of the pizza-ordering call was out of the US.)

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Thanks. Just posted an article on Amanpour. (TM sorry about the typo on your name though I sent an email to correct it.)Osama

I can't tell you how wonderful it is to be able to interact with the very smart folks here when I'm thinking something thru.

[Sue]

Cathy,

I don't have a problem with them doing it either, with a warrant. The way you are describing it, there is no reason a warrant could not be obtained.

[AJStrata]

Cathy,

It is unlikely beyond the pale the government would monitor the US media. That is classic paranoid. It is completely likely that well known Al Qaeda contacts are known to the US government and the media, and when the media makes contact the US sees it.

There is no benefit in monitoring the media.

[AJStrata]

Clarice, I would really like your views on my suspicion this is all static covering the real issue, blocking intel leads as probable cause to monitor people in the US.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1140

Thanks, AJStrata

[clarice]

AJ, I was just going to post yourinteresting article on the NSA briefing and J. Robertson: how do you get to probable cause?

[Jack Okie]

Sue:

Per the analysis I have seen (Powerline, etc.), if one end of the connection is outside the US, no warrent is needed. It's within the President's Article II powers.

[David Walser]

"There is no benefit in monitoring the media." - AJStrata

Yes, there is no benefit in monitoring the media, but that's NOT what we have been doing. We are trying to monitor (and find) the terrorists. To the extent we can be led to the terrorists through their contacts with the media, as a matter of policy it's okay to listen in. (This assumes at least one leg of the conversation is outside the US and/or a warrant has been issued.) Please note, my stated assumption is that NSA's purpose in listening to a reporter's conversation is to find information about the terrorists. It would be a completely different matter if the purpose was to learn who was planning on giving the government unfavorable coverage.

Also, note that the terrorists have a strategic NEED to communicate with the media. Absent media coverage, terrorists have a much harder time doing their job -- influencing public policy through terrorizing the populace. On the other hand, the media has an institutional desire to talk with the terrorists -- an inside report from the terrorists' camp would sell a lot of newspapers. Given these mutual incentives to get in touch with each other, the media's international calls are likely a vein very rich in information about the terrorists.

[maryrose]

David Walser:
Agreed, the terrorists do have a need for media attention but the AP is not obligated to provide them with a convenient and handy photographer. I wonder hoe he felt when he took the shot?

[cathyf]

Hmmm... maryrose just referred to an AP photographer as a "hoe." I think your freudian slip is showing, deary! ;-)

cathy :-)

[maryrose]

should read how he felt, e is right next to w on the keyboard.

[dorf]

Yikes, if an analyst overheard her and Jamie, I hope they received combat pay! :)

[AJStrata]

David, I agree we are monitoring the terrorists and the media could walk into that monitoring. I was simply pointing out targetting the media has little upside and a lot of downside - so not worth it.

Clarice - it is logical conjecture. We know NSA identified people in the US communicating with terrorist overseas by monitoring the terrorists overseas.

So, to pass these people to the FBI to monitor, the FBI must, by FISA, get a FISA warrant and show probable cause. The best evidence of probable cause are the NSA intercepts.

Now, couple this completely normal process -the one we are suppose to follow - with comments by the FISA judges in the WaPo article I mentioned. Many of them have concern with 'taint' in FISA warrants being authorized using NSA information.

It is so obvious this is about FISA judges not wanting to use NSA intel to authorize warrants. They say so three times in the article.

Does this make sense? The most obvious answer is NSA is a precursor to FISA, not a run around! But the MSM through ignorance (likely) or malice of disinformation (possible) have muddied the debate by jumping to the conclusion this is about abnormal actions. Not a fight over the normal processes.

BTW, we can do this via email as well. I would place it here but then I would get more spam than I am now!

Cheers, AJStrata

[Sue]

Jackie,

That would be what I called caught up in it. If they are deliberately targeting Amanpour's phone, they should be doing it with a warrant.

[Jim Rockford]

"Hello Osama? This is Christiane."
"Oh hello Christiane. Did you get my Eid Card?"
"I certainly did Osama. Any news on which infidel city you'll attack next?"
"Why yes Christiane. Probably DC right at the start of Baseball Season. Zawahari thinks poison gas in the Subways is a sure-fire winner."
[Laughs]"Going back to Aum Shin Ryko basics?"
"Well you know, I'm an oldies man myself."
"Thanks Osama."
"Don't Mention it. Death to America."
"Death to America. Bye."

[clarice]

AJ, I finally got thru your registration and posted a response there. Please do send me your addy because lots of times I want to share thoughts and info with you.

[AJStrata]

Clarice,

I got it. Sorry about the fun with WordPress. Addy on the way

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Maybe Christiane should ponder the position stated by Mike Wallace; that he wouldn't inform the U.S. military to save American lives, if he learned about enemy plans to attack. And send him a thank you note.

[politicaobscura]

If it is revealed by the press that the NSA listened in on a reporter's converstation with people who had connections to Al Queda, Bush' approval rating goes up 8 points....

Keep the good news coming..