Set A Lefty To Catch...

Suspension of critical faculties has commenced (resumed?  continued?) on the left - Atrios has posed a challenge question about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping; rather than strain their imaginations to come up with an answer, we note high fives on the left (well, if Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are King and Queen of the left, anyway...).

The question:

Explain to me, in your best wingnutnese, how exactly it damages national security to reveal the fact that we spy on people without secret warrants instead of the fact that we spy on people with secret warrants?

Well.  You will not find a more ardent lefty than Gary Farber, so let's hand him the mike for an answer:

As I've said elsewhere, many many many times now, in varying words, since December 20th, in answer to the endless mantra of "but why couldn't they just get FISA warrants?": bottom line: if you're doing a multiplexdata-mining pattern analysis on tens of thousands or more people, shifting by possibly tens of thousands of people per day, or more, you can't get warrants. It's not humanly possible.

Which, as I keep explaining, only makes the threat exponentially larger than most non-tech oriented left/lib/progressives seem to understand, with this antediluvian focus on "wiretaps" and "why can't you get a FISA warrant?" That's a question that was entirely sensible when we all asked it last month. It's long been answered and answered and answered and answered.

Or let's put it another way - to explain why warrants wouldn't work would require a fairly detailed description of "The Program", which some folks considered a bad idea.

Well, let me take a turn and answer a question with a question or three:

(1) Why did Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee, write this last December in response to the Times story?

Dec 21, 2005

Washington , D.C. – Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee, today issued the following statement:

“As the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.

(2) Why did Sen. Rockefeller, ranking Dem on the Senate Intel Committee, hand-write a letter to Cheney and his files about The Program rather than laugh out loud, exclaim "There is nothing new here!", and demand that the full Senate Intel Committee be brought into the briefings?

(3) Why did the Time sit on this story for a year after being told there were sensitive national security concerns?  Why did they write (Risen/Lichtblau, Dec 16, 2005) that:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Possible unifying answer - Harman, Rockefeller, and the editors of the Times are all dupes.  Uh huh.  Another possible answer is, they know enough about this program to know that there might still be some secrets there.

Folks who think that the catalog of Atrios's ignorance and the limits of his imagination define the boundaries of human endeavor will remain bemused by his question.  For myself, I am convinced that I don't know enough about this program to have any solid idea what security issues might be involved, so I am relying on the good, if unsteady, judgments of elected representatives such as Harman and Rockefeller.

UPDATE:  I am boldy promoting myself out of the comments section.  Let's take for granted that Al Qaeda planners have been worried for years about the possibility that their electronic communications might be intercepted.  What, then is the harm in the original NY Times story? 

Well, dare we presume that after four years The Proragm (of NSA warrantless eavesdropping) has show results?  MS. Harman seems to think so.  Consequently, three ideas spring to mind:

(1) Suppose, over the last few years, a few Al Qaeda plots have gone sour due to The Program. The after-action folks at Al Qaeda may wonder What Went Wrong - for example, did a defector rat them out, did a money trail get traced, were they videotaped while buying explosives, what?

A series of Times front pagers highlighting a successful program of communications intercepts may provide them a helpful clue and let them focus on their real weakness, rather than encouraging them to waste time and resources trying to plug fifteen possible non-leaks.

(2) The AQ communication strategy presumably balances flexibility, speed, and security, using, for example, some mix of couriers and electronics. A big Times front pager or ten might prompt them to re-think the mix. That could be a good thing, if their revised procedures are unduly cumbersome. But it might not be, if their more-secure new system lets them evade detection.

(3) Any communication sysytem is susceptible to (a) bad design; and (b) bad implementation. For example, once we broke the Enigma code in WWII, the most diligent radio operator in Germany could not secure their communications because the basic design was flawed.

However - AQ may have a well-designed system, but it is still liable to human error due to laziness, stupidity, nerves, or whatever. For example, some fool who just couldn't resist calling Mom once a week might have blown a plot a year ago (NO, I have no idea, nor do you).

Today, even with three weeks of reminders on the NY Times front page that THE NSA IS LISTENING, a similar AQ a-hole might be calling Mom right now. However, that sort of lucky break is currently just a bit less likely - presumably, the AQ people who worry about security have been screaming their heads off to remind the rest to button everything down.

If these NY Times stories have (1) provided useful after-action intel to AQ; (2) prompted a sensible re-design of the AQ comm system; or (3) prompted more diligent implementation of an already well-designed system, then we have been hurt.

MORE: Jane Harman spoke with Brit Hume:

HUME: On December 21st when this program first came to light, you issued a statement that said, and I quote, "I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

More recently, however, you have been critical of this program, saying -- or at least critical of the way that Congress has been briefed on it.

HARMAN: Right.

HUME: You were among those briefed, correct?

HARMAN: I was in the so-called gang of eight, which is the chairman and ranking member on the House and Senate side of the Intelligence Committees, and the leadership of the House and the Senate.

HUME: And outline, if you will, your concerns about those briefings.

HARMAN: All right. Well, first of all, the program we were briefed on in a very closed environment in the White House, with no staff present, on a basis that we could not discuss it with anyone, was basically a foreign collection program. I still support that program. And I think the leak of that program to the New York Times and maybe elsewhere compromises national security...

HUME: You say it's...

HARMAN: ... so I don't...

HUME: Right. I understand.

HARMAN: ... change that view for a second.

HUME: You say it's basically foreign. Were you not made aware individuals within the United States' conversations with the suspected terrorists overseas were part of the program?

HARMAN: It's a classified program, so I can't discuss what I was made aware of. But let me say...

HUME: Well, I know, but the...

HARMAN: No.

HUME: ... toothpaste is out of the tube...

HARMAN: ... it was made clear to me -- no...

HUME: ... when it's known that that's the case.

HARMAN: But it was made clear to me that conversations between Americans in America were not part of the program and require -- and I think they do -- a court warrant in order to eavesdrop on them.And that's been a point of confusion, because some of the press articles allege that this is a so-called, as you said, domestic surveillance program. That's not what I believe it is.

So what does she want?

HUME: You're now saying, however, that those briefings were insufficient. Why did you not, if you didn't, say so at the time and...

HARMAN: Well...

HUME: ... take the matter to the president or whatever?

HARMAN: Fair question. And my answer, in hindsight, is that I came into an ongoing process. I believed that the legal framework was set, and the briefings were about the detail of the ongoing program. Remember, I support the program.And perhaps I should have had more information at the time. But now that I have been able to discuss this program with legal scholars -- not the details of the program, but the existence of the program -- since it was disclosed by the president, I now believe that under the National Security Act of 1947 the full committee should have been briefed. And that's what I'm asking for.And I believe that that is what the law requires. I also believe that members of Congress should exercise oversight over programs like this. And there are questions about whether this program complies with the domestic laws we have. And if it doesn't, either it should be changed or they should be changed.

HUME: Do you think, then, that perhaps this program, which you say you support -- are you suggesting that it may, indeed, be illegal?

HARMAN: Well, the foreign collection program that I know about I believe is legal and necessary. If in fact, as some of the newspaper stories allege, there is a domestic surveillance program going on, my view is that the law requires that domestic surveillance only be done pursuant to a court order, either with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the criminal court.

Ms. Harman eventually asked some questions of the Administration:

HUME: But when did you ask it?

HARMAN: Recently. Recently, as soon as...

HUME: Well, why didn't you ask it two years ago when you started getting briefed about this?

HARMAN: Well, perhaps I should have, Brit. But again, I could not discuss this with anybody two years ago. And I did not discuss it with anybody until the president disclosed the existence of the program, at which point the considerable resources that Congress has in terms of, you know, constitutional expertise and so forth, could be brought to bear.Now, the people writing these opinions don't know the specifics of the program, but they know enough about how the FISA court works and how criminal wiretap law works, so that they can opine about this.

HUME: All right. Let me...

HARMAN: I'm a trained lawyer myself, but I need this expertise. I think we all do.

Brilliant - the President may or may not have been staging a coup, but she didn't want to annoy him by asking anyone.  Nor was she clever enough to pose some "hypotheticals" to her staff and get some research done.  Great.

Comments

[boris]

Folks who think that the catalog of Atrios's ignorance and the limits of his imagination define the boundaries of human endeavor will remain bemused by his question.

Ignorance, lack of imagination and poor reading comprehension are poor substitutes for reasonable argument.

[owl]

OT......I am furious. Anyone listening to those 'wannabe kings' on TV? Specter's # is 202-224-4254. Call and tell him what you think about him spending his time trashing Bush/NSA. Get mad. Get really mad. Burn their ears off.

[maryrose]

I saw Jane Harman on Fox News Sunday. She appears to be trying to cover all her bases and stood up to some tough questionning by Brit Hume.

[David Walser]

Atrios' question ignores a related, more important question, who gets to decide whether or not the release of classified information will harm national security? In Atrios' world, if a journalist cannot imagine how disclosure of some item might harm national security, the journalist has an obligation to publish the information. In the world governed by our laws, it's up to professionals with training and experience to determine when an item may be declassified and available for public consumption. Point being, even if none of us can imagine a scenario where the NYT's story on the NSA program harmed national security, it was STILL wrong for the NYT to publish the story. Publishing based on their own assumptions about national security circumvents the procedures in place to protect us from harm. Publication in this case, even if no harm were done, makes it more likely that another story will be published that WILL cause real harm.

[Gary Farber]

"You will not find a more ardent lefty than Gary Farber...."

It turns out you would, extremely easily, actually. I have kind words for Republicans and such all the time, as it happens. Not that we should let reality get in the way of your little casting of your playlet.

I don't even get blogrolled by folks such as Atrios and Kos, or even Kevin Drum, because of my impurity, or something.

The notion, however, that Islamic terrorists have been enlightened by newspaper stories giving away the vast and previously unimaginable sekrit that the U.S. government is trying hard to listen to Muslim terrorists: not, actually, it turns out, a big reveal.

Rilly.

Good luck, though, in finding more ardent lefties than me, because if you walk out on the street, you'll trip over one, and I wouldn't want the resulting bruise to hurt, because us ardent lefties oppose that sort of thing. We kiss the boo-boos, and never, ever, have unkind words for Islamic terrorists. We are just all about the wuv!

Alternatively, we try to avoid the simplistic thinking. But I wouldn't want to go into that sort of thing here, where I am an ardent lefty, like unto no other. I might get one of those hot lefty girls coming onto me, at the least, after all.

[Cecil Turner]

Another possible answer is, they know enough about this program to know that there might still be some secrets there.

What we know so far is plenty to conclude that the information revealed some of the scope of wiretapping, as well as a good idea of the [fuzzy] legal boundaries. There's no doubt that it was valuable information, the only question is: "how valuable?" If Klein's sources are right (i.e., "the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them"), that only highlights Atrios's silliness.

In Atrios' world, if a journalist cannot imagine how disclosure of some item might harm national security, the journalist has an obligation to publish the information.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the viewpoint if the average journalist were even halfway competent at basic warfighting. With that question, Atrios just demonstrates his willful ignorance. And I absolutely love the "wingnutese" bit. Stuck on stupid, and snarky about it.

[Gary Maxwell]

Alternatively, we try to avoid the simplistic thinking.

What a collective new year's resolution?

[Gary Maxwell]

tag off

[Gary Maxwell]

tag off

[Glenn Greenwald]

(1) If we don't know anything about this Program or what makes it different or new, then it sort of proves that there have been no harmful national security disclosures as a result of the NYT story, which is the whole point of Atrios' question.

What catalyzed this scandal is the NYT's disclosure that the Administration doesn't comply with FISA when eavesdropping. Accusations have been made that this disclosure harmed national security. But the whole point of Atrios' question is the point Tom himself just made - we don't know anything about the Program as a result of this disclosure. Therefore, the accusation that it harmed national security is baseless.

(2) As for "lefty" Gary Farber's argument - or at least the part Tom excerpted - even if the data mining itself were too extensive to permit FISA warrants to be obtained, warrants could have easily been obtained for the subequent telephone eavesdropping which the data-mining led to. Why weren't they?

And, by the way, in a country that operates under the rule of law, we don't run around violating laws just because we have a good reason for doing so. If the Administration though that FISA was obsolete in light of this super-duper, brand-new, oh-so-complex 2010 technology that has Gary's mouth all agape, then the Administration could have and should have sought to have FISA amended by the Congress which it controls to permit that to be done legally. That's what the "rule of law" means.

(3) As a commenter above pointed out, Jane Harmon made clear on Fox yesterday (with some helpful prodding from Brit Hume) that the program she was briefed on does violate FISA and warrants should have been obtained. It may be that this program was a good idea for fighting terrorism. Having the Police randomly bust down people's doors without warrants would probably reduce crime and help catch criminals. But we don't have a country where we allow law-breaking, even by the President, just because it may achieve some good results - so if the Program were so great, it should have been implemented in accordance with the law, or the law should have been changed to allow it.

[TM]

"You will not find a more ardent lefty than Gary Farber...."

It turns out you would, extremely easily, actually... Not that we should let reality get in the way of your little casting of your playlet.

For purposes of this discussion, you are Howard Dean's undeclared (but devoted) son. Adapt, move on.

Anyway, "not a partisan hack righty" works fine for my playlet, thanks.

[Gary Maxwell]

Seems like Mr. Farber has his panties all twisted up about rather little except he does not want to be quoted by anyone to the right of himself!

[TM]

From Glenn:

warrants could have easily been obtained for the subequent telephone eavesdropping which the data-mining led to. Why weren't they?

How do we know they weren't?

And the FISA judges are peeved about something - maybe, if the original intercepts had no warrants and lacked probable cause, the judges were not happy issuing a warrant on the evidence so obtained.

Also from Glenn:

If we don't know anything about this Program or what makes it different or new, then it sort of proves that there have been no harmful national security disclosures as a result of the NYT story, which is the whole point of Atrios' question.

Ahh! And when Novak published Plames's CIA connection, there was a lot of confusion about her actual status.

And since there was confusion, no harm was done.

Personally, I strongly suspect that, following these revelations, the Chinese, the Frnech, the Iranians, and others are rethinking their capital budgets for telephone and internet switching equipment.

And Joe Klein (perhaps passing along Admin spin) says the terrorists did adapt to this story.

But Atrios no doubt knows best (or less, or something).

[Cecil Turner]

(1) If we don't know anything about this Program or what makes it different or new, then it sort of proves that there have been no harmful national security disclosures as a result of the NYT story, which is the whole point of Atrios' question.

If this is the state of lefty reasoning on this issue, I'd suggest you guys might want to rethink it. In the first place, the mere fact of successful intercepts is valuable information, and tells the enemy to change his procedures. (Klein's unsurprising report suggests that happened.)

In the second, the warrant requirement is something that can be exploited. If, as FISA appears to require, the government needs probable cause the US party to a communication is an agent in order to obtain a warrant, our enemies can work to deny that information. The measures could be something as simple as using public phones or internet cafes calling into a fixed overseas location. One-time use of disposable cell phones could serve the same purpose. If Al Qaeda was in fact using some such scheme, knowing that the NSA is tracking all calls to suspicious overseas locations would be invaluable. Even if they're not, it's useful information.

Reading stuff like Atrios's question and the above "sort of proves" to me that some folks are clueless about CommSec.

[maryrose]

"But Atrios no doubt knows best {or less or something}"
I would say less.

[epphan]

Thanks, TM, for working in a Plame reference. I'm starting to get cold over here in the Kos caves waiting for Rove's frog march.

[Gary Farber]

On the one hand, I'm anathema for having walked up to the line of supporting having invaded Iraq.

Elsewhere, I am the ne plus ultra of ardentness of something.

I'm just here to help, apparently.

Kick me, I'm soft, plump, and useful. And why would I complain about the attention? I'm sure it all goes to point out how very deep and thoughtful I am, after all.

[Gary Maxwell]

TM

Glenn Grennwald calls both Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer liars on his most recent post on his own blog. So you got off kinda light. Count your blessings?

[Florence Schmieg]

Wasn't the FISA statute written well before the cell phone phenomenon? Now cannot someone call a cell phone with a USA number from an international site and even be speaking to someone in a foreign country? But they would be protected by the warrant requirement since the number was in the USA? This is crazy!! If they called the same person but on an international line, the NSA could spy on them but not if they used their USA obtained cell phone?? No wonder the President ignored the FISA regulations here. Anyone with a functioning brain would under the circumstances. Especially the person mandated with the country's protection and defense!! A change of the law would take forever. Look at the Patriot Act shenanigans in Congress now. Impeachable offense? It would be impeachable if he had not authorized the NSA to do this!!

[danking70]

WTF TM!

Do you mean to tell me that our Intelligence Agencies includeing the NSA are not only spying on Al-Qaeda but also the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, etc... too?

But I'm sure whatever was gathered was "disinformation".

I sure hope they told Congress? Do you think Congress would OK our spying on spys?

(end sarcasm)

[Gary Farber]

Glenn Greenwald, it would be nice of you to actually read what I've written, over a considerable course of time, rather than trust to someone else's characterization, given my lack of having ever appointed him or anyone else to speak for me.

Thanks.

[maryrose]

Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer seem to get it right for me. Their arguments seem valid and trustworthy.

[Glenn Greenwald]

If this is the state of lefty reasoning on this issue,

What's with this whole "lefty" thing? Since when does opposing law-breaking make you a leftist? Adherence to the "rule of law" - along with restraints on the federal government's power to intrude into our lives - used to be central conservative principles, which is likely what explains why so many Republicans and conservatives have expressed opposition to George Bush's theory that he has the right to break the law. Believing that the President is not above the law hardly makes you a "leftist".

I'd suggest you guys might want to rethink it. In the first place, the mere fact of successful intercepts is valuable information, and tells the enemy to change his procedures.

Assume for the moment that Bush's eavesdropping program was against the law. Should the NYT have told the public about it or just let the President continue to act illegally?

As for the claim that merely talking about successful intercepts helps the enemy, here are 10 or so different types of successful eavesdropping and intelligence gathering methods which George Bush talked about in great detail when running for re-election and then urging renewal of the Patriot Act. By your reasoning, each of these examples helped Al Qaeda, right?

[clarice]

Today the Kosniks are suggesting archly that the RETIRED NYT editor Rosenbaum was not slain in a random mugging..but a political assassination victim..I do so hope that Soros keeps pissing his money away on that side of the "base".

[epphan]

Glenn:

Simple. It's not illegal. And you only think it's illegal because you are a "lefty."

[steve sturm]

Tom:

I don't know that I would hold either Harmon or Rockefeller as being authoritative and/or credible on the issue of whether or not harm was done by the NYT.

I've gone ahead and taken a look at what conditions needed to have been met in order for damage to have been done... and, happily, I don't think there was.

[kim]

GF, you're a gas. And now everyone apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to datamining and NSA Surveillance. Of course, more info out about has and will moderate behaviour. How could it be any other way?
==============================================

[Jeff]

TM - This is surprisingly weak. Best as I can see, your answer to atrios' question boils down to trusting one sentence from Harman gesturing at something, not sure what. Farber gets you nowhere in addressing atrios' question, Rockefeller -- even if you leave out his general wimpiness and incompetence -- kept his mouth shut because he was hemmed in by Cheney and the hand-written letter was all he could do in response to being hemmed in, and the Times bit provides no support whatsoever. So what is the answer, exactly, and I'm especially interested in knowing how it is that the terrorists were able to glean something from the Times' reporting that the rest of us were not, since it seems to be part of the answer you are gesturing at that we don't know from the Times' reporting what has been revealed that answers atrios' question, but we have to trust government officials like Harman when she tells us somehow national security has been compromised. Or are you saying the real answer has nothing to do with the war on terror, but rather the scales have now dropped from the eyes of China, North Korea, Iran and other states who previously had no idea how telecommunications switches worked, now do, and have realized that we can tap into many of their communications? Is that it?

[Gary Farber]

"Seems like Mr. Farber has his panties all twisted up about rather little except he does not want to be quoted by anyone to the right of himself!"

I'm quite happy to be quoted by anyone, insofar as it leads to my own words being read.

Do you prefer the pink panties, or the shocking red?

Shocking red seems to make the girls go wilder, but there's always personal preference to be spoken for when we're discussing what turns us on about twisting my extremely macho and manly, yet fem, panties. I live to entertain, after all. If panties are the object of fancy by some, I'll talk panties, rather than Echelon. Whatever song and dance entertains.

Mostly I talk about Echelon and intelligence and the like. But panties are also fun. I have a record, and archives, and I don't mind silly distractions. Everyone needs a fun moment or five.

I don't, as it turns out, take myself entirely seriously. Pshew!

[alcibiades]

Poor Gary! Currently being picked on from both right and left! And all for (mis)casting purposes for a little playlet.

Undeclared but devoted son of Howard Dean! Heh! and scary! And sounds vaguely illegitimate - but in a strictly non-literal sense!

But hey! There are consolations. Just think about how much traffic you'll get!!

[Glenn Greenwald]

Simple. It's not illegal. And you only think it's illegal because you are a "lefty."

Is that also why Sam Brownback, Lindsay Graham, Bob Barr, former Reagan Justice Dept. official Bruce Fein, Arlen Specter, American Conservative Union Chair David Keane, the John Birch Society, John Cole, and Professor Bainbridge think it's illegal?

Are they all "lefties" too?

Is it why Paul of Powerline says that whether Bush broke the law is a "difficult" question - because Powerline Paul is a "lefty", too?

If you have doubts about any of them and wants links, just ask.

[Gary Farber]

For the record, I wear white briefs.

I realise this is so boring that it will shut the conversation down.

Oh, alas! Where will my morning go without a close analsysis from the right of those of us on the left who wear white briefs, and why, and how, and every detail of their fit, structure, and folding?

I might have to read MSM news, or something, and find something to denounce! Who, after all, can go a few minutes without revelations of MSM treachery and traitorousness?

[Gary Farber]

I'm sure it will give me and howard something to talk about at our next stratgey session ath the Foundation of All Stupid Democratic Evil.

I really should show up more at those sessions. I'm just not making people stupid enough, despite my feeble efforts. Must work harder. Must call Howard and consult.

[epphan]

No, Glenn. You are not a lefty because you think it's illegal, you think it is illegal because you are a lefty.

[Gary Farber]

Instead, I'm just pulling legs off of Arabs, out of sheer jewishness here. It's a busy life, but it keeps me from doing worse.

Time to go back to West Side Story again.

[alcibiades]

Wondering about the illegitimacy issue there - but strictly in a literary sense.

Well red panties, naturally, but only for lefties!

[alcibiades]

Drat, ignore that last comment, where I copied the wrong line.

Do you prefer the pink panties, or the shocking red?

Well red panties, naturally, but only for lefties!

[Larry]

Greenwald: "Jane Harmon made clear on Fox yesterday (with some helpful prodding from Brit Hume) that the program she was briefed on does violate FISA and warrants should have been obtained...."

HARMAN: All right. Well, first of all, the program we were briefed on in a very closed
environment in the White House, with no staff present, on a basis that we could not discuss it with anyone, was basically a foreign collection program. I still support that program. And I think the leak of that program to the New York Times and maybe elsewhere compromises national security...

After some prodding by Hume.

HARMAN: Well, the foreign collection program that I know about I believe is legal
and necessary.

Sorry, sir, I think you misread her comments.

Gary, all the hot women are on the right. Further proof about the "reality-based". J/K. Nice to see yopu over here. Come more often.

[Specter]

Owl,

Make sure they know it is Arlen Specter's number....LOL

[larwyn]

Alito to blame for Sago Mine accident - Sen Durbin brings up an
Alito decision on a certain case at a particular mine.

Well, now at least GW doesn't have to bear all the blame - Alito did it.

Not off the topic under discussion - just another example of the almost impossiblity of communication with the FAR LEFT.

[Glenn Greenwald]

Sorry, sir, I think you misread her comments.

Larry - Since you are purporting to post a small excerpt of the interview, I presume you have access to the whole transcript. I looked this morning and could not find it. Would you mind posting it so that other parts could be included?

I didn't read her comments. I listened to them as she said them. And I recall quite clearly that she said that FISA required that warrants be obtained for this eavesdropping, which I assume the transcript reflects.

[larwyn]

MacRanger has "THE CRACKDOWN BEGINS":
Monday, January 09, 2006
The crackdown begins

A not a minute too soon...

"CIA director Porter Goss is redoubling efforts to prevent agents from divulging the spy agency's secrets to the media, and also plans to clamp down on former spies publishing books about their covert careers, Time magazine has reported.

Citing an anonymous former senior Central Intelligence Agency official, Time, in a report to hit newsstands this week, said on its website that CIA officials told employees during a meeting last week that leaking had gotten out of control and needed to stop.
READ IT ALL AND REJOICE!

[Larry]

Glenn:

I haven't read the transcript, but above appeared to be at the end of the interview. Myabe this is what you heard.

HARMAN: But it was made clear to me that conversations between Americans in America were not part of the program and require -- and I think they do -- a court warrant in order to eavesdrop on them.And that's been a point of confusion, because some of the press articles allege that this is a so-called, as you said, domestic surveillance program. That's not what I believe it is.

[Larry]

Typonese is my first language. Sorry. Meant "maybe", not "myabe".

[larwyn]

Mac Ranger has this:
"THE CRACKDOWN BEGINS"
Monday, January 09, 2006
The crackdown begins

A not a minute too soon...

"CIA director Porter Goss is redoubling efforts to prevent agents from divulging the spy agency's secrets to the media, and also plans to clamp down on former spies publishing books about their covert careers, Time magazine has reported.

Citing an anonymous former senior Central Intelligence Agency official, Time, in a report to hit newsstands this week, said on its website that CIA officials told employees during a meeting last week that leaking had gotten out of control and needed to stop.

Read it all and rejoice!

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Wouldn't you want to be close to an ally in a time of need?

[Glenn Greenwald]

Larry - It's true that she had previously said the program was legal and came to the interview only wanting to complain about the nature of the briefings (which she said violated the Nat'l Sec. Act of 1947). But as Hume started pushing her, she did say in the middle quite clearly that eavesdropping on U.S. persons requires warrants under FISA. She wasn't there to push that argument, but she said it. Once the transcript is available, I will post that part of the transcript for anyone who cares.

[Rick Ballard]

Wow - Clarice has learned how to time travel. That or TypeKey is having a bit of sport.

[Larry]

Y'all know Clarice has magic.

[Cecil Turner]

What's with this whole "lefty" thing?

You guys whine a lot when we call you "liberal."

Assume for the moment that Bush's eavesdropping program was against the law.

Why? The dispute is whether the leak helped terrorists, not whether it served a larger goal. If you contend it didn't, then the public discussion is all good. (Which is, I believe, Atrios's point--which you cited approvingly above.) Further, I'd note you don't address the central point, that the leak obviously provided useful information.

By your reasoning, each of these examples helped Al Qaeda, right?

It's somewhat unavoidable when discussing proposed changes to legislation, isn't it? And it's a plausible answer to those who insist FISA should have been changed to reflect current practices, that it couldn't be done without tipping off our adversaries.