The crucial differences between Bush and Obama’s NSA phone surveillance programs

Faris has admitted traveling to a training camp in Afghanistan in late 2000,
where he was introduced to Usama bin Laden. Faris admitted that during a meeting
in late 2000, one of bin Laden’s men asked him about “ultralight” airplanes, and
said al Qaeda was looking to procure an “escape airplane.” Faris admitted that
about two months later, he performed an Internet search at a café in Karachi,
Pakistan and obtained information about ultralights, which he turned over to a
friend for use by al Qaeda.



Faris also admitted that during a visit to Karachi in early 2002, he was
introduced to a senior operational leader in al Qaeda. A few weeks later, the
operational leader asked what he could do for al Qaeda. Faris said he discussed
his work as a truck driver in the United States, his trucking routes and
deliveries for airport cargo planes, in which the al Qaeda leader said he was
interested because cargo planes would hold “more weight and more
fuel.”
According to Faris’ admission, the operational leader then told Faris
that al Qaeda was planning two simultaneous attacks in New York City and
Washington, D.C. The al Qaeda leader spoke with Faris about destroying a bridge
in New York City by severing its suspension cables, and tasked Faris with
obtaining the equipment needed for that operation. The leader also explained
that al Qaeda was planning to derail trains, and asked Faris to procure the
tools for that plot as well.


Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in
April 2002, he researched “gas cutters” – the equipment for severing bridge
suspension cables – and the New York City bridge on the Internet. Between April
2002 and March 2003, he sent several coded messages through another individual
to his longtime friend in Pakistan, indicating he had been unsuccessful in his
attempts to obtain the necessary equipment. Faris admitted to traveling to New
York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge, and said he concluded that the
plot to destroy the bridge by severing cables was unlikely to succeed because of
the bridge’s security and structure. In early 2003, he sent a message that “the
weather is too hot” – a coded message indicating that the bridge plot was
unlikely to succeed.

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security
Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United
States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats,
according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.



The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA
program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent
who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was
unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.


A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA
collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.


Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism
outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those
interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist
threats “even if it intrudes on privacy.” Three in 10–31 percent–said it was
more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy,
even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.


Half–51 percent–approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy
matters.

Mark Levin:



<p>Is not life the most important of civil liberties? These intelligence
programs are trashed without any curiosity as to whether they’ve prevented any
attacks and saved any lives. The hostile responses are largely knee-jerk and
lack any kind of context. The arguments are abstract and descend into
fear-mongering. While I’m all for philosophical debates, how about a little more
reality when it comes to fighting and winning this war—a real war against a
horrific enemy.

John McIntyre at Real Clear Politics:



Many of the people decrying these violations of civil liberties are the
same ones who ripped the government for its inability to “connect-the-dots”
prior to 9/11.


But the paranoia on the left, and in particular, the hatred for the Bush
administration has become so intense there is an automatic assumption that the
NSA has to be engaging in nefarious activity, spying on you and your neighbor.
The idea that the agency is thinking creatively and proactively about how they
can legally monitor the bad guys instead of just going about business as usual
is, apparently, out of the question for some. The sad truth is it is probably
going to take another devastating attack to convince many in this country that
we are actually at war against Islamic jihadists..

Trevor Timm, a digital rights analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
called the order “shockingly broad.”



“Not only are they intercepting call data into and out of the country, but
they are intercepting all call data in the United States, which goes far beyond
what the FISA Amendments Act allows,” Timm said.


“This is an abuse of the Patriot Act on a massive scale,” said Gregory
Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “Since the
law requires that the telephone records sought be relevant to an investigation,
it appears that the FBI and the NSA may have launched the broadest investigation
in history because everyone’s telephone calls seem to be relevant to it.”


…The “top secret” order issued in April by a judge on the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court at the request of the FBI instructs the
telecommunications giant Verizon to provide the NSA with daily reports of “all
call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for
communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within
the United States, including local telephone calls.”

It had not previously been confirmed that the Obama administration was
conducting similar broad surveillance of calling patterns. However, in 2008
Congress amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give explicit
legal authority to aspects of the program President George W. Bush initiated
without requiring a future blessing from lawmakers.



Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama opposed the legislation during his
primary battle with Hillary Clinton. However, he reversed course shortly after
clinching the nomination and voted for a modified version of the bill.

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance
device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to
be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United
States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United
States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement
purposes;



(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance
device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the
United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition
occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those
communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section
2511 (2)(i) of title 18;


(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a
warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender
and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or


(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information,
other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required
for law enforcement purposes.