Eavesdrop debate will cost U.S. lives: spy chief
Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:00pm EDT
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A debate in Congress over eavesdropping on terrorism suspects will cost American lives by exposing intelligence techniques, the Bush administration's spy chief said on Thursday.

At a congressional hearing, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell faced sharp questioning from Democratic lawmakers who deeply mistrust surveillance programs which the administration put in place after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.

He said debate over the programs was important to ensure authorities had proper tools to fight suspected terrorists, but that the open discussion would also help U.S. enemies.

"What this dialogue and debate has allowed those who wish us harm to do, is to understand significantly more about how we were targeting their communications," McConnell told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.

Asked if debates had cost U.S lives, he said, "They will."

"And the reason is. The intelligence business is conducted in secret. It's conducted in secret for a reason."

Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, told McConnell, "I really think that's a stretch and I think because of some ... things it has done damage to what you bring forward."

"It puts a dent in the credibility. And I think that there are some members of Congress that are really affected by this," she said.

Democrats, who control Congress, last month helped pass temporary legislation expanding federal authority to eavesdrop on foreign conversations. But many are wary of granting permanent authority without more restrictions to protect against broad eavesdropping on Americans' international calls.

They say U.S. President George W. Bush abused his trust by creating and not properly informing Congress about a program of warrantless eavesdropping on international communications by people in the United States with suspected foreign enemies.

Democrats have criticized McConnell over previous statements to Congress, including one that appeared to suggest the legislation passed last month helped expose a suspected German bomb plot.

McConnell later issued a clarification, saying that he was referring to the surveillance program in general.

The real fear here is that the unfettered power will be abused and turned agianst POITICAL enemies instead of the other type.

Not too big a stretch when you consider what Nixon was doing back in the seventies.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Yeah, the last thing we should have in America is open discussion of the government.

__________________
1984 300TD

^^^ And folks, that's why we call it a balance. A agree we do not want a police state. Perfect freedom is probably not exactly what we want either, is it?

I'm guess that we don't have a perfect sweet spot in which security and freedom live in a happy marriage. In fact, I'll bet that the balance itself forces a shift -- sometimes one way, sometimes another.

How much of your freedom in August of 2001 would you suggest would have been reasonable to sacrifice, given the events of September? None? More cops in airports? Racial profiling of Arab-looking men carrying boxcutters?

I'll bet you agree with me that there are no simple answers only people who think in simplistic terms.

B

I don't mind snooping if it keeps me from being blown up.

None for me. Although I don't think more cops in the airport has anything to do with my freedoms, unless they harass me.

I think the government should be transparent in anything they do to the public.


Besides, the government doesn't need to snoop. Private corporations already all the data about us anyway. Just buy it from them with our tax dollars.

__________________
1984 300TD

The government doesn't need to snoop. Good thinking, there. For goodness sake, do not read a book.

B

Profiling of any non US citizen Arab would be a good place start. Why the hell not, all of the 911 terrorists fit into that category. So would it not be logical to start there?

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" ...
B. Franklin

Well put Ben....

Is it okay to treat all people who look a certain way or worship a certain way as though they might be a danger to society?

How do we balance that fundamental abuse of freedom, with the knowledge that all of the perps of 9/11 were exactly that -- Semitic peoples? Isn't part of the responsibility of living in a free society the duty NOT to categorize fellow citizens based on racial presumptions?

B

May I assume that nobody has ever tried blowing you up before?

The problem with racial profiling is not that it doesn't work. The problem is that it doesn't work unless those wielding the police power act in good faith. If we didn't have men and women of low ethical standards, e.g. the two most recent Attorneys General, in positions of power, then these aggressive tactics wouldn't be a problem. Fear that people will abuse their power is the main
reason, IMHO, that the law does not condone the wider use of racial profiling.

And I still have seen no legitimate reason for warrantless wiretapping of calls to, from, or within the US. Can any of you offer any good reasons for it?

I would be amazed if our intelligence people aren't just profiling away. Law enforcement probably makes less use of if because evidence gathered through profiling will often be inadmissible in court. Why? Because when the police have been given the power to do that sort of thing, they have often abused that power.

If neither end of the communication is an American citizen nor a legal resident alien, then I really don't give a damn about warrants. Tap-away, Sen Craig.

To the USA? I have no problem warrant-less tapping those, if at least one is a non-citizen.

If the communication value is highly perishable then I have no problem seeking permission after the fact. I think the agency should be required to notify the courts of the event and reasons.

What about communications whose origin and destination are both outside of the USA but pass through the USA? does that have Constitutional standing?

B

I agree and FISA has always permitted that.Dunno.