Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

NPOV

This is Sanger's seminal "how-to-do" NPOV:

http://nupedia.8media.org/policy.shtml#nonbias

"On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?"

Seems like an objective way of looking at how one's edits ought to read. Metarhyme 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The "fact sheet" section does not reflect a neutral point of view. 209.6.189.247 08:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

questions of warrantless surveillance

14:28 2 May 2006 - User:141.224.64.41 replaced Legal issues with this:

The debate surrounding President Bush's authorization of warrant-less surveillance is principally about the extent of authority the president received from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The executive branch asserts that the AUMF supersedes the FISA courts, giving him the power to “use all necessary and appropriate force.” Many members of congress however disagree with this interpretation, some even considering it an impeachable felony offence. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) defines the Justice Department's authority to conduct physical and electronic surveillance for "foreign intelligence information". FISA provides two mechanisms to perform searches. First, FISA authorizes the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) up to 72 hours after the beginning of the eavesdropping. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to grant an application for the electronic surveillance only if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1). In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used exclusively by foreign powers; United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under law but this has never been authorized by statute. FISA defines a "foreign power" as a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA limits its use against US citizens. Finally, FISA applies to surveillance whose significant purpose must be for gathering foreign intelligence information, which is information necessary to protect against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism. Executive orders by previous administrations including Clinton's and Carter's authorized the attorneys general to exercise authority with respect to both options under FISA. These legal and constitutional orders were exercises of executive power under Article II consistent with FISA. In Clinton's executive order, he authorizes his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section". However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power is granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as advocated by John Yoo’s Unitary Executive theory. Which argues that the President has the "inherent authority to conduct warrant-less searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." One court has said that the President's Commander-in-Chief authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Whether such declarations apply to foreign intelligence has been examined by few courts. It is also uncertain whether the allegation that surveillance involves foreign parties suffices to extend law governing the president's military and foreign affairs powers to cover domestic activities. The Supreme Court voiced this concern in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens." Even assuming the President has no authority under Article II of the Constitution, the administration has argued that the President's decision may nevertheless be protected under FISA. Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the AUMF. Section 2(a) of the AUMF authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks." However, critics have pointed out that if a statute that governs a specific question in great detail is apparently contradicted by a statute that may apply only generally, the detailed statute applies. In this case, FISA provides a very detailed set of instructions for domestic wiretapping, while the AUMF makes no mention of wiretapping and can only be argued to apply to the NSA warrant-less surveillance program by a vague and generalized interpretation. This indicates that the AUMF does not affect the applicability of FISA. This is further supported by reports from many members of Congress who have said they had no idea of overturning FISA by passing the AUMF. The conservative Republican senator Lindsay Graham went further, during the testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and made the point that Congress will be far more hesitant to pass general authorizations to use military force in the future, and will have to take the time to work out narrowly detailed statutory authorizations in the future, out of wariness of the precedent of the AUMF having been interpreted to authorize far greater powers than Congress had in mind, CNN reports. The administration argues instead that the authority to perform warrant-less domestic wiretapping was implicit in the authorization to use force in the AUMF. FISA provides that intentional surveillance without authority is a felony "except as authorized by statute." The argument, in this case, is that "all necessary force" includes "foreign surveillance", and that the AUMF is therefore a statute that otherwise authorizes the surveillance, satisfying FISA's conditions for not constituting a felony. In Hamdi, the Supreme Court found that the detention of both American and Foreign citizens were "clearly and unmistakably" a "fundamental incident of waging war". The administration argues that this suggests intelligence gathering would fall under this same rubric of incidents of war. If the AUMF was meant to be understood as a "statutory" authority outweighing FISA, neither the criminal nor civil penalties would apply, at the very least, to those individuals targeted by the AUMF. However, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who negotiated the language of the AUMF, explained to the Washington post that the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate."

POV vandalism, but a lot of work went into the content, so I brought it here. Metarhyme 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not vandalism. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism. Any good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if you disagree with them. Blanking the section is a little more questionable, but just replace the text and engage in conversation about how to improve the article. Refer to WP:V and WP:NOR. - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were not willing to converse, I would not have brought the content here. User:141.224.64.41 doesn't seem to want to talk. Here's the stuff the anon didn't like:

The debate surrounding President Bush's authorization of warrantless surveillance is principally about the extent of the authority the executive branch derives from its constitutional and statutory authority to protect the nation from attack and its relation to restrictions imposed by FISA. The legal community is split; some lawyers believe the ultimate issue of legality is largely unknowable until the full details of the NSA surveillance operation are known; others, like Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, Suzanne Spaulding, former general counsel for the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate, and former Counsel to the President John Dean, argue that FISA clearly makes the wiretapping illegal[108], and that the president's own admissions already constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of the Constitution and the criminal penalties of FISA, without requiring further factual evidence; and still others, like John Schmidt, former Associate Attorney General, [109] Douglas Kmiec, chair of Pepperdine Law School, and John Eastman, Chapman Law Professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, argue either that Congress implicitly authorized an exemption to FISA or that FISA cannot bind the president in a time of war; see "Other legal analysis" below.

The In re sealed case decision in section III says, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."

K.A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute and James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation [110], Philip Bobbitt of the University of Texas at Austin Law School [111], Judge Richard A. Posner [112], and others (See, e.g., The Eavesdropping Debate We Should be Having [113]) have suggested that, regardless of how one feels about this important Constitutional power issue, FISA itself is no longer adequate to deal with certain foreign intelligence surveillance requirements and related technology developments and thus needs to be amended. In particular, FISA may no longer be adequate to address the transition from circuit-based communications to packet-based communications, the globalization of communications infrastructure, and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including data mining and traffic analysis (see Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps [114]).

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act defines the Justice Department's authority to conduct physical and electronic surveillance for "foreign intelligence information". FISA provides two mechanisms to perform searches. First, FISA authorizes the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) up to 72 hours after the beginning of the eavesdropping. In this case, FISA authorizes a FISC judge to grant an application for the electronic surveillance if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President to authorize the Justice Department to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance for up to one year without a court order. 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1). [115] In this situation, the surveillance must be directed solely at communications used exclusively by foreign powers; United States citizens can be considered agents of a foreign power, but not solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §1805(a)(3). FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under color of law but not authorized by statute. FISA defines a "foreign power" as a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA limits its use against US persons who are citizens, foreign resident aliens of US corporations. Finally, FISA applies to surveillance whose significant purpose must be for gathering foreign intelligence information, which is information necessary to protect against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.

Executive orders by previous administrations including Clinton's and Carter's authorized the attorneys general to exercise authority with respect to both options under FISA. [116] [117] These legal and constitutional orders were exercises of executive power under Article II consistent with FISA. In Clinton's executive order, he authorizes his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section".

However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power is granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al. It is argued that the President has the "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and also mandates that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", where "the Laws" refer to federal statutes passed by Congress. Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The president is an officer of the government of the United States, so is subject to Congress's sole authority to make all laws for carrying the powers of the president into execution, while the president is specifically charged with the duty to take care that those laws be faithfully executed.

One court has said that the President's Commander-in-Chief authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Whether such declarations apply to foreign intelligence has been examined by few courts. It is also uncertain whether the allegation that surveillance involves foreign parties suffices to extend law governing the president's military and foreign affairs powers to cover domestic activities. The Supreme Court voiced this concern in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens."

In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an important foreign intelligence opinion, In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001. The Court of Review examined all the significant appellate decisions. They noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was such constitutional power. Furthermore, if there was such power, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." However, In Re Sealed Case "[took] for granted" that these cases are correct. Furthermore, professor Orin Kerr argues that the part of In Re Sealed Case that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding dicta and that the argument does not restrict Congress's power to regulate the executive in general.[118]

In In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review [7] ruled, "Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

The balancing test from Keith referred to above is a legal test that asks, was the primary use of the warrantless search or tap to collect foreign intelligence as per presidential authority or was the primary use of the warrantless search or tap to gather evidence to use in a criminal trial.

Even assuming the President has no authority under Article II of the Constitution, the administration has argued that the President's decision may nevertheless be protectible under FISA. Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). Section 2(a) of the AUMF authorized the President to "use all necessary... force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks." However, critics have pointed out that according to the canons of statutory construction, if a statute that governs a specific question in great detail is apparently contradicted by a statute that may apply only generally or vaguely, the detailed statute is the one that applies. In this case, FISA provides a very detailed legal regime for domestic wiretapping, while the AUMF makes no mention of wiretapping and can only be argued to apply to the NSA warrantless surveillance program by a vague and generalized interpretation. This indicates that the AUMF does not affect the applicability of FISA. This is further supported by reports from many members of Congress who have said they had no idea of overturning FISA by passing the AUMF, while no member of Congress has volunteered the opposite, that they conceived of overturning FISA by passing the AUMF. The conservative Republican senator Lindsay Graham went further, during the testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and made the point that Congress will be far more hesitant to pass general authorizations to use military force in the future, and will have to take the time to work out narrowly detailed statutory authorizations in the future, out of wariness of the precedent of the AUMF having been interpreted to authorize far greater powers than Congress had in mind.

The administration argues instead that the authority to perform warrantless domestic wiretapping was implicit in the authorization to use force in the AUMF. FISA provides that intentional surveillance without authority is a felony "except as authorized by statute." The argument, in this case, is that "all necessary force" includes "foreign surveillance", and that the AUMF is therefore a statute that otherwise authorizes the surveillance, satisfying FISA's conditions for not constituting a felony. In Hamdi, the Supreme Court found that the detention of both American and Foreign citizens were "clearly and unmistakably" a "fundamental incident of waging war". The administration argues that this suggests intelligence gathering would fall under this same rubric of incidents of war. As such, if the AUMF would be understood as a "statutory" authority under FISA, neither the criminal nor civil penalities would apply, at the very least, to those individuals targeted by the AUMF. However, former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, who negotiated the language of the AUMF, explained that "the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate." [119]

Finally, there may be significant legal problems should information gathered under President Bush's authorization be used in criminal trials. Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures". It continues that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". A number of cases have found that authorization for surveillance under FISA did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is couched in reasonableness. Courts have long recognized exceptions from the warrant requirement for "special needs" outside "the normal need for law enforcement."

In In Re Sealed Case, the court recognized foreign intelligence surveillance is different from surveillance used for criminal prosecution. In addition, courts have rejected arguments under the Due process or the Equal protection clauses. This is not clearly the case for authorization given to the NSA by the President. Other cases have allowed the use at criminal trial of evidence obtained incident to authorized FISA.

Courts have only addressed this issue with respect to authorized surveillance of foreign powers, their agents and those communications incident to such surveillance. The courts have never specifically addressed whether it is reasonable to use evidence gained from broad warrantless surveillance, which may more broadly cover the communications of US persons. The National Security Act of 1947[120] requires Presidential findings for covert acts. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) (5) of that act states: "A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States."

If you, User:Taxman or anyone else, would like to work to get a good mesh between the two versions of the section here, maybe a better NPOV legal analysis section would emerge. Metarhyme 13:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to plead ignorance on this issue, I'm not qualified to assess the given sources. But as far as procedure goes, you have clearly established your position, and if the anon or anyone else can't come with reliable sources to refute your points then you have the stronger case and you are justified in reverting. Better sources "win". Sorry if I stuck in here, my point was it wasn't vandalism, but that doesn't mean it was an improvement either. But a black and white look at who "wins" the argument doesn't help so if no one else picks up the torch see what you can do to assess if the anon's positions have any merit and modify the article by yourself for the greater good to incorporate the anon's information. I'll bow out now and let the more qualified people do the work. - Taxman ^Talk 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya, Metarhyme did the right thing by taking the material to talk. Though I can't say it was vandalism either. I have to say, I came back to this article and it's fantastic! Lots of information. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS has in the past been inclined to retain whispy scraps of the 4th ammendment. If they don't dodge the issue down the road, they get to figure out the legality eventually. I contributed little to the article's legal analysis. The authors of it may not wish to tackle the task you have set out. Metarhyme 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Move?

Does anybody think this page should be moved to National Security Agency warrantless surveillance controversy? --MZMcBride 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not me. A prior move attempt eventually yielded Terrorist surveillance program. A prior Legality of warrantless surveillance fork was AfD'd. Your proposal is more difficult to type than NSA. I do not think this page should be moved. Metarhyme 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Controversy v. The Program

An effort to describe the program itself, as opposed to the controversy about the program has been made here: Terrorist surveillance program. I am of the opinion that there are too many "known unknowns" and not enough "known knowns" about the program for there to be an encyclopedia article written about it. I also feel that the title of the article is not NPOV. However, I invite everyone who has worked on this page to look at that article and comment/revise, etc. Kgwo1972 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid hearing and responding to Thweatt. Check the archive. Metarhyme 04:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I'm confused by the hostility there. I'm not sure if I should be thankful or offended.--WilliamThweatt 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixed emotions are confusing. Here's yesterday's Times NSA program controversy graphic. It was peaceful when it was quiescent, but Demoncrats and their ilk keep returning to it like attorneys to the Plame. Metarhyme 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE I have added a link to the Terrorist surveillance program, which was created as the place to describe the program itself as opposed to the controversy over it. Kgwo1972 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Length

Isn't this article a little big long? Not even articles like American Civil War or American Revolution are so long. I think this article exceeds the optimum in length. - TopAce 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks to User:Harmil, the NSA call database was created yesterday, so that's not being piled into this one. A way for wingnuts and bushbots to agree that the article does not require an NPOV disputed tag is for gobs of both points of view to be present in this article, which has impacted coherence as well as greatly lengthened it. The analysis of the legality above in Talk could be spun off if a judge rewrote it with regard to all opinions. That would shorten it. Would you like to do that? Metarhyme 13:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But, too long and growing. So I propose moving the History of warrantless searches section to a Warrantless searches in the United States stub article, with a summary here noting that as the main article. I'd like to do that with the Legal challenges section as well => Legal challenges to NSA warrantless searches in the United States. The Other US domestic surveillance programs section ought to go also, but I'm not sure where. Notification of Congressional leaders way down at the bottom should be merged with the section on Congress. Objections? Comments? Metarhyme 02:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubbed out history and challenges. Metarhyme 06:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statistical section

User:Penf0ld created a gorgeous new section which I removed to Penf0ld's user page. It was unsourced and I'm fairly certain that it's Original Research - Penf0ld's. If this is not so, it can be put back in article space. I'm hoping that a source can be provided - take a look at it it's beautiful. Metarhyme 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal argument

If as Orin Kerr opined, the program broke the law, as in the FISA statute, but was constitutional, it is possible that Congress could retrospectively correct the error and write a new law to make the program both within the new FISA statute and constitutional. Then it would only be the wise use of executive discretion or misuse of executive resources and a question of wasting time on fishing expeditions versus hunting where we already know there are wild game. :) John wesley 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think one big problem is an ammendment Congress originally presented for ratification as the sixth, penned out like this:

“

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be isuued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

”

The two lines on the original parchment can be viewed in high resolution by downloading Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg (l.5 MB) from the national archives. The guy working the quill started the second line with "probable." Maybe he meant to write "bit of suspicion," but slipped up. The States ratified it as the 4th Ammendent. Without its OTA, Congress is crippled when considering technology. They could revive OTA, or wait for the Supreme Court. NSA could kill its revived domestic. Metarhyme 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making an educated opinion as to its constitutionality, only that if it were constitutional, Congress would still need to draft a statute to allow it. Then we wouldn't be swimming in a murky legal situation here. John wesley 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Congress is having trouble concentrating. They need to employ brains able to focus on reconciling data mining with the 4th ammendment. Nixon's gift to Congress - their Office of Technology Assessment - was disbanded by Newtie's wreckers in 1995. OTA actually studied the problem and got out reports before it was terminated. Killing OTA may be a reversible mistake. If, on the other hand, Congress sticks with not looking into things and is content to rubber stamp decrees, then the legal situation definitely won't get less murky. Metarhyme 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Brother

For those that still believe security trumps all, see the following articles that clearly show how little is known and how dangerous this program is. Those violating the law do not get investigated, but when journalists report on these crimes they are.

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.[1]

Is this what they mean with "shooting the messenger?" It is official, every non-terrorist is subject of this program, especially opposing politicians, journalists, activists, et cetera.[2] Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 08:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The FBI has been ordered to find someone - a government employee or several - who leaked information to the press. As investigating detectives, they have examined call records of some relevant government agencies. They state that they adhere to legal requirements when asking phone companies for anything more than the government's own records. If you can't accept the FBI's statement, look at the number of leakers caught so far in this case - none - an unlikely total if the NSA is fully involved. Metarhyme 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Point is, the administration is more interested in targeting critics (those who expose violations of the law, reporters, leakers) than in apprehending terrorists.[3] That is the problem with this major logging of calls.

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And it's handy to classify them with the terrorists as enemies of the ~~party~~ government properly subject to antiterrorist measures. That's the context - you are correct. However, I would prefer that the article stick to the controversy over the NSA doing surveillance inside the USA without having to ask a judge for a warrant. Getting the article away from that is sinful. A smidgen of sin is unexceptional - an unsightly abundance of sin is bad. Metarhyme 18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was not meant as part of this article. Merely wanted to show what the scope is of the similar programs started after 9-11. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 07:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup needed

Reading the article for the first time in a while, I am struck by "article sprawl". Big time. Having seen how the 2004 election controversy article went (which I wrote initially), this is doing similar. It's a good article, but if a couple of the main editors on it would read carefully, it could be greatly improved.

One of my main concerns is that almost every section up to FISA, is basically a diary, section by section. So you get Dec 2005 - May 2006 in this area, then Dec 2005 - May 2006 in that area. Eventually ones eyes glaze over. Mine did. I stopped reading there. This is what we learned in the election controversy article:

First, summarise section by section. So people have basic orienting sections, of whats gone on.
Then, look at the diaries and news timelines. Have no more than one of these. Perhaps create an article, "Timeline of NSA warrantless wiretap controversy", and put in that a section for each month.
If a section's going to sprawl, ask if all the detail is needed, or if it can be summarized and links given for the detail. if it's a key section, farm it out to a linked article. The election controversy ended up with about 6 of those, 1 for each of the main 4 areas, and a timeline, and a main summary article, or something.
Finally, look at the article you're writing. can someone read it.

Hope that helps. Its good work. Perhaps the above will help answer the voices of critics. FT2 (Talk) 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, do we really need the cleanup tag? I've removed it, if you disagree, please readd it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Myth v Reality

This section is the most bias one sided view. If we write an encyl article and there are two extreme points of view we should put then side by side and not "Myth" v. "Reality" . Myth suggests that that side is untrue. There are good arguments that the warrantless spying is illegal and that it is legal. The better argument is not whether it is legal but wheher it is constitutional. John wesley 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) The person who moved it here uses not an ID but a nameless ID John wesley 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the person who is trying to help salvage this article. It is obvious to most people that it needs clean-up because it is full of excess bi-partisan poltical grandstanding and a media frenzy. The job of you Wikipedians is to sort through all of that and just to put up the facts. People interested in reading this section don't want to be steered to think one thing or another. They just want the facts so that we can make up their own minds. We don't need to be told in an Editorial section what others think or a Poll section aimed to bandwagon people to think one way or the other. Just keep the article as short as possible and as summarized and too the point-- without quotes taken out of context. People just want to read the milestones not about every meeting held, letter sent, or press conference held. To quote Dragnet, "Just the facts, Mam". I hope this helps. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Bias in choosing titles like Myth, Reality

If you just put proper titles, not Myth and balance it, it should be fine. John wesley 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) It should be easy. John wesley 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

Editors, please discuss your issues here and come to some sort of compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have an anonymous IP editor who has been doing mischief on the page; just look at his talk apge and the history of the NSA artcile. He uses word like Myth to describe clear violations of both ECPA and FISA while credits the administration's views as Reality. John wesley 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) The anon posts shos bad faith. While there may be excessive POV on other parts, this does not justifying using loaded words like MYTH John wesley 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of whether Congress' Use of Force declartion gives the prez the authority to spy on Americans is not yet decided. Anon user cannot merely say that that is Reality. John wesley 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering this edit summary by this prolific ano deletionist:

Restored section again, retitling as requested. Mr. Wesley, please refrain from speaking for everyone. If you personally don't trust your own government, that's your problem. The general public does

we can savely conclude this editor has missed the polls, saying Bush's popularity is at an all time low, for several months. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, seeing that the Department of Justice has jurisdiction over this program, they know more then the media and have the upper-hand of what is a fact and what is not. I did not come up with the title "Myth vs Reality" that is from the fact sheet itself. Mr. Wesley, if you don't feel you can believe something you read when your own government releases something, I'm presuming you are a citizen of the United States, then maybe you shouldn't be working on this article since you obviously are working in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comment, else it is merely a rant. We need to know if there is continuity. John wesley 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me John, but you removed the anon's comment [4] I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but please be more careful in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned that it was him and not someone else breaking into the train as a third, but named ID, editor has come in the NSA stuff. John wesley 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) If we sign and correctly label both sides. The anon poster neither labelled the Bush admin's side or his critics' side nor has the anon poster put the other side next to it. John wesley 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. However, anon, could you consider summarising the fact sheet? We have a policy of not allowing straight copy and pastes of material like this, that is the job of Wikisource. Also, could you sign your comments with ~~~~ so we know who you are? Better than this, have you considered creating an account? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just calling it a Fact doesn't make it true. It is just as biases as before; Myth and reality, Jeeze!John wesley 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu, I have no problem with excerpting the fact sheet instead. I can just edit it highlights of it. That actually would probably be better since it would simplify it. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

OK, I'll unprotect the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot call it fact merely because the DoJ sez so. They have a dog in the fight. EPIC and EFF may sue and assert an opposing POV. Should not label a DoJ factsheet as The FactSheet of an encyclopedia beacuse it is misleading to nonlawyers who may read this. John wesley 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Until anon fixes tha label

I will edit the intro to plainly state that the fact sheet was issued in reponse to critics. John wesley 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I think the Fact Sheet is less misleading

Because gullible readers will now know its source. John wesley 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I don't have time now to balance the bald assertions of power, akin to the Bybee memo power grab, but let it be said that the inherent authority argument was rejected by the Supreme Court half a Centrury ago in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. John wesley 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to emphasize that it's a fact sheet. It is the government's rebuttal to misinformation. You just using the words "gullible", "power grab" and more shows your bias. The legal argument part of the article goes into that stuff. I guess it the fact sheet can be called a "pre-buttal" since it comes before the onslaught of negative and mostly ignorant press in the article.

Ummm... I think he just made it clear what was information and what was misinformation when he cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Kevin Baas^talk 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Poll numbers are a snap shot in time and do not explain anything about the program itself. They are irrelevant to be in the article. Besides, most of the polls are push polls--that is polls that are taken with an agenda to lead to a certain response. Sampling within these polls is not always accurate or even close to it to registered political affliation in the United States, making the polls even more irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

You are making extraordinary claims. Can you provide evidence and citations from reliable sources to verify them? Kevin Baas^talk 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just think the article is too long now. There is enough in there to inform readers of the Bush Admin's opponents and also civil libertarians concerns that it may be illegal. It also contains the administration's, via DoJ, position as to its proper conduct. I think it covers it. The article is also about the controversy. This makes the article an inviting place for a play by play but unfortunately this makes it too big for easy use. If we could make the artcile shorter, it would be more useful. We just what to make sure we leave the esssential points of both sides and a sufficient discussion of how the story broke ans the Congress and Admin response. The editorials and Polls are actually outside the scope. It would belong in a different article say on: reaction to the NY Times breaking the story. John wesley 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) If we had space I would not mind leaving it in, but as it's already too big, I would prefer to either remove or rewrite at least the Editorials section to make it much, much shorter. John wesley 21:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Fact Sheet" is still inappropriate as currently presented. We could very easily, and should, summarize rather than repeat verbatim pages and pages of the administration's arguments. Secondly, it's completely unbalanced to present all those arguments from one side in a huge, elaborately formatted section near the top of the entry, and not include opposing and rebuttal arguments, including from a variety of Republican sources, until a crowded section near the bottom, that many casual readers may never get to. Does anyone have a problem with summarizing or seriously trimming the DoJ arguments, and grouping them together with point-by-point opposing arguments in a single "arguments for both sides" section? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added the actual text of the 72 hour emergency provision in FISA. Some of the statements in the "fact sheet" do not appear to be in the law. There is not requirement I can see that the AG find that the emergency order "will be approved by the court", nor that NSA lawyers sign off on it first. However, I do find the verbatim fact sheet useful, I'd rather not have it digested, but well sourced rebuttal arguments should follow it.--agr 01:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Editorials & Polls Removal

Since there is great objection to these two sections, not just from me but others before as seen in History, and shortening and slightly revising this article is a goal, could these two sections be permanently removed in their entirety? It would greatly improve the article to do so. Please see my posts above on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

5/19/06 Kevin, you asked about proof about the polls being steered to get a certain response. I excerpted the following article [5] to the relevant parts:

Tuesday, January 31st, 2006 Poll Perspectives

I took a look at two recent polls, once each by the LA Times and Bloomberg, [6] and by CBS News and the New York Times. [7] What I found tells a much different story than the media would have you believe. The headlines in the LA and NY Times do their utmost to sell the lie that Bush is failing, when the facts in their own polling speak to the contrary. I chose to detail these two polls, because no one can reasonably claim that the LA and NY Times or Bloomberg or CBS News has any interest whatsoever in advancing support for President Bush or the Republican Party. Therefore, any statement in their polling which does so must be at least as strong as stated; their pretense in print scurrying to the Left as always.

First, I would like to address the methodology of both polls. The LA Times/Bloomberg poll fails to fully disclose the nature of their respondent poll, stating only that “1,555 adults nationwide” were contacted “by telephone January 22 through 25”. While the LA Times claims that the respondent poll was “weighted slightly to conform with” Census numbers by “sex, race, age, education, and region”, they also admit that “certain subgroups” may have results which skew the error margin “somewhat higher.” Just how badly the poll misses the target, one can only guess. It should be noted from the LA Times’ statements however, that they did not weight their polling to match known party identification, they did not make any effort to ensure that rural adults were properly contacted, or that the unemployed and low-level employed would not be over-represented. Yet the nature of their methodology (all-telephone polling, with three of the four days during the work week) strongly implies a bias against professionals and traditional family structures, and hints at heavy dependency on the urban, the under-employed, the coasts, and the young (this can be done while pretending to follow Census guidelines by allowing for broader age classifications – legitimate polls limit age groups to static ranges, but newspaper-based polling often accepts a variable range, allowing them to manipulate polling by oversampling, say, 20-25 year olds and using them in place of 35-39 year olds, but lumping them all in the same class to pretend objectivity).

As for the CBS News/NY Times poll, I have mentioned before that while I find their conclusions unreasonable many times, I still respect the poll for relatively transparent reporting of its respondent pool. The CBS/NYT poll also contacted its respondents by telephone, but for over five days instead of four, including the weekend. The CBS/NYT poll did not reveal specifics on the demographics of its respondents, but weights its poll according to the 2000 Census. A key indicator, which CBS/NYT has always supplied, is the hard numbers of party identification. The unweighted tally for the poll showed 1.229 adults, with 469 identifying themselves as “Independent” (yes, that seems a bit high to me), 388 calling themselves “Democrats”, and 372 calling themselves Republicans. After weighting, the poll decreased the Independents’ weight to 456 effective respondents out of 1,228, and decreased the Republican weight to 360, while increasing the Democrat weight to 412. Obviously I find such weighting absurd in the face of known results from the 2004 and 2002 elections, but at least with the CBS/NYT poll, they are up-front about telling you how they played with the numbers. The reader can understand the lean the poll has from the beginning.

With this in mind, we can now examine the meat of the polls. I skipped the summary presented by the papers because the screed and lying was predictable. I say ‘lying’, because the facts in the poll results themselves tell a story worth hearing. In the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, for instance, despite the clear bias of the poll’s sponsors, the actual results bear up rather well for Bush and the GOP. On page 13, for example, Bush rolls in at 46% overall for “honest and trustworthy”, but that’s better than the Republicans’ 38%, which is better than the 36% claimed by Democrats. Note that Independents gave the GOP in Congress a 38 favorable to 34 unfavorable nod, while tagging the Democrats with a 31 favorable/41 unfavorable slap. That alone proves that the LAT heavily weighted the polling to avoid a steep lean against the Democrats. Or to put it this way, let’s see the numbers as the LAT printed them:

Group…..ALL…..DEM…..IND…..REP Dem Fav…..36……54……31……18 Dem Unfav…45……27……41……70

Rep Fav…..38……16……38……71 Rep Unfav…44……67……34……19

If we simply balance the three groups evenly, here’s the new result:

Group…..ALL…..DEM…..IND…..REP Dem Fav…..34……54……31……18 Dem Unfav…46……27……41……70

Rep Fav…..42……16……38……71 Rep Unfav…40……67……34……19

That is, a balanced response moves a 2-point advantage for the GOP up to an 8-point advantage. Well, well.

Even though the poll is clearly biased against Bush and the GOP, on page 14 we see that overall response to the question of whether George W. Bush’s polices “have made the country more secure” is Yes by a 52 to 21 point response. Even Democrats (34% to 33%) have grudgingly agreed to this. If this were weighted to correct the bias, the support would be even more pronounced.

...snip snip...

Well, there’s always the PATRIOT Act. Surely people hate that, right? Overall, 59% “agree with those who want to reauthorize provisions” of the Act. Hmm, well that’s interesting.

Well, what about that NSA domestic spying thing? While the issue is controversial, 52% of the total respondents said that even if “a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law”, they would say his action was “not an impeachable offense”.

...snip snip...

And CBS/NYT was forced to admit that 61% of respondents think his NSA authorizations were intended primarily to fight terrorism. His approval numbers on that question have climbed 4 points in 3 weeks.

CBS/NYT was forced to admit that the American public “support the idea of monitoring the communications of those the government is suspicious of”, by a 68% to 28% count.

...snip snip...

Of course, both polls played the “push poll” game, by asking questions with emotional weight while hiding important information from the respondents. For instance, they asked whether people felt there were more terrorist incidents now, without citing the statistics showing the actual conditions. They asked about how people felt the economy was doing, without pointing to low unemployment and inflation, and strong GDP growth over Bush’s time in office. But it is still interesting, for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support.

-- DJ Drummond

I think I've more then adaquetly proved my point. All the italics and bold above are from the author, I just kept them while excerpting these parts for you. Yes this is from a Conservative page, but I've seen the same thing claimed on Liberal pages about polls that they don't like the results of too. This shows that polls are not reliable, truthful, and are often skewed.

P.S. The polls on the public supporting the media are also at an all-time low. Newspapers are down in subscriptions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

I neither like or dis-like the contents of the Polls and Editorial, I really think they are too big and in an already large article, one sentence saying that: Most polls show some suspicion, but the public are not as concerned (some show majority not-concerned) as the media; and that some editorials have condemned the program while others see it as an effective tool against terrorism then link to them. It should not be so so long and article. BTW, technically I think Polls and Editorials are beyond the scope of this article. Do I see this wrong or not? John wesley 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of this (copied from the first link provided in it) is rhetoric rather than rational argument (for instance: " for all of that, to notice how these enemies of George W. Bush, however inadvertently, are documenting the measure of his success and the stability of his support. " okay, now the standard practice of polling have all become enemies of bush on account of their not doing anything different than they have in the past couple of decades? give me a break.), and, as such, is unconvincing, even distasteful. Kevin Baas^talk 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 I agree John. Those two sections are beyond the scope of the article and are the weakest part of the whole article. They make the press the story instead of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

5/22/06 Kevin, please see my own comments following the exceprts I pulled from the article after the author's name. They answer your concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

I don't see any answers to my concerns there. Kevin Baas^talk 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/23/06 Hi Kevin, I was just referring to when I acknowledged that the article came from a Conservative page, since I've also see the same thing about polls claimed on Liberal pages as well about results they don't like too. I thought that the statistical research within the article was enough to show how news media polls are skewed in sampling, poll questioning, and analyzing data to compile results. I was just proving my point about news media polls also not being reliable snap shots in time. Thanks for asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

At home

5/22/06 This is not related directly to the article, I just wanted to let the Wiki editors here who work on it know that when I am not using this computer, I will put "At home" first in the memo that goes in History before I say what change(s) I made, so that you will know that it's me doing it from another computer, instead of another anomymous person. Also, I noticed in the Historys at Wikipedia that my home computer changes IP numbers by itself. I don't know how to make it stable, so I will just put "At home" so that you will know who it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia resolved the problems with changing IP when they introduced the possibility of having a personal account. Feel free to make an account, and it may help you reduce the worries of not being recognized.

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 14:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

dual-IP: you wrote in an edit summary: "Neutrality put up since some of you are fighting against improving the article." I don't think this bad faith accusation is appropriate. Kevin Baas^talk 14:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 Kevin, what's "bad faith" about wanting to help improve the article. I only put it up since some of you are completely undoing my improvements. In this Discussion section and in John Wesley's Talk, I have said my ideas and intentions for this article. As it is now, this article is still a bit unfair and consumed with media frenzy and political grandstanding. All I am trying to do, is reword the media frenzy to be just coverage, and minimize the political grandstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Your response was more bad faith. please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 15:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 The good faith policy article you linked was good, Kevin. You should follow it and presume that those edits anonmyous people, like me, make already are in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

You seem to misunderstand an essential distinction: good faith does not apply to making edits - a "good faith edit" is a nonsensical phrase unless it is an edit directed at another person. good faith applies to one's perception of other users, as the first sentence in that link makes clear. Kevin Baas^talk 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 Sorry, my mistake. I read the whole article you linked instead of just the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

News Media Sourcing

5/22/06 Can we all agree that this article can and should have the strongest sourcing in order to keep information in the article? As it is now, the article is too inclusive and has too much information. Can we agree that uncredited quotes or information with this information before it should be avoided to keep the article fair:

knowledgeable sources (that can be a reporter's mother, father, neighbor, or anybody really just sharing an opinion)
official(s) (government civil service workers who don't want to be named because either they don't want to lose a job, do not know what they are talking about, or even are disgruntled)
a source (weak reporting and not reliable)
and any unnamed off the record source

That any news media reports using any of the above or any variation of it, are weak reporting with low standards and can or should not be taken as good enough to include for an "encyclopedia". Removing this from the article will greatly enhance it.

Sourcing that is ok:

On the record and named Executive branch, Legislative branch, and Judicial branch people who have direct jurisdiction over the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Other named "experts" who are quoted about the Terrorist Surveillance Program and not about the media frenzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Although I agree that anonymous sources are potentially unreliable, we must not create our own univers. Fact is, no news organisation works without such sources, and for good reason. Most importantly, everybody knows what happens to dissenters in the Bush administration. Generals disputing correctly that the invasion of Iraq is adequately prepared: dismissed. Scientists disputing this administration's habit of rewriting scientific articles, they get a minder who talks to the preess for them. I can go on, but you understand that nobody will speak up when he knows his job is on the line. To demand that refernces can only be used when the souce is named is not only ridiculous, it is unrealistic.

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 Your comments above show you have bias against the Bush Administration and do not want a fair article about the Terrorist Surveillance Program at Wikipedia. The Generals you mentioned who were active at the time--were RETIRING, their term was ending and they spoke up as they were leaving. Scientists who do not support your belief in Global Warming because they can explain away the "the sky is falling" scare tactic of scientists used by politicans who do are not "rewriting" scientific articles as this is an unknown and is all THEORY. The burden is on those who claim it exists over those who say it doesn't and is natural occurances. I can also go on and on, but it is off-topic to this article. Except I will say that anyone who talks to the media who works for the government about a Classified program such as this, SHOULD be fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Your comment proves you have not read a newspaper, or other forms of news, for years. Feel free to continue ignoring reality.

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 That's funny, Nescio. You should be a comedian. Besides what's somebody like you have has a closed-mind, is anti-Iraq Operation Iraqi Freedom, and American government, doing contributing to poltical articles at Wikipedia??

P.S. I took a Journalism class in college so I know all about what unnamed sources can be made up of. With all the writing classes I have taken, like most people, I can spot non-objective writing when I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting that when the NYT, or WaPo use "unnnamed sources" they are making things up? Further, how is your ignoring the facts better than me insisting on them?

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 18:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/22/06 I do not want to quarrel. The difference between you and me, Nescio, is that you take everything in the newspaper as unequiviable truth and I, like the general public, do not. We know that the news media is left of center and take their revelations about the Terrorist Surveillance Program with a grain of salt. I'm not saying we should not use any of the articles from the mainstream news media, just be more choosy with what is used from within them. If part of an article mentions information not from a named person, we should be skeptical about it and not take that part as if it is the law of the land. There probably are times, many times, when the newspapers do make things up and use it through "sources" when writing political stories when their investigative journalism comes up short so that they can get their article or narrative to print. It's probably a lot more common then we think or would be comfortable with. Yes doing that does break Handbook rules, but reporters and editors don't seem to care since their subscriptions are steeply dropping and they are just trying to make headlines or get noterity instead of just report the news.

As for "ignoring the facts", this is a Top Secret program and there is a very good possibility that none of us outside of it, except Congressional committes with jurisdiction over it, will EVER know all the concrete facts of it. Most of this article about this program is full of speculation and media frenzy. In the end, if we can all work together to make it fair, more clear, and less fragmented for the reader, we may end up halving the size of the article, but dramatically enhancing the worth and usefulness of it by having it be more focused and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

unsigned, according to your logic, we shouldn't have impeached Nixon for watergate. Kevin Baas^talk 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

5/23/06 President Nixon is off topic, but when it comes to "sources" of the press and journalists two things come to mind for me off the bat: former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair; and the 1987 movie Street Smart starring my favorite actor Christopher Reeve about a journalist who makes up a story about a Harlem pimp and gets called on his story by a prosector who is trying a real pimp resembling his made up one. Jonathan (Reeve's character) is ordered to turn over his notes, of which there are NONE in his case so he claims First Amendment protection. I recommend seeing the movie. It's good and it proves my point. I think it is based on a book or real life.

If we all can agree on what I laid out above yesterday in the first message starting this thread about news media sources, we can all work off the same page and follow the same standards so that we can make this article the best we all can get it by working with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Trimming Congressional Coverage

5/24/06 Before I do anything in this section, and get yelled at for taking too much out I wanted to come here first and make sure it is ok. I know that one of the things you want to cover is:

Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers

even though, I personally think it is out of the scope of this article. You know over the years there is always tension between our branches of government so power struggles are common.

What I wanted to know if it is ok, if we limit the Congressional stuff to be concrete movement instead of the current all inclusive rhetoric and movement. For example, in the Congressional Response section in the first jurdiction section, we have the members of a committee sending a forgetable letter that is not even quoted from that is less then newsworthy to include here. I say that because it is never referred to or does not mark any kind of movement in the story. Letters, excess rhetoric by members of relevant committee clutter the article when we should mainly just include any bills they introduce, hearings they hold, and anything the committees do officially that moves things. Please let me know if that is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican party. If you limit coverage to "official action", we will only get one side of the story. That's not to say nothing can be trimmed, but rhetoric can be important. --agr 15:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

5/24/06 That's a legitimate concern. My goal is not to make one political party look good and one look bad, it's just to have the article be fair and easy for readers to follow. Currently the article is so inclusive that it muffles notable things mentioned within. For example, in that same section, the Senate Judiciary Committee, it starts off with that letter, then has rhetoric, then a notable bill by Senator Leahy introduced, then more rehetoric, then a mention of a notable hearing, etc.

What I would like to do is to take out the clutter from both political parties, and either replace some of it with excerpts of notable text from within item or not replace them at all by just making the section(s) easier to follow. I would like to take out the less important stuff and have the stuff that is more important with more detail. Please let me know if that is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

That sounds fair to me, though there are probably some diverse views on what's important. I think chronological order is important to make a coherent dialogue that is consistent with the way things happened in reality. I also think that the manner of quoting excerpts and the like, as I brought up in a section below, should be better fleshed out and implemented, and that this will help us put the pieces in a chronological narrative of important events, expressions, issues, etc. Kevin Baas^talk 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I think you should go ahead and trim the congressional section. No need to wait for any kind of consensus about emphasis and style of quotations - it is too long. Jus tmake the chagnges, not too drastic if it might be controversial, and if any changes are disputed, the procedure on controversial pages is that you let the revert stand and bring it to the talk page.

I think everything should be fine. Kevin Baas^talk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance and fact sheet section

Properly, the non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy states that balancing POVs (whether or not they be rational arguments), if they exist, must be included. Given this fact, the republican "fact" sheet section should include the rebuttles, with sources attributed. Kevin Baas^talk 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, the Congressional Research Center's reports say pretty much the exact opposite of the republican "fact sheet". Perhaps that section should be expanded to be in proportion to the the "fact sheet" section, rather than putting the information contained within it in a different section? Kevin Baas^talk 02:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The second letter from the group of 14 law professors and former administration officials is also a specific rebuttal to the DoJ's arguments. Some of the other sources rebut specific ones of the DoJ's arguments, like David S. Kris, George W. Bush's own former assistant deputy attorney general for national security, concentrates on just blowing the AUMF argument out of the water, and his is the best analysis out there for that argument. A few of these could best be combined in the rebuttal. But I agree, the NPOV policy requires this change, and the best way would be to cover the different arguments for each issue listed by issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald also provides some of the most direct, thorough rebuttals of some of the arguments.

In other news, we've had a few people now favor grouping the rebuttal arguments together with the DoJ arguments, and no one opposed. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 04:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Department of Justice Response

This is what is known as undue weight. Shall we copy the text of FISA also? Somebody needs to rewrite this into a summary. I don't think we should be doing this since it would mean the ABA response needs the same treatment. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 09:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've had six people in favor of shortening the DoJ section versus two opposed, and five people in favor of splicing rebuttals together with individual DoJ arguments, and I didn't catch any opposed. Anyone want to clarify an opinion? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 11:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the DOJ talking points doc has been given excessive weight.Crust 14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

5/25/06 If I may jump in and throw in my two cents since I added the section about the Myth vs Reality press release. I think we should leave the section as it is now with the abridged press release and the part that somebody else added. I do not think any rebuttal inbetween each part of the Department of Justice Response part is needed, as the rest of the article does that. I think it will only confuse readers into not knowing what is actually on the relesed sheet since we plainly said before it that an abridged sample of it follows. Also, we can consider it a pre-buttal before the onslaught of negetive press and more that follows. As John Wesley told me before that now it looks like a controversy with one side saying one thing and the other side saying the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

We are discussing balance and undue weight, per WP:NPOV. Kevin Baas^talk 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 7,668 words between the end of the DoJ "fact sheet" and the beginning of the first rebuttal arguments, by the Congressional Research Service (with over 10% of the intervening material being further arguments by Gonzales). I don't think that is less confusing or less biased POV, or a necessary primer before the "negative" "onslaught" of opposing arguments, versus just listing each DoJ argument with its opposing arguments in point-by-point format. In fact, as is it looks very much like it was prepared by one side in a dispute, who presented their own arguments in luxuriant formatting near the beginning of a paper and buried their opponents' arguments in a crowded mess near the end. Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Reaverdrop. Crust 14:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the following?

Department of Justice Response

Official statement (summary with bulletlist, not literal text)
Criticism (rebuttal of bullet list from previous paragraph)

This would be a fair and NPOV presentation of the relevant information. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Baas's ideas re:balance

I think chronological order is always a fair way to organize info. We could put the DOJ and CRC in the order that they occured in real life, thus minimizing interpretation / injecting of POV through organization.

We could have a section going over the battle (and BTW, the CRC is known for it's neutrality, objectiveness, and nonpartisianship - so it's a stretch to say that it repersents a "POV".) between the CRC and DOJ, or
we could have sections w/size proportional to their authorativeness, with the sections in roughly chronological order (this would put the CRC section after the fact sheet, and make it much larger than the fact sheet).

In any case, I agree w/what seems to be a shared premise in Nescio and Reaverdrop's suggestions: that we should try to match premise for premise (aka argument for counter-argument) so that people get all sides of each particular issue, rather than just "all sides" in the abstract. Kevin Baas^talk 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Crust 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll sign on to it John wesley 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC) But is there a way to also reducing the size of the article as it becomes useless if the page becomes difficult to load with the browsers. John wesley 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By summarizing the DoJ response as I suggested. Yet another reason to object to this copying the entire document.(hyperbole)

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 18:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And as seems to be suggested in the section below. Straw poll, anyone?

Summarize DOJ section.

Kevin Baas^talk 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't summarize DOJ section.

Long article, move to Wikisource

Some of this information just needs to be moved to Wikisource, since most (all?) of the quotes are public domain. The contents should be summarized in the article instead of quoted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

style of quotations in article

This article uses a lot of quotations, but the manner and style in which they are used is inconsistent. I think the article can be significantly improved by cleaning this up. I also think that this will make it significantly more clear and thus make it easier for us to discuss more abstract issues such as balance. (and the CRS section needs some work).

I don't know what the standard is, but what i've been doing is blockquoting quotations of written works and italicizing spoken words. thoughts? Kevin Baas^talk 18:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of difficult to be sure of even treatment when some are fragments and some are long quotations - perhaps something needs to be worked out here, too. thoughts? Kevin Baas^talk 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

doj doc business getting silly

I propose we get a verified copy of that giant DoJ doc (if the doc itself is in question) up on wikisource:. then link to it. we can't have a huge disputed section in an article that's way too long. that's what I think. Wɔlk Unseen 05:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Baas^talk 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

neutrality tag

67.98.154.35 (talk · contribs) put up the tag, but I don't think "why" was ever articulated. was this user in the middle of a fight at the time? if you look at hez contribs, s/he does not seem to be one of those conscientious anon users that we sometimes see. a reason this tag might stay up: it was removed at some point, and restored for some reason that someone made clear. note: the DoJ thing has been section-POV tagged since before the {{neutrality}} tag was put at the top. aight? Wɔlk Unseen 07:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
by the by: I have cable-modem- and navigating the diffs of this page is annoyingly slow. Wɔlk Unseen 07:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are any other sections in dispute, and on what specific grounds? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Kevin Baas^talk 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

editorial section: remove or keep?

Editorial section - something that should be discussed. i saw the change and did not revert it. that section stands out from the others. I'd put it last if including it, but I don't think it contributes to the value of the article as much as any of the other sections, and this article is too long. Kevin Baas^talk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I say keep, at least the more relevant samples - even the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes cites surveys of the nation's editorial pages, as they did in the Cheney Energy_Task_Force case. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 16:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

5/30/06 I think we should remove it. Since we narrowed the focus of the article to the American news media, this section would have to have some kind of mention or excerpt of thousands of American newspapers across the country that editorialized in support and opposition on this program earlier in the year. This would make the section even bigger, but it would be more complete. As to radio, we would have to have local, besides nationally syndicated, shows in big and small markets that voiced an opinion on this subject. To keep this section it would have to include a lot more and consume more of the article. I think it should be removed because it is beyond legal and congressional coverage of the program and is only about the press opinions. It is a large section now and to make it more fair and thorough it would consume a larger portion of the article and crowd out the more important stuff. This is one of the less important things that should go for other more important things to be expanded.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

section for ABA?

ABA - I think the American Bar Association (mentioned in the intro) deserves a section here, summarizing their report. They're definitely more substantial than the individuals in the "other views" section. They're the American Bar Association, for phil's sake. Kevin Baas^talk 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

for DOJ section

I found in the "Other legal analysis" section what I was earlier confusing with the CRS report:

Fourteen of the nation's top constitutional scholars, from across the political spectrum, sent a legal brief to leading members of Congress in which they concluded that "the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program... appears on its face to violate existing law."^[1] ^[2] After the Department of Justice released its memo of January 19 arguing for the legality of the program, the same fourteen authors issued a second letter to the same Congressional leaders rebutting the Justice Department's legal analysis. ^[3]

Said DoJ memorandums are nmuch more substantial and are not in the DoJ section. Also, the letters and rebuttals from these lawyers to put these docs in context as well as to balance POV. Kevin Baas^talk 16:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Here are the documents (all pdfs):

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf - DoJ legal defense
http://cdt.org/security/20060109legalexpertsanalysis.pdf - bipartisan rebuttle by nation's top lawyers
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf - DoJ reply
http://balkin.blogspot.com/FISA.AUMF.ReplytoDOJ.pdf - bipartisan rebuttle by nation's top lawyers

Duh, FindLaw has it all: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/archive_n.html Kevin Baas^talk 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

article length fix: move News reports section?

What say we move the "News reports" section to the "Terrorist surveillance program" article? I think it's much more relevant there. it speaks nothing of a controversy, it just releases details of a program. Kevin Baas^talk 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

chronological order

I've started a /Timeline. Kevin Baas^talk 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

by issue

I have~~n't~~ started a workspace for sorting /By issue. Kevin Baas^talk 20:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, here's a useful link that we shouldn't lose: [8]. It was completely cherry-picked and misrepresented in the legal issues section. so i took it out along with the offending text. Kevin Baas^talk 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And um, woah... I think i've done enough editing to the article today. I hope you all like the changes. Kevin Baas^talk 22:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I've completed taking the info in this article and sorted it out by issue, and I'm pretty proud of it: /By issue.

I like it a lot, and think it should replace the organization of the current article. Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version

Okay, proposed new version. Kevin Baas^talk 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

5/30/06 You did a great job, Kevin! Your proposed new version is very organized. It looks like you weeded through a lot of the duplication that is currently in the article. I'm still working on the Congressional section that may take a little longer for me to sort through take out some clutter and do more expanding. I noticed that you made a seperate section for the Specter bill. There is also a DeWine bill that is mentioned that I will be expanding also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

I would like to say that this is a million times better! At the very least it removes that silly "News coverage" section, which really has no place in an encyclopedic article. Let's give this somewhat over a week of debate and see what else needs to be covered then switch over. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

problems with lead paragraph

this statement in the lead paragraph appears to needs copyediting, it doesn't make much sense, atleast to me.

"The controversy extends to the questions of the power the President to authorize the NSA"

is a "has" missing between the "the" and the "president"?
"the questions" sounds awkward, as it's not clear what the precise questions are, from the context, but the use of the definite article "the" demands such a ... ummm..., definiteness.
are the questions to do with the powers of the Pres. to "authorise the NSA" or authorise these particlar actions by the NSA?

Doldrums 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "The controversy extends to the question of whether the president has the power to authorize illegal activities."? Kevin Baas^talk 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

actually part of that aspect of the controversy is the respective roles of legislature and executive - the legislature's being to write laws and the president's being to "faithfully execute" them (according to the constitution) - so it might be "president's power to write laws", or in that he believes he can apply his own interpretation, the "president's power of judicial review". point being that it's a multi-faceted topic. Kevin Baas^talk 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And for everbody's reference, Gonzales is spelled w/a Z. Kevin Baas^talk 14:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

link to US person

I'm 'bout to create US person right now. reverted edit by 151.204.30.33 (talk · contribs) to point to it. 151.204.30.33 is in the loop. see my talk. anyone else interested jump in. Wɔlk Unseen 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

replacing w/proposed version

it's been over a week since i proposed a new version of this article - a total reorganization. In that time, it's had 3 endorsements and no objections, so I'm going to replace the current version of the article with it. changes made to the current article in the past week can be found in the history and reapplied. no harm intended, and i'll try to do some myself. Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff of all the changes since i proposed the new version: [9] Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

article length and subarticles

I think that it will become a good idea, pretty soon, to split fo the inquires/investigations section into a sub-article and summarize it here, for the sake of both article length and completeness. Kevin Baas^talk 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

6/8/06 That sounds ok. Next to the background of the related laws mentioned, the Congressional action seems to be the heart of the article. Giving it a spin-off article would work ok, then we can finish with the taking out of clutter still in it and expanding notable things mentioned and even not mentioned in it. Same with the remaining parts of this article--some could be expanded (notable press releases, speeches, etc) and some could be more summarized in more lay mans language (like the law stuff like Fourth Amendment; FISA; Article II etc; Sealed Case;) and some taken out altogether.

One section in the article that I thought was extra was the Other Domestic Surveillance programs. I thought that even though it is related, just a link to the main article on Echelon would be enough space-wise.

Could somebody bring to WikiSource the entire text of the 11 page letter sent by the experts? Same with the 42 page booklet released by the Justice Department? Both cover a lot and seem notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

new events and suggested split

[10] and surrounding events needs to be integrated into the article.

Also, i suggest we split of congressional investigations into a subarticle and summarize it, for the sake of article length and informativeness. Kevin Baas^talk 21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to write a summary so we can do this. And I agree that the other programs is kinda tangential. a link in the "see also" is sufficient. Kevin Baas^talk 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

6/14/06 Would something like this work ok for the transition part for the Congressional part to go to its own page:

"For more information about notable Congressional hearings, correspondence and proposed legislation relating to this program go to {{main:Congressional Inquiry & Investigation of TSP}}"

I don't think a lot of work has to go into summarizing the whole section point by point on the main article on the part that is getting moved to an article of its own, just a general outline of what's in it should be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk • contribs)

why is there a wikify tag?

anyone? Crackity Kzz 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

read the tag. I put it up there cause i found myself wikifying a lot of stuff. Kevin Baas^talk 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

^ [11] PDF copy of letter as sent to Congressional leaders by Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, *Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne.
^ On NSA spying: a letter to Congress as included in the New York Review of Books, By Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne.
^ [12] PDF copy of rebuttal letter sent to Congressional leaders by Nolan, Bradley, Cole, Stone, Koh et al.

[1] [11] PDF copy of letter as sent to Congressional leaders by Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, *Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne.

[2] On NSA spying: a letter to Congress as included in the New York Review of Books, By Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, David Cole, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Laurence H. Tribe, Martin Lederman, Philip B. Heymann, Richard Epstein, Ronald Dworkin, William S. Sessions, William Van Alstyne.

[3] [12] PDF copy of rebuttal letter sent to Congressional leaders by Nolan, Bradley, Cole, Stone, Koh et al.

[1]

[2]

[3]