Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Ex-NSA Chief Blasts Taps, Calls for CIA Breakup

9707STSPI.gifFormer NSA director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman lashed out at the Bush administration Monday night over its continued use of warrantless domestic wiretaps – and called for the CIA to be broken up in two. It's one of the first times a former high-ranking intelligence official has criticized the program in public, analysts say.

"This activity is not authorized," Inman said, as part of a panel discussion on eavesdropping, sponsored by the New York Public Library. The Bush administration "need[s] to get away from the idea that they can continue doing it."

Since the NSA eavesdropping program was unveiled in December, Inman – like other senior members of the intelligence community – has been measured in the public statements he's made about the agency he headed under President Jimmy Carter. He maintained that his former analysts "only act in accordance with law." When asked whether the president had the legal authority to order the wiretaps, Inman replied, "someone else would have to give you the good answer."

But sitting in a brightly-lit, basement auditorium at the Library, next to James Risen, the New York Times reporter who broke the surveillance story, Inman's tone changed. He called on the President to "walk into the modern world" and change the law governing the wiretaps – or abandon the program altogether.

"The program has drawn a lot of criticism, but thus far former military and intelligence officials have not spoken up. To have Admiral Inman – the former head of the NSA -- come forward with this critique is significant," said Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping, who sat on the panel with Inman and Risen. "Because of the secrecy surrounding this type of activity, much of the criticism has come from outsiders who don't have a firm grasp of the mechanics and the utility of electronic intelligence. Inman knows whereof he speaks."

My Wired News article has details.

UPDATE 5:02 PM: While Inman was generally supportive of General Michael Hayden, George Bush's pick for CIA director, and Inman's NSA successor -- despite the fact that the Hayden was the guy running the questionable domestic surveillance project. Even his critics, Inman said, have given Hayden "high marks" for refocusing the agency on terrorism.

Most of 'em, anyway. NSA whistleblower Russ Tice, to put it mildly, hates Hayden's guts. Echoing TPM Muckraker allegations that "between 1999 and 2005, the NSA bungled two key technology programs and... has been burning through billions -- billions -- of dollars," Tice tells Defense Tech:

Through his mismanagement, many critical SIGINT missions were not funded and the intelligence needed and depended on was not collected. Perhaps 911 could have been avoided if NSA had those assets in place and did not waste all that money...

He lied about the NSA being involved in domestic spying and continues to lie about the enormous scope of those programs. He stated NSAer know about the Forth Amendment to the Constitution and in the same breath proved that he did not have a clue about it hinging on "probable cause" not reasonableness. He forgot to mention that he also violated the FISA Act and NSA's own policy on domestic Spying (USSID-18).

To be frank, he is a self promoter, an ass-kisser, an accomplished liar, an oath breaker, an extremely poor manager, a sadist, a criminal, and a proven domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States. Oh, and a piss-poor all-source intelligence officer to boot. He should have remained an air opps officer restricted to the flight ready-room.

To sum Hayden up in a few words, he is dishonorable and without integrity.

In would appear that the president will not tolerate a lap-dog like Porter Goss that barks now and again. Hayden will lift his leg and squat all over the constitutional carpet, but while in the lap of the man who sits the newly erected thrown, Hayden will wag his tail and only open his mouth to lick his master's face.

Lord help us!

UPDATE 6:35 PM: Inman also emphasized something Defense Tech has been saying since the start of this scandal: that your average spook finds the idea of spying on Americans downright revolting.

One of Inman's "proudest moments" as NSA director was when senior employees told him not to pursue a legally fishy operation, he noted. "It's deeply ingrained in you that you operate within the law."

UPDATE 6:40 PM: In addition, Inman put to bed the notion that the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program only examined the links between terror suspects -- not the contents of the conversations themselves. Is this all about who-called-who? "No, it isn't," he answered, on his way out the door (he had to leave quick, because of a bout of food poisoning). For voice communications, which are tough to search, that might be the case, he added. But with e-mail? No way.

Latest Comments

Chicago Station,

Youn need to learn how to comment. Comments are to be vituperative and include lots of name-calling and conclusions. Premises are not allowed. Remeber what Phil Hartman said: "Don't confuse me with facts."

Posted by: rutty at May 11, 2006 7:54 PM


Two issues

1. Hayden and the 4th amendment:

There seems to be some confusion- by the charming ex.vig and others- about what standard is required by the 4th amendment. This question shows the confusion:

"Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures[...]"[Landay question to Hayden, Press Club]

Landay is wrong. Here is the true standard:

"Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.â€
[Supreme Court, Majority Opinion, "Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton" (1995)]


2. Hf: "Well, on the face of it, the program seems to violate FISA. Defenders of the program have argued against this impression using dubious-sounding legal arguments and the claim that they know more about intelligence than we do."

This issue turns on Section 109 of FISA, "which which explicitly contemplates that statutes can authorize intelligence surveillance outside the procedures set forth in FISA" [DOJ repsonse to House questions]. The adminstration is using the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF, September 18, 2001] as the statute refered to in FISA Section 109. You may agree or disagree. But that is one of the core arguments with regard to FISA.

The other core argument is the Article II "inherent authority" argument. This was recently reconfirmed by the FISA "Court of Review" which stated- in the first and only ruling they've ever made- that:

"[...] the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...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."

3. Finally, I found this answer by Hayden interesting:

Question: [...]General, how do you explain the
fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA,
especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have
complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18,
which implements the law at the agency?

GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to
me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a
single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this
program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has
been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything
except enthusiasm[...]

Posted by: Chicago Station at May 11, 2006 2:34 PM


ex. vig,

Please do explain how you go from monitoring the monitoring phone calls coming into this country from people with terroist ties (known in some cases, suspected in others) to communism and despotism. Hyperbole?

Posted by: rutty at May 11, 2006 12:00 PM


Well, let's see, No one's taken over an embassy at no cost to themselves lately, likely the root cause for a great deal of what's happened since.

Haven't heard anything about national malaise, lately.

Haven't needed to walk my tank crew through exercises due to lack of fuel to operate vehicles.

Haven't needed to operate unsafe vehicles due to lack of funding for spares.

Unemployment is at historically low levels.

Inflation is holding steady at a low level.

Gross tax receipts are up, even though tax rates have been cut.

Qaddafi is uncharacteristically quiet.

Oh yeah, we're not being mocked internationally as an ineffectual paper tiger. That would be a Good Thing, by the way.

Posted by: JSAllison at May 11, 2006 9:29 AM


JSAllison wrote, "I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to pay any attention to former Carter administration officials. They were incompetent then and I've seen no evidence that they've learned from their mistakes."

LOL! And Bush administration officials?

Posted by: liberal at May 11, 2006 8:40 AM


» View All 19 Comments

» Post a Comment