Skip to main content

Well, this sounds like it's going to become a very big story.  Here is NBC's vague statement:

"Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."


So NBC has not completed their reporting and plan to continue their inquiry, so what do they know so far that made Andrea Mitchell ask that question?  They know something, and if it turns out to be what we all believe, we are in for some fireworks.

Originally posted to Jambro on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:01 PM PST.


Did they Spy on Amanpour?

98%365 votes
1%5 votes

| 370 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  premature transcripts (4.00)
    what a concept.

    is everyone so afraid or what?

    "You'd like that's all political and morose."

    by Miss Devore on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:07:31 PM PST

  •  So it was a transcript (4.00)
    only it wasn't a word-by-word account of what was said in the interview.

    Sounds like something Scott McClellan would say.

    'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

    by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:10:08 PM PST

    •  Our position on this is clear. (4.00)
      As I said before.

      I cannot comment about an ongoing investigation...

      •  But I would reiterate (4.00)
        that we are busy doing the work of the American people and will continue to do so and I would also disagree with your characterization that I'm a puffy asshat.

        'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

        by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:48:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  say WHAT? (none)
      a transcript is a record of what was said.  You can IMPROVE on a transcript (read: add to it) if there's mumbling or low-talking that needs to be deciphered, but you CANNOT erase parts of it.

      this makes no sense.  NBC got a call from the Bush Admin and folded.  they caved, ala NYT and their wiretap story.

      We were promised a democracy, sold an oligarchy, and ended up with a kakistocracy...

      by topicalstorm on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:27:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I would guess (4.00)
    besides potential terrorists (read liberals), the targets of the spy scandal were  pundints, journalists, and politicos.

    The thing this White House gets best......

    Media Control and Manipulation.
    They are superior at it.

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:11:06 PM PST

    •  ooo, that smell... (4.00)
      It's beginning to smell a lot like Nix-mas (ok, enough with the <insert scandal of choice>-mass comments).
    •  We are ALL being tapped... (none)
      and don't think that you're not. Don't think that you're not worthy of being targetted. If you do, you're easier to pick off that way, a few small groups at a time. Why else would all these Senators, Repubs and Dems, and conservative whatevers all be chagrined at the revelation. It's because they get it: we are all being tapped. That's why FISA wasn't good enough for the Bushies. FISA leaves a paper trail. The NSA thingie, combined with Echelon, does not. And they are using it for political purposes. 'Twas it ever thus.

      J. Edgar "party girl" Hoover blackmailed politicos one at a time using the FBI back in the bad old HUAC days; why not have the NSA do it wholesale instead of retail. John Bolton used the system and he was targetting Americans. Why else wouldn't the White House not turn over the intercept records during the Bolton confirmation hearings. I mean, what do you need to be shown to realize what's going on? What I wouldn't give for a Democratic Congress now, even if the Dems are kind of spineless and toothless, with a few noteworthy exceptions. Oh well, you work with the Democratic Party you have, not the Democratic Party you wish you had.

      "If there is a breach, you MUST impeach!"

      Service [to others] is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. -Rev. M. L. King, Jr.

      by sravaka on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 12:03:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seems to me that (4.00)
    Pat Fitzgerald oughtta do some should Mister Kerry, Mister Dean, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Michael Moore, and so many, many others.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:13:07 PM PST

    •  Lord, the list could go on and on.... (none)
      Cindy Sheehan, JOHN DAILY, Spies within Daily Kos checking up on those of us that "post a threat"....I feel more and more paranoid every day.  Ah hell..bring it on.  No, don't.  

      "Think of what would happen to us in America if there were no humorists; life would be one long Congressional Record"

      by DianeA on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:54:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether or not . . . (4.00)

     Amanpour was spied upon is, here, irrelevant.  The story is that this "News" organization is doctoring and "memory holing" its own transcripts.

     That's as creepy as it is unprofessional.  And the MSM wonders why nobody trusts it anymore?



    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:14:59 PM PST

  •  Here's my ignorant 2 cents . . . (4.00)
    and appologize if its been said elsewhere:

    When it turns out that the NSA was all over Christiane Amanpour like white on rice---and I have absolutely no doubt about the truth of that---the reason won't be that she was "potentially talking with terra-ists." It will be for the Orwelian reason of laying in wait for government sources that may have been giving her info.

    These BushCo fuckers are on to journalists to control who in the government has been leaking information to the press. It's got NOTHING to do with actionable GWOT intelligence. It's controlling information.

    Mark. My. Words.

    •  But where's your proof? (none)
        Just kidding's an opinion...
        I totally fn' agree with you, only a total nit would not, that's my opinion.
         sing it with me now:
             The rolling disclosure
              just keeps on a rollin,

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:27:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  NSA tapping journalists . . . (none)
        will turn out to be why BushCo needed to skate past FISA requirements. They never would have gotten permission to do it, and they knew it.

        By the way, I'm not suggesting that this whole debacle is some grand tinfoil hat scheme against journalists. These bastards truly believe that controlling our democratic press is necessary in "wartime." And nobody is going to get in their way of doing just that.

        •  Not jut journalists (none)
          But also UN officials, hence the outcry against Bolton and his subsequent backdoor entry to ambassadordom.

          Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

          by PatsBard on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:47:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Absofrigginlutely (none)
            That's of course what the 'proof' joke is. Tin foil would be when you had 2+ x = 4. This here is 2+ (2) is pretty much 4
             It's obvious where this story is headed. This story is but a smaller  part of what I'm calling  the NSA domestic spying scandal.      
               I think we're way beyond tinfoil, passed the urban myth stage a week ago, and are now just getting the footnotes organized for the book...
           Christiane Amanpour vs. the entire WH... I believe her 100% more than anything from the WH.

          Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

          by KenBee on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:01:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I Don't Think So (none)
          These bastards truly believe that controlling our democratic press is necessary in "wartime."

          I think they know the war on terror is a joke.  They'd be frantically hoovering up the loose nukes in Russia if they were really worried.  The whole WoT is a great big inflatable boogeyman convenient for fleecing a nation if dupes.  They want to maintain POWER and information is POWER.  Control the information and you get to stay in POWER.

          That's all any of this is about.  Even the money is ultimately about advancing and solidifying POWER.

          None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe

          by Necons Will Ban Me on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:23:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  the way this would be done.... (none)

      ....would be to break up the operation into tiny parts and compartmentalize each part.  

      Someone at the White House talks to Hayden or perhaps goes around Hayden and talks to a politically-trustworthy manager downstream, to set up the project.  The project is broken into tiny bits and each bit is assigned to a small group of employees.  

      The groups of employees work in mutual isolation.  None of them get the big picture, nor can they figure it out from the piece they've been given.  No one group is tasked with exclusively targeting one or more journalists.  

      The details relevant to collecting on journalists are obscured by including each journalist within a group of other individuals, where the context of the other individuals implies that all of them are suspected foreign hostiles and therefore legitimate targets.  

      This could easily be arranged in such a way that each NSA employee who was involved in this, would have no idea that one or more journalists were the specific intended targets.  (In fact this would be highly likely because most NSAers would draw an absolute line in the sand when it comes to attempts to use the Agency for political spying: remember, they got burned bigtime for going along with Nixon before they had FISA in place to protect them from the worst of abuses; and there is still institutional memory about those bad old days.)  

      For example, "collect all destination telephone numbers in Afghanistan that are called by persons within the following US telephone exchanges..."   Now you have a list of people in a specific area who make calls to those countries.

      Next, "collect all originating telephone numbers from Afghanistan that have the destination of one of the numbers on the following list (same area code and a few specific prefixes)."

      Next, "here's a list of telephone numbers that make and receive inordinately large numbers of calls to Afghanistan, now go back and look at where else they call before an attack occurs..."

      That kind of thing.  

      Anyone with relevant skills could probably reverse-engineer the collection & analysis criteria and come pretty close to what was actually ordered and how it was done.  

  •  Amanpour is one of the few tv journalists (none)
    who seem worthy of the name. I don't think they would waste the effort on say, Geraldo !

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:17:12 PM PST

    •  Geraldo <spitooey> (none)
      "I don't care if you just survived a Cat 5 hurricane and flooded levees, old lady! You'll keep walking back and forth to that helicopter until we get the right camera shots, ya got it?!" <smack> "That's my water, lady, back off."

      /fake quote

      Bush - the ultimate example of the Peter Principle.

      by PatsBard on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:50:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (4.00)
    What was the point of doctoring the transcript if we've all seen it?  The cat's out of the bag.

    My favorite comment on this so far.  From Atrios.

    We didn't cover this at any of the blogger ethics panels I went to.

  •  did NBC say WHY (none)
    they were responding to the edited transcript thang?   was it because of the diary here? were they flooded with emails asking why the transcript was edited?

    has christine made a public statement?

    will the progressive net let this drop now that nbc has addressed it?

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:19:46 PM PST

  •  Andrea Mitchell - new-grown spine? (none)
    I've noticed something very strange in the past week or two: Andrea Mitchell on Hardball (subbing for Tweety) has actually been pretty gutsy and hasn't taken the administration bulshit on the NSA spying scandal. I've seen her uncharacterisically stand her ground and call bullshit (repeatedly) on the rethug talking heads bleating out the talking points.

    I can only wonder if she knows more about the admin spying on journalists (even "journalists" like her) and is actually pissed.  This could be really interesting...

    Anybody else noticed some evidence of an actual spine from her in recent days?

    •  Nope nada zippo (none)
        Not really, well, not really, but I know what you mean. I thought she was bugged cause someone didn't invite her to their new years party....
         She asks just enough to make somebody, us maybe, think she's hardhittin, or whatever they're calling it these days, but like I said before, not enough to cut into her WH cocktail weenie consumption.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:35:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not trust Andrea Mitchell. Her integrity (none)
        is suspect to say the least.  I've always respected Christiane. I can't stand it when Don Imus kisses up to her.

        "Think of what would happen to us in America if there were no humorists; life would be one long Congressional Record"

        by DianeA on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:00:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, she's been such a shill (none)
      for this administration, that it wouldn't surprise me if she were tipping someone off on live television that NBC was looking into whether journalists were tapped.
  •  Any Idiot Knows Their Target (4.00)
    Image Hosted by

    Pretty much what they regard as their enemy.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:21:43 PM PST

  •  Is it possible (4.00)
    that Mrs. Greenspan let a cat out of the bag as to a potential "exclusive" scoop that NBC is working on, and now they're afraid that some other news organization (like CNN, which /might/ be pissed that one of their reporters is being wiretapped) is going to get out ahead of them on it? Of course, this theory is premised on the assumption that NBC actually does investigative journalism.

    Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

    by litigatormom on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:22:03 PM PST

    •  My question (none)
      if she had reason to believe that Amanpour was being spied upon but it was based on unconfirmed sources or word of mouth, why not ask Risen off the record or when the cameras weren't rolling? What would be the reason for necessarily asking during a rolling interview? I couldn't come up with a range of possibilities but am quite puzzled by the whole thing.

      'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

      by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:26:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Suppose NBC taped the whole interview, (none)
        edited out the Amanapour portion for airing, but didn't properly edit the transcript to match the portion of the interview that aired.

        It's not uncommon for the news programs to tape an entire interview, and release portions of it over several days.

        Perhaps they were close to having confirmation on Amanapour, so included it in the interview, for later airing.

        But it's still puzzling why Mitchell would tip off a fellow journalist to this.

        •  Possible (none)
          but then there's always alternative ways of asking a question. After the 'taped interview,' Mitchell could have asked Risen off the record. Either way, I'm interested in Amanpour's comments in this.

          'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

          by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:46:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  All these conjectures... (none)
          ...are a bit of a strain, although they all make more sense than "*We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

          ...which, BTW, kinda sounds like, "Well, officer, I buried my gun in the back yard until I could investigate who really shot my wife."

          •  Yeh (none)
            it's strangely similar to one of the NYT's rationales - that they were holding off on printing the NSA story until they could further investigate the story.

            'You can't begin to imagine how effective the Big Lie is.' N. Mailer 'TNatD'

            by jorndorff on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:57:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I would say that if that is there goal (none)
      The cat is out of the bag......Front page at Kos, Atrios and Americabolg.....thats enough attention for somebody at CNN to take notice.
    •  You've got to admit though.... (none)
      ....MSNBC did some hard-hitting investigative stuff for weeks and weeks down in Aruba on Natalee Holloway....


  •  Premature evaluation? (none)
      That was so immature. I read we're serious and grumpy.
       Dam right after seeing Andrea Mitchell on Puffball whenever, I'm real grumpy. She asks just enough 'tough' questions to sound interested, but not enough to cut into her WH cocktail weenie consumption. Spill it you varmit!..the story I mean.
      And now to find out(I'm shocked I tell you) that Tweety is all hooked up with Abramoff, and considering neither he nor Mitchell has ever accounted publicly (correct me please tell me they have...waiting....) for their dealings in the Valerie Plame affair only adds to my scorn for both of them.
       Two words to NBC: Fire Them.
    Yay Keith Olberman.   ...ok 5 words.

    Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

    by KenBee on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:22:18 PM PST

  •  Here's why it's important (4.00)


    Amanpour is married to Jamie Rubin, who advised Wesley Clark and John Kerry during the election.

    He's a former member of the Clinton administration and prominent in the dem party.

    From the link:

    1. Such a wiretap would likely include her home, office, and cell phones, and email correspondence, at the very least.

    2. That means anyone Christiane has conversed with in the past four years, at least by phone or email, could have had their conversation taped by the US government.

    3. That also means that anyone who uses any of Christiane's telephones or computers (work or home) could also have had their conversation bugged.

    4. This includes Christiane's husband, former Clinton administration senior official Jamie Rubin, who was spokesman for the State Department.

    5. Jamie Rubin was also chief foreign policy adviser to General Wesley Clark's presidential campaign, and then worked as a senior national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    6. Did Jamie Rubin ever use his home phone, his wife's work phone, his wife's cell phone, her home computer or her work computer to communicate with John Kerry or Wesley Clark? If so, those conversations would have been bugged if Bush was tapping Amanpour.

    7. Did Jamie Rubin ever in the past four years communicate with any elected officials in Washington, DC - any Senators or members of the US House? Any senior members of the Democratic party?

    8. Has Rubin spoken with Bill Clinton, his former boss, in the past 4 years?

    Me:  So that's why this would be especially important.

    "Official Transcript" does not mean "everything that was said except stuff we wish hadn't been said yet."

  •  I didn't comment before... (4.00)
    because the threads got too big, but if this is true--that the NSA spied on Amanpour (and many other journalists, and other dissenters I'm sure) then it is quite obvious why he would decide to break the law by going around FISA. There is absolutely NO reason why, if Bush wanted to spy (and rightly so) on terrorists or suspects in the USA, he couldn't have followed the very lenient procedured of the FISA court. Clearly, if this happens to be true, it all makes sense because there is no way the FISA would have permitted the spying of someone like Amanpour...a damn journalist on CNN. This could be HUGE then...Impeachment could be drawing nearer...


    by michael1104 on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:32:49 PM PST

  •  She pissed off the administration (4.00)
    back in 03' with her commenting on the Iraq war coverage
    And her bosses at CNN

    On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

    Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

    Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

    "It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

    which is why she wasn't seen much on CNN for quite a while.

    And then there's that other thing, ya know, she's  middle eastern.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:34:25 PM PST

  •  *This could go a long way* (4.00)
    Toward explaining why some journalists seem to be afraid to question the Administration. Or why some of those who have grown enough spine to criticize have backed down rather quickly.
  •  Premature eHACKulation (none)
    Ooooh hoooo! Fuck the foreplay--I want POST play! Come darlings, I've got champagne and cigars. Tell. The. Story.  I can go all night!

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:40:08 PM PST

  •  If true..does this mean that (4.00)
    Amanpour (my personal Fav btw) can sue Bush and his Cronies? She may be the name that we have been waiting. I think I heard that nothing can be done unless someone who was spied on comes forward and demands answers and puts forward a law suit. GO CHRISTIANE..SUE HIS ASS OFF!

    *"We are a Nation of Laws"-11th Circuit..why are our judges having to remind our government of this?*

    by Chamonix on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:40:58 PM PST

    •  E-mail her (none)
      and see...Of course you risk being wiretaped if you do so.
    •  cant happen (none)
      a citizen can not sue the president for actions he takes while acting in the role. this is why blow jobs are excepted.

      the case law is pretty clear on this i believe.

      •  can this really be true?? (none)
        The President is above the law? Then she should sue the United States of America and call Bush as a witness.

        *"We are a Nation of Laws"-11th Circuit..why are our judges having to remind our government of this?*

        by Chamonix on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:26:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure you can sue the gov't (none)
        or the agency though...

        i thought i read before that you get a minimum $1000 plus expenses and "damages"... for this kind of warantless search...

        U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

        by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:51:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  class action baby... (none)
          i'm curious about my email... my dad's...

          just another freedom of information request ignored i guess... due to national security... translation... for the security of george bush's adult diaper...

          U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

          by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:55:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, I just love the timing of all this. (none)
    The Abramoff flip, the warrantless spying.  It's just all right on track to build and build and become bigger and bigger and reach critical mass right around September or October.  Hey!  Isn't that just before the Congressional elections? Tee hee!

    I see you when you're sleeping. I know when you're awake. I know if you've been bad or good. But criminy, even I go through FISA!-S. Claus

    by jazzmaniac on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:52:21 PM PST

  •  Don't you think that a reporter (none)
    as savvy as Amanpour would assume that she was being tapped?  particularly in this political environment?  and given her reporting on the Sandbox fiasco?  and in light of her husband's background?  

    Maybe she set a trap and caught the bastards in the act?

    Maybe Andrea has her panties in a twist because she's paranoid that she and Bubbles have also been tapped?  As if anyone has the intestinal reinforcement necessary to actually listen to Mr and Mrs Bubbles' pillow talk . . . yechhhhh!!!

    So much wild speculation, so little time . . . .

  •  "The Turtlehead Transcript" <eom> (none)

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

    by Lode Runner on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:00:26 PM PST

  •  knowing you're spied on. (none)
    gave up any thought that I had any privacy from prying gov't eyes a long time ago...the only thing that has surprised me about the current NSA/FISA thing is that people are acting surprised.

    back in the 80s, friends of mine had concrete proof of being spied on as a consequence of membership in organizations like CISPES - a FOIA request lodged by a schoolteacher friend for her own file came back at around 30 pages, around 75 percent redacted, on account of a couple of such memberships. I wrote political columns at the time, and had my mail delivered to a P.O. box; my mail would regularly arrive pre-opened for me. laid low through the 90s for the most part, but as of a brief flurry of personal visibility a couple of years ago, I started getting pre-opened mail again.

    now, I'm a NOBODY. no positions of leadership, no dodgy acquaintances, minor and (thankfully) fleeting public visibility, and nonetheless, somebody was looking. I automatically assume that just about anybody on the TeeVee who isn't in a sitcom or who is nationally published is going to be watched. Not that any of this is OK at all, but it was a battle that I figured had been lost decades ago.

    "The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

    by RabidNation on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:25:39 PM PST

  •  Maybe hold the story for a year (none)
    in order to conduct additional negotiation, er reporting...

    Another lame and pathetic excuse from another MSM outlet, TGfKos!

  •  Love that new transcript smell. (none)
    On 12/2/02, Amanpour reported the Iraqis' truthful account of their attempts to get aluminum tubes for conventional rockets: CNN:
    AMANPOUR: Officials (say) they are awaiting ... further information by the time of the December 8 declaration -- when Iraq has to come up with a full, formal and credible list of information about its weapons of mass destruction program.

    But what we've been told by a high-ranking official is that Iraq, during meetings with U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad two weeks ago, did admit to having tried to import aluminum tubes. This would amount to a violation of the existing U.N. sanctions.

    When Iraq made this confirmation, it did say to these officials that these tubes were not intended for any nuclear weapons program. Rather, the tubes would have been intended for (Iraq's) conventional rocket program.

    If she has been the target of Bushco surveillance, perhaps she made the list with that reportage.

    Mother Nature bats last.

    by pigpaste on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:52:13 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site