Debbie Schlussel, April 17th:
... in the New York Times NSA wiretaps story, there's this very interesting disclosure about an unnamed U.S. Congressman on a delegation trip to the Middle East who had contacts with an Islamic terrorist. Neither the Congressman nor the terrorist is identified, but I have my strong convictions as to the identity...
We'll never know for sure, because the surveillance was tabled. Don't you want to know who that Congressman is? Wasn't that in the interest of our national security to know which elected Representative was consorting with an apparent Islamic terrorist and the content of their conversations? This is "against the law" to wiretap?
Here's the bit in the Sulzberger Times that's of concern:
... in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.
The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.
And Schlussel today:
.... While the NSA wanted to wiretap the Congressman who had contacts with a terrorist while in the Middle East, they nixed it because they thought it wouldn't go over to wiretap a U.S. Congressman. How very interesting, then, that they had no such reservations when the Congressman [Jane Harman] was talking to suspected agents of Israel...
Also, a BtB thumbs-up for Debbie's response to the latest death threat against her.
Comments