Talk:NSA electronic surveillance program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This page used to redirect to an article specifically discussing the controversy regarding this program. According to arguments on that article's talk page, the controversy and the program itself are two different entities. Therefore, if logically follows that this article should be specifically about the program itself, not simply a redirect to the controversy article. I have created a stub of basic information about the program and, for the sake of NPOV, included a mention of the "controversy" with a wikilink to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy page were that part of the issue can be handled.--WilliamThweatt 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Nescio 2 Bipartisanship 3 AfD or Redirect? 4 NPOV 5 Title is not only NPOV, but factually incorrect 6 Allegedly 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 anyone want a free news report section? 9 New proposed move to new alternative that emerged from first proposed move 10 Comments 11 Analogy with name change of "Terrorist" Information Awareness 12 Proof of real name 13 Copy 14 Needed Sources 15 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults 16 Paragraph 2 Edit 17 histortical snapshots of article 18 Take it slow 19 Misleading title

[edit] Nescio

I have three issues with your attempted edits. All fall under either the category of interjecting your POV into the article or addressing issues outside of the scope of this article. I will address them one-by-one. I am familiar with your style of argumentation from other pages so, please, in anwering these issues please refrain from ad hominem, red herring and non sequitor fallacies and answer the issues logically or I will continue to revert your attempts to hijack this article.

1) Inserting "alledgedly" is POV. This is the stated goal of the program. Do we say that "welfare" is alledgedly for underprivledged folks or "equal opportunity programs" are alledgedly targeted at minorities. The reader can make up their own mind as to whether they believe the administration's stated intent.

• How do we know the program is intended for terrorist only? Why are there so many organisations and lawyers targetted? Nomen Nescio 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

2) You continue to attempt to insert into the second paragraph that under FISA, obtaining warrants for signals intelligence would be obligatory. That is your POV. That has not yet been legally decided for the current circumstances (in fact it is the essence of the debate).

• Everybody agrees, even the Bush administration. Why else would they use the argument of inherent war powers and allegded authorization by Congress, if not to address the mandatory warrants? The argument is that the administration claims the constitution and the allegded authorization by Congress trumps FISA, not that FISA does not oblige them to get warrants. Nomen Nescio 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3) The scope of this article, as the title implies, is the known facts of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, not the opinions of the American Bar Association, the Congressional Research Service, David Kris, Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Jennifer van Bergen, etc. There are as many opinions as there are people. This is an encyclopeadic article, not a newspaper, editorial column or blog. In addition there is a specific article (of which you're well aware) on WP that specifically addresses the "controversy" and it is mentioned and even wiki-linked in this article. We are not going to rehash that here. As it stands now the article is sufficiently NPOV. It does not, as you say, assert legality. It acknowledges the debate and that legality is in question.--WilliamThweatt 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Evidently the opinion of the Bush administration is allowed, but other views not. Why? Furthermore, if the ABA, former FISA judges, et cetera make certain observations I hardly think it is appropriate to call it merely opinion. Nomen Nescio 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you retract your invalid accusation? I do not use logical fallacies, I do admit many editors refuse to substantiate their claims and I observe that making assertions without substantiating them is not helping wikipedia. Thank you for the apology. Nomen Nescio 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I appreciate and respect your willingness to debate this instead of just reverting. Your points deserve a speedy response, however I am already late for church as it is. I will respond later this afternoon.--WilliamThweatt 16:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is save to say that:

• FISA prohibits surveillance without a warrant
• The administration asserts that based on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the Constitution (unitary executive) the President in the war on terrror is not bound by FISA.
• The controversy is about the second point, did the President have legal authority to bypass FISA?

You might be interested in this, and the references to the edit I made.[1] Nomen Nescio 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been way to busy to attend to this recently so in respect for you contributions, I'll leave them alone until I have time to provide a rebuttal. However, I have done a little cleanup, formatting and wikilinking. I'm not sure who included the reference to Watergate, but I have removed it on the basis of relevance. It was completely domestic, used to spy on Democrats for the purpose of winning an election, and egregiously illegal, so, hence, had nothing to do with FISA, war-time security, etc. I also object to using sites such as "counterpunch.org" for sources. This site is so completely left-wing partisan so as to be of no use. I'm sure you would object if I started citing Sean Hanity, et al. (which, by the way, I would never do).--WilliamThweatt 17:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed some wording in the paragraph containing your references. I refuse to engage in an edit war so I will not revert, yet. I originally changed the wording because of your David Kris reference. The end of that paragraph needs to be reworded or the Kris reference needs to be removed. I have read the entire source you cited and to lump Kris's letter in with the others is misleading on many levels. Foremost is that Kris admits in his letter that he is still reviewing the "white paper" (Gonzales's justification of the surveillance) and he was, at the time of writing, not convinced that the administration was making it's case effectively. He is not advocating that the program is overtly illegal, he simply says that according to what he's read so far, it's his opinion that Gonzales's rationale may be shaky. The subject of his letter is not the legality of the program but the strength and nature of the administration's arguments. In other words, according to Kris, the program may be legal (not addressed in the letter) but the administration is doing a bad job of explaining how.

Also, (I am not as adamant about this one) apparently, somebody threw in Arlen Spector's name prsumably to indicate that there are some Republicans who question the surveillance program. This is also misleading as Mr. Spector has constantly been at odds with the Bush administration. Arlen Spector is not representative of Republicans in general. He is a very moderate Republican (socially a Liberal), he is a former Democrat, and he is barely hanging on to his seat in an important, evenly divided, swing state. A strong case can be made that he is objecting for purely political reasons having nothing to do with the legality of the issues involved. If we're going to continue to drop his name here, I think it is legitimate to include that he is a "moderate, former Democrat", in this context it is neither POV nor inaccurate.

Made it into Kris and the FISA judges doubt ..... Hope this is better.

As to Arlen Specter, it is difficult. Explicitly mentioning that he is a former Democrat sounds like an ad hominem attack. Or at least it sounds like trying to introduce doubt as to his credibility. Maybe you have a suggestion that does not make it look as if he is untrustworthy. Nomen Nescio 06:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bipartisanship

My reading and hearing of the news on this issue is that there are members of both parties, not just the Democratic party, that question the Act - probably the fact that there is Republican criticism as well as Democratic should be mentioned. --Dumarest 11:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dumarest, I agree there are a few Republicans who publicly question the act (though are openly against any censure attempts). In my view, this is just election-year politics by Republicans in moderate districts where open support of the program might be seen as a liability. However, unlike some editors here (see above argument, for example), I do not attempt to shade the article or insert my personal views. I think the use of "mainly" in the sentence "...mainly sponsored by Democrats..." implies that that there are some detractors who aren't Democrats (ie Republicans). However, if you wish to make it more overt, by all means, be bold and do so but please, if I can offer a bit of respectful (albeit unsollicited) advice, be careful of your wording to keep it NPOV, from either side.--WilliamThweatt 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This article does indeed need expanding, that's why I labled it as a stub and placed the Expand Template at the top of this page. However I am against any attempt to insert any spin or POV (from either side) or any attempt to rehash the material presented on the "controversy" page.--WilliamThweatt 15:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If so, can we delete the assertion the program is legal? Or at least, insert a rebuttal to guarantee your desired NPOV? Nomen Nescio 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't prove its not, innocent till proven guilty. Things arent wrong till they are proven as such. You want to counter balance then add legal opinions in favor of it being illegal. --zero faults talk 22:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD or Redirect?

This article probably shouldn't exist. It adds virtually nothing that isn't already in NSA Wiretapping, which has far more information and debate on the talk page. If no one has any objections, I'd like to change it to redirect to the NSA wiretapping controversy page, or delete it all together.Dkatten 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reread this page as for its justification (sorry!). I'm really not buying it though. Whatever was discussed in the talk pages of the controversy page, it is clear that that page does an ample job of discussing the program - far better than this page. Dkatten 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the details of the program need to be merged here. Per that article's title, it is restricted to a discussion of the "controversy". The program itself is noteworthy not only because of the controversy, but also by virtue of being a Government program and part of the Global War on Terror.--WilliamThweatt 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, that the program in reality does exist separate and apart from the controversy. However, there is incredibly little known about the program as it stands. For instance, is this article supposed to document all that is known about signals intelligence performed in the name of the War on Terror? If so, that's an incredibly broad topic about which virtually nothing is known. The NSA wiretapping issue at best contributes only a small part of the intelligence collected on suspected terrorists and their activities.

Also, I'd like to point out that one of the major points of the controversy is that there is no check or balance to ensure that the intelligence gathered IS on terrorists. Critics (admittedly myself included) argue that all we know for sure is that there is a program to collect surveillance on people in the US. The claim that this surveillance is limited to terrorists has not been proven, and is at this stage a claim of the administration. In other words, only two of the three words in the article title are established facts.

I can see keeping this article on the basis that there are different efforts underway to monitor the various communications of suspected and known terrorists. For instance, we know that there is military surveillance in the field, and I suspect that there are wiretaps on the phones of knowns and suspected terrorists who are operating overseas. We know that if there is someone in the US who is a suspected terrorist, they too likely have been wiretapped. But again, these are assumptions. The program that this page ostensibly refers to is a specific one in which a suspected terrorist (with a wiretapped line) calls someone in the US and then a wiretap begins on that person when they make overseas calls (at least is my understanding. We know so little about the program I could be wrong.) But I'm not sure how valuable an article on incredibly vague intelligence gathering procedures is. Dkatten 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Although some of the arguments in favour of this article are reasonable, we already established that the name is a misnomer. I provided several articles showing that innocent people are subject of this program, and not only terrorist. Or should I say that it mainly targets innocent people? Here is another example of why I have problems with the name:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.[2]

It would be difficult to maintain these were all terrorists, or people talking to terrorists. Nomen Nescio 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the New Deal a misnomer? Is Great Society?

It doesn't matter whether or not you consider it to be, because the federal government has the ability to name its programs as it wishes.--RWR8189 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since millions of innocent people are subject to the program, and not one example of terrorists being monitored is available, it is hard to understand how this is not a misnomer. Nomen Nescio 10:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, this will most likely be my last comment on this topic. As a result of independent research I've been conducting and, more immediately, the USA Today article this morning, I have become too biased against the NSA's efforts at Sig Intel to be able to edit any article on this topic in a sufficiently NPOV manner. That having been said, please indulge me a Swan Song argument. I would like to say that, in regards to the name, the comparisons to the New Deal and the Great Society are accurate. Many would argue that the "New Deal" was neither "new" nor a "deal". Likewise, many have argued that the "Great Society" wasn't so "Great". The program names may indeed have been "misnomers" as you say, but they were the names nonetheless. My suggestion is to place that in the first line of the article something like this:

• The Bush administration's NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, a name considered by most to be a misnomer,...(citations here).

That is, after all, what you do best, isn't it? I think this will better serve your agenda anyway by pointing out the irony of the administration's attempted obfuscation in the first line.--WilliamThweatt 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why observing this is a misnomer is invalid. As to your suggested intro, I do not want to make such a claim. A caveat showing it is a term used by the administration, and nobody really knows whether it is real, or in response to the controversy, should suffice. You feel I have an agenda, while all I try to do is provide the information as accurate as possible. I do no claim to be 100% unbiased, but I surely am not rewriting history by including nuance. Nomen Nescio 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a discussion of the "controversy" on this page when there is an entire article about it? I think the "controversy" section of this page should be deleted. Kgwo1972 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While the program is noteworty apart from the controversy, the controversy is a major issue when discussing the program. Following WP convention, there is a brief mention of the controversy with a link to the main page where that subject is discussed in detail--WilliamThweatt 16:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is not neutral from the get-go. The title fatally indicates a point of view. A much more thorough, nuanced, and nonbiased discussion of the program (not just the controversy) is already here: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. This article should simply be a redirect to that page. Kgwo1972 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the "discussion" at the page you mention is far from nonbiased. Secondly, read through that page's talk section. It was decided there that that page was to be confined, per the title, to the "controversy". The details and description of the government's Terrorist Surveillance Program belong in a separate article.--WilliamThweatt 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I remember it, this "decision" was not the result of consensus. -- Nomen Nescio 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No one opposed it. Metarhyme 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The description on the other page is "peer-reviewed" and the result of a consensus. This page simply states what you believe the program is. After thinking about this issue further, the problem is, as the other page states: "The complete details of this authorization are still not fully known." In fact, we just learned additional details this morning. At the very least, the description should begin with this FACT. I will try my hand at editing this article now. Kgwo1972 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The other page is multi-biased enough not to merit the NPOV contested tag. Instead of attacking Thweatt here, an editor might consider riffle-shuffling the two Legal analysis bits in Talk there. The chore would be to poop out an improved section that no one could claim wasn't neutral. Metarhyme 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anyone want a free news report section?

On the NSA controversy talk page, I've suggested moving the "News reports" section to this article. What do you guys think? Kevin Baas^talk 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems right to me. Kgwo1972 20:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have moved the news reports section to this article after it was cut from NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. It obviously should be better melded with the preceding section on this page, but I just wanted to get it over here for the time being. Kgwo1972 02:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As already discussed above there is no evidence that TSP is the official name used by the NSA. It's a term slapped on retroactively by the White House, and it's not the only one. Also WP does not recognize the official name as the sole naming possibility. See Operation Iraqi Freedom. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your example is false. OIF redirects to 2003 Invasion of Iraq because the article is split into 3 parts, beginning middle and end. When going to OIF you are redirected to the first part of the conflict, the initial invasion. I do however see your point, but its still closer to use the naming convention the government is using, then to make up one that users may not be familiar with. The goal is to make it accessible to readers I would assume. Creating names for things because we do not like them, will make it impossible for readers looking for it to actually find it. Especially since my assumption would be they would use names they are finding for it in press etc, not some string of words that could be seen as possibly be relating to that particular program. --zero faults talk 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent example, Trials and errors. That's exactly what redirects are for. Also, WP:NOT requires that we do not advocate a position (Wikipedia is not a soapbox), and using an intentionally rhetorical name is advocating a position. I doesn't matter who's position it is, we can't advocate any position. Kevin Baas^talk 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize his example is wrong as I pointed out? We arent advocating a position to call it the Cold War are we? Do we really have to get into that one again? From certain perspectives it was far from a cold war, yet those countries arent here complaining. Calling a program by its most popular name isnt advocating its making it easy for people visiting to find the article. What good are articles if noone can find them? --zero faults talk 22:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my vote until someone can provide some authorative information that "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is the official name of the program, as opposed to (merely) a description some in the Bush Administration relatively recently decided to use. Has the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [7] been voted into law yet? If so, I'll return to my "oppose" position. Consider why we have the following two articles: Final Solution, and Holocaust. The name "Final Solution" is not NPOV, but official names are official names. Karl Rove deciding that all Republicans need to call the NSA program "Terrorist Surveillance Program" doesn't necessarily make it an official name (though it's tricky); but an act of Congress would. (Actually, if the Act has not yet been passed, then we have a very strong case that an article called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" should only refer to the program the passage of that act would establish. BrianinStockholm 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Currently listed as Introduced to House, so it has not been voted on yet. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

TSP is quite certainly not the official NSA name for it, since those names tend to be along the lines of Able Danger or ECHELON. Also, the White House only started using it in January, a month after the NYC disclosed the existence of the program. The act hasn't been passed and is unlikely to make it out of committee, but in any case even the passing of the act has no bearing on the name of the program since acts of law don't work retroactively. This is message discipline pure and simple. ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point - the fact alone that this program was carried out for over four years before the name "Terrorist surveillance program" was ever conceived, and that the name "Terrorist surveillance program" was still a number of weeks away from first coming into existence when the public learned about the program, is a powerful indicator that this is not the generic name for the program which should serve as the title of an encyclopedia article about it. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 06:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First there is no fact to say that the name Bush called it by is not the real name, its just assumed. Second if it was not the original name, wouldn't you name it what it was called by the people running it, what its being reffered to in the media? People have to look for these articles and so its bes tto call it what it was. There currently is no proof that any of the servers were logging anything other then international calls, there is only the idea that the computers were gateways for all information, which are two very different things. Its also under debate if this program even needed a warrant, so calling it warrantless is misleading and POV. Its almost as if you went to every article and stated in the title what it lacked that it may not have needed in the first place. Considering we do not know what the real name is by looking at documents, we only have what the government calls it as its official name. People are advocating we make up names contrary to stated names if those names are not documented physically. This would create a mess for people looking for articles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Warrantless is not POV since it's the characteristic of the program that is agreed upon by both sides. If the proposal were illegally warrantless I would oppose it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Its POV cause it eludes that one was needed, which is not a fact. It doesn't say NSA warrantless lacking congressional oversight non public surveilance program. There is no reason to state warrantless if its not known if one was needed. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The word warrantless does not imply that a warrant is needed. It doesn't say NSA warrantless lacking congressional oversight non public surveilance program. Exactly. Hence, NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than suggesting that warrants were needed, calling it the "warrantless" surveillance program would be an informative reference because it identifies its universally conceded warrantlessness as the crux of the debate over the program - essentially over the merits of the administration's argument that the president does not need to follow the statutory requirement for warrants for electronic surveillance. Nevertheless, these comments are neutral to the proposed move at hand, which no longer includes the "warrantless" description. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the logic here. Since we do not know the official name, we should call it something totally different from what even the government calls it? This is even implying it has an official name, this is also implying what Bush called it, was not the official name. I dont even see why anyone would think its not, wouldnt he, being the one who authorized it, know the name? Has someone posted a source I missed stating while they did know the real name, they knew it wasnt what Bsh called it? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even aside from any POV issues, the fact alone that the name "Terrorist surveillance program" did not even exist until more than four years into it, and a month after it had been publicly revealed, should definitively establish that it is not an official or authoritative name.

You do not know that the "Terrorist surveillance program" title did not exist. There is no proof that this title did not exist. Do you expect that after the program is revealed the government was to declassify everything it had done, the program name, director, supervisors, locations etc? Obivously not, so why is the delay even relevant, Bush cited the name when he could no longer deny its existence. He called it X, we are basically saying without proof, just on assumptions alone, that the name he called it by was made up just then. That itself is illogical since he has admitted that he and certain members of Congress reauthorize the program on a constant basis, wouldnt he then know the name?

Does anyone have any proof, actual proof, not assumptions that the name is not what Bush calls it? I haven't seen any yet, and so this is all assumptions that Bush made up a fake name. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have rocksolid evidence that the name is what Bush calls it and that it was used before it surfaced as PR-response to the controversy? If opponents of the term are not allowed to use unverifiable information, why are you? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What the creator of the program calls the program, is not unverifiable. That is on par with me walking into a new store and telling them its being renamed because they have no proof of it being called that before filing the papers of incorporation. The evidence you are asking for is top secret, the name has been revealed by Bush, as you have now admitted, its also been verified by a person with oversight, Alberto Gonzalez. Now I am stating this here, I will not respond to anymore of your arguements unless you post a fact, the burden of proof is on you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alberto does not oversee anything. He decides that oversight is unwarranted and should not take place since oversight creates a security risk. As to his analysis, you have seen this?

Civil liberties lawyers yesterday questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales used Tuesday to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program.[8] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice quote, but still you have yet to prove the name is not what Bush and the government call it. Present proof you are right. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First one has to establish which side the burden of proof lies, and when falsifiability is an issue, it is determinative. Kevin Baas^talk 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All your terms make me laugh, you want the article renamed, you want to state Bush lied, the burden of proof is on you. You have a problem with that, consult Wikipedia Policy, not me. Start posting some facts below so everyone can see what evidence is listed for renaming, for stating its not the programs name. You know after the Senate pass the Surveillance Act the article will have to be renamed if you did suceed since that will effectively name any program of this type as Terrorist Surveillance Program. So even Congress uses the term reffering to these programs, proof please, not double talk and "logical fallacy" statements that present no proof. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analogy with name change of "Terrorist" Information Awareness

There is a close analogy here to the former "Total Information Awareness" program, which was renamed as "Terrorist Information Awareness", only after a growing uproar over its Orwellian implications had prompted the Senate to require that it provide them with detailed information for overview. See Information Awareness Office. The TIA also had its name changed only long after it had been established. In both cases, "Terrorist" was tacked on to the name of the program only after the rise of public uproar. This is powerful evidence that the renaming was purely motivated by partisan public relations concerns, and is therefore inherently a biased POV. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I still do not understand the problem with naming it NSA warrantless blah blah, and in the article mention the term advocated by Bushco. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree, we knew the name of the first program, however there is no proof stating the programs name is not what Bush calls it. Some editors are merely assuming he made up the name. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Since there is no evidence to support either interpretation, the best thing to do is to refrain from stating as a fact what evidently is opinion. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You are stating opinion, the fact is the government refers to the program as "terrorist surveillance program" as shown in the articles own sources. YOu are stating an assumption that the name was not the original name. In doing so you are not presenting any facts to support your point, just assumptions that the lack of anything other then the people who have reviewed and created the program call it that. Well lack of evidence for secret programs is not proof of everything contrary to it. The fact is Alberto Gonzalez has even called it that, and he had review over it. Cite your facts if you want the name changed. Not assumptions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of real name

TO end all the speculation, please post proof of the programs real name below: If this cannot be dont and all that appears is assumptions and "logic statements" then I this issue should be closed as we do not know enough to say its not the real name. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• By the same reasoning there is no proof that your assertion is correct. Again, as long as we simply do not know, it is incorrect to state the current title is the correct name. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  The person who created the program, called it X. I believe its safe to refer to it as that. You and other editors have stated it was name that after the fact, however you have not offered any proof to it. If I make a program and call it, "Super Spy Epionage" you cannot rename it to something else simply because ... well i am not even sure what your basis for renaming it considering Bush who created the program called it "terrorist surveillance program" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The entire dispute is about this: when did he name it TSP? Can you prove this name was used in 2001, 2002, 2003? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}
    • The burden of proof is not on me, its on you and the editors wanting to rename it to prove your point. You claim its not the name of the program yet its reffered to constantly as "terrorist surveillance program" have you even read the article and its sources? Perhaps you should go through them and see the proof is already there, its constantly refered to as terrorist surveillance program by government officials. If we followed your logic I can rename the article right after you name it, since the burden of proof is on you then to defend your name by proving its the real name. Post your proof below that its not the real name. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Pleae read up on logical fallacy. There are numerous references using the name, but can you point out ONE that predates the controversy? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • So you are saying that before a "top-secret" program was exposed, there should have been documented proof of the programs name and purpose? This is your logic? Further you are gonig against what government officials have called it without citing why. Google is not the measure of what things are called, the people who name them are, the people who have reviewed them, the people who have oversight of them, not CNN's dramatic name for it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • • Still waiting no your verifiable facts since the burden of proof is ont hose wanting to change the name. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Going back to news articles from the end of January 2006, it is obvious that the terminology "Terrorist Surveilance Program" was a tactic move to reframe the debate (see e.g. "Bush seeks to change America’s view on spying" at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11026705/?displaymode=1006). Also watch Kelly O'Donnell reporting on January 25th that "The White House attempts to change the name of the debate from "domestic spying," to "terrorist surveillance" as the administration continues to try and win the debate" (ibid). This is not the first time the Bush Administration has tried to reframe the debate by changing the terminology, as Media Watch also documented (see http://mediamatters.org/items/200601310002). The use of changing names has also been noted in the Frontline documentary "The Persuaders" as a tactic implemented by the republican party (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/). In the documentary, we get to understand how the tactic works by listening to Frank Luntz, the founder of The Luntz Research Companies, that has been hired by the republic party at numerous occations (ibid). The reframing of the debate over inheritance tax, by changing the terminology to "death tax" was Luntz's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_tax), as was the change to "climate change" from "global warming". The power of reframing issues by chaning words is an established fact (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28economics%29).The republican tactic of reframing by changing the worlds has been discussed in books by such notable people such as linguist George Lakoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff). PJ 19:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
                • While its interesting information, it still does not establish that the name was not the original one. It just shows some people think its not, none of them actually show any proof its not, such as a memo of the name change, or a documented previous name etc. There is a bill anyway currently in the Senate to refer to all of these programs as 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', if it wasn't already. So shortly this whole debate will be moot and if it passes the entire article can be moved back to the classification of program it is. There is also no proof of domestic spying, simply one "possible" incident by an anonymous source which states it was beacuse of an international cell phone. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • It is of course impossible for someone to read another person's mind, and it is almost as difficult at finding out what term Bush or the White House used for the NSA electronic surveillance program. So perhaps we shouldn't try to decide the issue by looking for a 100% proof. Further, we shouldn't begin the discussion by presumption that one alternative has a better standing than the other, neither camp has the burden of proof. Rather, the issue has to be settled by looking at the facts and determining the issue on plausibility. There is nothing as far as I know that suggests that Bush or the White House had any different name for the program before the end of January. Thus, whatever he called in his bedroom, there seems to have been an accepted term for the program in the media and among the public. Given Bush's history of reframing debates by changing the terminology offers circumstantial evidence that this change of name was a political move. Further, there is no reason for supposing that Bush and the White House has the deciding vote in deciding to how the media and the public should refer to this program (especially not after the rise of the controversy when Bush has a clear conflict of interest). PJ 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The program is by the government, I think they know what they call it. To say someone is lying leaves the burden of proof on the accuser obviously, its not in a neutral state. You want to say there is no proof the name was dif before January, yet that logic is flawed cause once again you are assuming its not. The lack of proof means you fail to meet your burden that Bush is lying or reframing the debate. You want to make your accusations from a neutral point, but you are accusing someone of doing something, obviously not a neutral position. This is all moot anyway as the article was renamed from its original title if you did not notice. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• What I meant with the term "proof" is something that can be demonstrated to be a particular way with an absolute certainty. As I wrote in my previous entry, we cannot know with such certainty either way. In fact, neither side have a stronger position than the other, and neither side can be said to have the burden of proof. Instead, we ought to look to the evidence. Given the history of the Bush administration, there is circumstantial evidence that the name Bush used after the end of January was politically motivated name change. And unless America is a totalitarian regime we should not accept his term automatically, due to the major conflict of interest. What I claim, as well as many reporters did at the time, is that there is good circumstantial evidence that name "terrorist surveillance program" was politically motivated to reframe the debate. This is based on the fact (and correct me if I am wrong) that the term "terrorist surveillance program" had not been used by Bush prior to the end of January. Given this and given that a different name had already been established in the media and among the people, it ought to be up to those who claim that "terrorist surveillance program" ought to be the proper name for it to at least give reason for believing that the Bush had been using the word before the end of January, and that Bush's term ought to be the prevailing one for this article. PJ 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not looking at evidence, you are making assumptions based on past actions that are also not confirmed. If you went to court because you were being charged with murder, and the prosecutors only "evidence" was that you murdered someone before, well you would be found innocent. Its not "proof" to say someone did it possibly once before, and so they must be doing it everytime they talk. YOu keep asserting that since noone knows if its the original name that the debate must be being reframed, however you have no proof it is. Being someone that is stating someone was lying or misleading by stating the name as X, the burden of proof is actually on you. You keep claiming Bush used the name to "reframe the debate" however you have no proof of this. One would say the simple fact that he would know the name, and he called it X, would likely mean he knows the name is as he calls it, X. I am sure if he called it Spying on Americans for Fun, there would be no debate over this topic. The fact that you call it reframing the debate, shows you are making assumptions based on your political leaning and not on the facts of the situation. Fact, bush would know the name, Fact, Bush says the name is X. Assumption Bush may be attempting to reframe the debate, cause he did it before, allegedly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Some observations:

• The thought that every suspect is treated equally is commendable but naive. To think that a convicted murderer, or child molester, has the same chance in court as an upstanding and important contributor to society, without even a speeding ticket to his name, is charmingly naive. Past deeds do count. Since this administration has numerous times misrepresented the facts, knowingly or accidentily, to refer to the unusual amount of errors in official statements is more than reasonable in establishing the possibility of a new statement being incorrect. Heck, we have several examples of Bush lying. Take the cause for invading Iraq. He asserted time and again that since SH did not let the inspectors in, the US had to invade. To claim he was not aware of the multitude of inspectors going through Iraq at that time, that had to leave because he wanted to invade, either makes him grossly incompetent (how can he not have noticed the daily television and newspaper reports?) or a liar, take your pick. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a horrible example of prejudice. If Bush came out tomorrow and said the program is titled "Eyes in All Homes" then I am sure you would not be here saying that we should not believe it. Your doubt in the name has nothing to do with Bush lying before, it has to do with the name itself. Had the name been "NSA Illegal Spy Program" there would not be a debate over the term. Here on Wikipedia we relay facts, we do not label and judge the people to which facts are attributed. Bush called it X is a fact, Bush lies alot and so he is probably lying about this is not a fact. Its actually almost counter productive, its almost like saying CNN has had a lot of retractions in its history, so we should remove all CNN sources as they probably contain things that should be retracted ... Its a slippery slope. Its also one where people start selecting what they believe and do not. Bush says the war in Iraq is over WMD's, you believe that even though noone were found, yet should you not question it since he normally lies? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid you are double mistaken, Sockpuppets. First, you assertion that it’s up to he who doesn’t accept “Terrorist Surveillance Program” to prove his case, is to already have taken a stand on the issue. What we know is that prior to the emergence of the debate, the media and the public referred to the program as the “Electronic Surveillance Program” or the “Domestic Surveillance Program”; not the “Terrorist Surveillance Program”. Once the debate emerged it became known that the Bush Administration referred the program as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program”. Some say, as you seem to do, that the Bush Administration has been calling the program the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” all along, while others say that they started calling it this only after the emergence of the debate. To settle the issue, you cannot rely on the Bush Administration’s statement that it has been using “Terrorist Surveillance Program” all along, since the Bush Administration is a party to the issue and has a conflict-of-interest. Rather, to make the case that the Bush Administration has been using “Terrorist Surveillance Program” all along, you must show that the Bush Administration used this name prior to the emergence of the debate. As far as I am aware, neither you nor anyone else has done so. Secondly, your assertion that I am building my argument on an assumption is to misunderstand the meaning of “circumstantial evidence” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence). I have acknowledged that we cannot settle this issue by looking for proof; rather we have to settle the issue by determining which standpoint makes most sense. So let’s look at the facts. Firstly, so far we have no evidence that “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was in use prior to the emergence of the debate. Rather, prior to the emergence of the debate “Electronic Surveillance Program” was the generally accepted name for the program by the media and the public, and there are no indications that the Bush Administration even opposed that name. Secondly, we know that it has been a strategy of the Bush Administration to frame debates by changing the name of the issue at hand. These facts constitute “circumstantial evidence” that the Bush Administration started using “Terrorist Surveillance Program” after the emergence of the debate, plausibly to reframe the debate by changing the name of the program. As a final note: your so-called analogy is flawed. For the analogy to begin to make sense, you would have to suppose that that there were two persons (A and B) on trial for the same murder, that one of them must have done it, and that the court has to find either A or B guilty; further, while there is no proof or evidence that either A or B did it, they court knew that A had murdered before and also had a motive. Thus, given the scenario that the court had to find one of them guilty, it would make more sense to convict A rather than B due to “circumstantial evidence”. PJ 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your whole arguement is based on the idea that someone other then the government should know the name of a secret government program. Using common sense, who would know the name of a secret government program? How do you know the name came into play after the program was revealed and not before? You don't, you base your arguement on Bush being bad and a liar, which has no place here, provide a source if you are so sure. The worst part is, the article has been cahnged, yet you are still going on about it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your anology doesnt even make sense, a court doesnt have to find someone guilty, which is why evidence is needed. The court can let both off and in a case where you analogy states there is no evidence against either, that is what it would do. I dont know where you live, but at least in the US the court does not find people guilty because of past deeds. To further explain why your anology is flawed, without evidence its doubtful the 2 people would have even been indicted. See why evidence is needed now? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Further your lack of proof of the name being called something before that day is obsurd because there is no proof of anything, not even proof of whats really going on in that room. There is no proof the program even is real, it could have been a lie that bush said to scare terrorists, I mean its been said that he does lie and so he could have lied not only about the name but about the whole program, see the slippery slope? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable Facts:

[edit] Copy

Copied this comment and my response to this page, so everybody can benefit.

Regarding this persons contributions to FindLaw, please see [9] She is a guest columnist in that she has written a column. She doesn't write for FindLaw as one of their writers as someone like Joanne Mariner does. [10] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nevertheless you will find several articles there written by her. In the future it might be helpful to discuss on the articles pages. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesnt make her a FindLaw writer, yes next time it would. Also sign your comments, and further, there is 6, far cry from several.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed Sources

Can we get some sources on "Wiretapping" and "Call Database" neither section is sourced. If they cannot be sourced in like a week I will remove them, I am sure a source will be found however, perhaps my search techniques are not as good. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a few links to sources available at thewall.civiblog.org. All items from this source link back to the originals, and are either fair use mirrors or reprinted with permission. There are quite a few other resources there, but I have not had the time to link to them from these articles. For a document summary of what's at this source, see http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html#DOCUMENT_SUMMARY . Any references to the page "house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html" can be shortened to "nsa.html" . Also, the collection of documents at this source are downloadable Dredeyedick 08:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph 2 Edit

I first considered this a minor edit, then thought better of it since meaning had changed (I think clarity improved).

Summary of edit:

• Honed 2nd para to indicate the NSA is an agency of the exec branch rather than a branch of govt in it's own right (line 3)

• Added words to indicate avoidance of judicial authorisation or review, as well as congressional oversight, to Description portion.

• Fixed sp. in May 22 para, "sumarizing" -> "summarizing".

• Added ext.links to Koh and Tribe stmts.

---

Paragraph 2 line 3 Before:

The National Security Agency (NSA), a branch of the United States government, implemented the program in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, allegedly to target al Qaeda communications involving one party in the United States as part of the broader War on Terrorism.

Paragraph 2 line 3 After:

The National Security Agency (NSA), a signals intelligence agency of the executive branch of the United States government, implemented the program in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, allegedly to target al Qaeda communications involving at least one party in the United States in a search for communications threatening to the United States, as part of the broader War on Terrorism.

---

Description Before:

The complete details of the program are not known, as the Bush administration contends that security concerns do not allow it to release details, or permit congressional oversight. Implemented by the President sometime after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the program was not made public until revealed in a 2005 New York Times article. Additional details came to light in a May 2006 USA Today article.

Description After:

The complete details of the program are not known, as the Bush administration contends that security concerns do not allow it to release details, or permit congressional oversight, or judicial authorisation or review. Implemented by the President sometime after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the program was not made public until revealed in a 2005 New York Times article. Additional details came to light in a May 2006 USA Today article.

---

I hope You find this improves clarity and accuracy.

    Dredeyedick 04:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have questions about that second paragraph, correct me if I am wrong but doesnt the Senate intelligence committee have oversight over this program, it started with 8 members then extended to all. The Senate is a part of Congress and this is the appropriate committee to have oversight of the program. It also says there is no judicial overview, but did not the Attorney General look over the program and determine there should be no further information given regarding the program? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Senate and House intel cmt's should have oversight, if I'm not mistaken (I may be), but only the chairmen of these bodies were briefed in "don't ask, don't tell - other members of your oversight committees" exec-branch groundrules, so...this is what makes for the controversy.

Also, the full committees were not briefed (same groundrules as far as I know) until the eve of General Hayden's confirmation hearing for the position of CIA Director - literally the day before. And General Hayden is the one responsible for having implemented this warrantless NSA surveillance program. So the contention that full briefing has taken place is actually a canard - especially with the "don't ask, don't tell" groundrules for said briefings. This is not, as the FISA statute requires, "full and complete" by any stretch of the imagination - only by stretch of political spin - hence the "controversy" and multiple objections of constitutional law experts such as Laurence Tribe and Jonathan Turley.

As for oversight, the Attorney General works for the President, and is a part of the executive branch of government. The FISA Court, and court system, and Supreme Court are parts of the judicial branch of government. The controversial parts of this program are that it is the executive branch of government arrogating to itself the functions of checks and balances previously in US history accorded to the legislative branch (Congress) and judicial branch (the Courts).

I hope this clears it up for you.

  - Dredeyedick 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] histortical snapshots of article

FWIW,

• 2006-02
• 2006-03
• 2006-04
• 2006-05

Kevin Baas^talk 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Take it slow

I know everybody is eager to announce the death knell of the program, but don't say "immediate stop" if the order has been "stayed" (postponed) until next month. Relax, you'll get your chance. Until then, let's stick to the facts, okay? --Uncle Ed 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that the judge ordered an immediate stop to the program. She just issued a stay shortly thereafter. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Bobblehead 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody?!?!? Doublya ain't and supporters of the Bush Administration ain't eager. I have in my posession a tube of toothpaste. Be less loose in your statements or I will brandish it. 24.148.93.88 23:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading title

"NSA electronic surveillance program" is a misleading title; it sounds like it refers to all NSA electronic surveillance rather than a specific subset. Note that NSA has done and continues to do lots of surveillance under FISA, with warrants obtained from the FISA court. More accurate titles would be "NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program" or "NSA warrantless surveillance program" or "Terrorist Surveillance Program". Alternatively, seeing as we know very little about this program, we could just make this a redirect to "NSA warrantless surveillance controversy". Crust 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Any comments on whether we should move this and to what? I'm leaning towards "NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program". I think the key word to include is "warrantless" or some equivalent (e.g. "without warrants" as in "NSA wiretapping without warrants"). Crust 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This was thrashed out in a section above - the problem is that the actual name seems to be classified, along with the details, so anything it's called can only be misleading unless it turns out to be correct after declassification. When will that be? The CIA's Tokyo station singing a soothing song to the Truman administration about how China wouldn't invade Korea while Chinese troops were pouring across the border was recently reclassified, perhaps Top Secret - it had been declassified under Clinton. If they screw up bad, they try to keep it classified. Going by that and a guess, I suppose The Program will never be declassified - though it may be changed. "NSA electronic surveillance program" is a crappy compromise to which terrorist surveillance redirects, and it links to warrantless. Some editors prefer 'terrorist,' others prefer 'warrantless' - 'electronic' ended the fighting. It is not accurate, but it created a truce. NPOV is not the Truth. It's a compromise. Metarhyme 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest "NSA surveillance of U.S. persons" as a more appropriate title. I agree that the current title is grossly misleading. Electronic surveillance is an acknowledged, major part of NSA's mission. See their web site http://www.nsa.gov/sigint/index.cfm . Adding "warrantless" doesn't help because, in general, the law does not require NSA to have warrants to intercept communications involving foreign governments or groups. FISA requires warrants only when surveillance involves "U.S. persons," a term defined in the act as citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations. The current controversy involves claims that the Bush administration is intercepting--without a warrant--communications involving a U.S. person and foreign nationals they consider possible terrorists. There is no significant controversy in the U.S. about NSA intercepting communications that do not involve U.S. persons. Doing so may be controversial in other countries, but that is covered elsewhere (e.g. ECHELON). The administration rejects the term "domestic surveillance" because it claims their program only involves calls where one party is not a U.S. person (though FSA does not allow that as a justification not to obtain a warrant). So the core of the controversy this article is about is surveillance involving U.S. persons and that should be reflected in the title.--agr 13:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Before I get crabby, let me express gratitude to you for publicising dice password generation.

The contenders for article name have been warrantless and terrorist. Doesn't NSA spy on interesting U.S. persons not in the U.S. - no warrants required? The FBI has been the primary agency tasked with domestic spying, and resented getting dry lead marching orders from NSA enough to get information about that leaked to investigative reporters. An activity by the NSA involving its domestic surveillance of U.S. persons without obtaining warrants about which some information is public but not much because it hasn't stopped being highly classified, could be trimmed I guess.

A different article, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, has been attempting to cover the controversy aspect. This article started as Terrorist surveillance program - a POV fork of the controversy article. Wiki magic went to work and this is now supposedly an article describing The Program. Well. Maybe Russ Tice has made some useful contributions, but I see no evidence of it. Using logic, one could argue that the article should be AfD'd. Strong feelings for and against this particular spying program mean that, as a practical matter, logic isn't relevant. Compromise is relevant. The title is compromised. It's like living with dirt, but both sides accept it. Metarhyme 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some good points were raised above. In particular inserting "warrantless" doesn't solve the problem as e.g. warrantless surveillance outside the US is legal under FISA, but we're only talking here about surveillance banned by FISA. My preferred option would be to merge into the controversy article. Crust 15:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS What specifically is in this article that isn't in the controversy article (and why)? Unless someone has a good answer to that question, I think we should just AfD this article and make it a redirect to the controversy article. Another alternative would be to shorten the title to "NSA electronic surveillance" and add content about surveillance in accordance with FISA (about which more is known, e.g. we know how many warrants were issued each year, etc.) Crust 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with merging this article into NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. I wouldn't repurpose this article into something that covers FISA-compliant NSA surveilence since that persumably comprises the majority of NSA's mission. --17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)