The Daily Nightly began on May 31, 2005. As Brian wrote in his first post it aims to provide a narrative of the broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News. Brian weighs in every weekday and NBC News correspondents and producers post regularly.
Brian Williams became the seventh anchor and managing editor in the history of NBC Nightly News on December 2, 2004. Read his full biography.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
advertisement
About the broadcast | Biographies
RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.
Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.
Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.
How do you prove you've been eavesdropped upon if the National Security Agency's surveillance program is so secret? That's the legal challenge for plaintiffs in the first lawsuits filed today against the NSA for its top secret program of domestic spying without court warrants. My producers and I have been interviewing some of the challengers today, as well as talking to government officials about their contention that the program is a necessary part of the war on terror. How do you balance security versus privacy? Or is that even the right question?
The Vice President said on January 4: "The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. As such, this program is critical to the national security of the United States."
But today The New York Times reports exclusively that some FBI officials involved in the program - including FBI Director Robert Mueller - also had questions about its legality, and efficacy. The Times' sources are anonymous, but they question the administration's claim that eavesdropping on some of the specific people targeted by this program helped prevent an attack, such as the blowing up of the Brooklyn Bridge. According to the Times account, counterterror officials had other information independent of the surveillance program that led them to prevent those attacks.
Whatever the legality - and the courts will be the final referee - clearly the administration feels it is on solid political ground. So far, polls show that most Americans questioned prefer to give up privacy for safety. Except it's a good bet most of them think the person being eavesdropped upon is "the other guy," not themselves.
We'll have more on this tonight on Nightly News.
At the same time, at the State Department, my colleague Elizabeth Leist is tracking new efforts by Condi Rice and Homeland Security Chief Chertoff to make it easier for foreign students who deserve to legitimately study in the U.S. to get visas, despite the post-9/11 restrictions. We're also following a number of other, ongoing foreign stories to see which might gel - including negotiations to get Iran to back off its nuclear research program (not working so far!) and the latest from Pakistan, in the wake of that controversial missile attack on suspected al-Qaida targets that killed civilian victims.
Read more from Andrea Mitchell
EMAIL THIS
TRACKBACKS
Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d834a661c269e2
THE ROBERTS COURT, PT. 1
I remember right after 9/11 this country was united all we wanted was for whoever did this awful thing to pay the price for it. Now we are more worried about the civil rights of the terriorist who want to kill us. We say you can't get information from them you have to hold there hands and make sure they are comfortable so that we dont't look to the rest of the world like we are mean people. We cant't gather information because it may violate there civil liberitys. If someone in this country is talking to a terriorist they are not Americans anyway. The men that flew into the world trade centers lived her enjoyed the freedom of America and what did they do they killed over 3000 Americans.Now we have this issue with law suits from people who have admitted they were trying to terriorize this country again. If they win they will be back on the streets. What happens if we are attacked again? I will tell you the same people who are working as hard as they can to tie the hands of our president will be the same people crying that he did not do enough to protect this country. How can he when the news media is helping the terriorist. God forbide that we are attacted again but if we are I will personaly blame the media the newspaper press and the elected officals of this country who for political resons have done everything they can to help the terriorist.
bernese thacker (Sent Jan 18, 2006 10:02:25 AM)
One still has to understand why the Bush administration failed to notify the FISA court of its activities and the only feasible notion that comes to mind is that it doesn't want to leave a paper trail of its activities. The idea that the FISA court is too slow simply doesn't cut it if Bush wants to act within the law. Of course, that depends on what Is is just like Clinton! In this case Bush is the law by all likelihood and the presidency needs expanded abilities which he will argue for. As for getting around the NSA issue, Bush insists that this will become the precedent for the president and therefore will be accepted as ongoing policy. In other words, lie and cheat so as to become legal to lie and cheat, its the precedent of the issue at hand.
Dave Van Grun (Sent Jan 17, 2006 11:59:22 PM)
Spy Suit.
Mr. Bush, answer me this: How do you know if I am calling a retail business or a Al-Qaeda operative if I place an international call to Iran?
The only way you would know that if the call I placed was legitimate is to wait until the call is completed and the person in Iran answers.
Until you can disprove it you MUST know when the call is placed, the location of the caller, the destination (the international area code) and the prefix (to identify the city) and the final digits to get the name of the business or the address of residence and finally identify the person who answered the phone.
If you don't do all of the above procedures then your statement - if you are calling al Qaeda we want to know why - is false.
How else would you know if an American citizen is calling al Q or not? There isn't an international exchange that routes calls to al Q, is there? Are you expecting us to use 1-800-CALLING BIN LADEN?
How do you know if the receiving party is al Q or not? You know all the numbers to al Q agents? If you do why then don't you go over there and take them out? Doesn't al Q change phone numbers from time to time?
You have to eavesdrop on every phone call originating in the United States by American citizens to any country that harbors or has al Q operating from to determine legitimacy.
Now, Mr. Bush, the question becomes how can YOU prove that you weren't listening in to calls place from one American citizen (of foreign born parents) to another Arab overseas? That 16 year old student from Florida who went to Iraq in December and made calls back and forth to his parents from Kuwait, Iraq, Lebonnon, etc., is one example.
Dewey Quong (Sent Jan 17, 2006 10:27:01 PM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to this post, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.