NSA and YOUR phone calls

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I am surprised that many of you don't seem to care that the NSA can effectively block any investigation, which is exactly what is happening here.

Checks and balances prevent their supreme leader from achieving dictatorial rule. Of course they are opposed!

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I didn't say anything about rushing. Once again you are making things up.

I see no reason why it should be blocked eitehr though. If it isn't a big deal, then let it go through court and voila, everything is settled.

I am surprised that many of you don't seem to care that the NSA can effectively block any investigation, which is exactly what is happening here.

I remember the good old days when you could investigate a President over just about anything....like old land deals, or consensual sexual acts or travel receipts. You know, stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the American citizenry.
My how times have changed.

[lummy 4]

The Electronic Frontier and a former AT&T employee have already brought this to court. The Feds are trying to get it thrown out based on National Security concerns.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Gravitymaster 0]

This whole story is starting to smell a little fishy to me.

Verizon and Bell South both say they did not give call records to NSA.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HL4SGG0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060516/D8HKK0T80.html

Has anyone seen Dan Rather lately?

-

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Has anyone seen Dan Rather lately?

I saw him on Ebay a couple weeks ago looking for an older model IBM Selectric.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I am surprised that many of you don't seem to care that the NSA can effectively block any investigation, which is exactly what is happening here.

Checks and balances prevent their supreme leader from achieving dictatorial rule. Of course they are opposed!

Zipp0

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last paragraph is part of the checks and balances in place, which if you read the thread I posted about Bush complying, it seems there is no real story here exceept why USA Today and CNN and others are releasing classified information. I predict it will not be long until reporters and newspapers find themselves in a courtroom defending themselves against just this kind of illegal disclosures.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

I would have despised and feared either President Clinton or President Kerry in these circumstances as much as I despise the current president.

So I have just one question for you: would you have defended those two presidents just as vigorously as you defend this one?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

I would have despised and feared either President Clinton or President Kerry in these circumstances as much as I despise the current president.

So I have just one question for you: would you have defended those two presidents just as vigorously as you defend this one?

I think Kerry or Clinton or Gore would have also been OK with this program.

Yes, I think I would defend Kerry or Clinton or Gore or whoever had won. The program is reasonable, and the SCOTUS found it to be constitutional.

It shouldn't be so hard to believe that conservatives can be consistent on an issue, and that sometimes we agree. I give Clinton credit for being willing to approve welfare reform and he spent a lot of political capital on pushing for NAFTA. Both of these were not popular in his party.

I can understand you wishing it was illegal, but it is not. If Congress is so upset about it, they should devote their energy to changing the law, instead of verbally attacking the executive that wants to most effectively thwart terrorism.

All 3 branches of government have been involved with the use of this tool. Congress allowed it, the courts upheld it, and the president used it. Congress can change it, but the general focus is on Bush as the bad guy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

I would have despised and feared either President Clinton or President Kerry in these circumstances as much as I despise the current president.

So I have just one question for you: would you have defended those two presidents just as vigorously as you defend this one?

No, I wouldn't defend them as vigorously. I'd leave that up to others on here who would be very capable. I actually defend Bush as much as I do to create a little balance on these forums. As much as you and others like to portray me as in lock step with this administration, I never wanted Bush to be President, and I'm not as in lock step as you think.

To me he isn't a true conservative. I have said many, many times on here that I am very unhappy with all the spending, I don't think he's done a very good job with Iraq and I disagree with him very much on his stand on immigration. You have also never seen me get involved in any threads on religion as well as a variety of other topics. However, if I feel he is right on an issue or I feel he is being mischaracterized, I will step in and defend him.

-

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am surprised that many of you don't seem to care that the NSA can effectively block any investigation, which is exactly what is happening here.

Checks and balances prevent their supreme leader from achieving dictatorial rule. Of course they are opposed!

Zipp0

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
....

You know perfectly well that getting the records of Auntie Mimi in FL has ZERO to do with terrorist threats. It's a fishing expedition and your lame excuses just make you look silly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am surprised that many of you don't seem to care that the NSA can effectively block any investigation, which is exactly what is happening here.

Checks and balances prevent their supreme leader from achieving dictatorial rule. Of course they are opposed!

Zipp0

Yes they are when there isn't anything illegal happening.

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:

§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
(a) Duty to provide.--A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Required certification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may--

(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.--No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.

(d) Dissemination by bureau.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last paragraph is part of the checks and balances in place, which if you read the thread I posted about Bush complying, it seems there is no real story here exceept why USA Today and CNN and others are releasing classified information. I predict it will not be long until reporters and newspapers find themselves in a courtroom defending themselves against just this kind of illegal disclosures.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I didn't read any of that, because it means NOTHING. Checks and balances are the basis for our democracy, like it or not.

Now, at least, we are getting some oversight, as it should be.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Does that mean they can make a mass request for millions of names and numbers, or does it have to be individual requests? What is the authorized investigation? Does the criteria change for a mass request like this? And did the request come through the FBI or through the NSA?

Again, many questions that really should be settled in a courtroom, but I guess many of you just blindly follow your president when he says: Trust me everything is okay. I mean, his track record has been really good, he has never been wrong before....

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

This whole story is starting to smell a little fishy to me.
Verizon and Bell South both say they did not give call records to NSA.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HL4SGG0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060516/D8HKK0T80.html

Has anyone seen Dan Rather lately?

-

I find it interesting who you choose to question. You question the person who got something wrong (sort of), investigated it, publically retracted it and apologized. You don't question those who got it wrong with evidence pointing to the fact that they wanted it wrong, and won't take any responsibility for the mistake.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You know perfectly well that getting the records of Auntie Mimi in FL has ZERO to do with terrorist threats. It's a fishing expedition and your lame excuses just make you look silly.

and just what do you think your lame inability to read and comprehend the law makes you look like?

-

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

and just what do you think your lame inability to read and comprehend the law makes you look like?

Let's start with your ability to read.

Who made the requests?

Who is authorized to make those requests according to the law that was posted?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I didn't read any of that, because it means NOTHING. Checks and balances are the basis for our democracy, like it or not.

Now, at least, we are getting some oversight, as it should be.

Yep and also as the law requires. But oh, that's right you weren't actually interested in what the law says so you didn't bother to understand that the NSA is doing exactly as the law prescribes and that this whole story is bogus.


-

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I didn't read any of that, because it means NOTHING. Checks and balances are the basis for our democracy, like it or not.

Now, at least, we are getting some oversight, as it should be.

Yep and also as the law requires. But oh, that's right you weren't actually interested in what the law says so you didn't bother to understand that the NSA is doing exactly as the law prescribes and that this whole story is bogus.


-

...tough concept to comprehend......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

and just what do you think your lame inability to read and comprehend the law makes you look like?

Let's start with your ability to read.

Who made the requests?

Who is authorized to make those requests according to the law that was posted?

We can't tell by the article in the newspaper since it apparently was wtitten to create fear and mistrust with the Bush Admin. The law does require Congressional oversight which the Admin. is complying with as prescibed by law. If there were any laws broken, it will come out.

Funny how those who refuse to believe anything the Bush Admin. says are so gulliable as to lock step believe CNN without question, huh?

-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I didn't read any of that, because it means NOTHING. Checks and balances are the basis for our democracy, like it or not.

Now, at least, we are getting some oversight, as it should be.

Yep and also as the law requires. But oh, that's right you weren't actually interested in what the law says so you didn't bother to understand that the NSA is doing exactly as the law prescribes and that this whole story is bogus.


-

...tough concept to comprehend......

Only if you are blinded by hate.

Here it is again for the reading impaired:

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

Pretty clear to me they are fully complying with the law and the checks and balances prescibed by this law are being followed. Of, course it's easier to stick ones head in the sand than to actually research for the truth.

-

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

Pretty clear to me they are fully complying with the law and the checks and balances prescibed by this law are being followed. Of, course it's easier to stick ones head in the sand than to actually research for the truth.
-

Two questions: Does the law apply to a blanket gathering of the entire call database or is it limited to individual requests?
Were all of the appropriate committees FULLY informed of the scope of the program as required by the law you posted?
And if so, why are some members of those committees and many other members of Congress questioning the legality of the scope of the NSA's spying?
Ok, that's three questions.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

We can't tell by the article in the newspaper since it apparently was wtitten to create fear and mistrust with the Bush Admin. The law does require Congressional oversight which the Admin. is complying with as prescibed by law. If there were any laws broken, it will come out.

Didn't you earlier say that the NSA was right to block an investigation cause they did nothing illegal? And now you are saying if something illegal happened it will come out?

Those two statements don't really go so well together.

Clearly there are many questions that are left unanswered. Can you tell me what would be so wrong about this going to court so it can be decided on?

I won't get into your media conspiracy theory, but you may want to switch sides in the pentagon thread.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

Pretty clear to me they are fully complying with the law and the checks and balances prescibed by this law are being followed. Of, course it's easier to stick ones head in the sand than to actually research for the truth.
-

Quote

Two questions: Does the law apply to a blanket gathering of the entire call database or is it limited to individual requests?

I'm sure that's one of the issues the Committee will determine.

Quote

Were all of the appropriate committees FULLY informed of the scope of the program as required by the law you posted?

The law calls for the Committee to be informed on a semi-annual basis. I have no evidence to suggest this isn't being done. Did you read the thread I posted that said Bush is informing them?

Quote

And if so, why are some members of those committees and many other members of Congress questioning the legality of the scope of the NSA's spying?

Ignorance, politics and/or both. Do you not believe CNN has a very slanted bias? Do you not believe many politicians will use any issue to try to gain power?

Quote

Ok, that's three questions.

No prob.

-

• Quote

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Two questions: Does the law apply to a blanket gathering of the entire call database or is it limited to individual requests?

I'm sure that's one of the issues the Committee will determine.

Quote

Were all of the appropriate committees FULLY informed of the scope of the program as required by the law you posted?

The law calls for the Committee to be informed on a semi-annual basis. I have no evidence to suggest this isn't being done. Did you read the thread I posted that said Bush is informing them?

Quote

And if so, why are some members of those committees and many other members of Congress questioning the legality of the scope of the NSA's spying?

Ignorance, politics and/or both. Do you not believe CNN has a very slanted bias? Do you not believe many politicians will use any issue to try to gain power?
[
-

Well, Arlen Spectre is on the Judicial Committee and he's not convinced. And neither are members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Whether or not they have "D" or "R" behind their name doesn't seem to make much difference.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-i-spying.pdf

The "D"s are using this because it's just another example of the over reaching executive power that this administration has cultivated, along with it appearing to thwart civil liberties AND provide another hammer with which to hit this presidency. The "R"'s that question this are concerned for civil liberties as well as realizing that they aren't always going to be in power. Even Grover Norquist has figured that one out.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

The "R"'s that question this are concerned for civil liberties as well as realizing that they aren't always going to be in power. Even Grover Norquist has figured that one out.

Just wait until a Democrat wields the power that this president has established in the executive branch. You will hear shrieks of horror on a daily basis, and we can just tell them to suck it up, and thank president chimpy. LOL

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Here it is again for the reading impaired:

(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.--On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.

Pretty clear to me they are fully complying with the law and the checks and balances prescibed by this law are being followed. Of, course it's easier to stick ones head in the sand than to actually research for the truth.

-

This just in. Bush *says* that now he's going to comply with the law. Clinton should have tried that sort of delayed compliance thing. "Ok, you got me. I won't lie about knob jobs under oath anymore".


From the Los Angeles Times
President Backs Off Wiretap Secrecy
The White House will brief more members of Congress on the program, a move meant to boost the chances of CIA nominee Hayden.
By Greg Miller and Joseph Menn
Times Staff Writers

May 17, 2006

WASHINGTON — Reversing a position it has held for months, the White House on Tuesday agreed to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on a controversial domestic wiretapping operation — just as the architect of the program is facing a contentious confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill.

In making the concession, the Bush administration is seeking to improve the prospects of the president's nominee to be the next CIA director, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, by preempting attacks from lawmakers angry that they have been kept in the dark on domestic spying activities.

Meanwhile Tuesday, Verizon Communications Inc. became the second phone company to deny that it gave customer calling records to the National Security Agency as part of a separate program in which the NSA is accused of assembling records on tens of millions of U.S. citizens. BellSouth Corp. issued a similar statement Monday, leaving only AT&T among the three companies named by USA Today as having granted access to electronic databases.

Ever since news reports revealed last year that President Bush had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. residents without court warrants, the White House has insisted it was too risky to reveal details of the program to more than a select group of lawmakers.

The decision to abandon that position came after the White House received warnings from prominent Republican lawmakers, including Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that Hayden would face a hostile hearing if members voting on his confirmation were not trusted with information on the most controversial program he ran.

"It became apparent that in order to have a fully informed confirmation hearing, all members of my committee needed to know the full width and breadth of the president's program," Roberts said in a written statement.

Hayden served as director of the NSA for five years, and played a major role in designing and overseeing the program, which involved intercepting the international communications of thousands of U.S. residents in an effort to identify and track terrorist suspects. Hayden now serves as the deputy director for national intelligence, but was tapped two weeks ago by Bush to take the helm at the CIA.

Bush addressed the controversy again Tuesday, defending the program as necessary to fight terrorism, but also repeating his earlier statements that the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the decision to expand the briefings reflects frustration within the administration with how the domestic surveillance programs have been portrayed.

"I do think there has been ongoing distortion about the scope of the terrorist surveillance program," said Perino, using the administration-coined term for the operation. "Dispelling those myths can help us as a nation to keep the program intact."

The impetus for including more lawmakers, she added, "was broader than Gen. Hayden."

The White House has said that Bush, in his role as commander in chief, had the authority to allow the NSA to bypass laws passed in the late 1970s requiring the government to secure permission from a special court before placing U.S. residents under electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Bush launched the program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and the White House has said it is limited to international calls between U.S. residents and individuals overseas suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. But critics have called the program illegal, and also have argued that the White House was required by the 1947 National Security Act to provide a full briefing on all aspects of the program to the full House and Senate Intelligence committees.

The first of the expanded briefings is to take place this afternoon, when Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who succeeded Hayden as director of the NSA, is scheduled to discuss the operation in closed session with all 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The House panel will get a similar briefing at a later date, officials said.

Hayden's first confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled for Thursday morning.

Republican lawmakers cited ancillary benefits to the expanded briefings. The White House had previously expressed concerns that details of the program might leak out if more lawmakers were briefed on it. But senior congressional aides said that because of the rules of handling classified information, members who are briefed will likely have to be more circumspect in their public discussions of it, blunting their ability to criticize it. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a lack of authority to address the press.

"When they know about it, they are obligated to be quiet," said one senior Republican Senate aide.

The White House and Hayden also face risks in disclosing information to more members. Lawmakers who previously would have had a limited understanding of the program now may learn enough from their briefing today to pose more detailed and difficult questions to Hayden.

"It could defuse the ability of the Democrats to complain about White House stonewalling," a senior Democratic aide said. "But it could ignite a line of questioning [in closed session] that would otherwise not have been part of the confirmation hearing."

The domestic eavesdropping program is one of two NSA operations that have been the subject of political debate in recent weeks. The other involves the effort, reported last week by USA Today, to collect millions of customer telephone records.

Verizon on Tuesday denied having turned over its records, including what numbers its customers dialed and when. Verizon, which acquired long-distance carrier MCI Inc. in a deal that became final in January, didn't deny that MCI had provided such data. Long-distance records are generally of more interest to intelligence agencies.

USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson said the newspaper "will look closely into the issues raised by BellSouth's and Verizon's statements." The paper relied mainly on unnamed sources for its assertions that the NSA had compiled databases of domestic calls, but the government hasn't denied the claims.

"We will continue to investigate and pursue the story," Anderson said in a statement. "We're confident in our coverage of the phone database story."

In BellSouth's statement Monday, the company didn't rule out the possibility that its records found their way to the NSA indirectly.

AT&T, the country's largest long-distance company, has not denied involvement. AT&T is now owned by the former SBC Communications, another regional phone service firm.

The former chief executive at the one company said to have refused an NSA request, Qwest Communications International Inc., has confirmed the newspaper's account of his role.