News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Art]

The issue of domestic syping and the possiblity of the president exceeding constitutional authority were the subject of Al Gore's address on Martin Luther King Day.
Geez, if only Gore had presented himself that way in 2000, perhaps the country would not be so bad off.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060117/cm_thenation/150069_1

A terrific speech that embodies the concerns expressed by many posters on this forum.

 

[SOS2008]

When in college we tested the concept of "content analysis" of speeches, interviews, etc. to determine the state of mind of political leaders at a given time. I was skeptical of the technique until seeing the test results, in my case study regarding cognitive complexity and the effect of stress.

In watching Bush during his press conference today and questions from the press about domestic spying, Bush's speaking ability was worse than normal as well as being very flustered, so I'll bet his cognitive complexity score is low at this time. If so, that means he is under a lot of stress, because he is very concerned about the legality (or illegality) of his actions.

I hope the heat continues to be applied, and an investigation is not thwarted so Americans can learn the truth of the dragnet operations.

Long live checks and balances in the United States!

 

[edward]

I have noticed a difference in Bush's cognitive abilities from one appearance to another for several years now. It is almost as if there is more than just one George W Bush??

Remember the debate when all he could say was: "It's hard uh uh uh it's a hard job. Then a week or so later he appeared to be a totally different person from a cognitive point of view. It makes me wonder which GW or who is really running this country.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm just catching up on some of the tidbits in this story now, so forgive me if this is a repeat.

In 2002, (shortly after the warrantless wiretapping began) Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) proposed legislation that would lower the standards for getting FISA permission to wiretap non-US citizens from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion".

The White House responded to the proposal (in a statement by the DoJ's counsel for Intelligence Policy) saying essentially that it does not support the legislation. It didn't want to risk harming current ongoing investigations if by chance, the courts found the amendment unconstitutional.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html

It's ironic that at the time, the White House had just authorized wiretapping US citizens without proof of reasonable doubt !

And Sen. DeWine thought he'd have to have legislation passed to achieve such ends !

 

[edward]

One thing that bothers me about the domestic spying is that it may not be yielding anything significant. I don't really think that al-Qaida is stupid enough to keep communicating using the same methods that they did before 9/11.

I do believe that they are smart enough to provide a lot of false electronic chatter to distract the NSA. They could use simple snail mail for communication and easily bypass the multi-billion dollar electronic surveillance being done.

For instance it would be simple for an al-Qaida operative to get a letter snail mailed into Mexico. Then have a person hand carry it across the border and re-mail it with U.S. postage from one U.S. City to another U.S. City.

There are mailing services who do this on a commercial scale. Are they being watched?? I doubt it.

They pulled off 9/11 by using the convenience of our own system to their deadly advantage.

 

[SOS2008]

I have noticed a difference in Bush's cognitive abilities from one appearance to another for several years now. It is almost as if there is more than just one George W Bush??

Since Bush is such a poor speaker it is harder to tell with him. I believe the variation is due to influences from others who surround him, mood swings, and belief in his own lies.

Frequent liars know lying is wrong, but it doesn’t make them as uncomfortable as the occasional liar. For this reason, they are more likely to lie regularly and are less likely to reveal lies through their appearance. However, because they are more comfortable lying, they do not pay as much attention to the consistency and logic of their statements.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1611/sins22lies5c

I'm just catching up on some of the tidbits in this story now, so forgive me if this is a repeat.

In 2002, (shortly after the warrantless wiretapping began) Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) proposed legislation that would lower the standards for getting FISA permission to wiretap non-US citizens from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion".

The White House responded to the proposal (in a statement by the DoJ's counsel for Intelligence Policy) saying essentially that it does not support the legislation. It didn't want to risk harming current ongoing investigations if by chance, the courts found the amendment unconstitutional.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html

It's ironic that at the time, the White House had just authorized wiretapping US citizens without proof of reasonable doubt !

And Sen. DeWine thought he'd have to have legislation passed to achieve such ends !

Bush's inattention to the consistency and logic of statements (lies).

I don't really think that al-Qaida is stupid enough to keep communicating using the same methods that they did before 9/11.

Of course not. The reason for domestic spying can be determined in part based on when the NSA data mining began.

According to news reports, Bush authorized the program in 2002. Hayden indicated that it began about October 2001.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa24jan24,1,995879.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

But there is evidence that data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in and before 9-11.

A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails.

http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/

Bush has been collecting data to increase and maintain his own power.

 

[Amp1]

Doped up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by edward
I have noticed a difference in Bush's cognitive abilities from one appearance to another for several years now. It is almost as if there is more than just one George W Bush??

Since Bush is such a poor speaker it is harder to tell with him. I believe the variation is due to influences from others who surround him, mood swings, and belief in his own lies.

It could also reflect on Bush's state of mind with regard to legal and/or illegal substances.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Frequent liars know lying is wrong, but it doesn’t make them as uncomfortable as the occasional liar. For this reason, they are more likely to lie regularly and are less likely to reveal lies through their appearance. However, because they are more comfortable lying, they do not pay as much attention to the consistency and logic of their statements.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1611/sins22lies5c

Are you citing a personal Geocities page? In particular, one which quotes biblical verses for content?

Some pathological liars are not content with merely telling a lie. They go a step further and actually live a lie (2 Thess. 2:11),

They are experts on deceit, and unlike most people, do not show emotion or get upset when they are lying (Prov. 26:28).

(emphasis mine)

If this was inadvertent, I request that you apologize and edit out this particular "source".

 

[rachmaninoff]

It could also reflect on Bush's state of mind with regard to legal and/or illegal substances.

Very, very speculative.

 

[SOS2008]

Are you citing a personal Geocities page? In particular, one which quotes biblical verses for content?

(emphasis mine)

If this was inadvertent, I request that you apologize and edit out this particular "source".

I did not catch that it was a religious site, though there doesn’t appear to be an authority on the topic (I probably should have just posted it as my own opinion). Nonetheless, very quickly here are some links to replace that source:

Some think a pathological liar is different from a normal liar in that a pathological liar believes the lie he or she is telling to be true —at least in public— and is "playing" the role. It is not clear, however, that this is the case, and others hold that pathological liars know precisely what they are doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Liar

A pathological liar believes in the lies, at least at the time that she or he is talking. Their stories tend to be very dramatic. They often portray the person as being smarter, braver, more attractive, or more interesting than she or he really is. Sometimes people begin to catch onto pathological liars because of obvious flaws in the stories.

http://www.healthyplace.com/Radio/articles/pathological_liars.htm

 

[edward]

I really doubt that al Qaida is making many, if any, phone calls to the USA these days. But to say that they are leaves Bush supporters very impressed, which inturn makes the administration very happy.

The administration keeps using the term "al qaida to USA calls" repeatedly.
This bolsters their case for whatever it is that they are doing. But from my point of view, and looking back at the WMD fiasco, whenever there is a phrase that is continuously repeated, some bad boy in Washington DC has an alterior motive.

The motive could be to keep the whole situation in the news so that GW can keep repeating "al qaida to USA phone calls", as often as possible in a scare tactic to keep the American pubic in favor of whatever he plans to do in the middle east, Iran included.

 

[SOS2008]

Very, very speculative.

Speculative, probably, but not “very, very speculative.”

Is George W. a "Dry Drunk"?
By Katherine van Wormer
Katherine van Wormer, Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa, is co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002).

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms--"crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evildoers," "axis of evil," and "regime change," terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media.

Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated.

http://hnn.us/articles/1434.html

This has been brought up more than once in PF. Using doubles like Saddam, now that is a little more speculative.

 

[SOS2008]

Jan 10, 2006 — Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet.

For 20 years, Tice worked in the shadows as he helped the United States spy on other people's conversations around the world.

"I specialized in what's called special access programs," Tice said of his job. "We called them 'black world' programs and operations."

But now, Tice tells ABC News that some of those secret "black world" operations run by the NSA were operated in ways that he believes violated the law. He is prepared to tell Congress all he knows about the alleged wrongdoing in these programs run by the Defense Department and the NSA in the post-9/11 efforts to go after terrorists.
----------
President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.

But Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.

"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

 

[SOS2008]

They're Watching You . . .

The post-9/11 marriage of private data and technology companies and government anti-terror initiatives has created something entirely new: a security-industrial complex. In his new book, Post reporter Robert O'Harrow Jr. shows how the government now depends on burgeoning private reservoirs of information about almost every aspect of our lives -- supposedly to promote homeland security and fight the war on terror.

Privacy

They're Watching You . . .
Reviewed by Geoffrey R. Stone
Sunday, February 20, 2005; Page BW04
NO PLACE TO HIDE •
Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society
By Robert O' Harrow Jr.

...So what's the problem? Should we care that there's no place to hide? What dangers are posed by this more convenient, more secure society? In this chilling narrative, O'Harrow identifies the risks and vividly illustrates them with powerful real-life stories.

First, there is the simple risk of mistake. The data in these systems, according to Ole Poulsen, one of HOLe's creators, are "full of errors and noise and wrong information." As a result, individuals are denied insurance, credit, employment, the right to board an airplane, and even the right to vote when the system spins out inaccurate information. And, as O'Harrow persuasively demonstrates, correcting the record can be a nightmare.

Second, there is the risk of public disclosure. We regard much of this information as private. But hackers can all too easily capture it and use it to humiliate, blackmail and impersonate us. The Federal Trade Commission reports that in a typical year, 10 million Americans were the victims of identity theft, resulting in bounced checks, loan denials, harassment from debt collectors, canceled insurance and false accusations of criminal conduct.

Third, there is the risk that government will use this information not only to ferret out terrorists, but also to suppress dissent and impose conformity. In the 1990s, this technology was developed primarily by private companies to enable marketers to target and profile consumers. After Sept. 11, however, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security aggressively sought access to these business databases, creating a vast private-public partnership in the exchange of such information. Moreover, the USA Patriot Act took full advantage of the post-9/11 crisis mentality and authorized a wide range of previously restricted government surveillance and data-gathering activities. Although the stated goal of these activities is to ensure our security, history teaches that once government has such information, it will inevitably use it to harass and silence those who question its policies.

Finally, O'Harrow warns that such massive invasion of privacy and intrusion into our ordinary anonymity may well alter the very fabric of our society. Once we understand that our every move is being tracked, monitored, recorded and collated, will we retain our essential sense of individual autonomy and personal dignity? Can freedom flourish in such a society? Is this the long awaited coming of 1984, the Brave New World of the 21st century, or will we somehow continue business, and life, as usual?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33493-2005Feb17.html

(Robert O’Harrow, reporter for The Washington Post and associate with The Center for Investigative Reporting was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for articles on privacy and technology, and a recipient of the 2003 Carnegie Mellon Cyber Security Reporting Award.)

Aside from federal lawsuits filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Greenpeace, several individuals have filed as well, such as:

Feb. 3, 2006, 9:40PM
NSA spying cited in bid to toss plea
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - An Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty in a terrorist plot to attack Washington and New York urged a judge on Friday to throw out his plea, in part because he was spied on through President Bush's controversial warrantless eavesdropping program.

…A number of terrorism defendants have filed legal challenges to the National Security Agency program recently, but Faris is unique because Bush administration officials have acknowledged he was spied on.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3635386.html

 

[edward]

Another view of the Security-Industrial Complex.

With all of the other secrecy surrounding this administration and it's dealings with certain industries, mostly oil. I can see a big problem with this type of ultra secret surveillance in regards to corporate secrets.

For instance company A in the USA is proceding with a deal to sell drilling equipment to a foreign nation or company. They are doing so via phone calls and e-mail. Company H, who has high level contacts with the administration could easily steal the deal away from company A.

It is just not possible to be this secretive, with absolutely no oversight, and not have the chance of an unethical exchange of information which may effect private sector national and global business.

 

[SOS2008]

For instance company A in the USA is proceding with a deal to sell drilling equipment to a foreign nation or company. They are doing so via phone calls and e-mail. Company H, who has high level contacts with the administration could easily steal the deal away from company A.

You mean like spying on UN diplomats in New York so the White House could gain leverage in seeking a resolution in the UN Security Council to invade Iraq? It’s already been done.

As Arkin says, welcome to Rumsfeld and Cheney's world of "actionable intelligence" where everything is potential actionable intelligence. -- http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/12/pentagon_domest.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Another view of the Security-Industrial Complex.

With all of the other secrecy surrounding this administration and it's dealings with certain industries, mostly oil. I can see a big problem with this type of ultra secret surveillance in regards to corporate secrets.

For instance company A in the USA is proceding with a deal to sell drilling equipment to a foreign nation or company. They are doing so via phone calls and e-mail. Company H, who has high level contacts with the administration could easily steal the deal away from company A.

It is just not possible to be this secretive, with absolutely no oversight, and not have the chance of an unethical exchange of information which may effect private sector national and global business.

Well they need something to supplement those no bid contracts.

How else is a company to survive in such a competitive global environment?

 

[SOS2008]

Washington Post
Updated: 12:15 a.m. ET Feb. 5, 2006

Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

…The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

For more...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11169129/

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush is fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror. He exhorted Congress not to end or tinker with the program.

… He also said he did not think the 1978 law needed to be modified. And, said Gonzales, “To end the program now would afford our enemy dangerous and potential deadly new room for operation within our borders.”

Ooooo that's scawy. That’s the best an Attorney General can argue? Okay, so he says the 1978 law is fine as it stands. Why the either-or fear tactic? (Oh yes, that’s the MO for BushCo.) And why don’t they skip the usual cyclical argumentation, and continue the program with FISA oversight, beginning as suggested:

Specter told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that “the president does not have a blank check.” Specter suggested that the program’s legality be reviewed by a special federal court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11199689/

The majority of Americans agree that the eavesdropping program should be reviewed by the FISA court. After all, if Bush doesn't have anything to hide, what is he worried about?

 

[Art]

For more...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11169129/

Ooooo that's scawy. That’s the best an Attorney General can argue? Okay, so he says the 1978 law is fine as it stands. Why the either-or fear tactic? (Oh yes, that’s the MO for BushCo.) And why don’t they skip the usual cyclical argumentation, and continue the program with FISA oversight, beginning as suggested:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11199689/

He had to say that. To agree a change in the law was needed would be an admission that he knew they had broken it.

The majority of Americans agree that the eavesdropping program should be reviewed by the FISA court. After all, if Bush doesn't have anything to hide, what is he worried about?

Hear! Hear!

 

[turbo]

On the national news, Gonzales was telling the Senate committee that the secret spying is necessary because they have to wiretap people on short notice. That is such a blatant lie. The FISA law provides that the administration can wiretap anyone for any reason for up to 72 hours before getting the approval of the rubber-stamp FISA court.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

It's impossible to have court oversight over the way the NSA does business. The way they work is they scan everything. There's no telling if something is useful until you've scanned it first. Then you leave a message at the judge's answering machine. If you think Physics Forums is not scanned by the NSA one way or another, you might be correct, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[edward]

It's impossible to have court oversight over the way the NSA does business. The way they work is they scan everything. There's no telling if something is useful until you've scanned it first.

99.9999% of what they scan is useless jibberish. Al Qaida is not stupid enough to use high tech to commuicate. They will simply go back to low tech.

Then you leave a message at the judges answering machine.

Thats the problem they are leaving the Fisa judges out of the equation entirely. Historically the only other governments who have done this are dictatorships.

If you think Physics Forums is not scanned by the NSA one way or another, you might be correct, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Of course this forum is being scanned. We have people from other countries posting here. If it isn't being scanned NSA is not doing what Bush claims it is doing.

What we really need are agents on the ground who speak Arabic. We don't even have enough Agents fluent in Arabic to translate the infomation we do collect from data mining.

 

[SOS2008]

It's impossible to have court oversight over the way the NSA does business. The way they work is they scan everything. There's no telling if something is useful until you've scanned it first. Then you leave a message at the judge's answering machine. If you think Physics Forums is not scanned by the NSA one way or another, you might be correct, but I wouldn't bet on it.

That's the problem; they scan everything so the process reaps very little about terrorists (oh and without probable cause and a warrant it is unconstitutional to conduct surveillance of American citizens). If it reaps little in the way of terrorism, one must ask why they are so intent on keeping the program? Because maybe that isn’t the information they are after.

If they were truly interested in terrorists, they would invest in field operatives and other more traditional forms of intelligence gathering.

 

[edward]

The Bush administration is data mining the entire world while leaving our southern and northern borders wide open. What are they thinking!

Patrol agents told one Arizona newspaper that 77 males "of Middle Eastern descent" were apprehended in June in two separate incidents. All were trekking through the Chiricahua mountains and are believed to have been part of a larger group of illegal immigrants. Many were released pending immigration hearings. According to Solomon Ortiz, the Congressman for Corpus Christi in Texas, similar incidents are "happening all over the place. It's very, very scary".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/wmex15.xml

 

[SOS2008]

The Bush administration is data mining the entire world while leaving our southern and northern borders wide open. What are they thinking!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/wmex15.xml

I just read your post above my last post, basically saying the same things.

As for the borders, you and I live in a border state so are more aware of the lack of border security. I've mentioned this contradiction several times here in PF. Some of us understand that Bush only cares about terrorism as it can be leveraged toward his goals; invasion of Iraq, becoming reelected, powers of a wartime presidency, domestic spying (for information about political opposition), etc. He’s a fascist who would like to be dictator of a police state, but will settle for the spoils of war and policies beneficial to him and his cronies.

 

[BobG]

The Bush administration says the electronic surveillance is authorized by the special war time powers granted to the President by the Constitution and by Congress' Sep 14, 2001 "Authorization for Use of Military Force". The obvious question is how long will warrantless surveillance be allowed. Another year or so? Three or four years? As long as it takes? For the rest of your lifetime? How about until your newborn has grandchildren? Implied from Rumsfeld's estimate is that the surveillance will be authorized for decades. (Washington Post article)

The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said ..

The "War on Terror" has now become "The Long War" and is referenced as such many times in the http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf.

In other words, the administration's position is that 9/11 has justified virtually permanent suspension of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[edward]

I just read your post above my last post, basically saying the same things.

As for the borders, you and I live in a border state so are more aware of the lack of border security. I've mentioned this contradiction several times here in PF. Some of us understand that Bush only cares about terrorism as it can be leveraged toward his goals; invasion of Iraq, becoming reelected, powers of a wartime presidency, domestic spying (for information about political opposition), etc. He’s a fascist who would like to be dictator of a police state, but will settle for the spoils of war and policies beneficial to him and his cronies.

According to my morning paper one out of every 12 people in Arizona is an illegal alien. I wish we could give them all jobs, but we just can't. And that one in twelve ratio is dam scary.

 

[crazycalhoun]

99.9999% of what they scan is useless jibberish. Al Qaida is not stupid enough to use high tech to commuicate. They will simply go back to low tech.

Smoke signals? And what's so stupid about using "high tech?" There are tens of millions of cell phone users. There are tens of millions of potential routes for network traffic to take. The NSA still has to get lucky to make an intercept of interest in a timely fashion.

Thats the problem they are leaving the Fisa judges out of the equation entirely. Historically the only other governments who have done this are dictatorships.

And, presumably, the United States before 1978. Oh, and France before 1991 and the United Kingdom and Canada today.

Of course this forum is being scanned. We have people from other countries posting here. If it isn't being scanned NSA is not doing what Bush claims it is doing.

Just out of curiousity, what does "scanned" mean to you? I mean, how does it work--technically speaking?

What we really need are agents on the ground who speak Arabic. We don't even have enough Agents fluent in Arabic to translate the infomation we do collect from data mining.

So what's got you so worried?

 

[edward]

That's the problem; they scan everything so the process reaps very little about terrorists (oh and without probable cause and a warrant it is unconstitutional to conduct surveillance of American citizens). If it reaps little in the way of terrorism, one must ask why they are so intent on keeping the program? Because maybe that isn’t the information they are after.

If they were truly interested in terrorists, they would invest in field operatives and other more traditional forms of intelligence gathering.

I just thought of something that may explain the Bush administrations reason for wanting warrantless surveillance.

Warrants for what they claim to be doing would have been easy, but
they could never have gotten a blanket warrant for surveillance of all Americans. They probably could't have even gotten a blanket warrant for all foreign/domestic phone calls.

I have a gut feeling that they were heavily influenced to do this massive surveillance by some mega bucks communications companies who are providing the equipment and services.

I mostly just hope that the don't trip over all of this mega data mining info and allow a simple terrorist plan to slip through the cracks.

 

[turbo]

I mostly just hope that the don't trip over all of this mega data mining info and allow a simple terrorist plan to slip through the cracks.

This is a very real threat. Bush defines "torture" as anything that we do not do to prisoners, because the US does not torture prisoners. That's pretty lame and would get you ejected from a junior high debating society. He defines "terrorists" as anybody with links to a "terrorist" organization, and his definition of a terrorist organization may extend to anybody that disagrees with wars in Irag and Afghanistan, including Veterans for Peace, and many other groups. He and his lackeys have accused Cindy Sheehan of giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, so if you have emailed or called her, rest assured that your communications have been monitored. Who here does not think that there are "targeted" Americans whose communications are given special attention? The Bush gestapo has gotten cooperation from search engines (Google is a hold-out) to get information on the things YOU search for on-line. If you are interested in current events and you search on key words that the administration is interested in, you are targeted.

Go here and watch the interview with Russel Tice, former NSA employee:

http://www.democracynow.org/

All this crap, and nobody from the Bush camp will admit that any loon with an RPG can blow up a LNG tanker in a major port and kill hundreds of thousands of people or maybe get a nuke into a shipping container (fewer than 1% are checked) going into such a port, and trigger it when it gets there (or perhaps to an alternate destination). There are some people with working brains that are willing to tell them these things, but their agenda is built on scaring people with more airliners crashing into buildings so they can steal our rights and consolidate their control. Are terrorists so stupid that they can't come up with some different ways to kill people? I doubt that.

 

[Skyhunter]

Is the NSA program even working?

All the discussion in regards to the legality of the NSA warrant less spying misses a very important point. Is it effective?

How many terrorists have been arrested as a result of warrant less wiretapping? Any convictions?

There are a lot of Americans willing to give up their 4th amendment rights for security. I am not one of them. I agree with Franklin, "Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither." But if I was I would at least like to know that I was getting some return for selling my freedom.

The administration is back to terrorizing the public again. Did you hear Bush's speech last week? He said "terror", "terrorism", or "terrorist" 97 times in one speech. I guess he missed the point made by Roosevelt. "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!"

GOT RIGHTS?

 

[Tweek]

Wow I can't believe this really surprises anyone. I work in the government and there is more going on then any of you will ever realize...these things are nessasary. The less the public knows the better. The government already says too much. Others are sacrificing a lot for your safety. Go watch TV and go enjoy the movies. You have nothing to worry about. The government does not care who or what you talk about. Suspects who are monitored have a history of criminal activity.

 

[Cyrus]

I work for the government too, so what? Did you all loose sight of who pays your salary?

Others are sacrificing a lot for your safety.

Good for them, I pay them too, and they chose their profession.

Go watch TV and go enjoy the movies. You have nothing to worry about. The government does not care who or what you talk about. Suspects who are monitored have a history of criminal activity.

Oh yea? Prove it.

 

[Tweek]

It's all a game of cat and mouse. The government is not out to harm citizens and take away their rights. One of the primary functions of the gov is to insure stability. The gov cannot provide that stability when persons are allowed to infiltrate our territory and cause mass civilian casualties. I work with the NSA and they are doing a hell of a job protecting America. Don't believe everything you read from the NY Times. They have only part of the truth. The rest is classified and for good reason. The less our enemys know about our methods the better.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, you work for the NSA, sure. What do you do for the NSA? I believe what other Congressmen and Senators are saying...give me a break. Stop spreading propoganda about the government knows best. Do you have any real facts to present? For someone working at the NSA you have provided no worthy input so far.

 

[Tweek]

I said I work WITH the NSA. I'm actually going to starting working for the NSA in a few more years after I retire from my current job.

All I'm saying is that the NSA guys are working night and day to make our country better. I'm not going to go into detail about what I do for obvious reasons. Any moderator can confirm who I am by simply looking at my IP address :-)

You want the truth well here it is. Basically everyone in the link below works together in getting good intelligence about our enemys and then acts on that intel. Phone tapping is only one of many effective ways to gain intel. If you would like to know more just search around the links on this page.

http://www.dni.gov/

 

[Cyrus]

I have already said this before, please make a case for your argment if you want me to take you seriously. Simply telling me the government should do everything in secret and I should shut up and be happy with it isn't going to fly around here.

 

[Tweek]

I understand this is a touchy subject and that you feel very vulnerable and threatened knowing that your conversations may not be private. That information was never intended to leak out. It was necessary at the time because of the situation the gov was put in. We were unable to predict Sep 11 with conventional means. So everything (within reason, using the resources available and creating new ones) the gov could do to protect it's people was done so that it didn't happen again. You want a case for my argument? Well here is best answer I can give. Has there been a successful attack on US soil since Sep 11? No.

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, you mean like the faulty intelligence pre-operation Iraqi freedom that lead us into a war for the wrong reasons. That right there tells me I STILL can't trust the government with these issues. I am now supposed to trust them on dealing with Iran and North Korea. Sorry, you guys screwed up far to big and far too many times. This administration should be impeached, and a new one should be put in place that defends the rights of its citizens.

 

[Tweek]

I think Einstein said it best "Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." I voted for Kerry haha and I was actually a Dean supporter. Yeah you would be surprised by how many people in the Intel community don't agree with Pres Bush on many things. There is not a whole lot anyone can do about that when the republicans control so much. However the gov agencies working for your hard dollars are doing every they can to protect you. I can assure you that. I've been gone from my wife for a long time working sometimes 36 hours straight. The Intel community can only provide the information. It's up to the public to choose who they want to make the decisions. It's really your neighbors who failed you...by electing your current public officials.

 

[Cyrus]

Lets be real here, it was not my neighbors giving the President the faulty intelligence reports. That part was your guys fault. There is no two ways about it. I understand and appreciate what you guys are doing, but you have screwed things up with such magnitude that is has changed world history on a major scale. A lot of the blame falls squarely on your shoulders. Spying on US citizens is not what America stands for. I don't care if they are criminal, the criminals have rights too. You want to spy, you get a warrant. Otherwise, tough nut.

 

[Tweek]

I think the poor decisions made off the Intel by the Pres. was the real problem.

 

[Cyrus]

That is certainly true; however, that does not negate the fact that the government does not have the right to spy on its citizens without going through the proper checks and balances, vis a vis FISA.

 

[SOS2008]

The less the public knows the better. The government already says too much. Others are sacrificing a lot for your safety. Go watch TV and go enjoy the movies. You have nothing to worry about.

Our military does a good job. Our intelligence agencies do a good job. It is the policy makers above them that are in question, whether support for invasion of Iraq, NSA surveillance or what have you. What is in question are the checks and balances between the executive, congressional and judicial branches, balance between liberty and security, balance between transparency and secrecy, etc. And it’s a damn shame when others such as the CIA are made the scapegoat for failure by the White House.

The CIA can provide all the intelligence they have to the President, and their job is done. If the President chooses to cherry pick what intelligence is presented to Congress (or the UN), or chooses to ignore the FISA court, or chooses to withhold or leak/declassify information at whim, now we have a problem.

Understand that individuals like Paul Pillar can only state and even restate their reservations. If anyone caught the CNN Presents – “Dead Wrong” update this evening, the intelligence agencies objected repeatedly to claims being made by the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell) in regard to WMD, and even about links to Al-Qaeda.

Yet Republicans like Pat Roberts are criticizing Pillar asking why he didn’t come forward before now. Uh, they did! And no, there wasn’t any arm-twisting. So is that to say there wasn’t any “fixing of the intelligence” on the policy end of it by Bush, et al? Gaaagh I detest the faulty reasoning idiots like Roberts put forward. I ask him and those like him to explain the constant refusal by the White House to release requested information, obstructing investigations into the “fixing of intelligence” (that Roberts heads up), Abramoff, or having the NSA program reviewed by FISA.

In our democratic republic the government must be made to answer to the American people. Yes, certain things need to be classified for security reasons. But at the same time, the problem with our country is that the American people watch shallow TV shows and movies instead of practicing good citizenship and being active in what is going on in their country. Another sad thing is your attitude is prevalent in such agencies, so you will probably fit right in.

EDIT: I see many more posts were added while I was posting mine, and that you have made some of the same points I have made.

 

[turbo]

Wow I can't believe this really surprises anyone. I work in the government and there is more going on then any of you will ever realize...these things are nessasary. The less the public knows the better. The government already says too much. Others are sacrificing a lot for your safety. Go watch TV and go enjoy the movies. You have nothing to worry about. The government does not care who or what you talk about. Suspects who are monitored have a history of criminal activity.

You make it sound like this is a very selective limited activity. If you work with the NSA, you should know something about their methodology. The NSA casts a very wide net and needs incredible amounts of processing power just to sort through the results. Also, the administration has asked for (and has apparently gotten) large blocks of search engine queries. How selective is that? Does everybody who uses search engines have a criminal record?

 

[Amp1]

Tweak, I kinda sympathize with you;however, SOS, cyrusabdollahi and Turbo-1 make valid points. Bushco shoots theirself in the foot with their rhetoric and actions. It's also obvious they intentionally setup individuals as scapegoats to take the fall when their filthy secret schemes are discovered or backfires in their face. People like C. Todd-Whitman and Brown (FEMA). Por exemplo, Whitman, IMO, objected to the Bush admin's rewrite of her (at the time) agency's report on the air quality around ground zero and (again IMO) likely resigned (quit) to protest the weakening of clean air and water regs by Bushco. Now she is being blamed and held accountable. She gave all of us a hint on how bad the air quality was at GZ when she visited there... wearing a gas mask. And Mr. Brown, since becoming a private citizen has fired back at the admin even while accepting responsiblity for his part in that mess.

The FISA allows as mentioned in a post here 72 hrs of warrentless wire tapping before the court is to be notified, 3 days. And the court is held in secret to boot. Bushco has no excuse. It blatantly ignored the law of the land.

To top things off, there would probably not be 'any new' terrorist attacks if the Bush admin had something to do with the 9/11 attack and are holding in reserve some scheme to scare US citizens to implement another phase of their agenda.

By the way Russ linked a very funny(albeit on point) Jesus/Bush cartoon in the (locked) Caricatures...Again thread.

 

[SOS2008]

From Meet The Press yesterday - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11272634/page/6/:

REP. JANE HARMAN, (D-Calif.): I still support the program, but it needs to be on a sounder legal footing, and I think the Gang of Eight process violates the National Security Act of 1947, which requires that, unless it’s a covert action program—Congress, that means the two Intelligence Committees—have to be fully and completely briefed. …This is not a covert action program, this is a very valuable foreign collection program…

SEN. DASCHLE: …You’ve got two chief justices of the Foreign Surveillance Act court, which have now suspended this law because of concern for what the administration has done…

REP. HARMAN: I have read the legislative history of FISA, which was enacted in 1978 on a bipartisan basis to cure the abuses of the Nixon era that had preceded it, I understand that it is the exclusive way that we can eavesdrop on Americans in America.

Let’s—let’s understand that our Constitution really is the issue here. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to listen and seize property of Americans.

And, oh, by the way, FISA was modernized eight times in the Patriot Act after 2001. It is not a quaint little old thing that doesn’t work here, it can work here, and I think the entire program should fit under FISA as currently drafted. We don’t even need to amend FISA.

Personal Note: In regard to the Forth Amendment (and all amendments, e.g., Bill of Rights), amendment means a correction or addition that revises an original document, or in this case, article of the Constitution, i.e., Article 2.

MR. RUSSERT: …people go back to, Democrats and Republicans, many, to the law, and they’ll say the law is very clear: You cannot engage in this activity unless authorized by statute. …do you believe that the authorization to go to war, passed by Congress…September 15, 2001, to go into Afghanistan, to take out al-Qaeda and the Taliban, that authorization granted the president the authority for this eavesdropping program?

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, you wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post about the debate leading up to the war. And I want to read through this very carefully because it is part of the history, legislative history, and come back and talk about it. You write, “On the evening of September 15--September 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to, quote, ‘deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.’ Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill-defined, Congress chose instead, on September 14, to authorize, quote, ‘all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided’ the attacks of September 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive language—more expansive authority he sought, and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words ‘in the United States and’ after ‘appropriate force’in the agreed-upon text.” This would be the proposed wording from the White House, “all necessary and appropriate force in the United States and against those nations, organizations, persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11.” Back to your piece. “This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas—where we all understood he wanted authority to act—but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.” Did anyone mention eavesdropping to you when they sought to change that language?

SEN. DASCHLE: They didn’t, Tim. Tim, there were actually two pivotal moments. That was one, what should be the scope of the president’s authority as we told him to. He had our complete support in using all necessary means. And the article lays it as clearly as I know how to lay it out. We said “concerning activities abroad,” not within the United States.

But there was a second pivotal moment. And that was in December with the reauthorization of the intelligence legislation that comes before Congress every year until this year. But—and that specifically dealt with the president’s request to change FISA. We said to him, “Look, if FISA isn’t working to your satisfaction, what would you have us do?” And we did two things. One was we gave the president retroactive authority. There isn’t any requirement today that the president go before FISA before the action. They now have 72 hours to act and then can come back retroactively and ask FISA to make a decision. And they don’t—there’s no vote required of the FISA court. One judge has the ability to do that. So we changed it from 24 hours to 72 hours and we made it retroactive.

…The final thing I’d say is, up until then people cited the Constitution as the sole authority for making these actions. Now since FISA, you can’t do that. FISA, constrained—or clarified the Constitutional authority, and that’s exactly what we did again in December of 2001.

REP. HARMAN: …I remember all those efforts to change FISA. We asked the president if he needed more authority. He’s the one who requested the 72-hour delay, longer than 24 hours, which had been the standard before. He requested that it extend to roving wiretaps and e-mails, all the modern communications methods. It’s not a quaint statute. FISA lawyers say it takes less than a day to prepare a filing, and they can be prepared orally in an emergency.

It is obvious Bush, et al wanted more power but couldn't get it from Congress. And this is where it became obvious that Roberts toes the line:

SEN. ROBERTS: Actually, that’s not true, Tim. If you’ve got five days, eight days on one of the threats that we were briefed on, you’ve got to act within minutes and hours. If you have 10 dots here and you have 100 dots to get the full picture and you’re waiting days and you may be missing these communications, it may be too late.

MR. RUSSERT: Then why not go to Congress and say that, and request a change in the statute that would allow this activity specifically? What’s the reluctance to go to Congress?

SEN. ROBERTS: I think that they do—I don’t know, this—…

Roberts couldn’t answer the question. He became so befuddled, he was jerking about as he tried to speak, and then fumbled for a bottle of pills and went off topic talking about “memory pills” that he apparently needs to take. (Daschle was trying not to laugh out loud at the ridiculousness of it all).

(Videotape, April 20, 2004)

PRES. BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretape requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Did the president tell the truth?

REP. HOEKSTRA: The president told the truth in terms of if we are going to domestic to domestic, there is a court order. Obviously at that time, we in Congress knew, or at least the eight of us knew that if he was taking—if we were listening to al-Qaeda on one end calling into the United States, that there was not a court order, there was not a warrant.

MR. RUSSERT: The president never said domestic to domestic. He said, “A wiretap requires a court order. When you’re talking—when you’re tracking down—talking about chasing down the terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” So he’s suggesting to the American people that he is bound, as president, to get a court order. He was not saying, “I have inherent congress—constitutional authority to do what I want to do.””

I wish Russert had drilled down on the comment: "...we in Congress knew, or at least the eight of us knew that if he was taking—if we were listening to al-Qaeda on one end calling into the United States, that there was not a court order, there was not a warrant."

MR. RUSSERT: …James Risen broke this story in The New York Times. He says that the information was provided to him by a whistleblower, who was concerned about the constitutionality of this program. “Porter Goss, the head of the CIA, asserted that leaks had done very severe damage to the national security and declared that the leakers would be found. ‘I have called in the FBI, the Department of Justice,’ Mr. Goss said. ‘It is my aim, it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information.’”

I think any investigation would be a good thing if done with sincerity and without WH obstruction, but I find Goss’ claims about damage to national security highly exaggerated. Puleeese!

REP. HOEKSTRA: If this person is troubled in government, there are a series of steps that they can take so that they do not jeopardize national security. …They can come to Pat, myself, or Jane and say, “We are very, very troubled by what this administration is doing. You need to take a look at this.” …

MR. RUSSERT: They may have feared for reprisal. They may have feared that Congress wouldn’t do anything.

REP. HOEKSTRA: Well, that’s not their decision to make...

I sure as heck wouldn’t trust the likes of Pat Roberts, nor would I feel assured that this Republican Congress would do anything about anything. Besides, we all know that it is the White House that leaks everything including the NSA program--they were the first to speak of it.

 

[SOS2008]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/intelligence_congress_15;_ylt=AqHgjR_5cZb3vCNBX3Xs8DnB4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

From Associated Press regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings:

I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy and we're trying to reinstall that," Goss said.

A moment of silence please, while we all reflect upon the meaning of this statement. ()

"I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.

Rockefeller suggested that the "leaks" Goss talked about most likely "came from the executive branch" of the government.

That brought a terse response from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said, "It's not fair to point a finger as to the responsibility of the leak."

I agree with Rockefeller. If the only way to get an investigation is in this manner, than so be it. I think it will reveal the White House to be the first source to discuss the NSA program in public.

As for Mueller, I suspect he then burst into tears and took his ball home. I hope he took Negroponte with him.

 

[Hurkyl]

A moment of silence please, while we all reflect upon the meaning of this statement.

You mean the one saying that we should keep secret the things that ought to remain secret?

 

[turbo]

You mean the one saying that we should keep secret the things that ought to remain secret?

You should consider that there is a difference between "discretion" (the willing suppression of information) and secrecy (the forced suppression of information). You might also consider that the invocation of the "need" for secrecy can cover a need for cover-up and deception. Our government is in serious need of honesty, and that is not forthcoming.