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

  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a New York Times report revealing that President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct domestic eavesdropping without court-approved warrants in the wake of the September 11 attacks. This marked a significant shift in U.S. intelligence practices, raising concerns about potential violations of constitutional rights. Many participants express skepticism about the legality and oversight of such surveillance, with some arguing that it has been known for years that the government has extensive surveillance capabilities. Others debate the implications for privacy rights, suggesting that if individuals are not engaged in criminal activity, they should not be concerned about government monitoring. The conversation also touches on historical abuses of surveillance powers and the potential for misuse in political contexts. Participants highlight the need for checks and balances to prevent the erosion of civil liberties, emphasizing that judicial oversight is crucial to maintaining accountability in surveillance practices. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the balance between national security and individual rights in the context of government surveillance.
  • #151
Astronuc said:
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. :rolleyes:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
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!
 
  • #153
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #154
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 ! :rolleyes:

And Sen. DeWine thought he'd have to have legislation passed to achieve such ends !
 
Last edited:
  • #155
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #156
edward said:
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

Gokul43201 said:
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 ! :rolleyes:

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).
edward said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #157
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. :-p :confused:
 
  • #158
SOS2008 said:
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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #159
Amp1 said:
It could also reflect on Bush's state of mind with regard to legal and/or illegal substances. :-p :confused:

Very, very speculative.
 
  • #160
rachmaninoff said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #161
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.
 
  • #162
rachmaninoff said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
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
 
Last edited:
  • #164
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
 
Last edited:
  • #165
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
edward said:
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
 
  • #167
edward said:
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?
 
  • #168
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #169
SOS2008 said:
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.

SOS2008 said:
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! :approve:
 
  • #170
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.
 
  • #171
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.
 
  • #172
WarrenPlatts said:
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.
 
  • #173
WarrenPlatts said:
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.
 
  • #174
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
 
Last edited:
  • #175
edward said:
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.
 
  • #176
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)
Rumsfeld Offers Strategies for Current War said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #177
SOS2008 said:
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.
 
  • #178
edward said:
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?
 
  • #179
SOS2008 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #180
edward said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
12K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K