NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Skyhunter]

Here is an interesting take from conservative columnist Steve Chapman
with the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Sunday/perspective/chi-0512250256dec25,1,4979840.column?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

An excellent piece, he also gives other examples of wanting power for the sake of power.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, I think that bush is spying on reporters. Here is the first hint that that may be the case.

Was the NSA listening?

Does NBC's Andrea Mitchell know something about the Bush administration's domestic spying program that the rest of us don't? As AMERICAblog's John Aravosis notes, Mitchell put a question to the New York Times' James Risen Tuesday that suggests that she might.

In an interview with Risen, Mitchell asked if he had any information suggesting that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour. Risen said he hadn't heard that. Has Mitchell heard something to that effect, or was she just using Amanpour's name as the example of what might have gone wrong with the spying program?

We don't know the answer to that, and neither does Aravosis. But as Aravosis notes, the implications of tapping Amanpour's phone lines could be enormous. There's the chilling thought that government officials might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter, and then there's this: Amanpour's husband, who like any husband might have had occasion to use his wife's phone, happens to be Jamie Rubin, the former Clinton administration official who served as a foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Update: As several readers note in the comments below, the exchange between Mitchell and Risen about Amanpour has rather mysteriously disappeared from the transcript of the interview posted on the MSNBC Web site. If MSNBC has an explanation for why Mitchell's question and Risen's answer have disappeared, we'd sure like to hear it. Did Mitchell not ask the question -- that seems unlikely, doesn't it? -- or does someone at MSNBC just wish she hadn't?

-- Tim Grieve

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.

A net gain of fifteen House seats and we can get subpoena power and find out what is really going on with the Bush/Cheney cabal.

 

[BobG]

Well as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, I think that bush is spying on reporters. Here is the first hint that that may be the case.

We don't know the answer to that, and neither does Aravosis. But as Aravosis notes, the implications of tapping Amanpour's phone lines could be enormous. There's the chilling thought that government officials might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter, and then there's this: Amanpour's husband, who like any husband might have had occasion to use his wife's phone, happens to be Jamie Rubin, the former Clinton administration official who served as a foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's presidential campaign.

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.
A net gain of fifteen House seats and we can get subpoena power and find out what is really going on with the Bush/Cheney cabal.

This kind of thing is the most bothersome part of allowing anyone to eavesdrop or snoop into anyone's business without a warrant.

The argument that a private citizen has nothing to fear from surveillance as long as they have nothing to hide may be true, but monitoring of political opponents or of reporters that might put out unfavorable stories goes beyond infringing on the rights of a private citizen. These are the kind of things that affect the political direction of the country.

The result is a serious dampening of democracy, especially in the current climate where Republicans and Democrats are practically at war with each other. It's insanity to think either party should have access to these kinds of tools without some close supervision by a neutral party (presumably the judiciary).

 

[Skyhunter]

The result is a serious dampening of democracy, especially in the current climate where Republicans and Democrats are practically at war with each other. It's insanity to think either party should have access to these kinds of tools without some close supervision by a neutral party (presumably the judiciary).

I still have not heard an argument yet as to why the secret FISA courts should not be petitioned for warrants. What do they not want the judges to know?

It is quite obvious that Bush broke the law. The law that he took an oath to uphold.

 

[SOS2008]

I still have not heard an argument yet as to why the secret FISA courts should not be petitioned for warrants.

We haven’t and won’t because there is absolutely no excuse for this.

WASHINGTON — The nonpartisan research arm of Congress on Friday questioned the legal foundation of President Bush's decision to order eavesdropping on Americans without court warrants.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002725671_spying07.html

What do they not want the judges to know?

Bush authorized the eavesdropping operation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He's said that it's limited to tracking Americans who are suspected of belonging to or aiding al-Qaida or its allies.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002725671_spying07.html

I understand something like an average of 500 calls a day are monitored. How can there be that many Al Qaida terrorists communicating with U.S. citizens on a daily basis? They aren’t.

NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged… the NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/

They also didn’t want courts/judges to know about this:

On December 14, NBC Nightly News revealed the existence of a hitherto secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" that occurred during the pervious ten months. Among those incidents was a meeting by activists at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth , Florida , to plan a protest against military recruiting at local high schools. Other "suspicious incidents" include an anti-war protest in Los Angeles featuring an effigy of the President and a December 2004 meeting to plan a protest against military recruiters in Boston.

…Heavily-censored documents obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed a pattern of spying by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces on anti-war groups and others that work on environmental issues, animal rights and poverty relief. Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been labeled "domestic terrorists" in FBI files.

http://www.aclu-mass.org/update/

And people aren’t worried about how the term “terrorist” is thrown around? Not to mention UN officials and diplomats under constant surveillance.

It is quite obvious that Bush broke the law. The law that he took an oath to uphold.

In an article printed Friday on the op-ed page of The Washington Post, Daschle… wrote that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/politics/main1165139.shtml

It is obvious the Bush administration knew it was illegal or they would not have made such attempts to get the authorization legally, and that they knowingly placed themselves above the law just the same. In further cover-up:

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller had been summoned to the Oval Office by the President on December 6 in an effort to stave off publication. Once the piece was published, Bush, Cheney, Rice and other administration officials launched an aggressive offensive attacking the messenger - "Our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country," Bush declared in a December 17 radio address.

http://www.aclu-mass.org/update/

Aside from confusing “whistleblower” with treason, the sad irony is our civil liberties are being compromised for nothing. The huge amount of data collected is impossible to search properly, and more importantly terrorists have known their communications are monitored so have long since found other ways to communicate undetected.

"September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do so to ourselves.” — From US political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, Greece, John Brady Kiesling’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Feb. 24, 2003. Kiesling was a career diplomat who had served in United States embassies for nearly 20 years, from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

The people who still defend/support the Bush administration are off their rock.

 

[BobG]

NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged… the NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects.

Bulk mining of communications for 'suspicious patterns' has to be what the White House is bypassing the FISA court for. How do you get a warrant for random searches when you don't even know who you'll be searching yet?

The 'threat' isn't big enough to warrant this kind of reaction. However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred. I doubt any politician could imagine themselves explaining "I was busy protecting Americans' civil liberties" when asked what they were doing to prevent another 9/11.

Terrorism works exactly because it does cause a terror far out of proportion to its actual damage. (In fact, if terrorist groups flew planes into populated cities once a month, their 'real' threat would rise large enough for you to be as terrified of a terrorist attack as you are driving your car).

The proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Afghanistan to debilitate al-Qaida, taking out the Taliban if they stood in the way, then leave the country once the job was done. Would al-Qaida or some other terrorist group re-established themselves in Afghanistan or another country with almost no government control? Of course. And we would have to mount another invasion.

I don't think you can ever eliminate terrorist groups completely, but you could eventually establish the idea that association with or protection of any terrorist group guarantees elimination of the 'enablers'. Without a stable base of operations, none of these terrorist groups can mount more than small scale attacks.

While small scale terrorist attacks are a problem, they aren't a big enough problem to warrant giving up your civil liberties for.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bulk mining of communications for 'suspicious patterns' has to be what the White House is bypassing the FISA court for. How do you get a warrant for random searches when you don't even know who you'll be searching yet?
The 'threat' isn't big enough to warrant this kind of reaction. However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred. I doubt any politician could imagine themselves explaining "I was busy protecting Americans' civil liberties" when asked what they were doing to prevent another 9/11.
Terrorism works exactly because it does cause a terror far out of proportion to its actual damage. (In fact, if terrorist groups flew planes into populated cities once a month, their 'real' threat would rise large enough for you to be as terrified of a terrorist attack as you are driving your car).
The proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Afghanistan to debilitate al-Qaida, taking out the Taliban if they stood in the way, then leave the country once the job was done. Would al-Qaida or some other terrorist group re-established themselves in Afghanistan or another country with almost no government control? Of course. And we would have to mount another invasion.
I don't think you can ever eliminate terrorist groups completely, but you could eventually establish the idea that association with or protection of any terrorist group guarantees elimination of the 'enablers'. Without a stable base of operations, none of these terrorist groups can mount more than small scale attacks.
While small scale terrorist attacks are a problem, they aren't a big enough problem to warrant giving up your civil liberties for.

I don't believe we know yet how and for what reasons Bush was circumventing the FISA courts. I agree that data mining was probably (hopefully) a big part of it. I think it goes beyond that though, and if congress will do it's duty and provide oversight we might learn more. We will not learn everything, much of the evidence, recordings etc have already been disposed of.

I agree about Afghanistan, and destroying the terrorist organizations. (I wish Bush would do the same.) I think that terrorism could be eliminated, but it requires that humanity evolve, and that starts with the affluent working toward providing for the self maintenance needs of all humans. When people are not constantly exposed and subjected to injustice, they are far less likely to lash out violently in desperation.

Corporatism, and the exploitation of people and resources for profit is not the system that will bring about this spiritual leap in human consciousness. I tend to agree with Smurf, that anarchism is a better ideology for an enlightened world. We have the technology, the wealth and the resources. All we lack is the political will.

 

[SOS2008]

However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred.

I think we can all appreciate this predicament… Since many of us asked this very question regarding prior attacks, most notably 9-11. In that case the intelligence was made available--without breaking the law--but was not acted upon appropriately. Also, I would have more leniencies toward Bush’s claims that he is protecting our national security if other more obvious efforts were being made such as border control.

Then it comes down to this question:

…in addition to questions about the legality of the program, another question certain to be asked by Congress is what the secret surveillance accomplished.

So far the White House has offered only one conflicting example (video), Stewart reports. That was the case of Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen, who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to cut down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch. The NSA spy program was necessary because it "helped uncover" the Faris plot, the White House told The New York Times, which broke the surveillance story. But last summer the president gave credit for the Faris case to the Patriot Act, which does require court approval for wiretaps.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/politics/main1165139_page2.shtml

And returning to the points made in my earlier post above:

If we only "connect the dots" from diverse sources we can catch people before they have a time to act. Recent history indicates that this has not worked well. We have had attacks in Spain, the UK, Indonesia and several other places just in the past year or two. None of these impending attacks was uncovered. Why not?

Here we get into the awful truth of all data mining and pattern recognition techniques. ...In addition they [terrorists] will use a made up vocabulary to communicate, hence no key words.*

The next problem with finding patterns of unknown activists is the volume of material that must be scanned. The 9/11 commission stressed the fact that there were links in the gathered data which showed connections between the aircraft hijackers. They assumed that the failure to make the connections was do to poor management, or "barriers" between intelligence agencies, or some other organizational failing. In point of fact the real reason was that there is just too much information and finding the parts that are significant is essentially impossible.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/27/152645/75

*And terrorists use other tactics such as posting messages in a website, for example. This dragnet surveillance isn’t thwarting terrorists, and isn’t even inconveniencing them in any significant way.

What it has been doing is causing even mainstream sites/blogs to spell Iraq as Iraw or Irac to avoid being monitored. I personally avoid subject headings with key words when I send emails. Good Lord, think what all this has come to. This is far beyond Nixon.

 

[edward]

So far in this thread we have primarily been concerned with NSA doing a lot of data mining on Americans who supposedly are communicating with foreign entities.

In the meantime the CIA, FBI, military and Homeland security are probably data mining on a much grander scale domestically. Still my biggest concern is that with all of that info floating around so many agencies, they are going to stumble over it.

There is no real guarantee that this greatly expanded security gathering conglomerate is going to be any less disfunctional than preceding agencies were when they bungled 911, even though a Phoenix FBI agent handed them a smoking gun.

 

[Astronuc]

Gore's Challenge to Congress and the Media

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.

Gore's remarks have already created a firestorm on the right, with the Republican National Committee decrying the speech as a diatribe "laden with inaccuracies and anger."

But don't settle for the RNC spin, nor for that of its media acolytes.

Gore's speech, while surely controversial, contained a dramatic and significant critique not merely of the Bush administration's wrongdoing but of the failure of Congress and major media to expose and challenge abuses of power.

What was said in Washington on Monday mattered. Indeed, it mattered so much that the the spin machine of the president's party is hard at work seeking to mischaracterize the former vice president's remarks -- remarks that bluntly criticized both Republicans and Democrats.

Here is a transcript of what Al Gore had to say:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060117/cm_thenation/150069_1

 

[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.