1
   

Bush authorized "illegal" evesdropping since 9/11

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 01:00 am
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html

Quote:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,779 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 08:26 pm
@Brent cv,
What I don't know doesn't bother me.
NaterG
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Dec, 2005 10:05 pm
@ndjs,
ndjs wrote:
What I don't know doesn't bother me.

x2, they can moniter my phone convos, i got nothing to hide, and if they have to do it to me in order to be able to do it to others that may be a threat, have at it.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:11 am
@Brent cv,
For one is was not illegal.
For two the biggest whiners turns out have been kept up to date on this (at least a dozen times) but failed to mention it with there dismay over it even though they new?
For three they have to do with out of country call, in or out.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:48 pm
@Brent cv,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 03:50 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

Can you find that article on any other news outlet other than Newsmax?
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 06:13 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Can you find that article on any other news outlet other than Newsmax?

oh God I hope so.
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 01:19 am
@ndjs,
From the Free Congress Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties (UK) and the Omega Foundation.

Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering organization in the world. Several credible reports suggest that this global electronic communications surveillance system presents an extreme threat to the privacy of people all over the world. According to these reports, ECHELON attempts to capture staggering volumes of satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic traffic, including communications to and from North America. This vast quantity of voice and data communications are then processed through sophisticated filtering technologies.

This massive surveillance system apparently operates with little oversight. Moreover, the agencies that purportedly run ECHELON have provided few details as to the legal guidelines for the project. Because of this, there is no way of knowing if ECHELON is being used illegally to spy on private citizens.

This site is designed to encourage public discussion of this potential threat to civil liberties, and to urge the governments of the world to protect our rights.
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 01:35 am
@Curmudgeon,
And this from "America's Secret Global Surveillance Network " by Patrick S. Poole , an internet article opposed to Echelon :

"In September 1993, President Clinton asked the CIA to spy on Japanese auto manufacturers that were designing zero-emission cars and to forward that information to the Big Three US car manufacturers: Ford, General Motors and Chrysler.<56> In 1995, the New York Times reported that the NSA and the CIA’s Tokyo station were involved in providing detailed information to US Trade Representative Mickey Kantor’s team of negotiators in Geneva facing Japanese car companies in a trade dispute.<57> Recently, a Japanese newspaper, Mainichi, accused the NSA of continuing to monitor the communications of Japanese companies on behalf of American companies.<58>
Insight Magazine reported in a series of articles in 1997 that President Clinton ordered the NSA and FBI to mount a massive surveillance operation at the 1993 Asian/Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) hosted in Seattle. One intelligence source for the story related that over 300 hotel rooms had been bugged for the event, which was designed to obtain information regarding oil and hydro-electric deals pending in Vietnam that were passed on to high level Democratic Party contributors competing for the contracts.<59> But foreign companies were not the only losers: when Vietnam expressed interest in purchasing two used 737 freighter aircraft from an American businessman, the deal was scuttled after Commerce Secretary Ron Brown arranged favorable financing for two new 737s from Boeing.<60>
But the US is not the only partner of the UKUSA relationship that engages in such activity. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ordered the GCHQ to monitor the activities of international media mogul Robert Maxwell on behalf of the Bank of England.<61> Former CSE linguist and analyst Jane Shorten claimed that she had seen intercepts from Mexican trade representatives during the 1992-1993 NAFTA trade negotiations, as well as 1991 South Korean Foreign Ministry intercepts dealing with the construction of three Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors for the Koreans in a $6 billion deal.<62> Shorten’s revelation prompted Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps to launch a probe into the allegations after the Mexicans lodged a protest. "

It is a long read , but might be worth your time . It doesn't hurt to read what opponents say and think on these subjects .
[URL="fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html"]fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html[/URL]
0 Replies
 
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 02:22 am
@Brent cv,
This is how it goes :
''To get around our 4th Amendment protections, US law enforcement officials have taken to using surrogates. The FDIC recently tried to enact a rule requiring banks to profile all of their customers and report those who deviate from an accepted profile (see "Bank Spying"). If government officers went into the bank and did that themselves, it would most certainly be ruled illegal search and seizure. But, by making the bank their surrogate, they thought that they could skirt the 4th Amendment.

The same type of thing is occurring with ECHELON, but at an enormously greater level. It is not illegal for Communications Intelligence (COMINT) authorities in Great Britain, for example, to indiscriminately and randomly monitor US civilian communications, just as it is not illegal for the NSA to indiscriminately and randomly monitor British civilian communications. So, under UKUSA, COMINT agents in each of the UKUSA partner nations monitor each other's domestic communications and pass suspect communications on to the authorities in the other country. Each nation becomes a surrogate spy for the other. Although there are technically no laws broken in either country, each country's government has subverted its own laws to achieve the goal of monitoring its own citizens.

US authorities can take your private conversation, recorded legally by a British COMINT agency, to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which considers surveillance and physical search orders from the Department of Justice and US intelligence agencies, and truthfully tell the court that the evidence was stumbled upon by a friendly foreign government in the process of another investigation. In any other court, you would expect that the judge would want to know more about how the evidence was obtained. But the FISC judge, who is effectively a part of the US intelligence community, does not want to know more. Since the FISC was created over 20 years ago, as a part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978, the court has heard well over 10,000 applications for covert surveillance and physical searches. To date, not a single application has been denied. I challenge anyone to show me an example of any other court in the USA that has such a record for complacency in the issuing of warrants. It is an absolute certainty that the US agency involved will get a court order to place a legal tap on all of your electronic communications.

Our government, through the NSA and ECHELON, with the cooperation of the FISC has quite effectively subverted the 4th Amendment."
From Echelon Subverting the Constitution
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:13 am
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Can you find that article on any other news outlet other than Newsmax?
I'll do better then that. Here is a link to the executive order. And the order itself.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995


EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.


WILLIAM J. CLINTON


THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:20 am
@Brent cv,
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AG

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 (202) 616-2777

TDD (202) 514-1888

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT OUTLINES

MOBILIZATION AGAINST TERRORISM ACT
WASHINGTON, D.C. Attorney General John Ashcroft today presented the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act to Congress. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft outlined the comprehensive legislative initiative which will redefine the antiterrorism effort while protecting civil liberties. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.

"The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11 did not pass with the atrocities committed that day," said Ashcroft. "It requires that we provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist organizations before they strike again. Terrorism is a clear and present danger to American's today."

The proposed legislation seeks to combat terrorist activity on several fronts. Title I enhances the Department's capacity to gather intelligence necessary to combat terrorist organizations who increasingly employ sophisticated modes of global communications. Existing wiretap authority and procedures have not kept pace with the development of modern technology or the mode of operations of international terrorist organizations. Since current wiretap authority is often restricted to specific property as opposed to allowing law enforcement to follow suspects, current authority is inadequate for investigative personnel to monitor terrorist agents and associates. These proposals update the law to the technology. Terrorist offenses necessitate and justify comprehensive intelligence gathering.

Title II enhances the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain and remove suspected terrorists by expanding the definition of terrorists to include those who lend support to terrorist organizations. The ability of terrorists to enter the United States and operate within the country is the obvious prerequisite to their capacity to inflict damage on citizens and facilities. These proposals protect the integrity of the United States borders without sacrificing the ability to welcome law-abiding visitors and legal immigrants.

Title III proposes changes to enhance prosecutors' ability to disable terrorists organizations through the legal process. The proposal amends current law to encourage investigation and prosecution prior to successful completion of a devastating terrorist attack. Terrorism should be considered no less than murder and the elimination of the statute of limitations on terrorist acts is reflective of these sentiments. In addition, this legislation provides for alternative maximum sentences, up to life, for the commission of terrorist acts, giving judges the ability to punish terrorists commensurate to their crimes. A number of other proposals are designed to punish or deter those who would assist terrorists and their organizations through concealment of their activities or their members. The lending of support that works to further terrorist organizations and to perpetuate terrorist attacks is expressly criminalized. In these specific changes to the law of crimes and criminal procedure, the constitutional rights of the accused are respected.

Title IV aims at the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations whose sophisticated operations require substantial financial resources. Often such resources are provided by those not directly responsible for terrorist acts. These proposals will cripple the capacity of terrorist organizations to finance their illegal activities through criminal and civil forfeiture of resources. In addition, criminal liability is specifically imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions involving the proceeds of these acts.

Title V authorizes emergency operations in response to the September 11 attacks and assists the Attorney General in providing support and relief to the victims. These proposals provide the Attorney General greater discretion and authority to disburse funds with regard to rewards to be offered in connection with crimes of terrorism.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:24 am
@Brent cv,
Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance:
(a) Secretary of State.
(b) Secretary of Defense.
(c) Director of Central Intelligence.
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(e) Deputy Secretary of State.
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. [Deleted]

1-105. [Deleted]

[Secs. 1-104 and 1-105 amended Executive Order 12036 of Jan. 24, 1978, which was revoked by Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981.]

Jimmy Carter
1978
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:48 am
@Brent cv,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Click for the rest.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:20 am
@Brent cv,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/23/104633.shtml

FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant

Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.

But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.

In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 02:12 am
@Drnaline,
The two big whiners ---

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 12:58 p.m. EST
Nancy Pelosi: I Was Briefed on NSA Program


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi confessed late Saturday that she signed off on President Bush's decision to have a top intelligence agency conduct "unspecified activities" to gather intelligence on possible terrorists operating inside the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions," Pelosi admitted.

The San Francisco Democrat claimed she expressed "strong concerns" about the "unspecified activities" at the time, but offered no evidence to that effect.

Pelosi declined to explain why she didn't make public her concerns about the authorization, which Democrats now say was an outrageous abuse of civil rights.

Instead, Pelosi admitted keeping silent about the "unspecified activities" even though she now believes they may have been illegal, saying Bush's acknowledgment of the NSA program on Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid also admitted he kept silent about the controversial program, even though he was briefed on its existence "a couple of months ago."

Still, he insisted that it made no difference that Democratic congressional leaders knew about the NSA program, telling Fox News Sunday: "This is something that's [the responsibility of] the president and the vice president and there's no way he can pass the buck."
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:20 am
@Brent cv,
And i bet she just forgot. and remembered after she brings up impeachment. What a bitch. That is one women i wouldn't mind taking a poke at, LOL. Her and Boxer.
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Dec, 2005 11:58 am
@Brent cv,
just from this pic I ran across, Boxer seems to be askin for a poke...
http://www.gop.com/images/boxer_newface.jpg

And GOD I hate Pelosi. She is the epitome of BITCH.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2006 08:46 am
@Brent cv,
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006 1:43 a.m. EST
GOP Hits Back at Al Gore on Wiretapping

Former Vice President Al Gore's assertion that President Bush "repeatedly and persistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant did not fall on deaf ears in Washington, D.C.

In fact, the Republican National Committee swiftly reacted to the loser of the 2000 presidential election, with RNC press secretary Tracey Schmitt stating:

"Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America. While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger."

The RNC then showed why Gore's comments are hard to swallow, providing these insightful reminders:

Once Upon A Time, Gore Talked Tough About Cracking Down On Terrorists:
In 1999, Vice President Gore Declared: "Hear Me Well - We Will Fight The Reckless Violence Of Terrorism And We Will Never Yield To Terrorism, Ever." (Joe Carroll, "Clinton Exhorts Parties to Surmount Last Hurdle," The Irish Times, 3/18/99)

At A 1996 Counter-Terrorism Event Gore Said: "The Bottom Line Is That President Clinton And I And The Members Of This Commission Have Pledged To The Families Of The Victims Of Terrorism That We're Going To Take The Strongest Measures Possible To Reduce The Risk Of Another Tragedy In The Future." (Al Gore, White House Briefing, 9/5/96)


Clinton/Gore Administration Used Warrantless Searches:
Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: "(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General." (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)






http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/17/15046.shtml
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush authorized "illegal" evesdropping since 9/11
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.53 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:16:13