America... Spying on Americans

Whistleblower says NSA violations bigger
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.

Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.

Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.

Neither could he brief the inspector general of the NSA because that office is not cleared to hear the information, he said.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said they believe a few members of the Armed Services Committee are cleared for the information, but they said believe their committee and the intelligence committees have jurisdiction to hear the allegations.

"Congressman Kucinich wants Congressman Shays to hold a hearing (on the program)," said Doug Gordon, Kucinich's spokesman. "Obviously it would have to take place in some kind of a closed hearing. But Congress has a role to play in oversight. The (Bush) administration does not get to decide what Congress can and can not hear."

Tice was testifying because he was a National Security Agency intelligence officer who was stripped of his security clearance after he reported his suspicions that a former colleague at the Defense Intelligence Agency was a spy. The matter was dismissed by the DIA, but Tice pressed it later and was subsequently ordered to take a psychological examination, during which he was declared paranoid. He is now unemployed.

Tice was one of the New York Times sources for its wiretapping story, but he told the committee the information he provided was not secret and could have been provided by an private sector electronic communications professional.

A lawyer who is good standing of The Florida Bar and who meets the standards prescribes by The State Supreme Court may become board certified in one or more of the 20-certification fields. In Florida not all qualified lawyers are board certified but those who are have taken the extra step to have their competence and experience recognized. Certification in Florida runs from Admiralty Law to Workers Compensation.

Cyclo,
Doesnt the fact that there is someone leaking TOP SECRET info,info that can compromise the security of the country,bother you at all?

No matter what the reasons are,releasing that knd of info,especially to a govt body that leaks more then the Titanic did,is a crime and the leaker should be prosecuted.

Or,do you believe that its ok to release TOP SECRET info if it could possibly hurt Bush?

Cyclo,
Doesnt the fact that there is someone leaking TOP SECRET info,info that can compromise the security of the country,bother you at all?

mysteryman wrote:

Every lawyer I know is proud of whatever area they specialize in and will gladly tell people.

No offense mysteryman, but on a list of all people I would be proud to prove my credentials to, you wouldn't rank anywhere near the top. Perhaps Ms Law feels similarly. Perhaps she is lacking not fondness of her job, but fondness of you and your persistent habit of abusing political disagreements for personal put-downs. Assuming this, and given that you aren't going to hire her, what incentive would she have to disclose her résumé to you?

Would this computer program be treated like a canine sniff or like thermal imaging? Would it be treated like criminal profiling?

I have to give the issue a lot more thought.

Thomas wrote:

3) My theory (that the US is using Echelon to filter out conversations with terrorists) explains why the administration is so hostile to any public discussion of the project.

a) Echelon is a multinational project, and if its workings were exposed in a US lawsuit, it may make the other participants reluctant to cooperate with the US. (I might welcome this development as a citizen, but it's embarrasing for the government.)

b) While I am not an expert on the FISA court, I doubt it would issue such broad-based warrants if the president asked for them. (Correct, Debra?)

Our forefathers fought the revolutionary war in large part because they abhorred the tyranny and oppression of general search warrants.

In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that electronic surveillance of communications is a SEARCH subject to limitations placed on the government by the Fourth Amendment. Individualized suspicion based on probable cause is required before a warrant may be issued.

Thomas wrote:

c) The way Echelon works, a computer can indiscriminately screen thousands of messages before it forwards one suspicious text to a person of flesh and blood. Thus, even if Congress changed FISA to allow warrantless spying on US persons through Echelon, that would create more constitutional questions than it answers: (Though I'm no expert on the US constitution either. I just like to play one on A2K.)

I. Is it a fourth amendment search when only a computer reads or listenes to a message, but no human ever looks at it? If yes (Debra?), the program dies here, if not, that raises the next question. II. If a message matches the search pattern of a software filter, is that "probable cause" for a search -- meaning, for a human to look at the message? How does that depend on the pattern being searched for? (Debra?)

These are interesting questions, Thomas. I have been working all day and now it's late . . . and I would like to say with certainty that this is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment warrant clause under the Katz holding . . . but . . . maybe a computer "sniff" of electronic communications could be treated similarly to a canine "sniff" in drug cases. Would a well-programmed computer be treated similarly to a well-trained narcotics detection dog?

The Supreme Court ruled that the investigative procedure of subjecting luggage to a "sniff test" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See UNITED STATES v. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983); ILLINOIS v. CABALLES. A sniff is not a search. So the issue may hinge on whether the Court would consider computerized sniffing of communications similar to a canine sniffing of luggage or the trunk of a car -- or similar to thermal-imaging detection found to be unconstitutional in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001).

These questions require critical thought.

The Supreme Court ruled that the investigative procedure of subjecting luggage to a "sniff test" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See UNITED STATES v. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983); ILLINOIS v. CABALLES. A sniff is not a search. So the issue may hinge on whether the Court would consider computerized sniffing of communications similar to a canine sniffing of luggage or the trunk of a car -- or similar to thermal-imaging detection found to be unconstitutional in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001).

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Every lawyer I know is proud of whatever area they specialize in and will gladly tell people.

No offense mysteryman, but on a list of all people I would be proud to prove my credentials to, you wouldn't rank anywhere near the top. Perhaps Ms Law feels similarly. Perhaps she is lacking not fondness of her job, but fondness of you and your persistent habit of abusing political disagreements for personal put-downs. Assuming this, and given that you aren't going to hire her, what incentive would she have to disclose her résumé to you?

So true Thomas. I refuse to satisfy mysteryman's curiosity by supplying him with personal information about myself.

We are discussing the Fourth Amendment. In particular, we were/are discussing whether a computerized analysis of a whole set of communications through a program such as Echelon designed to single out and detect a subset of communications that fit within a designated profile would violate the Fourth Amendment. Frankly, given the current status of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, I'm not sure.

Would this computer program be treated like a canine sniff or like thermal imaging? Would it be treated like criminal profiling?

I have to give the issue a lot more thought.

Where are your calls for Cheney to resign and be indicted for ordering Libby to release top secret info?
Where is the call for Bush to resign for releasing top secret info as he sees political expedient?

Or does "no matter what the reason" only apply to one side?

I don't believe it compromises the security of the country in the slightest. I haven't seen an Iota of proof that this is so. There is no compelling logical reason to believe that it is so. There has been no evidence presented that any sort of terror plot has been broken up by this spying, or that any ever will be.

Debra,
The reason I wanted to know is so that I could figure out what your bonafides are. . . .