9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
What rights have been broken exactly? No one has stopped any groups from meeting, they have not harrassed anyone for attending any meetings, no protests have been stopped, no groups have been disrupted in any way.


Incorrect, McG.

Have you forgetten so quickly the reason that John Bolton wasn't confirmed as the US Ambassador to the Senate, and instead was placed as a recess appointment?

From the Legal Times, September: "During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of U.S. citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department. . . . More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 U.S. citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other U.S. intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies."

Illegal information was shared with many, many agencies. There is absolutely no telling what has happened as a result of this.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn


What part of what he said did you find incorrect, Cyclops?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:09 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?


He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.


The Constitution was written before Weapons of Mass Destruction were invented, too. Should we throw that out, as well?

Though I know some righties would say, sure, just keep the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:11 pm
I'm saying that there is no way to tell if anyone's rights (other than the initial illegal spying) were broken or not; there have been thousands of instances where the information was given to someone who may have used that information or not.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:13 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?


He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.


The Constitution was written before Weapons of Mass Destruction were invented, too. Should we throw that out, as well?

Though I know some righties would say, sure, just keep the Second Amendment.


No, but we have found the need to amend it from time to time. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm saying that there is no way to tell if anyone's rights (other than the initial illegal spying) were broken or not; there have been thousands of instances where the information was given to someone who may have used that information or not.

Cycloptichorn


Oh. When McG asked you what rights have been broken exactly, you said "Incorrect."

I take it you meant to say, "we don't know if anyone's rights were broken or not."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 05:43 pm
This is probably going to come down to what laws were broken.

Of course the WH has said they haven't broken any. But then they didn't break any by leaking the name of a CIA agent. And they didn't break any by authorizing torture banned under international treaty. And they didn't break any by putting secret prisons in European countries. For someone that never does anything wrong there certainly seem to be a lot of allegations that are being investigated.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 07:23 pm
when somebody goes to a school and kills several people, the question everyone asks is "didn't anybody see this coming?"

When the trade center was bombed from inside people wanted to know why the US wasn't aware of terrorist activities.

When the Murray buiding was blown up and the US was found to have militias, people asked why we et those groups exist.

Since 9-11 there have been investigations to find out how it could have happened.

Now, the government is trying to make surre activities like these do not occur again, and you people are bitching!

Do you want the government to know about possible attacks before or after they happen?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 07:40 pm
ralph - there are procedures in place already for investigating possible terrorists.

Remember "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the US?" That's the paper Condi presented to Bush in Crawford the first week of August 2001. They had the information, and didn't get it from intercepting e-mails or telephone calls without a judges approval.

THAT is the problem. If they need the info to prevent a terrorist attack, ask a judge for permission.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 08:16 pm
Another rightwing holy grail. A national police force unrestricted by law or rights of any kind.

I can think of a couple of times peoples rights have been usurped. The government has no problem abusing the laws that exists.

First, there's the time that DeLay used the unPatriot Act to track down the AWOL Senators from the Texas Legislature when they walked out on his redistricting vote.

Now with Bush illegally approving this invasion of privacy, it seems that people are getting the message that this sonofabitch can't be trusted with this kind of power. It's not the first time the rightwingers have done this. We need it to make it the last. The good news is that with the Whitehouse abuses, even the Republicans won't sign on to this sonofabitches abuse of the law. Maybe we can actually look forward to the expiration of the unPatriot Act. Dec. 31 marks the exit of 16 provisions of the unPatriot Act. That's a start. I imagine that if the Whitehouse can't bully it's people into reapproving it, they will have to accept an extension. That's still a start!
0 Replies
 
RichNDanaPoint
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:29 pm
How much more can the American public take before everyone wises up and finally take the trash out of the white house?
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 09:41 pm
Don't worry, if you think he is trash, wait till you see what's coming. And IF its a dem, I wanna here your complaints then.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:32 pm
ralpheb wrote:
Don't worry, if you think he is trash, wait till you see what's coming. And IF its a dem, I wanna here your complaints then.


possibly jeb bush......hillary clinton, or now i hear fried rice might be up for it....... Confused
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:38 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?


He died back before the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" had been invented.


Did "Weapons of Mass Destruction" change the definition of freedom or safety?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 10:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What rights have been broken exactly?


I don't know if it's possible to "break" rights, but this is clearly a departure from previously recognized law regarding the NSA's ability to spy on americans.

Quote:
Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.


From the NSA's frequently asked questions.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:43 pm
MSNBC.com

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ?'suspicious' domestic groups

By Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella and the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 2005


WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a "threat" and one of more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" across the country over a recent 10-month period.

"This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible," says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

"This is incredible," adds group member Rich Hersh. "It's an example of paranoia by our government," he says. "We're not doing anything illegal."

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.


"I think Americans should be concerned that the military, in fact, has reached too far," says NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin.

The Department of Defense declined repeated requests by NBC News for an interview. A spokesman said that all domestic intelligence information is "properly collected" and involves "protection of Defense Department installations, interests and personnel." The military has always had a legitimate "force protection" mission inside the U.S. to protect its personnel and facilities from potential violence. But the Pentagon now collects domestic intelligence that goes beyond legitimate concerns about terrorism or protecting U.S. military installations, say critics.

Four dozen anti-war meetings
The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center. One "incident" included in the database is a large anti-war protest at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles last March that included effigies of President Bush and anti-war protest banners. Another incident mentions a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston and a planned protest last April at McDonald's National Salute to America's Heroes ?- a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Fort Lauderdale protest was deemed not to be a credible threat and a column in the database concludes: "US group exercising constitutional rights." Two-hundred and forty-three other incidents in the database were discounted because they had no connection to the Department of Defense ?- yet they all remained in the database.

The DOD has strict guidelines (.PDF link), adopted in December 1982, that limit the extent to which they can collect and retain information on U.S. citizens.

Still, the DOD database includes at least 20 references to U.S. citizens or U.S. persons. Other documents obtained by NBC News show that the Defense Department is clearly increasing its domestic monitoring activities. One DOD briefing document stamped "secret" concludes: "[W]e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the nternet," but no "significant connection" between incidents, such as "reoccurring instigators at protests" or "vehicle descriptions."

The increased monitoring disturbs some military observers.


"It means that they're actually collecting information about who's at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests," says Arkin. "On the domestic level, this is unprecedented," he says. "I think it's the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military."

Some former senior DOD intelligence officials share his concern. George Lotz, a 30-year career DOD official and former U.S. Air Force colonel, held the post of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight from 1998 until his retirement last May. Lotz, who recently began a consulting business to help train and educate intelligence agencies and improve oversight of their collection process, believes some of the information the DOD has been collecting is not justified.

Make sure they are not just going crazy
"Somebody needs to be monitoring to make sure they are just not going crazy and reporting things on U.S. citizens without any kind of reasoning or rationale," says Lotz. "I demonstrated with Martin Luther King in 1963 in Washington," he says, "and I certainly didn't want anybody putting my name on any kind of list. I wasn't any threat to the government," he adds.

The military's penchant for collecting domestic intelligence is disturbing ?- but familiar ?- to Christopher Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer.

"Some people never learn," he says. During the Vietnam War, Pyle blew the whistle on the Defense Department for monitoring and infiltrating anti-war and civil rights protests when he published an article in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.

The public was outraged and a lengthy congressional investigation followed that revealed that the military had conducted investigations on at least 100,000 American citizens. Pyle got more than 100 military agents to testify that they had been ordered to spy on U.S. citizens ?- many of them anti-war protestors and civil rights advocates. In the wake of the investigations, Pyle helped Congress write a law placing new limits on military spying inside the U.S.

But Pyle, now a professor at Mt. Holyoke College in Massachusetts, says some of the information in the database suggests the military may be dangerously close to repeating its past mistakes.

"The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again," he says.

Too much data?
Some Pentagon observers worry that in the effort to thwart the next 9/11, the U.S. military is now collecting too much data, both undermining its own analysis efforts by forcing analysts to wade through a mountain of rubble in order to obtain potentially key nuggets of intelligence and entangling U.S. citizens in the U.S. military's expanding and quiet collection of domestic threat data.

Two years ago, the Defense Department directed a little known agency, Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, to establish and "maintain a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense." Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz also established a new reporting mechanism known as a TALON or Threat and Local Observation Notice report. TALONs now provide "non-validated domestic threat information" from military units throughout the United States that are collected and retained in a CIFA database. The reports include details on potential surveillance of military bases, stolen vehicles, bomb threats and planned anti-war protests. In the program's first year, the agency received more than 5,000 TALON reports. The database obtained by NBC News is generated by Counterintelligence Field Activity.

CIFA is becoming the superpower of data mining within the U.S. national security community. Its "operational and analytical records" include "reports of investigation, collection reports, statements of individuals, affidavits, correspondence, and other documentation pertaining to investigative or analytical efforts" by the DOD and other U.S. government agencies to identify terrorist and other threats. Since March 2004, CIFA has awarded at least $33 million in contracts to corporate giants Lockheed Martin, Unisys Corporation, Computer Sciences Corporation and Northrop Grumman to develop databases that comb through classified and unclassified government data, commercial information and Internet chatter to help sniff out terrorists, saboteurs and spies.


One of the CIFA-funded database projects being developed by Northrop Grumman and dubbed "Person Search," is designed "to provide comprehensive information about people of interest." It will include the ability to search government as well as commercial databases. Another project, "The Insider Threat Initiative," intends to "develop systems able to detect, mitigate and investigate insider threats," as well as the ability to "identify and document normal and abnormal activities and ?'behaviors,'" according to the Computer Sciences Corp. contract. A separate CIFA contract with a small Virginia-based defense contractor seeks to develop methods "to track and monitor activities of suspect individuals."

"The military has the right to protect its installations, and to protect its recruiting services," says Pyle. "It does not have the right to maintain extensive files on lawful protests of their recruiting activities, or of their base activities," he argues.

Lotz agrees.

"The harm in my view is that these people ought to be allowed to demonstrate, to hold a banner, to peacefully assemble whether they agree or disagree with the government's policies," the former DOD intelligence official says.

'Slippery slope'
Bert Tussing, director of Homeland Defense and Security Issues at the U.S. Army War College and a former Marine, says "there is very little that could justify the collection of domestic intelligence by the Unites States military. If we start going down this slippery slope it would be too easy to go back to a place we never want to see again," he says.

Some of the targets of the U.S. military's recent collection efforts say they have already gone too far.

"It's absolute paranoia ?- at the highest levels of our government," says Hersh of The Truth Project.

"I mean, we're based here at the Quaker Meeting House," says Truth Project member Marie Zwicker, "and several of us are Quakers."

The Defense Department refused to comment on how it obtained information on the Lake Worth meeting or why it considers a dozen or so anti-war activists a "threat."


© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Have any of you read Brave New World? This smacks of the same paranoid techniques. At any rate, the right to peacefully protest in America is gone. Unless, of course, one wants their name and personal information fed into a computer. I guess it doesn't mean anything to anyone until it happens to you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 12:10 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What rights have been broken exactly?


I don't know if it's possible to "break" rights, but this is clearly a departure from previously recognized law regarding the NSA's ability to spy on americans.

Quote:
Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.


From the NSA's frequently asked questions.


So, which part of the 4th amendment was broken? The part where surveillance was done during protest rallies? The part where public meetings were attended? I guess I am missing that part of this that has done ANYTHING to interfere with ANYONES privacy?

If you attend public functions, your privacy is no longer secured.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 12:29 am
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure


Amendment Text | Annotations
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I think the question should be asked - which part of the 4th did the military honor? These people were meeting peaceably in their meeting hall, to discuss military recruiting at their local high schools. YET, their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized' WAS VIOLATED. They were not out actively protesting! There was NO probable cause. Giving the military this much power is dangerous. If it is all so innocent, why won't the Defense Dept. comment on it?
Something smells in Denmark. Bad. Even more interesting is that NBC is picking it up.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 01:01 am
December 16, 2005

Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11

by Scott Ott

(2005-12-16) ?- President George Bush today apologized to the American people for signing an order in 2002 that allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to secretly listen in on international phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The New York Times today broke the story that after 9/11 the NSA tapped phonelines of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Americans without court orders in an effort to trace communication networks discovered on computers and cellphones confiscated from terror suspects.

"I want to apologize for allowing the NSA to do these wiretaps after 9/11," the president said. "I'm sorry that I violated the privacy of some of these folks after terrorists launched attacks from our soil that killed 3,000 people, destroyed two skyscrapers and four jumbo jets, and punched a gaping hole in our military headquarters."

"My biggest regret," the president added, "is that the NSA didn't secretly tap these lines before 9/11. I hope my fellow Americans can forgive me."

Source
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 01:16 am
FreeDuck wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I also see no harm in the peaceful surveillance of these groups either though. As far as I know, nothing more than some files have been created and no actions have been taken regarding those files.


The act of observing something changes it. Would you feel it was ok if one of "these groups" was the NRA or the Christian Coalition, or Bhuddists for Bush?


Quote:
If these groups have nothing to hide, and are not guilty of anything, they should not be worried about being watched.


This sort of thinking creeps me out. Why would someone with nothing to hide worry about being watched or searched or having secret files that they don't have access to being created and used by the government? Because there is no reason to trust those in authority that's why. Because if this is legal, combined with all of the new "powers" the government has, you could be disappeared based on what's in those files and have no recourse -- no way to challenge what you can't see.

This would all be A-ok if the people doing the surveilling and the data collecting never ever made any mistakes.

This sort of thing is disaster waiting to happen. Where is Ben Franklin and his quip about trading freedom for safety?


Here is what Franklin actually wrote:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Does the government eavesdropping, without judical warrant, on phone calls and e-mails to foreign sources represent giving up essential liberty?

Did the intelligence provided by this eavesdropping produce only a little temporary security?

Let's see:

9/11/01 - Terrorists fly two airliners into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. Another, arguably headed for the White House, is forced to crash by valiant passengers.

12/16/05 - In the intervening years since the horrors of 9/11/01, there have been no other terrorist attacks on US soil.

Anyone who remembers 9/11/01 with honesty, will recall that thereafter, everyone was certain that another bloody attack was not only inevitable, but imminent.

It is inevitable that actions like these will eventually be taken for the wrong reasons, and that the powers granted by the Executive branch will be abused. It is also inevitable when this happens, the Press will reveal it and heads will roll.

It can happen here, but this is, in no way, a sign that it is about to happen here.

Why did the NY Times sit on this story for over a year and then release it the day of the triumphant Iraqi elections? Do any of my Liberal friends concern themselves with the implications of the Press trying to manipulate the democratic process rather than just report on it?
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Dec, 2005 01:56 am
Finn,

You make a strong point that there has been no attacks on American Soil since 9/11. It feels like you are giving the impression that it is due to the governments excessive efforts and therefore justifys any abuses it has performed.

Firstly, the Towers were attacked in 1993, less than 60 days after a new President took over. I assume that since no attacks occured for the next 8 years, you would also call that a great success, since you consider 4 years to be so remarkable. This was done without the repressive steps taken by this administration. Although a major effort was made to attack during the year 2000 celebration, it was foiled by the administration in power. Again, this was done without the measures this administration has deemed necessary!

If the length of time since a previous attack seems to be a determining factor in how well the job has been done, I suggest that this administration is only half way there.

Secondly, if a new administration takes over in 2009, and then is struck say, within the first 8 months with another devastating attack, whose fault is it going to be?? Especially since we have spent $400 billion "fighting terrorism", with yet anither $100 in the queue. Half a Trillion Dollars, "fighting terrorism"!

Now after spending that 4-500 Billion, would you explain to me the victory in a national election that basically establishes an Islamic Theocracy. Is that winning??
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/27/2026 at 07:27:53