9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 06:26 am
Uh, am I the only one whose scroll button is working?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 07:17 am
Mortkat wrote:
Kuvasz tells us that the bombing of the Cole was NOT Clinton's fault because the sailors on the Cole did not follow orders and allowed a boat to get too close to the Cole.

Then there were exculpating circumstances? But I did not think that exculpating circumstances were ever allowed. If they are, I think there could be quote a few found for some of the ridiculous charges made concerning George W. Bush.


I dont know who said that,or even if it was said,but that is a false statement.
At that particular port,becuase of the fact that its not deep enough,ships do not tie up at a pier.
They anchor in the harbor,and are resupplied by smaller "shuttle" boats.
That is also how the crews go ashore for liberty.

So,having the smaller boats getting so close is (or was) standard operating procedure.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 08:07 am
Quote:


Link
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 08:17 am
Lash wrote:
This one? If it is, what do you disagree with so strongly that you seemingly prefer to gloss over parados' obviously incorrect assertion? <she asked politely>


What do I disagree with? The fact that he interrupted what had been a very interesting conversation to yell "Clinton" and bring up a bunch of irrelevant crap. Yes, Parados was wrong, but he shouldn't have been talking about Clinton in the first place because that's not what this thread, or the immediately preceding discussion, was about. I can scroll for a while but at some point all quality discussion is obscured by the trollishness.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:02 am
Quote:


Gosh, what a surprise.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:35 am
Mortkat wrote:
Don't you know how to read either, Debra L A W? If you check out Mysteryman's post you will find that he referred originally to Kuvasz's time line error.


I did not attach any timeline connecting the clinton administration to the US Cole. you did. and you attacked me for your own words. if you could shoot yourself in the foot any worse i cannot see how.

i never met a person who self immolates on purpose like you do.

I know martyrdom has its place, but never before thought of anyone willfully offering themselves up for stupidity's sake


mysterman's post quoted this in his remark about when the US Cole was attacked:

mysteryman wrote:
Your superior logic has conquered, Kuvasz. first damned thing you said that has made any sense. Clinton was never guilty of anything. strawman argument alert He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack.


which you read as being my remark

but it was taken from combining my blue colored responses to your black words of an earlier post.


kuvasz wrote:
Mortkat wrote:
Your superior logic has conquered, Kuvasz. first damned thing you said that has made any sense. Clinton was never guilty of anything. strawman argument alert He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack. addressed already by the naval report, sailors on duty failed to follow orders. He hadn't read the CIA reports until he had finished with his bimbos.


Mysteryman was actually correcting you, not me.

then, you attacked your own quote as mine.

Mortkat wrote:
He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack.


you have now far surpassed the illustrious Gump or Rainman and have moved on to that rarified ground of intellectual prowess held by Daffy Duck.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:59 am
mysteryman wrote:
Mortkat wrote:
Kuvasz tells us that the bombing of the Cole was NOT Clinton's fault because the sailors on the Cole did not follow orders and allowed a boat to get too close to the Cole.

Then there were exculpating circumstances? But I did not think that exculpating circumstances were ever allowed. If they are, I think there could be quote a few found for some of the ridiculous charges made concerning George W. Bush.


I dont know who said that,or even if it was said,but that is a false statement.
At that particular port,becuase of the fact that its not deep enough,ships do not tie up at a pier.
They anchor in the harbor,and are resupplied by smaller "shuttle" boats.
That is also how the crews go ashore for liberty.

So,having the smaller boats getting so close is (or was) standard operating procedure.


US naval "shuttle" or "supply" ships did not attack the Cole, they were yemeni fishing boats, the latter were not supposed to come near the Cole by the SROE. if necessary, they were to be fired upon if they got too close. the gunners allowed those boats to get within the perimeter of safety of the SROE.

the cole report is still mostly secret, although the executive summary is available at the link.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cole.pdf

but note one finding.

Quote:
Finding: The CJCS Standing Rules of Engagement for US forces are adequate against the
terrorist threat.
• Recommendation: Make no changes to the SROE.(Standard Rules Of Engagement)

if these rules were still deemed adequate, then the error was human, not systemic

Finding: We need to shift transiting units from an entirely reactive posture to a posture that
more effectively deters terrorist attacks.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs and Services to have Component
Commanders identify proactive techniques and assets to deter terrorists.
Finding: The amount of AT/FP emphasis that units in-transit receive prior to or during
transfer between CINCs can be improved.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs and Services to have Component
Commanders ensure unit situational awareness by providing AT/FP briefings to transiting units
prior to entry into higher threat level areas in the gaining Geographic CINC's AOR.
Finding: Intra-theater transiting units require the same degree of attention as other transiting
units to deter, disrupt and mitigate acts of terrorism.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct Geographic CINCs and Component Commanders
to reassess current procedures to ensure that AT/FP principles enumerated in this Report are
applied to intra-theater transiting units.
Finding: Using operational risk management standards as a tool to measure engagement
activities against risk to in-transit forces will enable commanders to determine whether to
suspend or continue engagement activities.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs to adopt and institutionalize a discrete
operational risk management model to be used in AT/FP planning and execution.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 10:22 am
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23, 2005

The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the N.S.A.'s surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.

"There was a lot of discussion about the switches" in conversations with the court, a Justice Department official said, referring to the gateways through which much of the communications traffic flows. "You're talking about access to such a vast amount of communications, and the question was, How do you minimize something that's on a switch that's carrying such large volumes of traffic? The court was very, very concerned about that."

Since the disclosure last week of the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.

What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.

Bush administration officials declined to comment on Friday on the technical aspects of the operation and the N.S.A.'s use of broad searches to look for clues on terrorists. Because the program is highly classified, many details of how the N.S.A. is conducting it remain unknown, and members of Congress who have pressed for a full Congressional inquiry say they are eager to learn more about the program's operational details, as well as its legality.

Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the N.S.A. has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the N.S.A. since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, in many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.

But the Bush administration regards the N.S.A.'s ability to trace and analyze large volumes of data as critical to its expanded mission to detect terrorist plots before they can be carried out, officials familiar with the program say. Administration officials maintain that the system set up by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not give them the speed and flexibility to respond fully to terrorist threats at home.

A former technology manager at a major telecommunications company said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the leading companies in the industry have been storing information on calling patterns and giving it to the federal government to aid in tracking possible terrorists.

"All that data is mined with the cooperation of the government and shared with them, and since 9/11, there's been much more active involvement in that area," said the former manager, a telecommunications expert who did not want his name or that of his former company used because of concern about revealing trade secrets.

Such information often proves just as valuable to the government as eavesdropping on the calls themselves, the former manager said.

"If they get content, that's useful to them too, but the real plum is going to be the transaction data and the traffic analysis," he said. "Massive amounts of traffic analysis information - who is calling whom, who is in Osama Bin Laden's circle of family and friends - is used to identify lines of communication that are then given closer scrutiny."

Several officials said that after President Bush's order authorizing the N.S.A. program, senior government officials arranged with officials of some of the nation's largest telecommunications companies to gain access to switches that act as gateways at the borders between the United States' communications networks and international networks. The identities of the corporations involved could not be determined.

The switches are some of the main arteries for moving voice and some Internet traffic into and out of the United States, and, with the globalization of the telecommunications industry in recent years, many international-to-international calls are also routed through such American switches.

One outside expert on communications privacy who previously worked at the N.S.A. said that to exploit its technological capabilities, the American government had in the last few years been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches.

The growth of that transit traffic had become a major issue for the intelligence community, officials say, because it had not been fully addressed by 1970's-era laws and regulations governing the N.S.A. Now that foreign calls were being routed through switches on American soil, some judges and law enforcement officials regarded eavesdropping on those calls as a possible violation of those decades-old restrictions, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for domestic surveillance.

Historically, the American intelligence community has had close relationships with many communications and computer firms and related technical industries. But the N.S.A.'s backdoor access to major telecommunications switches on American soil with the cooperation of major corporations represents a significant expansion of the agency's operational capability, according to current and former government officials.

Phil Karn, a computer engineer and technology expert at a major West Coast telecommunications company, said access to such switches would be significant. "If the government is gaining access to the switches like this, what you're really talking about is the capability of an enormous vacuum operation to sweep up data," he said.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 02:04 pm
mysteryman wrote:
At that particular port,becuase of the fact that its not deep enough,ships do not tie up at a pier.


That sounds a lot like an urban legend, especially when you look at the charts and sea/port handbooks. (Or online at the Port of Aden website.)

The USS Cole wasn't at a 'normal' pier because the refueling was done at a floating pier.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 03:51 pm
kuvasz wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Mortkat wrote:
Kuvasz tells us that the bombing of the Cole was NOT Clinton's fault because the sailors on the Cole did not follow orders and allowed a boat to get too close to the Cole.

Then there were exculpating circumstances? But I did not think that exculpating circumstances were ever allowed. If they are, I think there could be quote a few found for some of the ridiculous charges made concerning George W. Bush.


I dont know who said that,or even if it was said,but that is a false statement.
At that particular port,becuase of the fact that its not deep enough,ships do not tie up at a pier.
They anchor in the harbor,and are resupplied by smaller "shuttle" boats.
That is also how the crews go ashore for liberty.

So,having the smaller boats getting so close is (or was) standard operating procedure.


US naval "shuttle" or "supply" ships did not attack the Cole, they were yemeni fishing boats, the latter were not supposed to come near the Cole by the SROE. if necessary, they were to be fired upon if they got too close. the gunners allowed those boats to get within the perimeter of safety of the SROE.

the cole report is still mostly secret, although the executive summary is available at the link.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cole.pdf

but note one finding.

Quote:
Finding: The CJCS Standing Rules of Engagement for US forces are adequate against the
terrorist threat.
• Recommendation: Make no changes to the SROE.(Standard Rules Of Engagement)

if these rules were still deemed adequate, then the error was human, not systemic

Finding: We need to shift transiting units from an entirely reactive posture to a posture that
more effectively deters terrorist attacks.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs and Services to have Component
Commanders identify proactive techniques and assets to deter terrorists.
Finding: The amount of AT/FP emphasis that units in-transit receive prior to or during
transfer between CINCs can be improved.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs and Services to have Component
Commanders ensure unit situational awareness by providing AT/FP briefings to transiting units
prior to entry into higher threat level areas in the gaining Geographic CINC's AOR.
Finding: Intra-theater transiting units require the same degree of attention as other transiting
units to deter, disrupt and mitigate acts of terrorism.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct Geographic CINCs and Component Commanders
to reassess current procedures to ensure that AT/FP principles enumerated in this Report are
applied to intra-theater transiting units.
Finding: Using operational risk management standards as a tool to measure engagement
activities against risk to in-transit forces will enable commanders to determine whether to
suspend or continue engagement activities.
• Recommendation: Secretary of Defense direct the CINCs to adopt and institutionalize a discrete
operational risk management model to be used in AT/FP planning and execution.


I have been to the port in Yemen,and you are wrong.The US Navy does not have resupply boats in Yemen (at least not when I was there).

The ships were resupplied by local contractor vessels.
That is why that boat was allowed to get so close.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 03:54 pm
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 05:08 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I have been to the port in Yemen,and you are wrong.The US Navy does not have resupply boats in Yemen (at least not when I was there).

The ships were resupplied by local contractor vessels.
That is why that boat was allowed to get so close.


I have not been to Yemen, but I was told otherwise. i defer. so, you think small fishing boats were mistaken for supply vessels?
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 05:14 pm
Barron's Magazine calls for Bush impeachment
Barron's Magazine calls for Bush impeachment:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65801&highlight=

BBB
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 07:58 pm
I find it amazing that almost every president has been threatened with impeachment.
The last three, two term presidents have all been threatened with impeachment.
All Empires fall from within. If we can't figure out how to straighten out this country it will happen in our life times. For those of you who are getting ready to jump on the stupid wagon, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or Democrat in office.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 08:19 pm
Which wagon are you calling the "stupid wagon"? I agree that it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or Democrat in office.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:09 pm
The stupid wagon is everybody anti repeublican and everybody anti democrat.
I know everybody thtas seen my posts probably feels that I am pro Bush and Pro republican. In reality, I am pro whatever president I need to answer to. I will never ultimetly 100% agree with any president. But, as long as I where this uniform, I will support their decision and uphold whatever mission I am sent.
Please do not confuse this with blind obedience. This is a pledge I have taken several times in my life. And, its been done with both parties in office.
I must follow my orders as much as I expect my subordinates to follow the orders I give them.
Once the mission is over, if they choose to debate they may.
I will never expect everyone to completely understand or agree with the life people in the military chose.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Dec, 2005 09:29 pm
Thanks for clarifying. That makes perfect sense to me.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 07:16 am
Personally I think it is as clear as dirt, but to each their own.

pachelbel, thank you for the article. I doubt it will do much good for the blind defenders, nonetheless, it is good that people keep speaking up against this particular administration who in my book goes beyond republican/democrat squabbles to a classification all of their own which defies adequate description.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 11:33 am
revel wrote:
. . . a classification all of their own which defies adequate description.


This time, revel, I'm going to agree.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Dec, 2005 01:01 pm
(Totally as a side comment--johnboy can't think of anything fresh to add to this- There was a long, long reprint of a commentary by "Barry Grey." Who the hell is Barry Grey? Does he write for a "legitimate" newspaper or is he sitting at home, in his underwear, writing diatribes.
There seems to me to be a pretty wide gulf between the media and the administration and it is growing.
Sure, blame Clinton. But I came of age in the Johnson-Nixon years. We were lied to. Johnboy did the Vietnam thing because that was what I was expected to do.
I reckon my point is this: are we being told the truth? Is our government
honest?)
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/21/2025 at 01:10:41