9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:29 pm
tico is correct about performing physical searches without the owner knowing about it. Instruments can be used to check for explosives and/or chemical weapons without the owner/carrier knowing about it from a good distance away.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 08:53 pm
True. You can also ransack a person's home when they're not there. And if you put everything back where you found it, they might not know you made a visit.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 10:05 pm
It doesn't look too good for Bush.


January 10, 2006
Presidential Power Has Limits, Alito Tells Senators
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. said today that he agreed with the principle that a president does not have "a blank check" in terms of power, especially during wartime.

"The Constitution applies in times of peace and war," President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court said in the first round of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The Bill of Rights applies at all times."

In the second day of hearings on his nomination to the United States Supreme Court, Judge Alito said preservation of individual rights is particularly important in wartime because that is when the temptation to abuse liberties in the name of national security is most dangerous.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 10:06 pm
I like this Alito nomination already.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:28 am
I haven't been able to watch the entire question and answer session. From what I have caught so far, Alito has answered most questions in a manner that alleviates my concerns over his nomination. From what I have seen, I feel that he has answered in an earnest and forthright manner. He didn't appear to be on his guard or decline to answer questions.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 10:32 am
Alito did a good job of getting congress to understand that he was not going to give a soid answer without looking at the specifics. The more they tried to corner him the more he stuck to his guns.
It will be interesting to see how he and Roberts play out in the SC
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 08:17 am
http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/images/getfuzzy20060146538113.gif
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 11:51 am
Time to re-track this thread:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

Quote:
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 13 January 2006

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

James Risen, author of the book State of War and credited with first breaking the story about the NSA's domestic surveillance operations, said President Bush personally authorized a change in the agency's long-standing policies shortly after he was sworn in in 2001.

"The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA's domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions," Risen wrote in the book. "Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders" and "the most ambitious got the message."

The NSA's domestic surveillance activities that began in early 2001 reached a boiling point shortly after 9/11, when senior administration officials and top intelligence officials asked the NSA to share that data with other intelligence officials who worked for the FBI and the CIA to hunt down terrorists that might be in the United States. However the NSA, on advice from its lawyers, destroyed the records, fearing the agency could be subjected to lawsuits by American citizens identified in the agency's raw intelligence reports.

The declassified report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. When news of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered last month by the New York Times, Democratic and Republican members of Congress appeared outraged, claiming that they were never informed of the covert surveillance operation. It's unclear whether the executive order signed by Bush removes the NSA Director from his duty to brief members of Congress about the agency's intelligence gathering programs.

Eavesdropping on Americans required intelligence officials to obtain a surveillance warrant from a special court and show probable cause that the person they wanted to monitor was communicating with suspected terrorists overseas. But Bush said that the process for obtaining such warrants under the 1978 Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act was, at times, "cumbersome."

In a December 22, letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote that the "President determined it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system."

However, what remains murky about that line of reasoning is that after 9/11, former Attorney General John Ashcroft undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign to loosen the rules and the laws governing FISA to make it easier for the intelligence community to obtain warrants for wiretaps to spy on Americans who might have ties to terrorists. Since the legislative change, more than 4,000 surveillance warrants have been approved by the FISA court, leading many to wonder why Bush selectively chose to bypass the court for what he said were a select number of individuals.

More than a dozen legal scholars dispute Moschella's legal analysis, saying in a letter just sent to Congress that the White House failed to identify "any plausible legal authority for such surveillance."

"The program appears on its face to violate existing law," wrote the scholars of constitutional law, some of whom worked in various senior capacities in Republican and Democratic administrations, in an extraordinary letter to Congress that laid out, point by point, why the president is unauthorized to permit the NSA to spy on Americans and how he broke the law by approving it.

"Even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect 'signals intelligence' on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA," the letter states. "Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation. The DOJ letter pointedly does not make that extraordinary claim. The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States."

Additionally, "if the administration felt that FISA was insufficient, the proper course was to seek legislative amendment, as it did with other aspects of FISA in the Patriot Act, and as Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap provision in FISA," the letter continues. "One of the crucial features of a constitutional democracy is that it is always open to the President - or anyone else - to seek to change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that, in such a democracy, the President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable."

Jeffrey Smith, the former General Counsel for the CIA under the Clinton administration, also weighed in on the controversy Wednesday. Smith said he wants to testify at hearings that Bush overstepped his authority and broke the law. His own legal opinion on the spy program was included in a 14-page letter to the House Select Committee on Intelligence that said that President Bush does not have the legal authority to order the NSA to spy on American citizens, aides to Congressman John Conyers said Wednesday evening.

"It is not credible that the 2001 authorization to use force provides authority for the president to ignore the requirements of FISA," Smith wrote, adding that if President Bush's executive order authorizing a covert domestic surveillance operation is upheld as legal "it would be a dramatic expansion of presidential authority affecting the rights of our fellow citizens that undermines the checks and balances of our system, which lie at the very heart of the Constitution."

Still, one thing that appears to be indisputable is that the NSA surveillance began well before 9/11 and months before President Bush claims Congress gave him the power to use military force against terrorist threats, which Bush says is why he believed he had the legal right to bypass the judicial process.

According to the online magazine Slate, an unnamed official in the telecom industry said NSA's "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 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."


Subject to confirmation, there seems to be some evidence that this program existed before 9/11, that Bush knew it existed before 9/11, and that there are gaping inconsistencies in the story that the Admin has been telling about when, how, and why this program is being used.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:00 pm
Actually,the NSA eavesdropping on cell phones and on citizens goes back longer then 2001.
It goes back to the early 1990's and project Echelon.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:05 pm
I'd thaught, Echelon only covers communications outside of the United States?

And until now no evidence had been found that the Bush administration has employed Echelon to monitor communications to and from the U.S?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:07 pm
Quote:
Actually,the NSA eavesdropping on cell phones and on citizens goes back longer then 2001.
It goes back to the early 1990's and project Echelon.


Yeah, I'm well aware of that. But Echelon was supposedly shut down.

The point of the piece is that there are inconsistencies in the stories we have been told; lies, basically. Bush lied again. Is anyone else surprised by this?

There are lies like this:

Quote:
In a December 22, letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote that the "President determined it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system."

However, what remains murky about that line of reasoning is that after 9/11, former Attorney General John Ashcroft undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign to loosen the rules and the laws governing FISA to make it easier for the intelligence community to obtain warrants for wiretaps to spy on Americans who might have ties to terrorists. Since the legislative change, more than 4,000 surveillance warrants have been approved by the FISA court, leading many to wonder why Bush selectively chose to bypass the court for what he said were a select number of individuals.


Why try to change the rules if the court won't work?

And this gem:

Quote:
What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.


You'd better pray for your leaders if that second one turns out to be true, and pre-9/11.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:19 pm
Echelon is a worldwide program and wasn't shut down, but it was supposedly illegal (FISA) to use that program to eavesdrop on domestic calls. They were probably able to get around this by asking the UK or someone else to do it for us, though.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:25 pm
Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990's. At that time, the Times called the surveillance "a necessity."

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency." (Steve Kroft, CBS' 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

"is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom.
Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet - these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations - but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show.
The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians' revelations.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists…."

And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers

"...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards."

Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president.
Even so, the article did admit that

"...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information."

Despite the Times' reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.

"ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ?'unpopular' political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world," Poole concluded.

The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens' rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries' intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying.

"For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ?'a Canadian citizen' or ?'a US company'. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA's domestic intelligence activities in 1978."

Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants.

"Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ?'trawling' activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals."

The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone.

"The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,"

Poole summarized in his study on the program.
According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that
"Project Echelon's equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes."
In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation - no matter how seemingly innocent - during the Clinton years.

"A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ?'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist."
"This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?" Kroft asked.
"Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here."

Even as the Times defended Echelon as "a necessity" in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine  in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation.

"The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians?-including mid- and senior-level White House aides?-either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money."

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:

-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;
-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;
-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.


These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.
The Times has historically been referred to as "the Grey Lady." That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady.

Source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 12:29 pm
Oh, jesus christ. The 'Clinton did it too' excuse?

If Clinton did it, he should be strung up for it alongside Bush.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:04 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, jesus christ. The 'Clinton did it too' excuse?

If Clinton did it, he should be strung up for it alongside Bush.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn

I don't want either one strung up for it as long as it was applied to international threats. I personally want the government to be listening in on possible Al Qaeda. Thats their job. If they don't do their job, then they need to be strung up.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:06 pm
Except, the NSA wasn't getting rid of the names of Americans that they were supposed to; they weren't getting the FISA court approval they were supposed to. I'm not comfortable with that, because I'm not afraid of AQ so much that I'll hand my freedom away, thanks very much.

It must be odd to be scared all the time; so scared of terrorists that you would hand over your liberty...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 01:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, jesus christ. The 'Clinton did it too' excuse?

If Clinton did it, he should be strung up for it alongside Bush.

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn


Appears to be not so much that as pointing out the hypocrisy of the Gray Lady.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 02:24 pm
Quote:
Lawmakers Raise Questions About International Spy Network
By NIALL McKAY
An international surveillance network established by the National Security Agency and British intelligence services has come under scrutiny in recent weeks, as lawmakers in the United States question whether the network, known as Echelon, could be used to monitor American citizens.

Last week, the House Committee on Intelligence requested that the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency provide a detailed report to Congress explaining what legal standards they use to monitor the conversations, transmissions and activities of American citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html
Quote:
Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted


By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 7, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 - President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.


The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?


A different standard by the Grey Lady?

It looks more like a different use of spying. In 1999 and 2000 there was a question of IF it could be used. A question raised by Republicans that demanded that a system be put in place to protect US citizens. In 2006 there is no question of IF, only the question of how much. Good for those GOPers that have the same standard today as they did then.

I am curious how the author of your article JW came to the conclusion that Clinton was spying on everyone? It certainly isn't in the news reports from the time or the congressional investigations that I can see. The news from that time are that the US used FOREIGN services to intercept US calls. Those foreign services were required to black out any identifying information before passing it on to CIA.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 02:31 pm
parados - go back and read carefully the article I posted. Answers to your questions are there.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2006 03:18 pm
When I looked up Poole and his paper on US survellience of US citizens there were 2. Neither claims to be a "study."
The first one was about FISA had nothing to do with warrantless searches.
It was about how FISA was in violation of the constitution.

Inside America's Secret Court FISA



Poole's other paper on Echelon is interesting because here is the section on domestic spying for political purposes
Quote:
Political spying: Since the close of World War II, the US intelligence agencies have developed a consistent record of trampling the rights and liberties of the American people. Even after the investigations into the domestic and political surveillance activities of the agencies that followed in the wake of the Watergate fiasco, the NSA continues to target the political activity of "unpopular" political groups and our duly elected representatives. One whistleblower charged in a 1988 Cleveland Plain Dealer interview that, while she was stationed at the Menwith Hill facility in the 1980s, she heard real-time intercepts of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. A former Maryland Congressman, Michael Barnes, claimed in a 1995 Baltimore Sun article that under the Reagan Administration his phone calls were regularly intercepted, which he discovered only after reporters had been passed transcripts of his conversations by the White House. One of the most shocking revelations came to light after several GCHQ officials became concerned about the targeting of peaceful political groups and told the London Observer in 1992 that the ECHELON dictionaries targeted Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and even Christian ministries.
ECHELON: America's Secret Global Surveillance Network

The actual way that Poole's articles read compared to the way they are portrayed by the piece you posted is amazing JW. By reading your article it implies that Poole thinks Clinton abused the system by eavesdropping on US citizens. I can't find a single instance where Poole states anything like that.

The only thing I find critical of Clinton in Poole's articles is how they were used against foreign companies after it was decided that national security also included economic and commercial interests. (The exact concerns that the Times attributes to Poole in its 199 article.) Nowhere can I find Poole stating that Clinton was spying on just about everyone including all US citizens. You have to pull statements out of context to reach that conclusion.

There are no answers in your article JW. Just lots of questions about how the author used or abused his quotes.
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 03/15/2026 at 11:04:46