Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html

...and there is WAY to much of that thar' punctuation stuff too.

to something exactly opposite. You know... the way THEY do.

Something with "Fair-and-balanced" or "The Most Trusted Blog for News" in it...

democracyforiraq.com LOLOLOLOL

I love these::::

http://www.cafepress.com/bigbrother2006
http://www.cafepress.com/bigbrotherbushy

A couple of times I got security alerts via my spyware well on DU. Both times they traced back to Arlington VA.

Isn't that where CIA headquarters is?

...the CIA is in Langley, VA I think.

So what did you get via Spyware? I've never heard of that "Spyware well."

The thin-skinned little shit hates any opposition. Posting on DU probably meets his definition of "terrorist activity", simply because we think he's a terrible president.

and that he did not really win EITHER election.

just about anything and everything is suspect these days.

If the GOP-controled Congress does not act on something as blatant as this, then we'll know they have no respect for the rule of law.

n/t

how does the little shit get away with usurping the U.S. Constitution (you know, that "goddamned piece of paper") with an order?

...OMG, this is so much worse than being a little evasive about sex while under oath. Where's the outrage?

They have no respect for the rule of law and there will be no impeachment until we take back the house and senate.

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

Same article...

Boy, I feel safe...:thumbsdown:

on our phones since 9/11 are just that. And it's not just on my line, but a lot of people I know.

We live very close to that craggy hill. Still, it tops the worse possible violation of our privacy, of which we have none anymore. And everyone is fed-up about it - and I mean everyone I bang into in passing.

All kidding aside there are constant noises on my phone and numerous interuptions etc--it has been a joke between my mother and myself for the last three years that Rove must be listening in on our bush bashing convos.

Guess from what I am hearing that wouldn't be all that way out after all!

My aunt and I have an ongoing joke about it, as well. One day we heard a clatter, crash, and thud on the phone and when I asked "what was THAT?" my aunt casually replied, "the phone tapper fell off his stool in his van".
I've also had my home broken into, nothing was amiss except for my phone. During that time I had cyber-stalkers (some were law enforcement) harassing me continuously, so I assumed it was them who entered my home. One of them owns a webforum I would post articles about police and gvt.corruption on, only to have my posts altered, edited, removed, then they eventually banned me. (They go so far as to file false reports and complaints against me). My phone even answered itself on occasion. When certain people would call, my caller ID read "United States G" on the first ring, but following rings would show the person's name and number. Within a few days after I threw my phone away, they emailed me to invite me back to join their forum.
Boycott "Spokane Forums". They attack anyone who disagrees with their mindset. They deny being radical right-wingers, but they are THE EXTREME. And insane.

You can rest assured that I am not going anywhere near those forums!

That is friggin scary!

that wiretapping would create clicking sounds.

my theory is that Officer Mike sits there with empty potato chip bags to make you paranoid ;-)

Although as screwed up as everything else is that this admin does one never knows...they could have purchased old 1940s wire tapping equipment in a special deal from Brown and Root or something lol

he did this and I knew some of the people he was spying on.

ANYONE who Nixon thought might disagree with him were targets.

Nasty feminists -- lawyers -- peace-niks -- lots of just ordinary people.

The GOPigs always get carried away and citizens (subjects of the "king") become targets until it becomes unclear who the enemy is.

However, in bushie's case -- anyone not in the top 1% of the top 1% is his enemy -- even though some of the idiots voted for him.

According to Sibel Edmonds, there aren't anywhere near enough translators to analyze all the data they intercept. And the ones that get close to anything incriminating get silenced. So what is all this monitoring accomplishing? I guess it could be more pinpointed and useful if your real goal was blackmail....

... since the NSA regularly records all international traffic, from what I've read. They just pull out the stuff that's interesting. It all goes into the computers and feeding in a list of phone numbers pulls out and sorts the conversations they want to look at. The rest of it is stored. So, technically, everything is tapped, but not all of it is analyzed.

They can search for 30 days, rearrange your stuff, and not tell you.

... the target of a so-called sneak and peek doesn't have to be notified for ninety days. That's an actual break-in and is now easily warranted through the intelligence court (a so-called FISA warrant). The Patriot Act has simply made that process easier to search domestically.

The NSA, however, monitors virtually all electronic signals in the world outside the United States, and they do that by sweeping up everything--trans-oceanic cables, land microwave and satellite and short-wave. They just grab the whole stream, and sort out what they want later. That's what I was talking about.

Cheers.

they don't care about alquada or they would be focusing on monitoring them.

They care about making sure the people don't turn against them.

It's like 1984 where the government was watching the people at all times through the telescreen.

This is a huge testament to their corruption. I suspect it comes from not trusting themselves. Obviously it also comes from total disregard of the rights of the american people. They do not believe in america being a free nation. They do not believe in the declaration of independence.

... The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

:shrug: A presidential election perhaps? Thanks NYT. Freedom is on the march.

to be interesting:

Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

You really need to read James Bamford's Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets. The NSA has ALWAYS listened in on international E-lint.

As 'training' they will monitor domestic sources as a matter of course.

The military intelligence groups are the ones where things really get curious. Walter Pincus' reports their latest domestic spying ops are reminicent of the '70s (remember MLK, etc ?).

PsyOps, SigInt , DSS now.

but here * ordered something else, something that goes against our constitution; spying on americans. International communications have always been subject to intercept but here? In America? (*) needs to be in prison.

The military's domestic spying never 'disappeared' even after the '70s. They merely changed the acronyms of the groups doing it.

Check out the story CNN and PsyOps by counterpunch's Alexander Cockburn for example. What was THAT all about ?

www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

They thought it would make it much easier to carry out their job without all that recordkeeping and oversight. What they got were gaping holes in coverage, through which some very astute, well-informed insiders were able to carry out an operation to its conclusion on 9/11. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00257.htm

No, really. I wanna hear Bush defend this. It's so blatantly unconstitutional, blatantly useless, and irredeemably stupid.

Have a press conference, fuckwit. I want to hear what you've got to say.

Otherwise, its more lies with impunity. Presidential press conferences and interviews normally serve no purpose other than to spread the propaganda Line of the Day free of charge and virtually without risk.

What do you think the chances are of any White House official voluntarily offering an honest, complete response to these issues, unless it's before a Grand Jury? Even then . . .

I think the chances of getting an honest complete response about anything from this white house, even under oath, or at the pearly gates is zero. I still want to see them try to answer it. I'm really curious to hear their explanation (if they don't just deny it entirely, which they probably will.)

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=0a4739ca3ab6d63b&hp&ex=1134709200&partner=homepage

...this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny"

and that really says it all doesn't it?

The only one's who don't have a clue are most of the American people.

even if they're the ones being "monitored". They take the attitude of "if you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about". :eyes: They don't grasp the gravity of these actions and how they can be used against "ordinary citizens" for whatever purpose the government sees fit. Not to mention the illegality of it all. The Sheeple of the United States will insist that this is a tool used to protect them, not to pry into people's lives and the Sheeple are ALL ABOUT their "protection" these days. The bush administration has used the "fear card" so many times in order to control them that they're inured to it now. A majority of Americans will see nothing wrong with this at all. They're fools.

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

Reminded me of "Good Morning, Vietnam"

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

:sarcasm:

If it was the FBI this wouldn't raise any eyebrows at all.

This is just well, extending the Patriot Act behind the back of Congress, which is generally frowned upon, but can hardly be called inconsistent with the standards (if I can use that term...) that Congress set after "9/11 changed everything".

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.
...
The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.
...
Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions regarding the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

Impeachable offense?

Constitution!

everybody call their senators tomorrow. I am! This is impeachable isn't it???????????????


my mom's "psychics" said that bush would be impeach in dec. 2005, wouldn't that be great?

I'd praise the Lord!

I'd bet my mortgage that there aren't going to be any impeachment proceedings in the next two weeks.

onenote

true.. they'd claim that something that was announced caused the impeachment though..


and, if we're fortunate as a world - that can be their argument they were right for all I care!


I pray often for the bushco to be impeached.


http://www.cafepress.com/bigbrother2006
http://www.cafepress.com/bigbrotherbushy

lie hidden by this fascist administration? Of course we'll probably never find out as the mainstream media are either lapdogs, still covering the missing girl in Aruba, or in cahoots with BushCo, and our f#%^!ing congresspeople are too busy voting extensions on the so-called "Patriot" Act and granting more tax breaks to the top 1% of the wealthiest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
"Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention)."

Now call me a conspiracy theorist but I doubt that the WH was not involved in 9/11.
So really AQ is the least of their problems.
So who are they really spying on?
DU, Cindy Sheehan or any other organization from the opposition.
My bet is that since *&Co have always been in this for the money, that a lot of commercial spying is going on.
Some years ago Airbus complained that Boeing had stolen a contract from them because they had spied on secret internal communications obtained through the ECHELON system, while it was not close to ever being proved it signals that that kind of thing is actually going on.
It could also be used to monitor news organizations and politicians. I wonder if Fitzgerald still sends e-mails.

Echelon has spied on us since the early '80's, OR SOONER.

Bush authorized NSA to spy on Americans
Agency has monitored hundreds within U.S. since 9/11, newspaper reports
Updated: 11:56 p.m. ET Dec. 15, 2005
NEW YORK - President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States — without getting search warrants — following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.

The presidential order, which Bush signed in 2002, has allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States, according to a story posted Thursday on the Times’ Web site.

Before the new program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders to do so. Under the post-Sept. 11 program, the NSA has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/

Does that mean that the story should have been published before the 2004 election?

Imagine any major U.S. media keeping any rumor about Clinton secret for over a year, no less actual facts of a crime. It would not happen.

The real scandal here is that Time Magazine, The New York Times, Foix, and other mainstream media outlets manipulated the 2004 presidential elections to help the Bush administration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_nsa

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

<snip>

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

:grr:

motherFUCKERS!

just saw this on CNN - NY Times sat on this at THE WHITE HOUSE REQUEST!

:grr:

Disgusted, angry, horrified, etc yes but not truly surprised and certainly not by anything BushCo does.

Sadly my trust in government has gone from bad after growing up in the 60's and 70's to almost nada now... and I truly hate that these ANTI-American dolts have turned my beloved country into this fascist, corporate, wacko RW NON-Christian place that would have the framers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution spinning in their graves. :grr:

The incredibly disingenuous torture spokeswoman, C. Rice, is on Today spouting bold-faced lies about this issue.
I've had enough - these bastards are the true enemies of our freedom.
IMPEACH NOW!!

After reading this, I feel as if our rights have been outsourced to Iraq. What the hell is happening here? This is the kind of thing done in Cold War Russia, not the United States of America. And what "Congressional leaders" knew and agreed to this? Republican or Democrat, they've got to go. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Didn't Condi just say that Bush didn't authorize or have any knowledge of spying????

now how she could possibly know that is beyond me.

On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about the program.

"I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters," she told NBC's "Today" show. But Rice did say that President Bush "has always said he would do everything he can to protect the American people, but within the law, and with due regard for civil liberties because he takes seriously his responsibility."

"The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken," Rice said, "to defend the American people and to defend the people within his constitutional responsibility."......

...how come the Bush's order was a secret?

that she knows nothing absolutely nothing about. Intelligence. ;) "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters." Good going Kindasleezy and you're correct, you know nothing about intelligence (same as the rest of the bush administration) so keep your mouth shut.

Why is it that this administration has SUCH hard time with intelligence? I guess you'd have to have at least a modicum of intelligence to DEAL with intelligence. Or so it would seem. :shrug:

God, remember the days when all we had to worry about was our President getting a hummer? :smoke: Things were pretty great back then. I'd give anything to return to those "heady" days (pardon the pun) and I'm quite sure many Republicans would as well. Those were the Republican's golden years, everything has been downhill for them ever since.

she's lying. She is a firm believer in the lie as a tool of "statecraft" to all of us "useful idiots". A true blue PNACer!

And, Welcome to DU!
:toast:

Talk about paranoia!

And, yes, I think they buried the lead here:

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

Um, alerting the terrorists? What about alerting current citizens that they might be under illegal scrutiny?

Wonder if the year delay actually was prior to the freaking election. Even some freepers would have gone bonkers over this one

little over-zealous. Two years ago my phone started doing funny things with ring-backs when it was cradled , clicking, etc. A friend, ex-military intelligence during Nam, was visiting and right away said it was tapped.

During a conversation with my sister (who lives in Canada, was an SDS organizer and went to Canada with her husband who avoided the draft during Nam), I told her I was sure it was tapped and that I had been told I could go to a local judge and get an order to find out who tapped it and why. If the tap was legal, I would not find out, if it was not legal, phone company would have to disclose. Gee, it stopped right away.

I live in rural (conservative) part of Oregon. Have bumper stickers, etc. and write lots of letters to politians. Not to mention I travel overseas a lot. Guess those local idiots decided I might be a threat.

I'm also a 56 year old grandmother who has never been in any trouble but then, I guess around here, political dissent is a crime.

In an edition of the story I read it concluded that:
The Pentagon said Wednesday that Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, had ordered a full review of the system for handling such information to ensure that it complies with Pentagon policies and federal law.

Steve Cambone is the same jackass that devised the sexually humiliating torture for the American gulags. Kiss my ass Steve.

Un-elected, psychologically abusive assholes. They use their (at best) screw up in Sept 2001 to justify further crimes. How low will these losers go.

The only thing that is somewhat positive is that some NSA workers told them to fuck off, I am not doing that.

Front news page of aol.com now!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_nsa;_ylt=Arley4I.JESoLgq1HAwKWTOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Reports: Bush Authorized NSA to Spy in U.S.

2 hours, 19 minutes ago

NEW YORK - The National Security Agency has eavesdropped, without warrants, on as many 500 people inside the United States at any given time since 2002, The New York Times reported Friday.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks,
President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.......

warrents (had formerly only covered 'overseas").

Scary stuff. Anyone for ID tattoos on your forhead?

But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Just begs the question, doesn't it. Just get a bunch of Republicans (or any party will do) and order them to dig up ___________ on those Democrats (or fill in the blank). It's all downhill from there.

And say it was just 'training exercises' if anything goes haywire and gets open.

Why was it released now?

Huh? How about warrants CONSTITUTIONALLY required. Asshats. Sounds like another impeachment charge to me. The so-called "Patriot Act" had not been passed into law...

Watch the American people yawn at this one and allow another one of our civil rights to slip away.

I'm getting sick to my stomach.

Notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the requirement that warrants be issued only on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, most searches take place without warrants under a variety of exceptions that the Supreme Court has carved out over the years. I have a bad feeling that the current Court wouldn't hesitate to find that chimpy's snooping falls within an existing, or newly created, exception.

onenote

OUTRAGED! WHEN are the American people going to stand up and DEMAND our civil rights back? This really sucks gravy.

He is the one taking our liberties, he is the one lying and bombing and killing. 30,000 deaths of Iraqi's he calmly said, as though it had no more meaning than counting beans to him.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

IMPEACH and IMPRISON....NOW!

s without any reporting. I did not catch who it was that was talking.

Some CONS are trying to justify this saying that on 1 10th of 1/2 of 1 percent of americans have been spied on. well, when hitler took power, he started by rounding up the disabled. that was about the same ratio to the general public. no one spoke up. Then he went for the ROMA. no one spoke up. then the jews and so on.

today about this.

...Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.



Here is the quote in its context in the article:


Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.



This is yet another reason Diebold, et. al. worked so hard to "deliver Ohio's votes to George W.
Bush."

If this isn't impeachable, nothing is.

Or, do these "some N.S.A. personnel" work directly for the BFEE and not for America?
:scared:

Nah .. I'm just being paranoid. Or am I? You know, you can be paranoid, and people can still be out to get you.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesmen declined to discuss the matter on the record but issued a written statement Wednesday evening that implied — but did not explicitly acknowledge — that some information had been handled improperly.

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

....The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

....Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5604678&mesg_id=5604678

Here's the direct link to the story:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-scspy15dec15,0,108348.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

From the Palm Beach Post:


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/local_news/epaper/2005/12/15/m1a_patriot_1215.html

Let us make something clear. Suppose some conventional criminal who has nothing to do with terrorism wants to use e-mail for his purposes. Then he could not care less whether it is NSA, FBI or local cops who are are spying on him! Also, he does not care wtether they have a proper warrant or not. His real concern is to keep his operational info confidential. In this, technically, criminals are not different from law abiding citizens who want to keep their credit card info secure.

That is, all criminals, mafiosi and terrorists have to do to protect their communications against law enforcement is to follow regular secularity rules and use tools which are 100% open and available on the Net for everybody to use.

What is worse, modern technology allows practically unbreakable codes, so NSA cannot do much to decrypt properly protected electronic messages.

The conclusion is, neither Patriot Act nor any reasonable eavesdropping legislation can disrupt properly organized criminal communication networks. Argumentation that eavesdropping legislation needs to be kept secret is technically bogus, that's pure politics and ideology.

1. JAMES RISEN, ERIC LICHTBLAU. Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?pagewanted=print
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

2. Wiki on eavesdropping: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eavesdropping

The government has always had the right to spy but it first has to be
documented with a court order. If it's documented and misused someone
can be held accountable. If it's secret, it can be used for anything without
any restraints.
That's where it really becomes dangerous.

I emailed the links and info about Bush's authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans, and this is the email I got back...

""War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man
who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which
is more important than his own personal safety and gain, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

When the liberals and the communist start repeating the same talking points, you've got to wonder what the real motives are.

Degrading the president of the great United States dishonors our nation and values."



So fellow DU'ers, please help me what are the communist and liberal talking points, I must just be confused?! Uhm...why do I hate 'merika? :sarcasm:

I am done with these people, I have found that I am putting more and more distance between these people and myself. I hate to lose friends, but then again, I hate to see people drink the kool-aid!

Talking Points:

1) Invasion of Iraq is not a war it is a war crime

2) Dick Cheney is a criminal with a long record of criminal activity

3) Donald Rumsfeld is a pathological liar and architect of mass slaughter

4) George Bush is a stupid wicked little frat boy who should spend the rest of his life peeling potatos in prison

5) Paul Wolfowitz is a technocratic chicken hawk who writes policy papers to sanction murder

6) Anyone who drinks of the Kool Aid is through their words of consent complicit in war crimes

Who needs friends like that.

That put me on the track I needed. I also reminded them that without protesting and subversion we would not be the country we are today. Even though she is a teacher, I guess she forgot that today was the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

As for friends, I am becoming more selective as the years pass by. I am growing less tolerant for kool-aid drinkers.

in saying that in not supporting the war in Iraq liberals are willing to fight for nothing. Wrong, assholes! I'm willing to fight against any terrorists, crooks, and criminals, foreign or domestic, who are hurting this country, or more importantly, human kind in general. I think waging an illegal war, torturing, gutting the environment and the poor, etc etc etc all qualify

on this. What if the NYT had decided to hold
on to this story yet another year?

under Clinton, or even Bush 41??

Unless I have gone nuts I thought this was common knowledge in the aftermath of that fascist patriot act's passing--?????

I distinctly recall sending this info to friends who at the time thought I was a conspiracy loon--so how the hell does this come as a big shock to the media and Congress?

on "double secret probabtion". Leave it to the frat boy.

NYT: Live Tracking of Mobile Phones Prompts Court Fights on Privacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/technology/10phone.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=2011ce3dd6b43183&ex=1291870800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Text from this article is in this previous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5566152

..this is slightly worse than a stained blue dress I think....

is that its hard to find smart, well funded foriegn al quada terrorists like Osama. Its much easier to find and monitor americans.

Every good Republican knows that. :sarcasm:

Isn't there any way to get rid of this Chimpy? Anyone got a voodoo doll that you gould stand up against a wall and shoot?

:eyes:

:eyes:

expected; what is the bigger story is that the New York Times sat on the story at the request of Bush as if it was another organ of the state. This was information that could have impacted an election and it goes beyond Judith Miller's handiwork. For all the bad things going on with that paper (the fictional stories, Judith Miller) this is the worst thing. This paper let itself be an extension of this government abdicating its most important duty and function.

:nuke: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :hide:

we might as well just burn the constitution.

Christ almighty, it is time for these lunatics to go. All of them.

(And by that, he/she must mean between 36 and thousands of times?)

And get this: they say that some in Congress knew...

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

The disclosure follows angry demands by lawmakers earlier in the day for a congressional inquiry into whether the monitoring by the highly secretive National Security Agency violated civil liberties.
...
"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources _ let me underscore this now _ consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600259.html

"we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people."

Uh huh...

Not because he is repuke. No, he is afraid that the government will record his name and put him on a list. I asked just what being on a list might prevoke but he steadfastly refuses to go online with his political ideas.
Tell me again what country I'm in?

Someone I know refuses to use her e-mail or phone to protest anything. She's afraid of repercussions, of being shot, of having her name on record as being "Communist" for protesting. God this is sick. Are Americans stupid or what? How could a people be so scared?

That weasel Lindsay Graham, who was so quick to impeach Clinton. Here's the body of my message:




If the President authorized the numerous wiretaps of American citizens, as the New York Times reported this morning, then that would be a blatant violation of our basic constitutional laws. Which he did swear to God to uphold when he took the oath of office. I feel you would be remiss, and not representing your constituents if you do not bring up impeachment proceedings against him for this violation of my basic rights. He who would give up his rights in the name of freedom and protection deserves neither.

sounding even more believable now.

1) They did it because they could. Not because they had to:

"Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say. "

2) Better not let anyone find out about this:

"Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president."

3) They could have screwed up legal searches and surveillance operations with this mishegas:

"A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping. According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information. "

4) Don't ask, Don't tell. You know how those Civil Rights loonies can get in the way:

"Seeking Congressional approval was also viewed as politically risky because the proposal would be certain to face intense opposition on civil liberties grounds. The administration also feared that by publicly disclosing the existence of the operation, its usefulness in tracking terrorists would end, officials said."