READ!! -- NSA doc proves "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying BEFORE 9/11"

From Truthout:



This completely undermines BushCo's claim that Congress's Authorization of Military in Afghanistan gave them the "statutorial exception" for warrantless wiretaps. It couldn't...because it hadn't happened yet!!

I haven't looked through the NSA doc fully yet, but it wouldn't hurt to also try and get the testimony of that unnamed telecom industry official mentioned in the last paragraph of the article.

K&R.

...it was well worth re-mentioning!

Of course, I was surprised at the level of ignorance regarding Diebold, PNAC, etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...of this. Gets Gonzales for lying to the Congress, too.

What say you?? Although it may be even too hot for him to touch.

on today's show - maybe K.O. should pick this up

countdown@msnbc.com

the 9/11 highjackers before they hit us?

The thing to bear in mind is that regardless of why BushCo were eavesdropping, they broke the law to do it.

he was listening for terrorists -- well. what happened dubya??

I didn't mean to talk down to you, sorry.

You're right, if this gets out (a big if) people will definitely want to know what good any kind of wiretap is if warrantless ones didn't stop 9/11. And it adds another failure to Bush**'s scorecard.

But I think that would be a natural, automatic response to this information. It certainly was for me. The thought that needs clarifying in the general public is that none of these wiretaps were legal -- and this proves it.

Which we all know he ignored anyway. My thought is that they have been spying on political enemies, not real enemies and that is why they had to circumvent FISA.

With outgoing Clinton telling incoming Bush that terrorism and al Qaeda were his number one concerns, and with the revelation that Bush was spying before 9/11, who the Hell was he spying on?!?!? It's a question that needs answering!

Oh, and the Aug. 6 PDB ("Bin Laden determined to strike within United States") should have most certainly prompted him to order the NSA to monitor their calls. Yet, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes. Makes one wonder...

Also on a personal note: I'm convinced now that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen. Considering what we know know about NSA spying, the 8/6 PDF, the Clinton/Bush meeting, etc., it answers why Bush did nothing when told by Andy Card that "we are under attack." He already knew...

That's exactly what's going on here. Interesting LTTE:

see it coming? Something stinks.

I'm more inclined to believe that they were spying on their political opponents.

Something like 14 warnings from the intel. departments of other countries.

LIHOP if not MIHOP

Hitler youth organization?

They look just like him. :puke:

stressing the need for protection. Not one of them brought this document up for discussion.

Also I would like us to encourage those repubs, who are going against turd blossom' s threats:

snip

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.

Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

from:
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

out in the same document.
These are private companies folks.

was gannon at the hearing for a purpose?? was he there sending a message?? a threat??, a warning to any who came down on this?? was he there as a warning to dems or rethugs or both??

remember he never got a capitol hill press pass ..so how did he get into the hearing yesterday????????

and why exactly was he there?????????

hmmmmmmmmm

fly

this issue is much, much bigger than simple Republican vs. Democratic politics. Some Republicans may still honor the Constitution.

they 'mighta coulda woulda shoulda' caught if this program had been in place prior to 9-11?

They were doing a Nixon, that's why they didn't find the hijackers.

Maybe it never was?

But again, the main point is that regardless of who Bush** was looking for -- even if he were doing it with the best intentions (snort, chortle) -- he did it illegally. The distinction between legal and illegal is what's important.

But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

that doesn't mean we can't catch shrubby in his web of lies

going on during the Clinton Administration?

and that's all I can say about that.

I have first-hand info. I can tell you that much.

At the time I dismissed it as tinfoil hat stuff. Not anymore.

I can say that much because it's not a secret.
He was Army.

That the Bush/Cheney campaign targeted voters the same way corporations target consumers, through data mining. They used the NSA in their campaign operations, and it would also explain why nobody has ever been charged with impersonating a federal officer in Ohio on election day.

Political gain???? Paranoia????? Arrogant Abuse of Power???? Psychopathy???? ALL of the aforementioned?????

x( They can blackmail whomever they please. They can plan PR strategy based upon info they acquire. They can be dictators.

Don't you think ? Pretext for war may be discovered early. They couldn't take that chance; and also Rove couldn't live without domestic surveillance on his 'enemies'.

They'll probably start with Arab and Iranian-Americans first.

and after the 'national emergency' is signed off on by Bush, or whoever is president at the time. BTW, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is now the leading DHS intelligence unit under the realignment of government since 9-11. FEMA has been re-arranged as the source of the power, so this means more executive orders have been signed off on since the FEMA / Rex 84 stuff.

See you at band camp !

if they started rounding up dissenters. I think first they would go through and round up criminals and potential terrorists, like they have already done, then once a big war breaks out they might step it up a notch. It would probably take a big domestic event, when everyone is afraid to say anything, and then I guess FEMA could take control.

weapons for crowd control. Who wants to chance getting blinded, pacemaker jammed, skin glued to the sidewalk? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0158240

They are testing these in Iraq:
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/11/29/daily30.html

to keep GOPs, Dems, media and other key people toeing the Bushie regime line. I'm not the only one thinking about how the Bushies enforce complliance with their criminal agenda. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x338735
thread title (2-6-06 GD): Ex-Reagan official- Dubya uses spying to blackmail media & Dems

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x342591
thread title (2-6-06 GD): Rove Threatens Republican Senators...

The second of these current threads talks about how Rove is threatening any GOP Senators who dare to question the NSA spying legality with political non-support. But really, can't you see Rove doing his usual behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and dirty tricks, letting them know (through intermediates so that deniability is preserved) that he's got tapes of them with male or female prostitutes or documents showing them taking bribes? Even if he MAKES UP a charge of corruption, it would quite possibly destroy a reputation.

it's just frosting on the cake. The FISA statute was updated FOUR times to accommodate any new needed authorities. Bush didn't want to go anywhere near that FISA judge with what he was doing. He just thought it would never be found out.

The crux of BushCo's defense is Congress's post-9/11 authorization to invade Afghanistan. Bushbots keep parroting that like it means something. It doesn't, for the reasons you state. But the administration have boxed themselves in with this excuse. How can they now defend warrantless wiretaps conducted PRE-9/11?

To me that's a bit more than frosting on the cake...but I've been known to get overly optimistic about these sorts of things.

Has anyone emailed/faxed this article and the NSA document to the committee? Who ARE the committee and do we have a list of email addresses/fax numbers?

Doesn't that kind of taking a huge, steaming crap all over Bush's only argument in favor of them?

fallicious through and through. He was baseing the Presidents authority on the Resolution of Force from 9/11. If the spying pre-dated 9/11, his legal justification collapses.

do it because I only have about an hour a day on the computer.

Please, we should be sending this article and the NSA doc to each and every one of them!!

And a kick for good measure.

But.......I know better.

so the program is fucking useless. As are the idiots in the WH.

Remember that both he and Cheney, in the last 30 days essentially guaranteed we would be attacked again. So, from their own mouths, we know that everything they've done has been useless. Not only does this document establish it, their statements prove they know it to be true.

They have accomplished nothing!
The Professor

I was being rhetorical. Now I'll be dead serious -- 911 was an inside job, and the next attack will also be an inside job.

You don't actually think that everything they're getting away with for the past five years is because of a dumb luck terror attack that they "never could have imagined" on September 11th, 2001, do you?

Ever since my eighth grader wrote a controversial paper about why and how we could not economically afford this war. Yes- she also pointed out that the loss of life was also not worth going to war over.
Another little sidebar of this school year included a state representative's attorney telling me that I sounded like I was at war with my daughter's school. I had asked the school's superintendent to investigate an incident that involved a knife being put up to my child backside. These are two different issues, but we found the attorneys response concerning, and had noticed considerable phone troubles shortly after this. Also my husband was audited by the IRS. This may be coincidental. What has anyone else with objections to this war experienced?

:argh:

just thought you all would like to know.

(I think.) What was she saying?

how this program was enacted/authorized before 9/11 and that the program has ensnarled thousands of people as opposed to the limited spying that admin says that it does.

They did a really good job.

Has anyone been emailing K.O. with this stuff?

I know that this story has been out for weeks but I think that people may actually pay more attention to it in lieu of this weeks hearings.

Keith - I am a huge fan, please do not let this story fall in the cracks - we/America is counting on you.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml - story from truthout.org

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/nsa25.pdf - link to NSA document

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=346899&mesg_id=346899 - link to all inclussive discussion at DU


email address:

countdown@msnbc.com

contact him about this.

I just did.

:kick: :dem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

"The Act obliges telephone companies to make it possible for law enforcement agencies to tap any phone conversations carried out over its networks..."

Should this be read as law enforcement has the direct ability to tap our phones, without the need of someone at the phone company to 'tap' it using a warrant; or that phone companies merely need the technical means to tap regardless who is doing it?

The police and FBI have obvious need to tap phones in certain situations; they have to secure a warrant from a judge before asking the phone company to put the tap in place. If they don't have a warrant and prosecute based on evidence from wiretapping, all that evidence is bound to be thrown out by the trial judge.

At least, that's what I've absorbed from watching Law & Order. ;-)

:rofl:

My anti-virus software just reported an attack!

to attack liberals?!? ;)

cryptome.org

But I hate them today just as much, or more (if possible), as I did yesterday.
yay for hate!:bounce: :party: :bounce: hate party! I could be a Rethuglican...

nt

On which is prominently featured the date. The second most important part of the document is a grammatical feature: the tenses of the verbs used.

Nothing in that document can actually refer to anything that had happened under * as fact, because the document was drawn up pre-*. It can refer to past events as fact, for they presumably happened; it can refer to current practices as practices, which is to say, the way things should be done; and it can make claims about future events. The latter two ways of referring are irrealis, and I prefer to think I'm not part of the irreality-based community.

One needs get no further than the cover to conclude that if the pdf is referring to illegal acts, it's referring to them exclusively under Clinton. Otherwise, we're led to a temporal paradox of the sort that Capt. Janeway would cringe at.

The article's referenced because of a practice that existed under Clinton. Intelligence collects info, and provides it with the names stripped out; under Clinton the intelligence collection was only done legally, the argument is, and that's what the pdf refers to. But if the Powers That Be affirm that the made this assertion rather less frequently than * & crew. It was legal under Clinton; it's legal under *. It may be taken advantage of improperly under *, but that doesn't make it illegal.

There's the illegal wiretapping that's the current buzz. There's this practice. Confuse them only at the risk of being confused.

Just a guess...
:banghead: