BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 10:36 PM

Hoover scholar joins lawsuit
against Bush administration

From the Palo Alto Online news website

Hoover Institution scholar and Stanford University Professor Larry Diamond is part of a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Bush administration for alleged spying on Americans.

Diamond, in a statement posted on the ACLU Web site, said he joined the lawsuit "to bring a halt to the warrantless surveillance by the (National Security Agency) for both professional and principled reasons.

"Professionally, my work as a political scientist studying, teaching about, and working to advance democratic development around the world depends on my ability to communicate freely with people throughout the world who are working for democratic change or who have information and analysis that bears on the struggle.

"There is also the problem of being able to communicate with students of mine who are doing their own research, or conducting research for me, in countries that are being monitored through warrantless surveillance, and on subjects that are politically sensitive, such as the prospects for democratic regime change or the opposition movement in a particular country."

The ACLU is one of two civil rights groups that filed awsuits against the Bush administration today, the New York Times reported. The second group is the Center for Constitutional Rights. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:03 PM

Democrats Unveil Lobbying Curbs

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A01

Congressional Democrats yesterday laid out a plan to change what they called a GOP "culture of corruption" in Washington, even as Republicans pointed to ethics lapses on their antagonists' side of the aisle.

Democratic leaders from the House and Senate endorsed proposals that closely mirror Republican plans unveiled this week to tighten regulations on lobbyists since the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal broke. But in a sign that an ethical "arms race" may be developing, the Democratic plans go further than the Republicans' proposals.

Rather than limiting the value of a gift to $20, as House Republicans are considering, Democrats would prohibit all gifts from lobbyists. Democrats also take direct aim at some of the legislative practices that have become established in the past 10 years of Republican rule in Congress. They vowed to end the K Street Project, under which Republicans in Congress pressure lobbying organizations to hire only Republican staff members and contribute only to Republican candidates.

Lawmakers would have to publicly disclose negotiations over private-sector jobs, a proposal inspired by then-House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin's job talks in 2003 that led to his hiring as president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in January 2005. Executive branch officials who are negotiating private-sector jobs would need approval from the independent Office of Governmental Ethics.

Under the Democrats' plan, House and Senate negotiators working out final versions of legislation would have to meet in open session, with all members of the conference committee -- not just Republicans -- having the opportunity to vote on amendments. Legislation would have to be posted publicly 24 hours before congressional consideration. Democrats also proposed to crack down on no-bid contracting and to require that any person appointed to a position involving public safety "possess proven credentials."

"Mr. Abramoff and his associates will be held up as the beginning and end of our congressional crisis, but they are just the symptom of a larger problem," said Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.). "Now is the time to realize that the Republican members of Congress who put America up for sale have neither the ability nor the credibility to lead us in a new direction."

---

Seems to me, in general, that a new direction would be a peachy idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:21 PM

Amos:

So what you are saying is you do not answer questions, I am evasive and you don't like my attacks.

Amos you will not answer the questions because they undermine your position.

You are narrow minded and you concentrate on certain things in order to blot out anything that might make you appear to be wrong.

You are totaly biased one way person.

Do you still deliver Avatar?

What is Avatar?

No answer means you are being evasive.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:38 PM

Still at it?

I have answered your question. As to your new question, no, I do not. As to your second question, here's one answer.

And you are yet again altering my position on things, resorting to your usual projections. THere is absolutely nothing about the Laos war which undermines my position on Bush's war in Iraq. They are both ridiculous and short-sighted answers.

And this argument that past precedent justify current crimes is about as bassackwards as anything you have said to date.

Do you honestly think there is some justification which balances out the offense of unilaterally starting a war? I swan...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:37 AM

Man this is some heavy shit here Amos. Can you walk me through it? Do I have to put a helmet on with tin foil and rabbit ears? Does somebody have to beam me up?

People pretty much experience what they believe-Even though sometimes they don't believe they believe it.

Avatar is about every reality that is, was or will be. I know that's not very descriptive, but it is the truest statement I can make. Avatar deals with creation, which I define as anything that has definition or limits in space, time or awareness. That covers the universe and everything in it.

   Since most people are not really ready to engage Avatar at such an all-encompassing level, I usually talk about beliefs.

People have an Instinctive recognition that what they believe has a consequence in their lives. The principle dilemma of existence is what to believe. That's the philosophic abyss that confronts everyone. That's the abyss called, "I don't know." It's dangerous not to know. At the edge of this abyss are the shops of the belief peddlers. Some shops are lavish and hallowed with histories. Some are Volkswagen buses driven by cult recruiters. Everybody is selling a program and a one-way pass to the land of truth on the other side of the abyss. There are thousands of bridges across the abyss, and each one leads to a slightly different reality.

   What is different about Avatar is that the program is blank, and the pass is round trip!

Perspective: Are you saying that we don't always know what we believe or experience what we say we believe?

    Harry: That's right. And that is the flaw in positive thinking. You can stick signs on every mirror in the house saying, "I'm happy to be me," and chant it for a half hour before every meal and still not experience it. The reason it won't take you across the abyss into an experience is because you are already across experiencing something else. Maybe you came on the ticket, "Nothing really makes me happy." That is the real belief that is underlying and motivating all of the positive assertions.

Is there a flaw in negative thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:46 AM

Andere wie der altgediente Scientologe Amos Jessup sagen, Palmer sei immer grundehrlich zu ihnen gewesen, geradezu grosszügig. Der entscheidende Faktor ist offensichtlich Palmers Verständnis seiner eigenen Macht. Menschen, die ihn in Frage stellen oder Verbesserungen an seiner Unternehmung vorschlagen, bekommen sehr schnell Ärger; diejenigen, die ihn kritiklos verehren, kommen wunderbar mit ihm aus.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 07:14 AM

February 23, 99 Presentation by

Amos Jessup
of
VisiCom
speaking on:
"The Process of Managing Requirements."

In this presentation Amos Jessup looks into the characterization of requirements and how it can be done rationally and clearly. We also examine the functions and basic ingredients of a good, workable requirements management process and one possible way to implement them using an automated tool.

About Our Speaker

Amos Jessup is the Information Manager for the VisiCom Modeling and Simulation product group, and for three years has been the Requirements Manager for the US Marine Corps' MAGTF Tactical Warfare Simulation development project. He holds an MS degree in Technology Management from San Diego's National University and is a graduate of the Software Project Management program run by the SPAWAR Software Engineering Program Office (SEPO). Before joining VisiCom he operated his own management consultancy company specializing in training systems and organizational development.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 07:22 AM

MAGTF Staff Training Program
"Training the first to fight"
Thursday, January 19, 2006
To provide training in MAGTF, Joint and Combined warfighting skills, within the Joint and Combined environment, in order to improve the warfighting skills of senior commanders and their staffs and to provide feedback into the Expeditionary Force Development System (EFDS).         

Improve the warfighting skills of senior commanders and their staff.
        
Develop a common understanding of MEF doctrine. .
        
Enhance the capabilities to employ a MEF in a joint environment
        
Promote MEF/MSC team building.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:24 AM

Intercepted emails from Scientologists in New York City (right after 9/11) are revealing, it shows that this group is intentionally using deceit to gain access to the vulnerable people still suffering from shock and grief. Moreover, it has deliberately interfered with legitimate mental health practitioners sent there to assist. Below are a few excerpts from these emails, sent out to Scientologists to promote this parasitic behavior by "Lt." Simon Hare, CO, I HELP Canada (in NY). (Note: the "Lieutenant" designates a rank in the Sea Org
Intercepted Scientology email:

Dear All,

For the last two days I have been in New York Org running, with several other Sea Org members, the deployment of Volunteer Ministers into the disaster zone.

The Sea Org is Scientology's pretend Navy, and consists of the most dedicated members. These people sign a billion year contract when joining up. Volunteer Ministers have undergone an hour's training in Scientology style disaster training, mostly a technique known as a "touch assist," which is supposed to make one feel better. This was dreamed up by founder L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer and college dropout, a man who's "Doctorate" degree was purchased from a diploma mill.

After describing the scene, the Scientologist reporting goes on to say:
Intercepted Scientology email:
Additionally we are trying to move in and knock the psychs out of counseling to the grieving families and that could take another 100 plus people right now. Due to some brilliant maneuvering by some simply genius Sea Org Members we tied up the majority of the psychs who were attempting to get to families yesterday in Q&A, bullbait and wrangling. They have a hard time completing cycles of action and are pretty easy to disperse. But today they are out in full force and circling like vultures over these people and all of our resources are tied up in the support efforts in the disaster zone at present.

Scientology's greatest perceived enemy on Earth is "the psychs." This term refers to formally trained mental health professionals, from counsellors to psychiatrists. Here they are blatantly admitting to interfering with rescue assistance efforts from that field. Here we see that distributing food and water is not their main goal in being on-scene, rather, it is access to the victims they are after. By keeping trained mental health professionals away from the scene, they have full access.

The Scientologist goes on to say:

Intercepted Scientology email:

There is nowhere on Earth right now that hurts like this place. These are brave people and they are the able and they don't know it but they need the Scientologists with LRH's tech to be here right now.

The fire-fighter company down the street from the org lost 14 members on Tuesday. No one can do anything for them or the rest but Scientologists. The other religions here with their ministers have shown their true colors and are working hand in hand with the psychs to give these people as much false data and restimulation as they can. They HAVE NO TECH and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. They've crossed over and abandoned anything spiritual and to hell with them.

Yes, only Scientologists with L. Ron Hubbard's program can do any good right now. Other ministers don't have Ron's wonderful "tech" and are working with real mental health professionals, threatening Scientology's access to potential victims. They are competition. To hell with them, indeed!

In a later report, this Scientologist describes gaining access to the disaster area.
Intercepted Scientology email:

There was a very large barricade there manned by both Police and Military and they absolutely refused to let us though. The SO member in charge of the VM's "snuck" about 5 of us in another way and on the way we gave out cold drinks to tired rescue workers.

Here we have untrained individuals putting themselves and rescuers in danger by their presence. Once inside, they would not leave.
Intercepted Scientology email:

Anyway, we of course jumped right in and helped by giving out food, drinks, unpacking etc... Soon thereafter we set-up an area for assists right there next to the medical area - outside. We put out 3 cots and we started body routing people in for nerve assists.

What this means is, they staked out a spot next to real medical personnel and began "body routing" victims in to deliver Hubbard's spurious "touch assists." By positioning themselves next to legitimate services, they hope no one will notice that they are merely untrained cultists seeking good PR and potential members.

The Scientologist then goes on to boast about how appreciated and useful they are, how they are one of the few groups allowed through the barricades (having sneaked in to begin with) and what wonderful things the Scientologists are doing to further their own agenda.
FOX News FOX News
First this warning scrolls over the screen: "NYPD WARNS OF CRUEL SCAMS" then this comes: "NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE: 800-FOR-TRUTH". This telephone number is a Scientology hotline promoting their book "Dianetics - The modern science of mental health"!

After Fox News was made aware that they were referring people to Scientology they removed the crawling banner from their broadcasts. Scientology was able to fool them by promoting themselves as "National Mental Health Assistance," very typical of them to form a front group with a similar sounding name to a legitimate organization. The National Mental Health Association was not amused. This is also done with their Narconon front group, which is often confused with Narcanon, a legitimate group.

Copies of the Scientology emails were circulated to the media, resulting in several articles in newspapers and online news sources today. When indications that this was happening was noticed by Scientology on the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, a site mostly critical of Scientology and its abuses, a further email was sent by the Scientologist pleading for silence.
Intercepted Scientology email:

This is just going to be a quick communication to the group!

As part of a briefing given to a group going to ground zero this evening (some folks from LA), we were informed not to give out any information about what is going on down there via the internet.

However, we are allowed to call people to share the good news, or news in general.

This restriction was communicated as being necessary in that the internet can be infiltrated, and possibly this information could be gotten into the wrong hands, altered, etc.

Therefore I am afraid that I can not give you all the kinds of detailed messages as I have been in the past, and I am sorry for that.

This information did indeed get into the "wrong hands," the hands of people who know the true nature of Scientology and are not afraid to expose them for the fraudulent criminal organization that they are. People who speak out against Scientology have been harrassed, intimidated, and stalked. They have sometimes lost their jobs thanks to Scientology interference. Their pets have been killed. Before the Internet was widespread, Scientology was very successful at suppressing its critics. Today, news of every move the cult makes is quickly spotted and distributed around the world.

The really awful thing about Scientology using this tragedy, is that they are targeting people who have survived a horrible experience. Unlike looting the dead, they are preying upon the vulnerable survivors, people who are seeking help to try to recover from the shock and regain their lives to some extent. The stories that come out of people who finally manage to leave the cult are terrible in their similarity. Years of coercive mental conditioning. Thousands of dollars wasted in pursuit of a fabrication developed by a drug addicted megalomaniac. Years wasted, families torn apart, souls and minds shattered by the relentless totalitarian control of this evil, greedy cult pretending to be a church.

To compound the survivors' suffering by snatching them off the streets for Scientology processing in New York City should be a crime. People have been warned to beware of scam artists using this tragedy to their benefit. Mayor Giuliani has warned that such hucksters will be prosecuted. Scientology and individual Scientologists should be first in line. That they have inserted themselves into this disaster with such a large-scale operation, including deceiving a major network into unwittingly promoting them, establishing a fraudulent "mental health assistance" front, and interfering with real rescue and assistance operations should not be overlooked when it's time to prosecute those who tried to take advantage of a terrible, tragic event.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/20010911-tragedy/

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:25 AM

Sigh....

You want my whole resume, twerp? Do you think posting it will somehow make me stop criticising Furless Liter?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:39 AM

From: Amos Jessup
Sent: 10/4/'05, 8:36

Some religionists, feeling one way or feeling another, are unwilling to keep their religions private. The commons of civic discourse may be fed by feelings but in the final analysis, it is best served by reason, and our Constitutional tradition is that that reason is bounded in its concerns to the secular-including th e emotional, unavoidably, but placing religion behind a Jeffersonian âwall of separationâ.

There is reason for doing this which is both good and sufficient, since it is demonstrable that differing religious views are irreconcilable in their basic natu re, and cannot be particularly tested. It is also historically true that the glib and irrational use of religious icons and notions to justify irrational cours es of action is a peculiarly human pox.

Studying that religion exists, and what it does or does not say in a comparative framework is innocuous enough on the face of it and your friend is right that C hristmas deserves as much analysis as Kwanzaa or Ramadan. But whether one or another adherent of any given religion feels his non-secular, religious beliefs ar e given sufficient honor by those who do not share them is pretty irrelevant under the doctrine of separation. He/she may find solace in congregation, or medit ation, or prayer in a private moment. Not in debate on the commons.

Amos Jessup

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:51 AM

From: Amos Jessup
Date: August 10, 2004 11:32:47 PM EDT
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mental Health Screening for All Americans Proposed?

Dave:

This report is the beginning of a tragedy if the kind of approach it
suggests is followed through. The core and root of its tragedy is a
simple but stunningly important falsehood: without a "true" model of the human mind, defining mental health is an exercise in authoritarian opinion.
There is no such model which uniformly predicts phenomena and explains
observed phenomena. Yet without such a model the industry has no business posing as the source of authority for governmental interference in individual lives.

A. H. Jessup
San Diego

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:15 AM

The Anatomy of Resistance

Resistance at the low end of the spectrum, that of physical effort, manifests itself as unwillingness to DO something. In seeking to assist another with a problem for example, a wise person will intuitively point out the fact that the problemee is avoiding certain efforts, thus making the problem solid. Example: the effort of communicating an embarrassing truth.

In consciousness above the effort band autoresist (or any resist) is a manifestation of a core impulse of NOTBE, which can apply to any form, thought, identity, condition, concept, assumed or imagined in any universe real or otherwise. Whatever it is, there is a creation X such that consciousness as experienced is involved in asserting "NOT X!".

It is possible on this model that the persistency of the identity who awakes in the same bed every morning wearing the same body and persona derives from the resistance of the world of dream, illusion, limitless creation and freedom that lies, for many, on the other side of a denial zone called "going to sleep". Like any denial zone "going to sleep" is a compound of decisions not to know one reality, with its parts and packages, in favor of another.

Without the "NOTKNOW!" assertion (which also takes the form of asserting the reality that is NOT X) there would be no unconsciousness connected with the whole reality called "sleep", "dream", and "wake up". These shifts of consciousness would not be cut off one from the other, and the veils that separate them would be translucent.

Asserting that the world as you perceive it when you are awake is the world, while the one you fool around with when asleep is simply an escapist gameparlor of unreality, is one way of guaranteeing the NOTKNOW! of X so one will never be accused of BEING X. (Be anything BUT creative, imaginary or deluded.) Yet the highest creative power you know is unleashed in that "unreal" world, ironically enough. We continue in being something that will not have that ability range to the degree that we "unbe" and "unknow" through the veil.

Thus resistance seems to be a compound of the impulse "NOT KNOW" and the impulse "NOTBE". When these are undone with compassion and tolerance, life takes on a new flood of sights, meanings and possibilities.

# # #

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:44 AM

« Scindés en plusieurs groupes, ils descendraient à terre le lendemain matin afin de retrouver les ruines du temple et l'entrée du caveau secret où était enfoui un trésor considérable de vaisselle en or massif. « Nous étions électrisés à l'idée de cette aventure, se souvient Amos Jessup, l'un des premiers à s'être porté volontaire pour embarquer sur l'Avon River. Que ce soit réel ou imaginaire, si Ron y attachait de l'importance j'aurais fait n'importe quoi pour lui. »

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:29 AM

Old Guy,

I am assuming all of these:

GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 10:44 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 10:15 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 09:51 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 09:39 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 09:24 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 07:22 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 07:14 AM
GUEST 19 Jan 06 - 06:46 AM

are your efforts. The intention of them is clear enough -- suppress the thread by dumping extraneous material in a battle of egos. It seems to amuse you because in some dark corner of your wormy mind you think that finding old essays of mine on the web, or past articles containing my name, or things I sent to other discussion groups, or long screeds, will just bury the truth about George Bush.

Old Guy, I am going to ask you once more to become a civilized person and limit your posts to coherent and relevant information and opinions in keeping with the guidelines of the FAQ; you may have a sense of decency underneath this foaming schnauzer modality and I would like to appeal to it.

If you will not, I predict that you will find a lot of new threads on the various heinous offenses perpetrated by the Bush Administration, and this thread will be closed because of your inability to comport yourself as a citizen.

If I sound a bit impatient, it is because I am; your effort to denigrate me makes me a little sad and as it continues, a little angry. IT is saddening to realize that even in a relatively decent community like Mudcat, the world will always find a ravening psycho to add to the mix and make things worse for others. You are, in short, acting like a world-class dipshit here, pal. You need manners, and are showing none.

You have shown that you want to make this a personal matter, not a discussion topic; and in doing so you are declaring yourself as a personal enemy. I don't have many of those, in fact I have none; but you seem really intent on it. I am not much practiced in enmity, but I am willing to give it a try if you think it is a really good idea for some reason; I'd like to know what the reason is, though. Making the planet safe for warmongering, perhaps? I dunno. So what's the deal here? You declaring personal war? Lemme know so I can find my gloves so I can take them off. Yeah, right.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 12:13 PM

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Amos:

How does it feel to have someone dig up everything someone has said about you and post it like it is some great crime? If it all so innocent and normal you should be able to ignore it.

Paybacks are hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 02:18 PM

You don't see the difference between perpetrating unwarranted hot warfare, corrosion of civil rights, compromise of Constitutional traditions, and massive economic malfeasance...and public criticism of such actions? Between a private citizen and an internationally feared politician? Really, you do me too much honor.

You're an ass of the first order, Old Guy. Your hydrophobic protestion of your iconic but clay-footed Idiot Imperius is pathetic, and whatever spark of decency you may have had has been buried in your clouds of cross-eyed defensiveness. I suggest you find something safe -- like a small rock, or a teddybear -- and spend a lot of time with it until you feel less threatened by free speech of public civic issues. You are very confused.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:56 PM

Google Refuses Bush Admin Order to Turn Over User Data
Yesterday, the Bush Administration asked a federal judge to order Google to give the US Government access to approximately one week of recorded searches.

The US Government says it needs the information to determine how often pornographic files are searched for and/or found using the Google search engine. It has already acquired similar data from other, unnamed, search engines.

Court papers filed in San Jose yesterday revealed that Google refused a Justice Department subpoena issued last year which ordered Google to turn over 1-million random search requests and records of all searches and results for a full, one-week period.

Fearing a privacy backlash, Google refused to honour the subpoena last year and is fighting the Justice Department this week.

Interviewed by the San Jose Mecury News yesterday, an associate general counsel for Google, Nicole Wong said, "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching." She added Google will fight government vigerously.

The US Government contends it requires this information as part of its defense of the Child Online Protection Act, as part of a case being heard in a Pennsylvania Federal Court.

The Child Online Protection Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2004 for being too broad and unfocused. In its ruling, the Supreme Court recognized the Government's responsibility to protect children by suggesting the Government rewrite the COPA so that it does not violate First Amendment protections outlined in the constitution.

Instead of rewriting a law the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, the US Government appears ready to defend it by violating the privacy of Google users and of the corporation itself. If Google is forced to release the data, it will also be forced to reveal important technical information it considers trade secrets.

---

For a while it looked like freedom of information would become one of the finer accomplishments of our land. Unfortunately, Bush&Co now want to use it to control people.   While this expansion of the Bush Administration's intrusion into sitizen privacy is not surprising, given their record, it is still (yet another) abomination.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 06:52 PM

From the U.K. Guardian:

Three UCLA Board Members Resign

Thursday January 19, 2006 9:32 AM


LOS ANGELES (AP) - A former congressman is among three people who have quit the advisory board of a conservative alumni group at the University of California, Los Angeles, after it offered students money to police professors accused of pushing liberal views.

Former Rep. James Rogan, a Republican who served two terms, sent an e-mail Wednesday to Andrew Jones, head of the Bruin Alumni Association, saying he didn't want his name connected to the group.

``I am uncomfortable to say the least with this tactic,'' Rogan wrote in his e-mail. ``It places students in jeopardy of violating myriad regulations and laws.''

Rogan's resignation follows those of Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom and UCLA professor emeritus Jascha Kessler, who both quit the board once they learned of the group's activities.

The group has been offering students up to $100 to supply tapes and notes from classes to expose professors suspected of pushing liberal political views on their students.

Jones, 24, a 2003 graduate and former head of the campus Republican group, said he was concerned about the level of professionalism among teachers at the university.

``We're just trying to get people back on a professional level of things,'' Jones told The Los Angeles Times.

Targeted professors have likened the effort to a witch-hunt.

``Any sober, concerned citizen would look at this and see right through it as a reactionary form of McCarthyism,'' said education professor Peter McLaren, whom the association named as No. 1 on its ``The Dirty Thirty: Ranking the Worst of the Worst.''

---

Well, what's next? Blacklisting Pete Seeger and "liberal" actors in Hollywood? Charging professors of evolution with sedition? We are on a fling of Joe Mcarthy's nightmares, aren't we? I guess those who don't understand history -- even if they majored in it -- are doomed to dramatize it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 07:20 PM

A few remarkable quotes from Larry Wilkerson, the Colonel who recently decided enough was just too much:

"This is not a Republican administration, not in my view. This is a radical administration."

Wilkerson calls Bush an unsophisticated leader who has been easily swayed by "messianic" neoconservatives and power-hungry, secretive schemers in the administration. In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

He is particularly appalled by U.S. treatment of enemy detainees, counting at least 100 deaths in custody during the course of the war on terrorism -- 27 of them ruled homicides. "Murder is torture," he says. "It's not torture lite."

As for the invasion of Iraq? A blunder of historic proportions.

"This is really a very inept administration," says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation's war colleges. "As a teacher who's studied every administration since 1945, I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes -- oh my God, Vietnam. That includes Iran-contra, Watergate."

Such a critique, coming from a man who was long thought to speak for Powell, is seismic in Washington power circles. ..."

For the whole story see Breaking Ranks, which gives a much, much larger picture.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:31 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:55 PM

Did you miss me Amos?

For a private citizen, you sure left a trail like Godzilla through downtown Tokyo. If GWB had been involved with the same doings as you, I and sure you would be outraged about the horrible person that would do such things.

I have two questions that I hope you don't try to burry in your rabid verbal foaming at the mouth attacks that you accuse me of.

A Why do you hold GWB to a different standard other Predsidents?

B Do you think we will have another terrorist attack?

C What does "People pretty much experience what they believe-Even though sometimes they don't believe they believe it" mean?

The only way I can figure it is you are not experiencing reality but only what you believe to be reality.

If that is true the people that believe in the Avatar that you teach are not aware of reality because they are experiencing something else.

Can you give some serious answers instead of a rant about how mighty you are and how insignificant I am?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:42 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html

"Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

    (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
    Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
    court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
    information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
    certifies in writing under oath that -
    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
    (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications         transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between         or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),       or (3) of this title; or       (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
    the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
    premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
    power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
    title;
    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
    will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
    States person is a party; and
    (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
    surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
    section 1801(h) of this title; and
    if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
    any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
    least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
    Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
    notifies the committees immediately of such minimization rocedures
    and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
    (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may
    be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's
    certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The
    Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and
    shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select
    Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on
    Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this      title.
    (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to
    the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy    of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under
    security measures established by the Chief Justice with the
    concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the
    Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless -
    (A) an application for a court order with respect to the
    surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this
    title; or
    (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of
    the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.
    (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this
    subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified
    communication common carrier to -
    (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical
    assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in
    such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
    of interference with the services that such carrier is providing
    its customers; and
    (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney
    General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records
    concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such
    carrier wishes to retain.
    The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such
    carrier for furnishing such aid.
      (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are
    authorized if the President has, by written authorization,
    empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court
    having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge
    to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law,
    grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title,
    approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of
    a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
    information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to
    grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely
    as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section
    unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of
    communications of any United States person."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:44 PM

Old Guy:

1. Nah, not much.

2. I hold Bush to the standards of anyone who claims the Presidency. It is unusual for any President to so dramatically unleash the dogs of war, on such pissant intelligence. I expected better of him, as I would anyone who claims to "know how to lead", to "be a uniter, not a divider", and to want to avoid nation-building imperialism -- all of which he claimed as virtues.

3. I sure hope not. I think it is as likely, or more likely than it was before the invasion of Iraq.

4. It means that your core beliefs pretty much define what life is going to lay on your plate. Sometimes people build up intellectual edifices that deny these core beliefs, intellectually, while still holding them at a deeper level where the real business of their destiny is being transacted. That's all.

I don't teach Avatar, but if I did, the answer to your sarcasm would be the observation that you ARE experiencing reality, exactly as you believe it to be. There really is no other way TO experience reality; but that's a point that is outside the realm of this thread and your own scope, I think.

So, you gonna answer my question about the purpose of your hostilities? Or are you calling an end to them?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:07 PM

http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=3452

"..When asked if he thought Bush had gone too far by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap terrorists, Clinton told ABC's Nightline audience, "As a legal proposition, I don't know."..

..The Echelon system was fairly simple in design: position intercept stations all over the world to capture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic, and then process this information through the massive computer capabilities of the NSA, including advanced voice recognition and optical character recognition programs. The system would look for code words or phrases (known as the Echelon "Dictionary") that will prompt the computers to flag the message for recording and transcribing for future analysis.

In other words, if I'm discussing terrorism with a colleague, the words "terrorist," "explosives," "weapons," "training," would all be flagged for further surveillance.

Intelligence analysts at each of the respective "listening stations" maintain separate keyword lists for them to analyze any conversation or document flagged by the system, which is then forwarded to the respective intelligence agency headquarters that requested the intercept.

But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, Echelon was also used for purposes well outside its original mission. This regular domestic surveillance targeted American civilians, according to Mr. Poole.

In a May 27, 1999 story in the New York Times, Americans first heard about Echelon. Two congressmen, Republicans Bob Barr and Porter Goss, who now serves as director of Central Intelligence, demanded information on a program they weren't sure even existed. However, Democrats defended Clinton's spying on Americans as a "necessary evil."

But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, Echelon was also used for purposes well outside its original mission. This regular domestic surveillance targeted American civilians...

..In a May 27, 1999 story in the New York Times, Americans first heard about Echelon. Two congressmen, Republicans Bob Barr and Porter Goss, who now serves as director of Central Intelligence, demanded information on a program they weren't sure even existed. However, Democrats defended Clinton's spying on Americans as a "necessary evil." Immediately after coming to office in January 1993, President Clinton added to the corporate espionage machine by creating the National Economic Council, which feeds intelligence to "select" companies to enhance US competitiveness. The capabilities of Echelon to spy on foreign companies is nothing new, but the Clinton administration raised its use to an art..

..When asked if the president should have the authority to order wiretaps without warrants, Clinton said, ''I think that's a decision the Supreme Court would have to resolve.''

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:17 PM

Yep, Echelon was pretty damnable. No mistake. FUnny Bush decided to resurrect it under a different name.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:26 PM

Avoiding the question again, Mad Dog Guy? Hmmmmm.....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Deda
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:59 PM

Hi Amos!

This is some whacked-out interlocutor you're engaging with. You're eloquent, as always. Thanks for continuing to bring the various news items to light.

Old Guy, Amos' past has nothing to do with the new items he's posting. Neither the ACLU, nor AfterDowningStreet, nor any of the majority of Americans who now dissaprove of this president's handling of the war know or care a whit about Amos' life or interests, past or current. His personal life history couldn't be less relevant to the issues he raises here. He's not the issue. If he were raised directly into Heaven tomorrow, the issues about this presidency would be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 02:27 PM

Hi, Deda!! Thanks for the nice remarks.

Old Guy, this will explain everything.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 03:12 PM

Amos:

So why are you so touchy about your history? Do you feel foolish for pointing out all of GWBs imperfections when you know you have more.

The reason for my questioning of you grip on reality, as evidenced by your accusations of me being a mad dog rabid attacker, is because I think you have a grudge against GWB.

You did not want him to win the election and now you are the one with hostilities.

It says on the net that you deliver avatar. I presume unless it comes in a box, you would have to teach it in order to deliver it. By the wacky wording i see in the description of what it is. I wonder if a normal, every day average person could understand it. It sounds like the Emperors new clothes story gone amok. But the Avatar is just a minute example of all the psycho things you have been involved with.

The thing I object to is your obliteration of anything to put the actions of your enemy GWB into perspective, your refusal to admit that what he does has been done before without the objection of liberals and left wing extremists.

This leads people that do not hold a grudge against GWB to believe that all this blame is just a campaign to get back at GWB for winning.

What other hot wars have occurred? Somalia? Laos? Cambodia? Where was your learned outrage then? Evidently your were complacent then like you accuse the people that are not part of your lynch mob of being.

You refer to Jefferson when it suits you but you refuse to refer to any president when it does not support you effort. You brush off Eschelon as being bad but you won't say who "invented" it or who insisted on it. Are you aware of Carnivore? Will you brush that away as not being significant unless you can use it to make GWB look bad?

I see nothing but hypocrisy, anger, and a desire to get back at someone in your selfish actions and you are doing more harm that good.

My purpose is to point that out and you will no doubt paint me as a rabid, mad, horrible person to Keep yourself insulated from the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 03:21 PM

OG:

Thanks for explaining at length where you're coming from. While I appreciate the effort I can't say it really seems to explain much.

My "grudge" is against political acts, no matter by whom, that undermine the well-being of the country and its citizens, and above all it's legacy as a great human experiment in individual freedom.

If I seem to focus on Bush, it is for the same reason people at the circus once focused on Emmett Kelley, on of Bush's possible mentors. He was in the center ring, with the floodlights and the spotlights on him, and he was the centerpiece of the show. This is the position Georgie wanted for himself, and he has it, but he is not anywhere as competent at carrying it off as he said he would be, or as Kelley was in his day working for Barnum and Bailey.

You have decided this is all hate and grudge; I suggest it is a serious effort to keep in view those steps we are being lead to take down a slippery slope toward fascism.

I think the difference is all-important; to you, apparently, it is "whatever".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 04:03 PM

Besides, Tweedledumdum, the guy is President of the United States, rightfully or no, and as such he is square in the eye of public opinion. All this crap about "other Presidents" is just smoke and mirrors on your part, a bunch of rotten red mackerels. Why don't you just look openly and squarely at what the current Administration is doing, for a change, instead of gliding off into the past to see if it can be rationalized?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 06 - 09:15 PM

Hey, Old Guy, I don't think that Amos is capable of hating a person.... Yeah, just MO... But I have met him, played music with him and there's something about music as a common denominater that kinda cuts thru the crap... Yeah, I know you ain't a musican so I reckon you won't understand that...

Maybe you understand footabll... Remember playin' on that '63 championship team???

You just get into a grrove with folks that you kinda know where they is coming from...

Heck, if you ain't been there with folks then maybe this expalins alot...

But, ahhhhh, you ain't got a clue about Amos... I reckon the only reason you would attack hi is because you ain't all that comfy defending yer guy... You spend a lot of time attacking me, too, rather thah defending yer guy... When you do venture out to defend yer guy, it's either with cut 'n pastes or obscure stuff that ain't got much to do with the subject at hand...

Yeah, you have learned the shuffle well...

Problems is, that's all it is...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:44 AM

The Salem, Massachusetts News is of the opinion that the Bush administration is over-stepping in its quest for domination.

WebIndia reports that a global human rights watchdog group has condemned the Administrations violations of basic human rights in their treatment of detainees.

In CHampaign Urbana, the News Gazette reports that the Illinois Governor is quite angry with the Administration, and vilified them in the State of the State Address.

The Canadian Centre for Global Research chides Bush for claiming that revealing his illegal behaviour is treasonous.

In the American Chronicle Senator Wexler calls for full investigation of the domestic spying scandal.

And writing in The Nation Elizabeth de la Vega raises serious questions about the so-called "unitary executive theory" of Presidential powers.

And that's the way it is on Friday night, January 20th 2006.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 02:26 AM

Amos the magnificent:

You have avoided answering the question about where Echelon originated and what Carnivore is. Are you hiding the truth from us again? If you can't blame it on Bush yous don't want to talk about it.

How has your well being been undermined?

I think you have referenced Thomas Jefferson even though you downplay "previous presidents"

Bobert: The beef I got with Amos is he trys to make things seem so bad when it has happened before. He is incapable of putting things into perspective like a rational human being. If you look at his past you will see why he is warped.

I don't hear any music, just vile rhetoric form a sore looser that won't even admit it. Yet he accuses Bush of having a grudge against Saddam for trying to assassinate his Paw.

He is just a hypocrite. He can't stand up to the same dirt digging that he does. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Smoke and mirrors.

If those previous presidents were wrong, where was his rhetoric against them? He didn't have a grudge against them so he was complacent then.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 02:34 AM

January 18, 2006
Hysteria about Bush's spying lacks perspective

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-goldberg1-18jan18,0,7313887.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

"..After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on â€" about 7,000 â€" lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, ''about 500 people'' living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. Risen calls this ''large-scale'' spying on the American people even though, as the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes ''1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population.''.."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Old Guy
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 02:42 AM

Bin Laden Helps Bush on Domestic Spying
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5166369
"..Without meaning to help the president, Osama has weighed in with another of his basement tapes, this one offering a truce in Iraq and Afghanistan but also threatening fresh attacks on the American public sometime in the future. Given his responsibility for the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the leader of Al Qaeda has to be taken seriously -- no matter how mannered and predictable his warnings..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: .Woody
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:21 AM

Iraqi leader tells area Rotarians 'true situation'
http://www.thenewsherald.com/stories/012206/loc_20060122001.shtml
By Anne Sullivan
PUBLISHED: January 22, 2006
"Imam Husham Al Husainy speaks Thursday night to Rotarians from several clubs at the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn on an insider's perspective on Iraq. He told the crowd gathered that Iraqis would always appreciate the liberation from Saddam and are eager to establish a democracy in their nation. ..
..Properly timing the withdrawal of American troops is key to the success of Iraq, he said.
"They appreciate the liberation from Saddam," Al Husainy said. "They will never forget this favor. We owe you a great favor."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:58 AM

Old Guy, it is just a little silly to impose on me your arbitrary demands to be the source of research on Echelon, Carnivore, or the 1958 budget for the Department of Agriculture budget, either. I am not your research hound. If you want to remind people what and when Carnivore and Echelon were, by all means, do so.

That something similar happened in the past does not make it right; our current wave of imperialism has not been reached before in scale, cost, or degree of arrogance IMHO.

Perhaps you are of the mind that we should follow the plan laid out in the American Century white paper to dominate the world through force?

These recent posts are much more succinct, relevant to this thread and interesting than your diatribes. Thanks, Woody, also. At least it provides some counterpoint without being all about messengers instead of messages.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 03:38 PM

OldGuy:

You have avoided answering the question about where Echelon originated and what Carnivore is. Are you hiding the truth from us again? If you can't blame it on Bush yous don't want to talk about it.

I know a bit about the technology ... hey, I've even seen RFPs for surveillance systems for telecom/IP traffic on major backbones for a certain large foreign country. It ain't easy. I think the "Omnivore" project was undoable, and "Carnivore" not nearly as scary as some people make it out to be. I know the technology of filtering sniffers (for instance, the TopLayer DCFD).   The main problem is a filtering one; the bigger the pipe you want to sniff, the more data you have to filter, and the filters just ain't that good. Another problem is theheterogeneity of the net; one of the design objectives of the IP network was to make it irrelevant what paths were in use. This provided the quite useful quality of redundancy, failure-resilence, and robustness, but it makes the sniffing all the more difficult to do; you have to sniff everywhere< if you want to be sure you're getting the information you want.

But the main issue isn't the technology; it's the use of monitors without oversight. You may have a hard time trying to find a specific thing in your sniff (i.e., something useful like all conversations that are al Qaeda operational discussions, but you can certainly get all kinds of amusing, embarrassing, or blackmailable tidbits just by sniffing promiscuously ... as long as you don't care who it is that you're snooping on).

The scaremongers and conspiracy theorists love to toss out the names "Carnivore" and "Omnivore", hoping the names scare people, but it's really not an issue of whether snooping should beallowed, but why it should be allowed, under what circumsatnces and with what oversight and control. I'm far more worried, not about the technology, but about the process. And that's why it concerns me far more that Dubya's doing warrantless snooping with no oversight than that such snoops are technologically feasible (to the extent that they are). And I'd think you ought to feel the same way.

See this too. I'd rather that control of the sniffers be under the ISPs (as they are under the telcos [here in the U.S.]), with the ISPs providing a check on unauthorised sniffing by requiring warrants be proper before a tap is put in. Then there's this for more background info.

For more on what might be done with Echelon, you should read Bamford's books "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 09:41 PM

For OldGuy (who really needs to broaden his reading to beyond the Limbaugh Report and other mouthpieces for the RNC "spin machine" font of lies):

More on the RW slime that Clinton violated FISA with the Echelon program:

Here and here.

Happy reading, OldGuy. You'll feel much better now that you know that Echelon and such really aren't being used for warrantless wiretaps of your dirty laundry ... that is, until Dubya starts using the surveillance infrastructure to bypass the Constitution and the FISA laws and starts acting like a tin-pot dictator with no regard for law....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 10:16 PM

Hey, Old Guy....

I half thought that you were going to stay on messsage but you have regressed back into attacking the messenger...

What happened???

Yer hero's actions are indefensable, I'd gu7ess...

Amos anin't the problem here, pal, but given the atcak, attcak, attack message that Rive has given the brownshirts, I don't find it too surprising to find you back into the attack mode...

Wouldn't it be a lot nicer to be defending ideals and policies???

But, yeah, ya gotta do what yer told...

Hey, no one ever said it would be easy being a brownshirt but seeing that you have signed up, just suck it up, pal...

...and keep them "personal" attacks a'comin 'cause if they ain't comin' then maybe someone might turn yer sorry butt in...

Don't want that to happen 'cause once a brownshirt, hopefully, always a brownshirt...

Right????

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:42 AM

Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"
January 12th, 2006
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150
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—includingmid- 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.

William Tate is a writer and researcher and former broadcast journalist. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 12:57 AM

Clinton administration plan for FBI spying on email
By Patrick Martin
2 August 2000
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/wire-a02_prn.shtml

The Clinton administration announced July 17 that it would seek broad powers to compel Internet Service Providers to allow FBI monitoring of email messages, using a powerful software package devised by the police agency and given the ominous title of "Carnivore."

In its familiar style, the White House is packaging this reactionary plan as a "reform," presenting an expansion of wiretapping as an effort to set limits on the FBI and insure civil liberties. Chief of Staff John D. Podesta, in a speech to the National Press Club, declared, "It's time to update and harmonize our existing laws to give all forms of technology the same legislative protections as our telephone conversations."

Conflicting laws currently regulate police surveillance and interception of various modes of private communication in the United States. For example, telephone calls may only be wiretapped by the police with a court order, while there is no legal restriction on the interception of ordinary email. Communications routed over cable modems are effectively immune from interception, since police are required to obtain a court order after a judicial process in which the target of the surveillance has the right to challenge it.

These contradictions are a byproduct of the rapid development of communications technology. Email messages have little legal protection because until recently it was technologically impractical for the FBI to monitor them systematically. Carnivore was only developed in the last 18 months, as a modification of a software program typically used by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) known as a "packet sniffer." It sorts through the stream of data entering an ISP to find the senders and recipients of email to and from the target of surveillance.

Because Carnivore examines every email message handled through a given ISP, it closely resembles a form of telephone surveillance called a "trunk side" wiretap, in which the tap is placed, not on a particular phone, but in a telephone company switching center. Such wiretaps have been illegal in the United States for more than 30 years, since they give police access to all phone calls rather than those of a specific target. Under the Clinton administration plan, the email equivalent of such illegal wiretaps would now be permissible.

Opponents of the legislation have pointed out that there is no way to insure, once Carnivore is installed on an ISP, that the FBI would limit itself to monitoring the email of one targeted individual. The agency would be accountable only to itself. It has refused to release the source code for Carnivore, citing the proprietary interest of the companies which helped develop it, but also because, as one official said, "people might go to work on how to beat the system. We're not interested in getting into that race."

Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, criticized the plan to install Carnivore, saying it "represents a grave threat to the privacy of all Americans by giving law enforcement agencies unsupervised access to a nearly unlimited amount of communications traffic."

The Clinton administration's posture is that messages sent over the Internet should be treated in the same way as telephone calls. That is, monitoring ordinary email should require a court order (a restriction of police power), while monitoring email over cable lines should be made easier. But in practice, given the different character of email and telephone communication, the proposed measure amounts to a sweeping expansion of police powers.

For instance, current law gives police virtually unlimited right to "transaction" surveillance of telephone calls. Telephone companies routinely hand over to the police, on request, logs of all calls made from a particular telephone and to whom. This power would now be extended by requiring ISPs to provide police the logs of email messages, when they were sent and to whom, as well as the record of web sites visited.

This power is a much more serious threat to political freedom than telephone logs, which reveal far less about the content of the communication being monitored. A list of web sites visited can tell a great deal about the political beliefs of someone targeted for police surveillance. Moreover, police cannot seek access to the content of phone calls when they learn of them after the fact from a log. Email messages, however, are recorded automatically by the Internet Service Provider. Accordingly, there will be intense pressure to divulge the content of messages once the police learn of their existence.

The email monitoring program would have worldwide implications, since it would apply to all communications that either begin or end in the United States. It would not apply to email messages transmitted entirely outside the country, but these could be monitored if they pass through an ISP based in the US—as do many email messages between European countries, for instance. The FBI recently objected to the takeover of a US-based Internet provider by the Nippon Telegraph & Telephone, citing "national security" considerations. According to one report, "the focus of the FBI's complaint is about preserving wiretap capabilities when an Internet service provider (ISP) is foreign-owned."

The FBI is also pressuring makers of Internet equipment and software to insure that the next generation of Internet technologies have "wiretap-friendly" features. This amounts to an effort by the agency to assume powers that were specifically barred to it in the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which excluded the Internet from federal police spying.

Congressional reaction to the White House plan was mixed, with most Democrats supporting it. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont cited the refusal of some ISPs to execute court orders for wiretapping, declaring, "If an ISP says it will not or cannot execute the order, what is the FBI supposed to do?" There was more opposition among congressional Republicans, citing either privacy considerations or concern that federal monitoring could be a prelude to other forms of regulation of the Internet, or taxation.

Neither party voiced any opposition to the widespread phenomenon of corporate spying on the email and Internet use of workers. An American Management Association survey released last month found that nearly three quarters of all companies conduct such monitoring actively, while one quarter have fired workers as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Arne
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:38 AM

Say, "Guest":

Maybe you should have read my links before you cut'n'pasted reams of RW "spin". Your points have been "asked and answered" there. Now, I'm not going to clutter the thread with reams more of cut'n'paste; rather, I'd refer you to the links I provided, and if there's anything of your "talking points" you think are left standing after that, maybe we can discuss 'em.

Even so, the article did admit that

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

Yeah, well, perhaps. When the preznit decides that laws don't pertain to him 'cause he's the new king, and he's going to turn the gummint and the military into his own Speznatz. Give you the warm fuzzies there?

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."

Whoopdedoo. I installed a message server that delivered (for one of the second-tier U.S. carriers) a half million messages an hour. Hate to say it, but I'm not impressed. I've seen much bigger proposals on the board, and that's not even a fraction of worldwide traffic.

    "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.

That's crap. Nice for scaring the masses, but that's crap.

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.

This is even a bigger load of horse-patooties. If you're believing people that are teling you this, you're being played for a sucker.

I do have some knowledge in this field from a technical standpoint, and while I am sympathetic to privacy rights, I don't want people to cry wolf too often, particularly based on bogus stories. It makes the real incursions into our privacy, when they happen, sound like more of the same hysteria mongering. I've personally come out against the "free bite at the apple" that the FBI has asked for under the CALEA act, and against the "emergency" taps. I think these are way too prone to misuse; "emergencies" happen because the cops are too lazy to do the legwork they need to do to get a proper warrant (the Mark Furhman jumping the wall at Brentwood is a prime example). I think, even in cases of "extreme national emergency", if the LEAs think they need to do something urgently, then go for it and break trhe law to do what you think you have to do. Just don't expect that the results will hold up in a court of law, and don't expect a lot of sympathy from a judge when you say you did it. But if it's such a freakin' emergency, then you will have the satisfaction of having done the "right thing" in your mind, and if you really were justified, you'll have the satisfaction of having achieved some "greater good". For this, you can give yourself a pat on the back, and maybe if others think (in the cold light of facts afterwards) that you indeed did something for the greater good, they may go easy on your law-breaking. This would cut back a bit on people who are just using the "emergency" as an excuse, or who really weren't doing anyone a service. FWIW, I think that perhaps half of the trap'n'traces I saw on the board one place were actually "emergency" locations, used to try and find missing people, rather than actual snooping on the bad guys. And a number of letters of thanks for helping out in finding these people (I would guess, suicidal people or missing kids, and the like). A public service, I'd say. But even in these cases, AFAIK they were done with a warrant.

These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping.

Bcause they weren't particularly credible.

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.

Mainly because they were being done without oversight and without warrants and probable cause. That is to say, in direct contravention of the law.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 01:56 AM

January 21, 2006
Editorial, New York Times

Fishing in Cyberspace

Enough is never enough, not when the government believes that it can
invade your privacy without repercussions. The Justice Department
wants a federal judge to force Google to turn over millions of
private Internet searches. Google is rightly fighting the demand, but
the government says America Online, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online
service, have already complied with similar requests.

This is not about national security. The Justice Department is making
this baldfaced grab to try to prop up an online pornography law that
has been blocked once by the Supreme Court. And it's not the first
time we've seen this sort of behavior. The government has zealously
protected the Patriot Act's power to examine library records. It
sought the private medical histories of a selected group of women,
saying it needed the information to defend the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act in the federal courts.

The furor is still raging over President Bush's decision to permit
spying on Americans without warrants. And the government now wants
what could be billions of search terms entered into Google's Web
pages and possibly a million Web-site addresses to go along with them.

Protecting minors from the nastier material on the Internet is a
valid goal; the courts have asked the government to test whether
technologies for filtering out the bad stuff are effective. And the
government hasn't asked for users' personal data this time around.
What's frightening is that the Justice Department is trying once
again to dredge up information first and answer questions later, if
at all. Had Google not resisted the government's attempt to seize
records, would the public have ever found about the request? ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 09:35 AM

What next, the SWAT team bustin' into Max's basement and carryin' off Mudcat???

I mean, let's get real...

In the words of Larry the Cable Guy: "What the Hell is this, Russia?"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:56 AM

Another report from the Onion on the Rove leak scandal:

Rove Implicated In Santa Identity Leak



WASHINGTON, DC—The recent leak revealing Santa Claus to be "your mommy and daddy" has been linked to President Bush's senior political adviser and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.

"If this devastating leak, which severely undermines the security of children everywhere and has compromised parent-child relations, came from the highest levels of the White House, that is an outrage," said former Bush counterterrorism adviser and outspoken Bush Administration critic Richard Clarke.

The identity of the mythical holiday gift-giver, previously known only in grown-up circles, was published in the popular Timbertoes cartoon in the December issue of Highlights For Children. Jean Abrams, a conservative firebrand known to have close ties to Bush appointees in the Department of Education, revealed "Santa" to be a code name for anonymous parental gift-giving. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 11:58 AM

I am sure Google would have turned them over if the feds had offered to pay. They sell them to anybody that forks over the geetus.

The other portals have allready complied out of patriotic and civic duty as opposed to Google's monetary greed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 06 - 08:20 PM

Pretty glib opinions, G. Any facts around behind them?

Your ideal scene, then, is for every citizen to do everything the Government demands? That's your definition of patriotism? What a brave new world you belong to!

In other news the Los Angeles Times reports on the fiscal deftness of our warmaking:

"War's stunning price tag
By Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz
LAST WEEK, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Assn., we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq. We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously reckoned — between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective, the highest-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic," earned $1.8 billion worldwide — about half the cost the U.S. incurs in Iraq every week.

Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large reenlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to reenlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our study also goes beyond the budget of the federal government to estimate the war's cost to the economy and our society. It includes, for instance, the true economic costs of injury and death. For example, if an individual is killed in an auto or work-related accident, his family will typically receive compensation for lost earnings. Standard government estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death are about $6 million. But the military pays out far less — about $500,000. Another cost to the economy comes from the fact that 40% of our troops are taken from the National Guard and Reserve units. These troops often earn lower wages than in their civilian jobs. Finally, there are macro-economic costs such as the effect of higher oil prices — partly a result of the instability in Iraq.

We conclude that the economy would have been much stronger if we had invested the money in the United States instead of in Iraq.

Spending up to $2 trillion should make us ask some questions. First, these figures are far higher than what the administration predicted before the war. At that time, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey was effectively fired for suggesting that the war might cost up to $200 billion, rather than the $60 billion claimed by the president's budget office. Why were the costs so vastly underestimated? Elsewhere in the government, it is standard practice to engage in an elaborate cost-benefit analysis for major projects. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, an immense "project," and yet it now appears that there was virtually no analysis of the likely costs of a prolonged occupation.

Could we have fought the war in ways that would have protected our troops better and cost the country less? A Pentagon study apparently concludes that better body armor would have prevented many deaths and injuries. Penny-pinching in such matters during the rush to war has led to steep long-run costs for the nation and, tragically, for the individuals involved.

Even more fundamentally, there is the question of whether we needed to spend the money at all. Thinking back to the months before the war, there were few reasons to invade quickly, and many to go slow. The Bush policy of threatened force had pressured Iraq into allowing the U.N. inspectors back into the country. The inspectors said they required a few months to complete their work. Several of our closest allies, including France and Germany, were urging the U.S. to await the outcome of the inspections. There were, as we now know, conflicting intelligence reports.

Had we waited, the value of the information we would have learned from the inspectors would arguably have saved the nation at least $1 trillion — enough money to fix Social Security for the next 75 years twice over."

---

Just imagine, a trillion dollars worth of renewable energy systems, or research. We'd be far away from the oil nipple if we had estimated the situation a little more intelligently.

Pity, huh?


A