BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:00 PM

Good luck guys ... the more I hear about this stuff ... the more content and greatful I am to be a Canadian.'

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: bobad
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:02 PM

grateful here too.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:31 PM

If Harper is elected, we may not feel so smug but I agree that its good to live in Canada. At least we have a fairly well educated population. I hope thats enough to save us from the neo-cons.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: number 6
Date: 20 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM

Even if Harper is elected (yikes, God Help us) we would never get ourselves into such a compunded mess as the U.S. is in now.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:16 AM

This story has just gotten even more explosive.

Check this out excerpt:

"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work"...

-snip-

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:20 AM

Sorry, I meant to write "Check out this excerpt."

But you knew that, right? {or "eh?" as the Canadian Mudcatters say}.

[See what you can learn online!]

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:58 AM

Azizi - My guess is that Robertson's resignation was a long time comin.

Last year he declared the military commission trials for terror suspects from Guantanamo, to be unlawful. He was also getting ready to release two men from Guantanamo which has meant opposition from
the Bush administration.

Its pretty clear where he stands.

Seems to me that he did as much good as he could and has decided to get out while the gettins good. I'm sure he received a little push from Georgie Boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:27 AM

Ebbie, your post on Tom Delays life style, how does that fit in with Domestic Spying in the U.S.? Just another example of denigrating.

They all live like that. Some are more flambouyant than others. Check on some of the Dems as well as more of the Repubs. Little Hawk is one of the few who understands what the people in DC are up to.

As i have said elsewhere, the citizens of the US, over the past 40 years, are becoming more like Serfs of the old days back in Europe.
There still remains, however, the opportunity to rise above it.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:23 AM

and with the bias of a single source, it is not worth discussing.

OK, I understand now- you mean like your postings? And you're right- they're NOT worth discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:45 AM

Greg F, thanks for your opinion.
I will not, however, attack your posts like you do others. I do read the Times and the Post every morning BUT I also read the other side to get a somewhat basic idea of what is going. It is still not enough but it is as balanced as I can get. You should try it sometime.


Ebbie, I reread your 10:20 Pm post and am wondering what time frame that covered. 3 years, 5, 7? I could look back over my career and come up with about the same scenario. Although financed by a private corporation, it was a consequence of my employment with them and simply considered as the cost of doing business. And I, by no means, was at the top of the heap. While we all know Delay is employed by the voters in his State, we also know that the money influence in government is ugly. Until we do something to change it, I don't see a helluva' lot of difference between todays government and private enterprise, or between Repubs and Dems.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 10:57 AM

SLate Magazine comments:

Whopper: George W. Bush
The president crosses his fingers behind his back.
ByTimothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005, at 2:19 AM ET


jjj

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

—President Bush, at a Q and A in Buffalo, N.Y., April 20, 2004.

Q: Why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

A: First of all, I—right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack. That's what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that's important. We've got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] still—you're referring to the FISA court in your question—of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

—President Bush, at a press conference Nov. 19, 2005, after the New York Times reported that Bush had directed the National Security Agency to wiretap "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of phone conversations inside the United States without seeking court orders.

Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act." In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:12 AM

Either Bush knows what is going on and therefore he's a liar or he doesn't know what's going on and therefore he's an idiot. Either way, the US is in deep shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:18 AM

Amos, I still think that the 30+ year old Executive Order gives GWB the lattitude he needs. I still have not seen a reply to my question as to what law has been broken. It is not a situation of whether I think it is right or wrong, it is simply trying to find what law so many here are saying was broken.

It is not the case of one liking it or not, simply was a law broken and if so, which one?

"Law", noun; the collection of rules imposed by authority.

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:25 AM

Forget all that fuzzy lawyer stuff.
It's simple.
Just Trust Me.
Thats all there is to it.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushconstit.jpg

you will awaken feeling rested and refreshed.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 11:30 AM

I demur about the Executive Order; the Constitution is the senior guiding policy; and the provisions of FISA require warrants, easily obtained, a requirement Bush chose to ignore. Why should an Executive Order setting aside the requirements of the Constitution to protect citizenry from invasion of person even be considered? More "ends justifying the means" double-talk?

His justifications are superficial and of little merit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:06 PM

Christian Science Monitor, excerpted, 12-20-05:

Instead of following the safeguards established by Congress under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Bush administration lawyers concluded that the White House could sidestep the warrant requirements while conducting the espionage operation.

Critics say the secret spying is illegal and an abuse of the president's constitutional authority. Supporters say Bush is well within his power to protect the nation from terrorists.

Disclosure of the NSA operation by the New York Times last Friday surprised many members of Congress and is said to have complicated efforts to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings to look into the NSA operation. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been warned to prepare for close questioning on the matter in his upcoming confirmation hearing. And there is talk of the possible appointment of two special counsels, one to look into the legality of the NSA operation, the other to investigate the disclosure of the classified project to the Times.

In addition, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California has asked legal scholars to research whether Bush's authorization of secret spying is an impeachable offense.

President Bush and other administration officials have sought to blunt the barrage of criticism by emphasizing the exigencies of protecting the nation from terrorists. They stress that despite the highly classified nature of the operation, the White House briefed key members of Congress about the ongoing covert effort.

But some members of Congress say they were given few details and were unable to effectively exercise oversight responsibilities after being sworn to secrecy.

Administration officials also notified the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is empowered to authorize warrants for such spying.

One section of the foreign intelligence law, FISA, authorizes warrantless surveillance under limited circumstances - but it does not appear to apply to the NSA operation as described by administration officials. Neither President Bush nor Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is claiming the secret operation was conducted in compliance with FISA.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:08 PM

Amos, specifically where in the Constitution?

And stop ignoring the fact that the EO stipulates that no warrant(s)
are required for this process. That is being superficial.

The courts have been giving ongoing approval for the process every year. There was one hitch when some private citizen tapping was done in error about a year ago. The court(s) took care of that.

Still waiting for the Law some say was broken. Otherwise, the hopes for impeachment are a moot point.

Once again, A fact is needed rather than a feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 12:19 PM

Bobert:

The facts in the NYT that you choose to Ignore are:

"the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

"Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications"

Bush is a leader. You are acting like the spoiled teenager who rebells against authority.

If you don't like him just vote in a wimp so you can be happy when you are forced to follow Islam under threat of death.

Or just get the hell out of America and leave us real Americans to our rotten country. 'Course once all the crybaby assholes leave it won't be so rotten.

You can accuse me of shooting the messenger but you don't have a message other than "Boo Hoo Hoo, I am unhappy"

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 02:16 PM

Guest/ A, you might try reading the text. It quite clearly states:
"Over the past six years, the former House majority leader and his associates..."

This, you might note, is during the period that DeLay was House Majority Leader and therefore in a position to dispense favors. And therefore was courted. Or did you think it was because of his winning personality?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 04:41 PM

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

that is from here.

Callin' a sheep a dog ain't gonna make it bark, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 05:23 PM

The EO sets aside the COnstitution and this makes it legal? Please.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:41 PM

>>Monitoring of electronic communication is available to governments and businesses with the ability and will to gather it. And they all do it.<<

First Q, you need to present evidence when you say "they all do it." Secondly, whether they all do it or not is beside the point of whether it is legal. You can do it all you want until you get caught and then you'd better hope the law is on your side because "everybody does it" won't considered a valid defense.

>>Recording of telephonic conversation was common long before Bush. A court order is needed in the U. S. to use the information.
We use programs like Spybot to keep commercial tracking down to a reasonable level. I can obtain credit information on individuals easily by subscribing to a service (search?). Spying is easy. Don't put unshreaded personal information in your garbage if you have secrets to protect (seizure?). Many people are looking over your shoulder.<<

Those many people are crooks and conmen. I expect that from them. I shouldn't have to expect from the govt that is supposed to protect me from them. I don't what the reason is.

>>'Listening in,' however accomplished, may be search, but the effect of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent the USE of unauthorized information in the courts.<<

Just do like Bush does with everything he disagrees with and just do it anyway. Courts? Ignore them. Hold your own trial or dispense with them altogether. Fourth Amendment? Ignore it. Just throw them in jail and no matter what the courts decide, don't let them out. That is the reality of Bush's "legal" system.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:47 PM

>>Does the thought that if one is not associated with a terriost group, domestic or foreign, one has nothing to worry about mean anything?<<

Sure and let's plant cameras in your house and watch everything you do. You shouldn't have any objection to that--unless, of course, you have something to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 06:58 PM

Okay, here's the deal... The Clinton EO authorized the Attorney General to "certify" a wire tap... Hey, this is a cabinet level presidential appointee and thou I don't like the AG haviong that power, hey, the EO was issued for all the world to see, and complain, or love, or whatever...

The big difference is that in Bush's case, who really knows who can go on a wire-tapin' fishing expedition... Memebers of then NSA??? Like which members??? Low level clerks??? And were the Amercian people told that Bush was doing this??? Sid Clinton hide the fact that he signed an EO in '96??? No, he didn't... Bush did....

No to WIT: Given the restrictions placed on spying outlined with in FISA, even given the Clinton EO, there was some control and some public knowledge of the order...

By keeping it it secret, even from most of the Congress (with the exception of a few trusted few, I feel that Bush certainly fired a shot at the the 4th amendment.... I believe that the American people deserve to know if their privacy is being invaded and if so, why... And they need to understand their rights to due process... What Bush has done here violates those basic rights...

He he wanted to circumvent FIAS he should have made an effort to change the laws, rather than sneakily break them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:05 PM

Most people feel FISA would not have stood in his way and would have sanctioned his activities. He could have tapped first and then gotten a warrant and so there would have been no delay as Dubby's supporters claim. He simply decided, for some reason, to skirt the law.

It's inexplicable really.

Apparently, he really believes his power is limitless.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 07:31 PM

Good point, GUEST AR2822... Yes, there were in place provisions for retroactive warrents... Heck, that should have been enough... Why Bush thought he would just open up the flood gates for NSA personael to purdy much have their way with whomeven they wanted in terms of spying on them and intercepting communication, is beyond logic...

Sometimes I think that Bush just wants to grap as much power as he can...Doesn't matter what it is, he just wants to have control... He a pathological conrol freek with deep seated psyhological problems...

I mean, the existing provisions of FISA, especially with the Clinton EO, gave the executive branch a lot of power... More power than any executive has enjoyed going back over 30 years... This is what Clinton handed Bush yet Bush just had to push the envelope...

Well, look where Bush;s envelope pushing has gotten the country... Unprescedented debt and and quagmire in Iraq... And a 9/11 attack which Richard Clark has plainly stated could have been avioded if Bush had been more concerned with the possibilty of a terrorist threat....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM

From a correspondent:

In April 2004, President Bush made a seemingly direct and
unequivocal statement regarding U.S. wiretapping policies in the
fight against terrorism. We now know that he spoke these words after
authorizing the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

You can hear his comments for yourself in this very short video:

http://www.vortex.com/bv/wiretaps.wmv (Windows Media)

The White House explanation for this seemingly gaping discrepancy is
that the President was supposedly (we're now told) only talking about
"ordinary" secret wiretaps under the PATRIOT Act, not about what
we might call "Double Secret" NSA wiretaps (legal or not).

Newspeak is alive and well. Dean Wormer of "Animal House" fame
would be proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:22 PM

BRuce S. of Salon writes:



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/surveillance/

Uncle Sam is listening

Bush may have bypassed federal wiretap law to deploy more high-tech
methods of surveillance.

By Bruce Schneier

Dec. 20, 2005 | When President Bush directed the National Security
Agency to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens, he transferred an
authority previously under the purview of the Justice Department to
the Defense Department and bypassed the very laws put in place to
protect Americans against widespread government eavesdropping. The
reason may have been to tap the NSA's capability for data-mining and
widespread surveillance.

Illegal wiretapping of Americans is nothing new. In the 1950s and
'60s, the NSA intercepted every single telegram coming in or going
out of the United States. It conducted eavesdropping without a
warrant on behalf of the CIA and other agencies. Much of this became
public during the 1975 Church Committee hearings and resulted in the
now famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

The purpose of this law was to protect the American people by
regulating government eavesdropping. Like many laws limiting the
power of government, it relies on checks and balances: one branch of
the government watching the other. The law established a secret
court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and
empowered it to approve national-security-related eavesdropping
warrants. The Justice Department can request FISA warrants to monitor
foreign communications as well as communications by American
citizens, provided that they meet certain minimal criteria.

The FISC issued about 500 FISA warrants per year from 1979 through
1995, and has slowly increased subsequently -- 1,758 were issued in
2004. The process is designed for speed and even has provisions where
the Justice Department can wiretap first and ask for permission
later. In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever
rejected: all in 2003. (We don't know any details, of course, as the
court proceedings are secret.)

FISA warrants are carried out by the FBI, but in the days immediately
after the terrorist attacks, there was a widespread perception in
Washington that the FBI wasn't up to dealing with these new threats
-- they couldn't uncover plots in a timely manner. So instead the
Bush administration turned to the NSA. They had the tools, the
expertise, the experience, and so they were given the mission.

The NSA's ability to eavesdrop on communications is exemplified by a
technological capability called Echelon. Echelon is the world's
largest information vacuum cleaner, sucking up a staggering amount of
communications data -- satellite, microwave, fiber-optic, cellular,
and everything else -- from all over the world: an estimated 3
billion communications per day. These communications are then
processed through sophisticated data-mining technologies, looking for
simple phrases like "assassinate the president" as well as more
complicated communications patterns.

Supposedly Echelon only covers communications outside of the United
States. Although there is no evidence that the Bush administration
has employed Echelon to monitor communications to and from the U.S.,
this surveillance capability is probably exactly what the president
wanted and may explain why the administration sought to bypass the
FISA process of acquiring a warrant for searches.

Perhaps the NSA just didn't have any experience submitting FISA
warrants, so Bush unilaterally waived that requirement. And perhaps
Bush thought FISA was a hindrance -- in 2002 there was a widespread
but false believe that the FISC got in the way of the investigation
of Zacarias Moussaoui (the presumed "20th hijacker") -- and bypassed
the court for that reason.

Most likely, Bush wanted a whole new surveillance paradigm. You can
think of the FBI's capabilities as "retail surveillance": it
eavesdrops on a particular person or phone. The NSA, on the other
hand, conducts "wholesale surveillance." It, or more exactly its
computers, listen to everything. An example might be to feed the
computer a transcript of every conversation that mentions "Ayman al-
Zawahiri" and monitor everybody who uttered the name, as well as
everybody contacted. This type of surveillance was not anticipated in
FISA and raises all sorts of legal issues. As Sen. Rockefeller wrote
in a secret memo after being briefed on the program, it raises
"profound oversight issues," and it is unclear whether FISA would
have approved this activity.

It is also unclear whether Echelon-style eavesdropping would prevent
terrorist attacks. In the months before 9/11, Echelon noticed
considerable "chatter": bits of conversation suggesting some sort of
imminent attack. But because much of the planning for 9/11 occurred
face-to-face, analysts were unable to learn details.

The fundamental issue here is security, but it's not the security
most people think of. James Madison famously said: "If men were
angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern
men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary." Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but an even
greater threat is the centralization of American political power in
the hands of any single branch of the government.

Over 200 years ago, the framers of the U.S. Constitution established
an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they
divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully
thought out system of checks and balances in the executive branch,
the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no
single branch became too powerful.

After watching tyrannies rise and fall throughout Europe, this seemed
like a prudent way to form a government. Courts monitor the actions
of police. Congress passes laws that even the president must follow.
Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the
executive branch. It's time we brought back the security system
that's protected us from government for over 200 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 21 Dec 05 - 08:32 PM

An opinion from an Associate Professor of Law at GWU:

...Did Bush Have the Legal Authority to Authorize NSA Surveillance?
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/so_whats_bushs.html

>From the post:
   In engaging in the surveillance, the President may have ignored the
legal procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) of 1978.

   The FISA allows the government to engage in electronic surveillance
if it obtains a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (FISC), which meets in secret. The government must demonstrate
probable cause that the monitored party is a "foreign power" or an
"agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1801. If the monitored party is
a U.S. citizen, however, the goverment must establish probable cause
that the party's activities "may" or "are about to" involve a criminal
violation. Id.

   FISA even provides procedures for surveillance without court orders.
Such surveillance, however, must be "solely directed" at gathering
intelligence from "foreign powers" and there must be "no substantial
likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any
communication to which a United States person is a party." 50 U.S.C. §
1802(a). The surveillance authorized by the President, however, involved
U.S. citizens, thus making § 1802 unavailable.

   FISA also has § 1844, which provides that "the President, through the
Attorney general, may authorize the use of a pen register or trap and
trace device without a court order under this subchapter to acquire
foreign intelligence for a period not to exceed 15 days following a
declaration of war by Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1844. I don't know many
details about the timing of the surveillance, but regardless of timing,
the surveillance appears to have far exceeded the limited authorization
in § 1844. The NY Times article suggests that the NSA may have engaged
in wiretaps or other forms of electronic eavesdropping extending far
beyond pen registers or trap and trace devices, which merely provide
information about the phone numbers dialed.

   Thus, it appears that the President brushed FISA aside. . . .


Daniel J. Solove

Associate Professor of Law

George Washington University Law School

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 11:56 AM

Anybody Surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:16 PM

As a former wiretapper, pen registers went out shortly after high button shoes. Remember the 'Nixie lamp' displays from the 60s, anyone?

We need reporters who are more current, not just in this area but all areas. It sometimes gets embarrassing when reading acounts of all types, not just this.
Makes one think they have education from nothing but from outdated text books.

With todays technology, thousands of 'messages' can be monitored every minute. With the old stuff, a suspect had to be identified ahead of time so a physical coonection could made to their line.

Not enough agents to do that today. An example of the bulk of calling, if all Long Distance calls were still placed thru operators, the Telecomunications industry estimates every female from the age of 18 to 62 would have to have the job of operator.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 12:54 PM

The uninformative hyperlink above leads to a front-pager story (covered by the NY Times and the WP), to wit:

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 24, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials....

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 05:08 PM

Mr. Amos, no one is disgreeing with what you just posted.

"Thousands of messages can be monitored every minute", Is that not about the same as your "large volumes"?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Dec 05 - 06:45 PM

Amos, this is the subject (also found there) that I was alluding to:

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

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: pdq
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 01:55 PM

This is just another attempt to discredit a duly-elected president. It is not working any better than the last 50 trumped-up issues. Most Americans respect George W. Bush and fully support his administrations efforts to improve national security. Here is the latest poll on the subject:


(RASMUSSEN POLE)
Survey of 1,000 Adults
December 26-27, 2005

"December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeTM Premium Service for Election 2006 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election. We will poll every Senate and Governor's race at least once a month.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade."

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 03:29 PM

The invasion of citizens' privacy is scarcely a trumped up issue. And your numbers are surprisingly at odds with the general disapproval ratings Bush is getting these days. Is it possible you and your pollster pal are living in a Dream Universe, where heros always wear white hats and the President is always right?

Because in the real world, he is not. He is a reckless, and dangerously under-informed, self-serving eejit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 04:50 PM

Personally, I don't know anybody who loves Bush. Even those who support his agenda and believe that he means well (don't we all) do not approve of the way he is going about it.

And I do not believe his ratings have rebounded for a second. Nothing has happened to justify it. We are every bit as badly off as we were before they allegedly rose. His ratings were so dangerously low, I believe Rove and his ilk started a propaganda campaign. They hope if it is repeated enough, people will believe it. That's called the availability heuristic.

If it works, it will only be temporary. He MUST produce results. He gets no high marks from me for dropping the rosy-outlook spin ploy because it implies that he's been lying to us all this time and it reveals just how bad things really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:42 PM

From the NY Times Week In Review



Private Lives
The Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By JAMES BAMFORD
December 25, 2005

Washington

DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden
by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping
bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic
dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone
calls and e-mail messages an hour.

Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post
intercepts all international communications entering the eastern
United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash.,
eavesdrops on the western half of the country.

A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A.
has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The
controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly
ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless
eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats
to call for his impeachment.

According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the
Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first
briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret
operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own
code word - which itself is secret.

Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in
absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is
the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important,
providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and
other spy organizations.

But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in
which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small
cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has
developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts
of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at
home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties
and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally
created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed
to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the
Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on
intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

...

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM

From a list correspondent:

Subject: [EPIC_IDOF] The Whitehouse Web site is bugged

Hi,

The Whitehouse.gov Web site is bugged! Apparently the Webmaster for the
site has hired Webtrends to track visitors around the site using Web
bugs
and permanent cookies. Here's the Web bug that I found on the home
page of
the Whitehouse.gov Web site:

(Test of javascript code removed)

Similar Web bugs can be found on other Web pages at the Whitehouse
Web site.

Before 9/11, the Clinton administration said this kind of Web
tracking is a
no-no for U.S. government Web sites:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m00-13.html

    Because of the unique laws and traditions about
    government access to citizens' personal information,
    the presumption should be that "cookies" will not be
    used at Federal web sites. Under this new Federal policy,
    "cookies" should not be used at Federal web sites, or
    by contractors when operating web sites on behalf of
    agencies, unless, in addition to clear and conspicuous
    notice, the following conditions are met: a compelling
    need to gather the data on the site;

Richard M. Smith
http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:32 PM

This president has done more damage to the international reputation of the USA than all others before him. We look in amazement at that mess and we do so (except for the very left and the very right fringe) with sadness, for Europe is interested a strong USA which can serve as a role model for democracy. The US government can ignore international approval ratings safely now, but first goes the admiration and the support and then the strength goes as well with a delay of some decades.

Just to give you an idea, president Kennedy had a roughly 80% approval (even more at times) in Germany, nearly independent of political leanings. All later presidents had a more than 50 % approval rating (except Nixon at Watergate time and Reagan when he placed the Pershings into Germany) throughout all parties, usually more so in the conservative party, independent of the political orientation of the respective president.

Last time I read a survey the approval rating for Bush was about 6 %, among German conservatives, and lower in supporters of other parties.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,A
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 04:52 PM

Amos, I thought we did not care what others said. ("no no in Clintons years")

I guess after the last 30 years, My main concern is not those countries who either like or dislike us. I remember reading a post where the individual suggested that his and other countries could take the position of isolationism with regard to the US. Go read the aid given annualy to the world by the and then decide who would be most affected by this.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 29 Dec 05 - 07:01 PM

I'm not sure why this remark is addressed to me. But le tme remind you that one of the motivating factors in writing the Declaration of Independence was a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". I don't believe in catering to opinions, but that is not the same as treating them as trash in the style of Dick "Fuck You" Cheney and he colleagues.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 01:04 PM

Bush is both stupid and dangerous which is a lethal combination.

He doesn't realize or doesn't care what he is doing to our freedoms. The idea that he had the CIA go to communications and media giants and demand access to calls and emails which were then handed over without argument is frightening.

This basically turns the media and the communications corporations into nothing more than extensions of the American intelligence community. They are now their eyes and ears. I am shocked none of the corporations resisted the CIA's demand. Couldn't one of them have said, "Sorry, you're asking for privileged information about our customers who expect and deserve their right to privacy. Get a warrant."

Congressional republicans must be wringing their hands. They don't want to impeach one of their own but if Bush doesn't knock off with his law-breaking and bullying, they will have to reign him in. Bush has already indicated that he will not stop. He complained that outing his law-breaking has ruined the nation's intelligence-gathering and then turns around and says he will continue with it. What for if it has been ruined? Because it hasn't been ruined, he was just trying to protect himself from being outed for breaking the law.

And the administration continues to do it as if nobody else matters. This can only go on so long before something has to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Sissy
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:36 PM

How have we survived this long with such a stupid dangerous president?

Would rather have had Gore or Kerry for president even if means multiple terrorist attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:40 PM

"Would rather have had Gore or Kerry for president even if means multiple terrorist attacks?"

The problem is that so many Americans now think that Bush IS the terrorist.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:50 PM

Got any facts to support your claim Peace or is that your personal grudge speaking?

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:53 PM

Personal. Now, go take a walk, kid. Facts don't mean a damned thing to you. Your self-appointed job here is to troll on behalf of your Republican masters. Facts/bullshit--all the same to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,G
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:10 AM

I think some posters here are becoming delusional.

"Would rather have had Gore or Kerry even if means multiple terriost attacks."

I have a friend in upstate New York whose son was killed in the number 2 Trade Center Tower. Sissy, would you like to tell him that and then discuss your position with him?

I sure as Hell hope you are putting us on!

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,G
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 10:22 AM

..or is it possible you are mocking one of the more delusional ones here who says GWB is "stupid and dangerous" and thinks our rights are being poured down the drain. Paranoia accounts for that type of thinking.

While I am so tired of our government and have been for years, has anyone given any thought as to what might have caused the annual terriost attacks against us to halt. Ones like the Saudi barracks, the Kuwait barracks, a couple of our Embasies, the USS Cole, etc.?

Not far from wjhere I live, all this "illegal" spying caused a truck driver on the Interstate to be stopped subsequently admitted to his part in a plot to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. Of mideastern descent and was driving East.

Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
From: GUEST,Sissy
Date: 31 Dec 05 - 11:17 AM

Yes I was putting you on. the purpose is to blatantly state what these anti-war, anti-Bush ninnies are leading to with their twitter about how things are so bad and how stupid and dangerous Bush is.

For one thing they could not say the things they say if the totalitarian sate that they claim to exist really exists.

If Bush is so stupid, how com personal income, the economy and jobs are on the rise and how come we have had no other terrorist attacks?

If he is so hated, how come his job approval is rising?

Personally I am glad he is president. He is not doing perfect but he is doing doing a thousand times better that Clinton did and Gore or Kerry would have been able to do under the same circumstances.

There are a few people posting here who have the integrity and honesty and take the time to tell these whiners that they are wrong. Of course that puts the whiners up in arms and trying to strike back belligerently which is exactly what they accuse the Bush administration of doing.

Lurkers please take the time to compare the coherence of the arguments that both sides of this debate present and decide which side is more credible.

No doubt there will be several immediate, knee jerk posts here by the ones with the negative attitude to try to drown out any shred of intelligence presented by this post lest it put them in a bad light. Those posts reveal the true vicious nature of the Anti-Bushites and anti-war faction.