 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: freda underhill Date: 21 Jan 06 - 07:42 AM and speaking of domestic spying.. While Yahoo and other search engines have been giving information to the US government, Google has refused to give over the information and is fighting a subpoena from the US govt in court. Congress is debating an extension of the Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the government's ability to obtain private data. The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., the most-used Internet search engine, fought its subpoena. AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo also had been subpoenaed. Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose seeking to force Google to comply. Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to turn over potentially useful data — even about people who aren't suspected of wrongdoing — while being barred from disclosing those requests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 05 Jul 06 - 06:23 PM py Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages. ``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.'' The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists. ``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail. U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment. More at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:06 AM "seeks money" explains it all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 06 Jul 06 - 07:37 PM Claim: NSA began monitoring AT&T calls in Feb. 2001 Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against AT&T and other phone companies have filed an amended complaint with some startling claims. The lawsuit concerns the companies' allowing the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls of their customers without the customers' knowledge or consent. Among the claims in the amended complaint filed June 23 (taken verbatim from court documents): * Within eleven (11) days of the onset of the Bush administration, and at least seven (7) months prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, defendant ATT began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the NSA. * The center was put into development by ATT following a proposal by the NSA for the construction and development of a network operations center identical to ATT's own network operations center located in Bedminster, New Jersey for the exclusive use of the NSA. * The NSA proposal sought construction of a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the exclusive use of the NSA with the capacity to monitor all calls and internet traffic placed on the ATT long distance network, as well as ATT's wide area, fiber optic, T-1, T-3, T-5 and high speed data networks. * Such a data center would also enable the NSA to tap into any call placed on the ATT network and to monitor the contents of all digital information transmitted over the ATT network. * Said data center would enable the NSA to tap into any phone line and to monitor any digital transfer of information on ATT's networks including voice telephone calls, facsimile transmission and all internet traffic. * The NSA program was code-named Pioneer-Groundbreaker and was also known at ATT Solutions division as GEMS (Groundb (Groundbreaker Enterprise System). * International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was one of the parties working with ATT and the NSA to develop the monitoring center and IBM personnel participated in meetings with ATT and NSA officials in the development of the monitoring center. * Among the purposes of the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project was the storing and monitoring of all phone call information coming across ATT's networks; by means of this program NSA sought to duplicate all of the phone call information that came across ATT's networks for real time, contemporaneous analysis or, alternately, for downloading and later use by the NSA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:29 AM During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency conducted random telecommunications surveillance of millions of phone calls daily under a top secret program known as Echelon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:38 AM http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml Ex-Snoop Confirms Echelon Network NEW YORK March 1, 2000 (CBS) Everywhere in the world, every day, people's phone calls, emails and faxes are monitored by Echelon, a secret government surveillance network. No, it's not fiction straight out of George Orwell's 1984. It's reality, says former spy Mike Frost in an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 27. "It's not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there," Frost tells CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Steve Kroft. "I was trained by you guys," says the former Canadian intelligence agent, referring to the United States' National Security Agency. The NSA runs Echelon with Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand as a series of listening posts around the world that eavesdrop on terrorists, drug lords and hostile foreign governments. But to find out what the bad guys are up to, all electronic communications, including those of the good guys, must be captured and analyzed for key words by super computers. That is a fact that makes Frost uncomfortable, even though he believes the world needs intelligence gathering capabilities like Echelon. "My concern is no accountability and nothing, no safety net in place for the innocent people who fall through the cracks," he tells Kroft. As an example of those innocent people, Frost cites a woman whose name and telephone number went into the Echelon database as a possible terrorist because she told a friend on the phone that her son had "bombed" in a school play. "The computer spit that conversation out. The analystwas not too sure what the conversation was referring to, so, erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady," Frost recalls. Democracies usually have laws against spying on citizens. But Frost says Echelon members could ask another member to spy for them in an end run around those laws. For example, Frost tells Kroft that his Canadian intelligence boss spied on British government officials for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. "(Thatcher) had two ministers that she said, quote, 'they weren't on side,' unquote...So my boss...went to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two ministers," claims Frost. |"The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anythingWe did it for them." America politicians may also have been eavesdropped on, says Margaret Newsham, a woman who worked at Menwith Hill in England, the NSA's largest spy station. She says she was shocked to hear the voice of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.) on a surveillance headset about 20 years ago. "To my knowledge, all (the intercepted voices)...would be...Russian, Chinese... foreign," she tells Kroft. The exposing of such possible abuses of Echelon will surely add to the growing firestorm in Europe over the system. On Feb. 23, the European Parliament issued a report accusing the U.S. of using Echelon for commercial spying on two separate occasions, to help American companies win lucrative contracts over European competitors. The U.S. State Department denies such spying took place and will not even acknowledge the existence of the top secret Echelon project. Rep. Porter Goss (R.-Fla), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which has oversight of the NSA, does acknowledge that the U.S. has the capability to pick up any phone call, and that even his own conversations could have been monitored. But Goss says there are methods to prevent the abuse of that information. "I cannot stop the dust in the ether...but what I can make sure, is that...the capability is not abused," he tells Kroft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jul 06 - 04:18 AM And in recent news, a "hacker" hired to test the FBI computer systems' security reported that he made four separate "penetrations" of the system (using different methods in each) and presented the FBI with the personal passwords of 60 top echelon persons at FBI headquarters, including the passwords of the Chief, and of two of his "direct reports." And in the ancient news category, it has been revealed (nearly a year ago) that the FBI's primary record system has no way to delete, correct, or alter anything once entered. So if they screw up a report, it's screwed up forever. It's also been reported, perhaps less convincingly, that the system is unable to link "related information" so a query that doesn't bring up all information on a subject likely will not get the latest news that everything more than 30 minutes old is a bundle of shit. But we trust them, 'cause they're doing it all to protect us. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 07 Jul 06 - 01:12 PM I assume that Echelon is paid for by tax dollars since its a government surveillance network. In the meantime, citizens need healthcare and better education. The money used for surveillance of innocent citizens should be used to serve the citizens, not spy on them. Its disgusting to think that people actually pay others to invade their privacy. I hope, I hope, I hope that the citizens of the U.S. will rise up against this tyranny. I know they have it in them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 07 Jul 06 - 02:35 PM Or bask in the security knowing that if they have nothing to hide there is no problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:14 PM Boy, Guest, you don't see problems very clearly, do you? The question is not whether citizens have anything to hide. The question is whether governments have the power to abuse, invade privacy, or undermine the right of citizens to enjoy security int heir homes and possessions, communicate freely, and exercise personal privacy. Twisting the rights and privacy issue into "something to hide" is perverted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,George Bush Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:21 AM Neat that the guest who thinks everyone's life should be open to all posts as a guest. We'll be keeping an eye on you henceforth. Be warned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:57 PM Are you hiding something Amos? What is it you don't want the Government to know about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:26 AM Are you hiding something, GUEST? If not, why don't you use your real name like Amos does? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:48 AM I don't see where a name is required here. Seems to me it is optional. If you are so concerned about not having any privacy look here: http://www.zabasearch.com Who is responsible for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Jul 06 - 07:27 AM Reports surfaced briefly a week or so ago about an "investigation" by a vaguely identified Congressional panel who had discovered some surprisingly large payments to commercial "investigating services" by the Federal spy agencies, and collateral information indicated quite common use of the same or similar sources by multiple state and local police agencies. The information obtained appeared to be mostly the common stuff like name, address, phone number, credit reports, social security number, drivers license number, etc. The real point of the "discovery" was testimony attributed to at least one operator of one of these services who openly and freely admitted using illegal methods in obtaining the information being sold. The testimony appears to have delved into descriptions of methods, and presented an extremely poor view of the level of respect for personal information by sources who might have such information legitimately but are obligated to prevent such release except under specific conditions. This was especially true at public agencies (courts, utility companies, etc.) who might have legal cause to have information but who easily and readily "handed out" information with little regard for existing restrictions on such release, often based on obviously false/fraudulent identification1 of the recipitents and fraudulent justification for the requests. 1 "I tell them I'm her mother and I haven't heard from her, and they'll nearly always give me what I ask for." There also were discussions by several witnesses as to the widespread use of similar methods by "many such commercial investigation agencies," and the "very common appearances" of police departments as "customers." Testimony varied as to whether the police were charged the same as any other person who asked, with several agencies indicating they provided information "at no cost" when requested by law enforcement agencies or by individuals associated with2 an enforcement agency. 2 "I just make up a name and tell them I'm a cop on a local force, and they'll give me the stuff over the phone." The existence of such private snoop agencies, and the common use of fraudulent and sometimes criminal methods in collecting information should surprise no one. The purchase of information from them by law enforcement, without questioning the legality of their methods was questioned as a "moral issue" in the article; but most of the purchasers thought that a "don't ask" policy was sufficient. Original newspaper report(s) gave little "traceability" and I expected to see further comment; but none has thus far appeared. It does appear that people who "do it for money" may be even better at it, or at least at some aspects of it, than the government snoops. It also should be noted that with these agencies there is no verification of information and no recourse if false information3 is given. 3 Not much different than when a government agency collects it directly in secret? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 09 Jul 06 - 10:23 AM The domestic spying has been going on since the Clinton administration. The Bush haters just repackage it and pretend it is something that GWB started illegaly. http://www.endtimeprophecy.org/Content/Articles/Articles-Echl/echln-12.html July 28, 1999 Washington, DC - The Clinton Administration has formulated an anit-cyberterrorism plan to monitor computer networks in critical industries, raising concerns from civil liberties groups and privacy advocates, The New York Times reported today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: dianavan Date: 09 Jul 06 - 08:57 PM Doesn't matter who started it, GUEST. It will have to end and we're going to end it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:04 AM I heard about it when Clinton was president and I thought it was good. I would be dissapointed if the intelligence community was not doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: TIA Date: 10 Jul 06 - 12:39 PM Actually, if you have nothing to hide, you still have a great deal to fear. Suppose that the NSA can actually (based on your telephone, banking, email, etc. records) identify terrorists. Suppose that the test is 99% accurate (pretty optimistic, no?). Nothing to hide? Nothing to Fear? Suppose there are 2000 secret terrorists in the USA. The USA population is currently about 299000000. At 99% accuracy, NSA will get 1980 terrorists, and only miss 20. Feeling safe? At 99% accuracy, the NSA will not take any action against 296010000 innocent Americans. At 99% accuracy, NSA will also render, or arrest (or something) 2990000 innocent Americans. This makes the odds that a person, who is arrested due to domestic spying, is actually a terrorist about 1 in 1500. Sounds just like the prosecution rate at Guantanamo doesn't it? No coincidence there - just simple conditional probability. So Nothing to Hide? Nothing to Fear? Hardly. More like naive, dumb, sheep-like, unpatriotic, un-American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:09 AM White House Asks For Dismissal Of NSA Wiretap Suit Arguing that defending the four-year-old wiretapping program in open court would risk national security, the Bush administration on Monday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program. In arguments before U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday renewed its call for a court order that would force the government to suspend its program of intercepting without a court order the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens. Lessee if we have the logic straight -- we have to be free to break the law, to do important work, and you can't ask us to talk about it because it would compromise the important work for which we are breaking it. One is led to deduce that the position of the Administration is that their work is so important as to be above the law, and should be free to be above the law at their discretion. What work, one might ask, could be so important in the affairs of men as to justify this risky posture as a potential dictatorial force? Why, of course, the work of promoting and defending freedom under the law. That's the most important work there is! Hell, anyone could tell you that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:04 PM We have the right to conduct terrorist activities without detection. The government does not have the power to detect terrorist activities. If this results in terrorist attacks and loss of innocent lives, tough titty. That is the price we have to pay in order to live in a free society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: TIA Date: 11 Jul 06 - 02:16 PM So, is it worth potentially rounding up 1500 innocents per actual terrorist in order for the government to "protect us"? What say you King Draco? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 06 - 06:13 PM Is this 1500 number some sort of fact or fantasy? Can you equate one human life to 1500 arrests of innocents? Would you consent to being arrested in order to save a life or would you say that's tough bub but I didn't do anything and even if I did, my freedom is worth more than your life? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 02:21 AM End of thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Jul 06 - 07:44 PM Not quite dear. 1500 is not a fact, but certainly no fantasy. It is a mathematical prediction based on two assumptions. N: the number of terrorists hiding amongst the US population, and A: the accuracy of NSA's mysterious identification formula. I used N=2000 (wild ass guess), and A=99% (extremely generous don't you agree?). Now, do the math yourself, or follow it closely above. Substitute whatever numbers you think are reasonable for N and A, and you will arrive at a ratio of imprisoned innocents to imprisoned terrorists. Then don't try to spin the question. It's simple. How many imprisoned innocents are worth one imprisoned terrorist. Remember, you, your Mom, your daughter, your piano teacher...anyone could be yanked, even with nothing to hide. And your acceptable number is...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 13 Jul 06 - 09:02 PM Higher than yours. 1500 plus. I asked how many arrests are worth one human life. Remember your Mom, your daughter, your piano teacher could be killed in a terrorist attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Jul 06 - 12:06 AM "Higher than mine" is only a lower limit for your number. Is there an upper limit? Unless you want literally *everyone* to be imprisoned, there must be an upper number. What is it? I think we do not disagree that saving innocents is the point. But I also think we both realize that to make an omelette ya gotta...well you get the picture. So we seek the same goal. I am exploring the cost. Have you thought about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:01 PM The mathematical chances of any particular individual being killed or harmed in a "terrorist attack" in the U.S. are so infinitesimal as to be meaningless. You want to worry about REAL threats?- there's drunk drivers(17000 killed and 70000 injured a year)), automobile accidents in general, firearms(30,000 per year), accidents in the home......etc. hell check on the number of people are killed by dogs in the US every year. This pathological paranoid hysteria about "being killed by terrorists" is really getting old. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 14 Jul 06 - 01:23 PM Proposed Surveillance Bill Would Sweep NSA Spying Programs Under the Rug Bill Threatens Future of EFF Case and Other Legal Challenges San Francisco - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said today that he has negotiated a proposed bill with the White House regarding the NSA's illegal spying program. While the final bill is not public, a draft of the bill obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a sham compromise that would cut off meaningful legal review -- sweeping current legal challenges out of the traditional court system and failing to require court review or congressional oversight of any future surveillance programs. "This so-called compromise bill is not a concession from the White House -- it's a rubber stamp for any future spying program dreamed up by the executive," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "In essence, this bill threatens to make court oversight of electronic surveillance voluntary rather than mandatory." Although the bill creates a process for the executive branch to seek court review of its secret surveillance programs, it doesn't actually require the government to do so. The bill would, however, require that any lawsuit challenging the legality of any classified surveillance program -- including EFF's class-action suit against AT&T -- be transferred, at the government's request, to the FISA Court of Review, a secret court with no procedures for hearing argument from anyone but the government. The bill would further allow the government to prevent the court from disclosing any information about the government's surveillance programs to opposing counsel, regardless of the court's strict security procedures. "When the privacy of millions of Americans is at stake, we deserve more than a closed hearing by a secret court," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien. For the draft of the Specter bill: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/specter_draftbill_071306.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Barry Finn Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:34 PM At present I fear my own government far more that I fear any terrorist. Spying on it's own citzens is only one of the reasons for my fear. I fear for my freedom of speach, I fear for my right to assembly, I fear for my privacy, I fear for my non religous freedom to not worship, I fear that my children may be sucked into a war that's against no enemy of their own making, I fear that my children will grow sick in a polluted enviorment, I fear that my government is self destructive & will self destruct, I fear that my children will become part of a slave society, I fear that I'm already becoming part of that slave society, I fear that no matter how hard I try I may not be able to find in the future water clean enough to drink. I fear not one thing of these things from terrorists. What I do fear from terrorists is that a government like ours will never stop giving them reasons to exist & will never stop giving us a reason to fear. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 15 Jul 06 - 08:42 AM My upper limit is the number evuivalent to one human life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 17 Jul 06 - 12:07 AM "I fear my own government far more that I fear any terrorist" Evidently you don't live in Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 19 Jul 06 - 11:50 PM WASHINGTON - President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday. Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April. "It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?" Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, asked Gonzales. (AP Wire) "The president of the United States makes the decision," Gonzales replied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Peace Date: 20 Jul 06 - 12:00 AM Nice work if ya can get it, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:33 AM Precisely the question. What is the number equivalent to one human life? What *number* (they're along the top of that keypad there...) is acceptable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 06 - 07:17 PM Tia: You tell me and then we can arrive at a cap for arrests. You are good for dreaming up numbers to argue about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 02:58 PM July 21, 2006 Judge: "Extremely Embarrassing" not the same as "Classified" The Bush administration is going to have to work a little harder if it wants to sweep the lawsuit over AT&T's alleged participation in a National Security Agency wiretapping program under the rug (see "AT&T. Your world, delivered (to the government)" and "Big Mother"). Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the government's motion for dismissal of the case or summary judgment, rejecting its claim that allowing the suit to proceed would compromise state secrets. "While the court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it," Walker wrote in his 72-page ruling. "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security." Ironically, it seems the administration's own big mouth is to blame for Walker's conclusions. In his ruling, Walker noted that the subject at issue in the case was "hardly a secret" since the government has itself been yammering about it in public for some time now. "The government has opened the door for judicial inquiry by publicly confirming and denying material information about its monitoring of communications content," Walker wrote. "Because of the public disclosures by the government and AT&T, the court cannot conclude that merely maintaining this action creates a 'reasonable danger' of harming national security." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: JohnInKansas Date: 21 Jul 06 - 04:09 PM The Washington Post article on the Judge's decision again makes note of the "agreement on legislation" brokered by Sen Specter that, if rubber-stamped by Congress, "allows the President" to request a decision on the legality of the secret data farming from "the government's secret terrorism and intelligence court" to review its legality. 1. The legislation would allow, but not require, a decision from the court. 2. Judges on the secret court are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with no participation or oversight by anyone else. 3. There are no known criteria that an appointee must meet to be eligible for appointment at the "whim of the Chief Justice." 4. Judges on the secret court are rotated on an obscure schedule and there is no public announcement that I've seen when they are changed. 5. The original secret court (at the time most people first heard of it, at least) told the administration that they would not approve similar programs. It is unlikely that any of those judges remain on the court. So the Chief Justice hand-picked by the President gets to select, in secret, the members of the secret court that will decide whether the president can do any damned thing he wants to, if the President decides he wants them to make a decision, and the answer will be a secret. I feel s.s.s.o.o.o.o.o...r.e.a.s.s.u.r.e.d. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 06:25 PM From the Electronic Freedom Foundation: EFF's Spying Case Moves Forward - Judge Denies Government's Motion to Dismiss AT&T Case In January, EFF filed a lawsuit against AT&T for collaborating with the NSA in its massive and illegal spying program. Today, a federal court denied the government's and AT&T's motions to dismiss the case, allowing EFF's suit to proceed. This is a huge step toward stopping illegal surveillance and holding AT&T accountable for these privacy violations. But it's only a first step. We need your help to finish the job and secure your rights. Please donate to EFF today and forward this message along to your friends and family. Join EFF today! http://secure.eff.org/att More info about the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 21 Jul 06 - 11:35 PM The Bush Administration Has No Defense for Illegal Wiretapping Now Tuesday, July 18, 2006 By Senator Russ Feingold From Daily Kos With the Administration doing so much to weaken our system of checks and balances, a lot of Americans were heartened to see the third branch of government - the judiciary - stand up to the Administration with the decision in the Hamdan case a few weeks ago. The Supreme Court made it crystal clear that all detainees have basic rights under U.S. and international law, and that the Administration has to scrap its plan to try some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in military commissions that lacked basic safeguards of fairness. As many legal thinkers, and some in this community, have pointed out, the Hamdan decision was a rebuke to an Administration that thinks it can make up its own laws. And this decision has ramifications far beyond the issue of detainees. For one thing, Hamdan completely undercuts the Administration's already weak legal argument in defense of its warrantless wiretapping program. It is clear that the program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But Administration officials insisted unconvincingly that the authorization for use of military force (AUMF) from September 2001 had them covered - that this resolution somehow ok'd their warantless wiretapping, even though there is no such language in the resolution, and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President blanket authority to order these warrantless wiretaps. In Hamdan, the Court made it clear that the Administration can't hide behind the AUMF anymore. The Administration tried to use the AUMF argument in the Hamdan case too - claiming that it authorized military commissions for detainees. But the Court flatly rejected that idea, just as it rejected the idea that the President's inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief trumps the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The bottom line is that the Court was not buying the extreme theories of executive power put forward by the Administration in the military commissions case, and there is no reason to think it that it would buy those same theories when they are used to justify the illegal wiretapping program. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: 282RA Date: 22 Jul 06 - 10:56 PM What's funny is that 10 years from now, the history books will characterize Bush as a horrible president who broke the law numerous times and all these people who support him now will be denying that they ever did. Like McCarthy. He's reviled now and nobody ever claims to have supported him but obviously he had a lot of support from the public to have taken his commie hunt as far as he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 06 - 12:04 AM Bush changes NASA mission statement - no longer interested in protecting our home planet by John in DC - 7/22/2006 08:38:00 PM The Republicans are amazing. After having given the shaft to blacks, women, Latinos, gays, people who have Parkinsons and Alzheimers, the budget, the environment, the military, veterans, New Orleans, Iraq and oh so many more, now they're giving the shaft to the entire planet Earth. From ThinkProgress, citing the NY Times. NASA quietly had its mission statement changed last February by the White House, who deleted the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet." NASA scientists were surprised to learn of the change. "Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions." As we quoted Charles Barkley the other day, "I used to be a Republican, before they lost their minds." http://americablog.blogspot.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:10 AM "10 years from now, the history books will characterize Bush as a horrible president who broke the law numerous times" What did people say about Abraham Lincoln and what do the history books say about him? The people hated Andy Jackson even worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Amos Date: 27 Jul 06 - 03:25 PM YEah, but look at RIchard Nixon. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Domestic Spying in the U.S. From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM Rather not, if its all the same to you. Had enough of that pathological crooked bastard when he was president. And don't forget he was Tailgunner Joe McCarthy's right-hand man (no pun intended) |
