Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
rolex replica-
rolex replica watches-
best replica watches-
watches-
diamond watches-
replica watches-
rolex watches-
watches online-
timex watches-
ladies watch-
luxury watch-
wrist watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
ladies watch-
men's watch-
wrist watches-
replica watches-
fine watches-
casio watches-
watches online-
replica rolex watches-
rolex watch-

Posted by: luxury watch at April 21, 2009 04:03 AM

The secrecy behind this may have been due to what they were using the technology for.

Posted by: 實木傢俬 at April 28, 2008 04:36 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 16, 2008 02:58 AM

runescape money runescape gold runescape gold runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape itemsrunescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk tibia gold Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold

runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling

棕榈树
VI设计
画册设计
血管瘤
�血管瘤
音�剧
��
防�电地�
美国留学
留学美国
电阻器
�锈钢电阻器
频�电阻器

�眠呼�机
伟康呼�机
呼�机
无创呼�机
家用呼�机
呼�机的使用

北京消化系统疾病
北京心脑血管疾病
北京肾病
北京中医儿科
北京针��肥
针��肥
北京糖尿病
北京疼痛病
北京类风湿
北京人文大学

Posted by: runescape gold at April 12, 2008 02:14 AM

This acceleration of development on an unmanned bomber/strike vehicle is more than a little disturbing. It speaks volumes. It says to me that the Defense community has recieved recent news that shows China becoming a threat to National Security. I'm seeing a new Cold War. Not good.

Posted by: runescape gold at April 7, 2008 02:26 AM

All these things being discussed are important, but there are other issues which need to be discussed; Sexual harassment in the military. This subject seem to have grown cold, I'm sure it's not because it has ceased, but because many women are afraid to tell, or have told and nothing was done about it. I was stationed at fort polk army base, my first duty station. A few months after I was there, I was subjected to sexual harassment by SSGT Moten, I made the complaint to Capt Crosby, later to EO representative, to congress, to wounded soldier hotline and others; no one has done anything to protect me; I've lost everything. My career, my live has been trumatized by what I went through. No one helped me, they retaliated against me for telling. This makes me sick to my stomach! This should not be. I'm not the only female at fort polk that has made a complaint; they have been able til this point to keep it there inside those gates, that is until my mother made contact with several outside agencies to try and get help for me. I've had to undergo anger management, placed on meds to try and help me deal with all the emotional stress. They gave me an article 15, took an award that I was used to win the DFAC. They never did anything to help me. I have recently filed a complaint with DoD IG for reprisal for whistleblowing, I hope washington will see through all the lies that was told about me being a bad soldier and see that my right were violated, I was sexual harassed at least 2 of my superior officers. Told by 1 female nco that she wanted to kill me, they punished me for it. I was arrested, placed in jail, totally humiliated. Not only have I suffered emotionally distress, but physically also. I know that there are a lot of other women which has and are still suffering at the hands of there superior officers. It really scared me after that young female soldier was killed because she brought charges against a male soldier. Isn't it time for our Government to stop failing to protect us? Stop turning there backs and pretending it isn't happening, because I'm living proof that it is!! All I want is justice, I want it to stop, the person that hurt me punished, and the one's which allowed it held accountable. I want my life back!!

Posted by: Tequila Kelly at February 8, 2008 04:52 PM

All these things being discussed are important, but there are other issues which need to be discussed; Sexual harassment in the military. This subject seem to have grown cold, I'm sure it's not because it has ceased, but because many women are afraid to tell, or have told and nothing was done about it. I was stationed at fort polk army base, my first duty station. A few months after I was there, I was subjected to sexual harassment by SSGT Moten, I made the complaint to Capt Crosby, later to EO representative, to congress, to wounded soldier hotline and others; no one has done anything to protect me; I've lost everything. My career, my live has been trumatized by what I went through. No one helped me, they retaliated against me for telling. This makes me sick to my stomach! This should not be. I'm not the only female at fort polk that has made a complaint; they have been able til this point to keep it there inside those gates, that is until my mother made contact with several outside agencies to try and get help for me. I've had to undergo anger management, placed on meds to try and help me deal with all the emotional stress. They gave me an article 15, took an award that I was used to win the DFAC. They never did anything to help me. I have recently filed a complaint with DoD IG for reprisal for whistleblowing, I hope washington will see through all the lies that was told about me being a bad soldier and see that my right were violated, I was sexual harassed at least 2 of my superior officers. Told by 1 female nco that she wanted to kill me, they punished me for it. I was arrested, placed in jail, totally humiliated. Not only have I suffered emotionally distress, but physically also. I know that there are a lot of other women which has and are still suffering at the hands of there superior officers. It really scared me after that young female soldier was killed because she brought charges against a male soldier. Isn't it time for our Government to stop failing to protect us? Stop turning there backs and pretending it isn't happening, because I'm living proof that it is!! All I want is justice, I want it to stop, the person that hurt me punished, and the one's which allowed it held accountable. I want my life back!!

Posted by: Tequila Kelly at February 8, 2008 04:49 PM

All these things being discussed are important, but there are other issues which need to be discussed; Sexual harassment in the military. This subject seem to have grown cold, I'm sure it's not because it has ceased, but because many women are afraid to tell, or have told and nothing was done about it. I was stationed at fort polk army base, my first duty station. A few months after I was there, I was subjected to sexual harassment by SSGT Moten, I made the complaint to Capt Crosby, later to EO representative, to congress, to wounded soldier hotline and others; no one has done anything to protect me; I've lost everything. My career, my live has been trumatized by what I went through. No one helped me, they retaliated against me for telling. This makes me sick to my stomach! This should not be. I'm not the only female at fort polk that has made a complaint; they have been able til this point to keep it there inside those gates, that is until my mother made contact with several outside agencies to try and get help for me. I've had to undergo anger management, placed on meds to try and help me deal with all the emotional stress. They gave me an article 15, took an award that I was used to win the DFAC. They never did anything to help me. I have recently filed a complaint with DoD IG for reprisal for whistleblowing, I hope washington will see through all the lies that was told about me being a bad soldier and see that my right were violated, I was sexual harassed at least 2 of my superior officers. Told by 1 female nco that she wanted to kill me, they punished me for it. I was arrested, placed in jail, totally humiliated. Not only have I suffered emotionally distress, but physically also. I know that there are a lot of other women which has and are still suffering at the hands of there superior officers. It really scared me after that young female soldier was killed because she brought charges against a male soldier. Isn't it time for our Government to stop failing to protect us? Stop turning there backs and pretending it isn't happening, because I'm living proof that it is!! All I want is justice, I want it to stop, the person that hurt me punished, and the one's which allowed it held accountable. I want my life back!!

Posted by: Tequila Kelly at February 8, 2008 04:48 PM

ross perot cincidently relocated his edge software database for the nro at the same time i surrendered my at&t edge software to the u.s.post master general. mine was of the laguna sort

Posted by: wink at September 2, 2006 04:34 AM

tally1, you are correct, we need to find out who are the bad guys, and we should pursue them and halt them.

What has happened here has nothing to do with that. If the government needs to monitor comm between some al qaida baddies and some American citizens, that's legitimate. That can be done, with a retroactive approval. There still is NO justification for warrantless surveillance.

It's sweet that you are confident that Bush won't be after our guns. What about his successor? What if it's President Kerry or President H Clinton (President Sharpton - LOL)who decides the executive can ignore laws and the Constitution? President Bush is establishing a precedent that in "wartime", his duties trump our rights. But that will convey to the next president. Surely the GWOT will still be happening then. And which of our rights goes next?

Posted by: Truly Bob at January 4, 2006 08:24 AM

I feel our government NSA collection agency is doing things right. I, as a retired military citizen, have no worries about my email being watched by the NSA ageants since I personally do not send any overseas eamil nor do I recieve any in the long run.
We need the NSA to watch our backs and discover who in the USA are connected to Al Queada. Yes, I approval of President Bush's action to go ahead and get the job done.
No, I am not worried that next he will be checking for our guns unless we are tied to the Al Queada forces.

Posted by: tally1 at January 3, 2006 02:54 PM

This issue is not about the noble motives of the administration nor the integrity of the dedicated civil servants performing actual data collection. It isn't about the allocation of resources. It isn't even about the potential abuse of the accumulated information.

It is about the president ignoring the laws and Constitution of the United States. Or if that's too inflammatory for you, howsabout those good old "checks and balances" we were told about in civics class?

The (act like a) Patriot Act* modified FISA according to the president's wishes. So please explain to me how the FISA is now so unduly restrictive? Do you really believe that 3 days is too soon to justify (after the fact) eavesdropping? The FISA court has disapproved fewer than 10 applications, out of over 15,000. Is it really that hard to get approval? So why skip it? Because there is a 1/1500 chance of rejection/modification? PUH-lease.

So for the future, when Bush decides that the GWOT is helped by registering every gun in the country, and every home should be searched for guns, you support that? You have nothing to hide, so that's OK, right?

Likewise if he decides one gun per household is sufficient for self defense, you will happily turn in all your "extras", right? Because, really, what do you need them for? You aren't some kind of revolutionary, are you? How many can you use at once, anyway? And why do you need more than, say, a dozen bullets? So turn in all your guns except that single one you'll use for self defense. If you are needed for the militia, your other weapons could be returned to you.

And when Bush, or maybe his successor, decides that there needs to be a national curfew, you'll skip nighttime activities too, correct?

Of course, the president needs to be able to focus for very extended periods of time, sometimes days on end. So Bush should be allowed the purest Columbian cocaine, because this is a different kind of war.

So how many volunteers here for the Freedom Camps, where your every action is monitored, all your possesions are GI, and you can rest assured that you are finally safe from all those bad people out there?

*Ironically, written mostly under Bush's predecessor, whatever that guy's name was.

Posted by: Truly Bob at December 28, 2005 01:49 PM

The interesting thing in reading your commnents is your sincerity. However, if you are low on the Totem pole, is it not accurate to say that the misconduct of the higher ones will most likely not be punished, and those at the lower end become fall guys ( or girls) when the misconduct is found out? Is that not the general pattern of governments ( US government included)?Truth be told Bush and his cabal have embarked on a course of lawlessness - lie to the public then invade Iraq contrary to the UN Charter - give a green light to torture then feign shock and horror when the torturers are found out - illegally spy on US citizens then try to justify the misconduct on national security grounds. Albeit you may have lawfully been doing your job - that it not the problem - it is the illegal bandits who are ruling the US under teh Bush Presidnecy who are the ones giving the directives to break the law and the US Constitution. That isthe problem that needs to be addressed!

Posted by: Courtenay Barnett at December 28, 2005 10:52 AM

All I can say is this, I spent 22 years in the intel field doing SIGINT Collection and analysis. Believe it or not folks, there are actual laws and directives that pertain to this stuff. Try reading USSID 18. As stated before, we are instructed, tested, evaluated, and damn sure held accountable for any and all monitored communications. Once an American citizen identifies themselves as such, you go to the next target. Give me a break. Does anyone have any idea the resources needed to eavesdrop on Henry getting yelled at by his wife because he needs to bring some milk home. Get a Grip folks. We've got better things to do with ancient and obsolete equipment to do it with. So feel free to continue that phone sex mister congressman. Your secret is still safe.

Posted by: D-Day at December 27, 2005 11:14 AM

What some craven filth floated to the top of this little thread, like turds with too much fiber. Every last one of you begging for the government to monitor your phone, like some bleach blonde in a porn asking for the money shot across her face makes me want to puke.

Not just worthless filth, but something meaner than that. I have no words for what you are. "Coward" doesn't even begin to cover it. "Traitor" just starts to come near this fellation of the police state.

Posted by: Ed Marshall at December 25, 2005 11:26 PM

Posted by: Airlee Owens

"There is too much information to be concerned about anything else besides national security. In this day and age I am sure there are not enough linguists and/or intercept operators to be concerned about casual communications between non-threatening entities."

First, this administration has clearly put national security behind their own political power, and paying off their cronies. Second, 'non-threatening entities' would, in the mind of this administration, definitely not include politician or journalists who don't tow the administration's line.

Posted by: Barry at December 25, 2005 10:13 PM

Doggone it, can't believe I missed this thread - I've been coming here since the story broke I have more of a procedural question than a legal or technical question and if one of you sees it and can answer, I'd sure appreciate it.

Was married to a SigInt guy for a long time and my extremely limited understanding tells me large catches of data are gathered, subsequently further electronically sifted - but at tsome point, doesn't an analyst have to look at the data ?

a crudely cobbled question, but I am going to reserve judgement on legalities until I have an understanding of just how this works.

I certainly don't agree with everyone's politics, but really enjoyed reading these comments - I think the public debate would be much better informed with a lot less pundit and a little more tech.

Posted by: lois lame at December 22, 2005 08:51 PM

I have not had the opportunity to serve in the capacities as others in this thread, but I am a good observer and better-than-average analyst.

(1) Yes, this country has a right and an obligation to protect its own interests... just like its peers. Use of covert technologies is not new or specific to the US. There are very few countries in the world today that do not collect on there own people. That is the state of current affairs, whether politically, socially, or militarily related.

(2)I would not attribute the move down the path of self-observation solely to the current administration. For years we have been heading down this path in one manner or another. It is inevitable when we select self-serving professional politicians over dedicated (though imperfect) citizen-leaders. Is not ironic that most of our elected officials today have business and/or legal degrees, and fewer each year have served in our Armed Forces (aside from the controversy of the last presidential election)? It is only recently that the conditions have been set to support such a sweeping movement in contradiction to individual liberties. Many less-known trades were certainly made during previous administrations with less cause than our current struggles with terrorism.

(3)As for the apparent "historians" commenting on this issue. There was never a "golden age of political virtue" in this country, particularly when it was founded. It was and is about markets and economy. The US is great, but romanticising things is not accurate or useful.

(4) The pressure for such measures comes from the public themselves. Everyone wants to be secure 100% of the time. Most are willing to accept that this is not feasable, and some incidents will happen...as long as it is not in their neighborhood. Most are conversely willing to accept a trade/sacrifice of liberties for safety and security...as long as it is not theirs. The US has collectively produced an environment of stress/fear and a faulty expectation of security with standards that far outstrip reasonable capabiities without resorting to extraordinary (and likely illegal) measures.

Let's get one thing straight, I do not agree with the internal evesdropping outside of the established procedures and protocols; but, I do understand where it comes from and its utility given the current state of affairs. It is a "slippery slope" and many historically catastrophic events started out with good intentions.

Posted by: TEch05 at December 22, 2005 05:55 PM

Having formerly been employed by the United States Air Force/National Security Agency as an intercept operator I cannot imagine how anyone would care or have the time to monitor routine telephone or e-mail conversations between US citizens not somehow tagged as potential security threats. There is too much information to be concerned about anything else besides national security. In this day and age I am sure there are not enough linguists and/or intercept operators to be concerned about casual communications between non-threatening entities.

Posted by: Airlee Owens at December 22, 2005 05:34 PM

I am surprised at the comments of those that are so upset over the issue, especially the expletive heavy thread. I have 20+ yrs as a "spook", and I reserve my judgement until more info is available. I don't believe any laws were violated. If it led to even one arrest or thwarted terrorist incident, then it was worth it.

Contrary to some of the other points of view, the agency has always had the ability to intercept domestic targets, but it had to be approved by the Atty Gen (or competent authority). It appears the President has the authority. If the finger wagging were not so politically biased, I could understand the debate, but instead I am angered by a seemingly endless agenda to throw mud.
We are at WAR, and I am know the SI-system well enough to know that anything not terrorist related will be dropped/shelved. The operation was/is threat specific, and normal citizens having normal conversations will not trigger the "threat threshold".

At most, I am surprised that the president did not cover the legalities by getting the Atty Gen's signature, which would have been much easier than digging out of another lame-duck attack by his opposition.

Posted by: Cam at December 22, 2005 04:02 PM

After reading all 81 posts here I have to say that opinions are just that, but for those who don't like what the hell is going on in the US and the ability of our government to what they please then move. Go live someplace that does things like you want it. To often in AMERICA we let the few tell the many what is going to happen. It happens everyday in every way, from politics to religion, race and sexuality, the few or minority tell the many or majority what should be or how it should be. The great thing about this country is that the minority has that option to have that opinion. If the majority were smart they would start acting like the majority and quit sitting waiting for someone else to stand up for them.

Posted by: jaseyler at December 22, 2005 03:59 PM

It is another folly to believe that the Bush Administration did not know they were breaking the law. This administration is hell bent on making the common American Citizen just another dollar to be made on. Watch, later, Bush is going to say it was bad Intelligence that said he could spy on Americans. The Cheney Administration is also hell bent on making sure that no one, that is no one, is in charge, except his administration. How much more will America take of these two liars. Republicans, I now know how much you hated the Clinton Administration, because I hate yours even more. It is time to look at Impeachment of these two liars and the great Industries they represent. Our Constitution is torn to bits under these two power hungry liars.

Posted by: Tom Maloy at December 22, 2005 03:38 PM

While in the US Army, I operated in two military specialties, 971AH and 972A, and worked in America, Europe, behind the Iron Curtain, and Asia. I did not care about anyone’s personnel data and to this day I can not remember any of the subject names although I can remember some of the facts of each case. I went wherever the trail of evidence lead, wrote the reports, forgot the names, and went on to the next case. I never meet an agent who took any joy in this work other than serving his fellow citizens.

Posted by: harry wood at December 22, 2005 02:30 PM

The goverment is spying on you.
This is the big news?
Do you thought they ever stoped since we first heard it in the 70s?
Same difference. :P
No one hear said anything about the inocent people that are held in Gitmo and other secret prisons around world where they are tortured, abused.
Is the freedom of an american more important than the freedom of any german, french, russian, mongolian, etc?
You agree that other nationalities, citizen of other countries should be spyed by the NSA, CIA or other organization as long as the person is not american?

Posted by: Rovas at December 22, 2005 02:12 PM

If you don't have anything to hide and you are not doing anything illegal what the hell do you care if someone listened to you cell phone conversation.

Jack, there are a number of first principles that underly our Constitution and which form the foundation of our democracy. Your proposed rule, "The government should have its finger (or ear) in everything I do, because that might help it catch mean people" is not one of them. "Don't Tread on Me" may have been a slogan used to rally the colonists against the Brits, but it might equally have served as a motto for the drafters of the Constitution.

Those men understood that governments are composed of men, and that men covet power. To that end, they created a document that limited the power of our government and the men that fill it, either by creating countervailing powers or by explicitly prohibiting certain actions by the government. Thus, we have a Constitution that includes things like the 4th Amendment which provides:

"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."

There's an explicit prohibition against certain government acts. Sure, its inconvenient if you're a police officer or an intelligence agent, but I don't particularly care. These protections are all that stand between us and an overbearing, monolithic and potentially tyrannical government. I don't trust a couple of thousand angry Islamic fundamentalists, but I don't trust the politicians who run this country either. And in the big picture, it's the politicians and their will to power that threaten my liberty more.

So yeah, I'm not doing anything illegal. That doesn't mean I want some nanny-state a-hole at the NSA or FBI prying into my every affair. And even if they aren't now, give the President carte blanche and they will be soon.

Posted by: Everett Volk at December 22, 2005 01:49 PM

Damn straight beezer! I like the idea of pre-emptive strikes against potential wrong doers hiding behind the unnecessary obstruction we call Amendments 1-10. For example, I read that upwards of 40,000 people a year are killed with firearms. That's a lot of people!

The Constitution ain't a suicide pact, and we shouldn't let it stand in the way of our public welfare! All those potential death-dealers out there hiding behind the 2nd Amendment should be dealt with immediately. Collect all the guns and protect all the lives, that's what I say. Yeah, we might take a few guns from innocent people, but that fact is mitigated by the additional fact that we will take guns away from criminals too.

Perhaps we should contact Pres. Bush about this....

Posted by: Everett Volk at December 22, 2005 01:33 PM

It seems that Generals and many in Congress always seem to be fighting “the last war” read that as previous war. The war we are fighting today is not against an organized army as specified in the Geneva Convention. Today’s war is against foreign and domestic terrorist. These people are dedicated to the destruction of all that we are.

Their intent is to turn the world into an absolute Taliban state. If you do not wish to live in a terror controlled state, but you don’t like what the government is doing today, then I strongly suggest that you promote your own plan to stay free. Of course, that means you would have to devise a plan rather that just complain about the one we have.

Most appropriate is the saying, if you can lead then lead otherwise follow or just get out of the way.

The law gives our spooks 15 days to monitor a phone number to determine if the number is linked to foreign organizations. If an organization is found to be linked to a foreign location, that phone number can and should be monitored forever.

It is just not possible for our spooks to monitor phones that are not productive. They don’t have the technology and if they could get it, they don’t have the manpower to analyze it. Non-productive numbers must be dropped for that reason alone.

The part of the Patriot act I am worried about, and have ask my Congressmen to rewrite is the part giving the FBI authority to data base gun owners records. There are still far to many anti-gun types in high government places to allow them to collect that data. Registration leads to confiscation – and you can bet your last dollar that most Democrats are anti-gun, the Florida Democrat Senator certainly is.

There are domestic PETA types that already meet the definition of terrorist, and should be monitored constantly. The FBI considers ALF among America's most active and prolific terrorist groups. They have already cost people many millions of dollars in destroyed property, and threatened peoples lives. These are people that would turn the US into a fourth world economy – you’ve seen the squalor in Mexico, that is not the way I want to live.

Posted by: Ed at December 22, 2005 01:13 PM

Old man, first elint in B-50s; humint assets and support transported in B-26s & C-47s. We are at war no matter what some of the congressional pussies say. Why should our system of laws set us up for suicide? So many wrong doers are hiding behind the bill of rights that it must be uncomfortably crowded.

Posted by: beezer at December 22, 2005 12:57 PM

I don't have a problem with the NSA gathering or hunting for information. My question is, What are they going to do with it?

I heard about an arab fellow in a flight school in Minnesota who was insistent on learning to operate this particular aircraft. Did not want to know how to take it off or land it. Damn! Even pre9/11, that should have rung somebody's bells! It didn't. Why wasn't that guy thoroughly interogated? Who made that decision? Is that person still in a position to do something just as stupid?

So somebody has all this information, whoopee. I don't get a ticket everytime I violate the speed limit. What is the big deal? Somebody may/may not be violating rights I didn't know I had. Who cares? On the other hand, if there actually are terrorist cells operating secretly in the land, somebody ought to be hunting them out and destroying them. Since they operate in secret, they ought to be destroyed in secret. With all this secrecy going on, it's inevitable that sometime, somewhere, somebody's rights are going to be trashed. I'd rather have someone apologize to ME for violating MY rights than have them apologize to my next of kin for not protecting me.

Posted by: R. Douglas McCrea at December 22, 2005 11:21 AM

If you don't have anything to hide and you are not doing anything illegal what the hell do you care if someone listened to you cell phone conversation. Does it really matter that someone heard that you were going to stop at teh store to get a gallon of milk.

Posted by: jack at December 22, 2005 10:34 AM

As prior A.F. stationed at Ft. Meade for a period of time (before people knew what the N.S.A. was), I have too agree with the comments made in this article. I can honestly say, even as vulgar as the language used, that those comments were almost verbatim to the indoctrin that we were given at the time. Granted, time has passed and we are expected to be more mindful of our peers (no second hand smoke, no sexual harassment, and don't say "Merry Christmas"). However, if we were given this order at that time it would be followed as directed because that would be our job. The question ultimately would be, "Would this power be abused or misused?" The answer, I can assure you, is NO. We did not then and I would say they do not now and they won't in the future. I loved my job, took pride in my work, and played by the rules given as did my fellow workers. So, whether or not this passes, I would not be worried that my cell phone conversation with my wife over what groceries to get on the way home will be used in a plot against me by the government any time in the future.

Posted by: Phathom30 at December 22, 2005 09:30 AM

Domestic wiretapping is legal without a warrant when conducted by the federal government for foreign intelligence purposes. Let's begin there. President Bush has not broken any law or betrayed any trust in doing so. Every President since Lincoln has intercepted communications believed to be involving foreign intelligence services or terrorists. Sources for you are Article 2 of the Constitution and Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan. Further, you should recognize that stories suggesting that the NSA has been used to listen to PETA or gay activists or calls that are exclusively domestic are pure bunk. You must recognize that there are people out there who are vested in misinforming you, and there are also people out there who are unduly paranoid. I see a lot of paranoia on this blog. I mean really - you think the NSA has an interest in helping Motorola and Haliburton unfairly target their competitors? Do you really think the NSA is tapping your computer? Oh, and you actually believe that somehow Bush and Osama bin Laden are old friends? Give me a break, take your medication and grow up.

Posted by: Former CI Guy at December 22, 2005 09:11 AM

My concern about this whole gathering on U.S. persons is simple. Federal law SPECIFICALLY says that U.S. SIGINT elements will not collect against U.S. persons. The authority the Administration is claiming authorized this simply said "all means necessary". I never realized that "all means necessary" included violating U.S. Code, Statutes, and Laws. For those wondering my credibility on this... 19 years in the SIGINT business, with a portion of that involved in writing directives, that had the force of law, authorizing and limiting SIGINT activities with regards to U.S. persons.

Posted by: mlm at December 22, 2005 09:08 AM

In medicine, it is known as informed consent. If the medical authority does not present ALL the pertenant information they are liable, and should be punished.
Should the president of the United States be held to a lesser standard when it comes to violations of the US CONSTITUTION?

Posted by: Bob at December 22, 2005 09:01 AM

In all of the comments on the NSA domestic signal intercept activity, I have seen no suggestions from anyone who read the 911 Commission Report describe what measures they would implement to prevent the terrorist teams currently on the US from planning their attacks, as they had prior to 911, according to the report. The media,et al, always accuse us of re-fighting the last war. No one has even suggested how we should have fought the terrorists who planned the attack within the US boundaries. If anyone has a way to find the cells operating in the US that does not involve gathering sigint data on people communicating with terrorists overseas, post it. The NSA has gone down paths that led to dead ends, or to just plain good citizens. As a result of these actions, they are being accused of spying on innocent US citizens. For those who have joined the "Attack NSA" band wagon, I would ask you to provide the a priori knowledge the NSA needs to know which links lead to deadends and which lead to other members of a terrorist cell?

The Congress in their role of advise and consent directed the President to take all measures needed to prevent future attacks like 911. He is doing just that. The FBI and CIA need to know where the terrorist cells are in the US and what they are doing in order to prevent them from intiating another attack. I would like to hear how they can do this without gathering sigint on the cells.

Perhaps the President should issue an executive order that all terrorist must register with the FBI and authorize the intercept of all of their phone and email traffic. Then when the next terrorist strike occurs, the President can point to his executive order and say: "The terrorists broke the law, and your government did everything in our power to protect you, now get off my back."

Posted by: Ed Mills at December 22, 2005 08:27 AM

To say the least your comments on the issue is very unprofessional. I am not surprise of the languages that are so freely used in these days are demonic in nature. You should be ashame of yourself.

Posted by: Orlando Harris at December 22, 2005 08:20 AM

To say the least your comments on the issue is very unprofessional. I am not surprise of the languages that are so freely used in these days are demonic in nature. You should be ashame of yourself.

Posted by: Orlando Harris at December 22, 2005 08:19 AM

You're scarin' me. Especially Pete who just thinks this is partisan clap-trap and John who thinks the world is divided cleanly into good guys and bad guys. (Are you ten?)
Domestic spying chills dissent. If even one less person shows up for a protest or writes a letter, it's had that effect. And if you think there is never room or need to object to government or corporate action in our Country, I think you should get out from behind your computer more. Coco

Posted by: Coco at December 22, 2005 08:01 AM

The copy, and collection, of US persons has always been a taboo subject. I have 24 years of SIGINT experience and the intentional collection of US persons, or companies, data is verboten.

This is just another example of the BushHaters grasping at anything available to make a point. Please take a moment to read the following:

http://cryptome.org/ussid18-guide.htm

Posted by: Milo at December 22, 2005 07:45 AM

Terrorism has been around long before 9/11 just look at history. Other countries have dealt with it for years and years. To think that it can be destroyed completely is wishful thinking. We can't even get rid of our gangs, child porn, etc.
The real question is "How much of our personal freedom are we willing to give up?"
If we allow this, what will be next?

Posted by: dainac at December 22, 2005 07:35 AM

If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you care if they check on you? What ever it takes to get rid of the bad guys. DO IT!

Posted by: John Martin at December 22, 2005 07:06 AM

Basically after the 9/11, there was a discussion on domestic spying on the people to target, or identify potential Al-Queda operatives. But seriously folks, it would not matter who would have been President to sign in this domestic spying.

The best way to end this terrorist crap is to arm every man, and woman over the age of 18, and declare open season on Al-Queda, et al.

All I know now is we finally have it. But I tend to wonder who is running scared. But what label do we name it? KGB, or Gestapo. It was bound to happen anyway.

Next, we will have the Ausweis. A domestic ID Card. Whenever a person wishes to move to another city, they need to register their new residence with der standesamt. Hallo Germany, et al.

So, if you think sex offenders are required to register wherever they go, think about the ordinary citizen who will also be required to register wherever they go. The only difference is that the sex offenders are the criminals, and the ordinary citizen is not - or are they?

Think about it.

Posted by: Lloyd Becker at December 22, 2005 02:37 AM

Good Morning Folks,

With all the response both supporting and not supporting President Bush one thing seems to stand out, I couldn't find anyone supporting the reason that President Bush gave for what he did.

It appears that the notion that anything so far exposed regarding the NSA or how it goes about doing what it does has given any aid and comfort to al Qarea or any other terrotists.

The readers of this blog seem to grasp the notion that we are dealing with a sophisticated foe that is as versed in EW as the United States is and that the margin of difference the U.S. has is rather thin.

It would seem to me policicaly at least that it might be more in President Bush's interest to make know some of our success that this information has provided to the United States.

I'm now even remotely suggesting that all NAS activities be made public but many of the so called "Classified Events" are pretty general knowledge among those who chose to follow the events of the GWOT. I think in the long run this would assure the American people that we are prosecuting a vigorous war against the terrorists.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at December 21, 2005 02:25 PM

The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)
http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=a6da2e05-c808-4f7e-9ab2-3d2a01a82a15
Here's why: the dynamic of a typical Bush scandal follows familiar contours...
1. POTUS circumvents the law - an impeachable offense.
2. The story breaks (in this case after having been concealed by a news organization until well after Election 2004).
3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.
4. Rightwing attack dogs on talk radio, blogs, cable nets, and conservative editorial pages maul Bush's critics as traitors for questioning the CIC.
5. The Republican leadership plays defense for Bush, no matter how flagrant the Bush over-reach, no matter how damaging the administration's actions to America's reputation and to the Constitution. A few 'mavericks' like Hagel or Specter risk the inevitable rightwing backlash and meekly suggest that the president should obey the law. John McCain, always the Bush apologist when it really comes down to it, minimizes the scandal.
6. Left-leaning bloggers and online activists go ballistic, expressing their all-too-familiar combination of outrage at Bush and frustration that nothing ever seems to happen with these scandals. Several newspaper editorials echo these sentiments but quickly move on to other issues.
7. A few reliable Dems, Conyers, Boxer, et al, take a stand on principle, giving momentary hope to the progressive grassroots/netroots community. The rest of the Dem leadership is temporarily outraged (adding to that hope), but is chronically incapable of maintaining the sense of high indignation and focus required to reach critical mass and create a wholesale shift in public opinion. For example, just as this mother of all scandals hits Washington, Democrats are still putting out press releases on Iraq, ANWR and a range of other topics, diluting the story and signaling that they have little intention of following through. This allows Bush to use his three favorite weapons: time, America's political apathy, and make-believe 'journalists' who yuck it up with him and ask fluff questions at his frat-boy pressers.
8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.
9. Polls will emerge with 'proof' that half the public agrees that Bush should have the right to "protect Americans against terrorists." Again, the issue will be framed to mask the true nature of the malfeasance. The media will use these polls to create a self-fulfilling loop and convince the public that it isn't that bad after all. The president breaks the law. Life goes on.
10. The story starts blending into a long string of administration scandals, and through skillful use of scandal fatigue, Bush weathers the storm and moves on, further demoralizing his opponents and cementing the press narrative about his 'resolve' and toughness. Congressional hearings might revive the issue momentarily, and bloggers will hammer away at it, but the initial hype is all the Democrat leadership and the media can muster, and anyway, it's never as juicy the second time around...
Rinse and repeat.
It's a battle of attrition that Bush and his team have mastered. Short of a major Dem initiative to alter the cycle, to throw a wrench into the system, to go after the media institutionally, this cycle will continue for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: crusader bunnypants at December 21, 2005 01:12 PM

For you kool-aid drinkers, this isn't about how the data is used, it's about the Exec Branch avoiding Constitutional Checks and Balances. The FISA is clear, and Am 4 to the Constitution is clear. We are to be secure from Government intrusion unless there is a warrant. And as has been pointed out, the VAST majority of FISA requests are approved - over 99.9% approval rate.

And if you think this is only about Bush bashing, tell us who the next pres will be, and the one after that, etc., because THEY will be exploiting your compliance with these abuses.

So next election, when it's (unknown candidate you despise), remember that you support their "right" to do whatever they want, Bill of Rights be damned. By Executive Order, you have accepted that the Government can come take away your arms and lock you up without charge, lawyer or trial (since your a Southern Baptist, and some of them blow up buildings in the USA).

See you around the Gulag.

Posted by: Truly Bob at December 21, 2005 11:25 AM

Sorry that is 'Soccerhead' not as I misspelled it.

But good grief man - you could have it more wrong. Check yourself who is blocking or refusing to fund the checks of shipping containers - you'll be suprised my friend.

From the Senator's web site:

"In response to the September 11th attacks, Senator Boxer authored a bill to protect commercial airliners against attacks by shoulder-fired missiles, and she wrote the law allowing airline pilots with special training to carry guns in the cockpit. She wrote the law to ensure that air marshals would be on board high-risk flights, and she continues to press for implementation of this measure to make the skies as secure as they can be. She has also authored legislation on port security, rail security, and providing assistance to first responders."

Posted by: Allen at December 21, 2005 11:19 AM

SOCCARHEAD: Please inform yourself by doing some reading. You stated: " if the container ships blew up in the port of los angles ; barbara boxer would not be bitching for an impeachment. bahhha . . ."

The facts are different than your understanding. See below from:
How to Keep Osama From Coming Down the Chimney
HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. / Wall Street Journal 1dec04

"Yet champions as diverse as Republican Senators John McCain and Susan Collins and Democrats Barbara Boxer and Joe Lieberman want a crackdown on container shipping. Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander, has testified repeatedly about gaping holes in maritime security, while credible alarmists like Graham Allison, formerly of the Clinton Pentagon, lay 50-50 odds that a terrorist nuke will go off in the next 10 years (a bet we might be willing to take if allowed to exclude the chance of a Chechen bomb vaporizing Moscow)."

Posted by: Allen at December 21, 2005 11:12 AM

while we sleep the enemy is plotting your demise. the wolves, the sociopaths, the psychopaths and the sound minded enemies test our security boundaries. the sheep stand in the way of the security; until they get scared of their realised plotters and attackers. Way before 9/11 ; NSA begged to upgrade their communications to meet or outpace the enemies of America. in 1994 , the washington dc navy yard telecom centre disposed of human employees. what a carnival ! what a waste of government trained security clearance personnel. they shoved us out of the door for some imagined budget problem ; they created themselves... with their realignment, blah , blah, blah... The NSA could ve used us. i used to sit in the Irish Pizza Pub near fort meade md and not talk to the NSA people because you knew not to talk business outside of business. every senator in America should be a veteran. it should be a prerecquisite to run for congress ; that the candidate be a veteran. my friend for about 8 yrs in dc showed me the dark side of evil. its real and beyond what people might think. horrified virgins of denial would classify you as certifiable cracked. they would even try to hurt you for the warnings. there are maybe a good 10 15 20 yrs left in us and we will be dead and you don't even have to pay retirement nor the social security. if the container ships blew up in the port of los angles ; barbara boxer would not be bitching for an impeachment. bahhha , here s your sword. we can be our own worst enemy.

Posted by: soccerhead at December 21, 2005 08:59 AM

Could this new technology include super duper voice recognition tech?

Or does that already exist (I recollect Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger for instance)

Suppose Habib gets a call from a watched phone in Karachi-goes to corner pay phone and calls pre-arranged pay phone in Karachi to continue chat.
NSA turns echelon loose on the twenty or thirty exchanges in the five mile radius of the first call, drop everything in hopper, sweep for Habib's voice. Nimble, soft trigger, what have you?

Posted by: Perigord of Paris at December 21, 2005 03:43 AM

USAF Security Service, analyst, 1971-1975.

Think of what the Bush White House did in the way of surveillance as a "chain letter": one person sends a message to another person and asks that person to pass it on to ten more people with the same request of the ten other people to each pass it on to another ten people, and so forth. Thus, the expansion of the message is exponential.

So, our ground forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 ran across computers at Al Qaeda training sites, let's say, and found telephone numbers or names or both, of potential terrorists either overseas or inside the United States. The monitoring began. And whenever one of the suspects called someone else, whether overseas, inside the United States, or between the U.S. and someplace overseas, this caused the monitoring of all people concerned to expand exponentially.

Let's say a suspect called his dentist for an appointment. The dentist would automatically be placed on the expanding list. And then the dentist called someone else. That person would then be on the list. Etcetera. Etcetera.

In other words, what I believe happened was an explosion in data collection by our intelligence agencies after 9/11 (both internally and overseas), probably with some help from private contractors or businesses also involved in data collection.

This, however, does not excuse the Bush administration and their not following the guidelines of FISA mandated by law.

Supposedly, they informed the chief judge on the FISA court, but none of the rest of the FISA judges. (One reason I believe Judge Robertson just resigned in protest). And yet, the Bush administration blew off the FISA requirement that timely surveillance started without a warrant authorizing such surveillance MUST be reported to the FISA court in a timely fashion, within 72 hours so an after-the-fact warrant can be considered, and either approved or rejected.

If the Bush administration didn't like the 72-hour requirement, then they should have gone to Congress and asked that FISA be amended to allow for more time.

If the Bush administration didn't feel that the FISA court could handle the increased caseload at current staffing levels, then they could have, once again, gone to Congress and asked that the FISA court be expanded.

The Bush administration did neither of these two things. They broke the law instead. And just as in the case of the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill, the Bush adminstration only told (it's reported) a single judge on the FISA court that they were bypassing FISA per executive order.

In other words, the Bush administration blew off the judicial review of the FISA court concerning countless warrantless surveillance activities and established their own in-house "judicial review" apparatus instead.

And the chief judge on the FISA court agreed with this (apparently), and chose not to go to the Supreme Court (presumably) and tell them that the Bush administration was breaking the law.

This is why I call all the people behind this the Rogue Elephant branch of the Republican Party. A Rogue Elephant that is trampling our Constitutional rights and pulling one sneaky, secretive stunt after another. And undermining our democracy...at the same time they are claiming to be upholding and defending our democracy.

But I don't give a damn what they claim as justification for their lawless behavior!!!

Do you??

Posted by: The Oracle at December 21, 2005 03:24 AM

rehaired provides a link that kills his nonsense. How about focus you bastard. huh?! Are you unable or UNWILLING? I love R's and they have to play the fucking shell-game or else.

Posted by: wowywoy at December 21, 2005 01:59 AM

Got a DELL computer?

Key logging hardware found in new Dell computer
According to the poster of this link, when he contacted Dell they gave him a scripted "talk-off" and directed him to the Department of Homeland Security with any questions. DHS told him to file a FOIA request, which he did, but the requested information was deemed "exempt" from FOIA requirements!

http://c0x2.de/lol/lol.html

>A former sigint type -- who also talked to Ryan, >apparently -- suggests a different technological >approach: the NSA "may have compromised a >hardware manufacturer -- say Motorola or a >satellite phone manufacturer, a telecom carrier >or a satellite(s)."

Posted by: rehaired at December 21, 2005 01:12 AM

the preznit already lied about getting court approval. Is this worse than a BJ?! YES. The preznit said he was, is and will continue to destroy the laws of the land. IS this worse than a BJ?! YES! Unless your a small-dick little right wing prick who cares more for your party than YOUR country. This is sick and twisted and beyond my comprehension. How far up your ass do these guys dicks need to be before you realize they're fucking you?!

Posted by: wowywoy at December 21, 2005 12:24 AM

Well I have it down to:
Kevin Bacon was interviewd by Bob Costas
Bob Costas interviewed Peter Arnett
Peter Arnett interviewed Osama

Posted by: footloose at December 21, 2005 12:13 AM

(1) what the nsa did was NOT wiretap.

(2) and if a call is made from a cellphone in iraq to a cellphone in ny, how would the nsa know who was on the line in ny (and whether or not he/she is an USA citizen) UNLESS they intercepted it!?!?!?!?!/!?

sheesh.

Posted by: reliapundit at December 20, 2005 11:48 PM

the info from these intercepts were NEVER intended for use in a court of law.

the inof was inteded for use by the cia and military for black ops: renditions and assassinations by drones/missiles.

the time involved for the intercepts was just hours from the time that surveillable targets were gained by capturing forteing agents and/or their equipment.

nsa received blanket permission to intercept calls from numbers/accounts idscovered and the usa IN ORDER TO POREVENT ATTACKS IN TNE USA, and to ascertain location of callers (who were NOT in the USA).

these callers wouod be targeted for either capture and rendition or assassination.

using a fisa judge for this would NOT be correct, as this intle was not for judicial action by DOJ, but matial actionm by DoD or CIA or other military branch.

that's why the president's constitutional powers - as CinC are most apt.

Posted by: reliapundit at December 20, 2005 11:41 PM

"I just love the outrage that the NSA might actually be listening to US citizens. I suppose that this thing is just a laundromat."

Why even spy then? Just bomb the place and we'll find out. Right?

Posted by: ZaBlanc at December 20, 2005 11:24 PM

"I think killing over 100,000 Iraqis with "smart" bombs is terrorism"

I think anybody who believes that smart bombs killed over 100,000 Iraqis is an idiot.

Posted by: smarter than bunnypants at December 20, 2005 10:59 PM

I just love the outrage that the NSA might actually be listening to US citizens. I suppose that this thing is just a laundromat.

http://www.iptvreports.mcmail.com/sugar_grove.jpg

Posted by: arch.stanton at December 20, 2005 09:29 PM

Good grief, I was told there was an intelligent discussion of the NSA issue going on in this thread. Boy was I misled!

I'm outta here...

Posted by: Kilo Echo 4 at December 20, 2005 09:26 PM

Good grief. I was told there was an intelligent discussion on the NSA issue going on in this thread. Boy was I misled.

I'm outta here...

Posted by: Kilo Echo 4 at December 20, 2005 09:25 PM

Have you ever seen a terrorist? There is no Global theat from Radical Islamic Rejectionists and Saddamists. Isn't it possible that not all terrorist attacks are what they seem? I think killing over 100,000 Iraqis with "smart" bombs is terrorism, call me a terrorist.

I read all these letters to the editor with the GOP talking points about WW2 and how this is Dubya Dubya Three, so we don't have to live in an Islamic Empire. WTF? I think the entire US Government and its Corporate State Media should be tarred and feathered for their war crimes and treason.

Posted by: crusader bunnypants at December 20, 2005 07:51 PM

"In the spring of 2001, NSA began to change direction in its counter-terrorism targeting under Lt. Gen. Hayden"

There have been diffrences of opinion about the NSA and its views on domestic targeting in general and FISA in perticular for longer than that.

Porter Goss has had strong opinion on the subject for a while now (WaPo Saturday, November 13, 1999; Page A03): "Indeed, the NSA's troubles in Congress began this spring when Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asked the agency for internal documents about its compliance with FISA because he thought NSA lawyers were too cautious in approving new surveillance programs. When the agency declined his request on grounds of attorney-client privilege, Goss erupted, saying the committee had never been stonewalled in such fashion. Barr immediately joined the dispute from the opposite flank, suggesting that the NSA had refused Goss's request because it was violating Americans' privacy by indiscriminately vacuuming up communications."

http://jya.com/nsa-clash.htm Statements by Porter Goss May 7, 1999 (Contains many "open goverment" arguments on this topic ;-) )

Also signs of conflict have been public for a while.

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/bamford-fisc.htm An August 27 2002 editorial by James Bamford (Who I assume everyone knows) entitled "Washington Bends the Rules" about a rare (very rare) public opinion by the secretive FISA court. (available here http://cryptome.sabotage.org/fisa051702.htm)

This Editorial was in.... the New York Times, giving a hint on when they might have learned the first bits of this program. If they didn`t notice something was up here then the 2003 annual surveilance report (http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html) should have tipped them (or their source) of. It has a sudden increase of 500 aprovals, and for the first time in decades 4 rejected request. (Two of which where later approved in modified form)

Posted by: BE6-II at December 20, 2005 07:50 PM

C-Low said:
"I think the problem that seems to be with everyone apposed here is not the spying or any of that just the fact that they start from the Bushitler idealogy so everything instead of being judged on if it is valuable for our war effort on terrorism,is instead judged on how it could be abused worst case senerio by a mythical Bushitler thats real goal is Imperial insanity."

This is a ridiculous argument. There needs be no partisanship in this issue: the president broke the law and admitted it. This was done in a situation where it was not even necessary to break the law UNLESS THEY WANTED TO MONITOR PEOPLE FOR WHOM FISA COURT ORDERS WOULD BE DENIED. Given the ease with which FISA warrants are usually granted, it truly begs the question who it is they wanted to monitor so badly that they were willing to break the law. If it's a particular technology that they are using that FISA never considered and can't handle then it's time to change the law through proper channels, not just break it because you don't like it (like I do with speed limits). If the Bush Administration believed that the changes they wanted to FISA were unobtainable even through a GOP controlled Congress then my guess is those changes probably shouldn't have been made - this Congress has stopped at nothing to give Bush everything he's wanted.

I'm done.

Posted by: radical_moderate at December 20, 2005 07:48 PM

Of course in days of old GCHQ would just spy on the US citizen in question, thus circumventing FISA.

I'm guessing Poindexter would've been proud.

Posted by: Gridlock at December 20, 2005 07:33 PM

If the President is basically ripping up our Constitution himself, then what exactly are we fighting to protect? They don't need to bomb us again, they've got a partner on the inside of the White House...

Posted by: bml at December 20, 2005 07:27 PM

For the guy who says that the Preznit spyin' on folks is somehow necessary to national security: now, why is the Pentagon spying on gay groups? Are they fearing hairdressers of mass destruction? Interior decorators who wish to destroy America? Or is it just that they don't like anybody who objects to their policies, and don't care to get even a FISA warrant (which btw is basically rubber-stamped) because then the Senate and House Intelligence Committees would get a list of the targets at the end of the year -- and most of the targets are ordinary Americans who just happen to oppose Bush Administration policies?

C'mon, FISA warrants are a joke to get, even the roving ones. All you have to do, as an FBI agent, is state that it is a matter of national security that person X be monitored as a possible terror threat, and voila, it's just stamped. In the past two years there hasn't been a single FISA warrant rejected. And look, you have 72 hours to get one from the point of starting surveillance, so that crap about "well, we can't wait for a warrant" is just that -- crap. If you overhear Bin Laden say "look, get with our friend at the Gay Rights Coalition and get the weapons of mass destruction to him" -- you can immediately start monitoring the Gay Rights Coalition without a warrant for 72 hours. The only -- the *ONLY* -- reason I can think to *NOT* get a FISA warrant is if, in fact, you are monitoring political opponents rather than potential terrorists.

It's pathetic that people who got upset because of the Clinton "FBI Files" aren't even flinching at the probability that Bush is using the NSA and FBI to monitor political opponents in a far more pervasive way. Rights are rights -- whether it's a Clinton or a Bush as President. Once you set the precedent that monitoring Americans without a warrant is just fine and dandy, you've set the stage for a police state down the road... because if violating their rights in *that* way is fine and dandy, what about those *other* amendments, like the one about needing criminal charges before imprisoning someone? What's to prevent some future president from going further than just surveillance against political opponents, and instead just outright jailing them? Either rights are rights, or they ain't ****.

--- Badtux the Freedom-loving Penguin

Posted by: BadTux at December 20, 2005 06:26 PM

recidivist

Check the history books,,,, well thats the whole problem todays Dems are not the Roosevelt or even the Kennedy of that bygon era. Back then Dems of that stature instead of trying to push a conspiracy theory about how the pres was really a Nazi imperalist and the US was really a evil nation that somehow brought their enemies upon themselves with thier evil ways and should concentrate on how to make restitution instead of defeat a enemy, those Dems back then understood the difference between political enemies and enemies of the state, and even thou they disliked thier political enemies with a pasion when the enemies of the state came into play they stood together as americans and faught side by side and put the partisan crap to the side for another day and time.

Roosevelt did stuff and made mistakes in WW2 that today would have been unthinkable. Stuff from the major miscalculations of the early part of the part that cost US heavy in blood, to the hanging of sabutuer infiltrators in the states that by the way one was even a US citizen, to OSS operations that make todays CIA look like angels, to allowing field camanders to make military decisions like excuting out of uniform Nazi's behind the lines during battle of buldge, to hell man putting the Japaneese americans into concentration camps some of which were natural born citizens, and you want to talk about spying how about the spying that was perpatrated against the german and italian american groups including anarchist communist unions and a ton of other possible threats, making goverment deals with the Mob criminals to control and spy on the docks and other cladestint ops.

these dicisions didnt make Roosevelt the devil it just made him determined to win and win at the smallest cost to our side by using every possible advantage we had. The oposing party didnt try to spin this into a partisan advantage hell even pearl harbor investigation that generations 9-11 commitee was posponed until after the war. But that was a time when we were all americans, thier was no disagreement if america was good or not and no matter what race, politcal group, color, location, financial status, whatever, anyone who wared with america was a enemy of all of us and dealt with.

Posted by: C-Low at December 20, 2005 06:21 PM

If Osama has links to the Nigerians we are all minimally seperated.

Posted by: POD at December 20, 2005 05:55 PM

NIXON ON PRESIDENTIAL POWER
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
FROST: By definition.
NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Posted by: Steve J. at December 20, 2005 05:19 PM

How can America defend itself from terrorists, when all of its weapons are pointed at American citizens?

Posted by: Citizen X at December 20, 2005 05:12 PM

People 10 and 12 degrees from Osama and al Qaeda are being watched? Doesn't that include, um, all of us? Or is that only if the Feds are chasing Kevin Bacon?

The only thing that will keep this story from exploding is if the average American citizen continues to believe that the NSA is only spying on someone else, someone who "deserves it". We are all under surveillance, it's absolutely antithetical to America's founding concept of individual liberty, and that fact needs to be promulgated as widely and quickly as possible.

Posted by: ted at December 20, 2005 04:50 PM

...and the most fun aspect of all this is comtemplating what Hillary will do when(...if)she becomes CNC.

When you have FBI types interviewing college students about their interest in Mao's writings, and Homeland Security knuckledraggers asking TV location scouts about their photgraphic activities, it is past time for someone to cry "foul"...

Posted by: Tinfoil Gary at December 20, 2005 04:49 PM

I propose that all persons who think they have been monitored by the NSA under this program come forward and state their claim and why they believe they have been watched. Then have the Attorney General compare those people with those authorized by the President. Those who shouldn't have been included can then be notified and their names leaked to the NYTimes.

Posted by: AST at December 20, 2005 04:34 PM

Nameless Bob,

Who better to fight Osama than his boyhood pal Georgie?

I like your thinking!

Posted by: Stupid Git at December 20, 2005 04:24 PM

I think the problem that seems to be with everyone apposed here is not the spying or any of that just the fact that they start from the Bushitler idealogy so everything instead of being judged on if it is valuable for our war effort on terrorism,is instead judged on how it could be abused worst case senerio by a mythical Bushitler thats real goal is Imperial insanity.

I am sorry guys the Evil Bushitler idea is stupid, Bush only has 3 more years and if in the next election Bush tries to run again or like Puty change the constitution ban NGO's and such so he can then be emporer for life, I think all those evil conservatives, crazy gun nuts, backwards country folks, southerners who wear their religion and national pride on thier sleave, neo-cons warhawks, and of course the evil radical christians who are the real threat becuase they want to be able to say merry christmas in public, will all of the sudden be the ones that will do what has to be done to fix that problem. I wouldnt sweat it thou guys I think the worry of Bush growing a one finger mustache giving a nazi salute declaring himself ruler of the world and all the US pop who have generations of freedom in thier blood just fall in line and give a "hail Bushitler" salute is somewere between 0 and never not even in parareall universe 666 going to happen.

Lets concentrate on the real threat you know like the guys who claim all infedels must die, make announcements of how they want to destroy the big satan "US", and back that talk and writing up just in case you didnt believe it with action like thousands of dead US civilians or maybe the new Iranian pres who says Iran will have thier nuke industry, wipe Isreal off the map or move them to Europe, and even believes he has something to do with the 11th Mahdi (who by the way comes back in the end days to rain in Islamic justice on the whole world (something not to good for all of US infedels like you and me). Lets worry about the REAL CONFIRMED threats hear and now not the maybe, possibly, could be, I had a dream, crap.. Hell guys even Stalin could set aside his hatred for the British and the US to fight the Germans.

Posted by: C-Low at December 20, 2005 03:40 PM

Hi and thanks for the blog.

OT: could you please use the "Blog Link" for the NYT? I'm not a tech person, but I know eg Kevin Drum has blogged about it. I don't know what the issue is, but some blogs get me to the Times and some blogs don't.

There's a similar issue with the LAT, if you have to stop at sign-in page, you aren't directed to the article.

Thanks!

Posted by: anon at December 20, 2005 03:39 PM

I read a book called "Crossing the Rubicon," by Michael Ruppert. In the book, he discusses a software program called "PROMIS". It's basically a software program that has some sort of back door that allows PROMIS to control any other software it wants to interface to. Reporter Danny Casolaro had been following a huge network of crime that connected with a program named PROMIS created by a company named Inslaw. Inslaw executives claimed PROMIS had been stolen by the government, and they wanted recompense. While following this twisted story, Casolaro suddenly turned up "suicided". He had told friends if they were ever told he had committed suicide not to believe it, and to know he had been murdered. This is a very real, very large, very dark conspiracy which has been acknowledged, albeit quietly, by the mainstream media.

Here are a couple of links regarding this software for what its worth. Rupperts website has all sorts of stories and links about PROMIS.

www.fromthewilderness.com

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/052401_promis.html

and

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/conspiracies/inslaw.htm

Posted by: texas republican party refugee at December 20, 2005 03:25 PM

C-Low,

the line is short and the service is quick at your local recruiting office tuff guy.

the gutless dems voted for the stupid, unnecessary Iraq war by the way. and check your 20th C history books for some more gutless dems with no stomach for national defense. then check this list as well.

What any of this has to do with illegally spying on citizens of america though is beyond me.

Posted by: recidivist at December 20, 2005 03:23 PM

Degrees of Separation -- GW Bush and Osama

1. Bush is a long time friend and debtor to Osama's brother and other family members

Posted by: nameless bob at December 20, 2005 03:23 PM

Ten degrees from Osama? Good Lord! Due to the marraige of a cousin twice removed, I'm only two or three degrees away from Fidel Castro! There are probably millions of Americans who are within ten degrees of Osama, who like me and Castro, have nothing to do with him.

If the ten degrees claim is true, then the administration has drasticly over-reached!

Posted by: Goldfish at December 20, 2005 03:21 PM

Degrees of Separation -- GW Bush and Osama

1. Bush is a long time friend and debtor to Osama's brother and other family members

Posted by: nameless bob at December 20, 2005 03:20 PM

I've done a quick review of some of the arguments in Bush's defense in re NSA Warrantless Monitoring: None of them work to Bush's advantage. [More, at link under my name]

Posted by: Constant at December 20, 2005 03:08 PM

footloose wonders:

I would like to challenge anyone to a little 6 degrees of seperation from Osama to Kevin Bacon. I think I could do it in 4...

Watch what you say Mr. Bacon

OK, let's try it...

1) Kevin Bacon appeared in Oliver Stone's JFK with Tommie Lee Jones
2) Tommie Lee Jones was the Harvard roommate of Al Gore
3) At some point in their respective careers, Al Gore must have been interviewed by and/or met Robert Fisk
4) Robert Fisk met and interviewed Osama bin Laden

Step 3 is the only iffy one. It seems to me, though, that Fisk is just about the only Western source who can be directly associated with bin Laden.

Posted by: N in Seattle at December 20, 2005 03:03 PM

C-Low in his post at 2:04 PM identified John Kerry as a potential enemy of our state who needs to be watched.

The thing speaks for itself.

Posted by: sd at December 20, 2005 02:55 PM

There seems to be a lot of PETA bashing here. However, it seems to me that if the NSA was spying on NRA members, there would be a lot of pissed off people in the US.

I mean, if it is wrong for the feds to know what guns you own, why it is okay for them to know who you are talking to and about what?

The fact that they are spying on Americans without a warrant is a crime and unconstitutional.

No law can supercede the Constitution, not FISA, not the Patriot Act, nothing can. The fact that this has been going on since 9/11 and we are just finding out about it is even worse because it shows a deliberate pattern of deception and secrecy.

This isn't just Bush's fault, this is every American who had a hand in it. They had a duty to tell the rest of us little people that their own government was lying and spying. That they didn't, really makes me wonder why I should believe in this country any more.

Posted by: JiggleBilly at December 20, 2005 02:49 PM

One thing that I think may be causing some confusion is the technical fact that you cannot determine whether you have the legal authority to read a digital communication until after you have in fact read it.

Unlike, analog phone wires, there is no particular hardware attached to any particular digital communication. Digital communications are chopped up into individual packets each of which travels separately to its destination. The packets must be captured and analyzed before you can determine whether they belong to a particular communication or not.

I am given to understand that the NSA gets around this problem by deleting all information they are not supposed to have access to within 72 hours. The fact remains, however, that NSA has been routinely reading (and listening) to the international communications of US citizens for a couple of decades.

Posted by: Shannon Love at December 20, 2005 02:39 PM

I would like to challenge anyone to a little 6 degrees of seperation from Osama to Kevin Bacon. I think I could do it in 4...

Watch what you say Mr. Bacon

Posted by: footloose at December 20, 2005 02:28 PM

Would I be concerned if Hilary was doing this?

This kind of thing is exactley what scares the crap out of me when I think a Dem could be pres during this time, I dont think they would do it I think they would ask the lawyers and not take the risk and as a result people would die that didnt need to. I dont think they would have carried the WOT past Afghanistan, if we even would have done more than some air strikes and for damm sure I dont believe they would have thrown the dice to try to change status quo in the greater ME. I dont think they would have allowed the interrogations that like it or not are fruitfull or the unrestricted gloves off SOF moves all over the world some even in allied nations. I think 9-11 would have been nothing more than another attack some counter air strikes some warrants maybe a reward on some AQ leaders and then back to buisness as usual until the next attack. The reason AQ thought they could hit the big satan in thier house in the first place is they saw the US as a paper tiger that wasnt caused by Regan's war on communism, or Bush 1's war on Iraq. I wouldnt really call myself a Repub more of a small gov Libertarian but the Dems are just absolutley incapable of national security they just cant do those things that must be done at times, they cant stomach it.

War is hell two man enter one man leave on a national scale gruesome stuff is done and must be done that in normal life is wrong but in WAR is nessecary for victory and victory at less sacrifise on your side. Sacrifises must be made we must win this is not some football game were you can lose for bad sportsman ship this is WAR you either win or lose and a ugle win is a win and that means you live. Weakness and indecision cost blood and lots of it.

Posted by: C-Low at December 20, 2005 02:23 PM

Unfortunately, separating political commentary and analysis from defense/tech threads is impossible at this point. The Executive branch itself is responsible for politicizing the intellegence collection and analysis process by acting in this manner.

Although most readers of this site probably would agree that when general purpose political facades like Kristol opine on law, and/or intelligence matters, the results are almost always comical and inaccurate.

One point worth watching is what happens to the data collected. Beside the actual the set-up/targeting sequences. Is that data purged? Most likely not. Is it shared? With whom? Inside government? Outside? Co-mingled? What mechanisms are in place.

Most Americans (and even readers of this site like me) can and may be do lapse into a coma trying to follow the arcana of infosharing regulations, backdoors, etc. But the Devil is in the details.

Posted by: Leo Strauss at December 20, 2005 02:17 PM

PETA is to the terrorist group Animal Liberation Front (ALF) what Sinn Fein is to the IRA, the legal, political arm of a widespread criminal conspiracy. The FBI spied on PETA? I certainly hope so. People have been physically attacked and maimed by ALF terrorism.

Maybe. Maybe not. That's not the point. The point is that the President decided to engage in surveillance w/out congressional oversight or w/out seeking warrants, ever. If some agency determines that PETA is a threat, get warrants and monitor it. Otherwise, you're not only breaking the law, you're violating the constitution.

Posted by: Karl the Idiot at December 20, 2005 02:12 PM

TM Lutas: The point isn't as much *who* the FBI/NSA/DHS is spying on, it's why are they doing it without a warrant?

If PETA is really a public front to a terrorist group, then there should be no problem getting the requisite court-issued warrant for monitoring their communications.

Your comment is, unfortunately, totally devoid of merit. It's a simple attack on PETA without discussing any of the issues raised in this column.

Posted by: Nik at December 20, 2005 02:11 PM

Noah I like your site and the military stuff but you really should open a seperate site for the anti-gov anti-Bush stuff it really kills the site. That post article was a joke and the NYT's common how many hacks have they had to fire in the last couple years now.

This syping stuff I suspect is like the DARPA program looking for key words and mixed with the Able Danger stuff spider webbing known treats circle of influence. Both of those programs took alot of heat from the LLL's because they showed up on the hit list of names. Why well unfortunatley the LLL today have driven themselves knowinly or not into the circle of our enemies (by enemies not just Radical islam we are talking terrorist or potential terrorist groups in general). Example: Green Peace , ELF(known eco terrorist) is a radical offshoot so is it such a leap for the gov to spy on Green peace looking for the new radical ELF? Another Chatholic Workers Party: common man they are Communist a long time now enemy Communism well known to have multiple communist radicals terrorist all around the world hell man a corner stone of communism is Revolution, Kerry: he had talks back in the Vietnam war in France with N. Veitnameese quailifying him maybe it was long ago maybe he did change but unfortunatley you cant change the past maybe it was just someone he was with that met them either case a offshoot of that comingaling is being part of that circle of influence, Jessie Jackson: the other day I saw him giving a anti-war speech with body guard do you know were from? Farakan's boys Farakan is a radical Muslim who has a long history of supporting Muslim despots and anti-jew statements and of course the regular "white devil" crap, obvious threat that should be watched, and if Jackson hangs with them he should not complain about being monitored too unless he has something to hide., I believe also on the list was some Right leaning politicians for ties to some militia and even some racist groups, of course like the LLL's it was friend of friend of a friend stuff but dont mean those friends should not be monitored.

like my parents loved to say who you hang out with is part of how people judge you. Roll with pigs dont be mad when you get dirty.

I have been saying all along things like this is why the WOT and ALL of its phases plus the ones to come should be supported by all on both sides. The small loses (historicaly speaking) in the WOT is more than sustanable and nothing compared to the alternative. Terrorism is nearly impossible to stop in a free society the more the LLL's force us into a defensive role the more draconian our laws will have to be to protect us unless you are prepared to accept a increasing sacrifice to terrorism with no end but capitulation or absolute death and conquest. My fear is we instead of sucking up the losses and fighting the war over there whatever the cost of driving the terrorist and Radical Islamist down and empowering the good Muslims to check thier own radicals we lose our stomach go with the LLL point of view and every attack we tighten our laws to the point of were to go see gradma for cristmas you need a permit and you go through 5 check points. People should be looking at Iraq and not saying ohhh what a disaster look at what they are dealing with and think thank god its not hear.

These simple spying on phone calls and such spider webbing circle of influence of our enemies are not all that bad and personally I think keeping this ability only in the NSA rather than the FBI is good it will keep the abuse down. The FBI has alot of other uses domestic that this ability would go well with the NSA on the other hand has no domestic agenda short of National security which means less abuse. And the FISA crap wont work enmass and plus when it comes to terrorism time is of the escense if a US citizen cell gets activated with a phone call from Pakistan who like a good mole has been staying honest his whole stay here so far not going to the Mosque staying lo-key do you really think it would be better to wait for him to slip up so we can tap his phone and find out who his lower soldgiers are, woops well missed that window he called them right after the first phone call too bad I guess that vacation to NY may be interesting just hope its your mom not mine good buddy after all we must not damage his civil rights no matter what the cost.

And guys the China comparison dont fly China, some chineese guy who is critizining the gov or passing on secret meeting about Democracy is not a threat to innocent chineese civilians whearas on the other hand some Radical muslim or even a radical racist passing the recipe for "devils fire" that guy is a threat big time and should be monitor by all means and if that means if he happens to use my phone or I know someone who knows someone who knows his brother I get monitored too for awhile whatever, cause when he kills my Mom at the mall for terrorism some retribution is going to be in order big time, and if the gov could have stopped it and didnt becuase of a legal loophole I gonna be pissed.

I do beleive however that this monitoring should be ONLY terrorist related and no other criminal stuff. The laws are already thier to keep this safe too by an illegal search is inadmissable in court short maybe terrorism were I would hope he either ends up in Guatanimo or in front of a Judge that has the sack to Judge.

Ohhh and Stephen Dulaney "wisper" hey man I heard once from this ex-CIA guy that ehhh shhh dont repeat it that they can listen in on every light bulb in the world the filiment vibrations man they can be detected through the electric lines and they listen in so you should throw all the light bulbs out go to florecent or at least turn off the lights when talking secret stuff man watch out their peaking in the window man.

Posted by: C-Low at December 20, 2005 02:04 PM

For Pete-

Ask yourself this before you go off in a snit...

How would you react if you heard that President Hillary Clinton was doing this very same thing? Would you be concerned? Would it raise your eyebrows, the hackles on the back of your neck? Or would you just accept it as proper government?

I don't know anything about NSA capabilities, but I know some of their employees, and the one thing they all have in common is that they are very serious and reasoned individuals. My take is that if they are concerned about something, there is reason to be concerned.

Posted by: scott at December 20, 2005 02:01 PM

At my first network administration job, we got regular death threats. This is regular on the order of every day when we opened our mail. It was a 501(c)3 that was dedicated to the promotion of the idea that humans rights trump animal rights across the entire spectrum of human activities. We were headquartered in Bethesda, MD, just down the road from PETA in Rockville, MD. An amazingly high percentage of our "anonymous" death threats were from Rockville. What a surprise.

PETA is to the terrorist group Animal Liberation Front (ALF) what Sinn Fein is to the IRA, the legal, political arm of a widespread criminal conspiracy. The FBI spied on PETA? I certainly hope so. People have been physically attacked and maimed by ALF terrorism.

Posted by: TM Lutas at December 20, 2005 01:53 PM

Also, these comments by President Bush now seem to be "inoperative".

President Bush -- April 19, 2004:

For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.

President Bush -- April 20, 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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 -- June 9, 2005:

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses.

Posted by: sd at December 20, 2005 01:33 PM

It is very much worth asking, why did the administration not simply use normal FISA procedures? The current law already allows spying to occur immediately without approval as long as approval from the secret court is obtained after 72 hr. Also, this court almost never turns down a request. So, why run roughshod over the statute or move to have the statute modified by Congress?

The answer is PROBABLY that the administration wants to spy on people for whom the request would not be granted because it would run against the very specific terms of the statute. They have not moved to change the statue most likely because even a GOP-controlled Congress would never approve the exceptions that the Administration has in mind. Otherwise why not do it?

So, who would fit this new category of people that the Administration wants to monitor? I submit that the answer is journalists, and the political opposition.

If so, it would mean that the principle motivation for Bush to take this step is to maintain the political control by the GOP in perpetuity. In short, to facilitate transition to a single-party state.

There is a name for that kind of government.

Posted by: sd at December 20, 2005 01:26 PM

Hey Pete-- sorry the site got "political." Put your head back into he sand while the noble and brilliant creation of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Washington goes down the toilet. I plead guilty to being a Bush-hater, but I've read this blog for long enough to know that most people on it are not. Ask yourself, if these moderate professionals are getting upset at what Bush is doing, maybe there is in fact something going on worth paying attention to. If you love President Bush so much that you are not upset at torture and clearly illegal surveillance of American citizens, then maybe the person who is "political" is you.

Posted by: the exile at December 20, 2005 01:24 PM

My position was one of contractor to the gov. and I know the full capability of our signit. That said, this is for Pete.

It is not "Bush" hating, it is about watching all the work I and my associates put into these systems being compromised day in and day out by Bush and his WH.
It is not wrong to point out the continuous betrayals of trust, and the worrisome behavior of the Executive branch in regards to our liberties.
Dare I say Bush is the biggest threat to our liberties than OBL ever hoped to be?
I'm not there yet, but Bush's behavior is seriously undermining my willingness to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
This is not some cb signal being scanned off a truck by CHP, this is a sophisticated web that has been turned against American citizens.
Please try to keep that in mind when you read people who are in the know throwing a fit.
We know what this system can do, and for the most part we're probably only hearing the tip of the iceberg as far as what info has been collected.
This is serious sh*t.

Posted by: sheerahkahn at December 20, 2005 01:14 PM

Let me start by saying my first governmental job was at NSA. The US has long had the technological capability to spy on its own citizens at home and abroad. We have even seen instances in the past where this has been done. In each case it was found to be illegal and the antithetical to the American way of life. One of the things that separates a dictatorship from a democracy is a governmental understanding and conscientious decision that freedoms are inherently more important than catching the perpetrator of a crime. When the government turns its technologies against its citizens it quickly moves down the path of dictatorship, where freedoms are unimportant. Only the sustainment of the State apparatus matters. This government, under the present Administration, has moved quickly and purposefully down that road. Once taken away, freedoms are difficult to give back. Once police/military forces are allowed and encouraged to use extra-legal means, it is almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. The loss of life in the 9/11 attack was horrible, but if the cost of responding is the loss of what is central to the Constitutional government and the freedoms we hold dear, then we have not only lost the battle, we have lost the war.

Posted by: Kurt at December 20, 2005 12:52 PM

Nice language there Noah. You *could* Have at least starred out the words**** so that it wouldn't get picked up by websense. Why the sudden vulgarity hmmm?

This site has officially turned political. You can count me out from now on. Have fun in here with all of the immature commenters and Bush-haters HALLIBURTON CHENEY OH NOES!!!
What is the point? I wanted to learn more about defense-tech not petty partisan clap-trap.
NPR? and AP links? Why don't you just quote fake stories from C-BS news too.

Posted by: pete at December 20, 2005 12:37 PM

Does this have anything to do with why my computer CPU gets pegged to 100% after I visit sites of former NSA types like Capital Hill Blue or WayneMadsenReport?

wouldn't it be funny if the NSA was responsible for creating the spy whare that is so difficult to remove from our computers?

ssd

Posted by: Stephen Dulaney at December 20, 2005 12:07 PM

The secrecy behind this may have been due to what they were using the technology for.

Example: awhile back the EU warned companies to encrypt data against this exact kind of snooping.

Was Halliburton using top secret DARPA tech to spy on their corporate competition among the Allies?

Posted by: kelley b. at December 20, 2005 12:05 PM

"may have compromised a hardware manufacturer -- say Motorola or a satellite phone manufacturer, a telecom carrier or a satellite(s)."

There is little doubt of how easily the NSA would have achieved this for telecommunications considering the recent revelations regarding tracking printers,
Government Uses Color Laser Printer Technology to Track Documents.

Tracking data communications via the Internet can be accomplished without cooperation of a hardware manufacturer or service provider.

Posted by: Disgusted in St. Louis at December 20, 2005 12:03 PM

Suddenly, people ten and twelve degrees of separation away from Osama may have been targeted.

You know, I remember talking to a guy who was in his 20s during the Stalinist purges.

He said you could tell how bad things were getting when you would see tons of unsold phone books in stores.

Posted by: Sarge at December 20, 2005 11:53 AM