More NSA Unlawful Activity to be Exposed: ‘People will Be Shocked’

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/more-unlawful-activity/

May 12, 2006

CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens…

...said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Tice has a history for blowing the whistle on serious misconduct. He was one of the sources that revealed the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program to the New York Times.

[Lev Vyvanse]

Here is Bush’s response “Yea I did it, and furthermore the law does not apply to me”

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here is Bush’s response “Yea I did it, and furthermore the law does not apply to me”

You are correct, sir.

White House, NSA block investigation of spying

With news reports exposing the National Security Agency's previously secret spying on the phone conversations of tens of millions of Americans, what is the status of the U.S. Department of Justice probe of the Bush administration's authorization of a warrantless domestic wiretapping program?

The investigation has been closed.

That's right. Even as it is being revealed that the president's controversial eavesdropping program is dramatically more extensive – and Constitutionally dubious -- than had been previously known, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has informed Representative Maurice Hinchey that its attempt to determine which administration officials authorized, approved and audited NSA surveillance activities is over.

Why?

In a letter to Hinchey, the New York Democrat who has been the most dogged Congressional advocate for investigation of the spying program, OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett explained that he had closed the Justice Department probe on Tuesday, May 9, because his office's requests for security clearances to conduct the investigation had been denied.

Continued: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=83135

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"There seems to be an emerging consensus among the coddled, effete Beltway media stars that it would be highly improper and uncouth for the Democrats -- should they take over one or both houses of Congress in November -- to launch investigations into the various, thus-far-uninvestigated lawbreaking and corruption scandals surrounding the Bush administration." 5/12

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/investigations-are-so-very-rude-and.html

More evidence of the "liberal media," no doubt.

[Bronx33]

Just some info

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/05/12/most-americans-support-nsa-efforts/

Cross-Posted From Gribbit’s Word

The Washington Post is reporting on a poll which claims that 66% of Americans support the efforts of the National Security Agency.

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats “even if it intrudes on privacy.” Three in 10–31 percent–said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half–51 percent–approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

Yesterday’s revelations brought out some details from the President, the NSA, and Congressional Intelligence Committee members which outline exactly what was collected by the NSA. Phone records that’s it. The same information which is available on your individual phone bill. This information has been previously ruled by the Supreme Court to not be covered under an expectation of privacy because there are countless numbers of people who are exposed to your phone records before your bill makes it into the envelope.

The information collected from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth were turned over to the NSA with the companies’ cooperation. Qwest refused to cooperate and according to the most recent information available, has not turned over any information to this point.

This fact removes any claim against the government by individual customers. It is now a matter between the customer and their telephone provider.

Michelle Malkin wrote in today’s edition of The New York Post

President Bush made clear yesterday: “We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. So far we’ve been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.”

Nevertheless, the civil liberties Chicken Little are screaming “Bu****ler!” on cue. What they should be screaming for are the heads of the blabbermouths endangering all of us by running to the fifth-column press when they don’t get their way in Washington. But you can never find the leak-decriers when you need them, can you?

Prediction: To the dismay of the USA Today prize-seekers and fear-stokers, most Americans won’t react to their precious scoop by hysterically throwing their cellphones into the nearest lake and calling for President Bush’s impeachment.

I, for one, will be sure to continue to do business with Verizon, in support of its willingness to cooperate with the government to prevent another 9/11.

In fact, I think I’ll pick up the phone and give them a call right now. And if you’re listening, NSA: Thank you.

I echo Michelle’s comment - Thank You NSA and President Bush for keeping us safe.

Ed Morrissey puts in with some good common sense.

When we finally acknowledged that Islamist terrorists had declared war on us, George Bush warned us that we would have to make sacrifices in order to beat our enemy. So far, we have not been asked for much in the way of sacrifice. Now that we see how the NSA has kept us safe, we should recognize that the limited loss of privacy on our telephone habits is not much of a sacrifice in giving the intelligence community a tool to root out terrorist sleeper cells. However, we should not dismiss the risks of giving even more power to the federal government so lightly, and we should ensure that the power we do grant them does not get misused.

It is good to know that most Americans have common sense, unlike certain senators that would risk our lives to protect our phone numbers from the federal government.

H/T: The Drudge Report & Michelle Malkin

Others: Rightwing Nuthouse
Sister Toldjah
Rightwinged
Macsmind
Strata-sphere
Ogre
Expose The Left
Hot Air


Disclamer
Gribbit's Word linked with News Breakdown 05.12.06
Small Town Veteran linked with NSA Record Collection OK With Americans
BIG DOG'S WEBLOG linked with It’s The Law, Again
Iowa Voice linked with Washington Post: Poll Shows Americans Support NSA Programs
All Things Beautiful linked with Re-Hash Of An Old Story
The Jawa Report linked with Alien Civil Liberties Union Defies American People
protein wisdom linked with The "New" NSA Kerfuffle, Day 2
Church and State linked with Liberals Aren't Getting It
Atlas Shrugs linked with Phony Phone Foolishness
Ogre's Politics & Views linked with NSA "Spying" vs. Privacy
[Comments_(15)] [Printable_Version] [Permalink] [Trackback_URI]
[Trackback URI] right click+copy shortcut


15 Responses

1. Trackback by Ogre's Politics & Views on May 12th, 2006 @ 10:13 am

NSA “Spying” vs. Privacy

The biggest issue in the NSA case is that there really is nothing even close to illegal going on here. There are, very clearly, and according to settled case law, NO privacy violations going on.
2. Trackback by Atlas Shrugs on May 12th, 2006 @ 10:28 am

Phony Phone Foolishness

I am stunned by the lunatics elected by the uninformed (thank the media) scream bloody murder about the latest NSA canard. The 12 imam is on his way (at least ah-mad-mini-me seems to think so), the worldwide Islamic extremist movement
3. Trackback by Church and State on May 12th, 2006 @ 10:48 am

Liberals Aren’t Getting It

Check out these two absurd points by Zack Exley at the Huffington Post:
1) Bush already had the freedom to spy on anyone he wanted…
4. Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Press hates NSA data mining; public, not so much on May 12th, 2006 @ 12:00 pm

[…] The media is aghast but the rabble stubbornly cling to their belief that (a) there might just be something to this terrorism thing, and (b) fighting it with a mass eavesdropping program is okay if the program doesn’t actually involve, you know, eavesdropping. […]
5. Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The American People Understand on May 12th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

[…] Stop The ACLU Al Qaeda Data Mining nsa Telephone Wiretaps Filed in: MSM Bias, NSA Wiretap’s, CIA Leak | No Comments » […]
6. Trackback by protein wisdom on May 12th, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

The "New" NSA Kerfuffle, Day 2

Even as a Washington Post/ABC News poll -- in itself a bit deceiving (on which, more later) -- reveals that 66% of Americans "said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made," many of t…
7. Trackback by The Jawa Report on May 12th, 2006 @ 12:28 pm

Alien Civil Liberties Union Defies American People

Americans said this; the ACLU said this. Thank goodness for these guys. Really the idea that someone looks out for my civil Liberties is a good one. Except for the fact that, when you or I call them for help,…
8. Trackback by All Things Beautiful on May 12th, 2006 @ 1:51 pm

Re-Hash Of An Old Story

Well excuse me for not being over-excited about a re-hash of an old story, the timing of which stinks to high heaven. The hysterical drama queens on the left are out in full force. AhemNo sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for year…
9. Trackback by Iowa Voice on May 12th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

Washington Post: Poll Shows Americans Support NSA Programs

Not a big fan of polls, obviously, so take this for what it’s worth:

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to iden…
10. Pingback by third world county » Blog Archive » NSA Kerffufle Redux on May 12th, 2006 @ 5:17 pm

[…] h.t. STACLU on the WaPo article. […]
11. Trackback by BIG DOG'S WEBLOG on May 12th, 2006 @ 6:12 pm

It’s The Law, Again

The whole Terrorist Surveillance Program drew fire despite the fact that the process is legal and that status has been upheld by several courts who ruled the President had inherent authority to conduct such operations. Now we have this non-revelation …
12. Trackback by Small Town Veteran on May 12th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

NSA Record Collection OK With Americans

NSA Record Collection OK With AmericansJohn Hinderaker ABC reports on the results of its overnight poll on the public’s response to the leak about the NSA’s phone record analysis program:Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone
13. Trackback by Gribbit's Word on May 12th, 2006 @ 7:36 pm

News Breakdown 05.12.06

Busy Busy Busy day news wise. Around mid-morning, Jay called and asked that I post something on the poll information regarding the NSA phone records investigation which you can read here if you like. I did some poking around and…
14. Pingback by white pebble » Listening in on May 12th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm

[…] The media is aghast but the rabble stubbornly cling to their belief that (a) there might just be something to this terrorism thing, and (b) fighting it with a mass eavesdropping program is okay if the program doesn’t actually involve, you know, eavesdropping. […]
15. Pingback by Webloggin - Blog Archive » Washington Post – ABC Poll Sends Trumped Up NSA Spy Story Packing on May 12th, 2006 @ 9:39 pm

[…] Stop the ACLU - Most Americans Support NSA Efforts […]

[Spider]

poll on this , when we dont have all the info of what happened ....... people approving of stuff they dont even know ...... there a shocker . just attach 9-11 Terrorist yadda , yadda, yadda , People will buy it ......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just some info

An incomplete poll to say the least!

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 11, 2006 among 502 randomly selected adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus four percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single evening represent other potential sources of error in this or any other overnight poll
http://tinyurl.com/lvert

[Bronx33]

Oh, sorry, it's not 1942. It's 2006, and these three phone giants are about to be excoriated for cooperating with the war on terror. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter has demanded that ATT, Verizon, and BellSouth testify under oath about their assistance to the National Security Agency's counterterrorism programs; 50 House Democrats are demanding a criminal investigation by special counsel.

Here we go again: another specious privacy scandal. The disclosure by USA Today that these three telecom companies have given the government access to trillions of anonymized domestic calling records has sent Bush administration critics, privacy advocates, and the press into an ecstatic frenzy of denunciation and fear-mongering. This newly energized coalition charges that the White House is trampling citizens' constitutional rights and creating a surveillance state. And the Bush administration has only itself to blame.

Ever since allowing the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness project to go down the tubes in 2003, the administration has failed to explain the potential of data mining, even as it secretly continues to use this vital technology. Thus, at every revelation of a government data mining program, privacy extremists enjoy unchallenged supremacy in characterizing the technology as a massive threat to life as we know it.

Only a paranoid solipsist could feel threatened by the recently revealed calling analysis program. Since late 2001, Verizon, BellSouth, and ATT have connected nearly two trillion calls, according to the Washington Post. The companies gave NSA the incoming and outgoing numbers of those calls, stripped of all identifying
information such as name or address. No conversational content was included. The NSA then put its supercharged computers to work analyzing patterns among the four trillion numbers involved in the two trillion calls, to look for clusters that might suggest terrorist connections. Though the details are unknown, they might search for calls to known terrorists, or, more speculatively, try to elicit templates of terror calling behavior from the data.

As a practical matter, no one's privacy is violated by such analysis. Memo to privacy nuts: The computer does not have a clue that you exist; it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it. The press loves to stress the astounding volume of data that data mining can consume--the Washington Post's lead on May 12 warned that the administration had been "secretly . . . assembling gargantuan databases." But it is precisely the size of that data store that renders the image of individualized snooping so absurd.

True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge, and it is not known what threshold of proof the government uses to put a name to critical phone numbers. But until that point is reached, your privacy is at greater risk from the Goodyear blimp at a Stones concert than from the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers.

And even after that point is reached, the notion that 280 million Americans who have not been communicating with al Qaeda are at risk from this quadrillion-bit program is absurd. What exactly are the privacy advocates worried about? That an NSA agent will search the phone records of his ex-wife or of themselves? This quaint scenario completely misunderstands the scale of, and bureaucratic checks on, such data analysis programs.

As a constitutional matter, no one's privacy is violated by such automated analysis of business records.

Senator Dianne Feinstein needs to brush up on her legal doctrine when she decries the program as a "major constitutional confrontation on Fourth Amendment guarantees of unreasonable search and seizure." There is no Fourth Amendment protection for information that you have conveyed to a third party.

Your phone company at the very least--if not a score of marketers--knows your calling history; that history is no longer private, therefore, and the government can obtain your phone records without a judicial warrant. Congress has provided statutory protections for certain kinds of telecommunications information, but those statutes allow telephone companies to share their data with the government for emergencies. After 9/11, a phone executive who didn't believe that the country was in danger of another catastrophic attack was seriously out of touch with reality. And the volume of data requested almost by definition protects the privacy of any individual customer.

The Washington Post calls this numbers analysis the "most extensive . . . domestic surveillance [program] yet known involving ordinary citizens and residents." Bunk. The NSA's data mining program is not surveillance; no one is being listened to or observed.

Data mining looks for mathematical patterns in computerized information; it is not a real-time spying operation. The government didn't need to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a wiretap or pen register order (which governs the collection of phone numbers in real time from a single phone) because
[0]

it is not listening to or recording any individual's calls. FISA is built around the notion of an individualized investigation of specific spies or terrorists; it is seriously outdated for the application of American computer know-how to ferret out terror plots before they happen and before the government has individual suspects in mind.

But it may be too late to convey these truths. The time to explain how data mining protects privacy while providing a crucial tool against unknown mass-murderers was while the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program was under attack. That program, which hoped to uncover patterns of terrorist activity in publicly available commercial data, was merely in its preliminary research stages, but the Senate killed it in a demagogic display of privacy hysteria.

Having lost that battle without fighting, the administration has gone silent on the value of data mining, presumably terrified of another privacy fiasco. After the revelation last December of another large-scale NSA program analyzing international calls to terror suspects, the administration denied that data mining was involved. It also implied that domestic phone traffic was off-limits. And now, President Bush defends this latest program in the most anodyne of terms, asserting baldly that the "privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." His credibility, after the previous denials of data mining and failure to clarify its character, is, to say the least, weak.

Cooperation between the private sector and intelligence agencies is crucial for uncovering terrorist plots. After 9/11, JetBlue Airways and Northwest Airlines offered privacy-protected passenger records to NASA and the Pentagon for research to see if data-mining could aid in identifying terrorist flight behavior. No passenger's privacy was violated, yet these two companies now face hundreds of billions of dollars in privacy lawsuits. The class action bar is undoubtedly gearing up for a similar assault on ATT, Verizon, and BellSouth, an abuse of tort law that will further discourage patriotic corporate behavior.

The American public is adult enough, one hopes, to cope with the idea of a government computer analyzing commercial and communications data as a protection against terrorism. If only someone would trust them with the facts.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The American public is adult enough, one hopes, to cope with the idea of a government computer analyzing commercial and communications data as a protection against terrorism. If only someone would trust them with the facts.
A show of hands that trusts this government with anything.

[TailgateNut]

Bump! I see no hands, just single fingers!

[Old Dude]

Later polls show less support. In fact, they show a majority disapproving:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/NEWS06/605150384/-1/ZONES01

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

[defenseman]

And the folks not raising their hands? Well, the nano-second a successful attack occurs by the terrorists on US soil (and they will hit us again, rest assured on that) , these same people will be crying why didn't you stop this Uncle Sam. Hypocritical to a point. I honestly believe the need to analyse patterns of phone calls and other indicating factors is ABSOLUTELY necessary. And it makes a lot of sense. The out and out "spying" on americans (UNLESS THEY ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION OF SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS IN ONE WAY, SHAPE OR FORM) I do not condone...but , I'll say it again, the same group against this form of monitoring, well, IT"S A CATCH-22 FOLKS!!!!!! Wake up and smell what you are shoveling. You can't have your cake and eat it too...dman

[Crushaholic]

A show of hands that trusts this government with anything.

Ooo ooo ooo...Mr Kottah!:wave:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have nothing to hide. Those who do have something to hide should be afraid. The logistics of spying on average conversations all over America is too great for innocent Americans to worry about this program. They are looking for anybody plotting to do harm to Americans and not worrying about someone calling their mother to wish her a Happy Mother's Day, for instance.

[TailgateNut]

Ooo ooo ooo...Mr Kottah!:wave:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have nothing to hide. Those who do have something to hide should be afraid. The logistics of spying on average conversations all over America is too great for innocent Americans to worry about this program. They are looking for anybody plotting to do harm to Americans and not worrying about someone calling their mother to wish her a Happy Mother's Day, for instance.

That's not the point! I don't have any hidden agendas neither, but I do have a problem with unregulated, un-warranted invasion of privacy!

[clarker]

Ooo ooo ooo...Mr Kottah!:wave:

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have nothing to hide. Those who do have something to hide should be afraid. The logistics of spying on average conversations all over America is too great for innocent Americans to worry about this program. They are looking for anybody plotting to do harm to Americans and not worrying about someone calling their mother to wish her a Happy Mother's Day, for instance.I agree that it would be next to impossible to listen in to every phone conversation made, but don't you think there should be some kind of oversight.

And yes things pop up and they don't have time to get a warent every time before they start listening, but I mean they have 72 hours to go back get a warrent to continue listening. They don't even bother to do that.

It is not the wire tapping probrams themselves I have a problem with, it is the way Bush goes about it. As if he is above oversight of the other two branches of government, which is not the case. The government was set up in a way to have the three branches of government keep an eye on each other.

[bendog]

And the folks not raising their hands? Well, the nano-second a successful attack occurs by the terrorists on US soil (and they will hit us again, rest assured on that) , these same people will be crying why didn't you stop this Uncle Sam. Hypocritical to a point. I honestly believe the need to analyse patterns of phone calls and other indicating factors is ABSOLUTELY necessary. And it makes a lot of sense. The out and out "spying" on americans (UNLESS THEY ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION OF SUPPORTING THE TERRORISTS IN ONE WAY, SHAPE OR FORM) I do not condone...but , I'll say it again, the same group against this form of monitoring, well, IT"S A CATCH-22 FOLKS!!!!!! Wake up and smell what you are shoveling. You can't have your cake and eat it too...dman


I agree, but there's a pattern of not just lying about intell, but also using intell to destroy political enemies, so I'll be very surprised if there aren't warrantless taps of protesters, taps to discourage muslims from giving money to any group the might give some to hamas (even though our tax money is going to pay Palestinian civil servants). As for data mining, the fact that they aren't discussing the legit uses, and there seem to be some, in analyizing what's "normal" calling patterns and "not normal," makes me suspect that at the least, they are using "suspicion" to justify more warrantless taps. And the HAVE to be doing the same with email and cell phones, because any terrorist reasonably competent would be using disposable cells, like drug dealers, and internet cafes.

[Crushaholic]

I agree that it would be next to impossible to listen in to every phone conversation made, but don't you think there should be some kind of oversight.

And yes things pop up and they don't have time to get a warent every time before they start listening, but I mean they have 72 hours to go back get a warrent to continue listening. They don't even bother to do that.

It is not the wire tapping probrams themselves I have a problem with, it is the way Bush goes about it. As if he is above oversight of the other two branches of government, which is not the case. The government was set up in a way to have the three branches of government keep an eye on each other.

He has said he consulted with key members of Congress on this matter. You either believe him or you don't believe him. He has also bragged about stopping some plots after the terrorists have "promised" another attack like 9/11 This has apparently been going on since the towers fell and the program hasn't been found to be illegal, yet. I think there is some oversight, but it's being kept secretive on purpose.

[bendog]

If you still believe Bushii after Iraq, I gotta bridge ....

[clarker]

He has said he consulted with key members of Congress on this matter. You either believe him or you don't believe him. He has also bragged about stopping some plots after the terrorists have "promised" another attack like 9/11 This has apparently been going on since the towers fell and the program hasn't been found to be illegal, yet. I think there is some oversight, but it's being kept secretive on purpose.How do you know it hasn't been found illeagal? Has it ever been put before a court? And it is hard for me just take Bush's word for it when he says he has consulted with key members of Congress.

How ever as more details are revealed we will should get a better picture of what is happening. But my days of just taking Bush's word for anything are over.

[defenseman]

I agree with you on the point of taking him at his word. However, there are going to be some issues he "gives his word on" and he simply cannot produce evidence supporting based on national security. We have to recognize this. On the same token, some of the issues he can come forward on, he should. Tonight, he'll lay out his policy on the border. I'm guessing national guard is at the forefront. He needs to state EXACTLY what he's going to do, and how he is going to do it. Simple as that. He can I believe, put most of the answers on the table without a negative impact on the border securing issues..dman

[clarker]

I know there are things that no President cann't speak to because of national security, but it would ease alot of people's fears if they felt that the other two branches of government are being informed and consulted with. It doesn't have to be in public. But it doesn't seem to me that Bush is keeping congress advised on these programs. If he has nothing to hide why is he keeping a secret from members of congress how have the security clearence to know about such things.

[defenseman]

are we SURE he isn't keeping congress informed? I mean really sure? Not looking for an excuse for GW , however, I've seen stranger things than this out of any one presidency...dman

[alkemical]

Why are regular americans guilty, and not assumed innocent?

[defenseman]

They are supposed to be assumed innocent, however, often the innocent american is tried and convicted in the local and national "newsrags". the Duke lacross players is a good example of that. Some of their lives may be forever changed, and yet, they may have done nothing. I guess the president gets the same, eh?....dman

[alkemical]

Heh, so we all get the taste of our own medicine

[defenseman]

It appears so, courtesy of your local newsrag and media pundit...dman

*"dirty laundry" sells air time and newspapers, simple as that. Always has, always will....

[bendog]

I agree with you on the point of taking him at his word. However, there are going to be some issues he "gives his word on" and he simply cannot produce evidence supporting based on national security. We have to recognize this. On the same token, some of the issues he can come forward on, he should. Tonight, he'll lay out his policy on the border. I'm guessing national guard is at the forefront. He needs to state EXACTLY what he's going to do, and how he is going to do it. Simple as that. He can I believe, put most of the answers on the table without a negative impact on the border securing issues..dman
I lost faith over Iraq, but more importantly I have no trust because they ADMIT they don't go to FISA because they'd be turned down for warrants. That means one of only two things: the law as it exists does not allow the govt to go far enough OR bushii chooses to invade the liberty of innocent Americans. Every time this comes up, the congress offers to give him a law. The last one was Roberts saying he could have 45 DAYS of warrantless taps on any number, and THAT wasn't good enough for him.

Now this data mining. Data mining is fine, by me, so long as the id tracers are removed, but I'm convinced they are not.

[defenseman]

If what you say is true, I don't understand it either. However, I'd have to hear the definition of "data mining" to determine if I believed he had crossed the line. Then again, this 45 day stuff, the president needs to work with congress and come up with a solution. It is important not only to do it right, but to do it...dman

[bendog]

If what you say is true, I don't understand it either. However, I'd have to hear the definition of "data mining" to determine if I believed he had crossed the line. Then again, this 45 day stuff, the president needs to work with congress and come up with a solution. It is important not only to do it right, but to do it...dman
Well, like I just posted on the competing thread, I'm ok with not removing the id tracers, and I don't see the real value if they are removed. But there needs to be some Judge, somewhere, with a concrete standard of what gives them a good enough suspicion to access the actual content (when it's there, for like emails) or put taps on the line. It can be a low standard. It can even be a standard where the tap immediately (for like disposable cells) and show the judge their reason later.

[clarker]

If what you say is true, I don't understand it either. However, I'd have to hear the definition of "data mining" to determine if I believed he had crossed the line. Then again, this 45 day stuff, the president needs to work with congress and come up with a solution. It is important not only to do it right, but to do it...dmanThe problem with that is the President doesn't feel he needs to work with Congress on anything. The majority of the members of Congress are of his own political party and he still won't work with them.

[TailgateNut]

The problem with that is the President doesn't feel he needs to work with Congress on anything. The majority of the members of Congress are of his own political party and he still won't work with them.

I can't recall who it was, but the other day I heard that he doesn't consult with others regarding policies and issues as much as the previous presidents. They valued input, whereas he doesn't seek any!

[defenseman]

If he takes no input, well, that's a problem. It's either his or theirs, or a combination of both. It's no secret republicans are starting to seperate themselves from the president. IF this is occuring, there is ALWAYS a reason, the hard part is finding it out. Any way you play it though, if it is true, it's a bad thing and can only lead to worse from where I sit...dman

[TailgateNut]

If he takes no input, well, that's a problem. It's either his or theirs, or a combination of both. It's no secret republicans are starting to seperate themselves from the president. IF this is occuring, there is ALWAYS a reason, the hard part is finding it out. Any way you play it though, if it is true, it's a bad thing and can only lead to worse from where I sit...dman

It's what I would consider bad management practices. I manage my projects with an open door policy and always meet with my sub-contractors and employees to discuss ways, means and methods, and I am always wide open to criticism and questions. I don't see that as an attack on my mgt skills, but as a way to explore the views of others who may have a better way of getting the project completed in a timely fashion without sacrificing safety and quality!

[defenseman]

I operate in a similar manner. My guess is you are a reasonably successful manager. On the same note, the "quality" of the questions and criticism is just as important as the "quality" of the product. There has been, from what I can tell, alot of "toe stepping" going on in the white house and the congress. They could take a lesson from most well run organizations, quality needs to be observed throughout the "entire" process, including handing out criticism. I believe the congress and the white house set very poor examples for the entire US of A the way they carry on sometimes...really sad if you ask me...dman

*then again, everyone of them to a man(woman) would probably say, "We didn't ask you"...my response..."that's fine, don't expect my vote, or anyone's votes that I happened to know"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the folks not raising their hands? Well, the nano-second a successful attack occurs by the terrorists on US soil (and they will hit us again, rest assured on that) , these same people will be crying why didn't you stop this Uncle Sam.

:oyvey:

Good God, do you ever quit with the regurgitated Limbaugh talking points?

The existing laws (read: FISA) give the president all the powers he needs to carry out surveillance of suspected terrorists.

There is no need (and no justification) for the president to refuse to submit to congressional and/or judicial oversight in his exercise of said surveillance.

That's the issue here.

[Bronx33]

http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/12/meet-the-nsa/

[Bronx33]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18,0,4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

By Siobhan Gorman
Sun reporter
Originally published May 18, 2006
WASHINGTON // The National Security Agency developed a pilot program in the late 1990s that would have enabled it to gather and analyze huge amounts of communications data without running afoul of privacy laws. But after the Sept. 11 attacks, it shelved the project - not because it failed to work but because of bureaucratic infighting and a sudden White House expansion of the agency's surveillance powers, according to several intelligence officials.

The agency opted instead to adopt only one component of the program, which produced a far less capable and rigorous program. It remains the backbone of the NSA's warrantless surveillance efforts, tracking domestic and overseas communications from a vast databank of information, and monitoring selected calls.

Advertisement
Four intelligence officials knowledgeable about the program agreed to discuss it with The Sun only if granted anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The program the NSA rejected, called ThinThread, was developed to handle greater volumes of information, partly in expectation of threats surrounding the millennium celebrations. Sources say it bundled four cutting-edge surveillance tools. ThinThread would have:

• Used more-sophisticated methods of sorting through massive phone and e-mail data to identify suspect communications.

• Identified U.S. phone numbers and other communications data and encrypted them to ensure caller privacy.

• Employed an automated auditing system to monitor how analysts handled the information, in order to prevent misuse and improve efficiency.

• Analyzed the data to identify relationships between callers and chronicle their contacts. Only when evidence of a potential threat had been developed would analysts be able to request decryption of the records.

An agency spokesman declined to discuss NSA operations.

"Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to discuss actual or alleged operational issues as it would give those wishing to do harm to the U.S. insight and potentially place Americans in danger," said NSA spokesman Don Weber in a statement to The Sun. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities very seriously and operates within the law."

In what intelligence experts describe as rigorous testing of ThinThread in 1998, the project succeeded at each task with high marks. For example, its ability to sort through huge amounts of data to find threat-related communications far surpassed the existing system, sources said. It also was able to rapidly separate and encrypt U.S.-related communications to ensure privacy.

But the NSA, then headed by Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, rejected both of those tools, as well as the feature that monitored potential abuse of the records. Only the data analysis facet of the program survived and became the basis for the warrantless surveillance program.

The decision, which one official attributed to "turf protection and empire building," has undermined the agency's ability to zero in on potential threats, sources say. In the aftermath of revelations about the agency's wide gathering of U.S. phone records, they add, ThinThread could have provided a simple solution to privacy concerns.

A better system
A number of independent studies, including a classified 2004 report from the Pentagon's inspector-general, in addition to the successful pilot tests, found that the program provided "superior processing, filtering and protection of U.S. citizens, and discovery of important and previously unknown targets," said an intelligence official familiar with the program who described the reports to The Sun. The Pentagon report concluded that ThinThread's ability to sort through data in 2001 was far superior to that of another NSA system in place in 2004, and that the program should be launched and enhanced.

Hayden, the president's nominee to lead the CIA, is to appear today before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is expected to face tough questioning about the warrantless surveillance program, the collection of domestic phone records and other NSA programs.

While the furor over warrantless surveillance, particularly the collection of domestic phone records, has raised questions about the legality of the program, there has been little or no discussion about how it might be altered to eliminate such concerns.

ThinThread was designed to address two key challenges: The NSA had more information than it could digest, and, increasingly, its targets were in contact with people in the United States whose calls the agency was prohibited from monitoring.

With the explosion of digital communications, especially phone calls over the Internet and the use of devices such as BlackBerries, the NSA was struggling to sort key nuggets of information from the huge volume of data it took in.

By 1999, as some NSA officials grew increasingly concerned about millennium-related security, ThinThread seemed in position to become an important tool with which the NSA could prevent terrorist attacks. But it was never launched. Neither was it put into effect after the attacks in 2001. Despite its success in tests, ThinThread's information-sorting system was viewed by some in the agency as a competitor to Trailblazer, a $1.2 billion program that was being developed with similar goals. The NSA was committed to Trailblazer, which later ran into trouble and has been essentially abandoned.

Both programs aimed to better sort through the sea of data to find key tips to the next terrorist attack, but Trailblazer had more political support internally because it was initiated by Hayden when he first arrived at the NSA, sources said.

NSA managers did not want to adopt the data-sifting component of ThinThread out of fear that the Trailblazer program would be outperformed and "humiliated," an intelligence official said.

Advertisement
Without ThinThread's data-sifting assets, the warrantless surveillance program was left with a sub-par tool for sniffing out information, and that has diminished the quality of its analysis, according to intelligence officials.

Sources say the NSA's existing system for data-sorting has produced a database clogged with corrupted and useless information.

The mass collection of relatively unsorted data, combined with system flaws that sources say erroneously flag people as suspect, has produced numerous false leads, draining analyst resources, according to two intelligence officials. FBI agents have complained in published reports in The New York Times that NSA leads have resulted in numerous dead ends.

Privacy safeguards
The privacy protections offered by ThinThread were also abandoned in the post-Sept. 11 push by the president for a faster response to terrorism.

Once President Bush gave the go-ahead for the NSA to secretly gather and analyze domestic phone records - an authorization that carried no stipulations about identity protection - agency officials regarded the encryption as an unnecessary step and rejected it, according to two intelligence officials knowledgeable about ThinThread and the warrantless surveillance programs.

"They basically just disabled the [privacy] safeguards," said one intelligence official.

A former top intelligence official said that without a privacy requirement, "there was no reason to go back to something that was perhaps more difficult to implement."

However two officials familiar with the program said the encryption feature would have been simple to implement. One said the time required would have involved minutes, not hours.

Encryption would have required analysts to be more disciplined in their investigations, however, by forcing them to gather what a court would consider sufficient information to indicate possible terrorist activity before decryption could be authorized.

While it is unclear why the agency dropped the component that monitored for abuse of records, one intelligence official noted that the feature was not popular with analysts. It not only tracked the use of the database, but hunted for the most effective analysis techniques, and some analysts thought it would be used to judge their performance.

Within the NSA, the primary advocate for the ThinThread program was Richard Taylor, who headed the agency's operations division. Taylor who has retired from the NSA, did not return calls seeking comment.

Officials say that after the successful tests of ThinThread in 1998, Taylor argued that the NSA should implement the full program. He later told the 9/11 Commission that ThinThread could have identified the hijackers had it been in place before the attacks, according to an intelligence expert close to the commission.

But at the time, NSA lawyers viewed the program as too aggressive. At that point, the NSA's authority was limited strictly to overseas communications, with the FBI responsible for analyzing domestic calls. The lawyers feared that expanding NSA data collection to include communications in the United States could violate civil liberties, even with the encryption function.

Taylor had an intense meeting with Hayden and NSA lawyers. "It was a very emotional debate," recalled a former intelligence official. "Eventually it was rejected by [NSA] lawyers."

After the 2001 attacks, the NSA lawyers who had blocked the program reversed their position and approved the use of the program without the enhanced technology to sift out terrorist communications and without the encryption protections.

The NSA's new legal analysis was based on the commander in chief's powers during war, said former officials familiar with the program. The Bush administration's defense has rested largely on that argument since the warrantless surveillance program became public in December.

The strength of ThinThread's approach is that by encrypting information on Americans, it is legal regardless of whether the country is at war, according to one intelligence official.

Officials familiar with Thin Thread say some within NSA were stunned by the legal flip-flop. ThinThread "was designed very carefully from a legal point of view, so that even in non-wartime, you could have done it legitimately," the official said.

In a speech in January, Hayden said the warrantless surveillance program was not only limited to al-Qaida communications, but carefully implemented with an eye toward preserving the Constitution and rights of Americans.

"As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application," he said.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

NSA rejected system that sifted phone data legally

Yet more evidence of this junta's disrespect for the law. :pity:

[Hotrod]

'sigh' The first thing I started pointing out when this phone gig first hit the fan was if this has come out there are most likely more things that we dont know about yet. I got no love for my incredable insight ;D

Second thought would be someone should hide Tice hes not making any friends.

[bendog]

Good Lord. Hayden's another bush incomptent

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good Lord. Hayden's another bush incomptent

Which, in BushWorld, means he's just the right man to head the CIA.

:oyvey:

[footstepsfrom#27]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=42289&page=2
Bush had my phone tapped in 1999 while he was Texas Governor.
I don't know whether we're safer under this policy or not, but I do know we've lost legitimate privacy rights to unwarranted wire taps that have nothing to do with terrorism...and we lost them long before this stuff went public.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good Lord. Hayden's another bush incomptent

Quotes

"What does this 'speaking truth to power' phrase mean? Well, it's a dumb-ass phrase and I hope the Democrats keep using it because it's going to go over everybody's head."

- Rehab Rush

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051806/content/quotes.guest.html

Note: General Michael Hayden used that phrase yesterday, trying to get confirmed..

http://www.bartcop.com/stop-bush-street.jpg

[Bronx33]

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/051906-bellsouth-demands-retraction-nsa-story.html

Bellsouth is demanding that USA Today retract a story claiming it and two other carriers were under contract to the National Security Agency to surrender call records for a domestic anti-terrorism surveillance program.
Related links


BellSouth claims the story's assertion that it was under contract to provide massive call record data to the NSA is untrue.

"No such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA," the carrier said in a statement about the story, which appeared in the May 11 issue of USA Today.

BellSouth sent a letter to the president and publisher of USA Today, and the general counsel of Gannett Co., USA Today's parent, "insisting" on a retraction, BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher said.

"We are insisting that the paper retract the false and unsubstantiatied statements that have been made regarding our company," Battcher said. "They have offered no proof of either of those (contract and call record submission) claims.

"We have no contract with the NSA, never had a contract with the NSA, and have never provided the NSA with any information, ever," Battcher concluded.

USA Today said it received the BellSouth letter and is reviewing it. The paper said it will respond.

Verizon and AT&T, which the story also pegged as contractually obligated to forward massive call record data to the NSA following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, also denied aspects of the story. Verizon would neither confirm nor deny involvement in the NSA's domestic spying program, yet said none of its wireline or wireless lines of business, prior to the acquisition of MCI, provided customer record or call data to the NSA.

AT&T said it cooperates on matters of national security "within the law." The Bush administration insists its warrantless surveillance program is legal.

[alkemical]

Yes, but bush said telco's can lie about giving info out now.....