Republicans
in the Senate didn't filibuster the Democrats into handing the president --
and, incredibly,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales --
broad new authority to monitor telephone calls without warrants from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Again, the Democrats could have
said to the president and to Senate Republicans that they weren't going to
expand the government's surveillance powers unless that expansion was
accompanied by a requirement for review by the FISA court and/or the Justice
Department's inspector general. What they did instead: They voted -- or, at
least,
16 of them did -- to give Bush everything he wanted and the rest of us
nothing we had every right to expect. As the
Washington Post puts it in an editorial today, this latest cave-in by
House and Senate Democrats is "as reckless as it was unnecessary."
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
By ROBERT PEAR
An order strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules often
generated by civil servants and scientific experts.
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Publication time: 15 August 2006, 09:49
George W. Bush's reelection was not his
only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers
have consolidated control over the military and intelligence
communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree
unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security
state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that
control-against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing
war on terrorism-during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be
downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government
consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as "facilitators" of
policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.
This process is well under way.
...The President has signed a series of
findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and
other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against
suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East
and South Asia.
The President's decision enables Rumsfeld to run
the operations off the books-free from legal restrictions imposed on the
C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be
authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and
House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of
scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and
attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) "The Pentagon doesn't
feel obligated to report any of this to Congress," the former
high-level intelligence official said.
Hungry for even more unchecked powers to spy on Americans without warrants
-- and in spite of a strong rebuke from the federal courts in the ACLU
v. NSA case -- the Bush administration is trying to rush bills through
Congress this September that would rubber-stamp the president’s warrantless
surveillance program and violate the Constitution. Some in Congress
may try to claim that these “Big Brother” bills restore judicial review.
Don't be fooled.
Read more about why these bills threaten your rights.
Representing
a host of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national non-profit
organizations ...the ACLU charged that the NSA program violates
Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth
Amendments of the Constitution. ...It is equally important for everyone
across America who is concerned about this erosion of our civil liberties to
continue to speak out. Members of Congress need to hear our outrage loud and
clear so that they will hold the Bush Administration accountable for its
actions. You can help make that happen by holding a house party and
mobilizing your neighbors and friends.
Click here to learn more.
Mother Jones explores the lies we were told... The Lie Factory
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html
News: A Mother Jones Special Investigation: The inside story of how the
Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and
led the nation to war.
By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest
Wiretapping is Illegal
What happens when the technology of espionage
outstrips the law’s ability to protect ordinary citizens from it?
PRESIDENT BUSH has tried to justify the warrantless
tapping of Americans' phone calls by saying that the government only
listened to calls with Al Qaeda suspects overseas. Now it turns out
that the government is collecting records on untold numbers of
domestic calls, for no clear purpose other than to detect patterns. So
far, none of the sources that described this practice to USA Today has
said these calls are being recorded, but it is a violation of
individual privacy to have this information collected, especially when
it is done without the knowledge of the public and a vote of
authorization by Congress.
The lack of public outrage after the revelation
that overseas calls were being tapped without the court warrants
required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act suggests
that Bush succeeded in persuading most Americans that the bugging
was not aimed at them. The newly disclosed practice, however, does
include the telephone records of ordinary Americans. Congress,
which has so far acquiesced in skirting FISA, should now force the
administration to explain this data-mining. ...
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Republican Arlen Specter, promises hearings that will include as
witnesses the executives of AT&T,
Verizon, and
BellSouth, the three companies
that have collaborated with the National Security Agency on this.
Testimony from the companies will be needed because it is likely the
Bush administration will stonewall efforts to force John Negroponte,
the director of national intelligence, or officials from the NSA to
describe and justify the program. Just this week, the Justice
Department's Office of Professional Responsibility had to give up
trying to investigate the NSA's wiretapping program because of a lack
of cooperation from the agency.
The data-mining report casts a shadow over Bush's
nomination of General Michael Hayden to be director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. Hayden led the NSA after Sept. 11 when it began
the tapping of Al Qaeda suspects' calls and the collecting of domestic
telephone records. In his confirmation hearing, he will have to
explain and justify both the data-mining of the records and why the
administration found it necessary to set aside a sensible wiretap law
that allows the NSA to get a warrant as much as 72 hours after the
fact...
(page 1 of 4)
The NSA has the ability to eavesdrop on your
communications—landlines, cell phones, e-mails, BlackBerry messages,
Internet searches, and more—with ease. What happens when the technology of
espionage outstrips the law’s ability to protect ordinary citizens from
it? Big
Brother Is Listening
by
James Bamford
.....
n the first Saturday in April of 2002, the temperature in Washington, D.C.,
had taken a dive. Tourists were bundled up against the cold, and the cherry
trees along the Tidal Basin were fast losing their blossoms to the biting
winds. But a few miles to the south, in the Dowden Terrace neighborhood of
Alexandria, Virginia, the chilly weather was not deterring Royce C. Lamberth,
a bald and burly Texan, from mowing his lawn. He stopped only when four cars
filled with FBI agents suddenly pulled up in front of his house. The agents
were there not to arrest him but to request an emergency court hearing to
obtain seven top-secret warrants to eavesdrop on Americans.
The Real
Purpose Behind the
Terror Screening System
Today's comment is by
Mark Nestmann,
Wealth & Preservation & Tax Consultant for The Sovereign Society.
I'm bewildered over all the fuss
surrounding the recent revelations that every international traveler
entering or leaving the U.S. for the last four years has been given a
"terrorism risk" assessment. And this assessment will reside in a secret
file for 40 YEARS after the border crossing.
I'm not disputing that this is an outrageous and unacceptable invasion
of privacy, and that 40 years is far too long to keep this information
on file. But come on now, people, what do you expect?
We've accepted the "no fly" rules like sheep. How do you think the
government has decided who to put on the no-fly list? Through the secret
terrorism risk assessment system, of course. Indeed, I suspect the
no-fly list wouldn't exist without this system in the first place.
I've long maintained that the "no fly" rules have very little to do with
security and are in fact designed to identify political opponents to the
Bush administration. This may sound like a paranoid fantasy, but here's
my reasoning.
According to the Homeland Security Administration (HSA), about 400
million people enter or leave the U.S. each year. HSA won't say how many
of these people it considers terrorists, but there are about 44,000 on
the no fly list, as of late September. We know the overwhelming number
of these people are NOT terrorists. After all, people like Sen. Ted
Kennedy are on the list. But let's say that 1% of the people on the list
are, in fact, terrorists.
That means that for each terrorist the HSA's super-duper data-mining
software correctly identifies, it misidentifies 100 people as potential
terrorists. If in fact, the HSA's efforts have resulted in terrorists
being apprehended-and the HSA is not saying is has-then some might
believe this is an acceptable cost. But consider that the people on the
no-fly list include 14 of the Sept. 11 2001 hijackers who have been dead
for five years. It also includes convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui,
now serving a life sentence, and Saddam Hussein, who has been sentenced
to death in Baghdad. Given these facts, you begin to wonder how accurate
this system really is, and what its actual purpose might be.
The HSA surely knows this. Yet it persists in its data-mining program,
ostensibly to find terrorists. They persist in spite of the number of
falsely identified terrorists vastly outnumbering real terrorists, not
to mention having numerous dead and incarcerated real terrorists on its
no-fly list. So then what is the real purpose of the HSA program?
It turns out that looking for other types of people who are not as rare
as terrorists is much more plausible using data-mining technologies. For
instance, there are a lot of international travelers who don't like
George Bush. Some of them may subscribe to anti-Bush publications, make
phone calls to other people who don't like Bush, etc. Since all of these
records are "mined" by the National Targeting Center, it would be easy
for the HSA to use this information to identify Bush political
opponents.
In other words, while the HSA program is almost useless for identifying
terrorists, it's an extremely effective way for the government to engage
in mass political intelligence gathering. And that's what I think it's
being used for.
MARK NESTMANN, Wealth Preservation & Tax Consultant,
on behalf of The Sovereign Society
EDITOR'S NOTE: Did you hear that? If you're an
international traveler, they keep a secret terrorist file on you for 40
years! So if you went to Europe last summer, the U.S. government will
have your terrorism file until 2046. And that's assuming you never fly
abroad again. If the government has a whole file on you just because you
dared to fly overseas, imagine what they know about your finances.
It's time to fight back to claim at LEAST
your financial privacy, if you
can't even fly without creating an entire file.