NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, and according to Bob Barr, of all people, on CNN today, the "useful" information obtained was about an idiotic plot, planned by idiots, to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge with blow torches - the word idiot being his word of choice.

 

[Mk]

Actually, this has been pretty much known for quite awhile, lots of articles about it in the last couple of years. The government's ability to demand access to ISP's records, etc... phone taps, this isn't new.
I attended a seminar (for about 30 of us) my company (a major telecom) held for us a couple of years ago with a person who was the former technology advisor to Chief Justice Warren Burger, Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, The Executive Office of the President of the United States, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This stuff isn't secret. He was a cool guy, great to talk to. Quite an eye opener.

Yeah, Its been done for I don't know how long. Several US government organizations have their own systems, the NSA's domestic one is called Predator I think. ECHELON is the largest in the world. Originally set up by the UK and US in World War II mainly against the Soviets, it still is up and running, monitoring almost the entire world and now New Zealand and Australia have joined in. The NSA/CSS and CIA use it, UK organizations, as well as the Canadian DOND, for themselves. Each country has their responsibility to monitor a particular section of the Earth. It is built and maintained by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Zeta Associates, Zeta Associates keeps a low profile. They aren't on Google. Now THAT is low.

 

[rachmaninoff]

and Zeta Associates, Zeta Associates keeps a low profile. They aren't on Google. Now THAT is low.

Welcome to Zeta Associates!

1st hit on google. You must be confused, Mk.

 

[Mk]

That's not the same Zeta Associate's website. Neither is the one like two hits under it, or zetatech.com or alphadeltazeta.com. I mean, if you look at the site, ask yourself if Raytheon or Lockheed Martin would have that kind of site.
http://raytheon.com/
http://lockheemartin.com/
http://www.zai.com/overview.html

And zai.com's copyright is five (almost six) years expired.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Then how do you expect to convince me a different, more secretive "Zeta associates" exists? Even if you succeed in convincing me, your post will end up on google in a day or two, defeating your own statement.

 

[Manchot]

I can't believe that people are being so nonchalant about our right to privacy and our right to no warrant-less searches. Seriously, "If you aren't planning on causing some terror (!), then the government will take no interest in you anyway?" Am I actually reading this? I thought that no one seriously used that line an argument. It's about our right to privacy, which is one of our most fundamental rights, much more so than our "right" to bear arms.

 

[Astronuc]

Yeah, Its been done for I don't know how long. Several US government organizations have their own systems, the NSA's domestic one is called Predator I think. ECHELON is the largest in the world. Originally set up by the UK and US in World War II mainly against the Soviets, it still is up and running, monitoring almost the entire world and now New Zealand and Australia have joined in. The NSA/CSS and CIA use it, UK organizations, as well as the Canadian DOND, for themselves. Each country has their responsibility to monitor a particular section of the Earth. It is built and maintained by Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Zeta Associates, Zeta Associates keeps a low profile. They aren't on Google. Now THAT is low.

Meredith Hill in the UK, where the US and UK monitor transatlantic communication - basically spying on anyone and everyone.

 

[rachmaninoff]

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_2;_ylt=AkOjIRraxSL3fmishUkEHUbB4FkB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"

I wonder, what if Senate had a vote on this? They rejected the current "Patriot", and that's even less questionable than this. Can Congress override such Executive orders with a simple majority?

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't believe that people are being so nonchalant about our right to privacy and our right to no warrant-less searches.

Have you figured out yet that the police are allowed to make warrant-less searches?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Have you figured out yet that the police are allowed to make warrant-less searches?

And if they abuse that power, they can get sued. There's oversight and culpability there. With what the NSA is now allowed to do, there's no judicial oversight and no one is culpable.

 

[Hurkyl]

And if they abuse that power, they can get sued. There's oversight and culpability there. With what the NSA is now allowed to do, there's no judicial oversight and no one is culpable.

You miss my point; Manchot is complaining about the fact that the power to do warrant-less searches even exists.

 

[edward]

And if they abuse that power, they can get sued. There's oversight and culpability there. With what the NSA is now allowed to do, there's no judicial oversight and no one is culpable.

It isn't just NSA doing the domestic surveillance. It is wide spread within a number of government agencies. The latest targets are cell phones, internet chat rooms, and forums like this one. If a chat room or forum has members who are form a foreign country and a format that enables private messaging they are being heavily monitored.

This is necessary for national security because the PM bypasses the normal ISP of e-mails. My greatest concern is that with all of this information floating around numerous agencies, they may fail to see the forrest for the trees. The failure of agencies to communicate was involved in the entire 9/11 intelligence failure.

There are so many agencies and sub agencies gathering intel in the link below, I couldn't even count them all. + There are lots of clickable sub links.

http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel.html

http://www.intelligence.gov/

 

[Astronuc]

Defiant Bush Confirms Eavesdropping Program

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5060012

NPR.org, December 17, 2005 ·

President Bush confirms he authorized secret domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. But he lashed out at those who object, saying the spying is aimed only at people believed to have a clear link to terrorist organizations.

See related stories.

 

[Manchot]

Have you figured out yet that the police are allowed to make warrant-less searches?

Does that make it any better?

 

[Hurkyl]

Does that make it any better?

I have this naive hope that you aren't going to go off the deep-end and say that policemen shouldn't be allowed to conduct reasonable searches and seizures based upon having probable cause. It should be clear that we do not have a "right" to no warrant-less searches, and it would be unreasonable to think that we should.

 

[Art]

Meredith Hill in the UK, where the US and UK monitor transatlantic communication - basically spying on anyone and everyone.

A few years back there was a diplomatic incident between Britain and Ireland when it was found that GCHQ (the British spy centre) was listening in on all calls to and from Ireland. This had started with good intentions to find out what the IRA were planning but as always seems to happen in such situations the temptation to misuse the information gleaned won out over principles and the British began to use the information they were collecting to win commercial contracts where Ireland and England were competing for foreign investment.

It is a very dangerous path when you have a president deciding who should be tapped to protect national security. The Bush admin believe anything but a republican gov't is a threat to national security and so it is a short step for them to abuse these powers they have seized for political ends.

Nobody suggests that suspected terrorists should not be put under surveilence but what is wrong with the court order system? One can only presume that Bush and co. must think a judge would not grant some of their requests and so one should wonder if the admin's case is as compelling as Bush claims as if it was the judicial oversight system would suffice.

 

[edward]

Nobody suggests that suspected terrorists should not be put under surveilence but what is wrong with the court order system? One can only presume that Bush and co. must think a judge would not grant some of their requests and so one should wonder if the admin's case is as compelling as Bush claims as if it was the judicial oversight system would suffice.

There simply aren't enough judges to handle all of the requests for court orders that would have to be made. Domestic intel operations are far to massive.

 

[Art]

There simply aren't enough judges to handle all of the requests for court orders that would have to be made. Domestic intel operations are far to massive.

there's lots of judges and only one president yet he found the time to sign off on them.

Unrepentant Bush reveals he ordered secret wiretaps in US
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 18/12/2005)
President George W Bush revealed yesterday that he had personally authorised 30 secret wiretaps in the United States since the September 11 terror attacks as he strongly defended his administration's clandestine eavesdropping programme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/18/ixnewstop.html
I'm sure he could have found judges to sign off on 30 wiretaps! That is unless of course his motives were suspect or he had zero probable cause. It would be very interesting to know who these suspected terrorists were. His personal involvement suggests a certain sensitivity about the people being scrutenised. Senior politicians in the US perhaps??
Many people are claiming what he is doing is illegal if so than it sounds like something he should be impeached for.

Mr Specter questioned the legality of Mr Bush's executive orders, saying: "The law prohibits this type of electronic surveillance."

Some lawmakers called for an immediate end to the programme.

Reacting yesterday to Mr Bush's defence, Russell Feingold, a Democratic senator, said the president's remarks were "breathtaking in how extreme they were".

He described as "absurd" Mr Bush's explanation that he relied on his inherent power as president to authorise extra-judicial wiretaps. "If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along.

 

[russ_watters]

Because a phone conversation in the privacy of one's home is not in a public forum, unless one now considers the telecom systems to be public forums.

Yes, the situations are different, but not as different as most people think: Empty the restaurant. What has changed? Nothing. People tend to forget that the staff of the restaurant is still part of the public and will inevitably still overhear things. It is precisely the same with your phone company: they own the phone lines and they work on the phone lines. You never know when someone might be listening in due to the necessity of working on your lines (that need is decreasing with technology, but it's still there).

Really, I think privacy is maintained in phone lines mostly because of tradition. There is no logical reason why your phone company doesn't own your phone conversations, just like AOL owns your emails.

Caveat: I'm talking here about hypothetical logic and practicality. Laws are not necessarily always logically consistent, even though they are supposed to be. And I'm really not clear on what the law says on this isue. But I think that if the laws prevent this kind of thing, they may soon change because of the logic behind email's working getting itself into the forefront of people's consciousness. I can see no logical reason why the police (or FBI or NSA) shouldn't be able to simply request a wiretap from the phone company instead of getting a court order to both allow and require one. They already get the calling records (time, number, duration) by request alone - I see no logical reason why the content of the phone conversation shouldn't be similarly available.

 

[russ_watters]

It's about our right to privacy, which is one of our most fundamental rights, much more so than our "right" to bear arms.

Is it? Where do you get that idea? If privacy is such a fundamental right, why does the word "privacy" not appear in the Bill of Rights? Why is the closest thing to a "right to privacy" the 4th Amendment, which isn't a blanket right to privacy, but merely prohibits unreasonable search and siezure?

There are certain, specific instances where your privacy is protected under the law, but by and large, the right to privacy is a myth. And in my opinion, rightly so. There is too much secrecy in the world. Too many people are afraid to speak their minds or be themselves because of the fear of people thinking differently of them. But that is changing, with the internet and blogs. Kids today share their innermost thoughts with the entire world, and do you know what they are finding out about those deep-dark secrets that everyone has? Everyone has them and they are all the same! How ironic is that?

Heck, one thing I consider a fundamental part of being an adult is dropping the need for secrecy and starting to feel comfortable with who you are - and the corollary is that one of the biggest problems teenagers face is the perceived need to fit in. Why care if you are different? Why care if people are watching and will find out? What is there to be afraid of?

 

[Burnsys]

Russ, the problem arise when you have a criminal state spying on it's inocent citizens.

In the 70' dictatorship here in argentina people were kidnaped and tortured based on others kidnapeds phonebooks... For example if they suspected of me they kidnapedme, take my phonebook and kidnaped all my contacts. Just imagine what a criminal state could do with all this power and technology. You are being to much optimistic about the real nature of the human being.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the problem arise when you have a criminal state spying on it's inocent citizens.

In the 70' dictatorship here in argentina people were kidnaped and tortured based on others kidnapeds phonebooks... For example if they suspected of me they kidnapedme, take my phonebook and kidnaped all my contacts. Just imagine what a criminal state could do with all this power and technology. You are being to much optimistic about the real nature of the human being.

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

 

[russ_watters]

What I think is the right to know that you are being monitored. When you call those support centers, they sometimes tell you that your call may be monitored. That is correct practice. In a crowded restaurant, sure I know that the guy sitting beside could potentially listen in. But on the phone, I wouldn't expect the same. There are times you don't want people knowing about parts of your life.

The whole issue about privacy isn't just about privacy. Atleast not in my opinion. It's about how it can be abused. If you know the guy who's doing these 'investigations', it's mighty easy to get someone marked a terrorist suspect isn't it. Although it may sound okay that this info is going to the 'government', but government is still people.

That's all true, but I think people make unrealistic assumptions about their privacy. On the internet, if a site doesn't have a privacy policy posted, people assume (or they should) that any information they submit to the site can/will be used for whatever purpose the company wants. People should apply the same default assumption to other communications media.

On that, does anyone know if phone companies have TOS policies that include a privacy policy?

 

[Burnsys]

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

Never thougth about that. but i don't believe there is any stable open democracy. i think they are all dictatorships diguised as democracys. (USA, and my country included)

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

mm. maybe not inside, but it's it daily job in irak and afghanistan...
(Replace Random civilian with Suspected terrorists.)

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

Beliveme 30.000 were killed here in my country, and i can see everyday that those same people who organized and runned the dictatorship of the 70' are well alive and running my government in key positions...

 

[russ_watters]

Beliveme 30.000 were killed here in my country, and i can see everyday that those same people who organized and runned the dictatorship of the 70' are well alive and running my government in key positions...

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Burnsys]

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I don't understand your analogy... do you mean,.
Planes=Democracy?

 

[Art]

Burnsys, I just said 'planes are safe' and your response was 'cars are not safe'. So what? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I believe the point being made is that although at the moment you have nothing to fear from expressing your views and opinions and so are not concerned re your privacy, others who are not in lockstep with the current admin feel differently.

Come a change in government to one who's policies you fundamentally oppose I suspect your attitude to privacy would change dramatically when it is your views and opinions which are considered seditious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is not about what the law should be or could be. What Bush did was illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional; end of story. We now have undeniable grounds for impeachment.

On Meet the Press, Rice kept asserting that he used certain powers available to a President. What powers, Russert kept asking; from where does he derive this authority? She had no answer. She would only insist that he has the authority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
Be sure to read the follow-up with Sen Levin

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also that Bush's idea of a balance of power is to avoid legal review, tell a few members of congress what he's doing, and that although they have no say in the matter, if they speak out they will be violating national security laws.

This essentially makes Bush a dictator.

This sort of reminds me of how Saddam was told to give up his WMDs or we'll attack.

 

[edward]

Excellent points Ivan

I do notice that the article in the Times has Cheney/Bush on the high speed spin cycle again. Bush even had a rare live press conference this morning, following yesterdays speech.

 

[SOS2008]

Bush has claimed he had/has the right to spy on American citizens according to:

1) The powers of the President according to Article II of the US Constitution -

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.

2) Congressional approval of the resolution to take military action against Afghanistan also gave him approval to spy on American citizens.

That’s news to most of Congress, including Republicans who have not responded in defense of Bush.

3) Time constraint -

The FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. But if really in a crunch, Bush could have sought approval after the fact, yet never did.

The icing on the cake is Bush lashing out with this statement: “My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.”

Where has he been? Hasn’t he heard about a leak regarding a certain CIA agent?

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

 

[Skyhunter]

Bush has claimed he had/has the right to spy on American citizens according to:
1) The powers of the President according to Article II of the US Constitution -
Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.
2) Congressional approval of the resolution to take military action against Afghanistan also gave him approval to spy on American citizens.
That’s news to most of Congress, including Republicans who have not responded in defense of Bush.
3) Time constraint -
The FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. But if really in a crunch, Bush could have sought approval after the fact, yet never did.
The icing on the cake is Bush lashing out with this statement: “My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war.”
Where has he been? Hasn’t he heard about a leak regarding a certain CIA agent?
IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

I read through the entire thread and was just going to mention the fact that FISA routinely grants retroactive warrants.

I would like to know who Bush is spying on that he doesn't want to be made public. My guess is that they are probably journalists. Probably Democrats as well. I would hope there are a few would be terrorists in that list, except in the case of terrorists there is no reason not to seek authorization from the secret FISA court.

My sentiments exactly;

IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS LYING WOULD-BE DICTATOR!

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand your analogy... do you mean,.
Planes=Democracy?

I said 'our democracy is stable and open' and you responded with 'my dictatorship was not'. The fact that your country was not does not in any way imply that the US is not.

I believe the point being made is that although at the moment you have nothing to fear from expressing your views and opinions and so are not concerned re your privacy, others who are not in lockstep with the current admin feel differently.

First of all, my views are not in lockstep with the current admin, and even if they were, how is that relevant? I strongly disliked Clinton, but did not fearthe government then either.

Come a change in government to one who's policies you fundamentally oppose I suspect your attitude to privacy would change dramatically when it is your views and opinions which are considered seditious.

See above - and "seditious" [views]? This is America, Art - there is no such thing.

 

[russ_watters]

This is not about what the law should be or could be.

Fair enough.

What Bush did was illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional; end of story. We now have undeniable grounds for impeachment.

Could you explain both of those, please? Both how it is illegal (specific law would be helpful) and how it is unConstitutional.

Aside from being a self-proclaimed “War President,” current consensus among constitutional experts is that the constitution does not give the Executive Branch this kind of authority.

Could you cite some of these expert opinions, please?

 

[Burnsys]

I said 'our democracy is stable and open' and you responded with 'my dictatorship was not'. The fact that your country was not does not in any way imply that the US is not.

You said:

So... does that mean that you agree that in a stable, open democracy, there is no need for secrecy?

The US is not a dictatorship and does not kidnap and torture random civilians.

I recognize that one of the reasons people fear openness is a general distrust of others, specifically in the government, but in the western world, I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear. I'll use my common analogy: just because people are afraid of airplanes, that doesn't mean they aren't safe.

Well. your stable and open democracy kidnap and torture civilians (Suspected terrorists who end to be just inocent civilians in most of the cases.) all around the globe...
And when you said: "in the western world[/B], I don't consider that to be a rational, realistic fear"
I asume you was talking about all western democracies, including argentina, which is in the western hemisphere.

Edit: and my dictatorship was trained by your goverment!