Land of the free?

[YankeeRebel]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted as a thread yet:

The New York Times said Mr Bush signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the NSA, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts.

Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies.

Republican Senator John McCain called for an explanation, while Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said he would investigate.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Mr Specter, also a Republican, adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority".

Full text of the article is here.

So apparently Americans are "free" to do whatever they want, but the government is also "free" to secretly spy on them. This from the people who insist that the right to privacy is not guaranteed in the Constitution . . .

[ThatReallyHurt]

Is it legal in the US to encrypt your telephone conversations?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

but the government is also "free" to secretly spy on them. This from the people who insist that the right to privacy is not guaranteed in the Constitution . . .

and the surprising thing about this is...?

no privacy, no privacy. seems internally consistent, no?

[JackOfHearts]

Hasn't anyone else heard of ECHELON? The government's probably been doing this sort of thing for years. Don't see why it's such a big deal now.

[Schiavona]

I once read an article that interviewed a Canadian NSA-type. He said that there was a treaty dating back to WWII allowing the Commonwealth Nations and the USA to spy on each other.

This has devolved into the different governments "borrowing" NSA types to do domestic spying. I.e. a US team would collect signals intel in Canada for the Canadian government and vice versa

[Slim]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

Hasn't anyone else heard of ECHELON? The government's probably been doing this sort of thing for years. Don't see why it's such a big deal now.

Having worked for several years in the so called SIGINT community, I think most people would be absolutely amazed at what the current surveillance capabilities are. To fire it up and use it to keep track of what is happening with a few high profile targets doesnt cause me any real concern.

All the current hubub is timed to coincide with a book release.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

Is it legal in the US to encrypt your telephone conversations?

Yes it is.

[esskreemr]

At what point does it become a slippery slope?

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1312739&secid=1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGG53925E1.DTL

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

At what point does it become a slippery slope?

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1312739&secid=1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGG53925E1.DTL

I'd call it more of a delicate balance than a slippery slope. And it's actually been going on for many, many years. These articles are just the latest log on fire set recently to toast the Patriot Act.

I dont see a problem with keeping some tabs on the high profile groups considering, as one of the articles said, some groups advocate illegal activities such as forging credentials. This is a felonious activity and an extreme security risk.

I think the ability for a very organized group with much more in mind than just peaceful demonstrations definitely has the ability to infiltrate or "dupe" some of the groups that really do believe in what they are doing.

For them (FBI, Local Law enforcement) not to keep some information on file about the organizations and the key players is, in my opinion, a dereliction of duty.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by JackOfHearts

Hasn't anyone else heard of ECHELON? The government's probably been doing this sort of thing for years. Don't see why it's such a big deal now.

I may be wrong, but I think Echelon was an FBI system. NSA, like CIA, is legally prohibited from operating domestically, spying on internal communications with no foreign connection, I believe.

Unlike, say, the foreign combatant detentions, I don't think there's much ambiguity in the law to work around on this one.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I may be wrong, but I think Echelon was an FBI system. NSA, like CIA, is legally prohibited from operating domestically, spying on internal communications with no foreign connection, I believe.

Unlike, say, the foreign combatant detentions, I don't think there's much ambiguity in the law to work around on this one.

It's actually an NSA run program, networked with a few other countries. While the lines around what the FBI and CIA can and can't do are pretty clear, and the boundaries are SO well defined (to the point where they couldnt/wouldnt share information) the NSA operates a lot more, let's say "independently" and relies a lot more on technology than human operatives.

[Inquartata]

I stand corrected.

[esskreemr]

Let's go a little beyond the legal issues of a President who has declared a war that will essentially last forever and then has declared that, during the time of this war, which will never trully end, the President has the right to essentially do anything and everything that he feels is necessary to combat the enemy.

So we have:
1) Loosely defined war
2) No end in sight for this war
3) No declared combatants in this war
4) The President declaring the powers to circumvent Constitutional protections during this war.
5) Reports of surveillance and record keeping for individuals involved in peaceful protest.
6) Suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens declared as 'enemy combatants'
7) Suspension of human rights as well as a loosely defined doctrine that encourages the abuse of human rights.
8) A offshore holding facility for 'enemy combatants' so that the laws of the United States don't, in their view, infringe on their ability to collect information.
9) Numerous secret internment camps in various countries with 'relaxed' views on prisoner interrogation.

Am I missing something? This is starting to go WAY beyond any future that even Orwell could have conjured up.

An administration that has a long track record of smearing anyone and everyone who even remotely raises their hackles against any issue that they have deemed to be important. I don't understand why people put their faith in any central authority to use the information wisely. The reason we have the protections in place is because of historic abuses. To remove those protections or allowed them to be ignored is a really, really stupid idea.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Let's go a little beyond the legal issues of a President who has declared a war that will essentially last forever and then has declared that, during the time of this war, which will never trully end, the President has the right to essentially do anything and everything that he feels is necessary to combat the enemy.

So we have:
1) Loosely defined war
2) No end in sight for this war
3) No declared combatants in this war
4) The President declaring the powers to circumvent Constitutional protections during this war.
5) Reports of surveillance and record keeping for individuals involved in peaceful protest.
6) Suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens declared as 'enemy combatants'
7) Suspension of human rights as well as a loosely defined doctrine that encourages the abuse of human rights.
8) A offshore holding facility for 'enemy combatants' so that the laws of the United States don't, in their view, infringe on their ability to collect information.
9) Numerous secret internment camps in various countries with 'relaxed' views on prisoner interrogation.

Am I missing something? This is starting to go WAY beyond any future that even Orwell could have conjured up.

An administration that has a long track record of smearing anyone and everyone who even remotely raises their hackles against any issue that they have deemed to be important. I don't understand why people put their faith in any central authority to use the information wisely. The reason we have the protections in place is because of historic abuses. To remove those protections or allowed them to be ignored is a really, really stupid idea.

I suppose if you believe there is really no threat from groups meaning to do the US and it's allies ill will, measures taken by this administration can seem Orwellian. Thankfully, some do indeed "get it". It's why most people dont really care about this NSA surveillance issue, that has pretty much died (When Al Gore pounces on it, you can stick a fork in it.) No one is really that upset about it.

1,2 and 3) Perhaps in the sense of conventional warefare, but a conventional war is not being waged.

4) Not the first time, and not the last time. This is not some precedent being set by the current administration. It has gone on for a long, long time.

5) Many of these so called "peaceful" protesters are dupes of people and groups interesting in a bit more than just protesting. Not to keep tabs on them would be very dangerous.

6) How many exactly? 5 or 6 perhaps at most? Seems like a few special cases to get all worked up about, no?

7) I'd say the so called "approved torture methods" as you might like to call them, such as sleep deprevation, humiliation, scare tactics, etc, are pretty
humane in the grand scheme of things.

8,9) It's an ugly business, but the laws of the US dont apply to enemy combatants or suspected terrorists captured abroad.

You either believe there is a real, legitimate battle being waged against groups intent on unconventional methods of "jihad" or not. I suspect you dont. Had there been no 9/11, Bombing of the USS Cole, 1st WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Flight 800, etc, I might be a little concerned about the current adminstrations behavior also. But, regardless of all the apologist's reasons and excuses that these events may have happened and that their claims that the US was really to blame for them, they did happen. And the leaderships of the groups responsible have made no bones about their continuted intentions.

The next time the US is hit, I suspect the same people screaming about their loss of freedoms will be the same ones screaming the loudest about the failure of the adminstration to protect it's citizens.

Maybe we have become a little too free and a little too easy to hit when all our personal protection laws are being applied to anyone and everyone who can sneak into this country? I really hate to use the cliche, but the balance between personal freedoms and security is not an easy thing to achieve.

You seem to think all the motives of the administration are dubious. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I dont agree with all the tactics all the time, but I do agree in principle with the bigger picture objectives. No fear. His "reign" will be over in 2008, and I have faith in our system that for the most part balance will be maintained.

[umbrella]

I know this will sound terrible, but I don't really care. In 1993, the CIA and FBI and NSA was already 'sweeping' telephones for drug related words. It's no secret that these organizations use whatever means are at their disposal to find what they need.

In Hawaii for example; the military has completed distroyed the South Shore. Then entire shoreline from Pearl Harbor to Waikiki is littered with garbage that 'tracks' terrorists; in my mind, it's the same thing whether its a phoneline; or a pipeline.

The Newpapers like to make use of politcs to rewrite history.

The worst thing Bush did was submit the name of that aristrocrate to head the CIA; that person must be criminally insane; he has santioned torture of men in cuban camps and it came to light recently; but no one has the balls to make the connection; that he has obviously created some link or connection with the people who shot and killed over 300 kids in Russia.

Please, make me the head of the CIA or something; I can't belive the stupidly. Please also wake up and smell the coffee beans; the President of I-ran posed with a bottle of Evian Water about 6 months ago; this was quickly followed by insurrections in France - fortunetly, the Death Toll was only 4,000 CARS!!!!! [ which we need to learn to do without}p

people....we can't be the gluttons of the world and expect everyone else to support us....while I can't say I like what happened in France, please note that at least it was only CARS that died; will someone please tell me what the story is with the Kids in Russia.....Obviously Iran is more trustworthy??



llllllllllllllll Good Fences, make Good Neighbors

[umbrella]

I have two interesting tidbits: 1. While I worked in a local university, one of the computer geeks immediately started to give me a difficult time he ran downstairs after an open meeting and complained to my supervisor that I had made a 'suggestion' at an open meeting. I think he is a spy. No offense.

Next: I was working at my desk for the city and a navy discharge approached me with something of great interest; he said
"type September 11 2002 in 12 point Times Roman font, highlight it, and change the font to Windding 72". Okay, so I did this and it turned into a pictogram of planes flying into buildings.

So, it seems our entire font system, computer system and so forth can be easily used as an encription machine as did the Nazi's in WWII.


Evil does Not wear a bonnet.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

I suppose if you believe there is really no threat from groups meaning to do the US and it's allies ill will, measures taken by this administration can seem Orwellian. Thankfully, some do indeed "get it". It's why most people dont really care about this NSA surveillance issue, that has pretty much died (When Al Gore pounces on it, you can stick a fork in it.) No one is really that upset about it.

I think you're wrong. There are MANY people upset about this. There are Congress members who are upset about this. There are Republican Congress members who are upset about this.

1,2 and 3) Perhaps in the sense of conventional warefare, but a conventional war is not being waged.

Yet the LARGE majority of the bank-breaking budget to fight the perpetual 'War' goes for conventional warfare. Why is that?

4) Not the first time, and not the last time. This is not some precedent being set by the current administration. It has gone on for a long, long time.

Yes, I know. Stalin, Hitler, Hussein and a wide number of ruthless Dictators and despots used these same tactics to control the population as well as others who posed a challenge to their powers.

1) Just because it's been going on for a long, long time doesn't mean it's right.

2) If it HAS been going on for a long, long time, what went wrong before 9/11? The bombing of the USS Cole, 1st WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Flight 800?

There are now reports surfacing that the President authorized such taps BEFORE 9/11. I've only seen one report of a 'declassified' document by an extremely biased source, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on that. Shouldn't there be a procedure for evaluating the efficacy of a 'total information' system? How many wild goose chases have the FBI been led on? How long (if it's not happening already) before the 'always a step ahead' terrorists learn to use the system to their advantage?

5) Many of these so called "peaceful" protesters are dupes of people and groups interesting in a bit more than just protesting. Not to keep tabs on them would be very dangerous.

So law enforcement agents don't have ANY means other than warrentless information gathering?

I'm not necessarily against many of these procedures. I just think it is INCREDIBLY dangerous as well as against the Constitution to allow for unaccountable searches, seizures, and surveillance. History of long past and short past both have shown us what happens when government is left unaccountable to anyone but itself or when an oligarchy of powerful individuals has unfettered access to the private lives of its citizens.

6) How many exactly? 5 or 6 perhaps at most? Seems like a few special cases to get all worked up about, no?

Considering the 'dark side' nature of these programs, where information is not willingly released to anyone, these cases are known because of 'leaks' in the system. Again, without effective oversight, we have no way of determining the true record of false positives.

7) I'd say the so called "approved torture methods" as you might like to call them, such as sleep deprevation, humiliation, scare tactics, etc, are pretty
humane in the grand scheme of things.

8,9) It's an ugly business, but the laws of the US dont apply to enemy combatants or suspected terrorists captured abroad.

Yes they do. This has been repeatedly established in court and ignored.

You either believe there is a real, legitimate battle being waged against groups intent on unconventional methods of "jihad" or not. I suspect you dont. Had there been no 9/11, Bombing of the USS Cole, 1st WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Flight 800, etc, I might be a little concerned about the current adminstrations behavior also. But, regardless of all the apologist's reasons and excuses that these events may have happened and that their claims that the US was really to blame for them, they did happen. And the leaderships of the groups responsible have made no bones about their continuted intentions.

Interesting enough, the information was already there and was repeatedly ignored. Perhaps we should revamp HOW the gathered information is processed, evaluate the efficiency of the gathering process before opening new and increasingly larger streams of data.

Perhaps these attacks are evidence that we ARE being played, that the 'police state' rationale doesn't work. We wouldn't want to do that, though. It would insinuate that we are fallible and that no matter how many hundreds of billions of dollars we throw to preferred contractors, we will never have a system to protect us against an increasingly sophisticated enemy who uses our unwillingness to bend in the political arena to their advantage.

The next time the US is hit, I suspect the same people screaming about their loss of freedoms will be the same ones screaming the loudest about the failure of the adminstration to protect it's citizens.

And if we are hit within the next year, will you be just as willing to accept that these techniques aren't automatically justified?


A lot of things broke down at the same time leading up and during 9/11. They have been looked at and evaluated but the suggestion largely ignored. Changes were made to systems that were working, at least on the operations level. Take a look at operation 'Vigilante Defender'. This isn't conspiracy theory, this is annual wargame that took place on 9/11/01 consisting of a scenario in which terrorists hijack commercial jet planes and 'hard' landed them into targets. I know you won't take my word for it. Look up the information for yourself. Keywords: "Vigilant Defender", "Vigilante Warrior", "Northern Guardian", and "Northern Defender". These are annual or semi-annual wargames that had taken place before and yet the President and his staff have the GALL to go on the National circuit and state that noone could have anticipated that terrorists would hijack a commercial plane and target a building with it.

Maybe we have become a little too free and a little too easy to hit when all our personal protection laws are being applied to anyone and everyone who can sneak into this country? I really hate to use the cliche, but the balance between personal freedoms and security is not an easy thing to achieve.

Yes it is. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with monitoring relevant communications as long as oversight is included. Procedures were in place for this to happen without too much legal impediment. To systematically state that laws can be circumvented because we are 'at war' is ridiculous.

You seem to think all the motives of the administration are dubious. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time. I dont agree with all the tactics all the time, but I do agree in principle with the bigger picture objectives. No fear. His "reign" will be over in 2008, and I have faith in our system that for the most part balance will be maintained.

I hope his reign effectively ends in November of this year. There are quite a few closets that need cleaning.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Yes, I know. Stalin, Hitler, Husseing and a wide number of ruthless Dictators and despots used these same tactics to control the population as well as others who posed a challenge to their powers.

Please.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you dont really believe the comparison is legitimate. Regardless, someday when you're a bit older you may see just how rediculous and clouded comparisons such as these really are.