Librarians turned snitch?

[scaeagles]

The more I think/hear/read about this, I suppose one thing amazes me more than anything else - that this is being portrayed as something new. Echelon and Carnivore were programs started in the 90s. I have no doubt that there were programs prior to those that did similar things.

Go ahead an object to the programs. But don't act like it is something new and shocking and unique to the current administration.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Ah, but there is a major difference.

Echelon was used to monitor other countries, not US citizens. Carnivore required a court order before it could be used to monitor an individual. So, in actuality, domestic wiretaps on US citizens without a court order is both shocking and unique.

Carnivore

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Ah, but there is a major difference.

Echelon was used to monitor other countries, not US citizens.

Not based on what I've read. From a 60 minutes transcript -

KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those successes or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance of Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up Pan-Am Flight 103.

Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted by Echelon?

Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.

KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?

Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.

That specific conversation isn't going to come up and be flagged unless ALL conversations are being monitored.

Here's a link to the entire 60 mintues transcript that's from -

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

I can't speak to Carnivore. You may be right. As I understand it, when Carnivore started it was illegal because email was not currently covered by any law and it took a while for the laws to catch up, but I have nothing solid on Carnivore to support that.

[innerSpaceman]

It's all well and good to say there's nothing new under the sun in the way of spying, but it's not simply a matter of accepting it cause it's always been done.

Using the NSA to spy on American citizens was last famously done by the Nixon Administration, which got clobbered for it in 1972. Nixon, like Bush, claimed an executive right to issue warrants for eavesdropping and wiretapping of Americans, but the Supreme Court flatly overruled him.

It is thus the law of the land that the president has no power to issue electronic monitoring warrants against American Citizens. It is also the law that the president does not have this power against international subjects either.

Specifically to curb any such wayward presidential ambitions, the FISA legislation was passed in 1978 - - establishing the FISA Court as the sole method for issuing of federal warrants for electronic monitoring of non-domestic subjects. The law makes it a felony for "any person" to go around the FISA Court for this purpose. It should be noted that the FISA Court is a rubber stamp, having denied just 8 warrant applications out of over 14,000. It is frankly amazing that the Bush Administration is essentially claiming they do not have to bother going thru FISA.

As Bush has just admitted that the non-FISA warrants were issued on his personal order, he has just confessed to committing a felony. I wonder whether scaeagles feels this is an impeachable offense.





Oh, and the recent NBC News story of Pentagon files being created on war-protesters smacks of another spying scandal of the Vietnam-era. The military had to foreswear all such domestic spying after it was uncovered in the early 70's ... eh, but what the hell - - that was 30 years ago! Who remembers? Time to start it all up again.


I hate that I have lived long enough to watch many of the horrors of the Vietnam era repeated in a corrupt military and a corrupt presidential administration. I agree with scaeagles that such corruption is nothing new. But it's alarming to me just how vigilent we must be to keep it at bay, for the same dirty tricks will be tried as soon as memory of the last round begins to fade.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Not based on what I've read. From a 60 minutes transcript -

From the same transcript:

KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget. He still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American citizens.

If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls, faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations, and how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those conversations?

Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well.

So, in this instance, at least if Portor Goss is to be believed, there were safeguards in place to ensure that it wasn't used domestically. Not that I necessarily trust that information, but it comes from the senate intelligence oversight comittee.

With the current situation, we have the President flat-out admitting that he ordered this, it is being done, and will continue to be done.

I see a difference.

[scaeagles]

I'm not convinced a felony took place (please refer to Alex's post - I believe it is the 13th of the thread - edited - its the 16th).

Pelosi and Reid have both given statements that they were, in fact, briefed on the program. Apparently, they weren't concerned about any legal violations or civil rights violations until the story hit in the NYT.

I am also reading that certain parts of the Patriot Act may have trumped or overridden parts of FISA, but I'm still not quite sure on all the legal parts of it.

I am torn, quite honestly. I'm a "slippery slope" kind of guy. I guess I fail to see harm in massive computers monitoring communications and flagging those with certain key words for analysis. How does this harm me, I wonder. But, it is certainly government intrusion. What could it lead to further on down the road?

I look at Lincoln, widely regarded as one of the greatest Presidents, who was certainly involved in a unique war, and some of the actions he took. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus over much of the Union. He had journalists thrown in prison. He also had various political enemies thrown in prison because they had spoken of supporting secession for some Union states. Harsh measures. Some prewar, some during the war. History certainly casts lincoln in a positive light. Were all these steps necessary? Without them being taken, would the North still have won the civil war? Who knows.

Tough times we live in. I suppose I have to evalute if I consider it a threat to my personal freedom and liberty to have a giant computer monitoring electronic conversations. If I were tagged as a terrorist for saying that my son's performance bombed (good lord, perhaps I just was tagged), I'd probably be pretty concerned.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Pelosi and Reid have both given statements that they were, in fact, briefed on the program. Apparently, they weren't concerned about any legal violations or civil rights violations until the story hit in the NYT.

I'm probably late to the game, but I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of their responses. It's quite possible these statements hit after your post.

Originally Posted by Harry Reid

The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that "leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

We need to investigate this program and the President's legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.

Originally Posted by Nancy Pelosi

We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President's statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful.

I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.

And just for grins, Here's Daschle (remember him?)

Originally Posted by Tom Daschle

Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program.

Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected.

As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.

To other matters...

Originally Posted by Name

I have a hard time believing a former spy(Mr. Frost) would go into such depths on what would be highly classified information on a national news program and not be in Fort Levenworth. He would have to get a lot of clearances from the many organizations to be able to appear and disclose such things, and they would only be disclosed by the approval of the organizations. I can't imagine they would approve of him disclosing those things. Once you are no longer a spy, your responsibility for safeguarding classified information does not stop. Sounds a lot like a smokescreen and scare tactics to me.

Bless you, my son

[Cadaverous Pallor]

FYI, the public library I work at does not keep a record of what you've checked out in the past. Once the item is returned, its connection to your record is severed (as long as you don't have any fines).

I'll bet that many other libraries are setting up their systems this way in retaliation to all this bullsht.

[€uroMeinke]

I pretty much expect that anytime I use the internet my communications are being monitored - maybe not by the governement, but probably my employer, and various communications, media, and marketing firms.

Sure there's stuff I say and do that I hope remain private, but I aknowledge that it may well be beyond my control.

That said, this fear of "infiltration" reminds me unpleasently of the McCarthy era.

If we do have the best system of government in the world, it would be nice to let it work the way it's supposed to without the behind the scenes manipulations.

[scaeagles]

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." Winston Churchill.

There is no form of government that works the way it is supposed to.

If there were not people within our own borders that were bent on the destruction (or to inflict harm upon) the US of A, it would work a lot better.

So....what to do? Leave out certain forms of intelligence gathering that may prevent another 9/11 and then take the heat when another 9/11 takes place?