AntiPolygraph.org Message Board | |
Polygraph and CVSA Forums >> Polygraph Policy >> NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1135934844 Message started by George W. Maschke on Dec 30th, 2005 at 12:27pm |
Title: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Dec 30th, 2005 at 12:27pm
Former Navy officer and NSA employee Wayne Madsen, now an independent journalist, reports that the NSA has spied on journalists under a codeword project called FIRSTFRUITS and that since 2001, the NSA has also illegally spied on its own employees and other members of the intelligence community who contacted journalists, members of Congress, inspectors general, and other oversight agencies:
Quote:
It seems that Madsen has an informed source. The illustrations he provides: appear to be croppings from a photograph of a computer screen at a classified workstation. Madsen has previously published a similar screen shot providing a directory of the NSA's personnel security staff, including the Agency's polygraph examiners. Although Madsen's current article does not directly address polygraph issues, the reason I post it here is that it raises the question of whether or not AntiPolygraph.org has been the target of illegal wiretapping under FIRSTFRUITS. Madsen notes that those targeted included "anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a 'disgruntled employee.'" By 2000, I fit that profile. Under the pseudonym "Captain Jones," I had posted a public statement about my polygraph experience on the website (no longer on-line) NoPolygraph.com. An updated version of that statement, now under my real name, is available on AntiPolygraph.org here. As I note there, although my statement initially appeared under a pseudonym, I had included enough specific detail that if someone in the U.S. Government really wanted to learn my identity, they could do so. And by November 2000, someone in the Polygraph Section of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, which is co-located with the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland, had in fact done precisely that. By that time (and also since then) I had additionally communicated with Washington Post staff writer Vernon Loeb, one of the journalists allegedly targeted under FIRSTFRUITS, who quoted me in an article titled "Putting More Energy into Counterintelligence" that was published on 10 July 2000. And I've corresponded with numerous "disgruntled" current and former members of the intelligence community. If the NSA targeted AntiPolygraph.org under FIRSTFRUITS (or any other program, for that matter), it is possible that the U.S. Government has determined (or could potentially determine) the identies of most who have contacted AntiPolygraph.org by e-mail, posted on this message board, downloaded The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, or even just visited this website. |
Title: Re: NSA Spied on IC Employees, Congress, Journalis Post by NSAreject on Dec 30th, 2005 at 2:14pm
George,
None of this surprises me; an agency without boundaries. Being an ex-NSA employee, and currently in the Intel community, I have posted numerous times, but obviously don't care. For some reason, NSA thinks they are something special, so many NSA rejects simply apply to other Intel agencies, as in my case. Comparatively, I found their work generally pretty boring. I am sure they have enough information from my posts, but again, I don't care. My only beef with them, is that NSA security are assholes. By the way, a while back, I was interviewing with Lockheed, and talked with a former NSA military assignee, and he told me how he used to listen to our oversees troops' phone conversations over MILSAT. Nice, hugh ? Also, I heard that NSA was tracking peoples' "cookies", as they visited the NSA web site. This kind of behavior indicates that NSA is lacking in real targets, since the Cold War... |
Title: Re: NSA Spied on IC Employees, Congress, Journalis Post by polyfool on Dec 30th, 2005 at 6:44pm NSAreject wrote on Dec 30th, 2005 at 2:14pm:
NSAReject, What you heard about NSA using cookies to track internet use of visitors to its site is right on target. It was a top story on the news networks last night. The NSA's official response is that the whole thing was an unintentional error and once the agency was alerted to the problem, it corrected it. |
Title: Re: NSA Spied on IC Employees, Congress, Journalis Post by NSAreject on Dec 30th, 2005 at 6:53pm
polyfool,
I would love for Congress to somehow audit the NSA, and see for themselves, all the databases full of USSID-18 violations (and would probably enjoy all the porn); of course, that information is supposed to be purged: http://cryptome.org/ussid18-guide.htm The same lame excuse, about the "cookies", happened about 8 years ago, during Black History Month. In their newsletter, in the crossword puzzle, was found a column: U B R E A L T R A S H The NSA claimed that the entire staff, that worked on the puzzle, was African American, so it had to be a random mistake... |
Title: Re: NSA Spied on IC Employees, Congress, Journalis Post by polyfool on Dec 30th, 2005 at 7:28pm wrote on Dec 30th, 2005 at 12:27pm:
George, I'm with NSAReject on this one. Nothing surprises me anymore. It's pretty sad if the government is wasting its time spying on this website and the people who use it when it should be doing what it's supposed to do. I think NSAReject is right in that it would show just how few leads the intel agencies have and just how desperate they are to get their hands on anything even if it means violating the rights of U.S citizens who trust and believe in their government. It astounds me how there seems to be no regard whatsoever for the U.S. Constitution. The framers/ founding fathers must surely be "rolling in their graves." |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 1st, 2006 at 4:53pm
The NSA FIRSTFRUIT graphics provided on Mr. Madsen's website, and copied above, include the logo of the "Foreign Denial & Deception Committee" (FDDC). FDDC Vice Chairman James B. Bruce, writing in a 2003 Studies in Intelligence article titled, "Laws and Leaks of Classified Intelligence: The Consequences of Permissive Neglect," explains that "This committee represents an interagency effort to understand how foreign adversaries learn about, then try to defeat, our secret intelligence collection activities." In his article, among other things, Bruce called for laws to criminalize the publishing of classified information leaked to journalists. By the time Bruce's article was published, the alleged FIRSTFRUITS illegal wiretapping would have been well underway.
Elsewhere, in an article originally published by the website NewsMax.com, but since yanked from that site (but now mirrored on TheMemoryHole.com), Bruce has been quoted as saying, "We've got to do whatever it takes -- if it takes sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes -- to stop these leaks." Bruce's publicly expressed views, combined with that which has already been reported by the New York Times about illegal NSA domestic surveillance, make the FIRSTFRUITS allegations reported by Madsen seem not so very farfetched. Bruce's minimalist attitude toward Americans' First Amendment rights also calls to mind DoDPI instructor Paul M. Menges' suggestion in 2002 that making information about polygraph countermeasures publicly available (as AntiPolygraph.org does) should be outlawed. If anyone reading this message board has knowledge of illegal domestic espionage such as has been alleged under FIRSTFRUITS, please consider contacting the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. On 30 December 2005, founder Sibel Edmonds and senior advisor William Weaver published the following appeal: Quote:
|
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Jan 2nd, 2006 at 2:39am
Happy New Years Folks ...
Now down to business .... Thanks George for this particular thread, The meer thought of domestic spying on loyal US citizens, is repugnant on more levels than I care to comment on. But as far as being a member of this website and NSA or anyother agency finding out, then so be it. Because I think Congress, ( I did write my Senator and Congressman, and voiced that investigation and possible legal action is neccessary). Is in no mood for an administration doing illegal things in time of war. The president should have extraordinary powers to fight a war. But this violates constitutional law, war or no war, hiding under the guise of NATIONAL SECURITY. And now that we know that this particular operation was and is underway. I think the perpetrators will be running for the holes they have buried themselves in. Because I will be more than happy to bring litigation on my rights to free speech and privacy. I hope the congressional investigation gets full discloser of the lists of people operation FirstFruits listened too or monitored. More and more I see this government swinging to the extreme right and suppressing the constitution at every move. Because I don't think that dissent with polygraph interrogations has any link to the War on Terror. No matter what our distinguished polygraphers have to say. And for that matter just remember, that I do believe that federal employees are hard working, honest, and to try to live to the code of ethics. THen again there will be a few who think they are above the law. This too shall be dealt with. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by letsENDstupidity on Jan 6th, 2006 at 9:24am
Ok people lets think about something here, everyone knows there are several methods used for passing polygraph tests, so why would the government waste our tax dollars monitoring this site, there are far better lie detectors trust me, the polygraph is old news, and if the government really did care about this site do you think it would still be on the internet :-/
|
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 6th, 2006 at 9:42am letsENDstupidity wrote on Jan 6th, 2006 at 9:24am:
There are a number of plausible reasons why some in the U.S. Government might want to monitor this website. Polygraph screening is the cornerstone of U.S. counterintelligence policy. This website provides information on how to pass the polygraph whether or not one is telling the truth. Security officers at agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and FBI might well want to know which applicants and employees have sought information regarding polygraph countermeasures. Access to AntiPolygraph.org's e-mail, or to the account information and IP addresses of registered users on this message board, would be very helpful in this regard. Now, I am not positively asserting that AntiPolygraph.org has been the target of federal wiretapping, but such monitoring of law abiding citizens who disagree with certain policies of the U.S. Government is not without precedent (for example, the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO). I think that Wayne Madsen's recent reporting on illegal NSA monitoring of U.S. persons (in addition to that which James Risen of the New York Times has revealed) is cause for concern. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by Johnn on Jan 17th, 2006 at 5:44pm
George,
How can an outsider gain access to the IP addresses of the board's registered users? Do they not require admin rights? Can you tell if someone was looking in this area? Also, what if someone had a static IP address, or posted with an annonymous proxy, wouldn't that defy the purpose of looking into that information for indentification purpose? |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by NSAreject on Jan 17th, 2006 at 6:10pm
Maybe NSA can hack into computers and attack proxy
servers ? Am I glad, I'm outta there ! Go get um, Russ Tice ! :) |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 18th, 2006 at 4:56pm Johnn wrote on Jan 17th, 2006 at 5:44pm:
The easiest way would be to secure the cooperation of the company that hosts this website. When AntiPolygraph.org's server was located in the United States (we're now on a server in Canada), under the Patriot Act, the FBI could have demanded records by issuing our webhosting company a "National Security Letter." The company would be forbidden from telling us about the letter. The FBI may also have convinced a FISA judge to issue a warrant for surreptitious monitoring of this site. An intelligence agency such as the NSA could trawl Internet traffic for e-mail sent to or from the domain antipolygraph.org. By doing so, it would receive, among other things, copies of the usernames and passwords assigned when people register on this message board. I suppose it could also sniff traffic other than e-mail, for example, the HTTP POST commands that are sent when a person posts a message. Quote:
A static (fixed) IP address would make identifying a poster easier, even long after the post was made. Tracing posts made through an anonymous proxy could be considerably more difficult, especially if a sophisticated proxy network like Tor were used and the e-mail address used for registration purposes were also created (and only checked) through such a proxy. I don't know whether this site is now, or has ever been, the target of government eavesdropping. But it is a possibility that cannot be dismissed out of hand. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Jan 28th, 2006 at 9:59pm
For those with doubts about the possibility of this site being monitored, read the article below.
ACLU Releases Government Photos WXIA TV, Atlanta Friday 27 January 2006 A government photo shows Caitlin Childs protesting. (Photo: WXIA 11Alive.com) The ACLU of Georgia released copies of government files on Wednesday that illustrate the extent to which the FBI, the DeKalb County Division of Homeland Security and other government agencies have gone to compile information on Georgians suspected of being threats simply for expressing controversial opinions. Two documents relating to anti-war and anti-government protests, and a vegan rally, prove the agencies have been "spying" on Georgia residents unconstitutionally, the ACLU said. For example, more than two dozen government surveillance photographs show 22-year-old Caitlin Childs of Atlanta, a strict vegetarian, and other vegans picketing against meat eating, in December 2003. They staged their protest outside a HoneyBaked Ham store on Buford Highway in DeKalb County. An undercover DeKalb County Homeland Security detective was assigned to conduct surveillance of the protest and the protestors, and take the photographs. The detective arrested Childs and another protester after he saw Childs approach him and write down, on a piece of paper, the license plate number of his unmarked government car. "They told me if I didn't give over the piece of paper I would go to jail and I refused and I went to jail, and the piece of paper was taken away from me at the jail and the officer who transferred me said that was why I was arrested," Childs said on Wednesday. The government file lists anti-war protesters in Atlanta as threats, the ACLU said. The ACLU of Georgia accuses the Bush administration of labeling those who disagree with its policy as disloyal Americans. "We believe that spying on American citizens for no good reason is fundamentally un-American, that it's not the place of the government or the best use of resources to spy on its own citizens and we want it to stop. We want the spies in our government to pack their bags, close up their notebooks, take their cameras home and not engage in the spying anymore," Gerald Weber of the ACLU of Georgia said during a news conference. "We have heard of not a single, government surveillance of a pro-war group," Weber said. "And I doubt we will ever hear of a single surveillance of a pro-war group." Caitlin Childs, shown at an ACLU news conference. (Photo: WXIA 11Alive.com) The ACLU wants Congress and the courts to order government agencies, including the FBI, to stop unconstitutional surveillance. Weber said the ACLU of Georgia may sue the government, in order to define, once and for all, what unconstitutional surveillance is in a post-911 America. The FBI in Atlanta declined to comment. According to the Associated Press, FBI spokesman Bill Carter in Washington, D.C. said that all FBI investigations are conducted in response to information that the people being investigated were involved in or might have information about crimes. As for Caitlin Childs' protest against meat eating, the files obtained by the ACLU include the DeKalb County Homeland Security report on the surveillance of Childs and the others. The detective wrote that he ordered Childs to give him the piece of paper on which she had written his license tag number, telling her that he did not want her or anyone else to have the tag number of his undercover vehicle. The detective did not comment in his report about why his license tag number was already visible to the public. The detective wrote that Childs was "hostile, uncooperative and boisterous toward the officers." Childs said today that the agents shouldn't have been there in the first place, squelching legal dissent. "We have the right to gather and protest and speak out." |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 29th, 2006 at 10:49am
Here's a link to the WXIA-TV Atlanta article polyfool cited:
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75151 For related reading see the ACLU of Georgia's press release: http://www.acluga.org/press.releases/0509/vegans.honeybaked.html and also the statement of complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: http://www.acluga.org/briefs/honeybaked/Complaintl.pdf Is America becoming a police state? |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Feb 14th, 2006 at 5:25am
Inquiry into Wiretapping Article Widens
By David Johnston The New York Times Sunday 12 February 2006 Washington - Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials. The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges. The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information. Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less." The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference. Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting. "Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security. "What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty - a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest." Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of innocent Americans. These critics have noted that the program appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on American citizens. Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and at least one Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, has said the eavesdropping effort may amount to an impeachable offense. At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and says, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism." The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information. A Federal Bureau of Investigation team under the direction of the bureau's counterintelligence division at agency headquarters has questioned employees at the F.B.I., the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the officials said. Prosecutors have also taken steps to activate a grand jury. The interviews have focused initially on identifying government officials who have had contact with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau. The interviews appeared to be initially intended to determine who in the government spoke with Times reporters about intelligence and counterterrorism matters. In addition, investigators are trying to determine who in the government was authorized to know about the eavesdropping program. Several officials described the investigation as aggressive and fast-moving. The officials who described the interviews did so on condition of anonymity, citing the confidentiality of an ongoing criminal inquiry. The administration's chief legal defender of the program is Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is also the senior official responsible for the leak investigation. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb. 6, Mr. Gonzales said: "I'm not going to get into specific laws that are being looked at. But, obviously, our prosecutors are going to look to see all the laws that have been violated. And if the evidence is there, they're going to prosecute those violations." Mr. Bush and other senior officials have said that the electronic surveillance operation was authorized by what they call the president's wartime powers and a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda passed in the days after the September 2001 terror attacks. The government's increasing unwillingness to honor confidentiality pledges between journalists and their sources in national security cases has been evident in another case, involving the disclosure in 2003 of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. The special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, demanded that several journalists disclose their conversations with their sources. Judith Miller, at the time a reporter for The Times, went to jail for 85 days before agreeing to comply with a subpoena to testify about her conversations with I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby has been indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction of justice and has pleaded not guilty. "An outgrowth of the Fitzgerald investigation is that the gloves are off in leak cases," said George J. Terwilliger III, former deputy attorney general in the administration of the first President Bush. "New rules apply." How aggressively prosecutors pursue the new case involving the N.S.A. may depend on their assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure, Mr. Terwilliger said. "If the program is as sensitive and critical as it has been described, and leaking its existence could put the lives of innocent American people in jeopardy," he said, "that surely would have an effect on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion." Recently, federal authorities have used espionage statutes to move beyond prosecutions of government officials who disclose classified information to indict private citizens who receive it. In the case of a former Pentagon analyst, Lawrence A. Franklin, who pleaded guilty to disclosing defense secrets, federal authorities have charged Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, formerly representatives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group. The two men have been indicted on charges of turning over information obtained from Mr. Franklin to a foreign government, which has been identified as Israel, and to journalists. At Mr. Franklin's sentencing hearing in Alexandria, Va., Judge T. S. Ellis III of Federal District Court said he believed that private citizens and government employees must obey laws against illegally disseminating classified information. "Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever." Some media lawyers believe that The Times has powerful legal arguments in defense of its reporting and in protecting its sources. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who has represented publications like The Wall Street Journal and Time magazine, said: "There is a very strong argument that a federal common-law reporters' privilege exists and that privilege would protect confidential sources in this case. There is an extremely strong public interest in this information, and the public has the right to understand this controversial and possibly unconstitutional public policy." |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Feb 16th, 2006 at 5:18am
Whistleblower Says NSA Violations Bigger
UPI Tuesday 14 February 2006 Washington - A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights. Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress. Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance. Neither could he brief the inspector general of the NSA because that office is not cleared to hear the information, he said. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said they believe a few members of the Armed Services Committee are cleared for the information, but they said believe their committee and the intelligence committees have jurisdiction to hear the allegations. "Congressman Kucinich wants Congressman Shays to hold a hearing (on the program)," said Doug Gordon, Kucinich's spokesman. "Obviously it would have to take place in some kind of a closed hearing. But Congress has a role to play in oversight. The (Bush) administration does not get to decide what Congress can and can not hear." Tice was testifying because he was a National Security Agency intelligence officer who was stripped of his security clearance after he reported his suspicions that a former colleague at the Defense Intelligence Agency was a spy. The matter was dismissed by the DIA, but Tice pressed it later and was subsequently ordered to take a psychological examination, during which he was declared paranoid. He is now unemployed. Tice was one of the New York Times sources for its wiretapping story, but he told the committee the information he provided was not secret and could have been provided by an private sector electronic communications professional. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Feb 17th, 2006 at 6:06am
Judge Orders Action on Spying Documents
By Pete Yost The Associated Press Thursday 16 February 2006 Washington - A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding. US District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act. The Justice Department failed to meet the time restraints under FOIA and failed to make a case that it was impractical to deal quickly with the request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said no determination has been made as to what the government's next step will be. At a court hearing a week ago, Justice Department lawyer Rupa Bhattacharyya said the government would respond starting March 3, but she said she had no information on when the process might be completed. Timing will depend on complexity, "and in this case there are a lot of complexities," Bhattacharyya said. Kennedy wrote that "courts have the authority to impose concrete deadlines on agencies that delay the processing of requests meriting expedition." Routine FOIA requests are to be handled within 20 days while expedited requests have no set time limit under the law, prompting the Justice Department to take the position that the amount of time for expedited requests could be longer than that for the routine 20-day handling. "Congress could not have intended to create the absurd situation enabling the government to unilaterally exceed the standard 20-day period," Kennedy wrote. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Feb 17th, 2006 at 9:51am
Polyfool,
You beat me to the punch on this posting (Yours Above) , but I wanted to add this link on the stand from American Bar Association on their stand against the Domestic Spying issue and President Bush. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184717,00.html I can hear the teeth being sharpened on the law cases that are coming from this. This is going to get very, very ugly for the Government. Especially if the full disclosure is released on who was spied upon. And as far as this website being monitored: The thing to remember is, it is not a crime to research polygraphy. And its not a crime to come to this website. And its not a crime to disbelieve in the polygraph. And its not a crime to use any information gleened from that research. So whether NSA or who ever likes it or not. There is nothing illegal at all about this website, or being a poster here. Regards ... |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Feb 25th, 2006 at 8:43am
Wayne Madsen has posted the following update regarding alleged unlawful NSA surveillance of journalists:
Quote:
|
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Mar 7th, 2006 at 4:27am
On March 7, the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a vote on whether to
investigate the domestic wiretaps that the president has already admitted were performed in defiance of the FISA court. > >Bill Frist has now threatened to restructure the Senate Intelligence Committee itself to strip it of oversight responsibility if it even dares to investigate the president's dictatorial violations of the law. > >It is critically important that we speak out now to make sure justice prevails in this very winnable fight. With the votes against him three weeks ago, senator Roberts has already once unilaterally blocked a vote on this matter. We must raise every voice to make sure they know the people will not let them get away with it again. > >ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/wiretap_hearing.php > >Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Mar 14th, 2006 at 4:37am
Feingold Proposes Bush Censure Over Spying
By Douglass K. Daniel The Associated Press Monday 13 March 2006 Washington - A liberal Democrat and potential White House contender is proposing censuring President Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping, saying the White House misled Americans about its legality. "The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview. A censure resolution, which simply would scold the president, has been used just once in U.S. history - against Andrew Jackson in 1834. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called the proposal "a crazy political move" that would weaken the U.S. during wartime. The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Bush claims that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance. The White House had no immediate response on Sunday. The resolution says the president "repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program last December when he indicated the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the U.S. "Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. "And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong." The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense. The president's action were "in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country. In the House, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing legislation that would call on the Republican-controlled Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeachment. The program granted intelligence officers the power to monitor - without court approval - the international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents, when those officers suspect terrorism may be involved. Frist, appearing on ABC's "This Week," said that he hoped al-Qaida and other enemies of the U.S. were not listening to the infighting. "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong," Frist said. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said on CNN's "Late Edition" that Feingold's announcement on a Sunday talk show was "political grandstanding. And it tends to weaken our president." A longtime critic of the administration, Feingold was the first senator to urge a withdrawal timetable for U.S. troops in Iraq and was the only senator to vote in 2001 against the USA Patriot Act, the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers. He also voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq. Jackson was censured by the Senate in 1834 after he removed the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig Party, which controlled the Senate. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate failed to gain enough votes to bring a censure resolution against President Clinton. The Senate had just acquitted Clinton after the House impeached him in December 1998, accusing him of committing perjury and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Impeachment is the only punishment outlined in the Constitution for a president. But the Constitution says the House and Senate can punish their own members through censure. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Mar 18th, 2006 at 7:21pm
Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying
By Charles Babington The Washington Post Friday 17 March 2006 GOP plan would bring surveillance under review of Congress, FISA Court. The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators. The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps. The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year. The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine). All but Graham are members of the sharply divided intelligence committee, whose Democratic members have unsuccessfully sought an investigation into the NSA program. Hagel and Snowe threatened last month to join the Democrats' request unless the administration and Congress agreed on a way to bring the wiretap program under the review of FISA's court and Congress. It is far from clear whether the bill can win passage. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - whose panel plays a major role in the surveillance matter - pointed his thumb down yesterday when asked about the measure. He said he particularly objects to letting the government "do whatever the hell it wants" for 45 days without seeking judicial or congressional approval. The Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who has defended the administration's actions, said seven members of a newly appointed subcommittee should be given time "to complete their review of the program before moving ahead with legislation." He added: "I am concerned that some of the procedural requirements included in the bill may limit the program's effectiveness." Committee Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said through a spokeswoman that it is "too soon to consider legislation until the oversight subcommittee can answer critical questions about the program." DeWine told reporters that White House officials "agree with the general concept" of the bill. Most Americans think "this type of surveillance should continue," he said, but Congress must impose oversight. Details of the program, and Justice Department requests for exemptions from FISA warrants, would go only to the seven-member Senate subcommittee and a similar House intelligence subcommittee yet to be named. Both subcommittees would include Democrats and Republicans. The bill introduced yesterday calls for fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 15 years for those who disclose "classified information related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's name for the NSA operation. The penalties would not apply to journalists. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:35pm
DOJ: NSA Could've Monitored Lawyers' Calls
By Katherine Shrader Associated Press Saturday 25 March 2006 Washington - The National Security Agency could have legally monitored ordinarily confidential communications between doctors and patients or attorneys and their clients, the Justice Department said Friday of its controversial warrantless surveillance program. Responding to questions from Congress, the department also said that it sees no prohibition to using information collected under the NSA's program in court. "Because collecting foreign intelligence information without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment and because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is lawful, there appears to be no legal barrier against introducing this evidence in a criminal prosecution," the department said in responses to questions from lawmakers released Friday evening. The department said that considerations, including whether classified information could be disclosed, must be weighed. In classified court filings, the Justice Department has responded to questions about whether information from the government's warrantless surveillance program was used to prosecute terror suspects. Defense attorneys are hoping to use that information to challenge the cases against their clients. Since the program was disclosed in December, some skeptical lawmakers have investigated the Bush administration's legal footing, raising questions including whether the program could capture doctor-patient and attorney-client communications. Such communications normally receive special legal protections. "Although the program does not specifically target the communications of attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be categorically excluded from interception," the department said. The department said the same general criteria for the surveillance program would also apply to doctors' and lawyers' calls: one party must be outside the United States and there must be reason to believe one party is linked to al-Qaida. The department's written response also said that these communications aren't specifically targeted and safeguards are in place to protect privacy rights. Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, complained about the department's evasiveness in answers to questions from the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, submitted to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. All but two of 45 answers to the House Judiciary Democrats were vague and unresponsive, Conyers said. He found the response regarding doctor-patient and attorney-client privilege particularly troublesome. More generally, the "need for oversight is especially glaring," he said in a statement. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department "has been extremely forthcoming and clear about the administration's legal analysis through multiple briefings with Congress, three hearings with the Attorney General, multiple letters to Congress, a 42-page white paper and dozens of questions for the record." Responding in 75 typed pages, the department clarified some points in the three-month-old debate over the program. But it also left many questions unanswered, citing the need for national security. The House Democrats asked if any other president has authorized wiretaps without court warrants since the passage of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs intelligence collection inside the United States. Choosing its words carefully, the department said, "if the question is limited to 'electronic surveillance' ... we are unaware of such authorizations." The department also made clear that the program - as confirmed by President Bush - has never been suspended since it began in October 2001. That would include 2004, when reports indicate serious doubts about the program were raised by Justice Department officials. But the department refused to discuss, or even confirm, a meeting in 2004 at then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bed. News reports indicated that White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and Gonzales, then White House counsel, needed his help to quell dissent about the program. Lawmakers also asked whether federal judges on a secretive intelligence court objected to the program and, if so, how the administration responded. The department wouldn't answer, citing the need to protect classified information. "We assure you, however, that the department keeps the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court fully informed regarding information that is relevant to the FISA process," the response said. The department also avoided questions on whether the administration believes it is legal to wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant, when al-Qaida activity is suspected. The department wouldn't say specifically that it hasn't been done. "Interception of the content of domestic communications would present a different legal question," the department said. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by polyfool on May 1st, 2006 at 3:25am
Data Show How Patriot Act Used
By Richard B. Schmitt The Los Angeles Times Saturday 29 April 2006 The Justice Department for the first time reports on 9,254 FBI subpoenas for monitoring citizens. Some surveillance in the US has been rising. Washington - The FBI issued thousands of subpoenas to banks, phone companies and Internet providers last year, aggressively using a power enhanced under the Patriot Act to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens, Justice Department data released late Friday showed. The report given to members of Congress was the first to detail the government's use of a controversial form of administrative subpoena that has drawn fire because it can be issued by investigators without court oversight. The Justice Department report also disclosed that its use of electronic surveillance and search warrants in national security investigations jumped 15% in 2005. The data show that U.S. authorities are in some cases escalating their use of anti-terrorism statutes. Civil liberties groups said they found the new information worrisome. They said it raised concerns about whether investigators were being sensitive to the rights of citizens caught in terrorism-related probes. The report includes the first look at the use of what are known as national security letters, which let the FBI obtain phone logs, Internet traffic records, and bank and credit information about individuals without a court order. The Bush administration had fought the release of the information on grounds that it could imperil national security. But Congress ordered the release when it reauthorized portions of the Patriot Act this year. According to the new report, the FBI issued 9,254 national security letters in 2005, covering 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal foreign residents. The Justice Department said the data did not include what probably were thousands of additional letters issued to obtain more limited information about some individuals - such as a home address - or letters that were issued about targets who were in the U.S. illegally. The number of such letters previously had been provided to members of Congress on a classified basis. Data from other years aren't available, although some experts said the number probably had increased substantially. "Now we can see why the administration was so eager to hide the number," said Lisa Graves, a senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. The original Patriot Act, enacted weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, made it easier for the FBI to issue the letters, and for the first time permitted agents based outside Washington to issue the letters. "These used to be fairly difficult to obtain, and now the authorities have been delegated very widely," said Michael Woods, former head of the FBI national-security law unit. "I think [the report] primarily shows that they are a lot easier to get." The Justice Department report also included an annual update on the number of warrants that the department had obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret federal court for intelligence and terrorism investigations. Applications for electronic surveillance and physical search warrants - which almost always are approved by the court - rose to 2,074 in 2005, compared with 1,758 in 2004. Last year's total was more than double the number sought in 2000. That court is the tribunal that the Bush administration has been bypassing in a warrantless domestic surveillance program since shortly after Sept. 11. James Dempsey, policy director of the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, said the increased use of the secret court belied the government's contention that it needed to go outside the court to get the information it needed. Dempsey said he was surprised the number of warrants issued by that court had continued to grow substantially "when the war on terrorism has reached a sort of steady state." |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on May 11th, 2006 at 12:48pm
USA Today reports that the NSA, with the assistance of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth, has been compiling a database of all customer calling records:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm With such a database, it would be possible, among other things, to find out who has called reporters and whom reporters have called. Similarly find out who has called and left a message on AntiPolygraph.org's voice mail. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on May 15th, 2006 at 9:24pm
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html
Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling May 15, 2006 10:33 AM Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report: A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources. "It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation. ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls. Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation. One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen. Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan. Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers. The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded. A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Aug 17th, 2006 at 7:23pm
To all concerned;
A federal judge just shutdown the program. Chalk one up for the 4th Amendment and privacy rights. NSA just got flushed. Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/ Article: --------------------- Federal judge orders end to wiretap program Says governments listening in without warrant is unconstitutional DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Aug 18th, 2006 at 8:32am
EosJupiter,
U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's order that the government immediately terminate its unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping is indeed a victory for democracy and the rule of law in America. The court's 44-page decision in ACLU v. NSA may be downloaded here: http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file863_26477.pdf Let us hope that this decision will be sustained upon the government's already announced appeal. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by retcopper on Aug 22nd, 2006 at 3:37pm
George:
Why in the hell is this a victory. Anyone living in the U.S.A. who thiks so has a deaht wish. Her ruling is an absolute disgrace and indirectly places our country in great danger. You make it sound as if wtaps are put on any citizen fro the hell of it .That is not the case. In any event this case will quickly go to the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal wheremore resposible judges using better "judgement" will overturn it. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 12:58am
RetCopper,
Its a victory for the preservation of your Constitutional Rights. The process for doing this type of surveillance was designed to use the approval & protections of the FISA courts in order to get a warrant. Bush circumvented that protection and squashed the 4th Amendment under the guise of National Security and the war effort. Everytime we lose a protection of our rights we head further into the abyss of becoming a police state with no rights. Your a retired LEO, this should be readily apparent to you, that once a right is lost it is never returned. Bush and this administration has consistantly shown it will circumvent personal protections for its own ends. I am more than willing to accept the threat without trashing the Bill Of Rights. Regards |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by Dippityshurff on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 1:09am EosJupiter wrote on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 12:58am:
I am as well. Though I think perhaps we are going overboard in treating non-citizens with the same safeguards as citizens, I'm always wary when any right is eroded, even though that erosion may have a built-in sunset provision. But tough times call for tough measures and I do wish there were a little less carping from the left. Having said that, carping for the greater good is always welcome *LOL* |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by retcopper on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 5:36pm
Eos:
I am a staunch supporter of our constitutional rights. In fact I spent 30 yrs defending these rights. (Please refer back to my post about how I supported the Miranda decision becasue of the abuse by cops in the past.) However, there comes a time when the safety of our country becomes more important than our rights. Common sense has to prevail. I won't go on about how I think Bush has the safety of our countyr at hear because you are probably a liberal who is anti Bush everything and I am a conservative Bush backer and we will never agree. I would rather have the Feds do wtaps on suspected individuals who mean to do harm to us than see one of our cities become destroyed by some "dirty bomb" because we were concerned about some terrorist's constitutional rights. Have a good day. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by underlyingtruth on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 6:02pm retcopper wrote on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 5:36pm:
There are not very many bank robberies in Mexico. That is because when someone tries hold up a bank, the guards start shooting everything that moves until the perpetrators are dead. If you happen to be a customer or a worker, you better hit the floor and take cover because your life is inconsequential. They WILL get the perpetrators and anybody that gets in the way is just the cost of security. I have no concern for a terrorist's constitutional rights, but I do have concern for individuals who are caught in the crossfire. Does the end justify the means? Also, wouldn’t the intelligent terrorists be using secure methods of communication that are nearly impossible to intercept? |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Aug 24th, 2006 at 12:44am retcopper wrote on Aug 23rd, 2006 at 5:36pm:
RetCopper, I am neither conservative or liberal. I make my decisions on issues by what I perceive as moral, honest and correct for any given problem. GW Bush has nothing but the best interest of the country I am sure. Except he listens to his cabinet full of self important neophytes that have, since he was first elected given him bad info and advice on policies, Iraq, and homeland security. But you bring up a good point and you show it quite well in your message. That you are willing to give up some of your liberties for security. This is dangerous as it sets us down this police state road everytime we do this. The germans did this in 1932 when they elected Hitler because he promised them security, in return he expected complete loyalty by the population. If you do not see this correlation, then I suggest reading the "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich". The similarities to today will scare you. Especially the part where Hitler was given the powers from the Enabling Act. He guaranteed security with the giving up of liberties. Regards ... |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by cesium_133 on Aug 24th, 2006 at 8:16am
The polygraph, as a work of fiction, creates fictional security. So does the concept of GSR monitors ar airports, VSA, and all else in the truth-telling pseudosciences.
Any sort of wiretap sans warrant, searching in houses without warrant (like by heat detection), and things of that nature erode liberty and security. And as someone said once: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." That was Ben Franklin... Hitler promised security, which the Jews never got to enjoy because he used his security crap to exterminate them. His nation was wiped out in 12 years. And he took liberty, also... |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by retcopper on Aug 24th, 2006 at 4:09pm
Eos:
Yo make some good points and I respect your opinions but the leader of some of the Middle East countries like Iran are sounding just like Hitler with their vitriolic remarks about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth". The world didn't take Hitler seriously and look what happened. I did read the Rise and Fall many yrs ago but I will have to reread it again to refresh my memory. (Too many bad concussions over the yrs.) Cesium: I have read many books abuot Franklin and our founding fathers but it is my opinon that you cannot take their words and thoughts from that period and apply them to todays world. Thanx to both of you for your remarks regarding history. I am a history buff and ehjoy the analogies. Have a good day. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Aug 25th, 2006 at 7:36am retcopper wrote on Aug 24th, 2006 at 4:09pm:
Retcopper, I have no doubt that those despotic regimes will never have our best intentions, but most tolerate us as long as the $$$ keeps coming from us buying their oil. I don't have a problem with us cleanng house either. Iran & Syria I think also need a good butt kicking. But that fight is for a later time. But we still need to watch our own government to make sure that they follow the laws too. Hence why the judge shut the NSA program down. If it had been done right with the warrants and FISA court, this whole discussion would be mute. I played football and lacrosse, and I fully understand concussions and the follow on issues that come from them. Regards .... |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by EosJupiter on Jan 18th, 2007 at 5:06am
To all Concerned,
It looks like the Bush Administration lost its battle to keep its domestic spying without oversite going. Here is the link to the article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16673270/ This is a definate win for privacy and the 4th Amendment. Text follows: Independent body to monitor spying program Court has already approved one surveillance request from government WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has agreed to let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government’s controversial domestic spying program, the Justice Department said Wednesday. In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps placed on people with suspected terror links. “Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” Gonzales wrote in the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. “Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires,” the attorney general wrote. The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links. The White House said it is satisfied with new guidelines the FISA court adopted on Jan. 10 to address administration officials’ concerns about national security. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said. Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts. The secret panel of judges, known as the FISA court, was established in the late 1970s to review requests for warrants to conduct surveillance inside the United States. The Bush administration had resisted giving the court final approval over the Terrorist Surveillance Program, even when communications involved someone inside the country. A federal judge in Detroit last August declared the program unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights to free speech and privacy and the separation of powers. In October, a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based appeals court ruled that the administration could keep the program in place while it appeals the Detroit decision. Additionally, the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating the agency’s use of information gathered in the spying program. In testimony last fall in front of the Senate panel, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was not allowed to discuss classified details that could show whether it has curbed terrorist activity in the United States. Congressional intelligence committees have already been briefed on the court’s orders, Gonzales said in his letter. It was sent to the committee the day before he is set to testify before the panel, which oversees the Justice Department. -------- This is how it was suppose to be done !! Regards .... |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 22nd, 2009 at 7:22am
NSA whistleblower Russ Tice appeared on MSNBC's Countdown program with Keith Olbermann to speak more about the NSA's illegal monitoring of journalists. See "Whistleblower: NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists" on RawStory.com. Here's the Countdown video:
[media width=425]http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_nsa_090121a.flv[/media] |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by T.M. Cullen on Jan 22nd, 2009 at 6:42pm
The NSA's Project "Echelon" probably did the same kind of thing, and took place, I believe, under the CLINTON administration. I wonder why the left leaning obermann didn't ask about that? Even as a sidebar. Selective journalism at it's best. 8-)
TC |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 22nd, 2009 at 7:43pm T.M. Cullen wrote on Jan 22nd, 2009 at 6:42pm:
I disagree. That Olbermann did not discuss Echelon (the code name of a computer system for sharing intercept information between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) is readily explained by the fact that Tice's allegations of governmental criminality do not concern Echelon. Rather, they are about the NSA's illegal interception of the communications of essentially all Americans -- even those with no terrorist connections -- as well as NSA's (also illegal) targeting of journalists. Olbermann questioned Tice about what he knew and how he knew it. And I think his commentary in this case was spot-on. Note that Olbermann also took Barack Obama to task over the latter's support for the FISA bill granting telecommunications companies immunity from lawsuits for their complicity in the NSA's law-breaking. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by T.M. Cullen on Jan 23rd, 2009 at 1:42am
I said as a side bar, since they were talking about illegally collecting on US citizens.
From what I have read about Echelon (and I had nothing to do with it when I worked in the SIGINT community, and only know what I know from what I've read on the web) the NSA would collect on UK citizens (which would be illegal for the NSA SIGINT counterpart in the UK ?GCHQ?), then share the info with the UK government. GCHQ, in turn, spied on americans and shared the info with the NSA. This so as to not violate USSID 18. The net effect was as if the NSA had actually spied on Americans. As for the specific targeting individuals (journalists, funeral directors, gay florists...etc). Echelon may not have specifically targeted individuals, and was just a computer driven system of collection receivers...etc. as you said, but who knows how analysts could have sifted through the data once collected by the system. Via meta tags...etc. Again, UK on US citizens, US on UK citizens, with the two working together. Do you think OBAMA will make any changes as to polygraph policy within the federal government? That's the million dollar question. My point is they can get around this stuff, and have for years. Under all administrations going way back. As for the Oberman piece, your average viewer (say my mom) would have come away thinking, "Gee, that GW spied on us!". Which is probably the impression he wanted to make. You have to take what you see on TV with a grain of salt, whether from Oberman, O'reilly, hannity, whomever. Now, as for the CIA's giving unsuspecting soldiers LSD.....just kidding. TC |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by Fair Chance on Jan 23rd, 2009 at 2:47am
Gentlemen,
Even paranoids have real enemies. Welcome to EVE, HAL's ugly stepsister. How close to the truth you are. So close we better not mention it here. Regards. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on Jan 23rd, 2009 at 4:53am
Here is the second part of Keith Olbermann's interview of Russ Tice, in which it is revealed that the NSA also collected credit card records of American citizens. Olbermann also speaks with New York Times reporter James Risen, who was the subject of government surveillance:
[media width=425]http://216.87.173.33/media/2009/0901/msnbc_ko_tice_part2_090122a.flv[/media] A text summary is available on RawStory.com. |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by T.M. Cullen on Jan 23rd, 2009 at 6:01am
New York Times? They lost their credibility with me a long time ago. If you want the real "dope" you have to read "Hustler"!
It's all politics. If Obama did it, they'd find a way to cover for him! Just like they will find a handy excuse for him when he FAILS to pull the troops out of Iraq. They covered him pretty well during the election campaign. We will find out soon enough what this lack of vetting will be mean for the country. But I don't want to get political! :) TC P.S. I forget which of our founding fathers said it, maybe TJ. But it was words to the effect that any politician even , in his most angelic form is but a "necessary evil", in his worse form a "curse". The less government and politicians effect us, what ever their ilk, the better! The best any politician can do is pick our pocket and try to control us! Joke: What is the difference between a prostitute and a politician? Ans: Well, they both take our money and screw us in the end, but at least with a prostitute, we get our rocks off!! |
Title: Glenn Greenwald Comments on the Plausibility of AntiPolygraph.org Being Targeted by the NSA Post by George W. Maschke on May 21st, 2014 at 7:14pm
In October 2013, I wrote on the AntiPolygraph.org blog about an e-mail that I received from a U.S. navy petty officer in August of that year relating that during a recent DoD polygraph, he had been presented with logs of the websites that he had visited the night before on his personal computer, in his personal home, using his personal Internet service provider. The logs showed that he had visited AntiPolygraph.org, and they went about trying to discredit this website. I took that report (along with additional information from NSA whistleblower Russ Tice) seriously, and it's why there are warnings on the home page and on this message board suggesting that visitors use the Tor Browser Bundle when visiting this site.
Last night, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist to whom NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden entrusted a large cache of NSA documents detailing the vast system of mass suspicionless surveillance that the NSA has erected in the dark, was in Amsterdam to give a talk about his new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. I found the book both fascinating and compelling, and I recommend it to all, including our friends in the polygraph community. I was one of a fortunate few who were able to ask a question during Greenwald's presentation, and I took the opportunity to mention the communication I had received from the Navy petty officer and to ask Greenwald whether he thought that kind of thing is plausible. While he did not directly answer that question, his comments clearly indicated that yes, it is plausible. He intimated that his future reporting will show that the NSA targets activists, civil rights leaders, and foreign policy critics. Greenwald's entire Amsterdam presentation has been posted to YouTube. The following link jumps to my question and Greenwald's reply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ihRjmFcGxjE#t=4745 |
Title: Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? Post by George W. Maschke on May 20th, 2020 at 2:05pm
Journalist Barton Gellman, who had access to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, discusses the NSA's FIRSTFRUITS program in an article titled, "Since I Met Edward Snowden, I’ve Never Stopped Watching My Back" published in The Atlantic. Excerpt:
Quote:
|
AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |