Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored? (Read 31040 times)
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #15 - Feb 16th, 2006 at 5:18am
Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #16 - Feb 17th, 2006 at 6:06am
Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #17 - Feb 17th, 2006 at 9:51am
Print Post  
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 ...

« Last Edit: Feb 20th, 2006 at 2:21am by EosJupiter »  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6006
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #18 - Feb 25th, 2006 at 8:43am
Print Post  
Wayne Madsen has posted the following update regarding alleged unlawful NSA surveillance of journalists:

Quote:
February 24, 2006 -- NSA expands surveillance of journalists. According to NSA sources, the signals intelligence agency, which has been at the center of a political storm over President Bush's warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens, has expanded the surveillance of journalists identified by the Bush administration as alleged recipients of classified information. The surveillance database, part of the intelligence community's "Denial and Deception" operations and once known as "Firstfruit" until WMR revealed its existence last May, now includes transcripts of phone calls and e-mails between journalists and their contacts and associates.

NSA sources revealed that the renamed Firstfruit database now contains signals intelligence intercepts, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18), and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, of individuals who have communicated via phone, fax, and email with journalists who include James Bamford, James Risen, Seymour Hersh, Vernon Loeb, Bill Gertz, John C. K. Daly, and this editor, Wayne Madsen, among a growing list of others.

NSA's spying on this editor must entail some surprises for the White House. Although they and their right-wing minions consider this site "fringe" and "conspiratorial," they must be surprised at the number of calls and e-mails received by this editor from such "mainstream media" outlets as the New York Times, CBS News, CNN, Fox, MS-NBC, Boston Globe, Salon, Knight-Ridder Tribune, and yes, even Rupert Murdoch's British flagship publication, The Times of London. Why does a "fringe" web publisher deserve the high-level attention of the Bush administration and its law-violating intelligence officials? Perhaps its because the Bush administration has damaged the U.S. intelligence infrastructure to the point where this web site is now a primary steam vent for U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials who've had enough of the neo-cons and their GOP enablers.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #19 - Mar 7th, 2006 at 4:27am
Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #20 - Mar 14th, 2006 at 4:37am
Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #21 - Mar 18th, 2006 at 7:21pm
Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #22 - Mar 25th, 2006 at 9:35pm
Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
polyfool
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb 23rd, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #23 - May 1st, 2006 at 3:25am
Print Post  
  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."

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6006
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #24 - May 11th, 2006 at 12:48pm
Print Post  
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.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6006
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #25 - May 15th, 2006 at 9:24pm
Print Post  
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.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #26 - Aug 17th, 2006 at 7:23pm
Print Post  
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.


  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6006
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #27 - Aug 18th, 2006 at 8:32am
Print Post  
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.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
retcopper
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 192
Joined: Aug 31st, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #28 - Aug 22nd, 2006 at 3:37pm
Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: NSA FIRSTFRUITS: Is This Site Being Monitored?
Reply #29 - Aug 23rd, 2006 at 12:58am
Print Post  
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
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Send TopicPrint