BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


I'd Make a 1984 Reference, but it Seems too Obvious...

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
17:27 / 16.12.05
This is what I get for reading the news.

"The Times reported Friday that following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States."

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling."

"Rice used similar words when asked about the program on NBC “Today” show.

“'I’m not going to comment on intelligence matters,' she said. But Rice did say that President Bush 'has always said he would do everything he can to protect the American people, but within the law, and with due regard for civil liberties because he takes seriously his responsibility.'

“'The president acted lawfully in every step that he has taken,' Rice said, 'to defend the American people and to defend the people within his constitutional responsibility.'”


I wish I could say I'm surprised, and I feel a great bit of despair when I realize I can't. I'm glad this has come to public attention, but I'm simply amazed by how many laws this administration has blatantly ignored so far, with no real end in sight.

I clearly need to move to Europe or something. Thoughts, anyone else?
 
 
Baz Auckland
17:50 / 16.12.05
On the bright side, the report of this spying is said to have helped the Patriot Act extensions get defeated today...
 
 
FinderWolf
18:48 / 16.12.05
Also, stalwart Republican Arlen Specter has also expressed outrage at the situation. Adding this to the whole 'US shipped people out to torture countries, US abducted an innocent guy in Germany who they said was a terrorist, US has secret torture/detainee camps in Europe' stuff spells really really bad news all around for the Bush admin.
 
 
grant
19:33 / 16.12.05
Has now been linked to John Bolton, America's controversial ambassador to the U.N.

Apparently, there was mention of this stuff during his nomination hearings, but no actual transcripts of what was being monitored.
 
 
Persephone
20:16 / 16.12.05
Thoughts, anyone else?

Don't move to Europe.

Never surrender! Never give up!
 
 
Slim
20:18 / 16.12.05
This is unpleasant news. But the first story I read about it stated that the NSA was uncomfortable with the program and people were refusing to take part in it (I'm fairly sure this was mentioned). If this is true then I take heart in the fact that although the administration doesn't give a damn about our rights, people in the intel community still do.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
21:15 / 16.12.05
I'm sure you know this was going on before 2001.

Saturday September 14, 2002 The Guardian

...the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and America's National Security Agency (NSA).

The pair are key players in the highly secret UKUSA Communications Intelligence Agreement. Signed on March 5, 1946, the partnership links the major English-speaking nations of the world, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in a worldwide and highly secret eavesdropping network known by the codename Echelon. Since the late 1980s, there has been barely a corner of the earth that is not covered by a listening post belonging to one of the Echelon members - or an American eavesdropping satellite.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
05:21 / 17.12.05
What interested me about the PATRIOT stuff getting voted down was that when they brought them in Bushco said they were a temporary measure, part of the renewal vote this time would have been to make them permanent.
 
 
Slim
15:20 / 17.12.05
The issue here isn't spying on Americans because the government has done that legally for many years. Why on earth Bush would suddenly change it to bypass the warrant requirement, I don't know. I was listening to an interview with a former CIA director who said that if Bush had gone to the courts for approval on what he ended up doing, it probably would have been approved, thanks to all the fear after 9/11.

What a poor miscalulation.
 
 
quixote
02:08 / 18.12.05
So far, we've had two stolen elections (2000, 2004) an invasion, detention without trial, and torture. I've been wondering for years what it was going to take for people to realize we're living in a (startup) dictatorship. Apparently, illegal wiretapping is the crime to end all crimes. Hey, whatever works.

A few details: the secret court that approves the warrants Shrub didn't bother to get was established around 1978, and first refused an authorization in 2001. More of a rubber stamp than anything. And they have a provision to allow wiretaps without authorization, so long as application for authorization is made within 72 hours. (More at Josh Marshall's site) What it amounts to is that these guys couldn't be bothered to tell a flunky to fill out the form because they were too far above the law to have to bother with stupid stuff like that.
 
 
aluhks SMASH!
05:28 / 21.12.05
I too can't comprehend why Bush decided to skirt that court. Leaving aside the obviously questionable legality of having such a court in the first place, why the hell did he need MORE discretionary power for surveillance?

Even more worrisome: The response among his supporters (and by Bush himself) that equates reporting the story with aiding and abetting terrorism.
See:
RedState
BBC coverage
 
 
ShadowSax
15:41 / 21.12.05
i hope that this finally gets bush impeached.

nearly as worrisome, too, is that the nytimes held onto this story for about a year (their estimation) and only released it because a book is soon to be hitting shelves, written by one or two of its reporters, that breaks the story. if only the idiots who voted for bush in 04 had had this info last year...perhaps that could have turned the election.

this is very bad, obviously illegal, and pretty much unnecessary, because decisions by the spy court are retroactive anyway, meaning the only reason i can think for bushco to go around the law here was because there are other circumstances of their methods that are illegal even under the spy court's law. thats my guess, anyway.

according to the washington times today, one of the judges on the spy court has resigned that post in protest of this news. i just hope us americans have the willpower to pay attention to this issue long enough to get something done about it.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
17:05 / 21.12.05
Another worrisome thing is that Bush's polls have actually gone up since this story broke. I'm hoping it was just coincidental timing, as Bush has been rallying the troops about his little war for the past two weeks. But what if it's not that? The idea that people actually support this brazen breach of constitutional law and citizen's rights... how could anyone respect and trust a man who admitted a few weeks ago that he was wrong about Iraq but he would do it all again the same way if given the chance? Who has no trouble detaining citizens for months without a lawyer or even charges pressed against them?

I'm sorry, I'm on a political rant here, but people who support Bush just leave me aghast. I try so hard to get inside their heads, and I just don't get it. *sigh*
 
 
ShadowSax
19:10 / 21.12.05
i'm the same way. i've been trying all this time to figure out what bush supporters are thinking. it's really mostly religious, i think. he's totally suckered the christian population here. but even his supporters, cant they at least be aware of the fact that he's a raging imbecile?

the poll numbers arent related to the wiretapping. the story just broke this weekend, and no one is really paying attention. the only reason his numbers probably went up was because there hadnt been any really bad news lately.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:00 / 21.12.05
if Bush had gone to the courts for approval on what he ended up doing, it probably would have been approved, thanks to all the fear after 9/11.

I suspect that would have been really bad politically among the old guard republicans. He might have got away with it in terms of the population but I doubt that the majority of his political supporters and funders would have been into it. Not everyone is a neo-con and he still needs support in order to push legislation through and of course at the time he needed to get money to get the Presidency again.
 
 
grant
02:21 / 22.12.05
ars technica on the technology behind the scandal.

Key point: The salient points that Zimmermann makes are these:

* In 1995, back when the Pentium Pro was hot stuff, the FBI requested the legal authorization to do very high-volume monitoring of digital calls.
* There's no way for the judicial system to approve warrants for the number of calls that the FBI wanted to monitor.
* The agency could never hire enough humans to be able to monitor that many calls simultaneously, which means that they'd have to use voice recognition technology to look for "hits" that they could then follow up on with human wiretaps.

It is entirely possible that the NSA technology at issue here is some kind of high-volume, automated voice recognition and pattern matching system.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
00:19 / 26.12.05
"The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

"The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said."

This seems to support what grant just said.

Much more disturbing, though: the FBI has been looking specifically at Muslim groups and families in six different cities. For evidence of radiation.

"Under the program, agents with the FBI and U.S. Department of Energy targeted a range of private Muslim institutions without court approval or warrants. Federal officials say they set up the program in Detroit and five other cities to thwart a nuclear attack from Islamic extremists, according to a U.S. News and World Report article that was confirmed Friday by the U.S. Justice Department.".

Fucksake.
 
 
matthew.
14:17 / 27.12.05
because [Bush] takes seriously his responsibility

Is that why in his first year of Presidency, he spent six months on vacation?
 
 
ShadowSax
12:56 / 28.12.05
here we are, in america, now reasonably presuming that our phone conversations are being recorded and our emails are being tracked.

shit, if only we had left texas to the mexicans.
 
 
ibis the being
16:54 / 11.05.06
Today USA Today broke the story that the NSA has been compiling a huge database of call logs with the cooperation of all but one (Qwest) major telcom companies. The NSA has kept a record of all calls on Americans' cellular and land line phones - according to NPR this amounts to about 85% of all Americans. They are not said to have recorded the content of the calls, just the numbers (and names are also retrievable). Qwest refused to cooperate because they were unsure of the legality of the NSA doing this without a warrant, and rightly so, because it is illegal. The operation started after 911 but was retroactive as well.

You may recall that when questioned about the NSA wiretapping program in 2005, Bush said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with "known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates." Any domestic calls, the president said, would go through the secretive FISA court. Well, hmm, that appears to be a lie. Although I'm sure he'll claim mere ignorance once again.

This past January General Hayden assured us, "This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al-Qaeda. ... This is focused. It's targeted. It's very carefully done. You shouldn't worry." (USA Today story)

This past February Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is, communications between a foreign country and this country." (ibid)

More coverage on this story --

Bush Says 'We're Not Trolling Your Personal Life.' That's nice, but did you lie to us again, sir?

Bush Says Spying Not Widespread. Hmm, we must have a different interpretation of "widespread" then, because I think roughly 85% of all American phone lines is pretty wide.

Bush Claims Wiretaps Were Legal Oh, well if he says so then it must be true. What reason do we have to doubt his word?
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
20:00 / 11.05.06
Yet another scandal that little prick will walk away from.

Could you imagine if Clinton had done this kind of shit? The Republicans would have skinned him alive, on the White House lawn, with rusty potato peelers.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
21:32 / 11.05.06
That's my real fear, Jake. If nothing comes of this, what does that mean? I mean, what has to come to light before the morons who voted for him realize that, thanks to them, we’re living in a state of tyranny- to a level never before seen in this country!?! I simply can’t believe the sheer brazenness of the administration for thinking they can get away with this! But I think they might. Which is…. Well, it’s horrific, is what it is.

Good thing I never say anything too important on the phone. Christ, I need a drink.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
21:45 / 11.05.06
I like to make fun of the bastard, but it really is terrifying.

If no one bats an eyelash when he leads the country into an illegal war on false pretenses, fixes elections and spies on 85%(!!!) of the population, what's to stop him from running for a third term? And fixing the results again? It's no less constitutional than the other, vile, evil shit he gets up too.
 
 
ibis the being
22:22 / 11.05.06
Now that I reread the quotes I posted with an eye for Republican Spin, I realize that - as always - they chose their words carefully enough to be extremely misleading but not strictly factually untrue...

Bush said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with "known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates."

Electronic monitoring... I see how they can say recording calls logs is not that.

This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States.

"Only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is, communications between a foreign country and this country."


And they didn't (to our knowledge) actually intercept any of our calls... they "just" tracked them.

How depressing just to think about the inevitable spin... we did it to protect the country, we only said we weren't LISTENING to domestic calls, blah blah fuck you we have no respect for the American people fishcakes.
 
 
diz
22:39 / 11.05.06
That's my real fear, Jake. If nothing comes of this, what does that mean? I mean, what has to come to light before the morons who voted for him realize that, thanks to them, we’re living in a state of tyranny- to a level never before seen in this country!?! I simply can’t believe the sheer brazenness of the administration for thinking they can get away with this! But I think they might. Which is…. Well, it’s horrific, is what it is.

Did you see the recent poll which said that the majority of Americans approve of torture?

The problem with Bush, to some extent, is that he realizes exactly how much he can get away with. When it comes down to it, almost everyone inside the Beltway prior to his administration really thought in terms of conventional politics, and even the most die-hard right-wingers were operating under self-imposed restraints out of some sense that Americans had some sort of vestigial faith in and respect for the rule of law and democratic processes.

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter seems to be that the majority of Americans split the world into two camps: Bad People, and People Like Themselves. They will let the government do anything it wants to do to Bad People or in the name of fighting Bad People. Anything. A. Ny. Thing. If anything, they think that the problem is that the government is too soft on Bad People. Bad People need to be hung by their testicles in the public square while People Like Themselves stab them with rusty scissors.

They neither accept nor really even understand the argument that the very idea of due process and inalienable rights implies that even those alleged to have committed the most heinous offenses need to have their rights respected, and they really don't seem to think that the government would ever do anything to People Like Themselves next.

The only things most Americans care about are their own economic well-being, and the idea that some Bad Guy out there in the big scary world outside the US is laughing at People Like Themselves while he gets away with blatantly being a Bad Guy.

Americans, to make a huge generalization, are undereducated, angry, paranoid about losing social or economic status*, and ignorant about the world outside America's borders, and the combination of those things leads them to some pretty disturbing trains of thought.

* And for good reason, since wages in inflation-adjusted dollars have been stagnant or declining for most Americans for decades now, and most Americans don't have the skills or education to compete in a global economy.
 
 
Baz Auckland
23:09 / 11.05.06
Would it be different if congress wasn't controlled by the Republican Party? Maybe the reason Clinton couldn't have gotten away with something like this, is that he faced the other party in congress and the senate?
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:31 / 12.05.06
Would it be different if congress wasn't controlled by the Republican Party? Maybe the reason Clinton couldn't have gotten away with something like this, is that he faced the other party in congress and the senate?

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.

Republicans were after Clinton's balls since day one, when they were a minority in the congress. They hated, and I mean hated him, and when they got control in 1994, it was so clearly open season on all things Clintonian. The Democrats today are spineless apologists for the neocons. They voted for his fascist PATRIOT Act, his illegal war, his tax cuts for the superrich, didn't raise a fuss about the 2004 election when there was a preponderance of evidence that the results were tampered with... The list goes on.

They're really just another Republican party, albeit one that is moderately right-wing, not hard-right. These people are far to the right of Nixon, if you compare policies. Nixon, to his credit, supported social policies that would be laughed out of Washington these days. Why does the hard right hate Hillary Clinton so much, anyway? She's far closer to one of them than me, teh 3val liberal scum!!1!1!

I've become so disgusted and disillusioned with the Democratic Party, and there's really nowhere to turn to. The Green Party does a fantastic job of setting itself up to be marginalized, and the Libertarians seem to be a bunch of gun-toting lunatics. It's hard to think that the US isn't totally fucked, right now.
 
 
Triumvir
03:03 / 12.05.06
I know that I'm going to be branded as a fascist for saying this, but I'll say it anyway, because it ought to be said. First off, the government isn't actively tracking our calls (with this program at least, the wiretap one is a different story), but rather getting the lists from our phone companies, who have them anyway. My main point is, that although we may not like the fact that the government has a big list of all the phonecalls ever made using US carriers, it may be what needs to be done. The "war on terror," is a 21st century war, one of the first of its kind. It is a war in which sucess isn't based upon force of arms, but rather, control of information. It is the ability to marshal and utilize vast troves of information that will allow the US to win out over whoever it really is we are fighting, be it Al Qieda or whoever else. Although on an abstract level, we may not like the fact that this data mining is going on, sometimes, sacrifices must be made from our freedom to preserve it.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
04:31 / 12.05.06
the government isn't actively tracking our calls, but rather getting the lists from our phone companies, who have them anyway

Damn skippy! There's nothing at all wrong with corporations sharing people's personal information with the government. In fact, I think I'll call my bank, phone company, cable and internet supplier, library, credit card providers, insurance company and local bar tomorrow morning and insist that they immediately share all of my information with the government. If the government doesn't know what websites I'm visiting or what I'm spending money on, the terrorists will have won!

we may not like the fact that the government has a big list of all the phonecalls ever made using US carriers, it may be what needs to be done

Who doesn't like it!? Fucking pinko liberal enviro-Nazi scum, that's who. There needs to be a new wing at Guantanamo for traitors like that. They're hiding something, I'm sure of it. Good, God-fearing people have nothing to fear from this, because we have nothing to hide.

The "war on terror," is a 21st century war, one of the first of its kind. It is a war in which sucess isn't based upon force of arms, but rather, control of information.

You bet your ass. We control the fuck out of all the information in Iraq, boy howdy! Fucking Al Qaeda supporters. Did you know that Saddam was behind 9-11? S'true. Got that bastard, though, didn't we? Now we're working on all the goddamn terrorists in that country (fucking sand trap- no one who lives in a place like that can be trusted, no sir). And there's a lot of them, by God (actually seems like more every day, now that I think about it... why's that, I wonder?), but our fine men and women in the Armed Forces are sorting 'em out. Nothing like hoods, attack dogs and electrified genitals to make someone love the good ol' U-S-of-A.


It is the ability to marshal and utilize vast troves of information that will allow the US to win out over whoever it really is we are fighting, be it Al Qieda or whoever else

Amen, Brother. You have to marshal and utilize vast troves of information before you can marshal and utilize vast troves of bombs. Big fuckin' bombs, with the American flag on 'em! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!

sometimes, sacrifices must be made from our freedom to preserve it.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

You know who said that? Ben Franklin. Betcha never thought he was a Red, huh? Probably spent too much time in France.
 
 
Baz Auckland
05:35 / 12.05.06
Jake: Reasoned discussion, please? Thank you...

My main point is, that although we may not like the fact that the government has a big list of all the phonecalls ever made using US carriers, it may be what needs to be done.

I don't see how this needs to be done or how it helps in the least. Tapping the phones of suspects is one thing... randomly collecting telephone logs of millions of people just seems pointless, or they're really up to something else. Especially since you can assume that anyone who is actually plotting someting is usually smart enough to know that their phone is probably tapped....
 
 
ibis the being
11:00 / 12.05.06
It would appear that Triumvir is representative of the attitude of most Americans on this issue.

According to a new ABC News story, Americans don't really care about this. Their polls show that -

*To the question of "Is Collecting Phone Records Acceptable?" 63% of Americans said yes and only 35% said no.

*41% feel "strongly" that the program is acceptable, and only 25% feel strongly that it's unacceptable.

*To the question of "Would it Bother You if There Was a Record of Your Phone Calls?" 66% of Americans said no and only 34% said yes.

Can I just note that I would like to slap that sliver of the pie who find it unacceptable and yet would not be bothered?

Further, 51% approve of the way President Bush is handling the protection of privacy rights, while 47% disapprove.

You can blame the Democratic Party for lots of things, but not for this. The problem is with the American people. Or maybe the problem is with those of us who find domestic spying horrifying? Maybe we are just strangers in a strange land. The ABC polls found that 45% of Democrats found the NSA program acceptable, and about 60% of independent voters did as well. 60% of Republicans and conservatives felt it was wrong for the media to even break this story.

All these facts and figures spell out something extremely disheartening and depressing. If you care about privacy rights, you're by far a minority in this country. Many people would rather have never even known about it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:25 / 12.05.06
Tapping the phones of suspects is one thing... randomly collecting telephone logs of millions of people just seems pointless, or they're really up to something else.

Baz, you're making the mistake of thinking that they need anything except incredibly spurious evidence to lock people up. People are in an internment camp because they were in Afghanistan at a certain time.
 
 
sleazenation
12:53 / 12.05.06
It would appear that Triumvir is representative of the attitude of most Americans on this issue.

Which does not mean that Triumvir or 'most Americans' are not wrong.

Prevailing attitudes favouring slave ownership and the Europe and the Americas in the 18th and 19th centuries does not make those practices any less wrong. Of course, such a line of arguement could equally be used against any form of liberalization in attitudes and or laws...

The trouble is, as i see it, at this point the current US administration are so discredited that I cannot see any reason for trusting any policies they pursue or 'intelligence' they provide.

This is a real problem because it weakens the American position in areas where there are legitimate concerns...
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
15:20 / 12.05.06
Jake: Reasoned discussion, please? Thank you...

I guess that was a bit of a flippant answer for a Switchboard thread, but triumvir's just saying the same things you hear from FOX News pundits and every other Bush administration mouthpiece:

"Don't worry about this tiny little invasion of privacy. It's to keep you safe. From terrorists!!! You do want to be safe from terrorists, right?"

It was bullshit four years ago, and it's bullshit now. This has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with spying on US citizens. Joe McCarthy would have loved this administration. I was just pointing out the absurdities in a way that was more fun than playing it straight. Sorry if I lowered the level of discourse.
 
 
Chiropteran
15:53 / 12.05.06
Sorry if I lowered the level of discourse.

No worries - you wrote what I was thinking.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply