Intelligence Officials Refuse to Answer Critical Questions On Warrantless Domestic Spying
Intelligence Officials Refuse to Answer Critical Questions On Warrantless Domestic Spying
Yesterday, the nation’s top intelligence officials appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee for an annual hearing on national security threats. On at least three occassions, the officials refused to answer critical questions about the administration’s domestic surveillance programs in an open session. In each case, their non-answers spoke volumes.
The first question involved the existence of other domestic intelligence collection programs that have not been disclosed to the full intelligence committee (a CRS report this month found this practice illegal):
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): Mr. Ambassador, without getting into what the specific programs might be, can you assure us today that there are not other intelligence collection — and I emphasize collection — programs that you are aware of and that you are keeping from the full intelligence committee?
NEGROPONTE: Um… Senator, I … I don’t know if I can comment on that in an open session.
In the second exchange, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked officials to provide estimates of the number of communications, and the number of individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations, monitored by the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program.
As Levin noted, both President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff have openly discussed these issues: Bush described the program as “one that listens to a few numbers,” and Chertoff hypothesized about “culling through literally thousands of phone numbers.” Yet the officials refused to answer Levin’s questions:
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Can you give us an estimate as to the number of such communications which were tracked by NSA last year? …
HAYDEN: I’d be very uncomfortable doing it in open session, and I don’t actually know that number. …
LEVIN: Secretary Chertoff says if you’re “culling through literally thousands of phone numbers†you wind up with a huge problem managing the amount of paper. Why is it alright for Secretary Chertoff to talk about “thousands of phone numbers,†but you can’t give us or won’t give us in open session an estimate of the number of those communications?
HAYDEN: Senator, as I said, I’d be uncomfortable doing it in open session, and I don’t know the precise numbers.
LEVIN: I’m not saying precise numbers, I asked for an estimate.
HAYDEN: I cannot give you an estimate of the number of communications intercepted.
LEVIN: Is it a few or is it thousands?
HAYDEN: Sir, I’d be very uncomfortable talking about in open session.
…
LEVIN: Alright. Now, do you have an estimate as to the number of persons who are members of al Qaeda, or agents of al Qaeda, or are members of affiliated organizations to al Qaeda, or their agents — because that’s the test — whose communications have been intercepted, say, in the last year? Do you have an estimate of a number of persons?
HAYDEN: Yes, sir, I do know that number, but I’m unable to give it in this kind of an environment, sir.
LEVIN: Alright. Will you give us to that in closed session?
HAYDEN: Sir, that’s part of the briefing that I’ve given to the chairman and vice chairman on multiple occasions.
LEVIN: Will you give us that number in closed session, the rest of us that are on the intelligence committee?
HAYDEN: Sir, I’m not at liberty to do that.
Finally, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked the officials whether the widely-criticized Total Information Awareness program was still active. Congress voted to shut down the operation in 2003, and terminated the related “Matrix” collection program last year:
WYDEN: Mr. Director, is it correct that when John Poindexter’s program, Operation Total Information Awareness, was closed, that several of Mr. Poindexter’s projects were moved to various intelligence agencies?
NEGROPONTE: I don’t know the answer to that question.
WYDEN: Do any of the other panel members know? The press has reported intelligence officials saying that those programs run by Mr. Poindexter — I and others on this panel led the effort to close it. We want to know if Mr. Poindexter’s programs are going on somewhere else. Can anyone answer that? Mr. Mueller?
MUELLER: I have no knowledge of that, sir.
WYDEN: Any other panel members?
HAYDEN: Senator, I’d like to answer in closed session.
For full transcriptions of the exchanges above, click here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Now why would this even be news? Real news would be that there is cooperation.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 pmcan they hold these guys in contempt when they answer:
“NEGROPONTE: I don’t know the answer to that question.”
or
“HAYDEN: I cannot give you an estimate of the number of communications intercepted. ”
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm?
#3, sure they could….. But we all know that they won’t.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmsorry, that was #2
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmAny transcript of comments from other committee members? I saw a brief clip on the news last night of someone (Chambliss?) saying something to the effect of how even asking all of these questions is aiding the terrorists and we can’t have civil liberties if we’re all dead. I’m moving way past outrage fatigue here, into some kind of stunned sadness at how obsequiously people like him are behaving.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:11 pmLevin asked for the info to be shared only to the intelligence committee behind closed doors, and they said no. So what is the purpose of the intelligence committee then?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:11 pmCome on. Be realistic here. Negroponte, in his postition as DNI, cannot disclose info like that in an open, public session.
I agree with some of the criticism of stonewalling, but this is definately a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:15 pmSaxby Chambliss sounds like a made up stage name for a sportscaster. What a dork, he spewed the most inane, worn out neo-con talking point. How do these guys even get elected? Using the fear card, and the “you are on the terrorists’ side” bullcrap. Can these jerks explain how it is exactly helping the terrorists if the senate intelligence committee is given information behind closed doors? Any Neo-cons want to take a real stab at it, besides attacks on Levin or Democrats?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:15 pmDoesn’t that guy in the pic resemble Cheney? Do all of these guys look alike? I guess evil changes the body in a certain way.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pmI saw a rerun of the Chappell show last night where he does his own version of Law and Order and has a white white-collar criminal go through a district court in the heart of the city, while a black crack dealer gets the call from the cop asking him to be turned in and then goes before the grand jury and has a lot of fun pleading the “fif” whenever asked a question…meanwhile the white guy is tried by a “jury of his peers” (all black) and gets life to think about his crimes, and to “get some reading done & convert to islam”…i have seen many different sides of the law and the true legal system and what stands for justice in this country is the biggest hypocracy
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:16 pmSeems that the Goops have all their bases covered. Their Congressional majorities eliminate that check, the Supreme court is now clearly weighted right so there goes that balance. That makes these NSA hearings something for the media to cover and the American people to absorb, political theatre left to be spun by the pundits. Does that provide any reason to expect repercussions or accountability from BushCo? Someone give me some hope here…..
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pmChase, if you saw the news, Levin asked for the info to be disclosed to the intelligence committee behind closed doors. It is a mountain, not a mole hill.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:17 pmHe won’t be we can comment.
http://www.cic-tech.org/ docs/ 2005/ 2005-11-16-connectDots.pdf
or do a Google search on
2005-11-16-connectDots.pdf
Why do you think the government is allowing all this off-shore storing of our databases of privite infomation? They want to mine the things.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 pmBush officials always refuse to cooperate because they are trying to hide criminality from the press and America’s citizenry!
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm#13: I’m sure it will be discussed behind closed doors.
I reiterate for the silly amongst us: some activities that are confidential will never be discussed publically, even by your esteemed and honorable Dem senators. Don’t confuse confidentiality with non-disclosure.
Certainly some things can bear public disclosure. This is not one of them. The American public is not entitled to know *every* last detail of our intelligence gathering methods and practices.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmChase,
The senate intelligence committee was purportedly breifed on the program to begin with. And how is it public if only the intelligence committee is given info behind closed doors? Can you also tell me the purpose of the intelligence committee?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm#8 …But this is definately a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
comment by Chase-February 3, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Chase only if you dismiss the constitutionally mandated oversite of the executive branch by the congress.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pmThe standard response is that this damages national security and that now our enemies know what we are doing. Yadda yadda yadda, as if our enemies had no idea prior to this that they might have their phones tapped.
The thing I want to know is that with a warrant is the enemy any less or more aware of the fact they are or might be tapped? The FISA court is one of those shadowy courts where outside of its walls very little is known about what goes on inside the walls, so how doe s it compromise national security to obey the law? It is not as if anyone is being told, hey we have a warrant, we are recording your conversations, so what is the big deal? Warrentless searching is about the law and accountability no one knows who or what is being listened to. The FBI said that all the information they have received is buillshit, so where is national security being compromised? I say it’s being compromised by the fact that the administration is willing to tear down any security citizens have from their government.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 pmChase,
How can you be sure it will be discussed behind closed doors to the intelligence committee if these guys specifically said not to just that?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:28 pmNegroponte is purposely avoiding answering questions to the Senate committee > that is evasion and attempted cover-up!
The NSA wiretap program has been exposed, and any real terrorists would know their phones are tapped, so only reason to avoid the Senators questions is nefarious subterfuge!
NSA does not want to admit they are spying on hundreds of thousands of Americans for “Data-Mining” purposes!
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:31 pmIF the FISA court process compromises national security, than change the process, follow the rules, everyone else is expected to follow the rules.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:31 pmPeople people people: there is oversight! The intelligence committees in both houses provide oversight of this program (among many.)
Maybe, just maybe, the questions in open session are designed to cast the Negroponte & Hayden in the darkest light possible (ie asking questions they know cannot/will not be answered in an open session.) It just might be that the Dems are just as politically motivated at the GOP senators/reps.
Sidebar:
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:31 pmAs a slight conservative leaner, I really hope that the Dems overcome their problems to become a real opposition party. I honestly hope they nominate a real candidate in 08 and not a far left wack job that has no real shot except for the coasts.
Chase,
The American people have the right to know a lot more than this administration and the GOP leadership has provided on nearly every issue that matters.
Secrecy is their MO. Secrecy on Cheney Energy task force.
Secrecy on electronic voting technology.
Secrecy regarding 9/11 documents and evidence.
This used to be a democracy and unless our government stops stinewalling and covering up everything it wants to, open government and democracy are a thing of the past. They use national security as an excuse to hide everything!
But don’t take it from me:
http://www.fas.org/ sgp/ news/ 2002/ 09/ re090302.html
http://www.opednews.com/ articles/ opedne_carol_wo_051014_the_most_secretive_a.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/ main.jhtml?xml=/ news/ 2004/ 04/ 04/ wnix04.xml
http://villagenews.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader7006
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:32 pmDid we chase off Chase, or is he going to come back with some stuff that avoids our questions of him? If he can reasonably answer my questions of him, maybe he could change my mind.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 pm24, et al: I totally agree there must be greater executive transparency.
I’m not so sure this is the place to start.
Remember, if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Do you really think they are listening in on phone convos of normal Americans, taking note of what’s for dinner, what movies they like, where they like to shop, etc? Of course not. Get off your high horse and be rational!
And there is no evidence (repeat: NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER) that any survaillence has been used or directed at political targets.
If something like that were confirmed: congratulations - you would see a New Deal-magnitude political realignment.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pmI’m shocked to hear that Iran/Contra crooks break the law!
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pmChase is one of those blind republicans that will follow the crowd right over a cliff. Sadly, these types of people are so devoted to Bush no matter what he does that all they see is what he tells them.
They don’t look at the THOUSANDS of jobs lost since he took office. Or the largest deficit in our 224 year history. All the scandals resulting since his presidency. The many articles by reputable people who have wrote and discussed that Bush was determined well before he went into office to attack Iraq. But none of this means anything to them. They are so blind to the facts that they have become heartless about all the inocent lives being taken by this criminal actions.
I just pray for the day that the same thing happens to them. Then I will just laugh at them and say “I told you so”.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 pmDon’t forget secrecy on Abramoff, secrecy on leak info, secrecy on Katrina.
Abramoff and Katrina have nothing to do with national security.
Did I miss anything?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 pmFor truth: I gotta run to lunch. I would enjoy a rational debate with you or anyone, if I can delay it an hour.
BTW: Again, i think they asked the questions as a political stunt. It’s pretty common to ask questions that everyone knows cannot be answered. This might just be the case. Then again, I might be wrong. But I refuse to rush to judgment. That’s inappropriate.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmPresident Bush bypassed the FISA Court because they would keep a list of everyone wiretapped, which Bush did not want transcribed into kept records! By avoiding the court, he can claim anything, because there is NO proof he spied on terrorists or anti-war protestors! Whenever he is asked to produce a list of those snooped upon, Dubya says it is classified > lol.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmChase, what do you call oversight????? It has already been widely reported by the media, and even from members of the committee, that Bush told them what they were doing. They were not given any opportunity to object or to look into the issue.
If you call this oversight, then I feel sorry for you.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:39 pmOk Chase, a start anywhere would be nice. How about starting with more transparency on Katrina, Abramoff, electronic voting, energy task force?
Which one would you like to start with?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 pmIs this Berlin, 1936?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pmYou have nothing to fear if you’re one of us.
#26
“Remember, if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Do you really think they are listening in on phone convos of normal Americans, taking note of what’s for dinner, what movies they like, where they like to shop, etc? Of course not. Get off your high horse and be rational!
And there is no evidence (repeat: NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER) that any survaillence has been used or directed at political targets.
If something like that were confirmed: congratulations - you would see a New Deal-magnitude political realignment.
Comment by Chase ”
Yeah thats the attitude!!! So then it would be OK for the police to begin selecting areas of a city and just enter you house and go through your things because they are looking for a terrorist, and do all this without a warrant. That would be OK with you because you are doing nothing wrong?
YES, they are listening to ALL phone calls. What part of DATA MINING do you not understand? How do you think they listen to calls? They are tapped into the TRUNK of the phone company and just collect the information and then a software program surfs through the data to look for certain words.
So you telling me that Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter are not political targets? These people have been spyed on by this very program. So if they are doing it on people of this calibure, don’t you think that they give a CRAP about the “mythical little guy” like you or me?
That is what we are trying to find out…. What is the problem with the WH giving the information to the committee? If, after having reviewed all the information and data, and they feel that things are OK then I would feel better. However, the WH is not even allowing that. YOU SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED!!!!!
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmIs it clear yet to the C+ and above average American that these people are no longer working for the USA and its citizens. It’s time to ask who ARE THEY? Really. WHO?
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:48 pmwhy do you think it takes so long for terrorists like OBL to plan for attacks? Like 10 years in planning.
Because they don’t use electronic communications, the stupid little guys use it. The big guys use old fashioned deliverly of communication, which takes a long time.
NSA probably knows this, but still goes on about having to provide our “security” by having no oversight. All this spending of $, arguing, having less civil liberties, abuse of power, just so OBL can circumvent the system by having his communications hand-delivered. And when OBL pulls another one off, these whackos are gonna blame people like us for not just letting them do their jobs.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:49 pmIf they are doing nothing wrong, than the committer will find nothing wrong. Back atcha.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 pm#30
“BTW: Again, i think they asked the questions as a political stunt. It’s pretty common to ask questions that everyone knows cannot be answered. This might just be the case. Then again, I might be wrong. But I refuse to rush to judgment. That’s inappropriate.
Comment by Chase”
Wait…. A political stunt? How is asking for a estimated number of terrorists that this program has targeted? Or the number of phone calls they have listened to?
The WH has already been talking about this…. So as long as they tell the information only when they want to, then that’s OK? But when they are asked to provide that information then they can’t? Notice that the questions asked were not asking for details. They were generic and vague, so there should have been no issue in answering these questions.
So if the WH was asked how many citizens are currently being considered valid voters, this would be something that they could not answer? This is almost an identical question.
Cummon, take off those blinders and remove that wire that directly connects you to the WH and think on your own for a change. It’s a wonderful thing to be able to thing on your own.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pmAlso, if the WH thinks that the terrorists are going to be speaking in ENGLISH in their conversations its crazy. They are going to talk in some other language and they are going to use code.
How stupid do they think we are? Oh wait, most of the American public is that stupid thats why they have gotten away with it this long.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pmI don’t fully believe they are only interested in listening to terrorists, I think they are interested in ANYTHING that is interesting to them. Like dissent, what the other party is doing, busting people for run of the mill offences, corporate information, information regarding their own legal problems. Who wouldn’t its human nature.
We have all heard about law inforcement operations designed to increase revenue. In AZ, they love to pull people over that fit a profile, and if nothing is found, they give a ticket.
February 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm40,
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pmCorrect, most of the public is stupid, thay know it, and count on it. I would love to hear all the jokes about the general public that these jerks tell each other.
Well, the TRUTH IS when Bush said “A FEW,” HE WAS LYING.
Are they covering up sensitive intelligence? Or BUSH’S LIES?
I think the answer is obvious. BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IS HIDING BEHIND “TOP SECRET” INFORMATION TO COVER IT UP.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmHow sad, was sorry today it is when the elected officials refused to tell the people in a democracy, who furnished the money in the blood, what the true situation is. My father had a saying, when I was a young man I considered him a terrible terrible cynic,” Son is been my experience that all politicians(consider the word all) are thieves and liars.” I must say that my growth in knowledge has confirmed the old men’s wise sayings.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:06 pmCan we all stonewall on paying our Federal taxes? I’m certainly sick of my money going to this government.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:11 pmBush has done NOTHING as of yet to earn my trust, in contrast there have been many reports and mounting evidence that he cannot be trusted…where does this assumed trust come from Sheeple…the MSM maybe?
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 pmThis is totally OT, but I was hoping someone could help me, please. Yesterday, my dear friends’ youngest daughter committed suicide, she was 14 years old. I feel so helpless, but I want to be of use to “my family”, can anyone recommend an organization that may be able to help? Thanks ,and sorry for oh hell…. you know…..
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm#23 You may say there is oversight, but the people involved in the so called oversight say there is not. All they know is that it exists. Oversight is examinign what is going on and assuring that nothing outside the scope of the program is occuring.
But…more importantly, lets play the game that there is oversight. Oversight of illegal is still illegal and the last I heard the 4th amendment is still in effect and FISA has not changed in a while so warrentless wiretapping is still warrentless wire tapping i.e. illegal. No probable cause etc…
I think all the answers lie in what Gonzales said about not asking permission because they knew congress would not grant them permission to do what they are doing. Straight fromt he horses mouth.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:23 pmChase,
NSA whistleblower and 20 year veteran Russell Tice has already come out and admitted that the NSA has been spying illegaly on millions of domestic phone conversations. Considering the fact that there aren’t even 10’s of thousands of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan (but the Bushies are working on it) the idea that the Bushies and NSA are focusing on “terrorists” is simply bullshit.
We’re talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld and a number of other Nixon era lackeys here doing what they did to quash domestic dissent during Vietnam. This is about blacklists and intimidation. Quieting the voices of reason and peace to avoid the tide turning domestically on Iraq. It’s also about paranoia and the expansion of power.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pmplunger…. EXACTLY! The Bush supporters have a field day with this and say that this is not possible.
However, when I point out that the hijackers could not have disabled our military, or ask them why there are no Arabs on the manifests, or why the NTSB has not identified any of the plane parts, or why has the FBI not released the photos, they are stumbling trying to find answers.
There is more evidence that points to an inside job, there there is that supports the story that 19 hijackers took 4 planes and flew them around for an hour and crashed them into buildings.
Perhaps one day the criminals will be put in jail, one can only hope.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmCyra, sorry to hear that, I have a workmate who’s son took his own life a few years back. He’ll never be the same.
Ray of Hope, Inc.
International. 12 affiliated groups. Founded 1976.
Mutual support for after suicide bereavement. Educational materials on suicide “after suicide” grief (call for price list). Also provides phone counseling, workshops and seminars. Consultation and assistance starting survivor support groups.
WRITE:
Ray of Hope
P.O. Box 2323
Iowa City, IA 52244
CALL: 319-337-9890 Voice/Fax
FAX: 319-337-9890
E-MAIL: ebross@juno.com
VERIFIED: 5/29/2003
Heartbeat
National. 30 chapters. Founded 1980.
Mutual support for those who have lost a loved one through suicide. Information and referrals, phone support, chapter development guidelines. Speakers on suicide bereavement.
WRITE:
Heartbeat
2015 Devon St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
CALL: 719-596-2575
E-MAIL: archlj@msn.com
WEBSITE: http://www.heartbeatsurvivorsaftersuicide.org
VERIFIED: 10/10/2004
Suicide Anonymous
Model. 2 groups in Tennessee. Founded 1996.
12-step fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other in order to solve their common problem of suicidal ideation and behavior. Provides a safe environment for people to share their struggles with suicide, to prevent suicides, and to develop strategies for support and healing from the devastating effects of suicidal preoccupation and behavior. Networking, literature, advocacy.
WRITE:
Suicide Anonymous
1037 Cresthaven
Memphis, TN 38119
CALL: 901-763-3693
FAX: 901-763-1876
E-MAIL: samemphis@aol.comx
WEBSITE: http://www.geocities.com/samemphis
VERIFIED: 5/3/2005
SOLOS (Survivors of Loved Ones Suicides)
Online.
Offers various e-mail support groups for persons affected by suicide. Groups include: survivors of a loved ones suicide, parents of attempters, medical/crisis response professionals, parents, spouses, siblings, gays/lesbians, men, grandparents, teens and children who have lost someone to suicide. Also groups for persons affected by murder-suicides, post-partum depression suicides, and facilitators of suicide support groups.
WEBSITE: http://www.1000deaths.com
VERIFIED: 5/3/2005
SOLES (Survivors Of Law Enforcement Suicide)
Online. Founded 1995.
Provides emotional support to the families of police officers who died by suicide. Information and referrals on national and local resources including support groups, conferences, grief workshops. E-mail discussion list and weekly online chat. Quarterly newsletter.
WRITE:
SOLES
2708 SW 48 Terrace
Cape Coral, FL 33914
CALL: 941-541-1151
E-MAIL: AskT8@aol.com
WEBSITE: http://www.tearsofacop.com
VERIFIED: 4/28/2005
Friends and Family of Suicide
Online. Founded 1998.
Provides online support to survivors of suicide. Offers moderated e mail mailing list.
E-MAIL: arlynsmom@cs.com
WEBSITE: http://www.friendsandfamiliesofsuicide.com
VERIFIED: 4/22/2005
Parents of Suicide
Online. Founded 1998.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmSupport for parents whose sons and daughters have died due to suicide. Annual retreat. Offers private chat room, e mail discussion group, listserv.
WRITE:
Karyl Chastain Beal
P.O. Box 417
Pavo, GA 31778
CALL: 229-859-2976
E-MAIL: arlynsmom@cs.com
WEBSITE: http://www.parentsofsuicide.com
VERIFIED: 4/22/2005
there is oversight! The intelligence committees in both houses provide oversight of this program
That’s not true. The full intelligence committees were not briefed on this, and the chairpersons that were, were not allowed to discuss anything regarding it.
Remember, if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
This is a typical diversion and the GOP talking point du jour. And it is a perversion of the concept of if you are doing nothing wrong, there is no reason for the government to be spying on you. Is it wrong to break the law? Or is it only wrong when it is a Dem, or one of us non-pols? Are Bush and his admin. above the law?
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm#48 - My sympathies to you and the family.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:31 pmI happened to catch this piece of testimony. Hayden appeared to refuse to give Senators the number of people whose communications were intercepted even in closed session.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 pmDoes anybody know if Russell Tice will be testifying? Or has he already been disappeared?
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pmOoops! I missed it in the main post. Sorry folks.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm#26 the FBI says yes the NSA are listening in on ordinary Americans phone calls because the thousands of leads they have been given have led to 0 arrests and thousands of innocent Americans. Also there is no evidence that they have not used the program for political purposes.
#30 it is not that the questions can not be answered it is that they will not be answered. Never in congress open or closed session, never in court (they will all plead the 5th) never ever. Why would they? Any answer will only lead to incrimination.
Also remember that the adminsitrations story has changed as have their apologists story.
1) Paperwork too onerous? WTF…do your job and fill it out like the 20,000 warrents before you.
2) FISA too restrictive…statisticlaly 100% approval 4/19,0000 = .0002% disapproved.
3) The ticking time bomb scenario - never has happened in our country, yet this too is not an issue if they got back retro actively to get the warrand as the law allows them to.
4) Don’t want to signal intentions to the enemy, ummm how many times have FISA warrants become public knowledge prior to trial? How often does the accused know there is a warrant?
5) No arrests - Trying to gather data to get the big fish…again if this is the case, there is plenty of time to get a warrant.
6) This only targets alqueda operatives in the US. Well, the FBI has said otherwise and so have the NSA whistle blowers
I have heard all of these and more from the administration and their apologists, when they can not stick toa story as to why then you know they are lying. ANyhow they finally have astory…to discuss hurts national security therefore they will no longer discuss. But that has nothing to do with why they did it, who they are targeting etc… I say it all comes back to what Gonzales said…we would never have gotten permission to do what we are doing. i.e. breaking the law.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 pmThis is based on the principle that whatever the president does is legal and that is what Bush and his apologists want. I guarantee you though that not a single republican in America thought that way in 1998.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pmBush trusted?
White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Washington Post
January 6, 2005
Text: Gonzales Nomination Hearing
White House
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pmDecember 17, 2005
President’s Radio Address
Debating GOP thugs Trolls is not we need to do. Debating a lost soul is a waste of time. Chase is a case in point.
How about doing research on the subject? Say using Google searches to track down information about subject that the administration wants to filter out from public knowledge?
Google this:
NSA Choicepoint DHS
If you take the time to track down a few hundred of the returns you get an amazing picture of the NSA and DHS domestic spying. There are some gems in themthere returns.
http://www.cic-tech.org/ docs/ 2005/ 2005-11-16-connectDots.pdf
is one such gem.
Another is the administration’s determined efforts to circumvent Congressial will. Able Danger project was shut down because it showed the data linking the 911 attackers and the Bush administration’s decisions not to address terrorism. Another pin-pick attack by the terrorists would only reforce in public mind the need for the missile defense shield Bush was pushing before 911.
After 911 the convicted Intra-contra John Poindeaxer used Able Danger code, computers and the same operationally center to create the Total Information Awareness. Here is an excerpt from http//www_GovExec_com - Army project illustrates promise, shortcomings of data mining (12-7-05).htm :
Total Information Awareness
The 9/11 attacks breathed some new life into the Information Dominance Center. In late 2001, retired Navy Adm. John Poindexter, who had served as President Reagan’s national security adviser, met with the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, where Poindexter was soon to be employed. Poindexter was looking for a site to test new technologies under his Total Information Awareness program, which, not unlike the IDC, aimed to use open-source data and government information to understand terrorism.
TIA also looked at tools to examine commercial databases containing information on U.S. citizens, within the context of privacy regulations.
Poindexter wanted a proving ground staffed by seasoned, technology-inclined analysts, a “Manhattan Project” for counterterrorism, he said. The DARPA director, Tony Tether, told him to consider the IDC. After meeting with Gen. Alexander, the Army commander overseeing the center, Poindexter agreed to test some of the TIA tools at the IDC.
“TIA was a very good concept,” the former IDC employee said. The center offered TIA “a high-speed testing bed” for its new technologies. “Some of the tools sucked, and some of them were good ideas,” the employee said. The frustration came from officials’ reluctance to use the tools for active intelligence projects. Poindexter emphasized that TIA was a research project and wasn’t using data mining as part of any real intelligence operations. TIA was an experiment.
But the experiment was short-lived. In late 2002, Poindexter’s role in TIA was revealed in the press. The controversial retired admiral’s past caught up with him — Poindexter was the central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, which diverted the profits from covert arms sales to Iran to anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua.
Members of Congress derided TIA as an Orwellian excess of the post-9/11 era. The funding was pulled. Kleinsmith, who had left the Army by the time TIA arrived, seemed perplexed by lawmakers’ concerns. “We’ve had this capability for years,” he remembered thinking. “Who cares?”
TIA’s detractors declared a victory for privacy protection when they killed the project. Poindexter was forced to resign in August 2003. But research on TIA tools has hardly ceased.
Rather, it has moved into the intelligence agencies, where the work and the budgets for it are classified, Poindexter said, noting that now Congress has more-limited oversight and should be more concerned about privacy infringements. The former IDC employee concurred, saying “The [TIA] concept hasn’t died off. It continues. And it continues elsewhere now, and I can’t talk about that. The tools are continuing to be developed.”
You want to know what Bush is afraid of exposing? NSA and the Corporations are sharing your personal information outside the law and ignoring the U.S. Constitution and are therefore committing acts of treason against us. The government has declared the constitution of no importance. It is a nice old document but it can not address the serious treats of the modern world. These are the “enemies within” that all who take an oath to defend the constitution. This is why we do not allow any official to put allegience to party, or leader above the Constitution and Country.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmNico - What an amazing encapsulator you are!!! I listened to C-SPAN during the Negroponte testimony. The amount of information and analysis he covered was extensive. For ALL he testified to, this was the BEST you could do???? Once again, progs demonstrate why trusting libs with national security is suicidal.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:11 pmYou want to know what Bush is afraid of exposing? NSA and the Corporations are sharing your personal information outside the law and ignoring the U.S. Constitution and are therefore committing acts of treason against us.
Comment by EasyRider
Nonsense. For $25 I can go online and learn more about you than you know yourself. The liberals on the courts over the last forty years have seen to it that you have no reasonable expectation for privacy and have said so in those exact words. Hillary had your IRS records and Bill used those records to go after his enemies. Left wingers have been ignoring or reinterpreting the Constitution for so long that the Founders wouldn’t even recognize it so stop your bitch’n.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhat does Jeb Bush, Florida, Ohio, Utah, Georgia and “Matrix” have in common?
Jeb Bush managed “Matrix” and Florida, Ohio, Utah, and Georgia provided and shared data their withthe “Matrix” program.
Oh of course! Great GOP voter turnout (voter subpression) using the latest direct mailing data mining tools. And the Winners are GOP!
Small world in deed.
What is the Bush administration hiding? Who is connecting the dot?
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pmJay, THANK YOU!!! I feel like I am having a bad dream, but I know that I am awake. This must be what Hell feels like…. and ZooKeeper, thank you, you are very kind.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pmWow. A lot to touch on.
First: can we dispense with the rhetoric about “take off the blinders” etc etc. I have arrived at my opinions with the same free will as you have arrived at yours. They are divergent, but at least give me some credit for enganging in a discussion here, on your turf no less.
Second: Re: transperancy - Again, I agree this administration has done a poor job disclosing much of anything to the public. I’m just not prepared to say their errors are conspiratorial. The “Katrina coverup” - a gross misnamor - was at all levels and included all parties, not just the Bush administration. The levys were inadequate - blame the Corp.Eng. for that. The local response was horrible. Blame local and state politicans. Federal response was horrible. Blame FEMA, etc. But to suggest the response had anything to do with ethnicity is merely race-baiting and that is a non-starter. When you make that arugment, you put yourself in the lunatic fringe with NAACP prez and Dean. Be reasonable.
Third: Re: wiretaps - I’m not concerned with data mining of phonecalls, so long as it is reasonable. I think that’s the standard. Given what we face at this time, terrorists who would love to destroy our way of life given any chance, the program is reasonable. Of course, if they kicked in doors of random houses to look for terrorists, not only would it be silly but it would be inefficient. Posing that hypothetical is disingenuous. Again I’ll say it: if youre not cohorting with terrorists, or supporting terrorist, you are fine. They WILL NOT come search your house for disliking (hell, even hating) Bush. I implore you to be reasonable.
I’ll leave it at this for now.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmOK, I’ll slam my head up against the wall of ignorance that is the rightwing.
Whose watch did 9/11 happen on?
What were the contents of the August 6th PDB titled “Bin Laden to strike within the U.S.”?
Why, when the Clinton Adminstration stressed that Al Qaeda would be this administrations top national security priority did Bush’s cabinet proceed to focus its attention on the defunct Reagan-era Star Wars missile defense system?
Why, when Bush was warned by George Tenet (personally) that the “system was flashing red” regarding intelligence chatter just prior to 9/11 did Bush remain on vacation in Crawford?
Why wasn’t Bush willing to testify under oath in front of the 9/11 Commission?
Why, when he was forced by political pressure to finally testify for the 9/11 investigation (still not under oath) did Bush need Dick Cheney by his side?
Answer these questions and then we can discuss the failure of the Democrats to secure our nation.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pmThe problem with secrecy is that it protects indiscriminately. This administration uses secrecy to cover up their colossal fark-ups and criminal activities rather than protecting legitimate secrets.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm#67 so fishing is OK. Sure, right lets see that argument stand up when republicans lose control.
Also if there is no Katrina coverup then why is the white house not cooperating? What are they hiding if they are not covering up? From all I have read the state and local authorities followed procedures dotted their i’s & crossed their t’s and the feds did nothing till it was too late. Did the locals nto do as good a job as they could? No doubt about that. Did the feds even hit the minimum level of their obligations? No, not even close. If they did they would not be stonewalling.
You write about how this adminsitraion has done a poor job of being transparent, yet you become an apologist for that lack of transparency int he same damned paragraph. So sad, and the blinders analogy does apply to you.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pm#68: Down the line, here we go.
1. unfair question. the planning went back to the clinton admin. clinton refused to cruise missle bin laden in 98 because of a UAE offical in his company. both administations failed.
2. the contents were probably something along the lines of “more evidence of bin laden planning attacks… blah blah”. yes, they failed to recognize the threats. but an election has been held since and the GOP, by the american public, is seen as the best party to handle the threat (for now at least.)
3. bush made an error in judging the threat. see #1 above.
4. see above again. just remember, hindsight is 20/20. a very apt cliche here.
5. he’s the president and doesnt have to. end of story. his underlings did and that should suffice. i know this answer wont cut it for the executive haters among you but it will have to do: executive privledge exists.
6. b’c he’s the vice president and played an important role in the response to 9/11.
be clear: the GOP is not scott free here. they made many mistakes, huge mistakes. there is no reason, though, to think a gore (or any dem president) would have planned any differently. again, i stress reason here.
and if i hear another bullshit comment about “9/11 was an inside job” and “det cord was in WTC 7″ or any shit like that, i’m gonna bust a hernia laughing. get a clue.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:28 pmJust selective is the NSA on which Americans are spied on? Use key words? “Zero Hour!” “and Match is to begin!” These were in Arabic. How many Americans use any of these words in English.
The arguements from president Bush (that is “president Jr.” as compared to “President Sr.”) that only a very few and selected Americans are spied on is hot air.
By the way one of the oldest and simpliest ways to ecode messages and the hardest to break is using a code that only the sender and reciever know. So there is no way for NSA and any other agency to pick out what messages are to terrorist cell members unless they have already targeted an individual or an individuals assets (phone, email, computer, etc.)
Here is the NSA intercepts on the eve of 911.
————————
http://echelononline.free.fr/documents/wp_20062002.htm
“The National Security Agency intercepted two messages on the eve of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon warning that something was going to happen the next day, but the messages were not translated until Sept. 12, senior U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday.
The Arabic-language messages said, “The match is about to begin” and “Tomorrow is zero hour.” They were discussed Tuesday before the House-Senate intelligence committee during closed-door questioning of Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the NSA, the agency responsible for intercepting and analyzing electronic messages.
Intelligence officials said the two messages — even if translated on Sept. 10 — would not have provided enough information to prevent the attacks. But their disclosure put the NSA in the spotlight for the first time since reports of intelligence failures began to emerge this spring and seemed likely to sharpen the focus of the congressional investigation — which has been dominated by concerns about the performance of the FBI and the CIA — on problems at the nation’s premier eavesdropping agency.
U.S. intelligence sources said NSA analysts are not certain who was speaking on the Sept. 10 intercepts. They came from sources — a location or phone number — that were of high-enough priority to translate them within two days but were not put in the top priority category, which included communications from Osama bin Laden or his senior al Qaeda assistants.
“There had been a lot of chatter up there indicating something was up,” a senior administration official said. “But it does not say where, what and how reliable.”
The official said the messages appear dramatic in hindsight but added: “If you had it on September 10th, what does it tell you that is actionable?”
The NSA declined to comment on the intercepts. “I have no information to provide,” NSA spokeswoman Judy Emmel said.”
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmWrong. The only information you can get about me, if you had my name, is public knowledge stuff. Bush and pals are capturing everything that you can’t get.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm#70: why is there always a “cover up”? what if they plainly just mucked it up? it happens. and dont worry, there will be commissions and investigations out the wazoo. it’s not near over. and please, to even pretend like blanco/nagin/landreau did even an acceptable job is reDONKulous. you, my friend, have the blinders on. louisiana local and state politics are corrupt to the core, tehre is no question, no debate with that.
the only reason to vote republican are democrats. i know its well worn but it’s true. when the dems gain a unified voice, and take the clinton/dlc path, they will become a viable contender again. as long as they are controlled by dean, polosi, reid and the rest of the super-libs, they are missing out on fully 60% of the electorate. it’s just the damn truth.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:34 pmChase,
If the shoe was on the other foot and 9/11 happened on the watch of a Democrat, the rightwing echo chamber (including the insufferable corporate mainstream media) would have eviscerated the Dems and they’d do so repeatedly for as long as they had a voice. The fact remains that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, after he was warned that Al Qaeda should be its top priority by the outgoing administration. In fact, on 9/11/2001 Conoleeza Rice was scheduled to give a speech on National Security and that speech didn’t mention Al Qaeda, so this crew was out to lunch while (as I mentioned earlier) the head of the CIA was reporting that the “system was flashing red”. Try and connect the dots, it’s not terribly difficult.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:37 pmalso #69: i really agree with you on that. secrecy is a discriminate protector (i like the phrasing too!).
moving on: i would like dems to stop claiming “constitutional violator!” when talking about the unitary executive. people act like it’s a “theory”. it’s more than that: it’s a constitutional fact. the executive office is unitary for the reasons of energy and decision; the legislature is a deliberative body for that reason. we really do not want to have to gain a consensus from a body of 435 ambitious individuals when an instant decision must be made.
further, in times of war, the courts have recognized the power of the executive to act independantly is enhanced. we are at war; this is the time.
also, a note about fisa “100%” success percentages: this is probably due to the fact that they only sought warrants when they knew they could get them. when they didnt, they could fall back on the constitution (art. II giving war making powers to president) and congressional constent (via the AUMF) to conduct the wiretaps.
i strongly feel no court will find this program has violated any laws, much less the constitutional rights of american citizens.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pmWrong. The only information you can get about me, if you had my name, is public knowledge stuff. Bush and pals are capturing everything that you can’t get.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
There’s nothing I can’t get if I want to spend the money.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm“Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
#1 of this week’s Top 10 GOP Sound Bites.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:44 pm#75: your right. “insufferable” republicans would be critizing dems in charge just as “insufferable” dems are now. it doesnt change the fact that 9/11 (or any terrorist event) could have happened during any admin. exhibits a and b: first WTC attack in 93 and ok city bombing in 94. two terrorist attacks on clintons watch.
what i’m trying to stress is that it could/would have happened no matter who occupied 1600 penn. ave. the dems are doing the right thing(!!!) in asking questions. that’s the job of the opposition/minority party. the questions have much more impact when they come from voices of moderation and reason, rather than lunatics like kennedy and dean. when the leadership is changed, the dem party will flourish again. until then, they are so out of step with middle (both literal and figurative) america it’s not even funny.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:45 pm#67 Allow me to address your answers as politely as possible.
“First: can we dispense with the rhetoric about “take off the blinders†etc etc. I have arrived at my opinions with the same free will as you have arrived at yours. They are divergent, but at least give me some credit for enganging in a discussion here, on your turf no less.”
When someone refuses to look at the BIG PICTURE and argues only on the little items, then I would say that they have blinders on. It’s like, just like, someone with at credit card. I can afford to by this $2000 item because I have a $5000 limit and I will pay it off quickly. Then something happens and the limit is higher and higher. If only they would have looked ahead and said, if I wait for 4 or 5 months I can pay cash an I’ll be fine. OK, I realize that this is not directly comparible, so don’t point that out, but the analogy is the same. People are showing you all this information, FACTUAL, and yet you discuss the smaller less relavant issues. “if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about”. Do you really think that this is what our founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution? Oh, well only write these things because they really don’t mean anything if you have nothing to hide, so they have nothing to worry about. How many people are caught up in our court systems by information that is later found to be WRONG? Did they have anything to worry about? Probably not, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So your saying that there are no exceptions to the rule?
“Second: Re: transperancy - Again, I agree this administration has done a poor job disclosing much of anything to the public. I’m just not prepared to say their errors are conspiratorial. The “Katrina coverup†- a gross misnamor - was at all levels and included all parties, not just the Bush administration. The levys were inadequate - blame the Corp.Eng. for that. The local response was horrible. Blame local and state politicans. Federal response was horrible. Blame FEMA, etc. But to suggest the response had anything to do with ethnicity is merely race-baiting and that is a non-starter. When you make that arugment, you put yourself in the lunatic fringe with NAACP prez and Dean. Be reasonable.”
It has been reveild that the WH knew 2 days before, and people were jumping up and down, that this would happen. Yet Bush felt it was more important to cut brush because none of his rich buddies were not going to be touched by this storm. If this is not his thoughts, it is what is sent to the American people by his inactions and lack of concern for the situation.
“Third: Re: wiretaps - I’m not concerned with data mining of phonecalls, so long as it is reasonable. I think that’s the standard. Given what we face at this time, terrorists who would love to destroy our way of life given any chance, the program is reasonable. Of course, if they kicked in doors of random houses to look for terrorists, not only would it be silly but it would be inefficient. Posing that hypothetical is disingenuous. Again I’ll say it: if youre not cohorting with terrorists, or supporting terrorist, you are fine. They WILL NOT come search your house for disliking (hell, even hating) Bush. I implore you to be reasonable.”
You should be…. Where does it stop at??? If there are no checks and balances what is to stop them from spying on someone who just makes a sny remark about Bush and he does not like it, so he has them locked up as an “Enemy Combatant”. That’s the problem with this attitude. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE STANDARD. When the president is spying on Americans, this is WRONG. Who decides who is a terrorist and who is not? Sure they are not going to do that right now, but this is what this type of actions are going to lead to. This is why it was said “blinders on” regarding your comments. Our free speech is already being erroded away. Look at the Free Speech areas that people have to stand in to protest. Look at the Patriot Act that says the CIA can now arrest you on what THEY concider to be illegal actions. Not what the law says is illegal actions. THIS IS THE ISSUE. So for someone to say you have blinders on are an acurate statement. You don’t see past the present issues, or what these issues mean for the future.
I’ll leave it at this for now.
Comment by Chase”
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pmChase,
You are just as misinformed as some of the other more conservative types that frequent this site. You don’t seem nearly as unreasonable though, and that gives me hope. All I can promise you is that if you want to have an honest debate you’ll get it here, but be prepared to back up your talking points with sources other than Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Heritage Foundation/AEI talking points.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm#76
“also #69: i really agree with you on that. secrecy is a discriminate protector (i like the phrasing too!).
moving on: i would like dems to stop claiming “constitutional violator!†when talking about the unitary executive. people act like it’s a “theoryâ€. it’s more than that: it’s a constitutional fact. the executive office is unitary for the reasons of energy and decision; the legislature is a deliberative body for that reason. we really do not want to have to gain a consensus from a body of 435 ambitious individuals when an instant decision must be made.
further, in times of war, the courts have recognized the power of the executive to act independantly is enhanced. we are at war; this is the time.
also, a note about fisa “100%†success percentages: this is probably due to the fact that they only sought warrants when they knew they could get them. when they didnt, they could fall back on the constitution (art. II giving war making powers to president) and congressional constent (via the AUMF) to conduct the wiretaps.
i strongly feel no court will find this program has violated any laws, much less the constitutional rights of american citizens.
Comment by Chase”
I always love it when you republicans say that he has these powers in the Constitution. I always ask, and I’m asking again, to show me where in the Constitution it states that the president has the power to do these things and to ignore laws of the people. No where in the constitution does it state that the president can be a UNITARY organization. All three branches are checked against each other. There are no branches of the government that can act alone, they all require oversight.
Show me where in the constitution the president has these powers. SHOW ME!
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmThat is a lie as has been stated by both republican and democrat congressional members.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pmNo you can’t.
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pmSo, do you put John Murtha in this category also? Who do you not consider a “lunatic”?
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:01 pm81: i really appreciate your comment. i try and be as “fair and balanced” as possible (i couldnt resist.) i cant speak for aei or pnac or whoever, but i will try and call them like i see them.
80: i cant subscribe to the slippery slope argument here. given the program, the way it has been reported thus far, is legal. if it were to evolve to include political opponents, that’s an entirely different beast.
it’s nothing to say the WH knew 2 days before landfall. hell i knew two days before land fall from watching the weather channel that katrina was gonna be a mother. there are logistical issues with evacuating half a mil. people. could a better job have been done (by all), yes! could the response have been better? yes! but lets face reality: when you set up shop in a high hurricane strike zone AND choose to live 8-12 feet below sea level, you are just asking for it. are you ready for a risky guess? IT’S GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.
btw, if you travel to, i dont know, kansas or wyoming, and ask someone there, they can easily identify who “a terrorist is and who isnt.”
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:03 pmChase, also….. We are NOT AT WAR! The president was given the Authorization to use military force against Alqueda and other terrorist organizations. War was not declared, therefore these so called wartime powers don’t exist, unless the constitution has been changed since I read it last.
If congress has not declared war, then these powers don’t exist. Just because authorization to use military force is given, does not mean the same thing as a declaration of war.
I’ll be waiting for that information in the constitution.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:06 pmYou mean like Timothy McVeigh? He was from that area.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:06 pmThis story, datelined February 2nd in the L.A. Times reports on Katrina. It has been widely ignored by the mainstream media. Please read it. It leads like this:
For the first time, a nonpartisan government investigation Wednesday put principal blame on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, not lower-level officials, for the fumbled response to Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ nationworld/ nation/ la-na-katrina2feb02,0,1177740.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:14 pmOn the same topic data minig over on Raw Story (Kansas court blocks abortion records http://go.reuters.com/ newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=11095123&src=rss/ politicsNews ) is a story about sending redicted records to Kansas AG.
With the data-mining tools available how long before the redicted records will be used to identify the women?
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:16 pmSpudge_Boy,
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:27 pmI think IRI is correct on this one unless you do no rent or own property, have no SSN, own no stocks or mutual funds, have no bank account(s), have no past or current loans, have no job (and have not filed for welfare or unemployment) and have never served in the armed forces, used the internet or any phone service provider.
Spudge_Boy - Agreed. Also one thing that people forget about the towers when they say that the metal did not melt it was weakend by the heat is the following. The heat would have been distributed, much like a heat sink on a microprocessor, so even though for several minutes the heat might have jumped up high enough to weaken the metal, the heat would have been distributed. Therefore, the heat effect to the metal would have been nill.
But almost everyone forgets this little FACT.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pmI thought I post this earlier, so I did please forgive me for double posting.
What does Jeb Bush, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah have in common?
Jeb manages “Matrix” in which the above states provided private citizen data to the Matrix program. Matrix is connected to Choicepoint (voter subpression). And we all know how the GOP won Florida, Georgia, Utah, and Ohio with greater GOTV operations, and voter identification projects to subpress the voters. We also know who won those states’ elections.
http://www.citybeat.com/2004-06-09/statehouse.shtml
“By Pete Shuler
Despite very real privacy and data security concerns, the Taft administration provides information compiled from Ohioans’ driver licenses, vehicle registrations, traffic infractions, court proceedings and criminal and incarceration records to the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX), a massive law enforcement database used by several states and by the federal government.
Ohio’s data is combined with similar information from other states and with records from commercial databases before being mined by both humans and computers for supposed anomalies that might indicate criminal activity.
Neither public officials nor the officers of Seisint Inc., the company that operates MATRIX, are forthcoming about this meta-database’s content. But it could very easily include medical histories, financial transactions and information, investment activity, credit card statements, memberships and affiliations, telephone company records, e-mails, Internet surfing activity and other items.
If all of this sounds familiar, it is. Early last year the Department of Defense established Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program with data compilation and mining practices identical to those of MATRIX. Privacy advocates and others immediately objected to TIA’s Orwellian goals, so the Bush administration renamed it Terrorism Information Awareness and attempted to assuage privacy concerns by backing off prior claims about the program’s capabilities. Skeptical of this backpedaling, Congress snuffed TIA in September 2003.
But MATRIX, technically run by the states, is beyond Congress’s reach. In a Reaganesque skirting of the legislature’s constitutionally established role, President Bush simply replaced TIA with MATRIX — which his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had started a year earlier with Seisint. In July 2003, the beginning of the end for TIA, the Department of Homeland Security awarded $8 million to MATRIX, bringing the program’s total federal funding to $12 million. Instead of merely granting the money to Florida, however, DHS entered into an agreement that gave the Bush administration “managerial oversight and control” of MATRIX. Furthermore, Jeb Bush has briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on the program’s progress and has sought more federal funding.
As a return on their investment, federal officials have received the names of 120,000 individuals tagged as possible terrorists by MATRIX. Although the federal government funds and utilizes MATRIX, it is not yet a nationwide program. Seisint and Jeb Bush, who has led the sales charge for MATRIX, convinced only 16 states to participate, 10 of which have since withdrawn, citing cost and concerns about security, privacy and inaccurate data. “
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pmSpudge, I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure a 757 flying at 580 MPH only a few feet from the ground would suck itself onto the ground. I’ve seen evidence from the pentagon ‘crash’ presented by conspiracy theorists and, while I don’t think they have it all correct, the evidence presented by government (aka MSM) just doesn’t wash. Apparently, there were two camera’s, one at a gas station and one at a hotel, that would have certainly caught the crash BUT they were very, very quickly confiscated. hmmmmmm
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pmWaltTheMan,
Pretty damn close. You see, I saw this stuff coming a long time ago. I am pretty damn hard to track.
About the only thing you can get on me is a credit report with nothing on it since 1987. You could find out where I live and work. Other than that. Cash only. No phone or bills under my name. Absolutely no credit cards. I don’t buy stuff online. My IP adress will go to somebody else, because I don’t put the bill in my name. My cell phone is part of a group plan that I only pay cash too. I don’t write checks. I have others cash my paycheck.
Good luck I-RIGHT-I.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:32 pmMark, your not entirely correct. There were many steel and concrete collums that were the main support for the building. The outer shell was used to help with the stress of the floors, from my understanding.
There are plenty of sites that has the construction information about the buildings. According to the designer, the WTC was built like a screen. So the plane going through it was like punching a whole into a screen with a pencil.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:46 pmMark, the other fact that scientists and physicists point out is that in the initial fireball when each plane struck the buildings, a large % of the fuel was burned off in the ensuing fireballs. More food for thought.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:48 pmA point:
Without external review, what’s to stop any NSA operator currently involved from snooping on someone, say a CFO of a major corporation, for insider financiall info? Or a celeb for gossip? Or an ex-girlfriend for ammunition?
You may say “Oh, the President wouldn’t do that–!” But if you don’t have indeoendent review, you have to have faith in every single member of the NSA’s discretion, honesty, and virtue.
Look at any secret police organization and it’s been full of folks using the structure for personal gain.
And if you’re certain that there are stringent controls in place to prevent that happening?
Then you’re dishonest to us and yourself.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm104.
Not a pencil, and a hatchet throw through one side and out the other all while support millions of pound above it. Guess what happens when the screen looses its supportive structure? Can we say flatened?
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pmThis line of questoining could go on forever.
“I can’t tell you because it’s secret.”
“Tell me the secret.”
“I can’t tell you because it’s secret.”
“Tell me the secret.”
The real problem is not hearing the secret, but why is it going on in the first place. If these were secrets that were obtained through legal chanels, no one would question this activity or need to know how many taps have happened.
The real root of the matter is that the administration is doing illegal activity and needs to be stopped and brought to justice.
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmI’d like to tell everyone how WRONG this all is, but that’s secret,so I can’t tell you. Just take the 5th dude, and go away. Impeach!
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm“There’s nothing I can’t get if I want to spend the money.”
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — February 3, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I’d be willing to chip in a few dollars to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction - how about you, Warbucks?
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 pmOr, how about spending the money to find Osama bin Laden. That’s a worth while cause. You would be a national, hell, international hero. I would actually thank you.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:04 pmDano - Save you $$ for a double latte - The WMD’s are in Syria - where they’ve been since before the invasion.
An aside - I have decided that the problem with progs is the inability to utilize their brains for simple exercises - like connecting the dots.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:12 pmMA - If anyone can’t connect the dots its the Republicans. They couldnt connect the dots unless those dots were wrapped by millions of dollars.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:15 pmConnect the dots?
Lets start with the ones on your forehead.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmHoly crap!
They spell 666.
:o
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pmNow Mark,
Why would the construction of the Tallest buildings in the world, (at the time of construction), decide to go against conventional wisdom of proven technology, and change the basic design from an “internal skeleton” to an “exoskeleton”. Also, why would engineers want the load bearing portions of the building to be exposed to the elements?
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:18 pmMighty knows where the WMD’s are! How come you know this and the entire government doesn’t, what’s your secret, oh, its a secret, sorry.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:20 pmWe know where the weapons are. They’re north, south east and west of Tikrit. -uncle Donald
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmWe KNEW there were no WMD’s in Iraq, or we wouldn’t have sent in our army so poorly prepared. no hazmat suits, no decontamination units. just grunts in uniform with guns.
#114- Then why did we invade Iraq? And if you “knew” the WMD’s were in Syria, you should have told the Administration about it. Instead you allowed them to look stupid, more than usual, anyhow, when they came up empty handed. Some “patriot” you are. Shame on you!!
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm110
How does one says someone is wrong with offending them.
The floor above collapsing is not lilke the celling falling to the floor. When the floor above drops it is everything that is above the floor that is dropping as well at the same time. Gravity is constant and is affecting everything at the same time. One sheet of paper may fly around in the air as it come to earth. But a 5 pound book (paper) will fall the same as a 5 pound rock.
You are thinking in small scale not the masses involved in buildings and aircraft. These are not forces that easily be explained.
When millions of pounds of force are moving objects they do not stop but just pass through other objects with a great deal of force.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:27 pmThe only time a building ever comes down and lands in its own footprint is during a controlled demolition.
Ok lets say it just happened anyway, what would the odds be of all three buildings just happening to fall down into their own footprint?
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:40 pmHey guys - great thread by the way - I didnt want to leave my last comments hanging, but alas, the weekend calls.
If there are no objections, I will return next week and try and breath some reason into this debate :-)(even if there are objections.)
I appreciate the considerate among you who are willing to engage in this debate: it does give me hope for the future in a cultural debate that has been framed in a “winner take all” light.
Caio.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm