Bush’s Secret Spying on Americans – Robert Parry

[autorank]

The answers begin to emerge. Why the total lock down on the TSP (terrorist surveillance program) program. Here’s why – anyone who thinks about it knows, as Parry points out, that the true scum terrorists are not going to use electronic media to transmit plans unless it was at the last minute or coded/secured. General electronic media like YOU AND I USE would not really benefit the hunt for terrorists. THE REASON THEY HAVE WARRENTLESS SURVEILLANCE IS FOUND ELSEWHERE, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND CONTROL. READ PARRY’S COLUMN. IT’S TERRIFIC.

Bush's Secret Spying on Americans

By Robert Parry
August 2, 2007


The dispute over whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales committed perjury
when he parsed words about George W. Bush’s warrantless surveillance program
misses a larger point: the extraordinary secrecy surrounding these spying operations
is not aimed at al-Qaeda, but at the American people.

Snip

Americans in the Dark

So what's the real explanation for all the secrecy about the overall structure of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program?

The chief reason, especially for the excessive secrecy around the data-mining operations, appears to be Bush’s political need to prevent a full debate inside the United States about the security value of these Big Brother-type procedures when weighed against invasions of Americans' privacy.

Bush knows he could run into trouble if he doesn't keep the American people in the dark. In 2002, for instance, when the Bush administration launched a project seeking “total information awareness” on virtually everyone on earth involved in the modern economy, the disclosure was met with public alarm.

The administration cited the terrorist threat to justify the program which involved applying advanced computer technology to analyze trillions of bytes of data on electronic transactions and communications. The goal was to study the electronic footprints left by every person in the developed world during the course of their everyday lives – from the innocuous to the embarrassing to the potentially significant.

[acmavm]

1. And now the dems are gonna help him cover his ass even

further.

Lovely.

[autorank]

2. You mean this...

http://tinyurl.com/24653z

[L. Coyote]

5. Have IQ's suddenly PLUMMETED among certain DUers overnight?

Have IQ's suddenly PLUMMETED among certain DUers overnight?
Posted by brentspeak on Wed Aug-01-07 05:18 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1490388

(I'm borrowing a line from the movie "Aliens" for that one.)

I say some DUers because there's many thousands of readers here who read the NYTime's hit-piece on the Democrats and Bush's wiretapping plan but who did realize that the body of the article did not match the combustible headline, "Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping".

However, as too often happens on these boards, a few people read an article's headline and the first few lines, and then immediately jerk their knees into their own heads. They then follow this by rushing a hurried post onto the boards to show off their lack of reading comprehension.

The first few lines from the NYTimes article in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1185971637-vItGtV1UKZanyYUFRI6wgw&oref=slogin

"Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.


Sounds pretty bad, right? Sounds like the Democrats are "caving in", doesn't it?

But read further:

"One obstacle to a deal this week is a disagreement between Democrats and the White House over how to audit the wiretapping of the foreign-to-foreign calls going through switches in the United States.

The Democrats have proposed that the eavesdropping be reviewed by the secret FISA court to make sure that it has not ensnared any Americans.

"


Wait, what's that? The Democrats are insisting upon procedures to safeguard against wiretapping abuses?! That sure doesn't sound like they're doing Bush's bidding, does it?

"The administration has proposed that the attorney general perform the review, but Democrats are unwilling to give that kind of authority to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is under fire for what some lawmakers describe as his misleading testimony about the dismissals of federal prosecutors and the wiretapping program."


Huh? But what about the headline, which claimed that Democrats are "scrambling" to "expand" eavesdropping? The text in the article actually says the complete opposite; the Democrats are digging in their heels, taking their time, and NOT giving into Bush's demands to expand the wiretapping program.

Ok, so the Democrats are not "scrambling" to expand Bush's wiretapping powers. In fact, they're not willing to "expand" Bush's powers at all.

So where exactly does this leave the "The Democrats are caving in again!!! Blauuuughhhhhh!" crowd?

Please resist the temptation to knee-jerk! You're much smarter than that.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Me.]

10. It Isn't That IQ's Have Plummeted Or That The Disconnect Between The

Headline and the content isn't understood. The problem may lie in the fact that we are losing trust in the very Dems we thought would stand by us. Yes, they hold hearings and let off a lot of steam but what beyond that? The sending out of marshalls was the first real proactive thing that has been done. In the face of that positive move, there are downsides. They gave full funding for this war, (I am aware of their fears in not doing so and consider them invalid), they haven't moved forward with contempt in an actually viable way. seems that voting protection isn't going to be considered, immigration won't be dealt with until 2012, according to Rahm Emmanuel and impeachment is off the table. Now they're going to go on vacation. It's almost becoming a question of, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes".

[autorank]

26. I'll believe you.

It's not a stellar performance in terms of the Constitution.

There's a cross spectrum alliance for constitutional rights. It's the type of alliance that had
Bob Bahr introducing Al Gore in a major speech (Bahr's plane was grounded and he didn't make it
but his introduction of Gore was read and it rocked).

We've blown hooking up with that group. The're/we're now suspicious. Why shouldn't we be?
The politicians don't fear us. Heck, they act like we barely exit.

The model of the House and the Senate derived from the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Well, there are not many commoners on The Hill, now, are there.

[acmavm]

9. YUP!

<snip>

Some civil liberties groups oppose the proposed changes, expressing concern that there might be far-reaching consequences.

“Congress needs to take its time before it implements another piece of antiterrorism legislation it will regret, like the Patriot Act,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The Bush administration clearly has abused the FISA powers it already has and clearly wants to go back to the good old days of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying. Congress must stop this bill in its tracks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186075439-oN2XURph/3qnlyF2g0dbkw

[L. Coyote]

3. SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?

Background, history, articles, editorials, commentary, more. Please add what you can:

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1481897

[autorank]

4. Are they legal?

We'd need the "signing statements," which are the final authority for the operators;)

[L. Coyote]

6. The legality of the NSA spying on Americans is a distraction from

the issue of how many espionage programs exist legally that also spy on Americans.

It is perfectly legal to spy on us, but not for the NSA to do it.

When will someone ask how much it costs to spy on us?

Who in this Administration understands the concept of a negative feedback loop?

[autorank]

7. "Who in this Administration understands the concept of a negative feedback loop?"

I ask myself that a lot. Why don't they care? Are they delusional? Do they have some secret
plan or get out of jail card? How do they operate knowing that their public support is virtually
non existent? It amazes me. They don't appear to have one, not at all. That's the troubling part.

[L. Coyote]

8. I have to seriously ask, "Do they have the Rapture schedule?"

The concept of paradigms needs to be brought forth here. They have a very different paradigm, one that does not correspond to actuality. In the context of their paradigm, what they are doing makes sense. Perhaps, a full assault on their ridiculous paradigm is the only salvation at this point (pun intended).

[autorank]

27. I agree and think I addressed that already.

See Full Frontal Assault:) Quite well received to, top
of the charts for a few days.

[shance]

11. Auto - you rock, as always**

Thanks so much for posting.

[autorank]

13. You are most welcome!

Isn't this amazing. And the NYT clamor by Dems to expand domestic surveillance, which some people say is a NYT plot to make us look bad...

I think there are a bunch of really dishonest actors here. I'd like to know more.

[seemslikeadream]

15. I'd like to know more.

:yourock:

[autorank]

30. Here you go...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html

:hi:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. Is this not considered absolute corruption of any democratic system?

Isn't spying against Americans a fascist or totalitarian activity completely violating even the possibility of a democratic system??

Why aren't these people in prison? :shrug:

[autorank]

14. Q: Why aren't these people in prison? A: They run the prisons.

It is all about recovering our freedoms now, not saving them. They're lost.

[KoKo]

16. K&R...#5...can we get a few more to move this to the TOP?

[DemReadingDU]

17. Back to the top

[autorank]

32. Dem Reading DU

:hi:

[autorank]

28. A belated thank you!!!!

What so you think Sam Ervin would have to say about all this?

My God! He'd be in a fury. Who will be our Senator Sam?

[babylonsister]

18. Russ is worried:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1499355&mesg_id=1499355

[Disturbed]

19. "The administration has proposed that the attorney general

perform the review..."

This AG has already allowed an Illegal Spying Program to operate. This criminal Regime has no limitations on their audacity.

[Octafish]

20. DEMs Complicit in Bush Power Grab

I am shocked.

Dems Complicit in Bush Power Grab

by Matthew Rothschild
Published on Thursday, August 2, 2007 by The Progressive

Unbelievably, the Democratic leadership in Congress seems about to cave in to Bush and grant him, of all things, more power to spy on Americans.

This, even as Alberto Gonzales continues to dissemble about the spying that has already been going on.

But whenever Bush lights the scare fluid, the Democrats jump back in fear.

In his Saturday radio address, Bush said, “Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.”

Bush also said that “FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.”

He conveniently failed to note that FISA has been updated 50 times over those last 30 years, and 20 times since 9/11, as the ACLU notes.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/02/2921/

Question: Why do our Democratic leaders continue to ENABLE Bush?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bolton?

"Is it that they've been wiretapped?"

[babylonsister]

21. What the hell are they thinking? And then there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1499051&mesg_id=1499051

[autorank]

29. That's disgusting.

I think we need to provide air sickness bags for some of this news. Seriously...

[bonito]

23. Total awareness, selective use of information

The neocon wet dream.

[lonestarnot]

24. Fucking A! Some are just DONE. They have done it to themselves!

[BeHereNow]

31. "Is it that they've been wiretapped?" ummm, no.

It's that they are making a great deal of MONEY to
remain complicit.
BHN

[L. Coyote]

34. I agree with Bush, we do need to close critical intelligence gaps.

If we are talking about the President's IQ or about surveillance of those planning to attack the US.

What many people seem unable to do is understand the complexity, or take time to determine the complexity, of what this issue entails.

FYI. Dems are opposing Bush where appropriate on this issue.

[PATRICK]

22. Speculation

Congress one way or another is still being played by the administration. It does not want to head to vacation having not acted on a surveillance request. Which is why it was timed his way without even the logical time frame of the patriot Act as an excuse.

Which leads one to wonder if the administration knows it can- after an attack- extract a contact they could have obtained from terrorist X talking to terrorist Y- but were unable to follow up on because of the Dems. With all the raw material they have in their data banks they could manipulate this- more easily if they knew X and Y were going to produce.

Of course it is a more general point that Congress knows they have to do something and that the someone they have to do business with is Bush. That they can't, won't deal with these dilemmas as they want people to concentrate on "good legislation" that Bush will veto is the huge problem that each proposal from Bush a crisis and each remedy by the Dems other than removing Bush a no-go or just plain embarrassing and dangerous. It makes it exclusively an election year strategy to defer real actions to the media distracted, angry .85 voter in 2008, the other .15 voter of course being the fictional weighted count enjoyed by the Rove machine.

[autorank]

25. Very interesting.

Our side wouldn't even take the point when it was discovered that Bush had a report on terrorist attacks on sky scrapers why wouldn't this make them shiver. Look at all those Democratic votes in the Senate to suspend habeas corpus.

Your point is very well taken (and depressing too) - the perfecta:

"Which leads one to wonder if the administration knows it can- after an attack- extract a contact they could have obtained from terrorist X talking to terrorist Y- but were unable to follow up on because of the Dems. With all the raw material they have in their data banks they could manipulate this- more easily if they knew X and Y were going to produce."

[PATRICK]

35. Such weakness invites

tempts and assures they will do worse.

[DemReadingDU]

33. morning kick