|
||
The Spying Started Before September 11 -- That's The Whole Point
In the LA Times today, A Good-Enough Spy Law says,
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks.No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office -- a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say "political spying?")
One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges.
The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused -- refused because it was illegal -- is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The president can't spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?
Don't forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don 't think they don't do it.
[note- NY Times link added after posting]
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Apparently for some it makes no difference whether the spying is for the purpose of actually addressing concerns raised by the 911 attacks--- or for reasons that predate the attacks. No difference at all.
It doesn't make any difference to me. Plain and simple, I'm opposed to illegally spying on American citizens, whether to stop terrorists or to politically spy!
Geez, that sounds almost...Patriotic! Maybe that's why all our presidents are sworn in on a Bible, these days, instead of the Constitution they swear to protect.
With the advent of digital switching systems, things that used to be electro-mechanical are now defined in software.
"On-hook" for example is merely a software-defined condition in the phone network. It is technically possible, with some switching systems, to take a phone off hook and listen to conversations happening in the room where the phone is sitting. The reason I know this is that I've done it myself as an experiement in a private network (not for the US gov't). That capability existed as far back as the mid 1980's.
There are numerous other "fun" capabilities that anyone who is certified with big switching systems can tell you how to do. The whole network is "manageable" with software now.
That all these capabilities exist and and have existed since Bush I was in office leads me to ask the question - what government has capabilities like this and refuses to use them?
I will bet you that there has been warrantless eavesdropping going on for decades. Why else has the NSA spent so much on supercomputers? If a Jr. College Hacker can get access to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), then the NSA, CIA, (and many other TLA's) can and have done so already.
Our legislative bodies need a way to keep pace with the march of technical capabilities and not wait for crises like this to develop. By that time, we are years/decades too late.
But even if it HAS been going on for decades, there's NO reason to suddenly decide that it's legal NOW! Just because daddy was able to do it, and Billy Boy, that STILL doesn't make it right for the shrub to do so!
Exactly! When will the truth actually come out??? This is WHY immunity has to NOT occur!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: EVERYBODY has closet skeletons, maybe even including Obama. There's a reason why the Democratic Congress has refused to work against BushCo's agenda, much less consider impeachment, and it's not necessarily out of cowardice, except maybe the cowardice of being exposed. It not only started before 9/11, THAT WAS THE PLAN GOING IN (the presidential term, that is)!!!
Candidates for higher office should be vetted in reference to closet skeletons!
We need to get our hands on the wiretaps, then.
How else would we know who's easily blackmailed and turned into a gelatinous slug ?
Most of our Dems in office seem like they were fine human beings once.
Wasn't that what our venerable press was supposed to do?
Bush has broken his oath of office by spying on Americans without oversight or warrants. This is a treasonable offense.
Freedom,the rule of Law, an open and accountable government are American issues.
Anyone who opposes these is not at all an American and would fit in well in China,Iran or Zimbabwe.
Sometimes I wonder if the whole of the Democratic party is made of Republican moles.
With Obama right there at the top.
me too... at least the DNC...
You think? I think the far left are full of people who want it all. If we only had the time to let them see what that would mean - actually. Get a candidate up there who ticks off all of your wish list, no compromises, and bam he gets the 20 or less percent of the vote. No way to get into office and lead the government back from the edge of the right wing cliff.
One scenario - go ahead - let the republicans win - just one of those Supreme Court Justices retires and we have 40 years of a ultra conservative court.
If for no other reason - use your head.
Justices appointed by Democrats go right, and Justices appointed by Republicans go left. That's one hell of a non-argument for a principled stand in favor of Constitutional rule.
Don't you think that some things, like maybe the Constitution and protection of civil liberties, are more important than any other issue? It's what our country was founded upon . If we decide that an election is more important, than we really have thrown away everything America stands for.
Please sign and distribute this petition from Senator Feingold to stop the FISA immunity bill now in the senate. It will be voted on Tuesday. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/92-senate-petition-to-stop-telecom-immunity
I urge you to escalate your protests. Fill up the email boxs of dplouffe@barackobama.com and bburton@barackobama.com with your cogent arguments. Call his senate office or send fill out the senate site contact form Obama, Barack- (D - IL)Class III713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2854Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/We will be at 30,000 strong here soon, please republish this in all groups that you belong to and forward to anyone you know concerned about this assault on the constitution. This is too important to give up on. Your help is needed. Thank you all!
Urge Senator's Dodd and Feingold to filibuster and not cave in.
Russ Feingold: Contact
Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323
feingold.senate.gov/contact.html
U.S. Senator Christopher J. Dodd | D-Connecticut
dodd.senate.gov/
I'd like to make an observation, if I may, that since there's no constituency for illegal wiretapping, why is it that "Michale32086" always (and only) defending this new FISA bill?? The only comments he has are to do with this bill. Wonder why? Can you say A T and T? Sure, I knew you could :) Check out "see profile" and judge for yourself. Just saying!
Very good question that he will not answer. He accuses everyone else of pushing some agenda, what is his?
politically motivated spying???? and tell me again why this worst president ever is still standing at the helm with all his henchmen??????????
Because impeachment is "off the table."
*sigh*
Michale:
You are a second rate sophist. The Bush administration's domestic spying program was warrantless; the 4th amendment requires warrants; ergo, it was unconstitutional.
It's that simple.
It can be argued that the point of stiffling civil suits is to protect Bush et. al. from criminal prosecution, which would make the law illegal.
But there is a larger issue here -- the integrity of our Constitutional form of governance and our status as a nation of laws. Why are you so willing to jettison it?
Fanklin reortedly said, "A nation that will trade freedom for security will soon find itself with niether."
He is also quoted as saying, "A nation that will trade freedom for security deserves neither."
Both are true.
Terrorism is a low level threat, not an existential threat. Terrorists have neither navy, nor airforce, nor standing army; they use scrounged weapons and strike at targets of convenience. While death is always a tragedy, terrorism does not threaten this nation. Indeed, terrorism is a tactic used by the weak to get the strong to do by fear that which they could never get them to do by force.
Selling out our freedoms for a third rate threat is exactly the result the terrorists seek.
So, once again, Michale, why are you so willing to oblige them?
Warrants are not always required, even in the specific language of the 4th and there have always been exceptions. Customs searches for one. Exigent circumstances another. there is always a concept of a neutral jurist however looking at whether the exceptions actually applied even if only after the fact as in a civil suit for violations. this bill seems to do an end run around the whole process. what i find amazing is that despite evidence that the administration has abused the powers ( for purposes unrelated to 911) many want to give more opportunities for abuse and insulation from consequences to a known abuser.
Thank you, Dave. It seems incredible to me that the press continues to link Bush's illegal spying with 911, even after Qwestar's revelations.
What is going on?
The other thing that seems surreal is the string of comments on this post that address whether there's a NEED for warrantless domestic spyingy -- Jeez, folks, that's not the point -- the point is Bush (once again) lied about FISA, and the press is (once again) letting him get away with it.
Even assuming there were a need for domestic spying, the way you do that in a Democracy is seek authority for it thorugh the leagal framework establishd in the constituition -- which would be through a Constitutional amendment.
The only places leaders get to usurp authority like that is in banana republics and disctatorships. In America, that power is ours to give, not Bush's to take.
Banana republics and dictatorships are not immune from terrorism either, which shows that the way to safety is NOT through lawlessness,
So since J Edgar does it, it's OK? Will you be modeling a naughty negligee for us now?
Dave, we can all look in our history books, if we choose to, and say to ourselves, "OMG, It's Happening Over Here."
Yes, it is happening. And yes, it is happening over here.
There is one light burning in Christ Church tower: "one if by land." But the enemy that we are fighting is not "over there." It is The Enemy Within: it is the army that conquered Troy. And it has taken up residence in all three halls of our Government simultaneously, immediately throwing up a curtain of propaganda to conceal itself from a public that did not want to acknowledge even the possibility of its existence.
History tells us that fascism ... and this is what this is, and always has been ... destroys its host country from the inside out. This is not "politics as usual in America." This is a very, very deadly threat to the security -- and the continued existence -- of our Republic.
Forty-seven years ago, a General who had more stars on his lapel than any other spoke from the Oval Office to warn us of the extreme and "unprecedented" danger created by this Thing that he dubbed "the Military Industrial Congressional Complex." We did listen.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I suggest that now would be a very good time to start listening.
Well, I agree with you. I suspect that we may be closer to a second American Revolution than we may want to know. And this one will be horrific, and the Good Guys may not win.
The average citizen laughs at that as hyperbole, but if you look at long term trends, and you think about what motivates the few (ideals) and the many (their wallets), you'll realize that just like in the late eighteenth century, a "perfect storm" is brewing.
Oh well, let's all sit back and drink in our opiates. Maybe the people in the streets won't notice us.
Spying was legendary by J. Edgar Hoover during the Kennedy administration. Did you forget that or is this just the beginning of revisionist liberal facist history? He had files on Martin Luther King and other politicians. Wonder why the Kennedy liberals didn't stop him?
And Robert Kennedy battled him constantly -- or is that inconvenient to your fascist view of history?
WHAT!!!!!!!
Likely he had too much on the Kennedys. The little manic was so far out that no one could rein him in. That is exactly the problem with the increased surveillance being fought over now, un-regulated, warrantless, no oversight, all highly dangerous to a democracy.
If we lose this fight it will just lead to further erosion of our civil liberties. It already is big brother everywhere, we are looking police state square in the face.
Democrats and Republicans had both abused the system grossly before the Nixon scandal finally got the legislators' attebntion.
This is not a partisan issue in the least. The wiretaps must be reined in, because the temptation to abuse them is irresistable.
See Dave Johnson's Profile
Yes, the famous liberal activist J. Edgar Hoover. Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal J. Edgar Hoover!
Hoover had a lot in common with Rudy Guliani--macho authoritarian freak on the outside--closet transvestite in private. Where he alive today in which party would he feel like he belonged? My guess is the party of Vitter, Craig, Rove, Mehlman, Crist, and Ted Haggard
And that COMPLETELY validates bush's position, right? Just like my children when they claim that they are allowed to drink underage, since I was drinking regularly at 20! Of course it happened under Kennedy, but it wasn't right then, and it's not right NOW!!
@bgregs
}}}While there are secrets that must be kept,
I am glad we agree..
}}}but to be COMPLETELY secret is dangerous!
And yet, COMPLETE secrecy is a requirement of CT operations.
Michale.....
Then we must be willing to accept some looses, since to be COMPLETELY secret is to move to collapse of America!
OK, are you volunteering to be first among the losses??? Who are you going to take down with you??
Michale.....
@bgregs
}}}And yet, the strategic sessions ARE run by committee.
You are wrong..
Input is given to the Commander and then he or she makes the decision.
There is no "majority rules" or any other such actions in the chain of command.
"We're here to preserve democracy. Not to practice it."
-Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
Michale.....
I didn't say that there was a majority rule, neither is there in a Board of Directors. In EITHER case the COMMITTEE gives its input, and then the LEADER makes the decision. That's the way that a committee works!
Tell you what..
Go up to ANY military person, especially an officer, and tell them that the military is run by committee...
Guess what their reaction would be?? :D
Michale.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
