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
@bobwalters
}}}}First of all, the retroactive immunity,
}}}}whether civil or criminal, is in violation
}}}}of Article I, Section 9, Par. 3 of the Constitution,
}}}}which prohibits enactment of ex post facto laws.
ExPostFacto laws only apply to criminal issues. It's not applicable in civil matters.
}}}}Secondly, the bill enormously expands the
}}}}powers of the Executive to spy on anyone
}}}}and everyone without any effective check
Please cite the sections of HR6304 that substantiate your claim..
Michale.....
Please cite the sections that YOU claim make it NOT violate the Constitution! I've asked this one before Michale, and never gotten an answer!
I HAVE answered..
You can't prove a negative....
It is your claim that HR6304 violates the US Constitution.. It's up to you to back up that claim with proof..
Michale.....
See Dave Johnson's Profile
OK Michale, it is time to ask the question.
Are you paid to be here? You are advocating a position (telecom immunity) for an industry that in the past has been caught employing paid comment posters. So in the interest of full disclosure, are you working (even indirectly) for the telecom industry when posting here?
This doesn't alter the validity of your comments, but does allow people to judge whether you are a regular person posting here or a paid commenter.
And I am not saying you are or are not, or trying to shut you down. Until we fix our laws governing corporations ATT has the legal right to pay people to do this.
I will accept your answer.
And you
See Dave Johnson's Profile
Apologies! I see in another comment that you say you are not employed. I accept that.
@Liberal2
}}}"....I am a former military officer, an LEO and an FSO, retired...." So? Adolf Hitler was a decorated soldier in the German Army during WWI. That didn't make him a person with good political judgement either.You're too in love with your opinion to realize you're an incipent fascist{{{
Godwin...
Thank you for your concession...
Michale.....
@nbaty
}}}}You still have not denied the charge that you work for a telecom. This charge has been raised several times. Are you pleading the fifth? Because 5 follows 4, and if you are so willing to give up the Fourth, why not the Fifth as well?{{{{
I honestly didn't think that such inanity would require a response.. Apparently I was wrong
Regardless of that, I think I posted that I don't have any affiliations, save my conscience..
But, if you need it for the cheap seats, I am more than happy to oblige you.
I do not work for any Telecoms.. I am not in the employ of any person, entity or corporation.
Good for you??
Michale.....
@syllespis
}}}Actually, having secrets is a liability,
}}}not a good thing.
}}}People with secrets are vulnerable
}}}to blackmail- so are countries...
So, tell me.. How long do you think a country with NO SECRETS whatsoever would last??
But, let's go with your concept.
You think that everyone in the USA should not have any secrets?? That everything they do should be an open book to anyone and everyone else..
So, then what's the problem with your government listening in on your calls?? Reading your emails??
You don't need any secrets, right??
Setec Astronomy
Michale.....
Michale,
Anagrams are a fitting vehicle for secrets, yes?
Of course secrets are liabilities- in the sense that properties are liabilities- they must be maintained, and there is an analogy between the Third Amendment, in which the Government cannot bust into your space to make your home a barracks, and the Fourth, in which your possessions- your personal items, including your correspondence, of which email is an example- cannot be searched without a warrant, which causes your items of suspicion to revert to the State. Now these are rights which are specified precisely because we need homes and 'secrets,' and we are powerless to defend them against the State without the protection of the law.
It is desirable to have property, but desirable too for the State to claim it for its own profit. Too, my correspondence is my own (and its recipient(s)), but the State might like to know what I am thinking, and use it for its own unlawful purposes. So, there is mutual interest on each side , and obviously the individual, being always the weaker party, is in need of protection under the law FROM the government- that upholds the law. To do this (uphold the law), it must be transparent- the public must know if it is being oppressed, and can take action (vote, stage protests, etc.) to regain those lost rights.
(2)
Now secrets are essential, and they are also points of weakness. The Government's own secrets have no Constitutional protections, obviously. and furtherrmore, unlike Putin's Russia or North Korea, ours is a relatively transparent society. The goal should be, since secrets are what must be defended, to have as few as possible. Al Qaeda operates in cells in which groups of three or four have as little contact with the command as possible, to minimize the burden of secrecy on each terrorist. Our Government cannot work that way. We should keep as few secrets from the citizens as possible, and use our transparency as a tactical advantage.
(3)
the question, obviousy, is how transparency can be a virtue? Well, The Government whose spying is within limits is not going to waste time doing what it shouldn';t be, and so is all the more apt to actually be doing what it should- namely, spying on our enemies. Europe, apparently, has problems with its Muslims, because they are less assimilated to their respective cultures- ours assimilates everybody, because (at least in our cities) it lets them be (that is why I think racial profiling by the FBI is a disaster, besides its unconstitutionality). Now- if you let someone be- you learn a great deal about them. To be less cryptic, Sun-tzu says, "The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.." In other words, our communities should be allowed to be the means by which, through a natural process, the means by which we acquire the spy whose services are more essential than a thousand wiretaps: "The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy. Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality. "
(5)
Every husbandman will be quickly converted into a soldier when he knows and feels that he is to fight not in defence of the rights of a particular family, or a prince, but for his own. This is the true construction of the pro aris et focis which has, in all ages, performed such wonders. It was this which in ancient times enabled the little cluster of Grecian republics to resist, and almost constantly to defeat, the Persian monarch. It was this which supported the States of Holland against a body of veteran troops through a thirty years' war with Spain, then the greatest monarchy in Europe, and finally rendered them victorious."
i would say, the attachment of our people to its laws and country gives us its greatest protection- not the secrecy of its Executive.
(4) (misnumbered-sorry)
"The chief advantages which have been urged in favor of unity in the Executive, are the secresy, the dispatch, the vigor and energy which the government will derive from it, especially in time of war. That these are great advantages, I shall most readily allow. They have been strongly insisted on by all monarchical writers; they have been acknowledged by the ablest and most candid defenders of republican government; and it cannot be denied that a monarchy possesses them in a much greater degree than a republic. Yet perhaps a little reflection may incline us to doubt whether these advantages are not greater in theory than in practice, or lead us to enquire whether there is not some pervading principle in republican government which sets at naught and tramples upon this boasted superiority, as hath been experienced to their cost, by most monarchies which have been imprudent enough to invade or attack their republican neighbors. This invincible principle is to be found in the love, the affection, the attachment of the citizens to their laws, to their freedom, and to their country."
The entire quote is from one of our greatest patriots and thinkes, George Mason.
Although the threats in those days were very different, the principle he is asserting is still valid: The Executive and monarchical advantages of secrecy and dispatch pale next to the citizens' own power in defending the republic.
There is nothing more powerful than a republic, whose leaders are accountable.
@LarBar
}}}Of course HR6304 violates the US Constitution.{{{
To use your "zen"....
Then your path is clear.
PROVE that HR6304 violates the US Constitution..
Show me the sections and/or sub-sections of HR6304 that violate the US Constitution and I will slink away with my tail between my legs, totally vanquished and embarrassed, never to be heard from again..
Just a hint for you, though. In almost 2 weeks of posting on HR6304, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to point to any Constitutional conflict with HR6304. When asked, most people just run away.
I'll go with the judgment of Obama and the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate...
Michale.....
"PROVE that HR6304 violates the US Constitution..
Show me the sections and/or sub-sections of HR6304 that violate the US Constitution and I will slink away with my tail between my legs, totally vanquished and embarrassed, never to be heard from again..
Just a hint for you, though. In almost 2 weeks of posting on HR6304, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to point to any Constitutional conflict with HR6304. When asked, most people just run away."
I HAVE proven it, MANY times!! Of course, every time that I do you come back with the BS claim that since it wasn't written to apply to Americans, it will NEVER be applied to them.....
"I'll go with the judgment of Obama and the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate..."
This line is SUCH BS!! The purpose of a democracy is NOT to simply trust that they know better, but to MAKE SURE that they REPRESENT you!! Therefore, when they break the Constitution like this, we need to LET THEM KNOW, NOT roll over and say, "Oh well, I guess that they know better than I do!" ESPECIALLY when they are rolling over to a president like bush, who has lied about EVERYTHING since he was BORN!!!
It's also no small coincidence that the White House memo(s) crafting an awkward loophole around the Geneva Convention and cobbling a rationale for torture of detainees PREDATED the invasion of Iraq.
These thugs knew exactly what they had in mind for the rest of us, and they didn't wait for the excuse of exigency to put their plans into action.
Why is this being limited to GWB?
No one has heard of Echelon? And its predecessors? The spying's been going on a long, long time.
Echelon was implemented during President Clinton's administration, the unprincipled are only interested in domestic spying as part of their political attack, so they never complain about Echelon, that was a Democratic administration. Those with only political interests also have no problems with the presumptive candidate's new found support of the expanded FISA bill with includes retroactive immunity and greatly expands "legal" domestic spying.
From the ACLU and the Clinton administration Echelon scheme:
"As of the late 1990s/early 2000s, Echelon swept up global communications using two primary methods:
* The interception of satellite and microwave signals. One way that telephone calls and other communications are sent from the United States to Europe and other destinations is via satellite and microwave transmissions. ECHELON was known to use numerous satellite receivers ("dishes") – located on the east and west coasts of the United States, in England, Australia, Germany, and elsewhere around the globe – to vacuum up the "spillover" broadcasts from these satellite transmissions.
* Transoceanic cable tapping. ECHELON's other primary eavesdropping method was to tap into the transoceanic cables that also carry phone calls across the seas. According to published reports, American divers were able to install surveillance devices onto these cables. One of these taps was discovered in 1982, but other devices apparently continued to function undetected. "
Well, obviously, almost everyone here has huge problems with OBAMA'S endorsement of such programs, so it is not a partisan issue in that sense.
Thank you for the information on ECHELON. If one of those undersea taps was discovered in 1982, then the program has a long history, at least into the Reagan administration.
See Dave Johnson's Profile
Are you saying that this was DOMESTIC spying on American citizens?
I actually haven't heard of Echelon, but that's beside the point. Just because someone else, at another time, did something wrong does NOT make it right to do it THIS time!!
Tell you what, since I drank when I was underage (20 years old....) should I allow my underage daughter to drink????? I'm sure not telling her that it's okay!!
And its not just telecoms .Now firemen, utility workers and health care personnel are being enlisted.
http://www.progressive.org/mag/mc070208
Thanks for the warning tbone. Appreciate it.
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. We need your help now! http://www.democracyforamerica.com/activities/92-senate-petition-to-stop-telecom-immunity
Done. Thank you for the link.
Come on, patriots. Let us take it...all of it...back.
"americans are great liars..." Sitting Bull. Just as Bush lied to the people, Senator Barack Obama, a Senator of my state of Illinois, is now lying to the people. His reason for this is to protect the Democrats at the top- Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller. By the civil lawsuits being thrown out, this ensures that those that are guilty will never see prison. By distracting us with promises that criminal lawsuits and litigation are possible, the Telcos will be pardoned and Bush will leave with his classic smirk on his face. The kind of smirk you would like to knock off with a subpoena. It looks like in order for the Democrats to win the White House, Senate and the House, they're willing to walk away from their very definition- to be for the little man. Americans are indeed great liars.
Security is the most important element of organized crime. It would have been foolish for the Bushists not to have a strong security apparatus in place in preparation for the 9/11 attack and their Neo Con-engineered response.
What is clear is that the timing of events taken on their own merits alone, go to something other than preventive protection. Security was put in place precisely the same any dictatorship or organized crime syndicate would.
Remember, the first Trade Center attackers were successfully apprehended and prosecuted using existing police/prosecutorial methods. The Bushists wanted far more and, as expected, produced few prosecutions outside of illegal tribunal but plenty of fear- that essential ingredient that drives their military industrial, nationalist socialist machine.
Only a fool or an ideologue would willfully and consistently avoid connecting the dots. Meet the Mob:
http://www.light-to-dark.com/pox_americana.html
After reading this and Glenn Greenwald's posts in Salon here is myth vs. reality.
Myth:The Telecoms were directed to spy on Americans by the Bush Admin.
Reality: Bush didn't (and doesn't now) have the authority to direct any non-military or non-federal govt. person or company to do "anything" especially if it is illegal. The Telecoms willingly broke the law because the Bush administration asked it to.
Myth: The Telecom spying saved us all from certain death by terrorists.
Reality: we have no clue what the illegal spying was for or on whom. Telecom immunity will ensure we stay in the dark about this.
Myth: Without voting for this bill we are all doomed.
Reality: without this bill the FISA law as enacted in 1978 is still in effect allowing us to legally spy on the bad guys.
Myth: Obama's "pragmatic" approach will help him win in November.
Reality: Obama is helping the GOP label him a flip-flopper and a J.A.P. (just another politician)
and simultaneously drain enthusiasm from his core base. That helps him win?
I agree with all of those except the last one. Well really, the last point. Do you really think that his core base is stupid enough to think that he's a flip flopper based on ONE issue?
How many excuses do we need. Do we have standards, we had the same with the
DEMS gaining in November 06 and look it went downhim from there.
One issue? He's a flip flopper on ONE issue? Hardly. He was against NAFTA before he recently became for it. He was against the Iraq Occupation before he became for it (with his "adjustments to his policy" that is ongoing and becoming "stay the course"). He was against unconstitutional spying on Americans before he was for it.
He is becoming more and more Republican with each day that passes. He is all over forcing Jesus into government. He is all for restricting even more the right for a woman to control her own body. He is all into doing Israel's bidding as if it was the 51st state, or worse, THE actual leader of the USA. He loves him some Blackwater, promising to NOT end their terrorist contracts in Iraq (or in the US). He is really getting into under-breath threats to Iran now too: will do anything necessary to prevent Iran from getting nukes (which there is ZERO evidence AT ALL that they are even trying to get in the first place!). No doubt, he will soon announce that he will appoint SCOTUS judges like Scalia.
The man is a Republican and it would be best if he made his official party switch BEFORE the election rather than after.
We know the FBI spied on PETA, vegans, gay groups and enviromentalists. Obviously considering the activites of the DOJ ( i.e..the Segilman case) this administration was after its politcal enemies and enemis of specific businesses. As far as the vegans and PETA go , look how the beef industry went after Oprah and PETA gas done admirable undercover work on animal abuse in the food industry.
Obama's turn around on this issue means little to ther average American , but gives a strong signal to corporations that he is willing to play ball for them,.
It is important to realized we could cut Senator Obama's term to four years if there's the slightest hint of betrayal. It is the Internet age. We are not owing to any corporate filter.
This is not a defense of Telecoms, but remember that if an industry is regulated and that government who regulates them asks them to do something - it's certainly harder to say no. The comment that Qwest declined to do something only to be retaliated against is what the Telecomms are fearful of.
There are billions of dollars at stake here - spectrum auctions, pricing on tarriffed services, etc... are all "regulated."
Again - it does not excuse breaking the law but it's something to consider. It's harder to say no when you wonder if your competition is saying yes and then getting favorable treatment from the FCC.
I suspect the Bush Crime Syndicate wanted to begin unlawful surveillance activity as early as March 2001 because, as is known, they were already preparing to attack Iraq. This, of course, was before the 9/11 attacks.
No shiite Sherlock; the article you posted to is headlined "The Spying Started Before September 11 -- That's The Whole Point"
Mr. Johnson,
Good article but it isn't worth reading the comments. That section was hijacked.
This is why i am not upset over the congress taking out the civil lawsuits part in the FISA bill in order to get certain provisions in the bill to reign in Bush. The Administration was gong to destroy and punish the people who ran the telecoms if they did not go along. I don't think punishing those forced to go along is the solution. Besides, they are still subject to criminal prosecution It is only the civil part that is taken out.
Suing the companies because they were under threat by the bullies of Bush is not the way to go. It is reigning in King George and Co. first and after a democrat is the white house, go after the ones who deserve it. Bush and cheney.
Obama has said he would have his justice department review actions and prosecute if need be those in the administration if it turns out they were breaking the law. And we all know they have been.
I've heard that the spying was going on from the beginning. And so, it's not the telecoms we want but, the bullies in the administration to be prosecuted.
I'm afraid your take on the "revised" FISA bill is a bit naive. First of all, the retroactive immunity, whether civil or criminal, is in violation of Article I, Section 9, Par. 3 of the Constitution, which prohibits enactment of ex post facto laws. Secondly, the bill enormously expands the powers of the Executive to spy on anyone and everyone without any effective check -- the lame re-affirmation that the FISA Court is the only legitimate venue for authorizing surveillance is a joke. The FISA Court allegedly has denied exactly three out of thousands of applications for permission to wiretap; and, even though FISA was in effect when Bush took office, he ignored the law and has suffered no legal or serious political consequences. Obama's assertion of faith that an Inspector-General's investigators will ultimately get to the truth of what has gone on is unfounded, and ultimately meaningless as IGs are not empowered to initiate prosecutions of criminal/unlawful conduct. I, for one, want both the criminal administration prosecuted, and also want the telecoms prosecuted - criminally or civilly or both. Qwest Communications refused what they knew was an illegal request to wiretap, and they were punished by the Bush Crime Family by loss of gov't contracts and a specious prosecution of their CEO (he truly may have been a marginal criminal, but they would have left him alone if Qwest had acceded to their demands).
Although I agree with your sentiments and opposition to the bill, I believe the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to retroactively making something illegal. Retroactively making an offense legal is not prohibited.
Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly.
There is ZERO chance that an incoming Democratic administration will pursue criminal charges against the telecoms, even if Bush doesn't pardon them on his way out of office. That is an absolute pipe dream. Aint. Gonna. Happen.
And to characterze the telecoms (one of which I happen to, unfortunately work for) as helpless lambs shrinking into cooperation with illegal activities "under threat" from the Bush administration is pretty humorous. They knew what they were doing and were willful accomplices.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
