Slashdot Mirror

For example, here's Clinton's deputy Attorney General (Jamie Gorelick) testifying before the House Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence in 1994:

Which lead to Executive Order 12949 on Feb 9, 1995 because he was told that this was not legal, but it was allowable to fall under the jurisdiction of FISA.

In 1978 his Attorney General (Griffin B. Bell) testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two US men suspected of spying for the Vietnamese government

Which lead to the creation of FISA, because SCOTUS deemed it to be unconstitutional without both Congressional authority (the creation of FISA) and judicial review (the FISA court itself).

Neither of which is analogous to the case before us now -- we have a redux of what Carter did in 1978, except that this time it's been ongoing for over 4 years and is in direct contradiction to the SCOTUS ruling that lead to the creation of FISA in the first place.

e need to be able to immediately, and persistenly follow up on any call from the US that reaches out to those same numbers, and follow the trail of other people who are calling those people, especially from overseas. But you can't list that stuff in a warrant because you don't (and can't) know it in advance.

And you don't need to. FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps for a limited duration -- as long as they're submitted to the FISA court for approval within 72 hours. Precisely what prevented Bush and the NSA from doing that? They've already increased FISA requests by over 70% since 9/11, and out of 5645 requests only 3 have been completely denied (an additional 3 denied, but then granted upon appeal or modification). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other court that approves 99.95% of all warrants requested over four years (and that percentage is much higher if you go over the court's entire history -- prior to 2001 there was only 1 warrant denied w/o later approval by FISA).

One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security. And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.

There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.

BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.

2004 -- 1758 applied for, 3 withdrawn, 1 withdrawn and re-applied for, 1754 approved, 0 denied, 94 modified (don't ask me about the discrepency; it's in the report)
2003 -- 1727 applied for, 1724 approved, 4 denied, 1 re-approved after denial, 79 modified
2002 -- 1228 applied for, 1226 approved, 2 denied, 2 appealed and approved, none listed as modified
2001 -- 932 applied for, 934 approved (2 from December 2000), 2 modified

I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.

It seems all sides in the cold war were subject to needless speculation.

See today's Secrecy News

CRS ON DECLARATIONS OF WAR AND AUMFS

The distinction between a formal declaration of war and an authorization for use of military force was addressed in an exceptionally informative report of the Congressional Research Service in 2003.

"With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into effect numerous standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc."

"In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force."

The history of both categories is delineated, including the texts of the eleven formal declarations of war and the most important authorizations for use of military force, along with an itemization of the various statutes that are triggered directly or indirectly in each case.

The 112 page CRS report is not generally available in the public domain. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications," updated January 14, 2003: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

See today's Secrecy News

CRS ON DECLARATIONS OF WAR AND AUMFS

The distinction between a formal declaration of war and an authorization for use of military force was addressed in an exceptionally informative report of the Congressional Research Service in 2003.

"With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into effect numerous standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc."

"In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force."

The history of both categories is delineated, including the texts of the eleven formal declarations of war and the most important authorizations for use of military force, along with an itemization of the various statutes that are triggered directly or indirectly in each case.

The 112 page CRS report is not generally available in the public domain. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications," updated January 14, 2003: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

It's a wonderful site on anything involving historical space exploration and rocketry. I've been going there for years. I have a lot of these wonderful historical sites. These are quasi-related:

http://www.astronautix.com/
The home page of this site.

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.com/
A site on the history of nuclear weaponry.

http://www.fas.org/
The Federation of American Scientists. Look on the left menu for links to weapons, rockets, missiles...

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanet s/
The Nine Planets - A site about our solar system.

Every time I find a good historical site, I add it to my collection. Wikipedia.org just goes without saying.

Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

Which is the most appropriate coversheet?

Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't.

Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans. You can even go back to 1998 and hear Bill Clinton explain how great of a threat Saddam Hussein was and why he needed to be removed. Other major Democratic leaders like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and even John Kerry also explained why Saddam had to be removed from power. Now most people in the USA understand that support was just pre-election poo-pooing so that the swing voters would not think the Democrats were a bunch of peacenik wimps (with their losses in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, that did not work), but these statements are on the record, and the Democrats will not get away with a post-war rewrite of history.

Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy

Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The U.S. was still coming out of a recession from 1993 to 1995, and Bill Clinton also signed into law a very hefty tax hike, both of which accounted for the shrinking deficit, but during the time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House (1993-1995) there was no focus on controlling spending at all. Repealing that tax hike is what helped to bring us out of the 2000-2002 recession.

When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.

Heh. The problem with that idea is that any extra revenue realized from tax hikes (prior to their killing the economy) is going to be wasted on more useless BS like TV subsidies. The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.

Has the Bush administration actually invoked FISA as their legal basis? If so, I missed it. And, from what I've heard, it wouldn't fit. AFAIK, FISA requires either a warrant or only monitoring where no US person is likely to be involved (see Q18 in the EFF writeup).

Carter and Clinton both issued executive orders authorizing FISA monitoring, but specifically quoted FISA regulations to be followed. I haven't seen a similar order from Bush, and even according to legendary conservative Rush Limbaugh, the FISA courts were bypassed. Limbaugh's take on it was that the unprecedented denials and modifications of Bush's FISA requests forced him to go around the process.

In short, the President is not asserting legal authority under FISA. According to the Attorney General, his authority hinges (PDF) on his "inherent authority" as Commander-In-Chief, and Congress's Use of Force Resolution.

Of course, in my strict interpretation, I missed the part of the Presidential Oath, Constitution or the above resolution that grants him any power over surveillance. And, according to Daschle (partisan to be sure, but you'd think records of this kind of stuff would be easily checked), Congress specifically rejected the administration's request for having the resolution cover actions in the US.

Has the Bush administration actually invoked FISA as their legal basis? If so, I missed it. And, from what I've heard, it wouldn't fit. AFAIK, FISA requires either a warrant or only monitoring where no US person is likely to be involved (see Q18 in the EFF writeup).

Carter and Clinton both issued executive orders authorizing FISA monitoring, but specifically quoted FISA regulations to be followed. I haven't seen a similar order from Bush, and even according to legendary conservative Rush Limbaugh, the FISA courts were bypassed. Limbaugh's take on it was that the unprecedented denials and modifications of Bush's FISA requests forced him to go around the process.

In short, the President is not asserting legal authority under FISA. According to the Attorney General, his authority hinges (PDF) on his "inherent authority" as Commander-In-Chief, and Congress's Use of Force Resolution.

Of course, in my strict interpretation, I missed the part of the Presidential Oath, Constitution or the above resolution that grants him any power over surveillance. And, according to Daschle (partisan to be sure, but you'd think records of this kind of stuff would be easily checked), Congress specifically rejected the administration's request for having the resolution cover actions in the US.

Indeed. I was an intelligence analyst and russian linguist in the Army and have an engineering degree, but currently I'm a self-employed electrician/telecom tech. My former boss, from whom I purchased the business, had a masters degree in chemistry. I can't imagine being a wage slave at this point. A college friend of mine with a mech engr degree works for the Navy. He's stuck overseeing CIWS testing on the USS Eisenhower (aka "Ike-a-traz") for weeks at a time for a measly $60K. I work maybe 30 hours a week and make three times what he does. Abandoning my college education is the smartest thing I've ever done!

1. Laser guided missiles are not used against airplanes.

Not that it matters (I figure the story for a hoax also) but there do exist laser beam riding SAM systems like the RBS 70 from Sweden. Did my military service assigned to one of the RBS70 units.

I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird.

Strange seeing as how the consensus seems to have been that the YF-23 looked better than then F-22. Read here for more realistic information.

I know your pain, my brother. When I was in the 7th Light ID and later the 101st AB, the dirtiest word I heard was "man-portable"...

SGT: "Hey private, you're carrying the minifix! heh heh heh"
me: "mumble..."

I'm not willing to accept that hypothesis, nor the faulty one involving an enlightened Iraq under Saddam's rule that not only had no WMD but also no intent to acquire such technology.

OK, who do we attack next?

It is not on FAS but still backed up by archive.org
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/index.html/
http://web.archive.org/web/20000309002720/www.fas. org/nuke/guide/india/facility/trombay.htm/
http://web.archive.org/web/20000304012844/www.fas. org/nuke/guide/india/facility/index.html/
http://web.archive.org/web/20000618013500/www.fas. org/nuke/guide/india/facility/airbase/index.html/
http://web.archive.org/web/20000128044315/fas.org/ nuke/guide/india/target/index.html/

Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.

There were the times Carter authorized warrantless electronic surveillance and Clinton authorized warrantless searches. Clinton even expanded it to cover purely domestic situations.

There's a surprising amount of case law in this area, and all of it has consistently found the president is authorized to do this.

Name another time that the President has ordered warrantless spying on Americans.

There were the times Carter authorized warrantless electronic surveillance and Clinton authorized warrantless searches. Clinton even expanded it to cover purely domestic situations.

There's a surprising amount of case law in this area, and all of it has consistently found the president is authorized to do this.

Far be it from me to mock idiots on Slashdot, but I'm in a holiday mood.

"Warrantless searches happen all the time, and have been repeatedly upheld as legal."

I couldn't help but notice that every single one of his examples have undergone judicial review. I'll let you figure out the moral of this story.

"There are good reasons for not getting FISA warrants."

It's funny that he brings up the Moussaoui case, because the bipartisan report at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html specifically mentions it as well. Before you flame me for actually researching official reports instead of basing my opinions on what a few disingenuous and intellectually dishonest neocon dipshits write, you might want to take a look. The report concludes that the mishandling of the Moussaoui case was due to a lack of proper FBI training and problems within the agency, not through any failing of the FISA court. Inefficient FBI processes were what lead to warrant applications not being made within the 72-hour time limit to the court. There' much more in that vein, but this is the best part:

"IV. The Importance of Enhanced Congressional Oversight
An undeniable and distinguishing feature of the flawed FISA implementation system that has developed at the DOJ and FBI over the last 23 years is its secrecy. Both at the legal and operational level, the most generalized aspects of the DOJ's FISA activities have not only been kept secret from the general public but from the Congress as well. As we stated above, much of this secrecy has been due to a lack of diligence on the part of Congress exercising its oversight responsibility. Equally disturbing, however, is the difficulty that a properly constituted Senate Committee, including a bipartisan group of senior senators, had in conducting effective oversight of the FISA process when we did attempt to perform our constitutional duties."

[...]

"Oversight of the entire FISA process is hampered not just because the Committee was initially denied access to a single unclassified opinion but because the Congress and the public get no access to any work of the FISA Court, even work that is unclassified. This secrecy is unnecessary, and allows problems in applying the law to fester. There needs to be a healthy dialogue on unclassified FISA issues within Congress and the Executive branch and among informed professionals and interested groups. Even classified legal memoranda submitted by the DOJ to, and classified opinions by, the FISA Court can reasonably be redacted to allow some scrutiny of the issues that are being considered. This highly important body of FISA law is being developed in secret, and, because they are ex parte proceedings, without the benefit of opposing sides fleshing out the arguments as in other judicial contexts, and without even the scrutiny of the public or the Congress. Resolution of this problem requires considering legislation that would mandate that the Attorney General submit annual public reports on the number of targets of FISA surveillance, search, and investigative measures who are United States persons, the number of criminal prosecutions where FISA information is used and approved for use, and the unclassified opinions and legal reasoning adopted by the FISA Court and submitted by the DOJ.

As the recent litigation before the FISA Court of Review demonstrated, oversight also bears directly on the protection of important civil liberties. Due process means that the justice system has to be fair and accountable when the system breaks down.

Many things are different now since the tragic events of last September, but one thing that has not changed is the United States Constitution. Congress must work to guarantee the civil liberties of our people while at the same time meet our obligations to America's national security. Excessive secrecy and unilateral decision making by a single branch of government is not the proper method of s

If this website http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm is correct this NSA warrantless domestic spying etc... has been US policy since at least 1979.

Anyone know if that is for real or not?

the misinformation. I've seen these allegations that Clinton spied on american citizens without a court order on Drudge, NRO and all the conservative blogs. They all reference executive order 12949 which states " Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, theAttorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" What does text of the law say, the president can authorize searches of foreign powers without a court order. No where does the law say American Citizens. King George could have easily followed the law but didn't, other presidents did.

It is standard technique to attack the messenger and question their motives as a way to divert attention from the central issue and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the arguments or opinions raised. I would counter in the same vane that you seem to be an appologist for Bush or someone that feels that the President needs to be followed without question or that if Bush does wrong, if anyone else did wrong in the past in that same post, it makes it alright. Which I disagree with. The issues I raised were about what is happening now. The fact that Bush's ratings are down so badly are an indication that I am not the only one that is calling into question his actions, his judgement, his approach, his agenda and who is consituents really are.

It is odd you say this because it is actually what I am intending to do, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the arguments or opinions raised. I am of the belief that the only reason this is an issue now is because we are using it for political gain. Not because anyone has a sincere notion that the government did anything wrong. As I have stated other presidents have done the exact same thing and nobody cared. I didn't want to defend Bush, Carter or Clinton but it has become necessary because this is some witch-hunt where we are all the sudden trying to arrest people for stopping at red lights (that's what the law say you can do). It is as if this problem just popped up and GW is evil because of it. (Or maybe it is bad because GW is evil).

The fact that his ratings are down really don't have anything to do with this other then people are misstating the facts on purpose to gain political ground against him. As a matter of fact, after his speech Sunday night, his ratings jumped a good bit. But that isn't the point. I know you're concerned with what was done and how it was done. I'm going to assume that you only recently became aware that the government had the ability to do this or that it has done it in the past. Again, it doesn't seem right but it isn't illegal to do.

Some of the central themes I see are that Bush and Co. do not want oversight. That is a key issue. The FISA court was set up so there was oversight by the judicial branch as it has been all along and necesarrily so. What Bush did was direct that the wiretaps should be done without FISA oversight (which was for forgein nationals) and that U.S. Citizens were wiretapped. This I think is a clear and substantial change in the operation of wiretapping and clearly goes against the Constitutional protections we have as U.S. Citizens. This is different and on an entirely different level than all previous presidents.

It might be easier to just reply inline like we would in exchanging email. I will give you that Bush might not want oversight. Oversight means more people have the information and one of the democrat senators that were informed of these steps when they were first taken seems to be the source of the leak that caused what we are discussing today. Oversight seems to have a good way of aiding the enemy when someone see it as political ground to be gained.

You do however need to replace the What bush has done with what the democrats have done seeing how it was in '77 when the FISA laws were enacted and in '79 carter changed them with an executive order to get around the "FISA court" and then again in the '95 Clinton changed definition so to include a wider range of people who can actually bypass the courts. You are also under the wrong impression that FISA was only intended for forge in nationals. It extends to the agents of those nationals regardless of their nationality. Here is a quick read that might clear some things up for you. Everything in the article is verifiable. Of course the article mentions the laws before the patriot a

It is standard technique to attack the messenger and question their motives as a way to divert attention from the central issue and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the arguments or opinions raised. I would counter in the same vane that you seem to be an appologist for Bush or someone that feels that the President needs to be followed without question or that if Bush does wrong, if anyone else did wrong in the past in that same post, it makes it alright. Which I disagree with. The issues I raised were about what is happening now. The fact that Bush's ratings are down so badly are an indication that I am not the only one that is calling into question his actions, his judgement, his approach, his agenda and who is consituents really are.

It is odd you say this because it is actually what I am intending to do, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the arguments or opinions raised. I am of the belief that the only reason this is an issue now is because we are using it for political gain. Not because anyone has a sincere notion that the government did anything wrong. As I have stated other presidents have done the exact same thing and nobody cared. I didn't want to defend Bush, Carter or Clinton but it has become necessary because this is some witch-hunt where we are all the sudden trying to arrest people for stopping at red lights (that's what the law say you can do). It is as if this problem just popped up and GW is evil because of it. (Or maybe it is bad because GW is evil).

The fact that his ratings are down really don't have anything to do with this other then people are misstating the facts on purpose to gain political ground against him. As a matter of fact, after his speech Sunday night, his ratings jumped a good bit. But that isn't the point. I know you're concerned with what was done and how it was done. I'm going to assume that you only recently became aware that the government had the ability to do this or that it has done it in the past. Again, it doesn't seem right but it isn't illegal to do.

Some of the central themes I see are that Bush and Co. do not want oversight. That is a key issue. The FISA court was set up so there was oversight by the judicial branch as it has been all along and necesarrily so. What Bush did was direct that the wiretaps should be done without FISA oversight (which was for forgein nationals) and that U.S. Citizens were wiretapped. This I think is a clear and substantial change in the operation of wiretapping and clearly goes against the Constitutional protections we have as U.S. Citizens. This is different and on an entirely different level than all previous presidents.

It might be easier to just reply inline like we would in exchanging email. I will give you that Bush might not want oversight. Oversight means more people have the information and one of the democrat senators that were informed of these steps when they were first taken seems to be the source of the leak that caused what we are discussing today. Oversight seems to have a good way of aiding the enemy when someone see it as political ground to be gained.

You do however need to replace the What bush has done with what the democrats have done seeing how it was in '77 when the FISA laws were enacted and in '79 carter changed them with an executive order to get around the "FISA court" and then again in the '95 Clinton changed definition so to include a wider range of people who can actually bypass the courts. You are also under the wrong impression that FISA was only intended for forge in nationals. It extends to the agents of those nationals regardless of their nationality. Here is a quick read that might clear some things up for you. Everything in the article is verifiable. Of course the article mentions the laws before the patriot a

The problem is two-fold - 1 being damn sure you're actually firing *STRAIGHT* up in the air, and 2) a bullet isn't very heavy, and the slightest winds will push it to one side or another.

You might get hit - it does happen. I can't remember the actual figure, but if you were to fire an M-16 (AR-15 civilian version) as though it were a cannon, the round would land something like a mile away. See the ballistics people for the correct value. As a guesstimate, though, straight up, from an M16 with a muzzle velocity of 2,800ft/sec (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm), we get a maximum height of 23.2 miles ignoring air resistance (which can't be right, can it? Of course, since air resistance goes up by the square of the speed, air resistance really *isn't* negligible!) [I really need to do a review class on physics! It's been *WAY* too long!] Anyway, even if it only goes up a mile or two, that's plenty of time for wind to affect it.

Plus, on the way down, it's going to hit a "terminal velocity" where resistance from the wind matches the accelleration of gravity. This is likely to be significantly lower than muzzle velocity.

Actually, I think you're mixing up two different myths - the one about the bullet fired straight up (which isn't likely to hit you, but almost certainly would hurt you!) and the penny dropped from a great height (which still isn't that likely to hit you, but isn't that likely to kill you, either). The bullet being more aerodynamic, should have a much higher terminal velocity than the flat, fluttering penny.

Kinda interesting question, really - how high *would* it go, when everything's taken into account - how fast is a bullet's terminal velocity - and how long would it be up there? I'd figure even if it did come straight back down, you'd have time to get out of the way. And I wonder if a good high-velocity sniper rifle could put something in orbit around the moon???

You're wrong actually. Clinton had W beat: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm. Jimmy Carter had them both beat: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Just remember, the NY Slimes has a political agenda, speaking of nazis...

You're wrong actually. Clinton had W beat: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm. Jimmy Carter had them both beat: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Just remember, the NY Slimes has a political agenda, speaking of nazis...

Democrat poster children doing exactly the same thing and rightfully so in my opinion.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

And under this program
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/October/03_crm_58 9.htm
From the nytimes original article
Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

Democrat poster children doing exactly the same thing and rightfully so in my opinion.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

And under this program
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/October/03_crm_58 9.htm
From the nytimes original article
Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.

I seriously believe this is treason. This action DEFINES treason. Not some weak "censure" or "impeachment." This is stand-before-a-judge-jury-and-firing-squad serious.

I seriously believe this is treason. This action DEFINES treason. Not some weak "censure" or "impeachment." This is stand-before-a-judge-jury-and-firing-squad serious.

Taken directly from Drudge: "CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant." Any opinions?

Taken directly from Drudge: "CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order." Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant." Any opinions?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Oh... you mean, you really didn't think this existed? Try looking at http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entr y/19555/ for a good round up of facts rather.

Or you can just type in all caps and pretend that you opinion is somehow magically true.

FISA itself has ruled that:
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110007703

Bush also pointed out that the 9/11 resolution gave him additional authority. Here is the verbage:
"use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons [...] "

"Many public key cryptosystems, such as RSA, will become obsolete if Shor's algorithm is ever implemented in a practical quantum computer."

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

In case anyone is wondering, executive

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

In case anyone is wondering, executive

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

In case anyone is wondering, executive

This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.

We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.

This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)

As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.

I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.

In case anyone is wondering, executive

Hello people... the article mentions that the CIA and the Executive branch informed the Legislative branch this was happening. They were informed that phone number and email addresses collected during an arrest could be used to find ties to others. According to the article the information had to be acted on quickly. It worked. Others were ferreted out and arrested.

Anyone ever hear of FISA? Since the calls and email were international communications, it is within the purview of the CIA to intercept them.

The article also mentions that the government still has to get warrants for domestic taps.

If you don't like it... get FISA repealed!

Given the sensitivity of military data and computer networks, why is there even a way in from the outside?

Not being "in the know" on breaking into computer systems, there is likely something I'm missing. However, if the military networks are carrying data sensitive enough to cause this kind of trouble, why not isolate those systems from the outside world. By that I mean physically isolated, as in zero Internet connections.

To go from site to site, any and all data traffic passes through encryption devices, such as a TACLANE KG-175 (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/_work/kg- 175.html). Simply having passwords and firewalls can (and has been) defeated, but if the only physical path from outside in is through an encryption device, I would think that would effectively thwart any attempts to get in.

I guess my question is: if there is no physical connection between a classified network and an unclassified network, how does one break into it?

• ALL Predator missions are flown from the Predator CAOC at Nellis Air Force base via remote control over a vast private fiber network. (well technically Indian Springs, but Nellis Tech Controllers do the support for that base) Predator info
• the DOD has the largest number of ASN's assigned to it (try "whois -h ws.arin.net DoD" and "whois -h ws.arin.net DISA")
• DOD has far and away the most IP address space assigned to it. (can't find the page summarizing IP assignment stats to orgs just now)
• the DOD operates 2 global IP networks, NIPRNET (unclassified) and SIPRNET (classified)
• part of the Force XXI initiative is WIN-T ... Warfighter Information Network - Tactical, a tactical radio/satellite/wireline circuit backbone linking theater networks for Net-centric warfare to the DOD Global Information Grid Net-centric Warfare

Agreed. Also, arguing that content that was once free is now pay-per-view is (excuse me) stupid, because once information is free it tends to remain free. Arguing that information already disseminated may now be locked up is half the reason that Secrecy News and the FAS exist. (It's a comparison.)

I understand (to a degree) copyright, but a redaction in previously public information by any party - government or private - is hardly ever good.

Agreed. Also, arguing that content that was once free is now pay-per-view is (excuse me) stupid, because once information is free it tends to remain free. Arguing that information already disseminated may now be locked up is half the reason that Secrecy News and the FAS exist. (It's a comparison.)

I understand (to a degree) copyright, but a redaction in previously public information by any party - government or private - is hardly ever good.

"Most people, I think, do not even know what a Rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Most people don't know what a M14 APM is either, but somehow I don't think that'll keep it from ripping your legs off.

(http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/apm.htm)

My dad works on this stuff.

Just like patriot, they shoot stuff out of the sky.

Pretty freaking amazing.

Well, hopefully not just like Patriot

In 1998 the Commission to assess the ballistic missile threat to the United States gave this report. There is evidence that North Korea is working hard on the Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile. The status of the system's development cannot be determined precisely. Nevertheless, the ballistic missile test infrastructure in North Korea is well developed. Once the system is assessed to be ready, a test flight could be conducted within six months of a decision to do so. If North Korea judged the test to be a success, the TD-2 could be deployed rapidly. It is unlikely the U.S. would know of such a decision much before the missile was launched. This missile could reach major cities and military bases in Alaska and the smaller, westernmost islands in the Hawaiian chain. Light-weight variations of the TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin. These variants of the TD-2 would require additional time to develop and would likely require an additional flight test. I'd also like to point out that was 7 years ago. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/exe csum.htm

(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns not just to hunt prey, protect our country from foreign invaders, and ensure our private security, but also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes. (I don't believe we are near that point at all. When we are, a whole lot more people will be reaching for their ammo boxes.)

Is bullshit. You can go on and on about protecting yourself from Big Brother, but Big Brother has Apache nightvision gunships that'll take you and your pathetic band of idiots out in a single burst from the cannons.

If these neocon shitbags can convince America's impoverished semiliterate youth to go blast the fuck out of a bunch of Iraqi men, women, and children to protect ExxonMobil's "right" to sell Iraqi oil to the Chinese (which is why the Chinese are funding the whole operation) then they'll certainly be able to get them to fry the ass of some moderately armed and poorly trained "domestic terrorist" squad armed with their 2nd amendment weapons.

Reach for the ammo box - go ahead - just like Baader-Meinhof or James Brown - go for it - see how long you last. 5, maybe 10 minutes before they get a fix on your position and dump a MOAB on your sorry stupid hide, and they will then cheerfully rake your shattered remains with an AC-130.

IF by some bizarre chance you or your buddies somehow survive that onslaught, they'll just round up your relatives and send them off to Gitmo for "interrogation" until you surrender. Meanwhile they'll hunt you all down with helicopters and ground troops. You won't stand a chance, and when you find out your wife or daughter are trussed up naked in Gitmo ready for an "internal examination" - you'll surrender. And then they'll kill the lot of you. "Accidentally" of course.

RS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA
http://www.fas.org/irp/commission/budget.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

This is just one of several agencies around the world with a nice budget and the hands on experience. What happened with everyone that worked for the agencies when the cold war ended? Did they unlearn their skills? Did the world countries kick out everyone? If they didn`t kick out everyone: What did they work on during the 90s and until now?