How to Prove Intentionality of Domestic Surveillance?
Given Russell Tice’s recent confirmations of many of our suspicions about Bush’s warrantless wiretapping programs, I wanted to point a footnote from the recently declassified FISCR ruling. In a paragraph addressing the incidental collection of Americans’ communications and dismissing the possibility (based on BushCo’s assurances) that the Bush Administration kept a database of incidentally collected information from non-targeted US person, this footnote appears.
The petitioner has not charged that the Executive Branch is surveilling overseas persons in order intentionally to surveil persons in the United States. Because the issue is not before us, we do not pass on the legitimacy vel non of such a practice. (26)
I find the footnote interesting for a couple of reasons. It suggests that the collection–whether intentionally or not–is sweeping up communications from US persons (even while the ruling elsewhere suggests that there is much more leeway for targeting US persons in this than claimed). That is, it seems to admit the possibility that there might be a suit arguing that the wiretap programs intentionally target Americans, in which case the foreign intelligence exception it describes may be limited.
But at the same time, it suggests how high the bar to prove that this entire program is just an attempt to evade the Fourth Amendment and wiretap Americans. Jeebus. If it accepts the Bush Administration’s assurances that there is no incidental database (which reads like a highly-parsed statement anyway), then how would we ever prove we were intentionally tapped?
EW, did you see MadDog’s comment late in the thread below about Obama taking up Bush’s argument to stay evidence before Judge Walker (from an article in Wired)? I find this troubling particularly in light of the fact that Tice reached out to Obama to no avail. It appears Obama is happy with BushCo’s domestic spying operation — just as his FAA vote indicated in July.
DIdn’t see it but I’ve gotten a ton of emails on it and I’m trying to follow up on it with some people who might know what it really means.
Thanks EW — I’m looking forward to hearing your take on it… I’m particularly curious whether you think Walker will be any more receptive to the government’s argument now that it is being made by Obama rather than Bush.
Having specifically pled the following in the name of the new Obama Administration, I am not sure where the argument is that it is not their official position:
and
May be painful, but it is what it is.
your argument is convincing. facts are pretty plain.
Programs are hard to kill in the Pentagon. This one is one of Poindexter’s brainchilds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T….._Awareness
Although I don’t have any inside info, I would not be surprised if this program is alive and well somewhere in DOD/NSA right now.
NSA lawyers and managers need to be interviewed about the legal basis and system design by team BO. The likely hood of contractors also plays into this. Another question KO asked but Tice couldn’t answer is who was in charge of the thing along with who had access to the info.
Did anybody every actually see the design of TIA? The shell game that Tice represented indicates that the system design of TIA was split into a number of smaller pieces hidden by subterfuge and completed a long time ago. The interesting thing about only passing notes on paper had me very interested indeed ( Jello Jay anyone ) The blackmail and other forms of influencing decisions is obvious.
Apart from more whistle blowers like Tice looking to loose their jobs into an ugly recession only BO can force the issue into the open but he voted for immunity. From outside in, all information required is classified by people who are part of the problem and protecting their own behinds.
My tinfoil hat is on (and it has a nice big Aretha bow):
Team Obama has indicated that the WH is woefully behind in technology etc. I hope they do a full clean sweep of internal communications, etc., so that their communications are not being piped into Cheney’s dictatorsized safe.
I would have a team USA develop internal protections and not allow for an outside company to provide tech security.
I understood Bamford to say that the information tapped by the NSA is piped to Israel for scrutiny by Israeli contractors.
By my calculations it would cost between one and ten billion to archive a year and a half of U.S. phone traffic. By Moore’s law, the next year and a half would cost half as much, and the next year one quarter as much, etc. The NSA and the Israelis are doing real-time analyses on the data as it comes off the wire, but we need to assume that both groups are archiving EVERYTHING for follow-up analysis as well.
Don’t know about our BFFs in the Mideast, but something I hadn’t thought about until your comment is how fast “we” got the technical means in place. Big software projects are hard. Makes me think that most of the stuff pre-existed and like KH12 “The Program” is simply Hubble pointed in a different direction.
Bet we were moonlighting as an outsource shop to our “cousins” – or perhaps second cousins – with the technical means prior to the subsequent navel gazing.
Jello Jay said this:
Hmmmm. Went after everyone ‘Including me.’ ? “Sent me no letters.” ? No letters? What is that all about?
Captain Renault speaks for me. And he is fucking shocked!
Fear not, Marcy has the report
Which report bmaz?
MadDog’s comment silly!
Forgive me my friend, it’s Friday and I seem to have used up all of my brain cells for the week ; )
Heh, what do you think “The Program” is? Of course it is still alive. It was just severed into parts and moved around like a child hides peas under mashed potatoes. There is little doubt but that it is actually much, much more comprehensive now than TIA was.
“…more comprehensive now than TIA was.”
Its hard to conceive of something more comprehensive than Total Information Awareness, unless maybe we’re talking about God.
– but I take it that you mean more comprehensive than TIA was originally designed to be– which meant as comprehensive as Poindexter could conceive at the time.
Bob in HI
His national security advisers are all conservative, even if they claim to be Democrats. Remember they have him believing that Iran is about to get nukes, in spite of the NIE that says otherwise.
(One place where Obama should have paid more attention to the Democratic wing of the party.)
Is it possible that the “small parts” shell game covers more than two agencies? i.e., NSA, DOD, DHS? how about USAID, Treasury? what about financial surveillance on dollar dumping?
here’s something very interesting, right on topic too;
that is why they didn’t want to have to get warrants, they wanted to steal from us, steal our sources, our information, our data
all a warrant does is make certain they are not using their ability to steal from us, the ONLY reason they wouldn’t want to demonstrate that they needed the information is because they did not need the information
Here’s something else Obama is continuing from the last admin. – Obama orders Missile Strikes in Pakistan – from TPM
Hope the Linky works this time
A lot of work remains to be done to force Obama to live up to the Change he promised. While there have been promising initial steps, it is clear that We The People will only get the change we demand. FWIW, it’s not all up to Obama either, that was what was so fundamentally wrong these last 8 years. So I’m hoping Sen. Whitehouse is prepared to live up to that beautiful speech he made the other day. I look forward to hearing his follow up to EW’s question…
I wonder whether the initial ‘intelligence briefings’ gave Obama some evidence to support Bush in this case; and whether the evidence was contrived.
I don’t expect we’ll ever find out, unless BO openly reverses this decision somewhere down the road.
DARPA never killed Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness. They simply renamed it.
I’d bet some big money that it fell under the control of the “Office Of Special Plans,” and the data was made available to Rove.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0730-04.htm
http://epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/
I do seem to recall that Rove had a Security Clearance, something he never should have had in the first place, for someone in his position.
Bob in HI
Gosh, a few years back, I was doing some research in relation to a topic EW had written about. One of my search cues came up with some wacked out conspiracy theory sites. For some reason, one caught my eye and in curiosity I opened to the site and started reading. There was a whole section in it about how Bush and friends would be stealing from the treasury and another section about surveillance on citizens.
Now, the site does not seem so crazy. I’ll have to try and find it again.
ya gotta watch george bush like a hawk
he is likely to deny the existence of organized crime based on the fact that it ain’t all that organized
we didn’t creat a “dataBase” (that would require an index and a sorting system)
did you create a “Heap” of data ??? (mumble mumble mumble)
when george starts mumbling, you hit a sore spot
Conspiracy theories aside, I do not believe for a moment that George knows what a “Heap” is. The man doesn’t even use email for God’s sake.
Wow, where in the Fourth Amendment does it say that someone has to INTEND to seize my communications in order for the seizure to be unreasonable?
Either they seized my communications or they didn’t; it’s not reasonable to keep them for any reason if I am not suspected of criminal acts.
Have we seen anything at all that qualifies as real mitigation? That might be more reasonable, but without real and immediate mitigation, it’s unreasonable, intentional or otherwise.
Well, intent can certainly be inferred when they keep the information, even if they initially did not mean to take it.
Agreed; if there are not detailed mitigation processes, they intended to seize so-called non-targeted collateral communications.
A constitutional plan would have erred on the side of capturing just a little less targeted communication than any non-targeted collateral communications, out of an abundance of caution. Not making this kind of error is an indication of intent.
Where are the documents related to deliberations? Those show the actual intent; if they can’t produce them or won’t produce them, they can’t argue they intended to avoid violations of the Fourth Amendment. They can’t even produce a warrant, which in itself is evidence of a specific target and not wholesale seizure of all data.
“Golly, officer, I don’t know how my gun discharged. I didn’t intend to discharge it! And I’m so sorry about your partner.” Yeah, right.
“Well, Judge, its true that we hoovered up all of Congress’s electronic communications, but Karl Rove never intended to use that information for political purposes.”
We’ll see how far that line of argument goes.
Bob in HI
I only meant to steal $400 your honor, that stupid bank teller was the one who gave me the thousands of dollars I was caught with
so I should only be convicted of petty theft, and you should fire that teller
far enough ???
With all due respect to several here wanting to raise the most recent government filing MadDog linked to thru the WIRED THREATDOWN blog post as bearing some deep meaning as to the intentions of the DoJ under Obama, I would- am- loathe to encourage that filing as carrying any such meaning.
I’ve been on both sides of these situations, numerous times: where either the head of the government changes or the head of DoJ changes, with the implication or hope – or both – that the government’s position in particular ongoing litigation will change. There are so many institutional & bureacratic levers that have to be pulled, up & down the chain of command, all of which require conscious input, many of which require briefings up on the facts & law & implications, then one or more meetings, then recommendations sent up the chain with accumulated briefings – & all of that in the context of an incredibly large, complex, secret program into which the president has very likely not been read on any more than the most superficial of bases & on which those who the president most wants to express themselves are still for the most part within the confirmation process & may not have been read in on ANY basis whatsoever.
Leave aside the meagre value in what we’re seeing, what would one predict if one was just generally aware of the many dynamics in this story predict for the ‘first response’ under the new administration, coming within 3 days of the inauguration? Answer: The typical imperative of a government apparatus still in the process of doing what Cheney referred to & Obama agreed would be necessary: to find out & understand & reflect on what the Bush administration had done to this point – and in pursuit of that, a directive to slow things down; to buy the time necessary to imprint the court process with the current will of the current administration.
Going all Rumsfeld for a moment: Does this bring with it the effect of playing into the previous administration’s plan to run out the clock? Yes; but without it being right on top of the day’s agenda of the new AG – who isn’t even there to see it if it was there, let alone it be helped – it’s neither fair nor prudent to suppose it a sign of the expression of the political will of the new administration. If it’s typical of anything, it’s typical of the desire of those who take over the reigns of government to use them as a fully conscious expression of policies; and there’s still lots of time to go before this new government fully realizes what a big, powerful, SLOW ship is that of the state.
I’m not sure I agree with you here. Given that Obama immediately requested a moratorium on military commissions prosecutions to give him time to review the situation, the fact that the Obama administration did not request any time for review, but instead immediately signed on to the Bush position, suggests this is something they are prepared to support. Plus, we already know he only opposed retroactive telecom immunity long enough to win the primary campaign, immediately followed by complete capitulation on FAA.
If we hope to have any influence on policy, we need to make our opinion known now. Not when it is too late to have any affect on the final outcome.
I agree. I think there are some things Obama will do without pushing, but there are other things he won’t do unless pushed. We need to let him know that we care about this. And what is the best way to do that?
Bob in HI
and to phred.
Don’t you think that Obama is addressing your concerns and that talk of “pushing” or “forcing” him to do things is, after three days, unseemly?
“Unseemly”??? Seriously? Objecting to obvious violations of the Constitution isn’t just my right, it is my duty as a citizen. There is no reason at all to trust Obama when it comes to domestic spying given his vote on FAA. In my experience, it makes sense to call attention to a problem when it occurs, rather than waiting for it to magically go away — during which time, things can easily go from bad to worse.
I’m thinking that Obama has demonstrated that he is aware of the problems and is trying to correct them.
What I suggest is “unseemly” is not allowing him more time than THREE DAYS. Does three days seem like enough time to you?
Of course, you might know more about Obama’s position on this issue, and I’m willing to retract if do.
Can you tell me about his stance on FAA?
Given the orders signed in 1 day, a very good case can be made that 3 days is plenty of time. This is not some surprising new thing he has to contemplate. This is a very well known, controversial case that he knew was coming down the pike, particularly given the dates set by the judge. So yes, if he intended to turn away from Bush’s position, he could have done so, even in 3 days.
As for the FISA Amendments Act… During the primaries Obama campaigned on his opposition to retroactive telecom immunity. He vowed to stand side by side with Chris Dodd and filibuster if that’s what it took to stop it. He campaigned with Russ Feingold in Wisconsin on this issue. And as soon as he had locked up the nomination, Steny Hoyer suddenly makes a few phone calls and poof! we have the FAA signed sealed and delivered, complete with telecom immunity. There was no need for the DEMOCRATS to resurrect the Protect America Act (in the form of FAA), but they did. And they did it with Obama’s blessing and more importantly his yes vote.
Don’t kid yourself, Obama supports domestic spying in spite of being a Constitutional law professor who should have had at least a passing acquaintance with the 4th amendment.
You realize, of course, that the ground has shifted underneath us as well, yes?
What was acceptable under the Bush administration won’t be tolerated from an Obama administration; once the window of opportunity (statute of limitations) on certain prosecutions has passed, the Republicans will go full on frontal assault against Obama if it believes Obama retains the right to warrantless wiretapping.
You really need to rethink your premise that Obama supports it; we’re not talking about a presidential candidate any longer, and we’re no longer the minority party.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. In fact, it is why I find all the kumbayah stuff so mystifying. Obama faces relentless opposition and no amount of reaching out will ever bring the Rush Limbaugh’s of the world into the fold. If Obama is to be successful it will have to be on principles that the majority of the public supports. He will never win over the wing nuts.
That said, you lost me your final paragraph. I have seen no evidence to suggest that Obama opposes warrantless domestic spying. As Charlie Savage wrote in his book on the Imperial Presidency, no administration whether Dem or Rep has willingly given up power accrued by prior administrations. I suspect that Obama may be swayed by those in the village who insist wholesale data collection is necessary to keep us safe.
Until Obama demonstrates that he is willing to reconsider the FAA or withdraws this latest filing, my premise will remain grounded in the evidence at hand.
Phred,
I’m with you again on this. But I think there’s one more thing to keep in mind: I think Obama is always thinking ahead. I hear he’s a pretty good poker player, too. That should mean at least two things: Don’t tip your hand, and (I don’t know the poker expression for this) know the deck– i.e., you know what cards are in the whole deck, you know what cards are in your hand, and you know– if you’ve been paying attention– what cards have already been played, and who played them.
I think the “bipartisan” meme may be an Obama ploy. If this were chess, I’d call it an opening gambit. I’ll bet he’s more realistic than we’ve granted about how far that’s going to go. I’ll bet he’s already positioning himself for 2010, and even for 2012.
The game is young, and only a few cards have been played.
Bob in HI
Perhaps. But how long have we heard (and made!) arguments like this? Remember all the the comments about how Pelosi was playing PAA close to the vest and that she was going to outsmart those Rethugs and boy weren’t things going to be great then? And look how that came out. I am exceedingly reluctant to continue to presume good intentions and clever gamesmanship, when the prima facie evidence suggests otherwise.
I hope you are right Bob, I really do, but I’m also not willing to sit quietly and wait and see how things play out. We have to speak up, if we expect our elected officials to act in our best interest.
Did I say anything about sitting quietly? Part of the poker game is to notice who is fully engaged, and who isn’t. If we’re not fully engaged, there will be other squeaky wheels demanding his attention. (Oops, I’m mixing my metaphors again.)
Bob in HI
Again: this may seem counter-intuitive.
The best way to ensure sunshine gets on this mess is to tell the frontline government troops to continue to act just as bone-headedly as they’ve been, & even ramp that up a bit.
Conversely, the worst way to ensure said sunshine is for the incoming government to use the downtime of a ‘phony ceasefire’, such as is brought about by a pro forma appeal, to make a deal that gets the whole mess swept under the carpet.
Ask yourself what is it you want, and for whom?
Fine; you wanna go leap into murky gorge, that’s your privilege.
Me: I’m sticking with what I’ve seen time after time after time in actual cases. The typical pattern is a bunch of new suits show up saying to the court: the adults have arrived & we’re just asking for time to figure this out. If I’m acting for someone on the other side, I’ve already met with the new suits & asked them where they think they’re going & what’s in it for my client given all the years of run-a-rounds & b.s. & the new suits are telling me: really, we don’t know, and we’re happy to hear your input & suggestions but we’ve no authority to ‘bargain’ – & thus starts up the whole round of things that we’d already gone thru months & sometimes years before. Often in these situations I prefer dealing with the new suits for a clearly bone-headed incoming administration, because often the new suits are inclined to rebel in small ways against the inanity of the head office directives & that plus the bone-headedness of the position at least gets cemented in for trial & you know you’ve got the sorts of advantages an Iranian speedboat taking an outsized US Navy goliath in a bathtub. In contrast, an incoming ‘benevolent’, ‘we’re the good guys’ administration tends to put the frontline troops into the position of fighting to preserve the supposed original ‘values’ of the exercise, and now you’re dealing with a highly conflicted set of agendas where you don’t even get the government’s cooperation in getting to trial to kick the crap out of their silly case.
You may have noted from the WIRED report that the current government suits objected to the plaintiffs bringing up quotes suggesting principles about new administration policy. That sort of stuff is not new; I’ve even seen judges do it on their own: Hell, Judge Walker has been implying it in this case.
What always happens in this type of scenario is the attorneys acting for the plaintiffs get called to meet, off the record with the new sheriff’s deputies [”publicly privately” or ’secretly privately’, depending on the perception of outgoing administration embarrassment & incoming administration style], who, for a number of arguably rational reasons turn out to have at least a few of the old sheriff’s deputies on hand, & the danger is the new deputies will find it easier to bond with the old deputies than with the conflict-toughed vets on the other side – a danger that oddly enough seems to increase with how entrenched the positions & how hard the feelings & how poor the communications have been come to be to that point.
Republicans & conservatives are observors of the human condition to the extent that it allows them to better to exploit systemic weaknesses & individual frailties. This occurence was readily predictable weeks ago, and understandable then as wrapped up in the ‘run out the clock’ scenario. How is it any more revelatory now that time has continued to run & one of those predictable features of the scenario is playing out, albeit being carried out in the name of the new sheriff while he’s still stuck in transit, bogged down in Mesquite between stagecoaches?
Posted this to the same thought on the last thread:
This is Obama’s position, and we knew that was going to be the case from his having said so in relation to the FAA.
off topic, but interesting
did you guys know that all the money for the stimulus package will be borrowed from our children ???
it MUST be true, a repuglitard just told me so
I wonder where the trillion dollas we blew in Iraq came from ???
any idea, mr repuglitard ???
you wanna stimulate the economy ???
go lose 9 billion in hundred dollar bills in South Central Los Angeles
it worked in Baghdad
/snark
How is intent usually proven? Are there cases that set precedent? Is there a lowest bar that one can argue has been met? Come on you guys, us IANALs are waiting for the meat.
Usually one establishes “intent” when one does
a) something that is improbable repeatedly
[repeated “incidental” surveillance on a domestic source from a mix of foreign surveillances. For example, if there are a series of “traces” followed, but oinly when they relate to the domestic source; then dropped or never obtained before that point].
b) something that has no rational basis, unless it can be seen as leading to another outcome that does make sense.
[Surveillance on a foreign source of no intelligence value; leading to the surveillance of a domestic source of high value. For example, surveillance of an apolitical British college student in order to obtain information on an American politician.]
here’s more off-topic stuff
I been browsing wapo comments, and I’m strting to see a “meme” building
I don’t know if the comments are related, but I’ve seen it on two threads …
looks like a fatal wave is already building against the repuglitards
Was it you ?!!
nope, not me
I don’t comment on the wapo pages, just read
and I rarely make it thru the censors at the NY Times (when I do, I’, Freepatriot, from reality)
I save my wisdom for the gang here. I just skim the comments on oped pages to see the waves as they build
SNL did a blagoff skit where one of the news anchors asked blagoff “Are you retarded”
I’m thinking we’re gonna see that question asked in the well of the Senate
Stupid question: Why do we need to prove intentionality? Isn’t it enough that they used the data they aquired rather than deleting it when discovered?
Boxturtle (If agent #9 is reading this, your wife would like you to pick up a gallon of milk on your way home)
The politicization of NSA-enabled intelligence was Rove’s stock in trade.
It doesn’t get any more illegal than to provide top secret security clearance to your chief political strategist for the purpose of monitoring the communications of investigative journalists and their sources.
You really think they weren’t listening in on their political adversaries as well?
Rove was drunk with power – above the law. His statement to Suskind regarding “discernible reality” is all the evidence I require to comprehend the superiority complex that Rove was pumped-up on.
Maybe ancient news and OT, then again…: Excerpt from 2005 segment of article linked in LibbyAbandoned thread:
“The Cheney team had, for example, technological supremacy over the National Security Council staff. That is to say, they could read their e-mails. I remember one particular member of the N.S.C. staff wouldn’t use e-mail because he knew they were reading it. He did a test case, kind of like the Midway battle, when we’d broken the Japanese code. He thought he’d broken the code, so he sent a test e-mail out that he knew would rile Scooter [Libby], and within an hour Scooter was in his office…”
Somehow the message seems to be someone had the time to have a real person read intercepts for political hegemonistic purposes in internecine competition between two departments. The source attribution is Wilkerson.
And, guaranteed to be yet wider off the topic are prefatory remarks in 07-751 Pearson v Callahan recent slip opinion whereat are reviewed the art3 designated precedents in a 4th amendment concern of countersuing plaintiffs, characterized in the stock phrase “consent-once-removed” in a warrantless acquisition of material evidence.
I think there is part of the Venn diagram of 4th opinions Obama and the 111th would like to bolster, if there is an opportunity to redirect Scotus through a nomination process in some future year, though I doubt mere communications would be much concern to the people who I have noticed now beginning to populate oversight posts in the new administration. The attrition began with capn crunch, and is fairly deeply institutionalized; though, some politicians will bridle at the idea Their Own comms are fodder for the oppo.
Karl Rove as related to Ron Suskind
Sound like a challenge to me. He’s encouraged ALL of us to study what he did. I’m guessing he didn’t count on the Freedom Of Information Act being reinstated and all of their other obstructionist directives being rolled-back.
Hey Karl,
We’re all over it.
Discern this!
I think it far fetched that bushwa, inc., would have provided any info about what they did that was illegal. The court didn’t seem to think he would do anything wrong. That court has serious issues of trust, reality, and the law in general. It seemed more like a dictate from the old WH than a ruling by the court.
Do you think it was written for the court by the administration Marcy?
and just one comment on Obama and his reticence to immediately deny executive privilege to bushwa; I think he is waiting for the country to demand it, for the crimes to warrant it. But only when proof shows up that can be used in the open. Jello did a number toward that today, didn’t he?
Here’s where Rove fits in:
Office of Strategic Initiatives
From SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..nitiatives
Did the Office Of Special Plans have direct access to the NSA’s “Total Information Awareness? Bet on it:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..cial_Plans
I don’t give a flying fuck about the Wired article. It is in black and white in the government’s pleading. Are you alleging that these AUSAs came into the court freewheeling and that this is NOT Obama’s position? Unless that is the case, the document speaks for itself, and it most certainly within its four corners continues unabated the Government’s prior position.
‘In fact, unless they plan to spin on a dime and do a complete freak out 180 degree turn via the effort, the Obama Administration appears to be not only reinforcing the Bush Administration’s course, but doing so more competently when they attempt to perfect both the trial court by saying:
I am not particularly out on any limb here.
Umm, you are deep into how the law (justice system) works and Obama’s position, and I’m lost.
Could you step back a bit & explain? Thanks.
how about this; the AUSAs filed this acting on the position of the previous administration’s policy because nobody has specifically told them to stop following this policy
would that work ???
I’m ready to believe that Obama is willing to swap the torture prosecutions for a pass on the wire taps
why, cuz Obama wants to keep himself safe, maybe ???
it’s politics and compromise
are you willing to give up the 4th amendment prosectuions to have the torture prosecutions
it’s that kind of thing
Obama is protecting what is valuable to him
thas the way I see it …
They had already filed it under Bush’s name; they came in and specifically refiled it under Obama’s name. That would be an intentional attempt to mislead the court if it is not Obama’s position.
I disagree. I don’t think any rational person can seriously conclude Obama has any fingerprints on this filing, other than possibly in the most general of ways in asking for delay – & there’s no rational basis for being confident even of that.
Here’s the link from the political arm of the White House to the Strategic arm of the Pentagon. The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) included many of the same cast of characters as the Office Of Strategic Initiatives (Rove, Matlin, Hughes, etc.) and served to ensure that the President’s political agenda was in synch with the OSP’s rush to manufacture fake intelligence.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..Iraq_Group
Assume that Rove had access to ALL intelligence – across the board, and was tasked with responsibility to weave the narrative most beneficial to the political agenda of the White House AND the military objectives of “The Cabal” at the OSP.
Would it not be priority #1 to assess the extent of any communication surveillance before any new administration moves in, in other words “debug” the place?
An interesting article since the massive size of this criminal activity makes narrowing down who(m) may have been a target and why. As my prior posts (some really large – sorry) explain that I spent more than 26 years in a family who are directly linked to the criminal element within the Bush Administration. But a major problem that exists is to even say the criminal element is only within the Bush Administration is completely wrong. Our perception has been to blame the seated Administration for the wrongdoing when in fact they aren’t only the ones who need to be blamed. The problem as everyone will eventually learn is far larger involveing something that is expected to astonish everyone. Again how I know is because I was in it for more than 26 years and even I have had a very difficult time understanding that it exists.
As an example, the comment above stating: “the republican party is a cancer on America” is what many feel at this time, but later and I don’t know how long it will take them to accept the reality of what this is, they may say “Gee, it looks like everyone is a cancer on America.” But for me to explain this hoping someone will understand has proven for me to be hopeless at this time. There still needs to be more reports showing detail that helps define more of what I’m trying to say,
However, I can offer that while married, it was explained that out of every 10 lawmakers in Congress, 7 are Repubs and 3 are Dems who are involved in the movement for a White House Coup. The family I was in were actively involved with the CIA for decades to launder criminal money into property. In the 90’s (there is evidence on the net with International investigations) they advanced into launching their own Air Shipping business involving the purchase of huge jets for shipping in drugs and Rendition Flights. There may also be another criminal function of shipping Nuclear Materials associated with a Black Market linked to the same criminal element that includes the CIA.
I was told that our Political system only has two groups, one group wants the Constitution and the other one doesn’t. The two party system for the most part isn’t relative anylonger. However, it does make for a terrific display of entertainment when you accept the mind control and hype. I’m sure once many of the things I’ve said surface, the definition I’ve mentioned about our Political system will surface as well.
Everyone seems to be stuck on wanting to Hang Bush. Of course they have good reasons to do so too but if you accept what I’m saying, you may want to look at Obama and his Administration as a possible continuation of the past. Case in point— while married the family leaders met Obama. What got in their way was his name but they were told the criminal system felt he was a “Budding Shining Star” and expected to really go places in the Political system. This happened while he worked at the lsw firm. However my brother-in-law along with Clyde O’Connor (his brother-in-law) were starting up their business in Florida. I asked my brother-in-law if the business papers were to look clean enough so they wouldn’t get into trouble. He told me a number of things but said he had the best working on it and added more which more than suggested that Obama was assiting him. The law firm as I undestood was integral with the Chicago Combine or better known as “The Political Mafia”. Hence I keep posting about a need to check out if this is true as what I know tells me it may well be.
An added note is that my brother-in-law and Clyde O’Connor both talked openly about starting this business at my house right in front of me in the 90’s. There was continued talk about this as mentioned above and my wife, at the time, admitted that her brother and Clyde were focused on shipping in Tons of Coccaine along with their friends often referred to in the family as “The Guy’s”. The Guy’s as understood are a huge group of people doing the same thing. This was reported on Madcow Morning news http://www.madcowprod.com/ by Daniel Hopsicker and Narco News by Bill Conroy, plus AFP investigated this and reported their results on http://afp.google.com/article/…..-xUcQEZbVg
There are other links but maybe for another time. However what are all these huge drug shipments doing for these people? As explained by the family, the proceeds are being used to FUND Black-Op’s in support of a White House Coup. The people involved are the SAME group described in the White House Coup 1933. Reading our History explains that the 1933 Coup was put on by Elites and Huge Banks. They were at the time trying to include the Military but who they talked to blew the whistle on them. This time unfortunately as explained to me everyone is involved. Sorry as I do realize this is difficult to believe but it is entirely true. Looking into this deeper will define similarities however we’ve been experiencing “State Sponsored Terrorism” for a long time. I was told all about 911 in 1996 however at that time they were reviewing three sites and New York was one of them.
For me to carry this knowledge was terrifying. However I have evidence of “Micro-Snooping” with specially built software embedded within my company station hard drives. I tried everything to remove it but nothing worked so I ended up using ‘Hacker Software’ and was able to learn what they were doing. Everything I generated including all email were placed in small files in a hidden partition and squirted out to awaiting IP addresses. I learned that the IP addresses were owned by a collection of huge companies and couldn’t determine who specifically was tracking me. However after blowing their unique software project all to hell, I assumed from how my systems and life were running that I am also one of the victims described in the these latest articles. Beleive me, I’ve been dealing with on going criminal activity in my life ever since the divorce started in the later 90’s. It still is going on to this day! Plus I’m not the only one as a close friend of mine (female) had her friend murdered by this same group in 2002, I met her in 2003. Her life as well as mine needs to surface as there are many stories here that exceed anyone’s wildest nightmare and they all are associated with this “Political Mafia” that includes Bush, the Clintons and Obama. Realize that there are many serious questions that exist with Obama’s pick for his Administration. The reasons will be clear once more of what I know surfaces. Realize that one huge client the family had with drug shippments is Chiquita Brand and there are many others too.
Everyone is in for a huge surprise when more of the WHY’S are answered with the Wire Tapping program. Hold on to your hat and fasten your seat belt because what I’ve been talking about for a long time is going to be a real shocker.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
(Bob – I enjoyed reading and thinking about your comments below. I guess that’s what newer and younger generations can do, re-ensoul)
Part of the problem with proving the “intent” is that you don’t have a real court/real court setting. FISC isn’t set up for adovcacy, discovery, etc. – it’s more a Star Chamber, with participants appointed by Rhenquist and now Roberts.
Another problem is that a facial challenge to the statutes (PAA and what we still have now) would pretty much “prove” constructive intent at least, because the statutes specifically allow for taking investigations where there is no probable cause for a criminal warrant to issue, and taking on some recitations about “some” intelligence purpose as well, and suddenly foregoing any need to meet criminal warrant requirements. On its face, that demonstrates that the statute has been specifically drafted to allow for domestic surveillance in a) situations were no criminal warrant can issue, and b) situations that are not solely for foreign intelligence.
But the court refuses to look to any facial challenge – because the facial challenge pretty much answers the intent issue.
Another aspect for intent would be to the extent that there was a split in the old, preceding program, such that swaths of domestic communications were scooped up, segregated, then handled under a military order that allowed for domestic surveillance without warrant and without any showing of probable cause that the US persons were communicating with a foreign power or agent of a foreign power – solely on the CIC powers of the President as set forth in the memo they have tried so hard to quash from public review.
If the statutes were drafted by the Executive as an attempt to launder a program that had previously and intentionally segregated domestic communications and surveilled them without warrant in settings were warrants were required, under a specious CIC powers claim, then you have a prior bad acts situation.
In any event, the Judge’s rational that there is an intent test IMO is wrong anyway, in that it directly conflicts with the holdings in Katz (not discussed by the Judge) that no amount of “good intentions” substitutes for probable cause and a warrant issued by an independent magistrate, in situations where such a warrant is Constitutionally required.
Good intentions torture, good intentions illegal surveillance, good intentions bombings of babies – With so many paving stones, you’d think that path to hell was a long route instead of a short step.
Mary, I am honored by your attention. I first became aware of the importance of paying attention to your comments wayback around the time of Scooter Libby’s trial, when I discovered the statement announcing Comey’s appointment of Fitzgerald, and thought it meant what a plain reading suggested in meant about Fitzgerald’s plenary powers, and said so in comments about some FDL posts. Someone told me to look for your replies as a somewhat authoritative answer to my naive claims. Your replies helped introduce me to the sometimes Alice-in-Wonderland mysteries of our legal system. Of course, as things played out, you were right.
It is a pity that so many of your insights are buried in the comments following other people’s posts. I’m sure that I have missed many as a result. Thanks for the time you put into your comments here at the Lake. They are widely appreciated!
Bob in HI
Ms E Wheel – I feel I should apologize for contributing to the high-jacking of your post into the recent, soft-edged news in Judge Walker’s case [I note your effort to buy time to learn more before posting further on it yourself.] I particularly feel badly in that the point you raise in your post is a very large and important one.
If I may just throw this out, the concern arises at two levels:
the immediate one, involving the particular order that Google or whoever APPEARS to have wanted to challenge
[bearing in mind the FISC of R’s “opinion” is not that of a fully objective third party, but that of some members of a group that’s been so engaged in the process that it & it’s members have assumed positions & taken on interests, some conflicting]
and
[b] the broader one, involving the constitutionality of the PAA –
which is not [AFAIK] what Judge Walker has before him.
Again, a caution: the FISCR opinion quite obviously contains much spin. That should caution us to doubt its accuracy in characterizing the Petitioner’s challenge, and not just in the lame attempts at humor that mark the court’s dismissive attitude to the Petitioner’s challenge, but in quite possibly deliberately ‘re-framing’ the terms of that challenge to evade its purpose, and its effects.
In the broader sense, as Professor Jon Turley has said, not just the PAA, but the entire legislative framework from the FISA 1978 on, breaches the 4th amendment. But, as we know, and not just from our discussion in prior threads on this, that realization, though stark, is not dispositive, obviously not politically, and very arguably not constitutionally in terms of necessarily obviating the capacity of the government to use foreign surveillance tools to follow possible foreign threats to national security into the U.S.
[And I don’t understand Turley to be saying otherwise. Recognizing the FISA, the PAA & the FAA as “unconstitutional” in the sense of conflicting with the 4th amendment is both a ‘pure’ & an important step in the reasoning process as to what kinds of accommodations to legitimate national security concerns ought to be tolerated & codified.]
The footnote you point to appears justified on the face of the FISCR opinion from the nature of the challenge that the Petitioner TRIED to make – but not the one it was forced into. Moreover, despite some efforts to impress third party readers of this to the contrary, it’s not necessarily the case that the Petitioner was fully & fairly informed of it’s having been forced off the bases of its challenge by the time of the oral submissions process [& theoretically not even then], despite indications that the government lawyers asserted ’something’ in writing to this effect.
Put plainly, I think it’s very possible that the Petitioner was sandbagged on this front, an impression supported by clear indications it was sandbagged in other ways.
And returning to the footnote, it’s presence may well be a sort of great frustration to the Petitioner, given it has something of the same effect of a medical examiner’s report concluding suicide from a crime scene where the victim’s body shows 30 bullet entry wounds in the back, each fired no closer than 20 feet away.
47 – esp given the heads up from the Judge that this was something he wanted to know about specifically – whether Obama was going to continue to pursue this position. That’s been plenty of time for his legal crew working on these national security and related matters to get the right kind of paperwork signed off that would have derailed this kind of response by the AUSAs.
It could have been a slip up, but given his actions on this matter to date, it seems more like a buy off.
“plenty of time”
With respect: bullshit.
“plenty of time to get the right sort of paperwork signed off…”
Would you address this in greater detail. My concern here is not the time, which does seem adequate, but there is to me a problem in the channel of authority. bmaz argued to me on the previous thread, and above, that the attorneys cannot act on their own. My thought is that they are acting under the imprimitur of the acting AG. Now we’ve discussed at length the problem of having the AG office function as the president’s lawyer, and not independently, in the name of justice. Now we have an (acting) AG who is carrying forth with a policy of the prior administration, and I’m not sure I see where President Obama can do anything about it until his man is confirmed by the Senate (… well, except fire the Acting AG). But I think you see my question.
They still work for him as an executive branch agency; they are not an independent entity.
how serious an offense would that be ???
is that an offense that calls for disbarment ???
falsifying a plantif ???
seems to be some wiggle room for their claim too, if you figure that they’re supposed to file in the name of the current president
Don’t know, but certainly a sanction, whether it be censure, suspension or disbarment.
I’ll give you my RFID’s PIN if you’ll give me yours.
They don’t have to show us no steenking badges. They can use NASA to fly them into the Van Allen Belt and listen to anything they want. And they can listen to stuff 100 years old, including I.F. Stone’s pillow talk.
Marty:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q…..#038;gl=us
Lauderdale Executive is the base of operations for the CIA’s drug runs. They break-in their new aircraft (Gulfstreams) by flying 20′ above the waves to ensure that they don’t show up on radar. I witnessed one. When they do their runs for real, they fly this low all the way in from Colombia and pop up just when they reach the Florida coast. GHW Bush is the kingpin, as I suspect you know.
Plunger, thanks for the reply. There is probably a great deal of detail that I don’t know and what you offered was new, thanks again. Luckily my time spent in that family seemed to offer information that came from those involved at very high levels. It also prepared for what was to happen to me during the divorce and afterwards. If I hadn’t had this preparation, I would have been murdered a long time ago. For a long time, I’ve been terrified and it isn’t until lately that I finally can talk about what I know. Even still I’m doing it slowly as there is a lot more that still needs to come out.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Let me add that since posting the other day, I’m being attacked more frequently while on the Internet. Posting yesterday on OpEdNews was a disaster as important links were screwed up. All efforts to resolve it failed. I’m using Public Libraries because over the years, someone had destroyed and crippled most of my computers. Even still while using the library there have been far too numerous problems to count.
Plunger, be careful. I know well how these people operate. They are easily capable of micro-snooping on you 24/7 using means you might find trustworthly when they are not. If you have plans don’t talk to anyone and don’t even talk about them within your home or car. By now, you have to accept they have developed a Phys profile on you to easily guess what you will do. The only way to safeguard against this is to be quiet and act without anyone knowing or evven guessing what you’re doing. If you need more help as advice in this area, let me know.
Realize that they are totally paranoid and will act swiftly if they feel something is a threat. They follow the rule to resolve a problem now before it gets too big and ask questions later.
There’s a lot more but for another time……
Marty Didier
Nothbrook, IL
Something I wanted to add to my above reply…
Hopsicker has done a great job with investigating the fleet of Coke Planes that included Clyde O’Connor. What was new was to me was to read…
“they fly this low all the way in from Colombia and pop up just when they reach the Florida coast”
However I would think this would be normal for being covert, and it was an interesting read. I met Clyde in the early 90’s at my house while the O’Connors came over along with my in-laws for a family gathering. Clyde’s picture on Hopsicker’s site shows him to be a little puffier than when I met him. There is a lot I can add about Clyde along with the relationship with my ex-brother-in-law (Clyde’s Money Man) but I’ll save that for another time.
Please keep in mind that they weren’t only shipping huge amounts of drugs. I’ve mentioned a few times in posts that there is also a huge Nuclear Black Market associated with the same Criminal element within high levels of the Federal Government. This I knew from my brother-in-law. Clyde is known to have flown CIA Rendition flights per a AFP investigation article. Link should be above in my post. There’s more to this as well, however again I’ll save it for another time.
But I’ve also mentioned in posts that I was told about 911 back in 1996 only then they (meaning those who are steering the Criminal system) were reviewing three sites with one being New York. If you can imagine how I felt being told this, already I was having trouble believing the other things and now this. However they didn’t call it 911, they called it “Something BIG is planned to happen that will start everything”. There was a lot more but this well describes 911 to me. Then there were other “State Sponsored Terrorist attacks too” that I know about. But who would believe me as it isn’t till now that some of this in little detail is starting to surface.
Hence my posts mention the CIA giving the family a distinction of calling them a CIA Asset, Drugs, 911, Nuclear Black Market and a lot more. Just recently I found an article explaining a connection with top level CIA management and buying puts and calls on the Airlines just before 911 from a recent investigation of another Ponzi scheme. Knowing a lot of what the criminal system is about, I’m still captured with reading the little details from time to time certifying of what I know.
What concerns me is that I have three adult children caught up in this mess. It’s obvious to me that the family is lying to them but there is too much surfacing now to keep them calm. As they say, knowing one thing usually leads to learning the link with something else. Also I know my ex-brother-in-law is totally paranoid and scared to do anything to get out because he simply is in too deep. The other adults including my ex-wife are probably in the same boat, but my three adult children need to get out before it’s too late. The surfacing of a new article certifies what I’ve been saying about the CIA connection and more than proves the connection with the family. This drives home that the news is growing with each new detail towards exposing more about what this is and adding other scandals into one larger scandal. For me, it’s fascinating to watch it grow. It shouldn’t be long before the lid blows off and this whole thing exposes the truth. No one is going to want to believe all that is involved as it is totally astounding and involves a lot more than what has already surfaced. This Criminal group has been very busy for a very long time to build what they have today. I just hope by when it all comes out, my three kids are out of this mess.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
New FDL post
62 – not gonna claim respect, but Nuh Uh. *g*
All they needed was a motion for an extentions that would have been granted in a flash and heartbeat under the circumstances and Walker alerted quite a bit back that he was wondering about the new administration’s position (so they knew it was on the table) and was willing to let that new administration go down a different track if they wanted to and a motion for extension would have been simple to accomplish and bought them the time to review and decide. They didn’t need time to review and decide though.
So where’s the bull?
Exactly
61 – his crew have been working on putting everything at GITMO on hold to give them time to finish review and implementation – absolutely no way the couldn’t have been in the position to do the same in this case (involving an issue that got him more comments on his websites and more condemnation from his previous supporters than just about any) and it’s not like Russ Feingold is an off limits source for them (or that Feingold didn’t go out on a limb for Obama in the Wis primary where Obama sang one tune, only to ditch it for a different one when the FISA amendments vote came around).
72 – The comments are hard to get through, but there’s all kinds of good stuff in a lot of them (like your comment) Some trolling and private converstations too, but by and large everyone’s perspectives, skills and backgrounds adds a lot IMO.
Whether or not Holder is confirmed, the true “head” of the Department of Justice is the President. The President may, by Executive Order, direct the DOJ to take certain actions, just as he has, already and by Executive Order, directed that other agencies take certain actions (including lawyers in respect of the GITMO proceedings).
There is nothing wrong, or illegal, or beyond his powers to issue an Executive order directing the Acting AG and lawyers operating in DOJ who are working on xyz types of cases that involve policy determinations of the DOJ to request extension of any return or filing dates for a period of abc amount of time, in order for the Department to make a review and proceed with recommendations to the newly elected President, etc.
That’s all that would have been needed. If an Acting AG did refuse to follow an Executive Order requiring that the DOJ seek extensions on certain cases – well, it would be bizarre, would have no “illegal” purpose or impact to justify refusal to follow, and would be a case of a lawyer refusing to follow the wishes of their principal which I think is not such a good thing. In a case where the President personally or the President’s personal interest is involved (like a criminal investigation into the President) then the President is or should be recused from acting to direct the Dept, but where it is a matter of policy (need to review what Gov’s position on wiretap issues will be) – not so much. And for an extension in particular – there’s just not much to object to there.
Thank you. That puts to rest any question I had about this matter. I’m with you (and bmaz)that Obama tipped his hand with the FAA vote (and the post-nomination run to AIPAC).
This thread has some overlap with Spencer Ackerman’s new post.
Spencer’s looking ahead, too.
Bob in HI
I guess we still have much to be thankful for regarding the torture and detainee policies, though there still is a sour odor from the issue of “new courts”.
He said that he contacted Mr. Brennan. I presume that means John Brennan, the torture apologist. But, if Brennan approves of torture, he likely approves of warrantless surveillance as well, so I’m not surprised that Tice’s information got no action.
IIRC, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for CIA Director, because of concerns about his torture apologia, will now be appointed National Security Adviser for Homeland Security, which requires no confirmation.
It’s time to get Holder confirmed and Obama should let
him unleash Justice, on all of this domestic wire-
taping, torture, the whole enchilada. Every employee
of these agencies is sworn to uphold the constitution,
and in not doing so, when I am sure “in conscience”,
understood, what they did was in direct contravention
of it…otherwise, you would not have the honest few
come forward. They should be prosecuted. A clear example
of this type of thing is the John Ritter case where he
adamantly claimed there were no weapons in Iraq. He was
beaten down by many. When what he said was the truth. Why
didn’t the media do it’s job?
Forgot to mention one more thing….
“GHW Bush is the kingpin, as I suspect you know”
There is a whole lot more to this, please wait with your opinion. But certainly our highest level Government officials haven’t been what we have been led to believe they are. This is where Mind Control comes in and they are really good at it too. And I mean not only the Bush’s but many others. There are interesting details about Bush when he was Governor too, but this is for another time…. As I said, this group has been busy for a very long time and keep in mind that they extend way beyond our shores! They aren’t just in the US. I’ve stated before numerous times in posts that I was told that “Corruption” protects and safeguards the Drug system from it’s point of origin all the way to each and every separate destination.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Alright. Enough. You constantly post a bunch of conspiracy gobbledygook here in out threads. It is not useful and is annoying. I am certain there is a proper place for your discussion, and I am positive that this blog is not that place.