NSA spying on America

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by justbill_redux, May 12, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Left_the_scene

    Left_the_scene

    Messages:
    318

    It *IS* an important distinction that our allies goals are NOT always 100% aligned with our goals...

    But the Mossad DOES get good middle east intel. The more access they have to ours, the more they are likely to share theirs with us...

    On a side note, not to many folks are aware of just how deeply embedded the Mossad in in the whole telecom industry. Between Verint doing most of the tapping, Amdocs doing most of the phone bills, and RAD supplying much of the TDM to IP gateway stuff...
  2. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    That is just scary on so many levels. Not because it's Israel, but because it's a foreign power. Certain things should be taken care of in-house.
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2009
  3. HawkEye65

    HawkEye65

    Messages:
    1,390
    My first thought/comment was "Aren't they our allies?" Of course we don't share everything with allies so that doesn't matter, but if it was being shared with N. Korea or Iran I would understand more concern. Plus they gave no hint at what secure information was being leaked.
  4. Left_the_scene

    Left_the_scene

    Messages:
    318
    this is just absurd. Isreali's would not need help securing any wiretapping info from the NSA, since the wiretaps themselves are mostly contracted out to Verint, which is an Israeli company with Mossad ties. I used to work with them (and almost worked FOR them, doing the actual taps), so I know this first hand. Very often the Israeli's get the data (depending on what type of tap it was done with) before the NSA even does. Unofficially, of course. Most of the tap servers are internet connected and the data can be pulled remotely. (shudder...) And yes, there ARE backdoors.

    Frankly, I feel safer having the Mossad get their hands on any possible terror data than I do simply entrusting it to the NSA/CIA.
  5. HawkEye65

    HawkEye65

    Messages:
    1,390
    Not exactly what you were looking for, but what about this? Could result in legal action against the Bush administration for warrantless wiretapping.

    Harman Vehemently Denies Bribery Allegations Allegedly Caught on NSA Tapes (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ribery-allegations-allegdly-caught-nsa-tapes/)

    Rep. Jane Harman says she never offered to help a "suspected Israeli agent" in exchange for the agent lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a key chairmanship for Harman.

    ...

    [Harmon] added, "If there is anything about this story that should arouse concern, it is that the Bush administration may have been engaged in electronic surveillance of members of the congressional intelligence committees."

    "If Rep. Harman agreed to try to influence an ongoing criminal investigation in return for help securing a committee chairmanship, her conduct not only violates federal law and House rules, but also her oath to uphold the Constitution, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.

    "This whole sorry episode is also yet another example -- as if we needed any more -- of the depths to which the Bush Justice Department was willing to sink to advance its political agenda," Sloan continued.
  6. Left_the_scene

    Left_the_scene

    Messages:
    318
    What would be just friggin hilarious is if some of the former Bush staff wound up being wire tapped as right wing extremists. Now THAT would be justice. Never happen, but I can wish...
  7. HawkEye65

    HawkEye65

    Messages:
    1,390
    I am curious about the "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" DHS report and how the new administration plans to "monitor" the US right-wing terrorist threat. If not NSA, then who? It appears that the threat is worth monitoring (despite retractions and apologies), and I don't expect the Obama administration to be any more "open and transparent" than the Bush administration.
  8. Monk

    Monk

    Messages:
    3,381
    I get the impression that the Administration's strategy is to eventually make some significant policy changes in the way all of these presidential power statutes are interpreted by the Justice Department. But, rather than take a revolutionary approach, they are moving cautiously and carefully while they review the current policies and opinions and craft legal positions that is defensible in the courts. In the mean time, they are faced with several "legacy" cases from the Bush Administration that have to move forward. I suppose they could do what the Bush Administration did with the Microsoft anti-trust case: pull the experienced prosecutors off of those cases and replace them with juniors that aren't familiar with the cases. But these are cases have huge Constitutional implications, so I can't imagine they would go that route. And they obviously aren't ready to roll out a new policy yet.

    I'm sure there are political considerations at work, too. You can see the uproar from former Bush Administration officials at the incremental steps that have already been taken. Cheney was all over the airwaves complaining about the closing of Guantanimo (even though it hasn't even been closed yet). Former Attorney General Mukasey published an op ed in the WSJ complaining about the release of the so-called "torture memos." So I'm sure the strategy here is to go step by step in revising and reversing these policies so that the fallout can be managed politically.
  9. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    The date on the court docket for the lawsuit is Sept. 18, 2008, so it has to be read in the context that Obama wasn't POTUS when it was filed.

    That said, I agree that Obama's current position on "warrantless wiretapping" is unclear. I imagine this is one of the many issues he'll have to address down the line.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2009
  10. Duckman

    Duckman Moderator

    Messages:
    4,397
    This is what I think is still in doubt. In the EFF's lawsuit (http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel) they specifically say they are suing to stop the program. How do you stop something that has already ceased? And the EFF is no Fox News.
  11. viking1965

    viking1965

    Messages:
    101
    The nuance is that the Obama Administration is not at all continuing to defend the actual practice of "warrantless wiretaps".

    What's happening here is that some individuals are rightfully (IMHO) suing because they feel their privacy has been violated, but in the process of determining their cases, they are asking the question, "How do you determine whose phone calls and e-mails to "monitor" and how do you perform the monitoring". The administration's (and IMHO the correct) position is that revealing these methods, which coincidentally are also the same ones used for "warranted" wiretaps, would be a threat to national security. Essentially, let's instruct the terrorists how they can avoid being identified for monitoring.

    Like so many other things, this was a small turd laid by the previous administration which has expanded into a great, steaming pile of shit for the current administration to clean up.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2009
  12. Duckman

    Duckman Moderator

    Messages:
    4,397
    Props to Obama for defending Bush's wiretapping

    See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/MNRP16TJOQ.DTL

    Of course many on the left may not agree. But those of us who thought that Bush had our best interests at heart in this situation will feel differently.

    Originally (during the campaign) Obama didn't feel this way

    [youtube]B6fnfVJzZT4[/youtube]

    If I am missing some sort of nuance, please speak up.
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2009
  13. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    I have no knowledge of that particular site, it was simply the first link I found when I searched for the topic on the net. I read about it in a local daily a couple of days ago. I left nothing off intentionally, just copied and pasted the first few paragraphs above the "(Story continues below)" or 'break' in the middle of the page that prevents you from copying the whole thing at once. I didn't think the whole article would fit under the limits in one post so I put "...." and the link so anyone could read it for themselves. And the link works for me, maybe their server was down.
  14. sod

    sod

    Messages:
    890

    With "pile of shit", Ozzy is being kind. I had hopes that it would be entertaining when they first took the air, but it was pretty unbearable. Small doses of Al Franken was the most I could take, but let's just say (again, to be kind) Jeneane Garofalo (sp?) was not pulling me away from WFAN. And Chuck D was pretty listless as a talk show host, not the same guy who did "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos", for sure.
  15. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923

    Your mistake was thinking what he said was true, its not. The link goes to World Nut Daily and paraphrases a Media Matters article and in doing so, takes Feinsteins quote out of context . PLUS what he leaves out in his post is a quote from Trent Lott where he slams RW radio.

    From http://mediamatters.org/items/200706240004

    [snip]

    From the June 24 edition of Fox News Sunday:

    WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator [Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA]. Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

    FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty, we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that, nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system. This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

    [snip]
  16. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Ozz-

    The link you posted doesn't work so I couldn't read for myself.

    But if all is as you say, its ridiculous. But, thankfully, most democrats don't seem to be on board with the idea. I'll have to look into it later on today though. Just what I'm getting with a quick search.
  17. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Speaking of squashing constitutional rights... Guess the dems no like the part about free speech.

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56346


    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy designed to ensure equal time for all political viewpoints on radio, but criticized by many as resulting in the opposite result.

    When asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" if she would revive the measure, said, "Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."

    Wallace pointed out, "But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market."

    Feinstein responded: "Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

    The Democrat said talk radio tends to be one-sided.

    "It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."

    Among the targets of leftist Democrats is conservative champion Rush Limbaugh, the most-listened to host in the history of talk radio, who has railed against in the Fairness Doctrine for years.....




    Hmmm... Interesting that there was no problem when that entire leftist station "Air America" or whatever that pile of shit was called that no one listened to was on the air and run so poorly that they eventually went bankrupt.
  18. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Almost forgot

    Who would have guessed that of all people, John Ashcroft would be the voice of reason in this administration.
  19. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Very nice catch indeed. Its funny the things you can do when the balance of power is shifted back in the Congress, like issue subpoenas, hold hearings and actually have the Executive branch being held actionable for their actions instead of being a rubber stamp. I can see a ton of old threads being revisited with new news.
  20. DaveNJ

    DaveNJ

    Messages:
    6,849
    Very nice. I just read that a few minutes ago. The first thing I thought about was this thread. Didn't realize the last post was over a year ago. Time flies here on UG!