pwcosqnh [link http://duglmfg.com]test4[/link]

re: "Surely, Frank Rich writes in The New York Times this past Sunday, terrorists are smart enough to know that they are being monitored, hence "... this program may have more to do with monitoring "traitors" like reporters and leakers than with tracking terrorists." Without a shred of evidence, another narcissistic and ignorant statement is made."

When you smear the messenger without refuting the message, you mimic political operatives; this is not professional journalism.

Further, you ASSUME there is no evidence, and you know what they say about ASSUME. Besides, when the government is overly-secretive, improving on Rumsfeld's words: Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence, but it is not PROOF of absence.

No enemies list? Ask Dana Priest. There are plenty of journalists who are not being watched, those who are not crit-ing WH policy.

No enemies list, in the sense of a specific list.
Rather, the entire population is their enemy, save a few execs in oil, pharma, insurance, banking and media...all the thieves and enablers. C

In response to any questions about my position that "Without oversight, people naturally run amok." for empirical evidence supporting by position go to Xenemus.com and play for a while. Everyone is killing everyone else. Once I saw my son playing this roll playing game, I realized no matter how much I disliked the inefficiencies of Government, it was absolutely necessary in order for me to walk down the street without being killed.
From the Xenemus Site:

Enter a world where you are free to do as you wish. Be good or evil, fight or use magic, and explore the land of Xenimus or the underworld. New things are constantly being added to the game to keep it fresh with new things to discover and explore.

Here's how it worked when I was in DC. My girlfriend's friend was having problems with her landlord (money dispute). Her roommate worked at the IRS. The roommate looked up the tax return for the landlord to see if he was declaring the rent money.

This was 20-30 years ago (boy I'm getting old), without the computer oversight you have today.

Without oversight, people naturally run amok.

Amok, sometimes spelled amuck and often used as "running amok," is a Malay word which in that language means to be out of control.

It is often used in English to refer to the behaviour of someone who, in the grip of strong emotion, obtains a weapon and begins attacking people indiscriminately, often with multiple fatalities.

I find the blanket assumption contained in the title of this piece to be incredible, or perhaps more accurately, not credible.

And after reading it more than once to make sure I wasn't missing Mr. Arkin's rationale for believing this massive data warehousing isn't being abused--I confirmed that, in fact, Mr. Arkin has offered no such rationale. Instead there is an naive trust and denial of the inevitable slippery slope this program is already teetering above. A risible and disappointing column on the whole.

Incidentally, how long until we learn that actually all content of phone calls and data communications are, in fact, being archived for future reference in terrorism investigations? That seems a reasonable goal from the POV of investigators and the architects of this program. Why on earth would they stop at call records and patterns, when the content of a dead terrorist's phone calls is likely to be valuable as well?

I must assume that Mr. Arkin is himself unwilling to connect the dots about where this technology is leading and its profound potential for blackmail, abuse and complete destruction of the 4th amendment.

Where is the oversight? I don't believe in trust, I believe in verify. Especially not with this crew of miscreant liars currently metastasizing across the entire US government.

Speaking of land of the free...

Is anyone keeping track of how many reports/ anchormen have been fired, demoted, lost access, been put on the government payroll, been shot at in Iraq, or been promoted to press secretary as a reward for pushing government propaganda since GW has been in office?

He's right, there is no enemies list. But, what he's not saying is that there is a "friends" list. You just have to ask the right question. Remember, "If your not with us, your against us."
For example, I live here in Yuma, Az. where the Prez is speaking tommorow. I have tried to find ways to attend the show. But, I'm not on the "friends" list. I wouldn't be suprised if the people you see on t.v. thursday behind the president are shipped in. Who knows they may even be cardboard cut-outs. We can't have another Ray McGovern incident now. Yes, home of the free, and land of the brave...well one out of two aint bad.

"I went on a manuver at Yakima with an Army signal unit when I was stationed at Ft. Lewis in the early 60's. It was all desert at that time, but I seem to remember a place called rattlesnake hill or ridge. We were setup near there. They may be there too."

Ah, yeah, I remember digging a gun pit on the ridge, and having an artillery unit fire a shell the size of VW bus right over us, about 10 feet above our heads - we dove right into the pit and used our radio to call in a request they not try to kill friendlies - luckily they didn't hit our truck nearby or our radio antenna ...

The only military stories Bush and his cronies have are of them drinking in bars and doing coke.

there is an Enemy's List, but since Arkin's on it, they're not likely to tell him.

And, as to Verizon and phone records - they said they "have no contract" - if the NSA agent goes in, copies the switch log (which is a file written by the phone switch, I programmed some for US Telco), then nothing happened, right?

The log file has every number you dialed, including local calls and the keys you pressed to get into email or access your account.

Those who trust people who lie to America day after day are not just fools or gullible, they're dangerous fools.

You thought this was still a free country? Get over it. Reread '1984,' if you need a reminder of where our present road leads to. The terrorists are winning, by forcing us to become like them in the process of fighting them.
Throwing the bums out this November is an essential first step in getting our free country back, but it's only the beginning.

I'm fed up with the unnecessary lying, dishonesty, obstructing, and deceiving by the WH and Congressional Republicans.

If they're going to behave arrongantly and expect me to be a fool they'll keep losing me and a lot of people they may find they want defending them someday.

Based on zero tangible evidence, William Arkin concludes that there is no Enemies List.

Yes, there's an Administration that not only ignores the law, it scoffs at the notion it is obliged to obey any law.

Yes, there are technical means capable of snooping into everything down to nursery intercoms.

Yes, the Administration has stated that it wants to create a Total Information Awareness database that would amount to KGB-like powers.

Yes, the Administration has put politics over everything, from the photo-ops using soldiers and sailors as props to creating the most heavily pork-laden and partisan budget ever.

But William Arkin, being possessed of clairvoyance is certain that this same Administration would never turn the tools at its disposal to harassing political opponents.

Charles of MercuryRising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

"There is no enemies list." That you know about. I find it very difficult to believe that the Bush administration, known for its viciousness and vindictiveness, does not have an enemies list. Those folks make Dick Nixon and his crowd look like Jemima Puddleduck and her little ducklings.

"Our government, I conclude, is not up to no good (any more than it is up to no bad)."

Boy, that was convincing!

Why does this paper need another "conservative" voice when it has Bush apologist hacks like William Arkin writing its "serious" blogs?

I am amazed at the naivite expressed by Arkin!

Machines and Technology Have Evolved Faster Than Humans: What happened to some humans, seeing how they appear to be stuck in their primacy?

It seems to me that technology has evolved at a pace that has outstripped the intellectual development of too many, in the human family of the apes. For it would appear that some humans are simply stuck in pre-modern pubescence mode, particularly when you consider that some humans cannot resolve their differences without killing someone!

Others who appear to be in the left-behind human klan mode, can only contemplate meeting their own basic needs or those in their klan, i.e., how to acquire food, warmth, shelter and pleasure; nothing else seems to matter to them. In fact, the latter have little use for other people, or a need to understand the needs and the rights of others, and to live peacefully with the other inhabitants of this planet.

It would also appear that too many humans are not mature enough to have mastery over the technology that has been made available to them, and ironically the same technology that some of them helped to develop. What we see with too many humans in the world today, is tantamount to handing over a loaded Uzi to a 7 year old child to play with. Someone will unfortunately get hurt!

I wonder when will the planet be given over to the more enlightened and peaceful people who desire to live peacefully on this planet with its other inhabitants? I suppose that will be the time that the prophets foresaw and spoke about , thousands of years ago, i.e., a time when the world would be at peace, when humans would be respectful of each other and, a time when humans would no longer study war. Sadly, in two thousand years some have not figured out how to live peacefully yet.

Studying war, is a phrase that comes from the scriptures. The opposite of studying war would be to study peace. Oh that we had a government and a nation that invested as many financial and intellectual resources in studying peace as it does in studying war. Oh that America had a majority of citizens who were more interested in studying the things that make for peace, than those that lead to war. I wonder how much our government spends studying peace? Do we even have a Peace Budget or a Peace Department? We could certainly use both of them!

If man could simply be evolved in terms of his thinking, as fast as the rapid changes that have been made in technology, then what a wonderful planet this would be to live on. Then we would no longer have a desire (not need) for surveillance, new weapons systems or the purported most technologically advanced military in the world. I hope for our posterity's sake, that it will not take another two-thousand years to get there!

Peace & Grace for these people are going to get us all killed, if they do not kill us themselves!

" ... What I hear from intelligence insiders is that terrorists, their friends and their families communicate all the time -- it is a way of life, after all, in our society -- seemingly oblivious or indifferent to government surveillance."

Some may 'communicate' oblivious to LE efforts, but my guess is that others do/will not.

" ... It's just a little window, just a snippet, this insight -- but thinking about it and the electronic detritus that all of us leave behind suggests what our government is up to."

Our government appears to be grasping at straws with regard to collecting intel on AQ and also appears to be extremely afraid that they will hit the US again.

" ... Our government, I conclude, is not up to no good (any more than it is up to no bad)."

No one knows what the government is doing. No one seems to know what AQ is doing, either. But, one of AQ's stated goals is to bleed the American economy. Data collection programs and the war in Iraq, among other examples, serve as good candidates for accomplishing this goal. How much money has been spent on data collection efforts and how many arrests have been made?

It is easy for the administration to intimate that they are trying to avoid an attack using extravagant data-collection techniques (that higher-level AQ members will likely bypass) versus leveling with the American people about the nature of the threat and what they would need to do to prepare for an attack and its consequences (have they filled those vacant positions at DHS yet?)

In essence, the administration has failed to clearly present the nature of the threat that they claim exists and they also haven't prepared the American people for the aftermath of that which they claim they are trying to prevent. Why is this so? The obvious answer is that 'funds have been dedicated toward attack prevention, as a priority.' The unasked/unanswered/extremely curious question is why equal funds have also not been dedicated toward assisting citizens in the aftermath of an attack if the likelihood of a catastrophic attack is so high.

It is not known whether the administration has been at all honest with the American people about their intentions with regard to information collection and I have come to understand the dangers of same to our liberties. However, I also tend to take AQ's statements/intentions rather seriously in light of their performance on 9/11. If the administration does indeed have a 'case' to justify their behavior with regard to collection of information about US citizens, they need to present said case to the American people, be prepared to answer the resultant questions, and also operate within the parameters of established law in an effort to mitigate the threat. In lieu of concrete and indisputable evidence supporting the 'threat' and operations which are executed in accordance with existing law, distrust about the administration's intentions will abound - and rightfully so.

Oversight? Barring any extraneous events, Congress is about to be fired by the American people. And, despite any evidence that may ultimately be presented to support a serious threat, the administration's behaviors and policies with regard to information gathering should undergo close scrutiny; said scrutiny should be occurring now. "Legal" is legal and a significant threat is a significant threat. The necessary and difficult process of reconciling 'legal' with 'threat' should not lead to yet more secrecy and confusion for the American people.

The administration should either present the 'threat' in full and plain view for all Americans to see and fully comprehend or stop collecting citizen's data. In other words, and with all due respect for the OFFICE of the President of the United States, as a citizen of the United States, I submit that the administration needs to either 'put up' ... or stop talking about the 'threat.'

There is no need for an enemies list; we are all presumed to be the enemy.

I respect your thoughtful analysis. Though I'm partison, I try to separate the truth from the partison alarmism. If the government and your sources are telling the truth, your analysis sounds reasonable.

But, this Administration has a 5 year track record of lying, secrecy, and their focus is squarly on acquiring and keeping power vs. responsible governing. Those are the spots on this leopard. Can you explain to me why anyone should trust them on this particular issue? I'm wondering how much of your hard earned money you would bet on the chances your analysis is actually true, that there is no enemies list?

I may be wrong, but here is my understanding of the legalities. Arkin is correct that there was a court decision in 1979 that said that phone records were not protected by the Constitution or any laws. This was a decision that applied to the phone companies, i.e. they were allowed to give them to the government. It was not a decision that said the government could get them for free. The government was under previous law on "pen registers" (surveillance of mail) which did not require a warrant with its required proof of probable cause, however, it did require that the government certify to the court that this information (phone records) was necessary for a particular investigation. This was precisely to prevent the kind of "fishing expedition" we have at hand.

In addition, subsequent to the case, the Federal government passed the Telecommunication Act which specifically forbids the phone companies from giving "identifiable" phone records to a government agency. Now while it may be that when the Act was passed, "identifiable" meant with names and addresses, clearly today when any phone number can be associated with much more than names and addresses in microseconds, the records obtained by NSA are identifiable. The penalty is a fine of at least $1,000 for each record. There are at least two such cases in litigation today.

I retired in 2000, but for the last 20 years of my career ( I am a mathematician) I worked for a FFRC whose sole contract was with NSA. We were told that its charter forbid surveillance on US Nationals and were threatened with dire consequences if we were responsible for such surveillance even inadvertently. I do not know if this restriction has the force of law, but it appears foolhardy to appoint as head of the CIA someone who would so flagrantly ignore the charter of an organization he previously headed.

I am sure we have all have read a mystery or seen one on TV in which the police get the phone records of the suspect and find out he has been calling the bad guys or the victim. This is an extremely powerful tool. These records can also be used for blackmail even if the phone user has done nothing illegal. Suppose Joe Liebermann frequently calls the Pork Shop or Denny Hastert uses an escort service.

Finally, I think we can conclude that Arkin is at least misleading when he says," Since at least the 1970's, the courts have ruled that the collection of these records does not require court approval and does not constitute unlawful search and seizure." Again what he says is literally true. What is unlawful is not the collection of these records by the phone companies, but the giving of them to a government agency especially without a court order.

Bill,

I'm ashamed of you. Why all the backtracking. Someone must really be applying the pressure now. Hmmmm.

OK, but to end with calling someone narcissistic for validly questioning the use of the NSA data-mining when there is a story today that indicates exactly this pattern to me is disingenuous on your part, or facetious and I just missed the joke.

This is an Administration that blocked Democratic phone calls in 2004 the day before the election. There have been many election woes and transgressions by this Administration. When you add the power of listening in which can be based on establishing that you have a suspiscious call network, suddenly the NSA is monitoring content of various Democratic party headquarters with no warrant and no accountability. You had Frist's assistant busted in 2004 for hacking into a Democratic mainframe who was fired for doing so, so you know darn well the "Watergate" intent lives on. They infiltrated with people spying into various green organization and peace organizations as a part of their 9/11 response, and you're going to tell me they went to that trouble, but never bothered to add up the phone data with what their live spies uncovered? Come on now. Bill, you embarrass yourself with this column. I begin to wonder if you are not dead along with Osama, and they've installed your double?

I'd like to believe there's no enemies list. Given the track record of this administration regarding those who don't march in lockstep and the ties of two of its most powerful members to the Nixon administration, forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

The only enemies list is the following:
Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Rove

Someone above posted this list. This is another example that Arkin points out as "another narcissistic and ignorant statement". America will never win the war on terror if their are people who believe that the men listed above are their only enemies. God help us all.

From today's Post:
"Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, sent Bush a letter asking whether the NSA's spying programs were targeting journalists and their sources."

At least one elected representatives of the people cares. Anyone want to take bets on whether the WH responds, truthfully?

Vic: You're right about who's really the enemy. Let's add DeLay, Lott, Stevens, Frist, and the "Three Wise Guys" of the American Taliban (Falwell, Dobson and Robertson). Felicity has it right, all these people want is power - and control, especially the troika of the American Taliban who seek to push their agenda into our laws, grossly violating the principle of church/state separation. I do want NSA to take down the numbers so they can see if any of the dots connect-up to something dangerous, but oversight is very much appropriate. Congress is a bunch of cowards, willing to hide in the bushes while the Bush idiots make fools of themselves. Then they'll act surprised and say "we had no idea" these abuses were happening. That mob of saps isn't about to step in during an election year and piss off anyone anywhere over anything. Twenty years of watching our immigration laws and borders being raped is lesson enough about how useless and inept Congress now is.

I may be wrong, but here is my understanding of the legalities. Arkin is correct that there was a court decision in 1979 that said that phone records were not protected by the Constitution or any laws. This was a decision that applied to the phone companies, i.e. they were allowed to give them to the government. It was not a decision that said the government could get them for free. The government was govern by previous law on "pen registers" (surveillance of mail) which did not require a warrant with its required proof of probable cause, however, it did require that the government certify to the court that this information (phone records) were necessary for a particular investigation. This was precisely to prevent the kind of "fishing expedition" we have at hand.

In addition, subsequent to the case, the Federal government passed a the Telecommunication Act which specifically forbids the phone companies from giving "identifiable" phone records to a government agency. Now while it may be that when the Act was passed, "identifiable" meant with names and addresses, clearly today when any phone number can be associated with much more than names and addresses in microseconds, the records obtained by NSA are identifiable. The penalty is a fine of at least $1,000 for each record. There are at least two such cases in litigation today.

I retired in 2000, but for the last 20 years of my career ( I am a mathematician) I worked for a FFRC whose sole contract was with NSA. We were told that its charter forbid surveillance on US Nationals and were threatened with dire consequences if we were responsible for such surveillance even inadvertently. I do not know if this restriction has the force of law, but it appears foolhardy to appoint as head of the CIA someone who would so flagrantly ignore the charter of an organization he previously headed.

I am sure we have all have read a mystery or seen one on TV in which the police get the phone records of the suspect and find out he has been calling the bad guys or the victim. This is an extremely powerful tool. These records can also be used for blackmail even if the phone user has done nothing illegal. Suppose Joe Liebermann frequently calls the Pork Shop or Denny Hastert uses an escort service.

Finally, I think we can conclude that Arkin is at least misleading when he says," Since at least the 1970's, the courts have ruled that the collection of these records does not require court approval and does not constitute unlawful search and seizure." Again what he says is literally true. What is unlawful is not the collection of these records by the phone companies, but the giving of them to a government agency especially without a court order.

"Mr. Arkin why were you calling a pay phone in Logan Airport at 5:04 AM on Septembet 11, 2001?"

query to those who are stating that the issue is oversight by Congress:
if the programs were fully briefed to the appropriate Committees in Congress, and the programs were still put in place, with oversight and continual review, would you viewpoint about the programs be different?

and as for Ms. Plame on an enemies list, and the implication that this is a unique thing for the Bush administration... let us not forget that Mr. Clinton specifically asked for FBI files of Republicans that disagreed with him and his policies - a clear misuse of his powers.

The Bush consortium is INTO POWER. In fact power-hungry describes this bunch, whether on an international scale or a national one, whether vested in a unitary executive, or citizen monitoring. Just as a mega-military arsenal is power, knowledge is power. The world is helpless when faced with the American military machine: we may find ourselves helpless when faced with the government, through knowledge, exercising its power over our lives.

If it is legal for the NSA to collect phone records to investigate terrorism, is it legal for the FBI to use the same information to investigate drug crime? Or for background checks on government employee applications? If it is possible for the NSA to collect a huge database of phone records to investigate terrorism, is it possible for some political appointee to copy that information onto some DVD-ROMs and take it to a computer used for partisan pattern-recognition to compute the redness or blueness of each phone number? Would it be possible to use this information for political strategy, or for redrawing congressional district boundaries? Could one simply map journalists to their sources?

What would Jefferson have said about a government program to track the address information of every letter going to or from certain individuals, or all individuals?

Is not investigation of an entire population in order to find a few criminals the definition of fishing that laws have historically protected citizens from?

The address of a message is not value-free, it is part of the content of the message, and should be protected under the Fourth Amendment from state scrutiny. The government has no moral right or legitimate reason to know who everyone is talking to.

We're supposed to just trust them? The whole thing is creepy and un-American. With no oversight, programs and databases like these in the NSA/ CIA/ FBI could easily be used to monitor & crack down on political parties, protesters, activists, reporters, religious groups, immigrants, critics, etc. Oh - I'm sorry -- I see from developing news they are already cracking down on protesters, activists, reporters, religious groups, immigrants, and critics. Round that out with spying on opposing political parties and we're on our way to a "gentler & kinder" East German police state.

Excellent post by Riley Dey | May 16, 2006 12:44 PM

One ,only has to look at what they did to Valerie Plame, to know that they keep enemies lists and that they take revenge against their enemies!!

I remember an old Saturday Night Live skit where a robber breaks into a house and orders the man living there to sit down in a chair, then begins to put valuables into a sack. The man gets up and tries to flee but the robber catches him. The man pleas for his life and swears he will not do it again. The robber sits him down, threatens him if he moves again, then continues filling the sack. The man tries to flee again and is again caught. He again pleas for his life and swears he will not flee again, which he does, over and over again until the robber is so frustrated he just gives up and leaves.

Bush reminds me of the man. The Congress or press catches him lying or performing an illegal act and he says he's doing nothing wrong. Congress says, well, ok, but we hope we find nothing more. Then we find more, and Bush again says all is well. This seems to be going on over and over and Congress and to some extent the American people are just so tired of it they are giving up.

Congress needs to do its job or be fired.

Domestic Surveillance

How would this Administration, specifically Dick Cheney and Ms. Rice respond if tomorrow the following was to happen. Putin orders (he probably already does it):

1. KGB to track every phone call made by its citizens, and start analysis to track patterns of who calls whom,

2. Russian Homeland Security to obtain phone records of:
- all journalists and employees in the Kremlin everytime there there is a leak to the media.

- all Russian Parliament members and their staff. The Russian Parliament is notorious for leaks. (Bush claims the same for our Congress).

How would our media respond to such surveillance in Russia? Would Washington Post, NYT or Time write major articles commiserating the Russian citizens for their loss of personal and press freedom? Would Dick Cheney and Ms. Rice threat to block Russian entry into the WTO?

Just curious.

If nothing else, haven't we learned over the past 5 years that this administration deals regularly in lies, deception, misinformation, disinformation and secrecy? How can you possibly state emphatically that "there is no enemies list". It seems that every week brings a new revelation of Bush's total disregard and contempt for the Constitution. While it's true we don't know whether or not there is an enemies list, it's preposterous to assert categorically that there is none.

Actually you dont need an enemy list to deploy tactics of defense and inteligence gatherin. The only reason I see some people bringing so much flak on the goverment is no other way of explaning that freedom tastes diferent for us who bled for it.

I'll take Will in Seattle's word that telephone conversations are being monitered. This is a violation of the Constitution and Federal law.
I hope Will has covered his tracks! if he is in the business,he should know how to do it.
I went on a manuver at Yakima with an Army signal unit when I was stationed at Ft. Lewis in the early 60's. It was all desert at that time, but I seem to remember a place called rattlesnake hill or ridge. We were setup near there. They may be there too.

Arkin
I think your piece is reasonable on one level i.e. no great conspriracy, but it misses the point. The point is oversight not effectiveness. Good intentions are not good enough. This is too much power to be entrusted to ANY government, not the least to an administration which is not above reproach. This Administration is not being challenged and held to account. The fox is being asked whether raiding the hen house is a good thing. Of course he is going to say yes. Who speaks for the hens? Where are the courts? not to speak of Congress and its responsibility to apply checks and balances. It all adds-up to a monumental failure of governance.

I've been watching Rove these past few months. I thought Bush's troubles were a result of Rove being preoccupied with the Fitzgerald investigation, but I don't think so any more. After watching him on TV at the AEI the other day, I'm now convinced Rove will run for president in 2008, on the republican ticket of course. An indictment would be a problem though.

The only enemies list is the following:
Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Rove

Their damn well is an enemies list, and it is the trifecta of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld!

Like everyone else here, I have to ask, if the program is so clean, why the need to flout and evade FISA?

It may well be that this is an effort to establish a normal baseline of communications as you say, but if that effort involves the govt knowing who every American is calling, it's not something the American people agreed to or were told of...and it's way below what was taken for granted as the normal standard of American freedom and privacy.

The argument that they aren't actually listening to all these billions of conversations is lame. They haven't the resources to do that anyway. They're nosing into people's lives to the best of their technical ability.

As Jon Stewart pointed out, the govt now knows that you called the gay teen bondage chatline, but don't worry, it's not an invasion of your privacy because they still don't know what the conversation was about.

The irony is that the Americans who defend these police state methods are the very people most likely to brag about their country's unique freedoms.

Their definition of freedom is certainly unique.

Arkin states:
"Surely, Frank Rich writes in The New York Times this past Sunday, terrorists are smart enough to know that they are being monitored, hence "... this program may have more to do with monitoring "traitors" like reporters and leakers than with tracking terrorists." Without a shred of evidence, another narcissistic and ignorant statement is made."

What evidence is needed? The idea that terrorists would consider that they are being eavesdropped on is so obvious as to be considered fact. That, therefore, the program MAY be for some other reason is also fact. Seems to me the only one making narcissistic and ignorant statements here is Arkin, who really can have no idea whether an enemies list is being kept or not.

I will say it again...America has been complaining about Mr. Putin of Russia's, so-called consolidation of power, and his purported backing away from democratic principles over the past couple of years? As John Stossel would say, give me a break!

Some of you simply believe that you are being patriotic. and others of you simply believe in what Mr. Bush and his Administration have been doing.

But there are some of us who believe that these folks have a blatant disregard for the rule of Law and the better principles that this nation was founded upon when, oops, the illegal European immigrants entered and took over the Land, murdered in indigenous people, enslaved blacks and founded the United States of America! Will it ever stop!

Solution? We need to review and change many of America's policies, then we will not need to continue internal and domestic espionage, terrorizing other nations on the planet who do not share our viewpoints and supporting state-sanctioned murder and maiming of innocent people in foreign lands like Iraq by our government.

Folks this country was once respected, if it continues in the same vein with this warmongering Administration and its killing/terrorist/spy machine, we will observe the errorision of more and more of our freedoms.

Isn't it easier to simply repent and embark on a change of course. Shucks, think of what we could save on the Military Budget alone!

Peace & Grace,

I've been in the "shack" at Yakima where most intercepts go, and overheard calls put on the speakers.

I personally think you're being naive about there not being a linkage. They are out to get you.

Why don't journalists ever ask the questions I really want answered?
1. What oversight has been put in place to assure that Karl Rove cannot look at the numbers Patrick Fitzgerald has been talking to?
2. What is the protocol if surveillance meant to catch terrorists discovers a non-terrorist crime? For instance, are NSA analysts told to notify local officials if they intercept an international call that says a truckload of cocaine is headed to the Mexican border? If the answer is yes, what are they told to do about a kid in Wisconsin who calls Canada, where pot has been decriminalized, to set up a trip to bring a couple of joints back across the border? If the answer is nothing, then tell us what is the NSA criteria for non-terrorist reporting on citizens?
3. Why doesn't anyone ever refute the silly argument that "If you're not doing anything wrong, there is no reason to be concerned who is listening in?" (And why don't the people making it apply that logic to Dick Cheney's energy policy meeting?)
The problem is the government is the one deciding unilaterally what is "wrong". If a nervous terrorist trying to alert six others to launch a hijacking calls five and a wrong number - yours - don't you want some judge somewhere saying "Wait a minute, is this phone call all the probable cause you have to arrest this person you say was meant to be the seventh hijacker?". We need that oversight protection, slight though it is, more than ever now that the Patriot Act allows the government to "disapear" you - yes, YOU, even though you never did anything "wrong"?

Good analysis William.

It concurs with my own at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

The whole "NSA has been secretly collecting domestic telephone call records in cooperation with the phone companies." was already in the public domain in James Rison's "State of War" Chapter 2,pages 39 to 60, published several months ago (what January 2006?).

Readers should consult it and see how unoriginal USA Today's repackaged "scoop" is.

I'd venture that USA Today was waiting for Bush to appear weak and vulnerable before it released this old story.

No doubt well get a copycat controversy here in Australia - that'd be interesting to moi.

Pete
(from Australia)

I don't know about you Bill, but I tend to believe that a Constitutional principle can be likened to a woman's virtue. Once that virtue has been violated, she is never looked at in quite the same way.

America has been that woman of virtue. Not anymore. What Bush has done amounts to the same sort of violation that a woman of virtue suffers at the hands of a callous, insensitive brute for whom rape is an expression not of sexual gratification but of the brute application of raw power.

Spare me all of the legalistic mumbo jumbo about why it is sometimes necessary to expend a principle (like liberty) on the altar of security. Like the violated woman of virtue, once that callous act is consummated, America is never quite seen in the same light as before.

Arkin hypothesised:
"Our government, I conclude, is not up to no good, that is, any more than it is up to no bad."

And how can you be sure without any oversight? That is the real question isn't it? Not whether your buddies in the spook industry know what is going on or not, but whether there is any oversight by the courts or congress.

I'll give you an example of what I am talking about. You are a journalist and as such are probably required by your company not to present the appearance of a conflict of interest, such as going to parties thrown by the people you report on or taking gifts from them. Most people who work in a job know about these "ethics rules" and usually sign a paper saying they will not do things that even present the appearance of a conflict of interest. When you sign your ehtics documents you are not being accused of creating a conflict of interest nor is it assumed you will. It is a contract essentially between you and your employer that you will not violate the ethics agreement.

Similarly, the US Constitution provides ethics guarantees in the form of oversight. The Congress is required to oversee programs administered by the executive branch. It does not mean the executive is bad or will abuse its powers, but is a guarantee that the government will not abuse its power without Congress knowing it. Like an ethics rule, it is an assurance against not only wrong doing, but the perception that wrong doing may be going on.

So here we are today without oversight and you are trying to tell us nothing is going on. I do not believe that statement nor statements that something IS going on. The problem here is not whether any wrong doing has or has not occurred. the problem is there is no oversight. Without oversight people can think what they want. If there were oversight everyone could stop hypothesizing. Bush's reluctance to any oversight is the problem here.

Mr. Arkin,

Bull!

Unless you're an employee of the NSA how do you know what they are doing with the data collected?

You don't and to say otherwise is false.

We now find out the government uses National Security Letters forcing phone companies to cough up an individual's telephone records. The letters are "legal" and bind the phone company to not reveal to the customer that their records have been handed over to the FBI.

Another interesting comment is this tracking has suddenly become easier. Could it be easier because the NSA is assisting the FBI in tracking down leaks?

All these programs have the potential for abuse which is why Congress needs to be providing the oversight. There is too much risk of the data being misused by the executive branch to punish political opponents.

You need to eat crow for this one.

What you should be doing is using your blog as a forum to advocate inclusion of these programs under the FISA, to demand Congress and the judiciary provide oversight, and to insist the program managers provide them quantifiable results so we know if we're spending tax dollars wisely and catching or killing terrorists.

To date I have seen no oversight, no results, and a growing list of suspected abuse.

Shame on you Mr. Arkin for losing your moral compass!

Mr. Bush and his policies:

Mr. Bush and his crusaders have proved over and over again by their behaviors and actions, since coming into office, that they neither understand nor have any respect for foreign national sovereignty, the United Nations, our allies, borders (America's, Iraq's, China,'s, Russia's or anyone else's), the rule of Law or the American citizen's right to privacy.

Similar to when Ronald Reagan left office, when George Bush leaves office, some will be wealthier, however, someone else will eventually have to come in and clean up the mess; in this case, not just by paying off the remaining staggering debt, rather she or he will have to rectify the division and polarization of America's people; the destabliization and undermining of this nation's principles of order and law, and the nation's inherited disregard for American citizen's and foreign citizens divine rights. The damage will be insurmountable I believe!

And what are his policy goals you ask? As far as I can see they are similar to those of the Cabel Guy. Mr. Bush simply, without any forethought or foreward thinking, simply wants to GET HER (his ideas) DONE, no matter what it might cost!

AMERICAN voters, you are responsible for this, for as a famous American boxer once said, not just anyone can be PRESIDENT!

Peace & Grace,

Program "two," the call tracking program. I don't know how to evaluate Mr. Arkin's claim that call tracking doesn't require a warrant.

It sure would be nice to have a long, open debate about it. What are the chances that we're going to have that?

And "there is no enemies list." I wonder if Valerie Plame would agree with that assessment.

For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html

FBI Acknowledges: Journalists Phone Records are Fair Game

May 15, 2006 7:18 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."

"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.

But FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

I think it is imperative to note that the term spying may be a little unfair. Surveillance is the eyes of the people making observations about what is going on around them. To our knowledge there is not a great amount of anything more than security cameras in businesses etc...Thank goodness for observant people; however, many are better off minding their own psychological business since people make assumptions about other people for being different.
Constance Leigh Bumgardner

Fascinating analysis and insight, though here's my unease even if what you say is 100% true about current surveillance programs: couldn't these programs be easily converted into an "enemies list" type of program if wanted? Building this capability by the govt. is what is alarming, even if currently there is no abuse. Besides, I'm not convinced that the administration's 4th Amendment arguments hold water here... given the distinction between this use of call information and the use of call information in the underlying Supreme Ct. case.......... The Constitution still has some relevance post-9/11, doesn't it?

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

When is a "scoop" not a "scoop?" ABC News, in an "exclusive" today, is reporting that U.S. intelligence agencies, including the NSA and CIA, have been conducting surveillance on the phone calls of journalists, specifically those working for ABC News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. WMR reported this surveillance in much greater detail last year.

The following is WMR's three articles on the subject of spying by the Bush administration on journalists:

May 10, 2005 -- The inquisition side of NSA is the one that Hayden and his advisers do not want the public to see. In fact, NSA maintains a database that tracks unofficial and negative articles written about the agency. Code named "FIRSTFRUITS," the database is operated by the Denial and Deception (D&D) unit within SID. High priority is given to articles written as a result of possible leaks from cleared personnel.

According to those familiar with FIRSTFRUITS, Bill Gertz of The Washington Times features prominently in the database. Before Hayden's reign and during the Clinton administration, Gertz was often leaked classified documents by anti-Clinton intelligence officials in an attempt to demonstrate that collusion between the administration and China was hurting U.S. national security. NSA, perhaps legitimately, was concerned that China could actually benefit from such disclosures.

In order that the database did not violate United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18, which specifies that the names of "U.S. persons" are to be deleted through a process known as minimization, the names of subject journalists were blanked out. However, in a violation of USSID 18, certain high level users could unlock the database field through a super-user status and view the "phantom names" of the journalists in question. Some of the "source" information in FIRSTFRUITS was classified--an indication that some of the articles in database were not obtained through open source means. In fact, NSA insiders report that the communications monitoring tasking system known as ECHELON is being used more frequently for purely political eavesdropping having nothing to do with national security or counter terrorism.

In addition, outside agencies and a "second party," Great Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), are permitted to access the journalist database. FIRSTFRUITS was originally developed by the CIA but given to NSA to operate with CIA funding. The database soon grew to capacity, was converted from a Lotus Notes to an Oracle system, and NSA took over complete ownership of the system from the CIA.

Tens of thousands of articles are found in FIRSTFRUITS and part of the upkeep of the system has been outsourced to outside contractors such as Booz Allen, which periodically hosts inter-agency Foreign Denial and Deception meetings within its Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or "SCIF" in Tyson's Corner, Virginia. Currently, in addition to NSA and GCHQ, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) routinely access the database, which is in essence a classified and more powerful version of the commercial NEXIS news search database.

In addition to Gertz, other journalists who feature prominently in the database include Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker; author and journalist James Bamford, James Risen of The New York Times, Vernon Loeb of The Washington Post, John C. K. Daly of UPI, and this journalist.

NSA abhors negative publicity. Anytime the agency is the subject of unwanted media attention, Hayden sends out an email known as an "All Agency." The memo reiterates NSA's long standing "neither confirm nor deny" policy regarding certain news reports:

"NSA personnel must refrain from either confirming or denying any information concerning the agency or its activities which may appear in the public media. If you are asked about the activities of NSA, the best response is "no comment." You should the notify Q43 {Public Affairs] of the attempted inquiry. For the most part, public references to NSA are based upon educated guesses. The agency does not normally make a practice of issuing public statements about its activities."

***

December 28, 2005 -- BREAKING NEWS. NSA spied on its own employees, other U.S. intelligence personnel, and their journalist and congressional contacts. WMR has learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices.

The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC). Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden.

Firstfruits was a database that contained both the articles and the transcripts of telephone and other communications of particular Washington journalists known to report on sensitive U.S. intelligence activities, particularly those involving NSA. According to NSA sources, the targeted journalists included author James Bamford, the New York Times' James Risen, the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, UPI's John C. K. Daly, and this editor [Wayne Madsen], who has written about NSA for The Village Voice, CAQ, Intelligence Online, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

In addition, beginning in 2001 but before the 9-11 attacks, NSA began to target anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a "disgruntled employee." According to NSA sources, this surveillance was a violation of United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The surveillance of U.S. intelligence personnel by other intelligence personnel in the United States and abroad was conducted without any warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The targeted U.S. intelligence agency personnel included those who made contact with members of the media, including the journalists targeted by Firstfruits, as well as members of Congress, Inspectors General, and other oversight agencies. Those discovered to have spoken to journalists and oversight personnel were subjected to sudden clearance revocation and termination as "security risks."

In 2001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rejected a number of FISA wiretap applications from Michael Resnick, the FBI supervisor in charge of counter-terrorism surveillance. The court said that some 75 warrant requests from the FBI were erroneous and that the FBI, under Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller, had misled the court and misused the FISA law on dozens of occasions. In a May 17, 2002 opinion, the presiding FISA Judge, Royce C. Lamberth (a Texan appointed by Ronald Reagan), barred Resnick from ever appearing before the court again. The ruling, released by Lamberth's successor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelley, stated in extremely strong terms, "In virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors . . . How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court."

After the Justice Department appealed the FISC decision, the FISA Review court met for the first time in its history. The three-member review court, composed of Ralph Guy of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Edward Leavy of the 9th Circuit, and Laurence Silberman [of the Robb-Silberman Commission on 911 "intelligence failures"] of the D.C. Circuit, overturned the FISC decision on the Bush administration's wiretap requests.

Based on recent disclosures that the Bush administration has been using the NSA to conduct illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, it is now becoming apparent what vexed the FISC to the point that it rejected, in an unprecedented manner, numerous wiretap requests and sanctioned Resnick.

***

December 30, 2005 -- More on Firstfruits. The organization partly involved in directing the National Security Agency program to collect intelligence on journalists -- Firstfruits -- is the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC), a component of the National Intelligence Council. The last reported chairman of the inter-intelligence agency group was Dr. Larry Gershwin, the CIA's adviser on science and technology matters, a former national intelligence officer for strategic programs, and one of the primary promoters of the Iraqi disinformation con man and alcoholic who was code named "Curveball." Gershwin was also in charge of the biological weapons portfolio at the National Intelligence Council where he worked closely with John Bolton and the CIA's Alan Foley -- director of the CIA's Office of Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) -- and Frederick Fleitz -- who Foley sent from WINPAC to work in Bolton's State Department office -- in helping to cook Iraqi WMD "intelligence" on behalf of Vice President Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby. In addition to surveilling journalists who were writing about operations at NSA, Firstfruits particularly targeted State Department and CIA insiders who were leaking information about the "cooking" of pre-war WMD intelligence to particular journalists, including those at the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS 60 Minutes.

The vice chairman of the FDDC, James B. Bruce, wrote an article in Studies in Intelligence in 2003, "This committee represents an inter­agency effort to understand how foreign adversaries learn about, then try to defeat, our secret intelligence collection activities." In a speech to the Institute of World Politics, Bruce, a CIA veteran was also quoted as saying, "We've got to do whatever it takes -- if it takes sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes -- to stop these leaks." He also urged, "stiff new penalties to crack down on leaks, including prosecutions of journalists that publish classified information." The FDDC appears to be a follow-on to the old Director of Central Intelligence's Unauthorized Disclosure Analysis Center (UDAC).

Meanwhile, WMR's disclosures about Firstfruits have set off a crisis in the intelligence community and in various media outlets. Journalists who have contacted WMR since the revelation of the Firstfruits story are fearful that their conversations and e-mail with various intelligence sources have been totally compromised and that they have been placed under surveillance that includes the use of physical tails. Intelligence sources who are current and former intelligence agency employees also report that they suspect their communications with journalists and other parties have been surveilled by technical means.

***

January 13, 2006 -- The name has been changed to protect the guilty. The National Security Agency's (NSA) illegal database code-named Firstfruits, which contains transcripts of the communications of and articles written by U.S. journalists about NSA has undergone a name change. Inside sources report that because of the "compromise" of the system, the name of the database has been changed from Firstfruits. However, the database continues to be maintained under a new cover term.