Big Brother Bush is Watching EVERYONE (Who, Me?)

According to CNet and Emigrantas, "some disturbing information about the NSA’s data collection techniques was revealed at last Friday’s

“Search & Seizure in the Digital Age”

symposium at Stanford. Paul Ohm, a former employee of the Justice Department who worked in their Computer Crime and Intellectual Property division, explained how data-gathering has changed since the federal government abandoned it’s Carnivore program a few years ago."

In addition to phone taps of anyone who is suspected of opposing the war (70% of the country), is apparently fair prey, once they have been listening for a while, if their voice recognition devices hear key terms like, 'bomb' or 'revolution' or even 'I oppose the war in Iraq', they kick in this Carnivore program.

"While Carnivore was set up to only collect data which matched certain filters, the full pipe technique (aka “the vacuum cleaner method”) is highly invasive and puts our privacy rights at risk," Emigrantas continues.

“What they’re doing is even worse than Carnivore,” said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who attended the Stanford event. “What they’re doing is intercepting everyone and then choosing their targets.”

They claim to be using this for our protection but once information is collected, who is to say it can't be used for other purposes? They use it to protect their political power, not our way of life. They are raping us and we say it's okay long as the reason is to protect us from rape.

Of course, they are and have been. The most disturbing part is that a large part of it is without proper and legal authorization from either the judicial or legislative branches. In fact, they still claim, via President Bush, that their work does not break the law. But has anyone actually read FISA? By now, this should be common knowledge, but I can't find one person in conversation who is aware of the simple details and clear stated consequences of breaking this "well-known law" Here, I will save you the trouble of looking for it.

According to Wikipedia:

Scope and limits

For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).

The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.^[5]

Provisions

Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information ^[5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) ^[6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.^[7]

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court^[8], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. ^[9]

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. ^[10] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties ^[11] and civil liabilities. ^[12]

With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.^[13] Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons^[14].

Physical Searches

In addition to electronic surveillance, FISA permits the "physical search" of the "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power.

The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.

FISA court

Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal police agencies (primarily the F.B.I.) against suspected foreign intelligence agents inside the U.S. The court is located within the Department of Justice headquarters building. The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve seven year terms.

Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.

Main article: United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review

Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The Court of Review is a three judge panel. Since its creation, the court has only come into session once in 2002.

Remedies for violations

Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.^[11]

In addition, the statute creates a cause of action for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual damages of not less than $1,000 or $100 per day. In addition, that statute authorizes punitive damages and an award of attorney's fees.^[12]

Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches.

In both cases, the statute creates an affirmative defense for a law enforcement agent acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

Lone wolf amendment

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. §1801(b)(1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.^[15]

Now that we see this clear and short law:

What part of this is difficult to understand? And why would anyone find it acceptable to give up the very things we are fighting for, in order to more successful oppose those who want to destroy our freedoms?

The big question is, who is worse for our "American" way of life the people that are already here and doing everything they can to destroy our freedoms from within, or those who just want us to get the hell out?

They say if you put a frog into a pot of water and slowly brink it to a boil, the frog will not jump out. Have we become the frogs?

I earlier reported on NSA and Co. hanging out on the web providing disinformation to shout down people on places where they find political dissent including Kos and Huffpo and every forum that you assume a sanctuary of free speech. At some point, your opposition will either cause you to go to jail for breaking unfair laws or your lack of opposition will cause you to turn America into one big jail!

Libby Trial Underway---Will The Truth Be Told?

Scooter's directive from whom?

Without the testimony we certainly have a sense of who was in charge when the decisions were made to intentionally out a CIA Agent, a felony, treason, a high crime; therefore an impeachable activity if aided, abetted or ordered by those in line for the Presidency of the US. The questions are:

1) Was it ordered? or Was it just an incredible breach of security as a result of arrogance of those lower down the food chain of the Bush/Cheney or Cheney/Bush regime? If the acts were independent, who made them think such acts would be tolerated by the administration or the US people?

2) If it was ordered, who ordered it? Rove, Cheney, Bush by proxy?

3) Regarding intent, is it even conceivable that government officials, during a time of war, thought this was okay? or Were they clearly attempting to destroy the career thus the ability of someone who they perceived to be outside of their political circle?

4) If Cheney knew, is it possible the man he so closely works with, Bush, didn't know? of Was it Bush didn't want to know so he could claim plausible deniability later?

5) And considering their excuse is, "Everybody already knew...", is that an excuse for furthering the gossip?

Do "Loose lips sink ships?" Yes, they do. Who knows whether or not, and if so, how many agents were killed in the Mideast as a result of their known connection to Valerie Plame? Are we just playing the "Plame game"? It appears as if someone will be blaming someone and the question remaining will be, "Who's going down?" Is someone going to take a bullet, become the scapegoat for an administration they know is dishonorable?

From the Los Angeles Times, A timeline that may prove useful to some, interesting to others, and annoying to the administration:


Leak case timeline

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is being tried on five counts related to the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name in 2003. Some important events in the case:

2003:

• Jan. 28: President Bush says in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Who is behind this?
The man behind the president?

• May 6: New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reports that a former ambassador, whom he does not name, had been sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium report. The column says the former envoy reported to the CIA and State Department well before Bush's speech that the uranium story was unequivocally wrong and was based on forged documents.

• May 29: Libby asks Marc Grossman, an undersecretary of State, for information about the ambassador's travel to Niger. Grossman later tells Libby that Joseph C. Wilson IV is the former ambassador.

Valerie Plame--retired at a ripe old age?

• June 11 or 12: Grossman tells Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that State Department personnel are saying Wilson's wife was involved in planning the trip. A senior CIA officer gives him similar information.

• June 12: Cheney advises Libby that Wilson's wife works at the CIA.

• June 14: Libby meets with a CIA briefer and discusses "Joe Wilson" and his wife, "Valerie Wilson."

• June 23: Libby meets with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. He tells Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

• July 6: The New York Times publishes an opinion piece by Wilson titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," and he appears on NBC's "Meet the Press." Wilson said he doubted Iraq had obtained uranium from Niger recently and thought Cheney's office was told of the results of his trip.

• July 7: Libby meets with then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Libby notes that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and that the information is not widely known.

• July 8: Libby meets with Miller again and tells her that he believes Wilson's wife works for the CIA.

• July 12: Libby speaks to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and confirms to him that he has heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip. Libby also speaks to Miller and discusses Wilson's wife and says that she works at the CIA.

• July 14: Syndicated columnist Robert Novak reports that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction and that two senior administration officials, whom Novak does not name, said she suggested sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium story.

• Sept. 26: A criminal investigation is authorized to determine who leaked Plame's identity to reporters. Disclosing the identity of CIA operatives is illegal.

• Oct. 14 and Nov. 26: Libby is interviewed by FBI agents.


Should Fitzgerald be afraid of telling us the king has no clothes?

• Dec. 30: U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago is named to head the leak investigation.

2004:

• January: A grand jury begins investigating possible violations of federal criminal laws.

• March 5 and March 24: Libby testifies before the grand jury.

2005:

• Oct. 28: Libby is indicted on five counts: obstruction of justice and two counts each of false statement and perjury.

2006:

• Sept. 7: Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage admits he leaked Plame's identity to Novak and to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Armitage says he did not realize Plame's job was covert. Woodward taped his June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage.

January 26, 2007--Cheney's key role in leak case detailed
A former aide testifies in Libby's trial that the vice president directed the effort to discredit a CIA agent's husband.
By Richard B. Schmitt, LA Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — In the first such account from Vice President Dick Cheney's inner circle, a former aide testified Thursday that Cheney personally directed the effort to discredit an administration critic by having calls made to reporters in 2003...

Complete Article

Let's keep watching! Don't ignore this or assume it's okay because, "anything a President does is okay---Executive privilege---The President is above the law." If he is, are you proud to be an American knowing America tolerates this? Where is our "moral high-ground"? Answer these questions and let me know. Let all of us know, as we need to know who has lost the very things upon which the honor and reputation of America was built.