Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jim Oberg wrote:

Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html





This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.


I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.

I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
payback. loks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
is going to leak it. And after the next election the dems just
might control the House, and then impeachment becomes
a real possibility if any of these surveillance programs did
in fact break the law.






Pat

jonathan wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.

I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
payback. loks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
people who are trying to kill or convert us.

If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
is going to leak it.

There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
the Constitution.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: jonathan wrote:

: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
: rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
: explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
: surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
: his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
: at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
:
: I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
: this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
: payback. loks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
: bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
: Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
: complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
: in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

: Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
: Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
: of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
: people who are trying to kill or convert us.

Rand, you understand that the White House and the CIA are both part of the
Executive Branch of the government, right? Your description above sounds
much more like the post Eisenhower White House that Kennedy inherited vs.
the CIA of that era rather than what exists today. Sure pockets of people
not going along with the neocon agenda of war for profit undoubtedly exist
in the CIA (thank God for that!). But to claim an actual wedge exists
between the Bush White House and the current CIA ignores that fact that
since Ford administration the neocons have had a chance to shape the CIA
in the image they wanted save 8 years during Clinton. Perhaps that little
faction is making a stand? (As well they should!)

: If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
: is going to leak it.

: There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
: the Constitution.

Yet. We'll have to wait and see what becomes of the Libby and Abramoff
indictments.

Do you always take the Mossad positions on everything political? C'mon say
something critical of Mossad, I dare you!

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: jonathan wrote:

: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
: rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
: explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
: surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
: his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
: at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
:
: I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
: this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
: payback. loks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
: bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
: Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
: complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
: in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

: Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
: Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
: of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
: people who are trying to kill or convert us.

Rand, you understand that the White House and the CIA are both part of the
Executive Branch of the government, right?

Yes.

Do you always take the Mossad positions on everything political?

No. Do you always have to ask stupid questions that are irrelevant to
the subject at hand?

In article ,
says...
There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
the Constitution.

Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
: the Constitution.
:
:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.

And just what is being 'searched'?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.

And just what is being 'searched'?

Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
of the FISA rules for national security searches.

I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
before you can collect on them. That means you can't just trawl through
a database of call records looking for interesting connections. If they
were asking for people who connected with specific known terrorist
numbers, that would probably pass the test. Non-specific record checks
are fishing expeditions, which do not pass the 5240.1 standards for
collection.

--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Thomas Schoene wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kevin Willoughby wrote:
:
: :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
: And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you.

Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
not the only form of rights involved.

WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater. It's quite legal for your
employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
subject to the same rules.)

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
while the net is still largely in legal no-man's-land. While it might
seem reasonable that analogous rules should apply, that is not yet an
established legal principle. And if and when it becomes one, the result
is likely to be more privacy for the net, not less privacy for phones.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kevin Willoughby wrote:
:
: :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
: And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites?


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the intelligence
agencies from conducting any electronic surveillance of US persons
without a warrant if domestic law enforcement would be obliged to seek a
warrant for the same type of surveillance.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
police to use pen registers without warrants.

Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

What marketers can get access to is irrelevant. The government is held
to higher standards in many ways, because it has greater powers. All a
marketer can do is annoy me or potentially rob me; the government can
arrest me (or in this era hold me without charge).

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

It isn't. But that's not disclosable without a warrant either.


--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"