Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[DawnCt1]

President Bush is taking a lot of heat for spying on spies; people with direct ties to Al Qaeda. However that doesn't begin to compare to spying on ordinary,random citizens, with the NSA tool Echalon that was authorized for use under the Clinton Administration. Here is a link to the CBS 60 Minutes, an interview with Steve Kroft. Even Strom Thurmon was recorded.

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

 

[JCJRSmith]

Your link leads to a 404 - Page cannot be displayed error

 

[Chuck S]

If I read the transcript correctly, the Clinton administration did not have Americans spying on Americans from bases in the US, it was a result of co-operation between other countries surveillance and sharing it with the US. A subtle, yet legally significant difference. Echelon was/is an international monitoring organization.

 

[Puffy2]

I'm amazed how the shurb supporters continually try to justify behavior that reaks of corruption - the lies, the secrecy, the coverups, the torture, the propaganda. I guess there will always be supporters of such tactics in all societies.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm amazed how the shurb supporters continually try to justify behavior that reaks of corruption - the lies, the secrecy, the coverups, the torture, the propaganda. I guess there will always be supporters of such tactics in all societies.

MOre significantly, I will guess that there will always be those that do not understand the depth and lengths that this enemy will go. They won't even like you, although you seem to be their staunchest defender at the expense of the President.

 

[DawnCt1]

If I read the transcript correctly, the Clinton administration did not have Americans spying on Americans from bases in the US, it was a result of co-operation between other countries surveillance and sharing it with the US. A subtle, yet legally significant difference. Echelon was/is an international monitoring organization.

And was NOT the NSA investigating Americans with direct links to Al Qaeda monitoring contacts from those with links INSIDE the country to those OUTSIDE of the Country. ???? The investigation that needs to take place is the one who determines the leak to the NYT. That is treasonous.

 

[Puffy2]

MOre significantly, I will guess that there will always be those that do not understand the depth and lengths that this enemy will go. They won't even like you, although you seem to be their staunchest defender at the expense of the President.

Not only do you buy in to the propaganda - wow, you produce it too! Just because we reject the secret wiretappings of AMERICAN citizens we obviously must support the terrorists! Spoken like a true fascist.

 

[LadyDay]

And was NOT the NSA investigating Americans with direct links to Al Qaeda monitoring contacts from those with links INSIDE the country to those OUTSIDE of the Country. ????

Since you seem to know so much, you tell us. And then you can tell us how you know so much.

Here's the truth: You have no idea whether or not that's true.

So stop acting like an authority when the truth is, you're just a blind Bush supporter who'll buy any story simply because Bush was the one who told that story.

The investigation that needs to take place is the one who determines the leak to the NYT. That is treasonous.

The investigation that needs to take place is why Bush did not see the need to seek a warrant even when he had 72 hours after starting the surveillance to do so and the law was damned clear that he needed to do so.

 

[Chuck S]

And was NOT the NSA investigating Americans with direct links to Al Qaeda monitoring contacts from those with links INSIDE the country to those OUTSIDE of the Country. ???? The investigation that needs to take place is the one who determines the leak to the NYT. That is treasonous.

Again, the President ordered the NSA to tap phones of Americans without going through a judicial system that was already in place to handle this type of situation, circumventing his limititations under the Constitution.

Clinton did not order the NSA to tap phone lines of Americans without obtaining warrants.

There is a big difference. No one is saying the wire taps are a BAD thing, they are saying it could AND SHOULD have been done legally, or do you think a President is above the law? There is even a provision to allow the president to order these taps on an emergency basis, as long as he receives approval from the court within 72 hours of his order...can you please explain why Bush saw no need to follow the law?

 

[jodifla]

And was NOT the NSA investigating Americans with direct links to Al Qaeda monitoring contacts from those with links INSIDE the country to those OUTSIDE of the Country. ???? The investigation that needs to take place is the one who determines the leak to the NYT. That is treasonous.

A traitor? He/she's a patriot, to my mind.

 

[DawnCt1]

Since you seem to know so much, you tell us. And then you can tell us how you know so much.

Here's the truth: You have no idea whether or not that's true.

So stop acting like an authority when the truth is, you're just a blind Bush supporter who'll buy any story simply because Bush was the one who told that story.



The investigation that needs to take place is why Bush did not see the need to seek a warrant even when he had 72 hours after starting the surveillance to do so and the law was damned clear that he needed to do so.

Because under FISA/ 1978 there was nothing illegal about the activity. I will bet you were among the first to whine and complain that our intelligence agencies didn't "connect the dots" prior to 9/11. This is how the dots are connected., It sounds to me that you are just a blind Bush hater who will buy any story simply because it was in the NYT.

 

[DawnCt1]

Clinton did not order the NSA to tap phone lines of Americans without obtaining warrants.

?

That doesn't seem to be true Chuck. And oh, BTW, were you equally as exercized about the 900 plus FBI files in the White House??

 

[GoldenGate]

Spoken like a true fascist.

You mean "Bushevik"

 

[DawnCt1]

A traitor? He/she's a patriot, to my mind.

A patriot does not reveal a country's secrets during war time to the enemy. It is called treason and during WWII, one would have been charged with treason and imprisoned. The information gathered was of tremendous value in the war on terror. It may have even saved your life.

 

[eclectics]

MOre significantly, I will guess that there will always be those that do not understand the depth and lengths that this enemy will go. They won't even like you, although you seem to be their staunchest defender at the expense of the President.

Hey Puffy2 when did you join Al Qaeda? I had no idea.



Come on Dawn, you can't keep accusing people of being a terrorist supporter just because they disagree with the war.

 

[DawnCt1]

Hey Puffy2 when did you join Al Qaeda? I had no idea.



Come on Dawn, you can't keep accusing people of being a terrorist supporter just because they disagree with the war.

What war is that? The war on terror? How does one disagree with a war on terror? You may disagree with the battle front of Iraq but this isn't just about Iraq it is about protecting the homeland and subverting terrorism. How does one begin to disagree with that??

 

[eclectics]

What war is that? The war on terror? How does one disagree with a war on terror? You may disagree with the battle front of Iraq but this isn't just about Iraq it is about protecting the homeland and subverting terrorism. How does one begin to disagree with that??

You know exactly what I mean and you can play with semantics all you want. One can disagree with the wisdom of the "battlefields" that are chosen and still support the war.

 

[M:SteveO]

You know exactly what I mean and you can play with semantics all you want. One can disagree with the wisdom of the "battlefields" that are chosen and still support the war.

Yes, but one has no credibility when they start calling this president Hitler, a fascist, etc. You (Puffy) may disagree, but there is no way that this country or this president is fascist. The fact that you liberals get so incensed about the selective and limited spying on people in this country making international phone calls to known terrorists just shows your true colors. You don't really think we're at war with these people.

 

[Chuck S]

That doesn't seem to be true Chuck. And oh, BTW, were you equally as exercized about the 900 plus FBI files in the White House??

Again, Dawn, according to the 60 minutes story you refered to, the interceptions of American communications were done by intelligence agencies OUTSIDE the US, most notably Canada and the UK.

How many times can a man lie (WMDs, Saddam/Osama link, Iraq trying to buy uranium...the list goes on and on) to justify a war before he actually stops fooling some people. Maybe it is true, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Of course, thank God Bush hasn't had a mistress like Clinton. All poor George has done is invade a soveriegn country, topple a regime, and get people killed all based on bad intelligence. If he'd had a mistress he'd have been impeached by now.

 

[M:SteveO]

How many times can a man lie (WMDs, Saddam/Osama link, Iraq trying to buy uranium...the list goes on and on) to justify a war before he actually stops fooling some people. Maybe it is true, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Of course, thank God Bush hasn't had a mistress like Clinton. All poor George has done is invade a soveriegn country, topple a regime, and get people killed all based on bad intelligence. If he'd had a mistress he'd have been impeached by now.

So then I guess John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, the United Nations, France, Britain, etc., etc., etc., all lied too. All poor George is doing is trying to protect his country. God, I hate presidents who try to do that. Clinton was trying to protect his country in the same way using the Echelon program and by using spy satellites on white supremist groups after the OK State Bombing.