Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[Judge Smails]

The Pentagon is evidently spying on US citizens.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/


WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

Hey Dawn----Are these Quakers known AQ terrorists?

 

[Mom2be]

Again Amanda, There is no evidence that Plame was ever undercover and she certainly wasn't undercover for the last six years she worked at the CIA. Victoria Tensing, who helped to write the law said that no law was broken. Perhaps its against the law to "out" a janitor who sweeps the floor at the CIA. Give me a break. Someone leaked one of our most secret secrets and they should be in jail. In fact, President Bush said that during the 1990's we were able to track Osama Bin Laden by the type of phone he used but now someone has leaked that type of phone and now we have lost him. How much has this leak helped our enemy and hurt our national security. Perhaps you should be more concerned about that than the COVER GIRL on Vanity Faire and her loser husband.

It is so interesting to me that you automatically assume that I read Vanity Faire. Is this a personal insult to me that I'm not smart enough to discuss this issue and that I should be reading Vanity Faire and Cosmo instead? Because the last time I checked personal insults no matter how veiled are against the TOS of the DIS. Or maybe the rules don't apply to you just like they don't apply to our President.

Someone leaked that the President broke the law. And while YES it does concern me that someone is leaking information out of the White House it also concerns me that our President may have taken illegal action. Why would that not concern you? If there was sufficient evidence for these phone taps then why not take the legal course of obtaining the information? There is a process in place for this to happen, so why was it ignored? Please I beg of you and all your "insider" knowledge to please answer these two questions.

Secondly - just because I have a spelling problem (I am minorly dyslexic by the way but thanks for caring) doesn't mean that I am idiot. And all your insults do is show what a small minded little person you are.

~Amanda

 

[DawnCt1]

I am? Bush just admitted that there were no WMDs, didn't he? He also had intel indicating no Saddam/Osama connection, as well as indicating that Iraq was not actively pursuing the purchase of uranium. I didn't make that up.

Then you must have missed the part in the Dulfer Report, and the president's comments on it, that Saddam was intent on pursuing WMDs and would have resumed the program, as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Because we haven't found WMD's doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Many believe that they exist in Syria. We certainly know that he had them. Again, the Brits stand by their report on yellow cake.

 

[Chuck S]

There is no evidence that Plame was ever undercover...

If she was NOT undercover, why hasn't the CIA denied it...they answer to the administration, who is taking the heat for "outing" her. Surely the head of the CIA would have access to the records, and could comment that she was NOT undercover...even if they chose not to disclose anything else about her employment. Obviously she was a CIA employee, which is now public knowledge, so it wouldn't be breaking any "classified secrets" to disclose that she wasn't undercover.

 

[Mom2be]

I think this has been said but I am going to repeat it just because I feel like it.....

It amazes me that the same people who were sqawking about the Bush Administration NOT connecting the dots before 9/11 are now the same people complaining because THIS administration is being proactive about the global war on terror instead of being reactive to attacks against our country like the last administration was.

France and England would be speaking german today if we had the type of media during WWII that we currently have in this country.

Appeasement doesn't work.

Painting with a broad brush? I never ever blamed Bush and his administration for not connecting the dots priort to 9/11. In fact I voted for the SOB and never felt prouder of a President then I did when I watch him at Ground Zero with a mega phone in his hand. The PROBLEM is that I'm also not disillusioned into thinking the man is a God and can do no wrong.

~Amanda

 

[Judge Smails]

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.

You really believe that?



Did Bush have the same intelligence?
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on December 16, 2005, Printed on December 19, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/29687/
No jokes about the title of this post. It has nothing to do with Bush's intelligence, it has to do with intelligence intelligence -- though I know what you're thinking...

As the war began to look more and more quagmire-ish and the polls betrayed public opposition, members of congress began to make hay about having been deceived into voting to give Bush the power to go to war. They were told that there was evidence of this and that (you know this and that: this is WMD and that is Al Qaeda/Saddam operational ties) and that they ought to essentially trust the president.

Yes, we all could've told them that trusting this president was clearly a mistake but...

Bush's retort was that they all had access to the same intelligence, therefore they were deceived into nothing. Case closed. Except. Except Dianne Feinstein (D-deceived), according to Josh Marshall, "asked the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to look into the matter and report back whether or not what the president said is true."

"They reported back today. The verdict: not true."

Here's the opening (emphasis mine):

"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress."

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.

The entire document can be found here:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

Happy reading!

 

[Judge Smails]

Just when we though the quality of debate could not descend any lower

 

[dcentity2000]

• UN: won the Nobel prize for peace
• Bush: fail.



Rich::

 

[Chuck S]

Then you must have missed the part in the Dulfer Report, and the president's comments on it, that Saddam was intent on pursuing WMDs and would have resumed the program, as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

I don't think the sanctions we going to be lifted anytime soon, do you? I mean, by reading that, all the President and the UN had to do was NOT lift the sanctions, huh? A lot cheaper and safer than a "war on terror."

Because we haven't found WMD's doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

They may have existed at one time, but the UN inspectors were convinced they were destroyed, we certainly haven't found any evidence to the contrary, every thing we've found indicated Saddam's weapons program was dismantled, just as the inspectors said.

Many believe that they exist in Syria. We certainly know that he had them. Again, the Brits stand by their report on yellow cake.

Then why aren't we invading Syria instead of Iraq, if our gov't truly believes, and has hard evidence, that they have WMDs?

 

[Judge Smails]

It is so interesting to me that you automatically assume that I read Vanity Faire. Is this a personal insult to me that I'm not smart enough to discuss this issue and that I should be reading Vanity Faire and Cosmo instead? Because the last time I checked personal insults no matter how veiled are against the TOS of the DIS. Or maybe the rules don't apply to you just like they don't apply to our President.

Someone leaked that the President broke the law. And while YES it does concern me that someone is leaking information out of the White House it also concerns me that our President may have taken illegal action. Why would that not concern you? If there was sufficient evidence for these phone taps then why not take the legal course of obtaining the information? There is a process in place for this to happen, so why was it ignored? Please I beg of you and all your "insider" knowledge to please answer these two questions.

Secondly - just because I have a spelling problem (I am minorly dyslexic by the way but thanks for caring) doesn't mean that I am idiot. And all your insults do is show what a small minded little person you are.

~Amanda

Good job.

I'd also add that Bush took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Looks like the 4th Amendment doesn't count. The Bushies don't get it. It doesn't matter what "W"'s reasons are for spying. IT DOESN'T MATTER. He could be spying to get the secret recipe for KFC. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The president is not a dictator. He is accountable to the Judicary regarding this. There has to be checks and balances. He cannot assume to be above the law. By doing this and continuing to do this, he is in violation of the Constitution. With America caught up in this mess, now is the time to show the world the way a Democracy is meant to work, instead Bush has dragged us into the mud. We had the chance to stand tall..now we've stooped to their level.

Good job republicans! You have all the power yet you continue to blame the Dem.s.

 

[dcentity2000]

"These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. The first line of defense... should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration."

"I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added [Saddam] "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States."

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up [contained], at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation [9/11]?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No."

Rich::

 

[LadyDay]

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.

Other than what Bush told you, you have no idea who those calls were to, who made them, where they made them, etc.

Stop pretending otherwise.

 

[M:SteveO]

Other than what Bush told you, you have no idea who those calls were to, who made them, where they made them, etc.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Well, Bush told me that he was free tonight and was gonna wiretap your phone calls because he had nothing better to do. Geesh. Unless your talking to al-Qaeda, I don't think you should be too worried.

 

[JCJRSmith]

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.

You mean like giving out the identity of CIA operatives to the press?

 

[AMcaptured]

I think the funny part of this is that anyone actually thinks anyone is listening to all this "spying" supposedly going on.

It's also funny so many of you think that George Bush himself is listening to every conversation you have with your mothers.

 

[Laura]

I think the funny part of this is that anyone actually thinks anyone is listening to all this "spying" supposedly going on.

It's also funny so many of you think that George Bush himself is listening to every conversation you have with your mothers.

You don't think anyone is listening? And of course this wiretapping isn't widespread. But just because it isn't widespread doesn't mean it is right. Or legal.

 

[Mom2be]

I think the funny part of this is that anyone actually thinks anyone is listening to all this "spying" supposedly going on.

It's also funny so many of you think that George Bush himself is listening to every conversation you have with your mothers.

Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean it isn't important to care about. We really do live in a ME society today don't we? There is a legal way to tap phones, no one has yet to give a reason why this was not pursued through legal channels.

~Amanda

 

[Mom2be]

Well, Bush told me that he was free tonight and was gonna wiretap your phone calls because he had nothing better to do. Geesh. Unless your talking to al-Qaeda, I don't think you should be too worried.

Using that same reasoning the administration should not only allow but encourage a bi-partisan investigation into these allegations. After all if they done nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide.

~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean it isn't important to care about. We really do live in a ME society today don't we? There is a legal way to tap phones, no one has yet to give a reason why this was not pursued through legal channels.

~Amanda

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945. You've quoted this before Amanda!

 

[DawnCt1]

It is so interesting to me that you automatically assume that I read Vanity Faire. Is this a personal insult to me that I'm not smart enough to discuss this issue and that I should be reading Vanity Faire and Cosmo instead? Because the last time I checked personal insults no matter how veiled are against the TOS of the DIS. Or maybe the rules don't apply to you just like they don't apply to our President.

Someone leaked that the President broke the law. And while YES it does concern me that someone is leaking information out of the White House it also concerns me that our President may have taken illegal action. Why would that not concern you? If there was sufficient evidence for these phone taps then why not take the legal course of obtaining the information? There is a process in place for this to happen, so why was it ignored? Please I beg of you and all your "insider" knowledge to please answer these two questions.

Secondly - just because I have a spelling problem (I am minorly dyslexic by the way but thanks for caring) doesn't mean that I am idiot. And all your insults do is show what a small minded little person you are.

~Amanda

What insults?? Valerie Plame got her 15 minutes of fame on the cover of Vanity Faire with a scarf and dark glasses. The Vanity Faire comment was NOT directed towards you but at Plame who couldn't give up her 15 minutes of dubious fame. Why doesn't the surveillance of known persons with direct links to Al Qaeda, who happen to be receiving foreign phone calls concern me?? Because I happen to think that is what we should be doing to protect our country. I am glad our president sees it that way too. The "process" was "ignored" because it was a top secret operation that didn't have to involve the courts. The Attorney General and the NSA attorneys confirm that.