TODAY EVEN THOUGH WE LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE ARE STILL MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL VERY GULLIBLE AND SUPERSTITIOUS. MANY PEOPLE WHO DONT BELIEVE IN THE MAKE BELIEVE JESUS WHO DIED FOR THE SCUM OF THE WORLD AND HE TOOK THE SIN OF THE WORLD ON HIS SHOULDERS SO THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM IS SAVED. THIS IS NOT ONLY ABSOLUTELY REDICULOUS BUT IT IS ALSO BLASPHEMOUS. MANY UNENLIGHTENED SHEEP LIKE TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT ARE NOT REALITY AND THIS IS WHY THEIR APOSTATE TEACHERS AND MASTERS LOVE THEM SO MUCH FOR THEY NOT ONLY CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BUT THEY CAN CONTROL MUCH OF THEIR SHEEP BY TELLING THEM ALL KINDS OF REDICULOUS NONSENSE SUCH AS IF YOU DONT BELIEVE IN CHRIST LIKE I DO YOU ARE NOT SAVED AND CONDEMNED TO HELLFIRE. I HAVE BEEN TO DIFFERENT CHURCHES AND MANY PEOPLE DONT EVEN KNOW THEIR NEIGHBOR AS THEY LISTEN TO A REINVENTED ADULTERATED AND WATERED DOWN BIBLE.
THE TRUTH IS HARD MEDICINE AND THE TRUTH CAN TRULY HURT UNTIL YOU BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO ITJUST LIKE A BLIND MAN LEARNS TO SEE AND BECOMES ACCUSTOMED TO THE LIGHT. CHRISTIANITY IS MOSTLY A WATERED DOWN JESUS CRUTCH AS THEY DEPENDTOO MUCH ON THEIR JESUS FIGURE.MOST WATERED DOWN LOVE CULT RELIGIONS ESPECIALLY CHRISTIANITY ARE SAVED JUST LIKE THE UNITED STATES IS A DEMOCRACY. THE MEDIA SCUM BAGS WILL TELL YOU THISBUT IPREFERTO CALLTHE UNITED STATES A BETTER SUITED NAME. IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY,IT IS APLUTOCRACY, WITH TRUTH AND LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL OR IS IT ALL THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT.
THERE ARE MANY VERY COMMON AND POPULAR CHRISTIAN FANTASIES THAT ARE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. ANY INTELLIGENT,LOGICAL,AND INTEGRATED PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO SEE RIGHT THROUGH THE MANY WATERED DOWN CHRISTIAN FAIRY TALES AND FANTASIES. AND THEY SAY THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD.
OFMCOURSE PEOPLE CAN SAY ANYTHING AND BELIEVE ANYTHING. “IF HE HITS YOU ON YOUR LFT FACE LET HIM HIT YOU ON YOUR RIGHT FACE AS WELL”, “FORGIVE YOUR ENEMY 77 TIMES”, “GET THE BEHIND ME SATAN”‘,- I DONT THINK JESUS EVER SAID THIS AND IF IT WAS SAID PROBABLY NOTHING MUCH WOULD HAPPEN. TRY SAYING THAT TO ANYONE INCLUDING YOUR ENEMY AND THEY WILL PROBABLY THINK YOU ARE CRAZY OR SOME MIGHT POSSIBLY EVEN ATTACK YOU IF THEY ARE A PSYCHOPATH. THE MANIPULATION OF HUMAN GUILT. IMMEDIATE OR INSTANT RELIEF FROM GUILT BY CONFESSING AND BELIEVING IN CHRIST SO YOUR SINS WILL BE WASHED AWAY FOREVER IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE IN EXCHANGE FOR POVERTY. “IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO GO THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN FOR A RICH MAN TO ENTER HEAVEN. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR BORN AGAIN PATRITOTIC MURDERING SOLDIERS THAT WORK FOR THESE EVIL PROPAGANDA ARTISTS AND BLOODSUCKERS.”BLESSED ARE THE POOR FOR THEIRS IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”, “DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS ,” OR “JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED,” IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH JUDGEING, WHEN YOU JUDGE INCORRECTLY I THINK THERE IS FOR AS YOU JUDGE YOU WILL BE JUDGED SO TRY TO JUDGE CORRECTLY AND REALISE THAT JUST AS MILLIONS OF PHONEY APOSTATE PREACHERS TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR LIKE MANY LOVE CULT RELIGIONS DO SHEEP NEVER QUESTION THEIR APOSTATE FALSE PROPHETSBECAUSE IF THESE FAKE PEOPLE WERE PUT TO THE TESTMANY WOULD BE OUT OF BUSINESS.WITHOUT THE DEVIL AND OTHER EXCUSES AND FANTASIES MANY OF THESE APOSTATES WOULD BE OUTOF BUSINESS. THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO FULLOF LOVE AND DEMOCRACY. EVER WONDER HOW MANY CROOKS, CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, CON ARTISTS AND PSYCHOPATHS LIVE IN AND ROAM TRAVEL AND PARASITICALLY FEASTOFF OF PEOPLES DREAMS AND FANTASIES JUST WITHIN THE UNITED STATES ALONE. MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALISE WHAT THEY THINKIS GOOD FOR GOD IS ACTUALLY BAD FOR GOD AND WHAT THEY THINK IS BAD FOR GOD IS ACTUALLY GOOD FOR GOD. IS IT ANY WONDER THAT MANY PEOPLEWHOBELONG TOLOVE CULTS DO NOT REALISE THEY ARE MISLED OR BEING MISLED
KNOW THE TRUTH FOR THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. PEOPLELOVE TOLISTEN TO PROPAGANDA. RUSH LIMBAUGH, THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA AND THE PHONEY CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING TALK SHOWS ARE ALLFULLOF THAT ALONG WITH THE PHONEY HATE MONGERING PREACHERS THAT ENDORSE THEIR TRASH. MORE ENLIGHTENMENT WILLBE POSTED LATER.
Bowing to the Police State
by Ray McGovern
Is Congress aiding and abetting the creation of a police state? Recentlythe chairman of the House Intelligence CommitteePete HoekstraR-Mich.helped to give the CIA and NSA unprecedented police powers. By inserting a provision in the FY07 Intelligence Authorization ActHoekstra has undermined the existing statutory limits on involvement in domestic law enforcement. This comes after revelations in January of direct NSA involvement with the Baltimore police in order to “protect” the NSA Headquarters from Quaker protesters.
Add to this the disquieting news that the White House has been barraging the CIA with totally improper questions about the political affiliation of some of its senior intelligence officersthe ever widening use of polygraph examinationsand the FBI’s admission that it acquires phone records of broadcast and print media to investigate leaks at the CIA. Ifor oneam reminded of my service in the police state of the USSRwhere there were no First or Fourth Amendments.
Like the proverbial frog in slowly boiling waterwe have become inured to what goes on in the name of national security. Recent disclosures about increased government surveillance and illegal activities would be shockingwere it not for the prevailing outrage-fatigue brought on by a long train of abuses. But the heads of the civiliandemocratically elected institutions that are supposed to be our bulwark against an encroaching police statethe ones who stand to lose their own power as well as their rights and the rights of all citizensaren’t interested in reining in the power of the intelligence establishment. To the contraryRep. Hoekstra and his counterpart in the SenatePat RobertsR-Kan.are running the risk of whiplash as they pivot to look the other way.
James Bamfordone of the best observers of the inner workings of U.S. intelligencewarned recently that Congress has lost control of the intelligence community. “You can’t get any oversight or checks and balances,” he said. “Congress is protecting the White Houseand the White House can do whatever it wants.”
Consider the following nuggets drawn from Sunday’s Washington Post article by R. Jeffrey Smith about the firing of senior CIA analyst Mary McCarthy. Apparently McCarthy learned that at least one “senior agency official” lied to Congress about agency policy and practice with regard to torturing detainees during interrogations.
According to Smith’s articleone internal CIA study completed in 2004 concluded that CIA interrogation policies and techniques violated international law. This is said to have come as something of a shock to agency interrogators who had been led by the Justice Department to believe that international conventions against torture did not apply to interrogations of foreigners outside of the United States. McCarthy reportedly was also chagrined to learn that the CIA’s general counsel had secured a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the creation of a category of “ghost detainees,” prisoners transported abroadmostly from Iraqfor secret interrogation – without notification of the Red Crossas required by the Geneva Convention.
No problemsaid senior CIA officials. We’ll just lie to the committee leaders about the torture; they will wink and be grateful we did. The lying came during discussion of draft legislation aimed at preventing torture. As deputy inspector generalMcCarthy became aware that CIA officials had misled the chairmen and ranking members of the congressional “oversight” committees on multiple occasions. Neither of the committees seemed interested in taking a serious look at the torture issue.
It will be highly interesting to see what the intrepid chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees doif anythingto follow up on Smith’s report that “a senior CIA official” meeting with Senate staff last June lied about the agency’s interrogation practices. Or that a “senior agency official” failed to provide a full account of CIA’s policy for treating detainees at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in Feb. 2005 under questioning by Rep. Jane Harmanthe ranking Democrat. Will Roberts and Hoekstra hold those agency officials accountableor will they let the matter die – like some of the detainees subjected to “enhanced” interrogation techniques to which the chairmen have so far turned a blind eye?
Hoekstra is a master at Catch-22. On the one hand Hoekstra insists that those in intelligence who have information on illegal or improper behavior report it to his intelligence committee; then he refuses to let them in the door. Russell Ticea former NSA employeehas been trying since last December to give Hoekstra a firsthand account of illegal activities at the NSA. He has rebuffed Ticewith the lame explanation that the NSA will not clear Hoekstra or any of his committee members for the highly classified programs about which Tice wants to report. With the door locked to the intelligence committeesTice has turned to the Senate Armed Services Committee and said that he will meet soon with committee staff in closed session to tell of “probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts” at the NSA while Gen. Michael Hayden was in charge.
Amid the recent revelations of secret CIA-run prisons abroadtortureand illegal eavesdroppingHoekstra has chosen to express outrage – but not at the prisonstortureor eavesdropping. Ratherthe House Intelligence Committee chairman is outraged that information on these abuses has found its way onto the public square. Hoekstra has turned his full attention to pursuing those who leak such information – never mind that the activities disclosednot the leaksare the real outrage.
The executive branch is “walking all over the Congress at the moment,” complained Sen. Arlen SpecterR-Pa.last week to the Senate Judiciary Committeewhich he chairs. Unlike Roberts and HoekstraSpecter seems genuinely troubled at the president’s disdain for the separation of powers and particularly his end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978which prohibits eavesdropping on American citizens without a court warrant.
But when Specter meets a stonewallhe caves. He may ask telephone company CEOs why they surrendered records to the governmentbut – illegal eavesdropping or no – Specter will likely remain a spectatoras Pat Roberts greases the skids for Big Brother Gen. Michael Haydenarchitect and implementer of eavesdropping on Americans in violation of FISAto become the next director of the CIA. Hayden’s disingenuousness in his testimony before the intelligence committees has been clearbut the committee chairmen are as much to blame for winking at it.
Meanwhilethe Justice Department has told Rep. Maurice HincheyD-N.Y.that it is stopping its months-long investigation into who approved the NSA’s eavesdropping-on-American-citizens initiative (now euphemistically dubbed “the terrorist surveillance program”). Justice explained to Hinchey that the NSA would not grant Justice department investigators the appropriate security clearances to investigate the NSA program. Kafka would smirk.
Rep. Hoekstra’s speaks of “vigorous oversight” of the NSAbut the evidence of that is lacking. Late last yearthe current head of the NSAArmy Lt. Gen. Keith Alexanderdeliberately misled House intelligence committee member Rush HoltD-N.J.on the eavesdropping program. On Dec. 6Holta former State Department intelligence specialistcalled on Alexander and NSA lawyers to discuss protecting Americans’ privacy. They all assured Holt that the agency singled out Americans for eavesdropping only after warrants had been obtained from the FISA court. Later that monthwhen disclosures in The New York Times made it clear that Alexander had lied to a member of his committeeHoekstra merely suggested that Holt write a letter to Alexander to complain. The inescapable message to Alexander? Fear not: Hoekstra the fox is watching the hen house.
When the writers of the Constitution envisioned a separation of powers to ensure checks and balances in our governmentthey were relying on the leaders of those branches to fight to maintain their own power within the system. Fresh from the struggle against King Georgethey could not have predicted that some of our leaders would voluntarily sign away their own rights to another George who would be king.
A tip of the hat to the Department of Statewhich had the guts and good sense to express its opposition (sort of) to congressional legislation creating an office for monitoring “anti-Semitism.”
The bill passed both houses of Congress by voice vote and was signed into law by President Bush last week.
It’s a very silly and dangerous measure.
“We opposed creation of a separate office for the purpose and opposed the mandating of a separate annual report,” a State Department spokesman told the press. “We expressed the view that separate reports on different religions or ethnicities were not warrantedgiven that we already prepare human rights reports and religious freedom reports on 190 countries.” [Anti-Semitism office planned at State DepartmentBy Nicholas KralevWashington TimesOctober 142004]
But the Department isn’t dumb. Having seen how easily it passedthe spokesman explained also why the law really wasn’t a problem after all:
“It’s more of a bureaucratic nuisance than a real problem. We are not going to fight a bill that has gained such political momentum.”
You bet your pension you’re not.
The bill did notof coursepass Congress because there was such a massive groundswell of grassroots support for it. It passed because Jewish organizations demanded itand no sitting politician wants to get on the wrong side of these groups.
That’s why the bill passed the Senate by agreement and the House by voice voteóthere’s no debate and no record of how anyone voted.
Pushed by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and most other major Jewish organizationsthe bill requires the Department to record acts of physical violence against Jewstheir propertycemeteries and places of worship abroadand the response of local governments to them.
As the Department notesit already issues reports on “human rights” abusesand there’s no special reason why attacks on Jews should be recorded separately.
Why not reports about attacks on other groupsóblack peoplewhite peoplewomenChristians?
If the lobbies that represent such categories can make enough noise for itthere would be such reports. The State Department could then spend all its time recording what should be the concern of local police departments.
The Department was right the first time that the bill requires a duplication of what it already doesbut that’s not what’s really wrong with the law.
What’s wrong with it is that it opens one more door to the criminalization of thought and expression.
The bill requires only that acts of physical violence against Jews be recordednot expressions of anti-Semitismbut you can bet the bill’s promoters will soon be pushing to include what they claim are “anti-Semitic” expressions to be reported as well. As press reports noted”among the attacks that prompted passage of the bill” was “the recent claim by former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad that Jews ‘rule the world by proxy.’”
That’s the sort of stuff the State Department will now have to record and report about?
Last year the British Parliament debated a bill that would have allowed British citizens to be extradited to European Union countries to stand trial for expressing “xenophobia and racism” if the expressions were broadcast into countries where they are illegalas in several European countries they are. It didn’t passand the law just enacted doesn’t do thatbut all of it is part of the same pattern.
The pattern is the criminalization of thoughtófor “xenophobia,” “racism,” “white supremacy,” “homophobia,” “anti-Semitism,” “patriarchalism,” and any number of other ismsmanias and phobias unknown to any language a few years ago.
What really drives the crusade to criminalize thought and expression is not any legitimate revulsion against real violence (which is already illegal) but the compulsion of powerful and well-organized lobbies to muzzle criticism.
Neoconservatives are already claiming that criticism of them is really “anti-Semitism,” which is what they also said about the recent FBI investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for espionage for Israeland what the Anti-Defamation League and many other Jewish spokesmen said about Mel Gibson’s movie”The Passion of the Christ,” and what the same groups say about criticism of Israel or of U.S. policies toward Israel.
It might be a lot simpler if the State Department had to report on what isn’t anti-Semitism.
The list would be a lot shorter.
What is worrisome about the new law is not that the Department will have to duplicate what it already does but that what is not anti-Semitism at alllet alone violencebut merely criticism and dissent will be demonized and curbed.
Maybe in some minds that was the real purpose of the law all along. And maybebefore the congressmen and senators all shouted their approval of the measurethey should have talked and thought about it a little more than they did.
http://www.vdare.com/francis/anti_semitism.htm
Source: rense.com
When President Bush signed a law banning torture he quietly signed a statement saying he could bypass it. Earlier this monthBush signed the USA Patriot Act but signed a statement that said he did not consider oversight rules binding. We speak with the Boston Globe reporter who broke the story. [includes rush transcript] ——————————————————————————–The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effectBush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relationsnational security or his duties as President. This was not the first such statement to come from the White House. When Congress passed a bill outlawing torture of detainees last yearPresident Bush quietly released a signing statement in which he affirmed his right to bypass the law if he felt it jeopardized national security. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said the President”"s latest effort represents “”nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.”" Charlie Savagereporter with the Washington bureau of Boston Globe who has written several articles exposing Bush’s signing statements.Related Links: “”Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement”" (Boston Globe)”"Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban”" (Boston Globe)Related Democracy Now! Coverage:An Imperial President? Bush Claims Right To Ignore New Law Banning Torture (DN!1/6/06)——————————————————————————–RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. Howeverdonations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate – $25$50$100more…AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now in our WashingtonD.C.studio by Charlie Savagea reporter with the Boston Globe in the Washington bureau. He’s written a number of pieces exposing these signing statements that don’t see the light of day very much. Welcome to Democracy Now!Charlie Savage. CHARLIE SAVAGE: Thank youit’s nice to be here. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Welljust explain how these statements work. The President signs the lawand then someone hands him the statement? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Essentiallysomeone in his officea lawyerdrafts a statement that gets issued along with the signing of the bill. This is not a proclamation that says”"I’m really glad that I signed the bill; it’s going to help us.”" It’s a technically legal document that lays out how he’s going to enforce the billwhat it is he says that he signed that day. And previous presidents have issued thesebut they’ve never issued them the way President Bush hasboth in terms of frequency and in terms of the aggression with which he says‘I am not bound by thisI’m not bound by thatI will take this law in bits and piecesI’ll enforce the measures I likeand I have the power as president and commander-in-chief to ignore the provisions I don’t like.’ And soin this casein the PATRIOT Act caseall the provisions in which Congress said‘We’ll give you these powerswe’ll renew this act. But you’ve got to tell us how you’re using themso we make sure that they’re not being abused,’ he said ‘as president and commander-in-chief and the head of the executive branchI will decide what I tell youif anythingand that’s just what I can do under the Constitution.’ AMY GOODMAN: How often have signing statements been used? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Wellas I saidprevious presidents have done thisgoing way back in time. The frequency really increased under the Reagan administration. And Clinton also issued a number of them. But President Bush has taken this to an unprecedented level. I think one study showed that through the end of 2004there were more than 500 provisions of new laws that he had said that he would not consider himself bound to obeyjust through the end of his first term. And sohe’s really been aggressive about thisin a new way. AMY GOODMAN: How much attention have these signing statements gotten? The most recent onethe USA PATRIOT Actwhich at firstwellthere was a question — there’s a lot of controversy about it. Explain how that happenedthe more recent onethen we’ll go back to torture. CHARLIE SAVAGE: How the signing statement happened or how we –? AMY GOODMAN: Yeahhow much attention it has gotten and what it means for senators who said that they weren’t going to sign off on this unless they got certain concessionsand then this evisceratingthe signing statement eviscerating these concessions. CHARLIE SAVAGE: I understand. Wellinitiallyvery little attention. No one is used to paying attention to these things. These are not something that’s been regularly a part of the political fabric of our country. The traditional way that it happens is if a president gets a bill that he doesn’t likehe either swallows the provisions he doesn’t like and signs the whole thingor he vetoes itbecause he says‘I can’t live with this,’ and then Congress can try to override the veto or notdepending on the strength. That’s how traditionally it’s supposed to work under the Constitution. And the Bush team has never vetoed a single bill in the five years he’s been president now. Insteadthey’ve used these signing statements to say that ‘we will takeyou knowthe bits that we want and ignore the other parts.’ And no one has been used to looking at these things. SoBush issued this signing statement on the PATRIOT Act on March 9ththe same day that he signed the bill. But it went almost unnoticed. There were a few legal specialist blogs that sort of took note of it in a wry way. I wrote this article that came out in Friday’s paper. And there was a huge responseas people realized what he had done again. But that was the first time in the mainstream mediaat leastthat it’s received any kind of attention. AMY GOODMAN: Nowthe previous signing statement happened over New Year’s. Can you talk about thataround torturespecificallywhat the bill sayswhat the ban on torture is aboutwhat’s called the McCain billand thenwhat the signing statement says? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Absolutely. Wellyou may recall that there was a huge controversy in Congress last year with John McCain trying to make clear in federal law that it is illegal to torturefor a U.S. official to torture a detainee in U.S. custodyno matter where that detainee isanywhere in the world. I think most specialists would say that was already illegal. But the Bush administration had come up with some contorted arguments about why maybe they could get around it if it was outside the U.S. border. And sothere was a long fight in Congress in which McCain was trying to get this passed. And Bush kept threatening to veto it and fought it hard. Dick Cheney personally came to Congress to say“Don’t do thisdon’t do this.” But Republicans came together with Democrats; they passed this overwhelmingly in both chambers. It was such a show of force in both chambers that Bush could not veto it. They had the strength to override the veto. So thenhe signed the bill. He invited McCain into the White House and said‘Ohthis is a good thing. It’s going to help us with our image,’ even though he had been fighting it all along. And thenafter McCain had left and everyone had gone homehe again issued another one of these signing statements. This was on the Fridaylate in the evening before — on the weekend of New Year’s Evewhen everyone had gone homeessentiallysaying‘By the wayI’m commander-in-chiefand I don’t really have to pay attention to this if I don’t want to. If it’s the national security is involvedI can do whatever I want.’ And againyou knowit was New Year’s weekend; no one really paid attention. And I saw in a legal blogwhen I came into work the next weekthat someone was taking note of this and started exploring it. And sure enoughthat’s what he had saidand that’s what it meant. I called the White House and asked them for an explanationand they put me on the phone with someone to serve as their spokesmanwho said‘Yesyou knowwe intend to follow this lawbut a situation could arise where we don’t have to.’ And sothat’s what it means. And you knowthere was a sense of outrage over thatincluding among Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and John Warner and especially John McCain: ‘We had negotiated this. This is what it means. We passed the law. You’ve got to follow it.’ And the question with both of the PATRIOT Act and the torture thing isthis is just a piece of paper in which he says‘I don’t have to do this if I don’t want to.’ But it’s not proof that he’s not going to do itand it’s not proof that he hasn’t done it. AMY GOODMAN: Can Congress do anything about this? CHARLIE SAVAGE: Wellthat’s a good question. If they have the political willthey can try to pass moretougher legislation. They can try to withhold funding for things. They could launch investigations. Right nowCongress ishoweverdominated by the same party as the President. They are not particularly willing toor have not proven themselves particularly willing until nowwith a few exceptionsto be too aggressive in conducting oversight on what he’s doing. AMY GOODMAN: WellCharlie SavageI want to thank you for being with us. And we will link at democracynow.org to your stories at the Boston Globe. Source: democracynow.org
NEW YORKNov. 182001 /PRNewswire/ — After he signed an order allowing the use of military tribunals in terrorist casesPresident George W. Bush insisted he alone should decide who goes before such a military courthis aides tell Newsweek. The tribunal document gives the government the power to trysentence — and even execute — suspected foreign terrorists in secrecyunder special rules that would deny them constitutional rights and allow no chance to appeal.
Bush’s powers to form a military court came from a secret legal memorandumwhich the U.S. Justice Department began drafting in the days after Sept. 11Newsweek has learned. The memo allows Bush to invoke his broad wartime powerssince the U.S.they concludedwas in a state of “armed conflict.” Bush used the memo as the legal basis for his order to bomb Afghanistan. Weeks laterthe lawyers concluded that Bush would use his expanded powers to form a military court for captured terrorists. Officials envision holding the trials on aircraft carriers or desert islandsreport Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Contributing Editor Stuart Taylor Jr. in the November 26 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands MondayNovember 19).
The idea for a secret military tribunal was first presented by William Barra Justice Department lawyer — and later attorney general — under the first President Bushas a way to handle the terrorists responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over LockerbieScotland. The idea didn’t take back then. But Barr floated it to top White House officials in the days after Sept. 11 and this time he found alliesNewsweek reports. Barr’s inspiration came when he walked by a plaque outside his office commemorating the trial of Nazi saboteurs captured during World War II. The men were tried and most were executed in secret by a special military tribunal.
Source: sweetliberty.org/a>
Source: patriotdaily.com
Tonightin the second of four reports on spying by Israelis in the U.S.we learn about an Israeli-based private communications companyfor whom a half-dozen of those 60 detained suspects worked. American investigators fear information generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeded the Sept. 11 terror inquiry. Here’s Carl Cameron’s second report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARL CAMERONFOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Fox News has learned that some American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of themby knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone. How?
By obtaining and analyzing data that’s generated every time someone in the U.S. makes a call.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What city and stateplease?
CAMERON: Here’s how the system works. Most directory assistance callsand virtually all call records and billing in the U.S. are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Ltd.an Israeli-based private elecommunications company.
Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in Americaand more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protectedbut it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.
In recent yearsthe FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999the super secret national security agencyheadquartered in northern Marylandissued what’s called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information reportTS/SCIwarning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands – in Israelin particular.
Investigators don’t believe calls are being listened tobut the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. “Widespread data mining techniques and algorithms…. combining both the properties of the customer (e.g.credit rating) and properties of the specific ‘behavior.’” Specific behaviorsuch as who the customers are calling.
The Amdocs memo says the system should be used to prevent phone fraud. But U.S. counterintelligence analysts say it could also be used to spy through the phone system. Fox News has learned that the N.S.A has held numerous classified conferences to warn the F.B.I. and C.I.A. how Amdocs records could be used. At one NSA briefinga diagram by the Argon national lab was used to show that if the phone records are not securemajor security breaches are possible.
Another briefing document said”It has become increasingly apparent that systems and networks are vulnerable.Such crimes always involve unauthorized personsor persons who exceed their authorization…citing on exploitable vulnerabilities.”
Those vulnerabilities are growingbecause according to another briefingthe U.S. relies too much on foreign companies like Amdocs for high-tech equipment and software. “Many factors have led to increased dependence on code developed overseas…. We buy rather than train or develop solutions.”
U.S. intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of informationand Amdocs insists that its data is secure. What U.S. government officials are worried abouthoweveris the possibility that Amdocs data could get into the wrong handsparticularly organized crime. And that would not be the first thing that such a thing has happened. Fox News has documents of a 1997 drug trafficking case in Los Angelesin which telephone informationthe type that Amdocs collectswas used to “completely compromise the communications of the FBIthe Secret Servicethe DEO and the LAPD.”
We’ll have that and a lot more in the days ahead – Brit.
HUME: CarlI want to take you back to your report last night on those 60 Israelis who were detained in the anti-terror investigationand the suspicion that some investigators have that they may have picked up information on the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and not passed it on.
There was a reportyou’ll recallthat the Mossadthe Israeli intelligence agencydid indeed send representatives to the U.S. to warnjust before 9/11that a major terrorist attack was imminent. How does that leave room for the lack of a warning?
CAMERON: I remember the reportBrit. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the 14th. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and generaland they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion beingperhaps those sources and methods were taking place right here in the United States.
The question came up in select intelligence committee on Capitol Hill today. They intend to look into what we reported last nightand specifically that possibility – Brit.
HUME: So in other wordsthe problem wasn’t lack of a warningthe problem was lack of useful details?
CAMERON: Quantity of information.
HUME: All rightCarlthank you very much.
Source: foxnews.com
MI5 is building a new £25m e-mail surveillance centre that will have the power to monitor all e-mails and internet messages sent and received in Britain. The government is to require internet service providerssuch as Freeserve and AOLto have “hardwire” links to the new computer facility so that messages can be traced across the internet. The security service and the police will still need Home Office permission to search for e-mails and internet trafficbut they can apply for general warrants that would enable them to intercept communications for a company or an organisation. The new computer centrecodenamed GTAC — government technical assistance centre — which will be up and running by the end of the year inside MI5’s London headquartershas provoked concern among civil liberties groups. “With this facilitythe government can track every website that a person visitswithout a warrantgiving rise to a culture of suspicion by association,” said Caspar Bowdendirector of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. The government already has powers to tap phone lines linking computersbut the growth of the internet has made it impossible to read all material. By requiring service providers to install cables that will download material to MI5the government will have the technical capability to read everything that passes over the internet. Home Office officials say the centre is needed to tackle the use of the internet and mobile phone networks by terrorists and international crime gangs.Charles Clarkthe minister in charge of the spy centre projectsaid it would allow police to keep pace with technology. “Hardly anyone was using the internet or mobile phones 15 years ago,” a Home Office source said. “Now criminals can communicate with each other by a huge array of devices and channels and can encrypt their messagesputting them beyond the reach of conventional eavesdropping.” There has been an explosion in the use of the internet for crime in Britain and across the worldleading to fears in western intelligence agencies that they will soon be left behind as criminals abandon the telephone and resort to encrypted e-mails to run drug rings and illegal prostitution and immigration rackets. The new spy centre will decode messages that have been encrypted. Under new powers due to come into force this summerpolice will be able to require individuals and companies to hand over computer “keys”special codes that unlock scrambled messages. There is controversy over how the costs of intercepting internet traffic should be shared between government and industry. Experts estimate that the cost to Britain’s 400 service providers will be £30m in the first year. Internet companies say that this is too expensiveespecially as many are making losses. About 15m people in Britain have internet access. Legal experts have warned that many are unguarded in the messages they send or the material they downloadbelieving that they are safe from prying eyes. “The arrival of this spy centre means that Big Brother is finally here,” said Norman BakerLiberal Democrat MP for Lewes. “The balance between the state and individual privacy has swung too far in favour of the state.” Source: agitprop.org.au
Why is ECHELON a threat?The UKUSA Agreement makes each of the member nations COMINT agencies surrogates for each of the others when it comes to monitoring their own citizens. Sharing information sounds good at firstuntil you realize that they are monitoring much of what you say. Let’s look at what can happen.Consider this scenario. An Echelon monitoring station in the UK picks up your private conversation with your accountant. You mention that”"My son threw a long bomb and won the game on Saturday.”" The equipment detects the trigger word “”bomb”" in your conversation and automatically forwards the recorded conversation to a live person for analysis. Now obviouslythe “”bomb”" in this case was a football pass and the analyst will understand that. Butin the process of listening to the conversationhe learn that you were discussing some gray areas in the tax code. In the spirit of cooperation with the UKUSA Agreementthat information is forwarded to the IRS. Even if you called your accountant back five minutes later and told him that you did not want to take that chanceit won’t matter. You have been fingered. The IRS now has your number and you know they won’t stop until they get something on you.A friend might have made a satirical comment to you about how to deal with solicitors saying”"Invite them in while you set there cleaning your Uzi.”" You and your friend both know that you don’t have an Uzi. But nothing in your conversation would tell a third party that your friend was being satirical. Sothe monitoring equipment detects the trigger word “”Uzi”" and the next thing you knowthe BATF is breaking down your door. After learning about ECHELONI have to wonder how many of those news items about the BATFFBI or others breaking in on innocent people was really the result of an ECHELON case gone bad. Think about how many times you might say a trigger word in a phone callfaxemail or chat room. Just a few of the trigger words are:bombgun(s)drug(s)explosive(s)policeFBINSABATFRenoRuby RidgeammoshootWacoOklahoma CityRandy WeaverKoreshLibertyConstitution and Bill of Rights.And that is just a start. Those last three really got methough. The list of trigger words that was expropriated from the Menwith Hill ECHELON station in North Yorkshire England a few years ago was hundreds of words long.According to Vice Admiral William Studemanformer Director of the NSAin 1992 the NSA collected some 2 MILLION private messages/conversations each hour. All but about 13,000 an hour were discarded. Of the remainderabout 2,000 met forwarding criteriaof which some 20 are selected by analysts. Do the math. That means that analysts go over roughly 17.5 MILLION private communications each year. And that was in 1992. It is a safe bet that their capabilities have doubled or even quadrupled since then.The Constitutionin the 4th Amendmentguarantees us protection “”against unreasonable searches and seizures”" and further requires that “”no warrants shall issuebut upon probable cause.”" The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that your electronic communicationswhether voicefax or email are protected under the 4th Amendment. What this means is that if any government agency wants to monitor your electronic communicationsthey must first show “”probable cause”" to a judge that you are breaking a specific law. The 4th Amendment is there for your protection.
If either of the above scenarios had happened in the United Statesit would have been a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to both intercept that conversation and then to pass on the information to the appropriate agency. In factindiscriminaterandom monitoring of domestic civilian communications is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment and would get those responsible in a ton of hot water.Howeverby using foreign governments to do their dirty workour governmentthrough the NSA and the UKUSA Agreement is randomly and indiscriminately monitoring our electronic communications and subverting the 4th Amendment.It is imperative that you contact your congressman and senators and let them know of your concern about this breach of trust by the NSA.Source: gurusinc.com