Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8375)	1/5/2006 1:00:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541518

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security Fear of Spying The President and Vice President have now made it simple: The NSA was only spying on a small number of potential Americans communicating with suspected terrorists overseas. President Bush, speaking on Sunday: "This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America - and I repeat limited," the President said on Sunday. "It is limited to calls from outside the United States to calls within the United States" targeting "known numbers of known al Qaeda members or affiliates." The Vice President, speaking at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, said that the President authorized the intercept of "a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications," those that al Qaeda have with "one end in the United States." "This wartime measure," Cheney said, "is limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists." Is that it? Just terrorists? A limited scope and a limited program? No activists, no journalists, no political opponents? Are we going to find out that this was the biggest non-story of 2005? Ever since The New York Times revealed warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency of U.S. "persons" and the circumvention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), press speculation about domestic spying has gotten broader and broader while the President and Vice President's description of the NSA program has become narrower and narrower. As someone who has reported and written about military and NSA domestic spying, I have gotten my share of comments, letters and emails from Americans who ask the same question: Is it possible that I am under surveillance? Consider this sample: "Dear Mr. Arkin: I don't want to go on record, but is there anything at this time that can be done if an American citizen believes that the administration is using their powers to spy on a family because they are not in support of their goals. Let's say you had a couple (one a lobbyist; the other an attorney). They both are big Dem supporters and against many of the decisions the current administration has made (not just the war in Iraq) … Both have worked for Democratic representatives on the Hill. Their phone makes weird noises and acts strangely (will hang up unexpectedly) and such. They have also met a man (while vacationing in Dec.) who claimed he use to work for the government taking pictures of persons he spied on, proceeded to take pictures of the couple, and never sent any to them (as he promised). Perhaps he felt this was constructive notice? Are people just resigned to sit back and not protect themselves from such invasion?" Signed C.V. Well my phone makes weird noises too. And sorry for being cynical, but when I lived in Washington, from 1978-1993, a favorite parlor game of the left and the activists -- hey, that's who I hung out with -- was speculating about whether one was under surveillance. I used to love the George Carlin joke that the surest way to catch the FBI guy at an anti-war rally was to look for the one with the spit-shined sandals. But I would often say to people who asked if they were targets, "Do you really think that after the diplomats and the spies and the Soviets and the Eastern Europeans and the Cubans and the Iranians and the drug runners, the NSA has enough time or energy for you?" Of course, again and again, it turned out that some American government organization WAS spying on Greenpeace or PETA or some El Salvadorian solidarity group, and that has continuted in some cases. I don't justify this spying, but let's be honest: Greenpeace and PETA intentionally break the law as part of their peaceful protest. We should be concerned about government surveillance because in my mind it raises the most important question, which is: doesn't the government have more important things to do? Well, dear C.V., I don't think your couple is under government surveillance unless it is breaking the law. Both the President and Vice President pledge in their defenses of NSA spying that the civil liberties of Americans have not been compromised. And the Vice President contends that had the government been conducting this surveillance before 9/11, "we might have been able to pick up on two hijackers who subsequently flew a jet into the Pentagon." "They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas," Cheney said. "But we did not know they were here plotting until it was too late." The vice president fails to mention that the NSA actually did intercept communications indicating an event on 9/11, but didn't process it before that day. The FBI had reports about the hijackers, but it never put two and two together. The government had plenty of tip-offs and signals but it just wasn't focused enough or competent enough to competently carry out its constitutional duties. Now, we are told that the government miraculously is both focused and competent, and we should trust them because they have decided that they are operating in accordance with the President's duties under the Constitution and that they have briefed a Top Secret highly compartmented program to a few members of Congress. We are told to trust that the government conducts only lawful surveillance and it is only focused on terrorists. On this narrow point, on this narrow program, I buy it. But the government certainly has a history of overreach, and a lot more is going on here that the government isn't telling us about. It is enough to make you both paranoid and angry. By William M. Arkin \| January 5, 2006; 10:51 AM ET \| Category: Intelligence