Bush is spying on his opponents

[BobcatJH]

I'm currently reading a fabulous book, "What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty". Inside, editor John Brockman assembles the world's foremost scientists and experts and asks them to take logical leaps, leaps that, when made in the past, have led to today's conventional wisdom.

The brilliant Big Thinking in the book got me to thinking about the wonderfully devious question posed in the title: What do I believe but cannot prove? Searching my thoughts, I decided to take a look at recent headlines and take a leap that, while something I cannot now prove, I'm confident will soon be seen as fact.

I believe, but cannot prove, that the Bush administration is not only tracking international calls and mining phone records, but is also actively listening to purely domestic calls. What's more, that, at the behest of the highest authorities, the administration is actively spying on its political opponents, from massive, nationwide groups to everyday individuals.

When defending himself amidst the latest news, Bush has repeatedly stated that his administration is not "trolling" or "mining" "through the personal lives of millions of Americans". Further, an unnamed source told the New York Times that the call records were only being used to trace the contacts of "known bad guys". To me, neither claims are very reassuring. And they shouldn't be to you, either.

I'm curious: Who does the president consider "innocent"? Also: Who does the administration consider "bad guys"? I think the answer to those questions, given what we've already learned about this president, isn't so simple as "those tied directly to terrorists". It's already been shown that the administration has spied upon peace groups, gay rights advocates and environmental activists. Muslims, too, and possibly journalists.

But beyond that, think about the lengths those in the White House are willing to go for partisan reasons. This rabid political underhandedness can be summed up in two words: Valerie Plame. The president and vice president were willing to threaten national security by outing an undercover CIA operative, one working on tracking weapons of mass destruction to and from Iran. Ask yourself: Is it that odd to think that they wouldn't spy on everyday Americans for political gain?

Sure, such a policy would be illegal. But, then again, so is ignoring FISA to wiretap without a warrant. And what of the more than 750 laws the president is openly disobeying thanks to signing statements he attaches to legislation? Besides, is upholding the law a priority to an administration that operates secret prisons, abuses detainees, holds them without charge and uses chemical weapons on civilians? Would a White House so panicked about plummeting support be worried about the law when everything we know suggests otherwise?

While my unproven beliefs may seem, to some, like the paranoid theorizing of a progressive under a leadership of a regressive administration, look at the recent patten of White House scandals. What was first revealed as the warrantless wiretapping of international calls was explained away by the West Wing as isolated incidents that didn't mean the government was spying on your calls. Only months later it was revealed that, contrary to what was first said, the government was tracking domestic calls, going back a long, long time.

With this in mind, the administration and its apologists are decrying the politicization of the NSA's surveillance efforts. Those criticizing the practice, they say, are only doing so for partisan political reasons. Could it be, however, that the same people looking for another reason to criticize progressives are, in fact, the same people using a massive intelligence apparatus to track the every move of their political opponents? Knowing what we know, is that really so great a logical leap to make?

If history has proven anything, it's that there's no self-imposed "off" switch on a power grab. Without proper oversight, the pursuit of unchecked presidential power proceeds, well, unchecked. As William Bogan said so well last week, "Governments don't willingly give up power." He's right. And, faced with a Republican Congress that has abdicated its responsibility for oversight, the prospect of a vast, illegal spying program armed with a partisan agenda is a grim one, indeed. One that may, sooner rather than later, be proven true.

Until then, I believe, but cannot prove, that that's the case.

[kentuck]

1. I think he is eavesdropping on journalists also....

He's a snake.

[Dunvegan]

2. NSA to ABC-Reporter's Calls Reveal Patterns: "We Know Who You're Calling"

Breaking Story Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2285153

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
May 15, 2006 9:33 AM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources. "It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation....

Click on above link for more...but someone in the NSA just went way off the reservation.

[MADem]

13. Drug dealers use "tosser" phones with phone cards

Paid for in cash. Best bet--get a bum to buy you a few phones and cards, so you don't get "caught on tape!"

[sellitman]

3. Will this come out?

Will anyone call him on it?

Great post BTW and welcome to DU.

[BobcatJH]

5. Thanks ...

I appreciate it! Will anyone, other than us, call him on it? We'll see. I'm holding out hope.

[Top Lizard]

4. Well Said!

This is a good (and relatively concise) summation of our current dilemma. The more we learn, the more I fear that even if the Democrats regain power, some individuals may not want to relinquish these unlawful powers.

I'd recommend this for the Greatest Page if I had enough votes to do so!

Am I correct in recalling that you once said you're an OU grad?

[BobcatJH]

6. Yes, I am

Two-time, first in 2001 (journalism). You?

[Top Lizard]

7. "Alma Mater, We Hail Thee..."

I am also a two-timer (er, just don't tell my wife!), having left Athens in 1994 with degrees in history. FYI, I briefly considered becoming a Scripps School student as an undergrad. (Maybe that explains why I have such a low post number even though I've belonged to DU for over a year!)

[BobcatJH]

12. Ha ha ...

... no, it probably explains why we both have such high tolerances, thanks to Court Street.

[Top Lizard]

18. OU No Longer Leading Party School?

You know, I recently read that the University of Wisconsin-Madison was considered a top place for partying. When I went to OU, that seemed to be the school's main claim to fame. Guys in high school ribbed me about my reasons for going to Athens before I'd even left! But seriously, I went for the academic program. (Actually, that's true!) Halloween in Athens was always interesting, to say the least. If OU's reputation has changed, what will students do--study?

[vssmith]

8. Something I believe but cannot prove

Paul Wellstone's plane accident was no accident!

Sorry about changing topics

[Love Bug]

22. I believe that, too

Too many interesting "facts" about that crash.

[PATRICK]

9. Having and eating cake

is the WH paradigm. They desire and have achieved an atmosphere where even the friends of the WH as part of the conscious background believe everyone is being watch and potentially could be made to suffer. Everyone here probably believed that without even mentioning the how or what or who. But surely you have had friends and acquaintances who told you, without anyone admitting to distrust of the WH, that you had better watch your back. The East German atmosphere was in fairly early.

That alone is a plus for the administration to have that an post 9/11 popularity and entitlement too.

However what is the proof that they are doing such things in fact? The spying on peace groups etc. That is the first degree. the second degree the party has already experienced and I don't mean the odd theft of Kerry's laptop. The usual suspects in Congress had their aides spying on the Dems! there have been lawsuits and recriminations reduced to vanished smoke. Do you think the WH was reticent and lax and hands off while the Congress out-dared them in deed? Logically one would say hardly.

Here I would like to offer apology to the Kerry camp for rationally expecting them to have an aggressive under the radar plan against election theft. They couldn't have pulled it off at all. The fact they didn't try probably accounts to that almost visible look of relief on the faces of the Coup when they reached the point of no comeback before the election. The polls were not going down disastrously by then. They knew and had evaluated as wanting or defensible every action by every facet of the Democratic campaign. They knew they could brush aside the activists who knew the crimes but couldn't unbury the votes even if it were even possible.

If I knew there was a numbers racket and I knew the mob in town I would go after the mob knowing exactly what I was looking for. Judging by the necessity and the risk of stealing the election in 2004 one MUST look for evidence of political snooping by the WH upon the Democrats. it has to be done and the only surprise would be to find hard evidence it did not happen. Just believing and letting history record its high probability as a background suspicion would only serve the purposes of future dictators- knowing they can do it because it can be done and and gotten away with it. And the fact that everyone believes it but does nothing makes them feared and powerful.

[Minnesota Libra]

10. The WH Idiot?Cheney/Rummy are all spying on opponents and media...........

....who might report the truth. We've known this for a long time. Oh, but remember, if you have nothing to hide (or aren't going to tell the truth about his criminal bunch) you have nothing to hide.:sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

14. And don't forget that General Hayden is such a NICE and INTELLIGENT

Man. How could those mean ole' Democrats not trust him? How could those bitter CIA people believe that he'd be motivated to further gut their organization. :eyes:

What's good is bad.
What's bad is good.
Trust us.
Check's in the mail.
We're at WAR!

:puke:

[bullimiami]

11. of course they are spying on their 'opponents' which are, apparently, a

large majority of the american population.

we are the one major threat to their power and the one possible road to their downfall and prosecution is losing that power.

[stevietheman]

15. What I believe but cannot prove is...

the Bush Regime is cooking the books on the economic numbers, bigtime.

[BobcatJH]

16. Probably

That wouldn't surprise me, either.

[anitar1]

17. Yes Sir/Mam. My gut feels this. n/t

[Klukie]

27. Agreed....

We are in for some bad times!!!

[peacetalksforall]

19. What We Believe but Cannot Prove? They want us submissive,

compliant, obedient. At the same time they want us contributing - tax money, labor, loyalty, blind faith, soldiering, snitching, curfew laws. And they want us to divide our loyalties between Christianity, military service including willing death and dismemberment, being trackable at all times, including implaints, willing to be put away for life at nearly any infraction, and LoR - willing to accept our Loss of RIghts.

The signs are there.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Reminds me of the voting issue.

We have pretty dam,ning circumstantial evidence that the vote can be electronically manipulated...but we can't get access to the inner workings to confirm. Same with the spying. No one with a (D) after their name can get security clearance to confirm that they are using the resources of the federal government to spy on the opposition party. Reminds me of the old Soviet Union.

[stubtoe]

21. This is like Watergate on steroids.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Or like Vietnam on crack! (n/t)

[Stalwart]

23. Honey pot

Honey pot entrapment is a setup in which the guilty are invited to entrap themselves.

For example: Recently on television, unsuspecting people have been lured into meeting underage girls/boys for sex and meet an investigative journalist instead. Caught in the act. Cars are rigged with cameras and disabling controls then left for theft.

A setup could be devised to reveal government spying. The setup would use actual discovery of spying on a grand scale. Rather than immediately reveal the discovery to the public, milk it for more. Spread it in a close circle and let the government get caught in the honey pot when they take action on information that could only be gained by domestic spying. It leverages the original discovery.

Maybe somebody is setting out the honey pot right now?

Gotcha!

What else does a spy agency want as much as the info it hopes to obtaining by spying? It wants not to be caught doing it. It wants actionable info. Let them obtain something really big then catch them in the act of doing something with it.

One of the biggest problems of spying is that action on what is discovered may reveal sources and methods. The trick is that if what is discovered is so big that it must be acted upon and they think that they are safe enough to hide where and how they got it, then it would be acted upon. The catch is that a setup designs in advance a controlled situation where there is only one way that the info they obtained could be gotten.

I can picture with great glee the conference at which they must decide to act upon intelligence gained by domestic spying. They will, of course, decide that they will not be caught and take the chance that if they are they can spin it. You can count on the fact that acting on info obtained by domestic spying will only be done with an exit strategy. One like having a National Guard protected corridor from the ranch to the Mexican Border when the stuff hits the fan.

Sounds like a great movie plot.

[NastyDiaper]

24. I think the proof that this is political..

..and not part of the war on terror is in the math. They have tapped into so much information, that it's impossible to listen unless you know who to listen to. But in the fight on terror, the challenge is to discover who to listen to.

Imagine an agent walking into a full sports arena. You believe that one person is a terrorist. You cannot identify anyone by listening to conversations. You have to know what they look like, or where they sit. Once you have a suspect, then you sit down and listen.

It's outrageous to suggest that you can locate the terrorist by listening first.

They simply do not want to have to report who they are listening to, because they are not looking for terrorists.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

25. Paging Orwell

I can't believe that Bush's latest spying (on Americans) capers haven't been arousing far more outrage than they already have. This is a big concentration of government power in a collection of agencies whose job it is, to basically monitor the most personal communications and transactions of Americans, in case something needs to be "used against them" later. How could there possibly be a more obvious example of rank coercion by officials we supposedly entrust with the keys of power in government?

[passy]

26. Something along the same lines...

http://internationalpress.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-are-you-hiding-mass-spying-on.html

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. With this spying, you can bet there is BLACKMAIL to suppress dissent

This is not a new supposition:

Just one example, from Paul Craig Roberts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x338735
thread title (2-6-06): Ex-Reagan official- Dubya uses spying to blackmail media & Dems

Excerpt:

Who Will Save America?
My Epiphany

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

SNIP

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.

SNIP

Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged.

They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: [e-mail]

[laugle]

29. You bet he is spying on opponents and the whole

fricking congress too!

He's got the goods on everyone, how else can you explain the "DO NOTHING CONGRESS" and the fact that they may very well lose their jobs because of it!!

I have no doubt they are being intimidated. One day.......it will all come out........

[libertarianseeker]

30. Trolling the US Population

<not "trolling" or "mining" "through the personal lives of millions of Americans">

So with a US population of what? 400 million? he doesn't deny trolling through the personal lives of 398 million Americans....

[tom_paine]

31. This is the tip of a very large iceberg: that's what I believe but cannot

prove.

History has and will continue to prove it for me.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Ever since Jan 21, 2001, I've been making outlandish predictions

of how bad things will get, chiding myself for being excessively paranoid, then feeling vindicated when my predictions are borne out in the MSM and so the cycle continues. Some of my predictions (based on a close re-reading of histories of the Vietnam War) have lost me friends who have pigeon-holed me as a "tin-foil hat" type. Whatever -- I have taken to keeping my predictive powers to myself and to my wife's ears (and she has grown pretty sick of it, even as she has confessed astoundment at the accuracy of my predictions.)

I did not predict 9/11 exactly, but I knew we were going to be in for a world of hurt after Madeleine Albright opened her big fat mouth and stuck her foot in it.

I wrote my Dad shortly after 9/11 that we are experiencing a intense, prolonged epistemological crisis. (Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that addresses what we know and how we know it.) After reading David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor" I am more convinced of it than ever. Griffin points out that those who attack alternate narratives for being "conspiracy theorists" have to use an alternate conspiracy theory (al quaida, osama bin laden, et. al). So we're in a situation where people must choose which conspiracy theory they are going to believe -- that's a case study in an epistemological crisis.

[ButtScratchinMike]

34. I believe, but cannot prove...

that IT IS in the interest of national security for the government to know how how often Cindy Sheehan orders pizza or when some Quaker peaceniks call Moviefone.

[kitkat65]

35. It would surprise me which is why I often state what

assholes I think they all are whenever I get a chance. Fuck you, bush. Fuck you NSA. You're a bunch of fucking fascists. Got that?!