Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11

[dutchdemocrat]

Click Here to see HTML document instead of the PDF of the declassified document



http://www.thisiswiretap.com/2001 /

Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

SNIP

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

[waiting for hope]

1. It just gets worse and worse...

How much more can the American public take?

[rkc3]

2. s long as Survivor is on, we'll continue to take these beatings.

[KoKo]

40. After "Selection 2000" I figured America would wake up...and I've been

here all these years on DU when I could have been working on a PhD. figuring "America Will Wake UP!" ...I've been waiting....and so far it's not enough to convince me that American Mainstream even get's the gist of what's going on. I guess it's the "Bubble" in Real Estate...and that they don't see the poverty and the changes..that would "WAKE THEM" that's the problem.

THEY...just believe the propaganda...and it TRUTH...Bush has been very good to his "36% FUNDIES!" He hasn't given them EVERYTHING...but he's played like Roman Emperor Neru" to their "basic requirements."

:shrug: It's beyond me to understand this after being here in the "RESISTANCE" for 6 YEARS!

I don't honestly know or understand how he still has even more that 5% of AMERICANS supporting him?

[dutchdemocrat]

9. This is an explosive story

I just emailed Leopold and he has a lot more on this - he's using www.thisiswiretap.com as a resource too so my hard work is paying off.

[KoKo]

41. thanks...thought there might be more....good n/t

[KoKo]

42. A kick and Recommend...........so I can get back to it...!

[Perky]

3. Recognize the vast difference between Data Mining and Wiretaps

Datamining is looking for patterns in the chaos of all phone calls. looking for patterns that might lead to terrorusts and terrorist plots.

Wiretaps happens after they see something suspicious....that is when they go into the the wiretap and that is when they need to get a warrant.

[stop the bleeding]

4. good work dd, have you seen the following threads here in GD

I am not sure if this is up your alley, but I thought that you would be interested in this research here in these discussions. I listed them in order of importance.

PLAME= IRAN/CONTRA REDUX - Planted WMD from Ghorbanifar & Ledeen.

Ledeen, Ghorbanifar, and the strategy of tension

Red Lines in the Iranian Sand--surprise nuke attack on Iran??


This last thread is one I created that is fairly important tell me what you think.

Biden tells Couric 2X's that *'s Lawyers are agrguing over whether the WH needs Congressional approval to declare war on Iran

[dutchdemocrat]

5. Thanks STB

I will check up them...

[dutchdemocrat]

6. Yes he can. Without Congress.

I wrote a bit about this when Syria was in the scopes. (not Chris this time)

Yes he can.

The real question is - will Bush and friends just utilise the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution to justify invasion of Syria and Iran. Not without a terrorist attack on the US most likely - but Bush can, under the structure of the resolution, announce that he has determined that Syria or Iran is harbouring al Queda - and invade without even informing Congress until 48 hours after US troops are over the border.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=5

[stop the bleeding]

7. thank you always appreciate your input - I figure it was chris-floyd.com

somewhere, but I figured I would throw it at while I had the chance.

what about the whole Michael Ledeen/Plame thing?

[dutchdemocrat]

8. I am going to send these links to Chris

It's so hard to focus on the multiple arms of the octopus that I can't keep on them all - and in order to do it well I try and pick a few.

This may be great fodder for Chris's column as well as the site.

Cheers

Rk

[stop the bleeding]

14. cool let me know if he or the information makes it to the site and will

let others here know that it is there.

Peace!

[Marleyb]

10. Then why didn't he catch the terrrrists before 9/11?

Doesn't this sort of implicate him in 9/11- like he knew there was going to be a reason to spy on dissenters...uh I mean terrrrists?


http://benfrank.net/impeach/

[Gregorian]

11. Every senator needs to hear this. I just called mine.

And if this isn't justification to put everything on hold, and restrain the administration, I don't know what is.

[linazelle]

12. Didn't Cheney say that if they had been able to spy before 9/11 it would

not have happened?

[Gregorian]

13. Cheney speaking to something like the Club for Growth.

It's hard to remember these details. But not everyone forgets.

This needs more attention^^^^^

[Gregorian]

15. Those thousands of Muslims detained after 9/11...

How was that list generated? Huh? Could it have been an illegal wiretap?

This is huge...

[linazelle]

26. Found this on another board

"It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." Cheney in an interview with ABC's 'Nightline'


There is a problem with his view. This capability was around before 9-11.

But there is a far bigger problem, It seems he forgot that in 1995 the Republicans rejected Clintons proposed expansion on the FBI's wiretap authority in order to combat terrorism. The same year the OKC bombing happened....then in 1996 when Clinton asked for more counterterrorism funding...THE REPUBLICANS REJECTED HIM.

But there is even a bigger problem, Cheney claims this "capability" didn't exist before 9-11, and if it did they might have been able to prevent 9-11. We all know that the FISA courts were available before 9-11

Cheney claimed that the constitution gave Bush the authority to spy on Americans without a warrant, as we all know, the constitution was around before 9-11

So...using Cheney's logic..

*Who could have prevented 9-11 with wiretaps ?...CLINTON

*Who admits that wiretaps could have prevented 9-11 ? ....Bush/Cheney

*Who prevented Clinton from using these wiretaps ?.... REPUBLICANS

The repubs admit they didn't give Clinton the tools he needed to prevent 9-11

[linazelle]

29. .

[AzDar]

16. Kick..EVERYONE should see this!!!! n/t

[linazelle]

30. ok

[hiley]

17. everyone should

see this is right!
recommend

[Gregorian]

18. Can we halt the Alito nomination until we get an answer on this???

Everything should come to a halt until the gestapos come up with an explanation.

[dutchdemocrat]

19. Related.

Gonzales to testify on US domestic spying program

By Deborah Charles 58 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Friday he will testify in a Senate hearing to give the administration's legal justification for a secret domestic eavesdropping operation approved by
President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.

News last month of the covert domestic spying program sparked an outcry by Democrats and Republicans, with many lawmakers and rights groups questioning whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.

"One of my responsibilities as attorney general is to explain some of what the administration is doing and the reasons for, the rationale for, what the administration is doing," Gonzales told reporters.

"The president has confirmed the existence of a highly classified program," he said, referring to the domestic eavesdropping program conducted by the National Security Agency. "Many parts of the program still remain classified."

Gonzales said he had agreed with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, to testify in hearings on the domestic spying program.

SNIP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060113/us_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc_4

[SSX]

20. started a similar thread earlier

guess my timing was bad.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x130918
Glad to see there is interest in this matter. There are questions that Specter needs to ask Gonzales.

[Gregorian]

21. Does the document show that Bush actually authorized spying?

I am not finding it. And others have said that it is not stated in the document.

[dutchdemocrat]

22. This is where the butter is...

According to the online magazine Slate, an unnamed official in the telecom industry said NSA's "efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a 'data-mining' operation, which might eventually cull 'millions' of individual calls and e-mails."

[dutchdemocrat]

23. And here...

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

[stop the bleeding]

32. WTF - DD I did not have time to read this yet, been busy with Plame/Redux

Popped in to take a peak and couldn't resist replying.

But based on some of your key quotes and snippets it really gives me pause.

"efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order."

Does anyone else see the problem/ gaping hole in this aspect of the president's argument?

also these parts..

"senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."


What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

"people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time" - Could this be Russ Tice and the other dozen sources for the NYT???

[dutchdemocrat]

24. Other key quotes

...key quotes from the NSA document:



The Fourth Amendment is as applicable to eSIGINT as it is to the SIGINT of yesterday and today. (pg. 32)

Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws. (pg. 32)

Mr. President, the NSA itself realized this.- why didn't you?????

www.thisiswiretap.com/2001/

[dutchdemocrat]

39. I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

See more at http://www.thisiswiretap.com or www.chris-floyd.com/bush/

Inside the Puzzle Palace
A Reason interview with NSA whistleblower Russell Tice

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

Tice: I've thought about this for a while, and as I said, I can't tell you how things are done, but I can foresee it, especially with what we've seen now. We're finding out that NSA conducted surveillance on U.S. citizens. And FISA could have been used but wasn't, was sidestepped. No one even made the attempt to see if they had a problem they could have fixed through FISA.

That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"

I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them—then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work. What you come out with from a haystack is a shoebox full of straw. Once you have that, you have people that can look at it.

Now here's an interesting question: If this approach was used, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of communications were processed in that manner, and then if and when the truth ever came out, a lawyer—and I think lawyers are going to be arguing semantics in this case—the argument could be made, well, if a machine was doing the looking and the sucking in, it doesn't matter because that's not monitoring until a human looks at it.

SNIP

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

[dutchdemocrat]

27. Key quote - from anonymous sources

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

[SSX]

25. The drips and drabs keep coming

I've finished reading the document and it doesn't really say Bush authorized pre-9/11 warrantless taps. It is a transition team document prepared for the Bushites by the NSA. It does tell us that everything was in place.Combined with the truthout document and Risen's book though it seems extremely plausible that he started monitoring Americans long before 9/11 for whatever his intent. What I think we're seeing these days is blowback from the intelligence agencies. They are tired of being scapegoated by the Administration for the Iraq disaster. And slowly but surely they are coming forward with damaging information.Tice and Sibel Edmonds are getting the ball rolling and I think others will probably start coming forward as Bushco starts beating the Iran drum a little harder.
We DUers are having to be some sort of "news archaeologists". Push the dirt around, throw some away. Sift some more to find the nuggets and eventually PAY DIRT!

[dutchdemocrat]

28. PDF's Converted.

I have converted both of these unclassified documents on Hayden into HTML from PDF.

Here

http://www.thisiswiretap.com/hayden2/ (24)

and

Here


http://www.thisiswiretap.com/hayden1/ (27)

There might be a jewel in there somewhere....

Document 24: Statement for the Record of NSA Director Lt Gen Michael V. Hayden, USAF before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, April 12, 2000

In a rare public appearance by the NSA director, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden outlines the regulatory safeguards and oversight mechanisms that are in place to ensure that the agency's electronic surveillance mission does not infringe upon the privacy of U.S. persons, and to respond to recent allegations that NSA provides intelligence information to U.S. companies.

The agency may only target the communications of U.S. persons within the United States after obtaining a federal court order suggesting that the individual might be "an agent of a foreign power." The number of such cases have been "very few" since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. In cases where the NSA wishes to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons overseas, the agency must first obtain the approval of the Attorney General, who must have probable cause to believe that the individual "is an agent of a foreign power, or a spy, terrorist, saboteur, or someone who aides or abets them." With regard to the unintentional collection of communications to, from, or about U.S. citizens, Hayden stresses that such information is not retained "unless the information is necessary to understand a particular piece of foreign intelligence or assess its importance."

In response to other allegations, Hayden asserts that NSA cannot request that another country "illegally" collect intelligence on U.S. persons on their behalf, and also that the agency "is not authorized to provide signals intelligence information to private U.S. companies."

Document 27: Statement for the Record by Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, Director, National Security Agency/Central Security Service Before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, October 17, 2002, Unclassified

Hayden, in his testimony to the joint committee intelligence performance prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington of September 11, 2001, addresses three major questions: what did NSA know prior to September 11, what did NSA learn in retrospect, and what had NSA done in response? In his conclusions, Hayden addresses a number of issues - including the relationship between SIGINT and law enforcement, and the line between the government's need for counterterrorism information and the privacy interests of individuals residing in the United States.

[dutchdemocrat]

31. hmm....

[dutchdemocrat]

33. Other docs that may be useful

THE INTELLIGENCE GAP - Seymour Hersh on the NSA - Hayden 1999 NEW

http://cryptome.org/nsa-hersh.htm

Daily Kos Tidbits on Hayden and NSA NEW

http://www.thisiswiretap.com/#kos

Did the Government turn Echelon inwards? Read this article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma00richelson

There is also a significant limit imposed on the ability to monitor voice communications, resulting from the failure of extensive U.S. efforts to produce "word spotting" software that would allow computer transcription of intercepted conversations. Maybe not anymore....

[linazelle]

34. .

[dutchdemocrat]

35. These might be useful too.

Wayne Madsen reports on NSA.

http://iml.dartmouth.edu/ists/madsen.html
Wayne Madsen
Senior Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center

Mr. Madsen is a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. He works with member of Congress and congressional committees on legislation and hearings of common interest.

He is also a freelance investigative journalist, and has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, CAQ, Counterpunch, and the Intelligence Newsletter. Mr. Madsen is the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law.

Mr. Madsen has some twenty years experience in computer security and data privacy. As a U.S. Naval Officer he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/disrupt1.htm
SPY AGENCY DISRUPTION REACHES FORT MEADE
May 27, 2005
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/crypto.htm
WHY NSA IS THE FORT KNOX OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE ESTABLISHMENT
June 2005
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/Bolton.htm
NSA INTERCEPTS FOR BOLTON MASKED AS "TRAINING EXERCISE"
May 15, 2005
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/NSAman1.htm
NSA IN MANAGEMENT UPROAR
June 4, 2005
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/heroes.htm
HAYDEN'S HEROES
May 10, 2005
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/nsa/nsasecrets.htm
NSA and selling the nation's prized secrets to contractors
June 1, 2005

[dutchdemocrat]

36. I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

See more at http://www.thisiswiretap.com or www.chris-floyd.com/bush/

Inside the Puzzle Palace
A Reason interview with NSA whistleblower Russell Tice

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

Tice: I've thought about this for a while, and as I said, I can't tell you how things are done, but I can foresee it, especially with what we've seen now. We're finding out that NSA conducted surveillance on U.S. citizens. And FISA could have been used but wasn't, was sidestepped. No one even made the attempt to see if they had a problem they could have fixed through FISA.

That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"

I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them—then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work. What you come out with from a haystack is a shoebox full of straw. Once you have that, you have people that can look at it.

Now here's an interesting question: If this approach was used, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of communications were processed in that manner, and then if and when the truth ever came out, a lawyer—and I think lawyers are going to be arguing semantics in this case—the argument could be made, well, if a machine was doing the looking and the sucking in, it doesn't matter because that's not monitoring until a human looks at it.

SNIP

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

[dutchdemocrat]

37. I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

See more at http://www.thisiswiretap.com or www.chris-floyd.com/bush/

Inside the Puzzle Palace
A Reason interview with NSA whistleblower Russell Tice

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

Tice: I've thought about this for a while, and as I said, I can't tell you how things are done, but I can foresee it, especially with what we've seen now. We're finding out that NSA conducted surveillance on U.S. citizens. And FISA could have been used but wasn't, was sidestepped. No one even made the attempt to see if they had a problem they could have fixed through FISA.

That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"

I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them—then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work. What you come out with from a haystack is a shoebox full of straw. Once you have that, you have people that can look at it.

Now here's an interesting question: If this approach was used, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of communications were processed in that manner, and then if and when the truth ever came out, a lawyer—and I think lawyers are going to be arguing semantics in this case—the argument could be made, well, if a machine was doing the looking and the sucking in, it doesn't matter because that's not monitoring until a human looks at it.

SNIP

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

[dutchdemocrat]

38. I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

I think it's Echelon turned inwards. So does Tice.

See more at http://www.thisiswiretap.com or www.chris-floyd.com/bush/

Inside the Puzzle Palace
A Reason interview with NSA whistleblower Russell Tice

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

Tice: I've thought about this for a while, and as I said, I can't tell you how things are done, but I can foresee it, especially with what we've seen now. We're finding out that NSA conducted surveillance on U.S. citizens. And FISA could have been used but wasn't, was sidestepped. No one even made the attempt to see if they had a problem they could have fixed through FISA.

That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"

I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them—then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work. What you come out with from a haystack is a shoebox full of straw. Once you have that, you have people that can look at it.

Now here's an interesting question: If this approach was used, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of communications were processed in that manner, and then if and when the truth ever came out, a lawyer—and I think lawyers are going to be arguing semantics in this case—the argument could be made, well, if a machine was doing the looking and the sucking in, it doesn't matter because that's not monitoring until a human looks at it.

SNIP

http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

[stop the bleeding]

43. .

:kick: