House Approves Wiretap Measure
White House Bill Boosts Warrantless Surveillance
By Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page A01
The Democratic-controlled House last night approved and sent to President Bush for his signature legislation written by his intelligence advisers to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to act on the measure before an August recess.
Because the law has not kept up with advances in telecommunications, McConnell said in congressional testimony, the government "is significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."
Civil liberties and privacy advocates and a majority of Democrats said the bill could allow the monitoring of virtually any calls, e-mails or other communications going overseas that originate in the United States, without a court order, if the government deems the recipient to be the target of a U.S. probe.
Last night, several Democrats said the bill would undermine the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned that the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
Republicans and administration officials argued to the contrary that the distinctions in the present law -- between calls inside and outside the country -- are outmoded in an age of cellphones that work on multiple continents. What intelligence officials seek, a White House official said in an interview yesterday, is the ability to "surveil a target wherever the call [or other communication involving that target] comes from," and that the new legislation would provide that.
In place of a court's approval -- which intelligence officials worried might come too slowly -- the NSA would institute a system of internal bureaucratic controls.
A senior intelligence official said that in cases in which an overseas target is communicating with people in the United States not relevant to an investigation, their names are "minimized," or stripped from the transcript, before it is disseminated. "You won't see data mining in there," the official said. "You won't see vast drift net surveillance of Americans. . . . What we do not do is target people in the United States without a warrant."
Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, said that the Democrats would introduce legislation on surveillance in the fall and would conduct oversight of the administration's surveillance program.
A narrower Democratic alternative, which Democrats said they crafted partly in response to McConnell's concerns, won majority support but nonetheless failed because it did not collect the necessary two-thirds vote Friday night in the House. It failed after an emotional debate in which Republicans charged Democrats with being soft on terrorism and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused Republicans of not caring "about the truth."
Under the administration's version of the bill, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general can authorize the surveillance of all communications involving foreign targets. Oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, composed of federal judges whose deliberations are secret, would be limited to examining whether the government's guidelines for targeting overseas suspects are appropriate. The court would not authorize the surveillance.
The bill's six-month sunset clause did not assuage some critics.
"I'm not comfortable suspending the constitution even temporarily," said Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), a member of the House intelligence committee. "The countries we detest around the world are the ones that spy on their own people. Usually they say they do it for the sake of public safety and security."
The Senate had passed the legislation Friday night after House Democrats failed to win enough votes to pass a narrower revision of a statute known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original statute was enacted after the revelation of CIA abuses in the 1970s, and it required judicial oversight for most federal wiretapping conducted in the United States.
Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions of the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attacks.
Democrats facing reelection next year in conservative districts helped propel the bill to a quick approval. Adding to the pressures they felt were recent intelligence reports about threatening new al-Qaeda activity in Pakistan and the disclosure by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) of a secret court ruling earlier this year that complicated the wiretapping of purely foreign communications that happen to pass through a communications node on U.S. soil.
The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto emphasized that the bill is not meant to increase eavesdropping on Americans or "to affect in any way the legitimate privacy rights" of U.S. citizens. Data related to Americans in communications with foreigners who are the targets of a U.S. terrorism investigation could be monitored only if intelligence officials have a reasonable expectation of learning information relevant to that probe, a senior U.S. official said.
"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months.
Some House Democrats were still upset by what they saw as a deliberate scuttling by the White House of negotiations on a compromise bill. On Thursday, Democratic leaders reached what they believed was a deal with the government's chief intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, only to be presented with a new list of conditions at the last minute. The White House and McConnell have denied that a deal had been reached.
"I think the White House didn't want to take 'yes' for an answer from the Democrats," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an intelligence committee member.
The administration said that its bill is aimed at bringing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 into step with advances in technology, primarily by restoring the government's power to gather without a warrant foreign intelligence on targets located overseas.
Tuesday 7 August 2007
House Approves Wiretap Measures
Like this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
Monday 6 August 2007
Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
THIS MAN IS AN EVIL TWERP !!! SEE THE LINK BELOW !
SCUMBAG EXPOSED !!
Other Flight 93 Facts you may not know :
Flight 93
Another purported 9-11 airliner crash site, lacking viable evidence of the acclaimed event. This time, there was no immediate arrival of emergency crews. What people eventually arrived were the “official claimants,” and volunteers who scratched their head at all the mysterious small pieces of aircraft wreckage, versus tangible proof of an actual aircraft.
The ‘proof’ was a 75-foot gouge in the landscape; at a man-made site. This time, there were no witnesses. Again, no tail, no wings; once again, no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.” Even the local grass was undamaged – and un-burned! Once again the geometry of the scene certified the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie. As with the Pentagon, the few aircraft parts discovered are highly suspect. This time, there were no dramatic on-site "witness" accounts. What witnesses there were asked serious and intelligent questions. Aircraft were seen in the area – but the FBI initially denied the possibility. The trustworthy witnesses once again described the only physical evidence in terms of incredibly few parts.
From a Washington Post article:
Miller was among the very first to arrive after 10:06 on the magnificently sunny morning of September 11. He was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, "like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."
That is not a description of an aircraft crash site. Yet, what was sold to the world by the mass media of the supposed land of the free?
The first clue that something is wrong with the Flight 93 story is the same as the Pentagon and the purported demise of Flight 77; the predominant smoke color in the photo (immediately above) is clearly NOT that coming from burning jet fuel. Again, that was also true in all the photographs of the purported Pentagon strike. In all pictures of the Pentagon fire, the ONLY prominent "thick black smoke" emanates from the generator unit, within the construction area fence, not from anything associated with the supposed aircraft. An aircraft full of fuel, crashing at 300 Knots, will NOT experience a delay in the full burning of its fuel; not at the Pentagon and not in Pennsylvania!
Beyond the Pentagon “hit,” there is plenty of "curious business" behind the supposed crash of Flight 93. Try to imagine the odds of a second crash site with no tail, no wings, minimum “parts” and a missing tattle-tale black column of burning jet fuel. A second trans-continental flight with hardly any passengers and no cargo. Far too much for “coincidence;" IMPOSSIBLE!
Look at the pictures above; at all the unburned grass and the green trees so close to the alleged impact point. The site more closely approaches a garbage land-fill! That's not the impact point of an airliner carrying approximately 6,000 gallons of Jet-A fuel! The 'crater' is approximately 70 feet in diameter. There is no evidence of any flying parts tearing down trees, as they scatter from any forward speed or explosion. No wings, No tail. No engines. No aircraft!
A B-757 would not have just 'morphed' into the ground, leaving no prominent trace of parts. Not at ANY velocity!
Again, the “smoke” photograph of the “crash” (below) is that of ordnance, not jet fuel. There is no evidence of “scorched earth” from the burning jet fuel, there is no suggestion of wings hitting this site, either.
Clearly, the blast came from the ground, the “aircraft” was NOT shot down. Nor, did the aircraft come apart in the air, coming down in pieces; due to structural breakup or a bomb. Seismic data clearly demonstrates that, as well. If the aircraft had been shot down, there would have been a huge area of scattered burning debris; with associated witnesses, including satellite imagery. Also, the wings, cockpit and tail section would have survived in the format of "big" pieces. Such an in-flight breakup would have left a distinct “trail” of parts, according to the final flight track of the aircraft.
The “distribution” of the few aircraft parts and debris is inconsistent with a crash site. Some parts were found miles away – in the wrong directions. The impact site and tree line fire suggest the direction of the alleged “aircraft” travel; still the distant parts and debris are in the wrong location – typically too far away, as well; aircraft crash debris doesn’t ‘bounce.’ But, clearly an ordnance explosion might distribute those small parts and debris.
Yet, there is a lingering matter of the C-130 in the area, having flown up from the Pentagon "event." In theory, those same small pieces of aircraft could have been "salted," as was seen at the Pentagon. The same batch of small aircraft wreckage pieces - missing part numbers and serial numbers.
It must be noted also that the "pieces" of an entire 757 were extracted in hand-buckets. Yet, we're supposed to believe that a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) - located in the "missing" tail section of the aircraft - survived in sufficient condition to yield "evidence." Interestingly, the only presented "evidence" dissuaded families from questioning the "Flight 93 Story." The family 'closure' was even manufactured.
A variety of Internet sites are presenting reliable witness accounts, which attest to precious few suggestions of a crash site, versus a staged crash site - lacking imagination. These accounts are particularly worthy of serious consideration, as they are backed up by physical evidence.
The Flight 93 flight recorders were supposedly recovered from 25 feet under ground. No sign of the tail section which should have housed the recorders, however. Twenty-five feet? An avid high-powered rifle shooter can't imagine getting a bullet that deep; so how did those square boxes get that deep - and then survive to yield data?? It doesn't make a trace of sense. No, let's call that IMPOSSIBLE!
The automatic response to all this goes to the fate of the actual aircraft & occupants – the real mystery, in all this. Raw guestimation is the only response available, for the moment. The planes and occupants are gone; in some fashion. Did the aircraft actually take off? Who can be certain? If they did, where did they go? What of the people/bodies?
One must speculate that both the Flight 77 and 93 aircraft did take off. Possibly they flew some portion of their flight plan. Then at some point, they turned off their transponders & possibly flew to a closed Air Force Base or private airport, to be hidden in a hangar – probably during the “…land now!” chaos. The physical requirement would be a 5,000 foot runway; and a hanger with a 130 foot door. A Canadian airfield shouldn't be ruled out. Afterward – who knows? Are there approximately 110 people with a new identity, face and country of residence? Unfortunately, there are no prominent clues. While "rumors" suggest that the two aircraft may have slipped into the Cleveland airport, the needed level of secrecy and security tends to discount (not exclude) that as a possibility. Thus, pragmatic speculation almost exclusively rules that scenario.
It's not inconceivable that the passengers on all four hijacked aircraft, including the Pentagon & Pennsylvania flights, were asphyxiated via cabin de-pressurization, using the standard cockpit controls. It would be a simple matter to disable the passenger emergency depressurization controls, by pulling the appropriate circuit breakers. Thereafter, the cockpit emergency oxygen would be sufficient for the survival of the hijacker(s). It's quite possible for the pilots to have gained the cockpit jump-seat, even in flight; that's common. If a pilot sent up a quality "airline" or "FAA" ID card with the flight attendant, with a request to "visit the flight deck;" as a courtesy reflex, the captain says, "... sure."
Dead passengers & crew would certainly save any "people-handling." If any team could knowingly kill thousands in the World Trade Center, a few more wouldn't likely disturb such psychotic rationalization.
As with the rest of 9-11, the purported personal cell phone calls don't hold water, due to the cruise altitude, the shielding of the aircraft skin and the cell-tower 'switching' technology of the day.
Remember that none of the hijackers’ names are yet known to be on the associated passenger manifests; approximately seven of the purported "names" are reported to be still alive (no 'official' questions being asked). The aircraft have probably been disposed of, in some manner. Currently, only speculation is available, as to such details.
Bush Signs Law to Widen Reach for Wiretapping
 |
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.
They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.
“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.
Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.
Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.
By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.
For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.
But he stressed that the objective of the new law is to give the government greater flexibility in focusing on foreign suspects overseas, not to go after Americans.
“It’s foreign, that’s the point,” Mr. Fratto said. “What you want to make sure is that you are getting the foreign target.”
The legislation to change the surveillance act was rushed through both the House and Senate in the last days before the August recess began.
The White House’s push for the change was driven in part by a still-classified ruling earlier this year by the special intelligence court, which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.
The new law, which is intended as a stopgap and expires in six months, also represents a power shift in terms of the oversight and regulation of government surveillance.
The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.
The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
Democratic Congressional aides said Sunday that some telecommunications company officials had told Congressional leaders that they were unhappy with that provision in the bill and might challenge the new law in court. The aides said the telecommunications companies had told lawmakers that they would rather have a court-approved warrant ordering them to comply.
In fact, pressure from the telecommunications companies on the Bush administration has apparently played a major hidden role in the political battle over the surveillance issue over the past few months.
In January, the administration placed the N.S.A.’s warrantless wiretapping program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and subjected it for the first time to the scrutiny of the FISA court.
Democratic Congressional aides said Sunday that they believed that pressure from major telecommunications companies on the White House was a major factor in persuading the Bush administration to do that. Those companies were facing major lawsuits for having secretly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program, and now wanted greater legal protections before cooperating further.
But the change suddenly swamped the court with an enormous volume of search warrant applications, leading, in turn, to the administration’s decision to seek the new legislation.
