Recommended Reading Of the Conspiratorial Kind

• Yakov Shafranovich at NetWizard has been documenting his request to the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act for a copy of the records they’ve collected concerning him, especially where this whole USA Today domestic wiretapping thing is concerned. He’s also got the documentation of the NSA’s denial to provide that information to him up as well as links to other people who’ve been denied their own records. You might want to check it out. (Hat Tip: Thoughts of an Average Woman)
• Was 9/11 allowed to happen by the U.S. Government (and not just the Bush Administration)? Here’s an exerpt from a timeline at WanttoKnow.info:
  

  1998–2000: On three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden’s location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the attack can’t go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

  2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

  2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]

  Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

  Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]

  May 2001: For the third time, US security chiefs reject Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.” [Guardian, 9/30/01, more]

  June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, more]

  July 4-14, 2001: Bin Laden may have received kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Callaway at the American Hospital in Dubai. Dr. Callaway declines to comment. During his stay, bin Laden is alleged to have been visited by one or two CIA agents. [Guardian, 11/1/01, Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/01, London Times 11/1/01, UPI, 11/1/01, more]

  July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment. [CBS, 7/26/01] In May 2002, Ashcroft walks out of his office rather than answer questions about it. [AP, 5/16/02, more]

  Aug 6, 2001: President Bush receives an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentions the WTC. Yet Bush later claims it “said nothing about an attack on America.” [Washington Post, 4/12/04, Briefing, 8/6/01, more]

  Aug 27, 2001: An FBI supervisor says he’s trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the WTC.” [Senate Report (Hill #2), 10/17/02] Headquarters chastises him for notifying the CIA. [Time, 5/21/02] The FBI Director later states, “There was nothing the agency could have done to prevent the attacks.” [Senate (Breitweiser), 9/18/02, more]

  Sept 10, 2001: “Newsweek has learned a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.” [Newsweek, 9/24/01, more]

  Sept 11, 2001: Data recovery experts extract data from 32 damaged WTC computer drives. The data reveals a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through WTC computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01, more]

  Sept 11, 2001: Described as a bizarre coincidence, a US intelligence agency was all set for an exercise on Sept 11th at 9:00 AM in which an aircraft would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. [AP, 8/22/02, more]

  Sept 11, 2001: Hours after the attacks, a “shadow government” is formed. Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know this government-in-waiting had been established. [CBS, 3/2/02, Washington Post, 3/2/02, more]

  Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events within hours of the attacks. The tape is never turned over to the FBI. It is later destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it. [Washington Post, 5/6/04, New York Times, 5/6/04]

  Sept 13-19, 2001: Bin Laden’s family is taken under FBI supervision to a secret assembly point. They leave the country by private plane when airports reopen days after the attacks. [NY Times, 9/30/01, Boston Globe, 9/20/01, more]

  Sept 15-16, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations. [Newsweek, 9/15/01, Washington Post, 9/16/01, New York Times, 9/15/01, more]

  Sept 23, 2001: Several of the 9/11 hijackers later mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report turn up alive. Alleged 9/11 pilot Waleed Al Shehri, on seeing his name and photograph, informs journalists that he is alive. [BBC, 9/23/01, more]

  Dec 2001-Feb 2002: The US engineers the rise to power of two former Unocal Oil employees: Hamid Karzai, the interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the US envoy. The big American bases created in the Afghan war are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline. [Chicago Tribune, 3/18/02, more]

  May 17, 2002: Dan Rather says that he and other journalists haven’t been properly investigating since 9/11. He graphically describes the pressures to conform that built up after the attacks. [Guardian, 5/17/02, more]

  May 23, 2002: President Bush says he is opposed to establishing an independent commission to probe 9/11. [CBS, 5/23/02] Vice President Cheney earlier opposed any public hearings on 9/11. [Newsweek, 2/4/02, more]

  Visit the website for a more lengthy timeline or watch the documentary or check out the 9/11 information center. (Hat Tip The Martian Anthropologist)

• There’s been lots of comparisons between President Bush and Hitler in the last few years. Both men have been considered to be devoutly religious. Both men, as leaders, requested temporary extraordinary powers to govern, powers specifically banned under their countries’ law, but powers they both claimed they needed to have to deal with the “terrorists”, and the people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions and denial that the government would do nothing to harm them, agreed. Here is a brilliant comparison to what happened to Germany and how it was the refusal of the German public to stand up to Hitler and The Third Reich that destroyed Germany and what is happening in America and how it is the American public’s refusal to see what is truly going on that will be our downfall. I personally agree that the media then and now definitely is much at fault for refusing to do the job it should do as unbiased observer. (Hat Tip: The Martian Anthropologist)

Tags: Conspiracy Theories, 9/11, George W. Bush, Hitler, NSA, warrantless wiretapping, spying on Americans, Freedom of Information Act, USA Today

Ex-NSA Chief Inman Criticizes Bush’s Warrantless Wiretaps

Monday night at a panel discussion at the New York Public Library on the NSA’s continued use of warrantless domestic wiretaps authorized by President Bush, former NSA director (under President Jimmy Carter) Bobby Ray Inman became one of the hightest-ranking former intelligence officials to publically criticize the program. Dispite having previously being very careful in public statements he’s made since the NSA eavesdropping program hit the public media in December, he now said that “this activity is not authorized,” and that the Bush administration “need(s) to get away from the idea that they can continue doing it.”

Now Inman is calling on the President to either officially change the law governing wiretaps or abandon the program, suggesting that the program is indeed illegal.

Source: “Ex-NSA Chief Assils Bush Taps” (Wired News)

Tags: spying on Americans, warrantless wiretapping, George W. Bush, Bobby Ray Inman, NSA

Domestically Spying on Americans

Is there anyone left in this country who really truly believes that Bush hasn’t already authorized the NSA to spy on Americans using wiretaps on purely domestic calls?

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales left open the possibility yesterday that President Bush could order warrantless wiretaps on telephone calls occurring solely within the United States — a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.

In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the administration could decide it was legal to listen in on a domestic call without supervision if it were related to al-Qaeda.

“I’m not going to rule it out,” Gonzales said.

In the past, Gonzales and other officials refused to say whether they had the legal authority to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on domestic calls, and have stressed that the NSA eavesdropping program is focused only on international communications.

Gonzales previously testified in the Senate that Bush had considered including purely domestic communications in the NSA spying program, but he said the idea was rejected in part because of fears of a public outcry. He also testified at the time that the Justice Department had not fully analyzed the legal issues of such a move. [“Warrantless Wiretaps Possible in U.S.” (Washington Post)]

Generally, by the time this kind of questioning is going on publically, the authorization has apparently already been made if history is any indication with Bush and his administration. Of course, my crazy activist co-worker’s been calling the phone company trying to get them to admit her phone is tapped for months and I’ve assumed since working for the government that mine is so I don’t actually blame Bush for that one. I just thought I’d pass the news on.

Tags: Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, Senate, warrantless wiretapping, spying on Americans, Adam Schiff, House Judiciary Committee, NSA

comments See also in In the News, The World, Conspiracy Theories

Support House Resolution 635 — Impeach Bush

I am taking steps against the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War and its warrantless wiretapping. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability.

Join me to demand the creation of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching the Bush Administration for its widespread abuses of power.

I have sought answers from the administration to questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and scores of other abominable abuses of power that pervade the activities of this White House. 121 Members of Congress and many citizens like you have joined me in asking these questions of the President.

I recently completed a thorough review of this administration’s misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at Raw Story.com and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]

It is time to take bolder measures in our pursuit of justice. This White House has responded to questions about its conduct with misleading statements, obfuscation, and vicious attacks against their critics. We must take the next step towards restoring accountability in our federal government. To this end I have:

• I am calling upon Congress to create a select committee similar to the Ervin Committee, which investigated President Nixon’s Watergate crimes. This select committee should investigate those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment, and;
• Introduced a resolution of censure for both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds. We have considerable work to do and I am going to need your help to make this effort successful. Join me in sending a message to the President, the media, and the American people that we are not going to stand for an imperial presidency any longer.

Sincerely,

John Conyers

Do take the time to click the above links and show your support for John Conyers resolution. You can check on how it’s doing by visiting it’s home in the Library of Congress or checking out the blog at Six Three Five Dot Com.

Websites of Interest:

• Six Three Five Dot Com
• John Conyers, Jr’s Website
• Are You Working For Impeachment
• Impeach Bush Coalition

Tags: politics, John Conyers, HR635, George W. Bush, Impeach, Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, Censure

Feingold Takes A Stand

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few Democrats in Washington who actually does what he says and stands for something anymore, appeared on ABC’s This Week today and announced that tomorrow he’s introducing a very special resolution to the Senate. The resolution would censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program, something many Americans on both sides of the political fence have considered within impeachment territory. Certainly, it brings up some unanswered questions and it displays once again President Bush’s nose-thumbing at the U.S. Constitution and the laws he’s supposed to uphold as our top-most leader. I think we all deserve some answers, and if Bush is well within his rights, then fine, but let’s do this right.

If you want to see the video, go here.

But if you’re lazy, here’s the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tomorrow in the Senate you’ll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, “Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.” That is a big step. Why are you taking it now?

FEINGOLD: It’s an unusual step. It’s a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, the President says he was acting on his inherent authority under the Constitution, and even your resolution acknowledges that no federal court has ruled that a president does not have that authority as Commander in Chief, so aren’t you jumping the gun?

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to consider, is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the President? We’re not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute, there has to be — at least as a first step — some accountability. Proper accountability is a censuring of the President, to say, “Mr. President, acknowledge you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government.” That’s what I think we should do. [“VIDEO: Feingold Will Introduce Resolution To Censure President Bush” (ThinkProgress.org)]

Tags: Russ Feingold, Censure, Democrats, warrantless wiretapping, The U.S. Constitution, George W. Bush, politics, Senate

Recommended Reading

There’s so much going on in the news and on the web that I really wanted to comment on it all today but it’s got my brain buzzing. Still I didn’t want some of these things to slip away without sharing because they really are worth a good read.

• Iraq through the Prism of Vietnam - a nice comparison of the two wars by Retired Gen. William Odom. “He lists striking similarities and asserts that only after it pulls out of Iraq can the U.S. hope for international support to deal with anti-Western forces.”
• To the Inequality of Men and Women - Matsu wrote an excellent history of the modern day fight for equality of the sexes and how maybe it wasn’t exactly everything we thought it was going to be and what it might take to get it right.
• It’s about damn time! - Kevin brings up the question that if a woman has the right to choose whether to abort, give a child up for adoption or raise a child, shouldn’t the father have the right to choose whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the child? Currently, our legal system makes that choice for men.
• What’s Good for the Wiretapped Goose Is Apparently Not Good For the Wiretapped Gander — the writers at Wonkette feel that if Bush can listen into their calls, they should be allowed to drop in on enator Rockefeller’s conference calls.
• The nattering nabobs of…patriotism? — this is a very creative editorial by Paul Lewis, a what if, if you will. It’s an amusing mismatch of 1776 and 2006.

Tags: politics, Iraq, Vietnam War, Women's Rights, warrantless wiretapping, patriotism, Men's Rights

Bush Remains Untouchable

Well, apparently there isn’t going to be an investigation into Bush’s post-9-11 warrantless wiretapping. It pisses me off becauce I know that if the roles of the parties were reversed Rush and O’Reilly and the Republicans would be calling for an investigation and an impeachment and saying it was the American public’s right to know.

It’s even more suspicious after all the threatening and posturing Frist did last week when it looked like the committee in question might indeed vote to investigate.

Instead, as a compromise, a new seven-member subcommittee is being formed to scrutinize the eavesdropping under a plan approved by the White House. The proposed plan would authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant for 45 days but require the White House to justify every decision to continue beyond that timeframe. The legislative proposal, titled the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, also would force the eavesdropping program to cease after five years unless renewed by Congress. [“Senate panel rejects bid for NSA inquiry” (Reuters.com)]
I’m telling you there is something very wrong going on in Washington D.C. Some very bad mojo indeed.

Tags: politics, warrantless wiretapping, George W. Bush, Republicans, hypocrisy, Terrorist Surveillance Act

Quotes of the Day: Wiretaps

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. –President Bush, April 20, 2004

Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence. — Attorney General Gonzales, December 19, 2005.

Tags: warrantless wiretapping, George W. Bush, lie, Alberto Gonzales

American Secrets For Dummies - Er - Terrorists

Duffy stressed that “the leaking of classified information is a serious issue.” And he defended the use of wiretaps, warning that “Al-Qaeda’s playbook is not printed on page one, and when America’s is, it has serious ramifications.”[“White House says Justice opted to probe wiretap leak independently” (Yahoo!News)]

More

Tags: warrantless wiretapping, al-Qaeda, spying on Americans, terrorism, Wag the Dog

comments See also in Politics & Causes, In the News, The World, Featured, 9-11 & Terrorism, Conspiracy Theories

Spying on Americans

“The president does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow.”
– Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat [“Bush stands by right to order spying inside US (FT.com)]

Traditionally, US law forbids the NSA and the CIA from spying inside the US. That sort of thing usually falls into the FBI’s realm of operations and then only with a court order for setting up wire taps and the like.

Yet shortly after 9/11, President Bush ordered the NSA to tap telephone conversations inside the US, supposedly targeting persons (yes, including American citizens — especially American citizens) suspected of “connections with terrorists”. Mind you, among those targeted were the ACLU, a vegan group, and Americans involved in anti-war protests — Americans exercising their freedom to disagree with the government.

Sounds a little like Nixon to me.

We all remember Nixon, right? Well, those of us who are too young to have followed it closely at the time got a full helping of it in American History classes anyway. One of the things Nixon got in trouble for was abusing his Presidential power by authorizing the illegal wiretapping of Americans. He used wiretaps on all sorts of groups, people, politicians…anyone who didn’t agree with him…

Since 1979, 19,000 requests for eavesdropping the Federal Intelligence Security Court has received from the Executive Branch since 1979, only five have ever been refused.[“A TIME TO IMPEACH”] While President Bush claimed that his authorization of wiretaps without warants was necessary because action has to be taken quickly against the “terrorists”, reportedly, the secret FISA court can grant approval for wiretaps “within hours”.

If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t our President want to do everything by the book? If FISA’s court has a tradition of handing out warants at the drop of the hat, why wouldn’t he want those wiretap on some sort of official and legal record? Why wouldn’t our President want anyone backing him up officially?

Obviously, if he’s trying to circumvent the law, he must have something to hide, right? I mean, it just seems so suspicious…and he seems awfully defensive of the whole thing. Why did he choose the NSA for this task rather than the FBI if it was all legal and proper? Who didn’t he want to know and why? If it were all on the up-and-up, why is he worried?

Tags: politics, George W. Bush, warrantless wiretapping, NSA, spying on Americans, FBI, Russ Feingold, FISA, ACLU, CIA, Conspiracy Theories