Wednesday, June 19, 2013

 
BEWARE OF AFFILIATORS: those who associate but don't authenticate
FORGET OBAMA TRYING TO FORCE LOBBYING RULES ONTO CHARITABLE STATUS ORGANIZATIONS.... LOOK AT HOW MUCH $ YOU’VE WASTED ON OBAMA FOR LEADERSHIP WE KNEW YOU’D NEVER GET... Janie Johnson ‏@jjauthor12h
Phil Gingrey (R-GA): “Use of official time is estimated to cost taxpayers $1.3 billion over 10 years.” Holy cow! #tcot @c_maydc
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
  • 2RETWEETS
7:14 AM - 19 Jun 13 · Details


THE <DERP> EDITION  6-20-13 SPYGATE: NSA-KGB PRISM PROGRAM RUNS $136 BILLION MAY DEFICIT, AS OBAMA, KING-OF-WELFARE POLICIES FAIL: HEALTH CARE REFORM? RUINED. ACCOUNTABILITY WITH BANKS? TOO BIG TO JAIL. STUDENT LOANS? RATES SET TO DOUBLE DUE TO LACK OF DEFICIT REDUCTION AND LACK OF JOB GROWTH. TRANSPARENCY? WAX PAPER. FOREIGN POLICY? IMPOTENT. IT’S TIME FOR SENATE IMPEACHMENT.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vxivRe3E6FtJdNDUquhC98UXlOOvHaFMO-ZU7C3iZ4Y/edit#
DERP! EVEN RUSSIA IS NOT BUYING OBAMA’S BERLIN SPEECH ABOUT REDUCING NUCLEAR ARSENALS AND RELATIONS ARE SO ICY, THEY ALL BUT AGREE TO SIGN RESTRAINING ORDERS AT THE G-8 SUMMIT...Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun
@USEmbassySyria 10/30/12, 11/1/12, 11/9/12, 2/19/13, 3/19/13, 3/24/13, 4/10/13, 5/1713, 5/27/13, 6/4/13, 6/9/13 - 6-2-13 BIO-WEAPONS THREATTea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 14 Jun
White House: The Assad regime has used deadly chemical weapons against its people at least eight times and killed... http://fb.me/EUyJyvXt Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 14 Jun
@USEmbassySyria 6/12/13-9/13/13 EXPANSION OF NATO RENEWAL, DUE TO VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5, PROPOSED NO-FLY ZONE  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r8vCyhT-EFpZlg0qHxqfWngf42ct6BDFEauPTvDLcVE/edit …
8:43 AM - 14 Jun 13 · Details
ON THE BOMB...
CONFERS WITH NETANYAHU ON BRITISH INTEL: Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
They say March of next year @netanyahu British intel says next month http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/defector-iran-prez-picked-by-ayatollah-not-vote/ … I say, Assad already has one under the Palace.Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
@MedvedevRussiaE Iran and Syria are nothing but government fronts for Hezbollah and Iran Revolutionary Guard http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/defector-iran-prez-picked-by-ayatollah-not-vote/ …

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
@MedvedevRussiaE There has been standing order to take out Assad since 5-14-13 @NATO will fire without exception now https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r8vCyhT-EFpZlg0qHxqfWngf42ct6BDFEauPTvDLcVE/edit …
@MedvedevRussiaE We intend on continuing use of drone rotation to prevent the spread of warfare, to protect Israel, and as cover for rebels.
@MedvedevRussiaE Putin is not to interfere. We will respond with planes and drones over further incidence of chemical weapons and scud use.
@MedvedevRussiaE Not only that, I am quite miffed Putin chose my original plans where he's parked now, but we will work around his presence.
That is my concern. Putin no longer has the luxury of dropping arms or supplying security to Assad without impunity now. @MedvedevRussiaE
What has transpired means Putin is now arming a terrorist regime using Assad as a govt. front @MedvedevRussiaE https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rG8JUosSiIo_daYyV8EqYURFTVKy0qDABVx2z3r4Cfk/edit …
My concern is Russia facing sanctions or charges by the @UN to persist in helping Assad @MedvedevRussiaE http://news.yahoo.com/u-puts-jets-jordan-fuels-russian-fear-syria-133442086.html …
@MedvedevRussiaE Not all of it is Russian, but you get the gist https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ST0iFpdx_R3GTf8_Zxa63dJCHyxrWRpvCVtr9aMiHvc/edit … and it will be updated again soon, when I have time.
@MedvedevRussiaE Considerations had to be made with Congress though, then other considerations made due to events https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ST0iFpdx_R3GTf8_Zxa63dJCHyxrWRpvCVtr9aMiHvc/edit …
@MedvedevRussiaE Our Constitution provides for self-defense. Syrians have that right, America supports that right https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151441189273670&set=a.10150477503253670.383130.773523669&type=3&theater …
@MedvedevRussiaE Never was anything wrong to shipping arms to Syria @HRClinton @CIAPressRelease @Martin_Dempsey but not including Congress.
Our Constitution permits the use of weaponry for self-defense; this was only a political argument not a moral one on Syria. @MedvedevRussiaE
Tell Putin @MedvedevRussiaE eating of the heart long been a warrior practice to ensure victory http://news.yahoo.com/u-puts-jets-jordan-fuels-russian-fear-syria-133442086.html … they aren't cannibals.



Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun
I see @MedvedevRussiaE Russia made dumbest mistake: next to supporting Assad whose govt. is front for terrorist regime, they say 'kill more'

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun

American Thinker ‏@AmericanThinker 16 Jun
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief

Tech-FAQ ‏@tech_faq16 Jun
The Associated Press advises Americans "DON'T KEEP YOUR DATA IN AMERICA OR WITH AMERICAN COMPANIES". http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ideas-keeping-you-data-safe-spying … #NSA #IRS #Obama
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief


Stuart Ganis ‏@StuartGanis16 Jun
NSA leaker gave evidence, British paper says: Britain's electronic intelligence agency monitored delegates' ph... http://bit.ly/18PHyAX
Hey, #FBI, #CIA, #DOJ, #IRS, #SecretService, #StateDepartment staff - are you PROUD to work for #Obama??  I wouldn't be either. #nobama
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
  • 3 RETWEETS
  • 2 FAVORITES
11:00 PM - 13 Jun 13 · Details

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
(yeah nothing like shaking out that dirty laundry for the whole world to see) metadata, Obama, NSA -- you can't stop me ://Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
@RonPaul Everyone has to disclose what they do with money, and you've been found out @BarackObamaTea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
@RonPaul So unlike you @BarackObama it doesn't matter how many hours I sit at the desk or if I lobby during 'business hours' or what I tweet

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
@RonPaul That's the problem though. My business runs itself. It runs with my eyes closed http://lnk.ms/dX3v3  24/7 @BarackObama it's open.

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
@RonPaul the metadata tracks facebook postings, tweets, and can hack email to decipher communication reach and money or ideas

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 13 Jun
Other reason for #1984Orweillian #NSA #PRISM prg. being used to target Tea Party @RonPaul is to used metadata to say lobbying rules violated
@FBIPressOffice starting to feel better after holding all that in all these years. Mueller a dinosaur! GOOD RIDDANCE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0mQeLWCCo … MUELLER :// (INSTEAD OF BUELLER)Ted Poe ‏@JudgeTedPoe11h
#POTUS upcoming trip to Africa will cost roughly $100 million. The cost of this trip could fund WH tours for 1,350 weeks-almost 26 years!
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
17 RETWEETS
  • 5 FAVORITES
7:29 AM - 19 Jun 13 · Details

June 10, 2010, 2:06 p.m. EDT

U.S. May budget deficit

$136 billion: Treasury

NEW Portfolio Relevance LEARN MORE
By Greg Robb
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. government ran a $136 billion budget deficit in May, the Treasury Department reported Thursday. A year ago in May the deficit was $190 billion. Income was $147 billion in May, the Treasury said, about $30 billion higher than receipts in May 2009. The increase came as there were fewer individual income tax receipts in the month. More refunds than usual were made in April this year. Spending was $283 billion in May. This is $24 billion lower compared with a year earlier as a large amount of payments were shifted to April. The May deficit was $6 billion below a congressional estimate and marked the 20th consecutive monthly budget shortfall. For the first eight months of the fiscal year, the government incurred a budget deficit of about $936 billion, $56 billion less than the deficit recorded during the same period last year. Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
@BarackObama Most people do not see the benefit of the invasion of their privacy when we've had so many security threats regardless.Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
People aren't buying your claim to transparency. You have to get consent before blowing billions on a cyberprogram #PRISM @BarackObama
Dutch at @HouseIntelComm hearing on #NSA: let's declassify what we can and won't hurt our national security

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
Ask yourself @TexGov how accurate is a #RodOfThor missile from a cell phone pinged location? http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html … pic.twitter.com/CoBNvdSdzY

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
9:28 PM - 16 Jun 13 · Details

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 16 Jun
WHY DOES PRISM COST SO MUCH MONEY, IF IT IS THE “LAZY DOG” CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM THAT OBAMA, THE FBI, AND THE NSA
CLAIM THAT IT IS?!   NO: IT’S A MEGA METADATA INSIDER-TRADING SCOOPER, A CYBERSECURITY TURNED SPY PROGRAM, RUN AMOK !!
SO MUCH FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT! Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
Tweet text
11:07 AM - 18 Jun 13 · Details
NSA LEAK SOURCE SAYS “TIP OF THE ICEBERG”, OTHER PEOPLE INTERVIEWED SAY “ 10 YEARS AGO, THE MINORITY REPORT WAS A MOVIE. 10 YEARS LATER, IT HAS BECOME A REALITY!!”
THIS WAS THE GOVT. PROFITING OFF SPYING ON YOU AND MAKING YOUR COMPUTER VULNERABLE TO THEIR PERSONAL BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, AND INSTANTANEOUS KILL-SWITCH.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OBAMA IS NOT THOROUGHLY IMPEACHED BY THE SENATE. OBAMA THEN USES EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO GO AROUND CONGRESS. Brit Hume ‏@brithume24h
"The Obama administration has made controversies worse by changing its stories, distorting facts & lying." http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/do-you-trust-this-man-20130617 …

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 24h
@brithume @BarackObama spent 5yrs. lying about not meeting natural born clause/spying on Tea Party, killed jobs w/insider trading #ACA

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 23h
@brithume @BarackObama Nothing but perpetual lies and scandals, this goes far beyond and image problem, this is an integrity problem now.
7:48 PM - 18 Jun 13 · Details

Not content to wait on congress, President Obama signs cyber security executive order<DERP> WHO CARES IF IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OR GOES AROUND CONGRESS YET AGAIN?! I’VE VIRTUALLY WIPED MY ASS WITH THAT DOCUMENT AND CONGRESS!!

February 12, 2013 8:32 PM
in Share 7
While congress has yet to reach any sort of lasting solution regarding the nations growing cyber security problems, President Barack Obama has decidedly taken the first big step in an executive order signed earlier today.
The executive order places the National Institute of Standards and Technology with the responsibility of  creating cyber security standards for organizations and industries that are of great importance to the country, such as transportation, utilities (water and electric), and healthcare. The department of Homeland Security will then work with businesses and industry groups on a volunteer basis to ensure that the standards are being met properly as well as come up with incentives to get more organizations/businesses on board.
The executive order would also create a new initiative for businesses to share their cyber security data with a centralized organization that could make sense of it, and allow security experts to advise on how to prevent future attacks.
Right now the biggest deterrent in getting businesses and other organizations to get on some kind of standard cyber security plan is that most don’t want to be held liable for security breaches due to failure of these self-imposed regulations. However, if congress passes new legislation regarding cyber security standards, that could change.
Last year the House passed legislation call CISPA, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which would have addressed many of the concerns businesses and other organizations had about a cyber security standards. The bill sought to give American companies more legal breathing room (protection against lawsuits) when collecting and sharing consumer/user data for the purpose of preventing massive Internet security threats. However, CISPA had few guarantees that it wouldn’t grossly violate an individual’s privacy rights, and initially faced of a presidential veto threat). The White House eventually put a stamp of approval on a revised version of the bill, which failed a vote in the Senate.
Now, that same House bill is tentatively headed back to the floor for another vote Wednesday, meaning congress has one more chance to pass the White House-approved version.
This is an issue that President Obama clearly understand is important (having highlighted it specifically in tonight’s State of the Union address), and his executive order essentially lays the groundwork for the CISPA bill to pass, should that happen.
You can read full text of the cyber security executive order in the document embedded below.
From around the Web

WHAT BEGAN AS A SLOW EXPERIMENT OF DATA TRACKING OVER THE PAST DECADE, THEN BECAME A LAYERING OF PROGRAMS FOR CYBERSECURITY FOCUSING ON YOUR BROWSER USAGE: ALL GROUPED TOGETHER THROUGH YAHOO, GIVING THE GOVT. AN INSTANT WINDOW INTO YOUR DAILY LIFE, SPENDING HABITS, PERSONAL EFFECTS, AND TO SILENCE YOUR ONLINE ACTIVITY AND SHORT OUT YOUR EQUIPMENT WITH AN INVASIVE AND INTRUSIVE KILL-SWITCH.

Edward Snowden's not the first to make claims about NSA

Previous employees have said that the cyber-spying agency is tracking Americans' communications. Intelligence officials maintain that is not the case.

*
Protesters rally at the Capitol in opposition to the National Security Agency's surveillance programs. (Win McNamee, Getty Images / June 16, 2013)
*Famous document-leakers in recent history
By Ken Dilanian, Washington Bureau
1:47 a.m. EDT, June 16, 2013
WASHINGTON — Mathematician William Binney worked for the National Security Agency for four decades, and in the late 1990s he helped design a system to sort through the digital data the agency was sucking up in the exploding universe of bits and bytes.
When the agency picked a rival technology, he became disillusioned. He retired a month after the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and later went public with his concerns.
Binney and several other former NSA employees said that the cyber-spying agency had created a massive digital dragnet to secretly track communications of Americans. Government officials denied the allegations and dismissed Binney and the others as conspiracy theorists who lost a bureaucratic fight.
Revelations from Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked secrets to the media, have made it clear that the NSA has been collecting and storing millions of domestic phone records every day — numbers, time and location, but not content — for at least seven years.
Another program, known as PRISM, has given the NSA access since at least 2007 to emails, video chats and other communications through U.S. Internet companies to spy on foreigners. American emails inevitably were swept up as well.
Were Binney and his colleagues right? Is the NSA conducting secret surveillance of Americans?
U.S. intelligence officials and senior members of Congress say no. They say authorities need a court order to actually use data gathered by the NSA on "U.S. persons," and only for investigations into terrorism or foreign espionage. If your data is sitting on an NSA server somewhere but is never examined, they argue, is your privacy really being invaded?
"What we create is a set of data … and only under specific times can we query that data," Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director, told a Senate committee Wednesday. "And when we do that it's auditable…. We don't get to swim through the data."
James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, used the metaphor of a library catalog system. All the telephone metadata goes into the library, but taking a specific book "off the shelf, opening it up and reading it" would require a warrant, he told NBC News.
And Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the "vast majority" of records are never accessed and are deleted after five years.
Civil liberties activists aren't convinced.
Phone records are "sensitive as hell," said Julian Sanchez, who blogs on privacy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "Who called a suicide hotline? Who called a divorce lawyer? A substance abuse counselor? Their gynecologist, followed by Planned Parenthood?"
NSA officials say that kind of information is irrelevant to the agency. It is tasked with collecting foreign intelligence and stopping terrorist plots, they say, and analysts would not be authorized to examine records on Americans unless they showed a link to a terrorism suspect or a foreign agent. All of the surveillance programs Snowden revealed, they add, were approved by Congress and are supervised by federal judges.
Critics say assurances about limits, rules and oversight would be more convincing if not for Snowden himself: He was able to remove highly classified documents from an NSA facility in Hawaii that officials say he was not authorized to access.
"Here's a low-level systems guy" who copied a top-secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a presidential directive about cyber attacks, said Mark Rumold, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group in San Francisco. "To say that there is a rigorous technical program in place to prevent broad-based lurking around through the data — I have a hard time believing that."
In a lawsuit, Rumold's group argues the NSA has used a "shadow network of surveillance devices" to acquire communications "of practically every American who uses the phone system or the Internet … in an unprecedented suspicionless general search through the nation's communications networks."
The group cites evidence from Mark Klein, who in 2006 went public with documents purporting to show a secret room at an AT&T facility in San Francisco where he believed the NSA was copying telecommunications traffic. AT&T lawyers have acknowledged in court that the documents are genuine — without confirming that they show what Klein believes.
Klein said what he found was consistent with Snowden's disclosures on NSA programs code-named Fairview and Blarney, which involved the collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past, as well as the PRISM program that accesses data from Internet companies.
Although the programs target foreigners, data on Americans are also captured. It is supposed to be discarded or blacked out under a process called minimization.
Officials decline to say precisely how minimization works, or whether the NSA collects more information on Americans than it has acknowledged.
The information black hole puzzles Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University who advises the Pentagon on privacy issues.
It is "complete and utter nonsense," Cate says, to argue that answering questions about NSA surveillance would help America's enemies.
Foreign governments and terrorists already know the NSA is targeting their telephones, emails and other communications, Cate said. "That's why Osama bin Laden's compound wasn't connected to the Internet," he added.
ken.dilanian@latimes.com
ALSO:
Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times
CHINA COMPLAINS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN ON A HACKING EXPEDITION....

Obama's secret order draws up overseas target list for cyberattacks

Summary: U.S. President Obama signed a directive that orders senior intelligence and defense staff to determine which foreign targets should be attacked with cyberweapons should the country come under attack.
By Zack Whittaker for Between the Lines | June 7, 2013 -- 20:19 GMT (13:19 PDT)U.S. President Obama giving a speech in February, just hours after signing an executive order on cybersecurity. (Image: CBS News)
Another day, another leak — in what has been a week of unauthorized disclosures that continues to envelop the White House in a privacy storm.
The U.S. government has drawn up a secret list of targets it can attack either preemptively or offensively if it came under attack, reports The Guardian. Read this
The London, U.K.-based newspaper continues its leak streak by publishing a secret 18-page order, which describes how his national security team and intelligence officials were told to draw up a list of overseas targets the U.S. government could attack if it were necessary.
Dubbed "Presidential Policy Directive 20," written in October — just months before President Obama signed an executive order on cybersecurity — the document describes how the U.S. government could take offensive measures against a hostile country or system "with little or no warning," and with "potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging."
In simple terms, the directive gives U.S. federal agencies the authority to "put in place tools and a framework to enable government to make decisions."
Detailed in the document, the Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) can be used to identify valuable foreign targets in which the U.S. can employ a cyberattack instead of a targeted, surgical drone strike, for instance.
The key quote as follows:
In the document, it describes how "offensive cyber effects" are defined by "operations and related programs or activities [...] in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside the U.S. government networks."
Obama himself must give the final order, according to the order. This ties in with an earlier report, citing The New York Times, that the President could launch a "pre-emptive" cyberattack against a state or government if required.

Read this

These attacks against foreign nations can be conducted without the authority of that government whenever "U.S. national interests and equities" warrant such assaults. Such attacks are described as "anticipatory action taken against imminent threats."
Perhaps more worryingly, the order can also be used domestically against networks within the U.S., but this must be given as an explicit order from the President — except in dire circumstances or emergencies, such as when imminent loss of life may occur.
Some of the caveats included in the document is that any cyberattack must fall within the principles of international law, and not exceed the values that the U.S. government promotes both domestically and internationally.
The document remains classified as "top secret," with a declassification date of October 16, 2037. Security markings on the document confirm the classification, and that it should not be distributed to foreign nationals.
THIS IS THE CLOSEST THING WE HAVE SEEN TO THE GOVT. TRYING TO ATTAIN ABSOLUTE POWER!
WHEN HACKED: PRISM EXPOSES YOUR GPS TO WARRANTLESS SEARCH, AND IT MAKES YOU VULNERABLE TO ANYONE WISHING TO ATTACK YOU. YOU CAN LOSE MONITORS, DAMAGED HARD DRIVES, OR SENSITIVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
KWMerican
6/8/2013 9:23 AM EDT
I don't believe the politicians when they say they're just collecting data and not listening in. After the lies about the IRS, Bengazi, Fast & Furious, etc., they have zero credibility.
I was reluctant, but willing to go along with the Patriot Act after 911 based upon the promises of limits. They lied and went way beyond. Should have listened to my gut and and the leftie privacy advocates....they were right.
I'm especially disappointed in the companies that went along and are lying in their denials (MS, Apple, Facebook, etc.). This has to stop. I'm willing to absorb a few attacks in exchange for our privacy.

U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

By Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras,June 06, 2013
The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.
The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.
Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”
London’s Guardian newspaper reported Friday that GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the NSA, also has been secretly gathering intelligence from the same internet companies through an operation set up by the NSA.
According to documents obtained by The Guardian, PRISM would appear to allow GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required in Britain to seek personal material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company based outside of the country.
PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority.
Congress obliged with the Protect America Act in 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with U.S. intelligence collection. PRISM recruited its first partner, Microsoft, and began six years of rapidly growing data collection beneath the surface of a roiling national debate on surveillance and privacy. Late last year, when critics in Congress sought changes in the FISA Amendments Act, the only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
The court-approved program is focused on foreign communications traffic, which often flows through U.S. servers even when sent from one overseas location to another. Between 2004 and 2007, Bush administration lawyers persuaded federal FISA judges to issue surveillance orders in a fundamentally new form. Until then the government had to show probable cause that a particular “target” and “facility” were both connected to terrorism or espionage.
In four new orders, which remain classified, the court defined massive data sets as “facilities” and agreed to certify periodically that the government had reasonable procedures in place to minimize collection of “U.S. persons” data without a warrant.
In a statement issued late Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said “information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”
Clapper added that there were numerous inaccuracies in reports about PRISM by The Post and the Guardian newspaper, but he did not specify any.
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “I would just push back on the idea that the court has signed off on it, so why worry? This is a court that meets in secret, allows only the government to appear before it, and publishes almost none of its opinions. It has never been an effective check on government.”
Several companies contacted by The Post said they had no knowledge of the program, did not allow direct government access to their servers and asserted that they responded only to targeted requests for information.
“We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers,” said Joe Sullivan, chief security officer for Facebook. “When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”
“We have never heard of PRISM,” said Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Apple. “We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”
(Page 2 of 3)
It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.
Government officials and the document itself made clear that the NSA regarded the identities of its private partners as PRISM’s most sensitive secret, fearing that the companies would withdraw from the program if exposed. “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft; we need to make sure we don’t harm these sources,” the briefing’s author wrote in his speaker’s notes.
An internal presentation of 41 briefing slides on PRISM, dated April 2013 and intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 items last year. According to the slides and other supporting materials obtained by The Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.
That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.
The technology companies, whose cooperation is essential to PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley, according to the document. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted traffic of substantial intelligence interest during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war.
Dropbox, the cloud storage and synchronization service, is described as “coming soon.”
Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who had classified knowledge of the program as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were unable to speak of it when they warned in a Dec. 27, 2012, floor debate that the FISA Amendments Act had what both of them called a “back-door search loophole” for the content of innocent Americans who were swept up in a search for someone else.
“As it is written, there is nothing to prohibit the intelligence community from searching through a pile of communications, which may have been incidentally or accidentally been collected without a warrant, to deliberately search for the phone calls or e-mails of specific Americans,” Udall said.
Wyden repeatedly asked the NSA to estimate the number of Americans whose communications had been incidentally collected, and the agency’s director, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, insisted there was no way to find out. Eventually Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III wrote Wyden a letter stating that it would violate the privacy of Americans in NSA data banks to try to estimate their number.
Roots in the ’70s
PRISM is an heir, in one sense, to a history of intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s. The NSA calls these Special Source Operations, and PRISM falls under that rubric.
The Silicon Valley operation works alongside a parallel program, code-named BLARNEY, that gathers up “metadata” — technical information about communications traffic and network devices — as it streams past choke points along the backbone of the Internet. BLARNEY’s top-secret program summary, set down in the slides alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat, describes it as “an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks.”
But the PRISM program appears to more nearly resemble the most controversial of the warrantless surveillance orders issued by President George W. Bush after the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its history, in which President Obama presided over exponential growth in a program that candidate Obama criticized, shows how fundamentally surveillance law and practice have shifted away from individual suspicion in favor of systematic, mass collection techniques.
The Obama administration points to ongoing safeguards in the form of “extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.”
(Page 3 of 3)
And it is true that the PRISM program is not a dragnet, exactly. From inside a company’s data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.
Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade, Md., key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by The Post instruct new analysts to make quarterly reports of any accidental collection of U.S. content, but add that “it’s nothing to worry about.”
Even when the system works just as advertised, with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content. That is described as “incidental,” and it is inherent in contact chaining, one of the basic tools of the trade. To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in. Intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target, which increases “incidental collection” exponentially. The same math explains the aphorism, from the John Guare play, that no one is more than “six degrees of separation” from any other person.
In exchange for immunity from lawsuits, companies such as Yahoo and AOL are obliged to accept a “directive” from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to open their servers to the FBI’s Data Intercept Technology Unit, which handles liaison to U.S. companies from the NSA. In 2008, Congress gave the Justice Department authority for a secret order from the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court to compel a reluctant company “to comply.”
In practice, there is room for a company to maneuver, delay or resist. When a clandestine intelligence program meets a highly regulated industry, said a lawyer with experience in bridging the gaps, neither side wants to risk a public fight. The engineering problems are so immense, in systems of such complexity and frequent change, that the FBI and NSA would be hard pressed to build in backdoors without active help from each company.
Apple demonstrated that resistance is possible when it held out for more than five years, for reasons unknown, after Microsoft became PRISM’s first corporate partner in May 2007. Twitter, which has cultivated a reputation for aggressive defense of its users’ privacy, is still conspicuous by its absence from the list of “private sector partners.”
Google, like the other companies, denied that it permitted direct government access to its servers.
“Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data,” a company spokesman said. “We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.”
Microsoft also provided a statement: “We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.”
Yahoo also issued a denial.
“Yahoo! takes users’ privacy very seriously,” the company said in a statement. “We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.”
Like market researchers, but with far more privileged access, collection managers in the NSA’s Special Source Operations group, which oversees the PRISM program, are drawn to the wealth of information about their subjects in online accounts. For much the same reason, civil libertarians and some ordinary users may be troubled by the menu available to analysts who hold the required clearances to “task” the PRISM system.
There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”
According to a separate “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” that service can be monitored for audio when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of “audio, video, chat, and file transfers” when Skype users connect by computer alone. Google’s offerings include Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive files, photo libraries, and live surveillance of search terms.
Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.
Poitras is a documentary filmmaker and MacArthur Fellow. Julie Tate, Robert O’Harrow Jr., Cecilia Kang and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Bush-Era NSA Director Says Obama 'Expanded' Surveillance Programs

  • inShare 8
  • EMAIL
  • MORE


AP

The former director of the US National Security Agency has indicated that surveillance programs have "expanded" under Barack Obama's time in office and said the spy agency has more powers now than when he was in command.
Michael Hayden, who served most of his tenure as NSA director under George W Bush, said there was "incredible continuity" between the two presidents.
Hayden's comments came as the debate around the extent of government surveillance in the US and the UK intensified on Sunday. In Washington, some US senators demanded more transparency from the Obama administration. Libertarian Republican Rand Paul said he wanted to mount a supreme court challenge.
The British foreign secretary, William Hague, announced he would make a statement to parliament on Monday after the Guardian revealed that UK intelligence agencies used the US Prism system to generate intelligence reports.
Hague said it was "fanciful" and "nonsense" to suggest that the British monitoring service, GCHQ, would work with an agency in another country to circumvent restrictions on surveillance in the UK.
The issue dominated the Sunday talk shows on both sides of the Atlantic. On CNN, senator Mark Udall, one of the prominent Senate critics of US government surveillance, called for amendments to the Patriot Act, the controversial law brought in after the 9/11 attacks, to rein in the NSA's powers. "I'm calling for reopening the Patriot Act," Udall said. "The fact that every call I make to my friends or family is noted, the length, the date, that concerns me."
Udall, who has been privy to classified briefings about NSA data collection programs, said it was unclear to him that the surveillance initiatives had disrupted terrorist plots, as the administration has claimed.
He called on Obama's administration to make more information about the programs public. "The ultimate check, the ultimate balance is the American public understanding to what extent their calls are being collected, if only in the sense of metadata," he said. "Let's not have this law interpreted secretly, as it has been for the last number of years."
Udall's Democratic colleague Ron Wyden, who has had access to the same confidential briefings, and also spoken out over the surveillance programs, told the Guardian he believed the White House needed to address whether previous statements "are actually true".
"Since government officials have repeatedly told the public and Congress that Patriot Act authorities are simply analogous to a grand jury subpoena, and that intelligence agencies do not collect information or dossiers on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans, I think the executive branch has an obligation to explain whether or not these statements are actually true," Wyden said.
On Fox News, Paul, the Kentucky senator, said the disclosures were a wake-up call. "I'm going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the supreme court level," he said. "I'm going to be asking all the internet providers and all of the phone companies: ask your customers to join me in a class action lawsuit. If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at, then maybe someone will wake up and something will change in Washington."
Speaking on CNN, Republican senator John McCain defended the government's surveillance efforts, although he said members of Congress needed to be briefed in more detail about NSA activities. "If this was September 12, 2001, we might not be having the argument we are having today," he said. "Yes, perhaps there's been some overreach."
The Senate intelligence committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, also justified the surveillance programs, arguing they were subject to congressional and judicial oversight and have contributed to the arrest to two terror suspects: David Headley and Najibullah Zazi.
Defending the practices on ABC's This Week, Feinstein said she flew over the World Trade Center in New York on the way to the funeral of Senator Frank Lautenberg. "I thought of those bodies jumping out of the building, hitting the canopy."
Hayden, who ran the NSA between 1999 and 2005, where, after September 11, he presided over the creation of secret, warrantless surveillance that collected information on Americans' communication, said the efforts had worked. "We've had two very different presidents pretty much doing the same thing with regard to electronic surveillance. That seems to me to suggest that these things do work."
Asked on Fox News Sunday how Obama had dealt with NSA programs since coming to office, Hayden replied: "In terms of surveillance? Expanded [the programs] in volume, changed the legal grounding for them a little bit – put it more under congressional authorisation rather than the president's Article 2 powers – and added a bit more oversight. But in terms of what NSA is doing, there is incredible continuity between the two presidents."
He added: "We've gotten more of these records over time. With the amendment to the Fisa Act, in 2008, which Senator Obama finally voted for, NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush's special authorisation."
Hayden was confirmed as CIA director in 2006. Obama, who was a senator at the time, voted against Hayden's appointment, in protest against the NSA's surveillance on Americans.
Defending the mass collection of phone data from telecom providers, revealed on Wednesday when the Guardian published a secret court order requiring Verizon to data from millions of customers, Hayden said the NSA only stores the data for use in future terrorist investigations.
He said that safeguards were in place, ensuring there was always a "probable cause" or "arguable reason" before the database is scrutinised for intelligence about individuals connected to suspects.
Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, condemned the leaks and said the media's sources should be investigated for potential criminal activity.
"Taking a very sensitive classified program that targets foreign person on foreign lands, and putting just enough out there to be dangerous, is dangerous to us, it's dangerous to our national security and it violates the oath of which that person [the whisteblower] took," he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "I absolutely think they should be prosecuted."
Speaking on the BBC, Hague said the UK has enjoyed an "exceptional intelligence sharing relationship" with the US since the second world war. But he said that information from the US which is sent to Britain is governed by UK law.
Hague, who said he authorises operations by GCHQ most days of the week, said: "The idea that in GCHQ people are sitting working out how to circumvent a UK law with another agency in another country is fanciful. It is nonsense."
He said GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 were overseen by the relevant secretary of state, by the interception commission and by parliament's intelligence and security committee.
"If you are a law-abiding citizen of this country going about your business and your personal life you have nothing to fear – nothing to fear about the British state or intelligence agencies listening to the contents of your phone calls or anything like that. Indeed you will never be aware of all the things those agencies are doing to stop your identity being stolen and to stop a terrorist blowing you up tomorrow."
This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

PRISM is Bad for American Soft Power

We need a real debate on how much privacy we're ready to sacrifice in exchange for security.
JIM ARKEDIS JUN 19 2013, 10:49 AM ET
U.S. President Barack Obama waves as he arrives to deliver remarks in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany on June 19, 2013. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
In 1948, Harry Truman flip-flopped. After decades of holding racial biases, he decided to support the civil rights movement against Jim Crow laws. Truman's shift was as much cold political calculation as anything else. The path to 270 electoral college votes ran through northern cities with large African American populations and a few states in the Deep South. The strategy worked. He carried Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas just as the Chicago Daily Tribune went to press with "Dewey Defeats Truman."
There was a foreign policy angle to Truman's civil rights awakening, too. In the ideological battle pitting democracy against communism, the Soviet Union began to churn out propaganda saying that Jim Crow proved America's inability to live up to its own fundamental values on human rights.
Collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing.
The argument was effective, argues Caley Robertson of Colby University: segregation was frustrating the United States' attempts to export democracy during the Cold War. In other words, Jim Crow was damaging America's soft power,defined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye as a country's ability to achieve its aims through attraction rather than coercion.
Which brings us to PRISM, the NSA program that collects meta-data from Americans' telephone and online communications.
I am a former Department of Defense intelligence analyst. I have never used PRISM, and do not know if it existed during my tenure. However, I have used NSA databases, and became aware of two ironclad truths about the agency: First, its data is a critical intelligence tool; and second, that access to databases by non-NSA intelligence analysts is highly controlled. It's like buying drugs (so I'm told): you need "a guy" on the inside who passes you the goods in the shadows, then disavows any connection to you.
In addition to being useful and tightly controlled, PRISM is, of course, legal by the letter of the law. Its existence is primarily justified by the "business records" clause in the PATRIOT Act, and President Obama has argued that the legislation has been authorized by "bipartisan majorities repeatedly," and that "it's important to understand your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing." Salvation from excessive government snooping would seem to lie at the ballot box.
Fair enough. But in the immediate wake of September 11, Americans questioned little of what their government would do to keep them safe. Just four months after the attacks in January 2002, Gallup reported that fully half of Americans would support anti-terrorism measures even if they violated civil liberties.
Times have changed. As soon as August 2003, Gallup found just 29 percent of Americans were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. By 2009, a CBS poll concluded only 41 percent of Americans had even heard or read about the PATRIOT Act, and 45 percent of those believed the law endangered their civil liberties. A Washington Post poll from April 2013--after the Boston marathon attacks but before PRISM's disclosure-- found 48 percent of Americans feared the government would go too far in compromising constitutional rights to investigate terrorism. And following the Edward Snowden leaks, 58 percent were against the government collecting phone records. Not a total reversal, but certainly trending in one direction.
This shift has existed in a vacuum of public debate. Prior to the PRISM leaks, the last time domestic government surveillance made headlines was in very late 2005 and early 2006, following revelations that the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans without a warrant. Despite the scandal, the PATRIOT Act was quickly reauthorized by March 2006.
The Bush administration did announce the end of warrantless wiretapping in 2007, and he moved the program under jurisdiction of the FISA court , a panel of Supreme Court-appointed judges who approve domestic surveillance requests. To call the FISA court a rubber stamp is an understatement. This year, it has rejected a grand total of 11 warrant requests out of--wait for it--33,996 applications since the Carter administration.
The PATRIOT Act's re-authorization wouldn't come up again until 2009. By then, public uproar over warrantless wiretapping had long since receded, and the year's debate played out as a relatively quiet inside-baseball scuffle between civil liberties groups and the Hill. When the law came up for its next presidential signature in 2011, it was done quietly by autopen--a device that imitates Obama's John Hancock--from France.
Shifting attitudes and quiet reauthorization flies in the face of the standard the president has set for himself. In a 2009 speech at the National Archives, Obama emphasized the importance of the consent of the governed in security affairs,
"I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values... My administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable."
The president's inability to live up to this ideal is particularly jarring as he defends PRISM. Following the leaks, he's said he is pushing the intelligence community to release what it can, and rightly insists that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' phone calls. Those are helpful steps, but should have been raised during the National Archives speech just months into his administration, not six months into his second term.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper continues to argue that disclosure of collection methods will give America's enemies a "'playbook' to avoid detection." That's thin gruel. First, America's enemies are already aware of the NSA's extensive electronic surveillance capabilities. That's why Osama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi used a complex network of couriers rather than electronic communications. It's typical operational security of truly dangerous operatives. Second, Obama stated as recently as late May that the threat from al Qaeda's core operatives has decreased significantly, shifting to less deadly cells scattered throughout the Middle East and North Africa.
The lack of public debate, shifting attitudes towards civil liberties, insufficient disclosure, and a decreasing terrorist threat demands that collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing.
This brings us back to Harry Truman and Jim Crow. Even though PRISM is technically legal, the lack of recent public debate and support for aggressive domestic collection is hurting America's soft power.
The evidence is rolling in. The China Daily, an English-language mouthpiece for the Communist Party, is having a field day, pointing out America's hypocrisy as the Soviet Union did with Jim Crow. Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei made the link explicitly, saying "In the Soviet Union before, in China today, and even in the U.S., officials always think what they do is necessary... but the lesson that people should learn from history is the need to limit state power."
Even America's allies are uneasy, at best. German Chancellor Angela Merkel grew up in the East German police state and expressed diplomatic "surprise" at the NSA's activities. She vowed to raise the issue with Obama at this week's G8 meetings. The Italian data protection commissioner said the program would "not be legal" in his country. British Foreign Minister William Hague came under fire in Parliament for his government's participation.
If Americans supported these programs, our adversaries and allies would have no argument. As it is, the next time the United States asks others for help in tracking terrorists, it's more likely than not that they will question Washington's motives.
It's not too late. The PATRIOT Act is up for reauthorization in 2015. In the context of a diminished threat, the White House still has time to push the public debate on still-hidden, controversial intelligence strategies (while safeguarding specific sources and methods). Further, the administration should seek to empower the FISA court. Rather that defer to the Supreme Court to appoint its panel of judges, it would be better to have Senate-confirmable justices serving limited terms.
President Obama has said Americans can't have 100 percent security and 100 percent privacy. But you can have an honest public debate about that allows Americans to legitimately decide where to strike that balance. It's both the right thing to do and American foreign policy demands it.

Syrian Hacker Ministry (SEA) Syrian Electronic Army begins 8/10/12

Tea Party Chief petitions for consideration by Congress for a formal declaration of war against Syria 8/19/12


PETITION FOR CONSIDERATION OF A FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST SYRIA: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTE3HZmw3mwWV-Q6gvWZEry5YEQnknE7Jc5ho9kRlyI/edit


Recent expenses for humanitarian aid by the United States designated up to $100 billion, futile negotiation on behalf of the UN and resignation of Envoy Annan, have not resolved but marked increasing hostilities that threaten the security of Israel and peace in the world since December of 2011, lead me this day to write this regarding the country of Syria.


Since the inception of the Arab Spring, an Arab revolt that has been criticized and mired with controversy, with the toppling of Gaddafi by proxy war and the destruction of the radicalized intelligence storehouse coupled with the eradication of Osama Bin Laden propaganda center in Pakistan by secret operation, have been met with due skepticism over policy and legitimate authority over Executive Order. I find it my duty, as Tea Party Chief, to speak on behalf of those who do not have a voice in our government, for their imitation of our movement and desire for freedom in their own country.


While it is true that Obama has been reluctant to make a decision on Syria because his authority has been successfully challenged and found to be illegitimate, Obama has managed not only to arouse the anger of Ahmadinejad, but he has also managed to make Israel feel as if they are standing alone against terrorism directed at their country. Obama not only lacks the authority to carry through a decision on Syria, politically he is the wrong person because of his Muslim associations which would make it appear that he is making a decision based on favoritism and not on the necessity of the security of the United States. Secretary Clinton, who has called for an airstrike against Assad, is also in a position of compromise over her aide Abedin. Yet when I gave permission of appropriation, based on need and consideration of budget constraints, I did not intend for that $100 billion to be consumed by humanitarian aid only, without it being used for an air strike. It has since been nearly six months, and no decision has been made to act in any way other than to provide humanitarian aid. Which is why our budget consideration was so important, and so it will be also for the proposed continuing resolution.

With that in mind, Vice President Joe Biden was sworn in 7-11-12 over Obama’s lack of provable citizenship, he was designated 7-23-12 for the delegation of act of war with Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain:

8-14-12 the formal declaration of Vice President Joe Biden was made by the Military Sequester Prevention Act https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o8EOm65YL7ilLLf5cpXbgq_4BWQVCtlcbvIP3sCSVps/edit

My objections to Assad remaining in power have nothing to do with Obama’s goals for the Muslim World:
  • Assad has murdered his own people, under the guise that Al Qaeda is actively operating against him, and he has failed to produce this evidence to justify his people being killed in the crossfire.
  • Assad has engaged in acts of Civil War against his own people, that are intolerable: use of tanks and planes, and he still can not maintain control.
  • Assad dropped pamphlets from the sky on Saturday, his conduct and actions something only demonstrated from the likes of Hitler, and with this action, we feel that use of biochemical warfare is evidently an option despite his statements contrary.
  • Assad has not only created a haven for Al Qaeda who was pushed out from Iraq over the Summer, but he will be guilty of quartering them and has been given a 60 day notice that he must identify and expel them from his country, or he will be met with swift response.
  • Assad has abused the power of the UN to promote more violence and intimidation against his people, and he has not progressed to demonstrate that he can rule effectively without endangering the safety of his people, the countries around him, or those disaffected by his sectarian-fueled blood feud.
  • Assad is meeting the threshold of despotism likened only in recent memory to Saddam Hussein.

In other words, Assad has compelled us to a state of war with Syria by default. While we acknowledge this war is not against the people of Syria or the Syrian rebels, Assad has given comfort to our enemies and failed to govern his own people justly. While it has not been the choice of the United States to act as it has in recent past, the threat of Assad’s use of biochemical weaponry and recent threats by Hezbollah against Israel to incite and provoke war, make this conflict a horse of a different color.

Now it is not just about Syria anymore, but the destabilization of Syria for the benefit of our enemy, whose aspirations are to draw us into conflict or to incite war with Iran and Israel, so that they do not have to use their funds or money.

Rather than seeing this as ‘just another war truncating the War on Terror’, this is our opportunity to conclude these conflicts and draw a formal end with this climax in Syria.

Rather than spending the upkeep for other military bases, we intend to exile terrorists and those convicted of violent crime to Johnston Atoll. Syria is of supreme advantage to us, and short-term occupation would only be necessary, not quite like Iraq or the training of the Afghan government to handle their own issues of security. Syria is different.

Assad has been given the following deadline, until September 30th, which is 40 days from now our time, and he has been warned repeatedly that an order could be issued at any time of choosing, depending upon our intelligence or that of Israel’s and necessity to act against Al Qaeda, or threat of nuclear or biochemical warfare in the region.

I want to make the distinction here that if it happens that the Syrian rebels are able to work with the UN to draft a new Constitution and appointment of leadership, Palestinians may have found a new home and country of their own. I say this because I see no political concession by Israel permitting Palestinian representation, though by majority of population Palestinians represent the West Bank, and I see no compromise to the 1967 survey that makes either side happy nor is right in the eyes of both groups.

Damascus or Aleppo may be used as a US military base, to prevent conflict and stabilize this emerging new government that is cooperative to the US and the UN vision.

If this is not an option, I support the use of drones or whatever is necessary to pre-empt an even greater loss of life and to prevent conflict of biochemical and nuclear warfare.

I pray this be considered by Congress, not to supplant the need for the passage of the 2013 Defense Bill as written (though it is needed and required without sequester applied), but that our need is even greater to resolve these threats expediently and close these wars and conflict by 2014.

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun

Syria's Assad: EU will pay price for arming rebels

1:23 PM - 17 Jun 13 · Details

SEA penetrates PRISM, after Ahmadinejad says that there are weapons being transferred into Syria, from an unknown location, Ahmadinejad asks me to determine, who and where.
I refuse. I tell him that if no one knows, it is most likely our CIA, and they are not accountable to Congress for what they do.
I say we can not arm Syrians without a declaration of war.
Ambassador Stevens’ Team killed, after SEA discovers GPS 9/12/12
-It is believed Assad paid mercenaries to attack the CIA meetup complex
-Mercenaries were tipped off by allure of weapons that were not there
-Weapons were on a ship from Libya, bound for Turkey
-Mercenaries showed up exactly 1hr. or so after Erdogan spoke personally with Stevens

Attorney for Benghazi Whistleblowers Says Joint Chiefs Chairman Lied to Congress

June 18, 2013 - 3:32 PM

Subscribe to Fred Lucas RSS
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) – An attorney whose firm represents two Benghazi whistleblowers said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, lied to the Senate when he said there was never a “stand down” order during the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012.
“What was fascinating is that he explained his lie to them,” Joe DiGenova, an attorney representing one of the whistleblowers, told CNSNews.com.
“He actually said they were sent to Tripoli. They were needed in Benghazi,” said DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney, now with the Washington firm of DiGenova & Toensing. “They were told not to go to Benghazi, because their mission was Tripoli. I call that a stand down. He doesn’t. He can live with whatever he wants to think, but people died. In my opinion, what he did was lie.”
During testimony to the Senate Budget Committee last Wednesday, Dempsey said, “They weren’t told to stand down. A ‘stand down’ order means don’t do anything. They were told that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi, but was at Tripoli airport.”
This is contrary to what Gregory Hicks, former number two State Department diplomat in Libya, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Hicks told Congress that after the first attack, a security team left Tripoli for Benghazi with two military personnel and that four members of a special forces team in Tripoli wanted to go in a second wave but were told to stand down.
Hicks and Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism, both testified to Congress in May about the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack.
DiGenova represents Thompson. DiGenova’s wife and law partner Victoria Toensing represents Hicks.
The Joint Chief’s chairman stands by his testimony on the matter, said Col. Dave Lapan, spokesman for Dempsey.
“I would just say that Gen. Dempsey stands by his testimony, and he believes that no stand down order was given,” Lapan told CNSNews.com. “As he testified before the Senate, the special operations team was directed to remain in Tripoli and to provide assistance to the wounded who were coming back from Benghazi, and they were not told to stand down.”
DiGenova said the administration has not been straightforward on Benghazi and other matters.
“The issue is trust and the continuing lying of this administration in every conceivable context in every branch of the government. It’s unbelievable,” DiGenova said. “It is remarkable. It is absolutely remarkable that they can lie with impunity and the media thinks nothing of it.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) asked Dempsey during the Senate Budget hearing on June 12, “Mr. Hicks testified that he believed the stand-down order came from AFRICOM or Special Operations Command in Africa. Gen. Dempsey, can you help me understand who issued the stand- down order and what happened there, why the special forces that wanted to go with, I understand it -- under Colonel Gibson in Tripoli -- were told not to go and who gave them that order from there? They wanted to go and help in Benghazi on that night.”
Dempsey said he was prepared for the question.
“There were two different groups of— it was six people, not all working for the same command,” Dempsey said. “Two of them were working with Joint Special Operations
Command. They were co-located with another agency of government in Tripoli, and four were working under the direct line of authority of Special Operations Command Europe or AFRICOM – AFSOC, and it was the four you're speaking about. The other two went.
“The other four -- by the time they had contacted the command center in Stuttgart, they were told that the individuals in Benghazi were on their way back and that they would be better used at the Tripoli airport -- because one of them was a medic -- that they would be better used to receive the casualties coming back from Benghazi, and that if they had gone they would have simply passed each other in the air, and that's the answer I received,” Dempsey continued. “So they weren't told to stand down. Stand down means don't do anything. They were told to -- that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi but was at Tripoli Airport.”
During a May 8 House oversight hearing, several House members asked Hicks about the stand down order.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked, “How did the personnel react to being told to stand down?”
Hicks responded, “They were furious. I can only say -- well, I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”
Chaffetz followed, “So the military is told to stand down, not engage with the fight. These are the kind of people willing to engage. What did -- where'd that message come down? Where'd the stand-down order come from?”
Hicks replied, “I believe it came from either AFRICOM or SOC [Special Operations Command] Africa.”
During that same hearing, Rep. Ronald Desantis (R-Fla.) asked, “And Mr. Hicks, I’d -- just to go back and get this. Even though you believed help was needed, there was a SOF [special operations forces] unit, special operations units ordered to stand down, correct?
Hicks answered, “Yes.”
Desantis followed, “And even though you thought air support was needed, there was no air support sent?”
Hicks answered, “No air support was sent.”Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun
8:08 AM - 17 Jun 13 · Details

SO IS IT LIES...
IS IT HUMA ABEDIN?
OR WAS PRISM HACKED IN 2011 FROM VERIZON OR HACKED AGAIN WHEN AMBASSADOR STEVENS WAS KILLED?

What Is the Syrian Electronic Army?

As forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad clash with the rebel Free Syrian Army in the streets of Syria, Internet-savvy government supporters are fighting a parallel information war in cyberspace. Called the Syrian Electronic Army, the group has a single mission: unleash an onslaught of pro-government propaganda upon the Internet.

Strategy and Tactics

To achieve that goal, the group uses social media platforms such as Twitter andYouTube to counter the claims of the rebel Free Syrian Army. It coordinates massive spam attacks against anyone it perceives to be anti-government, posting thousands of pro-government messages in news article comment threads and on public officials' Facebook pages as a sort of digital sit-in.
The SEA, however, is more than a simple ideological spam factory. It has gained notoriety for downing, defacing or hijacking websites and social media profiles of major media outlets, then using them to post pro-government content. The goal? With few foreign journalists operating inside Syria, there may be a higher than normal opportunity for propaganda to Influence the outside world's opinion of the volatile situation.
How has the SEA waged its digital war? To knock targeted websites offline, it has used Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, considered a relatively easy and mostly harmless cyberattack. However, hackers recently wrestled control over a Reuters blog, reportedly through a vulnerability in an outdated version of Wordpress. That's a breach that requires a certain level of skill to achieve, but it's yet unknown if the hackers involved have ties to the SEA.
Neither Reuters nor a variety of other media outlets returned a request for comment on Syria-related hacking incidents.
Regardless, the SEA openly takes pride in its work and makes little effort to hide from public view: its website is chock full of information in Arabic and English about the group and how to join, an official Twitter account posts pro-Assad messages and spam attacks have been coordinated through the group's latest Facebook page, which has more than 10,000 "likes."
Facebook has repeatedly shut down the SEA's account following spam attacks on pages including that of President Obama, but new accounts are quickly created and made popular. Neither Facebook nor Twitter responded to requests for comment for this article.

Nothing New

While the Reuters attack brought the SEA a renewed wave of attention as speculation rages they had a hand in the incident, it's been active for longer than a year. Jared Keller, now of Bloomberg, wrote a thorough analysis of the group last year for The Atlantic.
Keller listed a wide variety of media outlets, universities and public officials that have been targeted by the SEA. He also pointed out that the group isn't officially a part of the Syrian government, but it has at least been recognized by Syrian President Basar al-Assad:
"There is the electronic army which has been a real army in virtual reality," said Assad in the summer of last year. The comparison works in multiple ways: as with the real Syrian army, there have been reports of defections among the SEA.

Syrian Electronic Army vs. Anonymous

One might say the SEA has much in common with another ideologically driven group of digital activists: Anonymous. Such a comparison wouldn't be too far off the mark if the two groups didn't dislike one another.
Anonymous, whose members often view themselves as orchestrators of social justice, have been trying to foil the SEA for more than a year in what it calls #OpSyria. Its latest anti-SEA effort involves using its wide social reach to counter what it views as pro-government propaganda.
"It is time for us to act," reads an Anonymous release. "It is foolish to think that we can do this alone. We need to get others involved. Phase One we take the facts and give them to the average people. We inform those around us. This begins the fall of dominos that ends in the fall of Assad."
The SEA's response? Bring it on.
"f you were a virtual army, you should know that we are a real army who believes in the victory of their country and that no one can stop us," said an SEA video made in response to Anonymous' #OpSyria. "If you want to remember who the Syrian Electronic Army is, you should recall how many times we have infiltrated your systems."

New Kind of Army

That the Internet recognizes no political borders lends the Syrian Electronic Army its most interesting characteristic: As with Anonymous, one must only need to believe in the cause to join its ranks.
Pro-government Internet users can, and perhaps have, signed up to spread misinformation, spammed opposition websites or hacked news media accounts in the name of the SEA from anywhere in the world.
If the SEA represents a new aspect of warfare, it means that previously localized conflicts can now be, in one fashion, fought from anywhere with an Internet connection.
Does the Syrian Electronic Army represent a new type of information warfare? Share your thoughts in the comments.

The problem is, PRISM was penetrated by SEA.
If Obama’s Executive Order was ignored by Congress in 2010, it took nearly 3 more years for him to sign another one.
-Obama signs another cybersecurity expansion 2-12-13
-Yahoo cell phone metadata sweeper invite goes out 3-28-13
-SEA begins hack attacks on celebrity accounts, penetrating PRISM again 4-5-13
-SEA begins hacking news outlet targets 4-29-13
to disrupt metadata PRISM dragnet pumping stock market full of steroids, and preceded pranking by cyberattacks on Justin Bieber

E! Online Twitter account hacked, posts fake exclusive about Justin Bieber's sexuality

The hackers tweeted an 'exclusive' allegedly from Justin saying 'I’m a gay,' prompting 1,200 retweets and 351 favorites. The group behind the hack has also in the past gotten into accounts for '60 Minutes,' the BBC, NPR, Reuters and The Associated Press. Comments (29) BY SASHA GOLDSTEIN / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS SATURDAY, MAY 4, 2013, 5:40 PM

E! Online claimed to have an exclusive of Justin Bieber coming out of the closet, but it turns out the account had been hacked.

Don’t Belieb a word of it.
The Twitter account for E! Online was hacked Saturday by a group which quickly began spreading bogus 140-character bits of celebrity gossip to its 5 million followers.

TWITTER

Tweets from the Syrian Electronic Army were posted after E! Online's Twitter account was hacked on Saturday.

“Exclusive: Justin Bieber to E!online: I’m a gay,” the E! Online account announced — prompting 1,200 retweets and 351 favorites.
A group billing itself as the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for the takeover. The SEA was also behind the April hijacking of The Associated Press Twitter feed.

TWITTER

A screen shot of E! Online's Twitter feed showed the messages allegedly sent by the Syrian Electronic Army had not been deleted. But as of now, only the top tweet appears in E! Online's feed.

E! suspended its Twitter account following the hack attack.
“Eonline's breaking news twitter and sms accounts were compromised today,” the organization said in a statement. “We're working to have this resolved as quickly as possible and are fully investigating the incident.

TWITTER

The stream of tweets allegedly sent by the Syrian Electronic Army from E! Online's Twitter account.

“We apologize for any confusion that the erroneous news alerts may have caused.”
The SEA sent out a flurry of tweets and breaking news messages to text subscribers revolving around Bieber coming out of the closet.

TWITTER

During the hack, one of the tweets sent through E! Online's feed courtesy of the Syrian Electronic Army was an 'exclusive' from Justin Bieber, saying 'I'm a gay'.

One tweet said Selena Gomez, the “Baby” singer’s on-again, off-again girlfriend, was supportive of his declaration.
Another said actress that Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie told E! that “Jordan is to blame for the Syrian refugees’ atrocious conditions.”
The cyberhackers support Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, the Wall Street Journal reported. Their other hacking targets include Twitter accounts for “60 Minutes,” the BBC, NPR and Reuters.

TWITTER

The hackers even went on to proclaim that Bieber's on-again-off-again girlfriend, Selena Gomez, was supportive of the Biebs.

Spokespeople for Bieber could not be reached Saturday, when the singer performed in Dubai as part of his international “Believe” tour.
The SEA, after hacking the AP account, claimed two explosions rocked the White House and injured President Obama. The tweet caused stocks to dip and White House spokesman Jay Carney to issue a statement saying the president was fine.
The FBI is reportedly investigating that hacking incident.
sgoldstein@nydailynews.com

Pro-Assad Syrian hackers launching cyber-attacks on western media

Syrian Electronic Army claims responsibility for attack on Guardian and other organisations
The logo of the Syrian Electronic Army, which has targeted a number of western media organisations, including the Guardian, the BBC and al-Jazeera
The Guardian has come under a cyber-attack from Syrian hackers who have targeted a series of western media organisations in an apparent effort to cause disruption and spread support for President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) claimed responsibility for the weekend Twitter attack on the Guardian, having previously targeted the BBC, France 24 TV, and National Public Radio in the United States.
Other recent victims have included the broadcaster al-Jazeera, the government of Qatar, and Sepp Blatter, the president of football's governing body Fifa, whose Twitter account was hacked.
Last week the SEA successfully attacked the Associated Press news agency, whose Twitter account was temporarily breached, allowing the group to send bogus messages which wreaked havoc on stock exchanges. The hackers tweeted that President Obama had been injured in a bomb attack at the White House, causing a temporary 143-point drop on the Dow Jones industrial average.
Cybersecurity experts say the SEA attacks are designed to disrupt and embarrass, and the group will likely target any site that might give it an opportunity to spread propaganda for Assad.
Analysts and western intelligence agencies are increasingly sure the SEA, which emerged two years ago, is essentially a proxy for an administration that has been widely condemned over its brutal efforts to quell an internal uprising.
Though many of the SEA's victims appear to have been chosen randomly, the group appears to have prioritised western media organisations in recent weeks.
"The aim of the SEA is to generate publicity," said one analyst. Last month the SEA hacked into the Twitter accounts associated with BBC weather, BBC Arabic Online and BBC Radio Ulster accounts.
Nine bogus tweets were broadcast in an hour, including some with anti-Israeli sentiments, and others saying "Long Live Syria", and the "Syrian Electronic Army Was Here".
Guardian journalists have reported from inside Syria over the last two years, highlighting the terrible toll the civil war has had on the country's people, and atrocities blamed on the regime as it attempts to quell a rebellion. It also published a number of leaked emails from the Assads and their inner circle.
Hours after the cyber-attack began, the SEA said it has targeted the Guardian for spreading "lies and slander about Syria" and said it was in a "state of war with the security team of Twitter".
The Guardian first recognised it was being targeted over the weekend when spoof emails were sent to staff encouraging them to click on links that could compromise some of the company's email and social media accounts. Later, several of the Guardian's Twitter feeds – including GuardianBooks, GuardianTravel and guardianfilm – were broken into.
The technique is regarded as a classic, if crude, "phishing" attack – where individuals are tricked into giving away details that might allow hackers to gain access to sensitive information or allow them to control systems such as Twitter feeds.
The attack was quickly identified and is in the process of being dealt with. The Guardian has since discovered the attack originated from Internet Protocol (IP) addresses within Syria.
Syrian opposition activists say Assad's cousin Rami Makhlouf bankrolls the SEA, which recently moved from Syria to a secret office in Dubai.
Makhlouf pays the pro-regime hackers for their activities, and they typically earn $500-$1,000 for a successful attack. They also get free accommodation and food. Sometimes Syrian government officials tell the SEA which western sites to hack; on other occasions the SEA selects its own targets.
A Guardian News & Media spokesperson said on Monday: "We are aware that a number of Guardian Twitter accounts have been compromised and we are working actively to resolve this."

United States government vigorously denies PRISM exists. Facebook denies that they participate, unless requested. Google says that they do not have a back door entry to its browser.

-KILL SWITCH ATTACKS BEGIN 5-17-13
-5 to 6 SECURITY THREATS IN ONE DAY, BECAUSE OF PRISM BREACH, AND GOVERNMENT STILL DENIES IT EXISTS Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun
@TeaPartyChief_ @facebook @google @Microsoft @Yahoo @AP kill switch is exploited by signing into Yahoo by Facebook, Yahoo tracking metadata.Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 17 Jun
@TeaPartyChief_ @facebook @google @Microsoft @Yahoo @AP I'm thinking linked sign-in's allow for exploitation of kill switching the browserChief Brooks ‏@TeaPartyChief_17 Jun
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief

-SNOWDEN BLOWS THE WHISTLE AND COMES FORWARD 6-9-13
-GUARDIAN SUPPORTS SNOWDEN
-CHINA SUPPORTS SNOWDEN

June 10th, 2013, 17:52 GMT · By Eduard Kovacs
BLOG

(claims to defend)

US Defends Allies Against Iranian and North Korean Hackers [NYT]





SHARE:
Adjust text size:  


- The US wants to help its allies protect themselves against cyberattacks coming from Iran and North Korea
Senior officials have revealed that the US has started helping Middle Eastern allies protect their computer systems against Iranian hackers. In the upcoming period, the US plans to help its Asian allies against cyberattacks from North Korea.


According to The New York Times, it’s uncertain which countries benefit from the US’s cyber capabilities. However, officials say that Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are likely on the list.


As far as Asian countries are concerned, it’s believed that South Korea and Japan are the most tempting targets for North Korean cyberoperations.


Interestingly, an unnamed Israeli military official claims to possess evidence that Iran and North Korea are actually working together on developing cyber weapons. American officials say they’re unaware of such a collaboration.


US officials on the other hand believe Iran is hiring foreign developers associated with cybercriminal activities, including ones from Russia.


Iran and North Korea are making significant improvements as far as their cyber capabilities are concerned, but they’re not as advanced as countries such as China or Russia.


However, unlike China and Russia, Iran and North Korea don’t have anything to lose if they attempt to disrupt financial or energy markets. Add me on Google+

FILED UNDER:

*

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

*Michael ‏@_cypherpunks_12 Jun
EU Commissioner @VivianeRedingEU's letter to the US Attorney-General Holder http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/jun/eu-usa-reding-ag.letter.pdf … (full-text, pdf) #prism #TPP
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
European commissioner demands Prism answers from US attorney general http://bit.ly/19qjXX5
European commissioner demands Prism answers from US attorney general http://dlvr.it/3W0CJ5
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
EU demands answers about Prism: The EU's Justice Commissioner writes to the US attorney general with a list of... http://bbc.in/14WmGAp
Sen. Grassley questions Huma Abedin's employment status http://tinyurl.com/mpz9ahr  #tcot
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
10:50 AM - 18 Jun 13 · Details

-CONGRESS FINALLY HAS NSA 2ND NSA HEARING 6-18-13Lynn Westmoreland ‏@RepWestmoreland18 Jun
HAPPENING NOW: I am questioning the witnesses at the @HouseIntelComm hearing. Watch it LIVE: http://goo.gl/d4eRm

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
10:40 AM - 18 Jun 13 · Details
OBAMA GETS HIS “DERP” FACE ON....

Obama's 'transparent' NSA interview points debunked

Published time: June 19, 2013 04:22
Despite reports indicating the opposite US President Barack Obama has continued to perpetuate (original article said perpetrate, for Ebonics users - Obama be perpetratin’) the vague assertion that the controversial NSA surveillance programs, primarily PRISM, are responsible for stopping a major terrorist attack in New York City.
American officials have maintained that the National Security Agency has been “transparent” in its explanation of mass surveillance policies that are quietly reviewed and approved by a secret court after secret requests from law enforcement agencies.
President Obama, during an interview on PBS Monday night, claimed that Americans are “not getting the complete story” after a leak from former NSA employee exposed the widespread domestic monitoring.
Before an agency begins leafing through an individual’s phone records or Internet history, according to US officials, they are required to take the case before a court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These FISA courts, while meeting in secret and keeping the number of disclosures classified, have denied only ten out of more than 20,000 requests put in since September 11, 2001.
When asked if the FISA courts are effectively a rubber stamp for law enforcement and the federal government, Obama said “the number of requests is surprisingly small” and “folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion” that he intended target is involved in illegal activity.
Obama bemoaned media’s assertion that he had fallen from his liberal hero status to that of a kind of next Dick Cheney, the notoriously secretive vice president under George W. Bush, who pushed for greater federal power without the burden of public transparency.
Of the NSA electronic domestic spying program, Obama said, “it is transparent” in an interview with Charlie Rose of PBS. “That’s why we set up the FISA court…The whole point of my concern, before I was president – because some people say, ‘Well Obama was this raving liberal before. Now he’s Dick Cheney.’”
“My concern has always been not that we shouldn’t do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances? So, on this telephone program, you’ve got a federal court with independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you’ve got Congress overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the judiciary committee – but all of Congress had available to it before the last reauthorization [of the 2001 Patriot Act, which expanded the powers of the FISA court] exactly how this program works.”
Obama also echoed the claims of government officials who asserted that they had foiled dozens of terrorist plots through information gathered via the various surveillance programs. The president that implied Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested before he could detonate a bomb in the New York City subway, was caught as a result of warrantless surveillance.
The explanation was repeated by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers and part of a national intelligence declassification meant to shift public opinion on the NSA’s PRISM program. While it may be a convenient story, though, lawmakers frequently forget to mention that the email that led to Zazi’s capture and eventual prosecution could have been captured without PRISM, as the NSA program is known.
Under the law at the time the FBI had the authority to monitor the email accounts of people linked to terrorists. Zazi was identified when British intelligence found a computer containing an email from Zazi to Pakistani terrorists, at which point the government could have gone to a judge for a warrant.
“To get a warrant, the law requires that the government show that the target is a suspected member of a terrorist group or foreign government, something that had been well established at that point in the Zazi case,” the Associated Press reported earlier this month.
“In using Zazi to defend the surveillance program, government officials have further confused things by misstating key details about the plot,” the agency said at the time.
Critics have not only levied their complaints at politicians, but at mainstream media outlets for failing to ask the relevant questions about the NSA programs. Charlie Rose, in particular, has been chided for not pushing Obama to provide evidence for his NSA claims while 24-hour news channels including CNN seem to have devoted more coverage to NSA leaker Edward Snowden’s personality than to the information he made public.
Snowden himself digitally emerged from hiding Monday to answer reader-submitted questions on TheGuardian.com, where he lamented the media’s failings.  
“Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicion-less surveillance that could not be gained via any other source?” Snowden wrote.
“Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history.”Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
Failing to acknowledge #PRISM even existed, when it was hacked delayed fixing the kill-switch threat/breach. @FBIPressOffice @ushomelandsec

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
@FBIPressOffice @ushomelandsec #SEA learned how #PRISM worked by using Yahoo and hacking celebrities and news accounts on Twitter.

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
@DevinNunes John Brennan ran his mouth @TheJusticeDept scapegoated @AP and others....

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
@DevinNunes You have voiced exactly what I wanted to say.

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
Rep. Jeff Miller asks if judge shopping a possibility in FISA court, Deputy NSA Director essentially says no. But we know betterTea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 18 Jun
8:31 AM - 18 Jun 13 · Details

Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process

Obama and other NSA defenders insist there are robust limitations on surveillance but the documents show otherwise
SIR DERPULOUS GETS HIS <DERP> ON...
Barack Obama discusses the NSA surveillance controversy at a press conference in California this month. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Since we began began publishing stories about the NSA's massive domestic spying apparatus, various NSA defenders – beginning with President Obama - have sought to assure the public that this is all done under robust judicial oversight. "When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls," he proclaimed on June 7 when responding to our story about the bulk collection of telephone records, adding that the program is "fully overseen" by "the Fisa court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch, or government generally, is not abusing them". Obama told Charlie Rose last night:
"What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a US person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause, the same way it's always been, the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause."
The GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers,told CNN that the NSA "is not listening to Americans' phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law." Talking points issued by the House GOP in defense of the NSA claimed that surveillance law only "allows the Government to acquire foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S.-persons (foreign, non-Americans) located outside the United States."
The NSA's media defenders have similarly stressed that the NSA's eavesdropping and internet snooping requires warrants when it involves Americans. The Washington Post's Charles Lane told his readers: "the government needs a court-issued warrant, based on probable cause, to listen in on phone calls." The Post's David Ignatius told Post readers that NSA internet surveillance "is overseen by judges who sit on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" and is "lawful and controlled". Tom Friedman told New York Times readers that before NSA analysts can invade the content of calls and emails, they "have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress."
This has become the most common theme for those defending NSA surveillance. But these claim are highly misleading, and in some cases outright false.
Top secret documents obtained by the Guardian illustrate what the Fisa court actually does – and does not do – when purporting to engage in "oversight" over the NSA's domestic spying. That process lacks many of the safeguards that Obama, the House GOP, and various media defenders of the NSA are trying to lead the public to believe exist.

No individualized warrants required under 2008 Fisa law

Many of the reasons these claims are so misleading is demonstrated by the law itself. When the original Fisa law was enacted in 1978, its primary purpose was to ensure that the US government would be barred from ever monitoring the electronic communications of Americans without first obtaining an individualized warrant from the Fisa court, which required evidence showing "probable cause" that the person to be surveilled was an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization.
That was the law which George Bush, in late 2001, violated, when he secretly authorized eavesdropping on the international calls of Americans without any warrants from that court. Rather than act to punish Bush for those actions, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis in 2008, enacted a new, highly diluted Fisa law – the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) – that legalized much of the Bush warrantless NSA program.
Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance.
As a result, under the FAA, the NSA frequently eavesdrops on Americans' calls and reads their emails without any individualized warrants – exactly that which NSA defenders, including Obama, are trying to make Americans believe does not take place. As Yale Law professor Jack Balkin explained back in 2009:

"The Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President - now President Obama - the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New Fisa no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be 'vacuum cleaner' programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) with any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no US person is directly targeted as the object of the program. . . .
"New Fisa authorizes the creation of surveillance programs directed against foreign persons (or rather, against persons believed to be outside the United States) – which require no individualized suspicion of anyone being a terrorist, or engaging in any criminal activity. These programs may inevitably include many phone calls involving Americans, who may have absolutely no connection to terrorism or to Al Qaeda."
As the FAA was being enacted in mid-2008, Professor Balkin explained that "Congress is now giving the President the authority to do much of what he was probably doing (illegally) before".
The ACLU's Deputy Legal Director, Jameel Jaffer, told me this week by email:
"On its face, the 2008 law gives the government authority to engage in surveillance directed at people outside the United States. In the course of conducting that surveillance, though, the government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans. The government often says that this surveillance of Americans' communications is 'incidental', which makes it sound like the NSA's surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails is inadvertent and, even from the government's perspective, regrettable.
"But when Bush administration officials asked Congress for this new surveillance power, they said quite explicitly that Americans' communications were the communications of most interest to them. See, for example, Fisa for the 21st Century, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Michael Hayden) (stating, in debate preceding passage of FAA's predecessor statute, that certain communications 'with one end in the United States" are the ones "that are most important to us').
The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans' international communications - and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal. And a lot of the government's advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it's a crucial one: The government doesn't need to 'target' Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications."
That's why Democratic senators such as Ron Wyden and Mark Udall spent years asking the NSA: how many Americans are having their telephone calls listened to and emails read by you without individualized warrants? Unlike the current attempts to convince Americans that the answer is "none", the NSA repeatedly refused to provide any answers,claiming that providing an accurate number was beyond their current technological capabilities. Obviously, the answer is far from "none".
Contrary to the claims by NSA defenders that the surveillance being conducted is legal, the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted any efforts to obtain judicial rulings on whether this law is consistent with the Fourth Amendment or otherwise legal. Every time a lawsuit is brought contesting the legality of intercepting Americans' communications without warrants, the Obama DOJ raises claims of secrecy, standing and immunity to prevent any such determination from being made.

The emptiness of 'oversight' from the secret Fisa court

The supposed safeguard under the FAA is that the NSA annually submits a document setting forth its general procedures for how it decides on whom it can eavesdrop without a warrant. The Fisa court then approves those general procedures. And then the NSA is empowered to issue "directives" to telephone and internet companies to obtain the communications for whomever the NSA decides – with no external (i.e. outside the executive branch) oversight – complies with the guidelines it submitted to the court.
In his interview with the president last night, Charlie Rose asked Obama about the oversight he claims exists: "Should this be transparent in some way?" Obama's answer: "It is transparent. That's why we set up the Fisa Court." But as Politico's Josh Gerstein noted about that exchange: Obama was "referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court –which carries out its work almost entirely in secret." Indeed, that court's orders are among the most closely held secrets in the US government. That Obama, when asked about transparency, has to cite a court that operates in complete secrecy demonstrates how little actual transparency there is to any this.
The way to bring actual transparency to this process it to examine the relevant Top Secret Fisa court documents. Those documents demonstrate that this entire process is a fig leaf, "oversight" in name only. It offers no real safeguards. That's because no court monitors what the NSA is actually doing when it claims to comply with the court-approved procedures. Once the Fisa court puts its approval stamp on the NSA's procedures, there is no external judicial check on which targets end up being selected by the NSA analysts for eavesdropping. The only time individualized warrants are required is when the NSA is specifically targeting a US citizen or the communications are purely domestic.
When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. The court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's process "'contains all the required elements' and that the revised NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment 'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. §1881a(e)] and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States'". As but one typical example, the Guardian has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge John Bates which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines.
Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. The Fisa court plays no role whatsoever in reviewing whether the procedures it approved are actually complied with when the NSA starts eavesdropping on calls and reading people's emails.
The guidelines submitted by the NSA to the Fisa court demonstrate how much discretion the agency has in choosing who will be targeted. Those guidelines also make clear that, contrary to the repeated assurances from government officials and media figures, the communications of American citizens are – without any individualized warrant – included in what is surveilled.
The specific guidelines submitted by the NSA to the Fisa court in July 2009 – marked Top Secret and signed by Attorney General Eric Holder – state that "NSA determines whether a person is a non-United States person reasonably believed to be outside the United States in light of the totality of the circumstances based on the information available with respect to that person, including information concerning the communications facility or facilities used by that person." It includes information that the NSA analyst uses to make this determination – including IP addresses, statements made by the potential target, and other information in the NSA databases.
The decision to begin listening to someone's phone calls or read their emails is made exclusively by NSA analysts and their "line supervisors". There is no outside scrutiny, and certainly no Fisa court involvement. As the NSA itself explained in its guidelines submitted to the Fisa court:
"Analysts who request tasking will document in the tasking database a citation or citations to the information that led them to reasonably believe that a targeted person is located outside the United States. Before tasking is approved, the database entry for that tasking will be reviewed in order to verify that the database entry contains the necessary citations."
The only oversight for monitoring whether there is abuse comes from the executive branch itself: from the DOJ and Director of National Intelligence, which conduct "periodic reviews … to evaluate the implementation of the procedure." At a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon, deputy attorney general James Cole testified that every 30 days, the Fisa court is merely given an "aggregate number" of database searches on US domestic phone records.

Warrantless interception of Americans' communications

Obama and other NSA defenders have repeatedly claimed that "nobody" is listening to Americans' telephone calls without first obtaining warrants. This is simply false. There is no doubt that some of the communications intercepted by the NSA under this warrantless scheme set forth in FAA's section 702 include those of US citizens. Indeed, as part of the Fisa court approval process, the NSA submits a separate document, also signed by Holder, which describes how communications of US persons are collected and what is done with them.
One typical example is a document submitted by the NSA in July 2009. In its first paragraph, it purports to set forth "minimization procedures" that "apply to the acquisition, retention, use, and dissemination of non-publicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons that is acquired by targeting non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States in accordance with section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended."
That document provides that "communications of or concerning United States persons that may be related to the authorized purpose of the acquisition may be forwarded to analytic personnel responsible for producing intelligence information from the collected data." It also states that "such communications or information" - those from US citizens - "may be retained and disseminated" if it meets the guidelines set forth in the NSA's procedures.
Those guidelines specifically address what the NSA does with what it calls "domestic communications", defined as "communications in which the sender and all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located in the United States at the time of acquisition". The NSA expressly claims the right to store and even disseminate such domestic communication if: (1) "it is reasonably believed to contain significant foreign intelligence information"; (2) "the communication does not contain foreign intelligence information but is reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be committed"; or (3) "the communication is reasonably believed to contain technical data base information, as defined in Section 2(i), or information necessary to understand or assess a communications security vulnerability."
Although it refuses to say how many Americans have their communications intercepted without warrants, there can be no question that the NSA does this. That's precisely why they have created elaborate procedures for what they do when they end up collecting Americans' communications without warrants.

Vast discretion vested in NSA analysts

The vast amount of discretion vested in NSA analysts is also demonstrated by the training and briefings given to them by the agency. In one such briefing from an official with the NSA's general counsel's office - a top secret transcript of which was obtained by the Guardian, dated 2008 and then updated for 2013 - NSA analysts are told how much the new Fisa law diluted the prior standards and how much discretion they now have in deciding whose communications to intercept:

"The court gets to look at procedures for saying that there is a reasonable belief for saying that a target is outside of the United States. Once again - a major change from the targeting under Fisa. Under Fisa you had to have probable cause to believe that the target was a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Here all you need is a reasonable belief that the target is outside of the United States ...
"Now, all kinds of information can be used to this end. There's a list in the targeting procedures: phone directories, finished foreign intelligence, NSA technical analysis of selectors, lead information. Now, you don't have to check a box in every one of those categories. But you have to look at everything you've got and make a judgment. Looking at everything, do you have a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States? So, cast your search wide. But don't feel as though you have to have something in every category. In the end, what matters is, 'Does all that add up to a reasonable belief that your target is outside the United States?'"
So vast is this discretion that NSA analysts even have the authority to surveil communications between their targets and their lawyers, and that information can be not just stored but also disseminated. NSA procedures do not ban such interception, but rather set forth procedures to be followed in the event that the NSA analyst believes they should be "disseminated".
The decisions about who has their emails and telephone calls intercepted by the NSA is made by the NSA itself, not by the Fisa court, except where the NSA itself concludes the person is a US citizen and/or the communication is exclusively domestic. But even in such cases, the NSA often ends up intercepting those communications of Americans without individualized warrants, and all of this is left to the discretion of the NSA analysts with no real judicial oversight.

Legal constraints v technical capabilities

What is vital to recognize is that the NSA is collecting and storing staggering sums of communications every day. Back in 2010, the Washington Post reported that "every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications." Documents published by the Guardian last week detail that, in March 2013, the NSA collected three billions of pieces of intelligence just from US communications networks alone.
In sum, the NSA is vacuuming up enormous amounts of communications involving ordinary Americans and people around the world who are guilty of nothing. There are some legal constraints governing their power to examine the content of those communications, but there are no technical limits on the ability either of the agency or its analysts to do so. The fact that there is so little external oversight is what makes this sweeping, suspicion-less surveillance system so dangerous. It's also what makes the assurances from government officials and their media allies so dubious.
A senior US intelligence official told the Guardian: "Under section 702, the Fisa court has to approve targeting and minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence."
"The targeting procedures ensure that the targets of surveillance are reasonably believed to be non-US persons outside of the US", the official added.
"Moreover, decisions about targeting are memorialized, reviewed on a regular basis and audited. Moreover, Congress clearly understood that even when the government is targeting foreign persons for collection, communications of US persons may be acquired if those persons are in communication with the foreign targets, for example as was testified to in today's hearing when Najibullah Zazi communicated with a foreign terrorist whose communications were being targeted under Section 702.
"That," the official continued, "is why the statute requires that there be minimization procedures to ensure that when communications of, or concerning, US persons are acquired in the course of lawful collection under Section 702, that information is minimized and is retained and disseminated only when appropriate. These procedures are approved on an annual basis by the Fisa court.
"Compliance with them is extensively overseen by the intelligence community, the DOJ, the ODNI and Inspectors General," the official said. "Both the Fisa court and Congress receive regular reports on compliance."

World news

NSA ·
Privacy ·

Law

Series


Facebook Executive BUSTED for Infiltrating Conservative Sites http://fb.me/2tc3Vj6MX
Retweeted by Tea Party Chief
HOW FACEBOOK LIED ABOUT PRISM....
FOR ORIGINAL USERS, YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT FACEBOOK, WHEN IT CHANGED ITS DESIGN LAYOUT FROM SIMPLE POST, TO THE COVER PHOTO, TO THE LATEST NEW LAYOUT WITH ACTIVITY LOG, THAT YOU COUGHED UP YOUR GPS.
FACEBOOK GOT SO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT PUBLIC POSTINGS BEING VIEWED FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS, SO FACEBOOK THEN CREATED THE BOX WHERE CHECK WHO YOU SHARE IT WITH.
HOWEVER, IF YOU REQUIRED SECURITY CODES FOR DIFFERENT DEVICE LOG-INS, FACEBOOK NEGLECTED TO TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD NOW RECORD YOUR BROWSER AND GPS THROUGH ITS INTERFACE:
IN FACT, PEOPLE ARE NOW CALLING IT FACE-FOOK...
BECAUSE, IF YOU USE IT, YOU’RE FOOKED!

Tea Party Chief @2013_TeaParty Protected account 14s
Exposing #PRISM @facebook laden with cookies that actually exploit secure browsing & expose you to hackers @guardian pic.twitter.com/oNshgCVISD


12:09 AM - 17 Jun 13 · Details


If you do not use groups that are bookmarked https://www.facebook.com/bookmarks/groups you will see cookies tracking your searching for a specific group, or a cookie that shows group activity, a ? followed by reference or ? followed by group activity notification.

This is #PRISM on your group posts, profile page, or your PAGES. When you see location stream, that is the kill switch feature, and if you do not close the browser, it will shut your computer entirely off.

Holding Congress accountable for NSA excesses

 -  
Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:58 AM EDT
Getty Images
It didn't generate much attention at the time, but in the closing days of 2012, while most of the political world was focused on the so-called "fiscal cliff," Congress also had to take the time to reauthorize the government's warrantless surveillance program. A handful of senators -- Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- proposed straightforward amendments to promote NSA disclosure and add layers of accountability, but as Adam Serwer reported at the time, bipartisan majorities rejected each of their ideas.
In effect, every senator was aware of dubious NSA surveillance -- some had been briefed on the programs in great detail -- but a bipartisan majority was comfortable with an enormous amount of secrecy and minimal oversight. Even the most basic of proposed reforms -- having the NSA explain how surveillance works in practice -- were seen as overly intrusive. The vast majority of Congress was comfortable with NSA operating under what are effectively secret laws.
With this in mind, Jonathan Bernstein asked a compelling question over the weekend and provided a persuasive answer: "If you don't like the revelations this week about what the NSA has been up to regarding your phone and Internet data, whom should you blame?"
There is, to be sure, plenty of blame to go around. The NSA has pushed the limits; federal courts approved the surveillance programs; George W. Bush got this ball rolling; President Obama kept this ball rolling; and telecoms have clearly participated in the efforts.
But save plenty of your blame -- perhaps most of your blame -- for Congress.
Did you notice the word I used in each of the other cases? The key word: law. As far as we know, everything that happened here was fully within the law. So if something was allowed that shouldn't have been allowed, the problem is, in the first place, the laws. And that means Congress.
It's worth pausing to note that there is some debate about the legality of the exposed surveillance programs. Based on what we know at this point, most of the legal analyses I've seen suggest the NSA's actions were within the law, though we're still dealing with an incomplete picture, and there are certainly some legal experts who question whether the NSA crossed legal lines.
But if the preliminary information is accurate, it's hard to overstate how correct Bernstein is about congressional culpability.
Towards the end of the Bush/Cheney era, there was a two-pronged debate about surveillance. On the one hand, there were questions about warrantless wiretaps and NSA data mining. On the other, there was the issue of the law: the original FISA law approved in 1978 was deemed by the Bush administration to be out of date, so officials chose to circumvent it, on purpose, to meet their perceived counter-terrorism needs.
In time, bipartisan majorities in Congress decided not to hold Bush/Cheney accountable, and ultimately expanded the law to give the executive branch extraordinary and unprecedented surveillance powers.
In theory, Obama could have chosen a different path after taking office in 2009, but the historical pattern is clear: if Congress gives a war-time president vast powers related to national security, that president is going to use those powers. The wiser course of action would be the legislative branch acting to keep those powers in check -- limiting how far a White House can go -- but our contemporary Congress has chosen to do the opposite.
This is, by the way, a bipartisan phenomenon -- lawmakers in both parties gave Bush expansive authority in this area, and lawmakers in both parties agreed to keep these powers in Obama's hands. What's more, they not only passed laws these measures into law, they chose not to do much in the way of oversight as the surveillance programs grew.
OK, but now that the NSA programs are causing national controversies again, perhaps Congress will reconsider these expansive presidential powers? Probably not -- on the Sunday shows, we heard from a variety of lawmakers, some of whom expressed concern about the surveillance, but most of whom are prepared to allow the programs continue untouched.
Indeed, for many lawmakers on the right, the intended focus going forward won't be on scaling back NSA efforts, but rather, will be on targeting the leaks that exposed the NSA efforts.
Conservatives, in particular, seem especially eager to leave these powers in the president's hands -- even though they have nothing but disdain for this particular president. And as Jon Chait explained, support for the NSA programs from the right will matter a great deal: "The Republican response is crucial, because it determines whether the news media treats the story as a 'scandal' or as a 'policy dispute.'"
Michael Kinsley, referencing campaign-finance laws, once argued that in Washington, the scandal isn't what's illegal; the scandal is what's legal. I've been thinking a lot about this adage in recent days.
If the reports are accurate and the NSA is acting within the law, but you nevertheless consider the surveillance programs outrageous, there is one remedy: Congress needs to redraw the legal lines. At least for now, the appetite for changes among lawmakers appears limited, which only helps reinforce the thesis about who's ultimately responsible for this mess.
— Filed under: congress, nsa
HOLDING CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE ON GUANTANAMO.... Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 14 Jun
@BuckMcKeon I agree! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151611073233670&set=a.10150477503253670.383130.773523669&type=3&theater … I have been stuck getting consensus since he has been administratively impeached by the House.

Tea Party Chief ‏@2013_TeaParty Protected account 14 Jun
You can not exploit Protocol I @HouseFloor they need Geneva Trials, there is corruption on both sides. Sentence them to Johnston Atoll.
8:40 AM - 14 Jun 13 · Details
UN NOW ACCUSES OBAMA’S MILITARY COMMAND OF ENGAGING IN ACTS OF TORTURE: FORCING MEDICAL TREATMENT ON PRISONERS, INCLUDING FORCED INJECTIONS OF ANTI-NAUSEA MEDICATION, IV’S FOR FEEDING TUBES, SINCE HUNGER STRIKE AND FAST HAS PROVEN FUTILE.

US identifies Guantanamo indefinite detainees


Administration calls 46 men too dangerous to release as State Department names special envoy to close military prison.

Last Modified: 18 Jun 2013 05:29

The Obama administration has publicly identified for the first time 46 prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base whom it wants to hold indefinitely without charge or trial because it says they are too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted.
The Defence Department released the names on Monday after the Miami Herald newspaper and a group of Yale Law School students sued for its release in a US District Court in Washington.
The list also names nearly two dozen prisoners who have been recommended for prosecution, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is already on trial for his alleged role in the September 11, 2011, attack, and Hambali, an alleged Indonesian "terrorist leader".
Those on the list are prisoners who have been held without charge under the Authorised Use of Military Force act passed by Congress and signed by President George Bush in 2001, according to a spokesman for the Pentagon, Army Lieutenant-Colonel Todd Breasseale.
The prisoners on the list were first reviewed by an administration task force of lawyers, military officers and intelligence agents.
Indefinite detainees
In a 2010 report, the task force declared 48 Guantanamo prisoners too dangerous to release. However, the report said they could not be tried, either because there was no evidence linking them to specific attacks or because evidence against them was tainted by coercion or abuse.
On the list were 26 Yemenis, 12 Afghans, three Saudis, two Kuwaitis, two Libyans, a Kenyan, a Moroccan and a Somali.
Two of the Afghans died after the list was compiled, one from suicide and the other from a heart attack.
That leaves 46 of the 166 Guantanamo prisoners designated as indefinite detainees.
The Guantanamo detention camp was set up in 2002 to hold prisoners captured in US counterterrorism operations overseas.
President Barack Obama recently called it a stain on America's reputation and reiterated his intent to close it.
He said his administration would appoint a pair of envoys from the State and Defence departments to work on that.
Following up on that promise, the State Department announced on Monday the appointment of Clifford Sloan, a veteran Washington lawyer, to work as its envoy to negotiate the repatriation or resettlement of 86 prisoners who have been cleared for transfer or release.
Pre-trial hearings
The announcement came as five prisoners charged with plotting the 9/11 attacks on the US appeared in the war crimes tribunal at the Guantanamo base for a week of pre-trial hearings.
Defendants in the death penalty case include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men accused of funding and training the hijackers.
All five defendants appeared adequately fed, suggesting they have not joined more than 100 other detainees who have waged a four-month hunger strike in protest at the failure to resolve their fate after more than a decade of detention at Guantanamo.
They sat quietly in the courtroom as their lawyers questioned a retired admiral who previously oversaw the Guantanamo war crimes tribunal.
The lengthy and at times tedious questioning was aimed at showing the admiral and other military officials meddled in attorney-client communications, which are supposed to be confidential.
Hidden microphones
The hearing was the first in the case since February, when camp officials revealed that what appeared to be smoke alarms in the huts where defence lawyers met the defendants were actually microphones.
Camp officials insisted that they never listened to or recorded attorney-client meetings at the detention camp and said the microphones have since been disabled.
In addition to the five defendants in the 9/11 case, the Obama administration had planned to try about 36 prisoners in the war crimes tribunal.
But the chief prosecutor in the tribunals, Army Brigadier-General Mark Martins, told Reuters news agency last week that number would be scaled back to about 20 - including the 9/11 defendants and seven cases that have already been completed.
He had planned to charge many of the others with providing material support for terrorism but a US appeals court ruled last year that was not internationally recognised as a war crime when the acts in question took place in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
*


THE HUNGER STRIKE BEGAN, SHORTLY AFTER SEQUESTER BROUGHT PROPOSED REFORMS TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO IN FAVOR OF JOHNSTON ATOLL...


The opening statement of the Constitution declares that we, the people of the United States, as one of our main duties is to provide for the common defense. This means that the people are the government, not the government as a separate entity, so that we decide as taxpayers how our money meets the needs of domestic peace and tranquility.

Article I, Sec. 8 determines that the power to declare war resides with Congress, and that no appropriation shall be made longer than two years to raise and support an Army.

At this time, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator John McCain, and Senator John Kerry are authorized to sign a declaration of war jointly, or any emergency military order as required by military command or conference. Obama has been relieved of signature authority, Vice President Biden is acting Commander-in-Chief.

Given these provisions of the Constitution listed above, it is necessary to revisit our commitments to other countries that fall under diplomacy operations and those that actually fall under the regular defense budget. There has been a lot of political discourse regarding “unconstitutional wars, endless war spending, and endless wars”, but these are misnomers when it comes to approving an annual defense budget and defining our previous and current national security needs.

Our war has always been against the enemy Al Qaeda, and the bulk of our military spending has been in pursuit of that enemy going on eleven years. After ending the Iraq War, that has been likened to my generation’s Vietnam, it is also necessary that we promote a military budget that is reasonable and does not use sequester, an across-the-board percentage cut, without thorough examination of the 2013 defense bill and what our military is requesting to carry out operations.

After reviewing the 2013 defense bill, we prefer a redirection of spending, as opposed to direct cuts to meet a budget the Senate hasn’t even produced, nor is Obama authorized to compose or impose upon anyone: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lG1SCohq6nIr7xQgUsTofCTWW4VL0S_kuKqGPKs1FAs/edit

A sequester is a default mechanism, usually used for annual business budgeting, but given that defense is the first priority of a Constitutionally-funded model budget and that the Senate has failed to produce an annual budget for 4 years straight and has been operating on a continuing resolution, we have averted 5 government shutdowns, and we pray to avert a 6th on 9/30/12.

*I would like to note that this process had gotten so political, so weighed down with ire and rhetoric for failure to even write a Constitutional budget, that the Tea Party and Paul Ryan took over this process. Paul Ryan wrote a deficit reduction budget called the Path to Prosperity, based on the works of Tom Coburn and others, which came forth from the very heated debate over the debt ceiling in the Summer of 2011, so the Tea Party drafted a working budget based on actual physical revenue trend, (in order to reach a target of deficit control and a path toward paying off our deficit annually).


After review, Bush Tax Cuts offset the inflation of the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars to avoid a tax revolt during times of conflict. However now that Afghanistan is considered a matter of diplomacy operations in alliance with Karzai, those costs must be monitored effectively for approval of the 2013 defense budget.

The problem is, the Bush Tax Cuts caused us to borrow to pay Congress’ salaries over the past 10 years, and while this is not specifically about the 2013 defense appropriation bill, it is worth noting that Congress while in session works 12, 13, and 14 hour days at times, meets endlessly, and then while on break they meet with constituents.

We are not the part-time Congress of the Founding Fathers, who took off seasonally to manage domestic affairs and work. Congress may need to consider a reduction in their salary of $200 billion from last year to this year, to cause us not to borrow, unless those cuts are found.

Congress’ salary is $1 trillion annually, plus the $700 billion in interest that hits us every 5-6 months. While we would all like to get off of the continuing resolution model, it is imperative that everyone presents a budget to get a public consensus about how the government appropriates and carries out funding of each program. Failing to write a budget will be met by the wrath of voters, and Congress has been appealed to order misappropriation and remuneration charges over Obamacare, a $2 trillion tax increase that was just cremated by the House, for not providing any health insurance whatsoever.

Without a budget, the Democrats leave their constituents’ voices unheard and misrepresented to a cacophony of shouting and wasted floor time debating bills that aren’t even at hand.

Seeking balance, the 2013 TEA PARTY BALANCED BUDGET $3.5 TRILLION ANNUAL REVENUE https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq5m9QEGEZpOdFVCTlNEMTc1VW41bGZoOXRWdzlHVkE#gid=0 has been written to reflect the expiration and sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts, so that Congress is paid without having to borrow or pay the interest for their salaries. This will not only balance our domestic spending to our needs of national defense, this budget places us with a $25 billion down payment on our deficit, free and clear. This way the books are balanced going into 2013, and any additional revenue can be applied toward deficit reduction, as we begin to implement the Path to Prosperity proposals by March of 2013.

To discuss these matters specifically related to the 2013 defense budget, we ask that $600 billion be appropriated for general military operations, $200 billion for requiring anyone under 25 to get their Master’s degree for education/retraining purposes, and $200 billion for defense projects. The project list was due 8/1/12, when I attended the meeting, I did not hear of the projects or who had theirs ready for review.

We have abandoned the need for consideration of revisiting the military draft, unlike Israel. We want a volunteer Army, because we believe that our military works best that way, and we want our soldiers to function well in the private sector. We are making education a requirement, and we want no one under the age of 25 on front line duty, because the brain has not fully developed. This may cause some criticism from the military and how it chooses to operate, but we have to operate more wisely than we have in the past in recruiting, training, and retention of personnel.
Defense projects are to be submitted and approved by Allen West. He is an asset to be in a position of having served and to be able to communicate with military personnel with relative disclosure in being mindful that not everything must be left to public scrutiny.
I found the 2013 defense budget well constructed and easy to read, despite the repetition and long list of equipment, I was eventually able to tabulate the cost, but we need a different scoring system in the margin for legislation anyway.



In short, we ask that no defense cuts be made by percentage calculation or with respect to the annual budget, because we find that the 2013 defense budget takes taxpayer dollars into consideration, and that it is not asking for any increases but a preservation of operations.

We must take that into consideration as taxpayers, that our military has more than met their obligations and given us a 5 time renewal of Army to complete the task of our generation against Al Qaeda. We must also respect that our fight is not quite finished, that we have smoked out Al Qaeda in Yemen, and that with the help of Iraq, we now have Al Qaeda cornered in Syria. While we are looking forward to a time of peace and a time when the Middle East tension with neighbors subsides, we know that these are all factors of a delicate balance of operations and quality intelligence.

In order to prevent this sequester and to pay Congress, we are cutting $200 billion from the Judiciary, until they get serious and prioritize processing violent offenders and preventing abuse of tax dollars.
We also propose a measure that should sit well with those against capital punishment and those who
are tired of supporting terrorists, murderers, rapists and pedophiles to be housed for life sentences:




We will begin phasing out maximum security wards to isolating prisoners to Johnston Atoll.

With the invention or perfection of drones, we will be able to remotely secure prisoners on this deserted and abandoned military base. Johnston Atoll or Drone Island will function like exile, except we will know when the elements have taken a prisoner, as opposed to lethal injection costs and life sentencing housing costs:

We find that life sentencing is a cruel and unusual punishment to taxpayers, who are forced to subsidize violent criminals’ sustenance, and it is cruel and unusual to deny someone the punishment their offense such deserves, an injustice that carries with it enormous impunity and consequently the perpetuation of violent crime trends. Johnston Atoll will help us mitigate costs and these issues surrounding other proposed Judicial Reform: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gCsVzgQIHy0GQOVl2b80fyNBTtPeA6dHCNXkwth-y3M/edit


With these reforms in place and implementation of “The Military Sequester Prevention Act of 2012”, we can not only help to reduce terrorism but other forms of violence in society, and in conjunction with the proposed use of Johnston Atoll, we ask that any existing law still in place for lack of a Senate vote taken on Obamacare, that the House begin redirecting funds appropriated to Planned Parenthood by Obamacare or H.R. 4872 to be implemented for the cost of plane travel and parachute for prisoners phased out to Johnston Atoll.

Failure to adhere to this budget or these proposals will bring further audit of federal prison costs and reforms, including deportations to country of origin to deserted areas like Johnston Atoll, for taxpayers do not have to sustain global terrorism through prison bases contrary to their well being, or gangs for twenty years to life.

We urge the Senate to act in passing the 2013 defense budget, as written, with the military to apply the reforms listed herein. If the Senate does not, we will pursue cutting the salaries of Senators by $200 billion, for creating a defense vacuum between now and 9-30-12, with our military unable to approve their project lists that were due on 8/1/12. The Department of Homeland security is also being considered for reductions, as well as other underperforming domestic agencies.

Obama Administration Releases Names Of Dozens Of Gitmo’s ‘Indefinite Detainees’

By Hayes Brown on Jun 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm
The Obama administration on Monday for the first time released the names of the 48 prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who may spend the rest of their lives there without trial.
Until today, the identities of the detainees that the Obama administration has determined to be too dangerous to release, yet unable to be prosecuted in a court of law, has remained secret. The Miami Herald on Monday reported that it had obtained the full list of the individuals from the government following a Freedom of Information Act request, resulting in a list of four dozen names.
After President Obama signed his 2009 Executive Order to close the base’s prison, an administration task force sifted through the evidence against all of the prisoners who remained in the base. In 2010, the panel concluded that the evidence against 48 of the detainees was either too flimsy or too tainted to be allowed to stand in a criminal court, but that each of them were also too dangerous to be released or transferred to another country’s captivity. With this admission, the only remaining authority remaining to hold these individuals is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, under which these men are held as a form of war prisoner which the Bush administration claimed was outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions’ rules.
While the identities of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners was previously known, this is the first time the administration has publicly acknowledged those listed as being ineligible for release, transfer, or prosecution. Each of the detainees are indexed with a serial number and their nationality, with two asterisks denoting prisoners who died during their captivity. As a result of the release, we now know that the prisoners hail from a multitude of Muslim-majority countries, including not just the declared war zone in Afghanistan, but also from undeclared conflict zones like Somalia and Yemen.
Several of the detainees on the indefinite detention list are currently participating in the prisoners’ on-going hunger strike, according to the Herald. This includes Yemeni prisoner Abdal Malik al Wahab, who, according to his lawyer, vowed in March to fast until he was out of Guantanamo “dead or alive.” As of Monday, 104 of the 166 detainees left in the prison were participating in the strike. Of those striking, 44 are being force-fed to keep them alive, a practice that has been condemned as “torture.”
President Obama last month announced that he would renew his efforts to close the base, one of his campaign promises when running for his first term. House Republicans rebuked those efforts once again last week, voting through a defense authorization bill that contained provisions to extend a ban on spending funds to close the facility. Democrats offered several amendments to reverse this decision, which were all voted down on the House floor.

Tags:


WE DON’T NEED TO FINISH  A FENCE... OH NO~~!
WE HAVE DRONES CIRCLING THE BORDERS THAT COST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO USE.... BECAUSE WE’RE LAZY, WE THINK DRONES ARE THE ANSWER TO OUR SECURITY NEEDS, AND THAT STRAINING DIRT FROM PHONE CALLS WILL GIVE US CONTROL OF THE MEDIA, CONTROL OF THE PRIVATE LIVES OF TAXPAYERS, AND THE ABILITY TO CRIMINALIZE PEOPLE AT WHIM....

TO FINISH READING THE BLOG, AND HOW THE NSA INTERCEPTS EMAIL, GO TO
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)