Archive for December 28, 2012

Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage.

Whats in your Wallet? Facebook

Facebook.

Ubeudgen's Blog

See on Scoop.itUliBeudgen occupied

Ulrike Beudgen‘s insight:

Aufruf … 

See on blockupy-frankfurt.org

View original post

Selma Schacht: Unterstützung der protestierenden Flüchtlinge | Kommunisten in die AK!

Als Gewerkschafterin und Arbeiterkammerrätin unterstütze ich den Protest der Flüchtlinge – der nicht “nur” der Kampf um ein menschenwürdiges Leben in Österreich ist, sondern auch ein Kampf um die Menschenwürde selbst.

Gegen rassistische Bestimmungen, gegen Fremdenhass von Seiten der Gesellschaft und der Gesetze, für das Recht auf Leben in Selbstbestimmung mit dem Recht auf Arbeit, Bildung und sozialem Zusammenhalt. Dieser Kampf muss unser aller Anliegen sein – mein voller Respekt und meine volle Unterstützung dafür!

via Selma Schacht: Unterstützung der protestierenden Flüchtlinge | Kommunisten in die AK!.

Enough 14 -

Um 4:00 Uhr umstellten geschätzte 200 Polizist_innen das Protestcamp im Sigmund-Freud-Park. Sie kamen von allen Seiten und verkündeten, dass das Camp innerhalb von 5 Minuten geräumt werden muss. Ca. 3 1/2 Stunden später war die Räumung abgeschlossen.

Den Anfang machte offenbar der Besuch eines Polizisten in Zivil, der nach einem kurzen Aufenthalt am Lagerfeuer gegen 3:45 wieder ging. Etwa 15 Minuten später wurde das Camp von einem Großaufgebot Polizei eingekesselt. Eine Durchsage informierte die Anwesenden lediglich auf deutsch, dass das Camp binnen 5 Minuten zu räumen sei – obwohl bekannt ist, dass viele der Anwesenden nicht deutsch sprechen. Dabei berief sich die Polizei auf eine Campierverordnung von 1985.

Von allen Anwesenden wurde die Identität festgestellt, einige auch fotografiert. Der komplette Platz wurde ausgeleuchtet, alle Zelte nummeriert, Leute, die sich in Zelten befanden, wurden vor die Zelte gestellt, von allen Seiten fotografiert und gefilmt. Mindestens vier Leuten wurden Verwaltungsstrafen angekündigt. Ob…

View original post 191 more words

no-racism.net: Fünf Wochen Proteste von Flüchtlingen – gegen rassistische Gesetze und rassistische Hetze

Die Caritas, die sich am Beginn des Protestcamps darauf beschränkte, Suppe im Camp vorbei zu bringen, schaltete sich ein, jedoch wurde schnell deutlich, dass die kirchliche Wohlfahrtsorganisation nicht auf der Seite der Flüchtlinge steht. Immer wieder wurde versucht, die Flüchtlinge zu einem Ende ihres Protests zu überreden und ihnen warme Unterkünfte und Essen angeboten.

lesen via no-racism.net: Fünf Wochen Proteste von Flüchtlingen – gegen rassistische Gesetze und rassistische Hetze.

We will rise! Demo gegen die Polizeiräumung unter fadenscheinigen Vorwänden und in Solidarität mit größten selbstorganisierten Protesten von AsylwerberInnen in der jüngeren Geschichte!

Samstag

29-12-2012; 16:30

WIEN

Treffpunkt:

Sigmund-Freud-Park

+++Bitte weiterleiten! / Please spread!+++
via We will rise! Demo gegen die Polizeiräumung unter fadenscheinigen Vorwänden und in Solidarität mit größten selbstorganisierten Protesten von AsylwerberInnen in der jüngeren Geschichte!.

Aus Anlass der brutalen Räumung des Protestcamps und der Verhaftung von zwei Refugeeaktivisten:

We will rise! Demo gegen die Polizeiräumung unter fadenscheinigen Vorwänden und in Solidarität mit größten selbstorganisierten Protesten von AsylwerberInnen in der jüngeren Geschichte!

Zeit: Samstag, 29.12., 16.30Uhr
Treffpunkt: Sigmund-Freud-Park (ehemaliges RefugeeProtestCamp).

Die Demo ist angemeldet! Route: Sigmund-Freud-Park – PAZ Rossauerlände – Innenministerium – Bundeskanzleramt – Votivpark

Kommt alle! Bringt Kochtöpfe mit! Gemeinsam sind wir stark und laut!

Darüber hinaus soll es auch in anderen Städten Solikundgebungen geben: Linz – Salzburg – München! We will rise!

http://refugeecampvienna.noblogs.org/

via We will rise! Demo gegen die Polizeiräumung unter fadenscheinigen Vorwänden und in Solidarität mit größten selbstorganisierten Protesten von AsylwerberInnen in der jüngeren Geschichte!.

Monsanto’s GMO might soon be banned in India

In the last few years, Monsanto’s BT cotton has had devastating results in both livelihood and agricultural practices of Indian farmers. Just in the last decade by itself, Monsanto’s Bt cotton has led to suicide of more than 250,000 Indian farmers.

read via Monsanto’s GMO might soon be banned in India.

Der Anfang vom Ende Monsantos oekonews.at – Erste Tageszeitung für ERNEUERBARE ENERGIE und Nachhaltigkeit – Zeitung Medium Portal Fachblatt Zeitschrift tagesaktuell Erneuerbare Energien rss xml

Monsanto war gegen die negative Indizienlage ohnmächtig. Mit dem Resultat,dass nach Frankreich und Ungarn auch Argentinien den Einsatz dieser kontraproduktiven Form der Landwirtschaft nun konsequent verbietet.

lesen  via Der Anfang vom Ende Monsantos oekonews.at – Erste Tageszeitung für ERNEUERBARE ENERGIE und Nachhaltigkeit – Zeitung Medium Portal Fachblatt Zeitschrift tagesaktuell Erneuerbare Energien rss xml.

Top NSA General Says This New $2 Billion Spy Center Will Definitely Not Snoop On Americans – Business Insider

Maybe you’ve heard of it and maybe you haven’t, but in Bluffdale, Utah alongside one of the largest polygamist sects in America, the NSA is building a one-million-square-foot data collection center — five times the size of the U.S. capital.

via Top NSA General Says This New $2 Billion Spy Center Will Definitely Not Snoop On Americans – Business Insider.

NSA electronic surveillance program – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An electronic surveillance program was implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. It was part of the President’s Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005 The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications were “purely domestic” in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. [1] Later works, such as James Bamford‘s The Shadow Factory, describe how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from “everyone in the country.”[2]

The program was named the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the George W. Bush administration[3] in response to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy following disclosure of the program. It is claimed that this program operated without the judicial oversight mandated by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and legal challenges to the program are currently undergoing judicial review. Because the technical specifics of the program have not been disclosed, it is unclear if the program is subject to FISA. It is unknown if this is the original name of the program; the term was first used publicly by President Bush in a speech on January 23, 2006.[4]

On August 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the program unconstitutional and illegal. On appeal, the decision was overturned on procedural grounds and the lawsuit was dismissed without addressing the merits of the claims,[5] although one further challenge is still pending in the courts. On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter [1] that the program would not be reauthorized by the president, but would be subjected to judicial oversight. “Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” according to his letter.[6]

Contents

Description

While no specific information has been offered, the Bush Administration has indicated that the wiretapping program targets communications where at least one party is outside the United States, and where it asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more parties involved in the communication have ties to al Qaeda. However, anonymous sources have come forward stating a small number of instances where purely domestic calls were intercepted. These sources said the NSA accidentally intercepted these calls, apparently caused by technical glitches in determining whether a communication was in fact “international,” probably due to the use of international cell phones.[1]

The complete details of the program are not known, as the Bush Administration contended that security concerns did not allow it to release details, and limit judicial authorization and review.[citation needed] Implemented sometime after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the existence of the program was not made public until a 2005 New York Times article. Additional details came to light in a May 2006 USA Today article.[7]

President Bush stated that he had reviewed and reauthorized the program approximately every 45 days since it was implemented. The leadership of the intelligence committees of the House or Representatives and Senate were briefed a number of times since initiation of the program.[8] They were not, however, allowed to make notes or confer with others to determine the legal ramifications, or even to mention the existence of the program to the full membership of the intelligence committees. Further, the administration even refused to identify to the public which members of the committees were briefed; it has, however, provided a complete list of these members to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[9]

Pen Register Tap

Prominent legal scholar and blogger Orin Kerr has argued that the program is probably not a wiretap or call database, but more likely to be a pen register (or tap and trace) tap.[10] Unlike wiretaps, where the actual content of the call is monitored, or listened to, a pen register is a limited form of wiretap where only basic call data such as originating and receiving telephone numbers, time of call and duration are logged. Because of the limited nature of the data, frequently characterized as “outside the envelope,” pen register taps have much lower legal standards than conventional wiretaps, and are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

The only physical evidence of the NSA program are documents accidentally leaked to lawyers for an al-Qaeda front group the Al-Haramain Foundation. These documents contain only logs of phone calls being placed, but not actual transcripts, suggesting the wiretapping program is merely a pen-register tap.[11]

Call database

On May 10, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA has had a separate, previously undisclosed program in place since 9/11 to build a database of information about calls placed within the United States, including phone numbers, and the date and duration of the calls.[7] According to the article, phone companies AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South disclosed the records to the NSA, while Qwest did not. The article quotes an unnamed source that “it’s the largest database ever assembled in the world.” Most reports indicate that this program is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The administration has not confirmed the existence of this aspect of the program.[12]

News reporting

December 16, 2005

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times printed a story asserting that following 9/11, “President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying” as part of the War on Terror.[13]

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

According to the Times:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to comment on the story on December 16, exclaiming “there’s a reason why we don’t get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening.” [14] The next morning, the president gave a live eight-minute television address instead of his normal weekly radio address, during which he addressed the wiretap story directly:[15]

I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

In the address, President Bush implied he had approved the tracing of domestic calls originating or terminating overseas, stating the program would “make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.” He forcefully defended his actions as “crucial to our national security” and claimed that the American people expected him to “do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties” as long as there was a “continuing threat” from al Qaeda. The president also had harsh words for those who broke the story, saying that they acted illegally. “The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk,” he said.[16]

The FBI began an investigation into the leaks surrounding this program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case. [17]

January 1, 2006

On January 1, 2006, The New York Times printed a story revealing that aspects of the program were suspended for weeks in 2004. The Times story said the U.S. Attorney General’s office, then headed by John Ashcroft, balked in 2004 when asked to give approval of the program, and that then Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey “played a part in overseeing the reforms that were put in place in 2004.” According to the Times, however, the oversight by the NSA shift supervisor continued to be unfettered by any pre-approval requirement. The story also pointed out that even some NSA employees thought that the warrantless surveillance program was illegal.[18]

The Times had withheld the article from publication for over a year. Both editor in chief Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. were summoned by the president and White House officials to persuade the paper not to publish the story. The Times ran the story shortly before it would have been scooped by publication of its own reporter’s book. The Times ombudsman speculates that the reason the backstory isn’t being revealed is to protect sources.[19] Russ Tice claims he was a source for the story.[20]

January 3, 2006

On January 3, the independent news program Democracy Now!, and later on January 10 ABC news ran a story that according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, the number of Americans affected by the range of NSA surveillance programs could be in the millions if the full extent of secret NSA programs is considered:[21]

Tice says the technology exists to track and sort through every domestic and international phone call as they are switched through centers, such as one in New York, and to search for key words or phrases that a terrorist might use. “If you picked the word ‘jihad’ out of a conversation,” Tice said, “the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing.” According to Tice, intelligence analysts use the information to develop graphs that resemble spiderwebs linking one suspect’s phone number to hundreds or even thousands more. “That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,” Tice said.

January 17, 2006

On January 17 the New York Times reported, “more than a dozen current and former law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials,” some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, “said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.”[22]

February 5, 2006

On February 5, The Washington Post noted that “fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their (purely) domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.” Also in the article: “The minimum legal definition of probable cause, said a government official who has studied the program closely, is that evidence used to support eavesdropping ought to turn out to be ‘right for one out of every two guys at least.’ Those who devised the surveillance plan, the official said, ‘knew they could never meet that standard—that’s why they didn’t go through'” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[23]

Also on February 5, USA Today ran a story reporting that according to seven telecommunications executives, the NSA had secured the cooperation of the main telecommunications companies in charge of international phone calls, including AT&T, MCI, and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls.[24]

May 22, 2006

In its issue dated May 22, 2006, Newsweek put the controversy on the cover of its magazine and ran several stories inside summarizing what is known and speculations about it.[25]

On May 22, 2006, Wired Magazine released the text of AT&T documents, currently under court seal in the EFF case, that allegedly describe NSA wiretap arrangements.[26]

Legality of the program

The NSA’s electronic surveillance operations are governed primarily by four legal sources: the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); Executive Order 12333; and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18.[27] The primary legal challenge to the program currently in US courts is the suit brought by the Al-Haramain Foundation.[28] All other challenges to the program have been dismissed by U.S. courts.

Critics of the Bush administration have regularly compared the current NSA surveillance program to those of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War (i.e., Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church committee).[29] However, these programs occurred prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed into law in response to widespread concern over these abuses of domestic surveillance activities. According to opponents of this program that is exactly what the current program is doing and why FISA was enacted.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the program in 2006 on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. In the initial trial, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on August 17, 2006, ruled the program was unconstitutional and imposed an injunction against it.[30] The Justice Department filed an appeal within hours of the ruling and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal. While opposing the stay, the ACLU agreed to delay implementation of the injunction until September 7 to allow time for the judge to hear the appeal.[31] On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case without addressing the merits of the claims, holding 2–1 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.[5]

Controversy

When classified details were leaked to the press at some point in 2005, critics began to question the legality of the program. The crux of the debate over legality is twofold, the main issues being

  1. Are the parameters of this program subject to FISA and
  2. If so, did the president have authority, inherent or otherwise, to bypass FISA.

FISA explicitly covers “electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information” performed within the United States, and there is no court decision supporting the theory that the president’s constitutional authority allows him to override statutory law. This was emphasized by fourteen constitutional law scholars, including the dean of Yale Law School and the former deans of Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School:

“The argument that conduct undertaken by the commander in chief that has some relevance to ‘engaging the enemy’ is immune from congressional regulation finds no support in, and is directly contradicted by, both case law and historical precedent. Every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the commander in chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute. No precedent holds that the president, when acting as commander in chief, is free to disregard an Act of Congress, much less a criminal statute enacted by Congress, that was designed specifically to restrain the president as such.” (Emphasis in original.)[32]

The American Bar Association, the Congressional Research Service, former congressional representative of New York Elizabeth Holtzman, former White House Counsel John Dean, and lawyer/author Jennifer van Bergen have also criticized the administration’s justification for conducting electronic surveillance within the U.S. without first obtaining warrants as contrary to current U.S. law. [29] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] President Bush’s former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for national security issues, David Kris, and five former FISC judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA [38] Stanford’s Chip Pitts has usefully distinguished between the core NSA eavesdropping program, the data mining program, and the use of National Security Letters to clarify that each continues to present serious legal problems despite the government’s supposedly bringing them within the relevant laws.[39]

See also

 

Whistleblowers

References

  1. ^ a b James Risen and Eric Lichtblau (2005-12-21). “Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls”. New York Times. Retrieved 2006-05-28.
  2. ^ The Secret Sharer, Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, May 23 2011, retrieved 2011 May 16
  3. ^ Fox still echoing administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” label; regional newspapers follow suit Media Matters for America, February 08, 2006
  4. ^ Media Matters – AP picks up White House’s “terrorist surveillance program” terminology
  5. ^ a b “Court dismisses lawsuit on spying”. Reuters. July 6, 2007.
  6. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/ts_nm/surveillance_bush_dc_3 bad link as of Aug 19, 2007
  7. ^ a b Cauley, Leslie (May 10, 2006). “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls”. USA Today. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  8. ^ http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html Statement of Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, attorney general, February 6, 2006
  9. ^ David Corn
  10. ^ The Volokh Conspiracy
  11. ^ “Top Secret: We’re Wiretapping You”. Wired. March 5, 2007.
  12. ^ Froomkin, Dan (May 19, 2006). “A Change of Subject”. Washington Post. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  13. ^ James Risen, Eric Lichtblau (December 16, 2005). “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”. The New York Times.
  14. ^ “Press Briefing by Scott McClellan” (Press release). White House. December 16, 2005. “C-SPAN”. White House/Executive. Retrieved January 31, 2006.
  15. ^ “President’s Radio Address” (Press release). The White House. December 17, 2005.
  16. ^ Associated Press (December 18, 2005). “US eavesdropping program ‘saves lives’: Bush”. Sydney Morning Herald.
  17. ^ Scott Shane (11 June 2010). “Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press”. The New York Times.
  18. ^ James Risen, Eric Lichtblau (January 1, 2006). “Justice Deputy Resisted Parts of Spy Program”. New York Times.
  19. ^ Calame, Byron (January 1, 2006). “Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence”. The New York Times.
  20. ^ “Slate”. Why NSA whistle-blower Russ Tice may be right. Retrieved January 17, 2006.
  21. ^ “NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying”. ABCNews. January 10, 2006.
  22. ^ LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr. (January 17, 2006). “Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends”. The New York Times.
  23. ^ Barton Gellman, Dafna Linzer and Carol D. Leonnig (February 5, 2006). “Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects – NSA’s Hunt for Terrorists Scrutinizes Thousands of Americans, but Most Are Later Cleared”. The Washington Post. pp. A01.
  24. ^ Cauley, Leslie; Diamond, John (February 2, 2006). “Telecoms let NSA spy on calls”. USA Today. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  25. ^ “NSA Spying: Hold the Phone”. Newsweek. May 22, 2006.
  26. ^ “Why We Published the AT&T Docs”. Wired News. May 22, 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  27. ^ David Alan Jordan. Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol. Boston College Law Review. May, 2006. Last access date January 23, 2007
  28. ^ Leonnig, Carol D. (March 2, 2006). “Saudi Group Alleges Wiretapping by U.S.: Defunct Charity’s Suit Details Eavesdropping”. Washington Post. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  29. ^ a b George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress’ Laws to Protect National Security By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
  30. ^ Sarah Karush. Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional. Associated Press. August 18, 2006. Last access date August 18, 2006
  31. ^ Sarah Karush. Feds Appeal Ruling on Surveillance. Associated Press. August 18, 2006. Last access date August 18, 2006.
  32. ^ Letter to Congress regarding FISA and NSA, fourteen constitutional law scholars, February 2, 2006; p. 5
  33. ^ The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  34. ^ Time for a Special Prosecutor Bush’s NSA Spying Program Violates the Law By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006
  35. ^
  36. ^ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, February 13, 2006
  37. ^ Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program Washington Post, February 14, 2006
  38. ^ Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times, March 29, 2006
  39. ^ Chip Pitts (March 15, 2007). “The End of Illegal Domestic Spying? Don’t Count on It”. Wash. Spec...

External links

  • The Program, by Laura Poitras, New York Times, August 22, 2012.
  • Giving In to the Surveillance State, by Shane Harris, New York Times, August 22, 2012.
  • WhiteHouse.gov: “Setting the Record Straight”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Yale Law Professor Harold Hongju Koh Statement 28 February 2006 to Senate Judiciary Committee re Wartime Executive Power and legal limits of NSA Surveillance Authority”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe’s 6 January 2006 Letter to Rep. Conyers re: legal limits of NSA Domestic Surveillance – House Judiciary Democratic Congressional Briefing – 20 January 2006”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Congressional Research Service – Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information by Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea, January 5, 2006” (HTML)
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Congressional Research Service – Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions by Alfred Cumming, January 18, 2006” (HTML)
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “EFF Class Action Complaint (Initial Filing) against AT&T” (HTML)
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “ACLU Complaint (Initial Filing) against the NSA Central Security Service and Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Big Brother Is Watching You Part 2 – collection of mirrored USA Today Print coverage, May 11, 2006”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls – from collection of mirrored USA Today Print coverage, May 11, 2006”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Questions and answers about the NSA phone record collection program – from collection of mirrored USA Today Print coverage, May 11, 2006”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “Fractured phone system consolidating once again – from collection of mirrored USA Today Print coverage, May 11, 2006”
  • thewall.civiblog.org: “TIA Lives On – Shane Harris, National Journal – February 23, 2006 (mirrored with permission)”

via NSA electronic surveillance program – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Trailblazer Project – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trailblazer was a United States National Security Agency (NSA) program intended to develop a capability to analyze data carried on communications networks like the Internet. It was intended to track entities using communication methods such as cell phones and e-mail.[1][2] It ran over budget, failed to accomplish critical goals, and was cancelled.

NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, Ed Loomis, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffer Diane Roark complained to the Department of Defense’s Inspector General (IG) about waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and the fact that a successful operating prototype existed, but was ignored when the Trailblazer program was launched. The complaint was accepted by the IG and an investigation began that lasted until mid-2005 when the final results were issued. The results were largely hidden, as the report given to the public was heavily (90%) redacted, while the original report was heavily classified, thus restricting the ability of most people to see it.

The people who filed the IG complaint were later raided by armed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents. While the Government threatened to prosecute all who signed the IG report, it ultimately chose to pursue an NSA Senior Executive — Thomas A. Drake — who helped with the report internally to NSA and who had spoken with a reporter about the project. Drake was later charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. His defenders claimed this was retaliation.[3][4] The charges against him were later dropped, and he agreed to plead guilty to having committed a misdemeanor under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, something that Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project (which helped represent him) called an “act of civil disobedience“.[5]

Contents

Background

Trailblazer was chosen over a similar program named ThinThread, a less costly project which had been designed with built-in privacy protections for United States citizens.[4][3] Trailblazer was later linked to the NSA electronic surveillance program and the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.[3]

In 2002 a consortium led by Science Applications International Corporation was chosen by the NSA to produce a technology demonstration platform in a contract worth $280 million. Project participants included Boeing, Computer Sciences Corporation, and Booz Allen Hamilton. The project was overseen by NSA Deputy Director William B. Black, Jr., an NSA worker who had gone to SAIC, and then been re-hired back to NSA by NSA director Michael Hayden in 2000.[6][7][8] SAIC had also hired a former NSA director to its management; Bobby Inman.[9] SAIC also participated in the concept definition phase of Trailblazer.[10][11]

Redacted version of the DoD Inspector General audit, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Project on Government Oversight and others. [12][5]

The NSA Inspector General issued a report on Trailblazer that “discussed improperly based contract cost increases, non-conformance in the management of the Statement of Work, and excessive labor rates for contractor personnel.” [13]

In 2004 the DoD IG report criticized the program (see the Whistleblowing section below). It said that the “NSA ‘disregarded solutions to urgent national security needs'” and “that TRAILBLAZER was poorly executed and overly expensive …” Several contractors for the project were worried about cooperating with DoD’s audit for fear of “management reprisal.”[5] The Director of NSA “nonconcurred” with several statements in the IG audit, and the report contains a discussion of those disagreements.[14]

In 2005, NSA director Michael Hayden told a Senate hearing that the Trailblazer program was several hundred million dollars over budget and years behind schedule.[15] In 2006 the program was shut down.[3] Several anonymous NSA sources told Hosenball of Newsweek later on that the project was a “wasteful failure”.[16]

The new project replacing Trailblazer is called Turbulence.[3]

Whistleblowing

According to a 2011 New Yorker article, in the early days of the project several NSA employees met with Diane S Roark, an NSA budget expert on the House Intelligence Committee. They aired their grievances about Trailblazer. In response, NSA director Michael Hayden sent out a memo saying that “individuals, in a session with our congressional overseers, took a position in direct opposition to one that we had corporately decided to follow … Actions contrary to our decisions will have a serious adverse effect on our efforts to transform N.S.A., and I cannot tolerate them.”[3]

In September 2002, several people filed a complaint with the Department of Defense IG’s office regarding problems with Trailblazer: they included Roark (aforementioned), ex-NSA senior analysts Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe, and Senior Computer Systems Analyst Ed Loomis, who had quit the agency over concerns about its mismanagement of acquisition and allegedly illegal domestic spying.[3][17][18] A major source for the report was NSA senior officer Thomas Andrews Drake. Drake had been complaining to his superiors for some time about problems at the agency, and about the superiority of ThinThread over Trailblazer, for example, at protecting privacy.[18] Drake gave info to DoD during its investigation of the matter.[18] Roark also went to her boss at the House committee, Porter Goss, about problems, but was rebuffed.[19] She also attempted to contact William Renquist, the Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time.[18]

Drake’s own boss, Maureen Baginski, the third-highest officer at NSA, quit partly over concerns about the legality of its behavior.[3]

In 2003, the NSA IG (not the DoD IG)[18] had declared Trailblazer an expensive failure.[20] It had cost more than $1 billion.[8][21][22]

In 2005, the DoD IG produced a report on the result of its investigation of the complaint of Roark and the others in 2002. This report was not released to the public, but it has been described as very negative.[17] Mayer writes that it hastened the closure of Trailblazer, which was at the time in trouble from congress for being over budget.[3]

In November 2005, Drake contacted Siobhan Gorman, a reporter of the Baltimore Sun.[23][16][24] Gorman wrote several articles about problems at the NSA, including articles on Trailblazer. This series got her an award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[16]

In 2005, President George W. Bush ordered the FBI to find whoever had disclosed information about the NSA electronic surveillance program and its disclosure in the New York Times. Eventually, this investigation led to the people who had filed the 2002 DoD IG request, even though they had nothing to do with the New York Times disclosure. In 2007, the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe were raided by armed FBI agents. According to Mayer, Binney claims the FBI pointed guns at his head and that of his wife. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union.[3][17] None of these people were ever charged with any crime. Four months later, Drake was raided in November 2007 and his computers and documents were confiscated.

In 2010 Drake was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of obstructing justice, providing false information, and violating the Espionage Act of 1917,[16][25][26] part of President Barack Obama‘s crackdown on whistleblowers and “leakers”.[23][16][27][17] The government tried to get Roark to testify to a conspiracy, and made similar requests to Drake, offering him a plea bargain. They both refused.[3]

In June 2011, the ten original charges against Drake were dropped, instead he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.[5]

See also

Gorman’s Baltimore Sun series

Notes

  1. ^ “NSA killed system that sifted phone data legally”. baltimoresun.com. 2006-05-17. Retrieved 2008-08-14.
  2. ^ “NSA datamining pushes tech envelope”. PhysOrg.com. May 25, 2006.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Mayer, Jane (May 23, 2011). “The Secret Sharer”. The New Yorker. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
  4. ^ a b James Bamford, The Shadow Factory, Doubleday, 2008, chapter “Trailblazer”.
  5. ^ a b c d Too Classified to Try Myth in Failed Drake Prosecution, Jesselyn Radack, DailyKos, 6/11/11
  6. ^ “Search Top Secret America’s Database of Private Spooks” (html). Wired. 2010-07-19. Retrieved 2010-07-19.
  7. ^ Gorman, Siobhan (2006-05-31). “Second-ranking NSA official forced out of job by director”. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2011-01-01.
  8. ^ a b “Little-known contractor has close ties with staff of NSA”. The Baltimore Sun. 2006-01-29. Retrieved 2010-07-19.
  9. ^ Bamford, Shadow Factory, Doubleday, 2008, p201
  10. ^ Patience Wait (October 21, 2002). “SAIC team gets demonstration phase of Trailblazer”. Washington Technology.
  11. ^ “SAIC Team Wins National Security Agency TRAILBLAZER Contract”. SAIC. October 21, 2002.
  12. ^ POGO Obtains Pentagon Inspector General Report Associated With NSA Whistleblower Tom Drake, By Nick Schwellenbach, Project on Government Oversight, 2011 6 22, http://pogo.typepad.com
  13. ^ Please see the DoD audit of the Trailblazer program, available here: File:Redacted-dod-oig-audit-requirements-for-the.pdf on Page 38 of the report.
  14. ^ See the IG report, linked in the article.
  15. ^ Martin Sieff (August 18, 2005). “NSA’s New Boss Puts Faith In Hi Tech Fixes”. Space War.
  16. ^ a b c d e Mark Hosenball (April 16, 2010). “Exclusive: House Republican Staffer Introduced Alleged NSA Leaker to Reporter”. Declassified. Newsweek.com. Retrieved Apr 17, 2010.
  17. ^ a b c d Indictment Continues Obama Administration’s War on Leaks ,Shane Harris, washingtonian, 01/25/2011, retrieved 3/9/11
  18. ^ a b c d e Ellen Nakashima, with Greg Miller & Julie Tate (2010-07-14). “Former NSA executive Thomas A. Drake may pay high price for media leak”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
  19. ^ Greg Miller, Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima, with Carol D. Leonnig, Howard Kurtz and staff researcher Julie Tate (April 16, 2010). “Former NSA official allegedly leaked material to media”. Washington Post. Retrieved April 17, 2010.
  20. ^ Martin Sieff (August 18, 2005). “NSA’s New Boss Puts Faith In Hi Tech Fixes”. Space War.
  21. ^ “Eight questions for Daniel Ellsberg”. The Economist. 2010-07-31. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
  22. ^ Scott Shane,Obama Steps Up the Prosecution of Media Leaks, New York Times, June 12, 2010, A1.
  23. ^ a b Scott Shane (11 June 2010). “Obama Takes a Hard Line Against Leaks to Press”. The New York Times.
  24. ^ Wired News (14 July 2010). “NSA Executive Leaked After Official Reporting Process Failed Him”. Wired News. Retrieved 28 December 2010.
  25. ^ Why WikiLeaks? Exhibit A: Thomas Drake – Government Accountability Project Jesselyn Radack, retrieved from http://www.whistleblower.org on 2011 03 10
  26. ^ “Former NSA Senior Executive Charged with Illegally Retaining Classified Information, Obstructing Justice and Making False Statements”. Justice News (United States Department of Justice). April 15, 2010. Retrieved April 17, 2010.
  27. ^ Checkpoint Washington – Setback in case against accused NSA leaker, Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, 2010 Nov, retrieved from voices.washingtonpost.com on 2011 03 10

via Trailblazer Project – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Obdachlosigkeit: Ein Mann am Nullpunkt | Gesellschaft | ZEIT ONLINE

Ein kranker und arbeitsloser Schuster sah das Gefängnis als letzte Rettung vor der Parkbank. Nur deshalb bedrohte er eine Verkäuferin – die Strafe lautet 22 Monate Haft.

lesen via Obdachlosigkeit: Ein Mann am Nullpunkt | Gesellschaft | ZEIT ONLINE.

Überwachung: “Die USA haben ohne Not auf die dunkle Seite gewechselt” | Digital | ZEIT ONLINE

Der Überwachungsstaat ist keine Fiktion, sagen drei, die für US-Regierung und NSA arbeiteten. Beim Kongress des CCC erzählen sie, warum sie Whistleblower wurden.

Auf der Bühne erzählen 3 frühere Mitarbeiter der amerikanischen Regierung & des Geheimdienstes NSA, warum sie zu Whistleblowern wurden & damit in den Augen ihrer früheren Dienstherren zu Verrätern.
Sie reden über ihre Angst, dass in den USA & anderen Ländern Überwachungsstaaten errichtet werden, die jeden verdächtigen & die keine Rechte mehr achten. Sie reden darüber, dass sie verfolgt wurden wie Kriminelle, weil sie auf Rechtsbrüche & Gefahren aufmerksam machten & darüber, dass diese unselige Verwandlung von Staaten längst geschieht.”

lesenvia Überwachung: “Die USA haben ohne Not auf die dunkle Seite gewechselt” | Digital | ZEIT ONLINE.

China führt Klarnamenzwang im Internet ein | Netzpolitik | futurezone.at: Technology-News

Die chinesische Führung fordert von seinen 500 Millionen Internet-Nutzern, sich mit ihren echten Namen anzumelden. Ein neues Gesetz sieht vor, dass sie sich bei den Internet-Diensteanbietern ausweisen müssen, wie die Nachrichtenagentur Xinhua am Freitag meldete.

lesen via China führt Klarnamenzwang im Internet ein | Netzpolitik | futurezone.at: Technology-News.

Leitartikel: Chauffeure nur für mutige Politiker – KURIER.AT

Das heißt, wir leben in einem Staat, wo die zuständigen Politiker immer wieder nicht in der Lage waren, Asylwerber ordentlich unterzubringen. Wir leben auch in einem Staat, wo die Polizei politische Entscheidungen trifft – oder einfach nur feige Politikerinnen und Politiker beschützt.

lesen via Leitartikel: Chauffeure nur für mutige Politiker – KURIER.AT.

sVlog

Bitte teilen!

Ein Opfer der dänischen Gesetze!
Das war Prinzessin!
Todestag im Juni 2012 – R.I.P

Eine Familie nimmt Abschied von ihrem geliebten Hund!

Fair Dog hat Dogs Guard dieses Video zur Verfügung gestellt. Bitte auch die Petition am Ende dieses Textes unterschreiben!

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6f9um9UtaQ

Es soll dazu dienen allen Menschen die Augen zu öffnen bezüglich der Situation in Dänemark. Man denke darüber nach wie viele Menschen, insbesondere auch Kinder, einen geliebten Hund von Gesetzes wegen durch Einschläferung verloren haben! Für die Kinder waren sie sicherlich auch Nanny-Dogs!

Bitte helft bei der Abschaffung des Tötungsgesetzes in Dänemark! Unterschreibt die Petition! Verbreitet und verteilt das Video, damit auch andere sehen wie solch eine Situation ist. Was heute in Dänemark, aber auch anderen Ländern passiert, – könnte in der Zukunft durchaus auch in Deutschland der Fall sein!

Tierschutz hört nicht an einer Grenze auf, -deshalb, – bitte hier unterschreiben und den…

View original post 15 more words

Was der Sprung von der Fiskalklippe bedeutet – SPIEGEL ONLINE

Das Horrorszenario lautet: Wenn Demokraten und Republikaner sich nicht bis Silvester auf einen Haushalt einigen, bricht Amerikas Konjunktur ein und mit ihr die Weltwirtschaft. In Wirklichkeit wären die Folgen überschaubar – sofern ein Kompromiss in ein paar Wochen gefunden ist.

lesen via Was der Sprung von der Fiskalklippe bedeutet – SPIEGEL ONLINE.

» Die Unfreien » Florian Klenks Erkundungen «

Warum der Protest der Asylwerber in der Wiener Votivkirche wichtig ist. Und was der Kardinal nun tun sollte.

Mag schon sein, dass sich da ein paar Aktivisten in ihrer Protestpose gefallen. Mag schon sein, dass sie nicht sonderlich diplomatisch vorgehen, wo doch Caritas und Innenministerium auf Deeskalation setzen. Ja, manche der Forderungen tönen etwas naiv, andere überzogen. So ist es oft, wenn sich politisch Unerfahrene öffentlich engagieren.

Aber im Grunde haben die Leute in der Votiv-Kirche schon recht. Wir behandelt jene, die zum Zeitungsaustragen oder für einen billigen Fick im Prater gut genug sind, wie Sklaven. Das ist der alltägliche Skandal, der endlich wieder ein bisschen thematisiert wird.

lesen via » Die Unfreien » Florian Klenks Erkundungen «.

Flüchtlingscamp vor Votivkirche geräumt – über.morgen

Freitag gegen 4:00 Uhr Früh räumte die Polizei das Flüchtlingscamp im Sigmund-Freud-Park. In der Votivkirche befinden sich weiterhin 35 bis 40 Personen. Die Polizei sieht derzeit keinen Grund zur Räumung.

Eine Fotostrecke zur Räumung gibt’s hier

Mehr über die Räumung und die Forderungen der Flüchtlinge hier

Ein Kommentar zum Flüchtlingscamp auf Klenks Watchblog

via Flüchtlingscamp vor Votivkirche geräumt – über.morgen.

Datenschutz: 3 Beamte für 16.000 Akten | Netzpolitik | futurezone.at: Technology-News

Die Leiterin der Datenschutzkommission kritisiert den derzeit akuten Personalmangel. Lediglich drei Vollzeit-Juristen werden derzeit beschäftigt. Mittlerweile hat sich ein Rückstand von 16.000 Akten gebildet, mit ELGA könnte dieser noch etwas größer werden.

via Datenschutz: 3 Beamte für 16.000 Akten | Netzpolitik | futurezone.at: Technology-News.

Muskelhunde-lov hviler på historisk tyndt grundlag | Videnskab.dk

Loven mod muskelhunde bygger bl.a. på en lille politirapport fra Ishøj. Et nyt speciale tegner et unikt billede af politikere, der lovgiver på et løst grundlag udelukkende ud fra mediernes dækning og befolkningens frygt – og uden hensyn til fakta.

read via Muskelhunde-lov hviler på historisk tyndt grundlag | Videnskab.dk.

Kenzo the Hovawart: Danish breed ban rests on historically thin basis

The Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in Denmark is among other based on a single insignificant police neighbourhood investigation. New information paints a unique picture of politicians who legislate based on media coverage and people’s fear – and without looking at the facts.

read via Kenzo the Hovawart: Danish breed ban rests on historically thin basis.

“Happiest Country on Earth” kills happy dogs?

PROTEST GRUPPE MOD HUNDELOVEN, OG POLITIKERNE BAG DEN..

%d bloggers like this: