|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
Endless bombings? All he did was attempt to enforce the no-fly zones.
Now your OBL comment is really funny, is this the same president who was offered OBL by Sudan and told them that he didnt have any evidence he was involved in anything?
That IS Echelon, and some more endless cut and pastes because I am in a Host is my pasting hero mood.  |
reconmike...take my advice, if you're gonna post a cut and paste, don't pick easily impeachable articles or "hit pieces". This is an example of a solid one:
Quote:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affai...ch_041200.html
Statement by Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet
Before the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(as prepared for delivery)
12 April 2000
<h3>Mr. Chairman, I am here today to discuss allegations about SIGINT activities and the so-called Echelon program of the National Security Agency</h3> with a very specific objective: To assure this Committee, the Congress, and the American public that the United States Intelligence Community is unequivocally committed to conducting its activities in accordance with US law and due regard for the rights of Americans.
Intelligence agencies normally do not, and should not, publicly reveal sensitive details about their operations. For this reason, signals intelligence—or SIGINT—activities may not be known or understood by the public at large. Their limits are well known to the members of this committee but, like me, you too cannot speak publicly as much as you would wish. As the Director of Central Intelligence with overall responsibility for establishing requirements and priorities for the collection of intelligence vital to our national security, I understand that the Intelligence Community must have the confidence of the American public to ensure we have an aggressive intelligence capability. I also know that our foreign allies have to be reassured that their trust in us is justified and that our relationships are beneficial from their perspectives.
There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.
There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.
<b>We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.</b>
There also have been allegations that the Intelligence Community is conducting industrial espionage to provide unfair advantages to US companies. I recognize that it is standard practice for some countries to use their intelligence services to conduct economic espionage, but that is not the policy or practice of the United States. If we lose the confidence of the American people because they think we are violating their privacy rights, or if we were to violate the trust of our allies and steal their business secrets to help US companies increase their profits, we would put your support for our SIGINT programs in jeopardy, and risk losing our eyes and ears—as well as US influence—around the world. I cannot afford to let that happen.
For this reason, I welcome the opportunity, in the face of provocative allegations about NSA that have attracted national and international attention, as well as legitimate congressional interest, to allay concerns that have arisen in recent months about the conduct of SIGINT activities. I will say a few words, then turn to NSA Director General Hayden so that he can address more specifically the system under which NSA operates and some of the specific questions that have been raised.
As you know, signals intelligence is one of the pillars of US intelligence. Along with our other intelligence collection activities, we rely on SIGINT to collect information about the capabilities and intentions of foreign powers, organizations, and persons to support the foreign policy and other national interests of the United States. SIGINT is critical to monitoring terrorist activities, arms control compliance, narcotics trafficking, and the development of chemical and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction. We could not monitor regional conflicts affecting US interests or assess foreign capabilities and protect our military forces and civilian personnel overseas as effectively without SIGINT.
As DCI, I am responsible for ensuring that requirements for intelligence collection are clearly established and assigned to appropriate Intelligence Community elements for action. I look to my Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence for Collection and for Analysis and Production to help ensure that SIGINT collection is addressing and satisfying high priority intelligence needs. NSA and an interagency process under my overall cognizance specifically address intelligence needs identified by the policy community, military commands, and the Intelligence Community. This long-standing process and the regular review of proposed activities help ensure that SIGINT collection and reporting is consistent both with approved needs and with US laws and policies to protect personal privacy and the rights of US persons.
We conduct SIGINT to protect US national security and the lives of Americans. Our targets are foreign. There are, as you know, some special circumstances recognized in the law in which collection on Americans is permitted. US persons, both individuals and companies, who engage in activities on behalf of foreign powers, terrorist groups, and others working against the US are of great concern to us. General Hayden will explain in more detail how NSA can lawfully obtain such information.
I can assure this Committee that the Intelligence Community adheres to a strict legal regime for approval, implementation, conduct, minimization and use, which involves the General Counsels Offices of each of the Agencies involved as well as the Attorney General herself. We protect the rights of Americans and their privacy; we do not violate it.
With respect to allegations of industrial espionage, the notion that we collect intelligence to promote American business interests is simply wrong. We do not to target foreign companies to support American business interests.....
|
reconmike, the difference between your "cut and pastes" and mine is that you apparently do not even factcheck the garbage that is Mr. Tate's americanthinker.com article. Nothing that I've seen written on that site is anything other than partisan propaganda that plays well to it's conservative audience, but falls apart when the points that are attempted are held up for comparison to what is easily observed in a wider, "real world" context:
The nytimes.com article about Echelon does not, as Mr. Tate tried to excerpt it into seeming, defend or dismiss the intrusion on privacy of Americans that Mr. Tate wants you to believe that it does. The article is not a polictical piece, it was written in 1999 section of the Ny Times called "Technology Cybertimes"
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/...27network.html
<img src="http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/1bancyber.gif">
May 27, 1999
<b>Lawmakers Raise Questions About International Spy Network</b>
By NIALL McKAY
An international surveillance network established by the National Security Agency and British intelligence services has come under scrutiny in recent weeks, as lawmakers in the United States question whether the network, known as Echelon, could be used to monitor American citizens.
Last week, the House Committee on Intelligence requested that the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency provide a detailed report to Congress explaining what legal standards they use to monitor the conversations, transmissions and activities of American citizens.
The request is part of an amendment to the annual intelligence budget bill, the Intelligence Reauthorization Act. It was proposed by Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican and was supported by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss, a Florida Republican. The amendment was passed by the House on May 13 and will now go before the Senate.
Barr, a former CIA analyst, is part of a growing contingent in the United States, Europe and Australia alarmed by the existence of Echelon, a computer system that monitors millions of e-mail, fax, telex and phone messages sent over satellite-based communications systems as well as terrestrial-based data communications. The system was established under what is known as the "UKUSA Agreement" after World War II and includes the security agencies of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Although Echelon was originally set up as an international spy network, lawmakers are concerned that it could be used to eavesdrop on American citizens.
"I am concerned there are not sufficient legal mechanisms in place to protect our private information from unauthorized government eavesdropping through such mechanisms as Project Echelon," Barr said in an interview on Tuesday.
The finished report will outline the legal bases and other criteria used by United States intelligence agencies when assessing potential wiretap targets. It will be submitted to the House and made available to the public.
"If the agencies feel unable to provide a full account to the public, then a second classified report will be provided to the House Committee on Intelligence," Barr said. "This is to stop the agencies hiding behind a cloak of secrecy."
Judith Emmel, chief of public affairs for the NSA, declined to comment about the UKUSA Agreement but said the agency was committed to responding to all information requests covered by Barr's amendment. "The NSA's Office of General Counsel works hard to ensure that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards," she said.
Until last Sunday, no government or intelligence agency from the member states had openly admitted to the existence of the UKUSA Agreement or Echelon. However, on a television program broadcast on Sunday in Australia, the director of Australia's Defence Signals Directorate acknowledged the existence of the agreement. The official, Martin Brady, declined to be interviewed for the "Sunday Program," but provided a statement for its special on Echelon. "DSD does cooperate with counterpart signals intelligence organizations overseas under the UKUSA relationship," the statement said.
Meanwhile, European Parliament officials have also expressed concern about the use of Echelon to gather economic intelligence for participating nations. Last October, the spying system came to the attention of the Parliament during a debate on Europe's intelligence relationship with the United States. At that time, the Parliament decided it needed more information about Echelon and asked its Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel to commission a report.
The report, entitled "Development of Surveillance Technology and Risk of Abuse of Economic Information", was published on May 10 and provides a detailed account of Echelon and other intelligence monitoring systems.
According to the report, Echelon is just one of the many code names for the monitoring system, which consists of satellite interception stations in participating countries. The stations collectively monitor millions of voice and data messages each day. These messages are then scanned and checked against certain key criteria held in a computer system called the "Dictionary." In the case of voice communications, the criteria could include a suspected criminal's telephone number; with respect to data communications, the messages might be scanned for certain keywords, like "bomb" or "drugs." The report also alleges that Echelon is capable of monitoring terrestrial Internet traffic through interception nodes placed on deep-sea communications cables.
<b>While few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists</b>, many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.
<h3>"host comment": Note that in reconmike's article, it's author, William Tate, dropped "while" when he quoted the preceding paragraph, and cut the paragraph in two after the word, "terrorist" to support his false accusation that the Times defended Echelon because of Clinton......</h3>
"The recent revelations about China's spying activities in the U.S. demonstrates that there is a clear need for electronic monitoring capabilities," said Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., who compiled a report on Echelon for the Free Congress Foundation. "But those capabilities can be abused for political or economic purposes so we need to ensure that there is some sort of legislative control over these systems."
On the "Sunday Program" special on Echelon, Mike Frost, a former employee of Canada's Communications Security Establishment, said that Britain's intelligence agency requested that the CSE monitor the communications of British government officials in the late 1980s. Under British law, the intelligence agency is prohibited from monitoring its own government. Frost also said that since the cold war is over, the "the focus now is towards economic intelligence."
Still, Echelon has been shrouded in such secrecy that its very existence has been difficult to prove. Barr's amendment aims to change that.
"If this report reveals that information about American citizens is being collected without legal authorization, the intelligence community will have some serious explaining to do," Barr said.
|
From this link (click on the word, "study"...) in your americanthinker article, Mike:
Quote:
|
....Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a <a href="http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Epspoole/echelon.html">study</a> cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways.......
|
<b>We find this early in the executive summary of the "study" of Echelon....the abuses described occurred during the two republican administrations that preceded Clinton's Jan. 20, 2003 inauguration:</b>
Quote:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Epspoole/echelon.html
.....But apart from directing their ears towards terrorists and rogue states, ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of “unpopular” political affiliation or for no probable cause at all in violation of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution – are consistently impeded by very elaborate and complex legal arguments and privilege claims by the intelligence agencies and the US government. The guardians and caretakers of our liberties, our duly elected political representatives, give scarce attention to these activities, let alone the abuses that occur under their watch. Among the activities that the ECHELON targets are:
Political spying: Since the close of World War II, the US intelligence agencies have developed a consistent record of trampling the rights and liberties of the American people. Even after the investigations into the domestic and political surveillance activities of the agencies that followed in the wake of the Watergate fiasco, the NSA continues to target the political activity of “unpopular” political groups and our duly elected representatives. One whistleblower charged in a 1988 Cleveland Plain Dealer interview that, while she was stationed at the Menwith Hill facility in the 1980s, she heard real-time intercepts of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond. A former Maryland Congressman, Michael Barnes, claimed in a 1995 Baltimore Sun article that under the Reagan Administration his phone calls were regularly intercepted, which he discovered only after reporters had been passed transcripts of his conversations by the White House. One of the most shocking revelations came to light after several GCHQ officials became concerned about the targeting of peaceful political groups and told the London Observer in 1992 that the ECHELON dictionaries targeted Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and even Christian ministries. ....
|
Excerpt from reconmike's cut and paste of William Tate's "article" on americanthinker.com website:
Quote:
|
.....In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation — <b>no matter how seemingly innocent — during the Clinton years.......</b>
|
Compare William Tate's total bullshit to the following facts:
<b>There is much more to call into question any validity to your highly partisan and inaccurate "hit piece", reconmike, but to keep it simple here...(feel free to read and factcheck the entire refutation of Mr. Tate's americanthinker "article" and CBS 60 minute's interview of Mr. Frost, as well as of the 1997 Insight magazine article)....I'll end this with some observations about Tate's linking of Clinton with the comments of Mr. Frost:</b>
Quote:
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/...grey-lady.html
Friday, January 13, 2006
Playing "gotcha" with the Grey Lady
A much-blogged article at the American Thinker website accuses The New York Times, and the mainstream media in general, of blatant hypocrisy and political bias in its approach to domestic spying......
....It gets better. Tate writes:
In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years.
“A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”
“This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked.
“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.”
<h3>During the Clinton years? That's a good one. Mike Frost, you see, is Canadian, and <a href="http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm">he was discussing</a> his work for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the NSA.</h3> (Edited to add: Since Echelon was a collaboration between the intelligence agencies of several countries under the aegis of the NSA, and included the CSE, it's possible that this alleged incident happened in the U.S. <h3>However, considering that Frost <a href="http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/frostspy.htm">retired in 1990</a>, it's pretty certain that he wasn't talking about the Clinton years.)</h3>
Undaunted, Tate sums up:
So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:
-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;
-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;
(Actually, the European Union report that is presumably Tate's source for the latter assertion says that this was done "between 1967 and 1975" and also "following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA's domestic intelligence activities in 1978"; it says nothing about the Clinton era specifically.)....
|
reconmike, if Echelon existed it was part of an evolution of prgrams that came about through a cooperative alliance of the english speaking world that dated back to 1948. The contribution that Mr. Frost brought to the CBS 60 minutes program had to do with what he knew working for a Canadian spy agency and his firsthand experience ended in 1990, with the last ten years of his career spanning 8 years of Reagan's presidency and two years of GHW Bush''s.
The info in the 1997 Insight article is uncorroborated, and the 1999 NY Times article cited by William Tate does not speak favorably about Echelon, as Tate claimed.....read it and show us what the f*ck Tate is talking about ! Consider that the article also refers heavily to what Bob Barr thinks, says, and is doing in reaction to Echelon, and that less than six months before the NY Times' 1999 article, Barr was one of 3 repub, house members in charge of drawing up articles of impeachment against Clinton, and then prosecuting him in an impeachment trial in the senate, a trial which failed to convict Clinton and exposed Bob Barr to criticism for his extreme partisanship.
Not to pick on you specifically, reconmike, but you did allude to me as a "cut and paste" poster. Show me an example of the last time anything that I cut and pasted collapsed as easily as the cut and paste of William Tate's article and the 60 minutes piece that featured "former spy", Frost....
Last edited by host; 01-20-2007 at 02:23 AM..
|