| Daniel's profileDaniel's spaceBlogNetwork |  Tools  Help |
|
October 17 NSA Researching."If You're calling Aunt Saudi in Paris, we're probably not really interested." - Former Vice President Dick Cheney about domestic spying.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Robert Clayton Dean a young successful lawyer in the Washinton D.C. metropolitan area is out shopping for the holidays for his family. He runs into a former college pal, Daniel Zavitz, slips a video disc into one of the shopping bags Dean is holding. Withouth his knowledge, the lawyer is now holding the most crucial piece of evidence that reveals the assassination of a prominent U.S. Congressman who recently is strongly opposed to domestic surveillance spying bill to be passed that will affect the liberty of Constitutional rights. A profesional hit ordered by the advisor of the governments' branch of the National Security Agency. Robert Dean does not realizes that he now owns is what the Agency doesn't want anyone to know. For the next several days only then does he recognizes by the aid of a "missing in action" veteran of the military intelligence, that Dean was given the evidence by Zavitz, the same man who had the murder of Congressman Bill Hammersley on video tape, while doing a research on migratory waterfowls. The D.C. lawyer becomes a person of investigation for a corporate scheme, disorderly conduct with a former law student, and is framed for illegal activities with the syndicate. Dean is now a fugitive on the run from a few rotten apples within the NSA.
This scenario sounds all to familiar. It is a screenwriters vision of the gov't keeping taps on the people it represents, and that version became a box office hit in Hollywood a few years before 9/11. As you know the whole plot was from well known producer Jerry Brukheimer in the 1998 high-tech action flick Enemy Of The State. Though it incorporates the motto "Big Brother is watching" with high speed political suspense, it becomes obvious that this situation with spying just too real. By the way, the NSA deputy directer potrayed in Enemy Of The State was born on 9-11-40. Foresight of 9-11-01.
In truth, nobody can't search for all factual information just by watching a film. Enemy Of The State is not exactly a brillant film. Motion Pictures are great to enjoy, but some flicks such as Enemy Of The State are equipped to make you think about surveillance society around us.
Though defenders of the domestic spying claims that the U.S. Gov't doesn't care about your telephone calls, it be to a family member, friends and even entering online. To the contradiction of what U.S. Attorney John Aschroft said, "that monitoring is not surreptitious."
An electronic spy gadget that is secretly placed other than your own telephone line. Like somewhere stored in the ceiling fan and light fixture in your bedroom, monitoring what you are saying and needless to include what you are doing this very moment. Sure, the last depiction sounds fictional than the obvious that you would rather accept the phone calls.
It's no super-secret that spying within the National Security Agency has been around even before the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from the birth of NSA back in 1952. [1]
In fact the spying agenda allows the NSA a full 72 hours of "free" listening before allowing the commander-in-chief providing a request of warrants issued by the FISA court to serve on persons of terrorist activities. Including people who have known links to Al-Qaeda. But what about a involuntary participant who is talking on a cell or home phone to terrorists without he/she knowing they are talking to one? Obviously,the commander-in-chief doesn't neccessarily say, but you can make your own judgement on the preceeding question.
Questionable PATRIOT ACT is assailant to the Fourth Amendement.
So far the U.S. PATRIOT ACT of 2001 and the benefits of our military intelligence has succeeded in prevented attacks and is highly questioned amongst booksellers and librarians, including "people who are not suspected of any criminal activity. Let's hold that thought shall we? Under the U.S. PATRIOT ACT of 2001, the House Of Republicans (H.R.) Bill 3199 "authorizes the F.B.I. to search the bookstore and library records of anyone it believes may be 'revelant' to a terrorist investigation." Does that mean I can rent a book at the library and once my library card is entered on the "check out" register on the computer, I can be placed on a person of interest? You bet.
There must be a line drawn between execute a warrant "without legal authority" and that of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Fourth Amendment- Search & Seizure
"The Right of the people to be secure in their persons ,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particurlarly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or place to be seized." NSA researching should not be a conflict between a right or left issue. The U.S. PATRIOT ACT does show what sort of expansion powers our U.S. government is capable of doing when investigating terrorism. It is said domestic eavesdropping is more effective in open warfare against terrorism and cost less lifes than in military intervention. Personally, I've read the book State of War by James Risen. This book is disturbing and mind-provoking to know about the Bush Adminstration and U.S. intelligence post 9/11. Ever wondered about Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear testing and weapons of mass destuction buried in ditches? State of War is recommended by the author of this blog.
At foremost, I am an American in respect to the U.S. Constitution.
The likely intent of our Founding Fathers was never to intervene with the rights of the people. We do need to learn from the past to understand the world today post-9/11. History repeats itself and is our thinking tool in understanding your status of ethnicity. During WWII, Japanese Americans were hauled off to segregation camps. It's no secret that Arab Americans are now on the blacklisting "Enemy Of The State." What if this domestic spying surveillance does affect your ethnicity/race? Just because if your Anglo-American, this does not mean you are affected. Domestic spying affects every citizen.
At least one movie got it right!
This type of profiling reminds me of a film I saw years ago; it was titled The Siege. Roughly put, the discrimination of Arab Americans is a echo calling from the past of what Japanese-Americans went through in segregation camps in the 1940's after Japan assaulted Pearl Harbor. Some movie critics in the months preceding to the film's release had said the contents in The Siege was just hyped-Hollywood fantasy-fiction, blow em' type hardcore action flick, and nothing in the film could be possible. One movie critic writing an article on The Siege had said it's director Edward Zwick was going to stir up "risking the wrath by Arab-Americans and Jews, but of movie critics and fans."[2] The Siege was nearly a $70 million budget starring Denzel Washington, Bruce Willis, Annette Bening, Tony Shalhoub and others was released in theaters on November 6,1998 and by retrospect is in very close of the times we live in post 9/11: The lack of co-operaton between the CIA and FBI, including the torture tactics on alleged terrorist suspects without legal process, middle-eastern males held in detention camps, and most of all the most possible and frightening realistic idea: Martial Law on this land. By comparison, Enemy Of The State directed by Tony Scott(brother of Ridley Scott), was film bugeted at $85 million and was released on big screen two weeks later following The Siege on November 20,1998.
When Freedom dies for security...
The purpose of our constitutional rights is to protect the American people from government abuse. How many cases by far has "innocent" individuals have been arrested and convicted under the U.S. PATRIOT ACT of 2001? Under gag orders, librarians and booksellers are highly affected. Both Republicans and Democrats stand strong on the ongoing "spying" by intelligence gathering. The cost of freedom and security.
I stand affirm by heresay it is illegal for the federal government or any branch within our legal system to conduct eavesdropping tactics on its own citizens without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause. This regarding NSA researching should not be a left or right issue; both sides have to come to a conclusion about this conduct literally shreds our constitution!
Crimes against Humanity in Afghanistan.
Early this month had marked the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan since 10-7-01. This coming week on the twenty-first of October will be eight years since the signing of the U.S. PATRIOT ACT of 2001 into law and nothing new has made me in compliance to it. I'd rather go to prison for being a wrongfully accused terrorist suspect. I don't think so! The law has nothing against me to have me incarcarated. I have not made any threats! The only terrorists I see is the ones who commit tyranny against us.
In March of 2004, a citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001. The tribunal consisted of five judges, being in one mind, reached a conclusion the Bush Adminstration found guilty. [3]
Under international law it is illegal to attack civilians in wartime with use of uranium shells and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people. Robert Akroyd, a British lawyer who served as one of the five judges. Akroyd had noted Bush who already claimed "military actions were in self-defense," and failed to discriminate between legitimate objects and civilians, using "indiscriminate weapons such as the Daisy Cutter (a huge conventional bomb), cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells." Crimes against Humanity is also in violation of Contitutional rights. "If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill -- a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks." [4] --Kelly O'Meara, "Police State," Insight Magazine, 11/9/01
When defining domestic terrorism when reading Section 802 of the U.S. PATRIOT ACT of 2001, take note of what Bush had already signed as to he had intentionally, and wilfully with aforethought stripping the United States Constitution apart from 'of the people, by the people, and for the people of the United States of America.'
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. [5]
George W. Bush had announced in a November 6,2001 press conference with French President Jacques Chirac, he would address to the United Nations on November 10, 2001, "Either you're for us or against us," implying coaliton partners of the UN back up their support with military action.[6] "Either you're for us or against us," is an almost direct quote he borrowed from the Christian bible. This is like Nazi Germany.
"Either you're for us or you're a fucking terrorist." Really?
Originally published by this author on February 3,2006.
Revised © 2009 sleepparalysis/obe.
-Daniel
The invasion of Central Asia country-Afghanistan-was already in plans in the months before September 11,2001. These are provided inside facts, not fiction. All it took was for the 9/11 terror attacks to occur. Plan was to go ahead regardless if the Taleban would of submitted Usama Bin Laden to the United States, told by former Pakistani diplomat.
(Excerpt from BBC News):
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban' [7]
By the BBC's George Arney
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar. The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. NSA wiretapping conduct in 2008. If you thought ex-President George W. Bush was that much of a law-breaker, check out Obama's NSA eavesdropping! The abuse of federal government has gone to far with increased wiretapping. [8] The U.S. Justice Department early this year uncovered a problem with the National Security Agency during a routine oversight of U.S. Intelligence activities to ensure compliance of laws and court orders." The NSA intercepted phone calls and e-mails from Americans that went for beyond the limit of judiciary use. In 2008, U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the National Security Agency to obtain a FISA court approval to monitor domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion. Under this recent bill, the intelligence agencies within the United States was granted eavesdropping on Americans who communicate with foreign targets believed to be outside the United States." Crtics of this bill said the safguard privacy of Americans were inadequate. The Justice Department informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April 2009 of the conduct with the NSA program taking "comprehensive steps" to correct the problem with any determined invasion of Americans' privacy occured. Footnote sources:
[1] - 'Hold The Phone' by Mark Hosenball and Evan Thomas; Newsweek Magazine. May 22,2006
[2] - 'Seige Mentality'- "The Seige" risks alienating Muslins and critics alike' by Degen Pener'; Entertainment Weekly. November 13,1998.
[3] - 'Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes' by Nao Shimoyach; The Japan Times Online. March 14,2004
[4] - 'Police State' by Kelly Patricia O' Maera; Insight On The News. November 19,2001
[5] - 'USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 - Sections 802-811'; Section 802- definition of 'Domestic Terrorism' HR 3162. October 24,2001.
[6] - 'You are either for us or against us'; CNN. November 6,2001
[7] - 'US ' Planned attack on Taleban' by George Arney; BBC News. September 18,2001. [8] - 'NSA Exceeds Legal Limits in Eavesdropping Program' by Evan Perez and Siobhan Gorman; Wall Street Journal. April 16,2009. TrackbacksThe trackback URL for this entry is: http://dcuaresma33.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!6300C37103D2AEB4!1942.trak Weblogs that reference this entry
|
|
|
