NSA uses ECHELON against US citizens... and other patriot act fun

[rccar328]

Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because the "death toll game" is one they're losing?

I highly doubt that, considering that, according to the report I cited, US forces killed about 1100 terrorists over a period of one month and two days (the campaign in Fallujah last November, and two other, separate incidents), and our forces have been in-country for 1 year and about 9 months. That number is over half of the number of US military fatalities, in a fraction of the time our military forces have been in Iraq - even if US forces didn't take out the insurgents at the same rate for the remaining time, it wouldn't take long at all for the insurgent body count to far outnumber the amount of US military fatalaties...

But all number 'games' aside (and I'm not going to argue this point any more...it just strikes me as morbid to argue over the number of dead people), the goal of the US military in Iraq isn't to kill every last insurgent. The goal is to take out the insurgents until such time as the Iraqi military and police forces have advanced to the point where they can handle it themselves.

 

 

How, exactly, did they use the PATRIOT ACT, if I may ask?

That wasn't made clear...probably because they don't want terrorists to learn how to adapt to their tactics...

But, just for the fun of it, here is the original CNN report.

 

Oh, and one more thing, about the ECHELON program: according to this report out today in the Washington Times,

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.

In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

[Kurgan]

Sorry to just hop in here with a thought, but one thing never mentioned, in reply to the "what do law-abiding/non-terrorist citizens have to fear from government survelliance"? BLACK MAIL.

 

Have you ever done anything you're not proud of? Something that would be damaging to your reputation with family, friends, the public? Something that would embarrass you in some way? I'm sure most people have such "dirt" or skeletons in their closets.

 

Through unchecked secret survelliance, such "dirt" can be more easily dug up in order to shame or scare dissenters, whistle-blowers, critics, or opponents into silence. Anybody remember J. Edgar Hoover?

 

Anyway, interesting topic as always, happy holidays! Santa's not the only one who's watching...

[Samuel Dravis]

AFAIK, Bush has used his surveillance legally. Technically. The Patriot Act provisions *only* apply to foreign intelligence (calls, etc. going into or out of the country - apparently this was already covered with previous laws anyway, so it doesn't even really matter). So far he has supposedly used them only for that, and that is fine with me. Why Bush did not get warrants from his confidential courts when he could have easily done so I have no idea. I want to know, and he'd better pull out some proof too. I don't make it a habit to trust politicians.

[ShadowTemplar]

Maybe you should re-read what I said (cause you obviously didn't get it). I challenge you to show me where I have ever claimed that the war is over. I have never said such a thing.

 

I will concede that I fell a little in love with my own rethoric and got carried away. Obviously, you never claimed that the war was actually over.

 

And since you insist so vehemently, here are the answers to your questions:

 

The reason I insisted so vehemently is that I wanted to know whether you were just another hit-and-run troll. You aren't. I acknowledge that now. I'll reply to your response in the thread of origin.

 

You do, however, adress the one question that I brought up earlier in this thread, so I'll keep the answer here.

 

8. I know you don’t like NewsMax, but before you dismiss this article out of hand, know that their source was an October report by CNN, which listed the following six attacks, which were prevented through the use of the Patriot Act:

 

I don't doubt that the listed attacks were attempted. I don't doubt that US intelligence and counterintelligence operatives foiled them. But what I don't see is a scrap of evidence that the attacks would have succeeded - or even had a marginally greater chance of success if the PATRIOT act hadn't been in force. 'CNN says so' just doesn't cut it as far as evidence goes. Now, if it had been the BBC, the DR, or some other reliable source or if there'd been a scrap of actual evidence - or even compelling reasoning - I might have bought it. So far, though, all I've seen is unsupported assertions.

 

Pic, as usual, courtesy of WinAce.

 

You're right, I don't like NewsMax. Actually, I'd never seen it before now, but these two lines are rather revealing in my not so humble opinion:

 

Now that the Patriot Act has been gutted by the Senate, however, plots like those cited above will presumably proceed to their successful completion.

 

That is not an analysis. It's not even an argument. It's simple, bare-faced propaganda, and, frankly, it insults my intelligence.

 

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

 

I'll be damned. Looks like I owe you an apology. Seems that Mr. Clinton was more of a son-of-a-bitch than I'd thought. Remind me never to place any expensive bets on the integrity of politicians.

 

That wasn't made clear [how counterintelligence used the PATRIOT act]...probably because they don't want terrorists to learn how to adapt to their tactics...

 

Or because they didn't. All we've got saying they did is dubya himself, and he seems to me to have - ah - vested interests, shall we say, in having people think so.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Seems that Mr. Clinton was more of a son-of-a-bitch than I'd thought.

You don't know the half of it.

 

By the way, has anyone read Digital Fortress by Dan Brown? Granted, he might allegedly have messed up history with The Da Vinci Code, but this book is a worthwhile read.