RNC and White House linked to "independent" polls on NSA
If your President faces a potential impeachment over illegal activity, what do you do?
Maybe you hire a firm to suggest the public likes having their rights violated: 64% want violations!
Added: 3 Jan 2005 Media Matters: How the poll was subsequently used; problems with the way the question is asked.
It is too late in the game to "take a poll" -- after the crime has occurred -- to ask the uninformed "what they think" about a deliberately confused issue.
Regardless the polls, the "will of the people" has already been expressed through the existing act of Congress: It is called the FISA statute.
Open Secrets data shows the Republican Party in 2003 and 2004, paid Scott Rasmussen, Inc. -- the firm behind the Rasmussen Poll -- $50,000 for polling services.Ref
It remains a matter of evidence to what extent, inter alia:A. RNC funds have been transferred to people/firms like Rasmussen in 2005; B. Whether poll results are skewed or designed to mislead a civilian population; C. How the results compare to independent polls; D. How the results compare to people who are fully informed of the legal issues and rules of evidence [in re warrantless searches, FISA, and the laws of war]; and E. The number of polls and RNC funds transferred to dissuade Congressional oversight of a tyrant.
US contractors like Lockheed Martin could have designed the NSA monitoring system -- "Echelon" -- in a manner that complied with the law.
Software steps can be written to give the court access to, and oversight of the warrant process. These requirements can be included, and could have been included, in the software specification review [SSR] during the software development efforts.
We live in an information age. The court, lawyers, and the judicial officers know how to use computers. Similar flagging systems are used to screen whether the officials need to recuse themselves. It is a separate matter whether the officials choose to heed these warnings, or have back-up systems.
Software can do the monitoring to ensure compliance with the law. Software designs can accommodate the Constitution. These are management and leadership issues. The software coding capability exists.
Any other outcome is an excuse: "Oh, that's too hard to follow the law -- our software is only good if it violates the law."
Regardless the technology, the Constitution remains. Technology is a creature of humans and it can be designed to comply with software standards and the rule of law. There is no other option.
The problem: America's Echelon was created to target the USSR using any means without regard to the law. Echelon was not specifically designed to target American citizens. Over time, the system -- the monitoring capability -- was engineered to spy on America, without letting the Judicial Branch put a leash on Echelon.
The answer: There needs to be as software program in Echelon that provides reports to Congress and the Courts -- what is going on; how is the information being used; and whether the Echelon is targeting people despite having a warrant denied.
If a warrant is denied, the monitoring should stop/end with a software-control system.
However, the existing system continues monitoring despite no warrant.
Because the warrantless monitoring continues, we know
It remains a matter of law whether software developers who supported this effort failed to timely remove themselves from an activity they knew, or should have known, was in support of an unlawful purpose.
One may not rely on a "promise of secrecy" when the primary objective of that secrecy agreement is to achieve an unlawful purpose: Ensure there are no consequences for violations of the law.
This exposes the individual contractors to legal liability for: [a] Creating a system that was [b] known to [c] violate the law; where management [d] failed to make informed and timely action to [e] remedy these [f] known problems.
It remains a matter of law whether firms like Lockheed Martin -- closely connected to Echelon -- are liable for creating a product that violates the law and people's rights. During Nuremberg, the civilian contractors which made the Zyklon-B were found to have committed war crimes.
Immunity does not hinge on one's statues, but whether they have removed themselves from an unlawful activity. Promises of immunity are not enforceable when those contracts are for an unlawful purpose.
Many people know the "warrantless monitoring capability" was designed into Echelon.
It remains a matter of evidence how many current and former Lockheed Martin, Ford Aerospace, Raytheon and Loral employees face personal liability for creating a product for achieve an unlawful objective.
Arguably, the statute of limitations is irrelevant when it comes to war crimes. It remains a matter of evidence whether former or retired employees are willing to provide evidence to the courts and Congress.
Echelon intercepts existed pre-9-11. Bush Administration is upset about the NYT article because it doesn't want to face questions about "what Echelon was picking up" prior to 9-11.
Echelon was not reconfigured after 9-11 to do what is doing today.
Immediately following 9-11, there was insufficient time to:
Rather, these capabilities already existed prior to 9-11.
This capability confirms what is in the Downing Street Memo about the Iraq WMD: The evidence of unlawful activity in re war crimes, unlawful war, and fraud is pervasive within the Echelon system.
The existence of this adverse information is [a] well known inside the White House, NSC, CIA, and NSA; and [b] in part, behind the delays in the Senate Phase II Intelligence investigation into the Iraq WMD issues.
The common element: The White House and the Staff's desire to avoid consequences for violations of the law inter alia:
Bush is upset. He's also inconsistent. It remains a matter of evidence whether he followed the FISA requirements until got answers he didn't like.
Fundamentally, the President's argument fails. Nobody can argue "inherent authority" when they have already assented, in many cases, to the court.
This White House and President cannot explain why, if they have "inherent authority" to do something, why they first [a] assented to the court; and then [b] refused to assent to the court when the court's decisions "didn't agree with the executive."
Inconsistent action is not evidence of anything inherent, but the opposite: Recklessness.
The White House opposes the warrants. It knows [a] it had access to NSA's Echelon information before 9-11; and [b] it did not respond to this information. This is called malfeasance.
Subsequent to 9-11, the White House used the event as the catalyst to continue the unlawful warrantless monitoring with less oversight.
It remains a matter of law and evidence, how many prosecutors have committed fraud on the court and grand juries by presenting inadmissible evidence -- the fruit of unlawful NSA surveillance -- to support indictments.
Putting aside the legal issues for the moment, if the monitoring program was effective, we should have convictions. We have the opposite: Errors in renditions; and trials which fail. Despite the warrantless monitoring, the prosecutors cannot get evidence to lawfully convict people of crimes. Rather, they change their story, as we have seen before the 4th Circuit in re Padilla.
It remains a matter of law to what extent the government has violated the writ of habeas corpus. Defendants are sometimes sanctioned for delays. In 2005, we have the opposite: The government seeks creative legal excuses to seek a favorable court. The courts take an adverse view of defendants who engage in "court shopping"; this standard should apply to the government.
The White House knows Echelon will not intercept AlQueda in America -- AlQueda uses couriers to communicate.
Arguably, Echelon substantially monitors American citizens -- not using private couriers -- who have no connection to the stated objective of the warrantless searches.
This warrantless monitoring is unreasonable and fails as an exception to the warrant requirement.
Out of court inconsistent statements are admissible when impeaching a witness. We have seen how the court views witnesses who lie -- The court makes adverse inferences:
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."Ref
Based on information and belief, we judge the following: The White House staff and NSA personnel:
There are perhaps 38,000 NSA employees who appear to substantially support what is an unlawful activity.
However, there are over 300 Million American citizens.
The NSA employees and contractors are self-evidently outnumbered.
The Constitutional agreement is simple. If the citizenry agrees to give up power to a leader, the leader agrees to protect their rights.
This Constitutional system divides power to self-evidently ensure power is not concentrated. This leader has chosen to consolidate power. This defies the Constitution.
Americans are not required to maintain loyalty to a government which defies the rule of law and Constitution. A leader who is unwilling to meet his obligations -- protect the Constitution -- can no longer have confidence the citizenry will assent to their agreement -- to recognize his power.
With Echelon, we have to ask new questions: Which specific NSA analysts knew there were no WMD in Iraq; and how have they been retaliated against?
The Declaration of Independence of 1776 discusses the same abuses occurring in America between 2001 and 2005.
For example, the Declaration of Independence has clauses about the King moving people to distant lands -- like rendition -- without trial.
For other examples, compare the abuses in 2005 with the 1776 Declaration of Independence:
2005: Failure to hold NSA [DoD Agency] accountable to the rule of law over the warrantless searches
1776: "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
2005: NSA [military agency] action outside the American court review
1776: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation"
2005: Failure to subject American NSA officers [ military agency] to the FISA court
1776: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"
2005: Secret evidence, and warrantless searches
1776: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
2005: Using bogus information, or information from torture to "justify" abusing others, and sending them overseas or "rendering" them for abuse.
1776: "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"
2005: Ignoring the FISA, choosing to ignore the Congress, and assert what he does is acceptable, despite no statutory authority.
1776: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."
2005: Saying the laws are not applicable; ignoring the FISA court when they refuse warrants; creating rules that "permit" him to violate the law.
1776: "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
If you do not stop him, the long list of abuses will simply grow longer.
The solution, for those who refuse to lead or manage, is to design a system that is consistent with the Constitution; not use the existing-unlawful technical solution as an excuse to ignore the Constitution.
During software development, requirements and laws drive solutions; the solution doesn't drive the requirements and laws.
How much NSA data was used to move the wrong people?
I suppose Americans won't wake up until Americans are rendered. Oh, wait -- they already did that. His name is Padilla.
They're still asleep to the Constitution, but awake enough to take a poll.
They can create software to do amazing things. The trick is to create a system that is consistent with the rule of law; not modify a system designed to target the USSR.
They're using the "technology of filtering" as a distraction. The real problem: They designed the software system without considering the law. That's backwards.
It is possible to design a system that is consistent with the Constitution, but there was no incentive to do during the Cold War.
It's over. Time to develop a system that is consistent with the principles we hope to "show by example" are worth asserting:
This nonsense about "warrantless searches" hinge on three assumptions:
The above three assumptions -- permitting warrantless searches -- do not exist with the NSA warrantless monitoring. FISA is already a compromise on the balance between the 4th Amendment and Security.
The White House, DoD, DoJ, and NSA know they're violating the law; and have been, and were monitoring prior to 9-11.
The White House and NSA want it both ways with Echelon and 9-11.
With Echelon's capabilities -- which could not be modified after 9-11 -- we know the data inside NSA about 9-11 is vast.
If Echelon "could be modified after 9-11", why didn't they modify it to comply with the rule of law?
They have no answer.
Why isn't Echelon shut off -- the warrantless monitoring ended -- if there is no warrant issued?
They could make the software do that, and send a report to Congress and the Court if there are violations of that requirement.
It's not that hard.
Echelon needs to be scrapped, and a new system designed from the bottom up -- one that is consistent with the rule of law, Constitution, and warrant requirements.
The problem: There is a leadership problem, and lack of will to "comply with the rule of law." More abuses are on the way.
How many NSA Senior Executive Service personnel will have to be targeted using Echelon? The leaks aren't related to a "concern" with the rule of law -- rather, insiders in the intelligence community are getting hit by Echelon.
Maybe the CIA and DOJ want to have more of its under cover operatives and informants targeted. That can be arranged.
If it doesn't stop, it's going to get worse.
NSA has intercepted their own employees and NSA contractors engaging in this activity. [ Read more . . . ]
The NSA personnel have known about this monitoring -- the flaws in the oversight between FISA, NSA and the FBI were well known.
There is no basis for the NSA employees to claim their "privacy" has been violated. Rather, they consented to the illegal monitoring.
Therefore, all NSA data -- related to NSA personnel planning, discussing, or attempting to avoid consequences for this illegal activity -- was collected without any expectation that it remain private or confidential.
The intercepts of the NSA employee discussions about the unlawful activity remains admissible.
Copies of these intercepts are outside the American's control.
All NSA information showing NSA or other officials have known about war crimes -- but have engaged in coverups, or have refused to take action on war crimes -- is also admissible.
GCHG's Gunn has already released information. We have copies of the Downing Street Memos.
And more information from other overseas government officials.
If you destroy the files, there are backups.
The US Attorney can bring charges for evidence destruction, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.
Those who know of war crimes -- and cover it up -- are presumed to be accessories.
The punishment for war crimes includes the death penalty.
American and British citizens -- peoples with a common history and respect for the rule of law -- are cooperating in releasing, publishing, and disseminating the information related to this unlawful activity. [More . . .]
There is no excuse for hiding evidence of criminal activity.
Anything else would consent to violations of the Constitution.
Echelon has intercepted data showing Americans are aware of war crimes, and are impeding those lawful investigations.
This is a violation of the laws of war.
It remains a matter of evidence to what extent NSA personnel and contractors have or are engaging in efforts to destroy this evidence.
When evidence that should be retained has been destroyed, the court can make adverse judgments.
There are backups outside the American's control.
Your options:
A. Adhere to your oath: "Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"; or
B. Face jail time, or possible court-imposed-death penalty/loss of life for involvement in war crimes.
Choose.
You have a dilemma.
If you refuse to assent to the rule of law, you may later be found to be an unlawful combatant.
If you refuse to abide by the rules of war -- failing to ensure your conduct is consistent with the laws of the land and war -- you may subject yourself to lawful retaliation on the battlefield.
You're going to lose.
Choose: Do you want to have this dispute resolved
A. In the court of justice; or
B. On the battlefield.
That is not a question. Choose wisely.
You are outnumbered.
Your guide is the Constitution.
Hoc Voluerunt !
Added: 30 Dec 2005
Others are reading this, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. . . Want to know more? Share your comments here . . .
Welcome and Thanks for the interest -- to first time visitors and my loyal readers -- and especially to David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.Org and CensureBush.org for the opportunity to contribute to the After-DSM discussion about the American Military's continuing unlawful support of the White House through the NSA.
The NSA is a military organization. It is being used in a domestic law enforcement capacity. This violates the law. The Posse Comitatus Act is a ban against the use of military forces in a domestic role.
It remains a matter of evidence to extent the White House staff have, as they did with Operation Falcon, use American military forces in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
The coverup:
- The Downing Street Memo, and the NSA intercepts confirming the validity of the DSM and GCHQ's concerns about the war of aggression;
- Sibel Edmonds, and what she can tell you about the stonewalling into needed investigations;
- Iraq WMD and what NSA analysts knew didn't exist -- evidence of WMD;
- Padilla, and why the torture-related-evidence from Morocco was recorded on NSA intercepts, and confirmed by agents in route there was a problem;
- The use of NSA intercepts to, using the Patriot Act, point law enforcement to monitor lawful, non-criminal activity;
- How NSA-intercepted-data is provided to law enforcement as "investigative leads" and the role non-American interceptors are used in going around the warrant requirements;
- How NSA monitoring is used to fill in holes in the domestic law enforcement databases; pre-textual stops are also used to fill in the holes; and how law enforcement lies to the public to dissuade their awareness of this domestic intelligence gathering supported by the NSA;
- How NSA data is used to add people to the watch lists for domestic surveillance and on the TSA watch lists issued by DHS;
- How inadmissible evidence from NSA intercepts is used to issue National Security Letters -- another way around the checks and balances
- Renditions, and the movement of personnel based on information the FISA court would not issue a warrant for;
- Issues of reasonableness of Immigrant Detentions and subsequent abuse while in detention;
- RNC Demonstrations prior to the Iraq war, and the subsequent detentions in "GITMO on the Hudson";
- NYPD/New York DA's use of fabricated video evidence to charge RNC demonstrators with crimes they did not commit;
- Basis for issuing national security letters; how NSA data was used as the "justification" to issue a NSL for over 1M records of all hotel guests in Las Vegas;
- How information from NSA warrantless searches flows to DHS regarding bogus threats of terrorism in NYC subways; and this NSA information is leaked to DHS personnel and their families, but not to the public;
- Basis for detaining professors and attorneys for "material support" for terrorism, but those cases falling apart;
- 4th Circuit admonishment of the government in re Padilla,
- Judge Robertson's resignationM from FISA;
- DoJ smear efforts at Judge Lamberth as a retaliation for FBI agents being banned from the FISA court for false affidavits;
- FBI leaks from the secret FISA court as retaliation against the Judges for pointing out the FBI agents are unfit to appear before the FISA court;
- Why Goss was moved out of the oversight role in Congress;
- Why Phase II of the Senate Intelligence investigation is going nowhere;
- Why Conyers' FOIA requests were modified, and now delayed.
Here's a hint: NSA and GCHQ have the answers.
Curiously, if the activity was legal and a bonafide classified program, why didn't the President in 2004 -- when he was informed of the NYT's investigation into NSA -- presumably by the NSA's monitoring of the NYT -- immediately direct Gonzalez to appoint a special counsel?
The fact that he, Gonzalez, and others have delayed for more than a year taking "timely action" on something presumably well known in the White House to have been provided to the NYT -- raises the opposite conclusion: The White House failed to timely take action when it "should have" thereby destroying any legal foundation for the subsequent "leak investigation" into the NYT.
In other words, there are three investigations:
1. Congress
2. The Phony DoJ investigation into the NYT
3. The real Grand Jury that should be empaneled in secret to review the NSA program, and the failure of the President to immediately end the unlawful activity when he confirmed, admitted, and was confronted with the fact in 2004.
Here's what the White House plans to do -- in order to keep the DoJ Special prosecutor, Grand Jury, and Congress from getting access to the information, NSA employees, and data from the NSA contractors -- the direction is to comment, "This is part of an ongoing investigation" and "they wish to exert their rights to silence." Bluntly, the President's "leak investigation" is designed to circle the wagons, delay fact finding by the grand jury, and not find answers.
It will remain a matter of evidence whether GCHQ will release copies of the message traffic confirming this direction. More broadly, it remains to be seen whether the send DoJ investigation -- the one with the Grand Jury -- uses this NSA intercept data to show NSA and the White House are part of an effort to obstruct justice.
Senior NSA personnel have already decided they've had enough; while at the same time there are NSA senior leaders who have contacted attorneys. NSA leadership is split.
The American military and civilian leadership have forgotten what they're supposed to do for a living: Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Against all enemies. Not just where it is easy to fabricate evidence overseas, but at home, where American citizens live.
When you look at the DOJ "investigation into the NSA leak" recall the following:
the very criminal investigators charged with "gathering facts" for Congress could very well be the same interrogators from the NAVY assigned to and cycled through GITMO. Ref
. . . and . . .
Let me say that another way: Those people which like to say, "We are in the inspector general's office and work for Congress" are conflicted: Those people who are your criminal investigators for NCIS and JTTF [both OSD, DOJ] are the ones who are trying to cover this up: Their buddies are the ones who engaged in the war crimes. Ref
. . . oh, you need a third nail in your head? . . .
Remember, the "criminal investigators" that work in the NCIS, CID, and OSI are actually the ones who cross flowed through GITMO with JTTF and CIFA.Ref
The people who are "doing the investigation" are actually the ones that should be targeted by the Grand Jury.
They're going into NSA to seize, suppress, and destroy evidence that Congress and the Grand Jury should get access to!
But DoJ and the FBI do not realize that GCHQ has already intercepted and stored that data the FBI is seizing -- and hoping to suppress -- and! [wait for it]. . .GCHQ also has intercepted the FBI and US Attorney's discussions on their investigation plan.
Remember, history is set. They cannot change history. All the subsequent activity needs to be looked at through this lens: It is additional information showing obstruction of justice by the FBI, DoJ, Gonzalez, the White House staff, and the President.
A "credible investigation" should have started discretely in 2004 when the President and NSA "learned" of the "leaks" to the NYT. Because the President failed to timely report his disclosures, confirmations, and discussions with the NYT, the President is actually one of the targets of the leak investigation.
The President is one of the leakers of his "classified" illegal program -- and the NYT used the White House's concern as confirmation of what they were told in 2004 by the NSA.
We judge the failure to timely investigate, combined with the President's admissions that he illegally used warrantless searches on the American population using military resources -- is a fatal admission; and all subsequent "investigations" into NSA are to obstruct justice.
The original wrong: 9-11 occurred despite Echelon's warnings. And all subsequent "actions" have been to coverup the malfeasance.
Think of this as many layers like Russian doll. The events in 2005 and 2006 are part of the ongoing obstruction of justice which started in 2001.
Some are curious: Why does this seem familiar . . . the notes at the bottom of this link may remind you . . .
posted by Constant @ 5:19 PM
<< Home