Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

DoJ's informants inside NSA

DoJ has a problem. It's in charge of the security procedures. Yet, despite the NYT and White House discussing the NSA wiretapping in 2004, nothing was done for a year.

The issue becomes: What happened to the DoJ's informants inside the NSA?

How to get a list of DOJ's informants inside NSA -- then cross check the data with what they have [a] in their DoJ files; and [b] provide to Cognress in response to subpoenas.

Someone inside DoJ either [a] lost track of them; or [b] gave them a green light to continue with the unlawful program, despite AG Ashcroft’s reservations.

Cross posted: here.

Added 06 Jan 06: Crossposted, and at bottom.

In re: the domestic spying cover-up: something struck me as odd.

The explanation is not credible -- one does not "issue a video/transcript" then redact something later.

Once it airs, that's what happened.

"Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' or on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."

* * *

The fact that the comment/explanation makes no sense warrants further inquiry. Yes, it is reasonable to presume WH-RNC-PNAC connection with the NSA problems in this issue.


I suspect it is related to what is in Exhibits 7 and 8 -- compare to Pelosi's comments about the FBI: That NSA was transferring info to the FBI without specific direction.

See Exhibits 7/8: here

Compare to Pelosi-Hayden interchange:here


FISA was supposed to have fixed these problems with domestic surveillance. DoJ targeting NSA -- after one year of doing nothing -- smacks of a cover-up.

DOJ needs to explain what happened to their undercover informants inside NSA.

Check this report: here.

There is something called a RMIS -- Resource Management Information System. SAIC [s/w contractor] was having problems. Unclear if DoJ lost contact with the informants inside NSA; or whether DoJ gave a green light to engage in unlawful activity.

Here's the rub: Once the President announced the illegal activity, informants are not longer protected and can't blindly continue to engage in illegal activity.

Check this case law:

A. 257 F.3d 50 -- Estoppel in re informant
B. 842 F.2d 382 -- Presser conviction affirmed

Someone inside DoJ lost track of their NSA informants; and someone has given NSA SR management a green light to violate FISA, despite Church Hearings which were supposed to address these concerns.

What's going on

There are 4 groups inside NSA

1. Those who know/planned/well aware of the illegality

2. Those who were involved, figured it out

3. Those who sensed what was going on, but had no direct knowledge

4. The Clueless.

There are 3 sets of undercover DoJ informants inside NSA

A. Those who are asserting the rule of law [Grand Jury allies];

B. Unlawful, but protected: Those who were given a green light to commit violations of the law; and [Otherwise illegal activity, OIA]

C. Unprotected: Those who were violating the law after the activity was disclosed. [Unauthorized illegal activity, UIA]

The Grand Jury is working with A; while DoJ is using B and C to distract attention from the revelations.

* * *

Added: 5 Jan 2006

Consider the President's remarks: He said if someone from AlQueda is calling from outside the US to someone inside, we would "like to know why."

Interesting. What does that tell us?

1. Possible: The US knows the specific location, phone number, and method of communication -- but isn't targeting people, but letting them continue to call.

2. Possible: The US knows the desired objective/calling destination, but isn't hauling these people; rather they're "just listening."

Actually, what's going on is something else. The US informants -- from the different agencies -- are not coordinating. Rather than "going after" these people, the US wants them to call.

Why? Because the other person on the other end of the line is a plant -- they're being fed information.

Here's the problem: What happens when the person calling [from Afghanistan/Pakistan] is working for the CIA; while the "suspect terrorist" they're calling in the US is an informant working for the DoJ?

But to make matters worse, what happens if the people who "really know what is going on" are in a position to inflict grave damage inside the DOJ and inside the NSA?

* * *

Informants are different than sources. Sources use open information. Informants have access to the inside.

NSA is an agency of DoD. But the problem is that there's no specific criminal investigator [like Army's CID; Navy NCIS; or the Air Force OSI]. Rather, NSA has an internal security branch whose main job is to harass people, scare them into compliance, and chase rumors and gossip they get from polygraph tests.

What happens if you're an NSA employee, but the NSA "internal security" appears to condone the unlawful activity violating FISA?

You have three options: Say nothing; go to the FBI/DoJ; or go to the media.

At this point, we know that the NSA employees have well discussed the issue. This means if they've communicated through electronic means [unlikely] this would have been picked up.

Also, because NSA employees face polygraph tests over "whether they revealed information", they're going to have to face questions: "Did you discuss this with someone in the media?" They get around this by discussing with themselves, while someone in the media "just happens" to be there.

* * *

Suppose you're inside NSA, and you know both sides of the conversation is linked to different branches of the government. DoJ is telling their US-based people that the incoming call is from a known terrorist. This is going on despite the NSA monitoring and chance GCHQ is going to figure it out.

How does DoJ explain to the people "who are getting the call" [that they've planted] why they're not simply going after the phone number; why not jamming of that number; why not go after the people making the call from a known location; why not target/block/jam the incoming call?

The only possibility: They wanted the calls, and the people who are getting the calls were cooperating, not asking questions.

That is what you call, "A stupid DoJ informant."

* * *

Nothing adds up with these phone calls coming from Afghanistan/Pakistan to the US.

Nobody can explain why a "known" phone number wasn't targeted.

Either DoJ knew or didn't know about the "lack of targeting." Why wasn't DoJ involved; what records did the Special Agents in Charge keep of their contacts inside NSA?

Either DoJ informants were inside NSA or they were not there. How was the information from the informants outside NSA compared with what the NSA people were telling them; how was the information compared; how was the "lack of a wall" used to identify that the incoming caller and call recipient were actually US informants; what OK's were given that should have been retracted?

Either NSA did or didn't puck up the talk of the concerns about the NSA domestic monitoring -- concerns that the activity violated FISA despite what is in Exhibits 7/8 and the Church hearings.

Yet, we do know that the concerns about the operation were well discussed/known inside NSA, but neither the NSA internal security nor the DoJ informant monitors wanted to intervene and quiet/address the concerns.

Now we know: NSA monitored the discussions, but the US Attorney "didn't monitor the informants"? That makes no sense.

* * *

Consider this. The President claims he is tracking calls from Afghanistan/Pakistan to America.

Put aside the illegal-impeachment-FISA issues for the moment.

If this "capability to monitor a discrete phone number/e-mail" exists, why isn't the President openly going to Congress and saying,

Hay, you know those Nigerian e-mail scammers, that are sending bogus email. We'll let's use NSA to track them, and bring them to justice.

But the President doesn't want to do that. Why? It appears the President would rather let the idiots in the DEA/Secret Service/DHS run around "pretending to do something," but not actually do something they could -- if the President is to be believed -- do about a real threat: Nigerian scammers.

It tells us something about "what the President is willing to do with the resources he could lawfully use" as opposed to "what he would actually do, despite the laws against that activity."

There's an entire network of NSA analysts that could be mobilized to target the unlawful Nigerian e-mail/phone calls. But what does the White House prefer to do?

Apparently, the opposite: Target Americans who are daring to speak the truth about

1. the bogus WMD;

2. the information NSA has that could impeach the President; and

3. the links between [a] pre-9-11 warnings given to NSA and [b] information provided to the White House prior to 9-11.

What's Bush's solution to organized crime? Engage in it.

* * *

Here's the problem for the DoJ informant program:

If there was illegal activity going on, that activity was either

  • A. known [and approved under the Otherwise Illegal Activity waiver, OIA]; or

  • B. unknown [and not approved -- yet, all this discussion going on with the NYT, and "nobody knew" and "when the WH found out about the leak in 2004, they did nothing"]; or

  • C. known [and was not approved, but not sanctioned/prosecuted -- Why was known criminal activity (not approved]) prosecuted?

  • D. known [and not approved, and part of the unauthorized illegal activity, UIA] -- indicating that DoJ knew about it, the conduct was by an informant, but it wasn't sanctioned.

    * * *

    Here’s the problem with government informants and personnel. Once DoJ enters NSA and compels people to testify, that information is not admissible -- exactly what the White House wants!

    Let me say that another way. In order to prevent your personnel form cooperating, you can taint their testimony, and make it inadmissible, if you can arrive first, threaten them with a loss of a job, get their testimony, and then suppress it.

    Anytime an employee is compelled to testify with the threat of sanctions if they fail to cooperate, that testimony is considered non-consensual.

    Bluntly, despite [a] the "prohibition against abuse" [designed to prevent information from turning into tainted/inadmissible evidence], and [b] the President's phony assertions that he will "comply with the anti-torture McCain Amendment", the White House and DoJ benefit by targeting the NSA employees:

  • A. The information, since it is provided under the threat of losing a valuable NSA position, is not admissible, is therefore taken off the table, and cannot be used against the President, DoJ or NSA personnel;

  • B. They can create a smokescreen/confusion about the issues, but never respond to the basic questions: If you "know" the numbers of whom they are calling to/from:

    [1] Why aren't those numbers blocked or jammed;
    [2] Why isn't information going into one side to mislead the desired target?

    That's where the problem arises. It appears the real issue is that the DoJ-NSA informants working undercover have been targeted by Americans who they cannot control.

    They do not know if the "person we suspect is not really with AlQueda" is an auditor, internal examiner, part of NSA's internal security, whether this is a testing/exercise program, or actually an undercover operative from DoJ collective evidence for the Grand Jury.

    The problem is: They can't figure it out.

    What do you call that? It's called a stupid NSA internal security office.

    * * *

    Recent announcements that the NSA “knows” who the leakers are – are non-sense.

    NSA wouldn’t openly state the status of the investigation. Rather, if they knew, they’d keep quiet.

    Rather, what’s most likely is the opposite: DoJ and the NSA Security Office cannot pinpoint how the information is getting out of Ft. Meade or the contracting offices; and is unable to figure out which specific people inside the NSA have already agreed to cooperate with the Grand Jury.

    Their only option is to float a rumor – a non-sense one – with the hopes of quieting people.

    The contractors, NSA employees, and DoJ informants inside NSA should know that the White House is desperate, unable to figure things out, and their only option is to spew out nonsense.

    This is a sign of their weak position. And the Senior SES inside NSA cannot contain the problem. The leaks continue, and the DoJ investigation is not finding what the President wants – just like the special mission units couldn’t find what NSA knew didn’t exist in Iraq.

    NSA’s security service is unable to determine how the information, that is supposedly compartmentalized, has been aggregated; who put the pieces together; how many people are involved; and what the central organizing point is within NSA.

    At this juncture, it is clear they still haven’t figured it out. It’s starting them right in the face, but they can’t see the obvious.

    But what makes it more absurd – the longer this situation drags on, the more the NSA employees realize that the game is almost over: The village idiots outside on the street know what’s going on.

    The only thing the White House and DoJ are doing at this point is pretending the world doesn’t know.

    Remember, the history has already been set. The evidence is retained. It is stored in locations outside the American’s control.

    There are also other methods of intercepting and collecting information which NSA cannot stop – it can only detect.

    NSA, DoJ and the White House are unable to stop the information flow. The only option they have is to intimidate people to deny reality.

    But the NYT revelations show that the NSA personnel know reality.

    Reality and the White House are not one in the same.

    The disconnect between the White House’s illusion and reality can be understood.

    The longer this drags on, the more likely the White House and DoJ will strip over themselves in public. Rest assured, the harder they dig, the more obvious the problem will be.

    This is like a sweater. The loose thread is already linked to everything else. The White House and DoJ are caught in barbed wire. No matter what they do, the sweater will ultimately fall apart, and they will be exposed.

    Every movement they make is known; every phrase they utter can be compared to information already in place; and the same people who know reality, will also be able to see what is or is not truthful.

    The truth can be understood.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, "despite all this confusion," NSA has two problems:

    1. NSA-Media discussions are going on

    2. They still don't know for sure why the information they've got related to 9-11 (that was ignored) or Iraq WMD (showing the President and Vice President are lying, and it was all made up; and analysts were pressured) wasn't effectively used.

    * * *

    The NSA security people have a problem. There’s a revolt in their ranks. They can't stop it.

    And the NSA employees are tired of being the whipping boy for the White House problems.

    NSA employees know what's really going on -- but they can't reveal that they know about the information they know about the Vice President's visits/pressure on CIA management -- that will spill the beans about the other illegal monitoring, and how the information is gathered/used/not used.

    At the same time, the NSA internal security has a bigger problem. They no longer have sufficient leverage on their employees to keep quiet about the illegal activity. This is a major problem.

    No longer can the NSA internal security "threaten someone with the loss of a job" because they know this doesn't work: NSA employees are already going to the media despite [a] the potential loss of income/benefits/retirement/ability to pay mortgages; and [b] the threat of criminal sanctions.

    Why? Because the NSA employees know that what is going on is wrong, illegal; and they have a higher duty than to the White House -- it's to FISA, the courts, and the rule of law under the Constitution.

    * * *

    You can tell the jackasses in the NSA internal security office to shove it up their rear end. Get the internal security officers at NSA to discuss with the Congress the following issues:

    1. The range of NSA informants: How they are selected, planted, placed inside NSA;

    2. The discussions NSA internal security had with DoJ over the "problem" of leaks;

    3. How the list of "DoJ informants inside NSA" compares with the list of people working directly for NSA internal security, but are working undercover inside NSA;

    4. Whether, despite "the wall" falling down between CIA-FBI, whether there has been any effort to explain, "why despite the wall coming down" it's now harder to get information acted on, and why "despite the wall coming down between the intelligence branches" the White House failed to rely on that "fallen wall" to act on what the NSA knows: The WMD data was non-sense;

    5. How the White House used the DoJ contacts with the NSA internal security to attempt to target NSA employees after the NYT revelations; but why this connection was not used immediately subsequent to the 2004 revelations to the NYT; and why despite the known contacts between the NYT and the NSA, nothing was done to investigate [a] the leak in 2004; or [b] the allegations that the NSA conduct violated the law.

    Here's a hint: If you threaten them with a "loss of a job" if they do not cooperate, then that fatal admission will be inadmissible.

    What to do? You need to figure out how you're going to access the NSA files, get a backup copy from GCHQ, and hammer those inside NSA who know what's been going on; have lied to Congress; and have electronically been recorded saying the opposite of what they've already stated in writing.

    You don't have to threaten anyone. The inconsistencies and evidence of perjury to Congress already exists.

    All you have to do is know where to look inside the NSA files, how to get the information, and then play stupid when you're talking to the NSA.

    They're already in a trap -- just like the Downing Street Memo.

    Remember, there is no crisis. The Constitution is still alive. The American people are for the rule of law.

    The only option the White House staffers, and bone heads inside DoJ have at this point is to create confusion.

    Let them. The "clear story" can be understood by rational people; the inconsistencies are there, and getting worse.

    Be calm. Celebrate. Those who dare to engage in a cover-up will only delay.

    But that simply affords more time for Justice to sit at her sharpening stone.

    Let them delay. Let them obfuscate.

    They cannot escape.

    The are going to lose.

    And they know it.

    Enjoy their suffering. Laugh at them. They are worse than fools.

    They are trapped. Let them squirm. Justice's noose will only tighten.

    Notice their voice change as they gasp for air.

    The terror they point to is an illusion.

    The strange colors -- simply a reflection of their own face -- starved for oxygen.

    Enjoy the rainbow on their face -- as it darkens to purple . . . their time is short.

    Victory is near.

    Mock them more. And shove their face into the Constitution.


    Hoc Voluerunt !

    * * *

    Oh, but you want more?

    We have more of the left and right hand not on the same wavelength. Notice the contrast between what they're saying about the program, and what their intelligence says.

    I look forward to NSA explaining why this "limited, lawful" program is appropriate.

    1. Alexander chimed, “We must not allow public discourse to distract us from our work: to protect and safeguard our nationRef.”

    . . .but, as the Program has been publicly asserted by the President, Alexander's claim that the program is important to "protect and safeguard our nation" is problematic . . .

    Insight Magazine raises a point

    . . . QUOTE: "al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers Ref."

    What!?! You mean the NSA is trying to target people, but the targets aren't cooperating, not using the means of communication which the NSA assumes is going on? OMG!

    That's right, Q2-lovers. The available information through JTTF, CIFA, and JPEG indicates the "lawful" monitoring won't actually hit those who are the "publicly-asserted" versions of why this program exists.

    This means: Either

    A. DoJ/DoD/NSA are not on the same page as CIFA/JTTF despite the wall coming down after 9-11 [shocked: you mean removing the wall didn't solve the communication problem, but is merely an excuse to rely on for additional bungling, and WH illegal conduct -- shocked!]; OR

    B. The NSA knows [1] the same information as JTTF -- that AlQueda uses couriers -- and [2] there's no basis to justify the warrantless intelligence gathering program; and [3] Alexander is lying about the [a] "legality" and [b] the importance of the program to "protect" America. [Are your eyes tearing up, Q2?]

    Questions for NSA -- Please provide a copy of your responses to Congress, in writing, under penalty of perjury:

    1. Veracity

    Why should we believe Alexander or the President in their contention that this program is necessary to "protect" the nation?

    2. Retaliation

    Who inside NSA has the White House targeted -- as they did with Plame and the CIA analysts over Iraq WMD -- to keep them quiet about the disconnect between [a] what JTTF knows AlQuead is doing; [b] what NSA is publicly saying; [c] the public reasons for the program; and [d] what is really going on?

    3. UCMJ and Flag Officers

    Given the inconsistency between [a] the public statements; and [b] the legal foundation, why should we believe the White House or Alexander; or does the UCMJ afford Flag Officers some sort of immunity to misleading statements in writing, that the personnel in NSA realize should not believe?

    4. NOC's

    How many non-official cover personnel working for the CIA inside NSA have been targeted to keep silent about this non-sense?

    5. Contractor liability

    How many NSA contractors fully aware of the inconsistencies have been threatened with retaliation if they do not "provide" the "desired" conclusions -- either legal, or made up facts, fabricated evidence, or fabricated wire intercepts -- to sell the NSA monitoring/activity, mislead FISA court, or otherwise repeat what OSP/Powell did to Congress/UN before the invasion of Iraq: Provide misleading/false/fabricated information which the intelligence community knew was not consistent with reality?

    * * *

    Given the above confusion and lack of credibility of Alexander, do you think it can get any worse for the NSA's internal security office?

    Let's take a look at the confusion: Q2!

    * * *

    Will NSA's HR have to come up with some nice PR to attract analysts? You might want to re-do your plans -- in light of Alexander’s veracity problems, this 2004 edition needs attention: Put this on the L3 tickler list.

    How will NSA's HR come up with a new hiring program -- why, let's have another war against . . . [choose your convenient enemy of the week -- lions, tigers, and bears, oh my!]

    * * *

    But if it gets bad enough, Q2 can just do what they've always done: Q2 glove treatment!

    * * *

    Hay, the smart ones already left. Will the remaining docile sheep inside NSA dare to use their brains at this point?

    Of course, repeat the Q2 motto: "Must remain focused. Do not pay attention to the evil ones on the internet. Do not think about the Americans -- we "protect them" -- we don't listen to them or follow the laws. Sometimes you have to cross the line. And we redraw it where we want. Click heels twice . . . Q2 will protect you . . .You will only feel slight discomfort, try to relax. We're here to help you."

    * * *

    Added: 6 Jan 2005

    Look at pages 80-82:

  • Try this: PDF

  • HTML

    If this was going on -- as it suspect -- then what should have happened: Discussions between NSA/DoJ informants inside NSA/DoJ:

    [a] people inside NSA should have signaled to their DoJ "handlers" that there was a problem with unlawful activity [How was the message traffic handled; were the concerns looked into; or were they ignored; or where they explained away];

    [b] DoJ should have records of the incoming concerns from their undercover people inside NSA [if there were bonafide "legal arguments to dismiss the informants' concerns about the NSA activity -- how were these conclusions documented, discussed, and reviewed inside DoJ; and how were DoJ Legislative liaison Q&A over these informant issues mixed in with the GAO/IG audits of the DoJ informant program];

    [c] the transmission and reporting data should have occurred immediately in the wake of 9-11, and built up through 2004 -- that's 3 years of message traffic between [a] NSA, [b] DoJ's undercover people inside NSA, and [c] the DoJ [Was the documentation done as required; what information was left off the 302s, or other reports; and how were questions of legality addressed/ignored]

    Issues: The RMIS database should show the message traffic; and this could be cross checked with the intercepts from GCHQ -- messages going between NSA-personnel-DoJ. [But if there's a gap, or something missing from the "normal baseline message traffic from NSA to DoJ -- we have to ask why.

    Recall -- NSA destroyed files -- so they must have been told/been given a heads up -- yet, at the same time there should have been a review of the activity that was "illegal" -- yet, recall that Able Danger was "cancelled" because of the "illegality concerns".

    One cannot credibly argue they're "effectively overseeing an informant program" when the unlawful conduct is outside what DoJ is allowed to approve; while at the same time Congress is told a flat out fabrication over Able Danger -- we now know the NYT knew in 2004 information to the contrary -- which means that at least by 2004 DoJ would have known "what was really going on" -- so why no investigation by DoJ IG; and has DoJ IG adequately responded -- if asked -- to Congressional inquiries related to the GAO audit report over the investigation?]


    The point is that for Bush in 2005 to say, "We have a problem with these leaks" and/or "NSA's Q2 [internal security] to have missed the problem" . . . is at odds with the likely evidence to the contrary -- that they knew, but failed to act in 2004.

    - Failed to inform Congress of the known information from NSA-DoJ undercover informants inside NSA- and the subsequent notifications/indications DoJ would reasonably be expected to have been given access to.

    It appears there is an informant issue -- a reporting of illegal activity in NSA -- but DoJ senior management failed to provide this reporting information, as required by statute to the Congress and DoJ IG. Someone knew immediately in the wake of this operation starting that there was a legality issue -- but the activity continued without DoJ slamming the brakes, or acting independently.

    Thus, there's no basis to conclude that DoJ investigations in to "the leak" are independent; rather, it looks as though they're doing more of what they did after 9-11: Show up, after the self-evident problem emerges, and find someone outside DoJ to blame. Bluntly, this is the same non-sense that happened in re 9-11: Do nothing about the indications of a problem; then show up and have a bogus information -- all to insulate the senior DoJ management from their problems with informants, information, and the pattern of "We aren't going to do anything".

    It looks as though DoJ failed to act -- as it did with 9-11 -- because someone inside the White House, possibly Gonzalez, told them to back off.

    The issue: Why, despite knowing of a "security/leak problem" in 2004 did nobody trigger an investigation?

    Some argue "Oh, that would amount to the DoJ/WH intimidating the NYT/engaging in retaliation for media coverage." Strange, that argument doesn't seem to stop the WH/JTTF from going after the media, protestors -- going so far as to fabricate evidence as they did with RNC demonstrations in the Manhattan DA's office.