Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Senate bill identifies Senate cooperation with illegal Presidential activity

Senate bill identifies Senate cooperation with illegal Presidential activity

The Senate Intelligence Bill is revealing.

A close reading of it illustrates many things.

It's not reasonable to believe that the Senate "does not know." Rather, given the close coordination with the RNC arguments, the speedy defense on the UAE port deal, and the consistent line of non-sense, it appears the Senate is quickly speaking out on issues they well know have not been adequately overseen.

We judge the Senate is in full rebellion against the Constitution, and the Senate leadership knows they have a problem. They have no defense.

Members of the Senate could very well be subject to war crimes litigation before a military tribunal.

If we apply the lessons of FISA and the NSA, we can craft some general principles, and see how the Senate cooperates with the illegal Executive activities.

This note simply explores the senate bill and shows how the senate has unlawfully given a green light to the Executive to violate the law, abuse power, and then target those who discuss reality.

We will simply look at the text as it was presented; then make adverse inferences in light of what we know about the FISA violations and unlawful NSA activity.

It is hoped that this review will show you how many things -- contrary to our Constitution -- have been given the room to ferment, and then mature into the numbing venom of tyranny.

* * *

All references are to the following document

Format: 23.09 – means, page 23, line 09.

* * *

Let’s consider the how the senate is cooperating with the illegal Presidential conduct.

First, let’s consider the language of the bill and forecast what the President could do and how the senate language shows they are cooperating with this illegal conduct.

* * *

In general we can look at the senate Intelligence bill as a New Constitution. This will show you how the current Executive goes beyond what is in the Senate Bill; and forecast what abuses are permissible within the current language.

Information Sharing

Page 28, you’ll notice that the information can be shared with anyone. Note there is no law that prevents the Executive from sharing this information to be people he decides can look at it. Thus we conclude that the information is freely shared with contractors; the goal of the Presidential program is to prevent the public from discovering to what extent the NSA data is disseminated.

Page 31, includes interagency funding to authorized groups. We judge this is widely interpreted to mean that any agency the executive deems to be related can receive funding, even if that objective is in contravention to the Constitution. We judge “other groups” is broadly defined as anyone, also at odds with the privacy. We judge the executive describes this language as the “inherent authority” to designate anyone to receive anything, and use that information in any matter that is consistent with what the Executive decides is or into appropriate.

Page 34, includes programs to meet or exceed others. We speculate that any imagined threat – however fabricated – is the basis to assert that funding is required. Capabilities that are not real are used as the basis to justify funding, set milestones, and get funding allocated to programs. Program baselines are poorly linked with bonafide threats; and in turn actual capabilities are degraded faster than what really exists overseas. This is an illusory inducement for Congress to appropriate funds for programs that do not need to be upgraded. We judge the basis for the degradation and the threat assessments is not credibly independently reviewed; rather the threat assessments are merely accepted as true – and set the baseline to exceed. These targets are not realistic, and we judge the NSA programs are for the most part poorly managed on absurd timelines, and Congress fails to effectively manage the program along credible milestones relative to bonafide threats. Rather, it’s merely a “throw money at the problem” – however illusory that threat might be.

Page 41.2-3 : The “fully inform” is not met. Rather, “fully” is defined as “fully to the satisfaction of the program manger,” and is not the same as “complete”. Material information – needed by congress to assess legality – is not sufficient.

Page 41.22-042 : There is no effective mechanism to ensure that letters to Congress meet the full reporting requirement. Rather, the letters are looked at as occasional inconveniencies, and are generally looked at as something Congress should be happy to get, not something that the NSA needs to seriously comply with. Rather, the executive is inclined to self-delegate himself the authority and oversight responsibility; and say that his independent review does not require a letter to congress.

Pages 44 25-045.18 : Personnel inside the NSA are taught to lie, not comply with subpoenas. Subpoenas are only valid if you have one in front of you, but you are encouraged to say the party line. If you lie and get caught, it is your problem. Those who lie and do not get caught are promoted.

Page 49.5 : The reports on the civil liberties is not included. This activity is defined as another program which someone else takes care of. There is no effective mechanism to ensure the letters and repots to Congress are accurate, complete, or meaningful. This is merely window dressing on the wrong building. The approach to Congress in these repots is: If you are honest, you are a fool; it is better to say less, that increases you chances of having a question. Truth can be rewritten to embrace another reality.

Page 52 : Previously assigned personnel may be targeted for smearing if they dare discuss the real scope of the NSA illegal activity.

Page 56.12-15 : On false statements to Congress, this standard is not effectively enforced. Rather, all investigations into this matter are deemed to be national security and the leadership does not provide a letter as required. The issue isn’t that Congress was or was not deceived; rather, it was that Congress – because it was part of the deception – will do nothing. The Congress suppresses reports, refuses to investigation, and fails to recuse itself from matters they are involved in, and should be reviewed.

Page 57.06-07 : Reports of violations of criminal law are not followed. The AG has been given the power to make new exceptions, and assent to executive orders that violate the law.

Page 60 : this is the area where this a lot of abuse. AG is given the power to make many things exempt when they should not.

Page 67.13 : The nexus of exemptions and the National Intelligence Director is fraught with abuse. Whether something is or is not related to the NID is in question. On those things that should be reported, the NID is given discretion and latitude to say that the exemption applies; on matters where the Congress is culpable, the NSA IG is encouraged to remind the Congress of their complicity. This means that Congress is not inclined to talk about something they may be criminal liable for actively supporting. This is a form of blackmail and extortion.

Page 68.16 : This is the likely source of the NSA illegal activity. The NSA will classify things as being “terror related” in order to get money and exemptions. This is a free for wall. It’s another way of saying, “No matter how disconnected this illegal activity is from the name, we can lawfully violate the law by asserting the conduct is counter-terror related. This is known fiction.

Page 77.14-23 : Exceptions on page 78 imply that there are intelligence-related
exceptions that are permitted. That’s very broad. This power is broadly combined with the “anti-terror” programs and the two have fused: If something is related to anti-terrorism and intelligence – even if it is illegal – it is given an exemption, and the self-assertion of legality means that the NID does not report this to Congress.

This is the area where the DoJ AG is given wide latitude to create new exemptions to the law, and permit warrantless detentions. The definitions related to probable cause have been watered down to justify anything based on pre-text, even pre-emptive use of force to stop what may simply be imagined or convenient. The DoJ AG uses this as the mechanism to self-grant exemptions to the Constitution; and use military police in domestic law enforcement roles. They call this training, but it is actually using military police in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

80.-1-16 NSA and DoD have a source program. Sometimes people are assigned to the source program without being told they are a source. This is a way of getting around the restrictions against domestic surveillance.

Americans are targeted using the NSA. The NSA will identify key areas of communication and nubs of interactions. These are areas and people that are given a choice: Cooperate with our illegal activities, or we will prosecute you based on false charges. This is how Americans are blackmailed to be silent about what they are discussing with the government.

Page 77.14-23 : Notice the link between the CIA, NSA, and DoJ AG under this. This shows that the AG will say to the CIA “It is OK to arrest without a warrant Americans using illegally-intercepted-NSA data.”

This is the area that permits arrests without warrant. DoJ has self-conferred wide latitude, as was done under the FISA statute – to create new standards. However, what’s actually happened is that they’ve ignored the law, and will late attempt to rely on this provision as an excuse. The goal of this is to delay fact finding and bringing this to court. IN realty, they know they are violating the law; goal is to delay understanding of this. When the story first breaks, rather than say “We’re guilty.” They’ll say the opposite: “There is no crime.” This will attempt to make people who are involved think, “I’m doing something legal.” In truth, they know they are violating the law.

Page 80.23-24 : This is the provision which government agents assigned to NSA, CIA, and DoJ will lie and say they are with the police. These types of people showed up during Operation Falcon. This essentially permits an entity to hide it is related to
NSA, and approach/intercept the source as if they were a foreign agent. This is the catchall how the President gets around the Constitution.

Page 81.23 : These are the exceptions to the Constitution. The Executive Orders [EO's] can violate the law or Constitution; when asked about EO’s that are illegal or contrary to law, the DoJ AG will say that this is OK as an exception to the reporting requirement, and the waivers they can grant themselves on exemptions and disclosures. They assert that anything that is “intelligence related” is legal, even if it violates the Constitution.

Page 81.4 : Another exemption is the “outside the US”- rule. This means that they can define anybody as being “outside the US’ even though they are physically located in the United States. IN other words, the “outside the US” provision was deleted because they did not want to have that requirement imposed on them in the statute. It means they can do two things; violate the law, regardless whether someone is or is out of the US: and if it services their purposes, they can call people in the US “outside” if they are asserted to be “terror connected.” They make up excuses, and the FISA court has been lulled to believe them.

Page 83.24 : “Protective functions” can mean anything, from accusations based on poetical ideology, trumped up charges, or simply to impose power to intimidate others.

This is how DoJ self-issues warrants without court review. Warrantless protective functions approved By DoJ AG.

  • A. Fiction and unconstitutional: "reasonable grounds to believe" --
  • B. This is an excuse: Self-issued warrantless searches by the NSA
  • C. In reality, they are illegally invading homes, violating rights without any valid reason. They’re on fishing trips and abusing power and authority. This is illegal. DoJ has fatally asserted that NSA is a combat support tool – this means that NSA and DoJ know that the DoD assets are illegally being used against Americans in contravention to the Geneva Conventions, and a war crime.

    This takes us back to the NSA and the “reasonable grounds to believe” nonsense. This is a lesser standard than what is in the Constitution. This permits self-issued warrants on anything; retroactive warrants; or simply by passing the procedures because of an “emergency” or “novel situation.” This can be pre-text, made up, fabricated. The goal is to create a story that sounds believable; but if you examine the excuse it collapses: Assertions are not supported by facts; personnel are lying; and the information has been fabricated based on illegally obtained evidence. The catchall excuse is to call this “training”.

    Page 84.01 : These are other exceptions that the AG can self-create without Congressional knowledge. IN this case, where the exceptions are not applicable, the AG will assign them into a category that permits them to be outside what Congress is told about; or beyond the limitations of the current exceptions. In other words, he’s creating a new “exception to the exception” rule by putting things in “other”. This is another way of getting around the Constitution and violating it. By defining things as “other” he can self-assert that it is permissible, even if it violates the law, is illegal, or is at odds with explicit Congressional language to the contrary.

    Page 85.04 : IF there is a problem with a file, that file is labeled exempt. Even if someone is an American citizen, people can be encourage to be confused and may think that they are foreign, or a “terror related agent”. This will put the file in an exempt area, and the NSA IG and Congress will not know to look at the problem information. Any American citizen who is under surveillance is asserted to be one of three things: [1] terror connected; [2] agent of a foreign power; or [3] a foreign government connected person. It doesn’t matter if the designation is correct; the goal is to hide the file, prevent knowledge of the scope of the illegal activity.

    Page 85.10 : Information about what other nations are doing, and how they do it can be made up. This will ensure that the basis for a program – the technical requirements and the threat they are supposedly challenging that can also be made up – is not accessible. It is well known – and asserted – that there are methods by which the NSA cannot intercept. This is the means by which “big scary things” are asserted to be another threat, even if it is made up. This is how money is justified.

    Page 85.23 The DoJ AG will self-assign exemptions using this section. This springs off the President’s authority -- and concludes that exemptions have been created as was FISA, and these self-created exemptions are broad, created by the AG. [Using the Anti-Terror name as the catchall; Not the intent of Congress]

    Page 86.01 - 87.04 : This is a list of other agencies which Congress could rely on; however NSA will say that they have exclusive control over the questions. This is false. These are other entitles where subpoenas could be issued, but NSA and DoJ AG have no plans to remind the public or Congress of these other avenues.

    Page 87.08 : This is the exemption for derivative works. This is a self-created exemption. It permits data mining products to be exempt in that they are deemed to be a ‘derivative work”. This is a new exception, which the AG appears to have created: They’ve designated the NSA work products/data mining as a derivative product, but it is
    exempt because it is "terror related". This is bogus.

    Page 87.20-24 : This the “provision of law” exception. This is similar to the AUMF
    argument; and this is the tool they use to create new exceptions/exemptions.
    Self-write new provisions using this phrase. This is how the President creates new legislation.

    Page 88 : The court reviews have been ignored. FISA has been ignored and side stepped in a similar fashion. FISA court was taken out; they’ve set up their own judicial review -- as they did with FISA -- to review whether documents are or are not being appropriately reviewed/classified. NSA IG and other investigators ignore the "Domestic enemy" provision of the oath.

    88.25 : This is the language that has been broadly interpreted to mean that all rules of civil procedures and rules of evidence are waived as an exemption. They ignore that the exemption only applies to rules 26-36 of civil procedure.

    89.19 : This is the exception related to “personal knowledge.” The issue here is the specific. Because something is illegal, they will apply an exemption and call it "anti-terror"-related. In order to avoid broad discovery, they will say that the conduct is isolated. This a way of saying that a broad pattern of abuse – which is other wise suppressed – will be the burden of the Congress and public to prove.

    However, the real issue is that the FISA violations are clear and form a broad pattern of conduct. It is reasonable to say that there is other illegal fruit of searches and other misconduct and illegal exemptions. The reports related to these challenges and exemptions are suppressed because they are a data mining product. Rather, what they’re doing is using circular reasoning; Engaging in illegal conduct; exempting disclosure; then saying that all information related to that illegal conduct is “not related” and forcing all people to state the facts based on personal knowledge. When this is done, they then go after the accuser for whist blowing. This is how they suppress information about the full range of illegal activity.

    If you get the real reports, you’ll see that the exemptions are not reasonable, the data is not actually related to bonafide exemptions, and the targets have no reasonable connection with unlawful activity or anything warranting review. Rather, they’re using their ignorance about reality as the basis to “justify” illegal conduct and widespread violations of the constitution. It is reasonable to infer that the conduct in one area is widespread; and that the excuses in FISA are also proffered across the spectrum. Most people will not know to question the reasonableness of an exception, especially when they are not given tall the information about a particular US citizen.

    As Gonzalez fatally admitted – the files are rather large; and no NSA person or contractor will review the entire file to ensure that the monitoring is actually connected to terrorism. They’re merely given in information to punch into a computer, adjust satellites orientation, or go along certain intercept paths in the sky.

    The problem they have is that they’re using the violations of the law as the basis to assign that information to an intelligence-exemption folder. This is a cover-up. In turn, any thing related to that illegally collected data is also assigned an exemption. This is how the data mining products are suppressed.

    Just as they assigned-created-fabricated exemptions to FISA after they get caught so too is this how they will likely assign an exemption to the data mining activities. If something is connected to a FISA-like exemption – however ridiculous it might be – then that product is also assigned an exemption. If they’ve violated the law – and assign an exemption of “intelligence” or “counter terrorism” then they’ll do the same on the reports, exemptions, and other information that would be provided to Congress. They will self-assign an exemption based on a non-sense designation; then used that designation to say, “We have reviewed this, Congress does not need to see it.”

    Each successive decision along the review is based on the false assertion that the American is [1] terror related; [2] a foreign agent; [3] a connected person; or [4] somehow under an exemption that qualifies as training. The goal of this is to self-report that the challenges to the data withholding are bonafide; and that the repots and exceptions do not need to see the light of day or get shared with Congress.

    Page 90.10 : This is the exclusive remedy rule that gets ignored. As with FISA where FISA is the exclusive means –but ignored, so too is this ignored as the “exclusive” remedy. There are other ways; conversely, they deny this remedy on the assertion that there are others options. You have to ask, but if you ask questions you are accused of being a terrorist and then filed in the exemption file.

    Page 93.17 : “Prohibited reviews” This is a blanket excuse to not review a matter. They can put anything in here, self-designate. There are procedures to meet this standard, and the DoJ AG can give waivers at any time, or write new exemptions.

    Page 94.01-04 : Requirements to submit a report are self-waived. They lied about the NSA activity; and didn’t’ provide reports; reasonable to expect them to violate the laws in other areas as they relate to other reports.

    Page 98.20 : This recognizes the Deputy DoJ AG’s liaison with intelligence. He may assign anything to an exemption, even information about ongoing investigations related to unlawful abuse of power. Congress will never find out. This is a black hole.

    Page 98.22 : “Other duties” assigned to the Deputy DoJ AG doesn’t narrow this assignment to legal things. Rather, the DoJ AG may classify anything as “legal” and then delegate that, even if it violates the law. “Other duties” – even if they are unconstitutional – can be linked to intelligence and counter-terrorism. This is a catchall to justify anything.

    Page 101.03 : This is the “counter terrorism” bucket where all illegal things are buried. If you can call it “counter terrorism” – even if it is not – DoJ AG will grant you an exception, and Congress will never see any reports on this.

    Page 102.07-18 : This section has been broadly interpreted. It relates to funding. DoJ AG assigns himself wide discretion on who reviews the funds, whether the NSA IG does or does not find out about this, or whether the DOJ IG can review the matter. They self-create new exemptions; they make programs and funds disappear in this section using the catchall on the exemptions. They first write new laws that are outside the law; and then assign a “counter terror” program POC to monitor that area. In no time, they have programs and funding going to illegal things, and they’ve convinced themselves that it’s the right thing to do: The actually believe their non-0sense. They believe that anything they do not understand is terror-related; and that any illegal act is something that is appropriate, and is exempt from Congressional review.

    Page 102.23 : Congress should ask about the unclassified portions of the activity, and the reasons for the changes. Two questions; [1] - What is the range of unclassified funds in para (1) on page 102; and [2] - What types of activities are ~not~ classified. This will give you a sense of whether they have any non-classified programs; or whether everything – even stuff Congress thinks should be public – is classified. We judge all things that should be known – especially those related to illegal activity – have been unlawfully classified.

    Page 105.01 : This is another terror-relate exemptions. Anything so-classified is exempt, even when it has no reasonable connection with any “anti-terror” investigation. They use this to hide illegal searches, pre-textual stops, and other JTTF information reports back and forth between JTTF and NSA related to investigative leads. These are deemed outside Brady; and investigators rely on “accidental findings” using this information during their investigative stops, or warrantless searches. Calling the activity to "protect against international terrorism" -- very wide in re NSA; also wide in re DoJ as a prosecutor’s ruse to avoid discovery.

    Page 105.23 : The “Urgent” and “unique” designations are broadened. This is an exemption to hire a contractor to do something, and avoid Congressional access to government employees. This is the loophole for the wide commercial contract exceptions, to quickly get contracts to do things : The activity may become permanent, but remains as “urgent” and “unique.” How long does this “war on terror” going to last? No Congress knows why it has no information: Everything has been designated exempt; yet all that money is going on there, and no valid audits. That’s not impressive.

    Page 105.25 : One ruse is to assert that anything related to discovery, audits, or oversight is “impracticable. This is a very loosely applied term. This is the catchall phrase to
    permit contractors be hired under he "anti=terror" program, with full knowledge they’re being assigned to the many exceptions in violation of the law.

    If they can say that something is not practical -- like going to congress, following FISA, or the Constitution -- then this pretty much opens the floodgates on anything.

    Page 106.05 : This is a reminder that Contractors are not employees, but still liable for war crimes, and illegally support of illegal use of military forces against American civilians. Contractors may not be employees, but they are still subject to the law; waivers to the law are not enforceable.

    Page 106.09 : “Any law” is a broad exception. Any law language has been
    stretched to permit President to do anything. Also, "may provide for" means that OSD can do what he likes; the key will be to convince others of this. This is why they continue to issue public news releases: It is to convince people that what they’re doing is terror related, when its not.

    Argument: Show this reasoning is flawed, illegal, and contractors cannot be immune; rather they are subject to war crimes given NSA is a combat-support tool directed at Americans.

    Page 106.16 : The “successor program” designation is one that is part of a shell game. This means that when illegal activity occurs in one program, the non-discovered aspects are slid into a “new program”. This allows illegal activity discovered in one program to get slid into something else without congress knowing about it.

    Page 114.19 : “Multi year intelligence program” can mean anything. DoJ AG can self assign any activity as “intelligence” then have funds obligated, expended without Congressional oversight.