NSA: White House Surveillance To Generate Voter Messages
The White House and NSA have been linked to contracts which authorize intermediaries and entities to acquire illegally captured data and generate messages for domestic consumption in violation of the Smith Act. The objective of this illegal information monitoring has nothing to do with national security, but to affect voter perceptions and the election outcome.
Ref Consider the Lincoln Group contract as you read this.
Ref Consider other propaganda campaigns linked to US Govt.
Details: Contract Number [Ref ] ; Contractor Name [ Ref ]
The contract number matches other contracts publicly available. A close reading of the contract language substantially matches the Verizon and AT&T claims that the activity was authorized, however, the court finds the activity is illegal.
This discussion expands the Helix Evidence Model. AT&T, Verizon, and the NSA billing intermediaries and personnel have been linked with the media messaging contracts. The personnel involved in the original lines of evidence, related to Narus-AT&T and Verizon, are also linked to this third line of evidence and the NSA and Department of Justice.
The open source information and connection this activity has with illegal, fraudulent behavior destroys all DoJ defenses before the state public utility commissions and attorney generals. The DoJ Staff should know that the claims before the Federal Courts are frivolous and violate Federal Rules of Procedure.
A firm associated with AT&T, convicted in US Federal District Court of illegally billing one government entity, while providing public relations support to a second government organization, has been implicated in the FISA conspiracy.
An AT&T-associated firm has been linked with domestic messaging. The contract is not isolated to a single government agency, but is a multi-agency contract including the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security.
The firm is on contract to provide media messages related to activities which violate Geneva, requirements which Hamdan said must be followed, not explained away with catchy slogans. Just as the Lincoln Group provides media messages to generate public support for Iraq, the firm provides media messages to US citizens in apparent violation of the Smith Act, which bars the United States government from targeting American citizens with propaganda.
The multi-agency messaging contract is also linked with the Department of the Army, designed to increase public support for American troops engaged in illegal activity in Iraq. The company uses various surveys, e-mails, and other communication to monitor, craft, and disseminate the media messages.
The problem is the contract and organization are linked to the same players implicated in the FISA conspiracy, which Judge Taylor Diggs ruled unconstitutional.
Helix Evidence Model
This contract forms the third helix in the FISA conspiracy, and affirmatively links AT&T with not only monitoring and illegal activity, but the firms which subsequently use that aggregated information to target Americans, in violation of the Smith Act.
The Helix model, with three lines of evidence has three phases of data analysis:
The other functions in the FISA conspiracy have already been discussed:
One area which remains unclear is the data transfer, processing, and aggregation, believed to be part of the NSA ground station network, and the Satellite Communication system. The details are publicly available, and the NSA and NSA contractors involved in this effort have been previously linked using open, non-classified sources to the NARUS STA 6400 system and AT&T. Mark Klein provided an affidavit which, when released, confirmed independent conclusions about the relationship between AT&T, NARUS, the NSA, and the CALEA law enforcement efforts.
What makes this third line of evidence in the Helix Evidence Model noteworthy is that it demonstrates there are common flawed assumptions within the American contracting community. Despite specific statutory language prohibiting domestic surveillance without warrants, the contract in the third Helix includes curious language.
Recall the words of Drew C. Arena, the Verizon General Counsel, a former Asst. US Attorney. In a documented e-mail available to readers, rather than deny the existence of the Verizon-NSA billing relationship, Arena left open the possibility that Verizon has provided facility access to the NSA. The key word Arena used was “authorized.”
Curiously, this is the same word which the AT&T lobbyist used, and substantially matches the tone and phrases contained within the contract vehicle at the heart of Helix 3.
Litigation Problems For Alleged FISA Conspirators
The problem is that for something to be “authorized,” it has to be legal. Executive orders linked to the NSA, Helix 2, and Telcordia state that illegal activity cannot be classified. Judge Taylor finds the activity is illegal.
Once matters are publicly discussed or released to third parties, there is no longer a bonafide claim of secrecy. Verizon has jeopardized DoJ’s assertions by publicly commenting on, and failing to deny, the possibility that Verizon had provided access to the NSA.
The NSA and Executive branch further undermined their claim of executive privilege when they revealed the details of the billing activity to at least 19 Members of Congress. The legislature is a separate branch of government. Disclosures to Congress about illegal activity cannot lawfully be shielded by any classification. Rather, the Executive-Legislature discussions on the matter amount to a revelation to a third party, and are not protected.
Once the decision to use illegal method to capture data was made, all post-decision memoranda are not protected by privileged. They are not part of the deliberations. Rather, they are admissible for discovery and cannot be lawfully shielded or protected.
The problem for AT&T and their alleged co-conspirators is that they have not only been found to have violated the law, but one of the alleged co-conspirators has already been convicted of improper billing. Once fraud is demonstrated, privilege is lost.
Attorney General Immunity Discussions
Attorney General Gonzalez’ former law firm in Texas has been linked with discussions related to immunity. However, the Attorney General may lawfully be indicted by non-US courts at an international war crimes tribunal, and no Presidential pardon can insulate him. Also, his communicated concerns with Congress are post-decision, and are not protected deliberations within the Executive branch. Thus, they are not protected by any claim of attorney-client privilege or Executive privilege.
We judge the Attorney General has communicated to non-attorney, third parties his concerns with personal war crimes liability, thereby prohibiting these non-attorney-client communications from being hidden from the Grand Jury or international prosecutors. The open disclosures waive the executive and attorney-client privileges.
Rendition Activities No Longer A Lawful State Secret
The American government has lost any credible claim that its illegal kidnapping activity can be protected. Yet, not to be lost is the fact that US private contractors at NARUS, AT&T, Verizon, and other intermediaries were instrumental in illegally transferring data used to target, kidnap, and abuse American civilians. This activity is illegal and a war crime. There is precedent from the post WWII Germany for lawfully executing civilians for their active support of war crimes.
The problem is that in the wake of Hamdan, CIA and DoJ personnel confirmed that they had a problem with government violations of Geneva. They substantially changed their position, asking for legislation to immunize them for violations; and publicly admitting that procedures at the remote CIA locations would have to be modernized. Yet, by confirming Hamdan would affect the ongoing operations in Eastern Europe, the CIA substantially confirmed the existence of these facilities, thereby destroying any credible claim of privilege on the rendition program. Subsequent revelations of illegal activity in Italian Courts substantially confirm CIA involvement in the illegal kidnappings, destroying any claim that the matter has been lawfully protected. Rather, it is part of a larger effort of criminal activity.
We mention Italy to remind readers that the European Union and other non-US jurisdictions continue to investigate the illegal US activities. These are matters of war crimes, violations of international law, and treaties. Any nation may lawfully indict, prosecute, and convict any American for war crimes. Unless the United States credibly investigate and prosecute these matters in a timely manner, other nations may lawfully enter US territory, detain US personnel, and render them to The Hague.
Discovery will continue outside the American court rules. Nothing the American Congress, President, or Judicial system says or does can stop ongoing review of open source information. There is no time limit on discovery related to war crimes.
Congress cannot pass legislation, nor may the President pardon anyone, immunizing them for their indirect or direct support of war crimes. Attorney General Gonzalez has openly discussed with Members of Congress the prospect that American policy makers could be indicted for war crimes. This risk was well known before Sept 2001, yet ignored despite the concerns resurfacing in the Bybee memo.
All DoJ Staff Attorney defenses presented to the state utility commissions, attorney generals, and district courts fail. DoJ’s strategy is to muddy the waters, claiming the NSA issues are technical, or a state secret. The technical details of how the crime has been committed are irrelevant. The only issue is that the laws have been ignored.
By violating the statute and issuing misleading public statements, the activity amounts to fraud and cannot lawfully enjoy executive immunity or protection. Once the issues have been disclosed, not denied, but publicly commented on by third parties, all claims of privilege fail. All activity after the initial violations of 2001 are part of the post-decision conspiracy, and cannot be protected. Rather, these records are not part of the deliberation, but of the subsequent conspiracy and attempt to avoid detection. These are subsequent violations under obstruction of Justice, as outlined in the draft Grand Jury Indictment.
The contract vehicle is noteworthy. It outlines security procedures and data access provisions. When taken in the context of the Helix Evidence Model, it becomes clear that this contract is one of the mechanisms used to support the alleged FISA conspiracy.
The contract mechanism also helps address many questions, which the NSA and DOJ refused to clearly respond in their written responses to the Judiciary Committee:
Once AT&T, NARUS, and Verizon collected data and provided it to the intermediaries, what ultimately happened to that data, and how was it used?
What method does the White House use to evaluate public reaction to illegal war crimes activity in Iraq?
How does the White House attempt to influence voters?
What AT&T “letter of authorization” existed giving NSA access to the billing data?
How does the money flow from the US government to contractors that provide support to the NSA, AT&T, Verizon, and other intermediaries?
What is the nature of the confidentially agreement, and basis to fire someone for discussing this illegal conspiracy?
What is the means, agency, mechanism to transfer data, process it, and use it?
What are the conditions of the arrangement between the contractor and the US government related to facility access, information transfer, contactor access to data, secrecy, and mechanisms to penalize disclosures of illegal activity?
How is the information system used to target those who disagree with US government actions?
How is the data shared to support DHS warrantless interrogations?
How are the errors in the databases resolved, if at all; or are errors the reason for the unlawful detentions?
How are individual citizens identified for special treatment, issued NSLs, and subjected to warrantless interrogations?
What judicial reviews have been compromised, permitting unreliable information to be used to detain, kidnap, and illegally abuse those incorrectly associated with invalid data?
The contract number and IRS tracking numbers show that this firm is the common contractor for multi-agency media messages. The contract numbers are the same. Even on contracts that are not related to the Department of Defense, the United States government and contractor agreed to use the same contract number.
This contact number is linked to multiple agencies. It is also possible to use the public information contained in these contract change orders to identify the specific funding codes used to transfer funds, and which budgeting and contracting personnel are associated with this activity.
The contact terms stipulate government access to contractor facilities. The contract performance reporting requirements match those imposed on NSA contractors: Cost, schedule, and performance. The work breakdown structures permit DoD Senior Managers and White House staff to quickly monitor progress along goals.
The contractor authorizations substantially match the phrases, terminology, and policies AT&T and Verizon personnel have thought otherwise permitted the telecoms to grant access to the NSA. However, the DoJ Attorney General authorizations without warrants were not lawful; the contractor cannot authorize access to facilities or information unless there were valid warrants. The contractors know, or should know that statutes prohibit what is occurring.
Also, of interest are the ongoing FOIA requests of other similar contracts. One example is the contract through the Centers for Disease Control which apparently will exchange other traveler information with the Department of Homeland Security.
The contract details, open sources, and other non-classified information confirm the relationship between this contract, AT&T associates, the NSA, DHS, and the billing companies.
The contract stipulates certain arbitrary criteria to remove people, and imposes secrecy on activity which the courts have found illegal. The contract vehicle appears to cloak illegal activity behind a wall of secrecy, hiding data transfers between the NSA, AT&T, intermediaries, and those who generate media messages for public consumption.
As was originally reported in mid 2005, the NSA was engaged in a domestic surveillance activity. These details were formally released in the NYT, and the scope of the activity is much wider than has been reported.
The firm has been linked with billing fraud. It accepted funds from entity A, but provided services to entity B. This is no different than accepting NSA money, and providing support to the RNC and White House to affect the 2004 and 2006 elections with misleading media messages.
All personnel in each Helix have been linked to this alleged FISA conspiracy. DoJ and DoD have a joint training system for attorneys. Clearly something failed within the Department of Justice. The US Attorneys have failed to report this illegal conduct, nor take action to timely prevent this illegal activity. The open evidence is overwhelming, credible, and clearly implicates the President, Attorney General, and the NSA-related contractors like AT&T, Verizon, NARUS, and the billing intermediaries.
This contract formalizes the relationship. It appears the language is substantially similar to the language which the AT&T and Verizon General Counsel have (arguably) illegally relied upon.
It remains to be understood who did the audit on these contracts; how the contact auditing problems related to the misconduct in Iraq. Until 2006, there appears to have been no overall review, as the Judiciary might have provided, had there been a single look at the entire chain of events from data access, to data processing, then use; nor a comparison how these data uses were or were not consistent with the law.
It appears only the AT&T CEO dissented. The other firms were also in a position t know the law. Public evidence from the Verizon internal e-mail confirms that the Verizon General counsel knew, or should have known, about the statutes. The evidence shows his paralegals requested data and language related to the very statute which prohibited what the State Attorney General and utility commissions are investigating.
Broadly speaking the entire story the American public has been given since 2001 has unraveled. We now know through New Jersey litigants that AT&T was in talks with the NSA before Sept 2001 to engage in the very thing we were told might have prevented 9-11. In truth, despite the NSA using these illegal methods, 9-11 happened. This was not adequately discussed or investigated by the now-discredited 9-11 Commission.
As with 9-11 and the illusory connection to Iraq, there is also the larger problem of the failure to prove the case. The American government, using only assertions not evidence, has asserted that Muslims were involved. We find the opposite: It appears someone else placed the explosives inside the World Trade Center. This means there is no basis for targeting specific people under the travel program. Rather, those government employees who have raised valid questions about the official story have been illegally targeted with unlawful retaliation.
It remains to be understood what else 9-11 has been used as a pretext to justify unconstitutional conduct and illegal war crimes. Despite this mounting evidence, Congress refuses to investigate. Congress has failed in its oath, has not effectively deliberated, reviewed, nor protected the Constitution. Rather, this Congress remains a looming threat to the Constitution.
By delaying outside review, DoJ has delayed implementing a lawful, known, and available legal remedy. DoJ’s problem is that by failing to understand the technical approach that could have been lawfully harmonized with the Constitution, United States policy makers and civilian contractors willfully, and recklessly ignored the clearly promulgated statutes and laws.
One approach could have been to publicly disclose the requirement, and then prompt industry to create a system that would tag the individual data packets with a court certification. This feature could have been integrated into the FISA court review, streamlined, automated, and full met the 4th Amendment warrant requirement.
A court seal of approach could have been formally attached to this process long ago. Each data file could have been electrically stamped that it had been lawfully captured; that the use was permitted; and the data had been subject to lawful 4th Amendment warrant requirements.
The existing technology already allows and permits the following questions to be clearly, timely, and quickly organized for the FISA court review:
Similar, lawful solutions are already available through the NSA. Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and the DoJ Staff chose secrecy and illegality. By keeping this secret while there were lawful methods to comply with the FISA requirements, we can only conclude that the ultimate objective wasn’t to avoid court oversight of terror-related investigations. Rather, the concern was that the court would reject non-terror-related information retrieval.
The only reason NSA-DoJ would not use a technical system that complied with the law is that the data, not the process, was not related to national security. Rather, the information would have been known to the court to have been more related to domestic messaging, and not bonafide law enforcement objectives. This is not a lawful exception to the FISA statutes, prompting the President to block the DOJ OPR from reviewing the alleged conspiracy.
The objective of the messages had nothing to do with national security, but with the White House public relations goals. The White House incompetence meant that not only wer4e combat operations illegal, but the results on the ground were consistent with the very forecasts the White House ignored. Rather than accept responsibility, this White House has hidden the WMD report in the Senate Intelligence Committee.
NSA has a system which the DoJ-NSA ignored because the data capture and use was unrelated to a bonafide state secret, but fraud. The information is not protected, not linked with a bonafide authorization, illegal, and the court would not approve the non-security-related use of the illegally captured data. The use of this data was not for a bonafide law enforcement or national security objective, but for domestic propaganda.
Secrecy has been invoked to hide illegal activity, and maintain public support for illegal activity. Propaganda has been generated using illegally captured information; and those involved with valid public dissent against illegal violations of the law have been systematically targeted. The implications are simple: The FISA conspiracy hopes to continue other illegal activity, and avoid sanctions for war crimes. However, the plan cannot prevent other nations from indicting Americans for war crimes.
This is only the beginning. The above information is only the tip of the iceberg. In the meantime, here are some headlines that you may find useful if you are attempting to summarize what this information means.
AT&T is associated with a firm whose contracts raise substantial legal issues related to the alleged FISA conspiracy. The contact terms substantially mirror key terms of authorization, access, and secrecy which the court has found to be illegal and unenforceable.
AT&T is associated with a firm that has access to sensitive government data; and whose contract provides for facility access to the government. The same apparent relationship the Verizon General Counsel said was authorized and permitted Verizon to provide billing data and facility access to the NSA.
The current Maine PUC order to Verizon that it deny providing data does not adequately incorporate the Verizon General Counsel comments and this contract which otherwise permits the government to have access to the facility. It is another issue whether that access is or is not lawful. The court finds that the entire arrangement without adequate warrants is not lawful, and the Attorney General has exceeded his authority is permitting or authorizing activity which did not fall within any of the exceptions of the FISA statute.
AT&T is affiliated with a firm convinced of improper billing, billing one government entity, but providing service to a second government entity.
AT&T is associated with a media messaging entity that hopes to maintain public support for people engaged in illegal activity, and generating public support for individuals engaged in war crimes and violations of Geneva. It remains unclear what other illegal activities this firm has been tasked to engage in litigation-related public relations efforts.
AT&T is associated with a firm that, contrary to Hamdan, appears to generate public support for ignoring the law and other lawful requirements in the Constitution.
AT&T is associated with a data analysis firm, the apparent entity which analyzes data which AT&T, NARUS, Verizon, and others collect. The firm uses illegally captured data and then creates media messages to manipulate the public to believe fictional reasons why unneeded and illegal activity should be tolerated. The data access and transfer is not lawful; and the media messages are essentially US government-sponsored efforts to target the American population to support war crimes, thwart investigations, and stifle the third branch of government from effectively overseeing the warrant process. The ultimate objective of this alleged conspiracy is to violate the Smith Act and the American Constitution.
AT&T is associated with a firm that could provide analysis to the RNC on illegally collected data, helping the White House sway public opinion on illegal activities. AT&T is also associated with personnel and entities that provide data transfer services between billing companies, NSA and intermediaries which handle subpoenas, NSLs, and other sensitive data transfers. These intermediaries have been linked with the White House, NSA, DOJ, AT&T, and Verizon.
The firm provides data analysis and messaging, apparently in violation of the Smith Act. The firm has access to sensitive DHS data. This is a multi-agency contract associated with DHS, DoD, Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Agriculture.
Staff associated directly or indirectly with Verizon and the Department of Justice and the NSA have appeared before Congress, are well known to the intelligence and law enforcement community, and they well know the statutes and laws. The Attorneys in the Department of Justice well know their legal obligations. They have been trained by the Department of Justice.
The activity is not related to national security, but media messages and propaganda to generate public support for war crimes. The activity was never lawful. The Attorney general never had the power to authorize things which otherwise require a warrants.
Hamdan reminds us that the requirements are to be followed; the post-Hamdan discussions between the Attorney General substantially confirm that the Department of Justice knew that it had a problem, and no legal defense against war crimes, impeachable offenses, or the wider alleged FISA conspiracy.
Messages To Those Involved
This is what is known by the voters, two months before the November 2006 election:
What You Can Do
Let your friends know there is more open-source information substantially confirming the evidence which DoJ says is privileged. There is a confirmed link between AT&T, the US government, and the entities which provided the American public media messages. It appears this activity is part of a larger conspiracy to not only violate rights, but march this nation to war, and continue illegally supporting what were violations of Geneva.
Information from the phone calls and internet activity is mentioned in a specific contract linked to the same firm which provides media messages which support illegal operations. The firm has been linked with the NSA, AT&T, Verizon, and Department of Justice.
There are other contracts with US agencies and departments with the same contact clause and arrangements which the Verizon General counsel left open as a possibility in his now-public e-mail.
Ref Note the common contract number assigned to this entity.
Ref Sample contact language. Page 17 of 41 discusses authorized use, similar to Verizon Attorney comments; and AT&T assertions regarding AG letter. [Paras (7a, 7b on p. 17 of 41) likely match contract language related to facility access, security provisions, and authorizations. It is expected that this relationship and language memorializes the relationship between the telecoms, intermediaries, and NSA.
Ref Alleged FISA Conspiracy, alleged co-conspirators.
Ref Helix Evidence Model
Ref Helix 1: Relationship between Narus, AT&T, NSA, CALEA, JTTF; and the subpoena, NLS, and billing intermediaries.
Ref Helix 2: Verizon, billing intermediaries, DoJ, and White House, linked to Helix 1.
Ref Helix 3: The Contract mechanism linked to both Helix 1 and Helix 2.
Helix1 and Helix 2 show the government and NSA contractors are not on the same page. The relationship, contrary to DoJ representations, has been publicly asserted, documented, discussed and not convincingly denied by AT&T, Verizon, or the intermediaries. Rather all public statements related to these activities leave open the possibility that NSA contractors have used similar contract language to grant NSA unrestricted access to data. However, the Qwest CEO did not agree to these terms as there was no demonstration that the warrants were lawfully obtained, as required under statute.]
Ref Ref Report GAO-06-305. GAO summary of contracts, showing multi-agency involvement in DoD, DHS, BEA. kw=[ GS-23F-0117K ] or [ W74V8H-04-F-1151 ]
For clarification, this is not a GAO contract. GAO simply reviewed the contracts for the referenced GAO report; the Federal contracts are created by and assigned to the Executive Branch for management. The contract number is subject to other FOIAs, and is known to be linked with DHS, DoD, BEA, and CDC. Also, this is only one contract number; there are other contracts the White House and Executive have used to support the illegal FISA conspiracy.
Using this contract language and funding numbers, it is possible to trace the funding through the paying stations, back to the procurement program offices and program elements within the President's budget, then to the NSA-DOD descriptive summaries. This will link for the grand jury, auditors and investigators the specific people, program documentation, and admissible evidence. This can be done using open sources, well before the first indictment is ever disclosed, and not provide advance warning to defense the scope and breadth of the subpoenas.
Ref CDC involvement with data transfers. Using the IRS identification numbers, the same media messaging contacts are linked to the same firm, but are linked with different agencies. This shows the contract number is not unique to a single agency, but related to the firm and the common alleged illegal contract objective encompassing all contract efforts associated with this contract number.
Ref Company linked with illegal activity, overbilling of incorrect government entities.
Ref Subjects/targets/witnesses of the investigation include Candice Campbell (witness) , Monique Moret (promised immunity) Steven Sugerman (guilty plea, cooperating witness), John Stodder Jr. (indicted, 15 counts, no testimony; convicted on 11 counts of wire fraud and one of conspiracy; Atty: Jan Handzlik), Richard Kline, and Douglas Dowie (no testimony; convicted: 14 counts conspiracy and 1 count fraud) before U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess, then U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow. Cooperating parties include City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, Controller Laura Chick. Assistant U.S. Atty. Adam D. Kamenstein represented the United States in the criminal litigation.
Ref Note the cross flow of personnel testifying: Same names, same people, same law firms. [30 October 2003, House Intelligence Committee]
Ref Contract FOIA request in re CDC.
Ref Cross flow of personnel between the firm, NSA, and Department of Justice, and other entities well known to the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
Ref Another look at the firm in the context of NSA, Verizon, and AT&T, same players as in Helix 1 and Helix 2.
Ref The firm lists AT&T as one of its clients.