American Government: Two Standards On Illegally-Acquired Information
The American government prior to Sept 2001 had acquired information, but ignored it. It's one thing to engage in illegal activity, quite another to ignore the fruits of that illegal activity, and allow other illegal activity to occur.
If the US had a real interest in engaging in illegal activity, there should have been a heightened interest in that illegally-acquired information. The folly is the energy devoted to collecting information, without the matching interest to use that information.
NSA: Pre 9-11 Monitoring was illegal, and ignored
Before 9-11, the NSA was already illegally monitoring Americans. The question is: What happened to this data; why wasn't it used to defend the country; or was the information used only to prepare the illegal legislation?
Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda. Ref
Did you catch that -- "Terrorism suspects"?!?
We've been told since Sept 2001, that the attacks were out of the blue. Now, in 2006, five year later, we find out that they were (1) monitoring them; (2) knew about them; (3) had the information; (4) intercepted information; (5) engaged in illegal activity to get information; (6) were referring to them as criminal suspects; yet (7) ignored the information.
Reconsider the abuse-Geneva issue, where prisoners were abused to extract false confessions, and contrast the two issues: Why was the government
A. quick to accept illegally acquired information in 2006 which is not reliable, and based on abuse, as the basis to argue for additional Geneva violations; but
B. slow to put similarly illegally acquired information into effect to prevent an attack?
Most likely answers
A. There's No Evidence
They're using abuse to get information because they have no information to justify their detentions. Recall the Guantanamo case files are empty, and detainees have not been charged with crimes; and that prisoners detained were not linked with actual combat, but targeted because of petit gripes, unrelated to combat.
B. Retroactive Excuses For Already Imposed, Non-Judicially-Approved Punishment
They've detained them, and are trying to find something that will justify the abuse that's been inflicted upon them.
C. Forced Confessions
This late in 2006, there's no credible argument to be made that the prisoners are providing any new information. Government officials who have worked for the NSA and CIA, within weeks of their departure are treated as if they're clueless.
Why are abused prisoners of war treated better than former NSA-CIA analysts? Consider the WMD and the Downing Street memo, and notice the similarity to how the White House-OSP treated information that has been fabricated:
(1) Bad news from reliable sources is discredited to protect institutional interests, not ensure accountability;
(2) Favorable news, even if it is fabricated is asserted as politically-reliable.
Why was adverse information that would trigger DoD preparation and solutions ignored; but the same information was put into effect to develop DoD-DoJ illegal plans?
It must have been an institutional benefit to do illegal things; and an institutional risk to prevent the event.
Yet, the reality wasn't that 9-11 would trigger illegal activity; the illegal activity had already started well before 9-11. 9-11 was just the public excuse to legitimize what was already in place: The illegal activity, Constitutional violations, illegal war crimes, and unlawful war plans.
We've seen in the wake of Katrina and Iran that the commitment to the full plan wasn't real. It appears more likely that the concern and more credible link between 9-11 and Afghanistan was a sham, as evidenced by the failure to see the Afghanistan effort through to completion.
There are a couple of things to consider with the NYT quote.
1. NSA was monitoring prior to Sept 2001.
2. Something had already triggered the NSA and White House to the monitoring.
3. At the same time, the illegal NSA surveillance had already started.
4. They were violating the law to get information, but they were ignoring the information and implications, and analysis.
5. They spent more time preparing illegal orders which relied on the catastrophic event, than they did responding to the evidence of an unfolding problem.
6. It remains to be understood how the "events and actions" which triggered the monitoring, also triggered the Patriot Act planning.
What happened to this data, why wasn't it used to defend the country, or was the information used only to prepare the illegal legislation?
The information above is stunning in itself, and is substantially consistent with the other allegations in the various war crimes indictments. Each of these adverse judgments matches the independently-generated list of allegations in the draft war crimes indictment.
A. Future Procurement Over Current Defense
The US Government is more interested in creating an infrastructure to acquire information illegally than effectively using that information to protect the Constitution or the Country. When given a choice, the government would ignore information that was useful to prevent an attack, but use information as a pretext to engage in abuse. They want the power to create more power, not see that the power is lawfully employed or serves a lawful objective.
B. Subsequent Illegal Activity
The illegally acquired information was not used to prevent an attack, but to engage in other illegal activity -- passing unconstitutional statutes, engaging in abuse, and violating the Geneva Conventions.
C. Subsequent Illegal Statutes
Despite the direction to engage in illegal activity, the fruits of that illegal intercept was not effectively used to prevent an attack; rather, the information was us to implement illegal, unconstitutional legislation.
D. Illegal Commercial Activity Prior to Sept 2001
The NSA and commercial entities were engaged in illegal surveillance prior to Sept 2001.
E. Unlawful Orders
There were written orders to engage in illegal surveillance prior to Sept 2001, and commercial entities well know the activity is illegal, and not protected under either FISA or the Geneva Conventions.
The illegally acquired information has not been properly disclosed to the public, to review before the November 2006 election.
G. Member of Congress Complicity, Inaction Despite Notification
The Republican leadership in Congress knows full well required investigations and reviews have not been done, and their public responses to these revelations are inconsistent because there is other to be disclosed illegal activity.
H. Legislation Without Credible Foundation
Despite failing to adequately prevent crimes, or take action to find facts, this Congress passed legislation that is illegal, and unrelated to the original problems.
I. Use of Illegal Information To Support War Crimes
Illegally captured data has been unlawfully used as a pre-text to engage in other criminal activity and war crimes.
J. Failure To Prevent War Crimes
Members of Congress know about the illegal activity and war crimes, but have failed to prevent other illegal war crimes.
Read more . . .