Constant's pations

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

Friday, March 31, 2006

NSA Hearing: Lulling the frogs with a warm bath

When you cook frogs to eat, if you have the flame too high, they will jump out of the pot. The trick is to slowly raise the heat. When they realize what's happened, they drift off and then it's over.

"Don't worry about the water, it's warm." But what about the sharks?

Fellow frogs, let's avoid the warming waters, find a new pond, and a better way to regulate the water temperature. We have legs. All we need to do is jump.

* * *

The problem with the NSA hearings is the lack of specifics. There are many NSA programs outside "what is publicly known."

This Congress wants to apologize and make excuses, yet they don't know what they're apologizing for. That in itself is outrageous. Unlike Nixon's days we don't have all the facts. Unlike Nixon, Congress isn't willing to tell the President, "You don't have enough votes."

We haven't scratched the surface on Bolton's intercepts, or why he has politically-related information. That's consistent with what Nixon was doing. Failing to stand up and call it what it is -- abuse of power and violation of rights -- will be used later. They will say, "But you didn't say anything before."

Comparisons to Watergate are appropriate: Cover-ups, lying, and abuse of power. But this time it's worse: War crimes and Federal Government assent to illegal war.

The real problem is for the legal community. How long have they known about the illegal evidence prosecutors were using; and how many cases should be reversed? Gonzalez' approach is to hide the issues. Yet, we're talking about real people detained on false evidence.

* * *

The apologists are well known. They carry little weight, merely distractions. They lull us into inaction. Watch -- they will use our assent to unknown abuse as an excuse to further abuse power and violate rights.

We need not seriously consider their denials or excuses. Rather, it is a separate offense that despite what we don’t know, they're still asking us to be patient, not get upset, and stop making comparisons.

Some suggest that we need not be concerned. Yet this conduct at odds with the high principles in our Constitution:
"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the comparison to Watergate is "apples and oranges" because Nixon's actions were more about saving himself and his presidency than national security.Ref
Senator Graham's conclusions are premature. We cannot say that Bush's activity is somehow noble.

We are not waging lawful war. Nor have we declared war. The "argument of war" is the distraction from the accountability of power. Power is abused, and abused more in silence and in the shadows. Illegal war is not the foundation for abused powers, rather they are the same -- abuse of power and violation of rights.

* * *

The only thing our Constitution is about -- power and rights -- is at odds with the NSA: Abuse of power, and violation of rights. It is not a question of comparison; it is a question of denial. We should not be silent in response to the calls to be silent. This is outrageous.

It's dangerous to dismiss the conduct in the absence of information. This is like asking us to agree to be invited to a holiday party, but only when we walk through the door are we told "the rest of the story." If you knew the truth, would you have declined?

That's where America is. We're being asked to accept assurances without any reasonable basis to believe those assurances. This President has lied about Iraq. The NSA activity was going on before 9-11. But we're told to focus on post September activity, and then say "It's for a good reason." Breaking the law is breaking the law.

The problem this country has is we don't know what else is going on. It's appropriate to make adverse judgments. We're not comparing apples to oranges, we're simply trying to decide whether we buy the story, or will find another one.

It's reasonable to compare Bush to other examples: Nazi Germany, Hitler, and Stalin. Real people died, and real people's lives were forever destroyed. That is a fair comparison: Fascism and Bush; war crimes and Bush; and dictatorship and Bush.

* * *

We don't have to buy what is already known to be rotten. And we can find a better story. We do not have to wait. We have the option to create a New Constitution. There is no requirement we assent to this non-sense. We didn't give them the power to lie, violate the law, or sell us something that is only part of the story.

We need not assent to this non-sense. This Federal Government has failed. Continue working on the New Constitution, and don't let anyone tell you we have to "wait until the election" to make things better.

We can start right now, here: Click and Click

* * *

Bush's Anti-Impeachment Ad: "Support Criminals: Otherwise they will be prosecuted"

* * *

There is reason for hope: "If we in the Congress don’t stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in his law breaking.' -- Senator Feingold [ Ref ]

Congress knows they face a credible threat of being held accountable with a New Constitution. They need to hear your voices -- not at the election, but now: "Do your job, or we will lawfully revoke the power you abuse and do not assert; we will make your failure to do your job a crime. You no longer have absolute immunity."

Power can be abused by its use and non-use.

Read more . . .

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Panel talk on Plame: Is that like aluminum siding on . . .?

In re Uniting the Netroots, YearlyKos

For those of you wondering about the missing post, I can't answer it.

But keep that missing post in mind when you consider who's on this panel.

This discusses both links. You need to read both of them to follow what's below.

The first link is very important to consider in light of the upcoming meeting, and comments below. If you don't have time to read it, then don't waste your time reading comments below -- they assume you've read it. I'm not asking you to agree: Rather, you're going to completely miss the basis for the comments below.

* * *

Unable to assist on the final section below: [ Click ] Have no information for you on what's wrong, why there's an error, or what the fix might be.

It could be a problem related to content. We'll see after this one is posted. The content here is of the same quality -- or lack thereof -- on the same subject. So we'll see if this gets taken off as have the other comments.

So much for the blogosphere being open: Can't get my own blog to "not get censored". What's up with that?

* * *

Back to the panel. I give up. The issue with Plame and Iraq is clear. We knew before the war started the arguments didn't add up.

The real solution is to figure out how these lessons -- that there existed an agenda of invasion, regardless facts -- is to be applied to Iran: Yes, Iran, not Iraq. How are we going to apply the lessons of Plame and the entire Iraq WMD fabrication to what we can influence: Something that has not happened yet. B0lton's "it's obvious what Iran is doing"-claims is the same non-sense about Iraq: Yet, where is the challenge -- where are we applying the revelations about Iraq to Iran?

Again, going back to Iraq -- we have the same non-sense with Iran -- many questions not getting answered: Why should we believe the allegations? No reason. Here's what we knew wasn't making sense in 2003, before the war: [ Click ] -- Do a screen find in your browser for the question marks: [ ? ] and you'll see all the unanswered questions -- those were rolled over; we knew this before the war started.

The list of endless "new information" -- that merely confirms what we already knew is a distraction. I support fact finding; but the way forward is to draw the line and say, "Enough." Impeach!

  • White House Memos: Merely confirming we knew there was an agreement.

  • Disinformation and rumors generating more questions, and delays.

  • NYT coverage of 2003 meetings isn't new: We already knew they were agreeing to commit war crimes. [ Click ]

    The issue with the Congress and public is: OK, we've had the Downing street Memo -- which confirms what we knew, that there was an agreement to violate the laws of war. The new information isn't telling us new; rather it's simply telling us more of what we already know. The issue is: What is to be learned about this initial failure of information -- so that when we have a bonafide issue show up, it gets the attention it needs, not swept under the rug, ignored. That's what needs to be discussed: What is to be done differently to surmount all the illegal obstacles and abuse; and what transformation is needed in the Federal Government as it is structured to ensure this abuse of power does not occur again. The FISA-NSA-Church Lessons of the 1970s didn't work; and the abuse continued in 2006. What are we going to do differently to compel the Congress to do it's job? More netroots isn't the answer: Rather, the solution is to compel Congress to do it's job with a New Constitution; one that will make the Congressional failure a felony, not simply something that gets an attitude of, "Well, I guess we'll just have to put up with that lying . . nothing we can do." That's unacceptable. It should be a felony for the Members of Congress to keep appropriating funds for an illegal war; and for them failing to assert US treaty obligations on a President who had not simply defied the law, but has actively used American combat power against American civilians with the NSA illegal activity. How much more brazen does this need to get?

    The issue with these memos is: Which memos and records -- as we have learned existed in 2003 -- are also supporting the Iranian-invasion effort. We don't have to wait for the memos to surface; we can say: "Enough" of this non-sense. You either impeach this man, or we're going to lawfully revoke your power with a New Constitution. Not after the election, but Now, in March 206. Here is what that New Constitution would entail. [ CLick ]

    The issue as we learn from Plame is -- now that we know they are capable of doing this stuff, what is to be done to ensure we do the right thing: Apply the lessons, only use power prudently, and prevent the abuse of power and violation of rights. The way forward is to figure out which solutions are needed in our Constitution to prevent this failed oversight from doing what it continues to do: Fail. The failure isn't going to be solved in November; the failure can be solved now with a New Constitution that will force Congress to do what they continue to not do: Ask the questions, and refuse to assent to the non-sense. The reason the non-sense continues is that people want to chase the ghosts from 2002-3, and not focus on the ghosts we have before us in 2006: They can be exorcised by simply compelling Congress to do what they freely refuse to do: Appropriate money, give permission, and fail to assert their oaths for non-sense reasons. We can change this. It is possible with a New Constitution. Hit my table of contents: [ CLick ]

    The point is that this constant dribbling of "news" and "revelations" don't give us anything new: We already knew the entire Iraq thing was a sham, and that they agree to illegally invade. Whether they openly admit this or not is irrelevant. My concern is that we're going on four years [4] after 2002, and the same crew that got lied to -- and whined -- is now whining about the news dribbling out. Hay, wake up! You're not facing what we knew in 2002-3, before the wear started: It was based on non-sense, there was no legal foundation, and it was a war crime. The issue is: What are we doing to do not in 2006 to focus on how we solve this mess. The fact that the players want to rehash the "new news" that we already knew in 2002-3 isn't a solution: It's more whining and victimization.

    1. Direction. I do want to have a better sense of where you are going to go with this discussion. After reading the agenda, and the issues, I have no information on which questions or issues you're going to have.

    2. Solutions. Let's think about a basic issue: Now that we know what we know -- whatever that is -- what are we going to do to move forward, solve the situation. Rehashing it -- what's that going to do? I'm not for covering it up; I am for saying: "OK, what do we do?" I want to see solutions, not enablers or chicken scratching and whining over what is or isn't being done. Face it: We have a dictatorship: So what's to be done about this issue now, not "after the election." Give us something we can work with, and a vision and a plan, something like this. If you want to lead, then you need to start acting like leaders. Leaders transform the nation with solutions.

    3. Expertise. I'm not clear the panelists are going to focus on that. What makes those appearing on the panel qualified: It doesn't appear they're open to other views, much less their expertise in the issues. It sure would be nice to have someone like Ray McGovern blog. Key point: If you're an expert, let's see some expertise in the spectrum: On the issue and in blogging; and in showing you can transform the full spectrum of people, not simply a very narrow root. I don't see how they're going to focus on the "What do we do" -- the track record I've seen isn’t a "we" approach, it's a "this is what I want to whine about; put up with it, or leave."

    What's the truth: America is chasing the mirror; it's not transforming itself into something new to address the abuse of power and violation of rights. [ Click ]

    * * *

    Indicators of a Cult

    You'll notice the behavior below is very similar to what goes on in a concentration camp: Crazymaking, psychological warfare. This is how "leaders" who have no credible foundation will lead others to do non-sense things.


    Hidden rules

    Retribution for non-communicated stanards

    Unreasonable standards

    Asserting and illusory right to impose abuse


    Discussion prevented by some

    Others not permitted to discusss unreasonable behavior

    Challenges to unreasonable conduct used as a basis to target and harass

    Indirect communication

    Unwilling to dialog

    Self-appointed speak on behalf of "larger group", but have no actual position of authority

    Unwilling to be specific, clear, or take responsibility for communications

    Long-standing grievances, but saying silent


    Learned helplessness

    Unwilling to respond to information requested

    Responess to requests used as "pre-text" to exile


    Backup information ingnored; when not provided asked for; when provided used as a "pretext" to exile

    Calling questoins accusations

    Changing the focus

    Rallying others to target a scapegoat to distract attention, and prove loyality to non-sense

    Issues that need to be addressed:

    Lack of civility, and an unwillingness to listen to other views. [ Click ]

    What's the big fear with other views? [ Click ]

    If you want people to "be nice," why do you expose your views to others? The issue isn't whether there is or isn't constructive feedback -- there is very little; the issue is that the chorus of "we don’t' want to hear it" isn't based on substantive disagreements with the content, but a simple desire of "We don't want to be reminded of ourselves." That's your issue. [ Click ]

    If you expect people to pick up on things, then you need to be clear with your communication; and be "nuanced about your nuance-expectations" -- people are different. Don't take the request for information -- to understand your communication problem -- as an attack. But this is what people prefer. [ Click ]

    If you want to talk about netroots and civility in community, take a look at this sample feed from FDL [ Click ] Is that how you want to interact, and encourage others to interact: Not open to questions, complaining about problems, refusing to discuss substantive issues, rudely interacting, failing to listen. That' "your issue" and it's consistent across ConyersBlog, RawStory, and FDL. I'm not sitting here with a warm fuzzy that you really want to hear "other ideas" or "real solutions" -- rather, you want to whine, and then complain when others go out of their way to assist. That's not a community -- that's abusive and it needs to end.

    * * *

    Is the point that you throw out a topic, and then by June you'll "figure out" the topic; or is there something that you've got floating around in your minds of what you want to do. At this point, I'm inclined to be interested, not because the topic isn't interesting, but you're note sending me new information about what will be novel. Rather, from where I am it's just a rehash.

    Give me something that says, "This is novel." And I'm not talking new gimmicks, but something that is going to say, "Yes, we're going to discuss something new, and then move forward through the discussion with the goal of having a more compelling way to interact with those we disagree with." That's your job; how to be open to the RNC and those you despise. You're wrong t say there's no common ground. I've spoken to the full spectrum on the NSA and the 9-11 issues. Here's a sample of what I'm talking about: [ This think progress discussion. ]

    The point is simply this: The issue here isn't what's right or wrong: The issue is what's going to send a clear signal to America that things have changed, we need to work on both sides of the aisle. I've really done my best. I've gone out of my way, taken time, listened to those in the opposing party, even dared to present my views and backup.

    For the most part I've been very warmly received. My major problem is that there's a major communication issue here: For some reason people take it as a "personal insult" when others show up with ideas. You're not happy when there are short comments because they don't deal with the issue; you're not happy when the issue gets summarized, with a link, you call that "trolling"; and you're not happy with a long discussion. I think there's a pattern here: You're not happy. Deal with it.

    If you don’t have time to read the full information, then what's going to happen when you "don't have the time" to deal with a complicated issue like war crimes, declaration of war, or choosing between good and bad information? These are real decisions. My goal has simply been to provide you with information in advance so that when you do get hit with the non-sense -- that is on the way == you've already had the chance to consider it. But your approach is, "We don't want to hear it." Fine: I've done my job, gave you ample warning, outlined the plan, and let you now what's proceeding. Whether you want to pay attention or not is another matter.

    But think about the problem the intelligence community has: The current leadership "doesn't listen." I don't see a "better" or "more responsive" approach and response from those in any spectrum. Rather, I see isolated gems of people who are willing to spend time. Great. But to the masses who want to skip over things and want it in sound bites, I can't help you deal with the real issues unless you're willing to sit down and consider the full spectrum of issues you're going to have to deal with when you're a commander, as a SAC, or whether you're on the Joint Staff, or a civilian advisor. You can't get it in sound bites. But if you want a sound bite, you're going to get it wrong. The way forward isn't either or; rather, there are new, transformative solutions all the way around. Reagan was like that. He'd listen to all the options, and then he'd come up with an idea that was completely novel, and addressed more than we had imagined.

    I can't help you with your attitude of "we don't want to listen." All I can say is that I've done my best to provide you the information; there problem with "not listening" that this panel is talking about -- as it appears to be discussing on the issues of Iraq, WMD, and issues of war and peace -- they're not an issue of, "We can do it better." Rather, what I see are the troubling signs for the Senior Executive Service [SES] that we are simply dealing with the same poorly trained captains who want the world presented to them in "their way" not as it is: Complicated, organized, dynamic, and something that can be transformed. The issue is trust. If you're not willing to listen, and if you take a link as an objective of tolling to get hits then you've missed the point. If I really carted "about this blog" and "whether I was or was not getting hits" -- I'd tell you more to sway you. But I want the words to speak or not speak on their own. But the blogosphere doesn't want that: IT wants to know whether to reject or admit the information based on a single cue, not having considered the full point.

    If you miss anything out of this -- the real issue is that "changing America in November" isn't the way forward; rather, we have to change the way it operates today. The election isn't going to change people's attitudes; the same "attitude of I'm not going to listen" that's in this White House is in the DNC leadership. They call it something else, but it's the same. The problem is the DNC and RNC are more alike that the parties and blogosphere will admit: Both parties are very arrogant, their memberships very hostile, and their way of interacting one of "we know best." That’s the same crap that's gotten this country in trouble in Iraq. We have to fix the system and make sure that abusive power is addressed; not simply change one flavor of abuse for another -- all the while denying that the abuse and intolerance is limited to one party.

    There was no reason for anyone to have spoken to me or to treat the comments and effort to assist the way it was done. I'm glad it happened. It was a good wakeup: The RNC and DNC aren't much different. Thank you for the reminder.

    * * *

    Last time she was on the Ethics Panel with the Washington Post, there was a question about the alleged Amazon campaign. Someone said she organized an effort against a book she never read. I can't believe that. I can believe an effort against something she doesn't understand, but that's not the same. [ Click ]

    This will see whether the visitors edit the content as they did with the European Torture blogs. They're still missing in the archive, but still available.

    * * *

    Let's consider the Panel introduction, with my comments:

    Joe Wilson: American Hero

    YearlyKos Convention Announces Panel Including Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson to Discuss the Bush Administration and the Disclosure of CIA Officer Valerie Plame's Identity

    Yeah, Joe Wilson. My hero. Fine American you are. Hats off to you. Wish we had more of you in the blogosphere, sharing your wisdom. It sure would be nice to simply listen to people like you, not the non-sense we have from people who have no experience in the matters that you are talking about.

    There you are, right in the middle of it, yet we have a chorus of people -- one from Hollywood?!? -- talking about legal issues and foreign affairs? Let's see their academic qualifications relate to what they're discussing. Not a thing. Zip.

    Being enrolled in a film program is far different than having been in a discussion with Saddam Hussein or being inside the White House or DC. It's one thing to be a lawyer; quite another to transform the political landscape to raise our standards. America's legal community doesn't offer leadership; it offers excuses.

    Some may hate America and the military, but it's sure fine to walk through an Embassy check point and see a smart, professional Marine who speaks English. When you're far away from home with the latest information: What's threatening America, and what needs to be done immediately to protect the head of State. Makes having slogged through that mess worth it, and it's sure nice to see the American Flag waving over the Embassy, you know where you're supposed to be.

    Bloggers Talking About Journalists

    From the Blogosphere: Former Ambassador Joe Wilson will join a panel discussion of the Bush Administration's alleged role in the disclosure of the identity of his wife, the former Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA officer. The panel, which includes Dan Froomkin, Jane Hamsher, Larry Johnson, Christy Smith and Marcy Wheeler, will also discuss the subsequent investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald, the indictment of Scooter Libby and the role that journalists have played.

    What about bloggers talking about bloggers?

    Evil Bush

    On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak wrote that "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

    Revealing secrets as retaliation: Evil, evil, evil!


    So began the public awareness of a slowly evolving story that led to the jailing of NY Times reporter Judy Miller and the October 2005 indictment of Senior White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges. It is possible that more individuals at the highest levels of government could still be charged in the case.

    What about the blogger's knowledge of the data that Libby's lawyer’s looked at?

    Ask Libby's lawyers about their concerns from July 2005 -- they learned something that triggered a search of some documents, then questions to Libby.

    Bush is a weasel

    With his family's life changed forever by this caustic combination of political and media interests, Ambassador Wilson will describe the case from his unique perspective.

    Those Republican fascists!

    Net roots, net nonsense

    Because bloggers and the netroots are gaining more traction every day, both in the political arena and in the timely distribution of information, cases like this one illustrate the information gap being filled by bloggers, and the levels to which some elements of traditional journalism have fallen. As a result, many millions of Americans now rely on the blogosphere and other elements of the Internet for the bulk of their news.

    This is the heart of my disagreement. I doubt the "netroots" concept: Rather, I see the opposite -- bloggers raise issues, but then shut out things that they don't want to hear. That's fine. But it's curious when they whine, "We're so frustrated" and "What can we do" -- only to turn around and say, "We don't want to hear it." What's up with that? Here's the sample comment feed from FDL, she's on the panel: CLick Why the rudeness; why the arrogance; why the whining about no hope -- but then ignoring the very discussion-topics you're supposedly advocating. That makes absolutely no sense: If you want to call this a "community" and "netroots" then you need to act like leaders and listen, not simply appeal to confusion and stupidity to justify "whatever you do". Your community is toxic.

    Also to the claim that the internet "timely" distributes information. I've seen the opposite: Can take weeks to get information through. The fact that you're persistent in trying to share information is looked at as, "We don't want to hear it." What's up with that? Actually the internet quickly disseminates what you are looking for, not what may answer the question you're not directly asking -- but really want to know.

    "information gap being filled by bloggers, and the levels to which some elements of traditional journalism have fallen." I disagree with this notion. I've seen the opposite: That bloggers can create crap, wander down a complete diversion, and completely miss an issue. Also, to suggest that "some elements of traditional journalism have fallen" incorrectly implies that journalism has a standard from which to fall.

    Rather, I look at the internet as simply a hog-pog of people that may or may not listen. That bloggers are en masse discussing an issue doesn't make it true; moreover, that there's attention on an issue today doesn't mean that it wasn't brought up before.

    As with all media and advertising, if the audience "isn't ready to hear it" -- whatever that means -- it doesn't matter if you're spot on; rather, when the blogosphere "finally gets it" it’s likely that the pre-planning and discussion on the matter will get drowned out by the mud throwing.

    This claim is going to have to be better established and supported: "As a result, many millions of Americans now rely on the blogosphere and other elements of the Internet for the bulk of their news." From what I gather, many bloggers watch the news and actively comment on it. So the conclusion -- implied assertion -- that bloggers are the "source of news" is backwards; bloggers are simply the source of narrow reaction and commentary on the news that everyone else is talking about.

    Otherwise, if you bring up something novel, new, or is a solution -- the blogosphere doesn't want to hear it.

    To suggest that a "bulk of the news" comes from the internet misses something: Someone has to originally create that news. I'm not seeing bloggers actively doing what has been well done for centuries: Actually go out and get raw news that is novel; rather, they're putting pieces together. Moreover, bloggers are putting together news for their blog -- that's not a wide audience, but an audience of one that may or may not appeal too many.

    I think this is drivel

    "Online communities provide a sort of virtual town square, so that citizens from all over the nation -- and the world -- can have an extended conversation about the direction of their communities, their government and their future," says Christy Hardin Smith. "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    The above is pure non-sense. The notion of "communities" implies that people will get along, and share. Not this blogosphere.

    Let's consider the full "community" on FDL: Here's a sample comment feed: [ Click ]

    Notice the following very abusive standards of conduct on the FDL "community":

  • Rudeness

  • Unwillingness to talk about issues

  • Making statements, then unwilling to discuss the details/points they've raised

  • Failure to interact in a reasonable manner

  • Absurd accusations against others for simply being there

  • Asserting that a desire to assist is "something else"

  • Not responding to simple requests for clarification

    If that's the "community" that Christy Hardin Smith likes, and referenced above, wow: Stunning. Notice how the words she uses above "sound really good," but contrast to that what's permitted to occur on the FDL.

    What's FDL's response: That's right -- ban those who are simply there -- the one's who are attempting to assist; the ones who are trying to seek clarification. That's screwed up. Upside down. And complete nonsense.

    If you solve problems, they don't want to hear it;

    If you have an answer, they don’t want to hear it;

    If you have "more than a sentence to say" then you get targeted as being "showing off" or "trolling."

    That's not a community: It's toxic waste heap.

    "extended conversations" my ass -- if you talk too much, they don't want to hear it.

    This comment by Christy Hardin Smith is bullshit:

    "Online communities provide a sort of virtual town square, so that citizens from all over the nation -- and the world -- can have an extended conversation about the direction of their communities, their government and their future," says Christy Hardin Smith. "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    Let's consider Smith's assertions: [ CLick ] "I'm now writing for a progressive political blog"

    * * *

    Hardin's Timeline

    02-Oct-95: Admitted to WVa Attorney Bar

    FY01: Funds Transferred from WVa local government to Law firm

    2001, Feb: LLP changed Click

    2001, Sept [ or before ]: Hardin Assigned to WVa agency

    2002, Mar-May: Comments on Amazon

    * * *


    A. Did $9,128.87 funds get transferred from the State to Hardin's law firm?

    B. Was Hardin still in control of the firm at the time of $9,128.87 funds transfer?

    C. Why did the entity dissolve after Hardin was assigned to a state agency; was the state agency actually in the county and different than where she was assigned as of Sept 2001?

    D. Did $9,128.87 funds get transferred from the State to a law firm Hardin sill was associated with, but actually also assigend to the State agency or county entity related to that disbursement?

    E. Were any of the $9,128.87 funds related to rewards above and beyond for work actually perfomred?

    F. What private gain did Hardin acquire, in any of the FY01 $9,128.87 funds transfer?

    G. Were contract awards, $9,128.87 funds transfers, or interests in the decision appropriately or inapproproiately separated?

    H. Was Hardin assigned outside the law firm at the time the public defender services were rendered?

    I. Did somdone other than Hardin perform work related to the $9,128.87 funds?

    J. Was Hardin in control or had influence over the assignemnet of cases and public defenders?

    K. Did Hardin have influence as an APA over which firms may have been available as a public defender?

    L. Did Hardin's work as an APA affect which firms were hired?

    N. Did Hardin have a controlling interest in the law firm that was paid $9,128.87 in funds at the same time that she held a positon with the county?

    O. Was there an overlap in [a] Hardin's assignment to county and/or state government and [b] the times that services were rendered and $9,128.87 funds transferred from that government entity to her law firm?

    Identifying information

    Hardin's details:

    Birthdate: 1968-10-19, Libra [ Open source ]

    Mom: 2 1/2-year old, as of 14 Nov 2005. Child is now just over 3 years, born in 2003.

    Foreign exchange student -- athletics

    "arthritis, where my autoimmune system is attacking my connective tissue"

    Former Associate: David Feintuch [Sorry to hear]

    Bio 1:


    Christy Hardin Smith is a former attorney who now blogs at the progressive political blog (formerly as ReddHedd). Christy earned her undergraduate degree at Smith College, in American Studies and Government, concentrating in American Foreign Policy. She then went on to graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania in the field of political science and international relations/security studies, before attending law school at the College of Law at West Virginia University, where she was Associate Editor of the Law Review. Christy was a partner in her own firm for several years, where she practiced in a number of areas including criminal defense, child abuse and neglect representation, domestic law, and civil litigation. She was an attorney for a small municipality before switching hats to become a state prosecutor, has extensive trial experience, and has worked for years both in and out of the court system to improve the lives of at-risk children.

    Bio 2:

    Christy Hardin Smith was born and raised in Williamstown, West Virginia. She attended Smith College, in Northampton, Massachusetts, for her B.A.; the University of Pennsylvania, where she worked on a Masters Degree; and the College of Law at West Virginia University. She has her own law firm with another attorney in Fairmont, West Virginia -- Folickman & Smith, PLLC. Christy is happily married to her husband Bill, and shares her home with two ornery dachshunds, Tasha and PJ, and a ginger tabby named Henry. She is currently working on a fantasy/science fiction novel tentatively titled An Ill Wind Blows, which will be Part One of her Kinsale Saga. Christy has been writing fiction and poetry since she was knee high to a grasshopper, and will continue to hold a pen until her aging hands force her to get a talk and type program for her computer. Since that day seems far away at this stage, Christy plans on writing for a long while, and may hopefully claim one day soon to have been published in something other than an academic/ professional journal.


    Millennium Philcon Program Participant Biographies


    Christy Hardin Smith
    Christy Hardin Smith lives a double life as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney putting skanky criminals in jail by day, and tapping on a laptop as an aspiring science fiction and fantasy writer by night. She was most recently published in Colonies magazine, with a story entitled "The Fox Mutiny," the first of a series set in this storyline. Additionally, Christy provides fiction and nonfiction reviews for a Web site. Her husband Bill, two miniature dachshunds and two cats constantly stare over her shoulders wondering what her fingers will type next -- or maybe when dinner will be ready. Christy is currently putting the finishing touches on her first novel. Home Page

    Admitted 1995

    Photos: [ Click ]

    Christy Hardin Smith Esq
    Law Id: 6959 Admission Date: 02-Oct-95
    County: Harrison District: 13 Status: Inactive
    Address: 300 Philippi St
    City: Clarksburg State: WV Zip: 26301
    Phone: 304-623-2329 Ext: Fax:

    Number Assigned to:

    Advanced Chimney Sweeps, (304) 623-2329, 428 W Main St, Clarksburg, WV 26301


    * * *

    August 2001: Bush, PBD Aug 2001; Hardin, WVa Supreme Court

    Two days after "the big scary day", guess who was still an attorney?

    Confirmed: Hardin was assigned, still an attorney in Sept 2001, well after the President's illegal NSA activities had started.

    September 13-15, 2001 [ Evidence ]
    Holiday Inn Martinsburg, West Virginia [ Photo ]

    Most likely before the wifi was added.


    This means, we should be able to get a connection between, the hotel and Hardin's private e-mail:

    Audio [ NSA Archive ]

    A. Begin

    Toll-Free: 8008626282
    Tel: 1-304-2675500
    Fax: 1-304-2649157

    B. End: 304-623-2329

    Text [ NSA Archive ]

    C. Begin:
    D. End:

    Former Law Firm ISP appears to be through: Charter Communications


    Fees transferred: $64/nite, plus expenses, through accounts linked indirectly with law firm.

    Evidence: Hardin is reported by the WVa Supreme Court to have provided a 1 hour presentation: Psychological Reports for Dummies; the presentation appears to have been a working lunch, starting just after 11:00.

    You'll also notice on page 2, the "evidence" section: Wonder how they handle Brady when the NSA provides data . . .

    So, she has some experience reporting, reviewing, accessing, and making decisions about psychology. Yet, her primary undergraduate training was in international affairs, and her law paper was related to insurance.

    Now, she's talking about . . . .

    * * *

    E-mail Intercepts

    Please review other e-mails listed, back to 1998 [ Click ]

    Other names in to/from: Vera Nazarian

    Accounts: Information below will trace to Hardin's accounts.

    1. Any evidence of funds paid out by the Prosecutor's office to former associate law firms?

    FISCAL YEAR 2001

    Please trace: The following 2001 Funds, and identify discrepancies
    Total Funds: $9,128.87
    Total transfers: 10

    Known Associate: Pamela Reese Folickman

    Folickman & Smith, P.L.L.C.
    Address: 421 Fairmont Ave
    Fairmont, WV 26554-2714
    Map & Directions

    Phone: (304) 363-4529

    Fax: (304) 366-1734

    The issue is: What interest, if any did she hold -- or was this completely segregated in February?

    The PLC was terminated in 1997; and the LLC was terminated in Feb 14, 2001 -- seven [7] months before she was linked with the 13 Sept 2001 State Prosecution. [ Link ]

    * * *

    Compare the book review dates in Amazon with dates assigned as an Attorney

    Listed as: Christy H Smith Click

    May 2002

  • Can people become a character on the internet from their favorite book?

  • Is it possible for someone to leave one world and enter another? Christy writes, the novel had "characters that are so real, I almost felt like I knew them from next door." That's a very interesting blogosphere analogy. If you really heard what they thought about the future, would you really listen to them, or close the door?

  • Here it is: The book deals with the following issues, which Christy recognized as being very familiar from people "next door": "dealing with a thirst for power (be it your own or someone around you), insecurity, parent/child relationships, friendship and betrayal"

    Can you imagine that in 2002, Christy was writing her own novel about what would become of her in 2006.

    The problem with looking at people and issues in terms of general principles, and not individuals is that you're stereotyping, especially when your stereotypes are at odds with reality. What's of concern is that the stereotypes Americans hold about foreigners is crated on the basis of myth and [wait for it] Hollywood.

    Should we be surprised why the mythmaking of Fire Dog Lake is at odds with their conduct? No, because in the Fire Dog Lake world the problem is "out there," -- all the while the real issues, those prompting the response are within.

    All things they say about others are "fair" while all things other do are "unfair" -- especially when they are not well understood. This means that when FDL and the blogosphere interact with unfamiliar things -- those who are attempting to help without any desire otherwise -- are treated as the opposite: Threats, hidden agendas, mistrust, and with one aim: Opposite of what they state.

    This is at the heart of America’s communication problem worldwide, as was the problem with Iraq and Iran. Saddam said he had no WMD, but the Americans asserted the opposite, crating evidence.

    The issue going forward is what evidence is required not to turn outward, but to recraft the defective system all Americans remain blindly loyal, but unwilling to admit it has failed: The Constitution.

    That is the core power struggle happening now. The problem is the major players are not acting out of genuine desire for good -- in terms of the advancement of the Constitution, prevent the abuse of power, or protect rights -- but to assert their personal agenda, even if it moves at odds with what is clear: This Constitution has holes in it which need to be repaired immediately, outside the election and cannot wait until November or "what may or may not happen."

    All Americans see what has happened: The system has failed. The issue is whether the system will be repaired, or whether the existing players attempt to jockey to win under what has failed.

    The real agenda is much different than what is unfolding. There are illusory timelines. We need not wait to assert our rights, nor "get around to" ensuring our power is or is not abused. Rather, it would be fitting to transform this Constitution to ensure it is strengthened, so that no one -- however well intentioned -- can betray a nation and defy the laws.

    Many know. Many remain swayed by non-sense. But ask: What will solve this dilemma; and what real power needs to be revoked. We need not wait to have self-evident abuses occur; they already have, and nothing has been done. We're simply asked to hold onto hope, when hope is not the issue: The issue is power and rights.

    People do not take kindly to being asked to provide inputs; then having those inputs thrust to the ground as if they were trivialities. Rather, you will soon learn what does happen when a nation realizes that its leadership has betrayed them, and the existing alternatives are not better.

    The people will have to choose: Whether we abandon hope, and simply solve what is self evidently broken.

    Your problem is that you only have one part of the solution. The way forward is to ask what is the larger picture. You will not ask, because to ask would imply admitting something you refuse to admit: There are limits to what is acceptable, even when done in the name of protecting rights and preventing the abuse of power.

    The error is to cross the line, as you have done.

    You must choose whether you are for a solution, or for continued assent to what has failed. The solution will ultimately prevail.

    You have no input into whether the events will or will not unfold as they have already started. Rather, you must decide whether you will ride the wave of hope -- all the while doing otherwise and destroying the hope of others -- or focusing on a real solution, one that transforms America and members of both the RNC and DNC.

    It is not either-or; rather, it is something new. It appears it is beyond your vision. You cannot claim what you deny; and you do not control what is beyond you..

    Some are more powerful. They say little, murmuring, but now they know.

    * * *

    Issue: Listing oneself as a "state prosecutor" may or may not mean working "at the state". Rather, County Prosecutors consider themselves to be working for "the state."

    Is this what you wish to let us believe: That you were a state employee working in Marion County; or you were in the State Attorney General's Office?

    Wrong state: Marion County Jail [ Click ]

    [ Marion County ] [ Archives: WPAI ]

    The following people may be able to provide background:
    Patrick Wilson
    Brandon S. Flower
    Belinda A. Haynie
    Christina A. Mulligan
    Lea-Anne Hawkins
    Charles A. Shields

    [ Enter here ]

    If you agree to be civil, and not be rude as you are in FDL, maybe you can enter this forum: [ Click ] Do you agree not to be rude as you were on FDL?

    2001 course offerings, page 9 of 9 [ Click ] Would you like to be a prosecutor? You can learn here: [ Click ]

    Courses they should offer Click:

  • What to do when the NSA evidence you've been provided winds up on the internet, and Gonzalez keeps lying about what was really going on in 2001

  • Being polite with those you do not understand

  • Listening skills

    Prosecutor Ethics: Lessons for the blogosphere [ Click ]

    Discussion topics for prosecutor ethics: If you decide to be a blogger, can you still use the investigative leads and NSA data you were given; or is this not wise to do?

    Prosecutors who have been trained on "safe and sound jury arguments" -- do they necessarily have "safe and sound" blogs?

    Prosecutor-turned Blogger Ethics: Perception and Reality -- What happens when you confuse the two; is it OK to assert wrong doing in others, when the problem is really insecurities inside?

    What is the statute of limitations on prosecutorial liability for using NSA-intercepted database, when they should have reasonably known what was going on in 2001?

    Are all prosecutors necessarily respected and effective; or is it OK to be just "OK" and "Kind of respected"?

    If we learn media relations as a prosecutor, does that count for the blogosphere, or do we need to do something different?

    How dangerous is it to lead discovery using NSA-intercepted data: Is it "really scary" or Just "kind of scary"?

    Can we learn lessons about communication by applying what we learned from interactions with Witnesses, the Court and Jurors; or do we have to do something else when dealing with real people in the blogosphere?

    What will curb the abuse of power -- do we need new rules; or is it better to just start over with a new Constitution; how do we prevent the abuse of NSA-collected information: Is the solution to make prosecutors something different, and split their power into three different areas?

    If we get upset at our reaction to uncertain situations, is it OK to divert attention, exile others; or does our personal discipline issue warrant an increase in audit scope using SAS 99 indicators?

    * * *

    If you want to be a prosecutor and put on your résumé, "lots of really neat trial experience," you don't have to wonder about it or watch it on TV, you can read about it. It's in a book. It teaches you how to maintain discipline and focus. Forty-three articles, each of them written to assist you, even when you trip, or lose your thought. You don't have to stand there saying, "Ummm. . . "

    You can learn it at a workshop with some "hand on" click: Is there a "hand on" program that will help prosecutors lighten up and realize "someone is actually trying to help them," or are prosecutors forever stuck in the, "If anyone attempts to do anything, it is for personal gain?"

    Aha! Perhaps there needs to be some work shopping at the YearlyKos: Timeouts for those who assume all questions -- as they did when they were a prosecutor -- are evil plots by the heathens of the dark underworld. Put that in your science fiction trilogy.

    Does someone have a credibility issue when they were in government during 9-11, but they want to play stupid about what the NSA evidence and investigative leads might have done for them?

    "Resolving Evidentiary Problems": If we get caught with illegal NSA data, does that mean we have personal liability; or does the use of the NSA as a combat support tool link prosecutors to war crimes against American Civilians? [ Click ]

    * * *

    Case study: Let's suppose someone is a blogger on the internet, and their WVa Bar status is "inactive" -- do they still have to be civil to others, or can they say, "I'm no longer an attorney"? Try this: [ Click ]

    If you don't have a "client" does that mean you can do what you want? [ 4.4 ]

    Can a person with an "inactive" bar status face court sanctions for making assertions as to whether someone other than a client has or has not violated the law; does making out of court statements on matters of law related to Plame and Libby -- a Federal Issue -- constitute an unauthorized practice of law outside WVa; and what if the person advocates political action on the basis of disagreements with lawful adjudicators and fact finders: Is that a violation of the attorney conduct of WVa? [Click ]

    If someone is a blogger, and relying on their prosecutorial experience to make public statements about non-clients, is that inside or outside the ABA ethics? [ Click ] The rules do not apply to non-prosecutors, even people who used to be prosecutors. Although they may act like a prosecutor and be rude, you are expected to grovel on the ground and tolerate their non-sense: How's that for a "community":

  • A. "Put up with my closed mindedness, but do not dare comment on my closed mindedness."

  • B. "I want to talk about the law, even though I'm an inactive lawyer."

  • C. "Don't ask me to be an active lawyer, I want to blog and write fantasy stories."

    The only way is if they can argue that the blog is not likely to prejudice the Libby case. Click ] -- Does that mean that blogs aren't going to have an impact on the outcome; and if not, why bother to blog about criminal matters on the Plame and Libby situation?

    If someone challenges me about evidence the NSA may have provided, can I credibly claim that I'm not an investigator; or do I have to truthfully respond that a prosecutor has an investigative responsibility and should have determined the source of the information, not just whether people would or would not be in jail? Click ]

    What if the NSA data I've been using has put alot of people away -- do I have a responsibility to contact the attorney directly; or should I personally visit the [ Click ]

    What if all this time that I've been prosecuting cases, I thought it was strange how much NSA evidence was showing up, but our investigator budget kept getting cut. Is that something out of the ordinary, or should we just say that we get alot of anonymous tips -- is that really credible given most of our operators are so bored that they quickly forget how to properly hand routine calls like civil disturbances? [ Click ]

    Can we talk about "facts outside the law" [ Click ]

    How do we handle NSA-illegally obtained evidence that is favorable to the defendant: Are we obligated to turn it over?

    When we discuss issues of evidence which the NSA has illegally obtained, does a prosecutor have to immediately notify the accused-counsel of the illegally obtained evidence, or can they keep their mouth shut? [ CLicK ]

    * * *

    It is a violation of the Prosecutor Ethics to use illegally obtained NSA information that is not admissible. What do prosecutors like to pretend is going on With "anonymous tips" and "investigative leads" so they can convince others "they really had no idea about the NSA data that was going into court"? [CLick ]

    Can adverse inferences be made about current and former prosecutors who refuse to answer questions about illegal activity, or information that a prosecutor has been reasonably advised is related to "investigative leads" -- a code word for NSA illegally obtained evidence? [ CLick ]

    What happens when the NSA keeps giving us illegal stuff: Should we blog about it, or should we send it back in a really big box saying, "Hay, this is illegal."? If we ship it back, does that mean we are transmitting illegal things through the post office? [ Click ]

    Can we pretend to act stupid about the NSA illegal activity, or do we have to admit that we've known all along? [ Click ]

    Suppressing Evidence Gained by Government Surveillance of Computers, 19 Criminal Justice 46 (Spring 2004) [ Drake ]

    Electronic Surveillance, Commentaries and Statutes (NITA 2003-2004, co-author)

    Are you concerned about judicial abuse? [ Click ] -- There are solutions, judicial power can be lawfully revoked with a New Constitution.

    * * *

    Please discuss the following article: Thomas C. Cady & Christy Hardin Smith, West Virginia's Automobile Insurance Policy Laws: A Practitioner's Guide, 97 W. Va. L. Rev. 583, 592-93 (1995).

    1. Please discuss the concept of prosecutorial discretion and declination decisions: Are there some valid reasons not to take a case to court; how were investigative leads from "outside agencies" handled and identified; are there situations when prosecutors are provided information through "outside channels", and law enforcement "just happens" to come across that information?

    2. Could you discuss the various inputs you may have been provided by the NSA as a prosecutor, and how information from the NSA and "other sources" was vetted to ensure that it was not tainted.

    3. Did any information or evidence used to prosecute come from sources which may have been linked with illegal intercepts of e-mail and phone calls; how was potentially inadmissible evidence handled; what direction was given to officers to find "other similar evidence" when the original evidence was tainted?

    4. Please discuss the decisions used to classify the various segments: Criteria; basis for inclusions/exclusion; and how differences were resolved prior to publication of a journal article.

    5. What was the basis for excluding, omitting Arkansas from the list insurance list? [21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 167]

    6. Why is the 1995 insurance policy law related to a 2001 criminal prosecutor?

    7. The legal ethics opinion 78-17 outlined references to a law review article. How were law review articles handled in your office; were they ignored; or were there times when they were useful?

    8. The Sowa case [ 167 W. Va. 353 ] relates to appointments. The court found, that counsel may "accept indigent criminal defense appointments in counties other than that in which the prosecutor serves." This requires various internal checks. How was this handled in your office. Please discuss the reviews and verifications.

    9. Prosecutor ethics require meeting certain standards of conduct.

    10. How was it handled when there was a conflict. Is it appropriate to disclose to the client the conflicts?

    11. The Prosecutor ethics also require compliance with internal controls. This requires a great deal of training and skill. Were there every situations where there was a problem with a non-notification.

    12. In Sowa, the court found that the written consent must be filed with the court. Please discuss instances when the consent was not filed. What as done. How was this discovered.

    13. Was there ever a time when there existed a conflict between your law firm and the municipality.

    14. The rules state, "Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals." In those cases where information may have been illegally intercepted, can you discuss how the law enforcement was notified of the 4th Amendment requirements.

    15. The NSA technology currently being employed depends on sophisticated technology developed prior to 2000. During that time, you are reported to have been a prosecutor. Is it incorrect that you were a prosecutor prior to 2000?

    16. After Sept 2001, and in re the Plame Case the United States was actively involved in combat support targeting, and using NSA intercepts to watch both domestic and foreign sources. Yet, there was insufficient time to reconfigure the NSA after Sept 2001. Rather, this technology remained in place. Can you discuss the minimization procedures you were briefed on, and how you were or were not informed of the sources of the President's programs in early 2000.


    It seems ironic that the very person who appears to be on a panel discussing sensitive information was in a position as a prosecutor to have access to NSA information and intercepts.

    Either the NSA program in 2000 was in full swing and this information was being used to intimidate people -- thus raising questions as to your access to that; Or there was no information being provided, and no basis to be concerned about Plame's retaliation.

    How can we have it both ways? If the NSA and White House were supposedly collecting information -- was there a special provision with the Lockheed Martin Contract that said "any clients of Christy Hardin Smith will not be targeted" or that "the physical locations around West Virginia" are off limits?

    I see nothing before me that suggests you were unfamiliar with the law; or the standards of professional conduct. Yet, you were assigned to a municipality which had the requirement to report potential conflicts to clients; and also brief personnel in law enforcement of standards.

    The issue CHRISTY HARDIN SMITH is while you were employed where you were, what steps -- if any -- did you take to ensure that you were in lawful compliance with Brady, and that all information which could be probative to a client’s defense -- including information about potentially illegal activities was or was not provided. Again, the burden of proof is on the state.

    It's all well and good to point fingers at Libby, and Bush over Iraq over what they may or may not have known; but based on the public records -- if what we are to believe is true -- that the NSA equipment was in full gear providing investigative leads to law enforcement, we're at a standoff: Clearly, if what you allege is true -- that there was some sort of "big scary conspiracy" over Plame, and secret transmissions and intercepts, then while you were in the Prosecutor’s office you would still have access to that similar information.

    How do we explain the apparent disconnect here: Was there something you learned in the Prosecutors office that suddenly made you upset; or are we to believe that despite your "really big qualifications to discuss the NSA, Plame, 9-11, and Iraq" that you were outside the very nexus NSA was creating: Namely, channeling information, investigative leads to law enforcement.

    Either you did or didn't know what the NSA was or wasn't doing. It's all well and good to talk to the country about what you do or do not know in hindsight. But the issue is: When push came to shove when you were in the Prosecutor’s office, did you actively ensure that the laws -- and evidence -- that you were providing were not tainted.

    How do we explain this? In 2006 -- fully 6 years after you were apparently in the prosecutor’s office the country gets to hear the "big scary story" about what was or wasn't known pre-9-11. There is one major problem: We know in 2006 that the NSA programs and activities were not in compliance with FISA, and the phone companies knew this.

    This means one thing: That the investigative leads -- as NSA was providing to law enforcement, and through your office, which you apparently worked in -- were in conflict: The evidence was one thing; the standards were something else.

    So let's ask the question one more time: When you had this evidence coming across your desk, did you -- at the time, in 2000, pre 9-11, ever ask: Is there something going on here?

    Maybe you suspected something. Maybe you made an early withdrawal. Maybe you were really upset. Who knows. The issue is: In 2006 it's meaningless to talk about what someone could or could not have happened, when you yourself -- in that position -- had to make some decisions about evidence to use, and information.

    Are you asking us to believe, "You didn't know" -- or is the issue, as it was with the Insurance Journal Article -- you declined to do something; or are we to believe that the internal controls that required notification of a potential issue were simply ignored; or is there something else that would explain: All the NSA activity, the investigative leads, your presence in the prosecutor’s office, and now the apparent claim you have in 2006 that you're completely free and clear?

    Quite a curious contrast. George Bush, evil dictator. Christy Hardin Smith, writer, mother, former prosecutor. The issue is: When you had the chance to do something, what did you do: Did you look into it, or did you not look into it; and why the discretion in the Journal; but you want us to believe that there are clear lines of what is right an wrong." All prosecutors are required to ensure the evidence is probative. A reasonable prosecutor should know more about the NSA and investigative leads than some might believe.

    Come clean: Are you overstating what you knew; or are you hoping we won't dig into the apparent disconnect between your clean record in 2006 to make comments, but the apparent cess pool of NSA "investigative leads" that any reasonable attorney would have at least asked, "Gee, is there something weird going on?"

    Maybe you can enlighten the blogosphere: Talk about investigative leads, and how the conflicts were handled on family issues.

    Then again, maybe the “big scary NSA” that is at the Heart of the WMD, Iraq, and Plame issues really isn’t what it is: And everyone in the world was being targeted, except for one person: Chirsty Hardin Smith.

    How did you create this bubble around yourself to remain immune to knowledge of investigative leads; all the while in 2006 you now know all about what apparently wasn’t going on in West Virginia.

    We await something that would explain why you are an expert on the Plame Case, and how the Iraq WMD information that NSA should have does or does not square with what you were given as an admirable, fine, well qualified, competent, and outstanding prosecutor.

    * * *

    Notice the responses. Notice what is or is not said. The issue is: Why is there one standard on how the public is or is not to respond about government issues; but the government has a different standard?

    Look closely at the responses you read, and what people appear to be upset about over the NSA program: Non-sense responses: [ Click ]

  • Is there a double standard on whether questions are or ate not responded to?

  • Should there be a double standard?

  • Why are some vague responses or non-answers more acceptable than others?

    Let's consider the matter of the Plame, NSA, WMD, and Iraq issues: Big scary President, with big scary power won't answer big scary questions.

    Are there questions that should not be answered; if so, why do some people get to whine that some questions are or are not getting answers, but their conduct may or may not have been what [ how do we say ] above reproach?

    Did someone have a standard that they are imposing on others, but not willing to reciprocate?

    Hay, you've got an expert on your panel. Watch whether they discuss what the President refuses to discuss; or whether they do or do not respond to questions that others may or may not respond to.

    It's that lovely. It's only March, and the conferences isn't until [ wait for it ] June. Count the weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Almost 400 hours to find more stuff.

    Is this going to be fun and who's looking forward to a "really exciting" plane discussion?

    Christy Hardin Smith: "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant."

    Isn't democracy great?

    * * *

    [Disregard] Identifying Information: Does Not Match Bio

    Christina L. Smith
    701 Main Street
    Barboursville, West Virginia
    (Cabell Co.)

    Born 1970; Admitted 1997; University of Kentucky, B.B.A.; West Virginia University, J.D.

    ISLN: 914016791

    [ CLick ]

    West Virginia Disciplinary System



    * * *

    If Democracy is "in the hands of the people" -- why are the people voting to ignore what might address what they're talking about?

    "Hay, we don't want to hear it -- we just want to whine."

    Smith writes: "Democracy is back in the hands of the people where it belongs and I am so proud to be a daily participant." What the hell kind of crap is this, especially coming from the legal community. I don't know about you, but last time I checked the legal community -- which failed us under this Bush regime -- isn't a "community event" -- they're violating the law. So quit your bullshit "Happy aren't we"-clap trap and fess up: Where the hell was the legal community since 2001?

    That's what "expert lawyers"-turned-bloggers need to account: "Where the hell were you while this country slid into fascism?"

    Wilson and the Blog

    Ambassador Wilson believes that "The Blogosphere represents a welcome revolution in journalism. For too long, mainstream media has had a monopoly and, as a consequence, has become fat and lazy. Competition is a good thing. Our democracy is stronger for the blogs."

    Blogs can make a difference. The key is to make sure that the right people read your blog. You can't simply let your information sit; you have to find those who "know someone" who can actually translate your solution into something.

    That's the problem with the blogs right now: The "community focus" isn't open to the "needed other views" that will challenge people. That's why I'm completely amazed at the unwillingness to engage with those you actively despise. They're actually your ally: They can teach you alot about what your weak points are, and help build strong arguments.

    The goal of the blog isn't to simply "win over" 51%; it can transform society.

    Hyping the Blog Hype

    For many news stories today, facts and details are being uncovered by the blogosphere. In the absence of thorough due diligence in these stories by the main stream media, the blogosphere is now becoming part of the bedrock of the Fourth Estate, helping to ensure accuracy and comprehensive coverage of the activities that are shaping our nation and the world. Dan Froomkin, with his many years of experience and stellar credentials in the field of journalism, will provide an expert's view and insight into how the CIA leak story was covered.

    If the blogosphere finds a fact that people don't want to hear about, or it's not "packaged the right way" -- whatever that means -- you're out of luck.

    "Bedrock fourth estate"-my ass. I disagree with the "accuracy" and "comprehensive coverage" aspect: Rather, we had blogs in 2003, and the many concerns about the Iraq ware got drowned out. It's not an issue of blogs; it's an issue of whether the voters and blogs are using reality or non-sense.

    Are you too tenacious?

    Froomkin notes that "Among its many achievements, the blogosphere has set a new standard for tenacity and persistence. The traditional media has taken notice, and we're the better for it."

    Tenacity and persistence -- I'll say; if you show too much, you're ignored.

    "We're better for it" -- that's right, we in the blogosphere are better at finding new ways to dissuade others from thinking, or listening to solutions when people are screaming, "But what can we do."

    "Go away," they cry. Fine.

    * * *

    Here’s the problem with blogosphere:

  • Complete waste of time on details – I don’t know how much time I’ve spent fact checking blogs; after I while I threw up my hands and said, its easier and a more efficient use of my time to rely on the traditional media for major headlines; and then I’ll dig into things on my own. The utter non-sense I’ve seen on the political agendas. People don’t want to hear it when they called on their bullshit. All this whining about why people are or are not doing stuff – hey, they whine on their blog, I’ll whine back. But their “big deal” is when people complain about what they’re complaining about – and solving their problem. They don’t want a solution; they just want to whine. Get over that.

  • No to really open to responses on what they’re discussing. They don’t want to hear a credible solution; they do want to hear, “I’m ok as I’m stuck”-feedback.

  • Look at the non-sense they waste their time on: Who wants that, “hay, it’s my blog just don’t comment about my stupidity.” OK, so much for “free and open.” I’ll say Democracy: What happens? The mob will assert non-sense. That’s not what’s needed. We need lawyers to lead, not blame “the system” that they’ve sworn an oath to preserve, not reform or ensure it actually does what it’s supposed to.

    The way I look at things: If I’m going to make a comment, or discuss an issue, I better have my backup. That’s all I do on my links. But the blogosphere looks at backup as a liability: They want everything in a single sentence.

    Here’s my single thought about the blogsophere:
    Watch out, you might actually get more of what you are getting elsewhere -- Get your filter ready. There’s a lot of crap out there, especially from those who “have their view” and aren’t truly listening to understand. They simply are listening for reassurance. I learned: Let people solve their own problems. They will show up when they're ready to listen. [ Backup. ]

    Oh, and if you have comments or concerns, feel free to e-mail me or leave a comment in my blog. I'll be sure to get back to you.

    * * *

    Other thoughs on the FDL Community: Click -- How visitors are treated: very low tolerance for other ideas.

    Read more . . .

  • NSA: Honest Answers to House Judiciary Questions

    Finally! Some honest answers about the NSA illegal activities.

    These are the "credible responses" to the House Judiciary DNC-questions.

    This information below has been reconstructed. The purpose is to do three things:

  • 1. Highlight the reasonable questions

  • 2. Discuss what is most likely

  • 3. Outline what a President and Inspector General should do to adequately responded to the questions if legality.

    All of the questions are from a public memo. They are entitled, “ RESPONSES TO JOINT QUESTIONS FROM HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MINORITY MEMBERS”

    The responses below are not real responses from the Department of Justice or Whtie House. Rather, the purpose of these responses is to outline what is best known, and provide a forum for discussion:

  • A. Does the public understand there are holes

  • B. Which gaps are well known in Congress, but the public does not realize

  • C. Who could better manage the NSA and White House – the existing crew – or a blogger?

    Targets of Surveillance

    1. Approximately how many persons located in the US have been targets of government intelligence activity under the warrantless surveillance program?

    Credible Response: We’re not sure. We’ll find out and let you know within 48 hours.

    DoJ response:

    The National Security Agency (“NSA”) electronic surveillance activities confirmed by the President involve targeting for interception by the NSA of communications where one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause (“reasonable grounds”) to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization (hereinafter, the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” or the “Program”). Operational details about the scope of the Terrorist Surveillance Program are classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed in this setting. Revealing information about the scope of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. We note, however, that consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

  • 2. What criteria is used by NSA staff to determine whether one party to the communication is a person working in support of al Qaeda?

    Credible Response: We’re not clear that the criteria are consistent. The issue is the technology used to “target AlQueda” had already been in place prior to Sept 2001. This technology was already targeting people inside the Untied States.

    As to the specific issue of criteria, it is not within NSA exclusive control to decide whether the target does or does not reside in the United States our outside; nor that they do or do not work with specific groups. Rather, this criterion is adjusted by the Joint Staff, White House, and various inputs from political appointments in the State Department. It is our view that Bolton’s open request for NSA intercepts is sufficient basis to conclude that NSA staff can be inducted to adjust legal criteria and expand targeting to include targets exclusively inside America and unrelated to any criminal activity.

    DoJ Response

    Under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, decisions about what communications to intercept are made by professional intelligence officers at the NSA who are experts on al Qaeda and its tactics, including its use of communications systems. Relying on the best available intelligence and subject to appropriate and rigorous oversight by the NSA Inspector General and General Counsel, among others, the NSA determines whether one party is outside of the United States and whether there is probable cause to believe that at least one of the parties to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.

    3. Is the internal standard used to decide whether to monitor the communications of a person in the United States under the Program identical to the FlSA standard? In other words, before someone’s communications are targeted for interception, does someone determine that there is probable cause to believe the target is knowingly conspiring with a foreign terrorist?

    Credible Response:

    The internal standard to guide monitoring does not match the FISA. The technology developed to target the NSA SIGINT was developed outside FISA; and changes to FISA in 2004 have not been fully incorporated. For example, despite changes to FISA on the warrant exceptions, the existing technology does not flag personnel when illegal, warrantless surveillance occurs.

    To answer your question, there is no probable cause incorporated into the NSA technology that acts as a screen on whether someone is targeted. All information is captured, and what the NSA has done is assigned the “bad things the NYT knows” into a fictional “President Program.” There are other NSA activities that violate the law.

    In short, before someone’s communications are targeted for interception, nobody someone determine that there is probable cause to believe the target is knowingly conspiring with a foreign terrorist. Rather the opposite occurs: All communications are captured, and those who may be doing something, we forward for special relationship analysis. This is done under a special SETA-designed system which looks at the relationships and clusters. We look for frequency, recurrence, and unusual patterns. If someone exercises their rights – and is unique in America – they are more likely to be given special attention.

    Once the NSA forms a relationship cluster, then two things happen: DoJ and DHS are notified to do a background check, and any information that we cannot explain--- or do not have the time t research – we use as the basis to self-assign a search warrant. This is done without court oversight.

    Once we conclude that the cluster is unusual, we then without notice appear in their homes, review their personal information in violation of the 4th Amendment, and assess whether they may be doing something we could arrest them for. If we find nothing, we will expand our search to include personal records and bank accounts. If needed, we will appear at financial intuitions with a self-assigned warrant without court oversight and dig through personal business records.

    Banking institutions are given points on the basis of whether they do or do not timely report tips to the DoJ. Those firms which provide tips are given favorable reviews; those banking institution which are not cooperative to our illegal, warrantless searches are subject to increased audit scope by the internal revenue service.

    Once we determine that we have no evidence – but “really know” that someone is doing something wrong – as was done in Guantanamo – we use our ignorance as the excuse to kidnap people, hold them for detention for hours, deny them the right to consult with an attorney.

    At any time we may pick up American civilians. We may or may not tell them where we are taking them. Sometimes it is by car; sometimes it is by aircraft.

    We will require people to answer our questions. We are too lazy to find facts to present to a court; rather, we will use the excuse of “limited resources” to ignore the law. However, if you check our Wiki-updates, you’ll see that we in the DHS and DoJ have plenty of time to surf the internet.

    DoJ Response:

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program targets communications only where one party is outside the United States and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The “reasonable grounds to believe” standard is a “probable cause” standard of proof. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (“We have stated

    . . . that ‘[t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.’”). FISA also employs a probable cause standard (specifically, whether there is “probable cause to believe” that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power). See 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3).

    4. Once the NSA decides to monitor the communications of a person in the United States, do they also target and monitor the communications of any person in the United States who communicates with the original target? If so, does someone first determine whether the second target is knowingly conspiring with a foreign terrorist?

    Credible Response

    Yes, NSA targets everyone. NSA needs to be thought of in terms of illegal treaties with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. NSA is actually a larger network that hides in other countries. Each nation relies on “other nations” to conduct illegal surveillance.

    There is no formal decision to “monitor” a specific communication. Rather, we simply increase efforts to direct more energy to examine what we collect on everyone. There is no requirement that the “original target” be what we have publicly asserted. Rather, the target can be anyone, anywhere, and at anytime.

    To answer your last question, nobody specifically determines that a second person is or is not doing anything. Rather, we simply let the computers analyze the patterns, then we look at the summary patterns and forward that to DoJ and DHS for warrantless interrogations and kidnapping.

    What should be happening: The FISA court should actually be able to know that the NSA technology is harmonized with FISA changes. At this juncture, given we know the NSA was monitoring before 9-11, we know the technology changes required after 9-11 were too complicated, and FISA changes and the NSA were out of psych, as they have always been.

    There should be someone determine whether this is probable cause before targeting them for monitoring. This is our error. We have violated the law. Our military personnel should be punished under the UCMJ. Please do not do what we did at Guantanamo: Beat us. We’re just stupid military, defense contractors who cannot get real jobs. We will violate the law, and feign stupidity. Yes, we really are stupid, but we get paid a lot of money to be quiet about that as well.

    DoJ response

    As set forth above, communications are targeted for interception under the Terrorist Surveillance Program only if one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.

    Scope of NSA Program

    5. How many hours and dollars have been spent searching or seizing the phone calls or emails of people in the US, and how much of this has been spent on people who have never been charged with any crime?

    Credible Response

    Not to be flippant, but this has been going on since NSA was first created. So that would be about 60 years – times 365 days – times 24 = 525 600 hours. Then if you multiply that by the number of personnel assigned to NSA, approximately 30,000 including contractors, that’s 15 768 000 000. or 15.768 Billion man-hours, and possibly piles of manure.

    If we assume for the sake of argument that our fully burdened man-hour rate – including overhead, material, and all contact costs is $ 200/hour, then the total amount of money is 3 153 600 000 000, or 3Trillion dollars.

    To answer your question: How many hours and dollars have been spent searching or seizing the phone calls or emails of people in the US: 15.8 Billion man hours, and $3.2Trillion.

    How much of this has been spent on people who have never been charged with any crime? All of it. There is no AlQueda, the list is controlled by the NSA and CIA.

    All that time spent, and we screwed up just like we did at Pearl Harbor. We fooled you. We actually knew what was going on, and who placed the explosives in the world trade center. Yes, and we know where the money was transferred after the US contractors crated the aerospace vehicles. We have friends in the Russian laundry business. Would you like some starch? We have a very nice sale going on.

    DoJ response:

    Operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed in this setting. Revealing information about the operational details of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. As noted above, consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

    6. How many people in the US have been referred to the FBI for further inquiry or investigation? How many people whose emails or phone calls have been monitored have never been referred to the FBI?

    Credible Response: It is our view that the referrals are in the order of magnitude of several million. The total man-hours the FBI agents have available is well above the total man-hours DoJ says they have. Rather, the DoJ conservative numbers are in the tens of thousands; this doesn’t match what is reasonable. Rather, if you look at the total number of agent-man hours, and delete all hours for training and actual work, you’ll see that there are too many agents sitting around, doing nothing. This makes no sense. Rather, the real answer is that the total workload that is contracted out to non-government employees is very high. This is something we haven’t mentioned:: That non-government workers as poorly screened as those who were working prior to 2001 are reviewing this data. There’s no telling how many of them use this personal information for their fun and amusement.

    As to your specific question: How many people have been referred to the FBI for further inquiry, and those whose e-mails and phone calls have never been referred: We don’t have the exact number, but will let you know in 48 hours.

    But we can tell you: All Americans – all 300 million of them have their e-mal and phone calls monitored; all of them are regularly watched for patterns. This is not something we have really shared with the FISA court. It is part of the “really secret stuff” that we do outside the “official non-official super secret double mirror” thing we do. It’s simply that we pretend to follow the law, but assign “all the really nasty stuff” to “someone else” and then change back after the reviews are over. It’s all transparent, just like our Constitution.

    DoJ Response

    As we have explained above, operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed in this setting. Revealing information about the operational details of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. Consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

    7. Are the names, phone numbers, or email addresses of persons in the United States who have had their communications monitored as part of the Program been included on any watch lists?

    Credible Response

    Yes. If you would like to know how many watch lists we have, that is a separate question. The DHS and DoJ work with banking institutions to find large financial transfers. In most cases DoJ and DHS agents do not have enough interest to find facts on their own; we will kidnap people, interrogate them without a warrant and deny them information on what they are being asked bout.

    Just as we did in Guantanamo, we do that in America. If there are any bruises, we tell people they will be hunted down if they talk about what happened. We threaten them with arrest if they discuss what happened. We make it a condition of their release from our illegal kidnapping for them to be silent. We tell them we are mentoring their phone calls and will know if they go to a lawyer. This has been working rather well, until we made a few errors. Actually, we made many errors: We didn’t realize that GCHQ was mentoring what we were doing, or that the American civilians were actually undercover informants of Congress. Well, aren’t we stupid. What are you going to do -- lock us up and send us to a torture chamber? Too late, we already did that. Ha!

    DoJ response

    As we have explained above, operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed in this setting. Revealing information about the operational details of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. Consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

    Telecommunications Companies

    8. Telecommunications companies and Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) are protected from criminal and civil liability if they are provided a court order from the FlSA court or criminal court or if a high-ranking DOJ official has certified in writing that “No warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required.” Has anyone at the Justice Department provided any telephone companies or ISPs with these certifications in the course of implementing the NSA’s program?

    Credible Response

    Yes, the DoJ has closely worked with the phone companies to ensure the program is not detected, and that we are not caught violating the constitution. We make them sign confidentiality agreements, threaten them with loss of many things, and then show them what we can do. That usually keeps them quiet. They like the money we pay them to be silent about the crimes we commit. Kind of like paid guns, but we do this in order to make ourselves feel like we’re really honorable. We’re criminals.

    The phone companies are the ones who helped us design the system. Prior to 9-11, they were actively involved in illegal activities. You can find copies of their discussions with DoJ in the GCHQ files. Their general counsel was concerned that there was some talk of lawsuits; we got a lot of campaign contributions and decided to say nothing. Isn’t that funny?

    The current waivers to liability are not legally enforceable. They were created on the basis of fraud. We knew that when we create them. Rather, because the NSA is using this technology for combat support against Americans – in violation of the laws or far – US phone companies could be liable for war crimes. There is no statute of limitations.

    DoJ response

    As we have explained above, operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore we cannot confirm or deny operational details of the program in this setting. Revealing information about the operational details of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. Consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

    9. Which telecommunications firms have opened American communications arteries to the NSA without a warrant?

    Credible response: All of them. The phone companies are on special access lists which the Joint Staff works with for the emergency communications. There are special JCS priority systems used to transmit information very quickly. We regularly run tests of this system, and can confirm that within six minutes the President and Joint Staff can establish two way communications, with confirmation, and issue illegal orders. As you can see, we can also do the opposite very well: Shut it down, and block it or cause confusion as we did on 9-11.

    Within the Continental United states there are the various combatant commander alternate operating location and support facilities. These are actually part of the CIA domestic cover service. We also use overseas companies as front companies for our operations. Bolton was well positioned to use the NSA because of his familiarity through the Honduran Embassy.

    As to the specific issue: “Which telecommunications firms have opened American communications arteries to the NSA without a warrant” – you are missing the point. The issue isn’t whether the arteries are or are not opened – they are always open. The issue of warrants is merely a formality. We collect information on everyone.

    Once we think we can find a high profile target – or person of sufficient statute that we can blackmail. Intimidate, or other wise target, we’ll do that. We regularly intercept the private communications of personnel who have absolutely no significant objective other than to “show what we can do.” For example, suppose you are having a private conversation with your friends and you let something slip. Within a few short minutes we can have a copy of that transcript and the audio file presented to your leadership and say, “You have to fire this person, or we will fire you.” We do it all the time. What’s more fun is when we can get someone with some really juicy details, and actually enforce the law.

    But don’t tell us about Brady, we don’t want to hear it. The way we get around this is that we’ll use the NSA to target people – and increase attention. Usually, if you spend enough time around someone they’ll make a mistake. The next thing we do is then use the NSA intercepted information to then “just happen” to target someone. We call this the investigative lead program. This is the regular transmission of NSA data to local law enforcement. Law enforcement will use the NSA intercepts – and they’re told they are “anonymous tips” and “investigative leads”. Then they use this to increase their attention, and look for these things. This is the way we get around the warrant requirement.

    The problem we run into is when some rat bastard goodie two-shoes is honest. Well, we’ll just accuse them of “trying to be innocent” and get them anyway.

    DoJ Response

    As we have explained above, operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore we cannot confirm or deny operational details of the program in this setting. Revealing information about the operational details of the Program could compromise its value by facilitating terrorists’ attempts to evade it. Consistent with the notification provisions of the National Security Act, certain Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been briefed on the operational details of the Program.

    Use of Information

    10. To what extent has information collected included details of the targets’ personal lives or political views, and has such information been immediately destroyed? Have intelligence agencies taken any actions beyond surveillance with regard to such individuals?

    Credible response

    As to your send question, answer 9 appears to be a response. But let’s expand our discussion. The intelligence agencies themselves may not necessary have a direct hand in what happens. We regularly contract out to private firms and encourage businesses to take retaliatory action against whistleblowers or those who are getting close to figuring things out: That this is a dictatorship, but with really neat media relations.

    A better way to respond to your question is to ask whether the US Government – not just intelligence agencies – have taken action beyond surveillance with respect to political activities. The answer is: Yes. We regularly plant under cover informants, assign agents, and direct monitoring of anyone we do not understand, or have no basis to detain. Rather, we use our ignorance as the basis to abuse.

    As to what we have actually done, the answer is simple: CIA rendition. This is called the domestic rendition program. We move personnel outside the US on CIA charter aircraft and make them disappear. Sometimes they are alive, sometimes they’re lost.

    As to your first question, the information we collect is about everyone. The information includes anything: Not just their personal information but their views.

    As to your second question the information is retained. We work with our Echelon allies to transport the data out of the US, and we “destroy” the US files. So we comply with the statutes. The data is ‘regularly stolen” so we do not report this “breach of security”. Rather, we classify this as a “maintenance issue” or another name as soon as congress figures out how we are actually spending the money: Not for the things they thought we were doing. DO not look at Article 1 Section 9, we might get into trouble.

    DoJ response

    The purpose of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is to protect the Nation from foreign attack by detecting and preventing plots by a declared enemy of the United States that has already killed thousands of innocent civilians in the single deadliest foreign attack on U.S. soil in the Nation’s history. In order to advance that end while simultaneously protecting civil liberties, procedures are in place under the Program to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons.

    11. Was evidence obtained from the NSA classified surveillance program subsequently used to obtain a warrant from the FlSA court? If so, how many times has this occurred?

    Credible response

    Yes, a lot. We regularly use NSA intercepts to channel information to both government and non-government entities for purposes of intimidation, management, and public perception management. The evidence itself is used to form the basis for additional inquiry. We get around the warrant requirement by providing this information as an “investigative lead” and then officers can “stumble upon” the evidence. The courts get fooled all the time.

    As to the evidence form the NSA we use to get a FISA warrant: It happens all the time. The way we get around this is by “stumbling upon” evidence using non-NSA resources. Then we can present this t the court. However, given that we’ve been stumbling alot lately, we decided not to bother going to the FISA court, but simply pick people up, question them, and take the FISA court out of the loop.

    Yes, this explains why you are suddenly picked up outside your child’s school, and spent 7 hours waiting for us to “figure out” what to do. We have teams going around picking people up. You can figure out how often this is occurring if you encourage people to report their average waiting time, and then review the number of teams. You’ll quickly see that there are many people who are getting targeted with the NSA data; they are led to believe it is for something else.

    DoJ response

    As we have explained above, operational information about the Terrorist Surveillance Program is classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed in this setting. Nor can we disclose the content of classified and sensitive communications and pleadings filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

    12. What is done with the information collected from the warrantless surveillance program that ends up not being useful for law enforcement or security purposes?

    Credible response

    All information obtained is potentially useful. We keep paper copies of data for 25 years. Just as there are self-crated exceptions to FISA, so too are there self-crated exceptions to the Privacy Act. Oops, didn’t we tell you?

    The information collected from the illegal activity is stored. It is not necessary destroyed. Rather, we do hide it in offsite locations, overseas, and it is used for many things. The information could very well be sitting in a warehouse north west of London in a building that looks like a small factory, but it’s actually an underground facility. But you didn’t hear that from.

    DoJ response

    As indicated above, procedures are in place under the Program to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons. Those guidelines are designed to ensure that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is conducted in a manner consistent with preserving civil liberties.

    13. Other than the President, what individuals at the White House are briefed on the program, and how often are they briefed?

    Credible response: We’re not sure who we’ve told. We’ll have to get back on that.

    What we can tell you is Attorney Fitzgerald has been looking at the data incorrectly. He should ask for all the files, not simply the e-mail links. Within those “unrelated emails” you’ll see how much personal information is passed around. We don’t necessarily tell them exactly what we are doing; we just show up with our “really neat plans” and then they do what we say.

    As to the specifics of “the program” – that’s a misnomer. The activity is actually much larger and far more sinister than you’ve been led to believe. All the things the NYT discussed is dumped into “the program.” The other things – the really awful, horrendous things, which you would simply scream over – those are in “other programs.”

    Q2 is the internal NSA security service. They’ve got most people convinced that if they talk they’ll be in trouble. There’s one small problem. The NSA employees have figured oat that the Modernization programs are related to new encryption devices – not just theoretical technology – that allows other countries to communicate outside the NSA ability to intercept or decipher.

    Curiously, the NSA employees have been able to figure out how to acquire and use this technology and the NSA is unable to intercept this. The NSC and NSA senior management have not been able to figure out which personnel do or do not have access to this non-decipherable technology. We will find an evil way to learn more. We have SETA contractors who will brilliantly devise a scheme. That’s who gave us the idea of the . . . [ooops, we won’t talk about that; far too scary ].

    DoJ response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program remains classified and highly sensitive. In general, the identity of individuals who have been briefed into the Program is also classified. We have previously explained, however, that the President sought legal advice prior to authorizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program and was advised that it is lawful, and that the Program has been reviewed by lawyers at the Department of Justice (including the Attorney General), by lawyers at the NSA, and by the Counsel to the President. Since 2001, the Program has been reviewed multiple times by different

    counsel. Although the President is responsible for reauthorizing the Program, his determination to do so is based on reviews undertaken by the Intelligence Community and Department of Justice, a strategic assessment of the continuing importance of the Program to the national security of the United States, and assurances that safeguards continue to protect civil liberties. That process requires certain individuals to be cleared to receive classified and sensitive information about the Program.

    14. When was James Baker read into the Program?

    Credible Response: Not sure, we’ll let you know in 48 hours.

    DoJ: Please refer to the answer to question 13.

    15. Who at the Department of Justice was informed of the Program? When?

    Credible Response: By name, not sure, we’ll let you know in 48 hours. But you can be sure that everyone who is in trouble over the illegal activity has talked to their lawyers. If you want to know who’s involved, all you have to do is find out which DoJ employees have retained private counsel. Not all that hard: The same system which can target American civilians can also find and transcribe attorney-client conversations. Worldwide. That’s why our law enforcement has a great record when it comes to convictions. Guess who feeds the information to the law enforcement on who has an attorney? We get into a real problem when we don’t know that someone is an undercover Congressional spy fully trained in the law, has changed their name, and has undergone plastic surgery with a sex change in Thailand.

    DoJ response : Please refer to the answer to question 13.

    16. When was the Solicitor General’s office and the Deputy Attorney General’s office informed of the program?

    Credible Response: Not sure, we’ll find out. You can be sure they knew about it before 9-11. That’s why the phone companies were screaming.

    DoJ: Please refer to the answer to question 13.

    17. Does the Attorney General personally approve or authorize each interception of a United States person’s communication? If not, who approves each interception?

    Credible Response: No, he doesn’t do his job. He’s a criminal, liar, and should be disbarred. Senator Feingold knows that he’s a weasel.

    The FISA includes several warrant exceptions. The Attorney General knows that the exceptions as applied are much larger than what is permissible. Because we have illegally asserted that the exceptions are broader – to include whatever we want – Gonzalez doesn’t actually prove or authorize very much. We found him wandering in the basement mumbling something about “basketballs”. That’s our secret NSA program. Everyone thinks he’s crazy, but he’s just practicing for his war crimes trial. It doesn’t look like it’s working: Feingold won’t let go of his underwear.

    DoJ response

    As explained above, under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, professional intelligence officers at NSA, who are experts on al Qaeda and its tactics (including its use of communications systems), make the decisions about which international communications should be intercepted. Relying on the best available intelligence and subject to appropriate and rigorous oversight, those officers determine whether there is probable cause to believe that at least one of the parties to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. In addition, the NSA, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct oversight of the Terrorist Surveillance Program through, for example, the reauthorization process.

    18. Does anyone independent of the NSA check persons in the US whose phone calls or emails are searched or seized to make sure that they are not being targeted based on their political opinions?

    Credible response

    Yes and no. The NSA has contractors who do a lot of work. For purpose of real legal laity, they are essentially government agents and war criminals. For purpose of deniability, we tell them that they have immunity and threaten them to keep them silent.

    As to your specific question: There is no credible system in place to monitor the NSA activities, nor prevent people like John Bolton from getting information base solely on their opposition to violations of the laws of war.

    So, in so-so many words -- so, so, so --- Yes, there are people who are targeted base on their political opinions; and no there are not adequate oversight programs – contrary to what the NSA IG has said – over the NSA activity. Nor is the Independent Oversight Board told enough about Echelon or the investigative leads to put this all together. Rather, we simply wave the flag and say, “America,” expect them to grovel. It worked in Iraq, well on paper. Turn the paper upside down, and hold it up to the mirror. Well, we tried. Sort of. It hasn’t worked all that well lately.

    As to the allegations that NSA employees are overseeing it – ha! Look at he mess they made on the Port Deal: If they were really doing their job, they would’ve caught that. And the same NSA employees are the ones who are silent about the 9-11 and the Iraq WMD issues: We know what was or wasn’t done.

    Don’t believe that non-sense about “what we do or do not review.” We don’t follow the law or go to court as required; so why would we follow procedures that we made up and aren’t consistent with the law? No reason.

    DoJ response

    General Hayden has stated that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is “overseen by the most intense oversight regime in the history of the National Security Agency,” see Remarks by General Michael V. Hayden to the National Press Club, available at, and is subject to extensive review in other departments as well. The oversight program includes review at the National Security Agency (by both the Office of General Counsel and Office of Inspector General) and the Department of Justice. In addition, with the participation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice, the Program is reviewed

    every 45 days, and the President decides whether to reauthorize it. This review includes an evaluation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program’s effectiveness, a thorough assessment of the current threat to the United States posed by al Qaeda, and assurances that safeguards continue to protect civil liberties.

    Minimization Procedure

    19. Executive Order 12,333[] provides that intelligence agencies are only authorized to collect information on US persons consistent with the provisions of that Executive Order and procedures established by the head of the agency and approved the Attorney General. (Sec. 2.3). What minimization procedures are in effect concerning information gathered by the NSA concerning persons in the US?

    Credible Response

    The procedures are not the same as what we do. Notice also other executive orders violate the law. So whether an executive order does or doesn’t say something has little relationship to what actually happens.

    “Minimization” to the NSA means, “Minimize knowledge that Congress knows about our 100% coverage of all political dissent.

    DoJ response

    Procedures are in place to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons. NSA applies minimization procedures that are appropriate and approved for the activity at issue. For example, special minimization procedures, approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, govern NSA handling of U.S. person information acquired pursuant to FISA-authorization surveillance. Department of Defense Regulation 5240.1-R (and its classified annex) are the guidelines approved by the Attorney General that are referred to in Executive Order 12333. Those guidelines govern NSA’s handling of U.S. person information. United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 provides more detailed guidance on the latter.

    20. Has United States Signals Intelligence Directive [USSID] 18, “Legal Compliance and Minimization Procedures,” July 27, 1993, applicable to the NSA, been changed since January 2001? Is it still in effect? Does that Directive, as amended or not, apply to all surveillance being undertaken by the NSA of persons inside the US outside of the procedures set forth in FISA?

    Credible Response

    The laws of 1993 are outdated. The world changed after Sept 2001. We have a dictator. Anything in writing – including the constitution – that is leader does not like we ignore. Even if we do or do not change the laws, we still ignore them.

    Yes, there have been changes in our conduct; so the laws and procedures – although violated before Sept 2001 – are of little interest.

    Yes, the directive as written applies. But why follow them? Congress isn’t going to do anything. The American people will never vote to protect their Constitution. We’ve trained them to see big scary things, smoke, and then pull the RNC button. Besides all the voting boxes are under RNC contract.

    Who’s going to believe there’s this much fraud? Have you ever seen anyone get upset at the President? Of course, not that’s because 145% of Americans blindly support America – we have so much support, even future generations – future voters – all 45% on top of the 100% already voting for him -- even when they sleeping. Can democracy get any better than this?

    DoJ Response

    United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 has not been changed since January 2001 and is still in effect. As indicated above, procedures are in place under the Terrorist Surveillance Program to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons.

    21. When were the minimization procedures last changed? Did the Attorney General approve those changes? When?

    Credible Response: Not sure, we’ll find out in 48 hours. Gonzalez may have a copy of the review form. They may be in the basement near the basket balls.
    Even if we change the procedures. We’re not going to follow them. Besides, there’s a difference between procedures, what we do, and what the law says. If you focus on procedures, you are ignoring our violation of the laws. That’s a good thing: We distract you and you get upset that we’re not answering questions of no value.

    DoJ response

    Executive Order 12333 calls for Attorney General-approved procedures for the collection, retention, and dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons. The Secretary of Defense issued the current version of these procedures in December 1981

    applicable to all Department of Defense (“DoD”) intelligence agencies. The Attorney General signed those procedures in October 1982. A classified annex to those procedures dealing specifically with signals intelligence was promulgated by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in April 1988 and approved by the Attorney General in May 1988. NSA has internal procedures derivative of those authorities that were last updated in 1993. The annex that specifically governs FISA procedures was modified, with Attorney General Reno’s approval, in 1997.

    22. When was the last time you supplied any Member of the House Judiciary Committee or any Committee of the Congress a copy of such minimization procedures?

    Credible Response: Congress, what’s that? This is the Post Sept 2001 world. We don’t need any Congress. We need more secrecy, and 250% voting support. 1000% support. 10,000% support.

    As to your question, we presume – based on your question that you feel like you’ve been left out of the loop and not provided any information in a timely manner. We’re sorry. We’ll send you a copy in 48 hours

    Even if we provide you a copy of the procedures, will you believe we’re following them? We won’t follow them, so does it matter?

    OK. We’ll admit it: We ignore the law, we don’t follow it, and we did not make sure that the NSA technology is consistent with the statues. We’re lazy. It’s far simpler to point to ‘big scary things.” Do you have some WebPages we can surf? That is more fun. This is really tiring.

    Just get this over with: We admit it, we’re guilty – big violations of the law, no excuse, and a lot people know. Fitzgerald knows. Everyone knows. Can we just get over this and get to the impeachment?

    As for the briefings we’ve provided – not sure what’s stopped the ranking members to order the NSA to look at things and provide an open version.

    DoJ Response

    NSA has briefed intelligence committees of both Houses extensively on minimization procedures over the past several years. NSA can determine from available records only that NSA provided Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff DoD Regulation 5240.1-R and its classified annex in January 2006 and both USSID 18 and DoD Regulation 5420.1-R and its annex in July 2005. NSA’s records do not indicate when a copy of those materials was last provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. However, it is important to note that much of this material is freely available. USSID 18, July 27, 1993, has been made publicly available in redacted form (see, e.g., In addition, DoD Regulation 5240.1-R, December 1982 (but not its annex) has been declassified and made publicly available (see, e.g.,

    Concerns About the NSA Program from Within the Administration

    23. How many federal employees have expressed concerns about or objections to this program and what has been done regarding those employees of the NSA or other federal agencies or in response?

    Credible response: A lot, but we brainwash them to make them think, “it’s just over there” or “isolated.” It’s actually everywhere. If they only knew. To those who peep, we send them to the Q2 for shock treatment. There’s a special toy we use. Can’t say what it looks like. It’s very scary.

    DoJ response

    It would be inappropriate for us to disclose any confidential internal deliberations of the Executive Branch. The long-recognized confidentiality protections afforded Executive Branch communications are designed to encourage candid advice from Executive Branch lawyers and officers, and subjecting such advice to disclosure would chill those deliberations. The General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA oversee the NSA’s implementation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. We note that there are procedures in place under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 that permit employees concerned about the legality of intelligence programs to report their concerns to the inspectors general of intelligence agencies and thence to Congress.

    24. Why was the NSA program suspended in 2004?

    Credible Response: It didn’t stop. We said it stopped because we wanted you to believe a false thing. We lied. Told Fibs. Like the White House Press corps does when they repeat what we say.

    We wanted you to believe that “something happened” in 2004; actually what happened was the Phone companies really put their foot down, and sent some really nasty messaged. Then we told them, “OK, we’ll stop.” Then we transferred that workload over to some other phone companies who got paid a lot of money, and had to sign some more convincing waivers. The waivers had some really confusing things in them, and we had some really interesting friends at he phone company who greased the wheels for us.

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program described by the President has never been suspended; it has been in operation since its inception in October 2001. Indeed, the President explained that he intends to reauthorize that Program as long as the threat posed

    by al Qaeda and its allies justifies it. Beyond this, we cannot discuss the operational details or history of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Nor can we divulge the internal deliberations of the Executive Branch.

    Presidential Claim of Inherent Authority

    25. What is the limiting principle of the President’s claimed inherent authority as commander-in-chief? For example, does this interpretation of the law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens under the DOJ’s interpretation, and if not, why not?

    Credible Response

    The President has no inherent authority. He cannot violate the law. The principle that limits him is his oath. He ignores this.

    No, the President does not authorize opening mail -- he ordered it, but we were doing it anyway. He was happy. Yes, the green tape is from DHS.

    The issue is whether the US citizens should reasonably expect to have mail opened. There are two answers: Yes, they should expect it since we live in a dictatorship; and no, they should not expect it since we have a Constitution. Pick: Do you want to face reality, or do you want to do the right thing. Don’t ask us which is which – we can’t decide.

    We regularly intercept mail inside the US. It doesn’t matter who we say they are or are not associated with. If we don’t know something, we’ll find out. Yes, we violate the law. It is a lie to say we don’t open mail ;rather we put “that activity” in another program. We’ll change the name and find a new PO Box to hide that.

    You can speculate all you want – you’re more likely to stumble on the truth that what we might otherwise tell you. If we scream, “Commander in Chief” louder, will you listen, or just change the channel?

    DoJ response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program intercepts only communications where one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The Program does not include the opening of first-class United States mail. There is a long history of Presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, authorizing the interception of international electronic communications during times of armed conflict as an exercise of the President’s inherent authority under the Constitution and pursuant to general force authorization resolutions. Whether the President’s authority under the Constitution would permit the interception of mail would require a different legal analysis. In light of the strictly limited nature of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, we do not think it a useful or a practical exercise to engage in speculation about the limits of the President’s authority as Commander in Chief. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (“The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context.”).

    26. Under the Administration’s legal interpretation, does the President have the authority to wiretap Americans’ domestic calls and emails under his inherent constitutional power and the AUMF, if he feels it involves al Qaeda activity?

    Credible Response: You’re really making this shard.

    First, the President may without warrant intercept information. This is part of FISA. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. However, our Dictator Bush made new exceptions which Congress didn’t approve.

    As to your question about interpretation: We interpret the law to our interests – the power to do evil things against our enemies in the political arena.

    The President does not have the lawful authority to do what he is doing.

    No, we do not have the inherent power to do anything – he only has specifically delegated powers. Nothing is implied. The AUMF is not relevant, it is a red herring

    The issue is whether it is lawful to do what we are doing: No. The President will interpret eth law as he wants, and Congress does nothing.

    IT doesn’t matte whether the law does or does not involve ALQueda. We target everyone.

    DoJ Response

    The Force Resolution’s authorization of “all necessary and appropriate force,” which the Supreme Court in Hamdi interpreted to include the fundamental and accepted incidents of the use of military force, clearly encompasses the narrowly focused Terrorist Surveillance Program. There is a long history of Presidents authorizing the interception of international electronic communications during a time of armed conflict. President Wilson, for example, relying only on his constitutional powers and a general congressional authorization for use of force, authorized the interception of all telephone, telegraph, and cable communications into and out of the United States during World War I. See Exec. Order 2604 (Apr. 28, 1917). Similarly, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of “all . . . telecommunications traffic in and out of the United States.” As explained in the Justice Department’s paper of January 19, 2006, that historical foundation lends significant support to the President’s authority to undertake the Terrorist Surveillance Program under the AUMF and the Constitution; indeed, the Program is much narrower than the interceptions authorized by either President Wilson or President

    Roosevelt. Interception of the content of domestic communications would present a different legal question.

    Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

    27. When did the Administration and DOJ decide that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) granted the Administration the power to create the NSA program?

    Credible Response: We decided the UAMF granted the power to do this after we got caught doing what was not legal. WE invented this argument without thinking it through very well. Implicit in this argument is the nexus of using NSA in combat support against Americans. This is a war crime, and have only just realized how stupid we have been to admit what we are doing: Waging war illegally against American using illegal military force in an illegal way. Ooops. We really made an error on that.

    The Department has reviewed the legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program on multiple occasions. We cannot discuss the operational details or history of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

    28. Are there any other actions under the AUMF that, without the President’s inherent constitutional power, would not be permitted because of the FlSA statute? Are there any programs currently being used like that?

    Credible Response: There are many actions would are illegal. There are many self-asserted exceptions to many laws. We have already discussed the warrantless interrogation program; the investigative leads, and the use of “stumbling” theory of evidence: All are outside the statute and exceptions.

    Yes, because the conduct does fall outside what is permissible – read, “Illegal” – we have violated other laws: namely, the failure to report the illegal activity as we have failed to do.

    Yes, there are programs that are illegal, and have been selectively worded to make them appear t be legal; the problem we had is when we could not convince the NYT to be silent about our evil.

    DoJ Response

    We are not in a position to provide information here concerning any other intelligence activities beyond the Terrorist Surveillance Program, though our inability to respond should not be taken to suggest that there are such activities. Consistent with long-standing practice, the Executive Branch notifies Congress concerning the classified intelligence activities of the United States through appropriate briefings of the oversight committees and, in certain circumstances, congressional leadership.

    29. Under the Administration’s interpretation of AUMF, has the President ever invoked his authority as commander-in-chief through either secret order or directive other than NSA surveillance?

    Credible Response: The Execute has ordered illegal NSA activity before the AUMF was created. This is not a sign of his vision, but his commitment to lawlessness. The AUMF is not relevant. We were already violating the law prior to Sept 2001.

    As to whether the interpretation of the AUMF does or does not justify anything –that is pure non-sense. We invented the AUMF argument after we got caught.

    There are many secret orders that violate the law. We are criminals. The President has relied on non-AUMF arguments to invoke illegal authority, using memos to direct illegal violations of the law.

    DoJ response

    As stated above, we are not in a position to provide information here concerning any other intelligence activities beyond the Terrorist Surveillance Program, though our inability to respond should not be taken to suggest that there are such activities. Consistent with long-standing practice, the Executive Branch notifies Congress concerning the classified intelligence activities of the United States through appropriate briefings of the oversight committees and, in certain circumstances, congressional leadership.

    30. How do you reconcile the Attorney General’s statement that Congress would not have granted the Executive such authority and at the same time, contend that this authority is something that Congress intended to give under the AUMF?

    Credible Response

    The only thing we can offer is: Gonzalez has lost his marbles. It is non-sense to say that the Congress granted authority or power above and beyond the Constitution. Congress cannot delegate power nor create it, that is outside the Constitution. It is non-sense to say that congress did or did not intend to so something that they have no power to do: Create power out of waste paper. Can’t be done, but if you scream loud enough and cry, “Big scary things” people will cower. That means you. Hay, get under your desk. Please?

    We cannot reconcile it. Gonzalez really slipped on this one. We’re not sure what to do: He’s got too many secrets, and we’re not sure if we can trust him.

    You have asked a good question. It is a way of trapping us. No fair.

    OK, here goes. The entire AUMF argument is fiction. Congress did not grant him any authority to violate the law. There is no basis to content that Congress intended to violate h law, or create new exceptions to FISA.

    Rather, the AUMF is generalized language. It is only relevant in Hamdi because Hamdii’s detention was not specifically addressed; we appealed to ignorance to justify violations of Habeas corpus.

    In order to distract Congress form our crimes, we involved Hamdi --- a generalized plea to ignorance – as the basis to say that we could use the AUMF to trump FISA. The reverse is true; We used the FISA self-created exceptions as the basis to trump the Constitution.

    DoJ response

    We understand your question to be a reference to a statement the Attorney General made on December 19, 2005. As the Attorney General clarified both later in the same December 19th briefing and on December 21, 2005, it is not the case that the Administration declined to seek a specific authorization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program because we believed Congress would not authorize it. See Remarks by

    Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Attorney General Gonzales on the USA PATRIOT Act, available at Rather, as the Attorney General testified before the Senate on February 6, 2006, the consensus view in discussions with Members of Congress was that it was unlikely, if not impossible, that more specific legislation could be enacted without compromising the Terrorist Surveillance Program by disclosing operational details, limitations, and capabilities to our enemies. Such disclosures would necessarily have compromised our national security.

    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

    31. When did the Administration reach the conclusion that FISA did not have to be followed to use the NSA program?

    Credible Response: Many years ago, on a ranch in Texas. There was a little man who had a little oil field. He lost a lot of money. He thought, “What if I could be king, and make the rules.” After that, he knew he did not have to follow the law to do what he wanted: Brats are not allowed to be accountable, they just scream louder in their cheer leading mega phone. If you’re really powerful, you can pay someone to lie for you.

    Actually, the President before Sept 2001 ignored FISA and did what he want with NSA.

    DoJ Response

    Before answering this question, we note that the Department’s legal analysis assumes, solely for purposes of that analysis, that the targeted interception of international communications authorized under the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program would constitute “electronic surveillance” as defined in FISA. As noted in our January 19th paper, we cannot confirm whether that is actually the case without disclosing sensitive classified information.
    As explained at length in the Justice Department’s paper of January 19, 2006, the Terrorist Surveillance Program is completely consistent with FISA. FISA itself includes an exception for surveillance “authorized by statute,” 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a). In light of the decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the AUMF authorizes the President to undertake fundamental and accepted incidents of war and the long history demonstrating that signals intelligence against the enemy is such a fundamental incident of war, the AUMF is a statute that authorizes intelligence surveillance against members and agents of al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations and thereby satisfies FISA.
    The President was advised that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was lawful before he first authorized it in October 2001.

    32. Did the increasing number of modified and rejected requests for FISA warrants since 2001 implicate the Administration’s determination to bypass FISA?

    Credible Response: We were already bypassing FISA before Sept 2001. We were already determined -- before we had a roadblock – to bypass FISA, the law, Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution. IT was part of our evil PNAC plan, drafted in the early 1990s, when the idea of “big scary things” was put into play. It was alot more than 19 people. Someone wrote their thesis on this, and the rest is re-written history.

    DoJ response

    As explained above, the Terrorist Surveillance Program does not “bypass FISA.”
    The determination to implement the Terrorist Surveillance Program was made based on the advice of intelligence experts that the Nation needed an early warning system, one that could help detect and prevent another catastrophic al Qaeda attack. The President authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program because it offers the speed and agility required to defend the United States against further terrorist attacks by al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations. Among the advantages offered by the Terrorist Surveillance Program compared to FISA is who makes the probable cause determination

    and how many layers of review will occur before surveillance begins. Under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, professional intelligence officers, who are experts on al Qaeda and its tactics (including its use of communications systems), with appropriate and rigorous oversight, make the decisions about which international communications should be intercepted. By contrast, because FISA requires the Attorney General to “reasonably determine[]” that “the factual basis for issuance of” a FISA order exists at the time he approves an emergency authorization, see 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f)(2), as a practical matter, it is necessary for NSA intelligence officers, NSA lawyers, Justice Department lawyers, and the Attorney General to review a matter before even emergency surveillance would begin. Great care must be exercised in reviewing requests for emergency surveillance because of the risks involved. Among other things, if the Attorney General authorizes emergency surveillance and the FISA court later declines to permit surveillance, there is a risk that the court would disclose the surveillance to U.S. persons whose communications were intercepted, see 50 U.S.C. § 1806(j), potentially compromising ongoing intelligence efforts. In the narrow context of defending the Nation in this congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda, we must allow these highly trained intelligence professionals to use their skills and knowledge to protect us.

    33. Do you know of any other President who has authorized warrantless wiretaps outside of FlSA since FlSA was passed in 1978? If so, please explain.

    Credible Response: Not sure, we’ll find out. Probably none of them authorized it; rather, we were doing it on our own.

    DoJ Response

    The laws of the United States, both before and after FISA’s enactment, have long permitted various forms of foreign intelligence surveillance, including the use of wiretaps, outside the procedures of FISA. If the question is limited to “electronic surveillance” as defined by FISA, however, we are unaware of such authorizations.

    34. In a press briefing on December 19, 2005, General Hayden stated that the NSA was using a subtly softer trigger which precluded going to the FISA court. What exactly constitutes this softer trigger?

    Credible Response: A “softer trigger” means we step more softly to not awaken Congress to this dictatorship.

    Hayden’s softer trigger comment is non-sense. We don’t use triggers. We use punching bags, with gloves off. Everyone gets targeted. If your dog has a cell phone, we know what kind of dog food you’re dog is regurgitating.

    DoJ Response

    As noted above, the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard is a “probable cause” standard of proof. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (“We have stated . . . that ‘[t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.’”). FISA also employs a probable cause standard (specifically, whether there is “probable cause to believe” that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power). See 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). The relevant distinction between the two methods—and the critical advantage offered by the Terrorist Surveillance Program compared to FISA—is the greater speed and agility it offers.
    35. How many FISA judges were informed of the warrantless surveillance program?

    Credible Response: What FISA court? We didn’t tell them, we just did it. We made up new exceptions and then went crazy. Toga, toga, toga!

    DoJ response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program remains classified and sensitive. In general, the identity of individuals who have been briefed into the Program is also classified. In addition, we cannot disclose the content of our discussions with the Foreign Intelligence

    Surveillance Court. We assure you, however, that the Department keeps the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court fully informed regarding information that is relevant to the FISA process.
    36. Was any judge on the FISA court of review informed of the NSA program as part of the briefing of the 2002 appellate case, In re Sealed Case? Were any of the lawyers on that case read into the program? How many?

    Credible response: Crap, now you’re asking legal questions. This is really hard, Can we take a break?

    Probably, but we’re not sure. Maybe the Judges at the Senate Judiciary committee can comment on this. We didn’t tell them what we were doing. The lawyers haven’t been given full access to hat the NSA is doing: “Big scary things.”

    As to how many lawyers have or have not been told: You can pretty much assume that we have a bad answer: The wrong people know and didn’t do their jobs; and the people who know failed to report the illegal activity as required. Do you want them to lose their jobs? Wow, this has some attorney discipline implications. Are you sure you really want to know that the US lawyers were well aware of this illegal program, but acted like nothing was going on?

    DoJ response:

    As we noted above, the identity of individuals who have been briefed into the Terrorist Surveillance Program is generally classified. We note, however, that In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (For. Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002), involved whether the FISA Court had statutory or constitutional authority to place restrictions on interaction of criminal prosecutors and foreign intelligence investigators as a condition for granting surveillance orders. The Terrorist Surveillance Program would not have been relevant to the question before the court in that case.

    37. Are there currently any plans to take the entire NSA program to the FISA Court within the broad parameters of what is reasonable and constitutional and ask the FlSA Court to approve it or disapprove it? If not, why not?

    Credible Response: If we told the truth now, we’d have a lot of explaining to do. We might lose the lection for eternity, and have to disband the RNC.

    No, we have no plans to do anything that might result in the American population realizing the scope of our evilness.
    To answer your question: There is no plan – that we follow -- to ensure the NSA is reasonable or constitutional; rather, we’re simply going to hide the reality overseas, and reclassify the “really bad things” in other places.

    The FISA court would never approve of our actual activities.

    DoJ Response

    It would be inappropriate to discuss here future plans for seeking any particular order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which could involve both privileged internal Executive Branch communications and deliberations and classified and sensitive court filings. The Department has, however, sought to use the FISA process wherever possible, and we will continue to consider all lawful options.
    38. What aspects of FISA are too burdensome for the Administration to comply with? Why did the Administration fail to utilize the emergency provision of FISA?

    Credible Response:

    The burdensome aspects – too burdensome to comply with -- are the Constitution. We have DoJ employees who like to update Wikis, so we’re not as busy as you might believe. Rather, we’re busy because of all the work we create for ourselves: Inventing new lies to explain away the ones that have fallen apart. There’s too much time between now and the lection, and we are running out of glue. Help!

    The aspects of FISA that we do not want to follow: The parts that say what we’re supposed to do. We don’t like that. We want to tell you what to do. We want to write laws, enforce them, and then lock Congress away.

    We did not use the emergency provision of FISA because we didn’t think it was an emergency: We thought it was normal to violate the law and not comply with what we promised.

    DoJ response

    As noted above, the determination was made, based on the advice of intelligence experts, that the Nation needed an early warning system to help detect and prevent another catastrophic al Qaeda attack. Speed and agility are critical in this context. It would be an unjustifiable lapse if al Qaeda electronic communications were used to coordinate another deadly attack on America, but the communications were not intercepted in time because of the delay that traditional FISA procedures require.
    The emergency authorization provision in FISA, which allows 72 hours of surveillance without obtaining a court order, does not—as many believe—allow the Government to undertake surveillance immediately. Rather, in order to authorize emergency surveillance under FISA, the Attorney General first must personally “determine[] that . . . the factual basis for issuance of an order under [FISA] to approve such surveillance exists.” 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f). FISA requires the Attorney General to determine that this condition is satisfied in advance of authorizing the surveillance to begin. The process needed to make that determination, in turn, can take time. Section 106(j) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1806(j), provides that if a court later declines to authorize an

    interception that previously was authorized by the Attorney General under the so-called “emergency” exception to FISA, it may order disclosures about the surveillance to U.S. persons whose communications were intercepted. Thus, using the “emergency” exception poses a risk that surveillance activities will be subject to public disclosure. To reduce that risk, the Attorney General follows a multi-layered procedure before authorizing interception under the “emergency” exception to help to ensure that any eventual application will be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That process ordinarily entails review by intelligence officers at the NSA, NSA attorneys, and Department of Justice attorneys, each of whom must be satisfied that the standards have been met before the matter proceeds to the next group for review. Compared to that multilayered process, the Terrorist Surveillance Program affords a critical advantage in terms of speed and agility.

    39. According to the Administration, a line NSA analyst rather than an independent judge determines whether or not an intrusion into a[] citizen’s privacy is reasonable. Do you think that there are appropriate checks and balances under this framework?

    Credible response No, it is not appropriate to rely on NSA analysts. Judges are the judges; analysts are the analysts. Checks and balances don’t work when you don’t check and you don’t balance. So we don’t check or balance. That solves that problem.

    DoJ's Mystery Fairy: Depends on whether the analyst is paid enough to be quiet. NSA analysts aren’t really all that intelligent. Some of these people we find in dumpsters, digging through trash. Some of them know what a computer looks like.

    NSA analysts are given the power to be Federal Judges. NSA lackeys are more competent that poorly trained judges to know the law. What do Judges know? They’re judges: They don’t know facts, they just judge. That’s not smart.

    Actually , by ignoring the law we are protecting the law: We are protecting America from bad judicial decisions that do not match what we want.

    DoJ response

    Yes. As noted earlier, General Hayden has stated that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is “overseen by the most intense oversight regime in the history of the National Security Agency,” see Remarks by General Michael V. Hayden to the National Press Club, available at, and is subject to extensive review in other departments as well. Please refer to the answer to question 18 for further information about the considerable privacy protections that are built into the Program.

    40. Have any purely domestic calls intercepted through the NSA program? What happens if such calls are intercepted, to the information and the responsible employee?

    Credible Response. Yes, domestic alls have been intercepted. If domestic calls are intercepted, we do what we always do: Our jobs.

    There is no requirement that NSA and Echelon narrow their field. Rather, we will simply call the “things we don’t want to admit are crimes” as a “classified program.”

    The information is retained and may be used to do what we want: Humiliate you, get you to grovel, and make you believe that we are all powerful. Actually, we do this because your reasons are devoid of logic, and the NSA management is really stupid.

    If we do intercept calls, the responsible employee should be disciplined. But we actually reward them with more visits to Q2: “Would you like to meet Mr. Mind Probe again?”

    DoJ Response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program targets for interception only those communications where one party is outside of the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The Program does not target for interception wholly domestic communications (i.e., communications which both originate and terminate within the United States). There are procedures in place to avoid the interception of domestic calls. In addition, as mentioned above, procedures are in place to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons.

    41. Is the NSA engaged in keyword analysis or pattern analysis of purely domestic communications?

    Credible response: That’s only the beginning. We have all kinds of other interesting pattern recognitions. We can swim through this data like you can’t imagine. Even if there’s no pattern, we can create one, forecast one, even make one appear where there’s nothing. If you need an excuse to interrogate someone, we can find an algorithm that will get you your punching bag.

    The domestic surveillance monitoring uses all methods imaginable, and then scary things. They violate the law. Talk to Bolton. He knows about that.

    DoJ response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program targets communications for interception only when one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. It would be inappropriate to discuss in this setting the existence (or non-existence) of specific intelligence activities or the operations of any such activities other than the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Consistent with long-standing practice, the Executive Branch notifies Congress concerning the classified intelligence activities of the United States through appropriate briefings of the oversight committees and, in certain circumstances, congressional leadership.

    42. Is the NSA engaged in keyword analysis or pattern analysis of the communications of people in the United States who call or email overseas?

    Credible response: Yes, we do more things. If there’s a National Geographic mammal with a run down battery in its tracking device, we can tell you when the battery will fail, the type of material the battery will needs, the replacement costs, and the approximate weight of the mammal to the nearest ounce. You never know when mammals might turn into “really big, scary things and try to take over.” We’re ready.

    DoJ response

    As noted above, the Terrorist Surveillance Program targets communications for interception only when one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. It would be inappropriate to discuss in this setting the existence (or non-existence) of specific intelligence activities or the operations of any such activities other than the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Consistent with long-standing practice, the Executive Branch notifies Congress concerning the classified intelligence activities of the United States through appropriate briefings of the oversight committees and, in certain circumstances, congressional leadership.

    43. Has information obtained through warrantless NSA interceptions been used in any criminal prosecutions?

    Credible response: Yes, all the time. We use NSA intercepts to provide investigative leads. The information is used to “stumble on” evidence. We do this to violate the Constitution. So much for Pearl Harbor and 9-11: We got distracted. By design.

    DoJ Response

    The purpose of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is not to bring criminals to justice. Instead, the Program is directed at protecting the Nation from foreign attack by detecting and preventing plots by a declared enemy of the United States. Because the Program is directed at a “special need, beyond the normal need for law enforcement,” the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See, e.g., Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). Because collecting foreign intelligence information without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment and because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is lawful, there appears to be no legal barrier against introducing this evidence in a criminal prosecution. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), (g). Past experience outside the context of the Terrorist Surveillance Program indicates, however, that operational considerations, such as the potential for disclosing classified information, must be considered in using intelligence information in criminal trials.

    44. Are their any plans by the Bush administration to inform those US individuals whose phone calls or emails were searched or seized but they have been cleared of any wrongdoing?

    Credible Response: We have plans to inform citizens their rights have been violated. They should know that, living in the greatest country hear, they consent to having their rights violated without their consent or knowledge. American citizens have no right to know how their rights are being abused: That’s too scary, they might vote us out of office and make us irrelevant like the Roman Empire, the Whigs, or That 70s Show.

    Unless we have to – which we do not do – if someone is searched, we will forever use that search as an excuse to do more searching. We use our accusations as an excuse to make more accusations. No one is ever free and clear in America, this is America: You have to give up your rights in order to be free. Didn’t anyone tell you that? George Orwell’s 1984 is our Bible. Our Rosetta Stone. Our Cooking Recipe Book.

    As explained above, the Terrorist Surveillance Program is subject to rigorous oversight to protect privacy interests. In addition, procedures are in place to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons.

    45. Are any communications between attorneys and their clients or doctors and patients being captured?

    Credible Response: Yes. We have your X-rays on file, we know what you’ve been eating, and have no comment on why your attorney is surfing the internet looking at what they’re looking at. They are on our side, so we’re going t have a “little chat” like we always do. What to come along?

    DoJ response

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program targets communications for interception only when one party is outside the United States and there is probable cause to believe that at least one party is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. Although the Program does not specifically target the communications of attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be categorically excluded from interception if they met these criteria. As mentioned above, however, procedures are in place to protect U.S. privacy rights, including applicable procedures required by Executive Order 12333 and approved by the Attorney General, that govern acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information relating to U.S. persons.

    Read more . . .