NSA spied on its employees, other U.S. intelligence personnel, and their journalists.
 

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

December 28, 2005 -- BREAKING NEWS. NSA spied on its own employees, other U.S. intelligence personnel, and their journalist and congressional contacts. WMR has learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices.
The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC). Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden.
Firstfruits was a database that contained both the articles and the transcripts of telephone and other communications of particular Washington journalists known to report on sensitive U.S. intelligence activities, particularly those involving NSA. According to NSA sources, the targeted journalists included author James Bamford, the New York Times' James Risen, the Washington Post's Vernon Loeb, the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Washington Times' Bill Gertz, UPI's John C. K. Daly, and this editor [Wayne Madsen], who has written about NSA for The Village Voice, CAQ, Intelligence Online, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

NSA: Listening in on its own employees, journalists, and members of Congress.
In addition, beginning in 2001 but before the 9-11 attacks, NSA began to target anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a "disgruntled employee." According to NSA sources, this surveillance was a violation of United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The surveillance of U.S. intelligence personnel by other intelligence personnel in the United States and abroad was conducted without any warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The targeted U.S. intelligence agency personnel included those who made contact with members of the media, including the journalists targeted by Firstfruits, as well as members of Congress, Inspectors General, and other oversight agencies. Those discovered to have spoken to journalists and oversight personnel were subjected to sudden clearance revocation and termination as "security risks."
In 2001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rejected a number of FISA wiretap applications from Michael Resnick, the FBI supervisor in charge of counter-terrorism surveillance. The court said that some 75 warrant requests from the FBI were erroneous and that the FBI, under Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller, had misled the court and misused the FISA law on dozens of occasions. In a May 17, 2002 opinion, the presiding FISA Judge, Royce C. Lamberth (a Texan appointed by Ronald Reagan), barred Resnick from ever appearing before the court again. The ruling, released by Lamberth's successor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelley, stated in extremely strong terms, "In virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors . . . How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court."
After the Justice Department appealed the FISC decision, the FISA Review court met for the first time in its history. The three-member review court, composed of Ralph Guy of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Edward Leavy of the 9th Circuit, and Laurence Silberman [of the Robb-Silberman Commission on 911 "intelligence failures"] of the D.C. Circuit, overturned the FISC decision on the Bush administration's wiretap requests.
Based on recent disclosures that the Bush administration has been using the NSA to conduct illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, it is now becoming apparent what vexed the FISC to the point that it rejected, in an unprecedented manner, numerous wiretap requests and sanctioned Resnick.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051229/...agency_privacy

NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers

NEW YORK - The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.

ADVERTISEMENT

These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.

"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."

Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 ? likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.

Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.

"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.

Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.

But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.

In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies ? those that aren't automatically deleted right away ? unless there is a "compelling need."

A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.

Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."

The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.

Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.

The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."

Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.

The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.

In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.

This is crazy! You Americans may not realize it, but your government has as much of a hold on you as the Chinese government has on their citizens. Thank Bush, your elected leader!

This all started with the pentagon

Oh noes the nsa is spying on me.... :uhoh :uhoh If you arent breaking the law why would you care? :disgust

Thats it no more Candian Retard sandwiches for you.. Back away from the sandwich!!! :thumbsup :1orglaugh

This has been going on a lot longer than that. It is just that becasue of the way Bush has done things, it got out.

they're "breaking the law" it's not about you
this is not freedom :P
and they are the terrorists :P

what if one day you have information they don't want you to have, or they want you to do something in particular..? if they know everything about you they can blackmail you.

what if you run for political office, and the guy running against you has money and contacts, and they use the info on you to crush you?

That's how you keep the truth about something like 9/11 from coming out. You can hurt/destroy anyone who has info and wants to divulge it.


just a thought ;)

bill clinton did the same, damn him :sleep

Duh.

I think its pretty much a given that if you work for a very secretive government organization you are open to constant scrutiny.

WEB COOKIES? All this because of fucking COOKIES. A news story about OH NOES COOKIES?! Give me a break before I pee my pants from laughter omfg I have seen it all now.

chshkt:

This activity "may" have increased over the last few years, but is not new.

The degree of electronic tapping was extensive prior to 9/11.

There was a stage when the management of several telecoms companies were complaining about the amount of facilities they were being asked to extend to Federal government to enable tapping. Their complaint was the enormous cost - where the telecoms companies were footing the bill.

That Canadians and other foreigners do not care for GWB counts for zero (0) in my book. They look ridiculous criticizing a strong and just leader!

The comparison to China is... absurd.

Personally, I am glad the NSA is taking an aggressive stand. They dropped the ball way too often in the past. I don't want the NSA hamstrung by ridiculous rules. Remember 9/11? One of the major lessons is that foreign intelligence gathering needs to increase and the intelligence community needs to work closer together. If that steps on a few journalists with access to true state secrets, or if it offends persons in the US who consort with foreign terrorists, so be it. Even if it offends foreign pornographers, so be it.

Yes, other recent Presidents besides GWB have authorized wide ranging intelligence gathering in the name of national security. It has to continue.

idiot :upsidedow

link ... must be easy for you to provide....
\
I also hear Abraham Lincoln did it also ....

Website cookies? That is not even worth discussing.

What about your famous indictments? Any day now, right?

Yes, it is easy.

Clinton and Carter both ordered search and surveillance without court orders.

Here's your requested proof:

1.

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

2.

WASH POST, July 15, 1994, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp


3.

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Bush and Patriot Act repeating history?

There's much discussion regarding the extension of the Patriot Act, as well as the recent revelations that the Bush administration has listened in on telephone conversations (illegally) of American citizens.

The Bush administration argues all this is OK in order to protect us from terrorists. As a history teacher and as a person who grew up in Hitler Germany, it intrigues me how ignorant the masses are regarding history and the possibility of history repeating itself.

Hitler was legally elected to the German Reichstag (Parliament) in 1932 and selected chancellor (leader) of Germany by the Reichstag in 1933. At the time there was much unrest and turmoil (terrorism) in German towns and cities. Hitler and his party convinced the Reichstag (think Congress) that special laws (think Patriot Act) were needed to protect the German citizens from terrorism.

Using these special powers the Hitler government indeed restored law and order in Germany as well as arresting and jailing their political opponents. They did this quite legally and the Germans woke up one day with a dictator.

Think it can't happen here? The Germans didn't think so either in 1933. KARL-HEINZ GERSTENBERGER

Clifton Park


http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=434346

Half the nation does realize this. We need to impeach his ass! But in the US the only way you get impeached is by getting a blow job by a fat, ugly intern! Lying, Killing, and breaking the law is perfectly acceptable. :thumbsup

Of course, anything is theoretically possible.

However, if you asked me to estimate the relative probability that GWB is going to become a Hitler like dictator at any time, versus you being committed to a mental institution in the near future, I would bet on the latter.

Yup, if the Senate doesn't want you impeached for political reasons, lying and breaking the law is A-OK.

The President is above the law; isn't that what Clinton's administration taught?

:warning

OK, bet on that, whatever it is ...

Meanwhile, GWB invaded a country, got killed thousands of people, lied and deceived his countrymen, alienated his allies ( Coalition of the super shrinking ... ), endetted his own country, failed in providing relief to his people afflicted by natural catastrophe, operated rape rooms abroad, collaborated with torture abroad, spied on his own citizens ...

You know what, odds are against me being " commited to a mental .. ." :1orglaugh

How many US citizens are sitting in jail as a result of evidence obtained using the Patriot Act? Just curious.

GWB enforced 11 years of U.N. inaction, removing a tyrant and liberating 30 million people. While most of the rest of the world had their thumb up their ass, and was too timid to move, GWB acted. That is the work of a hero!

The US government can spy on all the terrorist collaborators it wants. That is OK with me.

You forgot: he got rid of the WMD :thumbsup


:1orglaugh

You're being sarcastic right? Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

What WMD?

Oh wait, I think I know what you mean. I think you mean the WMD that the US Congress, the CIA, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and our allies thought Saddam possessed.

Iraq wasn't an open society where you could easily get accounting for such things, although we know Saddam used poison gas against civilian Kurds in March 1988.

Can't remember the number - it's quite a few - may be around 100, but only a vague memory.

But so far, don't think one person has ever been convicted (apart from Padilla)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Funny how those who live in Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica are so concerned about our privacy.... or could it be they just like to bash Bush?


For a view of how Americans feel:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

Frankly, the NSA and other intelligence agencies had better be monitoring the communications of terrorists and their collaborators in the USA. I wonder how many lives have been saved and plots thwarted as a result.

Incase you just dont know. Clinton was impeached FOR LYING under oath. He has also had serious questions brought up about people who opposed him dying under questionable circumstances. So he probably did all three that you listed being acceptable, and definetly did the lying part. :winkwink:

He said U.S. citizens.

Padilla is only one Im aware of, if there are more provide links. Why? was he arrested?

Jose Padilla has been held since May 2002 when he returned to the United States from Pakistan. He was plotting to detonate a Dirty nuke in the United States. Just shoot the fucker and be done with it. :mad:

if you believe that Clinton was at the center of some murder conspriracy, you also believe every word that the Swift Boat guys published, think John McCain is a Vietnamese spy, and Murtha is a coward.

God I would hate to be you. It must be a really REALLY bizarre life.

No, it's about the executive branch circumventing Congress and the Judiciary to spy on American citizens.

Do you conservatives like America better now that we have an absolute ruler with no regard for the constitution or the US law?

Traitors.

Bush is ... dunno if he's an idiot or not, but sure runs a secretive operation for a democracy and has caused more harm to the US than bin Laden ever could, - economically and in many other ways.

Don't assume everyone just "bashes Bush" because they just like doing it. If that conduct existed in any other western nation - rest assured whoever the leader was, would get an equal "bashing". Hell... they'd be thrown out of office.

Bush, sad to say, is a manipulator - or, his "team" are. Honestly is not a prime consideration, nor are legalities, either within the US or elsewhere. In the process, other commonly accepted standards within any democracy fall by the wayside. Perhaps that is why people in other nations have this "concern" - they basically have and accept "freedoms" and rarely mention them. This is a slight contrast to the constant talk of "freedoms" and "values" from the current US admin.

Only my :2 cents: worth - but I just don't like to see folks get screwed - not once, but repeatedly, and be taught "the way it is" and "what we need to do about it". But rest assured, the US, even under the current regime is not top of the league for abuse.

If you watched anything except Fox News, you would already know that this claim is an absolute lie. What Clinton and other Presidents did is totally different than what Bush is doing.

Since you're a lazy indoctrinated bastard with no regard for the truth, I'll look it up FOR you.

watch how long it takes me.

This long, with a phone call in between:

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...+sp ying+true

You mean the poison gas that Bush Sr. sold to him?

Funny how Clinton was able to handle the situation without spending 100's of billions of dollars and several thousand American lives isn't it? Bush just did it SO much better.

If Bush wasn't such an incompetent clown, we would never have been bombed. They only managed to do it because we have an idiot in the Oval Office right now. Never would have happened under Clinton.

Bombed? Do you mean the 9/11 attacks, which as far as I know, didn't involve bombs?

If you do in fact mean 9/11 attacks, you honestly believe they were planned and accomplished in the 9 months Bush had been in office? Or the 11 months including the two he was President Elect? Maybe somebody consulted a fortune teller and predicted Bush would be President and thus started planning before that time?

He had warnings, memos. He was on vacation ( don't forget , he is the "vacation" president ) and did nothing.

Spin it till it dies ... it still is HIS watch :2 cents:

I'm not trying to spin anything. I just think it's ridiculous to say "only happened because Bush was President" or "would never have happened on Clinton's watch". Those are absurd statements that nobody can back up with fact.

Dammit - nice to be pre-warned and even get a memo!! :1orglaugh

Sheesh... so damned sad!!

"Bin-Laden determined to attack in the United States" is a little different than a blueprint for an attack with and dates, times and flight numbers. Everybody at every level of the Goverment charged with security dropped the ball. Sure the buck stops at the top, but do you honestly believe the goverment is micro managed by the executive office? If only Bush weren't on vacation, the file with the plans would have been available and thus the plan foiled?

Seems odd that the 9/11 comission would release such a lengthy report when it appears as if they could simple have published "Bush's fault.". I guess that's what people get for having in depth hearings and not just checking GFY first.

We wouldn't know because they don't have to tell us.

So bin Laden should have intimated a date and time to make the whole scenario concrete before thinking of taking any action??

Agree.. it was a total balls up on the security side. Even more amazing it the thought of the volumes of actual money spent by US taxpayers to have this pathetic standard in intelligence.

Tho got little doubts that what is publically known from sounds bites about the intelligence report, - there was a lot more yet not public, and chances are, that it never be publically known for the embarassment factor.

Na.. Doubt Bush's vacation arrangements contributed to 9/11 - his naivity and probable ineptness most likely helped more.

Ya gotta remember, this is a guy with very little experience and a track record prior to taking office where he sure don't get 10 stars. He is also a guy with a personal problem he's working on - not the best individual to have a balanced judgement. He is also a guy who promises a lot, like many politicians, - and from the day of taking office closed all doors and became a "secret". It's not hard to see the reason why when you listen to him talk. George is George and very unlikely he'll ever change. Meanwhile, he is the President, for better or worse, but even now, sure doing one foul job of it - but ya can't expect anything much better. That's why experience and a track record matter - not who's son you are.

Completely agree. I think it points more to a failure of the general political process in the United States. The fact that GW could win a second term after making so many mistakes speaks volumes about the two party system American's enjoy.

The fact of the matter is, by the time you get to the highest levels of most goverments you're so owing to special interest groups and the "friends" that got you there that you really have very little of yourself left to give back. The degree to which you can cover this up becomes your approval rating.

I was referring to US citizens. There was an admission of 63 being held a long while back and "indications" of more since that time - but who knows. It's a subject that is avoided and rarely a straight answer when questioned on this.

Dunno about Padilla.. thought he was a US citizen? May not be.

Lihop Mihop

The sad bit about that is it sure is not in the interests of the US people when the electorate is provided with "the men" to choose from irrespective of their personal abilities, and a financial powerhouse funds them into office.

The highlighting of the two-party system is also divisive, especially during the last election - again, not in the interests of the US as a whole.

There are plenty guys who have been Presidents and never had astounding qualities, but the world has moved on since then and anyone in that job needs some awesome capability within themselves to even consider it.

There is a lot of maturing to do :)