perhaps but I sincerely suspect that whereas before this may have been directed against individuals with some oversight, the Bushies have taken it wholesale and decided they don't need the oversight.
Dana On 12/21/05, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It sounds like they (Bush's Admin) are trying to say that the whole thing > was a big mistake... This should've probably come out before the "leak". > > But like I said before, the NSA has been doing this (spying on US > Citizens) > practically since its inception, it's nothing new. > > Scott A. Stewart > ColdFusion Developer > > GNSI > 11820 Parklawn Dr > Rockville, MD 20852 > (301) 770-9610 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:53 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [politics] nobody else seems to be concerned > > I see. By whom, do you think? And why? > > On 12/21/05, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Spinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn > > > > Scott A. Stewart > > ColdFusion Developer > > > > GNSI > > 11820 Parklawn Dr > > Rockville, MD 20852 > > (301) 770-9610 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:47 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: [politics] nobody else seems to be concerned > > > > US secret spying captured some domestic calls -report > > 21 Dec 2005 04:56:35 GMT > > > > Source: Reuters > > WASHINGTON, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A program U.S. President George W. Bush > > ordered allowing warrantless spying on Americans with suspected > terrorist > > ties unintentionally captured a small number of purely domestic > > communications, The New York Times reported on Tuesday. > > > > The newspaper, citing unidentified officials, said the calls were > snagged > > despite a White House requirement that one end of the intercepted > > conversations take place on foreign soil. > > > > The officials were cited as saying that the National Security Agency's > > interception of communications between people within the United States > was > > apparently accidental, caused by technical glitches in determining > whether > > a > > communication was in fact "international." > > > > There was no immediate comment from the White House. > > > > Bush and senior administration officials have argued that the policy of > > authorizing -- without court orders -- eavesdropping on international > > phone > > calls and e-mails by Americans suspected of links to terrorism was legal > > and > > necessary to help defend the country after the Sept. 11 attacks. > > > > The White House has sought to play down the impact on civil liberties, > > arguing the program was narrow in scope and that key congressional > leaders > > were briefed about it. > > > > A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal > to > > spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval. > > > > Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, would not discuss the > > number > > of accidental intercepts but the total was thought to represent a very > > small > > fraction of the total number of wiretaps authorized without court > > approval, > > The Times said. > > > > National security and telecommunications experts said that even if the > NSA > > stuck closely to the rules set by the White House, the logistics of the > > program may make it difficult to ensure that the rules are being > followed, > > the newspaper reported. > > > > With roaming cell phones, internationally routed e-mail and voice-over > > Internet technology, "it's often tough to find out where a call started > > and > > ended," Robert Morris, a former NSA official, told the newspaper. "The > NSA > > is good at it but it's difficult even for them. Where a call actually > came > > from is often a mystery." > > > > http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N203307.htm > > > > > > On 12/21/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So do you think the Times was: > > > 1) trying to sell a book > > > 2) trying to stop the Patriot Act > > > 3) all of the above > > > > > > COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES > > > By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words > > > Published: November 7, 1982 > > > > > > A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency > > > may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and > > > people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans > > > are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to > > > the Federal Bureau of Investigation. > > > > > > Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most > > > secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic > > > messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar > > > with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a > > > significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep > > > track of its citizens. > > > > > > > > > On 12/21/05, Dana wrote: > > > > hell no. I think the government should filter every email I send. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:189121 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
