Sign me up for the tin-foil hats

OH for the days when we could repel the forces of evil with just the use of a simple tin foil hat. Now they have so many ways they can get inside out heads. If you don't want to be scared, don't read this article published in last week's LA Times.

You're being watched ...

Efforts to collect data on Americans go far beyond the NSA's domestic spying program.

By Laura K. Donohue CONGRESS WILL soon hold hearings on the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2002. But that program is just the tip of the iceberg.

Since 9/11, the expansion of efforts to gather and analyze information on U.S. citizens is nothing short of staggering. The government collects vast troves of data, including consumer credit histories and medical and travel records. Databases track Americans' networks of friends, family and associates, not just to identify who is a terrorist but to try to predict who might become one.

ADVERTISEMENT

Remember Total Information Awareness, retired Adm. John Poindexter's effort to harness all government and commercial databases to preempt national security threats? The idea was that disparate, seemingly mundane behaviors can reveal criminal intent when viewed together. More disturbing, it assumed that deviance from social norms can be an early indicator of terrorism. Congress killed that program in 2003, but according to the Associated Press, many related projects continued.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency runs a data-mining program called Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery, which connects pieces of information from vast amounts of data sources. The Defense Intelligence Agency trawls intelligence records and the Internet to identify Americans connected to foreign terrorists. The CIA reportedly runs Quantum Leap, which gathers personal information on individuals from private and public sources. In 2002, Congress authorized $500 million for the Homeland Security Department to develop "data mining and other advanced analytical tools." In 2004, the General Accounting Office surveyed 128 federal departments and agencies to determine the extent of data mining. It found 199 operations, 14 of which related to counterterrorism.

What type of information could these mine? Your tax, education, vehicle, criminal and welfare records for starters. But also other digital data, such as your travel, medical and insurance records — and DNA tests. Section 505 of the Patriot Act (innocuously titled "Miscellaneous National Security Authorities") extends the type of information the government can obtain without a warrant to include credit card records, bank account numbers and information on Internet use.

Your checking account may tell which charities or political causes you support. Your credit card statements show where you shop, and your supermarket frequent-buyer-card records may indicate whether you keep kosher or follow an Islamic halal diet. Internet searches record your interests, down to what, exactly, you read. Faith forums or chat rooms offer a window into your thoughts and beliefs. E-mail and telephone conversations contain intimate details of your life.

A University of Illinois study found that in the 12 months following 9/11, federal agents made at least 545 visits to libraries to obtain information about patrons. This isn't just data surveillance. It's psychological surveillance.

Many Americans might approve of data mining to find terrorists. But not all of the inquiries necessarily relate to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to get "sneak and peek" warrants to search a home for any suspected crime — and to wait months or even years to tell the owner they were there. Last July, the Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee that only 12% of the 153 "sneak and peek" warrants it received were related to terrorism investigations.

The FBI has used Patriot Act powers to break into a judge's chambers and to procure records from medical clinics. Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union recently revealed that the FBI used other new powers to eavesdrop on environmental, political and religious organizations.

When Congress looks into domestic spying in the "war on terror," it should ask a series of questions:

First, what information, exactly, is being collected? Are other programs besides the president's NSA initiative ignoring traditional warrant requirements? Are federal agencies dodging weak privacy laws by outsourcing the job to private contractors?

Second, who has access to the data once it is collected, and what legal restrictions are set on how it can be used or shared?

Third, who authorized data mining, and is its use restricted to identifying terrorists?

Fourth, what is the collective effect of these programs on citizens' rights? Privacy certainly suffers, but as individuals begin to feel inhibited in what they say and do, free speech and freedom of assembly also erode.

Fifth, how do these data collection and mining operations deal with error? As anyone who's tried to dispute an erroneous credit report can attest, once computer networks exchange data, it may be difficult to verify its accuracy or where it entered the system. Citizens who do not know they are under surveillance cannot challenge inaccurate information that may become part of their secret digital dossier.

What will Congress do to ensure that the innocent remain so?

Jim Hightower on "Ownership Society"

Now, normally, I think Jim Hightower is an ass. But this was so entertaining, I feel I just have to post it.

GEORGE W WANTS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1/3/2006

George W is fond of philosophizing about his vision of an "ownership society," organized not on a governmental model, but on the corporate structure. I wonder: Is George even aware that the "owners" of corporate America have no real power over the autocratic elites who run corporations?

The owners of corporations are the shareholders – those people who have bought the company's stock. But ownership in the corporate model buys you no democratic control. Take the board of directors, which is the official governing body of the corporation you "own." As a shareholder, you get to vote for the board members – but the ballot gives you no choices!

Only the candidates hand-picked by the CEO are listed. Your only option is vote for or against the corporate-dictated candidate. But – get this – even if you and 99.9 percent of the other shareholders get together and vote against the CEOs choice, the corporate candidate still wins, assuming the candidate is smart enough to vote for himself (and, by the way, they're nearly always men). Under the self-rigged corporate rules, it just takes only a single vote to elect the chosen candidate.

As if this soviet-style electoral system does not give corporate executives enough control over owners, CEOs are now taking extraordinary steps to assure that they get no interference from pesky shareholders. It seems that more and more of these shareholders/owners have been showing up at the annual board meeting to raise issues and even raise a ruckus about how the place is being run. So, to fend off even this minimal democratic intrusion, corporations have begun hiring surveillance firms to snoop on their own owners, targeting shareholders who might "cause trouble." Of course, the corporate interpretation of "trouble" is to have anyone dissent from what the top executives are doing.

This is Jim Hightower saying... On second thought, this sounds exactly like the kind of government Bush has in mind for us.

Couldn't have said it better

Josh Marshall is on a roll

Apparently, this is a good day for TPM.

Good stuff! Holding Republicans to account violates their rights.

You have to love this. Three and a half years ago members of the New Hampshire state Republican party, the Republican National Committee and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to disrupt Democratic get-out-the-vote activities on election day.

That's not just me using that language. Two of conspirators pled guilty. Another, a then-employee of the Republican National Committee, was just convicted on two counts stemming from the scheme. For almost two years now, the state Democratic party has been pursuing a suit against the state party seeking redress and, mainly, to find out what really happened since at the beginning the Justice Department wasn't seriously pursuing the case.

Now, in recently filed court papers, the Republican State Committee’s attorney, Ovide Lamontagne, is claiming that the Dems' suit is "in attempt to use the court system to interfere with the (GOP’s) constitutionally protected election activities." There's a certain amount of sense to this, I suppose, since the Republican party, in its current incarnation, does seem to rely heavily on law-breaking as an electoral tool. Still, I've never heard it alleged that such criminality is constitutionally protected.

I don't know how to make the links come from his blog to my blog using blogger. But I suggest everyone go to TPM and follow the links if you are in need of verification. We bloggers, unlike the pundits believeve in verification of facts.

Block the nomination of Samuel Alito

I have faith the Democrats (this is rare) and the moderate Republicans will do the right thing and block this man. I supported Roberts (although those eyes). Block I say.

Senators Collins, Dole, Domenici, Frist (?!), Jeffords, McCain, Santourm, Snowe, and Spector please do what's right for your country, not the party line.

Oh, and while you are at it, ever consider forming a new centrist party along with the 5 or 6 Democrats who aren't super flaky? (Bingaman, Bird, Clinton, Corzine, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, Obama, Reid, Rockefeller, Salazar, Schumer -- Hmm, there are more than I remember -- now I understand why I find myself preferring the Dems)

Remember: The real story here is Abramoff. Don't let this Alito thing get in the way as Time magazine suggests may happen if the spin folk get busy

A thought, RFC

For the uninitiated, RFC is request for comments. Frequently something scholars or engineers put forth when they have an idea they think is going in a good direction, but fear they are being one-sided or blinded to any opposing viewpoint.

An apt request.

I am starting to doubt the future of the pundit. Perhaps that rabble-rouser Michael Moore had a point. Perhaps the pundits are angry because they are losing power.

See, that last post, the one about Ollie North is typical. I, the blogger, get this email, get angry, research it, and send it back out, with corrections, to the person who sent it originally, with a request that he send the corrections to all of his friends, the ones he passed it to initially.

But the pundits do not do this. They take something like this and heat it up and pass it around. I even doubt the person who sent it to me will retract its damaging statements. And because of things like that, we, no, nearly everyone, is learning to distrust people who provide uncorrobrated evidence. Perhaps the greatest strength of a blog is the ability to include hyperlinks to our sources, ones that ... Demonstrate a) that we have done some research and are not just noisy and b) our claims are supported by evidence, which makes them harder to attack with anything other than "the liberal media" or "your liberal bias" I'm beginning to suspect "liberal" is a codeword for "true" and "liberal bias" is a verb, meaning "to research and report fact"

Just an idea ....

Ollie North, Osama Bin Laden, Al Gore, Mohammed Atta

Its that time again folks. It's time to play "reality" with the conservatives.

Commentary follows story.

I know that this isn't "new" news and has been out there before; nevertheless, it goes unremarked by the media. Nice to have both of these pieces of information together. Pass it along to anyone who may have never heard or forgotten about it.

It was 1987. At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings (ed: where we traded weapons to Iran for hostages) during the Reagan Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn't that just a little excessive?"
"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.
"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."
"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.
"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"
"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued.

Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.
"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of," Ollie answered.
"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.
"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!

Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.

Now, let's pretend that there aren't any factual errors in this story, and it is exactly true as printed.

Ollie North said Osama was the most evil man alive.
If this is true, do you think, possibly, we should not have been selling him (and his Mujahadeen brethren) US weapons to fight the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan?

But wait, there is more! Hold on, didn't we also, in the same period when we (the United States, also under President Reagan) sold Osama weapons (Including those lovely stinger missles they have so frequently used against US personnel in Afghanistan) ... didn't we also send Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Saddam Hussein and arrange weapon sales, INCLUDING the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan ... the very crime for which we are now holding him on trial?

This could be an interesting tangent, and one which seems rife with inconsistancies, and inaccuracies. However, unfortunately, as Snopes points out, this whole story is indeed false.

Ollie North actually wrote a memo regarding this. Let's look at what Ollie himself has to say, shall we?

FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.
NOVEMBER 28, 2001

OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987.

A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW:

1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING.

2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K.

3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN).

4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS.

5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA.

6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED).

7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED.

SEMPER FIDELIS,
OLIVER L. NORTH

Let's move on to the Atta story.

*YAWN* Actually, let's not, its patently false, and not very much fun. Put very simply, Two men, one named Mahmoud Atta, 14 years the elder, and one named Mohammed Atta. Maumoud blew up a bus in Israel and was extradited under Reagan. Mohammed is the infamous terrorist who piloted the plane into the WTC.

Rumors also mention this story originally implicated Reagan in the release of Atta, however it eventually morphed into ... the arch-rival of neo-conservativism Bill Clinton. Interesting how that happened, eh? Kudos to someone who knew the name of a secretary of state of the Clinton administration tho. That type of fact makes one scratch their heads and say "Well if they knew Clinton's Secretary of State, it must be true."

Obviously the people who wrote this aren't able to distinguish between two different men with the same name. If they have similar names, they must be the same a-rab, right? Because white people never have the same name. For instance the "terrorist" John Adams is obviously the same John Adams who made midnight appointments to the federal courts and rode out of Washington at midnight before TJ's inauguration. Of course, one of the fellows on the list I was on when I received this hooey is the one and only Jeff Smith. You all know Jeff, right?

One last note. When I pointed out the folly of this argument to the sender of this message and asked politely for a retraction, he refused. When I threaded to send a retraction myself (as republicans don't frequently understand BCC unless they are lobbyists) he became adjusted and didn't understand what my problem was. My problem? Its simple. The last line in the email read "If you believe Americans need to know this information and are tired of the Liberal Media censorship, then send this message to everyone you know"

Once again, the "conservatives" are using the term "liberal" to mean synonymous with "truth" which is a use with which I have to admit, I'm not entirely comfortable.