Bush & NSA are monitoring satellite communications

[Marie26]

I don't believe that this NSA program is about allowing specific wiretaps at all, instead they're essentially monitoring all international calls. Bush is being very dodgy on exactly what Executive Order authorized this program. I think because if they reveal the name of the order, the media would realize the full scope of what they're doing. A couple things jumped out at me at the Press Conference. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/2005121...

First, a reporter asks if they ever eavesdrop on people when they shouldn't. Gen. Hayden responds - "There are cases like we do with regard to the global SIGIN system -- you have reasons to go after particular activities, particular communications." So he's saying that they're using the SIGIN system, or similar, to eavesdrop on people. SIGINT is the US network of spy satellites.

Finally, a reporter asks for assurance this won't be used for domestic calls. Gonzales says: "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America." This means the very nature of the intercept only applies to international calls, not domestic. What's the mechanism for transmitting international calls? Satellites.

When Sen. Bob Graham was on Nightline on Friday, he said he was never informed that this NSA progam would be used to spy on Americans. Instead, he said that Cheney told him in 2001 that it was only a change in technology. Cheney said it would only allow them to eavesdrop on international calls between foreign countries that are transmitted over a US- based communications system. So what kind of system is Cheney describing? How would calls between far-off foreign countries ever be transmitted by the US? Not with phone lines. He's talking about US satellites - commercial satellites used by long-distance companies like AT&T to transmit calls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

The NY Times story says the order was issued in 2002, but Graham says this meeting occured Oct. 25, 2001. I think they're both right. Bush claimed the right to do this based on the Afganistan War resolution - this was signed the same day, Oct. 25, 2001. I think that when Bush started this program, they hadn't made any offical executive order to the NSA, they just did it using the war resolution that'd just passed the same day. Then in 2002 & 2003, they actually passed specific executive orders to govern this program. Executive Orders dealing w/National security are instead called "National Security Directives", so it seems pretty certain that that's what Bush used. These wouldn't be included in the normal list of Executive Orders, but luckily there's a list of NSD's online as well.

So I did a little digging, and I'm pretty sure that this is the Executive Order Bush used to govern this program -

NATIONAL SPACE POLICY REVIEW - 2002. This review reports directly to the National Security Council, and changes national policy on satellite "remote sensing" (spying) & space activities.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-15.htm

U.S. COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING POLICY - the result of the 2002 review. This creates a new national policy on spy satellites, on how private companies can be licensed to make satellites, and how the US gov. can treat communications between foreign countries. The new policy is supposed to increase national security.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/remsens.html

I think that the US has been systematically monitoring all satellite communications; even the private commercial satellites that long-distance companies use. The NSC licensing process could require that private satellites contain some sort of code that allows the US gov. access. Once the NSA has access, they just run it all though their computers until something suspicious pops up. Then they get "authorization" for a more specific wiretap. That's what they're doing. This is not "targeted" or only aimed at Al-Queda. This is aimed at everybody. I think it explains why Bush is so desperate to keep this quiet, & why they're so reluctant to name exactly what orders they are using to do this. I've scared myself, but I think this is right & I've at least satisfied my curiosity. It's not that they're wiretapping a few phones, it's that they're essentially wiretapping every phone that makes an international call. (This is only my uninformed opinion - but does this seem right? Any satellite/intelligence gurus out there?)

[Quakerfriend]

1. Yes, and this goes hand-in-hand with John Dean's claims in

Worse than Watergate that they want to dominate space partly for the purpose of controlling all satellite communication.

[Marie26]

2. I'd like to see that

Is there a link to that story anywhere? Dean's been very spot-on about a lot of this, so if he says that, it might well be true.

[CornField]

4. It's a book, but here is a link to an excerpt

http://www.twbookmark.com/books/15/031600023X/chapter_excerpt18541.html

[shance]

3. Interesting. What about domestic calls being made in this country?

Im assuming the program could be used to monitor and track phone conversations that are not internationally linked as well.

[Marie26]

5. I honestly don't know

I can research laws & stuff, but the technology is beyond me. It could be that they could monitor domestic calls the same way, and simply chose not to because it would be too blatantly illegal. By only spying on international calls, they can at least claim it's not domestic spying. It could also be that the process for referring internal calls is different from international calls.

[shance]

6. Of course the bigger question is, how would Americans ever know?

n/t

[shance]

7. Kick

n/t

[IndyOp]

8. Total monitoring of the Earth by 'real-time global situation awareness.'

You'd think if they are going to keep publishing their plans to do this sort of thing we would notice it sooner...

The Strategic Master Plan (SMP) changes the nature of war. No longer will battles be fought by ships, aircraft and ground forces. Instead the US will use its technology to dominate any theatre of war from space.

The document also opens the door for the US to become the only global policeman. Control of space will give it uniquely instantaneous reach, capable of 'worldwide military operations.'

The first page of the document clearly spells out America's agenda. General Lance W Lord, of Air Force Space Command, writes in his foreword: 'As guardians of the High Frontier, Air Force Space Command has the vision and the people to ensure the United States achieves space superiority today and in the future.'


A list of strategies and objectives detail the goals of Space Command in the coming years. These include:
# creating an instantaneous global strike force.
# Total monitoring of the Earth by 'real-time global situation awareness.'
# a nuclear arsenal in space.
# the development of exotic new weapons.
# the maintenance of US military dominance. The doctrine declares: 'when challenged, pursue superiority in space through robust ... defensive and offensive capabilities.'
# a fully integrated 'land, sea, air and space war-fighting system.'
# integrating civil and commercial space operations with military ones.

US Plans to Own Space - Sunday Herald
<http://www.sundayherald.com/34768>

[EVDebs]

9. Truthout mentions illegalities ; James Bamford's books do too

They can use 'training exercises' as their main excuse OR that they 'passed the buck' to a sister USUK treaty country who holds the data until the coast is clear.

In any event, the "vacuum cleaner" method of E-Lint data gathering still has some legal channels that Bubble Boy should have gone through first. But, hey, they never cared about 'showing no stinkin' badges' in the first place !

[Ksec]

10. Bring it on GOP felons.

Bush OWN lawyers gave him the OK. Now Theres an effective check and balance. Using ones own lawyers to tell them what they want to hear.

Trust me says bush. I wont use it to spy on political foes. You can trust me......

[electropop]

11. Many calls are by undersea cable, not satellite

But SIGINT refers to a lot more than satellites. It stands for "signals intelligence" and the term is as broad as it sounds.

There are many many ways of intercepting bulk telecommunications trunks, and they mainly don't involve any cooperation by the carriers. 'nuff said.

[HereSince1628]

12. Back in the days of the ASA monitoring international calls was routine

That was the early 1970's and you really must appreciate that these were the formative days in civil service for Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld.

I got out of service before the brakes were put on these operations. I've always assumed the military/intelligence community found a way to keep them going.

[FogerRox]

13. WAPO & WH links not working

[Marie26]

18. Sorry

The editing period has expired, so I'll just put the links again here:

Gonzales & Hayden Press Conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Washington Post story - "Pushing the Limits of Wartime Powers": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html

[GreenPoet64]

14. If this is correct, he authorized these programs

using executive order. Does that then mean that there were no checks and balances in implementing these programs? Or are you saying that these programs were based on changes in the law and that he does indeed have a legal ground to stand on?

I would be curious to know if he has some legal loop hole to wiggle his way out of this. If so, then this whole story may have been leaked as a red herring--perhaps to distract from the Conyer's report.

[Marie26]

19. No loopholes here

The President can issue as many executive orders as he wants, but he can't overide the law. EO's are used to manage the Executive Branch - arrange agencies, manage policy, etc. But it's not meant to create new law. The laws & statutes are created by Congress, and the President must follow them like everyone else. That's the check & balance. If it's true that Bush was making sweeping changes that violate FISA, that's illegal no matter how he did it. And if this practice violates the 4th Am., it's unconstitutional no matter what executive order he used to do it. As far as I can see, there's no legal loophole Bush can crawl through to justify this. Gonzales is a very smart attorney, & even he couldn't come up with one. Relying on the Afganistan War resolution to spy on Americans isn't going to cut it.

[Scout1071]

15. I made many international calls in late 2001/2002. Do I have a file?

Did they listen in on me?

[gulfcoastliberal]

16. They've been doing it for years: Project Echelon - Sat, Fiber, copper,

microwave, etc - all tapped by NSA and processed by supercomputers for "key words" and such. Every single phone call, whether bounced off a satellite, transmiited via fiber optic undersea cables, copper lines to COs, cell phone microwave, shaortband radio, etc.

http://www.echelonwatch.org/

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/echelon_011121-1.html

http://home.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id120/pg1/

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm

Great, now I'm flagged. Every message we type, every email we send, phone calls, etc - have been routinely intercepted for years.

Bushler is just now targeting specific groups and individuals for constant surveillance - in violation of the law.

[Marie26]

20. That sounds about right

Thanks for the links! That sounds about right, but if Echelon has existed for years, what is Bush doing that is so different? It sounds like it scared NSA analysts, & Sen. Rockefeller - but why would they be so upset if this monitoring has been done all along?

[gulfcoastliberal]

28. Cause they're doing it to US citizens in violation of law

They're supposedly not supposed to intercept US calls and communications unless they have a specific warrant to do so. Also, they may now be targeting intra-continental communications, despite their insistence that they only monitor international. The main controversy and illegality is they didn't get warrants - so they must have been spying on US citizens.

[Justice Is Comin]

17. There was definitely a reason he pleaded

with the New York Times not to expose him. It didn't have nothing to do with national security. That was almost an unprecedented step.

[Marie26]

21. Couple more clues

- Nobody is using the word "wiretap" except reporters. Bush & Gonzales never once use the word to describe the program; instead they emphasize "interception" & "rapid detection." Unlike FISA warrants, it's not for "long-term monitoring," according to Bush. Gonzales says "it's not about wiretapping."

- Rockefeller's letter - This is probably the only direct evidence we've got about this program. Rockefeller was one of the very few Senators who was informed about the NSA program. According to this memo, the program reminded him of the "TIA project" under Poindexter. Rockefeller also is bothered because he "is not a technican" & feels he need someone w/"independent technical expertise" to advise him on this. He's concerned about the direction of "technology & survaillence" in this country. It does not sound like he's describing typical wiretaps. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, Rockefeller would be familiar w/those - he might question the legal basis for wiretaps in the US, but he wouldn't feel the need for independent technical advice to understand it. It sounds instead like he's describing some new cutting-edge survaillence technology - one he's not able to fully understand; but one that disturbs him with its implications.

- In the press conference, one reporter had a very good question. He asked - if you say you're only eavesdropping on people w/known terrorist ties, how did you find out they have terrorist ties? This question seems to completely boggle Gonzales & Hayden - Hayden finally says "The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time." So, the NSA is deciding who to spy on based on info they gathered from spying. Make sense?

- The "Total Information Awareness" project was a massive database that would store information from credit cards, employment records, medical records, travel logs, internet, etc. - the program would then sift through all this to discover whether people fit a terrorist "model". It got pulled because people accused the Defense Dept. of using it to profile people & gather information on innocent people w/o a warrant. http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Information_Awareness
Helpful little diagram -

This NSA progam now is very similar, according to Rockefeller. It sounds like the NSA program isn't about individual wiretaps at all, instead it's a massive data-mining program to sift through all international communications to detect "suspicious activity". This explains Hayden's comment - the NSA first gathers information wholesale, then decides who to target for more "eavesdropping". Which isn't too surprising, but I think the twist is how they decide what raises a "red flag" to allow further spying. They've got this huge database of records, based on TIA, and the technology to analyze it. I bet that this NSA program is linking the database records w/the satellite communications - then running it all through the computers to highlight "suspicious" behavior. You traveled to Egypt, recently worked for a Muslim charity, and called your friend in Canada to talk about how "King Kong" bombed? - red flag. Or let's say you call someone who has previously been "red flagged" for calling an suspected terrorist - you'd now be flagged too. This would be very efficient & allow the NSA to quickly "detect" suspicious behavior - the problem is that it's essentially allowing searches of all phone calls of innocent people, that it's a form of profiling, and that it allows the gov. to use private records w/o "probable cause" or ever receiving a search warrant.

[dutchdemocrat]

22. Other places working on the same angle...

Other discussion starting here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5646726&mesg_id=5646726

WHAT IS THE NSA UP TO?....

From

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php

So what's the nature of the secret NSA bugging program? Why did the Bush administration feel like they couldn't continue to seek warrants via the usual FISA procedures? Take a look at the following quotes and you can see a single thread that starts to emerge:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, telling reporters why Bush didn't simply ask Congress to pass a law making the program clearly legal: We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.

President Bush, answering questions at Monday's press conference: We use FISA still....But FISA is for long-term monitoring....There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two....We used the process to monitor. But also....we've got to be able to detect and prevent.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a letter to Dick Cheney after being briefed on the program in 2003: As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

New York Times editor Bill Keller, explaining why the Times finally published its story last week after holding it back for over a year: In the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program — withholding a number of technical details — in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record.

None of these quotes makes sense if the NSA program involved nothing more than an expansion of ordinary taps of specific individuals. After all, the FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. What's more, Congress wouldn't have had any objection to supporting a routine program expansion; George Bush wouldn't have explained it with gobbledegook about the difference between monitoring and detecting; Jay Rockefeller wouldn't have been reminded of TIA; and the Times wouldn't have had any issues over divulging sensitive technology.

It seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Lots of people have suggested that the NSA program has something to do with Echelon, a massive project that vacuums up communications of all kinds from all over the globe. The problem is that Echelon has been around for a long time and no one has ever complained about it before — so whatever this new program is, it's something more than vanilla Echelon. What's more, it's something disturbing enough that a few weeks after 9/11 the administration apparently felt that even Republicans in Congress wouldn't approve of it. What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007812.php
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/20530/546

[Just Me]

23. I'll bet they've been spying on our representatives.

I'll bet they have!!!

[shance]

24. kick

n/t

[shance]

25. kick

n/t

[FogerRox]

26. kick- eom

[tlsmith1963]

27. Sounds Pretty Convincing to Me

You really did your homework. Interesting stuff.

Tammy