It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

secret courts to replace warrantless nsa surveillance

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
in a reversal of policy, the bush administration has agreed to stop warrantless surveillance and will replace it instead with secret courts.

story

they also refuse to say how the new policy will work.

americans, do you ever wonder how far is too far or will you still sit and see how much further they will go?




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I am very glad to see that this step has taken place. The government has no right to place each and every single American citizen under surveillance as they have so done.

There has been the means to single out, with court approval, the terrorist threats, and have them monitored. There was never a reason for American citizens to be punished simply because of a handful of international or domestic terrorists. They, the government, has the means to track them, not all of us.

Don't let them kid you. Know better.




I am very curious as to see what the "stipulations" will be on the current regulations.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a bit more info about it here which brings up the suggestion that it is being stopped due to pre-empting of a congressional investigation into warrantless spying.

it also say "Several newspapers, including The Sun, have reported that there is another warrantless NSA program that collects the records of millions of communications in the United States, including domestic long-distance phone calls.

"There have been allusions to other programs we really don't know anything about," said Suzanne Spaulding, a former CIA counsel. "So that's still a question.""

so don't think that because one known system of spying on you has been stopped that it means that ALL spying on you has.

funnily, the wall street journal online reports it this way.....

"In a surprising reversal, the White House said it would end the National Security Agency's controversial practice of domestic wiretapping without warrants – one year after the secret program was disclosed -- and agreed to give an independent court jurisdiction over such surveillance measures in the future.

Under the changes, surveillance targeting people suspected of having links to terrorism will be conducted with the approval of the clandestine Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

here is a list of last years members of the foreign intelligence surveillance court from last year, should anyone wish to investigate them...
fisc members 2006



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Pfft. Don't believe it.

We already sidestep all sorts of domestic surveillance issues by having Echelon distributed. All that will happen is that for the ones they'd like monitored, they'll try to get a FISA warrant but if it's too big a problem, then Canada or Australia will "discover" the traffic and report it through diplomatic channels.

That's the way we do it for them, too. They can't always observe their citizens directly so they get us to do it. It's ok if they get an 'unsolicited' report from a friendly nation. They just can't get the info themselves. We trade observation tasks all the time.

Same thing on these forums. There's an intelligence directive that prohibits the NSA from reading them and using the data. However. If a FORN posts in a US hosted forum, it's like inviting in Dracula, they can waltz right in and do whatever they like. So if they see something on a thread they'd like to pursue, they give old Nigel a ring and have him post "Hi, from the Lake District!" and that's it, directive bypassed.

Edit:

At any rate, it's not like they often actually need to present the surveillance in court as evidence. What happens is, they find that Mustafa Khalid is doing something manky, so they have a local FBI or cop "in the right place at the right time" to magically catch a crime in progress, maybe nothing more than rolling a stop sign or forgetting to put on seat belts. Then they strip search the guy and tear the car to bits and find the bomb or whatever. "They just happened to be there, imagine that, what a fortuitous circumstance" is the usual way you'll see one of these done. They sure won't waltz in with a transcript.

[edit on 18-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Well said Tom.
You sound like someone with experience in the intell field. Being as I had some training in pensacola the situation you spoke of happens all the time almost exactly as you wrote.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Well said Tom.
You sound like someone with experience in the intell field. Being as I had some training in pensacola the situation you spoke of happens all the time almost exactly as you wrote.


Pensacola? Intel? What is this intel of which you speak?

No, no, I saw it all on "Mail Call"

In all seriousness, if they want to run surveillance on you they will, it just won't be as overt, and they'll magically discover evidence as if they knew it was there.


[edit on 18-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Isn't this kind of like replacing devil #1 with devil #2? I mean, I'm glad the warrantless surveillance is gone (supposedly), but now they add secret courts? How is that any better?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
... and now it is being reported that as well as secret courts, suspects may soon be convicted, imprisoned and/or sentenced to death on hearsay!
story here



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
... and now it is being reported that as well as secret courts, suspects may soon be convicted, imprisoned and/or sentenced to death on hearsay!
story here


That's all been allowed under the Military Commissions Act by taking away your right of habeas corpus. If you wish, write your congresspeople and demand the MCA be repealed... or demand they support S. 4081, as I have done. Hell, I even began a petition online for changes to several issues.

Do what you have to do.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

domestic surveillance issues by having Echelon distributed. All that will happen is that for the ones they'd like monitored, they'll try to get a FISA warrant but if it's too big a problem, then Canada or Australia will "discover" the traffic and report it through diplomatic channels.

Sorry Tom I don't understand 'distributed' from what I know Echelon was always a distributed network of receivers, transmitters Gibralter, Cyprus ....... created by the British to help control their Empire, they allowed access to the network as part of the wider Lend/Lease, Bases for Cash deal that came out of the war. US privacy law has always been circumvented by this agreement between the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ.

A friend of a friend once said that after being stationed in the Caribbean on Narcotics operations he was under no doubt that domestic American communications was routinely monitored by Nato staff from listening stations positioned in ex British colonies under the guise of 'Narcotics operations'. If you get the chance read Spycatcher by Peter Wright mainly about British Counter-Espionage it also gives a very candid view of SIGINT operations run by the USA.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by carslake

Sorry Tom I don't understand 'distributed' from what I know Echelon was always a distributed network of receivers...


Right! The processing is also distributed, there's some at each receiver site, and then there's clusters of processors that are all over as well. The submitter was looking for the "hub" or some group of supercomputers in one place that does the processing, there isn't one per se. I assumed what he might have meant was the main system management hub.


US privacy law has always been circumvented by this agreement between the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ.


Right you are. Most people don't consider this. A lot of directives are written to look to Joe Consumer like they are only circumvented when Achmed is on a forum, but that "out" is generally invoked by calling Bruce or Nigel when you want to officially snoop a forum or what not.

edit:

Sorry..I'm posting on two Echelon threads. It was on the other thread that they were looking for the central site.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join