I am aware that there is already a diary dealing with the mystery poster on the Rec list. I thought the current diary only began to scratched the surface, so I wanted to provide this as an archive of sorts of all of the comments being made by this person, as it can be quite time consuming to sort them out.
This is a long diary so sorry for that. Before you get to the end please give this a rec. if you want more to see this, since it will take a while to read.
Lets start of with a quote from out mystery poster:
Remember, this information is open. Anyone can do this. The key is to notice the leverage We the People have on Congress, the President, and US government.
and
Do what you have to do. The problem is simple: The clues are emerging; the issue is whether people want to see them, then dig. The answer are not hidden, they are not as deep as you might think. One thing surfacing in one area, sheds light on what else is happening in other areas. Take the larger perspective.
Well said. Lets take the jump...
First, a disclaimer regarding this diary. I made no judgment on the validity of these comments. I merely am archiving them so we can look them over. The person who is writing this is, in my opinion, very knowledgeable regarding the inner workings of Washington and some of this information starts to paint a very intriguing big picture that ties many smaller scandals into a much larger one.
Note that the poster often is answering questions and in doing so, copies portions of things others have written then replies, often separated by a series of dashes. This can be confusing at first but in time you can short out the pattern. I do not claim to be a great writer so this diary will be short on finesse and heavy on functionality.
The posts in question have been made on various threads over at TPM.
Thread1:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...
Thread2
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...
Thread3
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...
Thread4
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...
I went through just one of these links (Thread 1) and below I have pulled out all comments by the "mystery Poster". I hope others will follow through with the other links and pull out quotes so we can have them all in one place. I found the quotes by doing a text search on the forum pages (control F) and searching for "Posted by :" (there are 2 blank spaces ofter the ":")
Thread 1
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/...
This makes Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" sound positively straightforward.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 4:12 PM
STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION
I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the audio:
["Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."]
It appears he almost mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is outside FISA; and outside what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover all things.
Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.
. . . .
Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella.
Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?
"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 4:45 PM
NSC-RUN PROGRAM, LIKE IRAN-CONTRA, OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL-LEGAL OVERSIGHT
An "NSA/NSC" supporting function/unit does not necessarily mean intelligence gathering or intercepts. NSA-NSC-related units can be assigned anywhere; and their intelligence gathering is not isolated to electronic methods. It could involve civilian contractors assigned to commercial entities not obviously connected with the US government; and not obviously involved with verification of Signals intelligence. The personnel may or may not have any idea that they are assigned to a group that relies on NSA-collect information or that they are involved with verifying information the NSA/NSC has an interest.
. . . . .
"Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination? Comey Testimony. Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation. Comey dropped that name for a reason...."
Posted by: drational
Date: July 27, 2007 4:14 PM
Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers.
Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things.
Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.
. . .
Philbin was former OLC, meaning he probably clashed with Addington on the legal aspects of Rendition/prisoner abuse as well. Philbin documented his concerns, which the Congress can ask for since those memoranda and their existence on this subject have been disclosed. Mentioning Philbin may have been merely a suggestion of which people/memoranda to specifically ask for.
Philbin was aware of the "security" issues of GTMO; and likely would have been involved with discussions in detaining prisoners in Eastern Europe.
- Support Aspect: NSA resources supporting, or outsourced
"NSA" or "NSC" program doesn't necessarily have to mean just data interception, but use and support of other activities: Combat, intelligence analysis, interrogation, or direct support for the CIA. Problem NSA and DOJ have is when CIA -- possibly connected with this "other program" -- have talked to the EU. EU may have more information about this "other program" than the Congress has been directly told or understands.
- Direct reporting to NSC, outside Congressional oversight
IF this is an NSA "program" it could be a support function for the NSC, or one of the combatant commanders; or made to look that way to hide the real objective of the activity. They may have classified it as an "NSA Program" to bury its real objective as a domestic-CIA-cover action program, which is illegal, an "open secret" but explained away as a "training program" like Operation Falcon: Use of Federal resources at the local level for training, manning support, and domestic intelligence gathering in conjunction with CIFA.
- Posse Comitatus
This could be a special access program within DoD that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, hidden as an "NSA program" but a domestic security force backed by combat forces/special forces units which have the power to issue arrest warrants, detain people, and target those who oppose the illegal activities.
- Individual Cells, untraceable, multi-agency
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the President could not, through DoD and CIFA, establish a Gestapo-like "NSA program" within the DoD community, and then outsource this to local law enforcement -- JTTF. They've got people that cross flow between the guard units, local law enforcement, FBI, and to civilian jobs all day. They could be creating individual cells within JTTF units that are comprised of NSC contractors, data analysis, and law enforcement whose sole goal is to act as a direct reporting entity to the NSC. They could very well be reporting directly to people working for Cheney, and Congress and JCS might never realize who or what was actually assigned, or relying on DoD assets.
- DoD Entities With Personnel Assigned Stateside
DoD could ery well have created "foreign entities" in other countries, who then are in charge of these personnel stationed in the US. DoD was given this power to establish foreign intelligence and combat support entities overseas; however, if that's mutated, the NSC may have subcontracted to these DoD entities US-based personnel who directly support NSC: In effect, creating an NSC-NSA support function under DoD foreign entities, but basing their contractors in the US..
SUMMARY
Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.
B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.
C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.
D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents.
Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.
E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.
F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.
G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.
H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors:
- Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct.
- How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse?
- To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"?
- Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target?
- Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target?
- Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized?
- What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action?
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 5:37 PM
LEARN LESSON OF OLC IN RE SUBPOENA RESPONSES
Recall, OLC issued a "memo" saying that WH Counsel did not have to testify. This, according to the WH, was "gospel." Untrue, but that's another issue. OLC made a "rule" and then everyone said, "See, that's what they said."
Now, consider this, from TPMM quote, above: ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] That could mean anything, anybody, and without reference to any legal standard.
"not legally controversial" . . . according to whom. . . ?...:
- OLC?
- Consensus within NSC?
- Consensus within NSA?
- Rove's determination?
- Gonzalez assessment after talking to Goodling about door mats for the Hoover Building?
. . .
What's their idea of "non legal controversy", as opposed to a "controversy that is real, but not based on a law, just the Constitution"?
What is someone like Darth Cheney said, "We need to justify this -- find a reason. Ignore words in the law if you need to. Just give me a memo. You get an appointment to the bench if you can figure this out." What if Roberts or Alito gave a really good opinion on this and made everyone -- in that room -- believe it was "not controversial", even though it was?
. . .
Again, saying ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean:
A. "other programs" were controversial;
B. "other groups" are doing illegal things, but you haven't asked us about them, so we haven't made up a lie. . . yet;
C. OLC "determined" (using a feather, some fairy dust, and after gazing into GOodling's eyes) that anything the NSC wanted to do under Cheney was OK, just as long as nobody traced the money.
. . .
There's another way of looking at this ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."]
D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:
E. DoD is allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those overseas entities -- in the US.
F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.
G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could also mean:
H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves
I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)
J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".
K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."
L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches.
"not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.
The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action.
"not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were not using spears with poison tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:09 PM
Transcripts can tell you alot: The changes, pauses, and hesitations -- especially when compared to the audio -- can be very revealing: Find out if they are changing their pace of word; and is it liekly they've been fed lines through an ear piece like Bush is. Someone is pulling the strings; someone has a script.
The problem is when the questions asked do not match the scripted answers. How about some last minute changes to the questions to throw them off, Congress?
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:12 PM
This is not necessarily true: [}Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program."]
The "other programs" could be things far too scary to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."
Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:17 PM
I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall outside FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:
- Roving bands of contractors harassing US citizens;
- Temporary detention centers to detain US citizens without warrant or trial;
- Use of tax information by JTTF to compel US citizens to explain things that the agents are not able to determine through NSA intercepts
- Groups whose sole function is to fill in the gaps in the NSA intercepts, and provide some meat to explain what is going on with something that is unusual, but they don't want the court to know they're looking at . . . again.
Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity? [I realizes this assumes the RNC e-mail was related to the activity; but isn't that the point: The RNC believes that this activity is lawful, so why not discuss it by email?" What if the RNC, when it first created the backup email system, through nobody would find out about it; and they assumed the e-mail would never see the light of day because of "privilege" claims. But when, what if someone from one of the law firms associated with he CIA went to the EU, and the RNC realized, "Oh, no. . . they've figure it out; it's not lawful; and we're in trouble. Destroy everything." IT doesn't make sense to destroy evidence related to a "legal program" when that activity -- if it were lawful and non-disclosed -- should be protected by privilege. Rather, it appears they realized private would not work, and the documents would not be shielded.
The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: [ "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA<prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." ]</p>
Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 PM
I sincerely feel compassion for poor Tony. He's obviously not doing well, and perhaps we need to applaud his bravery. He has to be on some very potent drugs in order to stand up there and lie continuously, all the while scoffing at the audacity of those who dare ask such stupid questions. It's really quite sad.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 7:32 PM
Thanks. BTW: The "wall" argument [ in re FISA "needed reforms" ] falls apart: DSP combined the CIA and FBI info before 9-11, making "the wall" irrelevant. It's not a real problem then, now; and the "solution" is a red herring.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:49 PM
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:08 PM
My question is:
mo2" How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program?"
Excellent point: We don't; allegations are that the illegal surveillance started before Sept 2001.
mo2: "Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001?"
Good point again.
mo2:" Because they say so is not good enough."
Right. Getting warmer.
-------------
mo2: Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal?
You are correct.
mo2: "And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?"
Also, they like the idea people are focusing on the wrong surveillance, wrong time period: The confusion menas they can blame Congress for "not asking teh right questions."
mo2: "Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?"
Someone said that, you're correct; but TSP isn't necessarily what's being talked about.
THe point is: If the GOP will not convice Gonzalez for lying, then Gonzalez needs to explain why his comments are true:
- What programs could exist under both the inconsenst statementes of Gonzalez; and also the disparity between what Gonzalez and Mueller are saying.
The GOP Senators canot have it both ways: Sayhing, "AG is telling the truth; but not having any information to support that conclusion.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:54 PM
Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:50 PM
The problem they have: Not only were they doign illegal things before Sept 2001; those illegal things did not work.
There's no basis for the President to say, "We need to do more of this illegal stuff" as it didn't work before Sept 2001; rather, what's needed is the opposite: "Given we tried ilegal things, and that didn't work, who has some other ideas?"
They can't ask that question because they'll admit:
- They screwed up
- They have no clue
- They're not able to hire someone to help them out
The only option they have is to pretend the problem is one thing; and then solve that "new problem" in a way that appears to solve it. Forget the fact that the problem they may be "sovling" is illusory. They may have defined the program in terms of what appears to be a solveable problem.
IN other words, if they've realized that they can't win, they['ll [a] redefine the enemy in terms of what Congress can be led to believe is a credilbe threat; and [b] redefine the solution in terms of not solvinga real problem, but in terms of what appers to solve what they've created the impression is the problem.
Problems, solutions, reality, and the illusion may or may not be matching: This may explain why things are not appearing all that straightforward: They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 9:59 PM
KNOW THE NATURE OF US GOVERNMENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING
I read this, and thought of the attorneys in DOJ who were saying gum this to death; and what Gonzalez has been saying/doing -- Lying, obstruction: ["Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]
The quote and subject are not as important as the point: US Government legal counsel will obstruct justice, and stupidly document that obstruction: How many of the RNC e-mails would WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel have sent back and forth on their progress in blocking review of FISA, Geneva, and other illegal activity; then delete these e-mails when they learned it was on the Libby/Abramoff Grand Jury subpoena list?
Know who you're up against: People who have no remorse over engaging in illegal conduct, and (apparently) hiding evidence related to executions of people who opposite reckless conduct. These are lawyers who are doing this: The very people who supposedly are the "best" and "brightest" in the legal profession: The same people who are put on the Federal Benches. Congress needs to take a wider view of the DOJ Staff misconduct in re FISA, Geneva, rendition, and prisoner abuse.
Doesn't look as through Congress has really woken up to the recklessness in the legal community. Let's get some state level disbarment investigations going; and forward the results to the public so we can throw it back at them during future confirmation hearings.
The lawyers were behind the Watergate break-ins, and the Holocaust. We can't let this happen again, and the lawyers need to be put on a tight leash. They've defied their oath, putting their party and President before the Constitution. That which is not lawfully opposed, will continue; the legal profession, left unleashed, will do what is least expected: Turn the law inside out to justify genocide, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and defiance of their oath and Constitution.
A president does not do this on their own; nor does a Congress -- with lawful options to end it -- have much of a defense when they have powers to investigate, block funding, and compel oversight. The Ranking Members of the Committees have had this power to compel reviews since day one. Doesn't matter that the GOP "controlled" Congress: The DNC has the power to filibuster bills; and could have issued letters to the DoJ-NSA-CIA-DoD IG requesting assistance. There's no merit to any assertion that "nobody was going to do anything" -- how do the Members of Congress explain the effort to do something: Pass proclamations calling for Congress to impeach despite the GOP "controlling" the US Government.
One answer: There is a way to lawfully oppose. There is no merit to any assertion that there is no opting; or that were are stuck with this abuse. There is a way: If Congress will not oppose this abuse; and Congress will not end funding, then there is someone else who can be trusted to assert their oath, and defend the Constitution. Assent to DNC-GOP joint assent to this despotism is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if its unwillingness to impeach, refusal to investigate, inaction on subpoenas, or stupid assent to DoJ-US Atty decisions to do nothing to enforce the law. Someone else can be found who will do their job. Stop listening to excuses of why this "cannot" be done;and find a way to make those who have an oath to do their job: Defend the Constitution, even it means prosecuting the President, VP, Speaker, and House Judiciary Chairman for [a] violating Geneva; and [b] refusing to enforce the Constitution using all lawful options. It is reckless -- this many years after 9-11 and the disclosures of the prisoner abuse and illegal NSA -- for Congress to be still rubber stamping legislation/funding: There are options to end the funding, which the DNC refuses; and there are options to lawfully target legal counsel complicit with this illegal activity.
This isn't about DoJ, FISA, or RNC e-mails, but whether legal counsel -- with that "special position of trust before the court" -- can really be trusted; or whether they need to be overseen, audited, and intruded upon as if they were a branch of government. America's legal counsel have expected too much deference for reckless service; and this many years after the illegal activity has surfaced it is absurd for the American legal community to flaunt "how great it is" or ask anyone to embrace the "American model" when the lawyers have their disastrous results on their hand. Their only solution appears to be to laugh at what they've done to gum things up; never realizing We the People have the option to get them disbarred, and make them the lawful target of war crimes prosecutions. America's lawyers, indeed, did learn the lesson of the Holocaust: How to commit illegal warfare and not get caught. We the People have something to say about that. This is far from over. These are issues of international criminal law with one large defense pool: American legal counsel inside DoJ, OVP, DoD, and outside counsel
They wished this.
[BTW: The quote is from the Tillman case in keeping criminal prosecutors from reviewing the close-range gun shot wounds to Tillman, leading some to believe that he was executed to silence him for his anti-war stances he was apparently going to advance outside the military. Tillman is reported to have been frustrated [a] there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; [b] they were really not going after AlQueda; and [c] the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]
Posted by:
Date: July 28, 2007 6:53 PM
If you see content on here that seems confusing, feel free to ask about it with specific questions; or what you would like clarified. You may be asking the right question to help focuse the issue. Fresh eyes are good. Please continue to post. Thanks.
Posted by:
Date: July 28, 2007 9:15 PM
TurtleNS...
Now you must work in a goverment office! They love actiniums and every thing is in a form number!
So, the TSP is form Devil666
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 2:07 AM
Do what you have to do. The problem is simple: The clues are emerging; the issue is whether people want to see them, then dig. The answer are not hidden, they are not as deep as you might think. One thing surfacing in one area, sheds light on what else is happening in other areas. Take the larger perspective.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 2:00 PM
If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.
The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??
Posted by: Jimbo
Date: July 29, 2007 10:49 AM
---
In my view the question of "are there one, two, or more programs" isn't relevant: The known information shows there's been illegal activity.
Whether there is alot of illegal activity; or whether there is multiple or many program's merely confirms the foregone conclusion: There's illegal activity.
Time to stop digging for "confirmation" of what we know; and compel Congress to explain why -- despite the known illegalities -- they continue to fund what they know, or should know is illegal.
Murtha's cutting of the DoD COngressional liaision office budget shows that the budget tools are there: "Mr. President, cooeprate with our inquiry; or you get no money." The arugment that the GOP is 'blocking' the DNC is fiction: The DNC can cut the money and make the GOP "pass" an Amemdnet to add money back.
Again, I appreciate there are people who want to spend time getting clues and "figuring things out" -- in my view, it would be more productive to take the information that we have, and give it to the DNC is a simple format: The FISA violations are known to be illegal; either cut the money, or we're going after you wtih prosecutions.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 2:04 PM
TheraP" And ask why the illegal activity is being funded." [TP1]
TheraP: "And that is a very good question. Why have things been reauthorized over and over?" [TP2]
TheraP: "And what blackmail or bribery or whatever is being used to keep people in line?" [TP3]
TheraP: "And, where is the paper trail for that?" [TP4]
- There is the option to cut funding:
http://rawstory.com/...
- People who have been complicit with Geneva violations -- malfeasance in failing to cut budgets -- like to change the subject.
- Google: [ descriptive summaries NSA 614113 R-2 ]
- Google [ JROC NSA ]
- Google [ " Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice. "]
- Google [5 USC 3331 malfeasance ]
- Google [32 CFR 2800 Ad Hoc Committees ]
- Google [ Statement Accounting standard 74 compliance ]
- Before Sept 2001, NSA had program funding for a lawful NSA surveillance method which fully complied with FISA. JROC is the DoD group which oversees the funding/program authorization; they make decisions: "Is there a cheaper way to do this?" They decided that they had to spend money. Then it was cancelled. Someone made the decision to cancel what is lawful; but Congress is making a decision to keep funding what is illegal.
- Evidence is not only what exists; but the absense what what should exist: The Ranking Members of the Committees 2001-2006 had the option to document their concerns; and forward that concern to the DOD-NSA-CIA-DOJ IG. [See 6]
- Compliance audits of OVP would have detected the documentation of whether OVP, Addington, and others aware of rendition, NSA survilance were or were not retaining records. The auditors have been blocked. [See 7, 8]
Q&A
TP1: See 2, then 11.
TP2: See 1, then 10.
TP3: See 5, then 2.
TP4: See 3, then revisit 2, then 1; then reconsider 7, then link with 8; then reconsider 10.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 5:19 PM
"But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?"
Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 3:11 PM
- Google: ["attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]
- Google: [ Procurement Guidance Documents Software PGD ]
- Consider: RNC offices were attacked in the run up to the 2006 elections.
- Compare the following
A. Location of attacks on RNC offices before the election;
B. Point spread of RNC going into the election in those districts.
- Consider: RNC wrote a note/letter to the unions "complaining" about "unions" attacking the RNC offices.
- If you could convince someone "your opponent' was engaged in "dirty tricks" would that not convince some of the opposition to rejoin you and denounce "the opposition"?
- Then consider: Supposedly the RNC 'knew" enough to write a letter to "who was involved"? Why didn't the US Atty's bring prosecutions:
- The information in the RNC/DoJ offices will show you:
A. What basis there was to conclude "the unions" were behind the attacks [none, fabricated, not followed up];
B. The subsequent discussion on prosecutions, or non-prosecutions;
C. Which DoJ staff liaison were involved with the campaigns;
D. The IP Numbers for the DOJ Staff not involved on processing FISA warrants, but engaged in discussions/non-official business using official government resources.
- Evidence isn't just what exists, but what is absent but what should exist
Q&A
A. Funding, records: What physical evidence was retained of the RNC office destruction; who was assigned; and how was the investigation closed out: Either there is a report, and that report was given to the RNC as the basis for their "letter about the unions"; or there is no evidence, and no basis for the letter. [See 9]
B. These are issues of criminal law, not just e-mail or voting. That State AG would have to get information from the JTTF to understand what basis there was to conclude that terrorism was not an issue; and who should have been involved with the preliminary review before the RNC issued their letter to the DNC. [See 9]
C. Link to FISA warrants: The same DoJ Staff computers that were "supposed" to be working with the FISA warrants, are linked with non-official business. How did the RNC get the "fast answer" on what was 'going on' with these attacks; but the AG says that he's "undermanned" and "can't process FISA warrants"? [See 8, then 9]
D. Where is the US Atty review of the evidence related to these attacks on the RNC offices; and how did the US atty go through the process to decline prosecution: Which FBI agents were involved; which State officials were assigned to which fusion center; and how was CIFA involved; were there no NSLs issued to determine who was involved? [See 9]
E. What is the explanation of the FBI director, and those assigned to the FBI support staff: Do they have no OPR experience; or is there a supervising problem within the FBI; is there any record of any of the FBI agents "involved" with this "investigation" not fully reviewing anything, ever while they were a SAC, ASAC, or assigned to DOJ OPR; what review per SAS74/99 was done of the DOJ OPR/IG/FBI budgets in light of these fraud indicators? [See 8]
F. When the reports within the FBI of leadership not doing what they should, how was this addressed? [See 9-11, Sibel Edmonds. . .]
G. Issue: Voting fraud, absent/incomplete investigation files; property destruction. No JTTF concern or prosecutors?
H. JCS and CIFA are also involved with domestic surveillance. What was the DoD General Counsel's involvement with the notifications related to these domestic issues: Was terrorism not on the notification list; was the DOD General counsel not consulted; was DoD General counsel never in receipt of, connected to any briefing given to anyone at the White House related to DoD domestic intelligence gathering efforts?
Someone was briefed: No other explanation for the RNC letter. The question is whether the appropriate investigations, notifications were or were not made: These calls, reports are logged in the correspondence logs; and they are tracked with various messages, workflows, and other assignments. Within Microsoft Outlook, there is a scheduling function: That information is familiar to you via the US Atty e-mail disclosures. Rove's link to Microsoft Outlook is clear; the question is whether the DOJ Staff IP numbers -- commonly linked to outside sites in other states -- were or were not reviewed by the Grand Jury when they examined the third-party-data transfer systems. Recall how quickly legal counsel coordinated on the Libby defense memoranda: They have a file sharing capability; however, Goodlings notifications of "delete this file" means that the auto-notification feature was turned off; or the file sharing system was not being used.
Questions:
A. Which DoJ Small Business Contract personnel were involved with the computer/IT/SW updates related to the DOJ-RNC file transfer systems; [See 2]
B. Where is a copy of the computer utilization meeting minutes where the pro/con of a file transfer system was discussed; who approved the budget profile within DoJ; and how was this decision coordinated with the RNC; [See 2]
C. If the file transfer system was in place -- and not subject to any "recent" review (Since 2001), why did Goodling not rely on the auto-notify feature when forwarding the updates to the readers?
D. Where are the e-mail notifications to the DoJ staff related to authorization for them to use, access, and transfer data using this file transfer system; when were the authorizations sent; who ensured the continued use and access to this system was proper; how were non-official uses of this system monitored; were there any efforts by non-DoJ personnel to use this system to transfer non-official records?
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 6:20 PM
A simple explanation of what BushCo is hiding and why they are parsing the language to keep it hidden:
Just as Dick Cheney set up a separate intelligence office from the CIA and DIA, BushCo established an intelligence-gathering entity emphasizing primarily domestic surveillance, differentiating it from the primarily "overseas" mission of the NSA.
This domestic intelligence-gathering entity had it's origins in John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program, which began in 2001 even before the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, this domestic data-collection entity was comprised of a bunch of Republican-crony private data-collection companies, which gained access to and began storing private information about U.S. citizens from telecommunication and banking institutions.
Therefore, BushCo farmed out domestic intelligence-gathering to privately-owned companies and "loyal Bushie" public corporations, essentially bypassing the NSA's legal restrictions on domestic spying as well as any oversight by the FISA court in the process, in an attempt to gather as much private data on U.S. citizens as possible, for anti-terrorism purposes or for purely partisan reasons, as BushCo tried to implement PNAC's dream of permanent Republican control of our federal government.
Anyway, there is no doubt that BushCo is trying to hide what they've been doing.
My theory is that they're trying to not only cover their own butts, but also are covering for all the "loyal Bushie" U.S. companies complicit in this massive, FISA-skirting, semi-NSA-connected domestic data-mining operation.
Thus, BushCo's language parsing. Legal NSA surveillance programs...with congressional oversight? Other intelligence-gathering programs...not so legal and with little or no congressional oversight? BushCo talking up legal government programs while downplaying (or not talking about at all) the privatized, rogue intelligence-gathering activities of U.S. companies and corporations?
When BushCo parses the language, this is what I hear them saying. They are trying to keep a wall of disinformation and misinformation erected between the legal surveillance side and what BushCo has been doing illegally. And they are trying to protect all the U.S. companies and corporations (i.e. "loyal Bushie CEOs) that have aided and abetted BushCo's highly-illegal, anti-American criminal domestic intelligence-gathering pursuits.
Posted by: The Oracle
Date: July 29, 2007 9:59 PM
S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures."
S2: Investigations: "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)"
S3: Evidence: "what kinds of paper trails may exist"
S4: Storage: "what form they might be stored"
S5: Indicators: "what the data suggest was happening"
"Just a tiny example of how one strange event can lead to another - and more evidence of something really strange - and probably illegal going on."
Yes. It's all connected: The open source will dance around the illegal information that has been illegally classified.
Google [ GAGAS ] These are some of the procedures to audit.
Google [ CFR ] These are things that are standards that are audited. Note, an
EO may or may not apply; and a CFR may or may not apply.
Google [38 CFR 2800 ] These are the Security classification procedures that the VP must comply related to classified information.
Google [ Statement Accounting Standard 74 Compliance ] This is the standard used to review entities receiving Federal Funds: To review their internal controls.
Google [ SAS 99 ] These are the fraud indicators used to assess whether auditors should increase or decrease audit scope. More indicators of fraud, trigger more sampling. If there are audit risks, but the auditor does not increase audit scope, that is a problem for the auditor not juts the original audit target.
Recent discussions about whether the President's EO "do or do not apply to OVP" are irrelevant: 38 CFR 2800 does.
Google [ Manual of Administrative Operations and Procedures ] and/or [ Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines ] -- These are the FBI standards.
Google [ USAM ]
These guidelines show how the prosecutors and investigators find evidence, comply with internal procedures, and do things to enforce the law.
Google [ CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS ] These are the guidelines for Congress to meet.
Google [ PART 160 DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATORY SYSTEM ] -- These are some example guidelines of what people are supposed to follow. Auditors are supposed to review these requirements; then do audit/samples to test whether the procedures are or are not being followed.
Once the auditor completes their review, they provide an audit report. The report is sometimes called a report of an "audit engagement". Either the audit report exists or it does not; either management met the requirements, or it did not; either the management developed a plan to correct their problems, or they did not. Once an audit is done, there is required follow-up to test whether the implemented solutions solve the original_ problem identified. Either the program/solution is solving the problem or it is not.
There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which he has to oversee, but the audit target is outside his control This means, that we can test whether the president's auditors were or were not doing their job.
Google [ PART 266 AUDITS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OTHER NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS ]
That is the trap that Congress has laid. By funding these "non-US government entities", what Congress has created are entities which can observe whether the President is or is not overseeing his auditors; and how competent the audits are.
Don't miss the point: Congress is allowed to set up dummy entities not to waste money, but to create bait that the President is required to engage, target, and put under surveillance. The Presidents' problem is that he doesn't know which of the companies are real; or which ones are bait that are direct reporting units to the Congressional staffers.
Anything that the bait detects is then back challenged to Congress: Has the team from the President's office attempted to do something inappropriate; have the audit rules been followed; or have there been unusual interactions suggesting that the President and RNC have attempted to deploy "people not related to the President".
The problem: Once Congress creates this dummy entity, from that point on, all interactions with that entity are from a specific time. Congress can then use the President's efforts to interact -- directly or indirectly -- and test:
A. What are the President's method to share information about the upcoming target;
B. Who is coordinating;
C. And are the President's personnel able to professional respond to unusual situations.
These are part of the designed problems the President is forced to confront. Then, going backwards from the audit, we can examine
- Which data fields did the President's auditors use, access, and adjust when preparing for the audit;
- Which records only related to this dummy audit were created; and how were those records updated; and how was the information sent/transmitted/stored
- Once we let this data sit for a while, and then create the impression that there ha has been illegal activity, what effort do legal counsel, the President, DOJ staff, and others make to destroy that audit data that was only connected to that bogus entity.
This is what has happened with the President right now. He and his auditors have been set up; the records that they've destroyed were based on discrete communications on specific dates and times. Before that information was received, the records were fine; after the data was received, the records were destroyed.
SO we can pinpoint:
- What the President, DoJ Staff, legal counsel, OVP, EOP, and others were told; how they were told; and the means that the records were stored;
- The time that the triggering event occurred;
- Then trace the record holes -- knowing that a credible search would trigger responses related to the known target.
Once those known targets are missing, then we broaden the line of inquiry:
A. When did legal counsel review the information, procedures, and conduct an audit;
B. Who last had access;
C. Who had the responsibility to establish this baseline.
It can't be changed. Either its there; or its not. The President's problem is he doesn't know which of the data sets have been planted; and that doesn't matter: There are known holes that were once linked with information that outside personnel put there knowing they would be removed.
There is a second set of data that can be compared to the existing data set. That second data set is a clean version of all the data. Had the auditors done their job, and the records not been destroyed, the clean/secure version would match the President's version. Again, we don't need t to see any details of how they do things: We only need to plant the data, and let the President put that information where it is supposed to go; then let him destroy it. Then the second/secure data set is presented to the Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury can see the holes; and the time that the holes were created.
That is his problem with the FISA, Prisoner abuse, and the Geneva violations. Discrete information was transmitted; and on specific dates the NSA, NSC, and President were known to believe something that was orchestrated. They've reacted to something they thought was real. Whether it was or was not real is irrelevant. The point is that the data existed; then its missing; and the missing holes are linked with specific lines of data and evidence that only specific people were told.
Those people are linked with specific offices, budgets, computers. It's all been stored, secure, and even if they destroy the records, they have no idea what other things are happening. This has been done using methods the NSA cannot detect. There are Trojan horses inside the NSA systems, WH computers, and other things: They are not viruses, but they are discrete information packages that are organized in unique ways. They're either there, as they're supposed to be; or they've been destroyed.
Part of the answer to this is the Congressional Correspond log. These are the records that show when Members of Congress were notified by letter of certain things. JCS, NSA, WH, and all other departments have the same type of tracking systems. If you noticed on the DOJ e-mails, you may have come across something called a "work flow": These are discrete tasks. Once a person is assigned a task, that is logged; either the log is OK, and has the information; or the log has been tampered with.
Again, once NSC and NSA have been triggered with a known event that will catch their attention, that package of information will get stored. Either it is still there as it should be, and the auditors can locate it; or its not there, because its been tampered with. Once the auditors know which information they're looking for, but that information is gone, then they can tell something about the entities responsiveness; procedural compliance. If its there, fine; but if its missing, then they do a flow charge of the procedures from data collection to data storage. They can tell who accessed it; which personnel had which authorities; and when the information -- known to have been stored -- was removed.
That removal is linked with pre-destruction e-mails, guidance, and other memoranda linked with the legal counsel. The problem is when legal counsel also has missing gaps at the same time as the data is missing.
Here's the problem for the President and Congress and outside legal counsel: Once the dummy entity is created, it can be determined who was aware of that information; and the means by which Congress, the President, outside counsel and others coordinated their efforts to retaliate, identify, and discredit those who are involved.
Once the President and/or Congress and/or legal counsel issue a subpoena for something that is false; and has been created with the intent to identify the methods the President is using to support illegal activity, that court action is linked to that discrete task. The problem is the legal counsel, Congress, and President have rushed without thinking, and have generated evidence, memoranda, notes, and communications.
The issue isn't what is going one, but is the line of evidence that should be in the Congressional computers, Presidents' files, and the legal counsel records be there? Their problem is they cannot control the records of their responses, messages, communications, and documentation which have been stored outside their control. Again, we have two sets of data: The data that should be there if things were going as required; and the remaining data that will have holes.
Once we align the two timelines, the holes will then be traceable to legal counsel communications, presidential notes, conversations, and Member of Congress communications. Don't miss the point: Congress and the President, not just legal counsel, have a problem. There are required stops that all three have taken; and then not acted on. They're stuck. This goes back to 2001. They can't prevent the comparison between what should have happened; vs what their records say happened. The holes are things they can't go back and fill. They're not sure exactly what they were dealing with.
REVIEW
The first line of evidence is in the Congressional correspond logs. These are the notification dates to Congress on FISA violations, illegal activity, prisoner abuse, and other things.
The second lines of evidence is the IG memoranda they get from the ranking Members related to problems.
The third line of evidence is the audit engagement and workflow.
The fourth line of evidence is the audit report of compliance related to that audit engagement.
The fifth line of evidence is the safeguarded information which the President, Congress, and legal counsel have been exposed to and either: Ignored, reacted to, panicked, or did what they were supposed to do.
This information relates to the safeguarded information provided to outside personnel at the EU; and has been transmitted by the CIA to foreign entities.
Then we go down the oath of office, list of malfeasance standards, and start our prosecutions of Members of Congress, the President, VP, legal counsel, DoJ-EOP-OVP legal staff. They're stuck. This isn't just a data retention problem, this is related to allegations of war crimes, malfeasance.
Small tiny problem: It's July 2007, sixteen [16] months before the 2008 election. Congress, the President, and legal counsel know they are stuck. Normally, they have the advantage on their side: They can find a scapegoat, and agree to pin the problem on them; this time -- they are the problem, and they can't bury this.
All the notifications to Congress are documented; legislative immunity falls apart; and their defenses fall away when we look at what they did; then compare it with what they should have done per 5 USC 3331, their oath of office. We need only look at the FISA violations -- as reported publicly -- then compare that with the open information -- of that illegal activity -- and contrast that with the votes: They, knowing there was a problem with illegal activity, continued to fund and spend money on things that violated the Constitution. Nobody made them. they freely chose to do this; despite knowing of that illegal activity, they did not -- as they had the power to do -- either document their concerns with the IGS or US Atty; nor did they remove themselves from the votes to pay for what they should have known was not lawful.
Your Points
S1: Procedure check sheets: "there must be paper trails of procedures." -- Yes, and these are not classified. They are open records. Auditors' compliance testing is also public evidence.
S2: Investigations: [ "Procedures for everything! And whether it is investigations that took place (or didn't)" ] Indeed.
S3: Evidence: [ "what kinds of paper trails may exist" ] Right again. Not complicated.
S4: Storage: [ "what form they might be stored" ] Right, and there are standards not only for the way the data is stored; but also the physical infrastructure used: Not just information, but security of that IT hardware that comes up with a 32 CFR 2800 audit.
S5: Indicators: [ "what the data suggest was happening" ] Right, all we have to do is ook at the holes. The bigger the hole, the bigger the problem they have. The key is the timeline: What happened; what was their known response; and then what is missing despite their procedures to follow when notified of that event/information.
Evidence is not needed proving that they didn't do their job; the fact that there are holes this big, and no correction, but continued funding is enough. Take your pick: This is all over the place. You have to decide your deadline to make this decision; and when you want to stop. That's the concern: It appears people are spending so much time digging through this evidence, that they're missing the big picture: Each line of evidence isn't telling us new information: It's part of the same kettle of fish: Malfeasance in re FISA violations, prisoner abuse, rendition, war crimes, and oath of office.
Time to engage with the State AGs. All fifty [50] of them, and bring in the Certified Fraud Examiners, Auditors, and some people who have some inclination of the prosecution possible against the Members of Congress, president, VP, and legal counsel in OVP, DoJ, EOP, and outside legal counsel. We don't need more evidence; we need some public trials, indictments, prosecutions, legal counsel disbarments, and jail time. The oath wasn't enough to inspire them.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 10:19 PM