Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Julian Sanchez interviews NSA whistleblower Russell Tice on his decision to come forward to Congress, cutting edge wiretap technology, and abuses at America's intelligence agencies.
theOneState|1.13.06 @ 5:28PM|#
I can't say how an intelligence agency uses it, because that
would be classified. Then the FBI would have shackles and cuffs
waiting on me real soon, so I have to be careful what I say. But we
can talk about the technologies and we can use hypotheticals and we
can use wiggle words.
Sissy.
Stephen Macklin|1.13.06 @ 5:36PM|#
I wonder if in the course of his testimony they'll get into the recent incidents of people with ties to terror cells buying large quantities of difficult to trace pre-paid cell phones.
|1.13.06 @ 5:53PM|#
I used to live in Greenbelt, MD.
The NSA has its own exit on the Baltimore Washington Parkway, with
a sign that says something along the lines of "Not The Exit You Are
Looking For." It's funny in that "Ha ha, it's 1984" sort of
way.
|1.13.06 @ 6:00PM|#
So ultimately what we need is some adult supervision of
these programs,
Hah! "adult supervision". Love that line.
|1.13.06 @ 6:26PM|#
I wrote off doughnut boy when I read him saying in the
Washington post "The mentality was we need to get these guys, and
we're going to do whatever it takes to get them." I certainly hope
so. His mentality seems to be to do whatever it takes to make sure
they don't get them and that he gets to be on television and get a
book deal.
If he was so concerned, he should have told Congress or the
inspector general. But doing that doesn't get you on TV or access
to the NYT's expense account.
|1.13.06 @ 7:24PM|#
If he was so concerned, he should have told Congress or the inspector general.
You know you can always count on Congress or the DoD IG when you
need protection from the government. Yep.
|1.13.06 @ 7:30PM|#
While I'm still a bit dubious about him, I have my doubts that he would put himself, permanently, out of a job in his chosen career for 7 months before seeking out the press if he were a gold digger or a fame seeker. That doesn't even count the period of time while he knew that he was going to be canned, which I'm sure was a virtual eternity as a government employee, even in the intel community.
|1.13.06 @ 7:32PM|#
John, you may be right. Perhaps he's angling for some publicity
and a book deal. On the other hand, if he had gone directly to the
authorities about this and IF he's telling the truth, he could have
ended up in a very dark place without anyone knowing. It will be
difficult now for him to be "disappeared" under the glare of TV
camera lights.
We'll probably never know one way or another but, honestly, I don't
find much of what he had to say in the interview all that
far-fetched.
|1.13.06 @ 8:43PM|#
"His mentality seems to be to do whatever it takes to make sure
they don't get them..."
Uh, yeah, the guy who's dedicated his adult life to his nation's
security is really motivated by a desire to see terrorists carry
out their attacks on our country without interference.
|1.13.06 @ 9:31PM|#
"I wrote off doughnut boy when I read him saying in the
Washington post "The mentality was we need to get these guys, and
we're going to do whatever it takes to get them." I
certainly hope so. His mentality seems to be to do
whatever it takes to make sure they don't get them and that he gets
to be on television and get a book deal."
"Comment by: John at January 13, 2006 06:26 PM"
so, John, if "whatever it takes" includes the FBI breaking into
your house by explosive entry, unannounced at 3 am and grabbing you
and everyone in your household (wife, kids, little dog Toto, etc.),
stripping you all and giving you body cavity searches, that's OK
with you, because "whatever it takes" to get the "terrists",
right?
|1.13.06 @ 10:13PM|#
er, I misread that..breathlessly awaiting Stossell..anyway, that's the link for the oh-my-god-Middle-Eastern-people-are -buying-cell-phones-coincidence-i-think-not story for anybody else who cares.
|1.13.06 @ 11:32PM|#
For the sake of argument, let's say that the NSA was completely
justified in instituting all of these programs.
Let's assume that they were right to sidestep FISA.
Heck, let's even assume that with unbridled access to these tools,
they are able to wipe out not only Islamist terrorism, but
practically any other flavor of terrorism as well.
What then? You'd have thousands of people and hundreds of billions
of dollars of equipment just sitting around, doing nothing.
For about five minutes, while they dream up a new definition for
"terrorism."
|1.13.06 @ 11:33PM|#
Jesus, re-reading my previous post, I look like an utterly whacked-out member of the tinfoil hat brigade...
|1.13.06 @ 11:53PM|#
Julian,
What was your feel for the guy? -- you must have some gut sense of
what you thought of the guy, even if over the phone.
|1.14.06 @ 1:30AM|#
What could those "don't declassify for 200 years" programs
be?
Probably the one where they clone Mohammed and hold him hostage
until Usama turns himself in. And then the one about the bears that
are 73% more resistant to infection and can shoot lasers out of
their eyes.
And I hope they never declassify the Star-Nosed-Man Project.
|1.14.06 @ 1:37AM|#
so, John, if "whatever it takes" includes the FBI breaking into
your house by explosive entry, unannounced at 3 am and grabbing you
and everyone in your household (wife, kids, little dog Toto, etc.),
stripping you all and giving you body cavity searches, that's OK
with you, because "whatever it takes" to get the "terrists",
right?
Well, they haven't done that so I am not too concerned. Further,
what they have done, listening to telephone calls is fine with me.
Unlike many of the libertarian nitwits on this page, I don't think
my calls are interesting enough to draw the attention of the
government and if they did, I wish them luck staying awake. I am
worried about my privacy from my neighbor or some vindictive jerk
who once knew me and know works for the IRS, I frankly could care
less if some guy in the bowels of the NCS wants to listen to me
talking to my father or girlfriend by mistake. Only dumbass
libertarians sitting at home alone without a date have dillusions
of granduer to the such an extent that they honestly think the
government would give a shit to listen to any of their phone
calls.
|1.14.06 @ 1:37AM|#
so, John, if "whatever it takes" includes the FBI breaking into
your house by explosive entry, unannounced at 3 am and grabbing you
and everyone in your household (wife, kids, little dog Toto, etc.),
stripping you all and giving you body cavity searches, that's OK
with you, because "whatever it takes" to get the "terrists",
right?
Well, they haven't done that so I am not too concerned. Further,
what they have done, listening to telephone calls is fine with me.
Unlike many of the libertarian nitwits on this page, I don't think
my calls are interesting enough to draw the attention of the
government and if they did, I wish them luck staying awake. I am
worried about my privacy from my neighbor or some vindictive jerk
who once knew me and now works for the IRS, I frankly could care
less if some guy in the bowels of the NCS wants to listen to me
talking to my father or girlfriend by mistake. Only dumbass
libertarians sitting at home alone without a date have dillusions
of granduer to the such an extent that they honestly think the
government would give a shit to listen to any of their phone
calls.
|1.14.06 @ 1:41AM|#
Uh, yeah, the guy who's dedicated his adult life to his nation's
security is really motivated by a desire to see terrorists carry
out their attacks on our country without interference.
Yes Joe, he is works for the government and agrees with you, he
must be a dedicated civil servent and not a bottom feeding little
bastard that needs to be shot.
|1.14.06 @ 2:19AM|#
"Unlike many of the libertarian nitwits on this page, I
don't think my calls are interesting enough to draw the attention
of the government and if they did, I wish them luck staying
awake."
So, you'll happily trade away the citizen's right to be safe from
unreasonable search and seizure as enumerated in the Fourth
Amendment for a right to be safe from unreasonable search and
seizure as enumerated by some arbitrary and ill-defined admission
of personal dullness?
|1.14.06 @ 2:51AM|#
All I know is that if this guy is for real instead of someone
with an unjustified axe to grind, then if he had gone to other
parts of the US government and told them first before going to the
press, then one of two things could very easily have
happened.
1) The Feds get a court to gag him in the interests of national
security and the government keeps breaking the law.
2) He dies of a car "accident".
Maybe a bit paranoid, maybe not. If I was in his shoes, I'd go to
the press and speak obliquely that the NSA was breaking the law.
Then I'd talk to congress, and cross my fingers that that bit of
paranoia is enough to protect me from a coincidental accident
somewhere down the line.
Or maybe he is a Bush hater who is full of shit.
|1.14.06 @ 5:38AM|#
Uh, yeah, the guy who's dedicated his adult life to his
nation's security is really motivated by a desire to see terrorists
carry out their attacks on our country without
interference.
It's times like this I love you, joe. I couldn't agree with you
more.
|1.14.06 @ 5:44AM|#
John, the word is "delusions", not "dillusions", unless you were
referring to the phenomenon where you dream about the gubmint's
agents breaking into your house and sodomizing you and yours with
dill pickles.
nonetheless, you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you
were worried about the gubmint breaking into your house for body
cavity searches. You're such a good little robot that it's apparent
you'd give yourself an endoscopy and send the video to the NSA, if
they asked you.
My question to you is does "whatever it takes" include disposing of
the constitution? If not the whole constitution, which parts can we
junk in order to be free from fear of the terrorists? I doubt
anyone's listening in on my phone conversations, but the government
needs a warrant to do so.
|1.14.06 @ 9:44AM|#
What could those "don't declassify for 200 years" programs
be?
As an example, the air-defense plan that the Brits used
(coordination, zones, etc) for the Battle of Britain was developed
in the early 20s and wasn't declassified until the late 90s.
Also, this guy is an asshat. Now, if the NSA or CIA is doing
anything (classified) someone feels uncomfortable about (or has a
political axe to grind), they just become a whistleblower. There's
lots of stuff that both agencies do that needs to stay classified
and because someone wusses out of the job or decides they hate the
President, the tactics/etc gets leaked. Niiiice.
|1.14.06 @ 10:26AM|#
well, Andy you've convinced me. nobody knew the government was
capable of electronic surveillance until this guy broke the code of
silence.
no, jackass, it's because the government was doing it without
warrants and oversight. clearly illegal under FISA, and clearly
unconstitutional.
|1.14.06 @ 12:57PM|#
"If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a
conversation,...
then you're not listening in on any terrorists because they'd be
using some code word instead.
Dude, didja get the, er, "CDs" yet?
|1.14.06 @ 1:06PM|#
John,
Do you think it's possible to love your country while at the same
time telling the public that the government is breaking the law?
And I, like biologist, would like to know what you mean by
"whatever it takes" to prevent terror attacks. What parts of the
Constitution should we be able to ignore?
Also, the "cell phone terror cells" story is
bogus.
|1.14.06 @ 1:36PM|#
Well, 9/11 and the "War on Terror" are really showing some
people's characters, aren't they? It got really easy to see who was
for "Freedom and liberty" when it didn't cost them anything.
But little brown terrorists got their knickers so wet they'll sell
their own mother for the illusion of safety.
And that's what you're doing here, John. It's not even a GOOD trade
-- you're not giving up freedom for security. You're giving it up
for the illusion of security. Little warm fuckin' fuzzies that
don't make you ANY safer.
It's weird, though, that the defenders of this program seem to
think "terrorists" are flamingly ignorant cave-dwellers with no
conception of the scope and abilities of groups like the CIA, the
NSA and the Mossad.
Fear does funny things to some people. It's been 4 years. Grow a
pair, man.
|1.14.06 @ 2:18PM|#
Jesus, re-reading my previous post, I look like an utterly
whacked-out member of the tinfoil hat brigade...
Why? You've accurately described practically every gov't agency
that ever existed.
|1.14.06 @ 3:05PM|#
Now *there's* irony for you.
What if the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists are running the
show?
Wow, that should be a movie or something.
|1.14.06 @ 8:55PM|#
I wrote off doughnut boy when I read him saying in the
Washington post "The mentality was we need to get these guys, and
we're going to do whatever it takes to get them." I certainly hope
so. His mentality seems to be to do whatever it takes to make sure
they don't get them and that he gets to be on television and get a
book deal.
I think our forefathers, in their great wisdom, gave us the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically to help protect us
from fellow Americans who are willing to do "whatever it
takes".
All I know is that if this guy is for real instead of someone
with an unjustified axe to grind, then...
...
Or maybe he is a Bush hater who is full of shit.
I don't think I understand why someone's motives in this situation
matter. If the government's doing something illegal or questionable
and someone blows a whistle to get back at his ex-wife, what
difference does it make? ...Are the allegations true?
...I don't think I care about his motives.
As an example, the air-defense plan that the Brits used
(coordination, zones, etc) for the Battle of Britain was developed
in the early 20s and wasn't declassified until the late
90s.
I think I see what you mean here. If the people of Britannia didn't
need to worry about the air-defense plans for the Battle of
Britain, then Americans of today, obviously, don't need to worry
about government surveillance.
...Wait a second! Maybe I don't see what you mean
here.
|1.14.06 @ 11:59PM|#
"In my case, there's no way the programs I want to talk to
Congress about should be public ever, unless maybe in 200 years
they want to declassify them. You should never learn about it; no
one at the Times should ever learn about these things."
Now that is a provocative statement. It's hard to imagine that a
secret of the Napoleonic Wars would just now be ripe for
disclosure. Spooky indeed.
|1.15.06 @ 10:27AM|#
Or is modern america too wimpy with fear to stand up for
liberty? That's about the size of it.
I think the American people were ready to stand up for liberty--I
think they were horribly misled. I think their courage was
misappropriated--embezzled if you will.
...and I think there's still hope. Just because they were slow to
come around doesn't mean they never will.
We had a recent thread here at Hit & Run where some other
blogger attacked one of H&R's posters for saying that there are
worse things than another 9/11. You'd be surprised at all the
diverse voices that came to his defense. People are just starting
to come around; they're just starting to hear those voices.
So it's nice to see you here, amazingdrx. Please stick around. We
need all the voices we can get.
|1.15.06 @ 11:44AM|#
John writes, "Yes Joe, he is works for the government and agrees
with you, he must be a dedicated civil servent and not a bottom
feeding little bastard that needs to be shot."
So much for "support the troops" from the chickenhawk brigade.
|1.15.06 @ 11:49AM|#
I saw a former federal gov't lawyer on CNN Friday night. She
made a valid point that the application for a FISA warrant is
incredibly intricate. Lots of paperwork.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that the paperwork needs to
be streamlined. Maybe an easier application process would enable
the officers of both the executive branch and the judicial branch
to concentrate on the heart of the matter, rather than putting the
new cover sheets on all the TPS reports ("Did you get the
memo?").
If that's the case, if the current FISA system focuses too much on
paperwork for its own sake and not enough on the core issues of a
particular case, then I'm all in favor of a little streamlining so
that everybody involved can do their jobs more effectively. But the
Bush administration needs to make that case, instead of saying that
circumventing FISA is a power inherent in the executive branch.
|1.15.06 @ 12:12PM|#
I appreciate that there's some paperwork involved. My
understanding is that a FISA warrant can be obtained after the
fact. My understanding is that FISA actually lets the government do
surveillance without a warrant, but they're supposed to go back
afterwards and get a warrant retroactively.
It's my understanding that they've been doing this kind of
surveillance without a warrant for years!
...and if the President needed changes in the FISA law, if he
needed to streamline the process, why didn't he just get those
changes from Congress? In the aftermath of 9/11, Congress was
givin' everything away but the kitchen sink! ...If he could get
Patriot, etc. through, why couldn't he get a streamlined FISA
process?
I don't think he asked for changes, and I don't think he asked for
streamlining. ...which, if so, would be further evidence of this
Administration's utter...
And besides, the President doesn't get to ignore the law and the
Fourth Amendment just 'cause there's too much paperwork!
|1.15.06 @ 12:37PM|#
thoreau- I think the problem goes beyond mere paperwork. Yes,
the problem should have been addressed. No, a change in
administrations won't make the problem go away. FISA came about in
1978, but since then we've had Carnivore, Eschelon, TIA, and now
this program.
I'd suggest reading
this (pdf).
|1.15.06 @ 1:35PM|#
No, a change in administrations won't make the problem go
away.
No, the problem wouldn't go away with another administration, but
the solution might be very different.
amazingdrx|1.15.06 @ 2:12PM|#
"We need all the voices we can get."
That's for sure ken!
We need to put the police state fighting backbone back in the
libertarian movement. And take the neo out of the
conservatives.
The neoconmen have duped them, by replacing and coopting their
leaders.
There are EVEN neo-liberals now, witness the neorats within the
environmental movement touting nuclear power (as the only
alternative to global climate disaster) ... and spouting the
talking point lie that renewable energy is impractical.
Disgusting!
People need to realize that neo-conservatives are not
conservatives, or republicans or libertarians...they are corporate
feudalists, wrapped in a faithbased flag and wielding fear as a
torch. They favor a government of, by, and for corporate power.
|1.15.06 @ 10:25PM|#
We need to put the police state fighting backbone back in
the libertarian movement.
Sadly, 9/11 changed everything. It changed many self-described
libertarians from people who distrusted the state to people who
apologize for its every misdeed (as long as the misdeeds happen to
somebody else).
|1.15.06 @ 10:35PM|#
So much for "support the troops" from the chickenhawk
brigade.
Hey, fuck you Joe, I went Iraq. Amazingly enough, the people who
served over there, support the war. Its only the people who have
never been anywhere and cry chickenhawk who generally don't. And as
far as your new found reverence for public servents, I bet you held
Ollie North in such high esteem for his service to his country.
|1.16.06 @ 12:52AM|#
I don't know if joe's gonna respond, John. But I think you
misunderstood his comment. ...Either that or I misunderstood his
comment.
...and, just for the record, joe probably has more respect for
public servants than any other regular commenter here.
...and when you suggested that you hope we do, "whatever it takes",
you probably didn't really mean whatever it takes, did you?
|1.16.06 @ 8:48AM|#
This Tice guy, wasn't he fired because he accused a co-worker of being a spy and when the investigation found no basis for his accusations he kept harassing the co-worker. He was diagnosed paranoid and put under pshchiatric care. Some "source".
R C Dean|1.16.06 @ 12:56PM|#
Any reason I shouldn't believe "John"? Other than he disagrees with you, "joe"?
|1.16.06 @ 1:39PM|#
How about the weaselly manner he wrote, "I went Iraq. Amazingly
enough, the people who served over there, support the war," in
response to my "chickenhawk" observation.
I'm not a chickenhawk; I went to Iraq, and this is what soldiers
think...
He tries to suggest that he's a soldier who served in Iraq, when
he's not. Fuck him.
|1.16.06 @ 3:23PM|#
"I went Iraq"
I�raq - adjective
def: Being bed-wetting scared of the vague concept of terrorism
after 9/11, usually followed by slavish cult worship of flight-suit
wearing ccommander in cheif.
|1.16.06 @ 10:25PM|#
John has told us on many occasions that he is a lawyer in the US
Armed Forces.
If you can't believe a self-described lawyer, whom can you
believe?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245