Introduction

Ever since the New York Times reported in December 2005 that the NSA was conducting domesting wiretaps without warrants or full and complete Congressional oversight, Americans have enjoyed (is such a word can be employed here) the spectacle of an administration insisting on absolute, unchecked power and a Congress squirming under the heat. From Senator Frist's threatened restructuring of the oversight of the intelligence committee to Senator Specter's refusal to take sworn tesitmony from Attorney General Gonzales to the NSA muzzling further testimony from Russel Tice¹ to Representative Nancy Pilosi's promise that a Democratic Party in control of the House would not impeach Bush - it becomes increasingly clear that Congress will not act to protect either the civil liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Right, it's duties assigned by the Constitution, or the Rule of Law itself.




Indeed, the histrionics of both parties in this matter of warrantless NSA wiretaps and data mining, and the infiltration of peaceful groups have evoked interpretations of the Constitution and procedural legislative oversight pretzel logic that would make even a contortionist blush, shake his head, and back away.

Then came May 10, 2006.  USA Today revealed another part of the puzzle - A massive database the NSA has assembled of all telephone calls made by anyone in the United States.  Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth did not dispute the story at first.  Then, one by one, came out and denied giving, or selling, their domestic calls database (time, date, duration, source and target number called information) to the NSA.  Only Qwest  resisted turning over records without a FISA court order or letter from the Attorney General, which the NSA - and therefore the President - refused to seek.

In this document You will find a small collection of USA TODAY reporting, editorial, and Op Ed pieces about the major Telecoms giving their caller data to the NSA.  All of the stories You would have seen on those pages of the print edition of USA Today on May 11, 2006 are here.  And editorial and Op Ed articles from the print edition of USA Today on May 17 and 18, 2006 are here also. (Confirmation hearings started May 18, 2006 to consider NSA Chief General Michael Hayden's nomination to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

Finally, I have written this introduction, and a short editorial opinion as an afterword..

Risks of Reporting on the Secret Government

Reporting on this issue is not without consequences for those journalists and investigators working to bring details of our secret government's abuses of power under the color of national security to the attention of the public.  This article, and this site itself, is intended as a resource for Citizens, historians, journalists, and attorneys interested in this issue - a tool to help them do their jobs of litigation, research, writing, and excercising an intelligent and informed participation in our civil society.  But there are consequences, personally, for those doing such reporting.

The personal consequences I am experiencing have ranged from sabotage of my automobile, to email impersonations of me, to threatening and obscene notes left on the cars of myself and friends, to threatening emails to my employer from a possibly spoofed email address.  These actions have been reported to the local police, the FBI New Haven office, and to the two major email providers involved, one of whose email / spam blocking utilities seems not to work to block emails from the offending account. 

It is starting to appear that some ip - spoofing might be involved, and trojan programs as well - designed to make it appear the offending online activity comes from my computer or account.  This is currently under investigation, based on complaints I filed last year, this year, and complaints my employer has filed recently. I hope we can determine the true source of such malicious activity directed against me, my friends, and my employers.

The overall pattern of this malicious activity belies any simple explanation of a random or individual stalker.  Actions thus far indicate powerful tools, knowledge of private conversations in the privacy of homes, and intimate knowledge of details of personal lives and schedules unavailable to even a dedicated individual stalker.  Outside assistance is indicated, from extraordinarily well equipped and funded sources, based on the pattern of events and actions to date.  It is a prime objective of the secret state to discredit those who would expose their illegal and extra - constitutional activities.

But, as I documented in BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU and Personal Account - Earth: Blogging and The Emergence of DotCommunism, it is unlikely that those whom I suspect are the true source of these unlawful acts will be uncovered because they are likely federal subcontractors acting under the color, and cover, of "national security," in a decades long program codenamed MUSIC which includes just such acts of political, economic, and social warfare against selected ciiizens, and includes domestic political assassination, such as in the cases of Gary Webb and Steve Kangas.

Absent the tools to compel legal discovery from national security proprietaries and contractors (or the Defense Department itself), or the financial resources to pursue such avenues, I am effectively helpless to prove these suspicions.  As You would be. I can only hope law enforcement will do their jobs to put an end to this stalking campaign against me and my associates, the current phase of which has gone on for some time.

However, there is cyberspace.  Shortly I may put out a blog, or article, with the evidence I have so far collected, along with a catalog and description of the tactics I have witnessed to limit my degrees of freedom to work.  Until then, here is a photograph of the hole someone has drilled in my gas tank fill pipe, which I discovered on May 5, 2006.



- David C. Manchester
  May 18, 2006

---

USA Today Articles

USAToday.com

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls 3 Telecoms help government collect billions of domestic records; One Telecom, Qwest, Declines Citing No Due Process, Faces NSA Pressure By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY Contributing: John Diamond Updated: 10:38 AM ET May 11, 2006 URL:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm © 2006 USAToday.com

Top   Contents   Next Report The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added. For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said. The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program. The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database. In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States." As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private. Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law." The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping. She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States." The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together. Carriers uniquely positioned AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers. The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans. Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants. Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area. Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for "No Such Agency." In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named "Shamrock," led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping. Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA. Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of "data mining" — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications. Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C. The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said. The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes. The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew. Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said. The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered. The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of "violation." In practice, that means a single "violation" could cover one customer or 1 million. In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree. Companies approached The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks. The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits. The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg. With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest. AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law." In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority." Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy." Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation." In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers. Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority. Similarities in programs The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks." The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment. One company differs One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest. According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used. Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial. The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said. The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard. Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled. In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more. "Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused. The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office."   Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused. The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events. In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained. Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said. Contributing: John Diamond       Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

---

---

---

USAToday.com

Oversight? What oversight? Congress briefed, then gagged USA Today Editorial Posted: 9:51 PM ET May 17, 2006 URL:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-17-our-view_x.htm © 2006 USAToday.com

Top   Contents   Next Report When anti-terror programs of questionable legality are revealed — such as the National Security Agency's snooping on phone calls and records — President Bush hastens to point out that members of Congress from both parties have been "briefed." That's as it should be. Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch's intelligence operations. From all indications, however, that oversight is badly broken. Information is dribbled out to a handful of lawmakers. Briefing turns into political cover. Consultation becomes more like inform-and-gag. Republicans act like cheerleaders for the White House. Democrats feign surprise and outrage when dubious programs become public. Wednesday's briefing of the Senate and House intelligence committees by the head of the NSA typifies the problems. It was overdue. It was spurred by partisan bickering. And, because members are sworn to secrecy, it has the effect of limiting how much they can say at today's Senate confirmation hearing for former NSA chief Michael Hayden to head the CIA. It's not supposed to be this way. The intelligence committees were created 30 years ago to represent the public interest. They are one of the few checks on a system that must, by its nature, remain secret, and judging by history, has often gotten out of control. But the system has become so weak, Congress might as well be deaf and blind. There's plenty of blame to go around: The White House arbitrarily restricted its briefings, and a weak-kneed Congress didn't fight back. On the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program, the White House often briefed as few as four or eight members of Congress from both parties, instead of the entire intelligence committees. Democrats played helpless victims. Once The New York Times revealed the wiretapping program, for instance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he'd had "concerns" as early as July 2003. His response? He wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney and put a copy in his safe. Clearly, Rockefeller couldn't shout his objections from the Senate floor, but senators do have leverage to lobby colleagues and push for meetings with the president. Republicans have acted more like partisans than skeptical overseers. Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has been quicker to criticize news media and Democrats than to publicly question the NSA's eavesdropping or the collection of millions of phone records, as revealed by USA TODAY last week. What to do? Two former Senate intelligence committee leaders, Democrat Bob Graham and Republican William Cohen, say partisanship is sapping the panels of meaningful oversight. Structural changes — such as dividing the committees equally between Democrats and Republicans, regardless of which party is in power — might help. So could a recommendation from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, one that Congress has ignored, to give the intelligence committees more power over the intelligence agencies' budgets. Ultimately, however, change involves trust and leadership. Committee members would have to jettison partisan rivalries and see their duty as representing the public interest and protecting against intelligence excesses. Until they do, at a time when America is faced with tough choices between security and civil liberties, Bush administration officials are making the choices without any meaningful input from Congress. That seems to be the way they like it.       Find this article at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-17-our-view_x.htm

---

---

Page 7

Top   Contents   Next Page

Page 10

Top   Contents   Bottom