Ray McGovern: NSA Spying: What Did Pelosi Know?

[babylonsister]

NSA Spying: What Did Pelosi Know?

By Ray McGovern, www.consortiumnews.com


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted knowing for several years about the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant. She said she was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. But was she told that the illegal surveillance began well before 9/11?

Referring to her briefing in an apologia-sans-apology Washington Post op-ed on Jan. 15, 2006, she wrote: “This is how I came to be informed of President Bush’s authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types of surveillance.”

Demonstrating her unconstitutionally subservient attitude toward the Executive Branch, Pelosi wrote:

“But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president’s surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely.”

How did the American people react upon learning in December 2005 of this glaring infringement on their Constitutional rights. Most reacted as they have been conditioned to act—out of the old fear-factor shibboleth: “After 9/11/2001, everything changed.”

Yes, just as after 2/27/1933, the night of the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) in Berlin, everything changed.

As a German attorney there at the time put it:

“What one can blame them for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took ‘decisive measures.’”

And if the terrorists attacked on 9/11, it was perfectly in order that the Bush administration took “decisive measures”—Patriot Act and illegal measures. In reaction to the PR offensive to manipulate and exploit the trauma we all felt from 9/11, far too many of our politicians and fellow citizens exhibited sheepish submissiveness.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101407a.html

[rodeodance]

1. Qwest CEO Not Alone in Alleging NSA Started Domestic Phone Record Program 7 Months Before 9/11

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html

Qwest CEO Not Alone in Alleging NSA Started Domestic Phone Record Program 7 Months Before 9/11

By Ryan Singel EmailOctober 12, 2007 | 4:23:55 P

Startling statements from former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio's defense documents alleging the National Security Agency began building a massive call records database seven months before 9/11 aren't the only accusations that the controversial program predated the attacks of 9/11.

According to court documents unveiled this week, former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio clearly wanted to argue in court that the NSA retaliated against his company after he turned down a NSA request on February 27, 2001 that he thought was illegal. Nacchio's attorney issued a carefully worded statement in 2006, saying that Nacchio had turned down the NSA's repeated requests for customer call records. The statement says that Nacchio was asked for the records in the fall of 2001, but doesn't say he was "first asked" then.

And in May 2006, a lawsuit filed against Verizon for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA alleged that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated. That lawsuit is one of 50 that were consolidated and moved to a San Francisco federal district court, where the suits sit in limbo waiting for the 9th Circuit Appeals court to decide whether the suits can proceed without endangering national security.

According the allegations in the suit (.pdf):

The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATTÌs long distance network. <...>

[BridgeTheGap]

2. "As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president’s surveillance program

and they were constrained from discussing it more widely.”

Constrained by what or whom? the * & dick show? Shame on you for being "constrained" by murderers, thieves and traitors! What about your oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution? Who is "constraining" you on that?

[Mojorabbit]

3. That is what I don't get..

there needs to be a way for a member briefed on something like this to challenge it even if it is done in a secret manner which I would hate but SOMETHING a person of conscience can do.

[havocmom]

4. They all must be afraid of cheney.

To me, that is pretty damning evidence that NOTHING is beyond cheney.

Sad that no one will stand up to the bully. Fear is what the bully counts on. When a few stand up, they may well be knocked down (or off) but eventually, if people stand up against a bully, game over.

Why have American politicians forgotten that? Is there not a dozen of them who are actually PUBLIC SERVANTS?

[BridgeTheGap]

5. Evidently they are more affraid of the term "soft on terror"

than anything else.
Just mention the term and they quickly indicate how willing they are to torture, wound and kill just to prove that they are not "soft on terror."

[robinlynne]

13. crazy, isn't it? If true, they are only thinking about elections and polls.

and willing to sell us out for the love of polls and elections.

[reprobate]

8. We should all be afraid of Cheney. More and more I'm starting to think

that 9/11 was a false flag operation directed by Darth Richard. Where was he during the attacks? Why he was in charge of the war games that were being held at the same time. Coincidentally, the Air Force was issued a stand down order before the attacks began.

OK, my suit is made of tin foil.

But consider this: there is a military exercise scheduled for the pacific northwest in the near future that will test readiness for a radiation attack and preparedness to exercise martial law. And who do you think will be in charge? Bingo! Dick 'the Shooter' Cheney.

Now conflate that with the almost unbelievable story of the B-52 that left Minot AFB with six nuclear armed cruise missiles. It landed in Louisiana. For some reason it was twenty four hours later when the load was inspected, and then, lo and behold then there were five. Five warheads, that is. Huh? Oh, but then five days later the Air Force discovers they really had six. How do you lose a nuke warhead?

And HERE's the scary part. An article posted yesterday in this forum claimed the B-52/nuke missile combination was tasked by Cheney. That it's ultimate destination was Iran. Apparently, when the aircraft was inspected in La and the missing warhead discovered the further flight legs of the B-52 were canceled while the investigation was held. Otherwise, could we have seen mushroom clouds over Tehran?

As it stands now, we have the probability of a wayward nuke traveling somewhere most likely in the USA, and a scheduled nuke exercise about to be held in the pacific northwest and the man from the Dark side is in charge. All I can say is I'm glad to be in Florida.

Now THAT's scary.

Ok I'm taking off my tin foil suit.

And donning my lead suit.

And don't say you weren't warned.

[babylonsister]

7. And what did 'awareness' entail? nt

[havocmom]

6. Kick

:kick:

[MasonJar]

9. Actually I believe I read some time ago that there was a law prohibiting

disclosure of so-called national security info.

[Demeter]

10. Didn't Bush Sign That One Away With His Famous Signing Statements?

[flyarm]

12. what about the law about breaking the law???????? rule of law...

so there should be top secret protection for breaking the law?????????

what does that oath they take say..

just wondering..

fly

[jgraz]

11. That's a good fucking question, Ray.

:nuke: