Slugging It Out On The NSA

Here we go on the "Bush Spied, Then Bush Lied" story:

On the media-bashing front, Gabriel Sherman of the NY Observer has the backstory on how the Times came to publish their scoop when they did.  Yes, it was originally slated to be a pre-election October Surprise, although Dick Morris implies that it might have been Kerry and the Times that were surprised.

E&P has more on Times editor Bill Keller's explanation for their publication decision.  E&P also goes behind the scenes at the Times, getting this from a harried staffer:

"It's one more thing. When are we going to get out from under this or is this a permanent state now?"

Answer - it's one more thing!  And when Nick Kristof finally admits that he has been sitting on an early Woodward style leak about Valerie Plame, well, that will be one more thing, too.

On the legal front, Richard Posner defends Bush in the WaPo; John Schmidt, an associate attorney general under Bill Clinton, defends Bush's expression of Presidential prerogatives in the Chicago Tribune.

The argument offered by Mr. Schmidt is similar to that put up by AG Gonzalez in a press briefing on Dec 19:

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

...we believe signals intelligence is even more a fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the Congress.  And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity.  Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States.  Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do. It is a fundamental incident of war, as Justice O'Connor talked about in the Hamdi decision.  We believe that -- and those two authorities exist to allow, permit the United States government to engage in this kind of surveillance.

Now, let's award "Cryptic Comment du Jour" to this:

Q    If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES:  That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.  And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Emphasis added.  That seems as if it ought to be a clue,but I have no idea what if means.

Now, for a flavor of the legal subtleties, let's excerpt the part of the FISA statute that defines "electronic surveillance".  It is pretty obvious that all sorts of technical issues may prevent the law from applying:

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

Points (2) and (4) would exempt intelligence collected overseas.  Point (3) is the requirement that at least of of the parties be a non-US citizen.  The Administration claims it tries to observe this requirement, although the Times notes rare glitches.

Point (1) may be a puzzle.  I would think that if the NSA is specifically targeting a presumed AL Qaeda operative in, for example, Germany, then intercepted calls to the US would be incidental and would not be considered to represent "targeting" of the US citizen.

However, once a contact in the US starts making calls back overseas, are we "targeting" his calls by tracking them? 

On the political side, the Washington Times highlights the spanking administered to Sen. Rockefeller of the Intelligence Committee buy the Chairman, Sen. Roberts.:

Sen. Pat Roberts, Kansas Republican and chairman of the normally apolitical committee, said he was "puzzled" by a letter that Mr. Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat and vice chairman of the committee, said he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 after one such briefing.

"In his letter ... Senator Rockefeller asserts that he had lingering concerns about the program designed to protect the American people from another attack, but was prohibited from doing anything about it," Mr. Roberts said in a statement yesterday. "A United States Senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch. Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools."

Douglas Jehl of the Times provides a roster of lawmakers who have been briefed on this program:

All told, no more than 14 members of Congress have been briefed about the program since it took effect in 2001, the Congressional officials said.

...Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said this week that he had received only a "single, very short briefing" on the subject this year, after taking over as his party's leader.

...

"When I was briefed on it, you couldn't help but conclude that it would have an impact on Americans," said Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Hoekstra said that he was first summoned to one of the sessions in August 2004, after taking over as panel chairman, and that he had attended two others since, with the other leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

But Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida who was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said his recollection from an initial briefing in late 2001 or early 2002 was that there had been no specific discussion that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens.

...Among Democrats, both Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, have said in recent days that they raised objections to the program in classified letters after first hearing about it.

...

But neither lawmaker sought to block the program legislatively, an option that Republicans who have sought to rebut the Democrats' complaints have said might well have been pursued.

"A United States senator has significant tools with which to wield power and influence over the executive branch," Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Tuesday. "Feigning helplessness is not one of those tools."

...

Among other Democrats said by Congressional officials to have received at least one briefing  were Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former Senate Democratic leader; Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the former House Democratic leader; and Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Among Republicans, the group included Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader; Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Republican leader; Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and Porter J. Goss, the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

OK, I keep counting 13:

Senator Harry Reid D
Bob Graham, a former D
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
Representative Nancy Pelosi
Tom Daschle
Richard A. Gephardt
Representative Jane Harman

Representative Peter Hoekstra, R
Senator Pat Roberts, R
Senator Bill Frist
Senator Trent Lott
Senator Richard C. Shelby
Porter J. Goss

Oh, we are missing a House Majority leader...

STILL GOING: Mickey Kaus is cogent and concise on the legal issues.  And he links to a Times editorial which is the opposite.  Here is the Times with a classic example of applying a law-enforcement model in wartime:

In a democracy ruled by laws, investigators identify suspects and prosecutors obtain warrants for searches by showing reasonable cause to a judge, who decides if legal tests were met.

Colleen Rowley, are you getting this?  Patiently follow procedures and the law, and if the buildings come down, well, at least our civil liberties remained standing.

As an aside, to which democracies does the Times refer?  I am not familiar with legal procedures through all the world's democracies, but I bet there are some that would not meet the Times standard.

Here is the ARS Technica guess at the sort of technology we might be talking about.

Comments

[Anonymous Liberal]

Boris,

Then take away the "basically." It was superfluous anyway.

The point is, a statute exists which lays out what procedures are to be followed, even in a time of war, when spying on U.S. citizens in the U.S. Whatever their reasons, the Bush administration chose not to follow that law, and it's justifying that move by pointing to its inherent powers.

My question is what check, if any, is there on the exercise of such powers? Can the President choose to disregard any law in a time of war? If not, who determines which laws must be followed and which can be ignored? And if your answer is the President, how is that different than saying he has unlimited power in wartime?

[boris]

justifying that move by pointing to its inherent powers ...

... regarding a specific fundamental incident of fighting war authorized by the very same congress. Thus the executive war powers are augmented by congress. Splitting and quibbling is just rhetorical mumbo jumbo.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Boris wrote:
"FISA is one congressional mandate ...

"all necessary and appropriate force against al Qaeda" is another.

If you have a problem with the openended unlimited infinite omnipotent wording, take it up with congress."

Do you really buy that argument, Boris? Do you really think the 2001 resolution impliedly repealed FISA? Even the administration has backed off that argument. The administration would be laughed out of court if they relied on that argument. That's why they've started relying on the inherent authority argument instead.

[boris]

Do you really buy that argument, Boris?

Say what ???

Plain english aint good enough now, it's gotta be interpretations, emanations and penumbras?

Did congress pass "all necessary and appropriate force" or not. Stick to the subject for once why don't you.

[boris]

impliedly repealed FISA

congress: "all necessary and appropriate force"

Override where necessary = "impliedly repealed" ???

More straw.

[Cecil Turner]

If you're suggesting that FISA was only intended to apply in peacetime, you're just flat out wrong.

Hmm, don't recall suggesting that. That statement was in direct response to "why do we even need a FISA court [?]" (And I think a fair reading will show most FISA sections are clearly meant to limit domestic, peacetime surveillance.)

. . . then I ask again, doesn't that leave the president with unlimited power in times of war.

How does asking for a standard wartime power leave the President with "unlimited power"? (. . . nobody's even suggesting something like, say, seizing steel plants.) FISA was written in peacetime, in the immediate aftermath of Executive excesses in the VietNam era, and before 9/11 and some of the subsequent technology enhancements. Not surprisingly, they came up with something a little too limiting. (Do you really think we shouldn't be able to intercept phone calls to or from Al Qaeda cells in Pakistan until we have probable cause that the person in the US is an agent? Because that's the way FISA reads now.) Luckily, there's a law that supersedes FISA: the Constitution.

[boris]

for all intents and purposes "unlimited."

BTW you're the one who started the logical extrapolation ad absurdum crap.

If you don't like it coming back at you in the words of congress ... gee ... too bad.

[Sue]

Isn't it funny how liberals find stuff in the constitution that isn't there and can't see that which is? Or maybe not ha ha funny, but odd funny?

[Bill Arnold]

Cecil,
Did you just argue that FISA is unconstitutional? Interesting.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Boris wrote:
"Plain english aint good enough now, it's gotta be interpretations, emanations and penumbras?

Did congress pass "all necessary and appropriate force" or not. Stick to the subject for once why don't you."

Boris, your capacity for unintentional irony is astounding sometimes. Remember that you are the one arguing that a very specific, clear, and detailed statute was somehow repealed by a vaguely-worded resolution (and that only the Bush administration realized this had happened). And yet you lecture me about plain english, about emanations and penumbras? FISA is clear. The resolution you point to is very far from clear.

Maybe just maybe it was neither "necessary" or "appropriate" to simply ignore a statutory scheme that had been carefully crafted and in place for years. Congress certainly didn't seem to think they authorized the President to violate FISA.

As for your "stick to subject for once" comment, that's also a little ironic considering you NEVER answer my questions and often resort to ad hominem attacks.

But I ain't mad at ya, Boris.

[noah]

The only limit is the President's sense of propriety. Thats why we need to be careful who we elect President. I suggest that Hillary should not be elected for precisely that reason...she has a track record for a callous disregard for propriety.

[boris]

maybe it was neither "necessary" or "appropriate" to simply ignore a statutory scheme that had been carefully crafted and in place for years

Then again maybe it was necessary and appropriate since it is a fundamental incident to war fighting and FISA is out of date and inappropriate to current war fighting, as authorized by congress using "ALL NECESSARY". Plus overriding certain aspects where necessary is not "repeal" except as straw in your dummy.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Cecil,

FISA may indeed be outdated, but that's a normative argument. It justifies only seeking to have the statute amended, not ignoring it. If, as Bill suggests, you are arguing that FISA itself is unconstitutional, well that's a radical argument. That particular statute has been in place for over thirty years and hasn't been challenged (at least successfully). Plus, is it the President's place to make such a determination? Shouldn't a court have to rule that FISA is unconstitutional before the President simply ignores it. Do you think the President would be justified in ignoring the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law just because he personally thinks it's unconstitutional?

[boris]

you NEVER answer my questions

Poor baby. I do comment on your posts, isn't that something? There there now ... no need to cry.

[Cecil Turner]

The administration would be laughed out of court if they relied on that argument. That's why they've started relying on the inherent authority argument instead.

The AUMF recognized a state of war. That recognition gives the Executive powers that it wouldn't ordinarily have (in peacetime), both in wartime clauses of particular statutes and in powers inherent in the Constitution under the "Commander in Chief" role. Pretending it's two separate arguments, or that the Administration is changing its story, is simply incorrect.

Did you just argue that FISA is unconstitutional? Interesting.

If it conflicts with the President's constitutional authority? Of course it is. (A point I've made several times actually, most recently here and
here.)

And on that note, gents, I've got to go play Santa. Cheers.

[noah]

Check your arithmetic AL.

[boris]

President simply ignores it

Deja vu ... Executive order = ignore

Stuff that dummy! Straw Straw more Straw for the dummy over here !!!

[azredneck]

Now I understand! Gary (NSA) detects pattern in posts. Notifies TM (FBI) who wiretaps and gets warrant. No, I guess that would violate Goreleck Wall? TM, who doubles as King George, peeks at Gary's observation and forms independent judgement WITHOUT WARRANT and warns offenders that they have been detected. Now they can go away with civil rights intact.
I'm calling whatever the name of that intelligent committee in the senate is so Durbin cn call WAPO and Rocky can brief Assad!
What could be simpler? Why the furor?

[boris]

That recognition gives the Executive powers that it wouldn't ordinarily have (in peacetime), both in wartime clauses of particular statutes and in powers inherent in the Constitution under the "Commander in Chief" role.

And delegates congressional powers as well.

[Sue]

AL,

If the McCain-Feingold interfered with conducting a war, then yes it would be unconstitutional. I don't see how the McCain-Feingold argument is relevant to a president's war time powers.

[noah]

AL...your argument is circular. It assumes powers and responsibilities that the President does not claim. That he must submit to outdated laws in wartime if he cannot secure their amendment. That it is his fault if they are not amended and that Congress has no responsibility in the matter whatsoever.

I suspect that you and your ilk would be the first to blame Bush if another attack occurred.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Boris,

It's pretty weak (not to mention tiresome) to raise meaningless distinctions and then accuse your opponents of straw man argumention because they think those distinctions are meaningless.

You seem to think that it is hugely significant that the President's order to disregard FISA came in the form of a secret executive order (as opposed to, I guess, an oral command). I don't see what that has to do with anything. Executive orders don't just trump legislation. That's not how our system works. The fact that Bush's directive to ignore FISA was in writing is neither here nor there.

Same thing regarding your resistence to the word "repeal." If you prefer, I won't use that word. It's not important to my point. You're claiming that the 2001 resolution absolved the executive branch of their obligation to follow FISA. Call that a repeal or a suspension or whatever, that's what you're arguing. I'm saying that's a weak legal argument, and I think the Bush administration would lose that one, even if they were arguing it to a court consisting only of the conservative all stars (Roberts, Scalia, etc.).

[Bill in AZ]

Sue: "Isn't it funny how liberals find stuff in the constitution that isn't there and can't see that which is? Or maybe not ha ha funny, but odd funny?"

Good point - I've had to refer to the Constitution so often in the last couple of years because of reading lib nonsense on places like ThinkProgress that I finally printed it out and hung it next to my desk. Makes me wonder if any of our congresscritter have even looked at it since the 4th grade.

[Gary Maxwell]

Rather than getting your blood pressure up dear liberal friends please by all means put your money where you mouth is and get behind Rep. Lewis and his quest to bring the President up on charges before the House. Please please please...

[Anonymous Liberal]

Sue,
You missed my point. I brought up McCain-Feingold to illustrate that we don't normally think it's the President's role to simply disregard laws he thinks are unconstitutional. In other words, even if the administration thought FISA was unconstitutional (which they're not even arguing), they couldn't just ignore it.

Noah wrote:
"AL...your argument is circular. It assumes powers and responsibilities that the President does not claim. That he must submit to outdated laws in wartime if he cannot secure their amendment. That it is his fault if they are not amended and that Congress has no responsibility in the matter whatsoever."

I don't think I said any of this. I didn't say it would be Bush's fault if he couldn't secure an amendment to FISA. If Congress refused to amend FISA and that turned out to be a bad call, that would clearly be Congress's fault, not the president's. But Bush didn't even try to get FISA amended. He just decided not to follow FISA anymore. The only possible situation where that is excusable, in my mind, is if it was IMPOSSIBLE to secure authorization from Congress without completely compromising the effectiveness of the program. But we don't know that to be the case.

[clarice]

How long will it be before the media demands Pelosi and Reid follow the President's lead and order their Congressional members and their staffs to sign confidentiality waivers and fully cooperate with the DoJ or lose their committee memberships?

How long till Harry and Nancy do this on their own?

LOL..

[boris]

Call that a repeal or a suspension or whatever, that's what you're arguing

Unless you can provide evidence that the administration has complied with zero, zip nadda provisions of FISA, I call this claim a big straw dummy.

You don't want to discuss the issue in the context of limited supersecession where necessary because such argument would be weak, implausible and politically suicidal.

Congress passed FISA well before 911. The resolution after 911 using expansive (not vague) language takes precedence in aspects and incidents fundamental to "all necessary and appropriate use of force".

[boris]

secret executive order

Either this is a lie or W and the commitee members acknowledging notification and updates are all lying.

[clarice]

Secret order in the sense that anything Rockefeller gets his hands or ears on remains secret, Boris..It's a nuanced Dem definition.

[Anonymous Liberal]

"Unless you can provide evidence that the administration has complied with zero, zip nadda provisions of FISA, I call this claim a big straw dummy."

Now you're just getting silly, Boris. Is that how things work? As long as you comply with some provisions of a law, you're not doing anything legally questionable? You can just sort of pick and choose like a Chinese menu? Please. Plus, the most important provision of FISA, that you secure a warrant from the FISA court, is the one Bush has been ignoring.

Your attempt at line drawing is pretty weak. You seem to be saying that it's okay for the president to ignore the law a little bit, but you're not providing any logical limiting principle. Who decides which Congressional laws the president is allowed to ignore? Are there some laws he can't ignore? Who determines when the line has been crossed, particularly if no one but the executive branch knows what's happening? These are all important questions that go to the heart of our constitutional democracy. It surprises me that so few conservatives seem to be concerned by them. Where are the libertarians amongst you?

Anyway, I have to sign off, but Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays everyone.

[Specter]

I sure am confused. I'm not a lawyer but having read through Title 50, Chapter 36, subchapter I, it seems to me that Bush did not go around the FISA law. It sure looks to me like he was within the law completely.

[boris]

As long as you comply with some provisions of a law, you're not doing anything legally questionable?

This is just dishonest.

You are hopeless, for any other interested readers ...

Claim: W's secret executive order repealed or suspended FISA

Response: Overall compliance with limited override wrt international enemy communicaion is neither repeal nor suspension.

Lie: you're not doing anything legally questionable?

legal question = repeal or suspend

Fugetaboutit loser.

[r flanagan]

GONZALES :" We had discussions with members
of Congress --as to whether or not FISA
could be amended......and we were advised
that would be difficult , if not impossible".

Which means ...

1.The Administration realized that
this program was not permitted by FISA.And.

2. That Congress would not like it.

For the sake of full disclosure ,Gonzalez subsequently explained that it would be "difficult" to amend ithout "jeapordizing the program".

So liberals should concede there was a serious problem . And conservatives , that the program was illegal under FISA.

One possible solution was for the Admin
to decide that when Congress passed the (AUMF) it meant to cover this violation of FISA.

But Gonzales acknowledged it would be "difficult" to obtain an amendment which implies the contrary.

Accordingly the Admin took the nuclear option of deciding to interpert " all necessary force" to mean "all necessary
actions". But this implies that until the WOT finally ends , we can suspend congressional elections since this President and his successors Hillary,McCain , Brownback and Feingold can just do what they want.

Even admitting that there was a real problem
this was not the right answer.
.

[clarice]

Where is Andrea Mitchell on this referral?

Propelling the Plame story to critical mass was a leak to Andrea Mitchell that the CIA had referred the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation. Was she asleep , out of the loop or uninterested when several Democratic Senators were being investigated for leaks?

Newsmax reports something which may be the only secret in town that wasn't splashed on the front pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/23/131312.shtml

[quote]The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret "black ops" CIA satellite program last December in a move that may have seriously compromised national security, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said on Saturday. "The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three [senators]," Babbin told WABC Radio host Monica Crowley. "My information is that investigation is ongoing."
Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Durbin is the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the Senate.
Media reports on the satellite leak last December indicated that the Bush administration was concerned about public comments by Durbin, Rockefeller and Wyden and that the CIA had requested a Justice Department probe.

"The formal request for a leaks investigation would target people who described sensitive details about a new generation of spy satellites to The Washington Post, which published a page-one story about the espionage program Saturday [Dec. 11, 2004]," a Justice Department official told The Associated Press at the time.

But the same official told the AP that Justice "has not decided whether to investigate."

Former Deputy Undersecretary Babbin's comments on Saturday were the first indication that such a probe was actually launched and is ongoing.[/quote]

If they did it--and their public comments suggest they did, it's appropriate to yank their security clearances.

Funny what remains secret in the Capitol and what doesn't.

[boris]

Which means ...

1 or 2 or something else.

[noah]

AL:

The horse is thoroughly dead...indeed since Byron York revealed that Clinton claimed the same power when we were not at war...but to beat it further: on the one hand it is becoming increasingly clear that the NSA program is a politically disinterested program to find AQ collaborators in our midst, on the other it is becoming completely clear that Dimocrats will use the revelation for political purposes. Bush's hands are completely clean...it is pretty clear to all but the unhinged left that he has acted responsibly.

[owl]

clarice..."Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if the NYT had broken the story about the Navaho codebreakers."

I think that is the point Dick Morris was making and I agree. Not being a lawyer, I read all the interesting posts being batted back and forth and then I am left asking the same above question.

Why are the lawyers not discussing the *leak* or I prefer, treason? My theory is that once again, the MSM controls labeling the crime. We have had planes, prisons and NSA classified programs exposed and we are fighting over which law the President broke?

They are doing it again. I can even report the MSNBC preview of 'impeachment' 24/7 is up and running. No, I do not think the President is going to be impeached. I do think another full-fledged campaign has successfully been launched. Can anyone even remember that someone has exposed big national security secrets...they *leaked*?

[Sue]

AL,

I don't think I missed your point. You have been arguing all morning that the president thinks he can just ignore laws at his whim. Your McCain-Feingold example being one of them. (Nevermind it is illegal and Bush should have vetoed it when he admitted he knew it was illegal.) Which would fly in the face of what happened to Nixon, wouldn't it? ::grin::

[clarice]

Well. if there is anything likely to get out the Republican base it is this stupid impeachment story.

I'm beginning to think that Kerry and Soros are Rove puppets.

Now, about the Rickefeller and Wyden and Durban referral and investigation--why the big secret? As if we didn't know.

[owl]

IF there is ever an investigation into any of the leaks, do you suppose it will be a secret?

[r flanagan]

No.It means 1 and 2.

[cathyf]

I'm trying to get a handle on how the FISA process would work in a large group of searches.

So, I found an old Chicago Sun-Times article that claims that on an average day 200,000 people fly through O'Hare. Every single one of those people is searched via a warrentless search. So if the TSA wanted to get warrents, they would have to contact FISA, within 72 hours, with highly specific information about the legal names, addresses, etc. of each of the 200,000 people, and get a warrent to search each one. And of course over that 72-hour period you get another 600,000 warrents that need to be considered by a judge.

The only difference between this hypothetical TSA warrent-acquisition task and the hypothetical 72-hour NSA FISA-warrent-acquisition task -- that several of our posters keep claiming is no big deal -- is that it appears that the NSA task is larger...

cathy :-)

[boris]

Gonzales: We had discussions with members of Congress ... as to whether or not FISA could be amended ... and we were advised that would be difficult , if not impossible ...

... without rendering FISA unworkable and irrelevent.

... without exposing details that would render the program less effective.

... without a defeatocrat fillibuster detrimental to nation security

Seems some possibilities were left out. Lack of imagination is not a substitute for logic.

[boris]

NSA advises Senate

[Specter]

Thanks Boris. I can think of numerous individuals that need to read this. Eric Lichtblau comes to mind first....as he prepares for jail!

[r flanagan]

The NSA did not advise the Senate. The
Administration repeated its advice on
NSA stationery.

And of course it's not without merit.Smart
lawyers wrote it , just as smart lawyers will now rebut or defend it.

The devil can quote scripture. Altho
he'd better not do it in a phone call.

[Specter]

We love it when the left keeps up with a losing position. Rasmussen shows Bush's approval rating up to 48% today. That's up 4 points in 4 days. Keep "making your point" and "beating the dead horse" r flanagan. Almost 70% of the people in the US approve of the NSA program.

[Specter]

And they are really getting tired of hearing from you....that's good.

[Specter]

Actually rf, it was the DOJ that wrote the piece.

[noah]

Pardon Cathyf...warrantless searches at O'Hare and other airports are established by law. While I agree wih your rhetorical quest your point is irrelevant.

[boris]

Cathy's point about relative magnitude seems valid. I didn't take her point as a legal one.

[noah]

If so I withdraw the criticism.

[noah]

Actually Cathyf I have made a similar point to the moonbats repeatedly since this story surfaced: how does 72 hour rule under FISA have any practical meaning if the NSA (or CIA or other) cannot get a ruling within 72 hours? So far the know-it-alls on the left have been silent.

[r flanagan]

Of course the NSA program was popular. It might even have been right altho I doubt that.

God sees the truth but waits.

[Gary Maxwell]

CF

We are a republic. The voting representatives must face the voters periodically. Thus popular usually translates into law. Sometimes it translates into throw the obstructionists out until we get what we want.

Please please please put forward articles of impeachment on this matter. I am literal daring you to do so. Or just start clucking like chickens...

[Bill Arnold]

Specter, We love it when the left keeps up with a losing position. GWBush had some of his best performances on TV over the weekend. It's amazing how far even a teeny bit of apparent humility will go. I'm sure that had something to do with it.

Where did you find the "Almost 70% of the people in the US approve of the NSA program."? (Nothing turned up in quick google news search.)

[Spe]

Bill - I've got to go back and track down where I read that. Stay tuned.

[Bill Arnold]

Gary Maxwell, impeachment can wait until the Democrats take over the house in 2006(7) :-) Until then, talk of impeachment is silly and should be treated as lefty (left-of-far-right?) stress relief. The partisan lines have already been drawn, so it's not a matter of truth.

[Specter]

Sorry Bill...read it somewhere but will have to strike the comment until I track it down again.

[SteveMG]

Bill:
impeachment can wait until the Democrats take over the house in 2006(7) :-) Until then, talk of impeachment is silly

I really don't think the Democrats want to bring up charges against Bush for illegally using a power that both Carter and Clinton argued that presidents have.

And using a power, moreover, that simply resulted (as far as we know) in monitoring al-Qaeda terrorists sent here to attack Americans.

That's not a winner, believe me.

SMG

[boris]

sssshhhh! SMG

... keep it quiet ...

[r flanagan]

Nah. Impeachment is dumb. Only republicans
try it.

[kim]

Er, succeed.
============

[r flanagan]

Well of course when the crime is perjury
you can't overlook it ,can you ?

[topsecretk9]

I really don't think the Democrats want to bring up charges against Bush for illegally using a power that both Carter and Clinton argued that presidents have.

Which is puzzling...it seems so to me either A-the "leakers" were very unaware of this (SMG's comment) B-and strangely the NY times never dug deep enough or purposely omitted OR C- the "leakers" miscalculated the reaction?

Not coming out right, but is this the sense of most? Don't get it. I would think the Times would have an interest in pretty in depth research on the subject and putting some of that in their story (or a lot more for those that think they did)...lest their premise comes up wrong, no?

Or are the Times perfect parrots, parroting their leaks in traditional Kritoff fashion?

[topsecretk9]

Well of course when the crime is perjury
you can't overlook it ,can you ?

I was more appalled at having Monica sign the false affidavit myself. Curious, the only reason Starr became interested in MLewinsky was her Revlon gig by the same dude that got Web Hubbell good gigs too, Vernon.

So there appeared to be a pattern of people getting good gigs if they would just sign the nice piece of paper or take the hit.

But nevermind about all that.

[MJW]

AL compares FISA to McCain-Feingold, and asks why, if a president might be justified in ignoring the first if he decides it's unconstitutional, he wouldn't be equally justified in ignoring the second. I'd say the distinction is that FISA arguably directly impinges on the president's constitutionally granted authority, while McCain-Feingold doesn't. If, for example, Congress passed a law that the president couldn't grant pardons without congressional approval, the president could properly ignore that law.

[r flanagan]

Re Posner:indirect quote. 'The only valid ground for concern is that the data could be used to damage your political opponents.'
"Only" ? How about buying puts on HCA when
the comptroller phones the bad second quarter eps to the CEO ?Etc.

In any event Posner's WSJ endorsement morphed into an "arguable case" on Hardball tonight.

[Dwilkers]

Well, I really hadn't read much of the analysis of the legal situation regarding this until tonight.

It certainly appears GWB is on rock solid legal ground. The legal opinions on similar or related cases from 4 different circuits and the SCOTUS, the opinions of previous administration officials, the actions of previous presidents are all in line with what happened here. Everything I've read over the last couple of hours says the POTUS absolutely has this power, the courts all agree, and they've all been using it for decades.

Nor frankly am I troubled by it. Having thought about it for a while, I'd be pretty pissed if they weren't intercepting "certain international communication into and out of the United States of people linked to an al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization". I think in light of the security environment we're in the government has an absolute duty to intercept any communication that meets that description.

If it turns out they're spying on the DNC at the White House that will be different - but nobody is even suggesting that the power is being abused, they are only bitching about it being used at all to defend our country.

Since they're not abusing it, since they've been hand in hand with congress on what they were doing from the start, and since they've only used it to protect the country from attack - their sworn duty - it is as I suspected from the start just another opportunity for our friends on the left to demonstrate their utter unsuitability for elected office.

[TM]

They're basically saying that the President has the inherent authority to ignore Congressional mandates and bypass the Courts during times of war

What is funny is that there is a long post at Balkinazation by Marty Lederman explaining that this is Bush" rel="nofollow">

Then we get to a concise and amusing UPDATE:

UPDATE: Well, just goes to show you never know: It appears the Administration is running (at least for now) only with the argument that the AUMF authorized exceptions to the FISA regime, and not that FISA is unconstitutional under Article II: See the DOJ Letter here.

SO yes, the Presidentialpower can ne limited by Congress *and* the Executive (FISA was not put in place over a veto.)

However, FISA has a clause allowing other statutes to apply, which is where the AUMF comes in.

[clarice]

ts--I just skimmed the discussion at Powerline but it appears the NYT didn't know or didn't give a damn about the law..certainly they appear not to have done any research on it at all. (All those layers of fact checkers must have been dining with the layers of fact checkers at the LAT that day.)

[clarice]

Daschle weighs in--I think his statement conflicts with Biden's:

[quote]The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution. [/quote] Daschle denies

[kim]

What Daschle claims to have rejected was a redundancy to which he wants to add more meaning than it had.
=================================================

[kim]

In other words, the authority is already explicit in the resolution. Removing the redundant qualifier does not make the resolution inexplicit. Daschle used to be a strategic thinker for the Dems?
===========================================

[Ghost Dansing]

Dubya should probably be impeached. Sanctioning him and this Republican administration for general incompetence alone would be worth the trouble.

Didn't he in fact jeopardize the whole process for dealing with domestic surveillance; a process that was in place, allowed for warrantless surveillance in certain circumstances, and for a circumscribed time period, and established a specialized judicial apparatus that seldom turned down a request, just by attempting to circumvent the Law?

Now the whole thing is a matter of public debate with plenty cause to suspect illegal activity.

That's no way to handle confidential capabilties.

This Republican administration is clearly incompetent.

[kim]

You seem so certain about everything, but only 'suspect' illegal activity. I suspect you may both be wrong and know nothing, a potent combination. That one-two punch is easy to move to, easy to sing.

Sing law, Fleet Spiriot.
Comin' Far to Dangerly Dance.
Able are you in minutiot?
Waltzed your brain out of its pants.
=============================================

[clarice]

Scrappleface parodies Daschle:
"'When I was in Congress, the COnstitution never came up for a vote.'Mr . Daschle wrote, 'and if it had, Article II would never have made it out of Committee'
Calling the President 'Commander in Chief makes it sound like he's in charge of the armed forces and has responsibility to defend the country against all enemies foreign and domestic.'"

LOL. I love Scott Ott.

[kim]

Reporting for duty flying those death defying headphones.
==========================================

[AlanDownunder]

"STILL GOING: Mickey Kaus is cogent and concise on the legal issues. And he links to a Times editorial which is the opposite. Here is the Times with a classic example of applying a law-enforcement model in wartime:"

Thank God some media can tell a phony unending war from a real war of finite duration. With what Country is the US at war, pray tell.

If 9/11 was an act of war, why was Oklahoma City not an act of war? Private citizens perprtrated both - no enemy nation was involved in either.

[Rider]

The President decided he could violate FISA and the Patriot Act with impunity, got caught, and now defiantly insists he will continue to do so. He has created a constitutional crisis, because he evidently does not believe in the separation of powers. He will probably have to be impeached to prevent this lawlessness becoming a precendent for future president. (I take it neither you nor I would like to imagine a day when a President Hillary Clinton might decide she had "inherent authority" to violate domestic surveillance laws).

What in the hell does Bush need with the Patriot Act, seeing that he plans to violate it whenever he damned well pleases?

No president has "inherent authority" to violate the law. The only one who claimed he had that authority until now was Richard Nixon. The U.S. Supreme Court told him unanimously he had no inherent right to conduct warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons for counterterrorism. His egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment were the reason FISA had to be written: to provide a legal means to protect us from terrorists through counterterrorist surveillance of U.S. citizens.

[Rider]

We are no longer technically "at war." The joint resolutions (JAUMF) in 2001 and 2003 were authorization to introduce military force into Afghanistan and Iraq, which were the equivalents of declarations of war. But active combat in both theaters has ended. The active combat phase in Iraq ended in May, 2003 as announced by the commander-in-chief on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

The War Powers Act does remain in force as long as U.S. Armed Forces are present in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, "where they are likely to encouter hostilities." BTW, this requires the president to report to the House and Senate "the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement." (Exit strategy? Hello?)

The claim that the 2001 JAUMFA authorized the President to conduct warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens for purpose of counterterrorism is not only ludicrous but even if admitted would only have been in force until the end of active combat in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld (see Section II, plurality opinion)

[kim]

So only 'active combat' equals war? Just stay out of my army.

In fact, go play chess. Go is beyond you and the chink bladers at Agincourt would have simply appalled you. Appalled, then impaled.

Live Free,
Gleefully say I.
That guns for me?
I kinda like die.
=====================================

[kim]

Not technically at war. Not in September, 2001, either. I got a great plan for you, Rider, write a note whining about how little you understand this modern age and put it in a box. Fine for you, but is this what we elect and pay legislators for? And trust them to do? If the wolf is at the door, do you trust the man who shoots it or the one who worries whether the wolf in endangered, whether the game warden would approve, whether the gun or shooter are licensed, and secretly communicates with himself, pen pal style.

Aren't you gald that Clinton's crew had Atta's and bin Laden's cell phone numbers? Don't you believe they thought they were entitled to know those and listen to those conversations even if they were calling within to or within the United States? It wasn't fear of breaking the law listening to those conversations that got Able Danger shut down and maybe, just maybe, enabled 9/11.

And in case you want to forget a truism, let me remind you the other side hasn't. All's fair in love and war. Assymetrical warfare, by its definition, will bend established rules. Your insistence that Bush was wrong, if sustained, would entail loss of that war. But its not your war. America is great partly because it is rich enough to allow those who oppose the government still to survive when it is challenged. There was a time when all those Japanese and Germans, who were American citizens, would have been killed instead of incarcerated as they were in WWII.
=================================================

[Jim Marino]

So you people are angry because the comandante bush used the NSA to spy on people? Newsflash.. the NSA has been illegally spying on people for decades 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The NSA's crimes against Americans and violations of the US Constitution are positively horrendous!

John St. Clair Akwei, a former NSA employee has now blown the whistle on the NSA and detailed the advanced covert technology that this BIG BROTHER spy agency has been using on Americans for at least 40 years.

Spy satellites and advanced computer technology allow the NSA to spy on Americans within the privacy of their own homes, bathrooms and bedrooms. Yes, it's that bad!

NSA cryptologists have been reduced to nothing but peeping toms, archiving what they view for future reference.

Akwei's lawsuit is below. And for your own
knowledge and safety not only should you read it; you should circulate it to every American you know since the NSA's spying is being done on a widescale and is the most egregious form of invasion of privacy Americans will ever experience.
Search: The Web Angelfire Curious George
Share This Page Report Abuse Build a Site Browse Sites
« Previous | Top 100 | Next »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John St. Clair Akwei vs.
NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

Cover Page
NSA Mission & Operations
Communications Intelligence
Signals Intelligence
Domestic Intelligence
Independently Operating Personnel Target Citizens
NSA's Domestic Electronic Surveillance Network
Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering
Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance
NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulatlon
Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM
NSA Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology
Table: An example of EMF Brain Stimulation
NSA Techniques and Resources
Remote RNM Devices
Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas
Chemicals and Drugs
Intelligence/Anti-Terrorist Equipment
Resources
Further Resources

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cover Page

Evidence for the Lawsuit filed at the US courthouse in Washington, D.C.
(Civil Action 92-0449)

John St.Clair Akwei vs. NSA Ft George G. Meade, MD

My knowledge of the National Security Agency's structure, national security activities, proprietary technology,and covert operations to monitor individual citizens.

Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NSA's mission and
the NSA's domestic Intelligence operation.

Communications Intelligence (COMINT)
Blanket coverage of all electronic communication in the U.S. and the world to ensure national security. The NSA at Ft. Meade, Maryland has had the most advanced computers in the world since the early 1960's. NSA technology is developed and implemented in secret from private corporations, academia, and the general public.
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)
The Signals Intelligence mission of the NSA has evolved into a program of decoding EMF waves in the environment for wirelessly tapping into computers and tracking persons with the electrical currents in their bodies. Signals Intelligence is based on the fact that everything in the environment with an electric current in it has a magnetic flux around it which gives off EMF waves. The NSA/DoD has developed proprietary advanced digital equipment which can remotely analyze all objects whether man-made or organic that have electrical activity.
Domestic Intelligence (DOMINT)
The NSA has records on all U.S. citizens. The NSA gathers information on U.S. citizens who might be of interest to any of the over 50,000 NSA agents (HUMINT). These agents are authorized by executive order to spy on anyone. The NSA has a permanent National Security Anti-Terrorist surveillance network in place. This surveillance network is completely disguised and hidden from the public.
Tracking individuals in the U.S. is easily and cost-effectively implemented with the NSA's electronic surveillance network. This network (DOMINT) covers the entire U.S., involves tens of thousands of NSA personnel, and tracks millions of persons simultaneously. Cost effective implementation of operations is assured by NSA computer technology designed to minimize operations costs.

NSA personnel serve in Quasi-public positions in their communities and run cover businesses and legitimate businesses that can inform the intelligence community of persons they would want to track. N.S.A. personnel in the community usually have cover identities such as social workers, lawyers and business owners.

Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance
by independently operating NSA personnel.
NSA personnel can control the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. by using the NSA's domestic intelligence network and cover businesses. The operations independently run by them can sometimes go beyond the bounds of law. Long-term control and sabotage of tens of thousands of unwitting citizens by NSA operatives is likely to happen. NSA Domint has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health.
Table of Contents

NSA's domestic electronic surveillance network

As of the early 1960's the most advanced computers in the world were at the NSA, Ft. Meade. Research breakthroughs with these computers were kept for the NSA. At the present time the NSA has nanotechnology computers that are 15 years ahead of present computer technology.

The NSA obtains blanket coverage of information in the U.S. by using advanced computers that use artificial intelligence to screen all communications, irregardless of medium, for key words that should be brought to the attention of NSA agents/cryptologists. These computers monitor all communications at the transmitting and receiving ends. This blanket coverage of the U.S. is a result of the NSA's Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission.

The NSA's electronic surveillance network is based on a cellular arrangement of devices that can monitor the entire EMF spectrum. This equipment was developed, implemented, and kept secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs.

With this technology NSA personnel can non-obtrusively tap into any communication device in existence. This includes computers, telephones, radio and video-based devices, printers, car electronics, and even the minute electrical fields in humans (for tracking individuals).

Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering
The NSA keeps track of all PCs and other computers sold in the U.S. This is an integral part of the Domestic Intelligence network.

The NSA's EMF equipment can tune in RF emissions from personal computer circuit boards (while filtering out emissions from monitors and power supplies). The RF emission from PC circuit boards contains digital information in the PC. Coded RF waves from the NSA's equipment can resonate PC circuits and change data in the PC's. Thus the NSA can gain wireless modem-style entry into any computer in the country for surveillance or anti-terrorist electronic warfare.

Radio and Television signals can be substituted at the receiving end with special EMF equipment. Replacing signals in Radios and Televisions is another outgrowth of the NSA's Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission.

Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.
A subject's bioelectric field can be remotely detected, so subjects can be monitored anywhere they are. With special EMF equipment NSA cryptologists can remotely read evoked potentials (from EEGs). These can be decoded into a person's brain-states and thoughts. The subject is then perfectly monitored from a distance.

NSA personnel can dial up any individual in the country on the Signals lntelligence EMF scanning network and the NSA's computers will then pinpoint and track that person 24 hours-a-day. The NSA can pick out and track anyone in the U.S.

Table of Contents

NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation

NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950's, which included neurological research into "radiation" (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as "Radiation Intelligence," defined as "information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation."

Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret.

The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can continuously monitor all the electrical activity in die brain continuously. The NSA records aid decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link. (In military fighter aircraft, for example.)

For electronic surveillance purposes electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject's verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain's auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia.

Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject's brain and show images from the subject's brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject's eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex. bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject's brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain- programming purposes.

Table of Contents

Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM

There has been a Signals Intelligence network in the U.S. since the 1940's. The NSA, Ft. Meade has in place a vast two-way wireless RNM system which is used to track subjects and non-invasively monitor audio-visual information in their brain. This is all done with no physical contact with the subject. RNM is the ultimate method of surveillance and domestic intelligence. Speech and 3D sound, and subliminal audio can be sent to the auditory cortex of the subject's brain (bypassing the ears) and images can be sent into the visual cortex. RNM can alter a subject's perceptions, moods, and motor control.

Speech cortex/auditory cortex link has become the ultimate communications system for the intelligence community. RNM allows for a complete audio-visual brain-to-brain link or brain-to-computer link.

Table of Contents

National Security Agency Signals Intelligence
Electronic Brain Link Technology

NSA SigInt can remotely detect, identify and monitor a person's bioelectric fields.

The NSA's Signals Intelligence has the proprietary ability to remotely and non-invasively monitor information in the human brain by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in the 30-50 hz,.5 milliwatt electro-magnetic emissions from the brain.

Neuronal activity in the brain creates a shifting electrical pattern that has a shifting magnetic flux. This magnetic flux puts out a constant 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electromagnetic (EMF) wave. Contained in the electromagnetic emission from the brain are spikes and patterns called "evoked potentials."

Every thought, reaction, motor command, auditory event, and visual image in the brain has a corresponding "evoked potential" or set of "evoked potentials." The EMF emission from the brain can be decoded into the current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject's brain.

NSA SigInt uses EMF-transmitted Brain Stimulation as a communications system to transmit information (as well as nervous system messages) to intelligence agents and also to transmit to the brains of covert operations subjects (on a non-perceptible level).

EMF Brain Stimulation works by sending a complexly coded and pulsed electromagnetic signal to trigger evoked potentials (events) in the brain, thereby forming sound and visual images in the brain's neural circuits. EMF Brain Stimulation can also change a person's brain-states and affect motor control.

Two-way Electronic Brain-Link is done by remotely monitoring neural audio-visual information while transmitting sound to the auditory cortex (bypassing the ears) and transmitting faint images to the visual cortex (bypassing the optic nerves and eyes, the images appear as floating 2-D screens in the brain).

Two-Way Electronic Brain Link has become the ultimate communications system for CIA/NSA personnel. Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM, remotely monitoring bioelectric information in the human brain) has become the ultimate surveillance system. It is used by a limited number of agents in the U.S. Intelligence Community.

RNM requires decoding the resonance frequency of each specific brain area. That frequency is then modulated in order to impose information in That specific brain area. The frequency to which the various brain areas respond varies from 3 Hz to 50 Hz. Only NSA Signals Intelligence modulates signals in this frequency band.

An example of EMF Brain Stimulation:

Brain Area
Bioelectric
Resonance
Frequency
Information Induced
Through Modulation

Motor Control Cortex 10 HZ
Motor Impulse Co-ordination
Auditory Cortex 15 HZ
Sound which bypasses the ears
Visual Cortex 25 HZ
Images in the brain, bypassing the eyes
Somatosensory Cortex 09 HZ
Phantom Touch Sense
Thought Center 20 HZ
Imposed Subconscious Thoughts

This modulated information can be put into the brain at varying intensities from subliminal to perceptible.

Each person's brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person's brain at the frequency of another person's auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived.

The Plaintiff learned of RNM by being in two-way RNM contact with the Kinnecome group at the NSA, Ft. Meade. They used RNM 3D sound direct to the brain to harass the Plaintiff from 10/90 to 5/91. As of 5/91 they have had two-way RNM communications with the Plaintiff and have used RNM to attempt to incapacitate the Plaintiff and hinder the Plaintiff from going to authorities about their activities against the Plaintiff in the last twelve years.

The Kinnecome group has about 100 persons working 24-hours-a-day at Ft Meade. They have also brain-tapped persons the Plaintiff is in contact with to keep the Plaintiff isolated. This is the first time ever that a private citizen has been harassed with RNM and has been able to bring a lawsuit against NSA personnel misusing this intelligence operations method.

Table of Contents

NSA Techniques and Resources

Remote monitoring/tracking of individuals in any location. inside any building, continuously, anywhere in the country.

A system for inexpensive implementation of these operations allows for thousands of persons in every community to be spied on constantly by the NSA.

Remote RNM Devices
a) NSA's RNM equipment remotely reads the evoked potentials (EEGs) of the human brain for tracking individuals and can send messages through the nervous system to affect their performance.
b) [Information missing from original]
c) RNM can electronically identify individuals and track then anywhere in the U.S. This equipment is on a network and is used for domestic intelligence operations, government security, and military base security, and in case of bioelectric warfare.
Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas
a) Tens of thousands of persons in each area working as spotters and neighborhood/business place spies (sometimes unwittingly) following and checking on subjects who have been identified for covert control by NSA personnel.
b) Agents working out of offices can be in constant communication with Spotters who are keeping track of the NSA's thousands of subjects in public.

c) NSA Agents in remote offices can instantly identify (using RNM) any individual spotted in public whom is in contact with surveillance subject.

Chemicals and Drugs into Residential Buildings with
hidden NSA-lnstalled and maintained plastic plumbing lines.
a) The NSA has kits for running lines into residential tap water and air ducts of subjects for the delivery of drugs (such as sleeping gas or brainwashing aiding drugs). This is an outgrowth of CIA pharmapsychology.
Brief Overview of Proprietary U.S.
Intelligence/Anti- Terrorist Equipment Mentioned.
Fixed network of special EMF equipment that can read EEGs in human brains and identify/track individuals by using digital computers. ESB (Electrical Stimulation to the Brain) via EMF signal from the NSA Signals Intelligence is used to control subjects.
EMF equipment that gathers information from PC circuit boards by deciphering RF emissions thereby gaining wireless modem-style entry into any personal computer in the country.

All equipment hidden, all technology secret, all scientific research unreported (as in electronic warfare research).

Not known to the public at all, yet complete and thorough implementation of this method of domestic intelligence has been in place since the early 1980's.

Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources

These publications have only been discovered since December 1991, after Plaintiff had already notified authorities (Dept. of Justice, etc.) of Public Corruption by named NSA employees. When no action was taken against the NSA employees I researched the Intelligence Community electronic surveillance technology involved and discovered the following publications:

The Body Electric
Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, by Robert Becker, M.D.
p. 265/313/318. Monitoringeuroelectric information in the brain. E-M wave E.S.B.
Cross Currents, by Robert Becker, M.D.
p. 70, p. 78, p. 105/210/216/220/242/299/303 E-M ESB. Simulating auditory hallucinations. p. 274, "Remote computer tampering using the RF emissions from the logic board."
Currents of Death by Paul Brodeur
p. 27/93. Driving brain electrical activity with external E-M, Magnetophosphenes, Delgado.
The Zapping of America by Paul Brodeur
DoD E-M ESB Research, simulating auditory hallucinations.
Of Mice, Men and Molecules, by John H. Heller. 1963.
p. 110, Bioelectricity. probing the brain with E-M waves.
The 3-Pound Universe, by Judith Hooper
p. 29/132/137. CIA EEG research. EEG's for surveillance.
In the Palaces or Memory, by George Johnson
E-M emissions from the brain,the brain as an open electromagnetic circuit.
The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford
Signals intelligence, most advanced computers in the early Sixties
The U.S. Intelligence Community -Glossary terms at National Security Archives:
Radiation intelligence - information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic energy, excluding radioactive sources.
The Search for the "Manchurian Candidate," by John Marks
p. 327. Electrical or radio stimulation to the brain, CIA R&D in bioelectrics.
Secret Agenda, by Jim Hougan
National Security cult groups.
Crines of the Intelligence Commununity. by Morton Halperin
Surreptitious entries; intelligence agents running operations against government workers
War in the Age of Intelligent Machines
NSA computer supremacy, complete control of information
Alternate Computers, by Time-Life Books
Molecule Computers
The Mind, by Richard Restak, M.D.
p. 258, EEG Systems Inc., decoding brain E-M emanations, tracking thoughts on a computer.
MedTech, by Lawrence Gallon
Triggering events in the brain" direct to auditory cortex signals.
Cyborg, by D.S. Halacy, Jr. (1965)
Brain-to-computer link research contracts given out by the U.S. Govemment
Psychiatry and the C.I.A.: Victims of Mind Control by Harvey M. Weinstein. M.D.
Dr. Cameron, psychic driving. ultraconceptual communications.
Journey Into Madness: Ihe True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse, by Gordon Thomas
p. 127/276/116, 168-69. Intelligence R & D. Delgado. Psychic driving with radio telemetry.
Mind Manipulators, by Alan Scheflin and Edward M. Opton
MKULTRA brain research for information gathering
The Brain Changers, by Maya Pines.
p. 19. Listening to brain E-M emissions.
Table of Contents

Further Resources

These publications have only been discovered since December 1991, after Plaintiff had already notified authorities (Dept. of Justice, etc.) of Public Corruption by named NSA employees. When no action was taken against the NSA employees I researched the Intelligence Community electronic surveillance technology involved and discovered the following publications:

Modern Bielectricity
Inducing audio in the brain with e-m waves, DoD cover-up, E-M wave ESB. Remote EEGs.
Magnetic Stimulation in Clinical Neuropsysiology by Sudhansu Chokroverty
Magneto-Phosphenes. Images direct to the visual cortex.
The Mind of Man by Nigel Calder
U.S. Intelligence brain research
Neuroelectric Society Conference - 1971
Audio direct to the brain with e-m waves, two waf remote EEG.
Brain Control by Elliot S. Valenstein
ESB control of individuals
Towards Century 21 by C.S. Wallia
p. 21. Brain Stimulation for direct to brain communication.
Mind Wars by Ron McRae, associate of Jack Anderson
p 62/106/136. Research into brain-to-brain electronic communications, remote neural e-m detection.
Mind Tools by Rudy Rucker
Brain tapping, communication with varying biomagnetic fields. p. 82
U.S. News and World Report 1/2/84
p. 88. e-m wave brain stimulation. Intelligence community high tech.
Ear Magazine article on extremely low frequency radio emissions in the natural environment, radio emissions from the human body.
City Paper article on FCC and NSA "complete radio spectrum" listening posts. 1/17/92.
Frontiers in Science - 1958 - by Edward Hutchings, Jr.
p. 48
Beyond Biofeedback - 1977 - by Elmer and Alyce Green
p. 118
The Body Quantum by Fred Alan Wolf
Cloning - A Biologist Reports by Robert Gilmore McKinnell
Ethical review of cloning humans.
Hoover's FBI by former agent William Turner
p. 280. Routines of electronic surveillance work.
July 20, 2019 by Arthur C. Clarke
Lida, Neurophonics, Brain/Computer Link
MegaBrain by Michael Hutchison
p. 107/108/117/120/123. Brain stimulation with e-m waves. CIA research and information control.
The Cult of Information by Theodore Rosnak - 1986
NSA Directive #145. Personal Files in Computers. Computer automated telephone tapping
The Body Shop
1968 implantation of an electrode array on the visual cortex for video direct to the brain and other 1960s research into electronically triggering phosphenes in the brain, thus bypassing the eyes.
Evoked Potentials by David Regan
Decoding neuroelectric information in the brain
Table of Contents