HaloScan.com - Comments

So will john conyers add this to his 350+ page bill of impeachment? Oh yea impeachment has been off the table since November 8th.
klyde | 12.03.06 - 9:44 am | #

Bravo, Glenn! I've been writing about the decline of privacy as surveillance increasingly becomes the norm since I started blogging in Jan. 05 (I have a series of posts called "Welcome to the Panopticon," now in need of an update), and I'm delighted by your steadfast refusal to surrender the right to privacy.

Now if only the Dems use their power to investigate, we may finally be able to see what's left...

Thanks for your elegant writing, Glenn--one First Amendment enthusiast to another, it's always rewarding for me to visit.
John Wirenius | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 9:57 am | #

My gut tells me it's much much worse than anyone thinks. And as we now know, my gut is more important than my brain.
garyb50 | 12.03.06 - 10:00 am | #

I missing something. Obviously, the administration did not want a controversial program like this becoming public, but yet, according to the AP article, it was disclosed by the government itself.

The program's existence was quietly disclosed in November when the government put an announcement detailing the Automated Targeting System, or ATS, for the first time in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules.

Was that a mistake? Who, exactly, put this in the Federal Register, and why?

Was anyone in Congress briefed about this program? Who should have been briefed if we had a functioning government with actual oversight?
zack | 12.03.06 - 10:08 am | #

The technique used seems to work like a well oiled machine.
A secret system is set up, functions, data is collected, put in secret inaccessibile files and serves unknown usage.
This secret system then becomes known and the discussion diverts not to whether or not it should exist, or even has the legal right to exist, but how it should function and if Congress should have access to the "secrets."
Each time the same scenario is used, an endless after the fact debate concerning modalities is cranked up.
If the new Congress accepts this setup we will know where we stand or rather where we are being held.
A New World Bastille is being built stone by stone to wall us in.
The Democratic Party has been a shining example of moderation, Daschle not running for President, a star among them, replaced by timid pommaded Washington gentlemen.
They should all remember they vowed to defend the Constitution in our name and with our votes.
Druthers | 12.03.06 - 10:09 am | #

I think one of the key paragraphs in the post is this:

We're not supposed to have a Government which keeps track of what we do, absent some reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Even with the most well-intentioned administration, it is self-evidently dangerous to allow the Government to maintain vast dossiers on tens or hundreds of millions of citizens. Those dangers are exacerbated -- severely -- when, as has been the case to an unconscionable degree, the Government is permitted to do all of this almost entirely in the dark, with no meaningful checks or oversight of any kind. And again, those conclusions are compelled by what we already know about all of this. The universe of what we don't know is assuredly vast.

Other countries, like Denmark, that have national registers of all citizens, usually have some kind of checks and balances in place, while countries that for ideological reasons don't have natural registers (like the US and Australia) don't have such checks and balances in place.

I think that the countries without checks and balances would do well to put some up, even if they keep away from national registers.

I am somewhat familar with the Danish system, where there are a entire lawset dealing with registers containing personal information (even on such basic levels as names, addresses etc.) - e.g. who can maintain such, what data can be stored in it, who are allowed access to it etc.

The laws are so strict, that even public registers are not allowed to be merged without a permission. And companies are not allowed to give/sell their customer databases on to others. And if you have a register, and somehow allow people illegal access to it, you can face up to six months in jail.
Kristjan Wager | 12.03.06 - 10:09 am | #

This current administration is the most dangerous we have ever had in this country. This government is moving toward a national security police state as quick as possible and the prisons are now being built by Halliburton to put us in them if we dare to question our government.If this president is not removed by impeachment and also cheney with him then "king george" will be our last president just as our first president was named George so will our last one be. I have no doubt that "king george" will bring about another false flag terror attack upon us before the presidential elections of 08 declare martial law and suspend the elections for the protection of us all.
Gabe Gabriel | 12.03.06 - 10:09 am | #

ZACK - I missing something. Obviously, the administration did not want a controversial program like this becoming public, but yet, according to the AP article, it was disclosed by the government itself.

It is weird. I noted it in my post that they themselves finally disclosed it. It could be that it would be uncovered by Democratic investigations and they wanted to preemptively disclose it. It could be that there was never any reason to conceal it and it took 3 years for it to grind its way through the administration's channels, which begin with the presumption that everything is secret. It could have been an accident. Or any number of other explanations.

But how can it be justified that it was kept secret for the last 3 years when they have now disclosed it (the same thing happened with the classified NIE - when part of it was leaked (the part about how Iraq is increasing terrorism, the President ordered the whole thing declassified - but if there is no national security harm to disclosing it, why was it concealed in the first place?).

This is what I mean - some things obviously need to be (and, by every government, are) kept secret, but this administration begins with the presumption that things are secret.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 10:14 am | #

KRISTJAN WAGER - The laws are so strict, that even public registers are not allowed to be merged without a permission. And companies are not allowed to give/sell their customer databases on to others. And if you have a register, and somehow allow people illegal access to it, you can face up to six months in jail.

It is true that, on some levels, surveillance and privacy infringements are worse in some European countries.

But, as you point out, for the most part those invasions are the by-product of public debate and all sorts of safeguards are installed. I think Europe has a major problem with these issues, too -- and, as I said, in some cases even worse -- but at least the debates occur out in the open (more or less) and there is a recognition of the need for many layers of safeguards when the governemnt is vested with these sorts of powers.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 10:17 am | #

The Terrorist's Blue Plate Special

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Yesterday, I went out with my sister and her husband. Overwhelmed by choices, I gave up, and simply said, "I'll have what she's having," fish and shrimp with a salad. Put yourself on an airplane, overwhelmed by the lack of choices, and imagine making a similar move. You haven't even consciously decided on each element of your meal. Rather, you've decided, "that sounds good enough for me" and boom! you've ordered yourself the Terrorist's Blue Plate Special without even knowing it.

It's the Keystone Cops version of the KGB.
Paul Rosenberg | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 10:17 am | #

But how can it be justified that it was kept secret for the last 3 years when they have now disclosed it..

That is especially troublesome – or should be – since a similar project “Secure Flight” was rejected two years ago by Congress who barred its implementation “until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.”

Where was Congress this time? Who should have notified? And how did they suddenly avoid these 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection?

The only possible answer seems to be that since Congress rejected it, they just went ahead with the same program under a different name and didn’t inform anyone who could possibly object.

I can’t see how this could pass any “privacy protection” tests by its very nature.
zack | 12.03.06 - 10:27 am | #

It might be worthwhile to point out to everyone commenting here, trolls included, that if some nameless they with access to government data know such things as Baggi knew about Glenn, they also know it about all of us.

Furthermore, if they're willing to share it with Wizbang, for whetever reason, who would they not be willing to share it with?

You say that this doesn't bother you because you haven't done anything wrong? Mmm....
William Timberman | 12.03.06 - 10:33 am | #

Glenn, one extremely noteworthy thing from that article, my emphasis:

WASHINGTON - Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.
The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

So, before the authoritarians all start the hue and cry that "9/11 changed everything" cuz of terrorism, this program is not targeted only at terrorist suspects. It seems that millions of people, including Americans, are being monitored and secret dossiers being compiled for suspected "criminal" activity. (Gee, do ya think this includes anyone suspected of drug trafficking?)

Further, I recall that comment about you at Wizbang -- I know you don't like to make yourself the focus of discussions, but I found that incident extremely alarming. Unless you pissed off an intimate friend or relative who knows your travel schedule, and who wants to get involved in silly blog wars concerning you -- really likely scenario, that -- somebody official has access to info on you that they were willing to share publicly, and indicated that they had "more" they would share via email. Now, you are a well-known and high-profile critic of the Bush Administration. I don't think, in light of that Wizbang comment coupled with this past week's revelations, it is paranoid to suspect there is quite the dossier on you, and others whom the govt finds annoying.
Mona | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 10:41 am | #

It's also worth mentioning, before the trolls come to pollute the thread, that these type of dragnet total surveillance operations have no benefit for fighting terrorists.

The law enforcement agencies have been simply overwhelmed by the amount of useless data collected. See:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/c...ive=35& num=5222

Thank you Glenn for bringing this up.
Caligula would have blushed | 12.03.06 - 10:46 am | #

The new head of the GSA, Lurita Doan, just called IG audits "terrorism". Before joining the government, she was head (and sole owner) of a "surveillance technology company", New Technology Management.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 10:56 am | #

And the only reason to track what meals were ordered would be to see if the person was refusing pork ie either Muslim or Jewish. Very interesting
k | 12.03.06 - 10:59 am | #

Randi Rhodes was suggesting that one reason for conducting those X-rays of all passengers was to see which men were circumcised.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 11:06 am | #

Klyde: Oh yea impeachment has been off the table since November 8th.

if impeachment has legs, it will climb back up on the table by itself. just hold a few hearings, add outrage, and stir citizenry to a slow boil.
dopey-o | 12.03.06 - 11:21 am | #

Wm. Timberman, earlier: "...if some nameless they with access to government data know such things as Baggi knew about Glenn, they also know it about all of us.

Furthermore, if they're willing to share it with Wizbang, for whetever reason, who would they not be willing to share it with?"

What legitimate reason could they have had to share it with Wizbang? None. So it appears that they are willing to share it with anyone they choose, on whatever whim.

This administration pisses on the rule of law, zips up, and walks away without bothering to wash its hands.
Anonymous | 12.03.06 - 11:26 am | #

Part of what makes me beyond angry is how I can read about such incredibly important issues here, and hear nothing of it on any other form of MSM. Nothing.

I dare say that one of the main reasons why the profession of journalism is now held in such low esteem by the public is because there is damn little of it actually being done these days, and that realization is slowly dawning across the land. As the steaming piles left by the neocons and Bush are brought to light, more and more will realize just how poorly they've been served by Infotainment and Faux news. One can hope...
Make It Stop | 12.03.06 - 11:33 am | #

One day soon, this secret apparatus will be turned against these perpetrators, and will help us to rid this country of its political cancer.
gravitylove | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 11:43 am | #

If someone in the government revealed this kind of information to someone outside the government, wasn't that a violation of the Privacy Act?
lysias | 12.03.06 - 11:46 am | #

I think it rather naive to think there isn't a program or a plan to tie in all surveillance cameras to a single system. Although, there is no publicly announced plan, I have no doubt it will eventually happen. Imagine for a moment a future like that, public and private systems tied in as a single unit that would allow the government broad discretion in surveillance.

In the U.K. they have 4.9 million cctv units just in London that can film the average person up to 300 times a day. In the tube bombings earlier this year the cameras proved vital in capturing those guilty. It will be very hard to defeat a system that provides such remarkable results and that is why the whole thing is scary beyond belief.

In Bedfordshire, they are using portable fingerprint scanners that have a 6.5 million print database, so when you are stopped by the police they will ask for your thumbprint instead of a license to prove who you are. The European Union will fingerprint everyone with a passport by the end of 2007.

The Association of Police Chiefs in the UK, has proposed adding powerful microphones to the cctv cameras already in use, because in Holland where they already have 300 cameras in use, have been found to be productive and have resulted in some arrests. The Association hopes to have them in place for the 2012 Olympics.

In New York City, the police in Harlem have started utilizing portable towers called "skywatch" that elevate to two stories have 4 cameras, sensors, and powerful searchlights, and can be easily moved where needed.

Add that to the new government regulation that just went into effect last week where your employer must keep records of all your email and you can easily see where this is headed.

The most remarkable thing about these infringements are the speed with which they are becoming commonplace. For every one of us who are proponents of limiting power, there are entrpreuners who devise ways to take it away. This will be a long battle, conceivably the most important one we will ever fight.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 11:55 am | #

For the record I don't really think impeachment is *that* far off the table. At least I hope not. After all, if our constitution and the democracy it defines is to have a future, isn't it necessary that there is something that makes violating it a costly enterprise?

Without all the violaters being punnished, future administrations will be able plan their agenda with full reliance on political expeidency saving them from the noose.

Certainly the President is at fault, but then so is every person at every step of implementation of these policies. Including the ones who attempted to intimidate Glen. They should all face the law.
Fr33d0m | 12.03.06 - 12:00 pm | #

It's hard to make a criminal charge under the Privacy Act stick, but the standard of proof in a civil case is a lot lower.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 12:03 pm | #

"...seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered."

Way to go Chertoff, you toothless drunk. The rest of us don't get meals; been that way for some time.
Dot Connector | 12.03.06 - 12:04 pm | #

As Caligula w.h.b. pointed out @ 10:46, these sort of "data-mining" programs can, and must, generate truly enormous volumes of raw data: it is only logical to assume that these billions of [phone call/charges/etc.] are simply too vast a database to be of any "general" use - one has to wonder just exactly why the Government has decided to waste so many terabytes of memory keeping so much data for so long?
Is it "just to prove they can"? To burn through their computer-services budget quicker so as to get bigger appropriations next year? To polish their skills for even more intrusive police-state measures?

Oh, and before the trolls chime with their ususal blather about "fighting terrorists" or whatever exculpatory nonsense is in today's talking-points; I would challenge them to defend data-mining programs first and foremost on the grounds of effectiveness; i.e., is there any shred of proof that a comprehensive-surveillance system like ATS is more efficient or effective than traditional "targeted" investigation techniques? Still mire, has it ever actually caught any "terrorists" or "criminals"?
Jay C | 12.03.06 - 12:05 pm | #

Isn't this really just a ressurection of John Poindexter's "Total Informatino Awareness" program? Remeber the one with the creepy logo with an eyeball at the top of a pyramid?

Anyway, I encounter three types of people when something like this comes up:

#1: Those that think this is what the government should be doing. There is no point in talking to them they won't change their mind until something happens to them personally. If their rights are trampled they usually scream the loudest.

#2: Those of us that are adamantly against it.

#3: Those that are one way or the other depending on how recent the latest terrorist attack was. I think this group is actually the largest. It is this group that needs to be reached the most.
Alan | 12.03.06 - 12:09 pm | #

My view is:

· Monitoring, tracking, collecting and relating information about people will continue to become more powerful and more easily to administer.
· Individual's potential ability to cause damage and violence will continue to increase. (This favors the terrorist way of doing things.)
· Society will have to deal with the (to be recognized) necessity of limiting an individual's potential ability to cause damage and violence.

Given that, it seems to me that eventually we will have to choose (if we are lucky enough to choose) between giving up our privacy to either the government or to everyone. In other words, we will not be able to maintain our privacy in the current sense due to inevitable technological advances. I submit that a collective abandonment of privacy (where not only Cheney knows what I am doing, but I also know what Cheney is doing - where everyone has access to all information) is preferable to the one-sided version (where only Cheney knows what I am doing).

This is not something I look forward to; it just seems like the survival of humanity will require reducing privacy to a tiny fraction of what we now take for granted. Perhaps we can guide the process so that we don't end up with a 'big brother', but rather are all 'equals'.
Altan Ozcandarli | 12.03.06 - 12:19 pm | #

Some of this is an extension of the bromide, "if the technology exists, it will be used."

Until someone stops them.

People like Posner take the view that, because the technology exists and is being used, and the public doesn't object, then the public has given its "consent" to these procedures -- a sort of mass waiver of constitutional rights.

Although the London CCTV system is disturbing, it is at least a surveillance of public activity, where in most cases there is no expectation of privacy. The NSA systems are something different: they are aimed at compiling a profile and dossier on specific individuals from private activities. It's an electronic Stasi.
MD | 12.03.06 - 12:19 pm | #

One of the worst aspects about these record-keeping programs is that they simply do not work. Compared to old-fashioned intelligent police work informed by probable cause, the marvels of data-mining technology don't work worth a damn, because they can at best infer only broad measures of risk.

And broad measures don't catch individual criminals or terrorist cells. They merely tie up law-enforcement personnel sent off on wild-goose chases, while the real bad guys go free.

I suspect that the actual purpose behind these government-sponsored surveillance programs is closer to pork than to protection. The corporations providing these services are the usual beltway bandits, so we pay with our rights and our checkbooks.
Cieran | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Glenn,

You don't truly believe that Our Dems will actually engage in serious investigations so as to overturn these invasive programs, do you? The fact is that the Dems have mostly accepted these programs, sometimes quite enthusiastically (eg: Harman, Jane) with no hint of alarm.

They routinely dismiss the alarms set off among the public by each new revelation.

Apart from the fact that they are being surveilled themselves, and apart from the fact that agents of the government are more than willing to publicize the findings of this surveillance (see: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2.../ post_2089.html for a recent example), the ability of serving congressmembers to go too far is severely curtailed. Some agents, I'm sure, are willing to go a lot farther than simply revealing findings.

Besides, "most Americans" long ago gave their assent to this sort of thing, and to be blunt, most of us don't have the luxury of becoming expatriates if we don't like it.

For the moment at any rate, we are stuck.

That situation could change at any time, but I wouldn't look to Congress to do anything about it in the meantime.
Ché Pasa | 12.03.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Altan said:

"This is not something I look forward to; it just seems like the survival of humanity will require reducing privacy to a tiny fraction of what we now take for granted."

The survival of humanity?

If the stakes are so high, why not just assign a commissar to each of us, and a commissar to each commissar, then cleanse the commissars every so often, like Mao did?
MD | 12.03.06 - 12:28 pm | #

I'll be contacting my congressional representatives with a recommendation to look into abuses of this sort, Glenn. I hope your other commenters do the same. This is one of the most serious kinds of abuse one can imagine.
Charles | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 12:31 pm | #

Funny shooter isn't here defending the government spying - perhaps he is afraid of surveilance footage of him having sex with goats will be released.

Of course, I don't think that shooter's relationship with consenting barnyard animimals should be an issue here, assuming he does in fact have "relations" with male goats.

But I have to wonder if his support for the chimperor also includes giving them the right for unchecked warrentless spying.
Anonymous | 12.03.06 - 12:33 pm | #

MD, I meant humanity that is as advanced as today or more. Extinction due to our doing is not inevitable, but throwing ourselves back to the 'beginnings' is quite imaginable.
Altan Ozcandarli | 12.03.06 - 12:34 pm | #

"One day soon, this secret apparatus will be turned against these perpetrators, and will help us to rid this country of its political cancer.
gravitylove | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 11:43 am"

I don't want any scenario remotely resembling the above. I want the apparatus broken, the data dissolved, and criminal investigation to illuminate, then eliminate, those responsible.

Thanks to Glen Greenwald for another excellent and disturbing post.
casual observer | 12.03.06 - 12:38 pm | #

So here is a real case regarding the this view of the NSA.
Glenn...
Originally created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed to be turned inward.

OK. So this division was spelled out in the Church hearings, and found itself encapsulated in the "wall",
pre-9/11.
Because of seperation between foriegn and domestic surviellance rules, grand jury secrecy rules, 5 layers of bureaucracy, FISA, and the inability to transfer information gleaned under one set of rules to the other--we had a situation where one of the 9/11 guys disappeared after entering the US.

Anyone...(aside from those previously mentioned as undesirables)
Is this actually what you folks want to occur again as a matter of policy? That is to say people disappearing from law enforcement radar as a consequence of entering the US?
shooter242 | 12.03.06 - 12:50 pm | #

I think the "40 years" part may be overstated. Can't this program be shut down by executive order of the next president, if he/she so chooses? If it isn't authorized by law, it certainly can't be required by law.

It is certainly a dangerous and deeply un-American program, but the damage is not irreparable if we elect a president who is willing and able to repair it.
Chris | 12.03.06 - 12:51 pm | #

Glenn,

Is what Baggi did illegal?

Or did he have to do something illegal in order to find this out about you?

Just wondering.
jharp | 12.03.06 - 12:51 pm | #

There is no good or even decent argument -- none -- for believing that those matters ought to be simply left unexplored and undisturbed by Congressional Democrats due to some unseemly eagerness to show how "moderate" they are in order to maximize their prospects in the 2008 elections.

I think Glenn may be just a little over-pessimistic about forthcoming investigations by Congressional Democrats. He has good reason for such pessimism based upon recent past behavior, but that could change dramatically in January.

For one thing, the Democrats just won the election in spite of Rove’s best efforts to portray them as “pro-terrorist.” The Rovians have cried wolf once too often on that theme, and it’s only working with the “base” now - the “boy genius” ain’t what he used to be, and never was – and the Democrats now realize that. That’s a big change.

Secondly, considering his continuing rhetoric on the war (See Frank Rich today) Bush will be seen increasingly as detached from reality – and the credibility of this administration already low, will deteriorate further. The public will begin to ask, “if we can’t believe a word they say about Iraq, why should we believe what they are saying on this - just why should we trust them?”

Third, investigations have a way of taking on a life of their own (e.g. Watergate), and once we start learning a little more, I’m hoping that the need to look “moderate” among some Democrats (presidential candidates especially) will be overwhelmed by a “what else don’t we know” mentality and outrage over what we just learned.

Fourth, I believe that once investigations start, we’ll be headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis, which will focus the public’s attention on these issues that they’ve not paid particular attention to before. These issues have been the focus of this blog, but sadly, the general public is astoundingly ignorant of what’s been happening to their rights, their privacy, and their country.

To be sure, the Democrats won’t be as aggressive as we’d like, but I do think we’ll see less cowardice and more aggressiveness. I don’t expect the Democrats to outright challenge a program like this, but I do expect them do insist that these programs are conducted with oversight – something that even the most “moderate” Democrat should be able to support.

Oversight. I think we’ll be hearing that word a lot in the new year, and quite frankly, it’s been so long since we’ve seen it, that a lot of people have forgotten what it looks like.

I’m hoping that’s about to change.
zack | 12.03.06 - 12:58 pm | #

Anyone...(aside from those previously mentioned as undesirables)
Is this actually what you folks want to occur again as a matter of policy? That is to say people disappearing from law enforcement radar as a consequence of entering the US?

Yes, that is exactly what we are arguing for. We want/need to be attacked again so that we can finally make the leap to the fascist state we've all been hoping for.
Politically Lost | 12.03.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Letters appearing in the Financial Times indicate some people are now afraid even to transit through the U.S. while travelling, because of what might happen to them. And readers of the Financial Times tend to be pretty influential people.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 1:08 pm | #

This is very disturbing to me, as my Canadian same-sex partner and I travel back and forth to Canada 4-6 times each year.

My father was recently elected to State political office, as a Democrat of course, and the Republicans could make political hay of it the next election cycle if they ever found out.
Cerebus | 12.03.06 - 1:10 pm | #

Glenn - I’ve been awaiting this post since the AP story on Friday. Your post is superb, as always, but I didn’t see any mention of the following part of the AP release:

“The government notice says ATS data may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and private contractors.”

This says explicitly that our “terror ranking” may be used in granting security clearances. If and when this happens it will affect the jobs of many, many, many of us. It also makes almost inevitable that the “terror ranking” will work its way into credit ratings and god-only-knows what else that affects our daily lives. Note especially “may be shared with….private contractors”.

Also, another article that I can’t find now quotes somebody at HS as saying that the program will have been a success if it catches even one “potential terrorist”. What, pray tell, is a “potential terrorist”? If I really need to spell out the absurdity of this, think about catching (and presumably locking up) all “potential murderers”.
Phil S. | 12.03.06 - 1:12 pm | #

Considering human history and human nature, I think it safe to consider the fact that this is, and has been, quite nefarious on the part of our government.

Just because they say differently, does not make thier word truthful.

It seems blatant to me, considering the plain truth of any given matter in the washington D.C. fantasyland's rarity of truth, that thier is, and has been, a deliberate attempt on the part of the current regime, to undermine everything that America was and is, to create an Image of America,re-fashion and re-shape it, from the very mind's of those currently in charge, to a tyranny in which the republican party, and thier chosen tyrant to rule absolutely. Thier edicts from thier mouths becoming law. It appears, by thier actions, that they hate the America that was! Afterall, a persons or groups actions dictate thier hearts.
Alex | 12.03.06 - 1:14 pm | #

This is such an outrage, such a complete abomination. I only wish Glenn had used the kind of language he used yesterday about Friedman, a much lesser subject. We shouldn't even be worrying about what happens overseas if we are going to be fucked like this at home.

Glenn writes:We hear about these things, express a day or so of outrage, and then proceed with docility to accept it.

That one sentence is the heart of the matter. It's the people in this country who have let this happen without screaming in protest who are the problem. It could never have happened if the majority of my fellow citizens were not such pathetic sheep---crying "hit me" "hit me again" as they let themselves be dominated and controlled by a government run afuckingmok.

And I don't blame Bush. You think Bush set up all those secret spy agencies and government and suckup corporatist surveillance programs alone? He probably doesn't even know how to use a computer. It's not Bush who is the problem. If he were replaced by Obama or Hillary tomorrow everything would stay the EXACT SAME WAY. Any new President who attempted to change anything would soon get a slithery visit from a bunch of Mephistophlean 3 letter spooks telling him that we need all this spying or everyone will be eating anthrax for breakfast and the new President, good little centrist that he is or the sheeple never would have elected him, would fold in a second.

Big Government has become Big Brother has become Big Frankenstein.

Huffpo posts this headline and you'd think there would be 10,000 comments but it draws less comments than some minor partisan political story. The problem with much of the blogosphere is that it is just a bunch of partisan lightweights with too much time on their hands which they spend hurling insults at each other as the country slips into a POLICE STATE.

Someone is monitoring Glenn's actions and posting his comings and goings on the Internet and people are talking about the 2008 candidates. Unfuckingbelievable.

Anyway I'm glad there is one sentient being on this blog---Glenn Greenwald, the host. Maybe he's got enough passion in him to make up for about 200 million submissive sheep.

It just occurred to me why we are being ruled by a bunch of maniacs so into dominance and control. They must have looked out across the land, surveyed the people and all shouted in unison "Hey, the submissive roles are all taken already. Get out the whips."

So while the government is surreptitiously doing to each and every citizen what Nixon illegally did to his political enemies, all the sheeple can come up with is a yawn.
.
Eyes Wide Open | 12.03.06 - 1:15 pm | #

ZACK - I think Glenn may be just a little over-pessimistic about forthcoming investigations by Congressional Democrats. He has good reason for such pessimism based upon recent past behavior, but that could change dramatically in January.

I think the commenter above who accused me of being overly optimistic about Democratic investigation is probably closer to the truth.

I didn't mean to suggest that I think Democrats will be deterred by this sort of risk-averse counsel not to investigation. They will be under a lot of pressure, but there are enough Committee Chairmen whom I think have really had it -- Leahy, Conyers, Dingell, Waxman -- and some who are willing to let the more aggressive members of their Committees investigate even if they themselves are passive (e.g., Rockefeller and Feingold on Intelligence) -- that I believe we are going to see some real investigations and they will be pursued with vigor and aggression.

But there will be all sorts of voices - there already are - whining and crying and complaining that it all looks so mean and partisan and will hurt for 2008. Those voices need to be ignored. I think that, at least in some circles - in enough of them - they will be.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Never mind potential terrorists. Why is catching even one real terrorist more important than all the privacy that we all lose?
lysias | 12.03.06 - 1:21 pm | #

I used to be in military signals intelligence, and pulled reserve duty at NSA as recently as 1990 or so. The corporate culture at NSA then -- as it tends to be among all bureaucrats -- was extremely cautious, and they were obsessive about not violating the rules on privacy.

Somehow the corporate culture at NSA -- and presumably in other parts of the government -- has undergone a sea change.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 1:25 pm | #

So, if we patriotic Americans are banned from foreign travel by Bush's illegalities, what are we to do?

Are we to drive to Canada or Mexico and then fly from there if we want to travel to foreign countries like England or Italy or Japan?

Am I to expect a tick in my socalled "risk" score as a result of this comment on Greenwald's website? Greeenwald is obviously a target for Bush's illegal activity. Am I to expect a visit from the FBI as a result of my association from Greenwald? After all, I have given him a small amount of money and received one or two emails from him.

As far as I am concerned, patriotic Americans from all walks of life should be calling on the Bush empire to disband: Stop lying, stop the torture, stop the illegal surveillance of millions of Americans who have done nothing worse than protest the criminal actions of this President.
krog | 12.03.06 - 1:29 pm | #

Once again an example of inaccurate reporting from the AP whips everyone here up into a lather. Watch lists have been part of flying for a long time, well before 9/11. The ability to integrate information from a variety of noncommunicative systems into one database is an security improvement. For people who claim to care about the nation's security it is amazing to see you all decry developments which do in fact improve our security.

A better description of the program is available at the link http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/ asse...pia_cbp_ats.pdf which is a Pricacy Impact Assessment of the ATS System. It describes who is targeted, who information is obtained from and who information is shared with. Rather than the immediate foaming at the mouth civil liberties violation reactions here, the program seems a more sober reaction and coordinated approach to assessing the risks of people and cargo entering and exiting our borders.

Believe it or not, not everything our government does is sinister or threatening just because the Bush Administration has implemented it.
daleyrocks | 12.03.06 - 1:37 pm | #

This disclosure seems to point towards the question of what else is being done in secret and to what extent. The problem I see with investigating these obviously criminal excesses could be a fight over executive privilege. Cheney already won one round regarding this and it seems they will be using this defense for the next two years. If they tie up these investigations and hearings long enough using the executive privilege excuse maybe it becomes a stalemate.

With the arrogance of this administration not diminishing at all after Nov.7 I think they will play the privilege card to no end. What could force them to tell the truth at this point, the Supremes have their back if it come down to a court battle. If the Dems don't get a spine we may never find out what these thugs are up to.
Vic | 12.03.06 - 1:45 pm | #

Baggi's escapade poionted out something I've ben harping on with respect to this: this sort of surveillance puts us at risk, not just from an evil regime at the top, but from anyone and everyone in that surveillance structure. Not Just George Bush and Dick Cheney, but Joe Blow who's a night-shift crew supervisor and who figures he can make money selling dirt on Angelina Jolie to the Enquirer, or Frank Blow, who thinks it's a good idea to screw up an ex-girlfriebd's life; or anybody from the top on down. Without rigid EXTERNAL controls, we are at the mercy of any two-bit gauleiter in the intel organization who takes a fancy to show that there are those in power, and there are little people...

There's no way of keeping this technology from being used. It's therefore vital that controls on how the resulting data can be used. That's why the concept of warrants is absolutely central--and enshrined in the Bill Of Rights.
pbg | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 1:48 pm | #

It's one thing to have a watch list, and it's another to leak it to a private individual for a partisan purpose.
lysias | 12.03.06 - 1:49 pm | #

Of course, this only touches the surface of the amount of data collected about individuals. If you factor in the shopping data that is collected every time you use your "super saver" card at the local grocery, and the fact that every credit card transaction you've ever undertaken is duly logged, (and subject to subpeona), then it remains pretty much a given that our traditional concept of privacy has been thrown out the window.
Paul Dirks

Indeed, and this raises two further points:

1) The data collected by the private sector is at best used for one purpose only: to sell more products. I say at best because there could well be other motives driving the collection, such as the sale to third parties, which may or may not be legitimate.

2) Now take a look at the level of invasion of privacy, and ask yourself: Which is more invasive, the private sector, or the government? And furthermore, which motive is more important, the selling of products, or the thwarting of terrorist attacks?

I am constantly battling the private sector in terms of privacy. I have to opt out of all sorts of abuses of my information, particularly regarding financial companies. Despite being on the "Do not call" list I still receive solicitations at home, either illegally or through some sort of loophole.

I still have yet to be inconvenienced by the government. I could care less about the Swift program, which is a pedantic example of privacy abuse. And I can easily live with the other so-called privacy violations held up as examples of how our right to privacy is being violated.
Who'd 'a known | 12.03.06 - 1:51 pm | #

I believe we are going to see some real investigations and they will be pursued with vigor and aggression.

I’ve been reading some comments from Leahy who is really outraged by this, and that’s why I do expect some real investigations for once. That was my point.

Oh, I don’t disagree about the whiners at all; but I’m old enough to remember the Watergate hearings, and I know that if you have just a couple really good, really outraged people, that the dynamics of these investigations can change.

Back then, some Senators who started out giving the Nixon administration the benefit of the doubt, suddenly found themselves asking some very pointed questions. All of sudden, all bets were off, and you realized that Nixon might not get away with it after all. That was exiting.

That’s what I’m hoping for.
zack | 12.03.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Investigate them all. Let A Democratric Congress sort it out. Then hang the guilty and let god Sort it out.
Simon de Monfort | 12.03.06 - 1:55 pm | #

From shooter242 at

Because of seperation between foriegn and domestic surviellance rules, grand jury secrecy rules, 5 layers of bureaucracy, FISA, and the inability to transfer information gleaned under one set of rules to the other--we had a situation where one of the 9/11 guys disappeared after entering the US.

Your point? Yes, mistakes were made prior to 9/11, both bureaucratically as well as policy wise (insofar as the Bush Administration even does anything policy-wise).

Is it now your contention the government should be completely unrestrained in its actions towards both US citizens and foreign nationals alike?

And, incidentially, the Mission Statement of the NSA reads as follows:

The Information Assurance mission provides the solutions, products, and services, and conducts defensive information operations, to achieve information assurance for information infrastructures critical to U.S. national security interests.

The foreign signals intelligence or SIGINT mission allows for an effective, unified organization and control of all the foreign signals collection and processing activities of the United States. NSA is authorized to produce SIGINT in accordance with objectives, requirements, and priorities established by the Director of Central Intelligence with the advice of the National Foreign Intelligence Board.

You will note there is nothing in there suggesting the NSA can turn its information-gathering assets onto US citizens.

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm

Anyone...(aside from those previously mentioned as undesirables)

Sorry, git. You don't get to choose who respond to you.

Is this actually what you folks want to occur again as a matter of policy?

I'd prefer existing policies and procedures be amended intelligently, rather than chucked out wholesale.

That is to say people disappearing from law enforcement radar as a consequence of entering the US?

Nice try. Sadly, that's likely what's already happened. Would have been nice if we had some grown-ups in charge back in 2001. Hopefully we won't suffer any worse damage thanks to the brats in the White House than we already have.
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.03.06 - 1:55 pm | #

Who'd 'a known | 12.03.06 - 1:51 pm | #

Wait until we get the left's version of paradise, government controlled universal health care. By it's very definition, it starts with an incredible violation of privacy which could be used to the detriment of individuals in all sorts of circumstances.
daleyrocks | 12.03.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Bush political appointee:

Investigations into fraud, waste, mismanagement and law-breaking are a form of "terrorism".
Bushophile | 12.03.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Following DRock's link leads to some interesting reading, and I have to agree that the AP's treatment makes the program seem worse than it is.

I also deal with CBP officers on pretty much a weekly basis and I find them to be corteous and professional. But they are human. And as Glenn's example points out, data that is maintained by DHS can reach a wider audience than intended. And the safegurds in place to insure accuracy are the same kind of "policing our own" that we find so reassuring about the NSA program.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 2:08 pm | #

lysias | 12.03.06 - 1:49 pm | # - It's one thing to have national security secrets, it's another thing to leak them to the NY Times.

What you a referencing sounds similar to an IRS employee's misuse of individual taxpayer information. It happens even though it's against IRS policy and/or illegal.
daleyrocks | 12.03.06 - 1:54 pm | #

I think she was referring to Stephen Hadley leaking a secret White House memo to the New York Times last week.
You know the New York Times that Republicans wanted to prosecute for leaking secrets.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 2:12 pm | #

Anonymous | 12.03.06 - 2:09 pm

Whoops that was me, for the record.
Who'd 'a known | 12.03.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Who'd a Known and daleyrocks: why don't you go start your own little blog, instaed of having your little facist circle-jerks here. Or invite one another over to your parents basements where you no doubt live. While I am not necessarily a proponent of universal health care per se, do you really think that someone who can't afford health care should just live without it? Are you that big of a depraved asshole? Wait, don't answer; I know the answer.

Who'd a: I could give a fuck whether or not you were "inconvenienced" or not. I don't live by your standard of what you are willing to put up with. You and daleyrocks, shooter242, etc. are obviously willing to live in a police state, or at least a police state for those who are unlike you or less fortunate than you. While you can live without being "inconvenienced" by the erosion of freedoms, the rest of us (read: Americans) are not so willing to do so. So why don't you shut the fuck up and leave.
Nick | 12.03.06 - 2:26 pm | #

Who'd a: I could give a fuck whether or not you were "inconvenienced" or not.

Nick this is exactly why I could care less about your calls for the "trolls" to shut up. With a mouth and attitude like yours
Who | 12.03.06 - 2:30 pm | #

As I was saying, with a mouth like yours any comment about our civility or relevance is just worthless blather.

Why you apparently claim to be one of the liberals advocating a civil society where rights are paramount above anything else (apparently even death by hunting knife) is beyond me. You're so uncivil yourself that I don't see what claim you have to be a part of it.
Who'd 'a known | 12.03.06 - 2:32 pm | #

From Who'd a known at 2:32pm:

As I was saying, with a mouth like yours any comment about our civility or relevance is just worthless blather.

Civility doesn't imply others can't take umbrage or call you on your shite.

Why you apparently claim to be one of the liberals advocating a civil society where rights are paramount above anything else (apparently even death by hunting knife) is beyond me.

Examine the years leading up to the formal ascension of the Nazi Party in Germany and you'll have your answer. Then contrast that against the current directions the Bush Administration is heading.

You're so uncivil yourself that I don't see what claim you have to be a part of it.

How droll.
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.03.06 - 2:42 pm | #

Civility doesn't imply others can't take umbrage or call you on your shite.

He didn't do anything of the sort. He said "fuck" a few times and told me to leave. So he did exactly what he accuses me of doing, and he does it on a regular basis.

"Projection."
Who'd 'a known | 12.03.06 - 2:44 pm | #

If someone in the government revealed this kind of information to someone outside the government, wasn't that a violation of the Privacy Act?

Suspicious, certainly, but...the very information released is easily available to anyone who would conduct a little social engineering attack. The same means by which a hacker can acquire people's usernames and passwords can also be used to acquire the very information Wizbang spewed.

A simple phonecall to an associate of Greenwald's or to other unsuspecting persons with likely information on the travels of Greenwald would produce the information: hasn't returned to the country yet.

That said, I would be curious to learn just how Wizbang acquired the info. I don't suppose anyone thought to contact Wizpants at the time, pretending to be a winger, to see what Wizzypants had to say?
Praedor | 12.03.06 - 2:45 pm | #

Of course, I don't think that shooter's relationship with consenting barnyard animimals should be an issue here

Uh...it is an issue to me. How, precisely, is shooter obtaining "consent" from these animals? Is he like Dr Doolittle and can have entire two-sided conversations with these creatures so he merely wheedles and whines at them until they acquiesce to his damnable advances just to shut him up? Or does he just assume consent on some weird, nonsense fundi Christian basis of "dominion means automatic consent to sex"?

Shooter! Explain please how you are obtaining "consent" from your nonhuman animal sex partners. I'm sure the actual episodes are well documented on government spycams and datamining operations but I want YOUR explanation.
Praedor | 12.03.06 - 2:55 pm | #

Believe it or not, not everything our government does is sinister or threatening just because the Bush Administration has implemented it.

False.
Anonymous | 12.03.06 - 3:06 pm | #

The Privacy Act of 1974 really ought to be called the "Privacy Invasion Act of 1974" because with all of the exemptions and loose language, it authorizes federal agencies to compile these dossiers far more than it protects individuals against invasion of their privacy. My experience is that to obtain inforation from an agency like the Homeland Security or the FBI, you had better hire a lawyer and one who specializes in privacy law because you will never obtain any information without a lawsuit. And the courts tend to side with the agencies.

A lot of people in this country I think have come to expect that the government maintains data about them but they have given up on the idea that it's important because they think they lead blameless lives. Everyone has enemies though and it might disturb people if they knew these data bases compiled negative impressions, rumors and innuendos from other people about them regardless of their truth. We need major big time revision of the laws to stop the mindless hoarding of data about ordinary people.
jonerik | 12.03.06 - 3:10 pm | #

Wait until we get the left's version of paradise, government controlled universal health care. By it's very definition, it starts with an incredible violation of privacy which could be used to the detriment of individuals in all sorts of circumstances.

DaleyRocks has his finger on the pulse of reality, as always. This is exactly why for the last forty years, ever since LBJ inflicted government controlled universal health care on the senior set, the papers have been filled with stories of the terrible depradationis that have been inflicted on helpless grandmothers by savages holding their Medicare records over their heads. It's why the AARP has been lobbying ever since to throw out Medicare and let our old folk have once again the peace of mind they all enjoyed before Lyndon poked his oversize nose into their business, and why my parents have refused to go near a doctor's office for decades.

Then again, maybe DaleyRocks is a full bore twit.

Okay, maybe that was shrill. I'm willing to take back the word "twit".
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Where are the libertarians? This doesn't bother them? What about the conservatives who worry about the federal government's reach and power? Are they all too scared of "terrorists" to care about their supposedly fundamental principles?
lab | 12.03.06 - 3:20 pm | #

Where are the Libetarians? good question, while the Republicans try to rewrite the Constituton, I haven't heard a peep from the Libertarians. Seems as though they're cluless as the Republicans are at having a clearly defined vision for this country. There is certainly some truth that fear has deconstructed a lot of political philosophy in the last 5 years, I'm amazed how so many people fail to recognize it.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 3:41 pm | #

Glenn, did you bring your cell phone with you when you left the country? That is all that is required to know your exact location, anytime, anywhere.
~
nuf said | 12.03.06 - 3:51 pm | #

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you assert that someone is a criminal or a terrorist without providing any evidence of that fact, is that not slander?
Roddy McCorley | 12.03.06 - 3:54 pm | #

McCorley:

It's not slander to call someone that you don't like a "terrorist" according to principles of Texas justice.

And that apparently is what Bush is trying to infict upon the US and its citizens.

It remains to be seen whether Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito have any balls at all.
krog | 12.03.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Where are the libertarians!? You can seriously ask that? Have you been fucking asleep for the last few years?

We've been abandoning the GOP in droves and tons of us voted for Democrats in '06, to the great consternation of a Republican Party that apparently thought our little devotionals to civil liberties and the rule of law were a quaint pose. Libertarians like me (and the Jim Henley I reference in the following link) score as "objectively pro-terrorist" on matters pertaining to civil liberties in the Bush era.

Almost every member of the Reason staff who announced how he or she was voting this midterm, went Dem, precisely for reasons of civil liberties and the war in Iraq. It isn't because we are so in love with a lot of what Democrats stand for, but rather, because what the Bush GOP represents is so very dangerous. So, that's where the libertarians are.

Geez.
Mona | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 4:26 pm | #

PRAEDOR - Suspicious, certainly, but...the very information released is easily available to anyone who would conduct a little social engineering attack. The same means by which a hacker can acquire people's usernames and passwords can also be used to acquire the very information Wizbang spewed.

That's totally ludicrious - unless you mean that someone is hacking into the Homeland Security data bases and using that information for their own purposes, what you're saying really doesn't make much sense.

A simple phonecall to an associate of Greenwald's or to other unsuspecting persons with likely information on the travels of Greenwald would produce the information: hasn't returned to the country yet.

Very very few people - I mean like 2 or 3 human beings on the entire planet at the most - know my travel information, especially with that sort of precision, and nobody is just giving out information like that to anyone who just randomly calls. That's absurd.

And what makes it so clear is that he didn't just have positive information (i.e., that I left on June 22) - like I said, there are several ways someone could know that. It was the negative fact that I had not returned which one would know with certainty like that only from a government data base recording someone's comings and goings.

That said, I would be curious to learn just how Wizbang acquired the info. I don't suppose anyone thought to contact Wizpants at the time, pretending to be a winger, to see what Wizzypants had to say?

I know that Kevin - who is. in general, a decent guy - is aware of this because C&L and several other larger blogs have raised this issue before and linked to that comment. He hasn't chosen to say anything, and I haven't asked.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 4:31 pm | #

zack | 12.03.06 - 12:58 pm

Exactly! Investigations will happen and snowball of their own irresistible momentum, and attempts to squelch or derail them either legally, procedurally or by intimindation will also fail. There's simply too much illegality to investigate that neither the administration, nor GOP members of congress, nor right-friendly and/or weak-kneed Dems, will be able to keep under the carpet.

Plus, since I'm sure that these programs have been used against some of Bush's staunchest supporters--the paranoia of Nixonians like Cheney and Rove know no bounds, of course--when that emerges, he will lose a huge segment of supporters. This is how, I believe, Dems will eventually be able to get many Repubs to join them in calling for his impeachment.

The die is cast, and the country crossed its Rubicon on November 7th, and nothing Bush does will prevent what's about to happen to him and his co-conspirators. I say this not so much because I believe that a majority of Dems have suddenly developed a spine, but because you do not mess with over 200 years of continually refined checks, balances and traditions (and, really, over 800 years in a more general sense) and not have it come back to haunt you in the end. And I do not believe that the combined evil "wisdom" of the Bush administration has been smart enough to genuinely and permanently subvert it.

They were able to do this for several years, shrewdly exploiting a terrorist attack and political, public and media complacency, but that was bound to be temporary, as the system slowly caught up with them, as it's now visibly doing. Did Cheney really think that he could do what Nixon and his henchmen couldn't do? Did he really think that he could permanently overturn what Madison, Hamilton, Jay and others forged over 200 years ago and which have been strengthened and refined over the years? He took on something vastly bigger and stronger than him, and it is now responding, with increasing force and vigor.

Hubris knows no bounds with these people, and will, fairly soon, prove to be their demise. To quote another, far wiser would-be destroyer of America: "I am afraid that we have awakened a sleeping giant".
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Glenn, did you bring your cell phone with you when you left the country? That is all that is required to know your exact location, anytime, anywhere.

I don't bring my cell phone with me when I travel to or from the U.S., and - even if I had - that might have enabled someone to know when I left the U.S. but not that I had not returned.

I'm not really trying to make a big deal out of this whole Wizbang thing - it happened four months ago. I only raised it to illustrate the dangers of allowing the Government to keep track of the activities of its citizens. There really is no good reason for the Government to be doing that.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Glenn,

Not to harp on this, but I suspect that there are other ways to tell if someone is or isn't in the country that might not require access to highly secret government data. For example, if someone knows your cell #, and they have a way of accessing your phone records--which as John Aravosis showed this summer is pretty easy--they can tell if it's been used recently. And since most people are the only ones to use their cell phone, this would likely indicate if you're in the US or not.

Other ways are to gain access to credit card records to see if you've used your cards domestically, which I imagine is also something that average people can do with enough guile and disregard for the law and ethics. And so on. It's not just you, of course, but anyone that this could be done against. It requires breaking the law, of course, but not breaking into or having access to highly classified government data. We all, to one degree or another, leave steady electronic trails behind us, that are probably not that hard to trace for those who know how to do it and are willing to break the law.

That this can be done and happens all the time, and that the government allows it to happen--i.e. by not making it vastly harder for people and organizations to gain access to records they should not be able to access--is bad enough. But that it engages in this itself, and in fact actively develops and promotes such programs, is vastly worse, given the massive resources and power that the government has at its disposal, and the secrecey and unaccountability with which it is able to operate.

Until now, I hope.
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 4:46 pm | #

Folks, If you haven’t read the actual HS document

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/ asse...pia_cbp_ats.pdf

do so -- NOW. So you know exactly what this is all about.

I did and it looks to me that every single thing the AP article (and Glenn) said is true. Yes, contractors may have access to the system (I assume that includes your “terror” score, though it doesn’t say that specifically). HS provides no easy way to change the information on which your score is based, because they (claim) they don’t generate any of the original information. It’s really unclear to me but it sounds like there are two ways to get “redress”.

1) When you’re selected for some “secondary” screening process (at a border or anywhere else), and if you ask for an explanation, you’ll be given a 1-page handout with some further information about the system and an address you can write to. What you get back I have no idea. Certainly not your score – that’s classified info. Maybe some of the data? So, great, you discover that they have you in an emergency row seat on flight 234 on l1 Nov. when if fact you got moved to seat 35H, nowhere near an exit row. But since you have no way to know what triggered the bad score, good luck on trying to correct the problem. And that’s assuming you even do get shown all the data in your file, which I wouldn’t bet on.

2) In one place it seems to say that you can use FOIA to access your file (except of course the score) but the document contains endless text in other places that consists mainly of acronyms and legal cases that seem to qualify this right. My guess is FOIA won’t work and neither will anything else.

The bottom line is that your “score” will only change if the underlying data change or if they change the rules (which of course they can do anytime). In no case, however, will you be allowed to know your “score”. At least officially. Anybody want to bet there isn’t already a black market out there through which, if you know the right people and pay enough money, you can find it out?

I pointed out a few hours ago that, according to a DHS spokesman, the system is designed to identify “potential” terrorists. One person reacted to my comment by asking if it has even caught one “real” terrorist. That’s not the point. How many of you out there are “real” terrorists? Very few, is my guess. How many of you are “potential” terrorists? Who knows? Could carrying an anti-war sign at a demonstration affect your score? Given the number of databases in which such info is tracked, it’s a very likely possibility.
Phil S. | 12.03.06 - 4:48 pm | #

Sadly, I expect the MSM will frame the whole affair as they usually do : another partisan game, in which republicans support the program and democrats oppose it (hopefully), the only question being who is tough on terror? a question which naturally favors republicans.
Cizungu | 12.03.06 - 2:49 pm

Not so much. The Repubs tried this approach during this election and look where it got them. Nearly every Repub within spitting distance of a microphone kept repeating the silly talking point that Dems don't want to let the government listen to terrorist's phone calls, and the country resoundingly yawned. Even the MSM didn't take the bait, by and large.

The MSM might have its own agenda that is often if not usually pro-GOP, but it also knows what's good for business (which is why it so often supports the GOP, and not for diehard ideological reasons, with the exception of semi-official GOP mouthpieces such as Fox), and while it might not lead the charge for oversight, transpacency, accountability and progressive reform, neither will it--again, with the exception of Fox and such--likely actively oppose such efforts by Dems and libertarians--especially if this picks up steam next year, as it's likely to.

Again, it's about ratings, and what's good for business. And I think that the MSM, like the public, has written off the Bush administration, and will not go to bat for it at this point, it its case for business reasons. How else do you explain the constant drip drip drip of bad news for the administration since Katrina--which even Fox couldn't ignore or play down? Results matter, and the administration is being forced to account for its miserable performance.

And the MSM LOVES controversy and scandal, because it's great for ratings, and if Dems are able to make the case against the administration, then this will definitely trump any loyalty it might feel or preference it might have for the right. The Foley scandal pretty much proved that. I like our odds at this point, frankly.
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 4:59 pm | #

Glenn we had a bit of a dust-up on the prior thread, but man that Baggi thing is creepy.

Kudos for the work you do on this front and please keep the excellent posts on the topic coming.

Best,
m
Mark | 12.03.06 - 5:01 pm | #

Move along folks, there's nothing to see here.

First of all, having a higher ATS score, only results in at most some minor inconvenience, e.g. an extra minute or two of scrutiny when going through customs or through airport security.

And the wizbang thing is utter paranoia. A likely explanation is that the person who made that posting either works for blogspot/haloscan or is close to someone who does. By looking at the computer access logs, he could tell that Glenn was accessing these systems from the US on June 22 and then from abroad on a daily basis from June 23 to July 21.
anonymoose | 12.03.06 - 5:18 pm | #

In at least two other comment threads at other blogs, someone using the name "Baggi" has claimed to be an INS/Customs & Border Patrol agent:

You are correct that the troops will not be making arrests and such. But this is really just a technicallity. I've worked with troops on the border before right after 9-11. While they are not empowered to make arrests, they still do through me or my fellow CBP officers. -- http://polipundit.com/wp-comment...php?p=13314& c=1

Oh, and any of those who doubt that I have any knowledge of that which I speak, i've worked for the INS for a decade now. Yes yes, there is no more INS, I know, but I started with the INS in 1996 and have been doing the same job under different names since then. -- http://www.captainsquartersblog....ives/ 008287.php

That presumably speaks to how he had access to the information, but I'd also think it would come with requirements that the information only be used in furtherance of the official duties, no?
Todd Larason | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 5:22 pm | #

On 2006-11-21, Wizbang had a lottery/contest; one entered by adding wizbang as a 'technorati favorite'. Baggi indicated that he did so: http://tech.wizbangblog.com/2006...- one.php#402531

That same day, a technorati account in the name 'Baggi' was created; it has various wizbang blogs listed as favorites, and no others: http://www.technorati.com/faves/...aggi? show=blogs
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this is the same "Baggi" as made the original Wizbang comment (although still theoretically possibly not the comments on polipundit or captainsblog).

Technorati has the real name 'Eric Wess' listed for Baggi.
Todd Larason | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 5:47 pm | #

Not to harp on this, but I suspect that there are other ways to tell if someone is or isn't in the country that might not require access to highly secret government data. For example, if someone knows your cell #, and they have a way of accessing your phone records--which as John Aravosis showed this summer is pretty easy--they can tell if it's been used recently.

During this time, I was in Brazil almost all of the time when I was not in the U.S. When I go to the U.S., I rent a pre-paid cell phone. When I am in Brazil, I don't use a cell phone under my name. Nobody can trace my whereabouts through cell phone records.

Other ways are to gain access to credit card records to see if you've used your cards domestically, which I imagine is also something that average people can do with enough guile and disregard for the law and ethics.

I highly doubt that people can just access your credit card statements as easily as you suggest, but even if they could, how would anyone know that I didn't re-enter the U.S.?

I go to the U.S. frequently for a day or two at a time - if I do a conference or an event or interview or whatever. Nobody could tell from my credit card records that I didn't enter the U.S. from the period of June 22-July 21.

And how would my credit card records reflect that I left the country on June 22? That's ludicrous. I was on my book tour and was originally scheduled to leave June 28, but moved the date because I cancelled the last two cities. My credit cards would reflect nothing of the sort.

And so on. It's not just you, of course, but anyone that this could be done against.

I understand and agree with your basic point - there are all kinds of records that reveal our activities. But the specific information he had - not only when I left the country, but being able to confirm so definitively that I had not re-entered as of that date, is really something you could know only with immigration and travel records.

It's possible theoretically to construct some vast fantasy of a combination of phone, credit card, computer and all sorts of other records to enable someone to know that, but that's virtually impossible. The dates someone actually exited and entered into a country is immigration information and is something you would know with certainty only with those records.

And allow me to emphasize - this isn't the biggest deal. The information he had is common, garden-variety immigration information - when I exited and entered the country. Huge numbers of people have access to that information - prosecutors and law enforcement officers, for example.

I wasn't suggesting that this was part of some exotic new data-collection program -- only trying to illustrate from a personal example how information like this can be misused. However he got that information, he had no right to obtain it for that purpose.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 5:54 pm | #

And the wizbang thing is utter paranoia. A likely explanation is that the person who made that posting either works for blogspot/haloscan or is close to someone who does. By looking at the computer access logs, he could tell that Glenn was accessing these systems from the US on June 22 and then from abroad on a daily basis from June 23 to July 21.

The idea that this person was a Blogspot or Haloscan employee and could tell if I re-entered the U.S. is pretty much one of the dubmest things I ever heard.

For one thing, I didn't have Haloscan then. For another, I was posting very sporadically during that period because that was when I was on my book tour. There were frequently periods of several days when I didn't post at all and it would therefore be impossible to know if I had re-entered the U.S. based on my posting activity.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 5:57 pm | #

To follow up on Mr. Larason's googling.

"Baggi," my emphasis:

As a United States Immigration Officer for 7 years and now a Customs and Border Protection Officer for 3 years (Still doing the same job under a new name thanks to DHS) I have some experience on the southern border. All my time has been spent here in San Diego working on the Tijuana/San Sedro border.

At Marc Cooper's blog on March 10, 2006.

He appears to be a DHS employee, illicitly using the data to which he has access.
Mona | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:07 pm | #

The idea that databases will be useful in preventing crimes is laughable.

More banks are robbed today than 10 years ago.

Somewhere along the way people are gonna have to decide if they need to disband the NSA and other organizations like it.

Some type of new American Revolution may be needed. The Founding Fathers knew this.

"What do we have?" - Unknown citizen.

"A Republic. If you can keep it" - Ben Franklin.

Are Americans doing well to keep it?

I think not.
James | 12.03.06 - 6:11 pm | #

TODD LARASON & MONA - Thanks.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 6:17 pm | #

That was some pretty impressive sleuthing turned back at the prick calling himself 'Baggi'.I'm assuming you didn't cross the border at San Ysidro on your way from New York to Brazil where they 'innocently' learned of your travel plans.Hospitals have pretty strict rules regarding the access of patient's charts by anyone not directly involved in their treatment-mine has fired employees who violated patient confidentiality in such a fashion.It wouldn't be surprising if DHS had similar prohibitions in place.At the very least,the story and it's broader privacy implications would be good for Olbermann's countdown(something tells me he has a familiarity with your blog).Please keep us updated on this story if you intend to pursue it further.
AnonE.Mouse | 12.03.06 - 6:44 pm | #

Mona,

I don't have an argument with Libertarians per se, but I do criticize them for remaining largely silent about things that normally used to arouse their dogmatic sensibilities. There was a time when one could expect a measured vocal response when people advocated rewriting the Constitution as casually as pass the salt, please.
When I read this article though at reason it left me speechless.
Libertarians with whatever failings one might try to discover about them, will still serve to keep the rest of us honest in our discourse.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:50 pm | #

Glenn,

I didn't mean to suggest that someone could definitively tell whether a given individual was or wasn't in the US based on private sector (and in theory private, period) data such as phone and credit records. And, given what you've written about your own purchase and communications habits (no doubt modified in recent years out of necessity and understandable caution), this would be even harder to tell in your case.

My point, though, was that in general, many if not most people give away a lot based on their phone and purchase records, without realizing it or intending to. And most people probably have patterns of phone use and purchasing that can be used to set up probablistic models to indicate where they likely are at any given time. Careful and cautious people such as yourself may well be able to evade this for the most part, but I doubt that most people go to the trouble of doing this (e.g. using pre-paid cell phones and calling cards, buying things with cash, using ATMs infrequently, etc.).

In your case, I believe you when you say that based on your own patterns of phone use and purchases, it would be very hard if not impossible to know where you are at any given time via such means (i.e. private sector, and in theory and law private, records), and that this therefore suggests that this information was gotten about you via other means (i.e. government records). But my larger point still stands, I think. And, while I wouldn't even begin to know how to obtain credit card records for others (nor do I have any interest in this), it seems plausible to me that if it's possible to obtain peoples' private calling records, it should likely be as relatively easy to do the same for their purchasing records.

In any case, this is all entirely besides your own point that however easy or not it is for individuals to illegally gain access to companies' records about other people, the government has clearly been devoting enormous resources to developing the means to do this itself for a number of years, and to date has just barely been held accountable for it--and even then mostly in the court of a minority of public opinion. And THAT is the real issue here.

I was just playing devil's advocate, but your larger point still stands, that the government has no right (or need) to spy on us outside of what existing law allows, and in the specific manner that it allows this to be done. And the enforcement of these laws should be vigorous and subject to vigorous oversight by the other two branches (AND the media). And, hopefully, this is precisely what the new Democratic congress--and courts--will now do.
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 6:50 pm | #

Glenn [from the post]:

The Associated Press reported Friday that the Department of Homeland Security, over the last several years, has been secretly compiling detailed records of the travel activities of American citizens and assigning "risk assessment" ratings based on a whole slew of related information it collects and stores...

Hmmmm. Wonder what my score is. I have frequent travel changes, one-way tickets, sit up fron when I can, and participate in anti-gummint blogs. And I'm over in Indonesia (doing, coincidentally, more for homeland security than anyone like "Bart" or "shooter242" has ever done with their arm-chair wankering on blogs). Maybe I should ask the folks here to take a peek for me ... but the azos in the U.S. prolly don't share this info with the likes of Indonesians....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:51 pm | #

KOVIE - We're in full agreement. One of the things one learns in litigation is that people have vastly less privacy than they think they do -- there are all sorts of ways to find out things that people, when they're engaged in those acts, just assume can never be discovered.

I could just tell by the way that commenter phrased his information that it was coming from immigration records, and - thanks to the sleuthing of Todd Larason and Mona above - I think it's pretty clear now that was the case.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 7:00 pm | #

Many good comments on the topic at hand, so I'll go off track a bit and post something that Glenn reminded me of when he wrote this:

Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

Here is something else Senator Church was stunned to find:

http://danwismar.com/uploads/Ber...and% 20Media.htm

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Folks, that was 25 years ago, and nothing was ever done to stop the CIA from infiltrating the media. Do you think this cozy relationship was stopped, voluntarily? Or do you think it's gotten positively incestuous? Could explain, at least in part, the egregious propagandizing that goes on over the publicly owned airwaves and in print.
sunny | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:01 pm | #

ARNE - Hmmmm. Wonder what my score is.

Ask Baggi to find out for you. You can find him deep in the swamps of many right-wing blog comment sections, and if he's not there, I have no doubt there are others frequenting those places who can help you.

But if I were you, I wouldn't want to know. You have terrorist written all over you.

I wonder if they use those scores as a factor in selecting calls on which to eavesdrop. That would make rational sense -- once you put yourself in their world, that is.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.03.06 - 7:03 pm | #

Paul Rosenburg:

Yesterday, I went out with my sister and her husband. Overwhelmed by choices, I gave up, and simply said, "I'll have what she's having," fish and shrimp with a salad. Put yourself on an airplane, overwhelmed by the lack of choices, and imagine making a similar move. You haven't even consciously decided on each element of your meal. Rather, you've decided, "that sounds good enough for me" and boom! you've ordered yourself the Terrorist's Blue Plate Special without even knowing it.

I doubt they keep track of that; rather it's likely that they're tracking "special meals" -- orders made in advance of the flight. Normally I don't bother with such, but on this last trip with Singapore Airlines, I did. Good thing, I guess, I went for the seafood rather than a Halal meal....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:03 pm | #

oops, make that 29 years ago.

(sorry for not closing the tag)
sunny | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:04 pm | #

Arne,

While a bromide and cliche, I rather like the old aphorism that sunshine is the best antiseptic. And this country has clearly gone septic.

My cautious optimism that the next congress will finally do what congress is constitutionally not to mention morally supposed to do, and that the courts, however conservative they've grown in recent decades, will also do their job properly, might be misplaced.

But since I place my faith in yet another old saying, that the wheels of justice move slowly but surely (or something like that), I choose to remain cautiously optimistic that we will finally begin to get to the bottom of this crap next year, and start to reverse much of it and hold those responsible for it accountable.

The genius of our system is that, however flawed and open to being abused and misused, it has proven to generally be self-correcting in the long run, because it was set up to be so by people who learned from their own extensive experience in dealing with threats to such forms of government, as well as centuries of history's experience with such.

It is, no doubt, not absolutely immune to attacks from without and within, but my belief is that it's a lot more resilient than many people give it credit for. And my inclination--based on observation--is to believe that the present gang of would-be destroyers of it are simply not up to the task, much as they imagined that they were.

In a battle across the centuries between Madison, Hamilton and Jay, and Cheney, Rove and Gonzales, I'm going with the old-timers here.

And keep up the good work, whatever it may be...
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 7:08 pm | #

Nick | 12.03.06 - 2:26 pm | # - I don't feel like any freedoms have been eroded at all over the past six years. Airport security has gotten tighter for everyone, so no big deal. I have to show ID visiting some buildings, again, no big deal.

What freedoms do you feel have been eroded Nick?
daleyrocks

Poor little worm. The erosion of constitutional freedoms is not detected by the use of "feelings."

Have you not been asked to "get a brain?" Good advice.
Baldie McEagle | 12.03.06 - 7:10 pm | #

Could Baggi be Matthew (instead of Eric) Wess (Border Patrol)?

Immigrant sues, alleges brutality from Border Patrol agents
Anon | 12.03.06 - 7:11 pm | #

William Timberman:

It might be worthwhile to point out to everyone commenting here, trolls included, that if some nameless they with access to government data know such things as Baggi knew about Glenn, they also know it about all of us.

Furthermore, if they're willing to share it with Wizbang, for whetever reason, who would they not be willing to share it with?

My partner wishes I wouldn't use my name on the Internet. Perhaps (but I do have a philsophical objection to anonymity; if I say something, I'm willing to put my name behind it). I did have an interesting talk with a business person I'd just met a while back; he commented on my web offerings and seemed to have gone over them. And I've noted that people have reached my blog through Google searches for "Arne Langsetmo".

My partner says that many businesses nowadays do do background checks before (and even after) hiring, and are looking at Internet activity. People might be refused a job due to their political (or other) activity there, and people certainly have been fired for Internet activity that violates "company policy".

I'll fight this trend, of course. No one will make me shut up or consider my opinions something that needs to kept hidden.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:14 pm | #

1) The data collected by the private sector is at best used for one purpose only: to sell more products. I say at best because there could well be other motives driving the collection, such as the sale to third parties, which may or may not be legitimate.

2) Now take a look at the level of invasion of privacy, and ask yourself: Which is more invasive, the private sector, or the government? And furthermore, which motive is more important, the selling of products, or the thwarting of terrorist attacks?

I am constantly battling the private sector in terms of privacy. I have to opt out of all sorts of abuses of my information, particularly regarding financial companies. Despite being on the "Do not call" list I still receive solicitations at home, either illegally or through some sort of loophole.

I still have yet to be inconvenienced by the government. I could care less about the Swift program, which is a pedantic example of privacy abuse. And I can easily live with the other so-called privacy violations held up as examples of how our right to privacy is being violated.
Who'd 'a known

Your feelings are understandable for the typical American citizen, who has come to regard him/herself primarily as a consumer, as is your complacency. And I agree with you that these behaviors are problems. But the mortgage industry doesn't have a Gitmo. The window-cleaners don't have an army. The credit card companies don't have a police force. See the difference? No, of course you don't.

The government remains intact so that it can protect you from these invasions. Currently, it's not very interested in doing so and it's doing a lousy job (call your congressman!), but you can bet the only corporations who will ever be allowed to imprison you will be those correctional contractors specifically hired to do so. Lucky you.

Meanwhile, what corporation will protect you--or, since you and scooter pretend not to give a crap, what corporation will protect me---from the government? None. Consider that, please.
Baldie McEagle | 12.03.06 - 7:20 pm | #

Glenn,

I have no illusion that there's much about my or anyone else's life that is totally private. We all leave breadcrumbs of one form or another as we proceed through our daily lives, often unavoidably and/or unconsciously.

The issue is not whether we can avoid this--we really can't as that genie's long since out of the bottle--but whether we can prevent those who do not have the right let alone justifiable need to get at these records from getting at them.

And this includes not only individuals and companies, but the government--ESPECIALLY the government, given its vastly disproportionate power compared to even the most powerful multinationals. One need only the most cursory knowledge of what governments of other countries have done with such records in the past (and in many cases continue to do so) to understand why this is such a dangerous thing for a government to do or be allowed to do.

And I continue to believe that we are in no way past the point of being able to stop or at least seriously reverse this behavior on the part of this administration. Battles have clearly been lost, but the war is in no way over. And at this point, our side appears to have gained the advantage. What it does with it, though, is yet to be determined...

I'm staying hopeful, but also hawkishly watchful. And I can only assume that Rockefeller, Reyes, Conyers and Leahy et al know this.
Kovie | 12.03.06 - 7:20 pm | #

I think it may be worthwhile to keep impeachment off the table as a way of encouraging the Administration to come clean about its past conduct, while at the same time making clear that any such future conduct will be inpeachable. Circumvent and laws we pass, exercise any more powers we refuse to give you, continue any program the Supreme Court has struck down, or refuse to comply with a Congressional subpoena if affirmed by the courts, and we will impeach.

Of course, if they find anything that arouses sufficient public outrage, all bets are off.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:23 pm | #

Mona and Todd's impressive work confirms something I've long thought. Spying on people is a two-headed snake. For every person with access to this kind of data who fancies himself a vigilante, there'll be one who'll either turn it on its owners, or leak it to the press. So far, anyway, that seems to be the case. Plus, these guys who fancy themselves the proud owners of a DHS license to kill are often as dumb as a box of daleyrocks. (Mr. Eric Wess appears to be one of these.)

William Gibson may be the prescient one here. For every Obersturmbannführer there'll be a cowboy. I realize that no one would like to rely on an eternal war between fascism and anarchy for their personal safety, but the 21st century is going to be stranger than fiction no matter what happens.
William Timberman | 12.03.06 - 7:25 pm | #

gravitylove:

Gravatar One day soon, this secret apparatus will be turned against these perpetrators, and will help us to rid this country of its political cancer.

I would hope not. If so, we have become our own worst enemy.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." -- George Orwell

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:25 pm | #

Arne, I know, I know. You're talking to a guy who was followed, photographed, had his phone tapped, and was anonymously threatened (we know where you live, asshole) by nameless suits more than forty years ago.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck. Americans don't cower in the closet, they fight back. It's that simple. If they disappear me (fat chance, toothless old fart that I am now) a thousand more will take my place.
William Timberman | 12.03.06 - 7:30 pm | #

I don't have an argument with Libertarians per se, but I do criticize them for remaining largely silent about things that normally used to arouse their dogmatic sensibilities. There was a time when one could expect a measured vocal response when people advocated rewriting the Constitution as casually as pass the salt, please.
When I read this article though at reason it left me speechless.
Libertarians with whatever failings one might try to discover about them, will still serve to keep the rest of us honest in our discourse.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 6:50 pm | #

I apologize for coming off as all testy, but you have no idea how much warfare and disruption has gone in libertarian circles since Bush 43 came to power. Some -- I can't prove it, but I think they are a minority -- cannot sever themselves from reflexive affiliation with the GOP. But whatever, the Bush Movement and modern GOP have destroyed the libertarian default preference for Republicans, and caused an internecine war that has been anything but pretty.

As one who has been pretty severely vilified by some whom I had considered co-ideologues, all because I place the Constitution over devotion to the GOP, it was just jarring to read your lament that libertarians are missing. We libertarians may feel politically lost, but most of us recognize that what Bushism represents is anathema to everything this nation stands for -- if that means voting for Democrats, many of us are willing, and just did so.

And we've been speaking out on blogs, like, forever. Not to make a martyr of myself, but the minority libertarians who still are faithful acolytes to the GOP, some of them, have really come to despise me for my attacks on the that party and neoconservatives. I'm hardly alone among libertarians in that. Our little ideological enclave has been massively disrupted by the Bush/Frist GOP, and the fallout continues.

Depending on what the Dems do, they could end up making their party the default for libertarians. I'm not terribly hopeful about that, but never has there been a more propitious time for it.
Mona | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 7:35 pm | #

"shooter242" said:

OK. So this division was spelled out in the Church hearings, and found itself encapsulated in the "wall",
pre-9/11.

Nonsense. The "wall" was put in because of constitutional concerns, and the possibility that constitutional restrictions would interfere with proper functioning of intelligence gathering and/or law enforcement.

Because of seperation between foriegn and domestic surviellance rules, grand jury secrecy rules, 5 layers of bureaucracy, FISA, and the inability to transfer information gleaned under one set of rules to the other--we had a situation where one of the 9/11 guys disappeared after entering the US.

Anyone...(aside from those previously mentioned as undesirables)
Is this actually what you folks want to occur again as a matter of policy? That is to say people disappearing from law enforcement radar as a consequence of entering the US?

Apparently, what "shooter242" wants is that anyone that has entered the U.S. be kept under the watchfull eye of the gummint.

And he has the chutzpah to call us "undesirables".

Got measured for your brown shirts yet, "shooter242"?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo |