"Either We Win The War, Or Be Tried For War Crimes" Vietnam Era Sec. of Defense Robert MacNamara reflecting on the WWII Bombings of Japan

Admiral Mike Rogers, NSA director

Freshly minted Director of the National Security Agency Admiral Mike Rogers, told a conference held by Bloomberg that the accusations the NSA was using facial recognition widely along with access to driver license photos because such activity is not legal and "We do not do this on some unilateral basis against U.S. citizens." Acknowledging the activity would illegal is huge, especially taken with the track record of his predecessor General Alexander and his boss Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. That the facial recognition could be used with photos from each state's , commonwealth's and the District of Columbia's department of motor vehicles, is a collusion of the security state and the civil bureaucracy that beyond the pale. What is very likely a work around is that outside vendors such as Booz, Allen Hamilton currently headed Michael Hayden (former Director of National Intelligence) utilize commercial databases that access the states' photos and through such an intermediary Adml. Mike Rogers' statement becomes accurate and lawful while continues to be deceptive to the exactly the people that pays his salary and are the only threat that could possible be neutralized with mass surveillance: the American public with legitimate criticisms.

If legal questions arose regarding how the surveillance operated, and they were obtusely in the unlawful and unconstitutional side of things, then it would behove everyone that took part in that criminality to obfuscate exactly what was done regardless of the effectiveness of the illegal actions taken. The Senate Intelligence Committee has oversight over the Central Intelligence Agency, who ran the "enhanced interrogation" that according to the former interrogators were unfruitful in providing any intelligence, so in the Intelligence Committee's oversight duty they are responsible for bringing accountability the CIA. If the CIA, or assets working on their behest, may have committed crimes with regards to torturing prisoners then they have all the incentive in the world to obfuscate and obstruct anyone from discovering and then prosecuting those crimes; Back in February, the staffers of the Intelligence Committee were doing just that while the CIA allegedly was destroying evidence when the staffers removed documents that were classified but threatened to be destroyed. The NSA has the same motivation to obfuscate and block accountability regarding surveillance that is directly an affront to the 4th Amendment- but more so in that the claims that these practices were effective when they were not effective in ferreting out and thereby preventing mass casualty events and explosives such as the Boston Marathon Bombings in 2013 and the Times Square Armed Forces Recruitment Center Bombing in 2008 (intentionally set when no casualties would occur). Was mass surveillance effective to prevent crimes, or even discover foreign intelligence then Edward Snowden would have been discovered when he initially reached out in December 2012 or the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Army would not have been in doubt with unambiguous intelligence.

Like the quote from the title of this post, the surveillance state needs to win this war or be tried for their crimes, the only difference is their enemy they are fighting a war against is the American public. 

Virtual Tiger Trap of America, Great Firewall of China And Other Innovations in Repression

Totalitarian government clamp down on free flow of ideas and communication under the presumption that doing so will extinguish any subversiveness. That same hetero-ideology that is being attempted to be eradicated is what burnishes the open society with so much innovation and economic progress. So a Nazi or a Soviet regime is successful to instill fear throughout the populace that anyone could turn them into the authorities and they may disappear for saying a disparaging remark; in the fear-centric world of a totalitarian regime the economic innovation also comes to a screeching halt since what was acceptable economic activity yesterday is still acceptable today and no new business paradigms are ever attempted. People's Republic of China under Mao was certainly a totalitarian regime, But Deng Xiaoping was able to open up the country at least economically and provided pseudo-property rights to get GDP growth going. As the rise of the Internet made it essential for China to participate in the global economy, the CCP found it necessary to allow the Chinese people to have access to the internet for commerce but necessitated a solution to prevent political or anything non-economic from being communicated. Thus the invention of The Great Firewall of China that prevented domestic Internet communications of undesirable (at least by the CCP's judgement) ideas or speech that was not benefiting the state/status quo.

In many third world totalitarian regimes counter-intuitively there often were elections held; these elections never were intended to let the people's voice be heard instead they were to identify where or even who was the opposition. It typically was so effective that the people (to avoid being disappeared) voted unanimously for the tin-pot dictator, who then go to the world community to show that his people loved him.

The combination of both technological surveillance and use of misdirection is where the American innovation in political repression gets both genius and diabolical. Instead of blocking websites proactively and other known undesirable forms of communication the American intelligence community allows every American with an Internet connection to freely say anything they want to whomever they want, and nothing changes in their day-to-day life. All 300+ million Americans have their communications cataloged and archived, with some secret algorithm scanning to determine who may be a threat (threat to whom and what constitutes as a threat is evidently not up for discussion), so at some future date FBI agents on the order of the Department of  Homeland Security comes and arrests a citizen either at home or at work. Any attempt to ferret why the citizen was arrested will initially be informed "Sorry, but that is classified." A tenacious attempt to get information about a love one may very well result in the questioner also in custody. Let all of the citizens run around on the internet looking up subversive information about Ag-Gag rules, financial service industy's improprieties, and the like; they can be deemed terrorists after the fact and receive the "Bradley Manning" treatment stuck in a hole for years without ever being charged. Bonus points for constitutional flexibility since it is unlikely to have public attention and therefore never need to be taken out of the hole.

But the defenders of the status quo will respond to my dystopian perspective: "Sean you have it all wrong, America isn't like that-- we are the land of the free and home of the brave. We have a constitution that strictly forbids what you are describing." The constitution is no defense if there is no means to determine what the government is doing under the veil of secrecy. The U.S. government has already dispensed with the fourth amendment since it is very explicit: ."..no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Can not get less particular in describing who and what is to be searched than everybody and everything. Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing  has had a very telling response from those already in the know, no on has denied the veracity of Snowden's claims. So we know it is true that all of our internet communication and telephonic communication both content and metadata is being archived for the past 7-8 years and also going forward for the foreseeable future.

But I would have to also have evidence that our government has disregarded constitutional protections of due process, specifically that some authoritative federal judge being instrumental to being deprived of freedom or life. Except there is already evidence that has been done to American citizens all without any judicial review nor anything other than  committee of people individuals who gather for "terrorism Tuesday" within the White House. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder when questioned why American citizens abroad could be killed without even an indictment via drones responded:

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

The previous 225 years since the ratification of the constitution it has been interpreted that due process was judicial process-- but here we have amazing legal innovation to squeeze what is clearly not constitutional to be pseudo-constitutional but only in practice while ignoring our tradition and legal precedent. So what would prevent our government from implementing my dystopian foreshadowing? Is it left to each of the individuals that are directed to carry out unconstitutional orders? The individuals that question the orders constitutionality, are they assured they won't be targeted for obstructing justice or prosecution under the Espionage Act or no actual crime charged but held in custody indefinitely in some legal limbo like the 80+ detainees held in Gitmo and have been cleared for release for at least 5 years now? Thomas Drake released budget overruns of NSA surveillance programs that were not classified in 2006 and was not charged until 2010 for violating the World War I era Espionage Act. But Barack Obama when coming into office in 2009 said repeatedly would look forward and not back regarding the unconstitutional torture/enhanced interrogation program, but decided to look back when he perceived the State was being embarrassed.

Arbitrary execution of law is a vacuum of law, and we were such a fine upstanding country that once long ago abode by our own self-determined laws. Alas that was so antiquated, so old fashioned, so 20th century.

Subjunctive Intelligence Community: Just because one calls themselves an intelligence service, doesn't make them "intelligent"

We are told that the actions that are being taken by the American intelligence community are both Constitutional and effective; to believe either would ignore recent American history and the public statements from the alphabet soup that makes up the American intelligence community. Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi, failed Times Square bomber and and NYC subway bomber respectively, both were legitimate terrorists that were unsuccessful but not due to American intelligence agencies instead due to vigilant street vendor (Shahzad) and interrogation of the Al-Qaeda recruiter Bryant Neal Vinas (Zazi). I make this distinction due to all the other instances that FBI, NSA, and CIA have had their fingers involved in very dicey cases; such instances were all claimed to be heroic uses of the intelligence community in protecting our security while plausibly trampling on our rights.

2001: Jose Padilla American citizen, accused of planning a dirty bomb attack on Chicago. Our intelligence community saved America from that horror,

that is only IF...

• Al-Qaeda network had access to fissionable material
• Jose Padilla could have transported the material into the heartland of America without setting off Geiger counters of customs agents.
• Jose Padilla's travels to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, and "enhanced interrogation" of Abu Zubaydah that initiated the intelligence community to set sights on Jose Padilla prior his return to America (empty handed, as in no fissionable material) and his arrest at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport-- not any actual attempt to attain the material to carry off his Jihadist dreams.

2006: Liberty City Seven, 7 Americans in Miami accused of planning to bomb Chicago's Sears Tower quite possibly taking down the tallest building (at the time) in America. Our intelligence community saved America from that horror.

that is only IF...

• Any of the seven had any experience with any explosives or access to explosives.
• Any of the seven had taken up the multiple offers of weapons by the dubious FBI confidential witnesses
• The persons who were the impetus of the entire idea had pushed them harder to go through with it, but then they would not have been very good confidential witnesses. 
• Both confidential witnesses hadn't negotiated deals to avoid prison time and hadn't at the direction of FBI told the Liberty City Seven that they being of Middle Eastern descendant had connections with Al-Qaeda. So had any involved actually been terrorists involved.
• Charles James Stewart, the only named paid-informant in the indictment, wasn't the only person in the "conspiracy" that had been to Chicago.
• The FBI was not the only source of money and space to train (an empty warehouse in Miami)

2009: 'New York City Bomb Plot' where 4 Newburgh men who described themselves as Black-Muslims plotted to attack Bronx synagogues and shoot down military aircraft from a nearby air force base. Our intelligence community saved America from that horror.

that is only IF...

• FBI informant, Shahed Hussain, hadn't been trolling Masjid al-Ikhlas for strangers interested in Jahid.
• Had the enticing offer of shoulder fired missiles not been entirely an instigated by the FBI and not initiated by  
• It wasn't a fact that the only weapon that the four had access to was the handgun James Cromitie bought from a street gang member and the impotent props provide by the FBI.

The unconstitutional overreach the American intelligence community has already had a survey to find out what the American public thinks of it. The survey asked if it was acceptable to track phone calls and monitor emails and internet of Americans *IF* it *MIGHT* prevent terror attacks. All instances had a slight majority of acceptance, but the use of the implausible subjunctive of *IF* takes away any real credibility to the response. Would the same 56% of respondents find it acceptable *IF* the government intrusion had less than a 1% chance of success? Or would acceptance drop more so *IF* it were known that internet monitoring and cell phone tracking are wholly useless when targets are thoroughly trained by Al-Qaeda such as Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi that depend on the face-to-face communication rather than the neophytes that are hoodwinked by FBI paid informants? Demarcation from tracking all your phone calls (sans content) and then retroactively go back to listening to the calls after getting a warrant from the rubber stamp FISA court seems to disappear when authorities are asked 'does our intelligence community listen to our phone calls?' *IF* the virtual dragnet was effective then why wouldn't the alphabet soup prevent the Boston Marathon Bombing? *IF* the virtual dragnet was effective then why wouldn't the alphabet soup prevent the shoe bomber Richard Reid not a fellow airline passenger? *IF* the virtual dragnet was effective then why wouldn't the alphabet soup prevent the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not a fellow airline passenger? Why have PRISM and phone tracking of all Americans when it doesn't protect America and isn't within Constitutional restrictions of the fourth amendment? In my humble opinion, NSA and the other intelligence agencies have have wholly gone rogue and are no longer accountable to our elected officials in government therefore should be dismantled immediately.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

If the intelligence community from nearly it's inception has nothing but failures: handpicking brutal dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Sukarno, Nicaraguan Contras, etc;  failing to foresee the fall of Communism, and Indian, Pakistani nor North Korean Nuclear tests; siding with mujahideen that brought the rise of Al-Qaeda; despite rolling back constitutional rights failed to protect the American public from the underwear bomber, Times Square failed bombing, Boston Marathon bombing and the events of 9/11 all occurred under the nose of America's much vaunted intelligence community.

So I ask, if the choice is that Americans have to give up civil liberties without any benefits or continue to have Constitutional civil liberties and not have these bumbling "masters of the universe" shouldn't the American public chose the latter? If we are not able to chose the nature of own protection then why bother pretend we are a democracy?

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings."
John F Kennedy

CIPSA permanently enshrining warrant-less wiretaps: Best Government Corporations Can Buy

CISPA is legislation that recently was passed by over whelming margins in the House of Representatives will codify the fact that corporations can invade their employees and customers privacy under the guise that it might prevent some national security-- but that employees and customers can never sue the corporations for infringing their rights. So where is the Tea Party Congressmen with their tri-corner hats to stand up for all the rights spelled out in our Constitution? Should the nation expect another speaking filibuster over the trampling of individual rights by this piece of legislation just as he used it against the nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director?

But due to the $600+ million of lobbyist money used to promote this legislation against the paltry $4.3 million that opposed the legislation, probably will be seeing this get passed in the Senate and signed by Capitulator-In-Chief Obama. When your next employer asks for your personal email passwords and social network passwords, don't be surprised-- and unless you want remain unemployed-- then don't resist because your boss will have a right to demand such things. If the government (or those that hold influence over the government) can look into specific individual without just cause or going through judicial process and find out all of that individual's online activity without ever having the purpose preventing crime and terrorism, then on paper our nation becomes the police state that we have always said America could never be.

Though this legislation is multitudes worse to the civil liberties of denizens of the Internet than SOPA, it doesn't have big money interests like Google, Microsoft, etc. along with Internet giants like Wikipedia Huffington Post, and others that participated in the March 2012 Internet Blackout protest and therefore CISPA isn't getting its due attention.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/how-cispa-opponents-were-outspent-by-industry-lobbyists-38-to-1-20130422?mrefid=site_search