Criminal George W. Bush Authorizes Criminal Spying On Dissidents

More 1st Amendment Subversion via 4th Amendment Subversion

Bush Order Expands Internet Monitoring By NSA 26 Jan 2008 President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems spy on dissidents. The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored. The prospect of aiming NSA's power at domestic networks is raising concerns, just as the NSA's role in the government's warrantless domestic-surveillance program has been controversial. "Agencies designed to gather intelligence on foreign entities should not be in charge of monitoring our computer systems here at home," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Lawmakers with oversight of homeland security and intelligence matters say they have pressed the administration for months for details. The classified joint directive, signed Jan. 8 and called the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, has not been previously disclosed.

RFID Chips in Drivers' Licenses

(Radio Frequency IDentification)

An easy, unaccountable means for tracking dissidents ...

Arizona, Michigan, Vermont and Washington to be 1st States within the U.S. to betray automobile traveler privacy by installing RFID tracking chips in peoples' drivers licenses, readable within 30 feet via roadside readers. This is being done on a volunteer basis for now. More ...

Think about all of the post 2001 upgrading to interstate highway truck weighing stations.

According to this site, RFID chips were invented in 1969, and patented in 1972. They are dynamic, that is they transmit and receive, but avoiding the need for batteries by essentially listening for a certain frequency that instructs it to transmit an ID code. As of now, their price has dropped to 50 cent apiece. They are being installed in a greater number of consumer goods, including Michelin tires, and may soon be included in Euro money notes.

What will be next, mandatory RFID chips in IDs, license plates and ...?

This company promotes RFID chips in license plates.

The U.S. REAL ID Act mandates that the various States within the U.S. adopt standards for IDs including connecting data bases, and granting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security "unfetted authority to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking."

Countdown to REAL ID (May 11, 2008)

They can also be installed in people, as shown in this video.





RFID books

G.W. Bush - NSA Criminal Spying on the Public

From Citizens for Legitimate Government

'Within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans' phone usage.' Wider Spying Fuels Aid Plan for Telecom Industry 16 Dec 2007 For months, the Bush regime has waged a high-profile campaign, including personal lobbying by President [sic] Bush and closed-door briefings by top officials, to persuade Congress to pass legislation protecting companies from lawsuits for aiding the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program... In December 2000, N.S.A. officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a "powerful, permanent presence" on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues... A lawsuit filed in federal court in New Jersey claims that in February 2001, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it. [Since Bush bin Laden has been spying since December 2000, why wasn't he able to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks?]

APSU mock trial rules President Bush “guilty” of illegal domestic surveillance

Verdicts are in on the two day mock trial, U.S. vs. Bush. Bush was found guilty on the charges relating to illegal and unauthorized domestic surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens and violating the Separation of Powers and FISA by ordering a secret Executive Order authorizing such action.

More...

Standing from left: Lead Defense, Jessica Lance, Frankie A. DeJesus and Matt Harris, APSU Professor Dr. Rabidoux,; Lead Prosecutors Michael Hughey, Mike Price and Liz Borsavage. The Judges, seated from left, Kasey Henricks, Emery Walters, Enderson Miranda, Ryan Knight and Zach Suggs

Bush-Gonzales Surveillance Scandal Cover Up

The New York Time guesses correctly, even while failing to consider any such possible instances involving subverting the 1st Amendment.

New York Times editorial:

President Bush often insists he has to be the decider — ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department.

Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so — even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute.

Both men say that in March 2004 — when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel — the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.

Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. Mr. Comey said the White House later modified the eavesdropping program enough for the Justice Department to sign off.

Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over “other intelligence activities.” He declined to say what those were.

Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration’s activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes.

That was plain enough. It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

The domestic criminal law enforcement surveillance leading to my August 5, 2006 ambush occurred only 2 weeks after making this post spot-lighting the masters of the two most important buildings on Washington, D.C.'s South Capitol Street, one day after this other post which speculates about the insistence of this stadium's completion by the start of the baseball season of 2008 .

Please do recall the logical -- yet unreported by the lamestream media -- correlate that this insistence upon 2008 is because that's the last baseball season opening where George W. Bush will still have the opportunity to throw that first ball while still President.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/baseball/
Nationals Ballpark Stadium
with "W"s for Washington and/or G."W." Bush
from: http://www.jdland.com/dc/stadium.cfm

Bush Administration Asserts that the President May Decide for Himself whether to surveill without warrant

Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, right, listens as Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, left, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, May 1, 2007, before the Senate Intelligence Committee

From the Wednesday, May 2, 2007 issue of The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January.

Rather, they argued that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants.

As a result of the January agreement, the administration said that the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program has been brought under the legal structure laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for the wiretapping of American citizens and others inside the United States.

But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.

During a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. McConnell was asked by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, whether he could promise that the administration would no longer sidestep the court when seeking warrants.

“Sir, the president’s authority under Article II is in the Constitution,” Mr. McConnell said. “So if the president chose to exercise Article II authority, that would be the president’s call.”

The administration had earlier argued that both the president’s inherent executive powers under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the September 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda, provided him with the power to conduct surveillance without warrants.

Mr. McConnell emphasized that all domestic electronic surveillance was now being conducted with court-approved warrants, and said that there were no plans “that we are formulating or thinking about currently” to resume domestic wiretapping without warrants.

“But I’d just highlight,” he said, “Article II is Article II, so in a different circumstance, I can’t speak for the president what he might decide.”

The exchange came as the administration is seeking new legislation to update the surveillance act to expand the government’s surveillance powers, in part to deal with vast changes in communications technology since 1978, when the measure was enacted.

The White House says that the outmoded rules embedded in the law mean that the government cannot eavesdrop on some telephone calls, e-mail and other communications that do not involve Americans or impinge on the privacy rights of people inside the United States.

While administration officials, citing national security concerns, have declined to discuss publicly what communications gaps they wish to plug, their proposed legislation seems designed to single out so-called “transit traffic,” purely international telephone calls and e-mail that go from one foreign country to another, but happen to be digitally routed through the United States telecommunications system.

The administration’s proposal would also provide legal immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency’s surveillance program without warrants before it was brought under the surveillance act in January. It would also provide legal protections for government workers who took part in the N.S.A. program.

Several Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration on Tuesday that the administration had not provided documents related to the National Security Agency program, which the White House called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. They suggested that they would be reluctant to agree to a change in the surveillance law without more information from the White House.

“To this day, we have never been provided the presidential authorization that cleared that program to go or the attorney general-Department of Justice opinions that declared it to be lawful,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. “Where’s the transparency as to the presidential authorizations for this closed program? That’s a pretty big ‘we’re not going to tell you’ in this new atmosphere of trust we’re trying to build.”

So, the decision to surveill me could have come from the President George Walker Bush himself!

All in order to protect his chance to throw the first ball at monstrosity (Nationals Ballpark) stadium?!

http://intelligence.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?hearingId2643

NSA Court-Martial?