|
The general public consensus (so far) seems to be accepting this story on the (bush led) face value, and thus are not overly concerned. I suggest that this hinges on several points that are not clear in much of the reporting - how frequently it was/could have been invoked; and that it is limited to those in contact with "suspected terrorists."
I further think that our discussions here are often preaching to the choir, in connecting what seems to be obvious to those of us paying attention to this story along with the story of some of the FBI investigated "people of interest" that were disclosed in December such as a Quaker peace group, a PETA meeting at Indiana U., and a group of eleventh and twelfth grade catholic school students (from Alaska?) that attended a peace rally. Put the two together (actual cases of odd "targets" in the 'War on Terrorism' by the FBI, and the potential abuse of Bushco and the NSA) and the Bushjr NSA program is very ominous.
In this post I will attempt to raise a few areas of confusing reporting - that highlight, imo, why the public doesn't seem to be overly concerned; and describe a scenario that explains how this program could spread such a wide net that tens of thousands (or more) of Americans not associated with any untoward behavior could be caught up in this extra-constitutional surveillance program.
Please read my points below and correct them if my assumptions are incorrect. Also look at the scenario... is it possible? Why do I ask - because only if fence sitters (those who are not "true-believer bushbots", but who still cling to the belief that those in the power of the govt wouldn't act so willfully against the public) start to think about how this 'third, fourth or sixth degree of separation' might actually touch them, or family members, or friends/colleagues - will the outrage that we expect among the public actually begin to occur.
Think about it - for whatever reason, recent polls suggest that well over half of our fellow US citizens believe that this program isn't a threat and is likely justified in the cause of the War on Terror.
Before I start, let me give a definition to a term I will use throughout for clarification. "Discreet event" refers to a single act of identifying someone as 'a person of interest' (or whatever term the NSA is using) that becomes subject to surveillance and/or data mining.
Several areas of confusion in the reporting (and thus public psyche/understanding) of the FISA-less NSA surveillance program:
1) The number of times authorized. The initial story referred to a discreet number (30, or so). Confusion abounds around this, as some purport and repeat as if this refers to single, discreet events. Ergo, some in the public believe there have been very few individual cases (and thus it must only be of those 'who should be watched').
Read the reporting closely and it is much more clear what this refers to: Each authorization/reauthorization is a blanket approval for forty five days in which unlimited number of discreet events of targeting and beginning surveillance may occur.
2) The trigger for the surveillance of a US citizen. Oft repeated is that the trigger would be a conversation/correspondence of a US Citizen with a person outside of the country who is suspected of affiliation with al qeada. This isn't in the language - but it is repeated by Bush, and thus repeated each time his statements are covered. The reality, that is seemingly confirmed by a statement by Cheney (that ironically seems to be given to placate worries), is that the trigger is simply a call or correspondence between a US citizen and someone (anyone) outside of the country.
Cheney made a throw away comment/example the other day that someone calling a relative in France shouldn't worry - as "we probably wouldn't be very interested in that." Implicit in his point wasn't that the French relative wouldn't be a target/trigger because it is unlikely that the relative isn't tied to al qeada - but simply "that it wouldn't be very interested". Point? We could listen if we wanted to, but probably won't.
3) Who would be surveilled. What is suggested by Bush (note his current reiteration of the words "very limited" along with his rationalizations) is that only the US citizen involved in the direct conversation/correspondence that triggered the surveillance would be spied on. As if this would lead to only a single discreet event (one person being spied upon.) However, there are also frequent statements suggesting that a broader pattern was being sought (thus a single conversation is not of interest) and that those citizens who interact with the original target (per the "trigger" conversation.) In other words, if person A is flagged and subject to spying - and talks with person B and C - either or both B and C could be tagged to be spied upon... in order to "look for a broader pattern." (Also known as: fishing expeditions.)
The points of confusion in reporting/discussions (outside of DU, of course) seem to be lost on the general public psyche - as the specter of Al Qeada and terrorism is used again, by Bushjr, to rationalize their monarchical actions. They need to be clarified - and given some life by example of how it could work - esp the second, third and who knows tenth degree of separation (from the original 'tagged' conversation) and how many citizens may be subject to NSA spying - due to the exponential nature of such a program. So below I paint a purely fictional scenario of what seems to be allowable under this program and the exponential nature of what could occur from an original discreet event. This is all from my imagination ... just trying to flush out how it might work - and get some discussion going around that which might inform some of our conversations in the future with others who might not on the surface be so alarmed by this program.
Fictional NSA, FISA-less (as in No Court Review for warrants to search; no one to raise issues as to legitimacy of targets) Spying Scenario:
Bashir is a US citizen living in Des Moines. His parents emigrated from Pakistan and became naturalized citizens. He receives a phone call from a cousin in Pakistan notifying Bashir of his grandmother's death.
The cousin in Pakistan is involved in a feud with a neighbor. The neighbor, in an act of retaliation, falsely reported the cousin to the Musharref Govt as a possible suspicious figure. {Note: while I added the suspicion factor - from what is known that isn't even necessary to get this ball rolling.}
The conversation is picked up, and Bashir is now tagged as a 'person of interest' (or whatever language the NSA uses) and comes under surveillance. Note that while this interaction probably would have easily gotten approval through FISA, it would be a candidate for going around FISA due to any subsequent fishing expedition - that might be less likely to get FISA approval.
---->
While under the new surveillance, Bashir calls a coworker in Des Moines. Jean (the coworker) is planning an office pitch-in dinner and Bashir isn't sure what food items are still needed. This conversation is tagged. Perhaps the discussion of food (perhaps Pakistani food items) is code speak - or perhaps a "pattern of behavior" is being sought; regardless Jean now comes under NSA surveillance without the benefit of FISA Court review (that is - there is NO check or balance to determine whether or not suspicion really suggests the need for spying upon Jean.) Let's call this the first degree of separation.
Bigger speculative point - would the office get together be of interest? Would there be a few ears attending just in case? I would think that probably not - but who knows?
---->
After receiving the call from Bashir, Jean remembers that a college reunion is coming up in a month and she hasn't decided whether or not to spare the expense to attend. She calls an old college friend who lives in Louisville, Sherry, to see if she is planning on attending the reunion. They chat a bit, pondering whether or not various friends might be attending. Jean decides it would be great to Sherry again, who she hasn't seen in several years. Just in case, the NSA agents determine that Sherry ought to be tagged for surveillance... looking for a broader pattern, of course. Here we have the second degree of separation.
Another bigger speculative point: would it be worth the effort to go to the reunion to determine other people of interest based on those who communicate with both women? Probably not... but in that searching for a bigger pattern "in the name of national security", perhaps ...
---->
Sherry remembers that she had not finalized an adjustment in the shared custody of her six year old daughter for the upcoming week. First thing the next morning, she calls her ex-husband John to confirm that he is picking up the daughter on Thursday instead of Friday. Those listening in run a check on the ex, just in case. His name turns up as a person identified as attending a March 2003 peace/anti-war rally. In the third degree of separation there is a connection a file previously created by the FBI. Where might this lead? Is there a peace group he is affiliated with that ought to be looked at more closely?
Note that at each juncture - there is an exponential point of further growth of the investigations based on who all comes into contact with the previously tagged person.
Tin Foily? Yes. Likely? Who knows. Possible? My read of what has been approved by Bushco - and repeatedly reauthorized suggests... yes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
