Showing posts with label The World After 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The World After 9/11. Show all posts

Monday, September 12, 2011

Post-9/11, NSA 'enemies' include us by James Bamford


Post-9/11, NSA 'enemies' include us
Politico - Opinion
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62999_Page3.html
By: James Bamford
September 8, 2011 09:34 PM EDT


Somewhere between Sept. 11 and today, the enemy morphed from a handful of terrorists to the American population at large, leaving us nowhere to run and no place to hide.

Within weeks of the attacks, the giant ears of the National Security Agency, always pointed outward toward potential enemies, turned inward on the American public itself. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established 23 years before to ensure that only suspected foreign agents and terrorists were targeted by the NSA, would be bypassed. Telecom companies, required by law to keep the computerized phone records of their customers confidential unless presented with a warrant, would secretly turn them over in bulk to the NSA without ever asking for a warrant.

Around the country, in tall, windowless telecom company buildings known as switches, NSA technicians quietly began installing beam-splitters to redirect duplicate copies of all phone calls and email messages to secret rooms behind electronic cipher locks.

There, NSA software and hardware designed for “deep packet inspection” filtered through the billions of email messages looking for key names, words, phrases and addresses. The equipment also monitored phone conversations and even what pages people view on the Web — the porn sites they visit, the books they buy on Amazon, the social networks they interact with and the text messages they send and receive.

Because the information is collected in real time, attempting to delete history caches from a computer is useless.

At the NSA, thousands of analysts who once eavesdropped on troop movements of enemy soldiers in distant countries were now listening in on the bedroom conversations of innocent Americans in nearby states.

“We were told that we were to listen to all conversations that were intercepted, to include those of Americans,” Adrienne Kinne, a former NSA “voice interceptor,” told me. She was recalled to active duty after Sept. 11.

“Some of those conversations are personal,” she said. “Some even intimate. … I had a real problem with the fact that people were listening to it and that I was listening to it. … When I was on active duty in ’94 to ’98, we would never collect on an American.”

Despite his hollow campaign protests, President Barack Obama has greatly expanded what President George W. Bush began. And through amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress largely ratified the secret Bush program.

So much intercepted information is now being collected from “enemies” at home and abroad that, in order to store it all, the agency last year began constructing the ultimate monument to eavesdropping. Rising in a remote corner of Utah, the agency’s gargantuan data storage center will be 1 million square feet, cost nearly $2 billion and likely be capable of eventually holding more than a yottabyte of data — equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text.

By Sept. 11, 2011, the words of George Orwell in his novel “1984” will have become prophetic. “Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it,” he wrote in 1949, long before the Internet. “You have to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard.”

On Sept. 10, 2001, however, Winston would have found a radically different society. The NSA, the surveillance equivalent of a nuclear bomb, was allowed to point its massive antennas and satellites only away from the country. Before an American could be targeted, a judge from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would first have to find a link to terrorism or espionage in order to issue a warrant. And installing permanent taps on all of the country’s major communications links would have been impossible.

More than 35 years earlier, one person warned of such a possibility. On Aug. 17, 1975, as America was enjoying a lazy summer watching “Jaws” and “The Exorcist” at the movies, Idaho Sen. Frank Church took his seat on “Meet the Press.” For months, as the first chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Church had been conducting the first in-depth investigation of America’s growing intelligence community.

When he looked into the NSA, he came away shocked by its potential for abuse. Without mentioning the agency’s name — almost forbidden at the time — he nonetheless offered an unsolicited but grave warning:

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter,” Church said. “There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

“I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

Church’s warning then has even more resonance today. In 1975, most people communicated only by telephone and the mail. While the NSA had the technical capability back then to intercept the limited telephone calls sent by satellite, it lacked the capability to monitor the millions of calls transmitted around the country over wires, the predominant method used, or anything sent through the mail.

Today, with everyone constantly communicating over cellphones and email, and spending hours on the Internet, the agency has the ability not just to hear and read what someone says but even to understand what and how they think.

America crossed Church’s proverbial bridge not because of the attacks. It’s been clearly shown that Sept. 11 could have easily been prevented with just the technology at hand — it was caused by human failure, not technological failure.

Rather, it was years of fearmongering that sent everyone rushing across the bridge. Without these draconian measures, we were told, we were in imminent danger of death by terrorist. For the Bush administration, the constant drumbeat of fear was necessary to launch and support the war in Iraq since no real danger existed.

From the outside, America began resembling Deputy Barney Fife from “The Andy Griffith Show,” shaking and trembling and constantly pointing a gun in every direction. There was Homeland Security with its rainbow of colors for security alerts; the weekly warnings of dire attacks, with no indication of time or location, none of which ever turned out to be credible; messages plastered on buses and billboards warning members of the public to keep a close eye on their neighbors and even their family; and body frisks at airports by security thugs looking for forbidden tubes of toothpaste.

Church was also right in his warning that once over the abyss, there is no return. Laws put in place stay in place — even if the reason for the fear is gone or never existed in the first place. And technology always moves forward; it never recedes.

A surveillance system capable of monitoring 10 million people simultaneously this year will be able to monitor 100 million the next year — at probably half the cost. And every time new communications technology appears on the market, rest assured that someone at the NSA has already found a way to monitor it. It’s what the NSA does.

What Church likely never anticipated was the rise of the security-industrial complex, a revolving door between those generating the fears and those profiting from them.

When warning the country of the dangers of an unchained NSA, Church may have been thinking of a passage from Friedrich Nietzsche when he spoke of the abyss:

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that

In the process he does not become a monster

And when you look long into the abyss

The abyss also looks into you.”

James Bamford writes frequently on intelligence and produces documentaries for PBS. His latest book is “The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America.”

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Using 9/11 For All Types of Agendas

Gerald Caplan published an Op_ed on the Globe and Mail website titled, "The world after 9/11: Naomi Klein prevails again"
(view here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-caplan/the-world-after-911-naomi-klein-prevails-again/article2159689/singlepage/#articlecontent)


The article was written by Gerald Caplan, but the title drops Naomi Klein's name for a reason never mentioned in the article. I suspect the point of the name drop was to gain an audience through search engine news readers. Kind of a shabby thing to do and not very good ethics on the part of the publisher if you ask me.

But assuming these views are shared by Naomi herself, my response would be as follows:

I am a fan if Naomi Klein's work. I loved No Logo. I have The Shock Doctrine on my ever-expanding "to buy" list.

While I see the underlying point of this article, and agree that tax reform for the wealthy is long overdue in this country, I struggle to see the correlation between that fact and the events of 9/11. Using the two topics in juxtaposition seems like more use of emotionally driven propaganda - the kind we have been getting all week long from just about every source under the sun.

Again, I love Naomi's works on globalization and hyper-capitalism and I agree with most of her philosophies, but I am always disappointed when writers and critics with such valid points bring the conservative/liberal, republican/democrat paradigms into the argument because I see these things as basically two sides of the same coin. (Again - this is assuming Ms. Klein has anything to do with this article at all.)

In my own opinion, people who strongly defend or attack specific parts of this "coin" are either products of naiveté (most likely from a long line of brainwashed culture) or just very subtle, cunning party propagandists.

That being said, I disagree with the statement (which has now become popular cliché) in blaming conservatives for the plummet of America in respect to the economy, civil liberties, or anything along those lines.

It states in the article, "conservative politicians have been able to have their way with us – us being the vast majority of the world’s population." It also says, "conservatives intensified the culture wars."

While I was an avid critic and protester of Bush and his circle of tyrants, I always maintained the memory of Bill Clinton as the pied piper who brought us such gems as NAFTA, the fuel for the financial crisis, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, bombings in Yugoslavia, a major terrorist attack of civilians in Afghanistan, etc....

Furthermore, as much as I detested G.W.Bush's horrific arrogance and outright disregard for America (i.e. robbing an election and unconstitutional warfare against Iraq) - there is one thing much too often omitted in the constant blaming of the conservative party for every ailment the country faces - and that is the blatant way that the Obama administration has extended and reinforced just about every atrocity to our civil liberties and horrible foreign policy blamed eternally on the Bush admin. One merely has to look at the men "behind the curtain" in all these administrations to find the same familiar faces throughout any range of presidencies. Upon doing so, it is plain to see that the democrat/republican paradigm is nothing more than clever marketing schemes.

Often Barack Obama does not receive the criticism that is always aimed at Bush for his invasion and occupation of Iraq. America's longest war in Afghanistan, was supported by Obama even before American forces had set foot in Iraq. Why is he not regularly criticized as a war monger or for the drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, a war criminal? Instead he gets a Nobel Prize.

One theory is that he is protected from such criticism because he is a Democrat or our first black-skinned president?

When a product once bought regularly begins to wobble in the market, re-branding is necessary to get consumers to continue buying. It is disheartening when writers I admire begin to read like such marketers. (again assuming that Naomi Klein even had anything to do with Gerald Caplan's published opinion.)



On similar topics:

On Blackwater:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/36756/blackwaters-new-sugar-daddy-obama-administration

http://thebabylonresistancemovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/jeremy-scahill-obama-blackwater-war.html

On Obama defending Bush
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama