NSA Spied on UN Security Council

[RkFast]

Privacy hypocrisy

 

By Michelle Malkin

 

 

 

 

 

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at the New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

 

 

First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public college admissions, contracting, and police and fire department hiring.)

 

 

Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-minie-moe" random search program at all subways, railways, and bus stations.

 

 

Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts, and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

 

 

Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.

 

 

Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other key government agencies.

 

 

Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.

 

 

Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the President for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

 

 

Repeat.

 

 

The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, the New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, anti-war activists, and some Muslim leaders and groups.

 

 

Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.

 

 

Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times's stunt. But neither the Times, nor the ACLU, nor the Democrat Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.

 

 

That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.

 

 

According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.

 

 

Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photo-reconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.

 

 

But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream media attention. No civil liberties circus. No White House press corps pandemonium.

 

 

The Left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

[Adam]

Privacy hypocrisy

 

By Michelle Malkin

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at the New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public college admissions, contracting, and police and fire department hiring.)

Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-minie-moe" random search program at all subways, railways, and bus stations.

Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts, and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.

Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other key government agencies.

Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.

Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the President for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat.

The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, the New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, anti-war activists, and some Muslim leaders and groups.

Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.

Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times's stunt. But neither the Times, nor the ACLU, nor the Democrat Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.

That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.

According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.

Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photo-reconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.

But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream media attention. No civil liberties circus. No White House press corps pandemonium.

The Left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

544428[/snapback]

Ok, I will say that I am fed up with the Democrat bashing. Most of the Democrats I know are good people, and don't tow the party line. The crazy left wing limberals, and their mumbo jumbo does not go along with what most democrats I talk to say.

 

Most of them seem fed up with their party's leadership, and consider it to be the tail wagging the dog. I wouldn't be surprised to see the party split- with the current voice of the party becoming almost an independent party- the majority will remain, and become a real threat to the Republicans come election time- and I think many people- even on the right will see that as a good thing. It will restore some balance.

[Mickey]

Privacy hypocrisy

 

By Michelle Malkin

 

544428[/snapback]

 

Why stop there? Please serenade us with the enlightening vomitous of the rest of the crew: Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Robertson and O'Reilly. Afterall, they have the "IQ under 5" demographic sowed up so by all means, share with the rest of us the musings of your idols.

 

Really, you finally have us nailed. Just last week here at Liberal Central Planning, hidden deep within the paranoid recesses of Mount Morons Will Believe Anything, I personally approved plans to distribute pills to be placed in municpal water supplies that will instantly turn unsuspecting, flag waving, red blooded, God talking, intellgently designed, doctor killing, clinic firebombing, fag hating Americans into homosexual, Jesus hating, atheist, evolutionist, muslim terrorists.

 

And we would have gotten away with it too if hadn't been for you meddling Malkinized kids. Curses.

[Mickey]

Which is why, the more I think about it, the more innocuous this seems.  I'm sure we spy as best we can on all the embassies we can...and the difference between spying on diplomats in embassies and diplomats at the UN is...? 

 

The way I see it, you're either for or against the gathering of intelligence.  I don't see why the UN should rank any differently than an embassy.

And for me, it is, as it falls under the "Yeah, no sh--, tell me something I don't know" clause of "How The World Works." 

Elaborate little plot you've cooked up.  I believe I saw that in a movie once. 

544362[/snapback]

Not really all that elaborate. Does the name "J. Edgar Hoover" ring a bell? Finding out people's secrets and using them against them is not unheard of. If you see bugging the UN Security Council on the eve of a crucial vote on invading Iraq as nothing out of the ordinary, how much of a stretch is it to consider blackmail as a potential fruit of the surveillance tree? Isn't that what bugging is for anyway? To find out what you don't know so you can use the information to achieve your own goals? If I am being pollyannish in my reaction to bugging diplomats, isn't it equally pollyannish to think that this administration wouldn't black mail if their taps of private homes turned up private yet useful information?

 

Really, that is what bugs me about bugging. I don't care what or how they turn up evidence on a terrorist but if they start bugging anyone for any reason, the potential, the temptation for abuse is pretty obvious, and dangerous. You know, absolute power corrupts absolutely and...all....that....jazz.

[RkFast]

Why stop there?  Please serenade us with the enlightening vomitous of the rest of the crew: Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Robertson and O'Reilly.  Afterall, they have the "IQ under 5" demographic sowed up so by all means, share with the rest of us the musings of your idols.

 

Really, you finally have us nailed.  Just last week here at Liberal Central Planning, hidden deep within the paranoid recesses of Mount Morons Will Believe Anything, I personally approved plans to distribute pills to be placed in municpal water supplies that will instantly turn unsuspecting, flag waving, red blooded, God talking, intellgently designed, doctor killing, clinic firebombing, fag hating Americans into homosexual, Jesus hating, atheist, evolutionist, muslim terrorists.

 

And we would have gotten away with it too if hadn't been for you meddling Malkinized kids.  Curses.

544521[/snapback]

 

Says the guy who started this topic on a link to story from a liberal blog.

 

Tell us, Mick....when you found this "shocking" story that started this topic, on your highly intelligent, obviously unbiased news source for such intellectual superiors such as yourself, did you have a hard time resisting the link for "Liberal Love, the dating site for Democrats, liberals, and activists."? And which link did you click there? Men seeking women, men seeking men, or women seeking women?

[VABills]

I don't get what the big to do is. Just like Embassies, the UN is really considered foreign soil. The NSA and CIA are both within their right to spy in either local. They are not limited by domestic laws.

[Mickey]

Says the guy who started this topic on a link to story from a liberal blog.

 

Tell us, Mick....when you found this "shocking" story that started this topic, on your highly intelligent, obviously unbiased news source for such intellectual superiors such as yourself, did you have a hard time resisting the link for "Liberal Love, the dating site for Democrats, liberals, and activists."? And which link did you click there? Men seeking women, men seeking men, or women seeking women?

544608[/snapback]

Do you dispute that there was an e-mail from the NSA disclosed by a British translator who was charged with violating England's Official Secrets Act and that when asked about it, Ari Fleischer did not deny it? The universal response to the article was essentially, "duh, of course we were spying on UN Diplomats...", thus the essential point of the story hasn't been challenged. If you don't dispute it, why mock the source or my use of it? Did you not read where I questioned their sources myself or did you have to ignore that part to weave your dimwitted comeback?

 

Tell me, does the site of Coulter, Malkin, Ingram and the like so excite you that the blood rushes out of your brain to....someplace else so that your brain is no longer able to function at normal levels? I'm concerned.

[Mickey]

I don't get what the big to do is.  Just like Embassies, the UN is really considered foreign soil.  The NSA and CIA are both within their right to spy in either local.  They are not limited by domestic laws.

544616[/snapback]

No, but we have treaties with them that forbid spying on their diplomats. The NSA and the CIA are bound by those treaties.

 

I have no problem bugging suspected terrorists but bugging Jean De Villepin's, or whatever his name is, daughter's princess phone seems a little, well, gauche.

[VABills]

No, but we have treaties with them that forbid spying on their diplomats.  The NSA and the CIA are bound by those treaties.

 

I have no problem bugging suspected terrorists but bugging Jean De Villepin's, or whatever his name is, daughter's princess phone seems a little, well, gauche.

544639[/snapback]

Treaties are only valid if approved by Congress. Secondly, how do you know if they are terrorists if you don't check up on them occassionally?

 

And before you start, show me the treaty and ratification by Congress?

[Alaska Darin]

No, but we have treaties with them that forbid spying on their diplomats.  The NSA and the CIA are bound by those treaties.

 

I have no problem bugging suspected terrorists but bugging Jean De Villepin's, or whatever his name is, daughter's princess phone seems a little, well, gauche.

544639[/snapback]

Which is why you're a lawyer rather than someone who works at securing the interests of the United States.

 

Entire wars have been stopped using such techniques but let's pretend we can turn off certain intelligence avenues because we're somehow above them. That's the "thinking" that led to the Executive Order stopping the recruitment of "unpalatable" assets which contributed to the success of 9/11.

[GG]

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Valerie Plame doing overseas?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Valerie Plame doing overseas?

544687[/snapback]

 

Light the lamp...HE SCORES!

[Adam]

Why stop there?  Please serenade us with the enlightening vomitous of the rest of the crew: Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Robertson and O'Reilly.  Afterall, they have the "IQ under 5" demographic sowed up so by all means, share with the rest of us the musings of your idols.

 

Really, you finally have us nailed.  Just last week here at Liberal Central Planning, hidden deep within the paranoid recesses of Mount Morons Will Believe Anything, I personally approved plans to distribute pills to be placed in municpal water supplies that will instantly turn unsuspecting, flag waving, red blooded, God talking, intellgently designed, doctor killing, clinic firebombing, fag hating Americans into homosexual, Jesus hating, atheist, evolutionist, muslim terrorists.

 

And we would have gotten away with it too if hadn't been for you meddling Malkinized kids.  Curses.

544521[/snapback]

Those people are funny! They make little sense, but funnier than MTV

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No, but we have treaties with them that forbid spying on their diplomats.  The NSA and the CIA are bound by those treaties.

544639[/snapback]

 

 

In the history of the planet, what entity has ever said "We can't do that; we have a treaty."?

 

And personally, I know of no treaty that forbids spying on diplomats. I can't believe any nation would willingly hamstring themselves by agreeing to that sort of clause.

[Adam]

 

In the history of the planet, what entity has ever said "We can't do that; we have a treaty."?

 

And personally, I know of no treaty that forbids spying on diplomats.  I can't believe any nation would willingly hamstring themselves by agreeing to that sort of clause.

544731[/snapback]

Give it up CTM- people will always look for reasons to complain, even when its nonsensical. These people would rather be attacked than spy on people who may do them harm

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Give it up CTM- people will always look for reasons to complain, even when its nonsensical. These people would rather be attacked than spy on people who may do them harm

544751[/snapback]

 

Of course, his point was that we were spying on people who didn't intend to do us harm, not terrorists.

 

Again...reading comprehension...

[Adam]

Of course, his point was that we were spying on people who didn't intend to do us harm, not terrorists. 

 

Again...reading comprehension... 

544756[/snapback]

Still- if they have information on people who intend to harm us, the result is the same. If they aren't going to harm us, and have no information, then they have nothing to worry about.

 

We have every right to spy, or do whatever we want

[RI Bills Fan]

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Valerie Plame doing overseas?

544687[/snapback]

 

Do you have a link to any source that says she traveled as a diplomat? I thought her cover was entirely different...

[RI Bills Fan]

Light the lamp...HE SCORES!

544689[/snapback]

 

Too bad the goal was waived off after further review...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Too bad the goal was waived off after further review... 

544823[/snapback]

 

What, because YOU say so?

 

I'm sorry, I'll take GG's word over yours.