digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at abcnews.go.com —

Exclusive: Inside Account of US Eavesdropping on Americans

abcnews.go.com — Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • temptxan, on 10/09/2008, -5/+194Trust us, the government said. We will not abuse the powers given to us to spy on terrorists. Guess everyone is a terrorist. What has happened to our Constitution. Whistle blowers are true patriots.
    • mrraven200, on 10/10/2008, -4/+17Hard left, Libertarians and paleo-cons unite to take back the U.S. from the Constitution eviscerating, corporate centralist globalist bankster Dimocraps and Repiglicons.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 10/10/2008, -0/+9I
      Told
      You
      So
    • vanetta, on 10/10/2008, -8/+3Reply Abuse: While I am sure that such things probably are happening in the US, this story is just sensationalism. The article never mentions it, but it seems implied that the people being monitored were using Official DoD Phones that, under DODD 4640.6 June 26, 1981, are subject to monitoring. Those using the phones should know this as each phone is to have a "Consent to Monitoring" sticker (DD Form 2056) clearly placed on it (usually the handset) .
      • mrraven200, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Actually you can't consent to give up your 4th amendment rights, so epic fail on your part.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2008, -0/+6Why don't you ask the people who are currently running for the office of the President of the United States - each one of them voted for the act that allows the government to do what it wants (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006s ...

      Or just look at who voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php? ... and you will see that non other than BHO gave a big YES to the governments continuing to spy on its own citizens.
      • jraymilton, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3As if McCain is a paragon of civil liberties.

        It's almost as if Ron Paul was right and told us so, despite all the media bias against ANY libertarian idea whatsoever...
    • SoCalGolfGeek, on 10/10/2008, -3/+2Are tin foil hats fashionable yet?
  • Minarchian, on 10/09/2008, -6/+129How many people can coherently argue that our Country is not falling absolutely apart?

    Even though this story is comparatively timid in it's exposure of government abuse, it is still indicative of a government going outside the boundaries placed on it by the Constitution.

    Our Constitution has been mangled, marginalized and riddled so full of holes that it's practically useless to protect us from tyranny. The "4th Estate", the Press, has only rarely been doing its job in watching out for and exposing the actions of our government. All we have are a bunch of wolves running the hen house and too few organizations are there to keep them at bay.

    Unless people start standing up, in unison, we'll be living under a vicious dictatorship in less than a decade.
    • mrraven200, on 10/10/2008, -2/+26Less than a decade? Tell that to the people of Iraq and New Orleans, or those about to be foreclosed on and dragged out of their houses by the cops despite the fact that the banksters caused the economic meltdown, or the journalist beat and imprisoned by the cops at the RNC. We may not be in Hitler territory but we certainly ramping up to Mussolini territory quite rapidly.

      Crony capitalism=corporatism=fascism and the knives are out, hint the military is being deployed in the fatherlan... err I mean homeland as we speak:

      "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

      http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homelan ...
    • yolanda1222, on 10/10/2008, -3/+10no doubt. and though the coming years will be truly horrific, as a history grad student I really do appreciate living through such an epochal moment in history. It's going to suck more than anyone can imagine. But as terrible as global war always is, in no way is it ever boring.
      • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -2/+12It is always exciting, for a person like you or me who wants to understand the fall of empires, to be alive at the moment it happens.

        I always wanted to understand how the Roman Empire collapsed. Or how all those other civilizations failed. The Abyssynians, the Mycenians, the Egyptians, etc.

        Why does it always seem to happen?

        Now I get a front row seat.

        How nice. I think I would prefer to remain at an academic level, instead of being in a position where I have a front row seat.
      • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -1/+6I understand exactly how you two feel about this. I've long wanted to be able to participate in something greater than boring, average American life, and with things heating up like this, I might finally have my wish granted.
      • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4I still wanted to be at an academic level. I'm not happy with being a first-hand witness.
      • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1It's sort of hard to do that, though. No account of history is never all that accurate.
      • aggies11, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3I was hoping for something more like the Zombie Apocalypse though. Economic ruin and social collapse just isn't nearly as interesting.
      • yolanda1222, on 10/11/2008, -0/+0yeah zombie apocalypse would be totally exciting. but it would smell really, really bad.
    • 41k1d0k4, on 10/10/2008, -1/+10As long as we have the "US vs THEM", "Red vs Blue", etc politics; we will never be able to stand together.
      • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -4/+1True enough. That's why someone is going to have to win.
      • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4If someone has to win, someone has to lose.

        Why does it have to be such a hate filled way of doing things?

        I can think of how I can produce my goods and sell them to someone, and buy someone else's goods, and he can buy goods from someone else, and we can all benefit. I don't know why it has to be about crushing someone, and being more powerful than everyone else.

        I don't like the story we're told by the TV stations owned by the hypercapitalists. Why do you like that story?
      • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2The point of those who seek freedom winning is to hopefully prevent anyone from having to lose ever again.

        The fact is that some people want to keep everything they have for themselves. These kinds of people have to be corrected. That's just how it is.
    • Lomstradamus, on 10/10/2008, -2/+5We already have been living under a dictatorship for the last 8 years.
      • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -2/+8It's a soft dictatorship, and it hasn't just been the last 8 years.

        Ever since we won the second world war, we've been living with a system of government that has grown to create a cold war against Russia, and imported the scientists of the nazi regime, as well as some of the officials who created the nazi regime.


    • osiris24x, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2I have a buddy who is quite intelligent otherwise, but he swears up and down that the USA is just the greatest place in the world and that basically nothing is wrong with our country today.

      It absolutely baffles me that he believes that, especially given the ever-increasing posts on Digg about the US collapsing.
      • mrraven200, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1It's called denial. After all it's all good until YOUR job is out sourced right? If you friend loses his job watch him scream like a stuck pig about fascism and the end is near, watch and see.
      • Matricul8tr, on 10/14/2008, -1/+1Usually, people like that have never even been outside the country and have a TV worldview. I have a friend like that too, I just have to ask him, "How do you know?
      • Petrarch1603, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1matricula8r: That is odd because he is talking about me and I dont even own a tv. I have been to three continents and a dozen countries, so you shouldn't generalize.
  • ssn697, on 10/09/2008, -2/+59Who is really surprised by this?
    • UnFriendlyFire, on 10/09/2008, -1/+30I'm surprised its on the MSM.
    • swrostmore, on 10/09/2008, -1/+16I know I'm not, I heard about it in May on Democracy Now. It's about time the dinosaur MSM picked it up.
    • DestroyFascism, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4Give a fool politician with a personal agenda the tools to do anything and he will...
      Him and his Lawyer mates living in Ivory towers and all of them think you are fodder, because that's how you are..you let them do it!
  • Haecceity, on 10/09/2008, -1/+59I'm willing to bet that most people who support this kind of thing also say that government should get out of our lives.
    • oldhick, on 10/09/2008, -3/+31Obama and McCain both voted to extend Patriot Act powers and to give immunity to the Telecos...
    • poet, on 10/10/2008, -9/+1More government means closer and closer to socialism and oligarchy.
      So you're the kind of person who supports socialism and tyranny?
      • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -3/+6Socialism is actually normally associated with less government.
      • dfeifer, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately socialism in our world has been presented to most as a socialistic society governed by a communistic body. Socialism in itself has many valid and good points, but most will only see that bad that has been portrayed to them over the years. Unfortunately, In this day and age, a true socialistic society can never exist because there is always someone that wants something that others don't or can't have.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Equating Socialism with tyranny is like saying that a snake and a turtle are the same thing because they are both reptiles.

        There is such a thing as a Right-Wing capitalist dictatorship/oligarchy.
        There is such a thing as Democratic socialism.
        There is such a thing as a Mixed economy.
        You can buy stock in some state owned foreign companies.
        Some of the most conservative 1800s Republicans expanded the civil service and broke up trusts.
        The U.S. Military is socialist by nature, So you're the kind of person who doesn't support our troops?

        Quit looking at the world in black and white.
      • poet, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1It's sad that all of you don't even know the definition of socialism.
        You should read up on communism, socialism, national socialism, and fascism so that you can tell the difference next time.

        @Infidelcastr0: I don't support war, however I do sympathize with and support fellow civilians enslaved into the global MIC. I wasn't equating, I was stating co-existence. Furthermore, you should analyze the political spectrum and notice that it starts at 100% gov't control (left-wing) and ends at 0% gov't control (right-wing). Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism all sit at the farthest reach of the left-wing. Anarchy obviously at the farthest of the right-wing, with Democracy in the middle and a Republic a little more right-leaning.
        America was founded as a republic, not a democracy. If we were a democracy then there would be majority rules mandate in trials, but that is ruled as a no-contest unless it's unanimous. Also, the president would be elected by the popular vote--which works pretty well as a way to make people think their vote counts--not an electoral college.
  • sheetrock, on 10/09/2008, -5/+30There's some consternation in the article about the fact that all the calls were transcribed, not just the ones that seemed pertinent at the time.

    Well, that's a big difference between a conventional wiretap and a dragnet. The nice thing about the latter is that, if they've got piles of transcripts on a computer somewhere, they can search them and maybe spot important connections between individuals that they wouldn't notice otherwise. Or go back through everything after an event to see if there is added relevance to any of the communication.

    In a war zone, it makes sense to monitor everything they can get their hands on -- especially now with the assistance of computers to sort and filter. But I'm amazed at the number of people who have no problem with the concept of bringing this technology home into our everyday lives. Even if you're a bland and uninteresting person, with similarly bland and uninteresting phone conversations... who's to say whether ten or twenty years from now those same conversations of yours become incriminating through a radically different political lens?
    • neurobox, on 10/09/2008, -1/+12Or 3 months from now?
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2The transcripts are created automatically by computer translation software of every call of interest. The audio is also available linked to the file.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Got to keep all those "Homeland Security" sucking up your tax dollars. Makes it look like people are employed doing something instead of just hamster wheeling money back and forth.

      Graft takes many forms. Government busy work to subcontractors (or run by cronies) friendly to the administration is a classic one.
  • duggtodeath, on 10/09/2008, -3/+36wow
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This comment has been approved by the DHS Version 1.0.7. Visit us online at dhs.gov
  • mcarrel, on 10/09/2008, -1/+69Now, wait a sec. Bush told us a wire tap 'requires a court order' and 'constitutional guarantees are in place'. He wouldn't lie to us, would he? Oh yeah.... that's right he would.

    Every time someone says we need to surrender some rights in order to be safe from terrorists, I think of what Ben Franklin said, 'Those who would give up liberty for safety, deserve neither.'
    • McHoffa, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Smart man Mr. Franklin was.... I like this quote
      "...I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
      I think the people are almost to that point... the general public is asking for this government...
  • InfectiousD, on 10/09/2008, -2/+42You know how they got that Ben Franklin quote? They tapped his cell phone.
  • SifuMoKung, on 10/09/2008, -1/+51War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
    • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -0/+6We've always been at war with eastasia, and friends with westasia. That is, of course, until we were at war with Westasia, and obviously, we were never at war with eastasia, but have always been at war with westasia.
  • Wosat, on 10/09/2008, -24/+3The title and description overstate the issue. The eavesdropping happened to people calling the US from HOT SPOTS in the Middle East on SATELLITE PHONES. The article makes it clear that many of intercepted calls were from US military personnel, not civilians.

    This program might have even helped us catch Bin Laden if traitorous institutions like the New York Times hadn't broadcasted that we were listening in to satellite phone calls.
    • Mediamoron, on 10/09/2008, -2/+13Glad to see someone still has the party line in mind.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -5/+3Party line? Care to dispute anything I said, jackass?

        I'm concerned about privacy rights and am against warrant-less domestic surveillance, but I don't see anything terribly untoward here. I'd prefer if records weren't kept of obviously private and innocuous conversations, but this seems like a focused effort targeting satellite phones being used in a region full of enemies. If surveillance of these foreign calls saves lives, I think it's worth it.
    • VeryBoredNow, on 10/10/2008, -3/+9You deserve to live in fear of TERRIST' being that stupid. Do you realize that some idiots in a cave have turned this countries government on it's own people? Can you comprehend that? This is what they wanted. And ask yourself, HOW many terrorists have they caught this way?
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -8/+3If you read the article, you'll see that terrorists HAVE been caught and troops' lives HAVE been saved.
      • VeryBoredNow, on 10/10/2008, -3/+7Some times, Kinne and Faulk said, the intercepts helped identify possible terror planning in Iraq and saved American lives.

        - These calls were not made from the US, I'll bet my life on it.
      • SecureXeC, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4"- These calls were not made from the US, I'll bet my life on it."

        That's why the article states phone calls being made TO the US.

        Selective reading?

        My brother is in the Marine Corps. They told him flat out that everything he said when calling home would be recorded. It's not exactly a secret. I'm sure there are some diggers here who have been to Iraq and used said phones to call home that would agree.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Wosat--are you Ann Coulter?
    • inajeep, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2So I can get the NYTimes delivered if I'm in a cave in Afganistan? Do you really think Al Q. is that stupid to think we weren't already listening? What's stupid is us trusting the govt and worse, your defending losing your freedom.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Do I think Al Qaeda was using satellite phones before the NY Times ran their story? No, I know they were. The military has gone on record in saying we had listened in on Al Qaeda conversations before it was released that we were listening to every call, prompting a high-level directive from AQ leadership to stop all use of sat phones. This is a matter of record.

        Let's be clear, I'm defending surveillance of satellite phones in a war zone. *I* am not using a satellite phone in the middle east, so this has nothing to do with my freedom or your freedom. I'm actually against warrant-less domestic wiretapping, so stop trying to shove this all-or-nothing dichotomy down my throat.
  • oldhick, on 10/09/2008, -4/+33We can thank Obama and McCain for voting to authorize this as well as immunize teleco's from any responsibility. Which ever one you vote for, your gonna get real change alright!!!
    • swrostmore, on 10/09/2008, -3/+17This was done under Bush's illegal "TSP", operational from 2002 to 2007 until it's disclosure forced it to be discontinued. It was never authorized by Congress, and it's blatant illegality nearly caused the entire leadership of the DOJ to resign. The best information suggests it was enacted on behalf of the Office of the Vice President. The House and Senate intelligence committee leadership knew of it but did not know the details. Yes, the major party candidates have voted for unconstitutional surveillance and allowed telecoms to skate for violating surveillance law, but that is a whole 'nother issue.
      • oldhick, on 10/09/2008, -4/+10What was it that the Teleco's needed immunity for and which candidates supported it?
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2008, -3/+13What part of "never authorized by Congress" is confusing to you?
      • oldhick, on 10/10/2008, -3/+7Point taken and I apologize. But he did support the Patriot Act, and why did he support Teleco immunity?
      • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3It's called a COMPROMISE. When you don't have a veto proof majority in the house AND senate, it's what politics is all about. Ahem.
      • repins, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5so you sacrifice what you know is right, in the hopes that somehow the other side will do it for you later?

        that sounds like so much BS, if it is the right thing to do you stand on your principals at least then you can say "i voted against it", not "i voted for what i knew was wrong, because someday i might get something else i want"
      • Ljay90, on 10/10/2008, -2/+1The new FISA bill doesn't grant instant immunity, the immunity has to be granted by the courts, who conduct their own investigation. If they find anything that they thing the Teleco's need to be help accountable for, they won't grant immunity.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1A president got us into this mess; the next one, Obama, can get us out, or at least start the process. Obama's repeatedly accused of being a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer. If he'd voted no, he'd be done by now--his bar of achievement is infinitely higher than Hillary's or Johnny-boy's. You choose your battles wisely, then go back and re-do later.
  • BowieX, on 10/09/2008, -11/+3***** AMERICA! DESTROY AMERICA! TERRORISM TO AMERICA!!! ASSASSINATE BUSH! DEATH TO AMERICAN POLITICIANS!!

    Yep, you heard me. Come and get me, CIA.
    • yolanda1222, on 10/10/2008, -1/+5If you're trying to destroy America, the last thing you want to do is assassinate Bush. Trust me, give him four more years and we'll destroy ourselves. The terrorists can take a well-deserved break and do, well, whatever they do when they're not terroristing.
      • BowieX, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Good point. Serenity now, serenity now.
  • swrostmore, on 10/09/2008, -1/+53"Exclusive?" This story was a Democracy Now! Exclusive 5 months ago...
    http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/13/fmr_military ...

    ***** you, MSM. Independent media owns you yet again.
  • Insightful, on 10/09/2008, -1/+37Unauthorized surveillance i.e. without warrant is "is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_0 ...

    "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
    -Nixon, May 19th, 1977
    -Bush, Cheney, most Republicans, 2000-2008
  • Hetman, on 10/09/2008, -1/+34Who would have guessed that passing laws that circumvent the 4th amendment would lead to a loss of civil liberties. Anytime you give the government more power it is going to turn out badly, Power corrupts. And guess what they are not going to freely give that power back. Regardless if Obama or McCain wins in this election year. FISA and The Patriot act will never be overturned by any President.
  • monsterette, on 10/09/2008, -1/+5....yep.
  • THETEH, on 10/09/2008, -2/+31After all, if I was a terrorist, the first thing I'd do is call somebody overseas and loudly discuss my evil plans when I knew I could be easily listened in on.

    Ridiculous.
    • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6The terrorists who bombed the world trade center tried to get their deposit back for the rental truck.

      Criminals are dumber than you might imagine.
    • Matricul8tr, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I travel to the middle east every year in my job, got anyone you want called?
  • Wosat, on 10/09/2008, -11/+3We're listening to satellite phone calls from certain parts of the Middle East. Didn't the New York Times blow the whistle on this years ago? Isn't that why Bin Laden stopped using satellite phones?
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2I think Bin Laden stopped using satellite phones because he discovered phone sex wasn't very satisfactory.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1LOL

        There's a Saturday Night Live sketch there somewhere.
  • FrankHope, on 10/09/2008, -1/+17I wonder if the "Justice" dept. will invoke the State Secrets Privilege to silence them like they did with Sibel Edmonds.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
  • poprocksandsoda, on 10/10/2008, -24/+3As an American who has lived overseas nearly 5 of the last 7 years ... I have no issue with this. For a number of reasons:

    1. I have nothing to hide
    2. I believe that our government is acting in good faith
    3. If it saves American lives, they can listen to me order McDonalds delivery in Asia, me call my mom in the States, etc.

    You people are paranoid. There is no secret government. There is no one out there "to get you". If you live a decent and lawful life you have nothing to fear.
    • wishninja, on 10/10/2008, -1/+13god you're a douche please do america a big favor and stay overseas. And take you're mom with you.
      • poprocksandsoda, on 10/10/2008, -18/+2Ha ha ... funny (looking over his palacial 3 story apartment with scenic view in a major US city). I am rolling 3 luxury sleds too by the way. Scoreboard.
      • thePuck77, on 10/10/2008, -0/+9poprocksandsoda...so you are wealthy and you support the spying on American citizens in violation of the Constitution by the Bush administration?

        /rolls eyes

        No! You don't say!
      • wishninja, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1100% clueless douche
    • mrraven200, on 10/10/2008, -1/+11poprocksandsoda you really think merely being innocent will save you, you *****?

      Tell that to the totally innocent Maher Arar who was swiped from Canada by American officials and then flown to Syria to be tortured. Once the government takes the law into its own hands ALL are crushed innocent and guilty:

      "A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

      The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities about their plans for Mr. Arar before transporting him to Syria.

      “I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada,” Justice Dennis R. O’Connor, head of the commission, said at a news conference.

      The report’s findings could reverberate heavily through the leadership of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which handled the initial intelligence on Mr. Arar that led security officials in both Canada and the United States to assume he was a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist. "

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/1 ...

      Read that article and think before you run your pie hole again, M'K? Then after that read 1984 and think some more, and then read the whole Constitution including the bill of rights and think yet more and don't come back to the U.S. until you understand the 4th amendment to the bill of rights of the Constitution.
      • GRTWHT, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5"poprocksandsoda you really think merely being innocent will save you, you *****?"

        Nope, I'm betting that he (along with a LOT of others) think that being wealthy and 'connected' will keep them above "safe" (no huge leap there, it's always worked in the past).

        The problem with this thinking is that the people in power continually change their opinion of who matters and who doesn't. The time will come when those that feel "safe" today will be the "paranoid" of tomorrow - unless they just never figure it out and finish their lives wondering, "What happened!?"
    • sentime, on 10/10/2008, -0/+8what a dumb douche bag you are
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4So you won't mind if we listen in when you make sweet whoopee with your signifcant other...can we watch too?

  • VeryBoredNow, on 10/10/2008, -1/+22This is horrible. I bet that they have not caught ONE terrorist with this ridiculous approach but have humiliated tons of Americans. The invasion of privacy is on a whole other level. When I came to this country from Bosnia the US Constitution was the most beautiful concept I could imagine. Freedom. Pursuit of happiness. Fair trials. Where hard work pays off, there was nothing in the world like the US. Then 911 happened and instead of us showing the terrorist that they can not change the American way, no matter what they do, the administration did the opposite. They did more damage to our freedoms than any terrorist could ever do. Shame on everyone who was involved with this. I wish we could go back in time and bring the WWII troops into this time. I bet they would unleash a can of whoop ass on Washington like you've never seen. I hope the next president can take the US on the right path again. Show everyone that a group of men LIVING IN CAVES will never ever make us disregard our most valued possession which are the freedoms promised to us. This has truly made me sad. American people are better than this, I know it.
    • Endit, on 10/10/2008, -0/+9This is what the terrorists wanted. They already won. The towers was just a catalyst and them putting on a show.
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2008, -0/+10If you think the object is to catch terrorists, you haven't really caught on yet.
    • Matricul8tr, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1America is experiencing a, so far non-violent, insider coup. Don't worry, there's an 8 year time limit to complete such things here, that's still in place and nearly expired. There's gonna be Hell to pay for it soon and they know it and are afraid. It's a nice little idiot trap that's snaring a few nice tasty idiots. The closer they get to success, the wider awake the population becomes, then out of time and out of power and a pissed off population howls for blood as details are exposed
  • roosevans, on 10/10/2008, -2/+12From The Article:
    "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.


    Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."


    • wishninja, on 10/10/2008, -3/+2in 90% of your comments all you do is copy and paste text from "From the Article"
      ...and you get big diggs.
      just say'n
  • netneutrality, on 10/10/2008, -1/+16"The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), called the allegations 'extremely disturbing'"

    You mean more like "blatantly illegal". But what in hell's name did they expect when they gave the government that kind of power?
  • SetOverSet, on 10/10/2008, -10/+4Um, if you are in the armed forces, the government has a right to listen to your conversations. They own your ass.
  • asherchang, on 10/10/2008, -1/+17NSA operators are sharing and saving recordings of US officers' phone sex with their spouses at home? That perfectly shows how if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in losing your privacy.

    Ok, so from now on, since most people aren't hiding cocaine balloons in their rectum, no one should have a problem with cameras being installed in every single toilet in America.
    • inajeep, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2I say bypass the toilet and shove up straight up everyone's ass. Starting with the current administration. I got a large full size VHS tape camcorder that can use on Cheney. Don't forget the extra capacity batteries.
  • AugustusOsari, on 10/10/2008, -2/+6Just more evidence that the Constitution is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.

    Only the People can decide where this country, or any country, will go. Believing in and relying on the promise of a decaying old document was the first great mistake.
    • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -10/+1Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution.
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2008, -1/+9illegal search and seizure is.

        The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

        http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c ...
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -9/+1Thanks for the cut-and-paste, but the courts have focused on whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. I'd argue that no expectation of privacy should exist when using a satellite phone in the middle east, and the courts agree with me.
      • thePuck77, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3Wosat...actually, they don't. That's why there is a news report, and that's why the spying program was stopped. It is illegal. The courts don't agree with you.

        In fact, from what I can see, no one agrees with you...
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1@thePuck77

        What are you talking about? You mention a news report. What news report are you talking about, because this article does not say the program has been shut down, nor does it mention that any court has ruled the program illegal. On the contrary, there exists legal president to its legality. What court cases are you talking about?

        About no one agreeing with me, I could care less. I'm not trying to win some kind of digg popularity contest, nor do I consider the group-think so prevalent here at digg as some kind of ideal I should be concerned with.
  • wishninja, on 10/10/2008, -2/+13FISA makes this stuff law. I knew McCain hates freedom but Obama surprised me. I still love Ron Paul.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2008, -10/+2ron paul doesn't believe in the right to privacy either. they all suck.
    • yolanda1222, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5As much as I despise FISA, I think Obama probably felt obligated to vote for it simply because it would hurt his campaign not to. The McCain camp already shrills about his alleged weakness towards terrorism, and we would never hear the end of how Obama loves terrorists using our phone lines to do terroristy things. Obama is, after all, a politican.

      Still, not cool, but if Obama wins the presidency I think the ends will justify the questionable means here.
      • Izult, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3Really? it hurt his campaign more to vote for it in my book. I'm not the only one that changed their mind on if to vote for him due to his vote.
    • yolanda1222, on 10/10/2008, -10/+4also, I'm a libertarian and I think Ron Paul is a very good congressman. He's a little bit on the ***** crazy racist side, but his policies are brilliant and very well argued.

      I'm voting Democrat for the first time, simply because I believe that the survival of the United States will hinge on this election.
    • skmckinny, on 10/10/2008, -5/+3McCain does not hate freedom. McCain's is consistent with the position he has taken on homeland security.

      Obama's vote is the surprise vote, for sure.. it is inconsistent with his campaign trail promises to filibuster, etc.... and it tells you he is power-hungry.
      • wishninja, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1When McCain starting endorsing torture that totally wigged me out. and he is doing it for votes. Its the main reason I slam him so hard every chance I get. That and his flip flop in the immigration issues is the reason he lags in the polls today.

        I think Obama's vote was nasty too. But TORTURE! that's something bush and his bunch should go to prison for justified or not only martyrs can do such a thing, its taboo even if it is for the greater good.
  • mgremovalunit, on 10/10/2008, -2/+7They only drop the gas price to avoid revolution. I am starting to think the government is not FTPBTP. (for the people....
  • toetagger, on 10/10/2008, -2/+14Your government is the terrorists.
  • iloveobama, on 10/10/2008, -4/+17Barack Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act. Change we can believe in!
  • mrzack, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5Aha see, I told you so. !!! 11/9 = boJ edisnI
  • pintomp3, on 10/10/2008, -2/+21bush hates us for our freedoms.
  • Infowarmachine, on 10/10/2008, -1/+16im sure they are doing far more than this
  • Shipyaad, on 10/10/2008, -1/+13I don't want my civil liberties to be "respected," George, I want them to be "inviolate."
  • JFetch, on 10/10/2008, -1/+11I have a feeling this wasn't about catching terrorists, but finding out what the soldiers think about the war and if they are telling people they aren't happy about what is going on there.
  • rockanomicon, on 10/10/2008, -1/+18Looks like the guys with the tin-foil hats aren't quite as "out-there" as previously thought. 20 years ago, if someone would have said the government is going to be listening in on our phone calls, and redeploying troops within America, they would've been ran out of town.

    Are we going to wait another 20 years before we do anything about it?
  • bincoder, on 10/10/2008, -16/+4Oh boo-hoo.
    If you happen to be a tourist in a known warzone you do not meet the profile of the other 99.99999999% of the population, and you deserve to be monitored. Doesn't matter if you are from Virginia, North Korea, China, or beautiful downtown Bagdad.
    If that sucks, don't visit Bagdad, try spending some money in a nice US vacation spot instead. (the people there are nicer)
    If you happen to be a soldier in the US military or anything involving NATO, too bad. You are owned anyway. I bet you can still get a court marshall just for allowing yourself (aka government property) to get a sunburn. If you don't want to be US government property, don't join the military, instead get a nice job at McDonalds.
    Is that like... too complicated to understand? Dude??
    Sorry but the only way to intercept communications is to intercept them, and listen to them. No bitching and whining that it violates (anyones including) Bin Ladens privacy.
    The only thing I don't like about this entire thing is the waste of time and resources to listen in on peeps getting laid. I understand the job must be as boring as hell, but please do not waste Americas time and money on your own amusement.
    One person listening in is plenty, no need to redirect the entire office to listening to the same convo for simple laughs and giggles.
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2008, -3/+5So you think that just meeting a "profile" justifies probable cause of a crime?

      The 4th amendment requires that that there be probable cause before you can search someone, or listen in on their calls.

      You are not an American. Go move over to China, you'd feel right at home there.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -5/+2No, listening in to calls is not mentioned in the constitution.

        If the people being surveilled were to send a package to the US, it would be sniffed, scanned, and opened if suspicious -- and that's actual property! In this case, we're talking about bits of information being sent thousands of miles through space! If you want to argue that these electromagnetic pulses are somehow property, then be my guest, but take your pompous misreading of the constitution and accusations of anti-Americanism elsewhere because I'm not buying it and neither do most of the Supreme Court judges.
    • malex, on 10/10/2008, -3/+6Get the hell out of my country.
      • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -4/+2Yeah! No dissenting speech allowed here! /massive sarcasm
      • SlimFastForYou, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4You shouldn't be getting dugg down. After reading the article, I knew that there would be a handful of ***** who would blame the individual employees for giggling at other people's sex talks. As if the problem is bad hiring practices. It's ***** human nature, with a system like that operators are bound to find some crazy ass calls, and of course they're going to want to share them with friends. It's not a few bad apples that's the problem, it's the whole system and idea itself!

        I knew someone who modified an analog cell phone (those old ones) to listen in on frequencies that had calls in progress. He was a musician too and in the late 90's (before Georgy was President and when warrentless government wiretaps were unheard of) he made a song called "Phone Tap" - because the lady on the phone started joking that her phone might be tapped and she said her home address over the call in jest (little did she know ;).

        Seriously though, leave it to the douchebags to blame it all on the whisleblowers. Of course this is widespread, and the whisleblowers are almost certainly doing it 10x less than the amoral majority of bureaucrats. We need smaller government, if only we could have a Republican for the office of President. Oh, wait! He accidentally our principles.
    • vladin, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

      http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.h ...

    • TheDarkTrumpet, on 10/10/2008, -1/+4Holy crap your comment makes me sick.

      Having been around the military most of my life, how can you say that the military are the equivalent of owned garbage? Can you give a bit more respect to the men and women who serve and die for your freedoms?

      Yes, military people deserve to be treated like an American too.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2Some people spew forth such utter nonsense. Like bincoder.
    • impei, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2So if 99.99999999% of the population are not terrorists that means that there are a total of 0.66 terrorists in the entire world that need to be monitored.
  • gehofff, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1Wow, what a shocker.
  • PhilLesh69, on 10/10/2008, -3/+8If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?

    Apparently, you might get a little bit embarassed when the NSA is recording your telephone calls between you, the soldier in Iraq, and your wife back at home. Especially when they are passing your call around the office to make fun of your sweet talk with your girlfriend or wife back home.

    I guess we should all be proud that a staff sergeant in Bagdhad was made fun of by a mid-level analyst at the NSA who instant messaged all of his co-workers to listen to his personal emails or text messages with his wife.

    I think once you volunteer to serve your country, you should know that you have agreed to entertain government workers, and if you say the wrong thing, then you should be sent to gitmo.
  • Andyschism, on 10/10/2008, -3/+9Its sad to see so many people commenting on the very idea that we should have no rights until the terrorists are caught. You are not an American.
    • Wosat, on 10/10/2008, -4/+1Way to rock the hyperbole. That should win you lots of diggs.
  • defconoi, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1As far as I know when you are a us Soldier, all your privacy is signed off, I hope im wrong, also wait until www.eff.org hears this!
  • skmckinny, on 10/10/2008, -1/+7And Obama voted YES on FISA. Hillary voted NO.
  • waluum, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4That the phone calls were listened to in the first place is what is most worrying. However, the blatant disregard for the seriousness of the work on the part of the operators by treating it so casually is more of a case of poor integrity among low-level employees - a sign of the times, perhaps. As shameful as they are, and as much as they should not be ignored, low-level abuses like this are difficult to prevent from the ranks.

    However, the offenses against our Constitution of late are bordering unforgivable. If this continues it will only maximize the impact of the inevitable uprising.
  • MacBookForMe, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1With 'proper tools' and needed 'legalized authority' one could create as many terrorists as wanted...
    (that's very scary and is close to Communist dictatorial regimes)
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/10/2008, -6/+5Overseas. Overseas. Overseas. American law does not apply overseas. You people go ballistic when we are perceived as "unilaterally" spreading American democracy to other countries. But you want every country under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. That is not only shallow thinking, but irrational.
    • LenBaird, on 10/10/2008, -3/+3They were talking to people in this country. So, unless they had filtering software to erase the domestic half of the conversation as it happened, it is illegal, felony wiretapping.
      • LoneRanger85, on 10/10/2008, -6/+4The taps were placed OVERSEAS. What, you are saying there is nobody in this country who hates America and wants to overthrow the government? Does the name Ayers mean anything to you?
      • jimw428, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1"They were talking to people in this country. So, unless they had filtering software to erase the domestic half of the conversation as it happened, it is illegal, felony wiretapping."

        WRONG!
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1Overseas is irrevelant. American citizen is relevant. This isn't about spreading democracy, this is about our rights as citizens of this nation.
  • daonlyfreez, on 10/10/2008, -2/+3As disturbing as this might be (it is), this has been going on since communication existed. International phone calls are "always" listened into, every government who says it doesn't is lying. The methods for analysing have sophisticated, sure, but for example the cold-war "commie hunting" 50's are not too long ago, do you remember what they did then, and you somehow think they don't do that no more?

    Ah, the gullible...
  • jimw428, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2What a surprise, NSA is monitoring phone calls in a war zone. Ask anyone who received a letter from a war zone during WWII if it was censored. If you're living or working in a war zone and you expect your phone and other communications to remain unmonitored, you're simply naive.
    • thePuck77, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1Or you know...expecting that the values you are fighting for mean something and won't be abandoned for conveniences sake.
  • repins, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5There is a very strong precedent for this kind of thing. The Government was allowed to open mail coming from and going to other countries during WW2. Even these people admit the calls where either originating in or terminating in foreign countries.

    If FISA had not been passed the people might have a leg to stand on, unfortunately our leaders have failed us. Most disappointing was Obama who claimed in the run up to the bill that he was not only going to vote against it...but actually said he would filibuster it....then voted for it

  • JamesMatt, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5ECHELON
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
  • areyouserious, on 10/10/2008, -11/+1I dont have anything to hide....Do you?
    • ethaberecht, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4Not. The. Point.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4Areyouserious--I'm assuming you won't mind if I listen in on your private conversations with friends, family, coworkers, etc.

      There's "anything to hide" and then there's privacy. Do you know the difference? Apparently not.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.