Another NSA Program?:
The United Press International reports that former NSA employee Russell Tice, who has been in the news recently as one of the leakers of the NSA surveillance program, is now saying that there is another "more wide-ranging program" beyond the one disclosed by the New York Times in December:
UPDATE: I edited this after posting.
A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans' Constitutional rights.This disclosure is consistent with Attorney General Gonzales's strong hint before the Senate Judiciary Committee that there are other telecommunications surveillance programs beyond the one disclosed by the Times.
Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a "special access" electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrentless [sic] wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.
Tice said he believes it violates the Constitution's protection against unlawful search and seizures but has no way of sharing the information without breaking classification laws. He is not even allowed to tell the congressional intelligence committees - members or their staff - because they lack high enough clearance.
UPDATE: I edited this after posting.
I realized that there can be legitimate concerns, but seriously, at what point are these people just damaging our national security by using such public forums to express their disagreement?
Seriously, why not just list everything along with a handy manual for Al-Qaeda on how to NOT get caught.
You should read Newsweek's 9/8/75 article, called "No Place to Hide," about the NSA's domestic and foreign surveillance activities. It sounds like a redux of the current controversy -- technology outrunning the law, etc. -- if you substitute "terrorists" for "Soviet Union".
Here's the link:
www.bugsweeps.com/info/newswk9-8-75.html
The more things change . . . .
What's wrong with this picture?
[OK: Eric Muller's comment made me realize I was probably wrong, so I just deleted that section (along with Eric's comment, which I hope is okay with Eric).]
I agree -- whatever the details of the program are, they don't need to be publicized.
I think its our culture rather than our rigorous adherence to warrants and probable cause the protects us against fascism.
Errr...how about we ask the government, instead, to, ya know, STOP BREAKING THE LAW
Enough, I think I've finally got it figured out.
How does admitting we have a program tell the enemy anything? We've admitted to having a CIA, does that tell us anything about how it works? Of course not. The rantings of conservatives about how any or all of this disrupts national security by admitting we have secret programs for spying are logically specious and just another partisan attack line to call anyone who is critical unpatriotic.
The obvious point that the phony-outraged defenders of these programs will never admit is this: Al-Qaida knows we are after them and trying to infiltrate them. They're not so stupid as to make the following phone call:
"Ahmed, how are you? How is America? Don't you love being a citizen?"
"Abdul, being a citizen is great! Haven't heard from you in so long, death to America, death to America.... so can you e-mail me a copy of your plan to destroy Coit Tower? Bill O'Reilly said it was OK by him!"
"Ahmed, sure, let me FAX it over, what's the country code for the U.S. again? It's so hard to dial on Osama's antiquated Fax machine here at 125 Evildoer Lane, Cave #23, Pakistan."
"Abdul, oh, I totally know, he just won't upgrade that thing! By the way, did you *67 this call? Wouldn't want that U.S. government listening in!"
It doesn't go like that and they aren't that stupid, people. It's not an excuse to break a very specific law granting and both limiting power to the president to yell "we need this" and then act like Congress, even in closed session, is owed no explanation.
Nothing will please me more than the day the editor and publisher and author at the NYT regarding the NSA story are all frog marched out of their Manhattan office building and into a waiting paddy wagon for their treasonous and criminal disclosures of national security matters. Same goes for Mr. Tice.
I will tape that video and save it for the rest of my life. I just hope the Bush administration has the guts and will to do this which so richly needs to be done.
Says the "Dog"
Criminals and terrorists are pretty stupid and behave so quite often. Look at organized crime. Your excusing treasonous and criminal disclosures of national security secrets because there was no harm (according to you) is a fallacy. Harm is not a requirement of the law. There was no harm in the Valerie Plame thing either, but Scotter Libby still had his life and career ruined for having a less than perfect memory of every conversation he ever had 2 years earlier.
Democrat Jane Harmon from the House Intelligence committee has stated and continues to state that the NSA program disclosure did GREAT HARM to the security of the country. I suspect she knows how it works better than you or I.
Says the "Dog"
Uh, who would that be? Tice was in ELINT (see the wikipedia article), not COMINT, and this was certainly a "special compartmented intelligence" program. The likelihood that he would have been read on to either program if the programs were doing content (making them COMINT) was pretty small; the likelihood that he was read onto BOTH programs is damn near zero (the whole point of compartmentation is to limit access, as a regular analyst would be very UNLIKELY to know a lot about sources); and so far it doesn't sound like there's much evidence that anyone talking about the various programs has many of the details right.
(On the other hand, if the REAL NSA program was concerned with traffic analysis or network analysis, that would be ELINT --- but that would mean no one was "wiretapping" or listening to content. That would be pretty consistent with what's been said, with what Tice has been making public about his access ... and with the diagnosis that lost Tice his clearance.)
I'm not sure that anyone has pointed this out, but ... well, duh! CIA has something around 20,000 people, NSA has, erm, lots... of course there are other programs. And of course the AG would neither want to talk about them, nor say anything that could be interpreted as saying there were no other programs.
If I understand this correctly, he is asserting that he can't tell the Intel committees in secret what he can tell the House Government Reform Subcommittee in public? I'm really beginning to think that the government shrinks who ruled this guy crazy were right on the nose.
cathy :-)
And not needing to disclose to the public is not the same as making sure that it is a power that is constitutionally available. Congress manages to appropriate for CIA without disclosing or publicly discussing numbers on the floor. Someone in the Congress can certainly be informed of a program that might violate clearly written law but might also be necessary and important.
This administration feels no one should be able to check it and that the constitution does not apply because they say it doesn't apply.
And let's stop pretending that these guys thought it was OK in the first place. FISA was rejecting some of their applications, implying that the Executive thought it needed permission. They only invented secret program A beacuse they did not like the answer they got. The defense of this was crafted out of the only card they have, "war power of the president," when called out over such a ridiculous lie.
"Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan
I will respond to your post when you stop asserting bald faced lies as known facts.
Merely saying "there's a super-broad surveillance program" surely can't be disclosing classified data.
And if it were, then there's got to be some sort of whistleblower provision, as observed upthread.
This would involve scanning content of messages and phone calls by a computer but the only output would be the communications path, or the list of people who consistently received the know “code” phrase. Would this be legal? You obviously cannot get a warrant to listen to every communication?
If the computing and translating technology were advanced enough, would this cause civil liberty or legal issues?
Thanks.
Your last post was out of bounds. If you think someone is presenting facts inaccurately, you can say so in in a civil way.
Junkyard Dog,
Please back up your assertions that
1) Tice is psychotic
2) That Tice was unfamiliar with the NSA wiretapping plan he did disclose, and turned out have accurate information.
3) That Tice is unfamiliar with the NSA wiretapping program he is now disclosing, whose accuracy seems to be in accordance with AG Gonzales's testimony.
Since your entire post relies on these three factual assertions that I find absolutely incredible, I'd like to hear a basis for each of them.
Yes I believe there is such a procedure for NSA employees to follow, and if they follow it then both the country's secrets and the person with the concerns are all protected. Tice and the others claimed to be making these leaks of national security programs and intel operations aren't following the procedures, and are just plain scum, imho.
In Tice's case, likely psychotic scum, which makes him a perfect source for the NYT and WaPo, etc.
Says the "Dog"
That was out of bounds, too. I think I need to just make a broadcast announcement: Keep in civil, EVERYONE.
My next step is to just start banning commenters left and right, and I don't want to do that. But if that's what I need to do to keep the discussion civil, that's what I'll do.
If true, this is more hype by anti-American lefties, of the sort that was used in a classic 1940's or early 1950's Florida election by George Smathers against Claude Pepper. Smathers spread rumors that Pepper's wife was a "thespian" and "matriculated".
There are only three levels of classification: confidential, secret, and top secret.
At the secret and top secret levels there are Special Access Programs (SAP's) as Tice describes. SAP's in essence require that someone get a clearance for that particular program. SAP's can be "acknowledged" (meaning the existence of the program is not classified at the level of the program) , "unacknowledged" (meaning the program "does not exist" to those who do not have access to the compartment), and "waived," meaning that the program is waived from the normal (congressional and executive) review process. Waived programs are also automatically unacknowledged and are generally reviewed personally by agency heads, the relevant inspector general, and the heads of the relevant congressional committees. The number of waived programs is severly limited.
The NYTimes program was a waived special access program (or, more properly, a waived SCI program, but its effectively the same thing), which is the highest level of secrecy possible according to existing classification rules. Tice's assertion that the program he would like to describe exists at a level of classifcaiton beyond what he can disclose to the intelligence committee could be: 1) grandstanding, 2) the fact that he could only disclose the information to the chair and ranking memeber of the committee (if it is a waived program), or 3) for some jurisdication related reason the program falls under the purview of the armed services committees and not the intelligence committees.
Tice's assertion that the Inspector General of NSA is not cleared for the program is difficult to take seriously. The only possible explanations (unless their is some secret exectuvie order on classification that contravenes existing law) are: 1) the ELINT program he was working on is actually conducted by a foreign intelligence service (or an organization of expatriot intelligence officers) for the NSA and therefore may not be a US government program as such; 2) the program in question is considered a battlespace preparation activity, in which case it is roled into a larger military operation. Clearly, there can be no battlespace preparation operations on US soil.
Not sure exactly how to take Tice's comments, especially given the fact he is talking to papers first and Congress second.
"Psychotic" is a mistake --- Tice lost his clearance after having been diagnosed with a "paraniod personality disorder," which is not in itself technically considered a psychosis. The wikipedia article on Tice (at least as of this writing) details both his ELINT background and the psychiatric diagnosis.
As far as the "superduper secret" classified information argument, please remember that Senator Rockefeller wasn't able to tell either his staffers or fellow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the NSA Wiretapping program - in that light, to the degree we have experts telling me that Tice's statement is laughable on its face seems wrong, though I admit not having their detailed knowledge.
Tice seems to be a sour grapes case. He accused a co-worker of being a communist Chinese spy, and filed papers to try to get her dismissed. When he could not prove his allegation, he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation that led to his diagnosis of having a 'paranoid personality disorder'. Upon that evaluation, his clearance was removed and he was moved to a position that was not sensitive, even though making unfounded charges against a co-worker would be grounds for dismissal. I think the reason for not firing him was, prior to his mental problems, he had been a good employee and so they were exhibiting some compassion or a sense of loyalty. He was let go when his mental condition persisted and created problems, even in the lower stress position. That is my take on the scenario that probably evolved for Tice. It is not a matter of shame for someone to eventually crack under the high-level stress of such an intelligence position. Tice has a checkered history since his employment was discontinued, which would suggest that this is simply an extension of the very problem that caused his release.
OK. So What?
There is a war on.
Loose Lips Sink Ships.
When they think that it is important for you to know about it, they will tell you. Until then, anyone who leaks information about this should be prosecuted.
O, and don't let al qaeda know that we enforce our constitution, they may change their tactics.
What I find ironic about this whole thing is that everybody in the administration acts as though it's as if it's the media's fault that these programs are on the front page. if these programs were done through the legislative process, nobody would have noticed.
unless you think osama bin laden reads teh congressional record to try to discern the legislative history behind enabling statutes.
Now if a government employee (no. 1) witnesses what he believes to be criminal act committed by another government employee (no. 2) -- even a high-level official-- should it matter that no. 2's potential criminal conduct was deemed classified?
Why shouldn't the 1st Amendment protect any person from reporting what may have been criminal conduct?
Either as "free speech" or as "petitioning the government" for redress.
Will explain thithese things to me:
(1) if this is a "waived program," then he could or could not go to the intel committee member?
(2) if he couldn't go to the intel member, then the only other option is the head of the NSA?
If this is a waived program, he could go to the chair and rankng member of the intel committee and still receive whistleblower protection.
Even if he felt that was not enough, he could tell the whole committee. Depending upon the nature of the program, this may forfeit any sort of legal protection, but it is still more responsible than going public. And if there were a real problem, the committee would probably fight for his protection in whatever way they could.
After he goes to the committee, are the committee members prohibited from disclosing it?
<rel="nofollow" href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://balkin.blogspot.com">
If the President is constitutionally authorized to execute "laws," a fortiori he is clearly authorized to execute "persons" by shooting them at his discretion.
Sorry if I got a little overheated for your tastes. I respect your desire to keep comments on a higher intellectual level. That is in fact one of the attractions of this blog.
Says the "Dog"
Right. As we know, the laws are no respecters of persons.
I don't know the specific procedures in that case, but I suspect members of congress are treated like any one else. If that is true, no individual member of the committee could go public, nor could the whole committee without following strict procedures -- at least, in principle. They might be able to disclose a violation, but certainly not reveal the nature of the program.
In practice, however, members of congressional committees have unilaterally disclosed very sensitive things in the past. The 2004 disclosure about the supposed follow on to the MISTY stealth satellite was made unilaterally by a member of a committee, breaching the law in the process. The disclosure was made because there was a deabte about the cost of the program; some members wanted to kill it but didn't have the votes; they resorted to embarassment tactics. There were a few (I believe three) congressman involved and none of them were prosecuted.
I suspect if a committee wanted to reveal something they could.
I do not know the specifics of the story, but the reason i ask are that only members of the subcommittee seem to be quoted in the article, which i admittedly skimmed.
so a further question - under a "waived" program where you are exercising whistleblower protection, are you allowed to disclosed the fact that you may have gone to the head of the agency?
Sure sounds consistent with a PPD to me.
The difficulty is that it can be a little difficult to tell the difference between a person with good instincts and a PPD in this business. (Cf, COL Flagg in MASH.)
On the other hand, I'm pretty well expert in the way classifications work --- I have done a lot of the basic work on it for secure systems evaluation for NSA. The discussion above about special access is quite complete and appears to me to be correct with two caveats:
(1) We know that Rockefeller, Pelosi, and Harman had access because they were briefed into the program. So the suggestion that Tice couldn't talk about the program to Congress because it's "too classified" seems pretty ludicrous.
(2) From my reading of the new intelligence whistleblower's act, the NSA IG is more or less automatically considered to have need to know. In any case, Tice hasn't gone to the IG or to Congress; he went to the New York Times. I think we can pretty well discount the notion that he wouldn't talk to the IG because the programs were too sensitive.
... and the interesting point about this is that this is pretty specifically what we mean when we talk about ELINT vs COMINT. It's entirely possible for there to be programs which intercept signals that can't be decrypted, but in which the existence of the signals themselves are of interest. What I've seen makes me very suspicious that there are "social network" programs in action using just the public connection information Tom talks about. Given Tice's ELINT background, ths would explain how he had any applicable access at all.
Of course, there is a "intelligence agency whistleblower's procedure" (Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998) this clown could have used if there really were criminal violations ("urgent concern": (1) a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information; (2) a false statement to the Congress on, or willful withholding from the Congress of, an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or (3) an action constituting reprisal in response to an employee's reporting of an urgent concern) taking place.
Funny, unlike Bill Clinton's Rogues Gallery, the Bush Administration is guilty until proved innocent. Go figure!
Wasn't the "buzz" "on the last one": 1. a DOMESTIC surveillance; that 2. violated the rights of millions of innocent Americans? Yep! Tice hit that one right out of the park.
I know you have a predilection for sarcastic responses that often miss the thrust of another person's remark. While Tice certainly did not go through the appropriate channels, it is quite clear that his leak referred to an extant program. And I think it is strange that you seem to find yourself vindicated on all aspects of the program, when its constitutionality has not been adjudicated by any other coordinate branch.
As for whether domestic versus international surveillance issues, we have discussed this extensively before. And the suggestion that you or I have any idea of how many people's rights have been violated.
"Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years."
This seems to have been correct, whether Tice is crazy or not. I do not hope to convince you that he is not, but unless he has grown markedly crazi<i>er</i>, it seems that this allegation should be given as much weight as the previous one.
Which doesn't seem to keep you from charging the President with "high crimes and misdemeanors", now does it? Of course, "I know you have a predilection for" accusation without evidence, so I suppose I should simply consider the source.
Buzzzzzz!
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
"as many as five hundred people in the United States at any given time and it potentially has access to the phone calls and e-mails of millions more." (source: State of War, as cited by you)
Glad you're coming round!
I am glad you graciously accept your mistake!
Where can I get my tinfoil hat?
But let's assume he is reliable on one program. Then, for all the reasons I laid out above, it becomes in my mind extremely improbable that he, as Joe Career Analyst, would have been read into a whole bunch of other extremely sensitive programs with different missions and collection characteristics. He'd have a full workload on his own stuff, so compartmentalization would preclude it. ("Compartmentalization", by the way, is quite literal: he would not have been able to enter the work areas for other programs.) He wouldn't have Need to Know sources and methods for those other programs even if he used their work product.
Is this certain? No, it's a probability thing, one of those Bayes Theorem calculations: A|B|C|D|E where each of A..E is << 1.0. By the time you get to E, E is very improbable, but still E > 0.
Three peas in a pod. You three must be in the same class. Justin and HLS have already had their go 'rounds with me (grew on me a little I must admit), but hey, JYD, I think you got the diagnosis wrong. I believe the office of dis-information of the dis-crediting agency at issue labeled Tice paranoid, not psychotic. And, hey, there's nothing wrong with dramatics and embellishment .... when someone has sonething significant to say.
Four peas in a pod.
Yup. It sure is. As a matter of fact, because of the level of the majority of comments made here, it's become unreadable.
Anyone who cares about issues like the Constitution and civil liberties and is concerned that our country is heading toward Dictatorship should go over to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com and read some brilliant posts having to do with those issues. Debating arcane legal issues has, sadly, become very much beside the point at such a critical juncture in our nation's history.
I am sure there were people in Germany in the 30's who concerned themselves with local zoning ordinances. Their time, imo, was misspent.
Yes. Exactly the main point of my Supreme Court issue. (Dockets 05-7771 &05-7287). Speech recognition is a disability reasonable accommodations device with First Amendment protection. NSA and DoD use speech recognition as a "fundamental incident of war," in surveillance, to remotely operate machinery, aircraft, and soon robotics, and more.
Junkyard Dog,
Please back up your assertions that
1) Tice is psychotic"
Thanks Justin for setting JYD straight. You turned out ok after all.
I thought I ran across a CIA case not long ago (maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I remember the wrong agency, I read so many cases), but it seems like a very compelling case of discrimination occurred within the CIA and the internal procedures you mention completely failed due to self-interest of the agency. But, as I recall, it was a sad result because the case was dismissed on state secrets grounds.
Which doesn't seem to keep you from charging the President with "high crimes and misdemeanors", now does it?
Of course, "I know you have a predilection for" accusation without evidence, so I suppose I should simply consider the source.
I have repeatedly expressed my opinion here that I do not nor have I ever advocated impeaching the president. It is therefore peculiar that you accuse me of failing to check my facts. I have repeatedly remarked that I think impeachment, while guided by the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard, requires more than the president doing something arguably illegal in what he admittedly thought was in the country's best interest. So my question to you is, "um, what on earth are you talking about?"
as an example of why your sarcasm relentlessly distorts the comments made that are at your very fingertips on the thread, I made the point on my first and second posts today:
Yeah, because Tice sure was way off on the last one! He probably made up the existence of that one too.
While Tice certainly did not go through the appropriate channels, it is quite clear that his leak referred to an extant program. And I think it is strange that you seem to find yourself vindicated on all aspects of the program, when its constitutionality has not been adjudicated by any other coordinate branch.
In both passages any rational reader would understand that I was referring to the existence of the program, not an assessment about how many american's rights were violated. You did not respond to that.
I also pointed out that YOU also have no idea how many Americans rights were violated, so your grandstanding on the subject is curious. You did not respond to that.
I conceded that Tice's contacts with the times seem actionable under the Espionage Act. You did not acknowledge that.
I have no problem with sarcasm, as my original post indicated:
I know you have a predilection for sarcastic responses that often miss the thrust of another person's remark.
I do, however, have a problem with sarcasm that is not in service of any particular position, but merely an invariably pithy and contrived reflex that regurgitates the morning's more prominent powerline posts. And in light of your constant reference to the cliche, if you considered the source of the information you present in these discussion nearly as much as you seem to dismiss the source of the discussion's comments, we might have a more productive discussion.
Instead we get responses from you like "where's my tin hat?" Nice point.
First, wiretapping phone calls in and of itself constitutes a search under Katz v. US, 389 US 347 (1967), which must meet 4th Amendment constitutional standards. Second, if computing and translating technology were advanced enough such that calls or emails are monitored without the use of wiretaps, the technology would constitute as a search if the Court rules that it is an intrusion on an individual's expectancy of privacy. See Kyllo v US, 533 US 27 (2001). (holding that police use of thermal imaging technology on a home constituted a search).
Commenters, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
What does it mean to be read onto a program? I have run into the term before a couple of times, and got some idea of what was going on. But you appear to have a bit more expertise here than most, if not all, of the rest of us.
Also, the program that has been discussed so much of late seems to be a bit big for this sort of security. What are the numbers handled by this level of security? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?
Somebody quoted upstream that on Tice's web site or released info, Tice admits the government psychiatrist diagnosed him as a "psychotic paranoid".
Consider it backed up. BTW, it should be obvious I'm not an MD or Psychiatrist, and my use of medical terms are not intended to be taken as an official diagnosis.
Calling someone a Psycho or Psychotic is common language used by the public as a descriptive adjective and not a certification of a particular medical diagnosis.
However, in this case it appears there is a medical diagnosis of Tice being a "Psychotic Paranoid", per Tice himself.
Says the "Dog"
Neal Lang, didn't you make a series of comments on this site "discussing" the movie Munich without ever seeing it? I'm glad you take the "accusation without evidence" creed so seriously.
At least none that a madman like Tice would have been trusted with knowledge of.
Pen registers are not searches. Tice seems to have been referring to the digital equivalent of pen registers. There is no expectation of privacy in the date, time and phone numbers/email addresses of phone and email communications.
Not seeing the movie is NOT the lack of "evidence". I had multiple "eye-witness" accounts to rely on, unlike those here who have already convicted the President on basis partisan "hearsay"! Where's your angst for the "lynch mob" in the NSA Terrorist Surveillance case?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
(Some days, I really love Google.)
Is the chip that you carry on your shoulder, or perhaps your delusion of grandeur that makes you think I am even addressing your comments. Of course, you seem to want to play the "White Knight" role and defend all that I might challenge as long as they concur with particular vision of reality. What can I say, except perhaps you should seek some professional help before your condition gets any worse.
JosephSlater and not Kovarsky
Justin and not Kovarsky
Finally:
Kovarsky
No sarcasm here, is there? To which I replied:
As I documented in James Risen's commentary piece, the "Buzz" in January was that:
1.) The Bush administration has swept aside nearly thirty years of rules and regulations and has secretly brought the NSA back into the business of domestic espionage
2.) potentially has access to the phone calls and e-mails of millions more
Of course, you totally ignored documentation and instead challenge me thus:
Coming from someone who just posted:
I believe charge of making "sarcastic responses" is quite the "pot calling the kettle black". However, unlike you, I have no problem with attempts at humor.
Instead I responded to your "And the suggestion that you or I have any idea of how many people's rights have been violated." thus:
Unless I miss my guess the "violation of people's rights" would (and should) be considered a "high crimes and misdemeanors". My final "pare" was my small attempt at sarcastic wit at the expense of your small attempt at sarcastic wit. Obviously it was "over your head". Sorry, I try to be a little less subtle next time.
In between your retort and my response we have:
CTD and not Kovarsky
It was to CTD's statement that I documented the "Buzz" in early January with James Risen commentary demonstrating the "domestic surveillance" and effecting "millions of phone calls and e-mails".
CTD and not Kovarsky
This was CTD's reply to my "on point" documentation of the early "Buzz" related to the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. My, admittedly "sarcastic" rely highlighted the "millions of phone calls and e-mails" and added:
Next came:
Constant and not Kovarsky
Obviously if you follow the link to Constant Website you will find a "conspiracy buff" in all his "tinfoil hat" glory, so I responded:
Based on your reply to my response to Constant's post, you believ only you, and those who agree with you, are entitled to debate on this blog using "wit and sarcasm". Well that's just too bad - get over it!
Again, acting the part of the "champion of lost causes" you took it upon yourself to take dear Constant's part and retorted:
This brings us to your current critique on me which I truly appreciate, seeing how, unlike you, I accept my mortality and believe "every knocks a boost". Now, Kovarsky while do not have a problem with your "caped crusader" persona, or your "cheap shot, or your shallow attempts at "wit and sarcasm" - I have "pretty thick skin", you see, and can handle it. However, so your obviously delecate mental condition doesn't suffer any more trauma, I respectfully suggest that you "lighten up" just a little.
Have a nice day,
Your pal,
Neal
Is this what speech recognition is (more specifically, I am referring to military efforts to operate surveillance mechanisms, battlefield military equipment, aircraft, robotics, and "virtual humans" remotely "hands free")? And if, so, how can you be so sure about your last statement?
Just curious. You yourself seem to have what appears to be classified inside info.
I am wondering -- is it possible for wikipedia to violate HIPAA? Wow. Pretty soon EVERYONE's medical records are going to be publicly posted there.
Uhhh ... did they reasonably accommodate him? Or is the NSA somehow claiming exemption from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The way I see it, this whole notion that people with certain types of disabilities cannot handle a stress position is very misplaced if the conclusion and demotion or termination is based on a failure of the agency to mitigate via provision of accommodations. In other words, some people with mental disabiltiies can, in fact, well perform such high level iintelligence agency stress jobs, and it is really an offensve proposition to disabled people who CAN perform such jobs to (1) create a label, and (2) blanket exclude people because of the assumption a person "with a mental disability" is "bad for national security.
I encountered this mindset personally with a CIA interviewer my last year of law school, except for the fact they were interested in me because I had taken Arabic and Russian languages. I was just blown away by the arrogance of the interviewer, frankly. This is probably why the CIA gets unqualified people sometimes, an inappropriate ability to separate the disabled wheat from the chaff.
Of course I do not personally know all the facts as to Tice, and whether HIS mental disability WAS disqualifying. Maybe it WAS. But other people's may not be.
As far as HIPPA goes, I can understand how it would bother you very much that the person screaming about government conspiracy is a raving lunatic diagnosed as a paranoid psychotic--but how is that NOT relevant to the rest of us trying to ascertain whether what he says has merit?
My apologies, I hope you are feeling much better now.
I can't help but wondering if it is the characteristic of President Bush in his role as CIC being afraid of horses (unlike other CICs and great military generals like General Patton), together with the apparent possibility the NSA hires no horsemen or women, that has so hampered this Nation's ability to catch OBL. Any horseperson worth their salt probably could find and apprehend OBL, since he rides horses in the mountains, by simply realizing he has to purchase new tack (equipment for his horse) to replace broken tack, discovering where he purchases his tack, and then following the trail of the tack delivery to his and his horse's location.
If OBL were caught, much of this NSA brouhaha would greatly diminish. But this is an aside.
Says the 'Dog.'
SG -- "One would hope that a diagnosis of psychotic episodes, such as Mr. Tice's diagnosis, would be enough to automatically revoke someone's security clearance and access to secrets that could put Americans lives in jeopardy if they were to fall into the wrong hands.
As far as HIPPA goes, I can understand how it would bother you very much that the person screaming about government conspiracy is a raving lunatic diagnosed as a paranoid psychotic--but how is that NOT relevant to the rest of us trying to ascertain whether what he says has merit?"
Ok, JYD and SG:
1. Post a link to the factual support for your positions that Tice was diagnosed "pyschotic" in additiona to "paranoid." There is a HUGE difference between a "paranoid psychotic" and a "paranoid personality disorder." If you have the proof, I cannot hardly dispute your facts, can I? So, "show me" Dog.
2. SG, the fact someone is psychotic does not necessarily mean the person is not credible. The causal link between the two fails in some instances. As far as HIPAA goes, there are very specific procedures written into the law as to who can obtain acess to medical information (assuming arguendo wikipedia has become a healthcare clearinghouse), regardless of the reason for "needing to know." I might well agree with you Tice is a danger if he is, as you say (but have not offered proof to support) a "raving lunatic diagnosed as a paranoid psychotic." But, first, I need to hear more analysis to support your conclusion Tice is a danger. The proper Rehabilitation analysis would be, is he a "direct threat?" To ascertain this, you have to analyze the "direct threat" facors -- See, Bragdon v. Abbott and Nassau County School Board v. Arline for details on teh required analysis, and then even if your analysis supports the conclusion Tice is a "direct threat," then you have to analyse whether any reasonable accommodation is possible that would remove the "direct threat."
Again, so, "show me." Obviously if your conclusion can be sustained, I would have to agree with the danger to Tice's continuing to hold such security clearances involving information over the lives of Americans.
You know, I have read everyone's opinions going both ways on this issue, and I am asking the same questions you are. I think this is important, because speech recognition is being used for some of these searches, and we all know it has a false positive error rate problem with teh recognition of words actually said. So, myself, I would tend to agree with your above-analysis, since I cannot imagine how a person would not have a privacy interest, as well as a First Amendment right, to the accurate search for words he or she actually spoke. In other words, I would not regard the intermediary machine between capture and human as breaking the search requirements.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.
(Some days, I really love Google.)"
The aility to accomplish the proverbial litigation tactic you reference is not limited to the disabled.
Was this ad hominen attack directed to ME, or to someone else? If you were directing it to me, please know I had a security clearance (never revoked) for US Attorneys' Office. Obviously, you again probably have made conclusions you cannot support.
I think the discussion on this thread is relevant and interesting, particularly Legat and Kovarsky who are very informative, but I just wish the people making unsupported (unsupportable?) conclusions would offer their suppor for the same. It would greatly advance the discussion.
The inquiry here is pretty fact specific and I think we can all agree that there are not enough facts here to make a conclusion.
Translation: We just don't know enough details on the program(s) in use to make good arguments either way.
As I said in my reply to you the link to the backup you keep demanding was posted upstream. Meaning its in a post in this comments thread. You just needed to do an edit/find on this page search for the word Psychotic and there it is in Neal Lang's post. If that's too much trouble here it is again.
From Wikipedia as referenced upstream and linked therein by Neal Lang:
In April, 2003, shortly after the e-mail message, Tice was ordered to undertake a psychological evaluation, which he believed was retaliatory. The Defense Department psychologist concluded that Tice suffered from psychotic paranoia. Click Here
Says the "Dog"
And Wikipedia IS .... ???? And Neal Lang is a lawyer?
See, below for a controverting diagnosis —
"MARIA HINOJOSA: Before firing him, the NSA sent Tice for a psychiatric evaluation. The diagnosis: paranoid ideation." NOW Transcript, PBS, available at Source
Paranoid ideation is usually just some of the features (but not all necessary diagnostic criteria) for a fiinding of paranoid personality disorder, but NOT paranoid psychotic.
Now we have a weighing the credibility of the evidence issue.
That calls for us to see the original expert psych report. Do you have a link for that? If so, please post.
I also note his apparent contention that he couldn't disclose the relevent classified information to his agency IG or the Congressional Intelligence committees (in conformity with the Whistleblower law) because they weren't cleared for it, but could to the NYT, which has no security clearance whatsoever.
So, he may or may not be a paranoid psychotic, but beyond that, his story doesn't seem to pass the reasonableness test.
Although he has said he talked to the NYT, James Risen has neither confirmed nor denied that Tice was a source. Additionally, Tice has insisted he never disclosed any classified material to the press, the the NYT stories obviously included classified material. What Tice has said in public forums has not revealed any secrets.
So it is not reasonable to assume that Tice was the source -- or even a source -- for the core of what the NYT has reported about warrantless NSA surveillance in this country.