Nsa @ MindSay

wolfnest.livejournal.com 
I do not think i will be using that one anymore, but if you want the low down on the divorce thing go there.

So I get used the idea of divorce and only seeing the daughter that i have been raisin only in the summer due to her moving to Hawaii....... then she starts talking about staying here , but i know she is going and i want her to go now.
I ask her about divorce and she says probably not. Now she is being nice but still is not around and one day she starts some bullshit about her friends (who i never met) about making a mistake about telling me about a show that now i will want to go...funny i never said i wanted to go..so she continues to treat me like shit still. So i call her back and i tell her point blank that i can no longer be her friend due to the way she has treated me for 4 years.
She gets mad of course. I was not mad i just knew that she hurts me and feels no remorse for it. I have had enough.
Since getting over the shock and heartlessness of this divorce shit, i found  that i was at peace and looking forward to starting over and this marriage ending.
Now she tells me she loves me even though i do not want to be her friend anymore.Now she is nicer to me...but i am ready to move on..
Today she tells me they will not release her for work. Heart problems. Potential heart attack waiting to happen,
she cannot do that , die , Raven needs her mom that is why i went through all this hell.....
Always something you know.
It is sad all the years of fighting for her survival, fighting for our marriage, for our family, for her......i finally have given up. I did all i could. I cannot go back. I cannot live in the stress and pain and giving and getting nothing in return. Now at some point she will reallly realize what she did., and i won't be there.

I look forward to finally having time for myself, to take care of myself, to find out who the fuck i am anymore. To make new friends. To quite honestly have sex with as many beautiful , interesting, intelligent, uninhibited, women as i find. I am getting out of 7 years i do not want a relationship for a few years... I want , to be honest, women that i will be close friends with, not in a relationship. Then i want women that are in my life for mutually beneficial sex and more sex....exploration. And then female friends that we not only hang out, talk, protect each other, but we also when in between relationships or just because we have sex.....without the relationship.
And i want a variety of women, different point of view, different lifestyle, different beliefs. I want to be with women that normally i would of never hung out with let alone fuck.

That is all for now i will write more later.

For those of you tracking this issue, here is a more tech-oriented take on it.

"In a political culture which is increasingly polarized, where the “other side” is increasingly demonized, it is plausible that such tactics in the future could be rationalized by those in power, if they felt that there was a sufficiently low probability of being caught."

It's all about accountability.

It's not just our friendly search engine Google looking at our blogs. Now the NSA is wire tapping. Very soon your recent visitors will list NSA as a fan. President Bush is crazy. Unwarranted domestic spying. ILLEGAL. That's all I have to say. I will let Mr. Al Gore and Dubya the Dumbass tell you the rest.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891443/  <---gore

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10505574/from/RL.3/  <---bush

 

"...[The president] has been breaking the law..."- Al Gore

 

Here's a bigger chunk of Gore's "enthusiastic" speech. Good speech, but I bet the first row drowned inhis spit :D.  http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/avwebnjwin9536/ptv/dspan/gore.wmv/play.asx

 

That's right, Bushy boy broke (and is breaking) the law. Damn straight.

The Agency That Could Be Big Brother
By JAMES BAMFORD
Washington
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/weekinreview/25bamford.html

DEEP in a remote, fog-layered hollow near Sugar Grove, W.Va., hidden 
by fortress-like mountains, sits the country's largest eavesdropping 
bug. Located in a "radio quiet" zone, the station's large parabolic 
dishes secretly and silently sweep in millions of private telephone 
calls and e-mail messages an hour.

Run by the ultrasecret National Security Agency, the listening post 
intercepts all international communications entering the eastern 
United States. Another N.S.A. listening post, in Yakima,Wash., 
eavesdrops on the western half of the country.

A hundred miles or so north of Sugar Grove, in Washington, the N.S.A. 
has suddenly taken center stage in a political firestorm. The 
controversy over whether the president broke the law when he secretly 
ordered the N.S.A. to bypass a special court and conduct warrantless 
eavesdropping on American citizens has even provoked some Democrats 
to call for his impeachment.

According to John E. McLaughlin, who as the deputy director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 was among the first 
briefed on the program, this eavesdropping was the most secret 
operation in the entire intelligence network, complete with its own 
code word - which itself is secret.

Jokingly referred to as "No Such Agency," the N.S.A. was created in 
absolute secrecy in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman. Today, it is 
the largest intelligence agency. It is also the most important, 
providing far more insight on foreign countries than the C.I.A. and 
other spy organizations.

But the agency is still struggling to adjust to the war on terror, in 
which its job is not to monitor states, but individuals or small 
cells hidden all over the world. To accomplish this, the N.S.A. has 
developed ever more sophisticated technology that mines vast amounts 
of data. But this technology may be of limited use abroad. And at 
home, it increases pressure on the agency to bypass civil liberties 
and skirt formal legal channels of criminal investigation. Originally 
created to spy on foreign adversaries, the N.S.A. was never supposed 
to be turned inward. Thirty years ago, Senator Frank Church, the 
Idaho Democrat who was then chairman of the select committee on 
intelligence, investigated the agency and came away stunned.

"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American 
people," he said in 1975, "and no American would have any privacy 
left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone 
conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place 
to hide."

He added that if a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. "could enable 
it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people 
said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had 
no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their 
innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and 
financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on 
cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a 
person's mind.

The N.S.A.'s original target had been the Communist bloc. The agency 
wrapped the Soviet Union and its satellite nations in an electronic 
cocoon. Anytime an aircraft, ship or military unit moved, the N.S.A. 
would know. And from 22,300 miles in orbit, satellites with super-
thin, football-field-sized antennas eavesdropped on Soviet 
communications and weapons signals.

Today, instead of eavesdropping on an enormous country that was 
always chattering and never moved, the N.S.A. is trying to find small 
numbers of individuals who operate in closed cells, seldom 
communicate electronically (and when they do, use untraceable calling 
cards or disposable cellphones) and are constantly traveling from 
country to country.

During the cold war, the agency could depend on a constant flow of 
American-born Russian linguists from the many universities around the 
country with Soviet studies programs. Now the government is forced to 
search ethnic communities to find people who can speak Dari, Urdu or 
Lingala - and also pass a security clearance that frowns on people 
with relatives in their, or their parents', former countries.

According to an interview last year with Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then 
the N.S.A.'s director, intercepting calls during the war on terrorism 
has become a much more complex endeavor. On Sept. 10, 2001, for 
example, the N.S.A. intercepted two messages. The first warned, "The 
match begins tomorrow," and the second said, "Tomorrow is zero hour." 
But even though they came from suspected Al Qaeda locations in 
Afghanistan, the messages were never translated until after the 
attack on Sept. 11, and not distributed until Sept. 12.

What made the intercepts particularly difficult, General Hayden said, 
was that they were not "targeted" but intercepted randomly from 
Afghan pay phones.

This makes identification of the caller extremely difficult and slow. 
"Know how many international calls are made out of Afghanistan on a 
given day? Thousands," General Hayden said.

Still, the N.S.A. doesn't have to go to the courts to use its 
electronic monitoring to snare Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. For 
the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of 
having terrorist ties, it first must to go to the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable 
cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a 
warrant.

The court rarely turns the government down. Since it was established 
in 1978, the court has granted about 19,000 warrants; it has only 
rejected five. And even in those cases the government has the right 
to appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, 
which in 27 years has only heard one case. And should the appeals 
court also reject the warrant request, the government could then 
appeal immediately to a closed session of the Supreme Court.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. normally eavesdropped on a 
small number of American citizens or resident aliens, often a dozen 
or less, while the F.B.I., whose low-tech wiretapping was far less 
intrusive, requested most of the warrants from FISA.

Despite the low odds of having a request turned down, President Bush 
established a secret program in which the N.S.A. would bypass the 
FISA court and begin eavesdropping without warrant on Americans. This 
decision seems to have been based on a new concept of monitoring by 
the agency, a way, according to the administration, to effectively 
handle all the data and new information.

At the time, the buzzword in national security circles was data 
mining: digging deep into piles of information to come up with some 
pattern or clue to what might happen next. Rather than monitoring a 
dozen or so people for months at a time, as had been the practice, 
the decision was made to begin secretly eavesdropping on hundreds, 
perhaps thousands, of people for just a few days or a week at a time 
in order to determine who posed potential threats.

Those deemed innocent would quickly be eliminated from the watch 
list, while those thought suspicious would be submitted to the FISA 
court for a warrant.

In essence, N.S.A. seemed to be on a classic fishing expedition, 
precisely the type of abuse the FISA court was put in place to 
stop.At a news conference, President Bush himself seemed to 
acknowledge this new tactic. "FISA is for long-term monitoring," he 
said. "There's a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and 
monitoring."

This eavesdropping is not the Bush administration's only attempt to 
expand the boundaries of what is legally permissible.

In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total 
Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, 
a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser 
under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran 
and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua.

Total Information Awareness, known as T.I.A., was intended to search 
through vast data bases, promising to "increase the information 
coverage by an order-of-magnitude." According to a 2002 article in 
The New York Times, the program "would permit intelligence analysts 
and law enforcement officials to mount a vast dragnet through 
electronic transaction data ranging from credit card information to 
veterinary records, in the United States and internationally, to hunt 
for terrorists." After press reports, the Pentagon shut it down, and 
Mr. Poindexter eventually left the government.

But according to a 2004 General Accounting Office report, the Bush 
administration and the Pentagon continued to rely heavily on data-
mining techniques. "Our survey of 128 federal departments and 
agencies on their use of data mining," the report said, "shows that 
52 agencies are using or are planning to use data mining. These 
departments and agencies reported 199 data-mining efforts, of which 
68 are planned and 131 are operational." Of these uses, the report 
continued, "the Department of Defense reported the largest number of 
efforts."

The administration says it needs this technology to effectively 
combat terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of 
politicians.

After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, 
Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President 
Dick Cheney.

"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he 
wrote, "John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating 
my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with 
regard to security, technology, and surveillance."

Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.

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

James Bamford is the author of "Puzzle Palace" and"Body of Secrets: 
Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency."

Who remembers Calif. Representative Duke Cunningham?

He pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to taking $2.4 million in bribes from a defense contractor.

 

Anyhow, I happen to remember the guy doing his resignation speach on a Daily Show clip from days of auld. "Poor, pathetic man." I thought. "Well, no, just pathetic."

 

Here's the good part . . .

According to TIME magazine, Cunningham was apparently willfully wiretapped in the weeks before his plea.

"Washington's power players have always bragged about being well-wired, but for disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, "wired" wasn't just a figure of speech. In a week when legislators are focused on the question of who else might be brought down by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s cooperation with prosecutors as he seeks lenient sentencing over his two federal guilty pleas this week, sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.

"The identity of those with whom the San Diego congressman met while wearing the wire remains unclear, and is the source of furious—and nervous—speculation by congressional Republicans. A Cunningham lawyer, K. Lee Blalack, refused to confirm or deny the story, and wouldn't say whether Cunningham will implicate any other members of Congress. The FBI is believed to be continuing its probe of defense contractors involved in the Cunningham case. An FBI spokesman declined comment. Asked whether Cunningham, an ace Navy fighter pilot decorated for his service in Vietnam, had worn a wire, the spokesman said the response from a higher-up was, "Like I'd tell you."

 

Kiss the GOP goodbye.