The man who knew too much. "He was the CIA's expert on Pakistan's nuclear secrets, but Rich Barlow was thrown out and disgraced when he blew the whistle on a US cover-up. Now he's to have his day in court."
posted on Oct 13, 2007 - View this thread

My National Security Letter Gag Order "Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie."
posted on Mar 23, 2007 - View this thread

AT&T and Verizon obey FBI emergency requests, even if they're of dubious legality, and they get paid for it. But AT&T can't be sued, they say, because that would endanger national security.
posted on Mar 20, 2007 - View this thread

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.
posted on May 24, 2006 - View this thread

National Security Agency What is it that NSA does? What are or were its legal parameters and its history? This is a quick "NSA 101" course that might be helpful as stories continue to emerge about the agency. Oddly, as large as this organization is, it has been very much in the background, and only recently when some whistleblowers spoke up, has this agency gained a good deal of public attention. Some of you may recall the fuss raised about some spy agency named Echelon and wonder how this group is or is not connected to NSA. And soon at least one whistle blower will testify before congress, though the White House seems to have convinced some 50% of Americans that the president can do whatever he wants in time of war, ignoring legal constraints upon intel branches. And that raises the question (for me): if NSA can skirt the courts to "fight terror," then what of the FBI, also once requied to have court approval for phone taps. Are they too now free to do as they want in this "fight against terror"?
posted on Jan 5, 2006 - View this thread

Outsourcing Torture The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
posted on Feb 8, 2005 - View this thread

Clinton’s Former Aide Drops Windfall in the Lap of Bush Campaign "...Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay himself open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was caught red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror...."
posted on Jul 20, 2004 - View this thread

Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror. The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them. "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference. Who are you and what have you done with Rumsfeld? And Can you do it some more? via the illustrious oliver willis.
posted on Jun 7, 2004 - View this thread

Missile Defense- the biggest security lapse on 9/11. Condoleeza Rice was to deliver a speech regarding the White House's position on national security on September 11th, 2001. The speech contained no mention of al-Qaeda and stated missile defense as the central focus of security, implicating Bill Clinton for "not doing enough about the real threat - long-range missiles." An interesting revelation coming from the campaign claiming their opponents are "wrong on defense."
posted on Apr 1, 2004 - View this thread

The ever popular WiFi systems are the latest threat to National Security according to this story.
posted on Dec 17, 2002 - View this thread

TRANSCRIPTS:
A case on Iraq - Rumsfeld's testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee, 9.19.02.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
GAO e-Government Proposal.
Senator Byrd on the Department of Homeland Security.
Today's bumper crop of limited audience government info links. "Maybe only 50,000 people want to know what's going on in Libya, but those 50,000 people are really important. You don't want to have more planes blow up. But maybe six million people want to watch Jerry Springer. Well, who owns the airwaves? Basically we do." Do you think that unprocessed, source texts are getting filtered effectively to the public?
posted on Sep 22, 2002 - View this thread

Congressional Leak. Can't wait? Do as a congressman does. It even was considered a security issue because of where he took a leak. Now that's paranoia....
posted on Jun 16, 2002 - View this thread

Special Agent Crowley Speaks Up (NYTimes link , normal rules apply) Ladies like this are the real heroes in our country and she has something to say before Congress about the new Bush agency. Ms. Dowd agrees and said, "The shape of the government is not as important as the policy of the government."
posted on Jun 11, 2002 - View this thread

A senior Microsoft Corp. executive told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed. (emphasis added.) Is this a calculated admission, or is Microsoft so completely on the ropes that they'll say anything to keep from being completely dismembered? Doesn't the fact that releasing such a shoddy product that it's a national security risk mean that Microsoft should be taken to bits in the interest of public safety? If Firestone can't sell unsafe tires, why should Microsoft be able to sell unsafe software?
posted on May 21, 2002 - View this thread

Capital Wars! The US Defense Department wants all large foreign acquisitions of American companies to be approved by a secretive national security committee, a move designed to restrict access to sensitive US technology. Valid measure to protect national security or a return to mercantilism? (via drudge :)
posted on Apr 4, 2002 - View this thread

Classified documents posted, greeted with big yawn. What I find interesting is... If these documents are so uninteresting, why were they classified? It kind of bolsters my opinion that most secrecy in government is not unlike Calvin in his treehouse with the sign that says "No Grils". It's all an exercise in in-group, out-group dynamics, and has little, if anything, to do with National Security. Which means this is a big deal after all, if you think about it...
posted on Jul 24, 2000 - View this thread