Month: March 2008

WSJ on NSA

Another day, another major article documenting unprecedented domestic surveillance operations by an organization that has no mandate for operating on US soil. Today’s Wall Street Journal article by Siobhan Gorman goes into great detail on what the NSA has been doing under the Bush administration and how it has partnered with other federal agencies to access massive amounts of information and data of Americans, including financial records, phone calls, emails, and text messages.

Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans’ privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But the data-sifting effort didn’t disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system.

The central role the NSA has come to occupy in domestic intelligence gathering has never been publicly disclosed. But an inquiry reveals that its efforts have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people’s communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

…

The political debate over the telecom information comes as intelligence agencies seek to change traditional definitions of how to balance privacy rights against investigative needs. Donald Kerr, the deputy director of national intelligence, told a conference of intelligence officials in October that the government needs new rules. Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as MySpace, he said, their identity shouldn’t need the same protection as in the past. Instead, only their “essential privacy,” or “what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs,” should be veiled, he said, without providing examples.

The NSA uses its own high-powered version of social-network analysis to search for possible new patterns and links to terrorism. The Pentagon’s experimental Total Information Awareness program, later renamed Terrorism Information Awareness, was an early research effort on the same concept, designed to bring together and analyze as much and as many varied kinds of data as possible. Congress eliminated funding for the program in 2003 before it began operating. But it permitted some of the research to continue and TIA technology to be used for foreign surveillance.

Some of it was shifted to the NSA — which also is funded by the Pentagon — and put in the so-called black budget, where it would receive less scrutiny and bolster other data-sifting efforts, current and former intelligence officials said. “When it got taken apart, it didn’t get thrown away,” says a former top government official familiar with the TIA program.

Two current officials also said the NSA’s current combination of programs now largely mirrors the former TIA project. But the NSA offers less privacy protection. TIA developers researched ways to limit the use of the system for broad searches of individuals’ data, such as requiring intelligence officers to get leads from other sources first. The NSA effort lacks those controls, as well as controls that it developed in the 1990s for an earlier data-sweeping attempt.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who led the charge to kill TIA, says “the administration is trying to bring as much of the philosophy of operation Total Information Awareness as it can into the programs they’re using today.” The issue has been overshadowed by the fight over telecoms’ immunity, he said. “There’s not been as much discussion in the Congress as there ought to be.”

Congress killed TIA because it wasn’t something they wanted the US government to be doing to their citizens. So the Bush administration moved it to the NSA’s black budget and further reduced the privacy protections on the program. Is there any greater example of the Bush administration’s complete disrespect for the legislative branch and the civil liberties of American citizens? Just when you think you’ve seen everything the Bush administration has done to make America less free, they show you new ways they’ve found to roll back our freedoms and our rights.

Quite simply, the Bush administration hates Americans for our freedoms. So they’re taking away our freedoms and presuming that innocent Americans are or will be terrorists.

Damn it, I want my country back.

M10 Coverage

The BBC has a good article about the global actions taken place on Tibetan National Uprising Day. It does a good job of showing the global scale of the commemoration.

Also, the Dalai Lama’s annual statement on March 10th is very powerful and hard-hitting. One passage that stood out:

In Tibet today, due to the Chinese governments numerous actions, driven as they are by a lack of foresight, the natural environment has been severely damaged. And, as a result of their policy of population transfer the non-Tibetan population has increased many times, reducing native Tibetans to an insignificant minority in their own country. Moreover, the language, customs and traditions of Tibet, which reflect the true nature and identity of the Tibetan people are gradually fading away. As a consequence, Tibetans are increasingly being assimilated into the larger Chinese population. In Tibet, repression continues to increase with numerous, unimaginable and gross violations of human rights, denial of religious freedom and the politicisation of religious issues. All these take place as a result of the Chinese governments lack of respect for the Tibetan people. These are major obstacles the Chinese government deliberately puts in the way of its policy of unifying nationalities which discriminate between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples. Therefore, I urge the Chinese government to bring an immediate halt to such policies.

The Netroots

Chris Bowers at Open Left writes about what the netroots is and is not.

Jerome Armstrong (emphasis in orginal):

Now, I thought the 2003-2006 netroots was all about the ‘fighting dems’ that invigorated the Democratic Party with a strong sense of partisanship and Howard Dean’s “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” candidacy.

The “netroots” is not about one thing. Never was, never could be. Lacking in centralized leadership and with millions of participants, there were always going to be competing motives and goals. To even attempt to define it as one single thing is to speak for huge swaths of its participants about which we know little.

I have a lot of problems with the term “netroots,” stemming mostly from the way it used in alternatively expansive and contained ways to represent different constituencies.

I was at the Left Out in the Open panel last week, hosted by The Nation and MoveOn. The panel included Matt Stoller, Ari Melber, Zephyr Teachout, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Roberto Lovato. It focused primarily on defining the netroots and its capacities for effecting progressive change. What was immediately apparent is that each panelist had a different conception of what the term “netroots” meant. Also brought up were the sometimes overlapping blackroots, brownroots, and feminist blogospheres. The absence of an understanding of the netroots as large, inclusive collection as described by Bowers, lead to some panelists decrying the failures of a smaller, white, Democratic-oriented collection of including other people and issues.

The netroots, as a term, is something of a failure. It is often taken in a circumscribed way that refers to A-list, largely white, largely male, bloggers. But that’s a narrow view that makes it easier to attack. To that end, using a vague term with an even more vague definition is problematic.

In my view, again which I think is shared by Bowers, what is generally described as the netroots is really better described as the online progressive movement. In my eyes that would include all bloggers of varying prominence, commenters, diarists, blog readers, advocacy groups like MoveOn, Credo Action, Color of Change, Avaaz, EFF, and others, progressive politicians’ campaigns, and even, at times, elected officials like Russ Feingold, Rush Holt, Chris Dodd, and others. As a movement, different coalitions will form and disband within its boundaries. It will manifest itself in different constituencies in different ways. The commonalities are progressive individuals and organizations are building social connections and communicating online. The online progressive movement can be many things. There may be louder or quieter voices, but people operate in the same general direction: progressive change.

Now, I agree with Jerome that there is a common conception of the netroots as being a vessel for Democratic success. But that only works as a term as long as we subsume it under the mantle of the online progressive movement. Then we can shift attention from a the quality or nature of the term “netroots” and towards a broad movement that includes many factions working in different directions. Under the banner of a movement, there is little need to explicitly limit its particular purposes or constituencies.

Yale University Helps Fund $5.4b for Chinese Railroad

Earlier today the Chinese Railway Construction Corporation held two initial public offerings, in Hong Kong and Shanghai, and raised over $5.4 billion to fund construction projects. Yale University contributed $50 million from their endowment as one of the nine “cornerstone investors” in the IPO.

China Railway Construction Corporation is a state owned company that is responsible for building a controversial railroad between Tibet and Beijing. The Lhasa-Beijing railroad was subject to major opposition by Tibetan exile and human rights groups, as it has been used as a major funnel to bring Chinese migrants into Tibet, part of a continuation of China’s policy of population transfer to dilute the percentage of Tibetans in their own land. The CRCC is currently planning an extension to create another major link between Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, and China, a move that will further increase the population transfer into Tibet. The other major beneficiary of the Lhasa-Beijing railroad, incidentally, has been the People’s Liberation Army. The PLA has more troops stationed in Tibet than any other region in the PRC.

Yale’s investment in the CRCC is deeply troubling. They are doing so in contravention to common investment practices at educational institutions. Two years ago, Yale divested from their investments in Sudan, which shows that they’re not immune from pressure from human rights groups and are capable of using their huge endowment to do morally responsible things.

I know some Yale alumni are up in arms about this investment and I’m sure as the news of it grows, students and alumni will continue to let the University know what they think about their donations being used to fund a Chinese companies expansion in Tibet. The sad thing is that because Yale was involved in the IPO, their $50 million has gone directly to the Chinese government’s railway company. Divestment is crucial, but as I understand it, that’s money that Yale can’t get back.

It’s also interesting to note that Yale’s partnership in this IPO was only announced in late February, giving students and human rights groups very little time to organize against it. At the time, the Yale Investments Office declined to comment on the move to the Yale Daily News. I think that this stems from lessons learned by China about how to handle IPOs, knowing their American partners will face withering public criticism for getting in bed with businesses that exploit Tibet or hasten the cultural genocide of the Tibetan people. In 2000, the PetroChina IPO had its value reduced by $7.2 billion following a prolonged campaign by Tibetan groups, labor unions, and human rights organizations against the company. In 2004 BP divested from PetroChina, again following intense pressure from Tibetan groups like Students for a Free Tibet. The best way to avoid such pressure, judging by how Yale and the Chinese Railway Construction Corp. handled this IPO, is to announce it only days before it takes place to avoid scrutiny and response from the constituencies affected by it.

For more on the China-Tibet railway and what Tibetan groups have done to protest it over the last number of years, visit Students for a Free Tibet’s campaign site.

China Continues To Repress Dissidents

This story in yesterday’s New York Times shows how China continues to ramp up pressure on dissidents, activists, writers, and bloggers in advance of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Beijing public security agents released a Chinese human rights lawyer on Saturday after detaining him two days earlier without notice and forcing him to endure intensive questioning at an unknown location, the lawyer said.

The lawyer, Teng Biao, 34, said he was released after 41 hours in custody. Mr. Teng, reached by telephone, said four officers from the Beijing Public Security Bureau grabbed him on Thursday night at a parking lot outside his apartment and then drove him away.

Mr. Teng, who is also a part-time college professor, said he was not sure where he was taken. He said that he was not physically harmed but that officers had questioned him sternly and warned him about recent articles he had posted on the Internet.

Mr. Teng refused to discuss his detention further, saying the officers had cautioned him against speaking out.

Chinese police kidnapped a lawyer whose only crime was writing articles that were critical of the Chinese government. They question him for almost two days straight and intimidate him with threats against speaking out any more. Here’s a taste of Teng’s dissident writings that lead to his kidnapping by Chinese police:

In the essay by Mr. Teng and Mr. Hu [a dissident facing trial for thought crimes like the one below] last year, the two wrote bluntly about China’s current situation.

“Is China improving its human rights record?” they asked, according to a translation provided by Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group. “When you come to the Olympic Games in Beijing, you will see skyscrapers, spacious streets, modern stadiums and enthusiastic people. Please be aware that the Olympic Games will be held in a country where there are no elections, no freedom of religion, no independent courts, no independent trade unions; where demonstrations and strikes are prohibited.”

China promised to improve their human rights record and increase freedoms of speech as a condition of hosting the Olympic Games. Yet despite consistent, mounting evidence of widespread crackdown on dissidents, journalists, and bloggers, the IOC has refused to respond. This is truly shameful and a reminder that the People’s Republic of China is not a free country, but one of the most brutal, repressive, anti-democratic places in the world.

M10 Live

Today is March 10th, the anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising. Around the world Tibetans and their supporters are commemorating 49th anniversary of the uprising of tens of thousands of Tibetans against China’s illegal military occupation of Tibet. That uprising created an opening that allowed the Dalai Lama to flee into exile.  March10.org describes the situation:

Despite China’s best attempts to destroy the Tibetan spirit, Tibetan resistance has continued for nearly half a century inside Tibet and in exile communities worldwide.

This year, with all eyes focused on the Olympics in China, Tibetans and supporters worldwide are protesting the Chinese government’s use of the Olympics as a political tool to legitimize its illegal occupation of Tibet.

Join the Global Uprising for Tibet! Help us draw attention to the worsening human rights situation inside Tibet. Help us use the Olympics spotlight to shame and embarrass the Chinese government and show them that until Tibet is free, China will never be never be accepted as a leader on the world stage.

In addition to organizing demonstrations and marches today in honor of Tibetan Uprising Day, Students for a Free Tibet has assembled some incredibly cool technology to cover today’s events. They have set up M10 Live – a page that has live streaming video piped in from Olympia, Greece, India, New York, and more, all playing through an embedded Mogulus channel. Additionally, they’re posting photos, text messages, and audio reports that are being submitted from around the world by people in attendance at their marches. Cell phone pictures and videos are being combined with live streams to give people a full range of information coming in from around the world. They’ve also posted a Google map with locations of protests and marches around the world.

Right now I’m watching a stream from Dharamsala, India, where a group of Tibetan exiles and refugees are starting a return match to Tibet. They will walk through India and return to Tibet for the first time since they were forced into exile. The marchers will be documenting their trip, using cell phones, wifi, laptops, and other cool tech tools to provide an inside view of their trip.

I’ll have updates later today.

Winning on the Constitution

Democrat Bill Foster won a special election in the 14th congressional  district of Illinois, Dennis Hastert’s old district. One of the key aspects of Foster’s campaign against Republican Jim Oberweis that was encouraging was that Foster took a very strong stance in favor of the Constitution and against retroactive immunity. In a statement to Matt Stoller of Open Left, Foster said:

The President and his allies in Congress are playing politics with national security, and that’s wrong.  Nobody is above the law and telecom companies who engaged in illegal surveillance should be held accountable, not given retroactive immunity.  I flatly oppose giving these companies an out for cooperating with Alberto Gonzalez on short-circuiting the FISA courts and the rule of law.

The campaign was much more about Iraq than the Constitution, but the lesson is clear. Glenn Greenwald notes:

The lesson here is unavoidably clear. There is not, and there never has been, any substantial constituency in America clamoring for telecom amnesty or warrantless eavesdropping powers. The only factions that want that are found in the White House, the General Counsel’s office of AT&T and Verizon, and the keyboards of woefully out-of-touch Beltway establishment spokesmen such as Fred Hiatt, David Ignatius and Joe Klein. If/when the Democratic Congress vests in the President vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and grants amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, it won’t be because doing so is politically necessary.

Principled stands are politically effective, on any issue, in any district. Olberweis used tired attacks on Foster’s patriotism and peddled the false notion that Democrats are stabbing the troops in the back by wanting to end the Iraq war. Sorry guys, dolchstosslegende and shredding the Constitution just isn’t going to resonate with voters this year.

McCain Is Unqualified

Matthew Yglesias:

Basically, Bush wants a ton of torture, McCain prefers a moderate level of torture. This is one of several reasons why I, unlike Hillary Clinton, don’t think McCain passes the “commander in chief” threshold in a particularly impressive way. I’d like a commander-in-chief who’s prepared to govern the country in a manner consistent with our laws and traditions, as well as sound interrogation practice, international law, and basic standards of human decency.

What a novel way of thinking about America’s government.

I’d add that, unlike Yglesias, I don’t think McCain “passes the commander in chief threshold in a particularly impressive way.” I’d say that given his support for torture, his support for unlimited executive powers, and his desire to aggressively lead the US into many more wars, McCain does not pass the commander in chief threshold at all.