|
Grex > Agora47 > #14: "Total Information Awareness" now at the state level | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
"Total Information Awareness" now at the state level
| 
Sep 24 15:17 UTC 2003 |
From The Register ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/33006.html ):
DARPA's dreaded Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, formerly
administered by convicted felon and Republican hero John Poindexter of
Iran-Contra fame, may have been de-clawed by Congress, but it lives on at the
state level in an incarnation called, ominously, the MATRIX (Multistate
Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange).
There's a lot to dislike in this new end-run around Congressional oversight.
For one thing there are federal dollars behind it -- four million from the
Department of Justice -- which makes it clear that the Feds will be expecting
a payoff.
(...)
The states of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Ohio, and Utah have
signed on to the scheme. Residents of other states are safe, for now.
|
| 57 responses total. |
sj2
|
|
response 1 of 57:
|
Sep 24 15:48 UTC 2003 |
In other news, a virus attack crippled the visa issuing system of the
US State dept. The computers shut down also had a list of 78,000 terror
suspects!!!
78,000!!! Where did they get so many suspects?? JetBlue?? Or Ebay?
|
fitz
|
|
response 2 of 57:
|
Sep 24 18:43 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Poindexter was convicted, but I read that his conviction was overturned
on appeal. He' reprehensible for any number of other reasons.
|
krokus
|
|
response 3 of 57:
|
Sep 24 21:13 UTC 2003 |
hrm... makes me wonder how we can go about getting the state off
of this thing.
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 57:
|
Sep 26 02:22 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure it's as bad as TIA -- the website is vague, but it's
possible this is only going to have things like warrants and arrest
records that are already available to law enforcement.
Regardless, I've written my state senator and state rep to make sure
they're aware of this program, and to ask them to look into it.
|
jango
|
|
response 5 of 57:
|
Oct 24 19:55 UTC 2003 |
Has anyone heard the latest news on the CIA agent that was exposed? I haven't
been able to catch the news.
|
murph
|
|
response 6 of 57:
|
Oct 24 20:00 UTC 2003 |
FBI investigating, White House still dragging its feet.
|
klg
|
|
response 7 of 57:
|
Oct 24 20:05 UTC 2003 |
The kerfuffle has, understandably, died down since it was based on
nothing. We are awaiting the next accusation from the desperate
Democrats.
|
tod
|
|
response 8 of 57:
|
Oct 24 20:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
murph
|
|
response 9 of 57:
|
Oct 24 21:00 UTC 2003 |
klg, I'm curious as to how you categorize it as "nothing"? Is it because it's
an accusation against a Republican administration?
|
gull
|
|
response 10 of 57:
|
Oct 24 23:16 UTC 2003 |
Probably. If it had happened under Clinton he'd be screaming for an
independent prosecutor.
|
klg
|
|
response 11 of 57:
|
Oct 26 02:39 UTC 2003 |
Mr. murph,
It is nothing simply because of the facts. Ms. Plame is a desk jockey,
not an undercover agent. The entire meaningless "incident" was ginned
up by her partisan, publicity-seeking husband based solely upon 1/2
truths and non-sensical accusations. If it were not thus, don't you
think it would still rate front page coverage (in the liberal press, of
course!)?
And please, Mr. gull, you ought to know that we are not the screaming
type.
klg
|
gull
|
|
response 12 of 57:
|
Oct 26 03:24 UTC 2003 |
From what I've heard, while she personally was a "desk jockey", when her
identity and the identity of her front company was revealed it also
compromised the identities of field agents she was in contact with.
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 57:
|
Oct 26 04:07 UTC 2003 |
I suppose it's currently trendy for Republicans to pooh-pooh violations of
federal law...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 57:
|
Oct 26 06:32 UTC 2003 |
Let's call it what it was - treason, and from the White House.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 15 of 57:
|
Oct 26 09:47 UTC 2003 |
Actually, let's *not* call it "treason from the White House" until
there's a lot more proof about what actually happened and how.
"Treason" is a very serious and specific crime -- it's also a spectacularly
loaded term, which is no doubt why there's such a temptation to assign
it to one's political adversaries.
I'm not qualified to judge whether a serious crime was committed in the
revelation of Valerie Plame's CIA operative status (and I seriously doubt
most of the Grexers expressing strong opinions one way or the other are
any more qualified, however many news wire stories they've read or talking
heads they've listened to..) In my opinion serious charges, backed up by
a strong prima facie case that an illegal act was committed, deserve a
serious investigation. Until we know a lot more, however, the word
"treason" remains just Rane's wishful thinking.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 57:
|
Oct 26 12:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 17 of 57:
|
Oct 26 20:00 UTC 2003 |
If klg's resp:11 was accurate, then the Justice Department would have
dismissed the CIA's request for an investigation into the outing of
Wilson's wife.
|
gull
|
|
response 18 of 57:
|
Oct 26 20:37 UTC 2003 |
I do think it's "interesting" that the same Republicans who insisted
Janet Reno couldn't carry out a fair investigation of Clinton see no
problem with Ashcroft investigating Bush.
My personal feeling is that no one high up in the White House will be
affected by this because if any of them are involved, Ashcroft will
cover it up. There's no way he'd do anything that would hurt a fellow
conservative, especially not his boss.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 57:
|
Oct 26 21:01 UTC 2003 |
I don't see how it can't be called "treason". Espionage by a citizen is
treason. Everyone seems to acknowledge that an undercover CIA agent was
outed. Novak says it came from the White House. I agree that the full
story must still be told, but the question only is *who* committed treason.
|
gull
|
|
response 20 of 57:
|
Oct 26 23:00 UTC 2003 |
Espionage by a citizen may be treason, but that's not what happened here.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 57:
|
Oct 27 04:04 UTC 2003 |
My, my, Mr. rcurl.
Whatever happened to your insistance that one is innocent until proven
guilty in court - or, perhaps, a double standard applies when the
accused is not a Democrat?
(Flippity-flop. Flippity-flop.)
klg
(And, Mr. scott,
If you would be so kind as to identify the "federal law" which you feel
was violated. Thank you very much.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 22 of 57:
|
Oct 27 06:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 57:
|
Oct 27 06:36 UTC 2003 |
What's wrong with you, klg? Of course everyone is innocent for now. I never
said they weren't. I am only stating that treason has occurred. (I also
did not say that espionage has occurred....)
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 57:
|
Oct 27 13:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|