6 March 2008
Living in a Surveillance State
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril .
If you promise to keep me safe, I will give up most of my rights.
This is a trap we need to be careful of. Because so many people have seen abuses of power, many are becoming so paranoid they believe all government personnel to be evil. I know many wonderful people who work for the government. Yet, as the article below demonstrates, there are abuses of power that take place and we are supposed to vigilantly watch for those. Somehow Republicans have come to be known as people who will support any extreme abuse of rights as long as it comes under the rubric of fighting terrorism.
What would be a good method to use to keep people from keeping their eye on our rights? How about, label everyone who believes there are any abuses as a wacko extremist. Then go even further. If anyone questions the governments rights to surveil their own citizens without following the Constitution, label them a liberal who hates their government. Use fear to scoot everyone to the middle. This way the silent majority will not question nor scrutinize any surveillance activity. They wouldn’t dare, they don’t want the labels.
We have been told that our government needs their hands untied so they can keep an eye on domestic terrorists, thus keeping us safe. I am here to tell you in no uncertain terms that there are many citizens who hate terrorism and would never fight their own government, that are being kept under illegal surveillance. How do I know this? I am one of them. I had a top secret clearance in a very sensitive black program years ago. After I received a promotion and raise, my new boss began sexually harassing me. When I went to his supervisor, it all blew up in my face. My boss was one of the top men in his field in the world. They were not going to allow me to cause problems.
I had always received high reviews but just days after my revealing the harassment, I was demoted and sent to the darkest corner of the building. A close friend who worked in a high position in this huge company warned me that I would be watched and that I should be very careful. I am uncomfortable going into details but my family and I, and even some friends and extended family have had to put up with many difficult things during the years. It continues to this day. If I outlined the whole story, including the witness of my family and some friends, it would be compelling enough to convince anyone with half an open mind.
Two years ago, I was brought on a radio program where I discussed a few of the things that have happened to my family. The host was alarmed with the line was disconnected. This was a program that millions listen to. Immediately after that, surveillance intensified even more, much to the irritation of my family and a few close friends. So you can imagine my frustration when I hear that only suspected terrorists are put under surveillance. This simply isn’t true. I would never be a threat to my country. I am non-violent.
It is undoubtedly unwise for me to be publicly sharing this story. I am doing so because my husband and children have all encouraged me to not stay silent out of fear for them. They want me to be a person of courage and speak up against the loss of rights in our beloved nation. I know there will be some who will be embarrassed that I am sharing something so radical but that matters very little to me any more. I have read of the shame felt by those in Germany who knew abuses were taking place but they feared for their reputation and kept their mouths closed. I don’t want to live with that regret.
More FBI privacy violations confirmed
Testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mueller raised the issue of the FBI’s controversial use of so-called national security letters in reference to an upcoming report on the topic by the Justice Department’s inspector general.
An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year’s audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600…
National security letters, as outlined in the USA Patriot Act, are administrative subpoenas used in suspected terrorism and espionage cases. They allow the FBI to require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers without a judge’s approval…
Several Justice Department and FBI officials familiar with the upcoming 2006 findings have said privately the new audit will show national security letters were used incorrectly at a similar rate as during the previous three years.
The number of national security letters issued by the FBI skyrocketed in the years after the Patriot Act became law in 2001, according to last year’s report. Fine’s annual review is required by Congress, over the objections of the Bush administration…
In contrast to the strong concerns expressed by Congress and civil liberties groups after last year’s inspector general’s report was issued, Mueller’s disclosure drew no criticism from senators during just over two hours of testimony Wednesday.
Speaking before the FBI chief, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urged Mueller to be more vigilant in correcting what he called “widespread illegal and improper use of national security letters.”
“Everybody wants to stop terrorists. But we also, though, as Americans, we believe in our privacy rights and we want those protected,” Leahy said. “There has to be a better chain of command for this. You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he’d like to obtain Americans’ records, bank records or anything else and do it just because they want to.”…
Critics seized on Mueller’s testimony as proof that a judge should sign off on the national security letters before they are issued.”The credibility factor shows there needs to be outside oversight,” said former FBI agent Michael German, now a national security adviser for the American Civil Liberties Union. He also cast doubt on the FBI’s reforms.
“There were guidelines before, and there were laws before, and the FBI violated those laws,” German said. “And the idea that new guidelines would make a difference, I think cuts against rationality.”
40 Comments so far...
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:36 am.
Is the right to privacy explicitly guaranteed in the constitution?
Jesse Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:52 am.
The right to privacy is developed from case law based on the Constitution. Until the Patriot Act, this was absolutely protected. Technological surveillance was unknown back then but the courts have always interpreted the fourth amendment as protecting against phone and internet surveillance unless there is probable cause and a court order. The Patriot Act unquestionably changed the Constitution but it was thought necessary to fight terrorism. As Joy points out, it is sometimes misused.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Comment: The Fourth Amendment prohibits the police and other government officials from searching people’s homes or offices or seizing their property without reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. In most cases, police can conduct a search of a person’s home or office only after they get a written search warrant from a judge, detailing where they will search and what they expect to find.
Terrie Soberg Says:
6 March 2008 at 8:26 am.
I have known Joy for almost sixteen years, and I can affirm that what she is saying is true. We have had a myriad of “weird” things happen over the years. She could tell you many more horror stories than she wrote about here.
I remember an article from probably at least twelve years ago about a city in Michigan whose entire phone system was set up so that if anyone mentioned a keyword from the “list,” their conversation would automatically start being recorded.
We “know not the hearts of men in our own land.” Who knows what else is being done?
The problem is exactly as Joy says. The people who try to raise the warning voice are called crazy and extremists. That doesn’t really go over well with friends and relatives at parties.
Angela Rogin Says:
6 March 2008 at 10:33 am.
Good grief, what a terrible thing. I am sorry you and your family and friends have had to go through this. I have to say I am shocked. I had no idea this kind of thing went on. I admire your courage for coming out and telling about this problem.
Mac Says:
6 March 2008 at 10:47 am.
Joy, as you can probably tell, I’m all about military strength. I’m a big backer of the war and I think terrorism is our biggest problem…almost. The number one thing is holding onto our constitution. Illegal search and seizure is suppose to protect you from what you are going through. I hadn’t really stopped to think that the Patriot Act might invade the privacy of innocent people. Maybe that is why we need to stick to the constitution because the founding fathers knew the natural tendency of man was to invade privacy. I do not agree with what you have been put through. It is wrong. A war even on terrorism is no excuse for this.
Cameron Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:03 am.
There is a timely piece in the Washington Post today that would be good to read. I posted it in News and Comments. I’m seeing things in a new light and I don’t like what I’m seeing. I didn’t know this happened either. I think the people that come here regularly have learned to trust you Joy. And you have a second witness with Terrie. We’re behind you. It took guts to speak up but we needed to hear it. Like in the article I posted, until this I would have ignored the part about abuses.
M.G. Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:21 am.
I hope you don’t get any flack for writing this, from the government or from friends and family. I can see how you would be a little uncomfortable coming out with this but like the others said, we needed to know it. I don’t think I would ever believe anything like this if I didn’t already trust the person who had a first hand account. But I definitely believe you. I would love to hear more details.
Peter Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:29 am.
Joy
Maybe I understand a little more why you sometimes cross over a little with the conspiracy stuff now. See what really bugs me is when people read stuff and just believe it with no good hard evidence to back it up. I guess if it happens to you then you tend to see things a little differently than the rest of us. You stepped into a world that is murky and I don’t doubt you. Just be careful about documenting the other stuff you use. I actually think it was good that you shared this though because we can’t just give the government cart blanche because when we give up rights, they don’t just come back again when they’re done using them. I’m not so bull headed I can’t see that.
Stumpy Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:33 am.
Shoot. I was thinkin how brave and cool y’all were Joy. Now I gotta change my mind cause Peter agrees with you. What a blasted conspiracy kook you are. Stop harassing the poor government ya big bully.
E.E. Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:40 am.
Maybe going public will get them to lay off. We can hope. Terrie, no wonder you wanted to have this blog. It looks from what you said that you have seen behind the wizard of Oz curtain too. Thanks to both of you for helping us to open our eyes more.
Peter, don’t listen to Stumpy. I think it is really great that you are showing Joy support. It couldn’t have been easy for her to decide to do this and I also appreciate her candor and courage to let us know what is really going on.
Saddened Says:
6 March 2008 at 11:55 am.
I have a relative who had this happen. He hasn’t told hardly anyone. He’s scared and tries to be very careful. Joy it really hit me when you wrote about the people in Germany who regretted not speaking up. Maybe I can get him to read this.
Carrie Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:15 pm.
WOW, that’s so bad that this is happening.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:39 pm.
I also had a top secret clearance when I was a Russian linguist. I just took for granted that I was being spied on. Never questioned it. I always assumed that my phone conversations were being listened to. I just figured that was the price I paid for going into intelligence. I would even bad mouth commanders I was mad out in hopes that they would be listening. I know that was stupid. I was only 19 years old.
I am not sure there is anything too sinister about it.
However, when your freedom of speech is being threatened, that is intolerable.
When you are sexually harassed that is despicable. Anyone who would sexually harass has no business with authority.
I guess I am just having a hard time seeing surveillance as a big threat. Maybe someone could give my a hypothetical.
You see, when I joined the military, I was told that my constitutional rights were suspended during my service and that only the UCMJ wasa protecting me- or threatening me as the case was.
When I joined intelligence, I assumed that I would be spied on and that my privacy was minimal.
Joy Bischoff Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:52 pm.
Cave, when my job was over I should have had to put up with constant surveillance for the rest of my life that would effect my family and friends. Twice there were events that put my family in very real danger and there were consequences that caused pain and damage. I can’t go into the details. I need to be a little careful. Worst of all is being thought of as a threat to my country which I would never be. Being labeled a possible domestic terrorist is going to have consequences that will become more serious as we loose more constitutional rights. This is deadly serious stuff and it is unconstitutional. Jesse did a good job of explaining that above.
Stumpy Says:
6 March 2008 at 12:58 pm.
Cave ole son, its always sinister when they steal some of our rights. Dont kid yerself. I know it seems all patriotic and all to jest let em do what they think is necessary but havent y’all noticed that if they get the bit in there teeth theyre gonna run?
Nalvy Says:
6 March 2008 at 1:05 pm.
So… I hate to say this but due to this article I think I am going to move out….
JUST KIDDING!!!!! I am glad you have shared this with everyone… if anything happensi am sure there are pelnty of people who would come help you..I am one of them.
I know things can be hard and the government can be an evil sadistic animal can and will make it that way but I am not afraid because I have people like you Joy who motivate me and give me strength to do what is right.
Oh and anyone who has met you or thinks they know you can tell you are the exact opposite of a domestic terrorist!
rorin Says:
6 March 2008 at 1:11 pm.
The reason we have this surveillance program in the first place is because our feelings of patriotism were exploited after 9/11. We didn’t make a big deal about it then because we thought it was only going to help us get the terrorists. It reminds me of what Hitler was able to do to Germany before WWII in the name of patriotism. By the time people saw beyond the subterfuge it was too late and as Joy said there were those who saw what was going on but were afraid to stand for change.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 1:42 pm.
OK joy, that clears thing up a bit. You are saying that your problems sprang up from surveillance-thought the problems were not surveillance in itself. I know you can’t talk about it, but I am wondering how surveillance itself was a problem. As I think about it I can imagine that evidence could be falsified from things they heard you say, things taken out of context and that sort of thing.
I like your point about Hitler Rorin. I think people need to realize that a Hitler could spring up here too. We are not better innately than the Germans. I get so tired of people thinking this is a great nation because we are a great people. It is a great nation because of the constitution and our culture. W need to guard ourselves against a Hitler.
The reason I tend to buck at the idea that our government shouldn’t be allowed to do certain things under any circumstances is because that is an idealistic view of government. Idealism is a greater threat to the world than compromise of principles. The perfect gvt doesn’t exist.
In our fallen world:
Perfect freedom is a train wreck.- Hippies in 60s
Perfect peace is a fairytale -Hippies (the dodo birds of humanity)
Perfect equality is insidious evil nonsense- Stalin, Mao
Perfect people is a merciless terror- Hitler and eugenics “scientists”
Perfect safety is Anti-Christ. Satin is the preexistence.
Perfect anything from humanity is nutz.
If we expect perfect privacy, I think that is likewise folly.
The best gvt. exists on the principle that idealism is not reality.
Every ideal must be occasionally compromised. That is why leaders of good moral character and judgment are crucial. I accept these realities and strive for them in perfection. But to Expect or require them to be perfect is DANGEROUS. (It gets back to the political spectrum.)
Ever since the fall of Adam idealism is dead and Judgment has taken it’s place.
Joy, our problem is that the people in power are not good people. That is why democracy is the key. Government by the people of the people and for the people! We can never rely on law to protect us. Adversity is ever evolving. We have to have benevolent human judgment in gvt.
I think you are right. I think there are compartments of government that are too secretive and immune from democracy. They are full of evil people that can’t be taken down by democracy. So our leaders have to do that.
I am not trying to contradict you. I am just trying to understand. To do that I have to play devil’s advocate. And since you can’t tell me what happened . . .
I have also been abused by power. But I accept that power has to exist. This is the crux of my conundrum.
Joy Bischoff Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:01 pm.
Cave, if you are asking these questions, then so are other people. I welcome questions so clarifications can be made. I really like your observations here, great job. Your conundrum is easy for me because I feel that we can do what needs to be done within the limits of the Constitution. These fences will keep the powers that be somewhat in control. Now that the Patriot Act has superceded some of these Constitutional rights, we are in trouble.
The reasons there were some unpleasant things that happened to my family is because I didn’t keep my mouth shut about criticizing some factions in the government I felt had crossed the line. I was punished to try to teach me I didn’t have first amendment rights. That’s where the problem lies.
Roy Bischoff Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:09 pm.
I learned from a professor in undergraduate school that the NSA records any conversation once any of, I would assume a sizable list of keywords, is spoken. They will look at this comment also now that I wrote “NSA” I’m sure. This is usually all done by computer. There is a special court set up that grants access to this stored information. Lest you feel too comfortable about the protection of this court-they had yet to deny any request for access to any of this information as of the time my professor spoke to us.
You can read the more recent Tom Clancy books to get an idea of the U.S.’ capabilities are for gathering electronic intelligence. He has done his homework.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:14 pm.
Good stuff Roy.
Yes Joy that is an evil omen when they use their power to shut you up. That is the Nature and disposition of almost all men. . . .as soon as they get a little authority . . .Of course by men I also mean women. I ESPECIALLY mean women. Just kidding.
Fascinating stuff Roy.
Nalvy Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:19 pm.
What it all boils down to is how much we are willing to put up with… personally I would love to take a leaf outta that movie with those tin foil hats to mess up unwanted signals… very fashionable in my opinion.
…but not very productive on the fight over our rights.
Joy Bischoff Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:49 pm.
Cute, Nalvy.
No kidding, Cave. Mean men make me nervous but when a women turns mean then I am seriously scared. We definitely can out-mean any man when we put our minds to it. Good thing I like Roy so much. Out nicing each other is more fun.
T. Fan Says:
6 March 2008 at 2:53 pm.
Okay now this has taken a lot of thought. What I like about this place is that it forces me to think about things in a totally different way. Doesn’t mean I have to agree but with this, after reading the blog and all the comments I realize that I have always swallowed the party line. Anything you do is fine as long as you keep me safe. Steal whichever of my rights you think you need and give them back when you’re done with them. AS IF! It really has been turned into a republican/democratic issue and that is just crazy when you think about it. What happened to balance and accountability? Thanks for waking me up.
Matt Says:
6 March 2008 at 3:59 pm.
We got your back Joy.
Jan W. Says:
6 March 2008 at 4:42 pm.
I think a year ago I would have had a hard time believing this but things are changing so fast. With what I saw happening with the elections, the media control and the elites getting so out of hand, I am starting to get the picture now. Glad you had the courage to tell us the truth. I think you needed to. And you are right that at least you won’t have any regrets.
S.J. Says:
6 March 2008 at 4:45 pm.
This is just too much for me. We have to strengthen our hand and stop the terrorists by any means necessary. Just look at the world, it is getting so crazy out there. We have to protect our families. That is why I liked Giuliani, he would have stood up to anybody, even domestic terrorists whether or not it was popular. If a few people are victims, well that is collateral damage in a bigger war. Don’t get me wrong, it is too bad but first has to be safety.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 5:18 pm.
From what I hear, Guliani is a good example of strong arm rule of law. He made some heads roll, but not everyone was treated right. I can’t remember the guys name - I can’t even remember what position he held. He was head of law enforcement in NYC. Would that be commissioner? Anyway, the way I heard it, he was right out of the movie Touch of Evil. He scared the city straight but violated a lot of people in the process.
That guy ring a bell to anyone?
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 5:23 pm.
In Joy’s case, it had nothing to do with safety. It was just abuse of power. Sexual harassment and shutting her up. But if we are talking about the law, you have a point, S.J., laws do not judge righteously and they will always end up hurting the innocent- as you say, collateral damage. That doesn’t mean you give up law. You just have to choose righteous leaders.
The blame rests most of all on the criminals and terrorists for creating the need to get tough.
Iffer Says:
6 March 2008 at 5:31 pm.
If safety comes first, i have the PERFECT answer — lets cut out all the little steps it will take and just build the cage now… The constitution has to go since it was specifically meant to keep us out of cages.
(This is not in any way sarcastic… well maybe just a little…)
Sharon Anderson Says:
6 March 2008 at 6:07 pm.
I admire your courage in shaing this information Joy. I hope I am wrong, but I can see the time coming when those who disagree with presidential policies or believe in Biblical morality (eg. homosexuality is wrong) or who homeschool, etc. etc. are considered suspected terrorists who need surveilance… or maybe we are already and don’t know it.
We should not think what has happened to you has nothing to do with us. This story illustrates the point:
A Fable
A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. What food might this contain? The mouse wondered - he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, “Mr.Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me.” ” I cannot be bothered by it.”
The mouse turned to the pig and told him, “There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!” The pig sympathized, but said, I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. “Be assured you are in my prayers.” The mouse turned to the cow and said “There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!” The cow said, “Wow, Mr. Mouse. I’m sorry for you, but it’s no skin off my nose.” So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer’s mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house — like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.
The farmer’s wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer’s wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital , and she returned home with a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup’s main ingredient. But his wife’s sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock.
To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer’s wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness. So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn’t concern you, remember — when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another ………………………Author:Unknown
Ghost Says:
6 March 2008 at 6:32 pm.
S.J.
Anyone who thinks it is okay to change the constitution to justify taking care of a problem does not understand the nature of man. Our founding fathers did. This wasn’t written for a time period, this constitution was written for human nature and is the only thing that can keep us out of that cage Iffer is talking about. It keeps criminals in control and it also keeps law makers who don’t understand slippery slopes in control.
Sharon,
I love your story. It is so easy to sit back and think, poor Joy. But it is all of our problem. Because of some of the things in the Patriot Act and some of the executive orders signed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, that cage is already partially built. The liberals want to finish the job and even some republicans who put safety above everything else are helping.
Mac Says:
6 March 2008 at 6:37 pm.
Safety first is a nanny state idea. Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. I am sure that if the early patriots had put safety first then we never would have become a country. Higher taxes would have been fine, less representation in government would have been no big deal. Just don’t hurt me please. NOT! I agree with Patrick Henry.
Pickles Says:
6 March 2008 at 8:48 pm.
Hey you guys have been busy around here today and without me. Joy I am glad you had the courage to share this. I am really not surprised. We’ve talked alot about how out of control the new laws are getting. I like the term slippery slop that everyone uses. It really describes this problem. It is so hard to climb back up and so easy to slip farther.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 9:47 pm.
Actually Ghost, you will recall that the constitution itself has a provision to change itself. You are not referring to amending the constitution are you. Because that is clearly constitutional.
You mean to say violate the constitution if I am not wrong.
(I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken)
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 9:52 pm.
By the way, S.J.
The way to stop the terrorists in my humble opinion is to secure the boarder, put bomb sniffing dogs, x-ray machines, and giger counters at every open gate. How do you spell geiger . . . gieger ghieger? You know those things that measure radioactivity?
Why don’t they do it?
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 9:52 pm.
BTW Joy, you have a spot on your shirt.
Ghost Says:
6 March 2008 at 10:01 pm.
Cave, what I meant was that the Patriot Act amended the constitution without a legal amendment. It is illegal but the courts are upholding it.
Cavetrollhead Says:
6 March 2008 at 10:10 pm.
OK I got you now. Sometimes I am kind of slow connecting the dots.
Joy Bischoff Says:
6 March 2008 at 10:16 pm.
Cave, You are a RIOT! Seriously, that was a good one, spot on my shirt. Can you see me sticking my tongue out at you? haha
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.