Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Politics

Declassified NSA Docs Shed Light On Cold War (And Modern) Operations 83

Posted by timothy
from the since-we-were-in-the-neighborhood dept.
AHuxley writes "With the U.S. trying to understand the domestic role of their foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services in 2013, what can a declassified look back into the 1960s and 1970s add to the ongoing legal debate? Welcome to the world of Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel and the work done by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Read how prominent anti-war critics and U.S. senators were tracked, and who was on the late-1960s NSA watch list, from Rev. Martin Luther King to civil rights leader Whitney Young, boxer Muhammad Ali, Tom Wicker, the Washington bureau chief and Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald, and Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.). The NSA was aware of the legality of its work and removed all logos or classification markings, using the term 'For Background Use Only.' Even back then, NSA director at the time, Lew Allen noted: "appeared to be a possible violation of constitutional guarantees" (from page 86 of this PDF). What did the NSA think about signals intelligence sites in your country? See if your country makes the 'indefinite' list on page 392."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Declassified NSA Docs Shed Light On Cold War (And Modern) Operations

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27, 2013 @07:18PM (#44976213)
    Tracking senators huh? This is the United States of America, you do not do that kind of shit to powerful and rich people. Let's hope we get evidence of that leaked, maybe with evidence of blackmail and manipulation; if the elite realize that it's not just the gutter trash getting crushed under the jackboot they might actually do something.
    • by ISoldat53 (977164) on Friday September 27, 2013 @07:28PM (#44976259)
      I wonder how much the NSA monitors our own diplomats and political leaders and government bureaucracy? It would explain why so many in government think this is such a good idea.
      • In 1953, a CIA relay point in Nicosia, Cyprus, delayed by 24 hours orders from the White House that Kermit Roosevelt was to immediately halt his operation in Teheran to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The cable arrived only after the coup was an irreversible fact.

        In the mid-sixties, Armen Myer, U.S. Ambassador to Teheran, instructed the CIA Commo officer to stop cc'ing Langley on all correspondence with Washington. So Commo bcc'd Langley, and made sure the Company ha

    • by s.petry (762400) on Friday September 27, 2013 @07:36PM (#44976305)

      I'm not sure if you are new to the game or not, so let me take the slow approach. Who do you think has been putting the majority of politicians in power for the last 100 or so years? I'll give you a hint, it's not you and me.

      While the scale of corruption has grown exponentially in the last 30 years, the corruption is not something new. Hell go read Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" from the 1970. That should be a decent eye opener for you. Just to make sure you don't have any excuses not to read it, the book is free for most e-readers.

      If the self proclaimed elites buy or put people in office, why would those same people complain about the job that they signed up for?

      • by Anonymous Coward
        The self-labeled elite still probably operate under the delusion that they are in power. I make this claim because most sociopaths have narcissistic tendencies as well. At the very least, a fight between them would be quite fun to watch. Media magnates, bankers, military contractors, politicians, and spooks frantically assassinating each other, character or otherwise. Politicians would be the first to capitulate, of course. They're position is the weakest and most have traded the public for the support of t
        • The banks always win that sort of battle, not the "spooks." It's the golden rule.

        • by shentino (1139071)

          Why barter for what you can take?

        • by s.petry (762400)

          Hang on a second, you believe it's a delusion that they are currently in power? There is no question about them being in power, assuming you even try to look into the subject. Who controls the banks, media, and politicians? And it is not just US banks, media, and politicians. The same corrupt cartel controlling those establishments in the US control the UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, Rome, etc.. etc...

          If you believe that being "conspiracy theorist" is a bad thing, you have been successfully brainwashed.

      • by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortexNO@S ... t-retrograde.com> on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:56PM (#44976687)

        Hell go read Gary Allen "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" from the 1970. That should be a decent eye opener for you.

        Yep. Eyes fully open now. You're sending us searching in a honey pot to tag us innocent party-goers one 'uh them radical anti-establishmenterriorists.
        Nope. Not falling for it. I'm a fine upstanding citizen. You're either trying to hide in the crowd, or maybe just meet your NSA quota so you can have an early vacation.

        Hope you enjoy your trip either way; May you git-mo them fine Cuban cigars...

      • by kamapuaa (555446)

        Conspiracy theories are the WORST. As if "Intelligence operatives took intelligence on US senators" somehow logically leads to "world governments are secretly controlled by a Cabal straight out of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'"

        There are countless factual problems with "None Dare Call It Conspiracy." Just let it go and come up with new crazy conspiracy theories to spout off on technology websites.

        • Nice strawman! I like the part where you associated it with antisemitism.
          • by kamapuaa (555446)

            It was a common charge against that book (the book is pretty dated BTW, with its focus on Communist states). A quick Google:

            [In Chapter 5, Allen says that the financing of Hitler "was handled through the Warburg-controlled Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam..." He cites 2 sources on page 85 for thisassertion. However, neither source says anything about the Warburgs having helped finance Hitler and neither source mentions any role played by the Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam.]

            2. In Chapter 3, Allen exhumes the char

            • by s.petry (762400)

              So Google searching a book is the same thing as reading a book? Wholly fuck you are stupid, and I'm not going to bother beyond pointing out where you are absolutely wrong.

              Your item 3 is complete bullshit. Read the whole fucking book instead of using Google. The book is very explicit in pointing out that Jews are intentionally blamed for things to obscure what really happens and divert the argument away from facts.

              Your item 2 is also bullshit. How many Senators did it take to pass the federal reserve act

      • by Dunbal (464142) *
        Yeah I agree with you, corrupt government are neither new nor exclusive to America. Governments have been corrupt ever since governments were invented. There are degrees of corruption, however. There seems to be a total lack of ethics nowadays.
      • by kermidge (2221646)

        C. Wright Mills, "The Power Elite", 1958, may serve as a good introduction to the present.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite [wikipedia.org] is worth reading in its entirety for a good summary.

        for background there's always Richelieu and Machiavelli; depends on how much you want to stretch concept of feudalism, I suppose.

      • You should have added the disclaimer that you think the US government killed a lot of people in 9/11 so that people know exactly where you are coming from with your conspiracy theories. Which building did you say was certain proof that the US government blew them all up again?
        • by s.petry (762400)
          Stop trolling dickhead. It's really sad that you have nothing better to do than lurk on slashdot and make up stories.
          • by dbIII (701233)
            So which building was it again? Oh that's right, you said the crash into the Pentagon was fake too. So what do you think the government did with enough passengers to fill that plane and which branch of the services do you want to insult by blaming them for mass murder.
            You disgust me and I'm sick of your filthy conspiracy theories.
            • by s.petry (762400)

              As stated previously, questioning the answers from the government is not blaming the government. I have never ever blamed the Government for 9/11, I have questioned the reports from the Government. The difference is vast. If you are going to lie and claim I have blamed the government, provide a link and don't just make up more stories.

              As mentioned previously, also, by your logic anyone questioning JFK or MLK's assassination must also be blaming the government for the assassination. That logic is horribl

              • by dbIII (701233)

                I have never ever blamed the Government for 9/11

                Your posts about a fake plane crash into the Pentagon and that building fire said otherwise, so now add blatant lies to the reasons to take your conspiracy theory posts with a ton of salt.

                • by s.petry (762400)

                  If you are going to lie and claim I have blamed the government, provide a link and don't just make up more stories.

                  Reading is not that difficult, so you are trolling still.

                  • by dbIII (701233)
                    Why are you insulting your own intelligence? You wrote those posts, I read them, and there's no audience that you are playing to by now.
                    • by s.petry (762400)

                      If you claim that I blamed the Government for 9/11 go find me a post. You can't, which is why you simply repeat the same lie over and over instead of doing any actual work. Slashdot history is very easy to go through, but a bit time consuming.

                      I don't worry about people like you insulting my intelligence, it's easy to defend against liars. Facts are very easy to differentiate from fantasies, and you are simply supporting your own fantasy.

                      I can find posts where you refused to review facts for a few reasons

                    • Does that mean you have recanted your earlier line about the collapse in the third building being a plot because apparently fire isn't hot enough to burn stuff? If so you owe me an apology for all of those insults from when I called you out on it.
                      I also recall you made a big deal when I suggested that your pentagon faked crash bullshit showed disrespect to the dead. You threw that quote from me right back at me a few times. Now that you've changed your mind do I get an apology for that too?

                      Or is it that
                    • by dbIII (701233)
                      So you deny the fake pentagon crash posts and then quote my response to your fake pentagon crash posts? Just give up trying to deny the batshit insane rubbish that you regurgitated onto this site that is the reason why I wrote "Take some posts with a ton of salt".
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        I'd guess more than a hundred years, read about the Teapot Dome Scandal [wikipedia.org] 90 years ago. Historian Frederick Lewis Allen covered it in Only Yesterday: a An Informal History of the 1920s [virginia.edu] written in 1931. It's suggested in that tome that Harding's death was either assassination or suicide because of that scandal.

        I have the printed book, just finished re-reading it on my phone (there are a few OCR errors). I recommend it, it's a fascinating read. The 1920s were very similar to today, possibly even worse. A housin

        • by s.petry (762400)

          I will look into those books, not sure I have heard the "Teapot Dome Scandal" referenced before your post. I agree that it's more than 100, but there is a problem with getting good facts much further back than the early 1900s.

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            True. The Teapot Dome link is to wikipedia, the other link is to the full text of Lewis' book, hosted at the University of Virginia's web site. It's a good read and an eye opener.

      • I Who do you think has been putting the majority of politicians in power for the last 100 or so years? I'll give you a hint, it's not you and me.

        Gosh I must have missed the part where all those unelected politicians got into power.

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      hey, if they want to track us, its only fair that they track the senators as well. frankly i think the NSA should be disbanded
      • by Dunbal (464142) *
        They don't even have the guts to disband a bank, and you think they'll disband the NSA? LOL never gonna happen. If anything they'll threaten the NSA with "we want you to give us more intel so we can put the squeeze on people, or we'll start regulating you".
    • I'm still hoping Snowden downloaded the files on all congresspeople, the last twenty candidates for president, all federal judges and the Forbes 400.

      That would make one hell of a life insurance file. It would also likely trigger access alarms. What sent Snowden running?

      • by dbIII (701233)

        It would also likely trigger access alarms

        That appears to assume more competence from the NSA than we have seen any evidence of up to date. Star Trek sets and spying on girls maybe, but nothing in the way of stories about successful operations that they would be proud to have us know about.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Tracking senators huh? This is the United States of America, you do not do that kind of shit to powerful and rich people. Let's hope we get evidence of that leaked, maybe with evidence of blackmail and manipulation; if the elite realize that it's not just the gutter trash getting crushed under the jackboot they might actually do something.

      When you live at the highest levels of power, senators ARE gutter trash,
      and for that matter the president of the US is also expendable. The CIA
      got rid of JFK after discussions were held which resulted in the conclusion that
      he was a loose cannon.

      You people have no idea just how sinister the world is. If you knew you probably
      would start rioting tonight.

    • by Atypical Geek (1466627) on Friday September 27, 2013 @08:00PM (#44976427)

      Tracking and blackmailing rich and powerful people is not new. Hoover's personal files were used to do just that*. It was the entire point of COINTELPRO. The NSA is simply following the path of other alphabet soup agencies to consolidate power for themselves and their political masters.

      * For example, we know that Jackie O. had a lesbian fling because an item of her correspondence obtained for Hoover's personal safe was misfiled. Can you think of any reason for the FBI having a love letter like that other than blackmail?

      • by MrKaos (858439)

        * For example, we know that Jackie O. had a lesbian fling because an item of her correspondence obtained for Hoover's personal safe was misfiled. Can you think of any reason for the FBI having a love letter like that other than blackmail?

        Masturbation?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They tracked MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

      Because, you know, he was a subversive somehow or something.

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Uhhh...they already KNOW they are being watched but don't care because unlike the peasants it won't be used against them. We know this because Dianne Feinstein Accidentally Confirms That NSA Tapped The Internet Backbone [techdirt.com] is the headline at Techdirt. Frankly none of us should be surprised by this, after all there is "rich people's laws" and the laws the peasants have to live under and rarely are they the same.

      Honestly I doubt we'll be having to worry about this too much longer as when the stock market bubb [youtube.com]

      • by s.petry (762400)

        I'm not so sure that the stock market will crash any time soon. When you have a global cartel of bankers re-distributing at will, it means that the US economy could be artificially propped up for a very long time.

        Since it's all artificial, I agree that when it happens it's going to be devastating. I just don't see it happening soon. It could mind you, but the people pulling the strings are not stupid. Careless at times sure, sloppy at times sure, but not stupid.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          The reason it WILL crash before 2030, in fact may even crash before 2020 is simple and if you watch that video to the end it will explain why....its because at the current rate you will end up with more money than the GDP of the entire planet tied up into the market and when THAT much "magical money" is printed? It WILL come crashing down.

          This is actually tied into the whole "job creators" myth and the constant tax breaks and dodges of the elite, as they take more and more AND MORE that money for all intent

          • by s.petry (762400)
            Well stated, and with your time lines I agree. I interpreted your "soon" to be within the next couple of year or two.
  • On Legality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gr8_phk (621180) on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:00PM (#44976701)
    Someone once suggested to me that so long as these activities remain illegal, they are less likely to be abused. Think about that. If it's illegal you're going to think about every line you cross and try to justify it against your goals. Abuse would not only be a problem, it would be a problem caused by illegal activity. Once you legalize these activities I think they are more likely to be abused.
    • Re:On Legality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142) * on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:50PM (#44976899)
      Illegal or not, familiarity breeds contempt. They keep doing it long enough they really won't give it a second thought, even if it is illegal.
      • Especially if their job exists on the basis of actually performing that same questionable work, if their superiors make unverifiable claims about penalties, legalities, and/or consequences for performing or not performing the work, and if they hire only people with an ends-justify-the-means outlook on things.

        It's one thing in a relatively new organization, but over sixty years in, a culture develops in a place like the NSA where the idea of being above the law becomes the norm. It's really not so different

    • Well, they were unconstitutional, but that didn't stop them.

  • by Bruce66423 (1678196) on Friday September 27, 2013 @09:26PM (#44976817)
    Given that the people who beat up civil rights workers in the 60s can be pursued for their offences of 'depriving of their civil rights', why can't these people? OK - stupid question in the real world...
  • The list only got longer to now include everybody and they pet fish.

    Well, one thing changed. We can not say anymore : "Wir haben es nicht gewuÃYt. (We didn't know.)". We also know about torture that is done in the name of freedom. We know that the government does not represent us anymore in the last several years.

    And what do we do? We discuss if the donkey or the elephant is at fault, unable to understand that BOTH are wrong.

    So unless people stand up to do something about this, it WILL get worse. Much

  • by eddy (18759)

    The on-site computer (a CP 818) REDACTED and demodulated the signal, then scanned the plaintext transmissions for key words. The system would alarm on . recognition of high-interest text, and the operators would react with special processing and forwarding routines.

    So it DECRYPTED and demodulated the signal you say? :-\

    (1st para, p.18 / 373).

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...