Are you in somebody's "Community of Interest"?

It is the stuff of movies. Hollywood produces stuff which most of us find enticingly terrifying. We would remain terrified at the prospect of government gathering information and forming dossiers on us if it weren't for the knowledge that most of what Hollywood produces is fiction; intended for entertainment purposes only.

You should be able to believe that until you find out that the FBI in the US and the RCMP and CSIS in Canada are reaching beyond those who might be "suspects" and attaching suspicion to a suspect's acquaintances and casual contacts.

The F.B.I. cast a much wider net in its terrorism investigations than it has previously acknowledged by relying on telecommunications companies to analyze phone-call patterns of the associates of Americans who had come under suspicion, according to newly obtained bureau records.

[...]

The community of interest data sought by the F.B.I. is central to a data-mining technique intelligence officials call link analysis. Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American counterterrorism officials have turned more frequently to the technique, using communications patterns and other data to identify suspects who may not have any other known links to extremists.

That's right. They got into the telecommunications companies. They took a service you pay for, which has provided a guarantee of security and privacy to its customers under law, and pillaged away on a fishing expedition of proportions we have only just begun to hear about.

You didn't have to be a suspect. You only have to have communicated with a suspect. Cathie succinctly demonstrates what that can lead to. And while we have yet to hold the feet of Canada's federal surveillance agencies to an appropriately hot fire, the Mahar Arar case speaks volumes.

And you thought it was all Hollywood fiction. Actually, it is. Hollywood was just a little ahead of the emerging reality. And then the fantasy conspiracies of government to control the population and illegally delve into every aspect of life became fact.

Soon, the weak minds of terminally terrified grasp onto the story-lines and plots of Hollywood, convinced that they will work in reality. When the ruling class celebrates lawlessness, either the ruling class must be removed or our civil liberties and human rights will vanish.

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand. "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

A US Supreme Court Justice with a firm grasp on fantasy. If it can happen on TV, it can happen in real life. These people are too morally bankrupt to run countries. We should just send them to the movies and forget them.

They're hiding something BIG. Very BIG

Glenn Greenwald's dissection of the form of language used by Alberto Gonzales during questioning in the US Senate is starting to shed a light on the existence of "other intelligence activities" which have been hidden from view during the various congressional investigations into Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ever since George Bush came right out in December, 2005 and admitted spying on Americans without the warrants required by law, the administration has been playing the same rhetorical game. From the beginning, when asked questions about the scope of their spying activities (are you eavesdropping on domestic calls, too? opening mail with no warrants? entering homes with no warrants?), they have carefully confined their denials to "the specific program which the President confirmed" -- i.e., the specific "Terrorist Surveillance Program the NYT revealed. They have always made clear that there are "other intelligence programs" that we do not know about and which are excluded from all of their public assurances.

And further:

It has been clear for a long time that there are "other intelligence activities" beyond the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" which are clearly illegal. And any doubt about that was dispelled entirely when James Comey testified, since his whole point was that whatever it was that they were doing prior to March of 2004 to spy on Americans was so illegal that he, John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller all threatened to quit if it continued.

It would stand to reason that when the New York Times discovered and then reported the NSA warrantless wiretap program, that journal only got a part of the whole story. The result was that the Bush administration, feigning outrage at the disclosure, was prepared to throw a bone to the hungry pack, secure in the knowledge that the worst of the administration's unconstitutional activities had escaped scrutiny.

Securing information and preventing any public disclosure of those "other intelligence activities" became a paramount consideration. The reason for hiding the information could have little to do with current national security requirements. Remember, Comey, Ashcroft and Mueller were going to quit if it continued. That they stayed on indicates that, whatever the Bush administration was doing, it stopped in March of 2004. The only reason then, to hide it is to prevent a sea of outrage over administration activities which were undoubtedly grossly illegal.

The need to tightly secure the information might also explain other recent events.

Bush refusing to allow aides to testify before Congress, claiming Executive Privilege, then refusing to allow Congress to have a US attorney bring contempt of congress charges against those called to testify. Once before Congress witness either testify honestly or risk being charged with perjury. The Bush administration cannot afford to have questions on those "other intelligence activities" asked at all.

The refusal by the Bush administration to allow access to a member of the Homeland Security Committee to classified portions of information relating to the operation of government after a terrorist attack. There is likely a reference, amongst all those classified documents, to programs and plans which either exist or could be executed quickly.

Finally, there is Bush making renewed, constant and steady references to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in recent speeches. Certainly there is a fear that information regarding any illegal program will eventually leak, and Bush needs to have al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden well planted in peoples' minds as a means to defend any illegal activities.

What is starting to come clear, in any case, is that Bush's assault on the US Constitution is probably far more extensive than just the warrentless wiretap program.

He didn't just ignore it; he left it in shreds.