TRUE DEMOCRACY SUMMER 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
National Security Council
History of the
Establishment of the National Security Council
The National Security Council was established by the National Security Act
of 1947 (PL 235 - 61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402), amended by the National Security
Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). Later in 1949,
as part of the Reorganization Plan, the Council was placed in the Executive
Office of the President.
the Free Congress Foundation, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties (UK)
and the Omega Foundation.
Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering organization
in the world. Several credible reports suggest that this global electronic
communications surveillance system presents an extreme threat to the privacy
of people all over the world. According to these reports, ECHELON attempts
to capture staggering volumes of satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic
traffic, including communications to and from North America. This vast quantity
of voice and data communications are then processed through sophisticated
This massive surveillance system apparently operates with little oversight.
Moreover, the agencies that purportedly run ECHELON have provided few details
as to the legal guidelines for the project. Because of this, there is no
way of knowing if ECHELON is being used illegally to spy on private citizens.
This site is designed to encourage public discussion of this potential threat
to civil liberties, and to urge the governments of the world to protect our
Ed's Note: It's my understanding that every Email that is sent is
monitored by the National Security Agency and every fax which is sent is
too worldwide. Moreover, the undersea cables which carry telephone calls
are monitored as well.
I can prove that the U.S. instigates terrorism but when certain cultures
retaliate, they are labled as terrorists. If the U.S. didn't terrorize, then
the people who retaliate wouldn't have to retaliate so it is with pleasure
that I bring this information and power to you because terrorism need not
exist. It exists because my government in Washington DC caused it initially
and because people are powerless. When powerless people have no other choice,
they resort to terrorism according to Armond DiMele, psychologist with a radio program four days per week on WBAI Community Supported radio station in New York City.
17 March 2000. Thanks to DB.
We look forward to seeing and hearing James Woolsey and Duncan Campbell
openly debate this controversy, in Congressional hearings, on global TV,
the Internet, MilNet and IntelNet -- and all the Echelon surveillance stations
based in countries of those who "can't compete with the US."
See transcript of Woolsey's March 7 remarks on economic espionage to the
Foreign Press Center: http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia.htm
The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2000
Why We Spy on Our Allies
By R. James Woolsey, a Washington lawyer and a former Director of
What is the recent flap regarding Echelon and U.S. spying on European industries
all about? We'll begin with some candor from the American side. Yes, my continental
European friends, we have spied on you. And it's true that we use computers
to sort through data by using keywords. Have you stopped to ask yourselves
what we're looking for?
The European Parliament's recent report on Echelon, written by British journalist
Duncan Campbell, has sparked angry accusations from continental Europe that
U.S. intelligence is stealing advanced technology from European companies
so that we can -- get this -- give it to American companies and help them
compete. My European friends, get real. True, in a handful of areas European
technology surpasses American, but, to say this as gently as I can, the number
of such areas is very, very, very small. Most European technology just isn't
worth our stealing.
Why, then, have we spied on you? The answer is quite apparent from the Campbell
report -- in the discussion of the only two cases in which European companies
have allegedly been targets of American secret intelligence collection. Of
Thomson-CSF, the report says: "The company was alleged to have bribed members
of the Brazilian government selection panel." Of Airbus, it says that we
found that "Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official." These
facts are inevitably left out of European press reports.
That's right, my continental friends, we have spied on you because you bribe.
Your companies' products are often more costly, less technically advanced
or both, than your American competitors'. As a result you bribe a lot. So
complicit are your governments that in several European countries bribes
still are tax-deductible.
When we have caught you at it, you might be interested, we haven't said
a word to the U.S. companies in the competition. Instead we go to the government
you're bribing and tell its officials that we don't take kindly to such corruption.
They often respond by giving the most meritorious bid (sometimes American,
sometimes not) all or part of the contract. This upsets you, and sometimes
creates recriminations between your bribers and the other country's bribees,
and this occasionally becomes a public scandal. We love it.
Why do you bribe? It's not because your companies are inherently more corrupt.
Nor is it because you are inherently less talented at technology. It is because
your economic patron saint is still Jean Baptiste Colbert, whereas ours is
Adam Smith. In spite of a few recent reforms, your governments largely still
dominate your economies, so you have much greater difficulty than we in innovating,
encouraging labor mobility, reducing costs, attracting capital to fast-moving
young businesses and adapting quickly to changing economic circumstances.
You'd rather not go through the hassle of moving toward less dirigisme
. It's so much easier to keep paying bribes.
The Central Intelligence Agency collects other economic intelligence, but
the vast majority of it is not stolen secrets. The Aspin-Brown Commission
four years ago found that about 95% of U.S. economic intelligence comes from
The Campbell report describes a sinister-sounding U.S. meeting in Washington
where -- shudder! -- CIA personnel are present and the participants -- brace
yourself -- "identify major contracts open for bid" in Indonesia. Mr. Campbell,
I suppose, imagines something like this: A crafty CIA spy steals stealthily
out of a safe house, changes disguises, checks to make sure he's not under
surveillance, coordinates with a spy satellite and . . . buys an Indonesian
newspaper. If you Europeans really think we go to such absurd lengths to
obtain publicly available information, why don't you just laugh at us instead
of getting in high dudgeon?
What are the economic secrets, in addition to bribery attempts, that we
have conducted espionage to obtain? One example is some companies' efforts
to conceal the transfer of dual-use technology. We follow sales of supercomputers
and certain chemicals closely, because they can be used not only for commercial
purposes but for the production of weapons of mass destruction. Another is
economic activity in countries subject to sanctions -- Serbian banking, Iraqi
But do we collect or even sort secret intelligence for the benefit of specific
American companies? Even Mr. Campbell admits that we don't, although he can't
bring himself to say so except with a double negative: "In general this is
not incorrect." The Aspin-Brown Commission was more explicit: "U.S. Intelligence
Agencies are not tasked to engage in 'industrial espionage' -- i.e. obtaining
trade secrets for the benefit of a U.S. company or companies."
The French government is forming a commission to look into all this. I hope
the commissioners come to Washington. We should organize two seminars for
them. One would cover our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and how we use it,
quite effectively, to discourage U.S. companies from bribing foreign governments.
A second would cover why Adam Smith is a better guide than Colbert for 21st-century
economies. Then we could move on to industrial espionage, and our visitors
could explain, if they can keep straight faces, that they don't engage in
it. Will the next commission pursue the issue of rude American maitre d's?
Get serious, Europeans. Stop blaming us and reform your own statist economic
policies. Then your companies can become more efficient and innovative, and
they won't need to resort to bribery to compete.
And then we won't need to spy on you.