TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some NSA News (hope they're not tapping me right now...)
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange I'm not willing to give up any civil liberties. I believe in the rule of law and the majesty of the US constitution. To play on Benjamin Franklin's words, the people who give up their civil liberties for security deserve neither

Unfortunately, we don't live in that type of world anymore.
This is not some straightforward conventional war.
By handcuffing your own government, you give the terrorists the advantage.
There is a fine line between security and liberties, I totally agree, but there cannot be victory without something lost.
If we think logically about what is being asked of the American people is really quite insignificant in the grand scheme.
I mean really, does it really matter if they knew location X called location Y at such-and-such time?
How does that affect you really?

quote:

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

I'm not following you here.
These policies aren't 'suggested' by any terrorist, philosophical or otherwise; where'd that come from?
The terrorists don't play by any rules at all, have no guidelines to follow and use own polocies against us knowing full well that Western liberal winers will defend them.
It's the selfish, knee-jerked reactions from those liberals that will winning the war for the terrorists.
It's a battle of philosophies and terrorists know we have a soft spot for 'all things being equal' while clutching our civil liberties close to our hearts.
What are we willing to sacrifice to win this war?

this whole indignant charade is just another example of liberals being led by the nose into more fear mongering.

this one is awesome

quote:

So if we�re going to have a national conversation about government data mining, by all means let�s have it. But let�s not just put the administration and General Hayden under the microscope. Let�s examine the practices of the opposition that purports to find warehousing information and tracking data about American citizens to be the death-knell of liberty. Let�s take a hard look at the elected officials who are taking a hard look at the NSA. Here are a just a few questions we might ask Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean and the members of the judiciary and intelligence committees currently grousing for the cameras:� 1. Do you maintain databases of American citizens for fundraising purposes?� 2. Do those databases contain names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information?� 3. Do the databases contain information about the interests of the citizens who have been entered into them? About candidates or causes to which they have previously donated money?� 4. Are those databases searchable? If so, what search criteria do you use to divide these American citizens into various categories?� Do you do targeted mailings for purposes of raising funds or pushing particular issues?� 5. When you target, how do you know whom to target? That is, what kind of information do you maintain in your databases to guide you about which potential donors or voters might be fruitful to tap on which particular issues?� 6. Do you trade information about American citizens with other politicians and organizations in the expectation that they might reciprocate and you all might mutually exploit the benefits? I�m betting the answers to these questions might prove pretty interesting. Hard as this may be to comprehend, we may even find that our Big Brother on Capitol Hill has been collecting information on all of us � without (gasp!) judicial warrants.� Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

>source<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this whole indignant charade is just another example of liberals being led by the nose into more fear mongering. this one is awesome >source<

I've got a quick coupla questions to rebut your national review buddies, Q -

1. Did those individuals in question on Dean's campaign database lists willingly and voluntary give their names to be put onto those lists?

2. Could they under any and all given circumstances ask and even demand under law to be removed from such lists if they so choose?

3. Can we say the same thing about American citizens who's names are in the database lists that were given up by the telecommunications companies to the NSA?

Stop being a dipshit for once in your life, dear Q. The only indignant charade being held is by twits like yourself whom apologize for Bush's highly questionable actions at each and every turn.

Keep 'em comin.....

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo look dude, FDR was an example of "any" president worth being called an apologist for defending such action. such legal action.

I think you're going to have to do a better job explaining how this is legal in your view. I just outlined a few parts as to the likelihood of illegality, yet you've offered nothing to refute.

Why don't cha just try for once.

quote:

around your birthday.

Aren't we similar in age? Actually I woulda been 4. No need to knock a fellow old fart.

quote:

no one gives a damn if it's a straw man argument or not.

Gotcha. Sorry to point out your logically fallacious argument. Won't happen again.

quote:

you would not be so indignant about this if it were Chuck Schumer doing this as President. thats just my gut feeling.

You really should use more than just your gut when you are arguing with me. We might actually have a worthwhile debate in that manner.

quote:

you are sickeningly blinded my hate and bias.

Clue #57 when Q5's argument turns to shit: label the opponent with hatred/bias innuendos.

But I am curious as to where in this thread you might see hatred or tones of hatred of any sort. I must admit I don't appreciate a helluva lot if our Administration is breaking the law as well as some telecom giants, but as to whether or not such feelings merit weakness to the points in my argument I would be darn curious if you could point it out as such in detail.

quote:

no. FISA makes distinctions between what is "electronic surveillance" of communications and addressing info of communications. FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entinty with regard to those billing addresses.

Correct on the second part, but very possibly incorrect on the first. Read what FISA states here on Section 1801(f)(1) :

quote:

"electronic surveillance" "the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States. . . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...ction_1801.html

What are the "contents"? Here in section 1801(n):

quote:

"Contents," when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

And this does not include the telecom companies violating the Stored Communications Act (SCA) as well as possibly violating the Communications Act of 1934 that I outlined earlier.

quote:

NSA data mining is also protected from the 4th Amendment by Supreme Court precedent.

Irrelevant. The data mining itself is not the issue. It's involving telecom companies that may violate telecom laws as well as possibly violating FISA.

You do have to ask yourself this question: Qwest demanded that Bush and the NSA give them certainty in writing that they will not be violating any laws if they gave their databases over.

Bush declined.

Qwest told Bush to take a hike.

Why did that happen? Why did Bush not give them legal confidence?

quote:

don't count on the mid-terms then.

Well in that case when the Dems. hand your corrupt and ethically challenged GOP party their collective asses, I guess I will be proven incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Unfortunately, we don't live in that type of world anymore. This is not some straightforward conventional war. By handcuffing your own government, you give the terrorists the advantage. There is a fine line between security and liberties, I totally agree, but there cannot be victory without something lost. If we think logically about what is being asked of the American people is really quite insignificant in the grand scheme. I mean really, does it really matter if they knew location X called location Y at such-and-such time? How does that affect you really?

First, the world is still same as it was before. I can't, for the life of me, understand why people say that the world is a different place. Political violence by non-governmental actors against non-governmental actors existed before 9/11 as it will much beyond.

Second, this is not a war. If american, and others will deal with this political violence successfully, we must start thinging and acting rationally, analytically, and intelligently. Calling it a war only muddies up the water.

Third, any confidence that my communications, between myself and whoever I called or called me, would only be known to me and the phone company is destroyed. That may not mean much to you but to many it does.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm not following you here. These policies aren't 'suggested' by any terrorist, philosophical or otherwise; where'd that come from? The terrorists don't play by any rules at all, have no guidelines to follow and use own polocies against us knowing full well that Western liberal winers will defend them. It's the selfish, knee-jerked reactions from those liberals that will winning the war for the terrorists. It's a battle of philosophies and terrorists know we have a soft spot for 'all things being equal' while clutching our civil liberties close to our hearts. What are we willing to sacrifice to win this war?

I wrote:

quote:

Think about it: what you and others are suggesting is that the americans should allow their government to adopt policies and be guided by political philosophies that would probably be approved by the very same 'terrorists' that the US government wants to eliminate. If the the US government does that, the terrorists win.

By this is mean that Bush and Cheney and his supporters are pursuing an all powerful government that can search anything and anyone and can detain anyone indefinitely and without charges. I'm surmising that these are policies that many islamic fundamentalist would probably approve. In essence, the US is becoming that which we want to destroy.

Finally, people are being not being asked for anything by anyone. I stated in a previous post that the companies and the government could have gotten permission and inserted a waiver in the phone bill. I'm sure people would have signed away their rights (as they do all the time) and this whole mess of potentially illegal searches would have been avoided. But they didn't.

As an aside, is the government asking anyone to sacrifice anything? (Besides, the soldiers and their families of course.) The president keeps slashing taxes, deficits continue to rise, and the use of energy only increases.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 1. Did those individuals in question on Dean's campaign database lists willingly and voluntary give their names to be put onto those lists?

aside from the fact that you have mischaracterized the article by not understanding that it's ALL of Congress that mines the pop. for data, not just your fearless leader. the answer to your question would be, in most cases, no. the names and addresses of voters are traded like baseball cards. 1 case in point.

quote:

Mark Grebner: Here's another side of story on voter list By Mark Grebner Last week, state Elections Board director Kevin Kennedy wrote a column critical of my firm and our recently settled lawsuit against the board. Our perspective is different. Over the past eight years, Wisconsin Voter Lists has built a statewide voter list by collecting and standardizing public records from local election clerks. Some of this information has been in electronic form, but we have also photographed and copied millions of pencil-and-paper records. Our data are used by both major political parties, as well as candidates. For a while, we faced competition from both political parties, which as it turned out were relying on data compiled by state employees working illegally at public expense. The payroll costs ran well into the millions of dollars. Many of the officials responsible have been removed from office and/or convicted of crimes. In any event, they are no longer in the voter list business. Recently, Wisconsin obtained federal money to create a similar statewide database, selecting Accenture to do the work. Our firm, which has 15 employees and spent $600,000 to build our file, was deemed unqualified by the Elections Board. Three of four states that hired Accenture to compile their voter lists have fired the company, for breach of contract and incompetence. Alternating between praising their work and threatening to fine them, Wisconsin clings to Accenture, ignoring the missed deadlines, cost overruns, and poorly performing software. Because the state has now committed to spending more than $27.5million to build a voter file similar to ours, my firm asked for a copy, so we can concentrate on collecting other information not available through the state list. We thought expensive technology might actually increase access to public records, not limit it. In response to our Dec. 5 request, the Elections Board gave us a number of reasons all ridiculous for refusing to let us see the state voter file. Delay and denial were their primary tactics. First, we were told the entire voter file was "a draft memorandum," which couldn't be released until it was completed. Does a database meet the legal definition of a "memorandum," which is compiled in order to help an official make a decision? In any event, will this database ever be complete? And even if, say, Ladysmith isn't done, why can't we look at the data from Racine? Then they told us we could have the data, but that we'd have to get it directly from the hundreds of individual municipal clerks. According to the clerks we phoned, just as we expected, the state had not provided them with any method to obtain a list from the state's new voter database forus or for themselves. The Elections Board now admits there is no procedure for providing that information to the local clerks so they must have been kidding when they told us we could obtain it. Finally, the Elections Board told us the reason we couldn't see the data was that it contained some private information (such as phone numbers) and that they were incapable of separating it out for us. This appears to have been an outright lie not only does the technology obviously exist to separate out private information, but, since our lawsuit settlement, they've now agreed to provide it. All we have ever asked for was a copy of the fields that are public record. In good faith and in an attempt to resolve the matter amicably, we gave the Elections Board a copy of our legal complaint and made them aware of the potential for litigation weeks before we filed our lawsuit. It became clear that we needed to bring our request before a judge, who would have the power to place them under oath and compel answers. We also filed a new request with the Elections Board for additional data that had been collected since our first request. Before our court hearing started, the Elections Board agreed to provide everything we asked for, if we would dismiss the suit. Our only concession was to agree the board won't be required to pay my attorney fees. As I write this, I still await the delivery of the preliminary voter list data. The Elections Board is unable to upload the file to our FTP site, a common file delivery method, so we are waiting for the postal service to deliver a CD to us sometime this week. Mark Grebner is the owner of Wisconsin Voter Lists, based in Watertown. Published: May 10, 2006 >source<

quote:

2. Could they under any and all given circumstances ask and even demand under law to be removed from such lists if they so choose?

i'm fairly sure they could ask. but do you really think if they ask to be taken off of one list that that would apply to all nationwide databases? (remember not to be naive) and if that were true then what would it matter after the fact?

quote:

3. Can we say the same thing about American citizens who's names are in the database lists that were given up by the telecommunications companies to the NSA?

according to your bible, USA Today, they're just numbers. so the question is bogus.

quote:

Stop being a dipshit for once in your life, dear Q. The only indignant charade being held is by twits like yourself whom apologize for Bush's highly questionable actions at each and every turn.

in your case, i'll take it back...your indignation is not a charade, it's fucking clinical. it's what is wrong with your party.

the media is not over-hyping this. it's my imagination.

you want ad-hoc? IMO you have either fallen for the fear mongering. or purposely further it, knowing, in your mind, that it is really just hysteria.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Correct on the second part, but very possibly incorrect on the first. Read what FISA states here on Section 1801(f)(1) :

FISA states "content" big whoop. FISA's content is not applicable in this case. we are dealing with "pen registers". like i said, FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entity with respect to "pen registers". you have mis-read this. includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

quote:

And this does not include the telecom companies violating the Stored Communications Act (SCA) as well as possibly violating the Communications Act of 1934 that I outlined earlier.

yeah, those lawers are gonna lose. anyones phone number can be obtained by the FED's without court-order in this case.

quote:

Irrelevant. The data mining itself is not the issue.

okay dumbass you just went on record saying you are okay the NSA's doing their job. is that right?

quote:

It's involving telecom companies that may violate telecom laws as well as possibly violating FISA.

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code.

quote:

You do have to ask yourself this question: Qwest demanded that Bush and the NSA give them certainty in writing that they will not be violating any laws if they gave their databases over. Bush declined. Qwest told Bush to take a hike. Why did that happen? Why did Bush not give them legal confidence?

my guess is that the NSA decided that the Qwest request was not that important. if the NSA really wanted it they could have gotten it. why did the other three pony up? because they understand the law. but that is not to say that Qwest doesn't.

quote:

Well in that case when the Dems. hand your corrupt and ethically challenged GOP party their collective asses, I guess I will be proven incorrect.

i don't have to wait that long.

"Voter databases must be secured!!"

no shit?

quote:

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) orders each state to create a "single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration" database that will be linked to other records such as ones stored by motor vehicle agencies. HAVA does say the database must be protected with "adequate technological security" but offers no details and fails to require encryption, for instance. The extended deadline was January 2006, but many states have not complied.

>>source<<

i thought this was tangental to the topic.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Please go back and show me where I've used a personal attack or profane word against you...please? I don't use name calling or profanity unless it comes at me first.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm ok, how about this thread? http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...er&pagenumber=2

HILARIOUS that you link to a thread where you prove my point.

Classic.

Thank you. (RFLMAO)

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco HILARIOUS that you link to a thread where you prove my point. Classic. Thank you. (RFLMAO)

I ... don't ... understand. Try providing some clarification particularly with your post about the "lack of appreciation for history" about FDR/Lincoln following my post about FDR/Lincoln? Stop being vague and cite something.

The issue at hand is using profanity out of order.

I stated very clearly that I don't use profanity and personal attacks (words like "Idiot" and "Moron") unless they're used dis-respectfully against me first...then, all bets are off.

(I think the only time I've broken that rule was in Trancer's 9-11 conspiracy theory threads...and even then, I'm not sure if I did it first).

So starting from the top down on your link to this old page, YOU are caught openly using profanity first.

Hence my previous post; "Proves my point".

See?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco The issue at hand is using profanity out of order. I stated very clearly that I don't use profanity and personal attacks (words like "Idiot" and "Moron") unless they're used dis-respectfully against me first...then, all bets are off. (I think the only time I've broken that rule was in Trancer's 9-11 conspiracy theory threads...and even then, I'm not sure if I did it first). So starting from the top down on your link to this old page, YOU are caught openly using profanity first. Hence my previous post; "Proves my point". See?

Yes ... I see. So by virtue of the fact that you didn't use "stupid", "moron", or any other buzzword in your diction when calling someone else ignorant I suppose you do win . So nice to see you taking Clinton semantics and going all the way. Or is "is" acutally "is"?

Friend, here's a little factoid about me: I read between the lines and say it how it is.

^^^It's very clear;

You used the words "Idiot" and "Moron" in two seperate posts BEFORE I even bothered to use your own insults against you.

It's ok OCC. We all have to get owned at one time or another. Best to not fight it and just accept defeat, as this too will soon be forgotten.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^It's very clear; You used the words "Idiot" and "Moron" in two seperate posts BEFORE I even bothered to use your own insults against you. It's ok OCC. We all have to get owned at one time or another. Best to not fight it and just accept defeat, as this too will soon be forgotten.

Donny ... PLEASE read posts before you respond to them. Did I ever dispute the fact that I called you an "idiot" or a "moron" before you did? No as a matter of fact those statements were in response to your implications that I was ignorant. Hence my latter statement that, "I read between the lines and say it how it is" like a true conservative would I imagine . To avoid further misunderstandings, you called me ignorant ... how do you expect me to treat you in such circumstances. I guess I have to be extra pc around wannabe "conservatives". But hey, if I so wronged you in that last thread, you never responded. You're more than welcome to air your grievances and correct me. I wouldn't want to give off the wrong impression that you didn't know what you were talking about after all.

Implying ignorance? I certainly never used the word "ignorant". Even if I did, it's not a personal attack kind of word.

"Idiot" and "Moron"...THOSE are personal attack kinds of words.

And I really don't recall where that thread ended up, or if I was even around to finish it, but I will try to get back to it tomorrow and see if i missed my chance to correct you yet once again, lol.

This has been tooooooooooo much fun, lol.

Goodnight OCC!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Implying ignorance? I certainly never used the word "ignorant". Even if I did, it's not a personal attack kind of word. "Idiot" and "Moron"...THOSE are personal attack kinds of words. And I really don't recall where that thread ended up, or if I was even around to finish it, but I will try to get back to it tomorrow and see if i missed my chance to correct you yet once again, lol. This has been tooooooooooo much fun, lol. Goodnight OCC!

Indeed it's been fun ...

quote:

I'm not saying that 100% this will Happen to Bush, nor that he is on the level of FDR or Lincoln for example, but never-the-less, it could happen, and the one universal thing I see on this board a lot is a lack of appreciation for history.

This was a direct response to my argument fyi ... your words. Going forward with what you said ...

quote:

And if you're not a Democrat, then you're certainly not a Republican either...in which case if YOU are lacking a dick to suck, then you can always come on over and suck mine.

By ALL MEANS PLEASE rejuvenate the argument you left off at ... I would be more than happy to see the direction we're headed at.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo just on merits as a writer alone, Mark Steyn is to be respected.

I posted this several lines up.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Second, this is not a war. If american, and others will deal with this political violence successfully, we must start thinging and acting rationally, analytically, and intelligently. Calling it a war only muddies up the water.

And herein lies the difference between us.
I don't understand how you can't think this is a war when our Canadian government has troops in Afganistan right at this very moment for what reason? The War on Terror.
It IS a war but not the same kind of conventional war that we're used to.
It's a war of philosophies, will and some troops thrown in.

quote:

Third, any confidence that my communications, between myself and whoever I called or called me, would only be known to me and the phone company is destroyed. That may not mean much to you but to many it does.

Yea, I would tend to agree but then if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?

quote:

By this is mean that Bush and Cheney and his supporters are pursuing an all powerful government that can search anything and anyone and can detain anyone indefinitely and without charges. I'm surmising that these are policies that many islamic fundamentalist would probably approve. In essence, the US is becoming that which we want to destroy.

If I'm hearing you correctly, Bush Co. is looking for exuses for omnipotence that's playing into the hands of the terrorists.
First, to state that they would be playing into the hands of the terrorists is a HUGE assumption.
Second, I've never read nor heard anything about terrorists somehow philosophically implying policies in Western governments.
If I'm wrong, let me know, otherwise I'm just going to break out my tin foil hat on that one.
The only leverage a terrorist has is fear and if that's what you're implying, that fear IS the motivator for Bush's NSA move, then I would argue that they're just doing their due diligence.

quote:

Finally, people are being not being asked for anything by anyone. I stated in a previous post that the companies and the government could have gotten permission and inserted a waiver in the phone bill. I'm sure people would have signed away their rights (as they do all the time) and this whole mess of potentially illegal searches would have been avoided. But they didn't.

Actually this is were your arguement has merit.
I did come across one blog that mentioned that any person or company can buy phone records from the big TELCOs, anyone BUT the government.
The article was refering to one particular telco (don't remember which one) so the question of how did the government get away with it legally is a good one.
However AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have all issued statements declaring their commitment to protecting consumer privacy and operating within the law.
How is it that these major telcos, with oodles of lawyers, think that Bush Co. was within their legal boundries but Joe Shmuck doesn't?

quote:

As an aside, is the government asking anyone to sacrifice anything? (Besides, the soldiers and their families of course.) The president keeps slashing taxes, deficits continue to rise, and the use of energy only increases.

Definately an aside...lol
How does Bush get blamed for increased energy usage again?

quote:

aside from the fact that you have mischaracterized the article by not understanding that it's ALL of Congress that mines the pop. for data, not just your fearless leader. the answer to your question would be, in most cases, no. the names and addresses of voters are traded like baseball cards. 1 case in point.

Ahh, I see my mistake here, which admittedly I was a little off the mark. I used to work for a company that utilizes phone lists in a somewhat similar (albeit I believe questionable) manner for sales purposes, so I was clearly wrong in believing such information was voluntarily given up.

In any case, the argument given by the link you provided breaks down to the three arguments here:

quote:

First, we were told the entire voter file was "a draft memorandum," which couldn't be released until it was completed. Does a database meet the legal definition of a "memorandum," which is compiled in order to help an official make a decision? In any event, will this database ever be complete? And even if, say, Ladysmith isn't done, why can't we look at the data from Racine?

Which doesn't apply to the telecom/NSA case, so onto #2:

quote:

Then they told us we could have the data, but that we'd have to get it directly from the hundreds of individual municipal clerks.....

Again this does not apply in parallel, but I think the final reason does:

quote:

Finally, the Elections Board told us the reason we couldn't see the data was that it contained some private information (such as phone numbers) and that they were incapable of separating it out for us. This appears to have been an outright lie not only does the technology obviously exist to separate out private information, but, since our lawsuit settlement, they've now agreed to provide it. All we have ever asked for was a copy of the fields that are public record.

Now this part does apply because it is the counterargument given by the Bush supporters: the phone numbers themselves are not revealing any private info. But as the argument above states, in that particular case it was a lie and that such information was being used to deliberately separate out identifying information tying the phone numbers to identities of individuals.

However, that is clearly not the case with the NSA database mining, since they are, in fact, "looking for patterns", they are indeed quite interested in identification of phone numbers to individuals.

Which is the crux of the argument you are providing is here:

quote:

according to your bible, USA Today, they're just numbers. so the question is bogus.

Well I'm sorry if I don't use your National Review/Limbaugh Letter/Newsmax Biblical commentary for my sources � I tend to have this darn propensity for the common media sources of information to report the facts as they come about. Of course they don't always get it right, but if you have some problems with the factual accounting of what USA Today reported here, you're welcome to point it out as such.

Regardless, I think we can cut the bullshit right now about the "just reporting numbers" line that's prevailing in the wingnut blogs persistently. Ordinary commercial databases can be accessed by a fucking kindergartener and given a name. Let's go back to "my bible" for a moment:

quote:

[D]omestic call records - those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders - were believed to be private. Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...05-10-nsa_x.htm

As well as a May 12th WaPost article:

quote:

"the government has many means of identifying account owners, including access to commercial databases from ChoicePoint and LexisNexis." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1200261_pf.html

So shall we cut the charades on this tripe of an argument?

quote:

in your case, i'll take it back...your indignation is not a charade, it's fucking clinical. it's what is wrong with your party.

Ya know, I must admit I really do love watching 29 percenters such as yourself kick and scream as your Furer slowly but surely goes down in flames on his own corruption and highly legally suspicious activities.

quote:

the media is not over-hyping this. it's my imagination.

No one here ever claimed you didn't have a vivid imagination, that's for fucking sure.

Clue #67 when Q's argument goes to shit: blame the media at all costs.

quote:

you want ad-hoc?

Are you being serious? Are you really gonna try and talk logical fallacies with me? Not that I don't think you have some practice of your own on the subject, mind you, but are you sure you really wanna go there?

quote:

IMO you have either fallen for the fear mongering. or purposely further it, knowing, in your mind, that it is really just hysteria.

Which is yet another clue when you choose not to address any arguments directly � call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you hysterical, biased, crazy, and fear mongerers.

Out of curiousity, do you consider Lindsey Graham a crazy biased, fear mongering liberal?

How about Arlen Specter?

John Boehner?

Charles Grassley?

Newt Gingrich?

Gee, I didn't realize so many individuals whom identify themselves as Republicans in your party, some quite prominent far-righties, were such traitorous liberal fear mongerers. How dare they!

quote:

FISA states "content" big whoop.

Yeah, I realize you want to blow this part off, but just to make sure you understand what "content" means in accordance to FISA, here it is again and how it may directly imply:

quote:

includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...ction_1801.html

quote:

FISA's content is not applicable in this case. we are dealing with "pen registers". like i said, FISA can be interpreted as a non-regulatory entity with respect to "pen registers". you have mis-read this. includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

Actually, you have mis-read and are being misled by Assrocket and your little band of wingnut brothers over at Powerline. I am well aware of what pen-registers are and how they are protected by Section 402 under FISA and the changes made to it by Section 214 of the Patriot Act. However, under both of those sections outlined any Administration is prohibited from utilizing those pen registers without FISA court approval. As Andrew McCarthy pointed out:

quote:

Consequently, Section 214�s modification of prior law is both modest and eminently reasonable. Agents are still required to obtain a court order before installing a pen register. In addition, they are still required to make a solemn representation to the court http://www.patriotdebates.com/214-and-215-2#opening

Now are you going to argue that they are using pen registers? If so, you'd better be arguing that they dutifully obtained proper warrants under FISA laws in doing so.

Is this your position?

quote:

yeah, those lawers are gonna lose. anyones phone number can be obtained by the FED's without court-order in this case.

Irrelevant to the Stored Communications Act violation. That particular law gives five exceptions that permits telecom companies to give phone records to the gov't.: warrant, court order, customer's consent, telemarketing enforcement, "administrative subpoena" under section 2703(c):

http://www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm

The first four don't apply to our case (unless you can somehow make an argument otherwise), the NSA does not under any circumstances have "administrative subpoena" authority. And since the NSA got the phone records, I fail to see how that would apply.

But you're referring to the Feds here. Why would the Feds be involved in the first place? We're talking about the NSA, not FBI are we not?

quote:

okay dumbass you just went on record saying you are okay the NSA's doing their job. is that right?

I wonder if you and I could actually hold a conversation without the cute little labels and ad hominem swipes at one another. I know it's tempting, and I admit I'm guilty as hell at times, but whadya say we actually try and put such asinine remarks aside from here on out and hold a worthwhile and courteous debate despite our difference of opinions? Call it a 30-something feeling, but I'm just kinda tired of the bullshit labelling we both do so often.

Regardless, I was referring to your argument of the 4th Amendment which under the Smith vs. Maryland case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=442&invol=735

refers to the pen registers argument and is non-content surveillance which is protected, though not under the 4th Amendment as the case outlines. I should have been more specific in agreeing with you on this, and I shouldn't have implied such actions by the NSA were legal by such precedent. If this is a pen-register issue, this is not a 4th Amendment issue. Sorry I was not more clear.

quote:

Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code.

Perhaps you could be more specific in detail as to how this applies to the argument?

quote:

my guess is that the NSA decided that the Qwest request was not that important. if the NSA really wanted it they could have gotten it. why did the other three pony up? because they understand the law. but that is not to say that Qwest doesn't.

Now why would the NSA give up so easily when Qwest pressed them? You continue to dodge this basic question. You see, the NSA and our Administration threatened Qwest and pulled at them tooth and nail, telling them that they will not do business in the future with them if they do not comply with their demands,

yet Qwest simply asked for legal backing and were denied by Bush.

Now does that really sound like the NSA could obtain the records if they really wanted to here? Threatening not to do business with them if they don't comply? That hardly sounds like the NSA has much muscle in the matter. Here's what Qwest said about it all:

quote:

The telecommunications company Qwest turned down requests by the National Security Agency for private telephone records because it concluded that doing so would violate federal privacy laws, a lawyer for the telephone company's former chief executive said today. In a statement released this morning, the lawyer said that the former chief executive, Joseph N. Nacchio, made the decision after asking whether "a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request." Mr. Nacchio learned that no warrant had been granted and that there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," said the lawyer, Herbert J. Stern. As a result, the statement said, Mr. Nacchio concluded that "the requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/w...=rssnyt&emc=rss

So your argument is sounding quite weak at this point here.

quote:

i don't have to wait that long.

I must admit you are cute when you try to be so dang witty.

New CIA director Hayden plans massive expansion of spying on Americans

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artm...nter_8753.shtml

Doug Thompson / Capitol Hill Blue | June 1st 2006

Now that he is officially sworn in as the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden plans to build a vast domestic spying network that will pry into the lives of most Americans around the clock.

President George W. Bush told Hayden to "take whatever steps necessary" to monitor Americans 24/7 by listening in on their phone calls, bugging their homes and offices, probing their private lives, snooping into their financial records and watching their travel habits.

Can I prove this in a court of law? No. Do I know it is happening? Yes, without a doubt. Enough sources within the CIA, FBI, NSA and Pentagon have come forward in recent days to warn about Hayden's plans for an expanded, consolidated spy network aimed at Americans, not terrorists, and violating numerous laws that prohibit such activities against citizens of this country.

"What Hayden plans to do is not only illegal, it is immoral," says a longtime CIA operative who may retire early rather than participate in what he sees as an illegal extension of the spy agency's activities.

Hayden, who oversaw the National Security Agency's questionable monitoring of phone calls and emails of Americas, plans to consolidate much of the country's domestic spying into a new desk at the CIA, calling it a "domestic terrorism prevention" operation.

The desk will oversee not only NSA's increased monitoring of electronic communications by Americans but also the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's "terrorist information awareness" program that monitors travel and financial activities by Americans by gathering real-time data from banks, airlines, travel agencies and credit card companies.

The CIA operation will also coordinate with the Pentagon's domestic spying program that monitors activities of anti-war groups, organizations critical of the Bush administrations and others tagged as enemies of the state.

FBI agents will step up monitoring of journalists to identify leaks of stories embarrassing to the government. The bureau is already monitoring phone calls and emails by reporters on a routine basis and has increased surveillance of writers for major news organizations and monitoring of travel and financial records using the DARPA computers.

"This is not 'total information awareness' but 'total information control' aimed at watching Americans fulltime and ignoring the protections that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution," says an FBI agent familiar with the programs. "I didn't sign on for this and I'm getting the hell out."

In fact, resignations at major U.S. spy agencies are at an all-time high. Exact numbers are classified but sources say field agents, data analysts and others are leaving in droves rather than join the frenzy to spy on Americans.

Hayden sailed through the Senate confirmation process defending his domestic spying program at NSA, claiming it was legal. Privacy experts and Constitutional law professors say otherwise but the Senate rubber-stamped Bush's choice anyway, choosing to ignore the threats to freedom.

Hayden will have little problem concealing the operation from the public and Congress. Many of the CIA's programs are classified and the agency has, in the past, concealed programs even from the intelligence committees in both the House and Senate. The DARPA project and the Pentagon domestic spying programs are "black bag" operations that do not require Congressional approval or oversight.

Likewise, many of the details of the NSA domestic spying program were withheld from Congress and escaped public notice until media reports unearthed them and the Bush administration now threatens to jail the reporters who broke the story.

I wish I could prove this. I wish one, just one, source on the inside was willing to come forward and allow his or her name to be used but those who might be tempted see what happened to Mary McCarthy, the CIA employee fired and under threat of prosecution for leaking information about CIA torture camps in Europe.

But I know it is happening. People I've known for years and trust tell me it is happening and the past record of spying, lies and deceit by the Bush administration point to just such an operation.

This nation is under attack. We, the people, are under attack. And the enemy in this case is not an Islamic radical hiding in a cave in Afghanistan but a cabal of truly evil men and women at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and on Capitol Hill aided by carefully-picked, law-ignoring appointees at the Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, a black glass-walled building at Fort Meade, MD, and a complex in Langley, Virginia.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What makes you guys so sure they haven't been doing this for decades already? booga booga!

You helped caused this, whether you directly or indirectly realize it.

Your own fate is served by your own limitations and short-sightedness; avarice won't do you any good where your future is headed.

I saw on CNN not to long ago how Bush Admin is listening to reporters cell phones. Reporter felt like Mobsters cuz they had to communicate through land lines and other means. This is true.. was on CNN a wekk or so ago.

Infact I have a clip somewhere of the actual new coverage and interviews with media personal. I'll hot link it here when I get a chance. Crazy Shit!

Good for a smile

http://www.newsday.com/media/flash/2006-05/23671673.swf

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.