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 »

Some NSA News (hope they're not tapping me right now...)

Pretty interesting news coming out about the NSA and Bush's wiretapping fiasco that's supposedly completely legal. The Dept. of Justice was investigating the NSA on their wiretapping, but was all too eager in dropping their investigation once they got stonewalled by the NSA:

quote:

Security issue kills domestic spying inquiry NSA won't grant Justice Department lawyers required security clearance WASHINGTON - The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter. The inquiry headed by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program. "We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press. ... "Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12727867/from/RSS/

Yep, sure can count on Gonzales to fight that investigation hard, can't we? Now why did the NSA block the investigation?

But it gets better.

You see, some companies have allowed the NSA access to your phone records, tens of millions of Americans to be exact:

quote:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.... "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.... The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.... [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. ...Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.... In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.... In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers. Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: "I wouldn't rule it out." His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...sa_x.htm?csp=34

Now you see, you all need to relax, because these tens of millions of Americans are all terrorists or tied to terrorist suspects, so no need to get all excited. And besides, it's all legal, so no sweat.

What else is interesting is Nancy Pelosi has been asking and asking about this program, and she has requested to have this Administration draw up a list of Congressional members who had been briefed by the program, only to have it classified at the last minute so she couldn't see it:

quote:

Pelosi to Stephen Hadley: On December 22, 2005, I wrote to you requesting the dates and locations of, as well as the names of members of the Senate and House of Representatives who attended briefings on the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program discussed by the President in his December 17, 2005 radio address. You responded on December 29 informing me that you had asked the Director of National Intelligence to provide me with the information I had requested. The NSA Director has advised me that the information I sought has been sent to the House Intelligence Committee for secure storage because it was �classified and compartmented.� It is my understanding that the information provided is confined to a list of names of those who attended the briefings and the dates on which the briefings occurred. This is not national security information by any definition, and I therefore find the decision to classify it to be inconsistent with classification standards and completely without merit. http://www.democraticleader.house.g...sReleaseID=1539

The Administration has refused to even address the most inocuous facts about the warrantless wiretaps, including how many Americans were subjected to surveillance, which Admin. officials were briefed about the program and when:

http://rawprint.com/pdfs/HJCrawstory2.pdf


But who wants to be bothered by silly ol' laws like this? If our President doesn't give a shit about such laws, why the hell should we?:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ndreds_of_laws/

It's all relative.......

USATODAY
NSA has collected 'tens of millions' of phone records

"The phone call records of tens of millions of Americans" have been secretly collected by the National Security Agency since President Bush authorized the so-called warrantless eavesdropping program after the 9/11 attacks, USA TODAY is reporting.

Citing "people with direct knowledge of the arrangement," the newspaper reports that the program "is far more expansive than what the White House has (previously) acknowledged." It has also been conducted, USA TODAY writes, with cooperation from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.
******************************

Posted here before:
link1

*****************************

a reply posted at USA TODAY:
I was a kid in the late 50s - early 60s and grew up during the Cold War. I remember asking my Dad what the big deal was about the Russians (I was about 7 or 8 I think and didn't really know what was up). His reply essentially was: The Soviets listened to their citizens phone calls (NSA), decided what they could listen to or watch (FCC), encouraged citizens to inform on each other (TIPS program), tried and imprisoned people without visibility to the proceedings (Secret Courts), used torture to get information that benefitted the state (Abu Ghraib), spy on and search citizens abodes without warrent (Sneak and Peek Searches), and tracked what they read (Patriot Act), hijacked science to fit political ideology (Schiavo - Stem Cell Research - etc.), and so on... Given enough time, I'm sure other parallels could be drawn...

My questions is: at what point does America (not the small percentage of citizens who act as frothing partisans on the left or right but the 'Silent Majority' who understand that is it not politics but policy that makes a successful or non-successful administration) stand up and say enough is enough?

When I read stuff like this, I am ashamed to be a citizen of this formerly great nation. Seriously, how much many more of these actions similar to those of the Big Brother programs in 1984 do we have to endure? When will the surveillance cameras be installed in our apartments to monitor that we're not meeting with al Qaeda members or making bombs? It's fucking absurd. Why should the government have any right to know who I call and have personal conversations with?

It's yet another sad, sad day for American citizens.

More info from an internationally renowned security technologist and author. Described by The Economist as a "security guru," Schneier is best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator. When people want to know how security really works, they turn to Schneier.

Schneier on Security

-
Note that this database does not just contain phone calls that either originate or terminate outside the U.S. This database is mostly domestic calls: calls we all make everyday.
-
This is important to every American, not just those with something to hide. Matthew Yglesias explains why:

It's important to link this up to the broader chain. One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself.
-_______________________________________________

What makes you guys so sure they haven't been doing this for decades already?

booga booga!

quote:

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

They may have been, but does that make it right?? It's not come to light until now, so that's why people are upset. Also, the article on CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05...rds/index.html, states that this started soon after 9/11.

BTW, here's an interview with the reporter that broke the story from this morning's broadcast, presumably American Morning - http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/cauley/

You're all suffering from "Chicken-Little Syndrome".

You never stop to consider;

A.) This IS a necessary tool for fighting terrorism in the communication age.

B.) Why the hell could the government possibly care about your personal phone calls if you're not a terrorist? They may know about them, but do you really think they're going to follow up on who you're calling and why? MILLIONS of Americans? Making calls EVERY DAY!? They're only interested in terrorists calling patterns. They aren't going to do anything about the vast majority of your calls, even if you did make calls to "976-I-LIKE-BIG-BUTTS".

It's absurd and idioctic to worry about things which like this "prying" in to your "privacy". The government can barely keep up with what the terorists are doing. Do you really think they care what you're doing, no matter how weird or perverted it is?

^^ True. (<--EDIT: That was in reference to Groundhogboy's post preceding donnybrasco's)

quote:

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

I hate arguments of the form "Well, it's the way it is/has been for a while, so we should accept it [edit 2]-> or what's the big deal?"

Common practice doesn't justify an act.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You're all suffering from "Chicken-Little Syndrome". You never stop to consider; A.) This IS a necessary tool for fighting terrorism in the communication age. B.) Why the hell could the government possibly care about your personal phone calls if you're not a terrorist? They may know about them, but do you really think they're going to follow up on who you're calling and why? MILLIONS of Americans? Making calls EVERY DAY!? They're only intersted in terrorists calling patterns. They aren't going to do anything about the vast majority of your calls, even if you did make calls to "976-I-LIKE-BIG-BUTTS". It's absurd and idioctic to worry about things which like this "prying" in to your "privacy". The government can barely keep up with what the terorists are doing. Do you really think they care what you're doing, no matter how weird or perverted it is?

I see someone drank their Kool-Aid this morning. Before, it was only INTERNATIONAL calls. Now, it's DOMESTIC calls. When you say, "They aren't going to do anything about the vast majority of your calls," I can't comprehend how anyone could support them even using a minority of your calls.

With the Bush administration's illegal detainments and holding people without charges, who's to say that YOU won't be detained because a friend of a friend calls someone who the US suspects of being involved in terrorist activites if they've got you indirectly linked to one of those people by phone call records.

Have you used Myspace or Friendster? Do you realize how many people you're connected to by 2 and 3 degrees of separation?

This country is going fucking insane over the fear of terrorism. Every one of you that condones this sort of behavior should be smacked upside the head and forced to read the documents that this country's laws and government were based upon, particularly the Constitution. The level of apathy regarding civil liberties, one of the PRIMARY reasons that we broke away from England and that people immigrate here, is appalling.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You're all suffering from "Chicken-Little Syndrome". You never stop to consider; A.) This IS a necessary tool for fighting terrorism in the communication age. B.) Why the hell could the government possibly care about your personal phone calls if you're not a terrorist? They may know about them, but do you really think they're going to follow up on who you're calling and why? MILLIONS of Americans? Making calls EVERY DAY!? They're only interested in terrorists calling patterns. They aren't going to do anything about the vast majority of your calls, even if you did make calls to "976-I-LIKE-BIG-BUTTS". It's absurd and idioctic to worry about things which like this "prying" in to your "privacy". The government can barely keep up with what the terorists are doing. Do you really think they care what you're doing, no matter how weird or perverted it is?

Couldnt agree with you more. I dont see why everyone is like "omg they can hear me, blah blah blah". I mean, why would the goverment care to listen to our conversations, and they dont listen to all of them, just ones that might suspect for terrorism. I mean, if we want a safer, then we have to make some changes that might prevent future terrorist actions.

GH Boy;

I'm actually very big on civil liberties. But there is nothing here that is being trampled. They have to keep records in case they get a hit on someone and have to go back to find out who that person called.

And I don't care HOW many degrees of seperation you think there are, but I can assure you that if anyone has terrorists for friends or any friends who would be friends with terrorists, then that person needs to be checked out!

Did you forget that prior to 9-11 the Intel Community had a number of the hijackers on their watch lists, but they missed a chance to do anything about them...and why? Because they are so over-loaded with intel that they can barely keep up with watching who they are supposed to watch...let alone prying in to the private lives of ordinary citizens when there is no sign of terrorist activity going on anyway.

This is a an attempt to make something out of nothing.

*yawn*

the Brits do the same thing. it's data mining. big whoop. welcome to the technology we ALL exploit in one way or another. then again i love it when liberals whine about stupid shit.

(paraphrasing) from John Hinderacker: say that there are around 200,000,000 million Americans that make around 10 phone calls a day. it would be next be impossible for all 35,000 NSA employees to spend more than one second on each phone call. they're just phone numbers. that were in database already.

speaking of the Brits doing the same. something else to think about.

quote:

The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London's transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain's top law enforcement official said Thursday. However, authorities admitted they didn't know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown. Thursday's report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot. Reid, speaking of the contacts in Pakistan ahead of the attacks, said authorities did not know what was discussed. *** "There are a series of suspicious contacts from an unknown individual or individuals in Pakistan in the immediate run-up to the bombings," Reid said after his department released its narrative of the attacks. "We do not know their content." >source<

those are phone calls that should have been listened to. and are the exact phone calls the NSA is interested in.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the Brits do the same thing. it's data mining. big whoop. welcome to the technology we ALL exploit in one way or another. then again i love it when liberals whine about stupid shit.

Yeah, I love it when you silly Bush apologists defend any and everything Bush says and does, damn the consequences and contradictions:

quote:

President Bush said Thursday the government is "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans" with a reported program to create a massive database of U.S. phone calls. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05...ords/index.html

quote:

(paraphrasing) from John Hinderacker: say that there are around 200,000,000 million Americans that make around 10 phone calls a day. it would be next be impossible for all 35,000 NSA employees to spend more than one second on each phone call. they're just phone numbers. that were in database already.

Well putting the questionable problems of this Adminstration's actions aside for a moment, let's consider the possible legal ramifications of what these phone companies have done:

Violating the Stored Communications Act:

quote:

The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer�s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by �administrative subpoena.� The first four clearly don�t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer � the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records. http://www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm

Which is a $1000/violation, BTW.

But back to our government, NSA did not go to the FISA court to obtain these records, which may be a bit problematic. How so? Well Qwest refused to play ball with the NSA and Bush on this issue, according to the USAToday report. Bush threatened them persistently, so Qwest demanded a letter from the DOJ confirming the legalities of NSA's actions for the data mining program. But Bush refused, so Qwest told him to fuck off. So if our dear AJ Gonzales refused to sign off on the legalities under FISA for Qwest, one tends to wonder just exactly how legal this truly was.

And one doesn't even need to be a liberal to wonder such a basic issue as this.

quote:

those are phone calls that should have been listened to. and are the exact phone calls the NSA is interested in.

Well it's a pity that the NSA along with the phone companies actually have to follow the law first and foremost before obtaining such private information, otherwise we become no better than the fucking bastards we are trying to track down and destroy in the first place.

^^ Good informative post Opus, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You're all suffering from "Chicken-Little Syndrome". You never stop to consider; A.) This IS a necessary tool for fighting terrorism in the communication age.

Obtaining phone records of 50 million Americans helps fight terrorism? Are 50 million Americans somehow related to al Qaeda? See, according to this President:

quote:

"The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," said Bush, without confirming the program of the National Security Agency. "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--

But according to our AG Gonzales' testimony:

quote:

In response to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said the government would have to determine if a conversation was related to al-Qaeda and crucial to fighting terrorism before deciding whether to listen in without court supervision. "I'm not going to rule it out," Gonzales said, referring to the possibility of monitoring purely domestic communications. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6040600764.html

According to Bush:

quote:

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05...s.ap/index.html

So 50 million Americans must somehow be tied to al Qaeda then, right?

But let's also not forget what Bush's new CIA pick, General Hayden once said:

quote:

I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). [...] And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets. http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00072.html

So is this data mining or isn't it, dear fearless leader?

quote:

B.) Why the hell could the government possibly care about your personal phone calls if you're not a terrorist?

Why the hell does Bush believe his greatest moment as the President was catching a 9 lb trout? Who the fuck knows what this dipshit is thinking, but it is truly the 64 million $ question as to what our Admin. is up to here.

quote:

They may know about them,

Know about them? They fucking requested them.

quote:

but do you really think they're going to follow up on who you're calling and why? MILLIONS of Americans? Making calls EVERY DAY!?

That's the idea behind data mining, yes.

quote:

They're only interested in terrorists calling patterns. They aren't going to do anything about the vast majority of your calls, even if you did make calls to "976-I-LIKE-BIG-BUTTS".

Straw man. If it violates FISA laws or any current communications laws that I outlined previously, then it's irrelevant as to what exactly they are searching for or why. It's still wrong.

But to take the argument to the point of absurdity, surely you wouldn't mind having a U.S. Marshall in your house to watch and listen to everything you do, do you? I mean, you're not violating any laws, right? Then I know you wouldn't object to having a physical presence of our government intruding on every action you make.

Because they are after terrorists, so no worries.

quote:

It's absurd and idioctic to worry about things which like this "prying" in to your "privacy". The government can barely keep up with what the terorists are doing.

That lies solely on the utter and complete failures of this Administration not knowing the first fucking thing about national security and how to aptly protect American citizens without violating our inherent Constitutional rights and liberties.

quote:

Do you really think they care what you're doing, no matter how weird or perverted it is?

I honestly don't know, and therein lies the problem - not one fucking person knows because this fucking GOP Congress along with this Administration has stonewalled the crap out of any investigation in the matter. We know jack shit about it because Senator Roberts and other compliant GOP Congressmen have failed to examine the legal ramifications into all NSA domestic spying matters.

So forgive me for asking the exact same question as you, but only directing it at the source of the problem (this Administration), rather than the public which has not one fucking thing to do with the problem in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco GH Boy; I'm actually very big on civil liberties.

Everything you have said up to this point has clearly demonstrated otherwise.

quote:

But there is nothing here that is being trampled.

If you were actually as big on civil liberties as you claim, you would at least want more information on the program rather than immediately cowtow to the Bush apologists' points on the matter. The slightest possibility of civil liberties being compromised sets off more civil libertarians than I can count, and you certainly do not demonstrate such behavior as of yet.

quote:

They have to keep records in case they get a hit on someone and have to go back to find out who that person called. And I don't care HOW many degrees of seperation you think there are, but I can assure you that if anyone has terrorists for friends or any friends who would be friends with terrorists, then that person needs to be checked out!

I'm glad you can assure me of this. I sure feel better with your assurance.

Thanks for assuring me.

quote:

Did you forget that prior to 9-11 the Intel Community had a number of the hijackers on their watch lists, but they missed a chance to do anything about them...and why? Because they are so over-loaded with intel that they can barely keep up with watching who they are supposed to watch...let alone prying in to the private lives of ordinary citizens when there is no sign of terrorist activity going on anyway.

Funny, I didn't forget that. In fact, I didn't know it. In fact, neither did the NSA:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap...fisa_stats.html

You see, the NSA already had the ability to read our mail/emails and listen to our phone conversations prior to 9/11 - they simply needed to obtain a FISA warrant to do so. Although the burden of proof was relaxed post-9/11 to obtain those warrants, the FISA court rarely if ever rejected such requests. Between the years 1979-2002, the FISA courts issued 15,264 surveillance warrants and NOT ONE REQUEST WAS REJECTED. Nothing in pre-9/11 times prevented our government from conducting surveillance ops on terrorists.

Let's also keep something else in mind:

quote:

�The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. �There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,� the former F.B.I. official said.� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print

And let's also keep in mind on that argument you Bush apologists make about how this domestic spying program spies only on those with clear links to al Qaeda:

quote:

�F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips �would always say that we had information whose source we can�t share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative.� He said, �I would always wonder, what does �suspected� mean?� �The information was so thin,� he said, �and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up.�� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print

Sure sounds like some great links to al Qaeda, don't it? It sure was a limited and concentrated effort on terrorists, wasn't it?:

quote:

�In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. [�] �We�d chase a number, find it�s a schoolteacher with no indication they�ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,� said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. �After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.�� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print

Got any more bullshit you want to shovel for this Administration? Keep 'em comin........

quote:

This is a an attempt to make something out of nothing. *yawn*

Then why stop any and all investigations dead cold into the matter?

Since we seem able to quote the likes of Powerline, I feel that Hunter over at DKos hit a pretty relevant counterpoint to consider in terms of the timeline of events. The reason I say this is because as this NSA scandal unfolds, he nails it to the "T" on those folks here who've defended Bush's actions every step of the way:

quote:

Thumbing through the usual right-wing media sources as they desperately vow that this, too, is absolutely no big deal and in fact entirely reasonable, I was struck by just how assured they were that massive data mining of the telephone calls of all American citizens was a perfectly normal thing to expect, just like government demands to turn over large numbers of Google searches, or government notions that if an American was accused of consorting with terrorists, the Constitutional protections of representation and evidence no longer applied. We seem to have had four distinct periods to this domestic espionage story: 1) We first were told the U.S. government was spying on al Qaeda. Well, duh. I would hope so. (As far as I'm concerned, the NSA should break into every al Qaeda call with little farting sounds, just to see if we can get them into slapfights with each other. I'd like to hear fake-Osama singing the Monty Python "Spam" song.) This, everyone agreed, was no big deal. Nobody gives two bits: it requires a FISA warrant, and those warrants can even be granted after the fact, and those warrants are in fact always granted, and there is no controversy about it. It is not only necessary for the war on actual terrorists, but is a microscopically limited program. 2) But we then learned that it wasn't al Qaeda, it was "international communications" in general: telephone conversations that began and ended at two foreign points. Using data mining, not just the calls of the suspected terror-connected were being intercepted, but the calls between individuals with no known connections with terrorism, in an effort to look for patterns and words ostensibly indicative of terrorism. And, we were assured, this was no big deal, because FISA law is too cumbersome to be followed when you are talking about intercepting tens of thousands of calls on a giant, worldwide fishing expedition, and after all, the president assured us, they were not spying on Americans, only foreigners. And Constitutional rights do not apply to those foreign types, although some people questioned whether or not such a buckshot approach was causing so many false positives as to be hindering law enforcement efforts. But, after all, this is necessary for the war against supporters of known terrorists, and it is a very limited program. Don't presume this to be a big deal. 3) Then we learned that it wasn't exactly just all phone calls between international sources, but calls beginning or ending in the United States, too. Though in direct conflict to previous assertions, this, we were told, was also just fine; we were told that the only people who had anything to fear were the terrorists. We wouldn't dare conduct searches of the records of U.S. citizens that had nothing to do with terrorism: only the guilty were being spied on. It is necessary for the war on people who might be acquainted with the supporters of possible terrorists, and it is a limited and quite sensitively conducted program. Don't be paranoid, the rest of you aren't being affected. 4) Then we learned that it isn't about foreign vs. international calls at all. It's all calls. Your calls, my calls, the calls of politicians, of reporters, of government officials, by the tens of millions. Purely between Americans. They're all stored by a government agency in an ostensible attempt to "data mine" that information for, it is said again, potential ties between you and the terrorists. But don't worry, the president tells us, the government would never misuse the data files they've collected on tens of millions of Americans. Don't be silly. This frog seems fairly well boiled, at this point, doesn't it? So here's a question for the community. And am I right in assuming that, if we looked, we could find administration officials and right-wing pundits vowing up and down at each stage that the next stage was a complete impossibility, a mere fabrication of paranoid minds? And what will be the next revelation that we're told, by the _exact same government sources and partisan hacks that assured us none of what we now know to be happening was happening? That the White House or other government agencies, say, have been sporadically requesting call data for specific individuals? Say, Christianne Amanpour? Richard Clarke? Dana Priest? Of course not. Don't be silly. This is a very limited program. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/11/202649/737

Given our own timeline of events here in this forum, does this not sound about right for how our conversations have unfolded with Powerline/Captain's Quarters supporters?

Thank god for Mister Opus1, because after finishing the first page, I thought everyone on this board had gone completely insane.

BTW, you guys are familiar with voice recognition software, right? You know, the stuff that people use to dictate Word documents on their computers and with their cell phones to avoid pressing too many buttons. You don't think that the NSA has much more advanced technology, so that they can completely go through your entire call without any manpower at all. I'm sure it can spit out every instance of not only when someone makes a terror threat, but also when someone bashes the president (or expresses that they wished he were dead, which at this point, a lot of people do), makes a drug deal, etc. depending on what they want to find. Now some of you may say, well, these people want the president dead, so they could kill him, so it's cool with us. Or these people are committing illegal drug trades, so screw them. The problem is that it doesn't have to stop there.

THIS IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT to set, which is THE reason I'm so opposed. If you call people/businesses that vocally don't like the president, you could be screwed. What about confidential informants for newspapers? Wouldn't it have been great if Tricky Dick was able to know who Deep Throat was because he could get the NSA database to tell him who had called Woodward and Bernstein's number? Then he could have had them whacked before details were disclosed and no one would have been the wiser. How about the confidential informants shedding light on all these travesties that are being committed now? Wouldn't it be great if they could just track who called the reporter breaking the story and deal with them?

This is an egregious violation of our civil liberties. Why not they just tear certain amendments from the Constitution and declare what corrupt fucks run this nation? Warrants, who the hell needs warrants? We're the government and we can do whatever we want to "fight terrorism" and don't try to stop us, because we won't give you any information to attack what we're doing because you don't have clearance. You people who support this prick's misguided war on terrorism(who noticeably don't even LIVE IN AREAS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED, like Dallas and VA Beach) make me disgusted, because I know that there are a lot of people out there who think like you. You think, "I don't do anything wrong, so it's not my problem." You fail to realize that it is your problem, because it's just further erosion of principles and precendents and one of these days, it could be you who is targeted by a personal attack. If it's allowed to start, who knows when and with what type of info it'll stop. You do realize that IF this is allowed to become precedent, and DEMOCRATS get into office, they could use the same info at Bush's hands to destroy their opponents, which could be you.

Mr. Opus;

So what is your suggestion? That we keep it "business as usual" when it comes to how we gather intel? Because it worked so well prior to 9-11?

They're not even listening in on calls yet when it comes to this issue. This is simply a matter of looking for suspicious call patterns. THEN they would act on that info.

By your own admission, you don't even know what you're worried about when it comes to this tool of the intel community, which to me, makes your argument pointless.

If the administrations argument is that they need it to fight terrorism (which is 100% completely believable) and you have no real argument at all to refute this claim, then it's kind of a no-brainer as to who I'm going to side with on this one.

I don't want to die for some collegiate, theoretical, liberal idealisms. This is a real world, war-time scenario we have here, and this wouldn't be the first time that peace-time philosophies were usurped during times of strife for the safety of the people as a whole in the long run.

There are times that you just have to put your trust in your government. Who else are you going to put it in? Al Queda?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Mr. Opus; So what is your suggestion? That we keep it "business as usual" when it comes to how we gather intel? Because it worked so well prior to 9-11?

Apparantly it did since they issued reports about a possible attack for that day.

^^^But it wasn't a strong enough report to have stopped it.

More intel can't hurt, especially if it's more focused and of better quality.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^But it wasn't a strong enough report to have stopped it. More intel can't hurt, especially if it's more focused and of better quality.

Well, I suppose it wasn't...

More intelligence would be a wonderful thing from what I can see. My major concern is that the United States is moving towards a less free country in the name of security. We've all heard that statement before, but I do not think that many people are aware of how real this could happen. I believe that the changes from freedom to security will be extremely subtle and over a long period of time. I realize that many people are afraid of terrorist activities but do you truly think that having millions of telephone numbers is going to help? Is the increase in security worth losing another inch of your privacy and freedom? I'm truly interested in your response, and would be glad to do some furthur reading on this topic.

I've always taken pride in the fact that the US government, although somewhat corrupt and wasteful, allowed more freedom and privacy than so many other countries. I would deeply disturbed to find out that I could no longer be proud of that.

so much for living in a free country.Where is the democracy now?


god bless canada and for our freedom.

donny donny donny *shakes head* do you listen to yourself sometimes? here you are, once again bashing so-called \"liberal\" idealisms; do you really know anything about libertarian thought at all? theyre much closer than you seem to think!

you also havent refuted anything opus has said either re the (il)legality of the US government's behaviour.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I don't want to die for some collegiate, theoretical, liberal idealisms. This is a real world, war-time scenario we have here, and this wouldn't be the first time that peace-time philosophies were usurped during times of strife for the safety of the people as a whole in the long run.

so, what are your troops dying for then? i thought these idealisms were exactly what its worth dying for? freedom of the citizenry is in itself a very problematic ideal, yet its exactly this freedom that sets the western world above and beyond (imo) the rest of the world. yes, theres a delicate balance between security & privacy, but how can you put such faith, as a supposed libertarian, in a government that has been so dishonest in so many of its dealings? not to mention what these activities could mean to future governments- youve got to think about these issues in a much broader scope than just the current political climate.

at the end of the day rights of citizens can and are abused by bad people the world over, but thats the price you pay to protect & allow greater freedoms for those that use them wisely. i dont wish anyone to die from future terror attacks (in any country), but where do you draw the line on how far youre willing to oppress your people in order to protect them?

i wouldve thought, given the US' patchy record when it comes to spying & civil rights, you would be a lot more skeptical of your government's acitivities than you seem to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Well, I suppose it wasn't... More intelligence would be a wonderful thing from what I can see. My major concern is that the United States is moving towards a less free country in the name of security. We've all heard that statement before, but I do not think that many people are aware of how real this could happen. I believe that the changes from freedom to security will be extremely subtle and over a long period of time. I realize that many people are afraid of terrorist activities but do you truly think that having millions of telephone numbers is going to help? Is the increase in security worth losing another inch of your privacy and freedom? I'm truly interested in your response, and would be glad to do some furthur reading on this topic. I've always taken pride in the fact that the US government, although somewhat corrupt and wasteful, allowed more freedom and privacy than so many other countries. I would deeply disturbed to find out that I could no longer be proud of that.

I want to add that, generally, once these privacy-limiting actions are passed, they tend to snowball. An old cliche (somewhat modified) "you give them an inch and they'll take a mile." I believe that the same should be applied to our government. I also think fearing terrorists is silly... unless you're in a place like Iraq of course

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