Paper Reports NSA Collecting Phone Records of ordinary citizens [Archive]

Tina

05-11-2006, 10:35 PM

I remember when Bush asked for more powers post-9/11, saying those powers would not be abused and would only be used to catch terrorists. I knew that was a lie, but what can you do -- they will do as they please. And they are.

They say no surveillance is conducted without a court order, but after reading numerous articles about this over the years, I know that's not only not true, but also that to them, "court order" means very little and is not as official or as complicated as they like to make it seem.

And good for Qwest. http://www.tcdesign.net/smilies/thumbsup.gif

Paper Reports NSA Collecting Phone Records

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Thu May 11, 11:39 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans and Democrats demanded answers from the Bush administration Thursday about a report that the government secretly collected records of ordinary Americans' phone calls to build a database of every call made within the country.

"It is our government, it's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel "to find out exactly what is going on."

The companies said Thursday that they are protecting customers' privacy but have an obligation to assist law enforcement and government agencies in ensuring the nation's security. "We prize the trust our customers place in us. If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions," the company said in a statement, echoed by the others.

The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.

"The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks," said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.

On Capitol Hill, several lawmakers expressed incredulity about the program, with some Republicans questioning the rationale and legal underpinning and several Democrats railing about the lack of congressional oversight.

"I don't know enough about the details except that I am willing to find out because I'm not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel: "The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?"

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said bringing the telephone companies before the Judiciary Committee is an important step.

"We need more. We need to take this seriously, more seriously than some other matters that might come before the committee because our privacy as American citizens is at stake," Durbin said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., argued that the program "is not a warrantless wiretapping of the American people. I don't think this action is nearly as troublesome as being made out here, because they are not tapping our phones."

The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

The NSA and the Office of National Intelligence Director did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

NSA is the same spy agency that conducts the controversial domestic eavesdropping program that has been acknowledged by
President Bush. The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.

The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden — Bush's choice to take over leadership of the CIA — had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

The White House offered no reason for the postponement to the lawmakers. Other meetings with lawmakers were still planned.

Hayden already faced criticism because of the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program. As head of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, Hayden also would have overseen the call-tracking program.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has spoken favorably of the nomination, said the latest revelation "is also going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of Gen. Hayden."

The NSA wants the database of domestic call records to look for any patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, USA Today said.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, told the paper that the agency operates within the law, but would not comment further on its operations.

One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

___

Associated Press Writers Katherine Shrader and Elizabeth White in Washington and AP Business Writer Barbara Ortutay in New York contributed to this report.

ScreamingChicken

05-11-2006, 10:42 PM

1300 Class

05-11-2006, 11:39 PM

Nasty business. Thats why I dislike having so much power concentrated in one office.

JudgeDredd425

05-11-2006, 11:47 PM

Bush as castrated himself in terms of political potency. He has handed the White House over to the Democrats or an independent in '08. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial number of those Republican congressional seats that have rubber stamped him in the past 6 years flip to Democrat or Libertarian. This maybe the big opening that the Libertarian Party has been waiting for.

You make sound as if there is going to be an honest election in '08. Don't discount the power of the fraud voting block: double dippers, illegals, the dead, and just good old fashion ballot stuffing of non-existent voters.

1300 Class

05-12-2006, 12:27 AM

...and thats just from the republicans. ;)

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 03:08 AM

...and thats just from the republicans. ;)

No that is old school Democrat tactics, but no matter since there is no longer any meaningful difference between the Republicans and Democrats, they both want us to go to the same place, they just have differences of opinions on how to get there. The fireworks seen on TV between them are purely show to help keep the masses asleep.

Sandie_Zitkus

05-12-2006, 03:11 AM

FitChick

05-12-2006, 03:29 AM

You make sound as if there is going to be an honest election in '08. Don't discount the power of the fraud voting block: double dippers, illegals, the dead, and just good old fashion ballot stuffing of non-existent voters.

Yep! We always had a saying in Democrat-controlled Philadelphia: "Vote early and vote often!" (lol) Philly is a city where even dead people vote....I've wondered how many times my father "voted" since he passed away a few years ago.

prickly

05-12-2006, 03:37 AM

bush and his snore on terror. when is that prick going to shut the fuck about it. and i bet his personality analysis doesn't have him down as a finisher, i mean how many wars can one start and not finish?

as to phone records, damn cheek if you ask me. i wouldn't want anyone going over my phone sex activities. but then that would make it a threesome possibly. cool!

1300 Class

05-12-2006, 03:49 AM

No that is old school Democrat tactics, but no matter since there is no longer any meaningful difference between the Republicans and Democrats, they both want us to go to the same place, they just have differences of opinions on how to get there.
Presicely because they are trying to capture the most votes, and hence are drawing nearer. So blame joe average voter for it. Political parties live or die by their popularity, and this is a way in which they gather the votes in. Mass appeal.

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 04:24 AM

Presicely because they are trying to capture the most votes, and hence are drawing nearer. So blame joe average voter for it. Political parties live or die by their popularity, and this is a way in which they gather the votes in. Mass appeal.

You seem to be missing my point, which is that it does not matter much what the masses want because of the fraud and corruption going on in government. Granted there are occasional exceptions, but by and large the laws are not being followed and the people's will not done. Take border control and immigration. A clear majority of citizens, no matter how you ask the question, want the illegals stopped at the border and those already here rounded up and processed out, despite this fact, those in Washington D.C. continue to keep their heads up their butts and take their marching orders, along with their campaign contributions, from the various lobbyists of those industries and corporations that use those illegals to drive up their profits. They also see it as a way to court the hispanic vote which should not matter since it is illegal to begin with. It has taken a long time with a lot of pressure just to get the little bit of enforcement you are seeing on TV and reading about in the papers. These Republocrats, or Demicans if you prefer, now in power are banking on the public loosing focus and/or interest before they really have to do anything about the illegals. If that does not happen soon, my guess is that they will manufacture a new problem to help get the public's attention away from the fact that they are selling us all out for thirty pieces of silver. The political parties thing is strictly for show, bread and circuses to keep things running relatively smoothly for the elite now in control.

CleverBomb

05-12-2006, 04:34 AM

No that is old school Democrat tactics, but no matter since there is no longer any meaningful difference between the Republicans and Democrats, they both want us to go to the same place, they just have differences of opinions on how to get there. The fireworks seen on TV between them are purely show to help keep the masses asleep. That's Libertarian talk Judge! LOL I was talking to my Libertarian buddy in Texas tonite and he was saying the same thing. BTW - I agree!
The tradtional Democratic tactics involve creating extra voters.
The tradtional GOP tactics involve discouraging or preventing legitimate voters from voting -- and pandering to the all-important Diebold demographic.

Here's one very important difference between the two major parties: A Democratic President wouldn't have nominated Alito or Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Also, a Democratic-controlled Congress would (if only because there were political points to be scored) have an interest in overseeing the activities of the Executive Branch rather than overlooking them.

In light of recent scandals (the demoted GOP former Speaker of the House resigning under indictment for campaign-money-laundering, a key GOP lobbyist pleading guilty to bribery, a GOP congressman pleading guilty to taking bribes and resigning, etc) the GOP would love for people to think "they're all the same". Sure.

If they're all the same, how about all you libertarians and conservatives vote for the Democratic candidate next time? Won't change a thing, so why not?

-Rusty (slightly partisan)

Edit: I cut down the list of scandals -- some may be topics on which I may not be authorized to express a critical opinion due to the terms of my employment.

CleverBomb

05-12-2006, 04:58 AM

I cannot edit my post again, so I will clarify this statment:

If they're all the same, how about all you libertarians and conservatives vote for the Democratic candidate next time? Won't change a thing, so why not?
This statement was intended as a rhetorical question to highlight the hypocracy of the "they're all the same for thee, but not for me" position. It was not intended to direct any individual to vote for or against any particular candidate.

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 05:01 AM

The tradtional Democratic tactics involve creating extra voters.
The tradtional GOP tactics involve discouraging or preventing legitimate voters from voting -- and pandering to the all-important Diebold demographic.

Here's one very important difference between the two major parties: A Democratic President wouldn't have nominated Alito or Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Also, a Democratic-controlled Congress would (if only because there were political points to be scored) have an interest in overseeing the activities of the Executive Branch rather than overlooking them.

In light of recent scandals (the demoted GOP former Speaker of the House resigning under indictment for campaign-money-laundering, a key GOP lobbyist pleading guilty to bribery, a GOP congressman pleading guilty to taking bribes and resigning, etc) the GOP would love for people to think "they're all the same". Sure.

If they're all the same, how about all you libertarians and conservatives vote for the Democratic candidate next time? Won't change a thing, so why not?

-Rusty (slightly partisan)

Edit: I cut down the list of scandals -- some may be topics on which I may not be authorized to express a critical opinion due to the terms of my employment.

I can see their crap has you fooled. The leaders of the Republican party, most of which are now RINO's have hijacked the party. The members have not left the party but the party has left them. Unfortunately most of those party members can't seem to bring themselves to vote for another party (other than the corrupt opposite Democratic party) because they don't believe a third party candidate can win. Well they can if they get the votes and the election is not in fact rigged, and with the push to go to all electronic voting the Republocrats can forever protect themselves through a few key strokes and mouse clicks to the election computers. I will never vote for a Democrat but I will vote for a Libertarian or an honest independent who can follow the law and protect this country. You are too focused on the window dressing, you should step back and take a good hard look at the whole house, it is not very pretty.

HappyFatChick

05-12-2006, 05:14 AM

Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.

dan

05-12-2006, 06:01 AM

dan

05-12-2006, 06:15 AM

You make sound as if there is going to be an honest election in '08. Don't discount the power of the fraud voting block: double dippers, illegals, the dead, and just good old fashion ballot stuffing of non-existent voters.How else could Gore,Kerry get so many votes??...There is no doubt that the democrats will stop at nothing to obtain power, although in the end it is all pretty much the same anyway..The ones in power get more press attention and they all love to see themselves on TV or in the news..looking important......Egocentrics!!! Losers!! 90% of them...They do nothing for us real Americans, only for the extremists...If I were Prez, Once a week I would make phone calls from the telephone book and talk to Average Americans to keep a Real pulse on how the people feel.Stay away from all those dumb advisors..

EtobicokeFA

05-12-2006, 07:20 AM

This is a hard one to answer..I sit on the fence with this..On one hand we need as much protection as possible,in case of horrific acts by real terrorists..On the flip side I do not like out government abusing OUR RIGHTS as citizens. It could get way out of hand and get abused..I do not trust politicians with all this power,after all.their just equal citizens also just like us. We must keep that in mind always..

You guys remember that the report that came out, stating 9/11 could have been stopped if the US law enforcement agencies wasn't so busy fight with each other.

That is one of the reasons that Bush wanted to end the fighting.

CleverBomb

05-12-2006, 07:34 AM

How else could Gore,Kerry get so many votes??...There is no doubt that the democrats will stop at nothing to obtain power, although in the end it is all pretty much the same anyway..The ones in power get more press attention and they all love to see themselves on TV or in the news..looking important......Egocentrics!!! Losers!! 90% of them...They do nothing for us real Americans, only for the extremists...If I were Prez, Once a week I would make phone calls from the telephone book and talk to Average Americans to keep a Real pulse on how the people feel.Stay away from all those dumb advisors..
A lot of Americans agree with you that the President is doing an "excellent or pretty good job".
According to a May 10th Harris Interactive poll, 29% of them do. Twenty-nine percent is still a lot of people,right?

That's still better than the 18% approval rating for Congress -- people really understand how the Democrat Party has run that fine institution into the ground! Oh, wait, they aren't running either the House or the Senate -- that'd be the GOP. Nevermind.

-Rusty

CleverBomb

05-12-2006, 08:01 AM

Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.
We're all eagerly waiting for you post the following things to the internet:
-scanned copies of your phone bills for the last 5 years
-likewise your cellphone bills
-every pay-per-view cable program you ordered
-every single website you've visited in the last 5 years
-Everyone you've ever gotten a AIM/Yahoo/ICQ instant message from, or sent one to.
-The subject line of every single email you've written or received, and everyone that it went to or came from.

Since you have nothing to hide, I'm sure you won't mind.

If that's too much work, just call the NSA and have them send you a copy -- because they probably already have it.

Of course, the government wouldn't misuse the information.
Just ask Nixon. Or J. Edgar Hoover.
Or (depending on your political persuasion) former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, or President Hillary (should she be elected).

-Rusty

CleverBomb

05-12-2006, 08:17 AM

Oh, and if anyone who you've talked with more than once or twice (I'm guessing, here) gets in trouble with the law -- guess what? You might get special attention... wiretapping, realtime monitoring of your email and internet usage. After all, you've associated with a criminal (who might be a terrorist!)

And you'd better hope nobody steals your identity and sets up an internet account or phone service in your name...

Feel safer?

-Rusty

Turin

05-12-2006, 08:31 AM

If anybody thinks that this hasnt being going on for decades, well that's just naive.

HappyFatChick

05-12-2006, 08:51 AM

Tina

05-12-2006, 09:14 AM

Miss Vickie

05-12-2006, 09:19 AM

It also brings to mind the quote (paraprased) that those who are willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for (the illusion of) security deserve neither.

Good old Ben Franklin. :) A very smart old coot, who seemed to be blessed with foresight.

HappyFatChick

05-12-2006, 09:19 AM

My freedom doesn't come from man or my government.
It comes from my God.
From my relationship with Jesus Christ.
"He who the son sets free is free indeed...."

Miss Vickie

05-12-2006, 09:26 AM

We're not *defeating* "the terrorists," we're *creating* them.

Oops, I forgot to respond to this. The thing is, when there's a power vacuum (such as we've created in Iraq), it's gotta be filled by someone or something. Civilization, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and people naturally need some kind of leadership. I hate to say it but usually that vacuum is filled by fascists or terrorists. What we've done is resplace a nasty fascist (a very bad guy), with terrorists (worse guys). What's unfortunate is that we disbanded the Iraqi military, so the guys who had guns and know how went... where exactly? Some of them went to be trained for the police force. But some of them, who now don't have a job, a leader, but have training went.... where??? I worry that some of them have been brought over to the "dark side", due to a (I think misplaced) sense of national identity and religion.

Unfortunately, the government we're creating in Iraq isn't strong enough to hold sway over the people and make them safe. And I'm not sure that a military presence is that effective against roadside and suicide bombers. I mean, if military presence worked against terrorism, Israel wouldn't have had such a tough time, would it??? What helped in Ireland, as an example of a place that's had some measure of success over terrorism, seems to be diplomacy, oddly enough, or at least that's my understanding.

Sandie S-R

05-12-2006, 10:47 AM

......

And I fully support whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists.

Then I hope you would be supporting the Impeachment of Dubya. He's done more to support terrorism than anyone on the planet.

Tina

05-12-2006, 10:56 AM

HFC, an honest question: what if all it took to be in trouble was disagreeing with the administration? What if the administration was Democrat, rather than Republican? Do you think it's right? These things happen. People can say the wrong thing, or read the wrong thing, and have FBI agents at their doorstep. Do you think this is right?

Basic rights were put in place for a reason. The founding fathers didn't want to see the persecution they'd left behind and wanted citizens to have freedoms and rights. There has been one form of terrorism or another on this planet almost since the beginning, and one thing that has been proven is that there is no perfect safety. So in trying to find it, the very thing this country was founded on is diminished.

Mistakes are made, miscommunications happen. Lives are altered forever.

NYEmtEsq

05-12-2006, 11:44 AM

CB- I have absolutely nothing to hide. My records have nothing in them that are even remotely interesting to anyone.

I think whoever leaked this story to the press should be arrested and charged with espionage. This is free speech at its' worst.

And I fully support whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists.

HFC, many of us have nothing to hide, but nonetheless respect our privacy to the point where we don't want government bureaucrats rifling through our telephone calls without even some scintilla of reasonable suspicion (to say nothing of the probable cause needed for a valid warrant). Like many things in life, to err is human, to really fuck things up takes government. Do we really want a bunch of screwed-into-the-floor civil servants charged with that task? (Where there is also a correlating temptation to personalize it to inappropriate ends, such as getting revenge for being abused as a high school geek).

If it turns out that these phone calls are being tapped without any legitimate approval (or that whatever warrants may have been issued are signed by what is euphamistically known as a "Dial-A-Warrant" judge who signs anything placed before his or her nose), then this is no different than when Billary Clinton collected hundreds of FBI files on political enemies (except, maybe, on a grander scale).

I've defended the Bush administration to my friends (and on this board) even despite having differing views on whether the biggest expansion of the Medicaid program since the Johnson administration was prudent; and I've done so for one simple reason: I don't trust liberals (of which many democrats are) with my nation's security. Nobody wants to see the terrorist savages defeated more than I do. I lost a total of ten brothers in arms as a result of these savage attacks, each of whose only crime was riding an ambulance that day. I am hardly the only one in this nation who has suffered loss. All gave some that day.....some gave all. If, however, the tradeoff turns out to have such facist overtones as haivig to live my life under surveillance, as if in a fishbowl, then we're headed down the road where the terrorists want us to be.

As far as considering the publishing of this story to be treason, I consider it quite the contrary (and I'm no defender of the fourth estate, given how they have in the past abused the rights guaranteed to them under our constitution). As much as I hate to resort to the slippery slope argument (which, all too often, is the shelter of the alarmist), where would the line be between a treasonous and non-treasonous story be found? Would it be Bush's speaking gaffes? Would it be Cheney's shooting?

Besides, as a practical matter, this story may actually have the contrary result. While the conspiracy theorists and the paranoid have, for years, acted as if No Such Agency was routinely monitoring telephone calls of ordinary people, if it now turns out that this is closer to the truth than was previously thought, it will give terrorists pause before using the phone to coordinate their next strike.

saucywench

05-12-2006, 01:25 PM

Paul Fannin

05-12-2006, 02:15 PM

Sandie_Zitkus

05-12-2006, 02:18 PM

Then I hope you would be supporting the Impeachment of Dubya. He's done more to support terrorism than anyone on the planet.

YAY SANDIE! What you said!!!!

Paul Fannin

05-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss...

;)

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 02:43 PM

You guys remember that the report that came out, stating 9/11 could have been stopped if the US law enforcement agencies wasn't so busy fight with each other.

That is one of the reasons that Bush wanted to end the fighting.

That's nonsense. Even assuming anything could have been stopped, it was not a matter of fighting over agency turf. It was politically correct nonsense, anti-racial profiling policies, a lack of border control and immigration enforcement thanks to policies and directives issued from Washington, coupled with bureaucratic red tape and overly stupid people in positions of power above the field agents who want to do their jobs, but keeping having their hands tied.

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 02:55 PM

Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear.

That's the wrong attitude. That kind of thinking can get your Constitutional rights killed and fast. The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mentality can easily be used to kill the Fourth Amendment. Are you ok with any police agency being able to not only stop you, but turn you upside down and see what falls out of your pockets too!? Just because, oh no particular reason, none need after all since we can just do away with search warrants and the whole concept of probable cause. If granted such power government inevitably abuses it. It is not a matter of if, only when will they do it. I believe that government should not be granted any more power than what is proscribed in the Constitution. That is all that is necessary to do their jobs, that and a little bit of common sense which seems to be in short supply these days. I am a police officer, but I don't want to live in a police state.

Sandie_Zitkus

05-12-2006, 02:59 PM

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss...

;)

Hey I said that!!!!! LOL

Sandie_Zitkus

05-12-2006, 03:03 PM

Aliena

05-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Sometimes I wish that we could just have a government that was for the people, made by the people, and supported by the people. Is that really too much to ask?

I suppose it is if you have different types of people trying to profit at the expense of people and people who try to oppress the rights of other people, a fair and equal government is almost a myth; isn't it?

I don't want to wake up one day and find out a nuclear (or dirty) bomb went off somewhere in my country, because we didn't have adequate security. However, I don't think taking away, good, hardworking, productive American's rights is a good way to secure our government.

Just curious, how do you reason with the unreasonable. We assume that the Middle Eastern terrorists want a lifestyle like ours. In actuality they don't. I'm really not quite sure what they want, except maybe to kill as many Jewish and American people as they can.
So how do you reason with that? Do we say, "Ok Mr. Terrorist, you can kill 50 Americans/Jews in a period over 2 years, in exchange you will no longer train fellow terrorist to bomb our buildings."

Silly, isn't it?

I don't know, I just wanna live in peace and have others be able to live in peace too. I am tired of war, really.

Aliena

05-12-2006, 03:17 PM

As much as I want to see a third party come into power - lets face it no third party has a strong enough leader or has it's act together enough to do this right now - as much as it pisses me off - it's still a 2 party system.

I think Bush needs to ge out of office. And right now the only way to do that is to vote Democrat. *clenching teeth*

Unfortunately Sandie, a strong voice in America is someone with a strong pocketbook. Anything or one less than that is not going to be heard by the American people. At least not seriously, anyways.

What we need is a voice that is for the people without an agenda. Someone that has the ability to work, diplomatically (for real, not show) with other nations governments.
Someone who can see other gains and advancements than monetary ones. Someone who will make it illegal for elite companies to lobby government officials with monetary "gifts" as a reward for "law-passed" favors.

If a person is poor, but while educated, I don't know if the American people would take that person seriously.

I am beginning to see it not as a Dem or Rep issue, or a black and white issue, rather a have and have not issue. And those that have are using some tactics that aren't for humanitarian rights to distract the have nots.

One thought I ponder in my mind is, with all this technology we are smart enough to come up with, are we really that dumb to not be able to get over ethnic backgrounds, or religous beliefs?

I don't know...just thinking out loud mostly.

JudgeDredd425

05-12-2006, 03:17 PM

- as much as it pisses me off - it's still a 2 party system.

Actually it's a one party system posing as a two party system.

Aliena

05-12-2006, 03:19 PM

Actually it's a one party system posing as a two party system.

Nah, it's still a two party system. It's just not the two party system that is still being spoon fed to us on the news.

Sandie_Zitkus

05-12-2006, 03:19 PM

Actually it's a one party system posing as a two party system.

When you're right you're right Judge - that is what it is.:(

HappyFatChick

05-12-2006, 03:39 PM

Aliena- the Muslims absolutely want to take over the U.S. just as I believe
Mexicans want to take over the southwest. We're just not making it as easy for the Musllims. I have read numerous stories with quotes from both groups saying so.

I've heard NSA and former NSA guys interviewed and they say the listening has been going on for years. They're not interested in what we have to say. They're interested in what known or suspected terrorists have to say. The paranoia is unfounded.And they have thwarted hundreds of attacks since 911.

What would happen if Bush was replaced by a democrat? Withdraw from Iraq? (They voted on that and it failed miserably.) The war on terror would then come here and we'd be fighting it in OUR backyard. Raise taxes? Yep. Thanks for nothing. Universal healthcare? Never gonna happen. Plus, it's miserable! You want to wait 3 years for your gallbladder surgery done by a quack?

I love how everytime the left gets all excited about Republicans low poll numbers or whatever the currrent problem is. They get their hopes up, their hateful tactics into practice, and then lose another election. They've lost the last 5/7 and they will lose the next one.

And as far as all the "what ifs?" I have no fear. Not of terrorists or phone monitoring. I have nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of.

loves2laugh

05-12-2006, 03:45 PM

Aliena

05-12-2006, 04:07 PM

And as far as all the "what ifs?" I have no fear. Not of terrorists or phone monitoring. I have nothing to hide and nothing to be afraid of.

You're not afraid? You should be. Consider for a moment that the real terrorists are the one's that profit from the breaking of your bones? The one's that don't give a rats ass if you have something to hide or not, because in their minds, you're only a forethought to being expendable.

Consider for a moment that the terrorists are not just Muslim or Mexican, rather your American government? Hey I voted for Bush, even supported his Patriot Act and his war, but let’s get serious here for a second. If you're trying to tell me that there is no merit to the "what ifs" group then your views are just as unwarranted as the extremist voice of doom.

There have been many questions in my mind and other American minds as to why this President has done and not done certain things, such as find Osama Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri.

And besides, it's not a question whether or not you have or haven't anything to hide. It's just wrong for a government that is supposed to be about the rights of its people and protecting their liberties eavesdropping on its citizens.
I am not a terrorist and I do NOT want the government eavesdropping on my phone conversation with my laundry lady, just because her last name happens to be Mohammed or something of that nature.

Essentially, you stop terrorist by going after terrorist, not the citizens you claim to be trying to protect. That's kind of like putting the fox in the chicken coup to keep the weasel out; the end doesn't justify the means.

Sorry, it just doesn't wash with me. And by the way, I've not ever read where the Muslims want to take over America. I have read however, that a certain select sect would love to kill America. I would say that it's working, but it's not by their accord, rather your elite companies-aka: your government.

Aliena

05-12-2006, 04:10 PM

i dont know- i am going to sound nuts but i grew up, not thinking, but knowing that the government was watching us in a big brother sort of way. i use to hang out with a lot of criminals so wire taps were just a reality. you didnt discuss "things" over the phone.

This is very true Ingrid, but I think the key word here is "criminals". It's always been assumed that only criminals are getting watched, not "Joe Blow-American".

~sigh~

I am not very political. At least not in the way most are; I'd rather talk about food and sex, really!! :D

Mokojumbie

05-12-2006, 06:07 PM

For those that say they have nothing to hide, or those who don't see anything wrong with something like this, would you have a problem if it was a Democratic admin that held this? Because just because this admin has it and you trust them not to do nasty evil things with it, doesn't mean that another admin down the line won't look to use it for their own gains. This sort of wide reaching info is not good for anyone to have, especially a govt.

And it wasn't the lack of info that caused 9/11, but rather not connecting the dots. In hindsight, it was all there. We need to work smarter not harder.

HappyFatChick

05-12-2006, 08:38 PM

I don't care if it's Repub or Dem, it's the RIGHT thing to do. I never complained while Clinton was president. Sure I laughed at some of his escapades and thought he lacked character, but I never said the vile, hateful things some liberals say about my president.

dan

05-12-2006, 09:28 PM

[QUOTE=saucywench]You know, yesterday and today I kept hearing reports about NSA this and NSA that. I thought to myself, "what the hell is NSA?" So it made me feel somewhat vindicated later, when I visited Wikipedia, to read this:

Despite having been described as the world's largest single employer of Ph.D. mathematicians, the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers, and having a budget much larger than that of the CIA, it has had a remarkably low profile until recent years. For a long time its existence was not even acknowledged by the U.S. government. It was often said, half-jokingly, that "NSA" stood for "No Such Agency".
;)

NSA is often refered to as "the government that doesn't exists" no one knows what there doing...There like invisible.

Miss Vickie

05-12-2006, 09:31 PM

And it wasn't the lack of info that caused 9/11, but rather not connecting the dots. In hindsight, it was all there. We need to work smarter not harder.

Just. So. We have information aplenty on the people who wish to harm us. Can we put the pieces together? Sometimes yes, but sadly, in the case of 9/11, sometimes not so much. :(

kilo riley

05-12-2006, 10:16 PM

Ryan

05-13-2006, 02:30 AM

I think Bush needs to ge out of office. And right now the only way to do that is to vote Democrat. *clenching teeth*

How will voting for Democrats get Bush out of office when he is unable to run for a third term anyway?

Ryan

05-13-2006, 02:33 AM

I say this in all seriousness and as someone who once supported George W Bush.

For what Bush has done to our constitution he should be impeached and removed from office.

He took an oath to protect the constitution and he has violated that. The president is a crook.

Not to defend Bush...but politicians and judges have been crapping on the intent of the Constitution and eliminating our freedoms for quite a while.

Zandoz

05-13-2006, 08:26 AM

How will voting for Democrats get Bush out of office when he is unable to run for a third term anyway?

It may not get him out of office directly, but it may make him think twice about the things he does, if congress were not controlled by "Anything you say, George" yes men. An even better solution would be to vote out both sides of the same bogus coin...get rid of both parties.

TraciJo67

05-13-2006, 09:00 AM

You make sound as if there is going to be an honest election in '08. Don't discount the power of the fraud voting block: double dippers, illegals, the dead, and just good old fashion ballot stuffing of non-existent voters.

Sure, but I'm confident that the Bush administration & ilk will never risk such behavior this time around -- they know they're being scrutinized. :D

Irony alert, for the humor impaired.

TraciJo67

05-13-2006, 09:02 AM

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 09:06 AM

How will voting for Democrats get Bush out of office when he is unable to run for a third term anyway?
Simple.

If the Democrats retake control of Congress, they will have the power to launch the full investigations that the GOP Congress has refused to do - because they were unwilling to investigate one of their own. I believe there's enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach Bush AND Cheney. And the house of card would just fall....

We can't wait until Jan 20, 2009 to get rid of Bush - we need it done sooner. And the only way is to put Democrats in Congress and impeach his sorry ass.

Tina

05-13-2006, 09:15 AM

Here, here.

JudgeDredd425

05-13-2006, 09:17 AM

Not to defend Bush...but politicians and judges have been crapping on the intent of the Constitution and eliminating our freedoms for quite a while.

Quite true but nevertheless wrong. The Constitution needs to be upheld and those breaking it appropriately punished.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 09:26 AM

Quite true but nevertheless wrong. The Constitution needs to be upheld and those breaking it appropriately punished.
Just remember that George W. Bush - the guy that some people on this board think is such a wonderful, caring man - has been quoted as calling the Constitution nothing more than "just a goddamned piece of paper",

From Capitol Hill Blue

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

I would request that anyone here who still supprts Bush please follow that link and read this article in its entirety.

Turin

05-13-2006, 09:28 AM

Simple.
I believe there's enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach Bush AND Cheney. And the house of card would just fall....

And I believe that flying pigs will deliver a check for a quarter million dollars to my doorstep by arbor day. Believing something doesn't make it actually exist.

There has been a ton of innuendo and equivocation and the art of conflating entirely unrelated events with agendas and suspicions to form "evidence" as one would like to see it. I understand that many many people are unhappy with our current administration, but there hasnt been an administration in the history of the country that hasnt had many many unhappy people.

The difference is that it seems that there are a lot of vocal whiny people who seem to think they know better than the rest of the voting eligible country. I understand the disappointment many Democrats felt in losing in '04 in that they felt this was a winnable election, and it was. The problem was that the majority of those eligible voters who actually showed up to vote felt otherwise. To whine and piss and moan and complain and cry foul and shouyt conspiracy thoeries from the rooftops does nothing. It means nothing. Show me any administration that didnt have some group of people that felt that administration wasnt corrupt, evil and shitting on the Constitution and I'll show you a fictitious one.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 09:41 AM

Show me any administration that didnt have some group of people that felt that administration wasnt corrupt, evil and shitting on the Constitution and I'll show you a fictitious one.
The evidence is out there, Turin. The Bush Administration is the most unlawful and corrupt administration since Richard Nixon's.

Turin

05-13-2006, 09:58 AM

The evidence is out there, Turin. The Bush Administration is the most unlawful and corrupt administration since Richard Nixon's.

And when Clinton was in office there were many who said the same thing. And when Bush I was in office... and when Reagan was in office.. keep going all the way back to Washington. That's my point. Given an agenda, one can dig up anything.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 10:02 AM

And when Clinton was in office there were many who said the same thing. And when Bush I was in office... and when Reagan was in office.. keep going all the way back to Washington. That's my point. Given an agenda, one can dig up anything.
And thanks to the Republicans who had an axe to grind, Ken Starr spent $40 million of OUR MONEY to investigate Bill and Hillary, and found NOTHING.

Turin

05-13-2006, 10:04 AM

And thanks to the Republicans who had an axe to grind, Ken Starr spent $40 million of OUR MONEY to investigate Bill and Hillary, and found NOTHING.

Exactly my point. Are you now saying that because it's a Republican you disagree with we should spend 40 million dollars and still maybe find nothing?

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 10:09 AM

Exactly my point. Are you now saying that because it's a Republican you disagree with we should spend 40 million dollars and still maybe find nothing?
No, because the evidence is out there. It's just that the lackeys in our corporate-controlled media have been failing to report it.

Bush has been operating with NO checks OR balances, and it's about time that we put the checks and balances back in place.

Turin

05-13-2006, 10:11 AM

No, because the evidence is out there. It's just that the lackeys in our corporate-controlled media have been failing to report it.

Bush has been operating with NO checks OR balances, and it's about time that we put the checks and balances back in place.

Again, I say the Republicans in the 90's were as sure as you are that the evidence exists. ANd as for coprorate controlled media, is this anythign like the liberal controlled media I hear about on Free Republic? As I posted in antoher thread, this administration ISN"T running without checks and balances.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Again, I say the Republicans in the 90's were as sure as you are that the evidence exists. ANd as for coprorate controlled media, is this anythign like the liberal controlled media I hear about on Free Republic? As I posted in antoher thread, this administration ISN"T running without checks and balances.
And I say they are.

The mythical "liberal media" is long gone. When the three major networks were independent companies and there was no pressure from the Board Room to make the news operations profitable, true journalism was taking place. But that's changed. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Paramount/Viacom, CNN by Time Warner, Fox by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC by General Electric. And network journalist cannot report things that their corporate masters fear might upset the pro-corporate/anti-people administration in Washington.

Turin

05-13-2006, 10:45 AM

And I say they are.

The mythical "liberal media" is long gone. When the three major networks were independent companies and there was no pressure from the Board Room to make the news operations profitable, true journalism was taking place. But that's changed. ABC is owned by Disney, CBS by Paramount/Viacom, CNN by Time Warner, Fox by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC by General Electric. And network journalist cannot report things that their corporate masters fear might upset the pro-corporate/anti-people administration in Washington.

And as I agains said elsewhere, just because you say it and believe doesn't make it a fact.

Well then I would suggest you not look at the boardroom and look at the actual content of the mediaI will can't open up any of the above mentioned news sites or watch the given channel (Fox being the exception) and not see some article or news story or investigation into some aspect of the White House. BUt it was true when Clinton was in office too. The media isnt politically biased, it's blood biased. The old canard, if it bleeds it leads is true. DO you think everytime I open CNN.com and see a new article of some car bombing in Iraq or some article about gas prices or how Bush fucked up New ORleans because of Katrina that its helping the White House? It's not, BUT it is gonna get them readers and readers means advertising dollars. Being a business thats what they are after. Coirporate controlled media is as big a myth as liberal controlled media. It's money controlled media.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 10:53 AM

And as I agains said elsewhere, just because you say it and believe doesn't make it a fact.

Well then I would suggest you not look at the boardroom and look at the actual content of the mediaI will can't open up any of the above mentioned news sites or watch the given channel (Fox being the exception) and not see some article or news story or investigation into some aspect of the White House. BUt it was true when Clinton was in office too. The media isnt politically biased, it's blood biased. The old canard, if it bleeds it leads is true. DO you think everytime I open CNN.com and see a new article of some car bombing in Iraq or some article about gas prices or how Bush fucked up New ORleans because of Katrina that its helping the White House? It's not, BUT it is gonna get them readers and readers means advertising dollars. Being a business thats what they are after. Coirporate controlled media is as big a myth as liberal controlled media. It's money controlled media.
And who's controlling the money? the corporations?

And who's in bed with the corporations, and will do their bidding at every turn? George W. Bush. That's how we got a Medicare Prescrition Drug Benefit that benefits the major pharmaceutical companies more than it benefits or seniors. That's how we got a national energy policy that was formulated by Dich Cheney and the oil industry behind closed doors. And that's why we have a new bankrupcy law that gives all the power to the banks and strips the people of their rights.

I could go on, but you ger the idea...

Ryan

05-13-2006, 10:57 AM

Simple.

If the Democrats retake control of Congress, they will have the power to launch the full investigations that the GOP Congress has refused to do - because they were unwilling to investigate one of their own. I believe there's enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to impeach Bush AND Cheney. And the house of card would just fall....

We can't wait until Jan 20, 2009 to get rid of Bush - we need it done sooner. And the only way is to put Democrats in Congress and impeach his sorry ass.

That's a possibility, but I honestly don't see it happening. Politicians have done all sorts of horrible things that didn't get them kicked out of office.

And, personally, I see no reason to trust the Democrats to protect my individual rights.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 10:59 AM

That's a possibility, but I honestly don't see it happening. Politicians have done all sorts of horrible things that didn't get them kicked out of office.

And, personally, I see no reason to trust the Democrats to protect my individual rights.
Then you need to read our platform as well:

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v002/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

BTW, based on events since 9/11, I see no reason to trust the Republicans where individual rights are concerned....

Turin

05-13-2006, 11:01 AM

And who's controlling the money? the corporations?

And who's in bed with the corporations, and will do their bidding at every turn? George W. Bush. That's how we got a Medicare Prescrition Drug Benefit that benefits the major pharmaceutical companies more than it benefits or seniors. That's how we got a national energy policy that was formulated by Dich Cheney and the oil industry behind closed doors. And that's why we have a new bankrupcy law that gives all the power to the banks and strips the people of their rights.

I could go on, but you ger the idea...

*sigh* I DO get the idea.... and that saddens me...

WHere do corporations get their money from? The consumers... you and me and every one who buys soimething. Corporations are out to make money. They do that by advertising their product to the people most likely to want their product. They find the people who want their product by advertising on those shows, sites, billboard signs, baseball stadiums,, I could go on and on... where the most people are likely to be found. Pepsi could give a rats ass less who was President as could Heinz Ketchup, and Budweiser beer. They want the most people to see their product. So how do news networks make sure that the most people see their sites so they can charge Pepsi and Heinz and Budweiser more for their premium space? NOW pay attention, this is key, by appealing to the masses. By having the stuff on the front of their page that will attract the most visitors.

Appealing to the corproation is NOT going to get them more visitors and thus more prime expensive advertising real estate. It doesnt work like that.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 11:02 AM

Quite true but nevertheless wrong. The Constitution needs to be upheld and those breaking it appropriately punished.

I agree. But I always make a point to mention prior abuses to the rights of citizens. Some people seem to believe that no freedoms were violated and no part of the Constitution was twisted or ignored until George W. Bush took office.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:05 AM

I agree. But I always make a point to mention prior abuses to the rights of citizens. Some people seem to believe that no freedoms were violated and no part of the Constitution was twisted or ignored until George W. Bush took office.
The violations to the Constitution under Bush are far more extensive and much more severe, IMHO.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 11:09 AM

The violations to the Constitution under Bush are far more extensive and much more severe, IMHO.

Are you sure? There's been some pretty rotten stuff in our history. The Vietnam War...German-Americans and Japanese-Americans being put into internment camps during World War II, just to name a couple of things.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Are you sure? There's been some pretty rotten stuff in our history. The Vietnam War...German-Americans and Japanese-Americans being put into internment camps during World War II, just to name a couple of things.
Bringing things back to the original topic of this thread, did any other administration demand the phone records of EVERY AMERICAN?

I don't think so.....

Ryan

05-13-2006, 11:24 AM

Bringing things back to the original topic of this thread, did any other administration demand the phone records of EVERY AMERICAN?

I don't think so.....

I'm not sure, but I'd rather the government demand my phone records than throw me in an internment camp.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:27 AM

I'm not sure, but I'd rather the government demand my phone records than throw me in an internment camp.
What makes you think that one won't lead to the other?

Either way, the actions of the Bush Administration are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Turin

05-13-2006, 11:29 AM

Bringing things back to the original topic of this thread, did any other administration demand the phone records of EVERY AMERICAN?

I don't think so.....

Spying on Americans and wiretapping Americans without court consent and whatnot have been occurring for decades. This is nothing new. One more thing the "corporate controlled" media let out to raise the hackles of the anti-administration populace.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 11:31 AM

What makes you think that one won't lead to the other?

What makes you think that one will lead to another? Did Roosevelt demand phone records before German and Japanese-Americans were put in the camps?

Turin

05-13-2006, 11:34 AM

What makes you think that one will lead to another? Did Roosevelt demand phone records before German and Japanese-Americans were put in the camps?

Chances are he didnt demand them, he just took them. Unauthorized wiretaps have been happening since phones became prevelant in the American home.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:34 AM

Spying on Americans and wiretapping Americans without court consent and whatnot have been occurring for decades. This is nothing new. One more thing the "corporate controlled" media let out to raise the hackles of the anti-administration populace.
OK, Turin - show me where any prior administration demanded the phone records of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

Hackles deserve to be raised, because this is unprecedented, unwarranted, and unconstitutional.

Turin

05-13-2006, 11:36 AM

OK, Turin - show me where any prior administration demanded the phone records of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

Hackles deserve to be raised, because this is unprecedented, unwarranted, and unconstitutional.

This is a larger scale of previous individual unwarranted unauthorized wiretaps. What difference does it make if the unwarranted wiretap is one hundred people or one million people? Please see the FBI histories and files on individual americans for evidence

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:37 AM

What makes you think that one will lead to another? Did Roosevelt demand phone records before German and Japanese-Americans were put in the camps?
What makes you think that one WON'T lead to the other?

The forced internment of citizens during WWII was a huge blunder that never should have occurred. And I regard the NSA's actions to be an even biger blunder - simply because of the number of people involved.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:40 AM

This is a larger scale of previous individual unwarranted unauthorized wiretaps. What difference does it make if the unwarranted wiretap is one hundred people or one million people? Please see the FBI histories and files on individual americans for evidenceShow me where the FBI has files on EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN.

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone could learn about this turnover of phone records and not be outraged. Tell, me, Turin - would you be as blase about this if Bill Clinton had demanded everyone's records? Or is it just because it's Bush?\\

Please answer truthfuly.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 11:49 AM

What makes you think that one WON'T lead to the other?

Your the one who seems to believe that it will. The burden of proof is on you.

The forced internment of citizens during WWII was a huge blunder that never should have occurred. And I regard the NSA's actions to be an even biger blunder - simply because of the number of people involved.

I guess this is a matter of opinion. A really bad thing that happens to a limited number of people, or an annoying intrusion that happens to a lot of people.

Turin

05-13-2006, 11:52 AM

Show me where the FBI has files on EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN.

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone could learn about this turnover of phone records and not be outraged. Tell, me, Turin - would you be as blase about this if Bill Clinton had demanded everyone's records? Or is it just because it's Bush?\\

Please answer truthfuly.

Truthfully? I wouldnt care. I really wouldn't. I have no naive notion of complete privacy. I know that being in a country of superior technical knowledge, that everything I can do from the one time I ordered wrestling on pay per view to making a phone call to my mother is recorded and shared. How do I know? I get ads in my mailbox for wrestling stuff because the cable company sold my name to a mailing list. I get ads for Mother's Day flowers because the phone company sold my name to a mailing list.

The United States government has been spying on its own people for hunreds of years.. since its foundation really. Is it wrong to do without autorization? Yeah, but it's just as wrong to do it to one person as it is to do it to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. This is a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard). In other words its ok if you do it to a hundred or a thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as I am not one of those people. Be truthful, is it ok to do it to a random one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people? Is it ok to do it to one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as you are gauranteed not to be one of them? What's the difference between one hundred thousand random people and everyone? If you say there isn't then this is a non argument in that it's ALREADY been done hundreds of thousands of times.

The idea of complete privacy is a noble goal, but completely unrealistic. For 20 bucks I can go and find out everything about you and I am not even a government employee.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 11:59 AM

Truthfully? I wouldnt care. I really wouldn't. I have no naive notion of complete privacy. I know that being in a country of superior technical knowledge, that everything I can do from the one time I ordered wrestling on pay per view to making a phone call to my mother is recorded and shared. How do I know? I get ads in my mailbox for wrestling stuff because the cable company sold my name to a mailing list. I get ads for Mother's Day flowers because the phone company sold my name to a mailing list.

The United States government has been spying on its own people for hunreds of years.. since its foundation really. Is it wrong to do without autorization? Yeah, but it's just as wrong to do it to one person as it is to do it to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. This is a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard). In other words its ok if you do it to a hundred or a thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as I am not one of those people. Be truthful, is it ok to do it to a random one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people? Is it ok to do it to one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as you are gauranteed not to be one of them? What's the difference between one hundred thousand random people and everyone? If you say there isn't then this is a non argument in that it's ALREADY been done hundreds of thousands of times.

The idea of complete privacy is a noble goal, but completely unrealistic. For 20 bucks I can go and find out everything about you and I am not even a government employee.
Your cable company selling your name to place it on a mailing list is a far cry from the governemnt demanding the phone records of EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN. There's just no comparison.

I just consider myself lucky. Qwest (the local phone company out here) refused to comply with the government's request. Besides, we only use our home phone for Internet dial-up. We use our T-Mobile cells phones for everything else, and I didn't see them listed as a company that turned over records.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 12:01 PM

I guess this is a matter of opinion. A really bad thing that happens to a limited number of people, or an annoying intrusion that happens to a lot of people.
I look upon the NSA's actions as an illegal intrusion that has the potential of leading to a really bad thing for millions of us.

Turin

05-13-2006, 12:10 PM

Your cable company selling your name to place it on a mailing list is a far cry from the governemnt demanding the phone records of EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN. There's just no comparison.

I just consider myself lucky. Qwest (the local phone company out here) refused to comply with the government's request. Besides, we only use our home phone for Internet dial-up. We use our T-Mobile cells phones for everything else, and I didn't see them listed as a company that turned over records.

I live in Colorado too and have Qwest, but that really doesnt answer my question. First of all WHY is selling your name and your personal preferences to a company different? Isn't that essentially what the government is doing? Looking through your calls to see who you've called and for how long. I would think that the United States government, of which I am a citizen, has more of a right to looking at my personal phone records than some random cable company or mailing list company does selling my personal information for a profit of which I see none.

And you didnt answer my questions. Is it ok for a select few to have unauthorized phone taps? or a select few as long as you arent one of them?

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 12:32 PM

I live in Colorado too and have Qwest, but that really doesnt answer my question. First of all WHY is selling your name and your personal preferences to a company different? Isn't that essentially what the government is doing? Looking through your calls to see who you've called and for how long. I would think that the United States government, of which I am a citizen, has more of a right to looking at my personal phone records than some random cable company or mailing list company does selling my personal information for a profit of which I see none.

And you didnt answer my questions. Is it ok for a select few to have unauthorized phone taps? or a select few as long as you arent one of them?
Look in the fine print of your contract with the cable company - it probably says that they will share your name with other companies. The fine print the government works under is the Constitution - the Fourth Amendment says they cannot do what the NSA has done.

And regarding your queswtions, the law is very clear on this. NO ONE can have "unauthorized phone taps" - period. There is a provision in the FISA law allowing court approval after a tap has been put in place, but Bush and his accomplices have chosen to ignore this provision.

Turin

05-13-2006, 12:35 PM

Look in the fine print of your contract with the cable company - it probably says that they will share your name with other companies. The fine print the government works under is the Constitution - the Fourth Amendment says they cannot do what the NSA has done.

And regarding your queswtions, the law is very clear on this. NO ONE can have "unauthorized phone taps" - period. There is a provision in the FISA law allowing court approval after a tap has been put in place, but Bush and his accomplices have chosen to ignore this provision.

I can put in a clause in the sale of my automobile that I reserve the right to shoot you in the knee whenever I feel the knee. It doesn't mean its enforceable whther you sign it or not.

THen if NO ONE can have it done, your argument is moot. All administrations for decades HAVE been doing it. The amount of people involved is really irrelevant. This is not a problem with the current administration, but with all administrations since the early 40's.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 01:05 PM

I can put in a clause in the sale of my automobile that I reserve the right to shoot you in the knee whenever I feel the knee. It doesn't mean its enforceable whther you sign it or not.

THen if NO ONE can have it done, your argument is moot. All administrations for decades HAVE been doing it. The amount of people involved is really irrelevant. This is not a problem with the current administration, but with all administrations since the early 40's.
If I signed a contract with a clause saying that you had the right to shoot me in the knee, then it's my fault.

You say that prior administrations have demanded the phone phone records of everybody. Prove it. I don't think you can.

Tina

05-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Well, here's something funny. Only not actually funny. Yesterday, a day after I made the original post in this thread, the FBI was on my site, indexing my website. Took so much of the resources of my web host's server that he couldn't help but notice. Odd timing, eh?

Brings home the message in the original article that much more to me.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 01:22 PM

Tina

05-13-2006, 01:24 PM

Yeah, well, they can have fun. I lead a very boring life right now because school takes most of my time. I live near Vandenberg AFB and hear the Apaches all the time (those things are loud). It never occurred to me that they were watching me. :rolleyes: :p

Turin

05-13-2006, 01:35 PM

If I signed a contract with a clause saying that you had the right to shoot me in the knee, then it's my fault.

It may be your fault, but it doesnt make it any less unenforceable.

You say that prior administrations have demanded the phone phone records of everybody. Prove it. I don't think you can.

Whew! Well its a damn good thing I never said that or else I would be screwed
:D

What I SAID was that previous administrations have wiretapped random American citizens without authorization since phones became prevelant in American Homes.

Wiretapping has been used i nthis century alone in the 20's by FBI Director J Edgar Hoover, in the 40's by President Roosevelt, in the 50's by Harry Truman's administration, in the 60's by JFK and LBJ's administration. Unautohorized governmental wiretapping had been challenged in the Supreme Court in 1967 and again in 1972. In 1996, the Clinton Administration illegally obtained the files of over 400 employees of former administrations. The Clinton administration also sought to have the 4th ammendment changed in order to fit within procedures they had already been carrying out.

So as I said, it has ALREADY been happening to American's for uears and years and years. This is nothing new other than the amount of people, which to me is irrelevant.

Wayne_Zitkus

05-13-2006, 01:52 PM

It may be your fault, but it doesnt make it any less unenforceable.

Whew! Well its a damn good thing I never said that or else I would be screwed
:D

What I SAID was that previous administrations have wiretapped random American citizens without authorization since phones became prevelant in American Homes.

Wiretapping has been used i nthis century alone in the 20's by FBI Director J Edgar Hoover, in the 40's by President Roosevelt, in the 50's by Harry Truman's administration, in the 60's by JFK and LBJ's administration. Unautohorized governmental wiretapping had been challenged in the Supreme Court in 1967 and again in 1972. In 1996, the Clinton Administration illegally obtained the files of over 400 employees of former administrations. The Clinton administration also sought to have the 4th ammendment changed in order to fit within procedures they had already been carrying out.

So as I said, it has ALREADY been happening to American's for uears and years and years. This is nothing new other than the amount of people, which to me is irrelevant.
I just realized that you've been mixing apples and oranges here, Turin. There's a bit of a difference between target wiretaps, files on 400 people, and phone records of EVERYBODY.

Admit it - something of this magnitude has never been done before. And it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 03:02 PM

We're not *defeating* "the terrorists," we're *creating* them.

And since mistakes do happy, HFC, what if for some reason they goof and mistakenly attribute things to you that you didn't do? If you are deemed a terrorist, you will be disappeared, with no right to representation or a fair trial. That whole "I did nothing, until they came for me" attitude bewilders me.

It also brings to mind the quote (paraprased) that those who are willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for (the illusion of) security deserve neither.

EXACTLY. All these wars our president is waging are creating a new generation of terrorists who will want revenge against America.

But when is America going to wake up? Bush has been lying to us since day 1. We don't have to give up our freedoms for security. He just wants unlimited power. Besides, the Republican's formula for victory is to push the fear and anger buttons.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 03:05 PM

You say good things, but the U.S. Constitution guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I support antiterrorism efforts, but spying on every American has nothing to do with terrorism. People, this is a power grab. Bush wants to change our beloved republic into an empire.

Truthfully? I wouldnt care. I really wouldn't. I have no naive notion of complete privacy. I know that being in a country of superior technical knowledge, that everything I can do from the one time I ordered wrestling on pay per view to making a phone call to my mother is recorded and shared. How do I know? I get ads in my mailbox for wrestling stuff because the cable company sold my name to a mailing list. I get ads for Mother's Day flowers because the phone company sold my name to a mailing list.

The United States government has been spying on its own people for hunreds of years.. since its foundation really. Is it wrong to do without autorization? Yeah, but it's just as wrong to do it to one person as it is to do it to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN. This is a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard). In other words its ok if you do it to a hundred or a thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as I am not one of those people. Be truthful, is it ok to do it to a random one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people? Is it ok to do it to one hundred or thousand or one hundred thousand people as long as you are gauranteed not to be one of them? What's the difference between one hundred thousand random people and everyone? If you say there isn't then this is a non argument in that it's ALREADY been done hundreds of thousands of times.

The idea of complete privacy is a noble goal, but completely unrealistic. For 20 bucks I can go and find out everything about you and I am not even a government employee.

Ryan

05-13-2006, 03:09 PM

Tina

05-13-2006, 03:13 PM

Yes, but does that make it right? It seems to be reaching a head with Bush, and what upsets me the most is that, when called on it, he basically says he doesn't have to obey the law. How does the fact that other presidents have done it excuse him when he's caught red-handed?

Not only that, but today's technology enables the government to spy on us in ways that were never before possible. Should this country continue your refrain that we lost our privacy years ago, so why worry? Bah.

JudgeDredd425

05-13-2006, 03:26 PM

Just remember that George W. Bush - the guy that some people on this board think is such a wonderful, caring man - has been quoted as calling the Constitution nothing more than "just a goddamned piece of paper",

I would request that anyone here who still supprts Bush please follow that link and read this article in its entirety.

Which is just one of the many reasons why he should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Unfortunately there are too many in the Congress that feel the same way on both sides of the aisle. The corruption runs far too deep to expect government to work as it should which is why the people should throw all of their support to Libertarians or other independent candidates. Down with both the Democrats and Republicans.

JudgeDredd425

05-13-2006, 03:38 PM

What makes you think that one will lead to another? Did Roosevelt demand phone records before German and Japanese-Americans were put in the camps?

There were no such records because there were no computers in those days to log every phone number dialed from any particular phone. Nor did government yet have the ability to monitor every electronic communication made via supercomputers. This big brother technology would make Stalin cream his pants if his secret police could do the kinds of surveillance government is now capable of today. He has to settle for rolling over in his grave and saying Damn! (in Russian of course).

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 04:40 PM

Once again I would point out that Bush isn't the first president to try to do something against the original intent of the Constitution. And politicians have been trying to turn America into an "empire" for over a century.

list the Presidents that have violated their oath of office with examples of these violations.

Bush violated the 4th and 6th amendments.

Turin

05-13-2006, 04:46 PM

I just realized that you've been mixing apples and oranges here, Turin. There's a bit of a difference between target wiretaps, files on 400 people, and phone records of EVERYBODY.

Admit it - something of this magnitude has never been done before. And it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Well a couple of points here.. which in your mind is worse... wiretapping, actually listening to the contents of a phone call from one place to another; reading actual contents of personnel files; or finding out who called who when for how long without knowing what was said (because thats all phone records are)? In my mind none of them are any better than the others. However it happens, it happens everday and has been happening for ovber two hundred years.

And again you are bringing numbers into the argument. The numbers are meaningless. If you do it to one it's illegal. It doesnt matter HOW many times it was done, it matters that precedent was set. The US government has been secretly spying on US citizens since its founding and will continue long after George Bush has run out his term.

I asked you earlier how many people its acceptable to invade the privacy of before it becomes an outrage. I have yet to get an answer. You DID say that 'NO ONE can have unauthorized phone taps'. So why that hand waving over decades of illegal intrusions of privacy and spying and ONLY start to defend the 4th amendment when the politics of the administration in question goes against yours?

This is, once again, an argument to score political points and not one to really have any care for the Constitution itself.

Tina

05-13-2006, 04:47 PM

How do you know they're not listening to actual conversations? Because they said so? :rolleyes:

Turin

05-13-2006, 04:54 PM

How do you know they're not listening to actual conversations? Because they said so? :rolleyes:

I didnt say they werent. I however cannot imagine a possible scenario where the govenrment is listening to the contents of every conversation made on telephones by US citizens. Whicxh seems to be the crux of the argrument here. The unimaginable horror of having the phone records of 'EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN' (trademarked by the Democratic National Committee) tracked by the gorvernment.

Are they listening to specific conversations? Undoubtedly. BUt again I ask the question so what? It's been happening in one form or another since the country was founded. WHy is it SUCH a big deal now?

Tina

05-13-2006, 04:59 PM

Donna

05-13-2006, 05:15 PM

I didnt say they werent. I however cannot imagine a possible scenario where the govenrment is listening to the contents of every conversation made on telephones by US citizens. Whicxh seems to be the crux of the argrument here. The unimaginable horror of having the phone records of 'EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN' (trademarked by the Democratic National Committee) tracked by the gorvernment.

Are they listening to specific conversations? Undoubtedly. BUt again I ask the question so what? It's been happening in one form or another since the country was founded. WHy is it SUCH a big deal now?

Are you saying it's right that they are doing it simply because "that's the way it's always been done"?

And like Tina mentions, there are filters on all communication devices these days (not just phones.) I realize that we are never truly private. I guess I have come to accept it. But that doesn't make it 'right' or 'just' does it?

(Am I making any sense?)

Tina

05-13-2006, 05:17 PM

Perfect sense, Donna. And like you, I'm somewhat used to it, but I'll never accept it -- it offends my sense of right and wrong connected to our Bill of Rights as U.S. citizens. It offends my sensibilities as a private person, as does the FBI indexing my web site.

Turin

05-13-2006, 05:21 PM

In a way they do, Turin. To the best of my ability to remember how the protocol goes, they do so by filtering the conversations for specific words through computers. If those words occur, they are sent to a different level of filter, and then human intervention occurs. I could be wrong on the steps, however, they do filter conversations for key words, so in essence, they *do* listen to phone calls.

Why is it a big deal now? It's always been a big deal to me, and it's something I've been complaining about since I was old enough to read about it happening. Beyond that, I already said why in a previous post. Here:

Sure they DO listen to phones calls and they have been doing regardless of the President in the White House... but this isnt the argument against Bush.. Tha argument against Bush is the phone records and how tragic it is. It's not. It's even less helpful than actual conversations.

It doesn't excuse him of course, but it does make it less of the story its being made to be.

Should we accept that we have lost our privacy? Yes, absolutely. We have ZERO privacy. The freedoms we enjoy in terms of technology today have been sacrificed for with our proivacy. Not just from the government, but from the companies we buy stuff from, from the television shows we watch, the radio stations we listen too, from everything. Privacy is a myth. It's something that people trot like a dusty old coat when they are trying to show outrage.The fact remains that as we ever decline in our privacy our day to day lives have changed very little. I can still order porn online if I so desire and I can still walk down the street without being whisked away by the black helicopters. My day to day life has not changed.

Turin

05-13-2006, 05:27 PM

Are you saying it's right that they are doing it simply because "that's the way it's always been done"?

And like Tina mentions, there are filters on all communication devices these days (not just phones.) I realize that we are never truly private. I guess I have come to accept it. But that doesn't make it 'right' or 'just' does it?

(Am I making any sense?)

It doesn't make it right, but by that same token, when its used like a cudgel to score political points its tiring. To hear people shocked and appalled by the privacy tampering of this administration is, to say the least, disingenious when it has been going on for so long. To me its a big 'meh'. Not cool, not appreciated, but not surprising and not a big deal.

It's not a political thing. It's a government thing. If we are that appalled by it, then we need to stop placing the blame on a given administration. We need to stop pretending this is the evil inner working of a nefarious plot worked out by curators of the Devil. We need to acknowledge that its been going on for a long time and work to change it. Not use it to prove the "Bush is TEH EVIL!!!" We need to acknowledge the past and the effect it has had on your life. Which IMHO is minimal in terms of day to day living.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 05:53 PM

George W. Bush seems to believe that he is exempt from the laws that everyone else has to follow. But why is the public not outraged? This time he has gone too far!

Yes, but does that make it right? It seems to be reaching a head with Bush, and what upsets me the most is that, when called on it, he basically says he doesn't have to obey the law. How does the fact that other presidents have done it excuse him when he's caught red-handed?

Not only that, but today's technology enables the government to spy on us in ways that were never before possible. Should this country continue your refrain that we lost our privacy years ago, so why worry? Bah.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 05:55 PM

This situation with Bush and the NSA spying on us is what a newspaper columnist would describe as an "Orwellian nightmare." The nightmare is that every citzen is under government surveillance. Any citizen can be imprisoned and have his or her rights suspended simply because the government suspectshim or her of being a terrorist.

There were no such records because there were no computers in those days to log every phone number dialed from any particular phone. Nor did government yet have the ability to monitor every electronic communication made via supercomputers. This big brother technology would make Stalin cream his pants if his secret police could do the kinds of surveillance government is now capable of today. He has to settle for rolling over in his grave and saying Damn! (in Russian of course).

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 05:58 PM

This disturbing revelation about the National Security Agency listening in on us reveals a very appalling fact: Our country has gone back 30 years in time. And we will continue to go back as long as George W. Bush and his fanatical cabal of conservative Republicans remain in power.

How do you know they're not listening to actual conversations? Because they said so? :rolleyes:

Tina

05-13-2006, 06:28 PM

Sure they DO listen to phones calls and they have been doing regardless of the President in the White House... but this isnt the argument against Bush.. Tha argument against Bush is the phone records and how tragic it is. It's not. It's even less helpful than actual conversations.

I disagree, and think it's even more disturbing when you put the two together.

It doesn't excuse him of course, but it does make it less of the story its being made to be.

My day to day life has not changed.

Not yet. By the time it has it will be too late. It basically already is, because I doubt anyone is going to turn back the clock on it all.

Turin

05-13-2006, 06:41 PM

Not yet. By the time it has it will be too late. It basically already is, because I doubt anyone is going to turn back the clock on it all.

then thats the fault of all of us as a society. We sit here impotently whining and complaining and not really doing anything. And honestly what would be the difference if the Dems take the White House? Do you REALLY think they are gonna say all the things that previous administrations have done is gosh darn awful and well we just won't stand for it? Not a chance.

And I guess i wonder what you envision that is so horrible "down the line".

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 06:42 PM

It doesn't make it right, but by that same token, when its used like a cudgel to score political points its tiring. To hear people shocked and appalled by the privacy tampering of this administration is, to say the least, disingenious when it has been going on for so long. To me its a big 'meh'. Not cool, not appreciated, but not surprising and not a big deal.

It's not a political thing. It's a government thing. If we are that appalled by it, then we need to stop placing the blame on a given administration. We need to stop pretending this is the evil inner working of a nefarious plot worked out by curators of the Devil. We need to acknowledge that its been going on for a long time and work to change it. Not use it to prove the "Bush is TEH EVIL!!!" We need to acknowledge the past and the effect it has had on your life. Which IMHO is minimal in terms of day to day living.

Turin,

how long have the phone companies been cooperating with the government and the NSA in this manner? How long has the NSA been using the information from these companies to compile this massive database?

I'll tell ya. Since Bush has been in office.

Turin

05-13-2006, 06:48 PM

Turin,

how long have the phone companies been cooperating with the government and the NSA in this manner? How long has the NSA been using the information from these companies to compile this massive database?

I'll tell ya. Since Bush has been in office.

You're missing the point. I am saying the US government has been using the information, with or without the cooperation of the phone companies and CLEARLY without the cooperation of the people at the end of the investigation for decades.

How long has the data been being compiled? THIS specific data? Haven't a clue. Wouldn't be surprised if this specific data started with this administration, but then again I don't find this specific data to be a big deal.

That's the point. In terms of data that has been collected through illegal sources throughout the history of this country, the collecting of phone records doesn't even ping on my radar. The anti-administration folks get all aghast with horror and shock that something like this could happen in the US. I know the American people are not that naive to think that this is some groundbreaking approach in the realm of domestic espionage. As I maintain, this is simply another stone to throw in the glass house of politics.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 06:57 PM

Perhaps, as you say, it is another stone. But Congress outlawed domestic espionage in the 1970s.

You're missing the point. I am saying the US government has been using the information, with or without the cooperation of the phone companies and CLEARLY without the cooperation of the people at the end of the investigation for decades.

How long has the data been being compiled? THIS specific data? Haven't a clue. Wouldn't be surprised if this specific data started with this administration, but then again I don't find this specific data to be a big deal.

That's the point. In terms of data that has been collected through illegal sources throughout the history of this country, the collecting of phone records doesn't even ping on my radar. The anti-administration folks get all aghast with horror and shock that something like this could happen in the US. I know the American people are not that naive to think that this is some groundbreaking approach in the realm of domestic espionage. As I maintain, this is simply another stone to throw in the glass house of politics.

Tina

05-13-2006, 07:03 PM

then thats the fault of all of us as a society. We sit here impotently whining and complaining and not really doing anything. And honestly what would be the difference if the Dems take the White House? Do you REALLY think they are gonna say all the things that previous administrations have done is gosh darn awful and well we just won't stand for it? Not a chance.

And I guess i wonder what you envision that is so horrible "down the line".

And just what do you think I can do? I did not vote for Bush either time, and that was a step in the right direction, but what, I should go to the White House, ask to see Bush, and tell him I don't like what he's doing? Shyeah, that'll work.

What will be horrible? Not sure, there are many possible things, but freedoms and rights devolve incrementally and always has in facist governments.

Tina

05-13-2006, 07:05 PM

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 07:13 PM

You're missing the point. I am saying the US government has been using the information, with or without the cooperation of the phone companies and CLEARLY without the cooperation of the people at the end of the investigation for decades.

How long has the data been being compiled? THIS specific data? Haven't a clue. Wouldn't be surprised if this specific data started with this administration, but then again I don't find this specific data to be a big deal.

That's the point. In terms of data that has been collected through illegal sources throughout the history of this country, the collecting of phone records doesn't even ping on my radar. The anti-administration folks get all aghast with horror and shock that something like this could happen in the US. I know the American people are not that naive to think that this is some groundbreaking approach in the realm of domestic espionage. As I maintain, this is simply another stone to throw in the glass house of politics.

There were laws put in place to protect the American people. Specically the FISA court. If you want to feel free to point to any laws any presidents before Bush broke regarding FISA. Every president since has complied with FISA.

the difference between the echelon programs and what is happening now is that now it goes directly to the top. Bush has admitted to breaking the law and has said he will continue to do so. Can you name any president that has done anything similiar? You couldn't even get one to admit to echelon.

has any adminstration used fear like this adminstration? People have reason to worry. It's not disingenious.

Turin

05-13-2006, 07:13 PM

Perhaps, as you say, it is another stone. But Congress outlawed domestic espionage in the 1970s.

The Supreme Court extened the 4th amendment to cover electornic surveillence in 1967. It was tried again withthe same results in 1972. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that governmental electronic surveillence has been sanctioned by various administrations since the mid 40's and that the Executive Branch has used it since the mid-1800's.

Illegal or not it IS being used. and has gone on unabated since the founding of this country. It happened through all administrations, Democratic and Republican. To be shocked and awed and offended by this particular circumstance of data collection IS simply political gamesmenship.

Turin

05-13-2006, 07:20 PM

There were laws put in place to protect the American people. Specically the FISA court. If you want to feel free to point to any laws any presidents before Bush broke regarding FISA. Every president since has complied with FISA.

the difference between the echelon programs and what is happening now is that now it goes directly to the top. Bush has admitted to breaking the law and has said he will continue to do so. Can you name any president that has done anything similiar? You couldn't even get one to admit to echelon.

has any adminstration used fear like this adminstration? People have reason to worry. It's not disingenious.

Filegate:
This Clinton scandal involves the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.

And thats just the most recent previous administration in terms of domestic espionage. Wew can equivocate and say this wasnt in the realm of FISA, but it was illegal domestic espionage on American citizens.Somehow a former Administration not admitting they were breaking the law and doing it anyway doesnt instill any more confidence in me than someone who admits it.

and for fear you seem to forget the McCArthy-ist 50's and the domestic internment camps of WWII. We can talk about the National Guard and Kent State. Pretty scary stuff from our governemnt I would say.

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 07:33 PM

Filegate:
This Clinton scandal involves the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.

And thats just the most recent previous administration in terms of domestic espionage. Wew can equivocate and say this wasnt in the realm of FISA, but it was illegal domestic espionage on American citizens.Somehow a former Administration not admitting they were breaking the law and doing it anyway doesnt instill any more confidence in me than someone who admits it.

and for fear you seem to forget the McCArthy-ist 50's and the domestic internment camps of WWII. We can talk about the National Guard and Kent State. Pretty scary stuff from our governemnt I would say.

if you're going to use something from another site word for word you should supply a link.

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html#Filegate

you got that info from a website that pretty much accuses Clinton of involvement in Vince Fosters death.

We all know that having files on political adversaries isn't the same as survelliance of the American public. It's apples and oranges.

Turin

05-13-2006, 07:34 PM

if you're going to use something from another site word for word you should supply a link.

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html#Filegate

you got that info from a website that pretty much accuses Clinton of involvement in Vince Fosters death.

We all know that having files on political adversaries isn't the same as survelliance of the American public. It's apples and oranges.

How is that apples and oranges? These are private American citizens. What's the difference? The didn't "have" them, they ordered security clearance files from the FBI, illegally.

And the source of the cite matters how? Are you claiming it didnt happen or are you claiming that this kind of domestic espionage is ok?

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 07:45 PM

You're comparing apples and oranges. No one debates that presidents do check people out. But the magnitude of what the NSA is doing is nothing less than disturbing.

Filegate:
This Clinton scandal involves the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.

And thats just the most recent previous administration in terms of domestic espionage. Wew can equivocate and say this wasnt in the realm of FISA, but it was illegal domestic espionage on American citizens.Somehow a former Administration not admitting they were breaking the law and doing it anyway doesnt instill any more confidence in me than someone who admits it.

and for fear you seem to forget the McCArthy-ist 50's and the domestic internment camps of WWII. We can talk about the National Guard and Kent State. Pretty scary stuff from our governemnt I would say.

Turin

05-13-2006, 07:52 PM

You're comparing apples and oranges. No one debates that presidents do check people out. But the magnitude of what the NSA is doing is nothing less than disturbing.

Yeah that's eactly what we are doing. I have maintained that being stunned and shocked and awed by the atrocities of the phone records issuse is disengenious and hypocritical given the US Governments long standing tradition of domestic spying. I have been challenged to produce facts to things happening before. When I do it's equivoctated and hand waved. I contend that if you are goign to be outraged over the issue, you oughta be outraged over domestic espionage as a whole and quit trying to pretend you have never heard of such a dastardly deed in your life.

What I have asked for an never gotten an answer to is what number of cases of domestic espionage is ok. It seems that "EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN" is too much. OK fair enough. What's a good number? Is it ok to spy on one hundred of our citizens? One thousand? On Hundred THousand? Or is that nmumber "EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN" except me. What's a good number to say.. yeah thats ok. Cuz frankly, that number should be zero. I am however realistic enough to realize that it DOES happen and will CONTINUE to happen regardless of which party represents the White House. I also realize that the information gathered here is inconsequential when compared to the kinds of data our government has been collecting on us since before 1776.

JudgeDredd425

05-13-2006, 08:02 PM

Perhaps, as you say, it is another stone. But Congress outlawed domestic espionage in the 1970s.

Do you know what the United States Code is to the government? Its a club to beat you and every other private citizen upside the head with when it works for them, and when it des not work for them it becomes toilet paper to wipe their asses with. They will only respect the law were the are forced to do so.

CurvaceousBBWLover

05-13-2006, 08:06 PM

You could say pretty much the same thing about the U.S. Constitution. This government does not believe in the laws it passes.

Do you know what the United States Code is to the government? Its a club to beat you and every other private citizen upside the head with when it works for them, and when it des not work for them it becomes toilet paper to wipe their asses with. They will only respect the law were the are forced to do so.

Turin

05-13-2006, 08:07 PM

You could say pretty much the same thing about the U.S. Constitution. This government does not believe in the laws it passes.

The government never has.

JudgeDredd425

05-13-2006, 08:07 PM

You could say pretty much the same thing about the U.S. Constitution. This government does not believe in the laws it passes.

I have said exactly that before. Law is law and the Constitution is merely the highest law of the land.

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 08:13 PM

How is that apples and oranges? These are private American citizens. What's the difference? The didn't "have" them, they ordered security clearance files from the FBI, illegally.

And the source of the cite matters how? Are you claiming it didnt happen or are you claiming that this kind of domestic espionage is ok?

It did happen but your source doesn't mention that an independent counsel investigated it and found no wrongdoing by the President or his staffers. That's why the source matters.

it's not domestic espionage. They didn't break into the FBI offices and steal the files.

Turin

05-13-2006, 08:24 PM

It did happen but your source doesn't mention that an independent counsel investigated it and found no wrongdoing by the President or his staffers. That's why the source matters.

it's not domestic espionage. They didn't break into the FBI offices and steal the files.

No, they improperly called for them without notifying the subject of the file. That IS illegal. THe only ones cleared were the President and Mrs. Clinton and miscellaneous upper echelon White House folks. IT is STILL spying. It is STILL looking in to the private personal affairs of AMerican citizens without their authority or knowledge.

Look, I agree it sucks, but it is the world we live in and it is the world every American citizen has lived in for two hundred plus years. Again, this is small potatoes in the scheme of the information that has already been gathered on US citizens by the US government in all of of its various forms and administrations. TO say that THIS administration in THIS instance has gone beyond the pale is hypocritical given the type of information gathered and the US's precendents set on this.

CleverBomb

05-13-2006, 09:50 PM

Someone pointed out that if Nixon had the capability that the NSA seems to now have, he'd have been able to find out that Mark Felt was "Deep Throat", and would have succeded in covering up Watergate.

-Rusty

kilo riley

05-13-2006, 11:24 PM

No, they improperly called for them without notifying the subject of the file. That IS illegal. THe only ones cleared were the President and Mrs. Clinton and miscellaneous upper echelon White House folks. IT is STILL spying. It is STILL looking in to the private personal affairs of AMerican citizens without their authority or knowledge.

Look, I agree it sucks, but it is the world we live in and it is the world every American citizen has lived in for two hundred plus years. Again, this is small potatoes in the scheme of the information that has already been gathered on US citizens by the US government in all of of its various forms and administrations. TO say that THIS administration in THIS instance has gone beyond the pale is hypocritical given the type of information gathered and the US's precendents set on this.

I never said it wasn't illegal but it has nothing to do with the issue of government surveillance without a warrant.

and this adminstration absolutely has gone beyond the the pale. Can you name any other adminstration that expanded this type of power while using the fear of terrorist attack to get the public consent? This is the only adminstration that has admitted to this type of surveillance and they use it for political gain. The only card they know how to play is fear. The only time they poll halfway decent is when they scare the shit out of the public. It's an election year and they are in true form. This is the only issue they have and you can bet they will call any democrat weak on defense if they oppose what they now call "the terrorist surveillance program"