The blogs are ripping this non story and rightly so. It's been going on before Bush got into office. The liberal MSM is absolutely disgusting.
Sparkle says: "This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations."
That is untrue. Sparkle, as usual, is confused.
It is true that the latest relevation regarding the program involves data mining of calling patterns without a warrant - who is calling who, when, how often, etc., as opposeed to listening in on this call.
This ignores the initial revelation that the program included warrantless wiretaps of international calls between the United States and overseas in which one person is suspected of terrorist ties (the suspicion being determined at the whim of the Bushies without court oversight). That part of the program does involve listening in on and recording conversations and it has been asserted domestic only calls have fallen into that program (though that's claimed to have been inadvertent).
On the other hand, this non story proves how much the media think they need to help out the pathetic democrat party by hyping up these non scandals/stories. And that says a lot.
The guys at powerline point out that if Britain had been doing the sorts of things that we're doing (like this) they would probably have prevented the terror attacks last summer. Too bad for them.
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/
014051.php
I find it remarkable that the government's tracking of millions of phone calls — regardless of whether you think is justified or not — would be called a "non-story." Apparently, the distaste many have for the MSM has clouded their own news judgment.
Right or wrong, this represents a major expansion of government intrusion into our privacy. I am also not comforted by claims from President Bush and others that the NSA is not data-mining the calls, but only looking for terrorist-related activity. Well, how do you do that without data-mining? And what will the NSA do with all that it learns while trying to smoke out the terrorists?
Maybe we should allow for this type of surveillance activity to protect us from another attack. This is an extraordinary war requiring extraordinary tactics. The problem is that the Bush administration has been unwilling to engage in a public/political debate and/or allow the courts to review its practices. The serious of the war against al-Qaida and other terrorists should not supplant our commitment to our democratic traditions and values — at least not before a full, open and vigorous debate.
RCP is right. A major attack would end the civil liberties vs. security debate for good, which is exactly why we must have that debate RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, we will only give into our fears, no matter the cost.
Marc - The NSA is not a law enforcement entity.
Why exactly should they engage in a debate over this, when their opponents have consistently shown their willingness to argue in bad faith ?
This is not a "major expansion of government intrusion into our privacy". Programs such as this existed prior to President Bush being in office, and systems like Echelon were far more wide ranging.
Well, by refusing to debate and/or have the courts review his tactics, President Bush has demonstrated a lack of faith in the American public. He has presumed expanded powers just because he says so, without the debate so vital to our system.
This has nothing to do with Bush's faith in the America public. THis has to do with Bush knowing that this is nothing more than a way for the left to make him look bad. ANYTHING he would do would just add fuel to the fire.
This is about the left caring more about winning than our security. Period.
Bush knows what needs to be done to protect us. God knows he has proven that. Let's for God's sake let him do it.
Marc - Simply asserting that he has expanded powers does not make it so.
Who owns the records that Verizon handed over to the NSA? Do you ? Think again. They own those records, and can give them away, sell them, share them with other companies, etc ...
Do you really have an expectation of privacy when you have already told Verizon who you are calling and for how long, and how often ?
Marc - Final point, intelligence activities tend to be secret, hence the classified, top secret, secret compartmentalized information classifications. Despite some people's desire to see our intelligence activities be played out in the public square, they are not going to be, nor should they be.
Yet another leaker, who will be praised by the media and by the left for taking a big steaming pile of Macswain all over the laws governing the distribution of classified materials.
Does anyone find it ironic that the intelligence community was pilloried for not connecting the dots prior to 9/11, and now that they are proactively attempting to connect the dots in advance, they are being excoriated for same?
The people that are whining about this would likely have no problems with Verizon using this information with their partners to see overall usage patterns to see where new towers should be placed. Good cell phone coverage, sure thing. Proactively attempting to identify potential terrorist activities - FASCIST !!!
On something like this, I need more than blind faith in the president.
I may work in the MSM, but I am no leftist. I agree, of the choices we have had for president since 2000, Bush was the best suited to lead the nation in the war on terror. But my confidence in him does not extend to giving up a blank check to expand presidential powers without at least a minimum amount of debate on how we will strike the balance between security vs. civil liberities.
We need a vigorous debate — preferably lead by the president — on security vs. civil liberities. Bush should not be afraid to explain why he thinks he is right, but he only asks for our blind faith as he expands presidential power with no reason to believe that that makes us safer. I'm sorry, but the stakes are too high for that.
It is clear that this incredible "expansion of presidential power" is the talking point of the day for you. Keep repeating it, and it will still not become true.
What stakes are at issue ? I really fail to see how monitoring calling patterns and data mining is going to lead to the downfall of our society.
Maybe I am simply not alarmist enough.
I have no idea what the talking points are. I might be more amenable to your position if it didn't rely so much on blind faith in the president. If the president were a Democrat, I wonder how strong the faith of those trusting Bush would be.
I served in the Armed Forces under President Clinton. When it comes to national security, at some point, we have to allow them to do their job. At every turn, the left cries crocodile tears over the pseudo-scandal of the day. They keep trotting them out there, and let the media run with it for a couple of weeks, until it floats away, as yet another tiger without teeth.
In all seriousness, who owns and controls your phone records ? When you tell Verizon that you are calling somebody at area code 317-409-XXXX, do you really have any expectation of privacy any longer?
Check out the case of Smith v. Maryland as it relates to these issues.
Marc :
Talking point : Expansion of power, or variation of same, used 5 times in your first 3 posts.
JD -
My point is, that is my view, and not derived from some central repository of talking points.
Fortunately for the rest of us, the best targets for the next attack are the big megalopoli on the coasts. Blue states mostly if I remember the map right.
One has to wonder if the panic of the lefties about all this expansion of presidential power will diminish any with the loss of a few million voices.
We're all just waiting for the next one. We've been so very lucky so far. Any bravado over not being hit again is just whistling in the dark. We have an implacable enemy with nearly infinite monetary resources.
When the towers fell i was on active duty. We were loading real nukes on B-52s as part of a readiness exercise. Of course everything stopped in it's tracks. Watching the news playing over and over on tv there was talk that we'd be shortly be unloading the nukes and loading up with conventional weapons. One crewdog was heard to say, "Oh no, we have the right weapons onboard..." And like the tv announcers say, "You could feel the crowd come alive."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Gov't has no right to have any of my records.
Those are not your records, Paul. Those are the sole property of the phone company.
Check out Smith v. Maryland in regards to the 4th Amendment and its relation to pin registers and data mining.
Tom - though one can understand the almost natural and visceral response to these terrorists, what separates us from them is that we do not simply go around nuking random people indiscriminately.
as to the rest of your post, suffice it to say I cannot disagree more.
Tom - though one can understand the almost natural and visceral response to these terrorists, what separates us from them is that we do not simply go around nuking random people indiscriminately.
as to the rest of your post, suffice it to say I cannot disagree more.
Paul,
They aren't your records. They belong to your telcom provider. As haloscan.com owns these comments who they allow RWS to manage. The Fourth article amendment applies to your person and papers in your control.
"The Fourth article amendment applies to your person and papers in your control."
Sorry to disagree Dean, the bill of rights makes no mention of limiting my rights to my person or papers "under my control". Are you suggesting that the gov't mau read my mail? or tap my phone without a warrant?
paul - how about looking at some of the case law, ie. Smith v. Maryland, which would be even more restrictive as it relates to law enforcement rather than intelligence.
Regardless, I suspect that it is quite difficult to assert 4th Amendment protection over something that is not even in your possession, much less owned by somebody else.
Thanks JD, I'm reading it and it appears pen registers are ok,
At least NBC's Lisa Meyers didn't let some of the usual suspects get away with their phony shock and awe:
Tonight on NBC:
"Even though key members of Congress had been briefed on this secret program, there was a firestorm today on Capitol Hill. Members of both parties demanded information..."
Myers later observed:
"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi pounced on the headline even though she had been briefed long ago."
Nancy Pelosi at press conference: "I've been briefed on some of this. I don't know everything that went into that disclosure, but I think it's alarming."
Myers subsequently concluded:
"One intelligence source tells NBC News that two dozen members of Congress have known about this program for years and have been completely uninterested until today."
Here we go again.......
Click ... click ... BOOM!!! 29!!!
... and for those who think the telcos can simply give out your phone info ... you better read up on the Stored Communications Act.
In the old days when you picked up your phone and asked the operator to connect you to Mrs. Smith down the street, would you expect the operator to listen in, or to tape the call and hand the tape over to the police for review? Sure, the operator was aware of who you were calling. But this is too much.
"Verizon, we NEVER stop working for you" (even when you want us to stop).
What do you guys on the left think the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies were doing before George W. Bush? Keep in mind the Echelon program, a far more invasive intelligence program. was approved by Clinton.
You get charged for your phone calls RWSparkle ?
Because if you're like everyone else and you do then that limit of endpoint monitoring doesn't require NSA-only rooms in telco exchanges filled with switches intercepting calls. It just requires billing data with far less hassle at every point.
You need to do a little thinking of your own rather than just accepting statements from people at face value.
Tank, do you really know how the NSA works?
The telco companies have to monitor calls to determine a financial result. The NSA monitors calls to determine the value of that communication.
The left only recently discovered -- since Bush assumed the presidency -- what these agencies do Where was all this concern when Clinton approved Echelon? How come Echelon wasn't leaked when Clinton was in office? Apparently, Democrats can run the country as dictators and Republicans are questioned on absolutely everthing they do, regardless of whether any facts are involved.
This has nothing to do with Bush's faith in the America public. THis has to do with Bush knowing that this is nothing more than a way for the left to make him look bad.
Actually its neither, it is far more simple; it is military necessity. Its just the president doing his job. Its the same thing any president would do. It is secret because programs like this don't work if the enemy knows or suspects you are utilizing this type of intelligence.
I think it is important to think about this stuff calmly and in context. Remember, Hayden has said he initiated the nuts and bolts of all this on the afternoon of 9/11/2001. We had a network of terrorists in place in the US taking orders from a hostile foreign power to attack US civilian men, women and children en masse.
Were there more of them? If there were who were they? How could they find out? What should they do? Could they prevent another attack?
Hayden knew the capabilities of the NSA and suggested they do what is being reported today. The NSA lawyers reviewed what he was proposing and said he was on sound legal footing. The DoJ reviewed it and said it was well within the constitutional powers of the executive.
Despite all that they (rightly, IMO) brought in members of both intelligence committees from both parties and told them what they were doing. They continued to brief both party's leaders every 30-45 days about what they were doing for years.
Only when it was leaked did anyone bitch about it. And for good reason - monitoring calls into the US from suspected terrorist numbers overseas and compiling data on call patterns is absolutely critical and fundamental militarily when the country is under attack.
The only real question here is;
Are there reasons to suspect the country is subject to being attacked using these (telecommunications) tools?
Obviously there are very good reasons to suspect just that.
So what do we know about it now or what can we reasonably infer? The NSA has and is compiling a database on calling patterns. They are also monitoring in a 'hot pursuit' type manner calls into and out of the US to and from known or suspected terrorist numbers overseas.
It is reasonable to suspect that they know enough that if tomorrow Sparkle gets a call from her boss in Afghanistan telling her to activate her sleeper cell and go forward with their planned attack the NSA will intercept the call. They'll translate it and analyze it and try to figure out what it means. They'll punch Sparkle's phone number in the database and learn who she calls and who those people call.
They'll immediately have a base of intelligence information from which to proceed. They can put in place emergency surveillance of Sparkle and her little terrorist friends while they proceed with obtaining FISA warrants etcetera. If they decide its an emergency they can just go grab her ass.
Attack prevented, potentially thousands of lives saved.
All using data that was already being compiled and existed in telephone company databases for billing purposes.
It is common sense. Any president not using tools like this readily at his disposal to defend the country would not only be stupid he'd be derelict in his fundamental duty to protect the country.
Or we could look at it the other way.
The country was attacked 5 years ago costing thousands of civilian lives and trillions of dollars damage. Since then other attempted attacks have been foiled, let's assume we've just been lucky.
This morning Sparkle and her little band of bad guys blow up the south Texas nuclear plant by whatever means.
In the ensuing investigation, while thousands of civilian men, women and children are being treated for radiation poisoning, it emerges from existing records that Sparkle has been here and organizing this attack for 3 years.
She has received and placed dozens of phone calls overseas to a phone number in Syria known to house Hamas, and the NSA knows full well that number regularly comminicates with various terrorist baddies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
She and her group have been calling each other willy nilly for months and meeting in her garage to assemble whatever weapon they use for the attack. She has charged materials purchased to assemble the device with her MasterCard repeatedly, she even special ordered unusual electronic parts for it from the local Radio Shack.
All the information is available from credit card and phone records. The NSA had the capability to monitor the calls, NSA and DoJ lawyers said it was perfectly legal, but they did not do so.
The attack could easily have been prevented. We knew we were subject to attack. The data was there. The president had been told he should do this and that it was legal.
Just take off your partisan hat and think about it for a minute. Now we're talking something that really justifies impeachment my civil libertarian and liberal friends.
Thanks for putting in perspective Dwilkers. Maybe by making me the enemy they can understand it a bit better.
This really makes my blood boil. I am so SICK of this. The Democrats knew of this program and yet they still act like it is a complete surprise. Anything to score some political points.
I have a feeling that the enemy is just waiting for Bush to leave office and praying for a Democrat who will "return all these civil liberties" we have "lost" so they can attack us again.
You just wait.
My blood is boiling on the other side. I actually found myself agreeing with Teddy Kennedy when I heard him on the radio last night. (Anyone who knows me knows that this has *never* happened before.) I don't give a rat's ass whether the Dems knew about it and didn't say anything, because the point is that it's wrong. End of story.
My phone carriers know who I call, because they need to to bill me for those calls. I understand that and I'm okay with that. However, on no occasion did I give them any sort of authority to share that information with a government agency without any sort of judicial intervention.
I'm not concerned about them finding out that I'm calling a terrorist. I'm concerned about what is going to happen to this information next? Who is going to be the next group who is so dangerous that we need to know who is calling them?
Where does this all end, and don't tell me it'll only be used against terrorists, because it won't. Let's be honest with one another.
The Democrats knew of this program and yet they still act like it is a complete surprise.
Well yeah. And that combined with our forum friend's apparent...lack of disappointment...with the Dems that have been in on this from the beginning pretty much says it all doesn't it?
Ben in Boston - You may be outraged that the phone companies are sharing this information, but they do not need your authority or permission to do so.
Let's step back and remember that the NSA is NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Q : Rep. Pelosi - Isn't it true that you were briefed on this program literally years ago, and then received updated briefs on it throughout ?
A : Yes, but I did not know I should be outraged about it until now.
GE,
If I had known the NSA and CIA was targeting American citizen at home without warrants I would have been opposed to it as well. By all acoounts, whatever intelligence gathering was going on prior to 9/11 has been greatly expanded. Whoever in congress knew about this expansion should have raised objections. I suspect that these programs are far more invasive that this administration has admitted. Since the DOJ investigators were denied security clearance to investigate this matter, we may never know the truth.
JD-
You're right they're not law enforcement, they're worse. They're not bound by the laws the police are bound by, and they've got the military behind them.
And again, I don't care who knew when, I'm pissed that they're doing it!
Snail mail is "protected" by common belief in privacy. It is always in danger of being open by the govenment if its agents forget/don't accept this common belief. As Americans our snail mail has been safe if it remains within US borders. (during war the snail mail was read. Is a safe bet.) there is no protection on e-mail which is why we have Pretty Good Privacy encripytion.
I repeat the internet is not protected by the Fourth Article of Amendment.
...and don't tell me it'll only be used against terrorists...
If/when it gets abused I'll be right there with you applauding as they slap the cuffs on whoever is involved.
There's a difference between use and abuse. Right now there isn't a scintilla of evidence of abuse.
And for an unbiased observer that should speak very highly of the people involved.
Sigh. Sorry my cookie is hosed I guess. "D" at 8:49am and anonymous at 9:45am are me.
I think we DO need to have this debate. I feel confident the public will come down on the side of LIVING.
As for me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!
Hmm... compiling phone pattern data is "giving up liberty." You would rather die?
Oookkkkk.
Sparkle,
"I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
Perhaps you believe that we will all die if the gov't doesn't have every Americans telephone and e-mail records. I don't. I am willing to face the dangers of terrorism of the possibility of tyranny.
Let the the enemey's dumb bastards die for their cause than me dying for mine. -- paraphrase of General George S. Patton.
Datamine those terrorists!
I am dissappointed at the hardcore right wing. At the first sign of any kind of personal danger, and especiallywhen the dangers are only imagined, they are willing to chuck away nearly all our rights.
We live in a dangerous world and our constitutional protections may make us more vulnerable. However I am confident we will win and it is not necessary to give up our principle or ideals.
It's a non-story.
You know what else is a non-story?
Phone records.
http://daveintexas.wordpress.com...able-to-public/
If we see even one Democratic Senator make any noise about this I will be so surprised.
Dean,
Are you suggesting that 280 million Americans are terrorists and should be "datamined"?
"Perhaps you believe that we will all die if the gov't doesn't have every Americans telephone and e-mail records. I don't. I am willing to face the dangers of terrorism of the possibility of tyranny."
"is life so dear to be purchased at the price of slavery.....give me liberty or give me death." Surely, it will be tyranny if we lose. Death is we don't convert if we lose. Winston Churchill explain that it is better to fully fight an enemey when a chance of victory is possible than when that chance is nil for it better to die than tyranny/slavery.
Be aware just from whom will be the tyrants.
Bush knows what needs to be done to protect us. God knows he has proven that. Let's for God's sake let him do it.
Rightwingsparkle | 05.11.06 - 9:57 pm | #
Why God? Why not Zeus or Baal?
Personally, I think Bush should start praying to Osiris. He did a pretty good job for the ancient Egyptians.
And with the mess Bush has gotten us into, he needs all the help he can get...
"... that 280 million Americans are terrorists and should be "datamined"?"
Are you saying EVERY Americans' records/numbers are being datamined?
"... At the first sign of any kind of personal danger, and especiallywhen the dangers are only imagined, they are willing to chuck away nearly all our rights."
Only imagined??
Chuck away??
As Americans we can only imagine what a loss of Liberty is like.. The fear of datamining is a red herring. The Congress is considering an updated DCMA law to further control the Internet. And, we bicker over 'it could happen here' fears.
Paul - Do you honestly believe that the all to very real possibility of terrorism is just "imagined" ? What "rights" are being chucked away ?
Dean,
I'm not sure if all 280 million Americans phones are being datamined but let's look at it logically. We know the gov't has the technical capability to do so and it is certainly easier to apply this technology to everyone than it is to make a list and possibly exlcude a terrorist cell. It's kinda like a DWI checkpoint. You can stop all the cars or at a set interval, every 5th or 10th car. Otherwise it's illegal.
The administration claims that these programs were completely legal however I have my doubts. If this program was legal why the secrecy? Surely the terrorists understood that their communications could be monitored with a simple warrant.
How about a compromise, a little congessional oversite. How about a court approval? I don't care if it is the NSA this is still the USA and I am still hoping to be protected by the fourth amendment.
Dumbya,
Yeah, what mess. We have haven't been attacked again, the economy is rockin and there is a Democracy in the Middle East (although stuggling for sure) It's a MESS.
Good Grief.
Sparkle,
Yes and all it took wass for the gov't to start spyiny on American citizens!
Paul - Why the secrecy ? It is intelligence work ! How difficult a concept is that to grasp ?
patricks - There has been Congressional oversight of this program since its inception. Period.
How do 4th Amendment protections extend to something : A) not in your control, B) not in your possession, and C) not owned by you ?
I'll say what I said on another site elsewhere:
Since this is simply a case of the gov't comparing numbers that are called from one number and seeing if there is a pattern to them, this truly is a non-issue. There is no listening in on conversations in this instance.
As a former direct mail person, I can tell you that direct mail list merchants know your phone number, address, income, race (usually), type of car you drive, etc. And true dataminers know how much you spend at the grocery store and on what products, the size of your house, whether you own or rent, your mortgage balance, whether your credit rating is in the high 700s/low 800s or if you're in the 500 range.
So, the government comparing your phone number and outbound numbers that you dial and trying to see if there's a link between that and suspected terrorist numbers is a problem how? The gov't doesn't know the name on the acount associated to the given phone number! They only know that when they suspect something and then the warrant to pursue an investigation.
Once again, the whole story really isn't being told by the media.
And, BTW, let me state the obvious in case someone doesn't understand: You or I could buy all of this information that I stated above if we had the money to do so. If you're truly concerned about privacy, why not go after the Direct Mail Marketing Association? Or the dataminers?
"How do 4th Amendment protections extend to something : A) not in your control, B) not in your possession, and C) not owned by you ?"
The fourth ammendment provides a valuable check against the abuse of power. The gov't must prove to a judge that they have probable cause. In the case of national security issues the bar is even lower and the warrant may even be obtained after the fact. Our entire system of gov't is based on these checks and balances. To dismantle this system even just a llittle bit is far more dangerous than the little additional security gained by it.
'Twas not a peep heard about Eschalon. This BDS crap is getting very annoying.
Want to pull together, people. OK--pull together against the actual enemy out there-- ISLAMO-FASCISM.
Platitudes.
Interesting thread.
The bedwetters are out in full force, willing to surrender anything and everything for the illusion of safety.
As Sparkle likes to say - pathetic.
Paul,
How do you respond to what JonW just stated?
Perhaps you can do better than Heh's stunning debate skills.
I see that the usual whiners in here have no problem that the program was more intrusive under Bill Clinton, and that was pre 9/11. Quite telling. Makes the whining look like what it is. BDS. Period.
It'w worth repeating: NBC's Lisa Meyers:
"One intelligence source tells NBC News that two dozen members of Congress have known about this program for years and have been completely uninterested until today."
Ouch , looks like the majority of Americans agree with the NSA program and have not fallen for the (phony) outrage that the libs are "experiencing" this week. Excellent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...1200375_pf.html
The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:
"The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights."
"Both suits demand the program be stopped
I can see it now. The democrat's election campaign slogan for 2006. "Vote for Us. We'll Put A Stop To Terrorist Surveillance."
That should be a winner.
The irrational hatred of Bush by the left is obvious. Only when a Republican occupies the White House do they suddenly have a problem with the NSA ... well, actually everything ... that was not a problem when a Democrat was in the White House.
No acknowledgement of the Echelon program. No facts about any of these programs from the left ... just suspicion.
Until anyone on the left can argue the facts, not beliefs, and stay consistent across all administrations, the cries for "civil rights" will be viewed as nothing more dirty politics and hypocrisy.
"How do 4th Amendment protections extend to something : A) not in your control, B) not in your possession, and C) not owned by you ?"
The fourth ammendment provides a valuable check against the abuse of power. The gov't must prove to a judge that they have probable cause. In the case of national security issues the bar is even lower and the warrant may even be obtained after the fact. Our entire system of gov't is based on these checks and balances. To dismantle this system even just a llittle bit is far more dangerous than the little additional security gained by it.
That was a probably a good answer, to another question ... The information in question is not covered under the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment.
"Heh's stunning debate skills."
It ain't a debate, sweetheart. Debates don't happen here.
Actually they do, you just don't participate. Ad homs aren't debate. "Bedwetters" and "Sweatheart" would be Ad homs, you see?
JD when did these people go before a congressional committee, under oath, and explain the program. When has the president last testified under oath about his policies? when has the vice president, the sec of defense gone under oath to testify. What congressional oversite are you talking about?
Dumbya,
Yeah, what mess. We have haven't been attacked again, the economy is rockin and there is a Democracy in the Middle East (although stuggling for sure) It's a MESS.
Good Grief.
Rightwingsparkle | 05.12.06 - 11:33 am | #
"The first panacea of a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; a permanent ruin." - Ernest Hemingway
As demonstrated dramatically by liberal blogger John Aravosis, until last month your cell phone records were available for the asking (and $90).
But this is yet another case of liberal headhunting backing conservatives into a corner. If you asked most conservatives if they'd like more privacy protections, I think they'd say "yes." If you asked them if they'd like increased bipartisan oversight of the NSA and its surveillance programs, I think they'd say "yes" as long as security could be ensured. But if you confront them with a feeding frenzy like we see here, they'll dig in their heels and and defend the programs as they stand.
The high political stakes constantly being wagered by the libs are herding conservatives' toward support for increased government powers and reduced personal rights. Nice work, fellas.
...and now I'm being herded into incompetence at HTML.
Paul - Not much need for intelligence gathering and classified materials when you desire to air it all on C-Span, huh ? Pelosi said she was briefed on it. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed on it, which is their role in matters such as this.
The route you suggest, public Congressional hearings, is simply not the right forum for these types of issues.
The blogs are ripping this non story and rightly so. It's been going on before Bush got into office. The liberal MSM is absolutely disgusting.
Jill | 05.11.06 - 7:26 pm | #
I'm gonna have to call Bulls#@t on that one Jill. The databases have been collected by the phone companies, but not shared with the Government until this administration.
If you have any source which is contrary to this, please share.
Where G.E. and his Able Danger investigation now?
GE:
Which of the liberal bloggers on here were not upset about Eshelon when it was created with money earmarked for Reagan's "Star Wars" program, or when it was first implemented?
Please name names.
ANYTHING he would do would just add fuel to the fire.
This is about the left caring more about winning than our security. Period.
While I agree that Bush does make some very poor choices, I think it is unfair to say there are no choices he could make which would help him with the American public.
Further, could you please explain how the Federal Government spending the time, effort and money to create a database which records each of the phone calls you have made and received has made me safer? I didn't realize you were that big a threat to our national security, but please. . . do explain.
How was it we were able to go from 1992 to 2001 without a terrorist attack on U.S. Soil (which is not a fact I'm willing to concede, but seems to be the belief held by the majority here as Timothy McViegh, the Salt Lake City Bomber, the Unibomber, the Anthrax Mailer, Eric Randolf, the D.C. Snipers, and various others were apparently just a misguided souls and not a terrorists)?
The government must have been listening in to all phone calls, tracking every call made both internationally and in the U.S., and datamining enormous databases since at least '92? Right?
C'mon. Just because this Administration has come up with a reason to record every phone call you make and every fax you send doesn't mean you are any safer than you were before they started tracking you in this detail.
jandrew, who cares about phone company databases? What do you think the NSA and other agencies have been doing since their inception?
It looks like the Dems successfully covered up Able Danger for now. BTW, Hillary Clinton and other notable Dems have donated to Curt Weldon's opposition. As you know Curt Weldon was the one who exposed Able Danger. It's a little odd that Dems like Hillary would be interested in Weldon's race, don't ya think? Or is it?
NSA wiretap supporters, the more data we can get the better protected we all are. Please install a GPS monitor in your cars and keep one on you at all times. Please install video cams in your house so we can find you and record what you are doing so that in case you become involved in a terrorist plot we can look back and see which of your friends and family we also should detain. These heroic steps you can take for the greater good. Your bank statements are already being mined for any red flag purchases. p.s. please don't tell the bad guys we are tapping all phones so we can catch them in the act.
jandrew, the mere fact that we discussing NSA programs and that the left does not acknowledge Echelon (a more intrusive program than the ones the left is currently upset about) is a clear indication that the left was not upset about Echelon. It is also clear that the left are hypocrites since we never had this type of scrutiny of the NSA until Bush.
The criticism is nothing more than another dishonest attack on Bush. The left is willing to hurt this country in order to get their power back. It's not clear any more who is more of a danger to the US: the terrorists or the left.
To say that the left just disagrees is a lie. The left are willing reveal secrets to our enemies in order to achieve their political objectives. I've always had a very low opinion of Dems but I never thought they would go this far.
jandrew - your points would be interesting, or even relevant, except for the fact that we are not recording every phone call and fax, nor listening in to every call. since we are not, it kind of just makes you come across as hysterical.
Please show us the outrage from the Democrats over Echelon.
Sleepless, OBL was stopped using his cell phone when it was leaked that we were monitoring his phone calls. Frankly, I'm surprised OBL was that stupid.
You're kidding about the GPS, right? It's already in our cars and cell phones. The video cams will get put in place when the anti-smoking crowd manages to ban smoking in our homes.
sleep-less - I already have GPS in my in-dash navigation system and on my Treo, and have no problem whatsoever if my carriers wish to share their records with the NSA.
What is Echelon and why would two wrongs make a right? R's had their turn to speak up about it when a D was in office. Now it's R's turn. With power comes responsibility. We haven't been so watchful of a recent President because we didn't think we had to be. Now we are forced to know better.
Fool me twice...
Yes, but now the Dems are speaking up when the program is LESS intrusive and AFTER 9/11. They fool no one, except the very foolish.
I love repeating this from last night's news:
"One intelligence source tells NBC News that two dozen members of Congress have known about this program for years and have been completely uninterested until today."
Completely uninterested until today. Busted. Love it.
So why doesn't it bother you that if you deposit a large amount of money in a bank the govt is notified? I could list hundreds of way the govt intrudes in our private lives yet THIS is the one that bothers you? The one that is trying to keep track of terrorists?
This is just about hatred of Bush and that is ALL it is about.
when I think about all the information the govt has on all of us. Every dime we have ever made and where. All our taxes paid. Our homes and kids. Our investments. Our credit score. Any criminal record, even a speeding ticket. Any money your parents give you is tracked.
Yet none of this seems to bother the left. Please. Let's all join in on getting the govt out of lives. Maybe we can finally sway you.
2 out of three Americans think heh and jandrew can go suck canal water on this.
Well I've got something Dave in Texas can suck on...
@ goldeneagle
"Tank, do you really know how the NSA works?
The telco companies have to monitor calls to determine a financial result. The NSA monitors calls to determine the value of that communication."
This is what I was saying. If the arguement is that they were only mapping endpoints and not recording the calls then billing data gets you that. The switches aren't needed.
And yes I do know how the NSA works and that these calls were already being monitored for content albeit via proxy intelligence services.
If there is someone here who doesn't understand what the NSA does the wiretapping scandals under Bush boil down to this....
Bush was dumb enough to personally involve himself in what was already being done and provide direct evidence of US agencies spying on it's citizens. He didn't start it, he just chose to expand it, remove several deniability buffers out and put his name to it.
He's just dumb, as per everything else he has done in the past 6 years. I mean fuck me the guy just took the man who ran this and nominated him to be grilled in open hearings for the CIA post. Someone tell me how you make a worse decision than that ?
"The left only recently discovered -- since Bush assumed the presidency -- what these agencies do Where was all this concern when Clinton approved Echelon?"
Clinton didn't approve Echelon and we learned about it's operation in the 90s. As for where all the concern was if you actuall look for it you can find multi-lateral investigations by several nations into it at the behest of their concerned citizens.
If you asked where is all the concern about secret prisons you would get the same answer. Do you think Bush got a pass on that ?
"How come Echelon wasn't leaked when Clinton was in office? Apparently, Democrats can run the country as dictators and Republicans are questioned on absolutely everthing they do, regardless of whether any facts are involved."
You really want to introduce the word dictator here ?
If you are looking for the difference between how this monitoring has been used under Bush and Clinton the most striking example would be somebody talks about getting married in an email, they get detained at an airport as a terrorist because agencies interpret this as a terrorist keyword, get detained in secret and flown overseas to be tortured by a foreign government, then get released as innocent, then get married like they planned to in the first place.
That didn't happen because of the technology. It happened because of how that technology was used and because one of those two presidencies decided a bunch of legal protections and oversight no longer applies.
And you're citing Clinton's reign as the dictatorship here ?
Yeah run with that see how far you get.
Yet none of this seems to bother the left. Please. Let's all join in on getting the govt out of lives. Maybe we can finally sway you.
Rightwingsparkle | 05.12.06 - 7:09 pm | #
If the idea is to convince yourself that only people of one political leaning care about the government monitoring their phone calls you should expect a similar swing in support. Add you + nobody to the poll results.
The left might want to check this article out before criticizing Bush on collecting telco data.
Apparently, Clinton signed into law with the approval of a Democrat-majority Congress in 1994: an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises
Let's see how much outrage is expressed by our commenters on the left.
@ goldeneagle
"OBL was stopped using his cell phone when it was leaked that we were monitoring his phone calls. Frankly, I'm surprised OBL was that stupid."
Actually he stopped using it right after the strike. The disclosure that that phone signal was being targetted came later and there is nothing to suggest the court documents or the newspaper reporting this disclosure had any bearing on this change in behavour that compared to him getting missiles fired at him.
Nonetheless, this revelation documented in the press and directly telegraphed to al Qaeda leadership (one way or another) didn't stop the al Qaeda members responsible for planning and running the Hamburg cell from being captured via the same system in 2003.
This example is an old, poorly researched and well debunked one.
The left might want to check this article out before criticizing Bush on collecting telco data.
...
Let's see how much outrage is expressed by our commenters on the left.
goldeneagle | Homepage | 05.13.06 - 3:21 am | #
What you've quoted there refers to law enforcement and if you take the time to read any examination of the current story you'll see that same requirement is explored and excluded as relating to the NSA.
When you eventually get around to discovering CARNIVORE under Clinton don't bother expecting anyone to want a serious conversation with you when you characterise this shit as a partisan issue for "the left".
Or if you don't write up a defense of it. This "he did it first mom" shit works both ways.
sleep-less - I already have GPS in my in-dash navigation system and on my Treo, and have no problem whatsoever if my carriers wish to share their records with the NSA.
JD | 05.12.06 - 5:38 pm | #
GPS is a passive system. It knows where satellites are, not the other way around. There are no records to share.
Tank,
Apparently you don't know how the NSA works when you differentiate it from the other administrations.
Clinton did approve Echelon.
Clinton did act as a dictator when he did not get Congressional aproval for the military action in Bosnia.
No, OBL stopped using his cell phone after it was reported that his cell phone activity was being monitored.
Good try on the Echelon program. You ruined your argument with the "first try" admission. Try to address the Echelon program itself.
Also, provide some sources to back up your argument.
So you meant Clinton approved ECHELON in the same way he approved taxation ? When he took office there were certain programs running independent of who was in power at the time and he didn't put an end to them.
Gotcha.
You see I was under the impression you were suggesting he started ECHELON as a way of distinguishing between what Clinton and Bush did on their first day in office. Turns out you weren't referring to any difference between them and the impression to that end you may have left with readers by leaving it that vague would of course have been completely unintentional.
"Also, provide some sources to back up your argument."
What arguement? I haven't suggested there were any OBL sat phone calls between the strikes and the reporting of NSA monitoring. That was you. We both know you aren't going to come up with a source for that because there is none.
Likewise for any suggestion about Clinton doing something substantial in regard to ECHELON that Bush hasn't done. Nothing exists. So WTF is it you want me to provide sources for while you make assertions based on speculation ?
Also the words "first try" don't appear on this page prior to you posting them. Overall, try being less vague if you actually want to make a point.
GE,
If your arguments are true than that would mean that under Clinton the NSA gathered far more information from the American people. Do you actually believe that in the wake of 9/11 that Bush scaled back these programs to the point where they merely provided a record of who called what number?
Your claims those on the left were willing to tolerate being spied on by a Democratic president and only object to this current spying are false. How do you feel about being spied on by either a Demoratic president or a republican one. About the same I'd guess.
Tank: GPS "knows where satellites are, not the other way around"
- GPS tracking devices are available right now that track your car like if it gets stolen. Not all GPS systems are down-link only.
JD: already has GPS on the "in-dash navigation system and...Treo"
- And you did this by choice I hope right? See the difference?
Goldeneagle: video cams will be used "to ban smoking in our homes"
- They don't need any video records to see if you're smoking. They can already tell from your health insurance records. And our premiums keep going up?!
Some of us celebrate the lives that were lost fighting for our liberties by exercising those liberties. What's next, chips in our heads? You first.
"GPS tracking devices are available right now that track your car like if it gets stolen. Not all GPS systems are down-link only."
Yeah I know man, they also aint free. You have to pay for them to "invade your privacy" like that. So quit paying.
No realistic commerical expectation that anyone is recording your vehicle's movements for nefarious purposes versus the cost benefit of recovering the vehicle if stolen. This is a commercial decision, not a privacy one. You would however be opting out of benefits not threats.
I think I've figured out what this is supposed to mean:
Good try on the Echelon program. You ruined your argument with the "first try" admission. Try to address the Echelon program itself.
goldeneagle | Homepage | 05.13.06 - 4:29 am | #
Did my reference to the fact it was the only reason the men who planned and ran the actions of the cell that carried out 9/11 were caught come up short ?
WTF else needs addressing? It hasn't cured cancer yet but apart from that it doesn't really need much defense or explanation as to it's benefits.
That mofo Clinton approved it though. Son of a bitch terrorist bombing democrat. Had the nerve to approve the most valuable asset available in the current war on terror. yadayadayada.
Even after it's been explained to you if you truely can't understand that programs that run independent of who is in office don't amount to partisan issues then just stop posting. You just aren't smart enough to.
Tank, the intelligence programs are monitored by the president, his administration, and congress. They have the power to start and stop intelligence programs.
Your inconsistency on whether an intelligence program is good or bad seems directly tied to who was president. I can see you're frustrated because your arguments don't make sense and revert to attacks. If you want to be taken seriously, try to argue the points instead of rambling in obscenities.
Paul,
All I can do is go by what is reported. Echelon has been characterized as being more intrusive than Bush's program. I believe a lot more is going on here and the Dems are just picking on small part of intelligence programs in a disingenous manner.
You said: "Your claims those on the left were willing to tolerate being spied on by a Democratic president and only object to this current spying are false. "
I disagree.
The left did not complain nor talk about impeaching Clinton when he approved Echelon. They didn't complain or talk about impeaching Clinton when his adminstration "accidentally" got access to the FBI files of many Republicans. The left is being very hypocritical.
The left is desperate. They don't have a plan for doing pretty much anything so the only thing they have left is to attack Bush. All of these phony charges against Bush are just political maneuvers to create an unfavorable perception of Bush ... regardless of how much it hurts the country.
Sleep-less, my point about the video cams was tongue in cheek. I think the anti-smoking crowd is going overboard on smoking restrictions. And I don't smoke.
GE, I meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek too. Thank you for not smoking.
GE,
The difference is not that Bush is held in such low esteem by a majority of Americans, the difference is that the focus of this spying is the American people in violation of our Constitutional protections. This program has compromised one of our traditional principles and has not made us one bit safer.
Paul,
Again, all administrations have had programs like this in place. Clinton had Echelon and the left continues to ignore that fact. I see no outrage at Clinton. The failure to hold Clinton responsible shows that the NSA flap is purely political and the left are hypocrites.
What should the intelligence community do if they need to track terrorists in the US? Should law enforcement stop tracking suspected criminals as well? It's one or the other.
GE,
I've pointed out the substantial difference between the earlier programs and what is in place now. This administration has admitted to making changes in the gathering of intelligence in the wake of 9/11 so it is rather silly to suggest that nothing has changed and the same things occured under prior presidents. The threat from terrorism is real, however any advantage gained from these warrantless searches is imaginary. Even if the risk from terrorists was reduced under this program, I don't think we should abandon our constitutional principles. I believe the correct course of action is to stand firm in out beliefs.
If the intelligence community needs to track a suspect in the US, simply get a warrant. Our founding fathers wisely created a system of checks and balances. I don't think we should ignore out principles and tradition out of fear.
Paul,
I didn't see where you pointed out substantial differences.
If you think Bush is the first president to conduct these types of programs then you're the one being silly. Nothing has changed in the sense that the intelligence community is doing its job. Neither you nor I really know the details of those programs. The MSM constantly gets the details wrong.
Clinton also conducted warrantless spying. His administration, even Gorelick, argued that the president has this power. No one on the left or in MSM expressed any concern to the degree this phony NSA flap has received.
How should the intelligence community handle a situation that needs a response in days, not weeks or months? The FISA process introduced long delays in getting warrants. This is well documented. What should a president do if bridge is about to be blown up or a nuclear weapon is about to be set off in days? Should he do nothing because of the 4th amendment?
I seriously doubt the founding fathers expected the president to allow enemies wander the country freely and killing citizens and destroying infrastructure.
BTW, over 20 Dems, including Pelosi, knew what the NSA was doing. Should those Dems also be held accountable for violating the 4th amendment as well?
Tank, the intelligence programs are monitored by the president, his administration, and congress. They have the power to start and stop intelligence programs.
Yes, in the same way they have the power to take guns off the military.
Your inconsistency on whether an intelligence program is good or bad seems directly tied to who was president.
goldeneagle | Homepage | 05.14.06 - 2:34 am
Well good luck finding my usenet posts from the 90s but everything I've posted in the past 5 years in regard to these NSA programs has been in support of their benefits. In fact you'll be lucky to find any post relating to them where I don't qualify them as the most valuable tool available for national security. Hell you can find me arguing the benefits of this current contacts mapping story 3 months ago rather than this week when all the rest of you caught up.
So your saying I'm biased in favour of Bush ?
You know, the guy that was in office in 2003 when those 9/11 planners were captured. And you are calling out MY inconsistancies, LOL.
Paul, I didn't see where you pointed out substantial differences.
You asked him what could be done differently in regard to warrantless domestic wiretapping. He said they could get a warrant.
Not being able to see any difference between the two is your problem and makes your input quite pointless.
Obviously if your understanding of the changes to domestic surveillence programs since 9/11 is there were none in terms of the NSA conducting domestic surveillence and the FISA court being bypassed - which for some bizarre reason Bush lied about when he confirmed this did happen within 24 hours - then you really aren't clued up enough to participate in a discussion of these issues.
Seriously, if you're denying things that the executive branch has admitting to surely you know you nobody is taking you seriously.
I haven't seen one yet but if the next time you have a discussion about whether the Iraq war was justified if you see somebody argue the US did nothing wrong because there was no Iraq war, you'll be as irrelevant as that guy.
Tank, there's no point in debating you if you can only repeat Dem talking points and ignore the facts. No wonder you have to resort to personal insults.
GE,
Perhaps you are correct, I may not have posted the significant difference between the echelon program Bush's program. That is the p[roblem with these extremely long threads, sometimes I get a little confused between what I intended to say and what I actually get around to actually writing and "publish". Shame on you for not being a better mind reader.
The difference is , as I understand it, the prior programs focused on intercepting foriegn communications signals and the latter has targeted domestic communications. I don't know who Gorelick is and I don't particularly care- the fourth ammendment is short and easy to understand. The principle behind it is easily understood as well. The Gov't must prove to a judge that there is a good reason to invade a person's privacy. This is done to protect an individuals privacy but more importantly the fourth ammendment provides a valuable check against the abuse of power that is very likely to occur without it.
"I seriously doubt the founding fathers expected the president to allow enemies wander the country freely and killing citizens and destroying infrastructure."
Actually our founding fathers were acutely aware of enemies in their midst during wartime. We tend to forget that during the revolutionary war the United States was full of British loyalists who actively worked for our enemies. Our founding fathers realized that any harm caused by these enemies was far outweighed by the greater good to individuals and society provided by the fourth ammendment.
I am disappointed that no one who knew about this program in congress had the balls to stand up and say this is wrong. I am proud that there were people who sacrificed their careers and reputations to bring this to light.
Paul - You have yet to show that there is anything involved in this matter that even approaches a 4th Amendment issue, much less a violation of same. Now, just because you FEEL that the phone companies records, which are theirs - not yours, constitutes a violation of your privacy does not make it so.
JD,
That is an excellent point. I don't have anything to show except for the allegations in the press due to the fact that this is all highly classified. let me ask you a question, if these allegations are true, what do you think of them?
JD:
Why do you think Congress sat down and debated, then came up with such laws as the Stored Communications Act, the Pen Register Act, and various other laws which regulate what communications companies can and can not do with the records they keep on their customers?
It may not be a direct violation of the 4th amendment, but that does not mean that it approaches legality under any strech of the imagination.
(Unless of course you buy into the whole "we are at war, have always been at war, and will always be at war" mantra which would provide the exigent circumstances necessary to make such an act legal).
Commenting by HaloScan
