PDA

View Full Version : If you support either form of warrantless spying on Americans being conducted now...


jAZ
05-12-2006, 07:56 PM
... what is an acceptable use of this methodology?

There are 2 programs that folks are upset about...

1) Warrantless wiretaps on overseas calls originating from the US
2) Warrantless phone record logging of millions and millions of Americans.

The key distinction between the two seems to be that #1 is listening in on the conversation while #2 is merely collecting the phone logs (what person called what other person on which day and for how long).

The first one seems to be a major concern for the largest # of people. The second seems to be less objectionable to the masses.

My question is maybe more focused on #2, but if you think it makes sense for #1, have at it.

What is acceptable use of this methodology and information gathered? There is a ton of stuff there, and absolutely zero oversight as to how it's used.

* Is it acceptable to dig through the data and find calls made to and from suspected terrorists?
* What about those made by suspected human smugglers (of illegal immigrants)?
* Suspected drug smugglers?
* Suspected child molestors?
* Suspected drug dealers?
* Political activists (of any party/issue)?
* Radical religous leaders (Koresh, etc)?

Where do we draw the line? And without mandating warrants for each of these, how do we enforce whatever line you choose?

Chiefs Express II
05-12-2006, 08:59 PM
Are you aware of the Eschelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON) program that was used during the 90's?

They actually recorded calls and emails and were read by government personnel to validate illegal terrorist activities. This was a full scope program, the current program analyzes the calling patterns without tapping the calls themselves.

When you throw away your phone bill anyone can access your callling record. The Supreme Court seems to have addressed this issue in the past, the only difference is that then there was a democrat in office and now there is a republican in office.

Where was the outrage when Clinton was doing what you consider wrong?
Why the outrage now when it is being done after an unprecidented attack?

CHIEF4EVER
05-12-2006, 10:06 PM
Look, the only reason this "issue" has been rehashed is because there is now a new nominee for the CIA director position. Another pitiful attempt by the liberal left to try to derail a Bush nominee. Not because he (Hayden) is incapable of doing an excellent job, but because he was nominated by Bush. The fact is, those who are "outraged" by the NSA using phone records FREELY GIVEN THEM by the phone company just make themselves look silly to anyone in the general public with a shred of common sense. If the NSA and Bush are da debbil for using those phone records and algorithmically cross matching what numbers had contact with known terrorist numbers, then the IRS and Census Bureau should be drawn and quartered. THEY have a HELLUVA lot more information about you and I than the phone company does.

*Oh my GOD!!!! The NSA knows my phone number! The sky is falling! Bush is da debbil!* ROFL

jAZ
05-12-2006, 10:11 PM
Are you aware of the Eschelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON) program that was used during the 90's?

They actually recorded calls and emails and were read by government personnel to validate illegal terrorist activities. This was a full scope program, the current program analyzes the calling patterns without tapping the calls themselves.

When you throw away your phone bill anyone can access your callling record. The Supreme Court seems to have addressed this issue in the past, the only difference is that then there was a democrat in office and now there is a republican in office.

Where was the outrage when Clinton was doing what you consider wrong?
Why the outrage now when it is being done after an unprecidented attack?
Get over yourself and your self loathing. I'm asking a non-party afilliated question. I don't care who's in office. If you want to pretend that all of this stuff in the original post was done by Clinton so that you can focus on the question itself... go for it.

Address the question(s) I've posed.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 10:12 PM
Look, the only reason this "issue" has been rehashed is because there is now a new nominee for the CIA director position. Another pitiful attempt by the liberal left to try to derail a Bush nominee. Not because he (Hayden) is incapable of doing an excellent job, but because he was nominated by Bush. The fact is, those who are "outraged" by the NSA using phone records FREELY GIVEN THEM by the phone company just make themselves look silly to anyone in the general public with a shred of common sense. If the NSA and Bush are da debbil for using those phone records and algorithmically cross matching what numbers had contact with known terrorist numbers, then the IRS and Census Bureau should be drawn and quartered. THEY have a HELLUVA lot more information about you and I than the phone company does.

*Oh my GOD!!!! The NSA knows my phone number! The sky is falling! Bush is da debbil!* ROFL
You don't want to begin parrotting Chiefs Express. That's not good for anyone.

If you don't mind the program, that's fine. Just address the other issues I raised.

Thanks! :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
05-12-2006, 10:19 PM
You don't want to begin parrotting T0m Cash. That's not good for anyone.

I didn't parrot anyone so get over yourself. I simply posted reality.

If you don't mind the program, that's fine. Just address the other issues I raised.

That's just it jAZ, they aren't issues. In deference to you, however, I will answer BOTH questions with one sweeping answer: However the NSA feels it is necessary to protect the citizenry which is one of the constitutional responsibilities of the government. All I ask is that they don't abuse it. This whole question is nothing new, it has been going on since the 70's.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 10:26 PM
All I ask is that they don't abuse it.
What does this mean exactly. The list I provided was meant to provide examples of actions that at a certain point one might expect would constitute abuse. If all of those are acceptable, what would you consider abuse?

alnorth
05-12-2006, 10:38 PM
I consider the safeguards and oversight in place to be adequate. Therefore, I really dont mind either program, and the polls pretty much concur.

jAZ
05-12-2006, 10:56 PM
I consider the safeguards and oversight in place to be adequate. Therefore, I really dont mind either program, and the polls pretty much concur.
What oversight exists exactly? I'm not aware of any oversight. Which safeguards in particular are you refering to?

jAZ
05-12-2006, 11:09 PM
Are you aware of the Eschelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON) program that was used during the 90's?

...

the only difference is that then there was a democrat in office and now there is a republican in office.
I've come to expect this level of ignorance from you Tom.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002#20060512

Tenet testified before the intelligence committee on April 12, 2000. Denying allegations that Echelon was used to spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, Tenet stated: "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department." (http://odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2000/dci_speech_041200.html) In the same hearing, Hayden testified: "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."

Chiefs Express II
05-13-2006, 07:01 AM
I've come to expect this level of ignorance from you Tom.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002#20060512

Tenet testified before the intelligence committee on April 12, 2000. Denying allegations that Echelon was used to spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, Tenet stated: "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department." (http://odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2000/dci_speech_041200.html) In the same hearing, Hayden testified: "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."
Your report seems to be somewhat of a difference from the link I posted, plus you are committing your total belief on one persons off the cuff comments?

I'd bet that you didn't even read the link I posted.

I'm not going to play your name calling game.

If you want to discuss apples or oranges we can, but your post is calling for a comparison between apples and oranges.

jAZ
05-13-2006, 08:26 AM
Your report seems to be somewhat of a difference from the link I posted, plus you are committing your total belief on one persons off the cuff comments?

I'd bet that you didn't even read the link I posted.

I'm not going to play your name calling game.

If you want to discuss apples or oranges we can, but your post is calling for a comparison between apples and oranges.
I'm sorry, but if you are going to pretend that the DCI's testimony before Congress is merely "off the cuff comments" (did you click the linked quotes?), I'm not sure we have any room for common (sense) ground between us.

He points out that Echelon as well as any wiretapping involving Americans must first stating with FISA (warrant process) approval.

When you said: "the only difference is that then there was a democrat in office and now there is a republican in office. Where was the outrage when Clinton was doing what you consider wrong?"....

... you were comparing apples to oranges.

The apples being warranted, FISA compliant survelliance under Clinton vs the oranges of warrantless non-FISA compliant survelliance under Bush.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

beer bacon
05-13-2006, 08:50 AM
Everything is the liberal boogeyman's fault! Godspeed you witless partisan drones!

patteeu
05-13-2006, 09:57 AM
I've come to expect this level of ignorance from you ***.

It looks like you are asking htismaqe to ban you. Why not just call him CE?

wazu
05-13-2006, 10:00 AM
What is acceptable use of this methodology and information gathered? There is a ton of stuff there, and absolutely zero oversight as to how it's used.

Isn't the Senate responsible for oversight?

patteeu
05-13-2006, 10:03 AM
Isn't the Senate responsible for oversight?

Great point. Congress has been exercising oversight over these programs from the beginning. Of course, jAZ has been told this before, but he is still willfully unaware of "any oversight."

jAZ
05-13-2006, 10:47 AM
Isn't the Senate responsible for oversight?
I guess that depends on what you consider "oversight". Congress created an oversight body called FISA to execute the details of oversight on a case by case basis through the warrant process. It seems that's been circumvented here.

jAZ
05-13-2006, 10:49 AM
It looks like you are asking htismaqe to ban you. Why not just call him CE?
What are you talking about?

unlurking
05-13-2006, 12:05 PM
I understand the need for spying in order to protect our nation. I also don't have a problem with the "pattern analysis" being performed on the nations telecom habits.

What I have problems with are dragnet-style police actions and the incorporation of personal data with statistical data.

1. Use FISA to at least "record" the actions of wire-tapping (not the same as call information data-mining), so there can be an actual oversight process. With a 72-hour window allowing for after-the-fact documentation, I don't see the problem with this.

2. My understanding of this (which may be rumor and hearsay), is that the data-mining of call information is legal (and as I said, it doesn't bother me). The troubling part is that are (allegedly) gathering personal information including names, addresses, SSN, DOB, etc. and tieing that data to the DB of phone records. If I remember correctly, it is illegal for the government to collect that kind information (in mass quantities), but legal to purchase it. Kinda weird.

Kind of intersting side things with this. Since the cooperation of the Bells has occured...

1. FCC has removed the rate restrictions on charging for local loop services, which will end up killing most (if not all) CLECs.

2. Ma Bell has started buying up all the old pieces again. Currently there are now only 4 major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Bell South, and Qwest), with rumors that AT&T is looking to acquire Bell South after recently merging with SBC. Back to a single Ma Bell?

3. Tiered internet services are being backed by many in Congress as well as the FCC. The ONLY people who will benefit from this are the major carriers.

I'm not crying conspiracy or anything, but since the carriers started cooperating, they seem to be getting major concessions from the government.

Chiefs Express II
05-13-2006, 12:16 PM
I'm sorry, but if you are going to pretend that the DCI's testimony before Congress is merely "off the cuff comments" (did you click the linked quotes?), I'm not sure we have any room for common (sense) ground between us.

He points out that Echelon as well as any wiretapping involving Americans must first stating with FISA (warrant process) approval.

When you said: "the only difference is that then there was a democrat in office and now there is a republican in office. Where was the outrage when Clinton was doing what you consider wrong?"....

... you were comparing apples to oranges.

The apples being warranted, FISA compliant survelliance under Clinton vs the oranges of warrantless non-FISA compliant survelliance under Bush.

Hope this clears up your confusion.

For 8 years Eschelon operated without any warrants and were more invasive than tracking of calling patterns.

What frear should a normal person have of the government knowing that they called mama 13 times in 7 hours? Now if you are calling offshore to a number that has been linked to Al Queda I'm sure there will be some additional information gathered.

jAZ
05-13-2006, 12:18 PM
With all of the posts on this thread, I'm pretty disappointed that no one will address the specific questions I've posed in the thread starter.

What are the boundries of this authority? Just in your own opinion.

Chiefs Express II
05-13-2006, 12:39 PM
With all of the posts on this thread, I'm pretty disappointed that no one will address the specific questions I've posed in the thread starter.

What are the boundries of this authority? Just in your own opinion.

Try checking the constitution. It's spelled out there and has been verified by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't know why you are rehashing something that has been settled.

patteeu
05-13-2006, 02:42 PM
What are you talking about?

htismaqe posted an open letter to the "denizens of this forum" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139721&page=2&pp=80) in which he threatened to ban anyone who persisted in the ongoing, two-way war between Chiefs Express and his antagonists. Part of htismaqe's message was:

So let this serve as a simple, concise, and very clear message to all of you:

All complaints I receive from here on out will result in two-day bans for ALL involved. I don't care anymore who is the victim and who is the antagonist, everybody will receive bans.

I don't want to see his name here, I don't want to see his phone number.

to which, you replied:

Ugh.

jAZ
05-13-2006, 04:19 PM
htismaqe posted an open letter to the "denizens of this forum" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139721&page=2&pp=80) in which he threatened to ban anyone who persisted in the ongoing, two-way war between Chiefs Express and his antagonists. Part of htismaqe's message was:



to which, you replied:
I remember that thread, didn't remember the comment about the name.

Thanks for the heads up.

BTW, can you address the specific questions in this thread starter?

jAZ
05-13-2006, 11:48 PM
Am I to assume that no one who supports these methods for terrorists support using them for anything else?

Chiefs Express II
05-14-2006, 07:07 AM
Am I to assume that no one who supports these methods for terrorists support using them for anything else?


What you should infer from the responses to date is that you are trying to stir up shit and nobody is going to play your game.

More of your threads should be treated as such.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 07:28 AM
I remember that thread, didn't remember the comment about the name.

Thanks for the heads up.

BTW, can you address the specific questions in this thread starter?

My vague, from the hip answer would be that it (the content monitoring program) seems reasonable in cases of national defense but not so reasonable in cases of criminal investigation. The tough part is drawing the line between the two.

I think preventing terrorist attacks sponsored by foreign countries/entities is clearly national defense, but it's a closer call if the entity is domestic.

I think child molesters, drug dealers, political activists, and radical religious figures are not national defense.

Smuggling is another close call but in most cases would probably not be threats to national defense.

In general, I'm uncomfortable with any widespread data collection against the citizens of the US (including tax information and social security information) and I'm not particularly comforted by having a warrant (often a rubber-stamp) requirement. Compared to all the other data collection the government does, I don't see the reported NSA activities as any more intrusive. People making overseas phone calls should expect their conversations to be vulnerable (if not to the US government then to the foreign governments where privacy rights are often not protected). People making phone calls should also be well aware that their phone records can and will be used against them if they are ever in the spotlight of a criminal investigation. It happens all the time.

What's your answer to your own OP question?

Chiefs Express II
05-14-2006, 07:37 AM
My vague, from the hip answer would be that it (the content monitoring program) seems reasonable in cases of national defense but not so reasonable in cases of criminal investigation. The tough part is drawing the line between the two.

I think preventing terrorist attacks sponsored by foreign countries/entities is clearly national defense, but it's a closer call if the entity is domestic.

I think child molesters, drug dealers, political activists, and radical religious figures are not national defense.

Smuggling is another close call but in most cases would probably not be threats to national defense.

In general, I'm uncomfortable with any widespread data collection against the citizens of the US (including tax information and social security information) and I'm not particularly comforted by having a warrant (often a rubber-stamp) requirement. Compared to all the other data collection the government does, I don't see the reported NSA activities as any more intrusive. People making overseas phone calls should expect their conversations to be vulnerable (if not to the US government then to the foreign governments where privacy rights are often not protected). People making phone calls should also be well aware that their phone records can and will be used against them if they are ever in the spotlight of a criminal investigation. It happens all the time.



You hve made a point the most in the U.S. do not realize. Most, if not all, of the calls to foreign countries are monitored by sources not based in the U.S. I would not be surprised if calls to and from locations inside the U.S. were monitored by outside sources as well.

Earthling
05-14-2006, 08:03 AM
Im personally uncomfortable with anything that even hints at domestic spying by our Gov. Basically its because I have almost zero faith in them not to abuse it, no matter what party affiliation.

banyon
05-14-2006, 08:15 AM
htismaqe posted an open letter to the "denizens of this forum" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139721&page=2&pp=80) in which he threatened to ban anyone who persisted in the ongoing, two-way war between Chiefs Express and his antagonists. Part of htismaqe's message was:



to which, you replied:


also from that thread:

Anyway, my PM's should be alot less frustrating from now on. Rather than enforce this rule for which there is no precedent, I simply banned Chiefs Express. We'll see how long it takes for him to come back with a new username

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139721&page=10&pp=15

So I think that trumps the "rule" that was in effect.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 08:24 AM
also from that thread:



http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=139721&page=10&pp=15

So I think that trumps the "rule" that was in effect.

I try not to ever use people's real names when I post, even if I know they wouldn't care. I don't see any reason to do so since we all have usernames. I certainly don't see a good reason to do it when you know the guy doesn't want his real name used.

banyon
05-14-2006, 08:35 AM
I try not to ever use people's real names when I post, even if I know they wouldn't care. I don't see any reason to do so since we all have usernames. I certainly don't see a good reason to do it when you know the guy doesn't want his real name used.

I agree with that, but it's also silly if he can just add a "II" after his name and resort to his old tactics, whether that's as CE II, Mohammed, or Auld Lang Syne.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 09:07 AM
My vague, from the hip answer would be that it (the content monitoring program) seems reasonable in cases of national defense but not so reasonable in cases of criminal investigation. The tough part is drawing the line between the two.

I think preventing terrorist attacks sponsored by foreign countries/entities is clearly national defense, but it's a closer call if the entity is domestic.

I think child molesters, drug dealers, political activists, and radical religious figures are not national defense.

Smuggling is another close call but in most cases would probably not be threats to national defense.

In general, I'm uncomfortable with any widespread data collection against the citizens of the US (including tax information and social security information) and I'm not particularly comforted by having a warrant (often a rubber-stamp) requirement. Compared to all the other data collection the government does, I don't see the reported NSA activities as any more intrusive. People making overseas phone calls should expect their conversations to be vulnerable (if not to the US government then to the foreign governments where privacy rights are often not protected). People making phone calls should also be well aware that their phone records can and will be used against them if they are ever in the spotlight of a criminal investigation. It happens all the time.

What's your answer to your own OP question?
Some times you kick ass patteeu. Not because of the actual answer to the question, but because sometimes you really seem to think honestly and critically about a topic. This would be an example of such a case.

What would you do to enforce these distinctions along the lines you've described that you are comfortable with?

As for an answer to my own question, I'm unsure of where I stand on the issue of terrorism surveillance (#2) of domestic calls by US citizens. Anything beyond terrorism is a definite no-no, IMO.

Like I said, the question becomes how do you mandate following whatever rules we agree should be in place.

Taco John
05-15-2006, 12:53 PM
It looks like you are asking htismaqe to ban you. Why not just call him CE?



Why? His username used to be Tom Cash. It's his own damn fault that people call him by the original user name. Just because he's changed his username, doesn't mean that people have magically forgotten about the original user name that people know him by. He made his own bed.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 12:59 PM
What would you do to enforce these distinctions along the lines you've described that you are comfortable with?
Bump for Pat or others.

Iowanian
05-15-2006, 01:41 PM
With the use of cell phones and cordless phones, most anyone with a scanner can hear your conversations anyway. I've been in a car with a sheriff, while working on a contract and he stopped and turned up the scanner and said something like "well, xyz is making another drug deal with yzx in that house".

I always assume someone is listening....no different than a nosy neighbor and a party line.

I don't knowingly deal with terrorists, drug smugglers or child mollesters, so I think its a moot point. I could give a crap less what method is used to catch any of the previously mentioned.

In effort to prevent terrorism and illegal smuggling of humans(illegal immigrants..who COULD be terrorists)..Absolutely.

In effort to pattern the above, and drug smuggling is implicated.....absolutely.

I'm for using a branding iron to catch would be molesters if it does the job and prevents a kid from being harmed.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 02:14 PM
With the use of cell phones and cordless phones, most anyone with a scanner can hear your conversations anyway. I've been in a car with a sheriff, while working on a contract and he stopped and turned up the scanner and said something like "well, xyz is making another drug deal with yzx in that house".

I always assume someone is listening....no different than a nosy neighbor and a party line.

I don't knowingly deal with terrorists, drug smugglers or child mollesters, so I think its a moot point. I could give a crap less what method is used to catch any of the previously mentioned.

In effort to prevent terrorism and illegal smuggling of humans(illegal immigrants..who COULD be terrorists)..Absolutely.

In effort to pattern the above, and drug smuggling is implicated.....absolutely.

I'm for using a branding iron to catch would be molesters if it does the job and prevents a kid from being harmed.
Very clear position on these examples. Thanks. I'd note that the scanners don't work on almost all modern cell phones and many modern cordless phones that are digitally encrypted. As such, I don't think the point is as moot as you might otherwise think.

You seem to have drawn a line at drug dealers, and didn't mention the last two examples (Political activists & Radical religous leaders). I assume you didn't think it was acceptable to use these methods to spy on these folks?

patteeu
05-15-2006, 07:06 PM
Why? His username used to be - ahem, shut your mouth -. It's his own damn fault that people call him by the original user name. Just because he's changed his username, doesn't mean that people have magically forgotten about the original user name that people know him by. He made his own bed.

I'm just pointing out what htismaqe said. You make a good point though.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 07:18 PM
Some times you kick ass patteeu. Not because of the actual answer to the question, but because sometimes you really seem to think honestly and critically about a topic. This would be an example of such a case.

What would you do to enforce these distinctions along the lines you've described that you are comfortable with?

As for an answer to my own question, I'm unsure of where I stand on the issue of terrorism surveillance (#2) of domestic calls by US citizens. Anything beyond terrorism is a definite no-no, IMO.

Like I said, the question becomes how do you mandate following whatever rules we agree should be in place.

I don't know how you'd enforce/police the distinctions, but I think the idea that a judicial warrant prevents abuse is wishful thinking to some extent. It's a higher barrier than no warrant, but it's not magical.

I think that where it is practical, judicial warrants are a good idea. I also think that legislative oversight is as good or better than judicial oversight when it comes to preventing political abuse although maybe not as good at preventing law enforcement abuse. Of course, when it comes to law enforcement, judges eventually have their say and can choose to disallow evidence produced through improper means.

My bottom line is that I don't have a good answer for you. It's a tough question.

But...

The pressure to come up with these surveillance/eavesdropping/data mining schemes comes from those who insisted that dots should have been connected prior to 9/11 and those who refuse to fight or want to limit our offensive war against our adversaries. If we are going to play defense and if we are going to hold our political leaders accountable for a nearly magical ability to connect the intelligence dots, then they are going to take us down the road of maximum surveillance and reduced freedom. Had we been more forgiving of the "failure" to prevent 9/11 and of good faith mistakes that were made in Iraq and if we supported a more ruthless and agressive offensive GWoT, there wouldn't be as much pressure for intrusive defenses. IMO.

banyon
05-15-2006, 08:15 PM
US could access EU data retention information
12.05.2006 - 09:50 CET | By Helena Spongenberg
US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms' and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected, reports Swedish daily Sydsvenskan.

The EU data retention bill, passed in February after much controversy and with implementation tabled for late 2007, obliges telephone operators and internet service providers to store information on who called who and who emailed who for at least six months, aimed at fighting terrorism and organised crime.

A week later on 2-3 March, EU and US representatives met in Vienna for an informal high level meeting on freedom, security and justice where the US expressed interest in the future storage of information.

The US delegation to the meeting "indicated that it was considering approaching each [EU] member state to ensure that the data collected on the basis of the recently adopted Directive on data retention be accessible to them," according to the notes of the meeting.

Representatives from the Austrian EU presidency and from the European Commission said that these data were "accessible like any other data on the basis of the existing ... agreements" the notes said.

The EU representatives added that the commission would convene an expert meeting on the issue.

Under current agreements, if the FBI, for example, is interested in a group of EU citizens from a member state who are involved in an investigation, the bureau can ask for help with a prosecutor in that member state.

The national prosecutor then requests telephone operators and internet service providers for information, which is then passed on to the FBI.

This procedure opens the way for US authorities to get access under the EU data-retention law, according to the Swedish newspaper.

In the US itself meanwhile, fury has broken out in the US congress after reports revealed that the Bush administration covertly collected domestic phone records of tens of millions of US citizens since the attacks in New York on 11 September 2001.

President George Bush did not deny the allegations in a television statement last night, but insisted that his administration had not broken any laws.

http://euobserver.com/9/21580

Iowanian
05-15-2006, 09:42 PM
You seem to have drawn a line at drug dealers, and didn't mention the last two examples (Political activists & Radical religous leaders). I assume you didn't think it was acceptable to use these methods to spy on these folks?

I was posting from work..and got a call...had stuff to do, but I'd have wanted to consider those to specifics anyway.

Political activists....If you're talking about listening in on the DNC, or the libertarian party...no. If you're talking about a group potentially planning a coup or an assassination for example...Absolutely.

If you're asking me about listening in on the phone calls of Pastor X to Rabbi Y.....probably not necessary. If you're talking about some fringe group led by a Ted Kazcinski or some nut job who is suspected of blowing up Abortion clinics....absolutely.

I think the intent isn't to catch me for selling fishing worms without paying taxes on them.....but in effort to stop a terrorist attack, or finanical activities that would support them.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 09:53 PM
I was posting from work..and got a call...had stuff to do, but I'd have wanted to consider those to specifics anyway.

Political activists....If you're talking about listening in on the DNC, or the libertarian party...no. If you're talking about a group potentially planning a coup or an assassination for example...Absolutely.

If you're asking me about listening in on the phone calls of Pastor X to Rabbi Y.....probably not necessary. If you're talking about some fringe group led by a Ted Kazcinski or some nut job who is suspected of blowing up Abortion clinics....absolutely.

I think the intent isn't to catch me for selling fishing worms without paying taxes on them.....but in effort to stop a terrorist attack, or finanical activities that would support them.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the issue that I think you might be assuming (incorrectly) is the issue of warranted vs warrantless wire tapping.

Do you want the gov't to obtain warrants before doing these things? Or just do whatever they want, whenever they want (within your described parameters)?

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 10:07 AM
I don't care if they have a warrant at this time. I'm failing to see why its a problem if you're not engaging in illegal activities related to the mentioned crimes.

It looks to me like they're only looking for call patterns....Person A is calling Person B in Fl for 10 minutes each xday, and Person Be always calls person C in Pakistan, who calls person D in Saudi, who calls person E in Afganistan...

I don't tend to believe "the govt is out to get me" like its the boogeyman. I don't engage in felonious activity that threatens national security, so I'm trying to see the issue.

I don't really think they need to be listening to every call everyone makes like a Chinese communist, but I don't know that its feasible anyway.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 10:17 AM
I don't tend to believe "the govt is out to get me" like its the boogeyman. I don't engage in felonious activity that threatens national security, so I'm trying to see the issue.

You trust the government to limit itself to only using unchecked power for felonious reasons?

I'm not worried about the government checking up on me either. I don't engage in felonious activity. However, I wouldn't put it past "the government" (more like "individuals with power") to misuse their control against political enemies... for instance, a reporter who is working on a story to uncover government corruption...

Bottom line, we either have a constitution and we follow it, or we don't.

I don't see a lot of gray area.

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 10:19 AM
"The Govt" "they"

When and where are the meetings where "they" are out to get me/you?

Who is attending?

It sounds like you'd be much, much safer if you just moved over the boarder to Utopian vancouver.

Taco John
05-16-2006, 10:25 AM
"The Govt" "they"

When and where are the meetings where "they" are out to get me/you?

Who is attending?

It sounds like you'd be much, much safer if you just moved over the boarder to Utopian vancouver.



It would be a lot easier to swallow if I was receiving free money (welfare) from the government to protect my way of life, that's for sure...

I'm not too proud. I could be bought.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 10:34 AM
Do you also implicitly trust this same government to spend your tax dollars? Are you a fan of the "just turn the money over to them, they'll know what to do with it" plan?

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 11:09 AM
It would be a lot easier to swallow if I was receiving free money (welfare) from the government to protect my way of life, that's for sure...

I'm not too proud. I could be bought.

I recieve zero govt dollars for anything, jerkwater. Shove that notion in your fat arse.

Just think how much more money would be available for food producers if so much weren't going to feed, cloth, educate and medicate illegal Aliens....

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 11:10 AM
"they"

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:22 AM
Do you also implicitly trust this same government to spend your tax dollars? Are you a fan of the "just turn the money over to them, they'll know what to do with it" plan?
These ?'s were directed at Iowanian.

Ummm... bump.