Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on December 18, 2005, 07:16:55 AM
-
Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did? I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin. I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez. Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc.. I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.
-
if sharpon actually won the presidency, he'd spend all 4 years pimping up the white house and spazzing in the oval office.
-
Well, the fact of the matter is, the law that the President established was to PROTECT the very people complaining about this "spying".
Bush established the domestic surveillance program in 2002 by authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor international communications by terrorism suspects in the United States.
The DSP was written in the manner to allow feds to spy on foreigners suspected of terrorist intentions and domestic citizens that speak to suspected foreign terrorists. In short, they protecting your asses.
Yes, I think these terrorist as far more dangerous than the USSR. The USSR used WMD as political tools, just as the USA did. Terrorist, OTOH, would use these tools in a heart beat, for Allah. Anytime anyone does anything radical in the name of God, usually means someone is going to die.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did? I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin. I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez. Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc.. I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.
No way in hell Sharpton wins. No way in hell.
Karaya
-
Hemoragic fever, or Ebola.
Its proven that terrorists were trying to get their hands on live cultures of this.
Can you think of anything scarier?
Or perhaps terrorists gain control, & plunder a former USSR bio research lab.
Gee, we could have people dieing from botulism, Tullermemia the plague all at the same time.
Fact remains that the USSR had something to lose, Mutual Assured Destruction worked as a deterant.
It just makes terrorists drool.
-
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.
Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.
Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.
Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.
Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?
-
There is difference between private sector surveillance and government surveillance. Actually the difference is so huge, that they are not even analogous to eachothers. And its something that especially republican should know.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Just curious, does anybody think the terrorists pose more of a threat to the US than the old USSR did? I mean, the USSR had the means to snuff out the world 10 times over with a cup ful of thier super weoponized botulism toxin. I do agree, the terorist are scary with thier shoe bombs and what not, but jeez. Do we really need to create a police state? Just imagine if the Rev. Al sharpton got elected and he had the tools to spy, detain people without any charges, etc. etc.. I think our 'reasonable cause/search warrant' has worked through far scarier times than this, just fine.
The enemy you cannot see and cannot quantify is far more dangerous than the one you can. Only a fool thinks otherwise. If you don't think that a person you cannot identify as the enemy, operating in your midst, and willing to die in order to kill you, is more dangerous than an enemy that is known and visible, not to mention somewhat at arms length, and who has as much to fear from you as you of them, you qualify for the second sentence.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.
Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.
Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.
Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.
Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?
I see the point you are trying to make, but the example is VERY poor. It falls under the "he who would give up liberty to enjoy security deserves neither" category heading.
-
I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.
Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.
Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.
Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.
Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?
Hmmm, I guess Id rather be surveilled than a victim of crime. Is that my only option?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.
\
I feel the same way, however, I have nothing to hide from this administration, but I may have something to hide from the next one.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Whitehawk. I want to ask you a question.
Let's suppose for a moment that where you live, you are unable to lock doors, windows, or protect yourself with a firearm, and lets say its Gary, Indiana or SE Los Angeles where the likelyhood of a armed home invasion increases AND the crooks know the aforementioned.
Now, lets say your only protection is a video survellience camera outside each window, door of your home. A contractor watches these cameras 24/7 and would make an immediate arrest if someone tried to break into your home whether or not you were there or away.
Now, the downfall of this is that the contractor knows when you, your presumed family are coming and going, 24/7.
Would you rather be without these cameras and risk an armed intrusion that could ultimately cost you the lives of you and your family? Or would you be willing to give up alittle privacy in order to live safely?
Ripsnort, let me ask you a question. Would you be comfortable in the same circumstances if it were an all black security contractor who gets the job because of the lowest bid? Knowing that the technology exists for heat sensitive cameras to look right through your walls? You can take those cameras and shove em right up your arse. I'll take my chances.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I figure if you have nothing to hide then why worry about it. I make a phone call overseas to talk to a friend and the NSA is listening, I really don't care. I'm not a terrorist and I'm not planning anything so they get nothing out of it. Now if I am a terrorist and I have something to hide then I would be concerned.
IMHO you sir are FAR FAR FAR too trusting.
I have nothing to hide, but i've seen government abuses too often to trust them with my rights. Having nothing to hide isn't even the point. That phrase IMHO has been used over and over in an attempt to justify such abuses. It's MY PRIVACY it is NOT theirs to do with as, and when, and how they please.
There actually is NO government. It is only a word used to describe a group of people. A group of people that are supposed to run things for the rest. The key problem in this situation is they are PEOPLE. People do things. Sometimes people even do BAD things. <<<---- Ya I know this is a startling thing. People can be greedy, lusting, power seeking, hate filled, oppressive, and maybe even physically ugly, and bad dressers, while they do these things.
History has shown OVER and OVER that governments ALWAYS overstep the boundries set by those they govern. In the last century the greatest killer of humanity, other then the mosquito, and several species of flys, (the lowly insect who would have thought?) was the governments that were supposed to be for those people. Governments led by such people as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, the list goes on........... using phrases like the final solution and ethnic cleansing......... manipulating and dividing people with fear, hatered, ethnics, religion, etc...........
A quick example that comes to mind....... The Japanese internment camps were totally un-constitutional but they were implemented. Many suffered because of them. Yet people of germanic, or italian, orgin did not suffer this same treatment.
I have NO intention of surrendering even one right! Mine, or yours, or anybody else's. They caught these people before without the need for these violations of my rights. IMHO they can still do so and do it WITHOUT violating my rights.
As to McCain. Guess I can understand his stance seeing as he was a mistreated prisoner of war. All the same I've pretty much come to the conclusion this man will NOT get any votes from me. He seems too willing, sometimes even eager, to throw away my rights.
These people take an oath of office that far too many seem to consider only as a bunch of words they must mouth to obtain their power and prestige. They then seem to do their best thereafter to ignore, or forget, those words.
-
Originally posted by wrag
IMHO you sir are FAR FAR FAR too trusting.
I have nothing to hide, but i've seen government abuses too often to trust them with my rights. Having nothing to hide isn't even the point. That phrase IMHO has been used over and over in an attempt to justify such abuses. It's MY PRIVACY it is NOT theirs to do with as, and when, and how they please.
There actually is NO government. It is only a word used to describe a group of people. A group of people that are supposed to run things for the rest. The key problem in this situation is they are PEOPLE. People do things. Sometimes people even do BAD things. <<<---- Ya I know this is a startling thing. People can be greedy, lusting, power seeking, hate filled, oppressive, and maybe even physically ugly, and bad dressers, while they do these things.
History has shown OVER and OVER that governments ALWAYS overstep the boundries set by those they govern. In the last century the greatest killer of humanity, other then the mosquito, and several species of flys, (the lowly insect who would have thought?) was the governments that were supposed to be for those people. Governments led by such people as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, the list goes on........... using phrases like the final solution and ethnic cleansing......... manipulating and dividing people with fear, hatered, ethnics, religion, etc...........
A quick example that comes to mind....... The Japanese internment camps were totally un-constitutional but they were implemented. Many suffered because of them. Yet people of germanic, or italian, orgin did not suffer this same treatment.
I have NO intention of surrendering even one right! Mine, or yours, or anybody else's. They caught these people before without the need for these violations of my rights. IMHO they can still do so and do it WITHOUT violating my rights.
As to McCain. Guess I can understand his stance seeing as he was a mistreated prisoner of war. All the same I've pretty much come to the conclusion this man will NOT get any votes from me. He seems too willing, sometimes even eager, to throw away my rights.
These people take an oath of office that far too many seem to consider only as a bunch of words they must mouth to obtain their power and prestige. They then seem to do their best thereafter to ignore, or forget, those words.
well said, It is the presidents job to uphold the constitition at all costs. The founding fathers installed these rules to allow the people to revolt against a govt who becomes corrupt and criminal. I think we should buckle down and get the job done while maintaining our freedom.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
No way in hell Sharpton wins. No way in hell.
Karaya
You miss the point, my friend.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The enemy you cannot see and cannot quantify is far more dangerous than the one you can. Only a fool thinks otherwise. If you don't think that a person you cannot identify as the enemy, operating in your midst, and willing to die in order to kill you, is more dangerous than an enemy that is known and visible, not to mention somewhat at arms length, and who has as much to fear from you as you of them, you qualify for the second sentence.
Saddam Hussein comes to mind. He was the devil we knew. Unfortunately, we can't pull out of Iraq until we locate the new devil.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
Hemoragic fever, or Ebola.
Its proven that terrorists were trying to get their hands on live cultures of this.
Can you think of anything scarier?
Or perhaps terrorists gain control, & plunder a former USSR bio research lab.
Gee, we could have people dieing from botulism, Tullermemia the plague all at the same time.
Fact remains that the USSR had something to lose, Mutual Assured Destruction worked as a deterant.
It just makes terrorists drool.
Ghost, assured distruction is awaiting the muslim people from the USA if the terrorist ever do succede in using WMD's on the US. How can the patriot act keep bacteria and viruses out of the US and not keep Heroine and cocaine out? History has shown that Mutally assured destruction is the most effective way to prevent a war. Only this one has a twist. The US wont be destroyed but the muslim people will be. Its a 'go ahead, make my day' kind of deterent.
-
"Bring 'em on!" - George W. Bush
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The enemy you cannot see and cannot quantify is far more dangerous than the one you can. Only a fool thinks otherwise. If you don't think that a person you cannot identify as the enemy, operating in your midst, and willing to die in order to kill you, is more dangerous than an enemy that is known and visible, not to mention somewhat at arms length, and who has as much to fear from you as you of them, you qualify for the second sentence.
Do you really think the USSR didnt have spies in the US? Do you really think the USSR didnt have opeeratives in the US? Do you really think they registered as such when the came abroad so we didnt have to adjust our constitution? My oh my. I sure hope the world turns out to be so simple.
-
I never said give up rights. The point is anyone with the right equipment and training can listen in on a phone conversation. I know how to do it and I have the equipment at work to do it. A telephone is not a "private" thing. If you want to talk to someone in private and be 100% sure that no is listening, you have to be face to face in the middle of no where. That is private. The fact that the NSA has identified phones overseas used by suspected terrorist and is monitoring those numbers is no supprise. The fact that phones in the U.S. are calling those numbers and having conversations is a cause for concern. Those calls are being monitored for intel on terrorist activities. The Patriot Act gave the NSA the authority to do this by direction of the President. It was legal. Old Mohamed (legal U.S. citizen) in New York is calling his brother Achmed (suspected terrorist) in the middle east somewhere talking about how lax security is at JFK International is a problem. Hell yeah NSA needs to be listening in on that phone call. The FBI needs to start checking out Old Mohamed and see who else he talks to, where he goes, and what he does.
No one wants the government to do anything that "MIGHT" violate their privacy but the next attack that happens those are the same people that will scream bloody murder that the government should have known about it and done something to stop it.
-
Hope you guys are all of the same opinion about how great these new executive powers are when H. Clinton starts to wield them.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
I never said give up rights. The point is anyone with the right equipment and training can listen in on a phone conversation. I know how to do it and I have the equipment at work to do it. A telephone is not a "private" thing. If you want to talk to someone in private and be 100% sure that no is listening, you have to be face to face in the middle of no where. That is private. The fact that the NSA has identified phones overseas used by suspected terrorist and is monitoring those numbers is no supprise. The fact that phones in the U.S. are calling those numbers and having conversations is a cause for concern. Those calls are being monitored for intel on terrorist activities. The Patriot Act gave the NSA the authority to do this by direction of the President. It was legal. Old Mohamed (legal U.S. citizen) in New York is calling his brother Achmed (suspected terrorist) in the middle east somewhere talking about how lax security is at JFK International is a problem. Hell yeah NSA needs to be listening in on that phone call. The FBI needs to start checking out Old Mohamed and see who else he talks to, where he goes, and what he does.
No one wants the government to do anything that "MIGHT" violate their privacy but the next attack that happens those are the same people that will scream bloody murder that the government should have known about it and done something to stop it.
Ok, hornet, good point. Pre patriot act, step 1.) produce the evidence to a judge. 2.) request a warrant 3.) recieve a warrant when the judge finds reasonable suspicion (Sp?) 4.) wire tap mohamed and protect the US. You see, this system works, and in the event of iminent danger, I can see a patriot act that allows wire tapping or surveillence during the warrant aquisition, but to completly elinate all records of surveillence on US citizens is unamerican and quite frankly, I am suspicious.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Hope you guys are all of the same opinion about how great these new executive powers are when H. Clinton starts to wield them.
shamus
Thats exactly the point. Its all fine and dandy when the young republicans are peeking in on you and yours but what about the ghetto youth when the next administration starts the inner city revival program and awards govt jobs to people based on thier lack of opportunities.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Hope you guys are all of the same opinion about how great these new executive powers are when H. Clinton starts to wield them.
shamus
LOL...do you mean like president Gore or president Kerry.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Thats exactly the point. Its all fine and dandy when the young republicans are peeking in on you and yours but what about the ghetto youth when the next administration starts the inner city revival program and awards govt jobs to people based on thier lack of opportunities.
All government jobs are being outsourced to India.
-
what some of you guys are missing is the fact that this program HAD oversite and it wassn't just a blanket permission slip to spy on anyone. If they had a lead that somone offshore was calling somone onshore they could tap the phone. Then who ever the next person called they could tap as well. To me it doesn't look any different than having probably cause.
WHat I see worse than this is the fact that the NY Times ran the story and put Americans at risk to sell news papers (all though I think the Agenda runs deeper, They 0bviously ran this on election day in Iraq for a reason)
But yea let's just keep playing politics with national security and find out what "grave concequences" really means.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
WHat I see worse than this is the fact that the NY Times ran the story and put Americans at risk to sell news papers (all though I think the Agenda runs deeper, They 0bviously ran this on election day in Iraq for a reason)
Wow.
-
And people wonder how fascists could possibly take over a Country.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And people wonder how fascists could possibly take over a Country.
yup if the democrats had there way the fascists would in fact be ruling.
Here's the CICs own words. If you think you can bust him on them go for it, I'd like to see what you can come up with.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.
-
1. Identify a common hated enemy.
2. Build up a great fear of that enemy within the people.
2a. squash dissent.
3. Provide a glorious solution to grant safety (at the expense of freedom).
4. rinse and repeat.
sound familiar?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
what some of you guys are missing is the fact that this program HAD oversite and it wassn't just a blanket permission slip to spy on anyone. If they had a lead that somone offshore was calling somone onshore they could tap the phone. Then who ever the next person called they could tap as well. To me it doesn't look any different than having probably cause.
WHat I see worse than this is the fact that the NY Times ran the story and put Americans at risk to sell news papers (all though I think the Agenda runs deeper, They 0bviously ran this on election day in Iraq for a reason)
But yea let's just keep playing politics with national security and find out what "grave concequences" really means.
Man, the 'trust em or die' thing is just getting old. If your scared, then relocate.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Man, the 'trust em or die' thing is just getting old. If your scared, then relocate.
Where am I saying trust or die. Most people complaining about this have no clue what it entails. If you want to tie the federal govts. hands by all means do so by casting your vote. Playing politics with national security will lead to disaster.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
1. Identify a common hated enemy.
2. Build up a great fear of that enemy within the people.
2a. squash dissent.
3. Provide a glorious solution to grant safety (at the expense of freedom).
4. rinse and repeat.
sound familiar?
Yup sounds like the DNC game plane
1. GWB
2. Bring up baseless claims that you can't prove and say them loud enough
2a. Any time somone wants to dissent lable them a Neo-con, racist, bigot, fascist, or go to where they speak and just shout them down.
2b. OOPS almost forgot: Take any other free speech that you don't agree with and label it "hate speech" or smother civil rights in the name of diversity and affirmative action.
2c. When all efforts to drown out dissent fail, label them fascist.
3. not really exclusive to fascism.
4. See: "main-stream-media
-
This isn't Republicans vs Democrats, this is the government and invasion of privacy. If they have probable cause enough to get a warrant then great, get one. If you can't get a warrant, then your probable cause isn't good enough to justify spying on a citizen of this country. If that means I might get blown up tomorrow, so be it.
Now start using your brain and cut out this mindless RvsD bull****.
-
I don't know. I kind of think monitoring international communications is probably a good thing, especially in light of the fact that we have tons of dirtbags from other countries in our country trying to screw things up.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind having my international calls monitored........basically because I don't make international calls, but if I did.......I wouldn't be saying anything that I would worry about being overheard.
I know there is the issue of privacy......I just don't mind it in this case.
-
Originally posted by SOB
This isn't Republicans vs Democrats, this is the government and invasion of privacy. If they have probable cause enough to get a warrant then great, get one. If you can't get a warrant, then your probable cause isn't good enough to justify spying on a citizen of this country. If that means I might get blown up tomorrow, so be it.
Now start using your brain and cut out this mindless RvsD bull****.
yea but let's say they are monitoring habib's conversation to akmed (akmed living on US soil) and then akmed calls habib Jr who is also on US soil. These laws allow the "chain" to be monitored with out having to wait for a warrent. If Akmed and Habib are talking bout there plans they then have to stop and wait, it might be too late. To me that's like probably cause. This isn't the chicken little thing that it's being made out to be, to me it sounds like a usfull tool that has allready been effective.
Actually MT started the "mindless RvsD bull****" by inferring using the lable fasicst. I clearly stated that we shouldn't play politics when it comes to national security. On that same note I wonder about the silence from everyone on why this highly classified program was leaked to the NYT?
-
yea but let's say they are monitoring habib's conversation to akmed (akmed living on US soil) and then akmed calls habib Jr who is also on US soil. These laws allow the "chain" to be monitored with out having to wait for a warrent. If Akmed and Habib are talking bout there plans they then have to stop and wait, it might be too late. To me that's like probably cause. This isn't the chicken little thing that it's being made out to be, to me it sounds like a usfull tool that has allready been effective.
They should certainly have a system in place to get a warrant expediciously. I do not think they should be allowed the discretion to decide what is and isn't worth "following the chain". Sorry, our society has a price, and I don't think the possible miss of information in this theoretical case is too high a price.
Actually MT started the "mindless RvsD bull****" by inferring using the lable fasicst. I clearly stated that we shouldn't play politics when it comes to national security. On that same note I wonder about the silence from everyone on why this highly classified program was leaked to the NYT?
If he jumped off of a tall building would you do it to? There's a reason that saying has been around so long.
I'm guessing this was leaked to the NYT by a citizen and government employee who found this violation of privacy to be repugnant. But maybe that's just wishful thinking. You obviously have an opinion...why do you think it was leaked to the press?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Ok, hornet, good point. Pre patriot act, step 1.) produce the evidence to a judge. 2.) request a warrant 3.) recieve a warrant when the judge finds reasonable suspicion (Sp?) 4.) wire tap mohamed and protect the US. You see, this system works, and in the event of iminent danger, I can see a patriot act that allows wire tapping or surveillence during the warrant aquisition, but to completly elinate all records of surveillence on US citizens is unamerican and quite frankly, I am suspicious.
The only problem with that is you have to have a judge with the proper security clearance, i.e. TS and be cleared on sources and methods. That means that anything the judge reads, writes, or puts his signature on is classified. It's not on public record and no one knows about it. As far as eliminating records, there is nothing wrong with it depending on circumstances. Lets say your phone number pops up at the NSA for whatever reason. You called a wrong number or someone called your number by mistake. NSA starts looking at your number and taps the line. After a period of time goes by they realize that your not a suspect and they don't need to be watching you. They purge all your records from the system and as far as they are concerned you don't exsist anymore. Whats the problem with that? So what would make that any different than what is going on now?
I think there are people out there that hear about this and make assumption that the NSA is listening to every phone call on the planet, or at least in the U.S.
-
Originally posted by SOB
They should certainly have a system in place to get a warrant expediciously. I do not think they should be allowed the discretion to decide what is and isn't worth "following the chain".
But if they were not monitoring them in the first place, how would anyone know to get a warrant? Based on what?
It seems that it is a good idea to keep tabs on the dirtbags at all times.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Where am I saying trust or die. Most people complaining about this have no clue what it entails. If you want to tie the federal govts. hands by all means do so by casting your vote. Playing politics with national security will lead to disaster.
Umm, 'playing with national security will lead to disaster'. In your previous write, 'But yea let's just keep playing politics with national security and find out what "grave concequences" really means.' Sorry if I am missreading this, but, I take it as, let them do as they wish or we will suffer the consequences. Using terror tactics to lobby for a change inour constitution is a low blow, IMHO.
-
It seems pretty simple to me. Monitor all communications to and from all the dirtbag countries. Only the dirtbags will have to worry about anything, and everyone will be a lot more safe.
-
Originally posted by SOB
They should certainly have a system in place to get a warrant expediciously. I do not think they should be allowed the discretion to decide what is and isn't worth "following the chain". Sorry, our society has a price, and I don't think the possible miss of information in this theoretical case is too high a price.
The system is in place. It's called an Executive Order. That order was reviewed by the Judicial system and found to be legal within the context of the Constitution. The House of Representatives specifically the Intelligence Oversight Committee have been briefed on the matter and they sighed off on it. All that being said, that gives the NSA a blanket warrant to conduct wire taps on anyone they think might be involved with terrorist activities. Every 45 days or so the records are looked over by these same people and reviewed to make sure that everything is still being done within the law. No ones civil liberties are being violated.
The only thing violated here was the release of classified information, which is punishable under the Espionage Act. I hope they find the leak and put the ******* away in a dark room and throw away the room.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea but let's say they are monitoring habib's conversation to akmed (akmed living on US soil) and then akmed calls habib Jr who is also on US soil. These laws allow the "chain" to be monitored with out having to wait for a warrent. If Akmed and Habib are talking bout there plans they then have to stop and wait, it might be too late. To me that's like probably cause. This isn't the chicken little thing that it's being made out to be, to me it sounds like a usfull tool that has allready been effective.
Actually MT started the "mindless RvsD bull****" by inferring using the lable fasicst. I clearly stated that we shouldn't play politics when it comes to national security. On that same note I wonder about the silence from everyone on why this highly classified program was leaked to the NYT?
Youre right on the money. the govt should have the authority to monitor suspicious people while they are aquiring a warrant. If the warrant is not granted, then they cease immediatly. This is a huge tool in the fight on terror. The carte blanche surveillence tactics the patriot act is requesting is a huge tool for a corrutp govt. to ensure its survival. Never give away your guns or your privacy. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
-
Originally posted by SOB
They should certainly have a system in place to get a warrant expediciously. I do not think they should be allowed the discretion to decide what is and isn't worth "following the chain". Sorry, our society has a price, and I don't think the possible miss of information in this theoretical case is too high a price.
If he jumped off of a tall building would you do it to? There's a reason that saying has been around so long.
I'm guessing this was leaked to the NYT by a citizen and government employee who found this violation of privacy to be repugnant. But maybe that's just wishful thinking. You obviously have an opinion...why do you think it was leaked to the press?
they do have a system in place. The NY times explains this. way dont on paragraph 16 or something. To me it doesn't matter a citizens view on what's repugnnant or not leaking classified information is a crime. I could find the Iraq occupation repugnant but that still doesnt justify broacasting plans and troop movements.
Again I don't see how this is a violation of privacy. At the very least this is walking a "fine line" I wish people would actually read for once instead of letting the NYT form their opinion for them.
-
"I wish people would actually read for once instead of letting the NYT form their opinion for them."
OK, it's obviously pointless to try and discuss this with you.
-
Originally posted by SOB
"I wish people would actually read for once instead of letting the NYT form their opinion for them."
OK, it's obviously pointless to try and discuss this with you.
People see this as an invasion of privacy right? Or at least that's how the NYT plays it in the article......some super secret squirl program but the truth is in the details:
the 16th paragraph, some 1,110 words into the massive piece, does the paper tell you the important context in which the program was created and used
What the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said.
In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.
As a result of the NSA program, buried down in the 11th paragraph, we learn that the terrorist plot involving convicted al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris was uncovered--possibly saving untold lives, not to mention New York bridges and possibly Washington, D.C. trains.
The Times then discloses key information beginning in the 34th paragraph of the piece:
In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.
For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.
A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.
One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment.
A related issue arose in a case in which the F.B.I. was monitoring the communications of a terrorist suspect under a F.I.S.A.-approved warrant, even though the National Security Agency was already conducting warrantless eavesdropping. According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems. At the time, senior Justice Department officials worried what would happen if the N.S.A. picked up information that needed to be presented in court. The government would then either have to disclose the N.S.A. program or mislead a criminal court about how it had gotten the information.
So:
1) Certain elements of the controversial program have been "suspended" and "revamped." Which ones, the Times doesn't say. Is the NSA still monitoring phone calls to and from the US? or not The Times does not make that clear.
2) Did you catch this: "According to officials, F.B.I. surveillance of Mr. Faris, the Brooklyn Bridge plotter, was dropped for a short time because of technical problems." How long must we tolerate the screw-ups at the FBI?
3) For those who blithely suggest that the NSA had no reason to bypass the courts, note that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly refused to issue FISA warrants based on the NSA info.
Is there room for abuse in the program....yes
is there oversite in the program....yes
Can information gathered with the program be used in court.....no
FISA background and explains the damage these leaks do to national security--worth quoting in full:
Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.
It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the eavesdropping. And he's no friend of this administration. Nor is he above using intelligence for political purposes, as his now infamous memorandum demonstrates.
But these leaks -- about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front companies, and now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and extremely detrimental to our national security. They are far worse than any aspect of the Plame matter. The question is whether our government is capable of tracking down these perpetrators and punishing them, or will we continue to allow the Times and Washington Post determine national security policy. And if these wiretaps are violative of our civil liberties, it's curious that the Times would wait a year to report about it. I cannot remember the last time, or first time, this newspaper reported a leak that was helpful to our war effort.
-
'Skins 35, 'boys nuthin'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<:-)
-
there is a state of war existing between the organization al qaeda and the government of the united states, Im going to side with the government of the united states on this one.
I think if a person is communicating with operatives of AQ and a search warrent is not available in time to intercept said comms, then by all means, monitor the suspects comms. Although I cant imagine many scenarios where this would need to happen on a repeatable basis.
I do not understand warrents at all.....how long does it take to get one and how long do they last? I dont know.....but again, Im going to default with the elected government here....as long as I have easy access to my M1carbine Im not worried about anything much.
-
Just for the record...
I jumped off no buildings nor did I ever mention a political party.
Thanks, now .. back to what you were doing.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
LOL...do you mean like president Gore or president Kerry.
LOL..no, more along the lines of president Clinton.
shamus
-
so I am supposed to trust a governemnt agency to monitor me and decide if I have done anything wrong? would that be one of those agencies that gove us the intel in Iraq that led to the war?
Would it be one like the BATF that slaughters innocent men women and children on occassion and ruins lives of inocent citizens on a regular basis?
Maybe we could get the people who run our schools or social security to do the administration of it?
I say... let the unarmed blue areas fend for themselves.... let them prove that living like rats in a big city with lot's of government intrusion is the best way to live.. We people in the red areas have nothing to fear from terrorists unless we are in blue areas.
I also say that the blue areas are getting the gopvernment they want and deserve.
lazs
-
Patriot Act lives, for 6 more months it seems.....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so I am supposed to trust a governemnt agency to monitor me and decide if I have done anything wrong? would that be one of those agencies that gove us the intel in Iraq that led to the war?
Would it be one like the BATF that slaughters innocent men women and children on occassion and ruins lives of inocent citizens on a regular basis?
Maybe we could get the people who run our schools or social security to do the administration of it?
I say... let the unarmed blue areas fend for themselves.... let them prove that living like rats in a big city with lot's of government intrusion is the best way to live.. We people in the red areas have nothing to fear from terrorists unless we are in blue areas.
I also say that the blue areas are getting the gopvernment they want and deserve.
lazs
have you even read the patriot act?
-
I have not read the entire thing. I also admit that while reading it I wasn't sure if some of the powers granted in it were ones they allready had or not.
My point is that I want less government in my life not more..
I want the government to have less ability to snoop or interfere in my life. Non citizens are open season tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Patriot Act lives, for 6 more months it seems.....
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/21/patriot.act/index.html
One month now, until they're all back from winter vacation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
One month now, until they're all back from winter vacation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act
-SW
good I hope they debate it.....keep the politics out of it.....trim it a bit....maybe kill section 215.
Here's hoping....but then again pigs may have a better chance of flying.
-
whenever we give powers to a government how can we be sure that some future administration will not abuse them?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
whenever we give powers to a government how can we be sure that some future administration will not abuse them?
lazs
We give the governmen the power, it is not if, but when they will abuse it.
Hell look at how we got duped on the income tax....
Oh no, its just to pay for the war to end all wars, we will get rid of it as soon as its over...
We know how well that went.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Would it be one like the BATF that slaughters innocent men women and children on occassion and ruins lives of inocent citizens on a regular basis?
lazs
dude, i hate to shoot down your black helicopter, but both in waco and ruby ridge the FBI was the guilty party. BATF was only guilty of stupidity and ineptness involved with the initial raid at Waco.
-
shane sorry to contradict you but the BATF most certaionly did kill people at Waco. before the FBI got there. as to BATF abuses that killed or jailed innocent citizens... do a search... you might be shocked.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
shane sorry to contradict you but the BATF most certaionly did kill people at Waco. before the FBI got there. as to BATF abuses that killed or jailed innocent citizens... do a search... you might be shocked.
lazs
Waco, the beginning of whitehawks downward spiral into 'official story' paranoia.:noid . The only defense against this kind of barbarism is making sure the truth gets out there. The only way the truth wont get out there is when our constitution starts to erode. I was appalled and horrified when I actually started to dig into the waco stuff. Why didnt the mainstream media dig into it and report it? Makes ya wonder how deep this thing really is.:confused: Makes ya wonder about the real intentions of the 'protection' thing.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Waco, the beginning of whitehawks downward spiral into 'official story' paranoia.:noid . The only defense against this kind of barbarism is making sure the truth gets out there. The only way the truth wont get out there is when our constitution starts to erode. I was appalled and horrified when I actually started to dig into the waco stuff. Why didnt the mainstream media dig into it and report it? Makes ya wonder how deep this thing really is.:confused: Makes ya wonder about the real intentions of the 'protection' thing.
not to start a red vrs blue debate but I can only come to the conclusion that it was a different time (IE clinton) The media seems to be like rabid dogs looking for chicken little stories now a days. Even the moderate democrats have to admit that if Bush was president during waco he would have gotten fried and nailed to a cross by the media.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
not to start a red vrs blue debate but I can only come to the conclusion that it was a different time (IE clinton) The media seems to be like rabid dogs looking for chicken little stories now a days. Even the moderate democrats have to admit that if Bush was president during waco he would have gotten fried and nailed to a cross by the media.
I sure hope it is a time oriented black eye on the history of the US, because if it isnt, we are giving these same bunch the tools they need to burn us and our kids to a crisp, and do it legally.