|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: "I don't want my government doing this."|
"I don't want my government doing this."
Posted - 6/11/2013 4:05:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
I honestly sympathize with your position (shared by many needless to say). My first reaction is still 'Where the HELL were you guys during the Bush years'; but we'll skip that. This whole pseudo scandal smacks of Dick&Liz Cheney condemning Obama for Gitmo.
The NSA keeps track of the calls and the phone numbers. They're not listening to calls. When they want to do that; they need a warrant. It's that simple. How is that "Government intrusion into the personal, private lives"?? I own this book under my coffee table with a list of a half million peoples names, phone numbers, and addresses. It's called a phone book. Am I violating your 4th Amend rights? A cop pulls you over for speeding. Runs your license and registration--which is already on file. 4th Amend violation?
"...legal" under the Patriot Act but is it Constitutional?" Good question. That's for the SCOTUS to decide, and they haven't yet. "a warrant must be specific under the Fourth Amendment". True--and the FISA warrants ARE specific when the authorities want to go back and listen to a certain call and invesigate it.
I'd also point out that the 4th says "and the persons or things to be seized." Plural. So a legal warrant " looking for certain phone numbers" sure sounds legal to me. (That being said, you were right to call me on the Gotti example, a poor example on my part--to a point. Those wiretaps obviously picked up everybody from mailmen to delivery boys to waiters to busboys; obviously without their permission, and they weren't the target(s) of the warrants.
With all due respect, I think you're the one who has things in reverse. "When your number shows up on a suspected bad guy's phone then there is a reason to look at you" (okay, with you so far). "But to start with everyone's numbers and look for matches is too wide a search. Sort of like strip searching everyone to see what they can find."....
That's where we differ--Every time you walk into a bank or a Wal-Mart or an airport or Sears or go through a toll booth or use an ATM--they're taking your picture. You're not strip searched for the helluva it are you? And it's done without your permission or a warrant. IF--BIG IF--the authorities need that tape later, at least they have it at their disposal. Having that tape (on standby) is an incredibly valuable tool.
But again, I respect your well thought and good intentioned 'wariness' for lack of a better word. (especially compared to beentheres chronic paranoia and cruises outright demonization of anything Obama).
Posted - 6/11/2013 4:18:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
"When they want to do that; they need a warrant."
And therein lies the rub. We've been regaled often over the decades by tales of unscrupulous or over-zealous prosecutors and investigators gaining wrongful...even unauthorized...access to stored data. It can happen. It HAS happened...and will continue to happen unless more rigid controls are put in place.
Some would even advocate the elimination of such data mining in the first place. I'm not in that camp. I DO, however, advocate for stiffer controls...including citizen input. And...yes...I know the security clearance issue would make that difficult. But it is not insurmountable.
Posted - 6/11/2013 4:37:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
So the NSA is not listening to phone calls? Who says that? Oh yeah the same guys that until about a month ago claimed they were not monitoring millions of Americans. If experience has taught me anything over the years it's that when the government admits to doing a small part of something the real truth is they are doing so much more. If you have read any of the latest allegations you know it was so much more than just phone numbers.
Posted - 6/11/2013 4:45:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
"so much more than just phone numbers"
Voice recognition software would make scanning the audio for keywords just as easy as scanning the metadata for phone numbers, etc.
Posted - 6/11/2013 6:12:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
Again, I understand the scepticism;
(And again, i would love to read how you both didn't buy all that 'yellowcake' and 'so called WMD evidence' a few years back...)
cruise; of course you're right about "tales of unscrupulous or over-zealous prosecutors... It can happen. It HAS happened...and will continue to happen unless more rigid controls are put in place." They ARE in place. That's the part of the fake scandal we don't hear enough of.
22 separate briefings or meetings for members of Congress on the law. Over the course of 14 months starting in October 2011 touched on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act. Which Congress keeps renewing. Mitch McConnell's office: "We have received numerous briefings on FISA and Patriot Act over the years, these are in addition to the normal oversight of intelligence activities that take place within the Intelligence Committee."
On three occasions, the audience was expanded. In May 2011, administration officials held a gathering for the House Republican Conference, and a separate one for the House Democratic Caucus. In February 2011, officials invited all senators for a briefing. SOME of the hearings/testimony are classified. if Rand Paul is not up to speed on things, I can't help that.
An interesting aspect of all of this is often overlooked: In that (in)famous Greenwald/Leaker Snowden interview?? NOT ONCE did Snowden ever say the program was being abused. He explained the collection of 'numbers', but NO un-warranted use or even 'snooping' of those numbers.
I don't understand at all the suggestion that maybe--besides the Executive Branch, besides the US Congress, besides the Judges who sign the warrants--maybe we should have "citizen input". Oh c'mon. Having Michelle Bachmann on the Intelligence Committee is bad enough, but now you think having a DesMoines farmer overlooking things is a good idea too?? The guy who thinks Benghazi is in Cuba or Liberia?? 9/11 was a Bushie plot, and Obama is the Anti-Christ??
"If you have read any of the latest allegations..." That's the bottom line here?? Latest allegations?? I've got a couple allegations for you: 1) This was done under Bush, and I don't think Rush, or Fox, or wingnuts were all that upset about it--or they didn't want to hear about it. 2) IF this was going on under President Romney, it would be a blip on the radar--and he would be praised for keeping us safe.
Posted - 6/11/2013 7:03:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
That is strictly
a partisan rationalization that you cannot support with any sort of credible evidence.
Yes, controls are ALWAYS (supposedly) in place. But somehow they always get bypassed. That's why we have such incidents.
Face the facts for once. Just because it's Obama doesn't mean he can magically prevent the same sorts of abuses the occur periodically.
Posted - 6/11/2013 8:41:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
No, it's not,
just a "partisan rationalization that you cannot support with any sort of credible evidence." The evidence is there. You choose to ignore it.
The briefings for congress are real and recorded. Armed with the facts, Congress repeatedly voted to re-authorize the program; that too is not in dispute. Phone records were kept--but not probed into with a warrant...fact. Snowden did not say the system was abused...fact.
Is the whole program even legal in the first place? Well, you say it is. In your Anti-Obama War & Peace thread (290 something and counting); you yell at Grateful:
"The Bush data collection program was in accordance with the Patriot Act, which was passed by congress and signed by President Bush. THAT MADE IT LAW, YOU MORON."
Now we've heard that sentiment a lot this week; like it or not; it can be boiled down to 'It was okay then--but it's evil now." Scepticism is expected (and healthy), hypocrisy doesn't help the conversation any.
Posted - 6/11/2013 9:02:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
You lied...again...as you always do
You completely mischaracterized my post. I suspect it was deliberate because your response only tangentially pertained to what I posted. And it's not worth my time to straighten you out.
Posted - 6/12/2013 10:50:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
You keep going back to your basic argument that it was "good then, evil now". So let me respond directly to that continuing argument that it was passed under Bush so Obama cannot be held responsible. This has been used for so many different issues it really has gotten very tired and old. You are not a novice and you have always seemed to have at least above average intelligence. You seem to enjoy politics and appear to be well read on all matters political. So you must understand how this things work. It can be something as simple as one patrolman deciding 65 mph in a 60 mph zone is not speeding while another decides it is illegal. It can be a complicated as how to apply the guidelines for a DEA program designed to stop the flow of legally purchased weapons to drug dealers. It can be deciding how closely to monitor the actions of American citizens. It can be deciding which groups need closer scrutiny by the IRS. These are all decisions each administration must make, and we as citizens have the right to question how those decisions are made and the ramifications of those decisions. It has nothing to do with when the law was passed; it is how the law is administered that is subject to question. That was the case during the last administration; it will be the case during the next one.
Posted - 6/12/2013 11:31:44 AM | show profile | flag this post
blacked.. with all respect..
"..it has gotten very tired and old"..
doesn't make it one bit less true..
Posted - 6/12/2013 11:39:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
'It was okay then--but it's evil now."
with obama and most on the left?
" it was evil then-but now it's complicated."
if we're going to talk about hypocrisy, we need to start with obama....
Posted - 6/12/2013 12:32:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** mpdodgson wrote: Is the whole program even legal in the first place? Well, you say it is. In your Anti-Obama War & Peace thread (290 something and counting); you yell at Grateful:
"The Bush data collection program was in accordance with the Patriot Act, which was passed by congress and signed by President Bush. THAT MADE IT LAW, YOU MORON." ***
He didn't yell at me, he yelled at Steny Hoyer. He seems to think Steny Hoyer reads this forum.
Posted - 6/12/2013 12:49:38 PM | show profile | flag this post
Are you saying that because a law was passed under Bush then Obama is not responsible for how the law is enforced?
Posted - 6/12/2013 1:01:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm sorry if you think "good then, evil now" "has gotten very tired and old"...then join me in telling the wingnuts to 'knock it off'. Maybe you missed it, but I specifically exempted you from this craziness ("I respect your well thought and good intentioned 'wariness' for lack of a better word. (especially compared to beentheres chronic paranoia and cruises outright demonization of anything Obama)."
The transplant thread is a good example. Blaming Obamacare for a policy instituted in 2005. Obama was blamed for ending the Iraq War too soon, even though they were following Bush's timeline. He still gets blamed for Gitmo. Drone attacks. Border Security. Now it's the NSA scandal (Yea. The NSA NEVER did this before).
That was my point. Of course "we as citizens have the right to question how those decisions are made"...But IMO, the Right in general, and wingnuts in particular often go way past 'questioning'. If I hear one more 'Nazi' reference, or more cries for Impeachment..Jeebus. Benghazi?? Impeach him. Start a war under false pretenses? What a guy! NSA foiling potential plots? Impeach him! 9/11?? 'He kept us safe!!'
Posted - 6/12/2013 1:48:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
no, blacked.. not saying that at all..
what I AM saying is that i'm pretty much sick and tired of the "bush good, Obama bad" the whole debate has taken..as I am of the "bush bad, Obama good"..
there is no way any of this can be discussed logically and dispassionately because of the political, "gotcha" bullshit that's endemic to every topic on this and other boards..
Posted - 6/12/2013 1:56:16 PM | show profile | flag this post
I have tried to discuss this "logically and dispassionately". Perhaps I have failed but that has been my intention at least.
Posted - 6/12/2013 2:17:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
a break from the back and forth......
this happen -
43 years ago today dock ellis pitched a no-hitter while on LSD......
Posted - 6/12/2013 2:46:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
Maybe we all need "a break from the back and forth"
See my thread entitled "Has anyone noticed."
Posted - 6/12/2013 4:30:07 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Titled." Not "entitled."
Posted - 6/12/2013 4:35:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
is another Obama bashing 'Let's start more conspiracy theories!!' thread not doing the old back-and-forth?
Posted - 6/12/2013 4:46:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
maybe we ALL ought to..
STFD and STFU for a while..
probably do us all good..because all this is getting us..
nowhere at all..
Posted - 6/15/2013 4:08:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Since when is another...(whatever the asinine comment was)"
Since I started ignoring idiot left wingers who add nothing to the topics but merely try to bait me into a response. My posts stand on their own merit.
Posted - 6/15/2013 4:11:28 PM | show profile | flag this post
"'Titled' not 'entitled'"
You really DON'T know what you're talking about. ESL much?
Definition: entitled - 2.Give (something, esp. a text or work of art) a particular title.
Posted - 6/15/2013 4:29:56 PM | show profile | flag this post
HHS Secretary Janet Napolitano says,
"I think people have gotten the idea that there’s an Orwellian state out there that somehow we’re operating in. That’s far from the case."
Actually, Madam Secretary, it is NOT far from the case. It is a VERY short step from data collection to data analysis. The software already exists to automatically (without human intervention) scan and/or analyze both digital and voice data.
As regards those "protections" built in...virtually every program ever devised to monitor Americans has eventually been abused and used for unauthorized purposes. This one...IF is truly exists...will suffer the same fate eventually...and will be justified by unscrupulous investigators abetted by unprincipled and compliant judges.
Posted - 6/15/2013 7:57:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
I just read your post;
And, since I doubt you check out the WH of DHS websites daily, just for the heck of it, I went right to Drudge. There's the story, complete with his headline "Big Sis Denies Existence of 'Orwellian State'... " and the first comment: "So the dyke of frankenstein is basically saying..."
Anyway; let's assume for one second here that maybe, just maybe, The Sec of DHS knows more about this program than you do cruise. At least admit that possibility. You are correct--there is technology out there that can do all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we're using it. We don't use biological/chemical/atomic weapons on protesters either (what's up with that?)
Let's also assume the obvious that this tech has been around for years, and will be around long long after your big bad hated nemesis Obama is gone. Are you that scared sh*tless at night about President Christie tapping your phone??
What's driving you here? Paranoia beyong belief? (that's no way to live). Or just Obamaphobia again? (Get over it. You guys lost. Twice)