LOL, the lovely world of government doublespeak. Stasi: Ministry for State Security. KGB: Committee for State Security. Shin Bet: General Security Service

You're right Cartman! The S stands for security and the NSA is not a spy agency!!!

I didn't say they weren't a spy agency. My uncle used to work for the NSA so I'm well aware of what they do. You were the one who said it was in the agency's title.

It is. Only a fool thinks security means anything but spying for any of the government "intelligence" agencies. But you got me!

No Such Agency!

Did you guys know that Hitler and Obama don't have any letters in common in their last name.

You think that's a coincidence.

Don't be fooled.

Yep. It wasn't until the late 70s when my uncle could actually say who he worked for. I remember that whenever he would come to visit, we'd always get phone calls verifying who we were. My dad was taking Russian classes and was once practicing speaking with my uncle, when a voice came on the line and said 'Speak English'.

I think there's a lot of putting the cart before the horse here. The relevant debate isn't whether a government should break the law. I understand why people want to phrase it like that, but you're ignoring the tougher question. The test for constitutionality isn't "do I like what the government is doing?"

Pretty sure this passes as an unreasonable search.

I would like to think that, but then there was a recent decision that said cellphone users have no expectation of privacy.

Federal Judge: Only Powered-Off Cell Phones Deserve Privacy Protections | American Civil Liberties Union

What do you mean by "passes"? I think this just your subjective opinion about reasonableness.

My point is, people are making assumptions based on arguments that not everyone shares. It's not the position of the government that they are breaking a law because they have to. They would say that this IS constitutional. People can disagree with that, but I think we're being premature if we just skip all that, assume unconstitutionality, and then try to start this entirely separate debate about when its OK to break the law. That's some kind of argument fallacy that probably has a name that I'm not familiar with.

Ya, this is what I'm talking about, you can agree with the ACLU and think that ruling was out to lunch, or that the government as a matter of policy shouldn't do this, but you can't fairly say that the government is making a choice to violate the law in the interest of public safety when they're not actually violating the law, or when the law is unclear.

well, it is a good thing that judges never break the law.

And they always make the correct decision and never disagree on what is constitutional.

We are a country of laws and not men though, or something. We could all just follow our own version so the constitution and expect the government to be bound to that, but that's probably unworkable. Maybe Al Gore should have just disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and moved into the white house. Maybe bring some of the army if he feels like anyone will try to stop him.

If people think this is such a huge disaster that the government has basic phone records, they can elect Ron Paul and like-minded legislators. Then eventually, we can all live in a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. Though, I feel like in that world Verizon might assume the responsibility for national security and would gain even more power. Except that we'd have less means of being a check on their behavior.

It is what it is. If it ever makes it to SCOTUS, it won't have to be a unanimous decision to be the law of the land.

Are we even talking about the same thing? What they are doing is wrong.

Molson is talking about a legal basis. The question of whether the meta-data is subject to privacy concerns (or whether looking at meta data is 'unreasonable' is a good discussion to have and I don't think it may be as cut and dried as people seem to believe.

Personally I don't like the NSA having this power and I didn't like it back in 2005/6 when it started, but the legal issues are a bit stickier than just "I don't like it".

Here is where your soul gets destroyed. There are a whole lot of "wrong" things that are perfectly legal and are done everyday.

Correct, judges are just people like you and me. They don't always get it right, which is why there are historical examples of changes in the interpretation of what is constitutional and what is not.

There are a few threads on the guy who shot the hooker who stole his cash. If that happens 10 times, the result will not be the same 10 times. I realize that was a jury decision, but you get the point.

It does not destroy my soul, I'm just saying if enough people don't stand for it, it will trend in a specific direction.

Yes. I don't like it. I never have. Is it illegal? I don't know, but seems likely that it isn't.

What happens if the judgments come down against it? The House/Senate will rally together and revise the law to fit nicely in some loophole provided by the judgment. They will give Verzion, et al, ass coverage so they can't get fucked by the masses who are seeking legal remedy. The band will play on.

I don't disagree with your general point... that at this moment the law states that this is all legal. Your second paragraph is a bit of a slippery slope in the other direction. You say that we (those of us outraged by PRISM and the NSA mining phone data) are leaping from government collecting phone records to something more sinister but then turn around and say the solution to this is a country where most government activity is unconstitutional. I agree with Grammiticus... why can't the government be wrong on this one (even the judges) without bringing schools, roads, welfare, the armed forces, college benefits, etc into the equation?

They already have that, based on the 'Protect America Act of 2007'.

Theoretically, this is true. But there is a machine that is already in motion. When it comes to "security" at a national level, there is a tremendous amount of pressure to do everything possible and less willingness to sunset any of it.

I was allowing for the possibility that this was found to be outside of that, but your point is taken. Either way, there will be a lot of bipartisan work done to make sure nobody pays a price for this, and that the program continues regardless of what some Judge(s) think(s).

There are way too many people who would blame an administration for not doing enough to combat terrorism if this program was ended and then an attack occurred.

Yes, we sometimes deserve the government we get.

They can be wrong on a policy, ethical, or strategic level, sure. There's just some inner personal pet peeve for me that emerges when people make the conclusory statements that this is illegal and violates the 4th amendment, and when they then base all other points on that assumption. You can't start a debate by just assuming the thing that is the critical dispute in the debate. I mean, you can, I guess, but I think that's an argument fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are tough when it comes to the government because you can apply them to anything the government does and get terrible hypothetical results. To me, saying, "well, if they can do this, then what's stopping them from doing something that actually negatively effects anyone in some way," is just the mirror image of the schools/roads/welfare anti-libertarian argument. Government can obviously do too much or too little.

Edit: I got into this when were talking about infrastructure, but I think this is one of the mindsets that really holds us back, when you fight just on ideology instead of practical results and execution. Every battle in Washington is about ideology and momentum instead of problem solving. Except the people, like in the executive branch, whose job it is to actually do things. They're not looking at ideology, or at least not as much. They're looking at what they can legally do to promote national security, and what the practical positive and negative impacts of that will be. Nobody's made the persuasive case that this is illegal, and nobody's really identified any negative effects from this activity. It's just ideological arguments against it. The government can still be "wrong" to do it, or anything else, but I totally get how the decision-making is a completely different kettle of fish when you're in that position.

I'm more annoyed about Massachusetts (and probably every other state) paying welfare to 1200 dead people. The only real debate at the state houses though is whether welfare is good or bad, whether there should be more or less. Whatever it is, let's at least give it exclusively to people who are living.

My Way News - Authorities: Texas actress arrested in ricin case

Apparently she tried to set up her husband to take the fall for the ricin letters sent to Obama & Bloomberg. Her roles include "zombie" in The Walking Dead.

Resume here (all bit parts basically)

Did I miss some memo about ricin and setting someone up? That is now twice that has happened over the past couple of months.

That's too bad. In the Boston case a couple of months ago, it seemed fairly obvious in hindsight that the brothers were going to take some action at some point. And they had been flagged by a government that really doesn't share all that much with us. Yet whatever we do with all this data didn't come into play in preventing what's pretty much an unpreventable type of attack, nor did it lead us to the attacker.

I don't see the point of keeping this information unless it's more actively analyzed. And if it's more actively analyzed, I don't want it kept in the first place.

And now we can safely assume the government doesn't always have good intentions. We already have a couple of scandals going that make Watergate look like amateur hour.

It seems like we're forever in react mode with respect to terrorism. The solution isn't in living our lives in such a manner to appease potential terrorists, because they can't be appeased and it's not what America supposedly is all about. Nor can we can put a prophylactic on the country and prevent every possible type of attack. This isn't some hokey CBS procedural.

I guess I don't know what to do. I don't want to accept these bombings as part of life, nor do I think it's particularly wise or effective to go to this type of extreme to prevent exactly the same type of it-once-happened attack.

The older I get, the less certain I am of how to run the entire country. But I know what I don't like, and it's where we're headed right now with all this spy stuff and action-by-reaction.

Well there's certainly nothing resembling the national will needed to be consistently proactive, so I'm not sure there's a big choice left there.

Ya, I'd love to know what "proactive" means in terms of fighting terrorism and how many people would actually be in favor of it.

In the Boston marathon thread the government was simultaneously criticized for not stopping the bombers ahead of time, not catching them fast enough after it happened, and the techniques they used during the manhunt. With regard to the first one, it would seem like people are saying the government should spy more, and at detain people upon less suspicion. But they'll never actually argue that separately, only when it's tied to a specific event like this. So basically, people are OK with the PATRIOT Act, and spying, and searching, but only when its directly used to stop an actual terrorist act. But of course it's not that clean and tidy in practice. What do you do when there's thousands of potential threats?

I'd rather be in react mode than the type of "thought police" mode necessary to stop everything.

But sometimes react mode is overreact mode. Yes, I get it, we can't put a price on the life of someone killed or maimed in an attack. But the airline response was too much. Stronger cabin doors, better baggage security and effectively using the armed marshall policy was enough. The extra resources used could better be spent examining other possible means of causing great harm.

We're very lucky that the people who seem to believe that terrorism is warranted have absolutely no idea how to best mess with us. One intelligent leader who understands our society could do a lot of damage with very little risk.

+1

I've made that same basic observation for, oh, about 20 years now.

The leader of a rival terror group should take out a few celebrities or sports stars blame it in another terror group and watch as the entire populace demands vengeance in a style that JiMGa would be proud of. :)

Obama: "China can't spy on Americans, only their own government can do that!"

Obama: US, China in 'uncharted waters' on cyber - Yahoo! News

Full story is not out set with some contradictory claims. I would like to know who in congress were briefed specifically about this and let's hear their side of the story.

NSA Surveillance Program Oversight: White House, Congress Point Fingers At Each Other

when are they going after that whistleblower and leaker?

Can't find the link & I'm about to head out the door but I saw a headline on that somewhere about an hour ago.

As they should.

Would be nice to find another Gorbachev-Reagan relationship but doubtful. I think the public image is to play nice etc. but think we should be realistic and aggressively counter China.

Obama, China Make Climate Change Agreement

He outed himself.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance | World news | guardian.co.uk

Good thing Booz Allen is not a public company. I would have predicted a steep drop off as majority of their business is government.

NSA leaker comes forward, warns of agency's 'existential threat' - CNN.com

"We trained him to froth at the mouth on command and throw himself into a gibbering fit, in which he is only able to scream NO at intensifying volumes"

"In other words, we've found the treatment to make someone into a Republican?"

Meme's get old quick.

Edit: And not to grammar nazi, but "Food Stamp ROLES up 70%"? ;)

S&P Warns that if the tea party attempts to slash expenditure or hold the debt ceiling hostage are successful, the US Credit rating will be downgraded (again, although it just went back up)

S&P | United States of America 'AA+/A-1+' Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Stable On Receding Fiscal Risks | Americas

Note to S&P: Go fuck yourselves.

Sounds like some of the more sensational claims by Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian in the NSA whistleblower story aren't standing up to closer scrutiny.

The real story in the NSA scandal is the collapse of journalism | ZDNet

The S&P thing is such a publicity stunt. No one is afraid of the U.S. not paying their bills.

What I don't get is if we cut expenditure (reducing the growth of our debt), our rating will be reduced?

Stop speaking Sputnik.

They're talking about something like another sequester where the cuts would almost certainly reduce growth and tax revenue which, like in Europe, could cause the deficit to rise.

I don't think this has anything to do with a medium/long term deal on entitlements.