OT - NSA Building Giant Database of U.S. Phone Calls

[Buccaneer]

Did the end justify the means in the American Civil War?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Ok, once again, it's not protected under the 4th Amendment due to Smith v Maryland, which stated, in fairly plain language, that phone records are not protected as one of your privacy rights.

You countered with the Comm Act, which still doesn't make it illegal, since the Comm Act only covered Names and addresses of phone records, OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT COLLECTING. You can twist the wording of the Act however you like, but in no way, shape or form is PHONE NUMBERS protected. You say it's "communications", but it's not. Communications, or the words spoke in the conversation, IS protected, but, again, that's not what they're collecting.

So, you then countered with "a phone number can lead to the name and address of the number", which is true, and it's still not protected. If I had your phone number, any rational, intelligent person could retrieve the name and address. Bill Collectors do it all the time. Still, it's not protected.

And as for your lawsuit argument, as everyone knows, anyone can sue for any reason. Doesn't mean they'll win.

(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the--

(A) name;

(B) address;

(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;

(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and

(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),

of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).

(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.

Paragraph 1:

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--

(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;

(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;

(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or

(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title);

pwned.

[st.cronin]

The reason that the NSA didn't respond to Qwest's request for a letter or a subpoena is because the NSA doesn't NEED Qwest's cooperation in this matter. If you doubt that for a second, you don't understand the world we live in.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And yet Congress ended their investigation of the wiretapping issue, and no actions were taken.

Yeah, sounds "illegal" to me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12515341/

Originally Posted by April 27, 2006

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said Thursday he is considering legislation to cut off funding for the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program until he gets satisfactory answers about it from the White House.

pwned.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The reason that the NSA didn't respond to Qwest's request for a letter or a subpoena is because the NSA doesn't NEED Qwest's cooperation in this matter. If you doubt that for a second, you don't understand the world we live in.

Then why did they continually ask for Qwest's cooperation?

[SirFozzie]

They certainly DO need Qwest's cooperation in this matter.. otherwise they'd have that info and they don't do they?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Then why did they continually ask for Qwest's cooperation?

It's bureaucracy, man - these things happen. Some suit in some random office, possibly a lawyer, figured documentation wasn't as tight as he would have liked. Regardless, this little flap changes nothing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

They certainly DO need Qwest's cooperation in this matter.. otherwise they'd have that info and they don't do they?

I say "of course they do." As always, you are free to think whatever you like.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I say "of course they do." As always, you are free to think whatever you like.

So you think they have Qwest's info? Not from Qwest at any rate! Or else you are living in fantasy land.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you think they have Qwest's info? Not from Qwest at any rate! Or else you are living in fantasy land.

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.

So why not do that instead of asking them for the info? I think you are just believing what you want to believe instead of realizing the NSA couldn't get all the records, so were required to ask.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

*shrug*

I think the NSA can easily penetrate the security of pretty much any American corporation and get whatever information they want.

Isn't breaking in to get the info MORE illegal than asking for it?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So why not do that instead of asking them for the info? I think you are just believing what you want to believe instead of realizing the NSA couldn't get all the records, so were required to ask.

Because it would be easier or less expensive? Or because it would actually be legal? I don't know, I can only guess.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12515341/

pwned.

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.

i must be on your ignore list. you saw that I called you out on your misleading insinuation and moved on....perhaps someone could quote me so he'll see it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

Quoted because I love Flasch with the heat of a thousand suns.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That article is nearly a month old. Specter is no longer pursuing that bill.

Actually it's just over two weeks old. And Specter is still going after it.

No comment on the section of the code that I posted that 100% contradicts what you said? Can we agree that it is illegal?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No comment on the section of the code that I posted that 100% contradicts what you said? Can we agree that it is illegal?

Sorry for the delay, was doing research -- I knew that law has been supervented recently, and I just found it.

PATRIOT ACT revision 2005:
To assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the title allows for the seizure of communications records (section 215) and any records of session times, durations of electronic communication as well as any identifying numbers or addresses of the equipment that was being used (section 210).

This supervents the Comm Act. It's legal.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i must be on your ignore list. you saw that I called you out on your misleading insinuation and moved on....perhaps someone could quote me so he'll see it.

No, I don't have anyone on Ignore -- I just didn't see it. Lemme find the post and I'll respond in a sec.

Didn't mean to ignore your posts, Flasch, and you're certainly not on any ignore list -- sorry -- I just didn't see it.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

that was not the reasoning behind ending the investigation and you know it. That is an unfair insinuation and skews your arguments if you want others to believe that that is the case.

Ok -- so enlighten me -- why did Congress end the "formal" investigation?

[WVUFAN]

SPECIFICALLY, the section amended which makes this legal is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2702(c)

(4): to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, 3 of the 4 (y'know, the 3 whose CEO are NOT under indictment) believed a voluntary release of those records were necessary. This makes it legal.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

SPECIFICALLY, the section amended which makes this legal is:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2702(c)

(4): to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously, 3 of the 4 (y'know, the 3 whose CEO are NOT under indictment) believed a voluntary release of those records were necessary. This makes it legal.

Yeah, I'd love to see you argue in court that this program, which has been going on for 5 years now, is in response to an "emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury". A five year emergency, involving every person in the country. What a joke.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Sorry for the delay, was doing research -- I knew that law has been supervented recently, and I just found it.

PATRIOT ACT revision 2005:
To assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the title allows for the seizure of communications records (section 215) and any records of session times, durations of electronic communication as well as any identifying numbers or addresses of the equipment that was being used (section 210).

This supervents the Comm Act. It's legal.

Did you even read that those links?

Section 215: Access to records and other items under FISA

FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. The act specifically gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".

It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities). Investigations must also not be performed on U.S. citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Any order that is granted must be given by a District Court Judge or by a United States Magistrate Judge who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to allow such an order to be given. Any application must prove that it is being conducted without violating the First Amendment rights of any U.S. citizens. The application can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. citizen or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

This section of the Patriot Act is controversial because the order may be granted ex parte, and once it is granted — in order to avoid jeopardizing the investigation — the order may not disclose the reasons behind why the order was granted.

In order to protect anyone who complies with the order, FISA now prevents any person who complies with the order in "good faith" from being liable for producing any tangible goods required by the court order. The production of tangible items is not deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

As a safeguard, section 502 of FISA compels the Attorney General to inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate of all such orders granted. Every six months, the Attorney General must also provide a report to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate which details the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.[29]

For the first bolded part, it wasn't the FBI that was going after the records but the NSA, and there were no orders produced, and in fact the NSA specifically denied the request for an order from Qwest. For the second bolded part, there is no way that isn't the case for a mass collection of records. For the third bolded part, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the AG didn't go to the House and Senate every six months and tell them that 255 million applications were made.

What's your next legal backing?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Yeah, I'd love to see you argue in court that this program, which has been going on for 5 years now, is in response to an "emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury". A five year emergency, involving every person in the country. What a joke.

Yes, the threat of terrorism is an emergency involing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. What exact do you think the Patriot Act, which this is a part of, was written specifically for?

For the first bolded part, it wasn't the FBI that was going after the records but the NSA, and there were no orders produced,

And you didn't read the part that says no orders are needed when that exception is made -- that's the purpose of exceptions. And besides, that's not even what I'm referencing. After I quoted that part of Wikipedia, which also quoted, I looked up the actual revised Patriot Act, which mentioned "government entity", not a specific branch. I can give you the link to the law if you like. What you mentioned above has nothing to do with what I was saying.

For the second bolded part, there is no way that isn't the case for a mass collection of records.

PHONE RECORDS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You yourself has admitted it. The Supreme Court has say so. You keep saying it's illegal. It's quite apparant isn't not illegal at all.

For the third bolded part, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the AG didn't go to the House and Senate every six months and tell them that 255 million applications were made.

Actually, they did -- to the subcommittee overseeing this particular program. It consisted of 7 members, of which the entire subcommittee has admitted they were notified -- and that's all that is needed. Remember this was SUPPOSED to be a classified project -- the full permission of Congress is not required.

Again, the above part you highlighted is supervented by the exception I listed in my former post. Evidentally 3 of the 4 phone companies felt is was a substantial risk to life that they willingly released those records.

It doesn't matter what YOU think is a risk to life in this country, only what the phone companies felt. Given this request was made the day AFTER 9/11, you know damn well that's what the government was saying. It's no less a threat to citizens' life now than it was that day.

To say that terrorism isn't an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens is idiotic. Thousands DIED on 9/11, and you sit there and say it's not a threat. Amazing.

Again, 3 of the 4 felt it was important enough. I have a sneaky suspicion that the 4th companies' CEO didn't deny because of concern over privacy rights rather than a vendetta over the government going after him for criminal charges. My point is, at no time, in any shape did anything the government do break the law.

The actual LAW was broken by whomever told USA Today and the New York Times about it. Law very well could have been broken by those newspapers when they wrote the story. National security, especially in this time and place, is very important, and whomever broke it needed to be found and tossed in a cold, dark jail for the rest of their lives.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Ok -- so enlighten me -- why did Congress end the "formal" investigation?

...you already know why. The NSA refused to allow the investigation for fear that some confidential things would come out NOT that there wasn't meat to the sandwich, just that they wouldnt allow the investigation access. You already knew that but wanted others, who dont know, to think otherwise. I think that that is crap. Whatever the crux of your other arguments, at least you believe those, but this is the sort of stuff I cant stand.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...you already know why. The NSA refused to allow the investigation for fear that some confidential things would come out NOT that there wasn't meat to the sandwich, just that they wouldnt allow the investigation access. You already knew that but wanted others, who dont know, to think otherwise. I think that that is crap. Whatever the crux of your other arguments, at least you believe those, but this is the sort of stuff I cant stand.

Well, that's your interpretation. The truth is that the lawyers did not have the credentials to get the clearance needed for the sensitive information they were requesting. National Security takes precedence above all else.

But, seriously the bottom line is that the investigation, for whatever reason, has been closed officially. The investigators could have gotten lawyers that would have passed clearance, but they chose not to do so.

Or do you think that national security should be breached in a situation like this?

Last thing -- for what it's worth, I DIDN'T know the reason why the investigation was closed until you called me on it. I had to look it up. I just knew from glancing at a tv show a few days ago that is was. So, I wasn't purposely misleading anyone.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You are useless to have a discussion with....

It's like looking into a mirror, ain't it Giggles?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Quoted because I love Flasch with the heat of a thousand suns.

DAMN QOTM Material AGAIN!!!

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Project ECHELON was for international communications, ie, not against the law. It is Bush that has moved ECHELON to domestic surveillance, which is against the law for good reason.

Wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in164651.shtml

It was created during Clinton's admin, and is and has been used for domestic surveilance, but in a roundabout way -- they has associated countries do the spying, and the information, including actual phone call conversations, are turned over to the US. Sounds like spying on US civilians to me ...

AND CLINTON DID IT.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Dutch

There is a balance though which you fail to see. You think it should be roughshod over civil liberties because were at war.

I don't think 'roughshod over civil liberties' best describes what's going on. I think that's a gross exaggeration, in fact.

I believe in the constitutional purposes behind the 3 branches of gov't. that have equal powers via checks and balances. Should any one of these branches usurp this system than I think that that is a very bad thing. even when we are at war.

The government/military owning guns is a very bad thing. Killing someone is the ultimate civil rights violation. They have enough guns and weapons to kill every American a million times over. In a perfect world, I would love to see all weapons banned. But the reality is that we need our military and those guns to protect us.

On the spectrum, you fall on one side that while we are at war, the Republican party and this admin have done all of their actions, above and below board in an effort to protect us. I agree with you that at no point has their intentions for the greater good of our people been at the forefront of their minds, regarding the war on terror. sometimes this gets blurred by the fact that they do things that clearly favor one sector of society over others, ie. the most recent tax cuts, the bankruptcy laws, the student loan debacle, medicare, prescription drug plans, etc. but regarding the war What they have done has been in an effort to reduce the chances of an attack on us.

The Republican party is what it is. The mere fact that they are in the Oval Office and the majority in Congress suggests to me that the American people prefer their offerings to that of the Democrats. They are only serving the people that elected them. I support nearly everything they do. Maybe that's because I am a Republican as well.

On the flip-side, I do not expect a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress to act like I want them to act. If I did, I would have voted for them. However, my priority is to the process, moreso than to the party. I will never engage in 100% obstructionism of a Democratic president. I may not agree, but we all have to do our best to support the decisions that are made. And if we want to go in a different direction, we vote them out of office.

Have they done enough? quickly enough? Most agree not. Immigration at the border is a clear example of the sieve they have left down there. The number of cans scanned coming into our ports, etc.

Is that the fault of Republicans or is that a political trap? I wasn't born yesterday. I remember border security questions during the Clinton Administration. People have always been of the mind-set that "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't." To think the border security has only been a problem "since Bush got here" is disingenuous or naive. What is the solution? Build a wall? No. Use the National Guard? No. Set up a minefield? No. No matter what has been proposed or suggested, everybody else is ready to say that's no good. Should the President "go it alone?"

the govt has a SOP set up to allow them much wiggle room regarding clandestine behavior, yet they even skirt or scoff at that, it raises questions as to the why? For example, when they dont go to the FISA courts even when they have time AFTER they have already acted one asks why? then when they say they are collecting data but assures us that they are following the law not to listen to those calls without a warrant....a normal citizen might ask..."well if they didnt go back to FISA to get a warrant to act before, why would they feel so compelled to get a warrant now?" Then add the Qwest execs statement to the fold and any non-partisan spinser would at least be able to see where the other side is coming from and that perhaps, perhaps, your staunch backing of the admin. might be based in faith...which like religion varies widely.

My backing is partly based on faith in the system. Faith in our processes. I agree with that. And like our faith in religion varies wildly, so do our beliefs in government. Or in our families. Our spouses. Our significant others. Our neighbors.

While it's true that some religions are fucked up, some governments are fucked up, some families are disfuntional, some spouses and significant others cheat and some neighbors just plain suck--that is not the proof required to show that everybody is like that.

It comes down to the individual to decide for themselves. Their American granted right to choose. I do look at the big picture, but it comes down to me. My vote goes to the policy I agree with the most. Just like yours.

Like I said, if the government is collecting phone numbers to find out if I'm eating Domino's Pizza or Pizza Hut Pizza, my God in heaven, they are going down. But if they counter that accusation with something I would agree with, hunting down terror cells around the world and particularly in America, I will support that.

Yes, I've seen the movies where government agents are spying on us and I've seen the blogs. But until it happens to me, or hell, to people I know and it moves away from the political speak and moves away from theory, then I will have a concern, but for now, it's bullshit. Your argument is not the reality. It's a theory. But 9/11 was not a theory. And we raised holy hell when we found out our government was flat-footed during and before that attack. I will not vote for a President or a government that will remain, act, or blindly allow another attack on my country. I will however, support any government the best I can. So long as the voting system works, I think we all should.

[Flasch186]

i read it all but one thing that stands out is that you say if a Dem were in office or hold power you wouldnt expect them to act like you want them too...but then you add at the bottom "I think we all should." That seems a bit convenient considering the circumstances.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think 'roughshod over civil liberties' best describes what's going on. I think that's a gross exaggeration, in fact.

opinion

Originally Posted by dutch

The government/military owning guns is a very bad thing. Killing someone is the ultimate civil rights violation. They have enough guns and weapons to kill every American a million times over. In a perfect world, I would love to see all weapons banned. But the reality is that we need our military and those guns to protect us.

I dont understand the analogy.

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Republican party is what it is. The mere fact that they are in the Oval Office and the majority in Congress suggests to me that the American people prefer their offerings to that of the Democrats. They are only serving the people that elected them. I support nearly everything they do. Maybe that's because I am a Republican as well.

but you still care about the minority, understand that the framework of Democracy is to hear more than one opinion and therefore support avenues to have that dissent voiced through the media, journalism, etc.?

Originally Posted by dutch

On the flip-side, I do not expect a Democratic president or a Democratic Congress to act like I want them to act. If I did, I would have voted for them. However, my priority is to the process, moreso than to the party. I will never engage in 100% obstructionism of a Democratic president. I may not agree, but we all have to do our best to support the decisions that are made. And if we want to go in a different direction, we vote them out of office.

I whole heartedly disagree that we have to blindly support the decisions our elected officials make. We should never close our eyes.

Originally Posted by dutch

Is that the fault of Republicans or is that a political trap? I wasn't born yesterday. I remember border security questions during the Clinton Administration. People have always been of the mind-set that "You are damned if you do and damned if you don't." To think the border security has only been a problem "since Bush got here" is disingenuous or naive. What is the solution? Build a wall? No. Use the National Guard? No. Set up a minefield? No. No matter what has been proposed or suggested, everybody else is ready to say that's no good. Should the President "go it alone?"

I say yes to the above except the minefield. Should the pres. go it alone? nope, Congress is at fault too.

Originally Posted by dutch

My backing is partly based on faith in the system. Faith in our processes. I agree with that. And like our faith in religion varies wildly, so do our beliefs in government. Or in our families. Our spouses. Our significant others. Our neighbors.

While it's true that some religions are fucked up, some governments are fucked up, some families are disfuntional, some spouses and significant others cheat and some neighbors just plain suck--that is not the proof required to show that everybody is like that.

It comes down to the individual to decide for themselves. Their American granted right to choose. I do look at the big picture, but it comes down to me. My vote goes to the policy I agree with the most. Just like yours.

Like I said, if the government is collecting phone numbers to find out if I'm eating Domino's Pizza or Pizza Hut Pizza, my God in heaven, they are going down. But if they counter that accusation with something I would agree with, hunting down terror cells around the world and particularly in America, I will support that.

..but each action that the gov't. takes in the name of war, especially when the war will last forever in my opinion, should be checked and rechecked. Oversight is what we are talking about via warrants, congress, etc.

Originally Posted by dutch

Yes, I've seen the movies where government agents are spying on us and I've seen the blogs. But until it happens to me, or hell, to people I know and it moves away from the political speak and moves away from theory, then I will have a concern, but for now, it's bullshit. Your argument is not the reality. It's a theory. But 9/11 was not a theory. And we raised holy hell when we found out our government was flat-footed during and before that attack. I will not vote for a President or a government that will remain, act, or blindly allow another attack on my country. I will however, support any government the best I can. So long as the voting system works, I think we all should.

i addressed this one above on the quick draw.

[Dutch]

opinion

Fair. And I agree.

I dont understand the analogy.

You don't think that the government owning guns and running around killing innocent Americans isn't some sort of violation of our civil rights? Obviously it's murder, but that's a violation of our civil rights.

The point being, just becuase they "can" violate our civil rights, doesn't mean they "are". A big difference. Same with finding phone calling patterns to suspected terrorists.

but you still care about the minority, understand that the framework of Democracy is to hear more than one opinion and therefore support avenues to have that dissent voiced through the media, journalism, etc.?

I still believe that Republicans and Democrats alike are working for everybody. Maybe some Democrats believe Bush is really just trying to keep them down. Maybe some Republians believe Clinton was trying to keep them down. But the end result is that the President is working for eveybody, whether they like it or not ( ).

I whole heartedly disagree that we have to blindly support the decisions our elected officials make. We should never close our eyes.

I think we are in disagreement over support/dissent. The fact is we don't ever close our eyes. I am not suggesting that one bit. But it is our individual responsabilities to either support the process we have of acquiring our leadership or we need to change the system. Personally, I think voting for leaders is the best way to go. And just because "my guy" didn't win, does not mean that the next 4, 6, 8 years are going to be my time to be obstructionist. Of course, being in the military, my rights are a little different than yours, so maybe that is where the discrepencies arise. Who knows.

I say yes to the above except the minefield. Should the pres. go it alone? nope, Congress is at fault too.

I agree on all counts. But we all know why they won't do it. To do so would be the loss of a huge voting block of people. That's the reality. Do I agree with that? I guess the weak answer is -- it's more complicated that. I *wish* Bush would have the balls to just take care of business with regards to the southern border.

..but each action that the gov't. takes in the name of war, especially when the war will last forever in my opinion, should be checked and rechecked. Oversight is what we are talking about via warrants, congress, etc.

And they are checked and rechecked and balanced. If the worst thing the NSA "leaker" can come up with is a database of phone numbers being collected by private phone corporations and then passed on to the NSA then we should not claim the sky is falling. I'd actually think that was some sort of proof that the checks and balances are working pretty well.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yes, the threat of terrorism is an emergency involing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. What exact do you think the Patriot Act, which this is a part of, was written specifically for?

Erroneous. Terrorism, which will be a threat until the end of time, gives the government carte blanche to do whatever they want forever? I do not think you know what an emergecy is. This portion of the Patriot Act, since it was written for this situation, could just have given them the permission to do it at any time. But they didn't. They specified 'emergency'. So any reasonable court will deny your interpretation of the law.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And you didn't read the part that says no orders are needed when that exception is made -- that's the purpose of exceptions. And besides, that's not even what I'm referencing. After I quoted that part of Wikipedia, which also quoted, I looked up the actual revised Patriot Act, which mentioned "government entity", not a specific branch. I can give you the link to the law if you like. What you mentioned above has nothing to do with what I was saying.

There is no mention of exceptions in either of the Sections that you quoted. I just looked up the actual Patriot Act, and it says:

Originally Posted by Section 215

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

PHONE RECORDS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You yourself has admitted it. The Supreme Court has say so. You keep saying it's illegal. It's quite apparant isn't not illegal at all.

Holy shit. I'll repeat it again. Slowly. It is not against the Constitution. IT...IS...AGAINST...THE...LAW. Like if I were to kill you for having to repeat a simple point over and over, that isn't unconstitutional, there is no murder clause in Article IV, but it is against the law. The phone companies broke the law. Was the government breaking the law? I think that depends on if they forced the other phone companies to give up the records.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

It doesn't matter what YOU think is a risk to life in this country, only what the phone companies felt.

Haha, so the liability rests on how the phone companies 'felt' at the time? No, that's not how it works. Even if everything else you say is true, which it isn't, the courts will rule on whether there was any kind of threat. And since most rational people don't wet their bed thinking about terrorism every night, I doubt they will see an emergency.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

To say that terrorism isn't an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens is idiotic. Thousands DIED on 9/11, and you sit there and say it's not a threat. Amazing.

Haha, incredible. Take this to it's logical conclusion: crime is an immediate threat for death and injury of our citizens, so the laws should be thrown out when fighting crime. You act like terrorism is a threat to bring down the republic.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The actual LAW was broken by whomever told USA Today and the New York Times about it. Law very well could have been broken by those newspapers when they wrote the story. National security, especially in this time and place, is very important, and whomever broke it needed to be found and tossed in a cold, dark jail for the rest of their lives.

You know, for all your whining about the brown menace, you really hate American values.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Wrong:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in164651.shtml

It was created during Clinton's admin, and is and has been used for domestic surveilance, but in a roundabout way -- they has associated countries do the spying, and the information, including actual phone call conversations, are turned over to the US. Sounds like spying on US civilians to me ...

AND CLINTON DID IT.

'Roundabout way'. I definitely don't agree with it, it is a loophole that needs to be closed, with quasi-legality. I am not surprised that Clinton did it though, OF COURSE Presidents are going to take as much power as possible. That's why we need to check the power.

It's funny to me that since you think everything Bush does is great and legal, that you would assume that I have the same personality cult around Clinton.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You act like terrorism is a threat to bring down the republic.

it is a possibility. a slim one, but there is a chance that somewhere in time the Republic falls due to "terrorism". Just wanted to point that out.

[EagleFan]

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can we stretch this any farther?

Please, do not create temptation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?

It's already been compared to illegal random cavity searches in this thread, so I'd guess we could say it could be stretched further. No pun intended, of course.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

LOL, it's funny how self-important some of the "conspiracy" idiots are. I've got news for you, you are not being watched. You are a freaking number on a database that is meaningless to "big brother".

Oh my God, there is a database with phone calls on it. I've got news for you, there already is a database with phone calls that you made on it, it's called the phone company and they are doing more with that information than any government agency EVER will.

I really love the idiotic comment that tries to compare this to a "camera in your house". Can we stretch this any farther?

Where did anyone say that they were being watched? Talk about a straw man. Let me break this down for you, slowly and carefully, so that you can understand:

Problem 1: The System) The system probably works by inputting a certain amount of 'evil' phone numbers, and then a program is run to see how many hits every phone number has for these 'evil' phone numbers, maybe regressing back a couple of hits too, so that if you call someone who calls an evil number, you are given a point or whatever. At a certain threshold level, that person is flagged, and their conversations are taped and listened to by the NSA. As we have heard, most if not all of these have turned out to be phony positives, which means that the threshold, assuming we have good information of what the evil numbers are, is very low. One problem with a low threshold is the six degrees of seperation theory, ie everyone is connected so even patriotic EagleFan has some connection to an evil number. A problem with a high threshold is that it flags a lot of people that have a lot of close connections to evil numbers because of their occupations but are innocent, but still people that the government would love to listen to. Someone like Christiane Amanpour, a journalist of Iranian descent. Several journalists and even politicians have close ties to potential evil numbers. The right has already deemed the press to be its mortal enemy, and suddenly they are able to listen in at will to these conversations.

Problem 2: Total Abuse) Political opponents, peace rally leaders, journalists, government leakers of criminal information, etc., are flagged and searched. This is a complete abuse of power. Sure, some of you may think that is a good thing, but what if Hillary was doing it?

As it is, these programs have no oversight, and thus any of these are possible without anyone's knowledge. History has shown that people that have power will use the power, that is why we have the government system that we have today.

Problem 3: It Works) Now what? None of it can be used in court, because it was all obtained illegally. Either you let someone go, detain them forever without trial, or send them off to Eastern Europe prison camps.


Those are three very legitimate complaints and possibilities, and none of them have anything to do with fear of being watched.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...

Problem 1: The System) The system probably works by inputting a certain amount of 'evil' phone numbers, and then a program is run to see how many hits every phone number has for these 'evil' phone numbers, maybe regressing back a couple of hits too , so that if you call someone who calls an evil number, you are given a point or whatever. At a certain threshold level, that person is flagged, and their conversations are taped and listened to by the NSA. As we have heard, most if not all of these have turned out to be phony positives, which means that the threshold, assuming we have good information of what the evil numbers are, is very low. One problem with a low threshold is the six degrees of seperation theory, ie everyone is connected so even patriotic EagleFan has some connection to an evil number. A problem with a high threshold is that it flags a lot of people that have a lot of close connections to evil numbers because of their occupations but are innocent, but still people that the government would love to listen to. Someone like Christiane Amanpour, a journalist of Iranian descent. Several journalists and even politicians have close ties to potential evil numbers. The right has already deemed the press to be its mortal enemy, and suddenly they are able to listen in at will to these conversations.

Problem 2: Total Abuse) Political opponents, peace rally leaders, journalists, government leakers of criminal information, etc., are flagged and searched. This is a complete abuse of power. Sure, some of you may think that is a good thing, but what if Hillary was doing it?

As it is, these programs have no oversight, and thus any of these are possible without anyone's knowledge. History has shown that people that have power will use the power, that is why we have the government system that we have today.

Problem 3: It Works) Now what? None of it can be used in court, because it was all obtained illegally. Either you let someone go, detain them forever without trial, or send them off to Eastern Europe prison camps.

...

Everything that isn't bolded is wild conjecture.

That said....Something I learned about your "problem 3". Well apparently the President can authorize warrantless searches the results of which can be used legally in a court of law. This is something not done yet by Bush(AFAIK), but something that President Clinton did utilize.

I think a lot of the administration opponents are simply so blinded by their hatred that they can't see the possibility that these steps the President has authorized aren't the apocalyptic assault on Civil Rights that they are made out to be. The president does have certain duties or obligations to the nation laid out in the Constitution. It is apparently a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch lawyers, not just those associated with this administration, that those obligations outweigh even laws passed by the legislative branch. This is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed yet. The steps the Administration has taken doesn't amount to some obviously illegal power grab to be depicted in shades of white or black. This is a question of constitutional law, that needs to be addressed by the court.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I gave up on this thread a long time ago. Debating with someone like WVUFan who has now admitted he has made comments without even knowing really about the topic, and then keeps quoting legal sources that he hasn't read himself (rather than listening to someone else's baloney on it), is enough for me. Believe me, any judge would laugh at the argument that the ongoing threat of terrorism can be categorized as imminent threat of injury/death. Those are common legal terms that have been interpreted in thousands of cases to mean essentially you find out a suspect is planning to kill a target imminently - when there is no time to get a warrant. This program is not this at all. In fact, the whole point of the program is based on the fact that there is nothing imminent -- they're asking for the records to create a database.

I learned a long time ago to stop banging your head against a brick wall when it starts to hurt. I'm outta here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Everything that isn't bolded is wild conjecture.

Of course it is! Congratulations on stumbling into the problem with the whole thing: it's secret! And we are just supposed to trust them? Not good enough! God damn, I said stuff like this 10 years ago and I was called a crazy conservative, now I'm blinded by hatred of a conservative president.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The president does have certain duties or obligations to the nation laid out in the Constitution. It is apparently a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch lawyers, not just those associated with this administration, that those obligations outweigh even laws passed by the legislative branch. This is a constitutional question that hasn't been addressed yet. The steps the Administration has taken doesn't amount to some obviously illegal power grab to be depicted in shades of white or black. This is a question of constitutional law, that needs to be addressed by the court.

That's fantastic that "it's a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch laywers" (given, obviously, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever), but I don't care. It's a pretty commonly held belief by everyone else in the country that the President does NOT have the right to break the law. That is called a King, not a President. The only reason this question has not been addressed yet is that the administration knows they will lose if they bring it into court.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think a lot of the administration opponents are simply so blinded by their hatred that they can't see the possibility that these steps the President has authorized aren't the apocalyptic assault on Civil Rights that they are made out to be.

Really? And what is the extent of what they are doing Blen? Because for years, the President told everyone that nobody was being wiretapped without a warrant. Then it turned out that there were actually some people being wiretapped without a warrant. Then he told us the wiretapping without a warrant that he had told us for years wasn't being done was only being done to international calls and was narrowly targetted. Then it was revealed that there was a second part to the program that wasn't restricted to international calls and also wasn't narrowly targetted.

So how far does it go, Blen? What all is being done? How could you possibly still take them at their word? That's just the lying that was done about this single issue! It wasn't like they divulged these programs, they are furious that this stuff came out. It's ludicrous to believe that this is the extent of everything.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You're still banging your head against the wall.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

You're still banging your head against the wall.

You call it banging against the wall; it is in fact arguing against the truth. I figure it feels the same, that something you hate (Bush and his administration) are doing things you dislike, but a majority of people disagree with you. That things you think are "liberties" aren't, and things you feel should be illegal really isn't.

Must hurt (like banging your head against the wall) to scream to the high heavens that Bush and his ilk are evil, yet they are elected by the people of this nation not once, but twice. Must feel bad to realize that 75% of the American people don't feel that this NSA program isn't a breach of their liberties at all, regardless of how loudly you and the liberal media yells.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Of course it is! Congratulations on stumbling into the problem with the whole thing: it's secret! And we are just supposed to trust them? Not good enough! God damn, I said stuff like this 10 years ago and I was called a crazy conservative, now I'm blinded by hatred of a conservative president.

This government has secrets, and for the most part they SHOULD be secret. You are not entitled to know everything the government does -- if you know, you damn well better bet the terrorists do too.

There's a reason it's called CLASSIFIED.

That's fantastic that "it's a commonly held belief amongst Executive Branch laywers" (given, obviously, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever), but I don't care. It's a pretty commonly held belief by everyone else in the country that the President does NOT have the right to break the law. That is called a King, not a President. The only reason this question has not been addressed yet is that the administration knows they will lose if they bring it into court.

Did you yell this loudly when Clinton committed multiple felonies while in office, or does that not count?

The reason the "question" of whether the President has broken the law or not hasn't been pushed is because he HASN'T broken the law.

Really? And what is the extent of what they are doing Blen? Because for years, the President told everyone that nobody was being wiretapped without a warrant. Then it turned out that there were actually some people being wiretapped without a warrant. Then he told us the wiretapping without a warrant that he had told us for years wasn't being done was only being done to international calls and was narrowly targetted. Then it was revealed that there was a second part to the program that wasn't restricted to international calls and also wasn't narrowly targetted.

So how far does it go, Blen? What all is being done? How could you possibly still take them at their word? That's just the lying that was done about this single issue! It wasn't like they divulged these programs, they are furious that this stuff came out. It's ludicrous to believe that this is the extent of everything.

Sigh. You don't live in this world, Bigglesworth. In this world, things need to be done to ensure that more innocents aren't killed on American soil by terrorists. Your "right" to know everything the government does simply does not exist. You scream to the high heavens about the government keeping things from us; I'm screaming to the high heavens that there seems to be people in the government that cares so little for this country that they tell essential security secrets to the press; and the press are more concerned about making money than they risk lives by publishing those same secrets.

You're not entitled to know these things. You have no right to know national security programs.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I gave up on this thread a long time ago. Debating with someone like WVUFan who has now admitted he has made comments without even knowing really about the topic, and then keeps quoting legal sources that he hasn't read himself (rather than listening to someone else's baloney on it), is enough for me.

Whatever. What I said was the truth -- the investigation WAS stopped. Nothing I have said so far has been incorrect, and that included the legal sources (which I have read).

Let's make a bet, then ... I'll bet you or whomever what becomes of the Dems screaming "illegal action" and calling for investigations on this recent program leak -- NOTHING.

Believe me, any judge would laugh at the argument that the ongoing threat of terrorism can be categorized as imminent threat of injury/death. Those are common legal terms that have been interpreted in thousands of cases to mean essentially you find out a suspect is planning to kill a target imminently - when there is no time to get a warrant. This program is not this at all. In fact, the whole point of the program is based on the fact that there is nothing imminent -- they're asking for the records to create a database.

BULLCRAP. That specific exception was placed in the Patriot Act SPECIFICALLY to reflect the current fight against terrorism. You want to think it's "laughable", but evidently 3 of the 4 phone companies, with, y'know, REAL lawyers that know more of the law than you or I do, felt otherwise.

I learned a long time ago to stop banging your head against a brick wall when it starts to hurt. I'm outta here.

Bye.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

BULLCRAP. That specific exception was placed in the Patriot Act SPECIFICALLY to reflect the current fight against terrorism. You want to think it's "laughable", but evidently 3 of the 4 phone companies, with, y'know, REAL lawyers that know more of the law than you or I do, felt otherwise.

This thread seems to have devolved to a shouting match, but I want to at least address this. WVUFAN's interpretation of "immediate" and "emergency" is just plain wrong. I don't think there is a single case out there to support it. And I doubt you could find any judge to accept it. It goes against decades of interpretation of the constitution and statutes as they relate to searches. The carve-out seems specifically designed for things like the "ticking-bomb" scenario and there is nothing to support the idea that it gives a perpetual "emergency" exception to the statute.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by John Galt

This thread seems to have devolved to a shouting match.

I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!