Bush Lets US Spy On Callers Without Courts

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Seems to me that ‘someone’ brought this up on another thread and got ripped and insulted. Hmmm…

That’s why you’re the REAL victim…j/k

If you’re going to quote me, at least use enough so someone will not take what I said out of context — unless of course you run a liberal newspaper down there; we all then understand that this would be impossible for you.

[/quote]

I was truly kidding, hence the j/k. Are we on clomid for the moment or something? Sooo sensetive.

A liberal newspaper…haha…you are a wise guy. Have voted (R) all but once, and always score on the Libertarian part of the political compass. I’m not the media type, so you are correct, it would be hard for me, maybe impossible.

In regards to the taxation and mis-use of our funds, we see more eye to eye than different. I just simply resent the fact that you (or any American) would springboard that issue in the wake of the largest disaster in American history. How’d did you view 9/11? Pearl Harbor? Earthquake? I’m asking

As you, I would like to tighten the purse strings and strangle a bus load of politicians with the ends. However not at the risk of losing this or any other city or region that is vital, historical and offers economic strength.

You can continue insults if you’d like, but you are on your own.

And the ONLY reason New Orleans would end up in the Gulf, is if the coastal restoration portion of flood control is ignored like has been. The estimated time frame you state is off also. It is estimated it COULD happen by SOME in approx 100 years. Did you see the editorial on this on 60 minutes?

82

[quote]vroom wrote:
In the past, if an American called a person overseas that the NSA was investigating, the NSA couldn’t listen in on the American’s side of the conversation. The example used yesterday was if the foreign guy asked the American,“Where and when are you going to set off the bomb?”, the NSA couldn’t listen to the answer from the American. That’s retarded. If you don’t call people that the NSA is investigating overseas, you don’t really need to worry about this.

Doogie, this sounds fine, but it isn’t true. They would have needed to get a warrant… OR AT LEAST REPORT THEIR ACTIVITY AFTER 72 HOURS IF THEY DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO GET A WARRANT.

Nothing stopped them from getting the information they needed. Nothing.[/quote]

I haven’t read enough of this yet, to be honest. That was an example Richard Clarke gave on ABC last night, and since he’s no friend of the administration I bought into it.

The report is here (about halfway down, under heading U.S.and then video):

Thinking about it, you have more to worry about than those of us here. You ARE a suspicious foreign person. All your calls from the U.S. will be tapped.

83

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Whose phones are being tapped? I doubt mine is.

How the hell would you know? If I wanted someone listening to my every conversation, I would hang up the phone and simply scream outside.[/quote]

Because I don’t make overseas calls to suspected al-Qaeda operatives.

84

The over reaction to this is amazing.

This has legislative oversight.

This program is very limited.

This program has to be renewed every 45 days. This is not a power grab.

This is legal (or at least not illegal).

I am glad they are spying on our enemies.

I hope they prosecute whoever leaked the information on this classifed operation.

85

I know, I know. It’s horrible. Actually, I don’t think I’m suspicious, but at least outspoken.

Hey, NSA guys, could you do something about my phone? It gives a half ring (bleep) at 11:30 and 12:30 every night… it’s annoying. Just listen in quietly okay, I’m trying to sleep here.

–

[quote]Because I don’t make overseas calls to suspected al-Qaeda operatives.
[/quote]

How do you know? Maybe you never make any calls overseas. What if somebody you know called you once, and they got a call from someone once, so they figured they should listen to you.

What if you were a student and had arabic students on campus that were on the same teams or clubs or in the same classes as you?

[quote]This is legal (or at least not illegal).

I am glad they are spying on our enemies.[/quote]

Whether or not it is actually legal probably remains to be seen. Just because some people feel something is legal does not make it so.

You are right, they should be spying on “the enemy”. Presumably that is all that has happened to date. However, once again, you have simple blind trust in authority – which is incredibly dangerous.

History has proven again and again that you cannot trust a government with invisible powers. It will use them for it’s own ends – eventually.

Things change over time. Perhaps some of you realize that income tax was a temporary measure which was enacted to help fund a certain war? Things don’t always go away when the original reason for their advent are gone… especially if nobody notices or complains about it.

Fighting the government for every abuse of rights it commits is not an overreaction. It is standing on guard for the liberty of your children. There is nothing wrong with doing so.

It is not anti-Bush to be against the erosion of civil rights…

86

[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Seems to me that ‘someone’ brought this up on another thread and got ripped and insulted. Hmmm…

That’s why you’re the REAL victim…j/k

If you’re going to quote me, at least use enough so someone will not take what I said out of context — unless of course you run a liberal newspaper down there; we all then understand that this would be impossible for you.

I was truly kidding, hence the j/k. Are we on clomid for the moment or something? Sooo sensetive.

A liberal newspaper…haha…you are a wise guy. Have voted (R) all but once, and always score on the Libertarian part of the political compass. I’m not the media type, so you are correct, it would be hard for me. But not impossible.

In regards to the taxation and mis-use of our funds, we see more eye to eye than different. I just simply resent the fact that you (or any American) would springboard that issue in the wake of the largest disaster in American history. How’d did you view 9/11? Pearl Harbor? Earthquake? I’m asking

As you, I would like to tighten the purse strings and strangle a bus load of politicians with the ends. However not at the risk of losing this or any other city or region that is vital, historical and offers economic strength.

You can continue insults if you’d like, but you are on your own.

And the ONLY reason New Orleans would end up in the Gulf, is if the coastal restoration portion of flood control is ignored like has been. The estimated time frame you state is off also. It is estimated it COULD happen by SOME in approx 100 years. Did you see the editorial on this on 60 minutes?

[/quote]

Rhino,

I apologize. I did not know j/k’s meaning. I respect your passion for your beliefs and was wrong to insult you. I need an ‘internet-speak’ dictionary for Christmas – gotta tell my kids!

If I could wave a magic wand and make everything in NO and environs back to normal, I’d do it in a heartbeat. What bothers me is when I see suffering people and they are mystified as to why they suffer. People create governments, which by their very nature must become corrupt – any kind of power always attracts those who enjoy wielding power. Slowly, the government grows and here we are.

We create a government to solve our problems and it simply winds up creating more. Really, how much damage could a single individual do, compared to the organised force of a government? For this reason, I wrote a piece I knew would irritate people who wait for government to solve their problems. Government will not really solve anything and they’ll simply use the crisis to expand their powers (look at the Patriot Act).

I’d bet my bottom dollar that the ‘fix’ in NO will be so screwed up, later generations will marvel at the corruption and outright stupidity.

So, no I won’t insult anyone who suffers there and YES I know who the victims of Katrina are. I pray for them, but I know it will be one very long wait (and you’ll wind up fixing it yourselves.)

87

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The over reaction to this is amazing.

This has legislative oversight.

This program is very limited.

This program has to be renewed every 45 days. This is not a power grab.

This is legal (or at least not illegal).

I am glad they are spying on our enemies.

I hope they prosecute whoever leaked the information on this classifed operation.[/quote]

True. But its also killing Bush (and the republicans) politically.

88

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
True. But its also killing Bush (and the republicans) politically.[/quote]

But not nearly as badly as the left had hoped. Bush’s numbers are coming back (if you buy into that pseudo-science crap).

And even the most optimistic reports for the dems have them still in the minority next January.

SO I’m really not too sure what you mean by “killing Bush and the republicans”.

89

I really don’t think Bush overstepped his bounds in this case and I feel he was justified in this area. I don’t think my rights were impinged at all, and if it aids us in stopping further terrorist actions against us I am all for it.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
True. But its also killing Bush (and the republicans) politically.

But not nearly as badly as the left had hoped. Bush’s numbers are coming back (if you buy into that pseudo-science crap).

And even the most optimistic reports for the dems have them still in the minority next January.

SO I’m really not too sure what you mean by “killing Bush and the republicans”.

[/quote]

cool. Got any independent websites sources links that track political opinions like this regularly and are free?

91

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
cool. Got any independent websites sources links that track political opinions like this regularly and are free?[/quote]

Nope - I don’t buy into polls. Since 2000 and 2004 - even the exit polls have been proven to be a joke. They had Kerry winning by 20 points - and he wound up losing by what? 2 or 3 points? No - I don’t buy into polls at all.

I am not a Boston Barrister - so I don’t have reems (or gigs) of source material at my finger tips. All I can say is that I heard it somewhere. I will pay closer attention next time around.

92

[quote]rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
True. But its also killing Bush (and the republicans) politically.

But not nearly as badly as the left had hoped. Bush’s numbers are coming back (if you buy into that pseudo-science crap).

And even the most optimistic reports for the dems have them still in the minority next January.

SO I’m really not too sure what you mean by “killing Bush and the republicans”.

[/quote]
Hmm… this makes me think deeply of our nation’s circumstances and challenges against it.

93

[quote]rainjack wrote:

…I don’t buy into polls. Since 2000 and 2004 - even the exit polls have been proven to be a joke. They had Kerry winning by 20 points - and he wound up losing by what? 2 or 3 points? No - I don’t buy into polls at all.

I am not a Boston Barrister - so I don’t have reems (or gigs) of source material at my finger tips. All I can say is that I heard it somewhere. I will pay closer attention next time around. [/quote]

There was a big reason the exit polls were off. They were done early in the day when the Democrats were out voting, and were done when the Republicans were out voting. Republicans tend to vote later in the day. (I think this is because the Republicans have jobs.)

The polls are a fairly accurate test of where people are, but are very fallible. First look at the percentage accuracy. If it says it is plus/minus 4%, then if you have two candidates who poll at 50%, one could be 46%, while the other could be 54%. An 8% total difference.

Many of the polls I saw showed a variety of numbers, but when you looked at the spread, they almost always overlapped.

One flaw with the polls is that they either take everyone, most of which do not vote, or they try to guess at who is the likely voter. (They don’t care if you say you are going to vote, they mostly care if you have voted in the past.)

I also believe there is a large segment that refuses to answer polls, and this might be a group of people who think a certain way, or have a certain political philosophy. (Then there are the people who lie, just because they would like to fuck with the polls.)

Hillary Clinton: 2009 - 2016
Jeb Bush: 2017 - 2024
Chelsea Clinton: 2025 - 2032
George P Bush: 2033 - 2040

Proof it is possible to have Clinton/Bush presidencies for  over a half a century.
94

On the original subject, I am hearing more crap then truth here.

First people mentioned the fact it was a book excerpt, and not an article per say. Others have asked why this matters.

This matters because in a book you have no journalistic standards to abide by, and by simply quoting a book, you can say anything you want to.

Also not the timing of all of this, to come out at the exact time they were going to vote on the Patriot act. Coincidence? I don’t think so. (Yes, slight conspiracy theory here.) There is the possibility of this being coincidence, but I don’t think so. (Note I said think, meaning it is an opinion/belief on the issue, not a fact.)

Now as far as the wire taps go, people are taking the idea of taping specific people, and extrapolating that to almost say everyone’s phone is being tapped, and that is not true. (It should be noted that it is perfectly legal to tap Vroom’s phone because he lives in the Nation of Beavers.)

Anyway people really are jumping on this too early, and obviously for political reasons, not privacy ones. (For the most part.) There should be some disclosure, if it hasn’t happened already, as to who was being tapped, and why.

The idea that “anyone” can be called a suspect is ludicrous. (Not the rapper.) If you are worried about that, then be worried the government will say you are suspected of dealing drugs. That gives them full right to tap your phone, and it doesn’t need to be foreign calls.

Should we be worried about this? Probably not, but there is always the possibility of abuse. (Although if a person is going to abuse the system, they may not even worry about the laws in the first place.) J. Edgar Hoover may be a good example of overzealous government actions, and abuse of power. (And frilly dresses.) So I do say keep an eye on this.

Interesting how nobody here is mentioning that John D Rockefeller IV is a judge presiding over a secret court.

Oh and the mention of Orwell’s 1984. The only reason he gave it that title was because he wasn’t allowed to call it 1948. Orwell had an interest in Socialism, and after learning more about it turned 180 degrees, and became very antisocialism. 1984 was just one book on the subject. Animal Farm may be more obvious.

95

mage: but if tapping a few thousand suspicous types would make us safer then wouldn’t tapping more people’s phones make us safer? This could get bigger very very easily not that its that good of an idea. If people think that they might be watched they’ll slip into something more covert like coded and anonymous email using dummy words for different meanings, or courier type of mail. This will help us for mabey one or two more times and then it will have no use whatsoever - the conservative cheerleaders on this thread are ignoring this and im surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet.

96

[quote]GeorgeMontyIV wrote:
mage: but if tapping a few thousand suspicous types would make us safer then wouldn’t tapping more people’s phones make us safer? This could get bigger very very easily not that its that good of an idea. If people think that they might be watched they’ll slip into something more covert like coded and anonymous email using dummy words for different meanings, or courier type of mail. This will help us for mabey one or two more times and then it will have no use whatsoever - the conservative cheerleaders on this thread are ignoring this and im surprised that nobody has mentioned it yet.

[/quote]

First I didn’t just give it a blanket support, but said that eyes should be kept on this. In fact congress was briefed on this, so they shouldn?t act surprised, but it also means they were able to keep an eye on it.

But in response to what you said, to say a little is good, so more is better is too often a mistake. A little chemo is good to get rid of cancer, but a lot will kill you. Same with a lot of drugs and supplements.

The government should know this, though it doesn’t mean they do.

But if you look at this leak, it also means the government cannot keep a secret, especially if somebody disagrees with it. If nothing else, that helps me feel safer with our government. Everything eventually comes out.

97

[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
True. But its also killing Bush (and the republicans) politically.

But not nearly as badly as the left had hoped. Bush’s numbers are coming back (if you buy into that pseudo-science crap).

And even the most optimistic reports for the dems have them still in the minority next January.

SO I’m really not too sure what you mean by “killing Bush and the republicans”.

cool. Got any independent websites sources links that track political opinions like this regularly and are free?[/quote]

ABC news reported the polls this morning.

The announcer actually seemed dismayed by the poll numbers…out of touch I guess.

98

Since it was a leak of classified inofrmation of an ongoing operation I wonder if the leaker will be charged.

Since the Plame case turned out to be such a hot issue for the Democrats I’m curious how they will react to this.

99

I’m not sure that is quite accurate.

You have to moderate that a bit by saying you can listen to anything I broadcast but it probably isn’t legal for any Canadian telecommunication company to share my conversations.

So, it would depend where I called, so that you could access the equipment carrying my voice.

Anyway Mage, I think there is an important point. If it is LEGAL to listen to everyone – then you have a problem, because if it happens, then there is no recourse.

At least when it is directly illegal you can have a whistle blower shake things up and have legal action taken to stop the activity.

It’s all about making sure checks and balances are in place… to avoid FUTURE abuse. I am also confident it currently is being used exactly as it should be. I am not confident that will remain true over time if the policy stays in place.

100

[quote]vroom wrote:
(It should be noted that it is perfectly legal to tap Vroom’s phone because he lives in the Nation of Beavers.)

I’m not sure that is quite accurate.

You have to moderate that a bit by saying you can listen to anything I broadcast but it probably isn’t legal for any Canadian telecommunication company to share my conversations.

So, it would depend where I called, so that you could access the equipment carrying my voice.

Anyway Mage, I think there is an important point. If it is LEGAL to listen to everyone – then you have a problem, because if it happens, then there is no recourse.

At least when it is directly illegal you can have a whistle blower shake things up and have legal action taken to stop the activity.

It’s all about making sure checks and balances are in place… to avoid FUTURE abuse. I am also confident it currently is being used exactly as it should be. I am not confident that will remain true over time if the policy stays in place.[/quote]

Well first off it was a joke, and second I meant the US can listen in on your phone calls. Second I don’t know the laws in “Canaydia”, but US’s laws do not cover you since you are not a US citizen. Might not be good for relations, but it does not violate our laws.

Also I don’t think the US would worry about the Canadian communications companies.

There is currently spying going on between Canada and the US, believe it or not. Your government finds out about our secrets, and we find out the best way to make Beaver pelts. There are translators who spend years learning how to take the a?s out of your conversations.

It is surprising how many countries actually spy on the US, and vice versa. But that is just the way the world works, currently.