Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I want to ask you to think about the War on Terrorism in very personal terms. Imagine if your favorite person was killed on 9/11.
[/quote]
Okay, I’m there.
Got it.
Of course. In light of our two recent intelligence disasters (9/11 and “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq a ‘Slam Dunk!’”), I think some serious improvements in the way that we gather and analyze intelligence are in order.
I have never worked in the intelligence community (have you?), and I know very little about the community or the bureacracies that ‘make it go,’ but I suspect that improving communication between the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local law enforcement could go a long way.
I don’t have to tell you that enforcing accountability in organizations whose operations are, by definition, both sensitive AND secret presents monumental difficulties, but at the same time, this accountability is imperative.
[quote]
Wouldn’t you want to combat violent extremism?[/quote]
Of course I want to combat violent extremism. I find it insulting that you would even ask.
YES! Because I love America, and I’m concerned about the decline of our influence on the world stage. I am even more concerned about our continued existence as a sovereign nation. I am not willing to watch America destroy herself, and I fear that our foreign policy will do just that. It is expensive and largely ineffective. We must choose our battles and realize that our power, while great, is finite.
I would care deeply, sir. And I do. I think it is vitally important that we play the good guys in this (in all) conflicts. Furthermore, I do not think that torturing detainees represents effective policy. Torture emboldens our enemies and gives Al-Quaeda rhetorical ammunition.
Please be more specific. I’m not up for a thermonuclear crusade against the entire middle east. While I don’t think that’s what you meant at all, it’s within the realm of possibility.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?[/quote]
No - those were examples of how it enhanced existing privacy protections.
The request stands: Any list of documented abuses of the Patriot Act?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?
No - those were examples of how it enhanced existing privacy protections.
The request stands: Any list of documented abuses of the Patriot Act?[/quote]
This is an interesting topic, but it does not belong in this thread.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?
BostonBarrister wrote:
No - those were examples of how it enhanced existing privacy protections.
The request stands: Any list of documented abuses of the Patriot Act?
Weasel42 wrote:
This is an interesting topic, but it does not belong in this thread.[/quote]
That’s funny, because my original post on the Patriot Act was directed to you, really.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
…I cannot and will not cast my vote for a candidate who voted for the Patriot act. …[/quote]
[quote]storey420 wrote:
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.
Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.
[/quote]
Right to the point, the best post so far. They will continue to lump all Paul supporters into one category…accuse everyone of being small minded, uneducated and immature. Gleefully ignoring there is a much broader spectrum and legitimate basis of support. These are the experts. The unbending, all knowing, parrots of what is to be and what is not to be. They tell you what is possible and what is not, they limit you because they themselves have swallowed the limits, and now are only too willing to shit out the remnants of pathetic consumption to young malleable minds.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?
No - those were examples of how it enhanced existing privacy protections.
The request stands: Any list of documented abuses of the Patriot Act?[/quote]
“Sneak and Peek” searches abused and found unconstitutional
http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html
“Expert advise and assistance” prevented humanitarian work and education. Found unconstitutional
http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html
NSL’s abused and found unconstitutional
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Good response can’t argue with these points except that now I may have to do some digging into the forums from 2004 as the variables were different but the “general malaise” of the politics forum was the same. Funny though I still enjoy reading the banter.
I do have to concede that many of the people supporting Paul have brought the quality down there are others liek Mikeyali that provide a well researched, educated, and thoughtful response as well. Remmeber that guy with teh Ronald Reagan avatar? If he wasn’t enough to turn you away from Bush then I don’t know what is (besides his actual policy :])[/quote]
See, now we are getting somewhere. I got no beef with some of the Paul supporters - I may disagree with them, and debate the issues related to those disagreements, but everything is in good faith. Just as they are passionate about Paul, I am passionate about what an awful candidate he is, and we go round after round. That isn’t a problem - that is why we come here in the first place.
That isn’t the problem. The first problem is that much of the Paulmania that takes place here is just plain bad and stupid - conspiracy nonsense, racism (not a typo), and juvenile radicalism. That drags down the PWI forums, period - left-wing, right-wing, any-wing - it’s pathetic.
Second, the Paul supporters are some of the biggest hypocrites around here - they swoop in with ad hominem in lieu of arguments - recall Giuliani-in-drag, “neocon” labels, calling people who don’t follow Paul traitors to the Constitution (when they likely haven’t even read the thing) - but then, amazingly, turn into hypersensitive Pollyannas if anyone dare have the audacity to challenge their candidate or his ideology. Hell, I get slurred as “denigrating” Paul supporters - sniff - for the sole reason I disagree with them and tell them so.
Can’t have it both ways. What is it about Paul supporters that they think they can take the field as political warriors, but when someone pushes back, it’s a crime against them and they call foul? It is silly.
And it isn’t limited to the Paul crowd - certainly not. But the Paul crowd, with noted exceptions, have set new records for stupidity around here, and as my patience - and others’ - has run out, there is nothing wrong in telling them so.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Go easy TB. I think it took a little character to not simply respond, “Nu-uh, I’m sure Ron Paul knows more than you.” Don’t you think you should give a little credit where it’s due? Instead you end up alienating a guy from even considering sticking around to reform the republican party.
Granted, most Paulies weren’t interested in these issues until Paul got them riled up, but isn’t it good that they are at least thinking about these issues? Getting into Goldwater and Friedman got me to take economics classes in college. I don’t know if I would have ever taken those classes otherwise. I disagree with a lot of Friedman (such as privatizing the national parks) but I have learned more that I do agree with thanks to him.
As a guy who has a lot of respect for your posts and thinks we’re on the same side, I think you do yourself a disservice by lumping us Paulies together so cavalierly. Weasel is NOT jeffdirect and you dishonor the guy by acting like he is. The guy has been pretty damned civil. Moreso than either of us.[/quote]
I can appreciate the OP taking the “open mind” approach - unfortunately, the deck has been stacked against him.
I keep hearing reading that so many of the Paul supporters don’t want to be “lumped in” together. I’ll come straight to the point - I do make exceptions, as in my interactions with you, Sloth, and Varqanir, as examples - but it isn’t my problem to fix. We have been deluged with Paul nonsense for months, and the “please take Paul supporters in good faith” appeal burned up its capital long ago.
If Paul supporters don’t want to be “lumped in” with the other quackery done in Paul’s name around here, then denounce the quackery as much as the rest of us. That isn’t necessarily aimed at you, but talk is cheap.
Perfect example of what I mean - Ron Paul uber-supporter Al Shades/Nominal Prospect celebrates his racial theories of white supremacy while attaching them to Paul’s libertarianism, and who denounces them? The various Ron Paul supporters who “don’t want to be lumped in with the quackbats?” Nope. Where was the denunciation? Where was the “hey, speak yourself - I am not gonna be lumped in with such nonsense”…?
Instead - barely a peep. Perfect opportunity to denounce racism being promoted in Paul’s same, and instead of a principled stand to preserve the integrity of their movement, we get…spineless silence.
You and I are on the same team, Mike, and I enjoy your posts, even when I don’t agree with them - and I suspect you and I agree on the idea that if you want respect, earn it with deeds.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
I started this thread because I literally did not understand why anyone would choose to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul this election. Now I know: Your values are different from mine. Thank you.
[/quote]
I admire your idealism and support it. The compromisers and deal makers have run this country for far too long and buried us in a big pile of shit.
I haven’t read what’s next but I suppose you’ll be attacked for naivete — you see, good has a lot to gain from evil and, well, if we want to get anything done and not be a political eunuch, we have to make lots of deals and comprosises.
After all, if someone is out to kill you, make a deal and let 'em lop of a hand now, a foot a little while later. Trouble is, the people who follow this philosophy don’t realize what got lopped off when they weren’t looking.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that allows otheriwise intelligent citizens to hand over their rights via garbage like the “Patriot” Act and turn a blind eye to our mounting economic meltdown. I swear this post is like a script from “Team America”.
[/quote]
storey, that is not only false but an insult.
You’ll have to take my word for it, there are wonderful people trying their level best to watch out for ALL abuses AND protect against violent threats.
By the way, I didn’t consider being placed on “Team America” as an insult.
JeffR
P.S. Please tell me what abuses have been caused by the Patriot Acts (hint: theoretical doesn’t count). As it stands, nearly 6.5 years and no attack.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Does it require PC to eavesdrop on a communication?
No - those were examples of how it enhanced existing privacy protections.
The request stands: Any list of documented abuses of the Patriot Act?
Sloth wrote:
“Sneak and Peek” searches abused and found unconstitutional
http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html
“Expert advise and assistance” prevented humanitarian work and education. Found unconstitutional
http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html
NSL’s abused and found unconstitutional
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html[/quote]
So over the entirety of this huge act (read up here: Patriot Act - Wikipedia ), there have been three provisions found unconstitutional by three federal district court judges.
The ruling on your second cited example was simply that the text was “void for vagueness” - the “expert advice and assistance” section prohibiting offering expert advice and assistance, without more clear definitions of what those entail, to terrorist organizations. The “expert advice and assistance” language was part of a broader prohibition on “material support or resources” that was not enjoined. Additionally, it was not found to be “overbroad”.
The “expert advice and assistance” language was not found unconstitutional for preventing humanitarian work and education - and it’s still a very open question how some of those organizations are funded and apply their funds. Two of the lead plaintiffs were the PKK, broadly recognized as a Kurdish terrorist organization, and the LTTE, associated with the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka and recognized as a terrorist organization, and also include other organizations affiliated with the Tamil Tigers. One of the two main arguments on the plaintiffs side was that the government should have to prove that the efforts of the organizations were related to the terrorist aims of those organizations and not other aims.
Here’s the actual ruling, as opposed to the summary written by the anti-Patriot Act organization you cited: http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/pdf/fullRulingText012604.pdf
There were no abuses of that section claimed or demonstrated.
With regard to NSLs, the Patriot Act did not create them, but allowed for their expanded use. See National security letter - Wikipedia The most objectionable portions of the NSLs were in place since their creation in 1978.
The “abuse” included instances of misrecording the phone numbers they were trying to search and similar clerical errors. Of the 0ver 100,000 information requests issued, it appears there were 20 or so in which the agents were requesting information they weren’t authorized to request. It’s unclear whether these requests were purposefully overreaching. That’s not a good thing - but certainly doesn’t give rise to the idea that the NSL is abused any more than any other law.
As to the judge’s ruling, first note that the government is expected to appeal. Then note that ruling being appealed is much narrower than you make it out to be. The particular uses of the NSL that were enjoined were forcing telecom companies to turn over customer records without a court authorization, and prohibiting the telecom companies from notifying customers if the government did demand customer records. Note that the judge didn’t find “abuse” here - he found that the law was being applied as it was written, but he found certain sections were unconstitutional. This is how judicial review should work. An appeals court will almost certainly decide whether he was correct (it was appealed and remanded back to him once before for reconsideration - he narrowed his ruling this time). Here’s a link to that ruling: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/nsl_decision.pdf
With regard to “sneak and peak”, I probably have more reservations here than elsewhere. But I have an even bigger problem with “no knock” warrants, which have nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Also, note the government is also expected to appeal this ruling. Note also that a switch in wording back to “the purpose” of a search being foreign intelligence (the pre-Patriot Act wording) from “a significant purpose” of a search being foreign intelligence would obviate the ruling. Here’s a link to that ruling: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/mayfield_fisa_district_decision.pdf
Finally, consider again that this is how our process is supposed to work - if the law overreaches and violates the Constitution, the judiciary will enjoin it. Of course, Congress and the President shouldn’t pass things they think are unconstitutional - that abdicates their own duties (though they do - just look at McCain/Feingold). But if there is a question and a good-faith difference of opinion, but a majority of Congress and the President think something is Constitutional, the judiciary will review as controversies arise.
Overall, the evidence does not support the mass hysteria that surrounds the Patriot Act. Generally, I find it hard to believe how exercised people get over the Patriot Act, while they ignore the RICO Act and the drug laws - I blame ignorance.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I want to ask you to think about the War on Terrorism in very personal terms. Imagine if your favorite person was killed on 9/11.
Okay, I’m there.
Think about it.
Got it.
I’d wager your world-view would be very different.
In this hypothetical situation, wouldn’t you be working to improve intelligence gathering?
Of course. In light of our two recent intelligence disasters (9/11 and “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq a ‘Slam Dunk!’”), I think some serious improvements in the way that we gather and analyze intelligence are in order.
I have never worked in the intelligence community (have you?), and I know very little about the community or the bureacracies that ‘make it go,’ but I suspect that improving communication between the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local law enforcement could go a long way.
I don’t have to tell you that enforcing accountability in organizations whose operations are, by definition, both sensitive AND secret presents monumental difficulties, but at the same time, this accountability is imperative.
Wouldn’t you want to combat violent extremism?
Of course I want to combat violent extremism. I find it insulting that you would even ask.
Would you really care that much about the national debt?
YES! Because I love America, and I’m concerned about the decline of our influence on the world stage. I am even more concerned about our continued existence as a sovereign nation. I am not willing to watch America destroy herself, and I fear that our foreign policy will do just that. It is expensive and largely ineffective. We must choose our battles and realize that our power, while great, is finite.
Would you really care if three scumbags were waterboarded?
I would care deeply, sir. And I do. I think it is vitally important that we play the good guys in this (in all) conflicts. Furthermore, I do not think that torturing detainees represents effective policy. Torture emboldens our enemies and gives Al-Quaeda rhetorical ammunition.
Wouldn’t you want to do everything possible to spare others from your pain?
JeffR
Please be more specific. I’m not up for a thermonuclear crusade against the entire middle east. While I don’t think that’s what you meant at all, it’s within the realm of possibility.[/quote]
Weasel,
I wanted to tell you that I’m glad you are here. No sarcasm. I view your honesty as refreshing.
I think all of the “Old Guard” probably would agree with me.
You surprised me. There wasn’t chest thumping. You get credit for that.
I agree with you about improving communication. I think you’ll find that that is one area that has been and is being improved. What was also missing (and being remedied) is human intelligence.
Regarding national debt: Let me rephrase. I think that if your favorite person was killed, you’d feel it necessary to sacrifice some debt in order to kill this threat. You would prioritize differently.
I can see both sides to the torture argument. While I agree, it doesn’t project the best image abroad, I know that information vital to the war has been obtained. In totality, I think protecting American lives is more important that placating weiners like lixy.
Finally, I’m not suggesting thermonuclear war. I appreciate that you seem to be thinking through the scenario I presented. I just know, from experience, that people have a tendency to change their opinions on a subject once they’ve had personal experience. The theoretical (and sometimes idealistic) impulses give way to a more balanced, realistic, and pragmatic approach. Unfortunately, it’s also true that hatred, prejudice, and abuse can also follow.
We must fight effectively and, when possible, humanely.
JeffR
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Generally, I find it hard to believe how exercised people get over the Patriot Act, while they ignore the RICO Act and the drug laws - I blame ignorance. [/quote]
“People”? What “people”?
Last I checked, supporters of Ron Paul did not ignore any of the issues you cite.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Generally, I find it hard to believe how exercised people get over the Patriot Act, while they ignore the RICO Act and the drug laws - I blame ignorance.
“People”? What “people”?
Last I checked, supporters of Ron Paul did not ignore any of the issues you cite.[/quote]
True. I’ve made my opinion known on “the war on drugs.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Will someone going off about the Patriot Act please point me to a list of its documented abuses?
[/quote]
That is unfair of you to deflate their talking point that way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Will someone going off about the Patriot Act please point me to a list of its documented abuses?
That is unfair of you to deflate their talking point that way.
[/quote]
Wait, you have to wait until such things finally are abused on a massive scale like RICO?
There is simply no point addressing them before the shit hits the fan?
Gentlemen, may I congratulate you for the lessons you learned from the 20th century and may you trust in your government never be shaken.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Will someone going off about the Patriot Act please point me to a list of its documented abuses?
That is unfair of you to deflate their talking point that way.
Wait, you have to wait until such things finally are abused on a massive scale like RICO?
There is simply no point addressing them before the shit hits the fan?
Gentlemen, may I congratulate you for the lessons you learned from the 20th century and may you trust in your government never be shaken.
[/quote]
Utter nonsense.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Will someone going off about the Patriot Act please point me to a list of its documented abuses?
That is unfair of you to deflate their talking point that way.
Wait, you have to wait until such things finally are abused on a massive scale like RICO?
There is simply no point addressing them before the shit hits the fan?
Gentlemen, may I congratulate you for the lessons you learned from the 20th century and may you trust in your government never be shaken.
Utter nonsense. [/quote]
Yes, I understand.
You disdain for advanced planning is well documented.
As well as the charge of the light brigade was the pinnacle of military tactics, reacting to government politics before the come to get you is just plain cowardice and fear mongering.
Next time you build a bridge or something make it up as you go along, everything else is a sign of limp-wristed indecisiveness.