Nsa And Your Phone....

[JohnP]

Cool topic. Sorry HUGE rant to follow...
I personally have no issues with NSA tracking call patterns, or listening to calls from within the US to known terrorists. Essentially my take is that what is happening is NSA/OGA agents are listening to the phones of certain radicals, Al Qaeda leaders, etc. overseas, but if they call one of their sleeper agents here in the USA....voila! now suddenly it is somehow different/wrong? NSA just like military (OK, most of them ARE military) are sworn to protect and defend us against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic. And if known terrorists are chatting on the phone to someone here in the USA, THAT is DEFINITELY the person I want to know about. Bin Laden might have planned or ordered the 9/11 attacks, the Spanish and British railway bombings...but wouldn't it have been nice, if someone had quietly pulled those guys out of line at the airport? Just a thought...and were we allowed to "play to win" it would have happened and many American, British, Spanish, and other citizens would have been alive today who unfortunately, aren't.

I for one would sincerely HOPE that if while listening to a known terrorist's phone in Afghanistan (or wherever) an American agent picked up a call to the US...that he wouldn't have to call the US, wake up a judge somewhere for a bench warrant, THEN hope the phone call was not over before he got it....
But that is exactly what people are trying to say should happen now. The bad guys' phones are being tapped, and when they call people in the USA I REALLY hope someone is listening. Because the guy in the middle east is not the one who is going to carry out a future attack. It is his contact, here in the USA. I do not believe anyone is being paid to listen in on random people here in the US. (what a crappy job THAT would be!) It has already been demonstrated that we have already been infiltrated, and the enemy has already killed in excess of 3,000 civilians here. We need to play hardball. If Joe Al-Zawahiri is on your buddy list, or you make late night phone calls to your old camp buddies in Afghanistan/Iraq, I think you are already suspect at best and dangerous to me and my family at worst. And they are tracking call patterns. So? Big deal, I'm pretty sure the phone company already does this, and your emails? please....if there is even ONE cookie on your computer, someone is tracking you-and not even to save American lives, but just to try to sell you something.
Also, (while I'm in this rant) since when was leaking secret or top secret information potentially harmful to Americans not Treason? and when was it also not treason to then publicize this widely, to both friends AND enemy states.... There are people who have been rotting in prison for decades for releasing much less sensitive information to our ALLIES, and others who have been executed for espionage....and yet somebody can leak to the media and that somehow makes them exempt from treason laws? I'll bet the Al Qaeda planners are now very quiet when talking to their US contacts, and now, I fear, any potential early warning or prevention efforts at saving civilian lives have been thrown away. I personally would like to see some of these people dragged out of their homes and hanged. Or at least shot. I have a very dim view of traitors. And that is EXACTLY what they are, IMHO. If you disagree with a policy, that's one thing. Write your congressman. But if you are gabbing secrets to the media because of some perceived wrong, or to get attention, then blood is on your hands and you are a traitor.
Rik, I completely agree with you about judges, I couldn't state it any more succinctly. I am an American, and I think its ridiculous that we can vote for something only to have one judge slap it down...especially if it is not against the constitution....
I am not entirely happy with how the president is handling things, either, but unlike many, I think he isn't playing hardball enough, and he should be. If you are going to play, play to win. The game will be over sooner, you'll win quicker, and the healing process starts sooner. How can the administration say, out of one side of its mouth, that they are trying to protect us from terrorists, etc, and then out of the other, block any and all attempts to control illegal immigration at both borders, and even go so far as to give the Mexican government intelligence on where civilians are watching with CB's to call the border patrol... And conveniently, now, unarmed civilians (and border patrol agents) are being shot at with automatic weapons, either by drug runners or the Mexican army.... this is completely insane. I think we need to patch the holes in our boat, then it will be much easier to bail water and start sailing. When I first got stationed in San Diego, I was appalled at what was happening. There are more Mexican flags in some areas than American ones, and hospitals, such as Kaiser Permanente in Chula Vista, have had to close their doors and go out of business, because illegals (excuse me, "undocumented immigrants") were walking in circles in the parking lot, waiting to have babies, so their entire families could then come to the US. Oh yeah, forgot to mention they demanded these medical services for FREE. Then, of course, their 80 year old grandparents and uncles and aunts demand social security....so of course somewhere a legal citizen will NOT receive those same benefits...I as a citizen do not get these privileges. They also pay IN STATE college tuition. If that was the case for US CITIZENS, perhaps I would be in college, and not the military like I am. But sorry I just can't swing the 30+ thousand per year out of state tuition at just about every school here.
Finally, while I don't agree with many of the current administrations' domestic policies, come on, Ron, you can do better! Clinton's lies about Monica only hurt himself, maybe a little of our national credibility, and Hillary. On the other hand the fact that he turned over our entire patent database, and signed a treaty ensuring they would have updates....to our "friends" the people's republic of China...might prove a little more damaging. And People keep saying the administration lied about WMD's....not sure where they are getting this. Saddam's own advisors were telling him he had them when we invaded, and the border with Syria was surprisingly porous when everything first started. I've also seen long range weapons stored ominously close to railroad cars full of gas masks and CBR kits....some of my friends actually tried bringing some of the stuff home, I think they got to keep the masks, but not any of the chemical injector goodies (those things are NASTY...we have it good with our cool auto injector hit-me-in-the-leg CBR kits) So maybe they didn't have them when we got there, but I would bet a case of your beverage of choice that they were there when the attack order was given.
Anyway, rant concluded. Felt good blowing all that out!
John P.

 

[zaphf]

I'm pretty sure the phone company already does this, and your emails? please....if there is even ONE cookie on your computer, someone is tracking you-a

The phone company doesn't have the government's monopoly on violence. Privacy violations from private companies don't have the same weight of consequence as privacy violations from the government.

I for one would sincerely HOPE that if while listening to a known terrorist's phone in Afghanistan (or wherever) an American agent picked up a call to the US...that he wouldn't have to call the US, wake up a judge somewhere for a bench warrant, THEN hope the phone call was not over before he got it....

Everyone agrees that this power is necessary, but there are ways to add oversight without restricting the actual capacity to do the work. It could be designed that a blanket warrant issued for calls coming from an international even to someone domestic. It's just not how the law is written today, and instead of creating a new law that still offered protection, the administration decided to rely on their interpretation of their war powers.


I agree about press leaks. They are purely political and part of the left's constant demonization of the majority. The proper forum would be for the whistleblower to approach someone in congress with the appropriate clearance. There are checks and balances built into the government for this.

 

[Rik]

We really need to resurrect the debate over Congressional term limits. I think lots of the problems above self-regulate when there's no such thing as a career Congressman.

-Rich

Well said!

How can our Congressmen and women accurately represent us when they can't even relate to reality as we know it. I would love it if we could get rid of the professional politicians and have regular folks with common sense representing us.

A guy can dream can't he?

 

[zaphf]

I think the experiment of direct election of senators has failed. It should be put back into the hands of the state legislature. That system wasn't perfect either, but at least the senate was then beholden to the state's power as an entity instead of a fickle electorate.

The federal government has forgotten that it was the states that created the federal government, not the federal government which created the states.

 

[mark the shoeshine boy]

If I offended anyone I am sorry. I was simply offering my opinion. I realize that it is just that, an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own and part of what is great about forums like this is that not everyone has to agree.

Jim,

Most of the time, I just crack jokes and shine shoes around here...I'm not as smart as these other moderators in here....but it is a pleasure for me to be a part of B&B....ever once in awhile, I take a few minutes and ask a question or two...I want to hear everyones opinions.

Today, was a good day in here...and you didn't offend anyone in here, nor did anyone else....the points-counterpoints were well versed and better than what the newspapers have printed.

Boy, I got an ear full with this question, perhaps tomorrows questions, might be a bit more tamer.....

.....how's your Mother ? Wish her Happy Mothers Day for me....

mark the shoeshine boy

 

[guenron]

700 Presidential signings. As in executive orders? Or are we talking about the myriad provisions of the PATRIOT act? Seriously, I want to know which we're discussing.

And for the record, how many pattern-analyzed phone calls are enough to protect the U.S.? What fraction less than all of them will make a sufficient safety net? Are you one, Ron, who howled bloody murder that the Bush administration Should Have Known ahead of September 11, and yet, when the administration makes efforts to catch the next perps before they strike, sues to hamstring their efforts? For that matter, is Lincoln likewise excoriable for having suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War?

And in case you're tempted to quote Franklin on "sacrificing liberty to purchase safety," he never said it.

Ah, BushLied[sup](R)(C)TM[/sup]. How short people's memories are. For what it's worth, the intel agencies of the world were convinced of the existence of WMDs, and Clinton-era policy announcements, Congressional action (all of whom were apprised of the intel beforehand) and the entire UN (who have their own intel sources, thanks) voiced their convictions on the matter before the war kicked off. Or were 17 brazenly flouted UN resolutions not enough?

-Rich

I would suggest that save yourself from your own professed ignorance. If you don't know what a presidential signing paper is, I suggest you find out now. Your rant has nothing to do with them. You have joined the rest of the howling masses that have no insight beyond the talking points passed out by their local pols or the fourth estate that has deserted the people. I guess you can get inspiration from Rush Limbaugh. Isn't he the fat old white dude who would have every poor (black, brown, or white)drug user put away, while he gets to doctor shop? That's the neocon movement all right.
By the way, you mention the Patriot Act? Odd how scoundrels can wrap themselves in the flag. Just like Iraqi Freedom.. We could have just as easily called it Iraqi Invasion, a rose by any other name.
You see, no one hanging in the right lane learned anything from our experiences elsewhere. The former National Security Adviser, now Secy of State, put it very accurately when responding to questions by the Sep 11 Commission. In reference to the daily PDB, "Why did the president not pay attention to the indications and threat analysis?" Quote, "He was tired of swatting at flies."
Give yourself a break and reduce the visceral and try the intellectual. It really is what separates us from the animals.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Actually I don't have a problem with that considering what is going on in the world at this time. I believe the info can be helpful, if they can see if certain patterns or certain numbers being called.

I wouldn't if it were done right. Quest had the right answer "get a warrant and you can have whatever you want." I'm very troubled by this blatant violation of the constitution. I keep thinking that the one thing our leaders have to pledge in their oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution!

What would have happened if this was used and utilized prior to 9/11 ???

It was! And besides, the NSA had Arabic messages on 9/10 that said something "tomorrow's the day." It wasn't translated until 9/12.

What do you guys think ????

I think we need to pay more attention to the thing that defines the LIMITED power of the federal government (the Constitution) and how it's being trampled.

Of course in my sick mind...we need to find out the right numbers of the Iraq embassy or North Korean or any other terrorists type orginization.

Those two governments are not terrorist organizations. Iraq was free of terrorists until we got there and gave them a cause to rally around.

If a bunch of us would start calling Osama Bin Laden's brother or something like that, wouldn't that screw everyone up at the NSA !!!!

They'd probably send us to Guantanimo for a while.

"Sir...there has been a spike in the calls today"
"Who are the calls going to ?"
"Terrorists groups, sir"

"and they're all armed with lots of sharp implements."

tell me what you think of this...

I think we need to vote all the incumbents out of office and start from scratch with some honest and competent people.

 

[Joe Lerch]

The problem I have with people who say that there is nothing wrong with this is that most of them do not realize how far this could go.

HAS gone!

Americans did not actually have a legal right to privacy until 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bill of rights contained non specific privacy rights. This ruling basically made it legal for people to buy birth control. (Griswold V. Connecticutt).

That is quite WRONG. Griswold just dealt with a certain right. The 4th amendment always gave you the right against search and seizure and has always required a warrant isued under due process. That's what interception of a private communication is. The constitution only mentions papers and such specifically, but that's the only kind of communication there was then. This is NOT an issue, and if we allow it to be placed in doubt we're giving away our sacred constitutional rights.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Still, I feel the pain that you guys to the south are feeling. There is so much falling off the rails, and so many questions that you people are just not getting answers for, and I really think that, contrary to assertions that you're headed for a Big Brother society, that you are already all suspects in the eyes of your governement.

How true! It takes someone distant from the propaganda to see the real picture.

The beginnig of the end was when the Supreme Court appointed the president instead of letting things progress constitutionally. Since then, it's been a downhill slide. Somewhere along the way we forgot that the government is supposed to answer to us, not vice versa. Now there is absolutely no oversight of the executive branch by the legislature, which is essential for a balance of power. The Constitution basically distrusts power (because it corrupts?) and had a system of balances which is now totally gone.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Last I checked, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, etc., etc., were all in force.

Rich I don't know where to start. I can't believe we're living in the same country. Or are you buying into all the propganda?

When you say we're at war, I think of the guy who is on trial for killing his parents and pleads for mercy because he's an orphan.

Before Nazism, Germany had a democratic government. At one point there was a fire in the house of parliament, and the next day the president issued a decree dispensing with most civil rights. The rest is history. Fear is the easiest way to destroy democracy. The first attack is on checks and balances. That's gone now. When was the last time the legislature investigated anything the executive has done and is doing? I don't know how old you are, but there has never been a time in my lifetime when that has happened (even during real wars).

The Declaration of I. tells us that the power belongs to the people. In the Constitution they gave certain powers to the federal government. That's ALL it has. Now, it's dictating to all of us. That's not our system.

We will survive if guys like you take off the rose colored glasses and face reality. Your message is rife with party politics, and the working rule is everything is OK if it's done by my party. Somewhere along the way, the party became more important than the Constitution and what's best for the country.

I'm fed up with the way our rights are being trampled through the use of fear. Somehow, the guys in the boondocks are the most fearful. I was 2 miles away when the planes hit the WTC. I could see everything from my office window. I had to go home in fear to NJ from a locked-down city, and I suffered the heartbreak and the stench of the fires for two months. I don't know many people around here who don't have a friend or relative who was a victim of the attack. A close friend of mine lost a son who was not yet out of his 20s.

But I'll tell you what, I won't sacrafice my rights. I'll take the risk to preserve them.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I do however have a problem with unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to create law rather than enforce it. It would appear they feel they are members of our legislative branch rather than the judicial branch.

On the Supreme Court, the most "conservative" judges (Rhenquist, Skalia, and Thomas) overruled statutes far more often than the others.[/QUOTE]

It's popular to say that judges make law when they rule in a way you don't like. But the judiciary has always been the last defense for the average man. The courts interpret the law and in doing so, they have to affect the effect of the law. But when they overrule a law, they're substituting their judgments for the legislatures. That's the true creation of law and the realm of the neocon judges.

Yup, you guessed it. I'm as conservative as they come.

Hugo Black was a conservative (and a great one). You are a neocon (read that "reactionary") you don't want to conserve anything. If you support what's going on, you want to go back (probably beyond) a day when robber barons controlled the country and the religious (or other) convictions of the few were imposed on all.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I personally have no issues with NSA tracking call patterns, or listening to calls from within the US to known terrorists.

Neither do I, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about half the country being monitored. And prosecutors are not hampered by FISA at all. In a pinch they can do what they need to and get a warrant retroactively up to 72 hours LATER.

Also, since when was leaking secret or top secret information potentially harmful to Americans not Treason?

Do you mean like the identity of a CIA agent working under cover to discover Iran's WMDs, with an entire facility being compromised and who knows how many foreign contacts being killed?

I am an American, and I think its ridiculous that we can vote for something only to have one judge slap it down...especially if it is not against the constitution....

You can vote for something unconstitutional, like requiring black people to sit in the back of the bus. And people did. It's the roll fo the court to overrule unconstitutional laws. Besides, Rhenquist, Skalia and Thomas did it more than all the other judges combined, during their term.

Clinton's lies about Monica only hurt himself, maybe a little of our national credibility, and Hillary.

And Bushes lie killed over 2,000 Americans, maimed more than ten times that and killed or maimed ten times that many civilians. Don't tell me about the bad intelligence that everyone had. Bush didn't divulge critical stuff to Congress. And there's ample evidence that what was relied upon eas cooked. And what about the Downing Street memo that divulged that early on Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what. What about the fact that he intended to do it long before 9/11?

You, my man, are ignorant. You are obviously getting your information from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Try reading a newspaper, any newspaper. If you want something conservative, great, just read the news.

 

[Rik]

Jim,

Most of the time, I just crack jokes and shine shoes around here...I'm not as smart as these other moderators in here....but it is a pleasure for me to be a part of B&B....ever once in awhile, I take a few minutes and ask a question or two...I want to hear everyones opinions.

Today, was a good day in here...and you didn't offend anyone in here, nor did anyone else....the points-counterpoints were well versed and better than what the newspapers have printed.

Boy, I got an ear full with this question, perhaps tomorrows questions, might be a bit more tamer.....

.....how's your Mother ? Wish her Happy Mothers Day for me....

mark the shoeshine boy

And here I thought you were going to bring up religion - or are you saving that one for Sunday.

 

[zaphf]

And Bushes lie killed over 2,000 Americans, maimed more than ten times that and killed or maimed ten times that many civilians. Don't tell me about the bad intelligence that everyone had. Bush didn't divulge critical stuff to Congress. And there's ample evidence that what was relied upon eas cooked. And what about the Downing Street memo that divulged that early on Bush was determined to invade Iraq no matter what. What about the fact that he intended to do it long before 9/11?

It's the nature of, well, everything to put your best case forward. There was evidence pointing to wmd, yes, it was overplayed. I do not doubt that Bush believed that WMD would be found. Those 2,400+ lives weren't wasted even without WMD in Iraq. No matter how much the media and the left are wishing it weren't so, Iraq isn't a failure. There is every indication that the population has become involved to stabilize the country, which is exactly what needed to happen.

“When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle” -- Louis Veuillot

Jihadism is a threat to western civilization. Unless you want your descendants living under Sharia law you better hope that the moderate Muslim view takes ascendancy because all westernized populations are decreasing due to low birth rates. Unfortunately, moderates don't have a voice in non-democratic power structures. Islam and all Middle Eastern countries EXCEPT Iraq and Isreal are non-democratic.

Too many people equate that opposition to the use of force is somehow noble instead of the gutless renunciation of their will to oppose organized evil.

 

[joel]

Hey fellas - while this is the barber shop, and it is a place to shoot the breeze, we still have to remember - this is a place for fun!

 

[mark the shoeshine boy]

Hey Fellas,

You sure have helped me understanding this subject. I appreciate all of your views. Be careful not to step on someone's toes by calling them names and maybe getting someone upset.

We might have a lady come in or something.

mark the shoeshine boy

 

[mark the shoeshine boy]

http://www.badgerandblade.com/vb/

 

[Scotto]

I think this thread has run its course. Some good, thoughtful commentary was posted on both sides. Obviously, no one is going to change their views based on this, so let's keep it civil, or preferably move on.

OK, W's shave: good or bad?

 

[Austin]

I think Tina shaves her mustache well.

 

[KUJO]

Tina somehow got one hell of a good shine on those shoes...