Setanta wrote:As i have pointed out, your partisan rant is not relevant to this thread. What you allege as "typical" is therefore not relevant either--this thread doesn't have a partisan basis. When i see someone ranting on the basis of partisan hatred, i am usually uninclined to play their nasty little games with them. That applies in this circumstance.
You continue to prove my point and refuse to address the subject with any constructive and positive opinion on the data mining program. Surely you must recognize the scrutiny and attacks on NSA have a fairly large political component to it. To deny that is ignoring a large aspect of this debate. I am not excited about my phone calls being analyzed, but I also need to look at this in light of the realities of today's world, and the tradeoffs we may need to have here, especially when we are talking about very minimal and probably very innocuous intrusions here, which happen every day on a regular basis with virtually everything we do. And historical context is important in terms of past practices and established legality of some things. Legality is controversial, and will probably be better established, but in the meantime I don't see how our rights are being abused in any very significant manner. I don't see these things as so blatant to get all worked up over. I see the timing and scope of reporting as mainly politicly motivated.
Yes.
Unfortunately, I have to get to the office. We can take this up another time.
(I am NOT a shameless hussy. I didn't intentionally hijack this thread. Snood is just so irresistible...)
sigh
Of course it is. You see, the problem is that most Conservatives have a general sort of contempt for terrorists. They don't believe that they are smart. They don't believe that they think things through.
Therefore, they can't imagine that the terrorists know that the US is trying to catch them, that they know that there are different ways of communicating that don't involve telephones or the internet. Their societies, btw, have had ways of communicating and transferring money in secret for hundreds, if not thousands of years, in the case of Middle Eastern Terrorists; do you think they are a bunch of little kids, running around like fools, Okie? Obviously not.
I don't believe terrorism is the biggest danger to our country. Not by a long shot. It never has been. It is only a tool used to scare people.
I would remind those who disagree that during the turn of the century, terrorism was a giant problem - the last century, circa 1900. People were blowing themselves up left and right here in America. We survived it then without curtailing our civil liberties, we'll survive it now without doing so.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:You see, the problem is that most Conservatives have a general sort of contempt for terrorists.
We at least agree on something. But, I don't view it as a problem for conservatives, but instead a problem for liberals.
Speaking of history, okie, remember John Poindexter's TIA program, which Congress tried to kill in a huge BIPARTISAN push because it posed an egregious violation of civil liberties (the House vote was 407-15 against it). This is TIA, same objective, same techniques (which Congress specifically said no to). They took it off the books and gave it to the NSA, as a acouple whistleblowers told us in '03. It's illegal. The vote against it, I remind you was BIPARTISAN. There ain't anywhere near 407 Dems in the House. Your saying this is just politics is bullsh*t.
How many times do we have to kill the Bush vampires before they stay dead?
okie wrote:You continue to prove my point and refuse to address the subject with any constructive and positive opinion on . . . etc., etc., blah, blah, woof, woof . . .
You prove my point and continue to attempt to introduce a partisan element into my non-partisan remarks.
Quote:Surely you must recognize the scrutiny and attacks on NSA have a fairly large political component to it.
There isn't anything political about defending Civil Liberties. I didn't like the TIA program, and spoke against it; I didn't like Echelon, and spoke against it; I didn't like the grossly-misnamed PATRIOT act, and spoke against it; Now, I am speaking against this curtailment of our Civil Liberties.
Those who are arguing for the curtailment of Civil Liberties haven't changed their tune in years. It is only the details which have shifted. They don't believe in a right to privacy, they don't believe there are limits on what the Governement should know about their own citizens. It really speaks volumes about the Authoritarian/paternalistic mindset, and it never fails to surprise me that this mindset is so intertwined with Authoritarian, Paternalistic Religions.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote: It really speaks volumes about the Authoritarian/paternalistic mindset, and it never fails to surprise me that this mindset is so intertwined with Authoritarian, Paternalistic Religions.
Cycloptichorn
Woe!! You people constantly amaze me. Are you in favor of any social order or laws at all? Is that where this whole debate has gone? Are we to conclude here that liberals are really just a bunch of rebels that believe in - if it feels good, do it, and please do not watch me or give me a guilt trip about anything? After all, guilt is fictional and the idea of right and wrong is merely a religious notion with no basis in fact? And terrorists are merely a harmless bunch of helpless victims from downtrodden countries that hate people because they have been mistreated in the past by religious nut imperialist countries, namely the United States? Ignore them and the problem will disappear? Is that what it boils down to here?
No. If you read my post, you will see that I didn't actually say any of those things you said.
Instead, my post refers to the 'trust me' model of government - the authoritarian model of government - that most of those who support spying and reduction of civil rights seem to prefer. I was making a comparison between this POV and the POV of Authoritarian, Paternalistic religions: namely, Christianity and Islaam.
I find it funny that we are told the terrorists hate us because we have freedoms, so the way to fight them is to remove our freedoms. And then the same people talk about how appeasement is the worst strategy in the world. Something of a logical disconnect there.
Cycloptichorn
Cy,
I have come to believe.
Quote: don't believe terrorism is the biggest danger to our country. Not by a long shot. It never has been. It is only a tool used to scare people.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/espionage_and_intelligence
Lawyer: Ex-Qwest Exec Ignored NSA Request
AP - 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Telecommunications giant Qwest refused to provide the government with access to telephone records of its 15 million customers after deciding the request violated privacy law, a lawyer for a former company executive said Friday. For a second day, the former National Security Agency director defended the spy agency's activities. In a written statement, the attorney for former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio said the government approached the company in the fall of 2001 seeking access to the phone records of Qwest customers, with neither a warrant nor approval from a special court established to handle surveillance.
A couple of other options
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/11/2383/
Quote:If you're not wild about having your personal info handed over like that, here are some other options:
T-Mobile
Sprint
Nextel
Some may be locked into contracts but for othersÂ…well, maybe it's time to take the Blackberry plunge
[snip]
Qwest refused to comply with the government's request. If you're an AT&T, Verizon or Bell South home customer and you want to find out if you're eligible for Qwest services (DSL, wireless, long distance, VoIP) you can do so here.
Just a thought here, how come the government can tax something without having a right to review the records they are taxing? If they can tax it, looks like they can review the records. If the records are indeed private, how come they've gotten away with taxing the people billions on use of the phone lines. Which brings up another question, is the federal government violating my right to privacy by demanding I report all of my earnings and investments. Plus I have to record where I went in my car, when, my mileage, my personal expenses, motels, meals, bla bla bla, the list goes on, just so I can try to keep them from charging me more in taxes. I think those records are just as private, perhaps moreso, than a record of my phone calls.
I think our geniuses in congress and the press are asking the wrong questions at the wrong time about not much. Seems like an exercise in how to waste time and money instead of doing something constructive.
Aren't Americans traditionally against government involvement?
I always that was a sort of basic principle of what being in a republic was supposed to be all about. America's a republic. It's not meant to be a democracy.
Always odd to see Republicans/right-of-American-centre folks posting in support of increased government involvement/interference/taxation. I always wonder what that does to the inside of someone's brain.
okie wrote:Just a thought here, how come the government can tax something ....
The government taxes my food. Does that mean they get to eat it?
I get taxed on the clothing I purchase. Does that mean Bush can ruffle through my closet?
I get taxed when I put gas in my car. Can someone from the government show up and take it for a spin?
I bought new shoes the other day and got taxed... Course, the government is always welcome to come walk in them for a day! May open their eyes.
I like your answer squinney...
Okie,
I also keep records for tax purposes. I don't send them to the government unless they ask for them. The government can only ask for them in relationship to my taxes. The IRS is NOT allowed to share that information with any other agency of the government. The government doesn't SECRETLY obtain my driving records or my receipts.
parados wrote:I like your answer squinney...
Okie,
I also keep records for tax purposes. I don't send them to the government unless they ask for them. The government can only ask for them in relationship to my taxes. The IRS is NOT allowed to share that information with any other agency of the government. The government doesn't SECRETLY obtain my driving records or my receipts.
Agreed. I knew your answers before you answered and realize some of my questions here would be labeled non-applicable to what we are dealing with here, but nevertheless I think my points have some validity. Also, if you buy something to wear, you own it. Not the case with airwaves, using the phones, etc. You are being provided access to a service owned by other companies and regulated by the federal government. In no way do you own that. Law enforcement routinely obtains all kinds of records and information on people concerning what they have done, such as motels, rental cars, phone records, etc. etc. etc., including innocent people, to track down criminals. I am simply bringing up some questions here, only a few of the countless questions in regard to this. Many of these things are a product of modern technology that has not yet been fully aired in the courts and become settled law.
Quote:Also, if you buy something to wear, you own it. Not the case with airwaves, using the phones, etc. You are being provided access to a service owned by other companies and regulated by the federal government. In no way do you own that.
I always thought they were public airwaves. The purpose of the government regulating them has been that they are public and no one company (or the government) was to control them.
Quote:Law enforcement routinely obtains all kinds of records and information on people concerning what they have done, such as motels, rental cars, phone records, etc. etc. etc., including innocent people, to track down criminals.
Yes, they do routinely obtain these records WITH WARRANTS AND PROBABLE CAUSE SHOWN.
