Simple question, do you all the governements plans and programs concerning national security made public. If not where do you draw the line?
From my last post to wring:
I am willing to give the President—any President—great leeway in terms of national security because I know that much of what goes into those decisions won’t, cant, and shouldn’t be known by the populace. I have to depend on him to protect us, and I do not want to undermine thiose efforts. All the more reason to take great care with who you vote for.
I never understood the “They must be doing a good job, we haven’t had any attacks on US soil since 9/11” argument. Were there that many terror attacks on US soil *before * 9/11?
Could one of the people up in arms about this explain why you’re assuming the program now has to end simply because its existence was disclosed in the New York Times? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’d say that it is entirely within the realm of possibility. It’s been five years since 9/11, with no major terrorist attacks on US soil since then. What was the last major terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11? The Oklamhoma city bombing, a full six years previous. And if you want to limit it to Islamic terrorism, you have to go all the way back to 1993, and the first WTC bombing. Major terrorist attacks on US soil are a rarity. Whatever the effectiveness of the Bush administration’s efforts to combat terrorism at home, it’s been far too short a time line to say definitively wether or not it has been successful.
Giraffe asked why it has to be scrapped entirely, not why it might be less effective. Surveillance works better when the person being watched doesn’t know he’s being watched. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work at all if he does know he’s being watched.
Where do I draw the line? When it violates the Constitution. When the current administration has proven, time and time again, that it cannot be trusted.
What about you? Are you willing to give up your rights?
That was never a possibility – it’s obvious on the face of it that the government looks into bank transactions, for any of several reasons.
To forestall a predictable response, the exact details of how the government is watching don’t help, unless you’re in a position to fine-tune your activities in such a way as to avoid observation. That isn’t the case here (unless the terrorists are in a position to be micromanaging the banks’ operations*, all they can do to avoid the program is to not use banks at all, which is an option that was already evident and which creates a different set of problems and vulnerabilities).
*If they are in such a position, the program was already revealed to them through government contacts with the banking industry.
That’s not what I asked. While it might be more effective if it was secret, I don’t see how it is ineffective without secrecy. Do you think all terrorists are now going to stop using banks?
If the program of tapping the phones of criminals had been kept secret all these years, we’d probably catch a few more drug dealers. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t bother ever tapping phones now that the secret is out that it’s possible for the government to do so.
fuck you. and not in a good way. but I doubt that you know a good way.
see - I didn’t vote for the lying scumbag. And so I do get to be on the high fucking donkey 'cause I was one of the ones suggesting that the rationales for invading Iraq were less than the ‘slam dunk’ the lying scum claimed them to be.
It seems clear that the VP and Scooter actually gave the info to the reporter. VP isn’t being prosecuted 'cause he didn’t lie (much) afterward about having given her name. Several reporters testified under oath that they got the name from those guys. Try to keep up.
I know it’s confusing since the word ‘secure’ means more than one thing. You’ve claimed that there was congressional oversite over these matters, therefore, no reason to be concerned. and that allowing the people et al to know about it risks national security. But, you see, there is a third alternative - judicial oversite - as in warrents. as in the SOP of our criminal justice system, that except in very narrow circumstances, to get access to info like this program sought, you need to 'splain your case to a judge, including such info as who is being investigated, why you need the info, why you suspect wrongdoing and so on. And if the judge agrees, voila, you have your warrent, permission as it were, to get the info you claim is necessary. Congressional oversite isn’t the same things.
Either: Congress issues a rubberstamp and doesn’t examine individual cases (in which case the potential for governmental abuse is astoundingly high) or they’re given the same amount of detail a judge would have, and therefore why not use a judge. there’s lots more potential for leaks from several hundred Congress critters than from a judge. therefore, the informaiton that a search is being done is (and here’s the part that apparently confused you) is less secure w/congressional oversite than through traditional means.
you reallly are a trollish waste of oxygen aren’t you?
Because it seems to me that I recall the President saying that we were going to do exactly this a couple of years ago.
So the difference is in the amount of detail disclosed I imagine. And I am not discounting that; but I am trying to understand why it is a scandal to disclose the details but not the fact.
I got to agree with this. I think the “war on terror” is one of the most ridiculous expressions ever. Are we really saving that much time and space and energy by saying “war on terror” rather than “our efforts to protect America from terrorist attacks”? I guess it’s not as weird as Jack being a nickname for John, but still…
I’ve taken to referring to Bush as “Humpty-Dumpty”. When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
No, i don’t think so, although i’ll admit that i find it difficult to determine where the line should be drawn about which programs need to be kept secret.
The problem, in cases like this, is that we are asked and expected to rely on the integrity of the very group of people that has so often demonstrated so little integrity. I’m not sanguine about the ability of Congress or the Administration to make good-faith determinations about what we should and should not know; on too many occasions, they’ve made such determinations “for our own good” which, upon later inspection, turn out to have been more for their own good.
That’s my more general response. On this particular issue, i tend to agree with those who have argued that the simple exposure of this program’s existence does not eliminate its usefulness or negate it potential for finding terrorists. After all, as folks like Giraffe have pointed out, it’s going to be tough for terrorists to simply stop using banks.
And who knows? Perhaps the exposure of the program will lead to abnormal banking activities that will actually help expose these alleged terrorist organizations. After all, if the doomsayers are right, then surely the terrorists will all suddenly withdraw their money and run? And if their banking habits don’t change, then how much damage did the leak do anyway?
The fact is, in the modern world of finance, most transactions leave a trace of some sort, and the simple knowledge that such transactions are being observed does not necessarily give the terrorists the huge advantage that some people seem to be claiming. Sure, some or all of them might change their patterns and their habits, but this could, in itself, provide information to intelligence gatherers.
Well, i shouldn’t be surprised that you missed the point.
People who constantly claim their own moderateness or pragmatism while accusing others of being “ideological” are generally also the sort of folks who can’t recognize their own ideological biases. Your own position on this debate is, in itself, ideological, and the fact that you label it “pragmatic” doesn’t change that.
I find it disturbing that the filing of any charges, or possible prosecution, were even discussed and considered. It is the decision of the Times whether to publish or not. It is their decision whether something is newsworthy. They have to decide which will do more damage - to publish or not publish. It is strange. Very strange. The Times was almost in deep shit for reporting a program that some people in government were leery of - they weren’t sure if it was legal or not, this financial traffic monitoring. Similarly, some in government were not too thrilled with the “legality” of the wiretap program. Both times, Bush blasted these “seditious leakers”. However, when the leak comes from the White House for political purposes, that’s uhhh different. Also, let’s not forget that one time the papers were sweet talked into not reporting something until after the election. I think it was Plamegate and Niger yellow cake, maybe the Downing memo, but it’s been a while. When the story was finally released, once again the newspapers were traitorous America hating troop endangerers (or something).
This is one of the most secretive administrations we’ve seen in a long while. Secrets are like roaches. For every one you see, there are thousands hiding in the walls. The bigger pattern is, every thing that is critical is “evil” and helps The Enemy. This administration simply can not handle criticism. If they had their way, I think they would criminalize criticism.
No, that’s not it. Would you give up your right to know about how your government is abridging your rights and invading your privacy in order to fight terrorists?
This is where we differ. I am not willing to give a President much leeway. I am basically mistrustful of our (or any) government and I most certainly distrust this President.
Maybe it’s because I’ve worked around politicians and government. Maybe it’s my age (one of my first current event-type memories is watching the Watergate hearings on TV.) I don’t know. But I have very little innate trust for our elected officials and think that they need to be very closely watched. In my experience they are interested in one thing only – getting power and holding on to it.