And we’d have a far greater risk of abuse of that power without any public oversight. Such is the trade-off inherent in a democratic government of laws.
In any case, if you don’t actually feel that public knowledge of the program requires its cancellation, I think you and Evil Captor would argue your point far more effectively without the dishonest spin, e.g.:
Mmmm, not necessarily. Depends on what your purpose is. If deterrence is your goal, you’re better off with obvious surveillance. If you want to catch someone in the act, you’re better served by secret surveillance.
In this case, aren’t we trying to deter the activity? Don’t we want to keep the terrorists from being funded in the first place? You could argue that making this program widely known has made it more effective.
Temper, temper, little one. If the discussion is too frustrating for you, take a nap.
Well, good for you. Now you can keep jerking off about the decision to go to war or deal with the reality that we are there and that there are still people who would like to blow up another 3,000 of us… And just to refresh your memory the 3,000 people that were killed by the terrorists on 9/11 happened before we went to war. It’s the reason the subject actually came up. By the way, I was right about Miami Heat wining the NBA championship, even when they were down 0-2. Just thought I’d mention it.
Pay attention to the second word you wrote here and think about why you included it.
And was Libby or anyone else convicted of that crime? Has he even been charged with that crime? Has it been established by the prosecutor that a crime has even been committed? On top of that, I am quite shocked that you—someone who holds the rights of the people to be so sacrosanct would assume guilt. Or do you not believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty?
Still, as is implied by the NY Times, no laws were broken. So why the tizzy? We’re debaating. Or is that not what you thought happened on debate boards?
From what I understand, the SWIFT program was dealing with big bunches of transactions, and I don’t think a judge has any power to grant permission when looking at transactions that occured outside the U.S. by non U.S. citizens.
A waste? Nah. In fact, I seem to have been of some use here reminding people of why we’re even having this discussion. You remember, don’t you: the fact that 3,000 people were murdered in NY, Pennsylvania and Washinton, D.C. on 9/11?
Don’t you mean Evil One?
Kind of a Catch 22. Because you don’t know if they’re abridging your rights unless something is revealed. And I maintain that natioanl security will always involve secrecy and the classification of information. That said, I would gladly err way on the side of letting them keep national security secrets secret.
Let me clarify my position. I don’t trust politicians in the least. I think they’re all professional liars, who, as you say, are only interested on holding on to and increasing their power. But the fact remains that they are the ones that are tasked with our security. And I feel I have to trust them. I have no choice,. The only other option I see is second-guessiing them at every turn and having them reveal everything. And that wil NOT make us safer.
Ditto. But you are aware that this is a debate board, right? We’re all exspressing our opinions.
Shit! I always get the Evil posters mixed up. Sorry, Evil Captor.
Get Bush and his fellow Republicans out of power for one; the last thing they’ll do is try to hinder terrorism. It’s to their political benefit, after all, and the Republican leadership cares nothing for the lives or welfare of Americans. Then go after Osama for real, instead of going through the motions and using him for an excuse to invade countries and torture people.
The Republican Congress, and many of the Democrats, are “black-hearted men using the Constitution as toilet paper”. Why would I trust Congress to defend me, my rights or the country ?
Because it’s more likely to be used to profit Bush and the Republicans that track terrorists.
We aren’t in a war, except in Iraq, and we could end that by leaving. The terrorists aren’t a serious threat, and never have been. 9-11 was not a threat to America; it was an excuse for the Republicans to push their agenda.
Then you are being foolish. Never trust a liar.
You mean like incidents of torture, or killing the retarded in scientific experiments; those sorts of things ? You wish to give the government absolute veto on what is published ?
And 9-11 happened on whose watch ? At best, 9-11 is an example of Bushite incompetence; I consider it likely they let it happen for the political benefit. Either way, it’s one more example of why they shouldn’t be trusted.
Bolding mine. Ever hear of the Oklahoma City bombing ? The widespread lynchings of blacks by the Klan ? Terrorism in America is hardly unknown. The difference is, now the Bushites are in office, and they needed a bloody shirt to wave to justify their vile agenda.
It wasn’t a failure of intelligence. They were told, and did nothing.
Yes, but you are assuming abuse. Like it’s as fact that it will happen. The program was being used fgor quite a while and not only were/are there no accusations of abuse, the government instituted safeguards proactively.
Huh? The issue is effectiveness. Cancellation would render it 0% effective, yes, but it’s effectiveness has still be compromised. You’re attempting to couch it in those terms is what is dishonest.
Look, I know there have been all kinds of tears in the space-time continuum lately, but since when are conservatives arguing that we should trust the government in all cases?
I wouldn’t trust a convicted child molestor around children, either. Give the government power, and it will be abused if it can do so, and it always can if it’s secret.
< snickers > Since they are the ones in control of the government, of course. Government is only evil if non-rightys are allowed a say.
Ding, ding. Ding, ding. Medication time, medication time. Ding, ding. Please stop all basketweaving, finger painting, and dicussions with historical figures and report to the dispensary. Ding, ding. And yes, Der Trihs, you can keep you tin foil hat on again. Ding, ding…
I wonder how Bush can act all outraged about leaking vital national security secrets and still maintain a straight face, given that he still keeps Karl Rove on his staff (The Plame leak).
So, Are you advocating that the governement shold have ZERO secrets?
I’m not assuming abuse. I said there was greater potential for abuse without public oversight. Also note that you’re quoting our exchange about police tapping the phones of criminals, not the current program.
In the OP, Evil One equated the Times’ public disclosure of the existence of the program with the automatic ending of the program. You spoke up in strong agreement with him, sadly shaking your head over the bodies of 9/11 while asking others why they’d want to end such a successful program. It tends to lead one to conclude that you agree with his initial assertion that this public revelation will force an end to the surveillance program.
If its hypocrisy that concerns you, you might consider the hypocrisy of a powerful media outlet that expects to have unlimited access to sensitive information and an unquestioned right to reveal such informations as it pleases, while expecting at the same time to have an unlimited right to keep secrets of its own from both the government and the general public.
One wonders what the Times would have to say if someone published the names and pictures of their sources on a website.
But I’ve not argued that. I probably distrust government as much as any poster here (make that sane posters). I’ve stated that when it comes to national security that we have very little choice but to trust those in power. A degree of secrecy is inherent in national security.
Let me know how that works out for you.
Well, it makes us safer from our own politicians. Which, to me, is of much greater concern than being safe from terrorists.