Maybe the fact that the telcos are constantly going to the DoJ for permission to acquire other telcos has something to do with it.
This is true, since the program actually involves hundreds of millions of Americans.
Bricker, why do you hate the Constitution so much? When did you become anti-American? Was it greed or hatred for freedom that led you to this dark place you inhabit? Tell us more about the advantages of fascism. And take your goddamned “grown up table” talk and shove it up your fascist ass. Are you a paid shill, or you do suck Bush dick for free?
I’m going to call a number in Pakistan and sing “You can get anything you want at Alice’s Resturant” then hang up.
If one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and
they won’t record him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t record either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people callin up,
singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and hanging up? They may think it’s an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day calling up singin a bar of Alice’s Restaurant and
hanging up? And friends they may thinks it’s a movement.
And that’s what it is , the Alice’s Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is call Pakistan and sing.
I heard today that the other telcos were under contract to NSA, and received large consulting fees to provide the databases.
The USA Today article provides more insight into the respect the Bush administration has for the law:
Laws are so inconvenient.
How is this different from letting the grocery store or pharmacy keep track of what you buy via those discount cards?
One is gov’t, and one is not, but either way, your privacy is being invaded.
Does the pharmacy have the power to screw up and throw me in prison?
I gave the grocery store or pharmacy permission to keep track of what I buy using those discount cards. I also retain the right to just not use my discount card (and pay cash for my purchases) on any given transaction, even if my discount card would get me a buy-one-get-one-free special on the Vaseline, 10% off on the Viagra, and a dollar off the cover price of this month’s edition of Britney Spears Magazine.
It entirely depends on who is creating the definition of “terrorist.” Will they be counting generally seditious comments as being a mark of a domestic terrorist? How about if you strenuously and vociferously speak out about the current administration? How about if you’re a loudmouth wiseass who has a great sense of irony and not much tact? Even if they decide after a “quiet word” that you’re not really a terrorist, how many people will be taken away for that intimate conversation? The implications are frightening.
While I would like to be worked up about this, I just can’t manage it. It’s just one more example of how advancing technology makes it easier and easier to erode privacy. For example, every time I purchase pseudoephedrine, it’s logged and tracked. Once upon a time, practicality would have prevented that kind of monitoring from being instituted, but no more. Now it’s cheap and easy. In an increasingly connected world, I expect privacy will come to be defined more and more narrowly over time. I don’t like it, but I don’t think there is any chance of the trend reversing.
You can get anything you want at Alice’s restaurant…
They are “linked” in that they are both mentioned in the article. The article makes clear the distinction between the two programs, however. Baldwin quoted a line by Bush that was not a lie, and then screeched about how Bush lies. That’s idiotic.
Now, this program gives me grave concerns. I don’t think it’s unreasonable or unconstitutional, but it is illegal. There is a law against it: 47 USC § 222. It bugs me (no pun intended) greatly that the administration would choose to simply ignore the law. But let’s criticize THAT, and not criticize Bush for lying based on a line that wasn’t a lie.
This program does not implicate the Constitution. And I don’t hate the Constitution.
Never have.
I don’t agree that I inhabit a dark place, or that I’m motivated by either greed or hatred of freedom.
“More” implies that I’ve begun the discussion. I haven’t. I don’t favor fascism.
No.
False dichotomy.
But as in the illegal wiretaps, can’t the President simply declare the law contrary to the war on terror, and thus legitimize the current program? This is why we can’t let them get away with it once, or they will be emboldened to push the envelope even further. Pretty soon, the “unitary executive” is indistinguishable from a dictator.
As near as I can tell, Parachinar, a sleepy little berg just East of Tora Bora, could be reached from the US by dialing 011 92 52 43…and then I’m not sure. From the looks of it, Pakistan phones use anywhere from 2 to 7 numbers. I might just hit the number pad randomly, avoiding using 1’s and 2’s as the first digit after 43.
I think I’ll pick up a calling card on my way home. Oh man. This is going to get me on to that group W bench for sure.
I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. They are not monitoring calls, they are tracking patterns. And since the paper has announced that Qwest is not co-operating with the NSA, terrorists are able to “hide” by using Qwest.
They’re only doing this to track patterns and try to identify how terrorist cells communicate with each other. Considering the vast number of phone calls made every day, I think this is more of an overall view, similar to how grocery stores track purchases. They may not know specifically that Mrs. Jones buys three gallons of milk every Wednesday, but they do know that women 25-54 are more likely to buy more than one gallon of milk than men 18-36.*
The President is welcome to make the case that the law unconstitutionally infringes his duties as CinC. I don’t buy it, but he’s surely welcome to try.
To me, the line is drawn between overseas and domestic communication. I buy the concept that communications outside the country, especially to countries with which we are at war, are subject to monitoring. I would personally draw the line, though, at purely internal communications.
You are quite possibly the biggest twanker on the internet. If there were a google twanker search, you’d pop up at slot number one.
If I ask an employee if he took money from petty cash, and he insists “gosh, no!” but fails to tell me he actually did take some money from the coffee fund, that employee is intentionally deceiving me. Whether it fits your narrow, convenient definition of a lie or not, it’s dishonesty.
Likewise, the president was asked a question about domestic telephone monitoring, and he choose to emphasize the type of monitoring that wasn’t being done domestically without disclosing what was being done. It was clearly active deception, and close enough to a lie not to jump all over someone for using the word.
My understanding is that the White House construes the power of the unitary executive as empowered to take whatever measures necessary to prosecute the war against Al Qaeda, as granted by Congress in the authorization for war. They don’t see the law as unconstitutional, simply as not binding on the President in time of war.
Sorry, you must not have seen many of my posts before. I agree with you totally - what I said was sarcasm. But you see how I phrased things? You can either meekly shut the hell up because you’re not a terrorist (aka the John Mace route) or you can admit you have a problem with it…and why would you have a problem with it unless you’re a terrorist?
These days, though, terrorist and liberal are pretty much the same thing in certain corners.
-Joe
…which is illegal.(as Bricker pointed out) If our government breaks the law, how can they stand there and demand that its citizenry abide by those same laws. They have a rubber stamp court (FISA), as it is. It would have been simple just to take the program to the court and have them sign off on it. Now why didn’t they do that? Are they afraid of leaks? Or are they afraid that maybe someone will call them on their misdeeds? The system was set up so that there would be a check on governmental excess. Checks and balances, right? Well, it seems too often, the check was ignored. You do that often enough, the system becomes worthless.
There have been too many lines drawn in the sand, and too many times, this administration has crossed them with impunity.