Basically, it’s like the difference between the word “sex” (as understood by Bill Clinton and his legal defense team) and the word “sex” (as understood by normal people).
My read on it is that the newly revealed program is indeed classified, but that somebody in the administration retains enough connection to political reality to recognize that to stand on this point would be generally perceived as an abuse of the classification system (to cover up a political embarassment).
I just assumed it was something we all knew already. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has a lawsuit pending against AT&T regarding their cooperation with the NSA for this data mining. Needless to say, this administration has attempted to intervene in the case and get is dismissed, but there is some interesting information here. I believe the lawsuit deals both with the actual wiretapping, as well as the “data mining”, that the government is doing.
It’s nice to see the President violating another law with impunity, and getting away with it. Accountability? Nah, that’s just for guys getting hummers.
Today, Bush referred to it (see my previous post) as “sensitive intelligence” (which doesn’t necessarily mean ‘classified’, of course) which was “leaked” (which suggests it was classified, but doesn’t definitively mean that).
That’s all’s I know.
That’s right. You wouldn’t want Farmer Jones back, would you? Napoleon is always right. Work harder, Boxer.
I don’t see what’s all the discussion is about. It’s a very simple process:
If you’re not doing anyting wrong you have nothing to fear.
You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.
Loose lips sink ships.
Papers, please.
I can point to several instances on this board where I’ve defended Democrats and criticized Republicans, including this administration.
Can you point to instances here where you have defended Republicans or praised this administration?
If you cannot, why do you predict I’ll be the one to change my tune if a Democrat gets in the White House?
Something isn’t quite right about this story, especially in light of Hamlet’s post. I think I’ll wait a few days for this story to get fleshed out (and for some comments from Democrats who knew about the program) befofe I get outraged. I’m sure Chris Matthews will be all over this one this afternoon.
I’m not rjung (thank heavens), but he may be referring to your condemnation of the FBI misusing FISA under the Clinton administration, and your apparent willingness to grant Bush every opportunity to violate the exact same law.
What this points out most of all is the STUPIDITY of the Bush Administration.
Reality is, this data mining operation in and of itself isn’t of much concern. What exactly can they do with this data? Not much. And the people worrying that this will let Bush arrest them in secret as terrorists? Get over yourselves.
Trouble is, did Bush expect this program to remain secret forever? This program would eventually become public. Yeah, yeah, we’re at war, we can’t fight a war with our hand tied behind our back, remember 9/11, all those excuses. OK, you’ve justified the program to yourself. Now, how’s it going to look on the front page of the Washington Post? Didn’t anyone in the administration worry about the political fallout WHEN (not if) this became public?
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that most EU countries do this sort of thing as a matter of routine. It’s not an unreasonable thing to do, and in the computer age we’re going to have to get used to the idea that every electronic transaction we engage in…purchases, web viewing, phone calls, emails, walking down the street…are at least potentially recordable. The upside is that there is so much data spewing out that there’s no way to monitor more than a miniscule fraction of it. And all this data is pretty meaningless anyway, even if some government spy is monitoring you closely, whether they had a warrant or not.
But you can’t keep this program secret. The companies that turned over this information to the government had no right to do so without informing their customers. And why are they even keeping this information anyway? (To answer my own question, saving information is easy, throwing away information is difficult and risky.) And the government has no right to collect data like this in violation of the law. If the law is unreasonable, change the law through the democratic process. What’s the point of keeping this sort of monitoring secret? You think Al Qaida operatives didn’t know that the government likes to monitor phones?
Except for the part where it may be illegal. Minor point, I know, but a point nonetheless.
And if you had a reason for suspicion that Those In Power might use a program like this against political enemies?
What would your response be then?
-Joe
Doesn’t Hentor’s post make this all moot?
Whether or not Bush was trying to deceive when he limited his statements to one program, while not commenting (or even letting anyone know about) a second, very similar program, the linked article says that domestic calls were listened to anyway.
I’m not going to call you names or anything, Bricker - it’s counter-productive, and you do, from my experience, argue in good faith. But your fits of exactness do seem to often miss the forest for the trees.
Aren’t you worried, when you agree this program is illegal, that it won’t be stopped? Don’t you recognize that nobody’s going to arrest anybody for this, and that it will never get before a court? Don’t you hate that Bush has found a de facto way to do many illegal things, and that there’s no real remedy? What do you think should be done? Do you think your
solves anything? Somebody has to challenge him, for him to have to make the case. And somebody else has to have the guts to call him on it when he does make the case. I don’t see anybody in our current government doing that, and it scares me, and it concerns me that others aren’t concerned.
If they have “tens of millions” of records in the phone call database, then either there are millions of known Al Qaeda affiliates in the country; or there are a few dozen, each making a million calls.
My outrage at having my civil liberties is violated is slightly tempered by my glee at seeing this merry brand of flaming incompetent dipshits caught with their hand in the cookie jar, YET AGAIN. We may see approval rating in single digits ere long.
What are we talking about here? HOW are they going to use this program against political enemies? You mean stuff like, say, finding out John Kerry makes 900 calls to gay chat lines? That sort of thing? Or stuff that would stand up in court? Or find out things like, “Greenpeace is going to hold a press conference about issue X tomorrow at 1:00. Let’s make sure we’ve got our talking points in response out to Limbaugh and O’Reilly before then.” Or stuff like, “That blogger just hung up his cell phone. He should be in the parking garage in 5 minutes, make sure there are no witnesses”?
Thing is, if someone wants to illegally harrass me or threaten me or such, the fact that it’s illegal to tap my phone or whatever isn’t going to stop them. And if it’s legal to tap my phone or monitor my calling patterns, how does that help them illegally harrass or threaten me? Likewise for criminal investigations. If the government has enough information to suspect me of some sort of crime, enough to justify some law enforcement agent to comb through my phone records, then they can already easily get a warrant to do so. If the government is willing to illegally harrass me for my political activity, how does not legally being able to monitor my phone activity restrain them?
I know 10 years ago there was this expectation that the internet would usher in a new age of anonymity. Except that’s clearly contradicted by the facts. It is extraordinarily difficult to throw away information, it is trivially easy to gather and aggregate information. Trouble is, is the information useful in any way?
Of course it seems to clearly be against the law to gather this information, and the phone companies probably broke the law as well when they handed it over. Breaking the law is wrong, mkay? Breaking the law when you know or should know that your lawbreaking is very likely to be made public is both wrong and stupid, whether or not a case can be made that the law should be changed. If this sort of data gathering has a legitimate purpose, then we can and should authorize it through the democratic process. If not, not.
I wouldn’t underestimate the ability to use this information against political enemies. It doesn’t have to be politicians-- we already know the pentagon was snooping into the affairs of anti-war groups (even the Quakers), so if you have a certain PAC with considerable phone traffice between certain anti-war groups, that could shine a light on the PAC that wouldn’t otherwise be there. But I’m concerned about this even if I can’t personally think of ways to use the data. There are a lot of bureaucrats out there with a lot of time on their hands.
Of course, any of us who watches “24” already knows that Chloe can hack into any computer system in about 5 seconds, and can tell you exactly how many people are in any building at any time. Bush is a piker compared to those guys! 
I was wondering how prominent conservative pundits and Bush loyalists (often, but not always, the same thing) would defend this. Here’s how.
Compare these to the comments on this thread. No matter where you fall on this issue, I think it’s interesting reading to ponder, for any number of reasons.
Yes, HUD is already discriminating against private contractors that admit ‘not liking’ the president:
HUD secretary’s blunt warning
Alphonso Jackson says deal was scuttled after contractor admits not liking Bush
The contractors wouldn’t have to admit anything if only the bureaucrats could check phone records to see if the business owner made any calls to known democrats. What a wonderful world that would be 
Oh, hey, here’s a thought, Bricker, you sanctimonious piece of shit.
Fuck yourself.
Y’know, I’ve always felt that everything I did was being monitored by a vast malignant entity for vague and inscrutable purposes.