You’re right. After looking at the polls I can see that on this particular issue most Americans aren’t as concerned as I am. Of course, I think their trust is misplaced. In my opinion they are willing to sacrifice our liberties too easily.
We on the left have not been responsible for getting the current Administration’s approval ratings down and we don’t take credit for it. Certainly Democrats in Congress have done nothing to overwhelm the right with their brillance in contrast. But nether the media nor the Democrats have to stir things up. The saga of the Bush Administration keeps unfolding.
I don’t expect the media to sit on the truth anymore than I expect them to reveal sources. They are not Pravda.
The opinions of people on the right are important in this country and so are opinions from the left. You wish to impugn our motives? We tell you straight out what our motives are all the time. Which motives do you doubt? What is it that you think we are hiding?
Speaking only for myself, I am glad that Bush’s poll ratings are dropping. It weakens us any time that a president does a poor job. But it is a relief to see that the country is not so partisan that they are blind to it.
I wish you peace. You have always been considerate of me.
BTW, if the Republicans could get Fred Thompson (former Sen. R. TN) to run in '08, they would have a chance at my vote.
Well, sure. Instead of blaming Clinton, or blaming Bush or using every little piece of partial information to make a political argument, why don’t we actually try to figure out what is going on and decide whether or not it’s appropriate and necessary and legal and consistent with the Constitution.
James Randi once said that the easiest way to lose an argument is to overstate your case.
In this example, the case has been overstated to the point where it’s become self-obfuscating.
Well no, I’m being pretty specific. The Lefties who are grabbing onto this primarily to cause damage to Bush are missing the boat and behaving stupidly as are the Righties who are automatically defending it.
I don’t even know about illegal. My guess is that the collection and existence of such a database by the Government is neither. I’m guessing the real issues of legality depend upon how it is used.
For example:
My guess would be if the Government thought their was a terrorist in New Jersey in contact with some guy in California who was in contact with some guy in Afghanistan, and they searched for a pattern of phone calls to determine that the number in California had been called by several businesses, pay phones, and bars and restaurants and that several cell phone calls had originated… all in Fort Lee New Jersey, and, if they used that info to try to track down the guy in an investigation… that would be proper and lawful and necessary.
If, on the other hand, Hamlet is annoying to somebody and they happen to look up his phone records as a way to dig up dirt, than that would be unlawful and improper.
The problem is that I can’t see the database being used for the former without the latter coming into play, especially since it seems a private individual can do the same thing the government is doing and collect those same records on whomever he/she wants.
Oh, I agree. Don’t you think though that the timing of this rehash is suspect?
I doubt the left moves as one with a single set of motivations. I do think sadly that the gestalt of the left has as its prime motivation to make Bush look bad, and because of that a lot else is secondary that shouldn’t be.
Not you specifically. You seem perfectly reasonable and nice for a left-wing nut job
About a year and a half ago, I renounced my Republicanism. I am still very much a conservative in most all ways, except socially.
I could use some peace. Right back at ya.
Leiberman would have gotten mine. Bill Bradley would, too.
Giuliani versus Bradley I would go to the polls smiling, not really caring who won.
I spent 10 minutes looking at that crap before drowning in idiotic rhetoric and hyperinflated egos. Is there a point in there somewhere, or is it just the typical crap? If you could, just boil it down for me, because, tonight, I’m not going through Rush’s blustering to try and find any nugget of facts.
I would have thought 10 minutes would have gotten you through everything
Kind of like I did with your Mediamatters cite, you have to look past the slant.
I don’t know if it’s just Rush’s cite, or all of 'em. So, I’ll hit all of 'em"
1st cite, Google search: The point is you can buy phone records for other people on the open market, so the Government isn’t getting anything that isn’t available on the open market.
2nd cite, Andrew McCarthy at NRO: Datamining and maintaining of databases by the Federal Government is hardly the strict purview of the NSA, as our elected officials spend huge amounts of money doing the same thing.
3rd cite, New York Sun: Examples of partisan bickering. One of the things I’ve been discussing has been the attempt by the Democrats to use this as a smear against Bush, and the equally partisan “Clinton did it first,” defense on the part of the right. Since we seem to agree that this has been going on for a while and is a bipartisan attack on our civil liberties, one side blaming the other is hardly justified. Which doesn’t stop some:
““This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people,” said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.” I guess as opposed to 2000 and earlier when it was an example of the Democrats misleading the poeple, or, more intelligently, who is being misled since we’ve known about this almost 10 years?
"Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program “abusive” and said “Today’s shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can’t look the other way.”
Exept, I guess if it’s your guy that sets it up, Ted, you hypocrite!
"Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news “disturbing.” Senator Clinton pronounced herself “deeply disturbed.”
Well, at least Hillary has a point. She has the right to feel deeply disturbed over things her husband did.
"Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act “to make clear a telecommunications carrier’s duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.” The act made clear that a court order isn’t the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, “A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization.”
“The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies’ “duty” to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment “enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier.” Again, the law, by referring to “other lawful authorization,” states clearly that a court order isn’t the only form of lawful authorization possible”
Which I guess means Ted doesn’t know what he’s talking about since it has and his that voted this into being. He can hardly blame it on the Rebublican control of the houses since he made it happen when his party was in control (and gave 500 million for the monitoring equipment)
Why the fuck is this jackass complaining?
Last cite, El Rushbo, America’s Anchorman: Does a back of the envelope calculation and puts phone use in America at 100,2000 hours per day, making eavesdropping impossible (I gues Rush forgot about the computers that are looking for keywords like you whispering “jihad” into the baby monitor, so not much of a point, there.
Cite to the washington post saying that 63% of people favor such a program as is occuring (which may serve to contradict Zoe’s claim of a groundswell against this thing and enhance my position that we are seeing an attempt to create a scandal)
Not that I think that this is good regardless of how many people support it, just saying.
"So maybe we don’t need this giant wake-up call. Maybe we just see another example here of the Drive-By Media driving by, lobbing a bunch of gunfire into the crowd creating a panic. The only people they are panicking are a bunch of Democrats and leftists who use every news story like this as an effort to attack the president, to invest in the defeat of this country, and to set the stage for potentially impeaching George W. Bush. "
Hey, just what I said!
We have links to the USA today story as well as the original Dec 16 NYT story so we can compare the two.
“There is no warrant necessary for this. The phone company doesn’t need a warrant to get the information to bill you for the calls that you are making. You don’t need a warrant to have that sent to you in your bill every month.”
An interesting argument especially in light of the court case you cited which directly bears on this.
"They must have missed this. December 18, 2005, NewsMax, "During the 1990s, under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls, placed by US citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
"In fact, the USA has been monitoring private domestic conversations on a much larger scale throughout the '90s, all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks. "
Oh, and it was Rush that turned me on to the 60 Minutes report which you found interesting.
“What about those of you who have to cross bridges, turnpikes, or use EZ Pass, those things that let you go through without stopping at a toll booth, do you know how you are being tracked? Do you know they know who you are? Of course you know that. You use your internet web browser. Do you realize how many people out there have your IP address? It is no different than your phone number. You think you are surfing the web in private and nobody knows where you are going? Every website you go to knows who you are by virtue of your number. All right, folks. This is absurd. There was no monitoring of calls, but it happened during the Clinton administration. Nobody did anything about it. Even after the 60 Minutes report. Drive-By Media didn’t care. Oh, no, no, no. Because Bill Clinton, why, he was interested in doing the best thing he could do for the country.”
Hmmmm. EZPass, hadn’t thought of that. Credit cards. Hmmm. I’ll bet you they have all that shit on us, don’t they?
So, yes there was the usual bluster and guff and ego, but also a lot of useful info and links.
That was fun. I don’t mind summarizing things for you.
Tell you what. I’ll be glad to do it anytime. We don’t need cites anymore. Just listen to me and I’ll tell you what to beleive and what to think. Ok?
Trust in me.
The six-year evolution of the Bush lick-spittle. From “There’s nothing wrong here. You’re just complaining because you’re a Bush hater” to “Well, geez, that is wrong. But you’re just complaining because you’re a Bush hater.”
Why is Scylla framing so much of his argument around whether other people are upset about violations of civil liberties only for the political damage that it does to Bush? How is he able to continue to do so while at the same time crying for a dispassionate unbiased review of the matter? Why is his dispassionate unbiased review of the matter so full of shit? Confused? You won’t be after this episode of But Clinton, But Clinton.
Does anyone know exactly when the phone companies were asked/paid/ or pressured into turning over this specific data to the NSA? When did Qwest refuse? Is this old news or something new? What evidence is there that USA Today been sitting on this particular part of the story?
I don’t go in much for reading the entire text of legislation, myself, but, some time ago, I was given to understand that legislators are occasionally considerate enough to provide definitions of terms somewhere in the text of the laws they propose.
Is it too much to hope that a definition of the term “lawful authorization” was provided in the text of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994?
Maybe something indicating whether or not only law enforcement agencies were eligible to submit the “lawful authorization” and receive data in exchange? If such were the case, would it require contortionist skills rarely seen outside Cirque du Soliel to construe the NSA as a Law Enforcement agency, or is the NSA already generally recognized as such?
Anything limiting who else in government the Law Enforcement agencies are permitted to share with?
You keep saying that you want simply to review the matter without politicization. Then you keep politicizing it by claiming that others’ motivations are base and political. It’s a tried and true Republican tactic to both attempt to distract from the discussion by trying to get the other side to defend against some extraneous and irrelevant charge, and to try to game the system by crying out about how unfair the whole thing really is. Sad, pathetic and consistent.
If you really want to have an unbiased discussion of the matter, you should start by doing just that. I challenge you to see if you can go the rest of the thread without even typing and deleting anything about how people who are upset about this practice are only upset because it’s politically damaging to Bush. If, of course, your own interest is really an apolitical consideration of the matter. If in fact that really is your desire, you might do well to join the GD thread on the topic, or start your own GD thread.
You can also find child porn, prescription medication, and stolen property on the internet, so it’s OK? Members of the public can break into my house and steal my stuff, so the government should be able to also? Completely meaningless.
Databases and data mining aren’t illegal. Using evidence illegally obtained is. It’s these subtle, and by subtle I mean huge, gaping, and visible to anyone with the IQ of a squid, differences that matter.
You know, Frank complimented us on not talking past each other, and discussing the issues. I really want to continue to do that, but if all you bring to the table is this kind of meaningless rhetoric and politician bashing, I see no reason to continue, and you and whoever your latest political foil is, can continue the brainless namecalling.
Holy cow! An actual legitimate argument, albeit with some Clinton did it thrown in, without resorting to silly partisan namecalling. How refreshing.
Well, it was fun while it lasted. You made it almost 3 paragraphs, I’m proud of you Scylla! The journey of a million miles begins with the first step.
Now, to get to the issue, what to you consider “other lawful authorization” that means the NSA’s did not violate this particular law. Asking? President Bush says so? What are you hanging your hat on to make this argument, because I’ve never seen a court accept “we wanted it” to be “other lawful authorization”.
The Bush administration has not been accused of wiretapping every single telephone call made in America. Yet.
What are you saying, then? Why bring it up, over and over again?
Kudos! You are the perfect parrot of a thoughtless partisan hack!!! Looks like you can update that resume of yours!
But it is also illegal for the telephone company to turn over those records to the government without a court order. What I think you are trying to say is also an argument in the Smith v. Maryland case, that, since the telephone company has access to the information about who and where you dialed, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Which is an argument the majority accepted, which is why I stated it may very well be constitutional.
In fact, it is the same argument, but it still does nothing about the statutory violations.
And, as we discussed before, you have George Tenet, and Michael Hayden testifying that Echelon (whatever it is) has not monitored US citizens without court orders.
Of course, it’s absurb. To think that when you voluntarily give up a bit of your privacy, you must give it all up to the government is patently absurd.
Well, not in the USA Today article, but the NYT article, and the white house has admitted, the NSA has wiretapped US citizens.
Same ole’ same ole’.
Thanks for the hard work, it must’ve been tough on you.
Here’s how I would’ve boiled it down, leaving out the partisan rhetoric, bloviating, Clinton did it!, Clinton did it, and irrelevant side topics:
Calea, under it’s statute, allows for the government to obtain telephone records not only with a court order, but also with any "other lawful authorization."
One sentence would’ve sufficed, because it is the only salient point in all your rhetoric and Democrat bashing. I should’ve known it was too much to ask of you, you know, to focus on the issues and leave the partisanship to others, but I’m an optimistic guy.
Well, since Scylla seems to be so VERRRRY concerned about the motives of persons who have posted to this thread:
I haven’t posted on this issue because I want another excuse to bash George Bush. At this point, why bother? I posted because I object to the government flouting its own laws, because I don’t see any particular reason why the government has to know who I have called, or who has called me, as a matter of course, because I object to secret government-sponsered fishing expeditions, and because I object to telephone companies violating their written privacy policies without informing their customers.
Hey, Hamlet, I was enjoying the actual discussion also. I know it’s hard to keep emotions out (I’m as guilty as anyone, and hell, it’s a pit thread), but your post would’ve been just as strong without these clauses. It makes it tougher for someone to agree with you, because it’s like tacitly agreeing that they are truly stupid. Let someone agree with you while maintaining their dignity, and sometimes it works.
How does this blog from ABC’s Brian Ross make you feel?
If this is true, then the confidentiality of sources will be quite difficult to maintain in the future and illegal activity by the government will be hidden behind a thicker smoke screen. Whistleblowers within government agencies will be silenced for fear that phone contacts with reporters will draw attention. Enough is enough- either we control this monster or it controls us.
