NationStates Jolt Archive

Only problem is, he's claiming that they used electronic surveillance. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043) Video at that link.

And in other shocking testimony, Gonzales said--not under oath, because the Republicans on the committee voted to not swear him in (wonder why that is?)--in this exchange with Joe Biden, that the reason we have to keep spying programs secret is because terrorists forget that we're trying to listen in on their conversations.

BIDEN: Thank you very much. General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true - you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.
I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?

So if our media didn't report it, al Qaeda would forget that we monitor them?

So if our media didn't report it, al Qaeda would forget that we monitor them?
Maybe the Attorney General, aka Head Asshat, should stop giving public speeches to say the same incorrect and side-stepping bullshit as usual so al Qaeda will forget we are here.

So if our media didn't report it, al Qaeda would forget that we monitor them?
Dude, if al Qaeda is that stupid, then how stupid are we for not being able to beat them by now? I mean really, does Bush really want his team going around talking about how we've been utterly unable to catch a bunch of bumbling nincompoops? Does Bush really want people to hear that our archnemesis is so stupid that he could be fooled by a lack of media coverage?

Who's stupider, the fool or the fool who can't catch him?

Dude, if al Qaeda is that stupid, then how stupid are we for not being able to beat them by now? I mean really, does Bush really want his team going around talking about how we've been utterly unable to catch a bunch of bumbling nincompoops? Does Bush really want people to hear that our archnemesis is so stupid that he could be fooled by a lack of media coverage?

Who's stupider, the fool or the fool who can't catch him?

If we're to believe this, it's all very Inspector Gadget.

Only problem is, he's claiming that they used electronic surveillance. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043) Video at that link.

And in other shocking testimony, Gonzales said--not under oath, because the Republicans on the committee voted to not swear him in (wonder why that is?)--in this exchange with Joe Biden, that the reason we have to keep spying programs secret is because terrorists forget that we're trying to listen in on their conversations.


I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?

Stupid idiot. Everyone knows that it was FDR and Kennedy that used it. As did Nixon, Ford (maybe), Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and clinton did it too.

I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?

Yes, they're stupid. Tradecraft amongst either al-Qaeda people isn't the best (neither is the CIA's for that matter - during the recent Italian screwup, they all used cellphones and talked in the open).

Terrorists still make phone calls, send e-mail, use satellite phones, etc. If you're running an international operation, you're forced to do these things, because sending a runner takes too much time.

Dude, if al Qaeda is that stupid, then how stupid are we for not being able to beat them by now? I mean really, does Bush really want his team going around talking about how we've been utterly unable to catch a bunch of bumbling nincompoops? Does Bush really want people to hear that our archnemesis is so stupid that he could be fooled by a lack of media coverage?

Who's stupider, the fool or the fool who can't catch him?

What really gets me is, both sides claim to be winning. I actually think the Muslim extremists are winning.

The people running Al Quaeda are very clever and have popular support on their side in the Middle East. Their organization, unlike the U.S. military that's trying to track them down, is composed of many cells capable of quick assessment and independent assessment and action. The specialized, hierarchical structure of the U.S. military basically insures that it can't keep up with Al Quaeda.

Then again, we're talking about home-front electronic surveillance here, not operations in the Middle East. Sorry.

Stupid idiot. Everyone knows that it was FDR and Kennedy that used it. As did Nixon, Ford (maybe), Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and clinton did it too.
So we've had a long string of bad politicians in the White House. In fact, I think Ford and Carter are the only two on that list who didn't make my "Top Ten Worst Americans" when that thread was current a month or two ago, and that's because I was limited to ten. Just because everyone else did it doesn't make it right, and there's no time like the present to fix what is broken.

I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?
Stupid? Maybe. Complacent? Probably. It's far more likely that they will just make a mistake. It would be nice to have a legal method like Carnivore to just sit out there and wait for that mistake, wouldn't it?

It would be nice to have a legal method like Carnivore to just sit out there and wait for that mistake, wouldn't it?

no. though carnivore isn't as bad as echelon

legal method like Carnivore
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Really, tell me you're joking, right? There's nothing legal about Carnivore.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Really, tell me you're joking, right? There's nothing legal about Carnivore.
I have a hard time typing sarcastically.

I'm against illegal, warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. But at the same time, it seems so logical to intercept communications from our enemies, even if they are calling someone in this country. It seems like there is sufficient leeway under FISA to do that, but we are not getting much of an explanation about why it can't be used.

Washington and Lincoln and even FDR and LBJ did it, but it doesn't matter. What you guys are missing is teh most important question. Did they break the law when they did it. The answer is no. The reason they did not break teh law when they surveiled foreign corospondence was because the law forbiding it without a court's approval was the Foreign Intelligence Surveylience Act (FISA) which wasn't passed until 1978 in response to when Dick Nixon did it. That's why Bush broke the law when he did it and these other presidents didn't. There wasn't a law about it back then.

I have a hard time typing sarcastically.

I'm against illegal, warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. But at the same time, it seems so logical to intercept communications from our enemies, even if they are calling someone in this country. It seems like there is sufficient leeway under FISA to do that, but we are not getting much of an explanation about why it can't be used.

It's pretty simple.

People don't want any wiretapping - period - without a warrant. Now, I'm ok with intercepting incoming calls from known al-Qaeda numbers, and intercepting outgoing calls to known al-Qaeda numbers. That still seems like foreign intel to me, since at least one party is in a foreign country.

It also makes perfect sense to intercept traffic of that sort. You know - people who might be planning something here in the US talking with their boss.

If we do these intercepts, people will get upset and say it's illegal and bad and terrible and Bush is evil...

If we don't do these intercepts, and something happens here in the US, people will get upset and say, "why didn't Bush do something to prevent this?"

Either way, Bush is screwed and hated. Actually, any President in that situation is screwed and hated. If it was me, I would err on the side of least probable casualties. No one is going to die if I listen to their phone conversation about falafel stands in Lebanon. However, there is a finite, real probability that someone is planning to do something here that is very bad - so I would listen.

Only problem is, he's claiming that they used electronic surveillance. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043) Video at that link.

And in other shocking testimony, Gonzales said--not under oath, because the Republicans on the committee voted to not swear him in (wonder why that is?)--in this exchange with Joe Biden, that the reason we have to keep spying programs secret is because terrorists forget that we're trying to listen in on their conversations.


I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?

Welcome to human nature. Security is a tradeoff between safety and convenience so people really do forget to use safe procedures if they don't think there's an immediate reason to. Terrorists are no exception to this. Incidentally since most of the "wiretapping" in question concerns email I wonder if "wiretapping" is the proper way to describe it. Back when FISA was passed in 1978 there was sure a lot of email, wasn't there? :p

Either way, Bush is screwed and hated. Actually, any President in that situation is screwed and hated. If it was me, I would err on the side of least probable casualties. No one is going to die if I listen to their phone conversation about falafel stands in Lebanon. However, there is a finite, real probability that someone is planning to do something here that is very bad - so I would listen.
So, when I say to myself that reasonable people ought to do reasonable things, i.e. common sense should prevail, I'm just wasting my breath. Right?

I have a hard time typing sarcastically.
That's a relief. ;)

I'm against illegal, warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. But at the same time, it seems so logical to intercept communications from our enemies, even if they are calling someone in this country. It seems like there is sufficient leeway under FISA to do that, but we are not getting much of an explanation about why it can't be used.
There's not much that can't be construed under the FISA, especially as expanded under the PATRIOT Act. The larger question is whether or not this expanded FISA really fits under the 4th amendment -- it's no longer the same document that was given the thumbs-up in the '70s. And with the gov't getting more secret surveillance warrants than wiretap warrants in recent years ( source (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/) ), it's doubtful that they're really being used for anything except an end-around for the 4th amendment.

I don't remember who said it because I was in and out of the truck all day listening to the hearing, but there was a senator who started off saying, and I'm paraphrasing here-

You keep refering to FISA as a valuable tool. Thinking of FISA as a tool is akin to considering speed traps and police with radar guns as a tool for traveling. It's not, it's a check.

In effect, thinking of FISA as a tool that can be used when convinient and not when expedient is to ignore the point and purpose. It isn't a tool and the fact that he views it that way did seem pretty telling.

Stupid idiot. Everyone knows that it was FDR and Kennedy that used it. As did Nixon, Ford (maybe), Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and clinton did it too.
I can't speak for the people who came before the FISA statute, but since 1978, all wiretapping like what's being investigated now has been done with warrants. That's the key here, Corneliu--they followed the law and got warrants. Bush the Lesser hasn't.

It's pretty simple.

People don't want any wiretapping - period - without a warrant. Now, I'm ok with intercepting incoming calls from known al-Qaeda numbers, and intercepting outgoing calls to known al-Qaeda numbers. That still seems like foreign intel to me, since at least one party is in a foreign country.

It also makes perfect sense to intercept traffic of that sort. You know - people who might be planning something here in the US talking with their boss.

Here's the thing, DK--and I suspect you know this and are just trying to fuck with people on the board--the situation you describe easily qualifies for a warrant. A known al Qaeda number? You're telling me we can't get a warrant to intercept every call that comes into the US from a known al Qaeda number? Save it. So get the fucking warrant and do the job. It's the other intercepts that worry me, because without warrants, without oversight, who's to say that the calls of reporters, or political enemies or, anyone who's beefing about the administration aren't being monitored as well? Who's to say?

So if our media didn't report it, al Qaeda would forget that we monitor them?

actually, if classified info weren't being leaked, Al Q and other terrorist groups might not know exactly how or to what degree we're monitoring them...

actually, if classified info weren't being leaked, Al Q and other terrorist groups might not know exactly how or to what degree we're monitoring them...
Give me a break. The kind of stuff these guys have planned in the past, you don't take any unnecessary chances. You assume every conversation is being monitored, you speak in prearranged code, you trust nothing. You take a chance only when there's absolutely no other option. To do otherwise is to invite being caught, and these guys don't want to get caught. The media has said nothing they weren't already assuming was going on.

Here's the thing, DK--and I suspect you know this and are just trying to fuck with people on the board--the situation you describe easily qualifies for a warrant. A known al Qaeda number? You're telling me we can't get a warrant to intercept every call that comes into the US from a known al Qaeda number? Save it. So get the fucking warrant and do the job. It's the other intercepts that worry me, because without warrants, without oversight, who's to say that the calls of reporters, or political enemies or, anyone who's beefing about the administration aren't being monitored as well? Who's to say?
To get the warrant you have to know the number at both ends.

I know the al-Q number. I don't know who he's going to call. By the time I file for a warrant, he's calling someone else.

Additionally, there was apparent resistance from one of the FISA judges about giving blanket tapping of the al-Q number - they wanted each US citizen's number to be known in advance and placed on the warrant - before the call was made, before the tap was put in place.

One way around all of this is to have the UK do its regular everyday thing with Echelon, and ask them for the reports. It's not illegal for them to spy in such a manner, and not illegal for us to ask for the data. No warrant necessary.

BTW, as you read this post, realize that it went through Echelon.

To get the warrant you have to know the number at both ends.

I know the al-Q number. I don't know who he's going to call. By the time I file for a warrant, he's calling someone else.

Additionally, there was apparent resistance from one of the FISA judges about giving blanket tapping of the al-Q number - they wanted each US citizen's number to be known in advance and placed on the warrant - before the call was made, before the tap was put in place.

One way around all of this is to have the UK do its regular everyday thing with Echelon, and ask them for the reports. It's not illegal for them to spy in such a manner, and not illegal for us to ask for the data. No warrant necessary.

BTW, as you read this post, realize that it went through Echelon.
Isn't that where the 72 hour window comes in? You're tracking an al Qaeda guy elsewhere, and he calls a number in the US. Start the tap and start running down who it is, and within 72 hours, if you don't have probable cause, you shut it down. But chances are if it's really an al Qaeda guy, you'll have probable cause inside of five minutes and you'll get your warrant.

As to Echelon, yes, that's another conceivable workaround. But what you're seeming to be arguing here is that because there is a legal way to do it, by going outside the US jurisdiction and getting info from an ally, we ought to be able to break our own laws on it here. Bullshit. You want the power to do it on your own, you go to Congress and ask. If Congress says no, as they likely would, then you go back to the workaround if you think it's important enough and you pray that Congress doesn't close the loophole. But you don't break the fucking law. The law's the only thing that separates us from a dictatorship, and that you're so willing to blithely toss it out of convenience disturbs me greatly.

Isn't that where the 72 hour window comes in? You're tracking an al Qaeda guy elsewhere, and he calls a number in the US. Start the tap and start running down who it is, and within 72 hours, if you don't have probable cause, you shut it down. But chances are if it's really an al Qaeda guy, you'll have probable cause inside of five minutes and you'll get your warrant.

As to Echelon, yes, that's another conceivable workaround. But what you're seeming to be arguing here is that because there is a legal way to do it, by going outside the US jurisdiction and getting info from an ally, we ought to be able to break our own laws on it here. Bullshit. You want the power to do it on your own, you go to Congress and ask. If Congress says no, as they likely would, then you go back to the workaround if you think it's important enough and you pray that Congress doesn't close the loophole. But you don't break the fucking law. The law's the only thing that separates us from a dictatorship, and that you're so willing to blithely toss it out of convenience disturbs me greatly.

I would already be willing to do what Lincoln did, and suspend habeas corpus, especially for terrorism suspects, or leakers of intelligence information.

It is already legal to revoke the passports of critics of the USs, and I would already do that to several Hollywood critics when they make the mistake of travelling overseas. It's a purely administrative process, and completely legal.

Here's the thing, DK--and I suspect you know this and are just trying to fuck with people on the board--the situation you describe easily qualifies for a warrant. A known al Qaeda number? You're telling me we can't get a warrant to intercept every call that comes into the US from a known al Qaeda number? Save it. So get the fucking warrant and do the job. It's the other intercepts that worry me, because without warrants, without oversight, who's to say that the calls of reporters, or political enemies or, anyone who's beefing about the administration aren't being monitored as well? Who's to say?
How about emails from computers that are behind firewalls. I only know a bit about networking, but every major provider assigns unroutable IP addresses to the computers that connect to it. Then, through the magic of Network address translation, they can keep track of which packet goes where.

So, let's say I have a VoIP rig and so does my comrade, Omar. We talk to each other, or even just email each other, but our IP addresses are disguised. We don't have phone numbers. How does a G-man get the warrant, now?

This is kind of where I was going with the Carnivore or Echelon programs. They would be able to monitor this kind of communication.

These were widely known about, yet I don't remember any publicity about them signalling the end of days. Certianly not in the way the left has been attacking Bush over his attempts to gain intelligence on a real enemy.

Give me a break. The kind of stuff these guys have planned in the past, you don't take any unnecessary chances. You assume every conversation is being monitored, you speak in prearranged code, you trust nothing. You take a chance only when there's absolutely no other option. To do otherwise is to invite being caught, and these guys don't want to get caught. The media has said nothing they weren't already assuming was going on.
He's right. Say we break a code. We don't want to leak any intel that we gain just because they may figure out the fact that we did break a code. Remember Churchill's dilemma? There's a lot of intel where the source would be compromised if it were known that we possessed it.

I would already be willing to do what Lincoln did, and suspend habeas corpus, especially for terrorism suspects, or leakers of intelligence information.
Because terrorism is a new phenomena and we must take extraordinary measures to protect ourselves against it, up to and including suspending the entire Constitution. Death to freedom!

Give me a break. The kind of stuff these guys have planned in the past, you don't take any unnecessary chances. You assume every conversation is being monitored, you speak in prearranged code, you trust nothing. You take a chance only when there's absolutely no other option. To do otherwise is to invite being caught, and these guys don't want to get caught. The media has said nothing they weren't already assuming was going on.

BS. CIA operatives routinely take chances, people don't speak in code (this isn't the Bourne Identity). People working internationally have to communicate, and short of encrypted files, there's no way to really do it secure (and even those are suspect).

It's one thing to assume that you're being monitored - another to know it.

Tradecraft is not as highly refined as the movies indicate.

It seems like there is sufficient leeway under FISA to do that, but we are not getting much of an explanation about why it can't be used.

the only logical conclusion to why they couldn't go before a rubber stamp of a court is that what they were doing was so off the wall that they knew they would be rejected even there. and since we know they've been spying on anti-war groups, and essentially view dissent as treason, it stands to reason that they were illegally spying on political opponents. possibly even mainstream ones. it's not like the big players in this administration didn't get their start in the nixon administration.

the only logical conclusion to why they couldn't go before a rubber stamp of a court is that what they were doing was so off the wall that they knew they would be rejected even there. and since we know they've been spying on anti-war groups, and essentially view dissent as treason, it stands to reason that they were illegally spying on political opponents. possibly even mainstream ones. it's not like the big players in this administration didn't get their start in the nixon administration.

You are extrapolating without evidence.

You are extrapolating without evidence.

so the fisa court isn't essentially a ruber stamp? we haven't caught them spying on anti-war groups? they haven't made vaguely threatening remarks about dissent and treason? cheney and rumsfeld didn't work for the nixon administration? the republican party doesn't have a history of illegally spying on their domestic opposition?

so the fisa court isn't essentially a ruber stamp? we haven't caught them spying on anti-war groups? they haven't made vaguely threatening remarks about dissent and treason? cheney and rumsfeld didn't work for the nixon administration? the republican party doesn't have a history of illegally spying on their domestic opposition?
Hoover worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, and did all sorts of unwarranted spying at their behest. So should I extrapolate that Democrats during the Clinton Administration used Janet Reno and the FBI to run roughshod over our freedoms?

It does not follow that all members of the Nixon Adminstration were doing what he and the Watergate conspirators were doing - in fact, they were not involved. So unless you have some evidence...

The FISA court runs the way it does because the Supreme Court and Congress have acknowledged that the President has the power to conduct surveillance. Are you saying that he should not have this power? That we should never monitor any potential enemies, because that would mean the delay of socialist revolution in the US?

I remember remarks from Clinton about dissent that struck me as strange - that were repeated again in an episode of Babylon 5 coming out of the mouth of President Clark (a notorious bad guy who was seizing power). Should I have been afraid? After all, there was the same FISA court then - a party that had spied on people like Martin Luther King and invaded his personal life - a party that under Johnson spied on anti-war groups.

Come again?

so the fisa court isn't essentially a ruber stamp? we haven't caught them spying on anti-war groups? they haven't made vaguely threatening remarks about dissent and treason? cheney and rumsfeld didn't work for the nixon administration? the republican party doesn't have a history of illegally spying on their domestic opposition?
absolutely not.

I did like gonzales's other excuse, however: "The fisa papers are like an inch thick and a lot of people have to sign it."

It does not follow that all members of the Nixon Adminstration were doing what he and the Watergate conspirators were doing - in fact, they were not involved. So unless you have some evidence...

The fact that they were around and exposed to such corruption, and now make up vital parts of our current administration should be enough to frighten most sane and rational people. Perhaps they learned some tricks that tricky dick had up his sleeve and they're now using those? I wouldn't doubt it.

The fact that they were around and exposed to such corruption, and now make up vital parts of our current administration should be enough to frighten most sane and rational people. Perhaps they learned some tricks that tricky dick had up his sleeve and they're now using those? I wouldn't doubt it.

I could use the same logic concerning Hoover and his work for various Democratic (and Republican) adminstrations to paint the previous Clinton administration with the same brush.

Wasn't it Johnson who had the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? Or was it Kennedy?

And all those anti-war protesters? Started under Johnson.

The FISA court runs the way it does because the Supreme Court and Congress have acknowledged that the President has the power to conduct surveillance. Are you saying that he should not have this power? That we should never monitor any potential enemies, because that would mean the delay of socialist revolution in the US?

yes. the president should not be allowed to spy on anyone. anarchist, remember?

but for the sake of practicality, we'll let him, as long as he is held to a fucking ridiculously high standard. and if he ever violates that standard, he will be imediately stripped of all power. i fear no terrorists. i fear the state and the temptation of power.

Wasn't it Johnson who had the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? Or was it Kennedy?

And all those anti-war protesters? Started under Johnson.

yup. and look how well that turned out

yes. the president should not be allowed to spy on anyone. anarchist, remember?

but for the sake of practicality, we'll let him, as long as he is held to a fucking ridiculously high standard. and if he ever violates that standard, he will be imediately stripped of all power. i fear no terrorists. i fear the state and the temptation of power.

Well, if you're an anarchist, then you have a problem with government that goes deeper than FISA, etc.

The President can launch a massive nuclear attack with no permission and no consultation and without telling anyone until it starts. Just open "the football" and start transmitting the codes.

Aren't you worried?

I could use the same logic concerning Hoover and his work for various Democratic (and Republican) adminstrations to paint the previous Clinton administration with the same brush.

Wasn't it Johnson who had the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? Or was it Kennedy?

And all those anti-war protesters? Started under Johnson.
okay...what does any of this have to do with the corruption of the bush administration?

Well, if you're an anarchist, then you have a problem with government that goes deeper than FISA, etc.

yup. but for the moment my interests and the interests of the majority of americans are aligned. it's a rare occurence, and worth tagging along on. usually i just get to sit there and watch liberty be eroded in favor of state power with the blessing of the vast majority of people.

Well, if you're an anarchist, then you have a problem with government that goes deeper than FISA, etc.

The President can launch a massive nuclear attack with no permission and no consultation and without telling anyone until it starts. Just open "the football" and start transmitting the codes.

Aren't you worried?
that's because, as dumb as bush is, he is still smart enough (or maybe Rove told him) to know the international consquences of using nukes. Even the "terrorists" know this and that is why they will never use a nuclear device. Dirty bombs, maybe, but not a nuclear weapon.

How about emails from computers that are behind firewalls. I only know a bit about networking, but every major provider assigns unroutable IP addresses to the computers that connect to it. Then, through the magic of Network address translation, they can keep track of which packet goes where.

So, let's say I have a VoIP rig and so does my comrade, Omar. We talk to each other, or even just email each other, but our IP addresses are disguised. We don't have phone numbers. How does a G-man get the warrant, now?

This is kind of where I was going with the Carnivore or Echelon programs. They would be able to monitor this kind of communication.

These were widely known about, yet I don't remember any publicity about them signalling the end of days. Certianly not in the way the left has been attacking Bush over his attempts to gain intelligence on a real enemy.What's the law when it comes to monitoring email or other internet communication? If there's no law in place that applies, then the assumption is that the tap is legal. VoIP technology is new enough that I think you could make the argument that it's not currently covered by statute. If that's the case, you start the surveillance, go to Congress and say "we need the explicit power to do this kind of surveillance and here's why" and you get it passed, or you go to a judge and see if you can make it work under standing law. Again, my gripe is less with the actual snooping than it is with the way it's currently being done, which is with no oversight and no accountability. It's not as if using wiretaps for political gain is unheard of--Nixon was the king of it. So why shouldn't his political godchild (Bush, Rove, Cheney, take your pick) do the same thing?

Maybe they're not doing anything like that. Maybe I'm overly paranoid. But would you really put it past them? And without oversight, without outside control, does anyone outside the group really know who they're listening to?

I could use the same logic concerning Hoover and his work for various Democratic (and Republican) adminstrations to paint the previous Clinton administration with the same brush.

Wasn't it Johnson who had the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? Or was it Kennedy?

And all those anti-war protesters? Started under Johnson.
And that's why we have FISA. Circle complete. Next argument, please.

BTW, when Washington and Lincoln ordered spying within US territory, they got hit with big nasty political backlashes for it, so Bush is in good company (though Washington and Lincoln may not be).

I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US. Yay?

Most criminals ARE stupid. That's why they're criminals:-)

Do I think the top tier terrorists are fools? No. But, do I think there are plenty of idiots who work for them that act without thinking? Heck yes. That's how most crime is solved.

What's the law when it comes to monitoring email or other internet communication? If there's no law in place that applies, then the assumption is that the tap is legal. VoIP technology is new enough that I think you could make the argument that it's not currently covered by statute. If that's the case, you start the surveillance, go to Congress and say "we need the explicit power to do this kind of surveillance and here's why" and you get it passed, or you go to a judge and see if you can make it work under standing law. Again, my gripe is less with the actual snooping than it is with the way it's currently being done, which is with no oversight and no accountability. It's not as if using wiretaps for political gain is unheard of--Nixon was the king of it. So why shouldn't his political godchild (Bush, Rove, Cheney, take your pick) do the same thing?

Maybe they're not doing anything like that. Maybe I'm overly paranoid. But would you really put it past them? And without oversight, without outside control, does anyone outside the group really know who they're listening to?
I'm still on the side of civil liberties, but I'm starting to see that there may be places where communications technology has raced ahead of the appropriate law. Even the internet has most pols baffled. So it's not unreasonable to think that they are afraid to reveal that they are monitoring VoIP. Maybe it's a method of communicating that is even more advanced that VoIP.

A new law, with the attendant debate and coverage, would certainly compromise the intelligence source and we'd be without our edge. I would think that a solution could be worked out with the FISA court, since they are supposed to be in that business. But common sense, courts of law, and new technology never seem to mix. Maybe they've already run into a wall, while trying to get approval.

I actually think that GWB is carrying out this surveillance for the right reasons. That is, he is trying to protect the country from another attack. That doesn't mean I condone the methods. This kind of surveillance certainly fails the 'Hillary' test.

How legitimate is the source though? Video quality wasn't quite good enough that I could tell whether his lips were moving correctly, and it could easily have been faked.

I'm still on the side of civil liberties, but I'm starting to see that there may be places where communications technology has raced ahead of the appropriate law. Even the internet has most pols baffled. So it's not unreasonable to think that they are afraid to reveal that they are monitoring VoIP. Maybe it's a method of communicating that is even more advanced that VoIP.

A new law, with the attendant debate and coverage, would certainly compromise the intelligence source and we'd be without our edge. I would think that a solution could be worked out with the FISA court, since they are supposed to be in that business. But common sense, courts of law, and new technology never seem to mix. Maybe they've already run into a wall, while trying to get approval.

I actually think that GWB is carrying out this surveillance for the right reasons. That is, he is trying to protect the country from another attack. That doesn't mean I condone the methods. This kind of surveillance certainly fails the 'Hillary' test.You could get around the issue of debate over the law by doing it in closed session, or you could throw it in with some sort of omnibus bill--nobody knows half the shit that gets passed in those. Clever political operators could make it happen and no one would be the wiser--I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it can happen.

I'm sticking with my initial guess on this. Bush and his flunkies decided a long time ago to see how far they could push Congress before they pushed back, and so far Congress has given him everything they wanted. Part of the reason for that is because Karl Rove controls the political purse strings and he's one ruthless son of a bitch (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm). Part of it is probably due to the love of being in charge--that sense of unbeatability--and not wanting to lose your pork or your committee assignment because you've bucked the leadership. That's why you need an opposition party with some real power--to keep the more powerful party in check.

It's pretty simple.

People don't want any wiretapping - period - without a warrant. Now, I'm ok with intercepting incoming calls from known al-Qaeda numbers, and intercepting outgoing calls to known al-Qaeda numbers. That still seems like foreign intel to me, since at least one party is in a foreign country.

It also makes perfect sense to intercept traffic of that sort. You know - people who might be planning something here in the US talking with their boss.


It makes perfect sense to do so. Get a damn warrant first before you do it. Knowing that a person is an al-Qaeda member is generaly more then enough to pass muster to recieve a wiretap warrant, especially from the special courts.

The funny thing is that the program only managed to get enough information to get around 5 REGULAR wiretap warrents. Out of about 5000. 5 out of 5000 gave enough information to pass probable cause to get a warrant. That's pathetic.

How legitimate is the source though? Video quality wasn't quite good enough that I could tell whether his lips were moving correctly, and it could easily have been faked.
If it sounds stupid, and it is coming from Gonzalez, it probably isn't faked.

If we're to believe this, it's all very Inspector Gadget.
Sigworthy. *bows*
Problem is Gadget is more noble ... :(

Dude, if al Qaeda is that stupid, then how stupid are we for not being able to beat them by now? I mean really, does Bush really want his team going around talking about how we've been utterly unable to catch a bunch of bumbling nincompoops? Does Bush really want people to hear that our archnemesis is so stupid that he could be fooled by a lack of media coverage?

Who's stupider, the fool or the fool who can't catch him?
Also sigworthy. Much of what you write is. *bows*

Also, remember ....
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush
Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

If it sounds stupid, and it is coming from Gonzalez, it probably isn't faked.
Feingold made a sideways reference to that statement today, when he said "some people accuse Democrats of living in a pre 9/11 world. I think this administration is living in a pre 1776 world."

It's pretty simple.

People don't want any wiretapping - period - without a warrant.
..
However, there is a finite, real probability that someone is planning to do something here that is very bad - so I would listen.
Now you know what to do and you know when to do it. What is the missing part as far as the administration is concerned? It's been mentioned LOTS of times ....

actually, if classified info weren't being leaked, Al Q and other terrorist groups might not know exactly how or to what degree we're monitoring them...
...and Plame has been determined to be an ACTIVE NOC with ACTIVE contacts, and HAS BEEN UNDERCOVER. So let's keep that in perspective before we try to derail the integrity here ...

Tradecraft is not as highly refined as the movies indicate.
This would be unbecoming and juvenile if it hadn't already been given precedent with other posts of yours. He wasnt talking about movies ... you were, and you're trying to change the subject to suit your stance.

You are extrapolating without evidence.
No there is very clear evidence that they DID start in the Nixon Administration.
There is also very clear evidence that they are monitoring groups mentioned as terrorist groups, even people LIKE YOURSELF have stated as much.
Just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean other people don't have evidence.

okay...what does any of this have to do with the corruption of the bush administration?
Nothing. It has to do with his and many other right-wingers' CONSISTENT attempts to betray the nature of discourse into a different topic and to argue that ad nauseum.
"But Clinton this and everyone else that!" *pout*

Only problem is, he's claiming that they used electronic surveillance. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043) Video at that link.

And in other shocking testimony, Gonzales said--not under oath, because the Republicans on the committee voted to not swear him in (wonder why that is?)--in this exchange with Joe Biden, that the reason we have to keep spying programs secret is because terrorists forget that we're trying to listen in on their conversations.


I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?
Terrorists never forget.

Terrorists never forget.
You know, that is yet another angle on why the symbol for the Republicans is the elephant. No coincidence at all.


...
George W. Bush:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Dude, if al Qaeda is that stupid, then how stupid are we for not being able to beat them by now? I mean really, does Bush really want his team going around talking about how we've been utterly unable to catch a bunch of bumbling nincompoops? Does Bush really want people to hear that our archnemesis is so stupid that he could be fooled by a lack of media coverage?

Who's stupider, the fool or the fool who can't catch him?

LOL, of course Al Qaeda is stupid.... Of course, George Bush and his "Cabinet" make the Al Qaeda look like a band of a Rocket Scientists...

LOL, of course Al Qaeda is stupid.... Of course, George Bush and his "Cabinet" make the Al Qaeda look like a band of a Rocket Scientists...
I guess that makes it even doubly ironic that most of them are dead or in jail and they haven't been able to attack in the U.S. since September 11, 2001.

That's a relief. ;)


There's not much that can't be construed under the FISA, especially as expanded under the PATRIOT Act. The larger question is whether or not this expanded FISA really fits under the 4th amendment -- it's no longer the same document that was given the thumbs-up in the '70s. And with the gov't getting more secret surveillance warrants than wiretap warrants in recent years ( source (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/) ), it's doubtful that they're really being used for anything except an end-around for the 4th amendment.

All the more reason that, if the government isn't going to obey the 4th, it should at least obey FISA. Here we have a violation of both.

the only logical conclusion to why they couldn't go before a rubber stamp of a court is that what they were doing was so off the wall that they knew they would be rejected even there. and since we know they've been spying on anti-war groups, and essentially view dissent as treason, it stands to reason that they were illegally spying on political opponents. possibly even mainstream ones. it's not like the big players in this administration didn't get their start in the nixon administration.

All too true and all too scary. The potential for abuse is there. The motive for abuse is there. The evidence of some abuse is there. The inference is that abuse occurred.

You could get around the issue of debate over the law by doing it in closed session, or you could throw it in with some sort of omnibus bill--nobody knows half the shit that gets passed in those. Clever political operators could make it happen and no one would be the wiser--I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that it can happen.

I'm sticking with my initial guess on this. Bush and his flunkies decided a long time ago to see how far they could push Congress before they pushed back, and so far Congress has given him everything they wanted. Part of the reason for that is because Karl Rove controls the political purse strings and he's one ruthless son of a bitch (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm). Part of it is probably due to the love of being in charge--that sense of unbeatability--and not wanting to lose your pork or your committee assignment because you've bucked the leadership. That's why you need an opposition party with some real power--to keep the more powerful party in check.
It might be a badge of honor to be on Rove's blacklist. Kind of like being on Nixon's Enemies List, huh? There's some Republicans out there with safe seats that might just take advantage of that.

All too true and all too scary. The potential for abuse is there. The motive for abuse is there. The evidence of some abuse is there. The inference is that abuse occurred.
It all depends on whether you think terrorists or the FBI is our worst enemy. I vote that it's terrorists. Sure, the surveillence looks like it's being carried out illegally, but when it comes to motive, I think you're seeing things.

It all depends on whether you think terrorists or the FBI is our worst enemy. I vote that it's terrorists. Sure, the surveillence looks like it's being carried out illegally, but when it comes to motive, I think you're seeing things.

You could make the "scary inference" regardless of which party or President is in power - ask yourself if both parties used the FBI to spy on anti-war protesters during Vietnam (yes) - did the Democrats in power have the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? (yes).

You either have some level of trust for people in such powerful positions, or you don't.

The US President can nuke half the world without asking for permission or giving any announcement or warning. Does this frighten you? Did you know that during the Watergate episode, Kissinger illegally tried to give orders that the President, in the event that he tried to launch nuclear weapons, was not to be obeyed unless Kissinger gave approval? Just in case?

Any US President can have a bad day, and just decide, "fuck it!". And we'll all have to eat it.

Raw, unlimited power? Yes. Bush, if he was the warmonger people make him out to be, could order a Trident to unload 120 or so warheads on Iran - and the order would be carried out - and no one would stop him. And the worst you could do is impeach him, and perhaps take him to the Hague and try him - but the nation of Iran would no longer exist, nor would any of its people within those borders.

Stop twisting the tinfoil hat to fit your hatred and fear of Bush.

It all depends on whether you think terrorists or the FBI is our worst enemy. I vote that it's terrorists. Sure, the surveillence looks like it's being carried out illegally, but when it comes to motive, I think you're seeing things.
I hear reports that the NSA might be the FBI's worst enemy at this point. Apparently the NSA sends so many unscreened "leads" to the FBI, they can't get anything else done. And not one of these "leads" leads anywhere. The in-office nickname for them among the agents is "Another Call to Pizza Hut." :rolleyes:

I hear reports that the NSA might be the FBI's worst enemy at this point. Apparently the NSA sends so many unscreened "leads" to the FBI, they can't get anything else done. And not one of these "leads" leads anywhere. The in-office nickname for them among the agents is "Another Call to Pizza Hut." :rolleyes:

The NSA is a surveillance and data mining operation. That means that most of their results will be ambiguous crap - there's only going to be an occasional timely intercept.

Considering that we don't have people on the ground sitting in Osama's camp in South Waziristan, it's about as good as it gets. No one who would pass for native in regions like that works for the CIA or FBI. Or the military, for that matter.

Every trick we have is solely technological or military. Dropping sensors in the region to listen to conversations in houses (most of the time, just innocent people talking over dinner). Flying Predators over villages (and blowing up the wrong house). The occasional Special Forces patrol (who might get shot at).

Nothing else, except monitoring websites, email, and phone calls. Nothing.

You could make the "scary inference" regardless of which party or President is in power - ask yourself if both parties used the FBI to spy on anti-war protesters during Vietnam (yes) - did the Democrats in power have the FBI spy on Martin Luther King? (yes).

You either have some level of trust for people in such powerful positions, or you don't.

The US President can nuke half the world without asking for permission or giving any announcement or warning. Does this frighten you? Did you know that during the Watergate episode, Kissinger illegally tried to give orders that the President, in the event that he tried to launch nuclear weapons, was not to be obeyed unless Kissinger gave approval? Just in case?

Any US President can have a bad day, and just decide, "fuck it!". And we'll all have to eat it.

Raw, unlimited power? Yes. Bush, if he was the warmonger people make him out to be, could order a Trident to unload 120 or so warheads on Iran - and the order would be carried out - and no one would stop him. And the worst you could do is impeach him, and perhaps take him to the Hague and try him - but the nation of Iran would no longer exist, nor would any of its people within those borders.

Stop twisting the tinfoil hat to fit your hatred and fear of Bush.
Here you go again, arguing that other people did bad things so you should be allowed to, too. When you tried that on your mom when you were 5, did it work any better than it does now?

Your own list of abuses by both parties tells me we should NOT put trust in elected officials. We should watch them like hawks, fence them in with laws, and expose their illegal and/or improper activities and slam them for it, hard, as an example to the rest. So the furor over NSA warrantless wiretapping is entirely appropriate.

And your statement that the US President "can" nuke the world is deliberately disingenous at best. I "can" break into your house, steal all your stuff, eat your cat, and burn the place down -- that doesn't make it okay. You consistently argue that Bush has the right to do these things. Yet here you say that if he did, he could be impeached and even tried before the Hague for international crimes. Clearly, you yourself are admitting that, if any president were to unilaterally launch a large scale military attack, he would be committing a crime under both US and international law. Therefore, no president, including Bush, has the right to do that -- after all, if he had the right to do it, it wouldn't be a crime if he did do it, now would it?

Just like Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, et al., you know perfectly well that they broke the law and a got caught at it. And you are just parroting their attempts to weasel out of taking the rap for it.

Here you go again, arguing that other people did bad things so you should be allowed to, too. When you tried that on your mom when you were 5, did it work any better than it does now?

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that you can't draw an inference of current behavior of Republicans "because the evil Nixon did it".

Does distorting what I say really work for you? Good luck with that.

The NSA is a surveillance and data mining operation. That means that most of their results will be ambiguous crap - there's only going to be an occasional timely intercept.

Considering that we don't have people on the ground sitting in Osama's camp in South Waziristan, it's about as good as it gets. No one who would pass for native in regions like that works for the CIA or FBI. Or the military, for that matter.

Every trick we have is solely technological or military. Dropping sensors in the region to listen to conversations in houses (most of the time, just innocent people talking over dinner). Flying Predators over villages (and blowing up the wrong house). The occasional Special Forces patrol (who might get shot at).

Nothing else, except monitoring websites, email, and phone calls. Nothing.
DK, your deliberate point-missing is getting ridiculous.

1. The FBI is NOT a "data-mining" operation. It is an investigative agency. When you tell them something it is because you expect them to do something about it. They have actual criminals to arrest out there. So it does not occur to you (any more than it occurs to the NSA) that maybe the NSA, with all their analysts, ought to do the pre-screening on data BEFORE they send it to the FBI, so as not to take agents off other investigations? Tell me, is "data-mining" a new bureaucratic euphemism for "wasting other people's time"?

2. What does DOMESTIC SPYING have to do with people SITTING IN OSAMA BIN LADEN'S CAMP IN SOUTH WAZIRISTAN -- unless South Waziristan is a suburb of Cleveland and has a Pizza Hut in it? I think both the FBI and the CIA have plenty of agents who could pass for native in an Ohio suburb.

3. The CIA and the military may be concerned with doings in South Waziristan, but the FBI is not because the FBI works here in America. So, then, why is the FBI being inundated with the NSA's crap if, as you assert, it's all about foreign activities that the FBI can do nothing about?

Your arguments make no more sense than the NSA's program does.

DK, your deliberate point-missing is getting ridiculous.

1. The FBI is NOT a "data-mining" operation. It is an investigative agency. When you tell them something it is because you expect them to do something about it. They have actual criminals to arrest out there. So it does not occur to you (any more than it occurs to the NSA) that maybe the NSA, with all their analysts, ought to do the pre-screening on data BEFORE they send it to the FBI, so as not to take agents off other investigations? Tell me, is "data-mining" a new bureaucratic euphemism for "wasting other people's time"?

It's been a euphemism for that ever since the term was invented. "Data mining" is probably the world's most expensive oxymoron.

You're only now beginning to get it. There's far, far too much data to screen by hand, and the stuff that's screened by exotic software is crap.

Got it?

So the only handle we have on finding out what al-Q wants to do in the US is to fly over them on the other side of the world, tap a lot of phones, filter through millions of emails and forum posts, and try to find something useful.

Not sure if you're up on the latest, but after the Patriot Act, the FBI does investigations into terrorists overseas now. So take notes.

We don't have anyone on the ground to get information. We're clutching at straws with software and crap methods - there isn't an alternative - regardless of who is in office.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that you can't draw an inference of current behavior of Republicans "because the evil Nixon did it".

Does distorting what I say really work for you? Good luck with that.
I just reread the post of yours that I was responding to. In it, you are responding someone else's argument about presidential abuse of power. You cite past instances of the same kind of abuse by other presidents, pointing out that it is possible for presidents to break the law. You go on to say that there is little that can be done to stop them except to curtail their power and punish them if they do it anyway (which, by the way, is the standard practice for preventing and/or punishing crimes of any kind by anyone -- it's called law). Thus, in your own statement, you accept the possibility that a president will not be trustworthy and may commit serious crimes that would be punishable. Then you tell that, despite that possibility, we should just trust that Bush won't do it, despite his lesser transgressions so far.

In other words, having admitted that the abuse-of-power scenario is realistic, you seem to be saying that only paranoid people would worry about it now (tin-foil hat reference).

Sorry, but now that you've proven to me that there is indeed a bogeyman in the closet, I'm not going to take your advice to just turn out the light and forget about it.

It's been a euphemism for that ever since the term was invented. "Data mining" is probably the world's most expensive oxymoron.

You're only now beginning to get it. There's far, far too much data to screen by hand, and the stuff that's screened by exotic software is crap.

Got it?

So the only handle we have on finding out what al-Q wants to do in the US is to fly over them on the other side of the world, tap a lot of phones, filter through millions of emails and forum posts, and try to find something useful.

Not sure if you're up on the latest, but after the Patriot Act, the FBI does investigations into terrorists overseas now. So take notes.

We don't have anyone on the ground to get information. We're clutching at straws with software and crap methods - there isn't an alternative - regardless of who is in office.
So the only solution to being inundated with useless crap is to dive into even more of it? Wow, you are a Bush man. :p Remind me to take care of my own security, because clearly the NSA, FBI, CIA and military are going to be too busy filing memos to take any action.

EDIT: And thanks for agreeing with me that the NSA program is a waste of time.

I just reread the post of yours that I was responding to. In it, you are responding someone else's argument about presidential abuse of power. You cite past instances of the same kind of abuse by other presidents, pointing out that it is possible for presidents to break the law. You go on to say that there is little that can be done to stop them except to curtail their power and punish them if they do it anyway (which, by the way, is the standard practice for preventing and/or punishing crimes of any kind by anyone -- it's called law). Thus, in your own statement, you accept the possibility that a president will not be trustworthy and may commit serious crimes that would be punishable. Then you tell that, despite that possibility, we should just trust that Bush won't do it, despite his lesser transgressions so far.

In other words, having admitted that the abuse-of-power scenario is realistic, you seem to be saying that only paranoid people would worry about it now (tin-foil hat reference).

Sorry, but now that you've proven to me that there is indeed a bogeyman in the closet, I'm not going to take your advice to just turn out the light and forget about it.


I'm saying that with any President, it's possible to prove that his party has abused power in the past.

If we're to start with that as a measure of distrust, then we can't trust anyone to be President.

Ever.

No matter who it is.

So, I say we trust whoever is President - regardless of what their party did in the past. We trust them until something comes up - and then we investigate. If we find something worth prosecuting, we prosecute.

Which seems to be what we're doing.

Otherwise, you can elect a completely hamstrung President.

Think about this for a minute - I've said it before:

You obviously trust Bush with the capability to arbitrarily nuke any nation on Earth without asking permission.

He has that power NOW. Right now.

Scared, yet? Think Bush is the evil warmonger? Will he nuke Iran?

You can't stop him - legally or otherwise. He holds that power.

And you're quibbling over something like warrants?:rolleyes:

So the only solution to being inundated with useless crap is to dive into even more of it? Wow, you are a Bush man. :p Remind me to take care of my own security, because clearly the NSA, FBI, CIA and military are going to be too busy filing memos to take any action.

EDIT: And thanks for agreeing with me that the NSA program is a waste of time.

We keep diving into useless crap because it's all anyone can do - regardless of who is President, or which party runs the country.

Otherwise, the government runs the risk of looking like they aren't doing anything.

I'm not a Bush man, BTW. But I'm definitely not a Democrat, either.

I am, on the other hand, of the view that government bureacracy is more dangerous and more powerful than either political party. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to say, "oohhh, the evil Bush..."

I'm saying that with any President, it's possible to prove that his party has abused power in the past.

If we're to start with that as a measure of distrust, then we can't trust anyone to be President.

Ever.

No matter who it is.

So, I say we trust whoever is President - regardless of what their party did in the past. We trust them until something comes up - and then we investigate. If we find something worth prosecuting, we prosecute.

Which seems to be what we're doing.

Otherwise, you can elect a completely hamstrung President.

Think about this for a minute - I've said it before:

You obviously trust Bush with the capability to arbitrarily nuke any nation on Earth without asking permission.

He has that power NOW. Right now.

Scared, yet? Think Bush is the evil warmonger? Will he nuke Iran?

You can't stop him - legally or otherwise. He holds that power.

And you're quibbling over something like warrants?:rolleyes:
Yes, any president can abuse power.

No, we should not trust any president.

Ever.

No matter who it is.

That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have laws. That's why no one is above the law.

You are both wrong and foolish to acknowledge that you can't trust someone and then go ahead and put trust in them. It's like saying to a thief, hey I know you're a thief and all, but here, hold my money anyway. You are also wrong and foolish to excuse lesser abuses just because the big abuses haven't happened yet. A president who gets arrested for violating the law is not likely to nuke another country. Strong penalties for lesser crimes is a good way to prevent bigger ones. I would have thought you'd be on board with that sentiment.

An honest person is not hamstrung by the law. Good politicians are not hamstrung by the law, either, whether they are honest or not, because they know how to structure their programs so as not to run into trouble with the law. Bush is not an honest man, and he's a lousy politician.

No, I do NOT trust Bush with the power to arbitrarily nuke any nation on earth without asking permission. Such a notion is ridiculous because US law, international law, and even US military law prohibits such action as a war crime. Being president does NOT give Bush the right to commit crimes. The law is there to stop him and if he circumvents or breaks the law, then the law is there to punish him.

Your own statements above show clearly that you know that you are talking about crimes. It is impossible for a person to be allowed to commit a crime because, by definition, a crime is something a person is not allowed to do.

Bush does not hold any such power. You are wrong. And if Bush really thinks that he does hold such power, then he is wrong. And the law is there to teach him the difference between a president and a dictator.

We keep diving into useless crap because it's all anyone can do - regardless of who is President, or which party runs the country.

Otherwise, the government runs the risk of looking like they aren't doing anything.

I'm not a Bush man, BTW. But I'm definitely not a Democrat, either.

I am, on the other hand, of the view that government bureacracy is more dangerous and more powerful than either political party. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to say, "oohhh, the evil Bush..."
Haha, now who's being defeatist, eh? Allow me to paraphrase your argument just so you can see what it looks like from out here: Oh, well, this NSA program doesn't work, so I guess we're all doomed. We'd better just keep wasting time with this crap until the bombs go off, though; otherwise people might want us to do some work or something. But under no circumstances should we try to look for a program that does work, however. No, we'd rather accept being doomed.

Oh, and please, don't hand me that "I'm not a Bush man" nonsense. You LOVE him! Every time anyone criticizes him, there's Kimchi, standing by his man, calling us all lunatics and defending Bush's every move and word. You totally LOOOOOVE him!!!! :fluffle: :p

I'm saying that with any President, it's possible to prove that his party has abused power in the past.

If we're to start with that as a measure of distrust, then we can't trust anyone to be President.

Ever.

No matter who it is.

So, I say we trust whoever is President - regardless of what their party did in the past. We trust them until something comes up - and then we investigate. If we find something worth prosecuting, we prosecute.

Which seems to be what we're doing.

Otherwise, you can elect a completely hamstrung President.

Think about this for a minute - I've said it before:

You obviously trust Bush with the capability to arbitrarily nuke any nation on Earth without asking permission.

He has that power NOW. Right now.

Scared, yet? Think Bush is the evil warmonger? Will he nuke Iran?

You can't stop him - legally or otherwise. He holds that power.

And you're quibbling over something like warrants?:rolleyes:Youn know, other presidents in the past didn't operate under the theory of the unitary executive, and yet they managed to get all sorts of shit accomplished--some of it inside the law, some of it outside, and the stuff that you're talking about in previous posts (wiretapping MLK, etc) came back to bite those presidents in the ass. But except for Nixon, I don't recall any of them ever arguing that they were above the law. That's precisely what Bush is arguing, via Gonzales--that he is above the law, that he is as absolute a ruler as any emperor or potentate who ever strode the earth.

And by the way, no matter how hard you try to claim that you're not a Bush man, your posts belie your position. Embrace your hackery--you might as well, since everyone here already knows where you stand on this subject.

I guess that makes it even doubly ironic that most of them are dead or in jail and they haven't been able to attack in the U.S. since September 11, 2001.

Wow, one single sentence, which contains three blantant lies.

Haha, now who's being defeatist, eh? Allow me to paraphrase your argument just so you can see what it looks like from out here: Oh, well, this NSA program doesn't work, so I guess we're all doomed. We'd better just keep wasting time with this crap until the bombs go off, though; otherwise people might want us to do some work or something. But under no circumstances should we try to look for a program that does work, however. No, we'd rather accept being doomed.

Oh, and please, don't hand me that "I'm not a Bush man" nonsense. You LOVE him! Every time anyone criticizes him, there's Kimchi, standing by his man, calling us all lunatics and defending Bush's every move and word. You totally LOOOOOVE him!!!! :fluffle: :p

No, he may make mistakes, but the thought of either Gore or Kerry in that position is truly a nightmare.

If you're so smart, figure out a program that would work.

For starters, figure out how you're going to make some white-bread CIA guys walk, talk, and blend in with Pakistani tribesmen.

Start with the feet - you have to go without shoes for a few years to get the same type of calluses.

I'm bush like. The president is doing nothing wrong, thats why he is the president he cant do wrong. Its just a bunch of laberals being all laberal and talkin about laberal things like civil rights, people were never promised such things. President Washington monitored phone calls and um mails of electronicality. Oh and I almost forgot Nazz you can save money on your phone bill by switching to AT&T the president thought you should know.

No, he may make mistakes, but the thought of either Gore or Kerry in that position is truly a nightmare.

If you're so smart, figure out a program that would work.

For starters, figure out how you're going to make some white-bread CIA guys walk, talk, and blend in with Pakistani tribesmen.

Start with the feet - you have to go without shoes for a few years to get the same type of calluses.
OK, now I know you're just bullshitting us all. Calluses? Puh-leez. Those people do wear shoes, you know. :rolleyes:

And since I am so smart (thanks for recognizing the fact) -- here's a suggestion for a possible security surveillance system:

1. Right now, write your applications for retroactive FISA warrants in such a way as to pass muster with the FISA court. The White House has lawyers; they should be able to do it, provided this idea isn't a total, unsalvageable crock of shit.

2. Get some proper programmers to set up a system that looks for more than mere phone records for the program to track. Do not set up a system that is guaranteed to produce useless trivia. We may need to know which Pizza Hut a suspected terrorist cell in Brooklyn calls, but we don't need to know how many times the roommate of the 3rd cousin of a college student in Michigan whose uncle is married to the best friend of a cousin of a guy who might have been spotted from a distance at a training camp in Pakistan 6 years ago, orders Chinese per week. Just make a freaking effort to try and have your surveillance be about terrorism.

2. Ask Congress to expeditiously pass amendments/addendums to FISA to cover current tech. Make sure the new legislation draws a big fat no-can-miss line between what is public and what is private, what you need a warrant for and what you don't, and that it's not a random dragnet for any kind of activity at all. This is terror surveillance. Not internet porn surveillance or medical marijuana surveillance or criticizing Bush surveillance or even (what the hell) not reporting tips as taxable income surveillance. Make sure it also provides for an automated and check-able system for purging any personal information collected that later turns out to be not of interest. Also, make sure to tighten warrant requirements so you can be free to shorten/streamline the process of getting one.

3. Launch a whiz-bang public campaign to get the American people on board. Publicize loudly the demarcations of private vs. public to allay fears about civil liberties and make sure everybody knows that, if they are not suspects, their personal information will not be used by other government agencies and will be purged (and if they think they may be suspects, they can get a lawyer). Also, amend, if necessary, the Freedom of Information Act, to allow private citizens and/or their lawyers/legal representatives (but maybe not anyone else) to get information about themselves from FISA court records. This means that private citizens who detect mysterious oddities in their lives (like suddenly not being able to buy a plane ticket) can check to see if they were surveilled and if their records were purged properly -- and take action if they were not.

4. Get fucking warrants for every goddamned thing you do, so that if you ever do arrest anyone, you can make sure you can convict them in an actual court, rather than break yet more laws by Gitmo-izing them.

Let me guess your objection to these ideas: "But if we publicize it, the terrorists will know we're doing it."

My answer: It is common knowledge that a strong, obvious, visible police presence deters crime. Terrorist cells will have a harder time operating in this country if they know surveillance is happening and that the new laws allow the flexibility to keep up with new tech -- which means, we'll have an easier time catching them, and their bosses will have a harder time recruiting replacements.

The biggest hurdle to this would be getting Americans to accept this kind of surveillance. Personally, I have no problem with face-recognition programs, public surveillance cameras, etc. I have no expectation of privacy when I am in public. As long as I can be confident that my government is not creating Nixon-style enemies lists and is not selling my personal information to their corporate pals, then I don't really have a problem with the idea that emails might be randomly scanned, cell phone calls might be randomly scanned -- any more than I would have a problem with a cop standing on a street corner, watching what's going on.

But the only way for me to have that confidence is to have the ability to see it for myself. The program must be public and must be subject to review and policing by independent bodies. No trust, thank you very much. Anyone who says "trust me" is automatically suspect in my book.

Listened to Senator Durbin (D) and Senator Brownback (R) talk about the matter.

Apparently, they're working on changing the FISA law to make whatever the Bush administration is doing now with the NSA legal and easy to do - with some oversight yes, but radically streamlined warrant processes compared to what FISA demands now.

The law will also be amended to cover email (which didn't really exist outside of ARPANET in 1978) and cellphones and instant messaging, etc.

Aside from the Democrats being upset about an assertion of Presidential Article 2 powers, they are in full support of the surveillance itself.

Apparently, the chairman of the Intelligence committes in both the House and Senate and the ranking opposition members of each committee have already been told who was spied on. But, since they are bound by secrecy, they can't tell even other members of the committee.

It was a very interesting talk show with them (Talk of the Nation).

It sound like the FISA court will be just as secret, and just as private, and just as rubber stamp as before - but even faster in handing out a warrant - perhaps in seconds on demand.

Interestingly, if you thought you were under surveillance, and even if it was authorized by the FISA court, you would never be able to prove standing to sue the government about how they spied on you - you would never have access to the FISA court records to see if you had been spied on - with no evidence comes no standing.

This was also pointed out during the show.

Listened to Senator Durbin (D) and Senator Brownback (R) talk about the matter.

Apparently, they're working on changing the FISA law to make 1. whatever the Bush administration is doing now with the NSA legal and easy to do - with some oversight yes, but radically streamlined warrant processes compared to what FISA demands now.

The law will also be amended to cover email (which didn't really exist outside of ARPANET in 1978) and cellphones and instant messaging, etc.

Aside from the Democrats being upset about an assertion of Presidential Article 2 powers, they are in full support of the surveillance itself.

Apparently, the chairman of the Intelligence committes in both the House and Senate and the ranking opposition members of each committee have already been told who was spied on. 2. But, since they are bound by secrecy, they can't tell even other members of the committee.

It was a very interesting talk show with them (Talk of the Nation).

3. It sound like the FISA court will be just as secret, and just as private, and just as rubber stamp as before - but even faster in handing out a warrant - perhaps in seconds on demand.

4. Interestingly, if you thought you were under surveillance, and even if it was authorized by the FISA court, you would never be able to prove standing to sue the government about how they spied on you - you would never have access to the FISA court records to see if you had been spied on - with no evidence comes no standing.

This was also pointed out during the show.
1. Not good. What the Bush admin is doing now is a uesless mess as well as a violation of US law. Making it legal to waste the government's time to the point that it undermines actual security is not going to make us safer.

2. Not good. Secrecy is the preferred tool of tyrants, and secret government is antithetical to the entire American system. Evidence -- people who should be charged with making decisions about this program are barred from knowing what the program is doing and some members of a committee are given access that other members of the same committee are denied. Tell me how that committee is supposed to function then?

3. Not good. See objection #1. How is oversight possible if warrants are being spit out by the second, like Pez? Obviously, statements about increasing oversight, in such circumstances, are nothing but hot air.

4. Extremely bad. Bad beyond saying. The entire crux of the question of why this program is bad in the first place. That's how bad this is. It's so bad it reminds me of something the Soviets would have done. So please tell me that you forgot to mention that the Senators talked about how they were going to fix that problem. Otherwise, we're right back where we started with me saying that only fools trust the government.

1. Not good. What the Bush admin is doing now is a uesless mess as well as a violation of US law. Making it legal to waste the government's time to the point that it undermines actual security is not going to make us safer.

2. Not good. Secrecy is the preferred tool of tyrants, and secret government is antithetical to the entire American system. Evidence -- people who should be charged with making decisions about this program are barred from knowing what the program is doing and some members of a committee are given access that other members of the same committee are denied. Tell me how that committee is supposed to function then?

3. Not good. See objection #1.

4. Extremely bad. Bad beyond saying. The entire crux of the question of why this program is bad in the first place. That's how bad this is. It's so bad it reminds me of something the Soviets would have done. So please tell me that you forgot to mention that the Senators talked about how they were going to fix that problem. Otherwise, we're right back where we started with me saying that only fools trust the government.

It was really odd listening to Senator Durbin (D) talk bad one second about Bush, in light of potential abuse of Article 2 powers, but roll over and say he fully supports the surveillance program - all Bush had to do was ask the Senate, he says, and they would have given him whatever he needed.

And, he and Brownback appeared to genuinely concur that such legislation is coming up soon - to resolve this whole matter.

Seeing them agree so wholeheartedly after all of the rhetoric prior to this was truly shocking.

What really gets me is, both sides claim to be winning. I actually think the Muslim extremists are winning.

The people running Al Quaeda are very clever and have popular support on their side in the Middle East. Their organization, unlike the U.S. military that's trying to track them down, is composed of many cells capable of quick assessment and independent assessment and action. The specialized, hierarchical structure of the U.S. military basically insures that it can't keep up with Al Quaeda.

Then again, we're talking about home-front electronic surveillance here, not operations in the Middle East. Sorry.


I agree that they might be winning. After all Rome didn't fall to a greater empire at a final battle, it fell to "barbarians".

It was really odd listening to Senator Durbin (D) talk bad one second about Bush, in light of potential abuse of Article 2 powers, but roll over and say he fully supports the surveillance program - all Bush had to do was ask the Senate, he says, and they would have given him whatever he needed.

And, he and Brownback appeared to genuinely concur that such legislation is coming up soon - to resolve this whole matter.

Seeing them agree so wholeheartedly after all of the rhetoric prior to this was truly shocking.
Whores exist to be bought.

Of course the legislation is coming up. It has to, because the only alternative is to let the controversy continue -- and the controversy has "impeachment" stamped all over it -- and if Bush/Cheney get impeached for criminal offenses, there will be nothing to take the wind out of the sails of prosecutors now grilling Abramoff. And trust me, Durbin had plenty of lunches with Abramoff's people, and so did Brownback. Whores.

But before you announce that the problem is solved because now everyone is on the same page, I'll remind you that I still think it's the wrong page. And you haven't won the argument until we see what kind of legislation it is. I predict it will be one of Congress's patented "SIUTR" Acts (stands for Sweep It Under The Rug). It will accomplish nothing, change nothing and improve nothing, but it will take the letters NSA off the front pages. however, we will not be any safer, whether from terrorists or attacks on our civil liberties than we are now. If the next pres is a rightwinger, too, things will get worse -- i.e. less safe and less free -- because of this program.

Just wondering if this will help the conversation ...
that, and the side note that AGAIN DK's gonna be walking funny after this thread (not due me ... you KNOW who i'm typin' about). ;)

*ahem*

Little-known contractor has close ties with staff of NSA
By Siobhan Gorman
Sun reporter
Originally published January 29, 2006

When the National Security Agency went shopping for a private contractor to help it build a state-of-the-art tool for plucking key threats to the nation from a worldwide sea of digital communication, the company it chose was Science Applications International Corp.

More than three years later, the project, code-named Trailblazer, still hasn't gotten off the ground. And intelligence experts inside and outside the agency say that the NSA and SAIC share some of the blame.

Investigations of Trailblazer's early years by Congress and the NSA inspector general criticized the agency for its "confusion" about what Trailblazer would ultimately accomplish and for "inadequate management and oversight" of the program to improve collection and analysis of mountains of digital information.


Unsolved problems
When SAIC came on board as the lead contractor in 2002, NSA had not solved those problems, said intelligence officials with extensive knowledge of the program.

But SAIC did not provide computer experts with the technical or management skills to pull off a system as complex as Trailblazer, the intelligence experts said. Moreover, they said, SAIC did not say no when NSA made unrealistic demands.

Trailblazer has cost taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion, former intelligence officials told The Sun.

"The system in the Pentagon and defense-related agencies is notoriously susceptible to slippage and overruns," said Gordon Adams, director for security policy studies at George Washington University.

"A lot of the are traffic accidents waiting to happen," said Adams, who was speaking generally. "There's a penchant, particularly in the [information technology] area, to overdesign things, promise it will deliver all kinds of things and not be able to deliver on the project."

SAIC is among the fastest-growing government contractors in the country, expanding from an annual revenue of $243,000 in 1970 to more than $7.2 billion today.


43,000 employees
[I]The federal government accounts for two-thirds of San Diego-based SAIC's work, and the company has offices in 29 Maryland communities.

Some of SAIC's 43,000 employees worldwide could become millionaires if the company follows through on its plans to go public this year.

As SAIC has grown, it has forged close ties to several key defense and intelligence agencies, including the NSA. Among those who have served on SAIC's board of directors are former NSA Director Bobby Ray Inman; former CIA Directors John M. Deutch and Robert M. Gates; and former Defense Secretaries Melvin R. Laird and William J. Perry.

The door swings so regularly between the NSA and SAIC that the company has earned the nickname "NSA West" inside the intelligence community.

The Trailblazer project illustrates that point. William B. Black Jr. retired from his position in the elite senior cryptologic executive service at the NSA in 1997 to take a job as assistant vice president at SAIC.

Three years later, NSA Director Michael V. Hayden called Black back to the spy agency. By 2002, Black was overseeing NSA's Trailblazer project, with SAIC as its prime contractor.

Two other top NSA managers who worked on Trailblazer - Hal Smith and Sam Visner - also left the spy agency for jobs at SAIC. There, Smith worked on Trailblazer and the FBI's Virtual Case File program, according to a former senior intelligence official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

The FBI pulled the plug last year on the $170 million Virtual Case File program, which was supposed to bring the bureau's computer system into the 21st century, after it was criticized as unworkable by the Justice Department's inspector general and members of Congress.

The inspector general said the bulk of the program's problems were the fault of the bureau.
Black, Smith and Visner declined requests for interviews. An NSA spokesman denied repeated requests for comment.

An NSA spokeswoman told The Sun in 2003 that Black sold his SAIC stock when he returned to the agency in 2000 and recused himself for a year from "involvement in any matter affecting the financial interests" of the company.

Varied criteria
The spokeswoman said SAIC, which was selected as the prime contractor for Trailblazer in 2002, was one of three companies seeking the contract. The choice, she said, was based on a "formal source selection process" that looked at technical issues, management, cost and past performance.

SAIC officials declined requests for interviews for this article, referring questions to the NSA.

In 2003, Mark V. Hughes, then executive vice president of SAIC, told The Sun that the company hires former government officials not for influence but for their expertise. "We do a much better job for our customers if we have people in the company who really know the customers," he said then.

Hughes also said the company is scrupulous about obeying laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest. "As a government contractor," he said then, "just one or two violations could cause us to be suspended from government contracts. That would destroy our company."

Hughes has since left the company.

Jacques Gansler, a former undersecretary of defense who is now vice president for research at the University of Maryland, said the revolving door between government agencies and private government contractors has an upside.

Without former government officials in their ranks, he said, companies would have a difficult time navigating the labyrinth of the government procurement process. Before he took his Pentagon job dealing with acquisitions, Gansler was a senior executive with TASC, a major defense contractor.

Only problem is, he's claiming that they used electronic surveillance. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/06.html#a7043) Video at that link.

And in other shocking testimony, Gonzales said--not under oath, because the Republicans on the committee voted to not swear him in (wonder why that is?)--in this exchange with Joe Biden, that the reason we have to keep spying programs secret is because terrorists forget that we're trying to listen in on their conversations.


I mean, I think al Qaeda is a lot of things, but stupid? Stupid on a "dumbest criminal ever" level stupid? Come on. But this is the Attorney General for the US.

Yay?


Gonzales is a fascist, listen to his viewpoint of things and you will see that it does not differ from if he was wearing a Nazi uniform and speaking German in the 30s...

Gonzales is a fascist, listen to his viewpoint of things and you will see that it does not differ from if he was wearing a Nazi uniform and speaking German in the 30s...
Other than how often he laughs when people ask him serious, pointed questions.

Just wondering if this will help the conversation ...
that, and the side note that AGAIN DK's gonna be walking funny after this thread (not due me ... you KNOW who i'm typin' about). ;)

*ahem*

Little-known contractor has close ties with staff of NSA
By Siobhan Gorman
Sun reporter
Originally published January 29, 2006

When the National Security Agency went shopping for a private contractor to help it build a state-of-the-art tool for plucking key threats to the nation from a worldwide sea of digital communication, the company it chose was Science Applications International Corp.

More than three years later, the project, code-named Trailblazer, still hasn't gotten off the ground. And intelligence experts inside and outside the agency say that the NSA and SAIC share some of the blame.

Investigations of Trailblazer's early years by Congress and the NSA inspector general criticized the agency for its "confusion" about what Trailblazer would ultimately accomplish and for "inadequate management and oversight" of the program to improve collection and analysis of mountains of digital information.


Unsolved problems
When SAIC came on board as the lead contractor in 2002, NSA had not solved those problems, said intelligence officials with extensive knowledge of the program.

But SAIC did not provide computer experts with the technical or management skills to pull off a system as complex as Trailblazer, the intelligence experts said. Moreover, they said, SAIC did not say no when NSA made unrealistic demands.

Trailblazer has cost taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion, former intelligence officials told The Sun.

"The system in the Pentagon and defense-related agencies is notoriously susceptible to slippage and overruns," said Gordon Adams, director for security policy studies at George Washington University.

"A lot of the are traffic accidents waiting to happen," said Adams, who was speaking generally. "There's a penchant, particularly in the [information technology] area, to overdesign things, promise it will deliver all kinds of things and not be able to deliver on the project."

SAIC is among the fastest-growing government contractors in the country, expanding from an annual revenue of $243,000 in 1970 to more than $7.2 billion today.


43,000 employees
[I]The federal government accounts for two-thirds of San Diego-based SAIC's work, and the company has offices in 29 Maryland communities.

Some of SAIC's 43,000 employees worldwide could become millionaires if the company follows through on its plans to go public this year.

As SAIC has grown, it has forged close ties to several key defense and intelligence agencies, including the NSA. Among those who have served on SAIC's board of directors are former NSA Director Bobby Ray Inman; former CIA Directors John M. Deutch and Robert M. Gates; and former Defense Secretaries Melvin R. Laird and William J. Perry.

The door swings so regularly between the NSA and SAIC that the company has earned the nickname "NSA West" inside the intelligence community.

The Trailblazer project illustrates that point. William B. Black Jr. retired from his position in the elite senior cryptologic executive service at the NSA in 1997 to take a job as assistant vice president at SAIC.

Three years later, NSA Director Michael V. Hayden called Black back to the spy agency. By 2002, Black was overseeing NSA's Trailblazer project, with SAIC as its prime contractor.

Two other top NSA managers who worked on Trailblazer - Hal Smith and Sam Visner - also left the spy agency for jobs at SAIC. There, Smith worked on Trailblazer and the FBI's Virtual Case File program, according to a former senior intelligence official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

The FBI pulled the plug last year on the $170 million Virtual Case File program, which was supposed to bring the bureau's computer system into the 21st century, after it was criticized as unworkable by the Justice Department's inspector general and members of Congress.

The inspector general said the bulk of the program's problems were the fault of the bureau.
Black, Smith and Visner declined requests for interviews. An NSA spokesman denied repeated requests for comment.

An NSA spokeswoman told The Sun in 2003 that Black sold his SAIC stock when he returned to the agency in 2000 and recused himself for a year from "involvement in any matter affecting the financial interests" of the company.

Varied criteria
The spokeswoman said SAIC, which was selected as the prime contractor for Trailblazer in 2002, was one of three companies seeking the contract. The choice, she said, was based on a "formal source selection process" that looked at technical issues, management, cost and past performance.

SAIC officials declined requests for interviews for this article, referring questions to the NSA.

In 2003, Mark V. Hughes, then executive vice president of SAIC, told The Sun that the company hires former government officials not for influence but for their expertise. "We do a much better job for our customers if we have people in the company who really know the customers," he said then.

Hughes also said the company is scrupulous about obeying laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest. "As a government contractor," he said then, "just one or two violations could cause us to be suspended from government contracts. That would destroy our company."

Hughes has since left the company.

Jacques Gansler, a former undersecretary of defense who is now vice president for research at the University of Maryland, said the revolving door between government agencies and private government contractors has an upside.

Without former government officials in their ranks, he said, companies would have a difficult time navigating the labyrinth of the government procurement process. Before he took his Pentagon job dealing with acquisitions, Gansler was a senior executive with TASC, a major defense contractor.

Oh, so the incestuous relationship between government contracting firms and the revolving door of government appointees and bureaucratic bigwigs is a "surprise" to you?

Oh, how ignorant you are.

BTW, about two years ago, I worked for Engenia Software, who had just such a relationship with the NSA.

Not defending it - just saying that it's far, far, far, far more rampant than you can possibly imagine.

Whores exist to be bought.

Of course the legislation is coming up. It has to, because the only alternative is to let the controversy continue -- and the controversy has "impeachment" stamped all over it -- and if Bush/Cheney get impeached for criminal offenses, there will be nothing to take the wind out of the sails of prosecutors now grilling Abramoff. And trust me, Durbin had plenty of lunches with Abramoff's people, and so did Brownback. Whores.

But before you announce that the problem is solved because now everyone is on the same page, I'll remind you that I still think it's the wrong page. And you haven't won the argument until we see what kind of legislation it is. I predict it will be one of Congress's patented "SIUTR" Acts (stands for Sweep It Under The Rug). It will accomplish nothing, change nothing and improve nothing, but it will take the letters NSA off the front pages. however, we will not be any safer, whether from terrorists or attacks on our civil liberties than we are now. If the next pres is a rightwinger, too, things will get worse -- i.e. less safe and less free -- because of this program.

You're under the mistaken impression that Democrats are somehow profoundly separate from Republicans on the ideological scale.

There hasn't been a credible Left in the US since before the Depression.

I have the feeling that, buyer's market aside, the top people in each intelligence committee have been told who was spied on (that includes the top Democrats). Although they are not at liberty to tell anyone else whose name in particular that might be, the Democrats must have the impression that it's no one they care about (and the Republicans have that impression as well).

We're the kind of country that could easily repeat the internment that we did to the Japanese. And remember what party was in control when we did that - the party that was supposedly more to the Left than the Democrats of today.

I feel that they've seen exactly what the surveillance program is, and they're happy with it. I'm not saying that makes it right, but if you have the impression that Democrats hate Bush on principle, the principle is that they only hate him when he's screwing directly with them.

I think there's a lot of manus manum lavat going on in Congress. They are all about preserving their own power (whether Democrat or Republican), and actually solving a problem is something they don't do.

Most of the speeches you hear are meant to inflame particular constituencies, and then use those poll numbers to enhance their position rather than actually do anything.

Why else would the Senate be so anxious to defer what really should be Constitutional amendments and enacted legislation to the courts? Abortion? Gun rights? Spying on Americans?

No, even when the courts can't handle it (asbestos), they still don't have the balls or the interest to do anything.

If you're waiting for them to impeach Bush, you'll have to wait a long time, unless Abramhoff can point to an email that backs up an allegation of bribery.

Oh, so the incestuous relationship between government contracting firms and the revolving door of government appointees and bureaucratic bigwigs is a "surprise" to you?
I'm calling you on it. Post EXACTLY WHERE i said ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Until then, i'll have to consider you a peripheral, marginally significant moron (on the slide, at that). Not very hard to do that. And i'll probably hold everything you post in a regards of significance in direct respect to that. You not only don't pay attention, you misalign and DELIBERATELY misrepresent other people to try and make yourself and your rightwing BULLSH*T any where NEAR credible. What a swagger. Want some fries with that shake?

Oh, how ignorant you are.
Wahahahaha! :D
You're one of the few posters here that i can truly say is a hypocrite. It's bad enough you can't argue almost ANYTHING with integrity but you are one of the blessed few TRULY IGNORANT people i've ever had the misfortune of inclusion in a post with my name. You're a stink bomb, and it's a serious question as to if you're even aware of it. I don't think i can even talk about you to people IRL without an insipid psychological leftover.

BTW, about two years ago, I worked for Engenia Software, who had just such a relationship with the NSA.As a lawyer? Or what employment are you professing in that regard? Which line of work suits your "argument" in this thread?

Not defending it - just saying that it's far, far, far, far more rampant than you can possibly imagine.You don't understand other people's imagination well at all. And, to your credit, if i suspected you were truly "defending" it, in your typical manner, you'd attempt to tie in Clinton to it as well as Harry Reid.
--
It would seem you're like another axiom we see often here, in regards to the credibility of your posts/topics ...
you govern best where you say the least.

I'm calling you on it. Post EXACTLY WHERE i said ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Until then, i'll have to consider you a peripheral, marginally significant moron (on the slide, at that). Not very hard to do that. And i'll probably hold everything you post in a regards of significance in direct respect to that. You not only don't pay attention, you misalign and DELIBERATELY misrepresent other people to try and make yourself and your rightwing BULLSH*T any where NEAR credible. What a swagger. Want some fries with that shake?

Your whole previous post was on how you think the relationship between NSA and SAIC was an incestuous one, with high ranking employees going back and forth, and contracts not being fulfilled.

As a lawyer? Or what employment are you professing in that regard? Which line of work suits your "argument" in this thread?
I am a contract lawyer for consulting firms - get it?

I guess your only method of arguing is calling people names - I don't see anywhere a single plausible refutation of anything I just posted.

Your whole previous post was on how you think the relationship between NSA and SAIC was an incestuous one, with high ranking employees going back and forth, and contracts not being fulfilled.Ah, i get it, you simply don't understand plain english if it isn't in a talking point memo. It makes sense now.
Note what i actually said:
Just wondering if this will help the conversation ...
that, and the side note that AGAIN DK's gonna be walking funny after this thread (not due me ... you KNOW who i'm typin' about).
As Michael Douglas noted in Falling Down ...
"It says all that?"

I am a contract lawyer for consulting firms - get it?
Oh you aren't a free-lancing genius with connections hither & tither and expertise in everything that anyone ever posts here? You SURE come across that way. I don't usually subscribe to that "slimeball lawyer represents whoever the almighty dollar divines" idea but i'm willing to alter my perception a smidge for the likes of you.

I guess your only method of arguing is calling people names - I don't see anywhere a single plausible refutation of anything I just posted.Two things. You called me ignorant first. So suck that, hypocrite. Second thing, you didn't refute my call on you, and YOU CAN'T, so you're only further discrediting your own self here. It would be shameful if you hadn't calloused the rest of us so much with your drivel.

I guess that makes it even doubly ironic that most of them are dead or in jail and they haven't been able to attack in the U.S. since September 11, 2001.

Of course nothing tops irony like the fact that a group of supposedly incompetent terrorists managed to pull off 9-11 in the first place.

Second thing, you didn't refute my call on you, and YOU CAN'T, so you're only further discrediting your own self here. It would be shameful if you hadn't calloused the rest of us so much with your drivel.

I did refute your call. And I most certainly did.

You're whole post was about how there's a revolving door between government contractors and government officialdom - between NSA and SAIC - and how that somehow relates to a complete inability to complete projects for the NSA.

And I said that is common practice here in DC. Extremely common. In fact, I've participated in companies and contracts that did exactly that.

I did refute your call. And I most certainly did.
No you didn't.
Now unfortunately, i have to get EVEN MORE CONDESCENDING with you than the average right-wing blabbermouth:
You DID NOT REFUTE the issue of contention i VERY CLEARLY POSTED IN RESPONSE to YOUR FALLACIOUS ASSERTION. I've gone over it too much for even remedial measures.
You might jaunt off from your console in self-consolation but quite clearly you didn't refute my call at all.
What i DID was POST (hey - get that - Straughn POSTED something that was an ARTICLE!! Something you just implied on another thread that i tend to not do instead of flame and name-call! Wrong/blatant lie on your part!) an article. EVERY OTHER THING I SAID I REPOSTED FOR YOU.
You asserted otherwise - you are wrong. Nothing else to it. Even i don't have patience for your osmium-composite cranial density.

You're whole post was about how there's a revolving door between government contractors and government officialdom - between NSA and SAIC - and how that somehow relates to a complete inability to complete projects for the NSA.(Time to hold your hand again) Try reading a little more on the subject.

And I said that is common practice here in DC. Extremely common. In fact, I've participated in companies and contracts that did exactly that.I've already clarified what i'm talking about. Until you come to understand i can't help you.

And I said that is common practice here in DC. Extremely common. In fact, I've participated in companies and contracts that did exactly that.

Just because it's common doesn't make it right.

Just because it's common doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying it's right - I'm saying that's how things have been done here since the 1960s - since the days of McNamara.

SAIC was founded by J.R. Byster, one of McNamara's whiz kids.

SAIC was one of the first revolving door consulting firms.

1. You're under the mistaken impression that Democrats are somehow profoundly separate from Republicans on the ideological scale.

2. There hasn't been a credible Left in the US since before the Depression

3. I have the feeling that, buyer's market aside, the top people in each intelligence committee have been told who was spied on (that includes the top Democrats). Although they are not at liberty to tell anyone else whose name in particular that might be, the Democrats must have the impression that it's no one they care about (and the Republicans have that impression as well).

4. We're the kind of country that could easily repeat the internment that we did to the Japanese. And remember what party was in control when we did that - the party that was supposedly more to the Left than the Democrats of today.

5. I feel that they've seen exactly what the surveillance program is, and they're happy with it. I'm not saying that makes it right, but if you have the impression that Democrats hate Bush on principle, the principle is that they only hate him when he's screwing directly with them.

6. I think there's a lot of manus manum lavat going on in Congress. They are all about preserving their own power (whether Democrat or Republican), and actually solving a problem is something they don't do.

7. Most of the speeches you hear are meant to inflame particular constituencies, and then use those poll numbers to enhance their position rather than actually do anything.

Why else would the Senate be so anxious to defer what really should be Constitutional amendments and enacted legislation to the courts? Abortion? Gun rights? Spying on Americans?

8. No, even when the courts can't handle it (asbestos), they still don't have the balls or the interest to do anything.

If you're waiting for them to impeach Bush, you'll have to wait a long time, unless Abramhoff can point to an email that backs up an allegation of bribery.
1. Another problem with your lack of reading comprehension. You named Durbin, a Democrat, and Brownback, a Republican. I called them both whores. Further down in my post I implied that Durbin is just as badly entangled with crooked lobbyists as any Republican. Exactly how does that add up to me assuming an ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans? I won't make you work for it -- the answer is, I don't and I didn't.

2. That has nothing to do with this thread -- unless you are opting to open a new topic?

3. Your feelings are possibly the most irrelevant thing you've brought up so far. I decline to base my political decisions on your guess work. Opinions and conclusions based on observed facts are fine as far as they go, but kindly don't waste our time with assumptions and feelings.

And what precisely do you mean by "buyer's market"? Is that another irrelevant reference (see item 2 above) or is it another pretentious misuse of language (see item 6 below).

4. Internment was a bad act in the 1940's and it would be a bad act now or in the future, regardless of who commits it. Once again -- yet again -- you are trying to excuse the bad acts of today by citing the bad acts of yester-year. No matter how many times you throw that crap at the wall, it's never going to stick. A bad act is a bad act is a bad act. Deal with it.

5. Feelings. Nothing more than feelings. See item 3 above.

6. First calluses and now Latin??? How to Argue Like a Loser, the DK Way. Step 12, when your back is up against the wall, blurt out common cliches in a foreign language. BTW, for those who don't speak Latin, "manus manum lavat" means one hand washing the other. Oh, and the statement it's in is one of those "no-shit-Sherlock" obvious remarks. What's your point?

7. And?

8. What are you referring to -- the possibility of impeachment? So you're counting on lazy, cowardly courts to keep your boys out of the slammer? You're probably safe on that score, seeing how your boys have stacked the courts with boys and girls of their own.

I'm not saying it's right - I'm saying that's how things have been done here since the 1960s - since the days of McNamara.

SAIC was founded by J.R. Byster, one of McNamara's whiz kids.

SAIC was one of the first revolving door consulting firms.
You just refuse to acknowledge that the fact that things were done this way is the reason why we have laws against some of them now. FISA was passed BECAUSE of surveillance abuses by the government. Abramoff is in trouble BECAUSE the things he did were declared illegal after they were done by others. Same with contract regulations, etc, etc.

Oh, and by the way, name-dropping without explanatory references is another sign of a losing argument. If you are going to cite Byster and McNamara, you should tell us who they are (or at least post links). Otherwise, you're just wasting web space with such useless posts.

1. Another problem with your lack of reading comprehension. You named Durbin, a Democrat, and Brownback, a Republican. I called them both whores. Further down in my post I implied that Durbin is just as badly entangled with crooked lobbyists as any Republican. Exactly how does that add up to me assuming an ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans? I won't make you work for it -- the answer is, I don't and I didn't.

2. That has nothing to do with this thread -- unless you are opting to open a new topic?

3. Your feelings are possibly the most irrelevant thing you've brought up so far. I decline to base my political decisions on your guess work. Opinions and conclusions based on observed facts are fine as far as they go, but kindly don't waste our time with assumptions and feelings.

And what precisely do you mean by "buyer's market"? Is that another irrelevant reference (see item 2 above) or is it another pretentious misuse of language (see item 6 below).

4. Internment was a bad act in the 1940's and it would be a bad act now or in the future, regardless of who commits it. Once again -- yet again -- you are trying to excuse the bad acts of today by citing the bad acts of yester-year. No matter how many times you throw that crap at the wall, it's never going to stick. A bad act is a bad act is a bad act. Deal with it.

5. Feelings. Nothing more than feelings. See item 3 above.

6. First calluses and now Latin??? How to Argue Like a Loser, the DK Way. Step 12, when your back is up against the wall, blurt out common cliches in a foreign language. BTW, for those who don't speak Latin, "manus manum lavat" means one hand washing the other. Oh, and the statement it's in is one of those "no-shit-Sherlock" obvious remarks. What's your point?

7. And?

8. What are you referring to -- the possibility of impeachment? So you're counting on lazy, cowardly courts to keep your boys out of the slammer? You're probably safe on that score, seeing how your boys have stacked the courts with boys and girls of their own.
I'd only mildly mentioned what you've provided IN MULTITUDE, Muravyets.
*bows*

I'd only mildly mentioned what you've provided IN MULTITUDE, Muravyets.
*bows*
Well, you know what I always say -- a thing worth doing is worth doing to death. :D Thanks.

Well, you know what I always say -- a thing worth doing is worth doing to death. :D Thanks.
Seconded. To rebirth, even!
BTW, i made note to DK that you're not finished with him, on that other thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468096

Seconded. To rebirth, even!
BTW, i made note to DK that you're not finished with him, on that other thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468096
Um...thanks...I guess. ;)

Um...thanks...I guess. ;)
Well, admittedly biased as i am *red-letter post*
you make some EXCELLENT posts, and DK has admitted that he respects The Nazz for the argument ... so i figure since you've got some specifics that he needs to clarify, fair is fair. *nods*

Well, admittedly biased as i am *red-letter post*
you make some EXCELLENT posts, and DK has admitted that he respects The Nazz for the argument ... so i figure since you've got some specifics that he needs to clarify, fair is fair. *nods*
Clarify? You mean defend. There's nothing unclear about his statements. That's what makes it so easy to argue with him. But so often, I end up having the last word. Kind of dull, really. :D

Clarify? You mean defend. There's nothing unclear about his statements. That's what makes it so easy to argue with him. But so often, I end up having the last word. Kind of dull, really. :D
Yes, as the saying goes ... the play is the thing!
I can't say s/he's been much good at defending ANYTHING other than right-wing talking points, and they obviously speak for themselves as far as veracity goes ;)
Invariably, there is a (fair) argument that says the point of the argument is just the semantic aspect of it ... someone takes the topic line and applies their interpretation/summation of it ... this of course leads to extrapolation and what would appear to be almost invariably the subtle or overt -jacking to other topics. The dif being with s/he attempting the -jack before ever ACTUALLY dealing with the facts.
I usually, if not feeling particularly in the way of combat, basically post whatever source material and leave it up to others to argue about.
You're right about making it eay to argue with s/he, though ... as i apparently invest a little energy in it as well.

Yes, as the saying goes ... the play is the thing!
I can't say s/he's been much good at defending ANYTHING other than right-wing talking points, and they obviously speak for themselves as far as veracity goes ;)
Invariably, there is a (fair) argument that says the point of the argument is just the semantic aspect of it ... someone takes the topic line and applies their interpretation/summation of it ... this of course leads to extrapolation and what would appear to be almost invariably the subtle or overt -jacking to other topics. The dif being with s/he attempting the -jack before ever ACTUALLY dealing with the facts.
I usually, if not feeling particularly in the way of combat, basically post whatever source material and leave it up to others to argue about.
You're right about making it eay to argue with s/he, though ... as i apparently invest a little energy in it as well.
I despise talking points.

Did you ever see the comedian Colin Quinn's political chat show Tough Crowd? Probably not. Few people did. That's why it was cancelled. On it, comedians were supposed to comment on the news, but if one of the comics just used the topic to set up a joke for a cheap laugh, Quinn would immediately fine said comic $20, which he had to pay in cash on the spot. A coffee can on a string would drop from the ceiling for the purpose. I wish news shows would do the same thing. Every time some guest or pundit -- whether some party spokesmodel or Newt Gingrich or Al Sharpton themselves -- starts spouting party talking points, a buzzer should go off and they should be fined. 3 offenses in the same show, they should be kicked off, or have baloney thrown at them, or something.

I wish we could have something similar here. Some smilie or code especially for calling a talking point violation.

Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060209-1034-bush.html

If the so-called "illegal" wiretaps were not allowed, how many of these thwarted threats to American security might have actually come to fruition?

Think about it. It's a small price to pay.

lol

No, he may make mistakes, but the thought of either Gore or Kerry in that position is truly a nightmare.

If you're so smart, figure out a program that would work.

I don't know why you included the second part of the quote, so I got rid of it. I assume you are talking about the wiretapping program, and the warrantless ones, hence the point of the article.

For a working program, its easy. Use the old one. Get warrants.

If you have problems with the law, lobby to change it, dont just break it! Arguing that you smoked weed because you thought it was a civil liberty does not make it legal!

Keep the program. If it is to hard to get a warrant, such as only knowing one of the numbers, change it so that if the one number is a known terrorist/etc, then they can be blanket scanned.

I have seen no valid reason to allow warrantless wiretapping legal, when the government can do it 72 hours in advance. If you think some part of the warrant getting process is bad, argue against it, argue for it to be changed, it makes no sense to argue for warrantless taps!

(Note to DK: This thread is more of a catch all for the thread, so if part of it seems irrelevant to your post, sorry).

Your tax dollars at work.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060209-1034-bush.html

If the so-called "illegal" wiretaps were not allowed, how many of these thwarted threats to American security might have actually come to fruition?

All of them?

Did you even read the article?

"The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaeda operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative."

"...the White House would not say whether the 2002 plot was thwarted as a result of the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the international e-mails and phone calls of people inside the United States with suspected ties to terrorists."

How does any of this have to do with illegal wiretaps?

It seems all of this could have been done within the law, using legal wiretaps. I still have yet to see a convincing argument for illegal wiretaps.

The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee has done interviews on the matter. Jane Harman has stated that the program that she has been briefed on is, indeed, a legal and necessary program. In an interview (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181012,00.html) with Brit Hume, on Fox, she said as much. Her main complaints are two. First that the NY Times has compromised a valuable program and second that there may not have been enough consultation with the Congress. After Pat Leahy was kicked off the Senate Intel committee for leaking classified information, I can understand why the Administration might be a little reluctant to share any vital secrets with Congress. After all, the classification of Top Secret is applied to "information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."


HARMAN: Well, the foreign collection program that I know about I believe is legal and necessary. If in fact, as some of the newspaper stories allege, there is a domestic surveillance program going on, my view is that the law requires that domestic surveillance only be done pursuant to a court order, either with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the criminal court.


Anyhow, this Democrat has moved this topic from the category of possible civil rights violations to a political muckraking effort.

The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence committee has done interviews on the matter. Jane Harman has stated that the program that she has been briefed on is, indeed, a legal and necessary program. In an interview (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181012,00.html) with Brit Hume, on Fox, she said as much. Her main complaints are two. First that the NY Times has compromised a valuable program and second that there may not have been enough consultation with the Congress. After Pat Leahy was kicked off the Senate Intel committee for leaking classified information, I can understand why the Administration might be a little reluctant to share any vital secrets with Congress. After all, the classification of Top Secret is applied to "information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."



Anyhow, this Democrat has moved this topic from the category of possible civil rights violations to a political muckraking effort.
Wow. Do you work for Fox News? Because I would think you'd need professional training to craft a post out of 100% misinformation, distortion and libel, as you just did.

First, you claim that Democrat Jane Harmon has appoved the NSA program as legal. You back this up with a quote in which she specifically states that the program as described to her by the Bush admin would be legal, but if the news reports are true, then it's not legal. And since that quote clearly undermines your initial claim, you then dismiss your own evidence by accusing Harmon (your supposed ally) of political muckraking. That is some masterful squirming and twisting there -- real political yoga.

And along the way, just for good measure, you accuse Pat Leahy of a treasonous crime. Has he been indicted recently? If not, then you are blowing libelous smoke, my friend. Let's hope Mr. Leahy isn't reading this and that he can't trace your identity from this forum, or he could sue you.

BTW, I think the word you wanted is "mudslinging," not "muckraking." "Muckraking" describes the early investigative journalists who blew the lid off government corruption in the 19th century. They got that name because they were described as "raking the muck of politics." Muckrakers are a good thing. We need more of them nowadays.

But I suppose one who quotes Fox News must be expected to be as lax in their use of language and facts as Fox News itself. Didn't they illustrate their coverage of Bush's San Diego claim with a shot of the Library Tower being blown up by space aliens from the movie "Independence Day"? Yeah, they're credible. That's right up there with the Weekly World News's pencil drawings of giant man-eating mermaids.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-02-08.jpg

After Pat Leahy was kicked off the Senate Intel committee for leaking classified information, I can understand why the Administration might be a little reluctant to share any vital secrets with Congress. After all, the classification of Top Secret is applied to "information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."
I guess that's what makes it okay when Libby does it!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002795924_leak10.html

See it's NOT a big deal as long as you're doing it FOR Bush. Against Emperor Bush, well, time to blackball you and torch your children.