NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#
And you're surprised? W may be the laughing, smirking, illiterate good old boy pseudo-Texan but trust me, he has some very competent pepole behind that throne.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

it was to protect you from the commies, of which i have a list of 57 who work in the state department. wait, no, not the state department... in your house. yeah, that's it. i have a list of 57 communists who live in your basement. that's why we needed to illegally tap your phone.

And you're surprised? W may be the laughing, smirking, illiterate good old boy pseudo-Texan but trust me, he has some very competent pepole behind that throne.

I'm quite certain that Bush's "illiterate good old boy" persona is just that, a public persona. You don't get to the position he is in by being as stupid as he sounds. Of course, he may be just intelligent enough to hire some damned smart people, but I think he's rather more shrewd than that.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#

I guess you don't remember Congressional testimony from 1978, where the NSA said they were monitoring everything.

Every microwave relay tower in the US has an NSA monitor on it.

Got it? They've been listening to everything for a long time.

it was to protect you from the commies, of which i have a list of 57 who work in the state department. wait, no, not the state department... in your house. yeah, that's it. i have a list of 57 communists who live in your basement. that's why we needed to illegally tap your phone.
I have a statement, Mr. Soviets, that states you were involved with this group of 57 communists and were planning to destroy the world's largest ball of string. Is this true? May I add your name is very communist too.

Couldn't help it, even though I'm okay with the wiretaps. Its been going on since the 70s.

it was to protect you from the commies, of which i have a list of 57 who work in the state department. wait, no, not the state department... in your house. yeah, that's it. i have a list of 57 communists who live in your basement. that's why we needed to illegally tap your phone.
Well, when you find 'em make them chip in for rent retroactively. I could use the cash.

I guess you don't remember Congressional testimony from 1978, where the NSA said they were monitoring everything.

Every microwave relay tower in the US has an NSA monitor on it.

Got it? They've been listening to everything for a long time.
I was 4 years old. Cut me some slack. Still seems fucked up to spy on one's own population. Especially since every law enforcement agency needs a warrant to wiretap.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace

Really?! We were officially in a state of war with each and every one of the three members of the Axis of Evil (though we had a ceasefire with two of them), and Al Qaeda had already declared war on us, and had already murdered hundreds of people in that war.

I was 4 years old. Cut me some slack. Still seems fucked up to spy on one's own population. Especially since every law enforcement agency needs a warrant to wiretap.

The subtle difference is that every phone call is monitored by a computer, not a human.

If certain key words or phrases are identified, or certain numbers of interest are connected to, a report is dumped by the software on an analyst's desk.

If the analyst thinks it is worth pursuing, they get a warrant to find out what people were saying.

The pioneers of data mining and voice recognition are the NSA. Not that they seem to find much that we hear about.

Their charter is, and has been, Top Secret. You and I don't even know what they are truly authorized to do.

Couldn't help it, even though I'm okay with the wiretaps. Its been going on since the 70s.
Why do conservatives not give a shit about privacy rights?

The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.

June 2000? Wait a minute, that's during the Clinton Administration! I guess Bush isn't the only one to blame for this type of program...

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#

Seeing is how former President Clinton failed to assassinate Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, major surveillance was needed to thwart terrorist’s intensions. The US did have knowledge that there would be an attack since that's all those people talk about in their Al-Quieda message boards...

Why do conservatives not give a shit about privacy rights?

because they hate our freedoms

The subtle difference is that every phone call is monitored by a computer, not a human.

If certain key words or phrases are identified, or certain numbers of interest are connected to, a report is dumped by the software on an analyst's desk.

If the analyst thinks it is worth pursuing, they get a warrant to find out what people were saying.

The pioneers of data mining and voice recognition are the NSA. Not that they seem to find much that we hear about.

Their charter is, and has been, Top Secret. You and I don't even know what they are truly authorized to do.
I don't like it.

June 2000? Wait a minute, that's during the Clinton Administration! I guess Bush isn't the only one to blame for this type of program...

Why do conservatives not give a shit about privacy rights?

Why did Clinton not give a shit about privacy rights?

Seeing is how former President Clinton failed to assassinate Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, major surveillance was needed to thwart terrorist’s intensions. The US did have knowledge that there would be an attack since that's all those people talk about in their Al-Quieda message boards...
That old gag. Yeah, bin laden was spotted by a predator drone, but the armed predator wasn't available at the time. They could have fired a cruise missile, but the time it takes to spin one up and have it travel to it's target would have meant that they'd miss bin laden anyway. Or are you refering to a different incident?

Why did Clinton not give a shit about privacy rights?
Cos he was a conservative.

I'm quite certain that Bush's "illiterate good old boy" persona is just that, a public persona. You don't get to the position he is in by being as stupid as he sounds. Of course, he may be just intelligent enough to hire some damned smart people, but I think he's rather more shrewd than that.

I've always thought Bush was smarter than he sounded. Of course, that's still a low bar. ;)

Cos he was a conservative.
Really? I don't see him as a pundit on Fox News nowadays. You would think that a President who attacked countries on seven different occasions without UN authorization would be more popular with Republicans. You know, the President who adopted Newt Gingrich's slogan, and claimed that he had "ended welfare as we know it".

June 2000? Wait a minute, that's during the Clinton Administration! I guess Bush isn't the only one to blame for this type of program...

Nooo! It can't be! Everyone knows that Bush is responsible for everything bad!

Nooo! It can't be! Everyone knows that Bush is responsible for everything bad!

BREAKING NEWS: Bush Causes Hemorrhoids!

Nooo! It can't be! Everyone knows that Bush is responsible for everything bad!

Tell me about it...people forget that the Clinton administration wasn't that much different than the current one, and many of the policies today had their origins in that period or even earlier.

BREAKING NEWS: Bush Causes Hemorrhoids!

I guarantee you someone would say "But under Clinton, there were no hemorrhoids!".

Tell me about it...people forget that the Clinton administration wasn't that much different than the current one, and many of the policies today had their origins in that period or even earlier.
Except for trivial things like women's rights and gay rights and seperation of church and state...

Tell me about it...people forget that the Clinton administration wasn't that much different than the current one, and many of the policies today had their origins in that period or even earlier.

People also forget that before Bush, Michael Moore said on his TV show that Clinton was the BEST Republican President since Reagan.

Really? I don't see him as a pundit on Fox News nowadays.

conservative /= republican

fox news is a propaganda arm of the republican party, and the bush movement in particular


edit: on a related topic, it's actually rather interesting to watch the bush movement turn against conservatives who don't follow the movement line exactly. you get to watch noted conservatives being trashed as 'liberals' quite regularly. amusing, if it wasn't so disturbing.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#

Dude, even the IRAA has been monitoring our computers. And a reason why John Kerry isn't president, is because he wanted to crack down on illegal downloading of music, and wanted to charge 100 dollars per song. I'd say that costed him the election from alot of the young voters, as myself. I think if he didn't care, then maybe I would have voted for him, but now in the present, even if he didn't i'd still not vote for him. He's a flip flop fuck.

This thread is a perfect example of what I find so equally amusing and frustrating about the American condition ....

Everyone's trying so hard to find who to blame:

"Bush did it!"
"Clinton did it first!"
"Nixon did it before Clinton!"
"It's the Republicans!"
"It's the economy, stupid!"
"It's the Liberal Commies!"
"It's a terrorist plot!"
"It's a Jewish agenda conspiracy!"

But .... NOBODY FIXES THE FUCKIN' PROBLEM!!

*sigh*

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

Think about it. They monitor our calls to make sure things like 9/11 dont happen. ok so they mucked it up last time by theyve stopped so much bad stuff since then. They couldve easily saved your lives. I live in England and the same thing happens here but the amount of stuff our MI5 has saved us from makes me praise them for their work.

Dude, even the IRAA has been monitoring our computers. And a reason why John Kerry isn't president, is because he wanted to crack down on illegal downloading of music, and wanted to charge 100 dollars per song. I'd say that costed him the election from alot of the young voters, as myself. I think if he didn't care, then maybe I would have voted for him, but now in the present, even if he didn't i'd still not vote for him. He's a flip flop fuck.

???

Except for trivial things like women's rights and gay rights and seperation of church and state...

In all honesty, there is very little difference between the two administrations. Abortion is still legal and gay marriage is still banned just like from 1993-2001; there has been absolutely no change in either of them for the simple fact that the President's opinion on the matter doesn't mean a thing.

Ironically, it wasn't until the Bush Administration that the Pentagon stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder...

People also forget that before Bush, Michael Moore said on his TV show that Clinton was the BEST Republican President since Reagan.

Have you not figured it out yet? Michael Moore doesn't know anything about anything.

In all honesty, there is very little difference between the two administrations. Abortion is still legal and gay marriage is still banned just like from 1993-2001; there has been absolutely no change in either of them for the simple fact that the President's opinion on the matter doesn't mean a thing.

Ironically, it wasn't until the Bush Administration that the Pentagon stopped classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder...
http://www.kingdomcoming.com/
I just posted this on another thread.

Have you not figured it out yet? Michael Moore doesn't know anything about anything.

Maybe not, but I thought he was funny when he said that.

This thread is a perfect example of what I find so equally amusing and frustrating about the American condition ....

Everyone's trying so hard to find who to blame:

"Bush did it!"
"Clinton did it first!"
"Nixon did it before Clinton!"
"It's the Republicans!"
"It's the economy, stupid!"
"It's the Liberal Commies!"
"It's a terrorist plot!"
"It's a Jewish agenda conspiracy!"

But .... NOBODY FIXES THE FUCKIN' PROBLEM!!

*sigh*

You've hit the nail on the head. People have to have scapegoats because they have idealized interpretations of their party's presidents and wrongdoing just doesn't fit in to that view...from what you'll hear amongst Republicans or Democrats, you'd almost guess that Clinton or Reagan were God himself come to rule the US for eight years.

Have you not figured it out yet? Michael Moore doesn't know anything about anything.

even though he actually was right on the example in question?

http://www.kingdomcoming.com/
I just posted this on another thread.

Guess what happened in 1994? The whole mess got started with the Republican sweep of Congress that year...Bush's election is hardly the start of this mess.

Dude, even the IRAA has been monitoring our computers. And a reason why John Kerry isn't president, is because he wanted to crack down on illegal downloading of music, and wanted to charge 100 dollars per song. I'd say that costed him the election from alot of the young voters, as myself. I think if he didn't care, then maybe I would have voted for him, but now in the present, even if he didn't i'd still not vote for him. He's a flip flop fuck.

Not like it matters. The 18-24 demographic has a historic voting rate of 10%. This last election, IIRC, it made the startling jump to 16%.

I'm betting a good chunk of that percentage is military.

The 18-24 demographic is not one to rely on in a crunch.

Go for the old people.

Have you not figured it out yet? Michael Moore doesn't know anything about anything.
You're one to talk.

Dude, even the IRAA has been monitoring our computers. And a reason why John Kerry isn't president, is because he wanted to crack down on illegal downloading of music, and wanted to charge 100 dollars per song. I'd say that costed him the election from alot of the young voters, as myself. I think if he didn't care, then maybe I would have voted for him, but now in the present, even if he didn't i'd still not vote for him. He's a flip flop fuck.
Yeah, keep stealing that music.

Why did Clinton not give a shit about privacy rights?
Speaking of Privacy Rights, can anyone point out exactly where in the constitution it says you have a "right to privacy"?

Yes, I know about Warrants and all, but apparently even though they monitor you, they still have to have a Warrant to read/hear what you said exactly...

IMO, this is much ado about nothin'.

http://www.kingdomcoming.com/
I just posted this on another thread.
Thanks for reminding me about that book. I've been meaning to read it.

The NSA is probably allowed to survey, monitor and eavesdrop on pretty much whatever they like. Not stating somewhere else is better, but you americans might not be as free as you think

Guess what happened in 1994? The whole mess got started with the Republican sweep of Congress that year...Bush's election is hardly the start of this mess.
No kidding, but he's hardly helping.

Really? I don't see him as a pundit on Fox News nowadays. You would think that a President who attacked countries on seven different occasions without UN authorization would be more popular with Republicans. You know, the President who adopted Newt Gingrich's slogan, and claimed that he had "ended welfare as we know it".
Indeed, and he also authorised the end of the American manufacturing sector, and put in place the laws which enabled resistance to gay marriage. Quite conservative indeed, I'm sure you'll agree.

Except for trivial things like women's rights and gay rights and seperation of church and state...

You're kidding, right? Clinton was a disaster for the gay community. Who signed DOMA into law? Who gave us "don't ask, don't tell?" Clinton, that's who. And don't get me started on all the conservative legislation he pushed for.

No, like most democrats, he pretended to give a rats ass about the gay community to get votes and then promptly abandoned us. He was nothing more than a conservative in liberals clothing. There are very few real liberals in the US government. And the last good one was the late Paul Wellstone. *sigh*

Indeed, and he also authorised the end of the American manufacturing sector

That was dying on its own. Comparative advantage makes manufactured goods a lot cheaper which means more buying power for people like me...if you want a good job, get an education. I'm not going to subsidize your jobs by paying more for products that could be made cheaper and better elsewhere.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#
So does this mean that we can find all those people who were saying that we needed to give up our freedoms after 9/11 and kick them in the nads for being so fucking stupid?

So does this mean that we can find all those people who were saying that we needed to give up our freedoms after 9/11 and kick them in the nads for being so fucking stupid?

Sure, but why stop there? Anyone who supports illegal encroachment on freedoms needs a good kick to the nads...

So does this mean that we can find all those people who were saying that we needed to give up our freedoms after 9/11 and kick them in the nads for being so fucking stupid?
Just because some computer is electronically storing your conversations in case they need to investigate you or somebody who calls you does not make you less free...

It just makes it harder for the criminals to get away with crimes.

Just because some computer is electronically storing your conversations in case they need to investigate you or somebody who calls you does not make you less free...

It just makes it harder for the criminals to get away with crimes.

explain to me for what reason totalitarian states engage in widespread domestic spying

Just because some computer is electronically storing your conversations in case they need to investigate you or somebody who calls you does not make you less free...

It just makes it harder for the criminals to get away with crimes.
Yes it does, and if you can't see how, then you're willfully blind.

You're kidding, right? Clinton was a disaster for the gay community. Who signed DOMA into law? Who gave us "don't ask, don't tell?" Clinton, that's who. And don't get me started on all the conservative legislation he pushed for.

No, like most democrats, he pretended to give a rats ass about the gay community to get votes and then promptly abandoned us. He was nothing more than a conservative in liberals clothing. There are very few real liberals in the US government. And the last good one was the late Paul Wellstone. *sigh*
Clinton isn't some sort of God to me by which all presidents should look up to. Clinton had faults and things weren't utterly peachy for homosexuals under him but if you're really going to compare Bush and Clinton when it comes to how homosexuals are being treated, which one would you choose?

explain to me for what reason totalitarian states engage in widespread domestic spying
We're not a totalitarian government. We need Warrants to actually read the information garnered from these recordings. And if our government somehow turned totalitarian (highly unlikely), we could'nt stop them from monitoring us anyway.

If it catches criminals and terrorists, and they need a Warrant to get the info, then go for it, I say...There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution anyway.

We're not a totalitarian government. We need Warrants to actually read the information garnered from these recordings. And if our government somehow turned totalitarian (highly unlikely), we could'nt stop them from monitoring us anyway.

If it catches criminals and terrorists, and they need a Warrant to get the info, then go for it, I say...There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution anyway.
Here's the problem with your scenario--you have no idea whether or not our government has been reading or listening to these conversations because there's no oversight. You trust these fuckheads in the White House, apparently--I don't. I don't because they've never given me any reason to trust them. They've lied consistently from the day they took office and if they told me the sky was blue, I'd walk outside and check it first before I believed them at this point.

As to your whole "there's no right to privacy" argument, well, you're being delusional again. The courts have consistently upheld a right to privacy as coming out of the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution. But I guess you're one of those "if the words aren't there, then the right isn't there" types. :rolleyes:

We're not a totalitarian government.

irrelevant. now answer the question.

There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution anyway.

yes there is. and you benefit greatly from it every day.

We're not a totalitarian government. We need Warrants to actually read the information garnered from these recordings. And if our government somehow turned totalitarian (highly unlikely), we could'nt stop them from monitoring us anyway.

If it catches criminals and terrorists, and they need a Warrant to get the info, then go for it, I say...There is no "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution anyway.


I take it you missed the part where the Administration is claiming they don't need warrants to perform wiretaps? The Attorney General has been saying that almost since he got appointed to the position.

You're kidding, right? Clinton was a disaster for the gay community. Who signed DOMA into law? Who gave us "don't ask, don't tell?" Clinton, that's who. And don't get me started on all the conservative legislation he pushed for.

No, like most democrats, he pretended to give a rats ass about the gay community to get votes and then promptly abandoned us. He was nothing more than a conservative in liberals clothing. There are very few real liberals in the US government. And the last good one was the late Paul Wellstone. *sigh*

More gays were thrown out of the military during Clinton's two terms than in all of US military history combined. All because of "don't ask, don't tell".

Clinton isn't some sort of God to me by which all presidents should look up to. Clinton had faults and things weren't utterly peachy for homosexuals under him but if you're really going to compare Bush and Clinton when it comes to how homosexuals are being treated, which one would you choose?

Bush hasn't really made things any worse. He hasn't been able to get anything enacted that screws gays, nor has he changed anything in the military for the worse for homosexuals.

Clinton did enough of that on his own, with one asinine "ORDER". Not knowing that when he gives an "ORDER" they're going to carry it out. It used to be up to the discretion of the commander whether or not to throw out someone who was gay - and most of the time, they WEREN'T thrown out. But after Clinton's ORDER - they went out the door wholesale.

Thanks a lot!

So does this mean that we can find all those people who were saying that we needed to give up our freedoms after 9/11 and kick them in the nads for being so fucking stupid?
or ask those complaining now, why didn't they notice those freedoms missing before? :p

Speaking of Privacy Rights, can anyone point out exactly where in the constitution it says you have a "right to privacy"?

Yes, I know about Warrants and all, but apparently even though they monitor you, they still have to have a Warrant to read/hear what you said exactly...

IMO, this is much ado about nothin'.

Far as I'm concerned, being "secure in [my] person, house, papers and effects" includes being able to know that the government is not going to be monitoring my web activity, my phone calls, where my letters go, what I do in my free time, etc. It's a very insecure feeling to know that anyone knows exactly what you're doing.

Far as I'm concerned, being "secure in [my] person, house, papers and effects" includes being able to know that the government is not going to be monitoring my web activity, my phone calls, where my letters go, what I do in my free time, etc. It's a very insecure feeling to know that anyone knows exactly what you're doing.
like parents need to monitor their kids so that they don't fall prey to preditors... or that they don't break laws when they go out (underage drinking, taking illegal drugs, etc...)

It's a good think that governments arn't that invasive with their monitoring system. :)

Far as I'm concerned, being "secure in [my] person, house, papers and effects" includes being able to know that the government is not going to be monitoring my web activity, my phone calls, where my letters go, what I do in my free time, etc. It's a very insecure feeling to know that anyone knows exactly what you're doing.
That's the kind of conspiracy-theorist type thinking that disturbs me...

The government is not out to get you, people...Sheesh. Nobody is going to read your stupid phonecall transcripts unless they get a Warrant. They're not interested in knowing who you fucked or what you had for breakfast, or what your great aunt's stool consists of...They want to catch criminals. There ain't a bank of telephones somewhere where pimple-faced intelligence-geeks listen live to every single conversation in the country, for fucks' sake...Get over your paranoia.

Really?! We were officially in a state of war with each and every one of the three members of the Axis of Evil (though we had a ceasefire with two of them), and Al Qaeda had already declared war on us, and had already murdered hundreds of people in that war.

We were at war with Iran? When did that happen?

Why do conservatives not give a shit about privacy rights?

And yet EVERY PRESIDENT does this. Not just those on the right. WHy do you pick on conservatives alone when the liberals are just as bad?

June 2000? Wait a minute, that's during the Clinton Administration! I guess Bush isn't the only one to blame for this type of program...

HAHAHAHA!! Something some of us have been saying for years but yet no one gives a crap that it happened under his watch too.

Far as I'm concerned, being "secure in [my] person, house, papers and effects" includes being able to know that the government is not going to be monitoring my web activity, my phone calls, where my letters go, what I do in my free time, etc. It's a very insecure feeling to know that anyone knows exactly what you're doing.

It's mindless software doing the work.

First they get a rule engine, then come up with an ontology, and then...

This thread is a perfect example of what I find so equally amusing and frustrating about the American condition ....

Everyone's trying so hard to find who to blame:

"Bush did it!"
"Clinton did it first!"
"Nixon did it before Clinton!"
"It's the Republicans!"
"It's the economy, stupid!"
"It's the Liberal Commies!"
"It's a terrorist plot!"
"It's a Jewish agenda conspiracy!"

But .... NOBODY FIXES THE FUCKIN' PROBLEM!!

*sigh*

And That's the REAL Problem!

Its a sad day when the people of the free-ist country in the world are happy enough/don't particularly care if/when their government is spying on them. :(

This attitude is really quite un-American at its core.

Its a sad day when the people of the free-ist country in the world are happy enough/don't particularly care if/when their government is spying on them. :(

This attitude is really quite un-American at its core.

They've been spying on us all along.

We could start with the FBI in the post WWII period, and the House Unamerican Activities Committee. And go through to the 1970s, when the NSA started spying on us with the latest technology. And on to the present, where Presidents both Democrat and Republican, and Congress both Democrat and Republican, voting money to the NSA, which has ALWAYS had a charter whose contents were and are top secret.

We grew up with this, and only a few people seem to think that they are truly private, or have any real privacy rights.

What surprises me is that people think this is all Bush's idea, or Cheney's idea, or Karl Rove's idea. It's just more of the same - and most of us don't care as long as we're not on the end of the stick that hurts.

Its a sad day when the people of the free-ist country in the world are happy enough/don't particularly care if/when their government is spying on them. :(

This attitude is really quite un-American at its core.
I agree. It doesn't matter if the circumstances of the spying don't "seem that bad" or even harmless. The fact is that this practice has been occurring in secret, without a warrant, without any sort of check or balance, and is the second in what will surely become a series of disturbing secrets that have been recently revealed about the Bush administration's lies. And unlike many people who toss around the word "lie", there is no way to truthfully say that they didn't lie. Bush mentioned in his defense of the Patriot Act that all searches/seizures would still be overseen by courts, keeping the idea of "checks and balances" intact. He lied. His administration was going far beyond that and, in the process, violated the Constitution and other written law. First, the warrantless, non-FISA approved monitoring of foreign-made phonecalls. Now this. What's next?

I agree. It doesn't matter if the circumstances of the spying don't "seem that bad" or even harmless. The fact is that this practice has been occurring in secret, without a warrant, without any sort of check or balance, and is the second in what will surely become a series of disturbing secrets that have been recently revealed about the Bush administration's lies. And unlike many people who toss around the word "lie", there is no way to truthfully say that they didn't lie. Bush mentioned in his defense of the Patriot Act that all searches/seizures would still be overseen by courts, keeping the idea of "checks and balances" intact. He lied. His administration was going far beyond that and, in the process, violated the Constitution and other written law. First, the warrantless, non-FISA approved monitoring of foreign-made phonecalls. Now this. What's next?

I guess you missed the post where it was revealed that programs like this were started during the Clinton Adminstration.

I didn't hear anyone crying to the New York Times to save the Constitution back then, did you?

I agree. It doesn't matter if the circumstances of the spying don't "seem that bad" or even harmless. The fact is that this practice has been occurring in secret, without a warrant, without any sort of check or balance, and is the second in what will surely become a series of disturbing secrets that have been recently revealed about the Bush administration's lies. And unlike many people who toss around the word "lie", there is no way to truthfully say that they didn't lie. Bush mentioned in his defense of the Patriot Act that all searches/seizures would still be overseen by courts, keeping the idea of "checks and balances" intact. He lied. His administration was going far beyond that and, in the process, violated the Constitution and other written law. First, the warrantless, non-FISA approved monitoring of foreign-made phonecalls. Now this. What's next?

This started under Clinton. In case you missed it earlier, it said JUNE 2000. That was 7 months BEFORE Bush took office.

I guess you missed the post where it was revealed that programs like this were started during the Clinton Adminstration.

I didn't hear anyone crying to the New York Times to save the Constitution back then, did you?
Does it matter who started it, or when?

Does it not matter more that people seem utterly happy to be spied upon?

That really, really saddens me, because if you guys don't care, then there really is no hope for the rest of us. :(

I guess you missed the post where it was revealed that programs like this were started during the Clinton Adminstration.

I didn't hear anyone crying to the New York Times to save the Constitution back then, did you?
You seem to be under the presumption that I'll say, "Oh, OK. If this started under Clinton, fine." No. That's not the case with me, and shouldn't be with anyone who really cares about their rights. These programs were wrong upon their inception during the Clinton administration, and remain wrong to this day. As far as I know, however, there were no breaks about the spying programs to the press during Clinton's administration, so he didn't have to take the heat that Bush has. That doesn't make the actions of the NSA during his administration any more passable than the current actions of the Bush administration. The only difference between them is that Bush's grievances against democracy are piling up. However, that still does not serve as a justification for the actions of the NSA under Clinton.

Sidebar: Was your mention of the New York Times a specific attack on the paper? That's become my question every time I hear the paper mentioned after reading Slander.

EDIT: And the fact remains that Clinton never blatantly lied about issues related to the NSA programs. That's why I was hard on Bush in my post.

Does it matter who started it, or when?

Does it not matter more that people seem utterly happy to be spied upon?

That really, really saddens me, because if you guys don't care, then there really is no hope for the rest of us. :(


Most Americans do not care, because of the assurance that "we" are not "they".

You know, the nameless, faceless "they". The plain and fancy "they". "They" whom the government (and only by popular demand) labels as "the enemy".

No one has really raised it as much of an issue for the past 40 years, except on occasion (The Church hearings were interesting, but that mostly concerned CIA activity outside the US, and the McCarthy hearings showed us that people don't care about the government spying on "they" (after all, Nixon's similar hearings were a complete success, and we did fry the Rosenbergs), as long as the numbers didn't come from a bottle of ketchup and as long as "we" were not the enemy.

Orwell was right you now. If you want to see a vision of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forever.

They've been spying on us all along.

And that makes it ok because...? Since when has "but we've always done it" or "but our predecessors did it" ever been a valid excused? Saying that it has been going on since the 70s makes it no more acceptable than saying that slavery has always existed makes slavery acceptable.

And that makes it ok because...? Since when has "but we've always done it" or "but our predecessors did it" ever been a valid excused? Saying that it has been going on since the 70s makes it no more acceptable than saying that slavery has always existed makes slavery acceptable.

I'm not saying it's OK.

I'm just saying that it's quite apparent that the majority of American do not care now, and never have cared in the past enough to ever stop it.

Does it matter who started it, or when?

Does it not matter more that people seem utterly happy to be spied upon?

That really, really saddens me, because if you guys don't care, then there really is no hope for the rest of us. :(
we've been watched over by our Government for years, decades. what's sad is not the fact that Americans are seemingly apathetic to it... but that it would be brought out NOW. that makes it nothing more than a petty, political move to make one group look bad while furthering the image of another. worse yet, the spins the Media puts on it makes it seem new when in fact, it's not.

the fact that people do blindly follow what the media spoon feeds them is what makes it sad.

Clinton isn't some sort of God to me by which all presidents should look up to. Clinton had faults and things weren't utterly peachy for homosexuals under him but if you're really going to compare Bush and Clinton when it comes to how homosexuals are being treated, which one would you choose?

As far as I can tell, they are both pretty equal in how they have treated the gay community. They both said they respected us and would defend our rights. Then they both worked against our rights. Clinton actually succeeded in limiting our rights while Bush hasn't yet. But he sure as hell is trying. At least Bush doesn't pretend to be our friend any more. It is much easier to fight a foe who shows himslf for what he really is.

Overall, when *everything* is considered, Clinton was a marginally better president than Bush. But ultimately, he and Bush are just two sides of the same self serving, insincere, and corrupt coin. Neither deserve my respect or support.

I'm not saying it's OK.

I'm just saying that it's quite apparent that the majority of American do not care now, and never have cared in the past enough to ever stop it.
"never cared" or saw it as a function of any Government to insure the people get what they want.

I'm not saying it's OK.

Fair enough. It just came across that you were defending the program.

As far as I can tell, they are both pretty equal in how they have treated the gay community. They both said they respected us and would defend our rights. Then they both worked against our rights. Clinton actually succeeded in limiting our rights while Bush hasn't yet. But he sure as hell is trying. At least Bush doesn't pretend to be our friend any more. It is much easier to fight a foe who shows himslf for what he really is.

Overall, when *everything* is considered, Clinton was a marginally better president than Bush. But ultimately, he and Bush are just two sides of the same self serving, insincere, and corrupt coin. Neither deserve my respect or support.
Dude, I don't know where you're getting that Bush hasn't worked against gay rights, but you're wrong. The 2004 election might as well have been subtitled "Hate your local faggots" for crying out loud. Bush's political machine had a hand in driving every one of those state initiatives to ban gay marriage and limit the possibility even for civil unions. Yeah, Clinton sold gays out with DOMA, and DADT, but he never sponsored a constitutional amendment to lock gays out of marriage and civil unions or led the charge to install bigotry into state constitutions.

Dude, I don't know where you're getting that Bush hasn't worked against gay rights, but you're wrong. The 2004 election might as well have been subtitled "Hate your local faggots" for crying out loud. Bush's political machine had a hand in driving every one of those state initiatives to ban gay marriage and limit the possibility even for civil unions. Yeah, Clinton sold gays out with DOMA, and DADT, but he never sponsored a constitutional amendment to lock gays out of marriage and civil unions or led the charge to install bigotry into state constitutions.

You might want to re-read my post "dude." In particular these two sentences. "Clinton actually succeeded in limiting our rights while Bush hasn't yet. But he sure as hell is trying."

I simply said he hasn't succeeded yet where as Clinton did. But he has been trying very hard to do so. His followers have been successful on the state level, but Bush hasn't been so on the federal level. Not from lack of trying, of course. But the amendment did fail. DOMA and "don't ask don't tell" on the other hand didn't.

I'm not a Bush apologist. Or a Clinton apologist for that matter. They're both ass hats.

So there was no war on terror yet. We were at peace, yet the NSA needed to monitor our phone calls.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=#
Hey DCD, i posted this same issue on the current "impeachement" thread.
Good for you.
Glad people ACTUALLY want to argue with you about it! ;)

and thats more proof that bush did 11/9.

You might want to re-read my post "dude." In particular these two sentences. "Clinton actually succeeded in limiting our rights while Bush hasn't yet. But he sure as hell is trying."

I simply said he hasn't succeeded yet where as Clinton did. But he has been trying very hard to do so. His followers have been successful on the state level, but Bush hasn't been so on the federal level. Not from lack of trying, of course. But the amendment did fail. DOMA and "don't ask don't tell" on the other hand didn't.

I'm not a Bush apologist. Or a Clinton apologist for that matter. They're both ass hats.
My point is that Bush has succeeded, and succeeded to an even greater level than Clinton did. He's mobilized state level restrictions, which are even harder to overturn than federal ones. What Clinton did with DOMA was reprehensible, but it was also a court challenge away from potentially being overturned. It's a lot harder to overturn a state constitutional amendment in a federal court--the bar is a lot higher there.

And I'm not suggesting that you're a Bush apologist either. I've seen enough of your posts to know that's not the case. What I am saying, however, is that you are seriously underestimating the level to which Bush has fucked gays and lesbians over.

The thing is, its not just "bush" and his adminstration, and its not just the "republicans". the Dems are in on it too, the whole federal government is in a wave thats headed towards totally destroying the constitution and our rights. Its a fact by now, if you've been paying attention you know that in the past 10 or so years the Federal Government has been increasing pressure everywhere. They wan't security and power more than american values and freedom. they've said this blantantly, that in "these days security and keeping people safe is above their liberties." In short, they want police state. Hopefully the american people still got what it takes to fight back.

The thing is, its not just "bush" and his adminstration, and its not just the "republicans". the Dems are in on it too, the whole federal government is in a wave thats headed towards totally destroying the constitution and our rights. Its a fact by now, if you've been paying attention you know that in the past 10 or so years the Federal Government has been increasing pressure everywhere. They wan't security and power more than american values and freedom. they've said this blantantly, that in "these days security and keeping people safe is above their liberties." In short, they want police state. Hopefully the american people still got what it takes to fight back.
Don't count on it, Skippy. The average American is apathetic, and the ones that care about elections are uninformed.

Here's the problem with your scenario--you have no idea whether or not our government has been reading or listening to these conversations because there's no oversight. You trust these fuckheads in the White House, apparently--I don't. I don't because they've never given me any reason to trust them. They've lied consistently from the day they took office and if they told me the sky was blue, I'd walk outside and check it first before I believed them at this point.

As to your whole "there's no right to privacy" argument, well, you're being delusional again. The courts have consistently upheld a right to privacy as coming out of the 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution. But I guess you're one of those "if the words aren't there, then the right isn't there" types. :rolleyes:
Many well-respected members of the conservative judiciary hold that exact view - that the right to privacy has essentially been created out of whole cloth, whereas the Constitution has no explicit language creating such a right. One would think that a Constitution that specifically mentions rights to free speech, freedom of religion, right to counsel, right to not incriminate oneself, etc., would specifically mention "right to privacy". That argument has not been completely settled in the judicial conservative vs liberal ideology wars.

Don't count on it, Skippy. The average American is apathetic, and the ones that care about elections are uninformed.

I get your point, but the American people generally dont like to be pushed around, and are more heavily armed than any other people on the planet for this exact reason. Its kinda like a creepy prophecy. It is true that many many americans have and will continue to be manipulated by this government. Becuase they are foolish. allot of americans are.... It could go 50/50 in my eyes, I know for a fact that I would vicoucly fight back, and I know several other people that would too, alls it takes is a spark to ignite a revolution givin the right conditions, which I believe are approaching.

Many well-respected members of the conservative judiciary hold that exact view - that the right to privacy has essentially been created out of whole cloth, whereas the Constitution has no explicit language creating such a right. One would think that a Constitution that specifically mentions rights to free speech, freedom of religion, right to counsel, right to not incriminate oneself, etc., would specifically mention "right to privacy". That argument has not been completely settled in the judicial conservative vs liberal ideology wars.
If there is no right to privacy, then the 4th Amendment is meaningless, as is the 5th. They protect individual privacy, even if they don't use the word expressly. Now, there can be legitimate arguments over how far that right to privacy extends, but there can be no real argument over the existence of the right in the first place.

Don't count on it, Skippy. The average American is apathetic, and the ones that care about elections are uninformed.
Speak for yourself.

I can't stand broad generalizations about a particular group of people. Oh, wait, I think that't the definition of ... prejudice?

If there is no right to privacy, then the 4th Amendment is meaningless, as is the 5th. They protect individual privacy, even if they don't use the word expressly. Now, there can be legitimate arguments over how far that right to privacy extends, but there can be no real argument over the existence of the right in the first place.
Maybe not so much how far, but how the Constitution frames the definition of privacy as a legal term.
For example, I found absolutely ridiculous a recent SCOTUS decision that said even if police have a warrant from one resident of a home, if the spouse also did not consent, then that's a "violation of their privacy". So, we get a victim of domestic abuse who gets police to come get evidence while the husband is out, and they can't do so because we must protect the husband's right to privacy. WAY too far to take it.

Maybe not so much how far, but how the Constitution frames the definition of privacy as a legal term.
For example, I found absolutely ridiculous a recent SCOTUS decision that said even if police have a warrant from one resident of a home, if the spouse also did not consent, then that's a "violation of their privacy". So, we get a victim of domestic abuse who gets police to come get evidence while the husband is out, and they can't do so because we must protect the husband's right to privacy. WAY too far to take it.


see the second amendment shoulda took care of the husband already, :p

Maybe not so much how far, but how the Constitution frames the definition of privacy as a legal term.
For example, I found absolutely ridiculous a recent SCOTUS decision that said even if police have a warrant from one resident of a home, if the spouse also did not consent, then that's a "violation of their privacy". So, we get a victim of domestic abuse who gets police to come get evidence while the husband is out, and they can't do so because we must protect the husband's right to privacy. WAY too far to take it.If it's the case I'm thinking about, then you misread the decision. The violation occured because both husband and wife were there at the time and one didn't consent to a warrantless search. If there's a warrant, then consent isn't an issue to begin with. The rest of the case dealt with the fact that the police had secured the home and didn't need to push it for a warrantless search. They could have gotten a warrant based on the testimony of the pissed off spouse. But had the search taken place while the pissed off spouse (the one who gave consent) was the only one home, the search would have stood.

see the second amendment shoulda took care of the husband already, :p
Amen, brother!:D

I'm quite certain that Bush's "illiterate good old boy" persona is just that, a public persona. You don't get to the position he is in by being as stupid as he sounds. Of course, he may be just intelligent enough to hire some damned smart people, but I think he's rather more shrewd than that.

It doesn't matter. He's either too stupid to be president, or too evil. I suspect the former because Clinton was evil, but he did a good job. If Bush was as smart as you'd have to be to pretend to be that dumb, he'd be less obvious about how badly he's screwing everything up. His only salvation is a voter base that's dumber than he is (or pretends to be).

Speak for yourself.

I can't stand broad generalizations about a particular group of people. Oh, wait, I think that't the definition of ... prejudice?

He said "the average American." Not every American, the Average one.

It's like how the Average American is a single woman with 2.3 kids. Find me a single mother in this country who'll admit to having a third of a kid. Other than Barbara Bush.

Many well-respected members of the conservative judiciary hold that exact view - that the right to privacy has essentially been created out of whole cloth, whereas the Constitution has no explicit language creating such a right. One would think that a Constitution that specifically mentions rights to free speech, freedom of religion, right to counsel, right to not incriminate oneself, etc., would specifically mention "right to privacy". That argument has not been completely settled in the judicial conservative vs liberal ideology wars.

What in the world do you think that "secure in person's and effects" means? It means that other people can't go sticking their noses in it. The reason these "conservative" members of the judiciary believe as you say is because, like most self-proclaimed conservatives what they really want is a corporate police state. These same "conservative" judges also believe that the "right to contract" is explicitly in the Constitution and trumps other rights.

It doesn't matter. He's either too stupid to be president, or too evil. I suspect the former because Clinton was evil, but he did a good job. If Bush was as smart as you'd have to be to pretend to be that dumb, he'd be less obvious about how badly he's screwing everything up. His only salvation is a voter base that's dumber than he is (or pretends to be).
Depending on your point of view, Bush has done a good job. Remember that film clip from F 9/11, where Bush is talking at a fundraiser and he says "some call you the elite. I call you my base"? For all Bush's evangelical talk, his real base is the super-wealthy, not the fundies. And his policies have consistently aided them. In their eyes, he has been a good, perhaps even great president.

That the rest of us have been fucked is beside the point.

If there is no right to privacy, then the 4th Amendment is meaningless, as is the 5th. They protect individual privacy, even if they don't use the word expressly. Now, there can be legitimate arguments over how far that right to privacy extends, but there can be no real argument over the existence of the right in the first place.

Come on Nazz, you know Bush-Type conservatives don't do similies. Unless the constitution was a popup book with the word "privacy" shooting up from the 4th and 5th amendments, they'll never get it.

These yahoos probably think there was a literal Iron Curtain seperating Eastern Europe from the rest of the world.