1 Finish Profile

Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Locked

Now, why am I not surprised?

—————————————————-
http://images.military.com/pics/mlpfv.jpg

Subscribe to free Military Insider Newsletter
Military.com

Firestorm Over NSA Surveillance

Associated Press | May 11, 2006

WASHINGTON – Congressional Republicans and Democrats demanded answers from the Bush administration Thursday about a government spy agency secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans’ phone calls to build a database of every call made within the country.

Facing intense criticism from Congress, President George W. Bush did not confirm the work of the National Security Agency but sought to assure Americans that their privacy is being “fiercely protected.”

“We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” Bush said before leaving for a commencement address at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College in Biloxi.

The disclosure, first reported in USA Today, could complicate Bush’s bid to win confirmation of former National Security Agency director Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA director. It also reignited concerns about civil liberties and touched off questions about the legal underpinnings for the government’s actions and the diligence of the Republican-controlled Congress oversight of a Republican administration.

The top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he was shocked by the revelation about the NSA.

“It is our government, it’s not one party’s government. It’s America’s government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers’ phone calls to the NSA program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel in pursuit of what had transpired.

“We’re really flying blind on the subject and that’s not a good way to approach the Fourth Amendment and the constitutional issues involving privacy,” Specter said of domestic surveillance in general.

The companies said Thursday that they are protecting customers’ privacy but have an obligation to assist law enforcement and government agencies in ensuring the nation’s security. “We prize the trust our customers place in us. If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions,” the company said in a statement, echoed by the others.

Bush did not confirm or deny the USA Today report. But he did say that U.S. intelligence targets terrorists and that the government does not listen to domestic telephone calls without court approval and that Congress has been briefed on intelligence programs.

He vowed to do everything in his power to fight terror and “we will do so within the laws of our country.”

On Capitol Hill, several lawmakers expressed incredulity about the program, with some Republicans questioning the rationale and several Democrats railing about the lack of congressional oversight.

“I don’t know enough about the details except that I am willing to find out because I’m not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information,” said House Majority Leader John Boehner, a Republican.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News Channel: “The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said bringing the telephone companies before the Judiciary Committee is an important step.

“We need more. We need to take this seriously, more seriously than some other matters that might come before the committee because our privacy as American citizens is at stake,” Durbin said.

Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions argued that the program “is not a warrantless wiretapping of the American people. I don’t think this action is nearly as troublesome as being made out here, because they are not tapping our phones.”

The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

NSA spokesman Don Weber said in an e-mailed statement that given the nature of the agency’s work, it would be “irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operations issues.” He added, “the NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law.”

NSA is the same spy agency that conducts the controversial domestic eavesdropping program that had been acknowledged earlier by Bush. The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.

The report came as Hayden – Bush’s choice to take over leadership of the CIA – postponed some visits to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum and Lisa Murkowski were delayed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

The White House offered no reason for the postponement to the lawmakers. Other meetings with lawmakers were still planned.

Hayden already faced criticism because of the NSA’s secret domestic eavesdropping program. As head of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, Hayden also would have overseen the call-tracking program.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has spoken favorably of the nomination, said the latest revelation “is also going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of Gen. Hayden.”

The NSA wants the database of domestic call records to look for any patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, USA Today said.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, told the paper that the agency operates within the law, but would not comment further on its operations.

One big telecommunications company, Qwest Communications International Inc., has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

Topic

Impeachment Call

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Based on this information and their failure to protect the borders of the United States of America, it is time to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

I am wondering at what point the American people are going to realize the serious issues facing this nation?

does….

In reply to Impeachment Call

impeachment equal assasination?

Physical or Character

In reply to does….

Which one did you mean?

what character? N/T

In reply to Physical or Character

.

The Character of Villany

In reply to what character? N/T

Villany has a character. Without a strong villan, Disney stories would never have their power.

I am recalling the quotation on the small-mindness of evil that we see so much of in the world.

I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

In reply to The Character of Villany

I am sure that you revere Clinton.He is a probable rapist, who was a perjuring, womanizing, coward who was a draft dodger. Is this the hero for a clown like you?

You claim that a guy who attends church, tries to do what is right, and is trying to protect the country is evil.

Get a grip. Gore lost… Gore lost….

But, he lost only to the Supreme Court, …

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

who intervened in what was a matter for the State.

Yet one more example of the trampling of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Reversing the Grip

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

I didn’t vote for Al Gore, John Kerry or Bill Clinton.

I thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached for lying to a grand jury under oath.

I also didn’t state that President Bush was evil. I do believe that he should be impeached for failure to defend and protect the borders of the US, which is a constitutional duty.

My comment on the small mindness of evil, which perhaps should be called the mendacity of evil, was a commentary on how totalitarian states operate by violating the rights of the people by faceless people in agencies of the state.

A further observation is your erroneous belief that a person that “attends church, tries to do what is right, and is trying to protect the country” is inherently good. I offer Benito Mussolini (Catholic), Adolph Hitler (Raised Catholic, but became a Deist) and Pol Pot (Buddhist) as examples as to the fallacy of this statement.

Now that you have discovered that you were incorrect, would you care to state a retraction?

Or do you prefer to simply make statements on matters of which you have absolutely no knowledge?

Wrong Sandy … Bush won Florida in two Miami herald funded recounts…

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

If the rules didn’t get changed in mid-stream Gore didn’t win…

He lost the Electoral college…

ALGORE won popular vote!!! Yippeee!!!! We elect our President by the electoral college.

You conceivably could win CA, TX, NY, FLA, OH, IL, VA, MA, MI, and I think PA by a grand total of 10 votes, lose the rest of the other 132 million registered voters and still be President.

Gore tried to cherry pick the precincts. This was at the direction of Richard Daly. That made it illegal, via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to do that…

The Florida Supreme court had the judgement remanded to them for review twice. Then the Supreme court stopped the BS…

Don’t rewrite history. The FLASC tried to stop the State constitutionally mandated filing of electors. (unethical, and illegal by state and Federal law.)

When FLASC tried to stop Florida’s electoral votes from being cast on Nov 21, that would have affected the Federal electoral college. By FLA state law the electors are then selected by the legislature. (Which is Republican) Then the electors in that situation wouldn’t have gone to Gore in that case…

Outcome of game decided by bad officiating, …

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

just like last year’s Penn State – Michigan football game.

The point is that we’ll never what the true outcome would have been.

Gore lost a statewide recount.

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

We know the results… He needed help manual recount and speculation to close the gap, but he lost that too. The Miami Herald paid for a manual recount of Dade and Broward county, and with Found votes, Gore still lost…

Still all Monday morning quarterbacking.

In reply to I find it amazing. BFilmFan is dead wrong.

The fact remains that the game on the field was never played in full.

And, no, there was no pending Constitutional “crisis,” as the Constitution does [b]not[/b] require the swearing in of a President by a date certain. In fact, this would not have been the 1st time that such had not occurred.

Do not fall into the trap of believing that I hold Gore to have been the winner in Florida, but only that I and others do not know, and will nver know, with certainty.

Apology on Clinton-Gore love tendered…

In reply to The Character of Villany

I will be happy to apologize. The problem is most of the anti-Bush crowd are so tainted with Gore-Clinton love it is nauseating.

Sandy, and his ilk, want to rewrite history. Apparently they don’t want to hear the truth, again. Gore tried to cherry pick counties… He wanted a different standard applied to the disadvantaged areas over the more affluent areas…

The desire is to Hitler-like tell the lie over and over until it is believed by the masses… Gore still lost, Sandy… Even in Broward Co. Fla…

Didn’t vote for either

In reply to Apology on Clinton-Gore love tendered…

During the 2000 Presidential campaign, I placed a Bush sign to the right of my front yard, a Gore sign to the left, and a banner in the middle that read “This is a choice?”

Then I wrote in the future Secretary of State.

His character was assasinated in 2000.

In reply to Physical or Character

He has been lied about more than Clinton’s personal life.

Bush wasn’t the one who initiated lawsuits over the 2000 election. His appeal, not lawsuit, stopped the lawsuits, and the cherrypicking of districts to recount. It has been claimed the was picked by the court, and they basically said, “Apply the same standard statewide and to every precinct. and use what process was in place before the election”

Gore still lost.

Sadly not

In reply to does….

It equals temporary embarrassment and shame, after which the “disgraced” former president can become a zillionaire on the lecture circuit.

Did’nt work out quite that way for Nixon.

In reply to Sadly not

The important distinction here is the charges against Nixon were ones of a grave and substantive nature, for which he quite likely would have been convicted had he not resigned.

Clinton, on the other hand, was acquitted of his impeachment charges.

Clinton – winner; Nixon – loser.

Clinton didn’t really have an impeachment trial.

In reply to Did’nt work out quite that way for Nixon.

Only one Senator even bothered to look at the evidence. That man was Joe Lieberman. That is why he was calling for Clinton’s removal.

The problem was that 42 democratic Senators had stated Clinton wouldn’t be removed regardless. With the situation that Al Gore was in with the Bhuddist temple fund raising scandal, we could have had Gingrich go from speaker to President in months. No Dem would allow that.

Since there was only one Dem who looked at the evidence, and not 59 others who would look at evidence. It was a sham…

That is the current problem with our system. With three parties at 40% 35% 25% there is a possiblility of impeachment. If there was an impeachment, I’d first go after Supreme Court justices for allowing McCain – Feingold. or the New London, CT cases… Suter first, Ruth Bader Ginsberg next. Like that’ll ever happen…

Wong

In reply to Clinton didn’t really have an impeachment trial.

That did in fact satisfy the US Constitution as an impeachment procedure.

Clinton was impeached, just wasn’t convicted.

In reply to Wong

Clinton was impeached by the House; he just wasn’t convicted by the Senate. After he left office, he was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar association for committing perjury.

Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House

In reply to Clinton didn’t really have an impeachment trial.

at that time

Actually, it didn’t follow the procedures established in the Johnson trial.

In reply to Clinton didn’t really have an impeachment trial.

The fact is the evidence was never allowed to be presented, and only one Senator viewed the evidence.

This is normally done in all trials. After the opening motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the CJ , there are to be opening arguments, followed by evidenciary procedures… The procedures closed after opening remarks, without a final vote…

The CJ presided over a circus, not a trial.It didn’t follow the Johnson precedent, as it was a full criminal type trial.

Let him run his full term

In reply to Impeachment Call

When Cheney’s puppet, Bush, invaded Iraq three years ago, all the world except for about 150 million Americans realised that he was running his own agenda which was NOT necessarily in the best interests of either America or the world.

And yet there were enough ignorant, besotted Americans to re-elect him in 2004.

He has already destroyed whatever goodwill the once great nation of America had in the eyes of the world.

With almost three years still to run in office, he may succeed in sending America bankrupt.

With the steadily declining quality of presidents over the last few decades, America has really hit rock bottom with this guy, so there is nowhere to go but up.

America needs a wake-up call to remind the people of what the country used to be.

For the sake of America, and the sake of the world, I hope the good people of America make a better choice at the 2008 election.

Amen

In reply to Let him run his full term

and Amen.

The economy in my local immediate area is in deep trouble mostly due to long-standing economic policies put in place by our elected officials. There are some job openings for unskilled workers but they’re at subsistence level wages.

One of the companies I was contracted to has just sold. The new owners came in, fired all 73 employees, and is keeping them on as temp’s until they fill out a new application for employment and pass a urine and hair drug screen by this afternoon at 2:00.
Twelve people have not filled out apps. so if they’re let go they can get unemployment. The new owners expect to lose over half of the people. The one’s they’re going to keep, even if they have 20 years in, will be offered their same old jobs for less money and reduced benefits. There’s not many places they can go if they choose to keep their jobs.

There are four other large plants that easily come to mind within a 20 mile radius that have announced closings or major staff reductions, mostly due to products made in China.

Consumer debt has reached record levels here. Somebody has to pay that back. Without jobs…

I just keep saying, it’s going to get to be a lot worse before it get’s better.

You have subsistence jobs?

In reply to Amen

Even those are leaving here in droves.

Not enough to go around

In reply to You have subsistence jobs?

Young people even have a hard time getting a job at the fast-food restaurants because management seems prone to choose from the large pool of senior applicants trying to support their retirement or Social Security.

You betcha!

In reply to Not enough to go around

It’s called “reliability.” Young people don’t seem to have a problem calling in sick whenever they don’t feel like going to work. Enough absences and poof! “We won’t need you after Friday.”

My son learned this lesson the hard way.

Not sure that we can afford 3 more years.

In reply to Let him run his full term

It is possible that such would result in irrepairable harm to both the US and the world.

By the time we hit rock bottom we may be unable to go up; or, there may be no up to go to.

We cannot afford stupidity, or furriners to disuade us.

In reply to Let him run his full term

Much of the world’s problem is that we have toppled what was supposed to be the 4th most powerful army in less than a week. We routed out a dictator. What can stop the US from doing what it desires?

Only the US itself can reign in the US.

Sandy, I think you are all wet on this, still.

Once it is understood that Congress (as usual) was stupid in it’s knee jerk reaction to 911, and the the resolution in which Bush was given direction to prosecute the apprehension and suppression of terrorists was too broad and gave him too much lattitude, and people place the blame where it belongs, (on Congress) the US can make progress.

Congress was stupid as any committee is. A committee is many bodies and only one brain. At the time that brain was Angrey and wounded. We may start to get some cleared thoughts, but not until we get a strong and successful third political party. A party for the moderates, not either side’s extremists.

A third political party?

In reply to We cannot afford stupidity, or furriners to disuade us.

It won’t happen, period.

What you need is a better quality of candidates for the presidency. How you will achieve this, I have no idea. It is a weakness embedded in the US process for electing a president.

The two other leaders of the COW which invaded Iraq — Tony Blair and John Howard — are, simply, more capable and more honest leaders than Bush. While America is getting ever deeper and deeper into debt, the Australian Government is producing a healthy surplus each year.

Your constitution needs revising and updating.

As John Howard sent troops to Iraq, then what happens in the American leadership is pertinent to certain “furriners” — especially Australians.

Quite frankly your electoral system sucks. Because Australia is such a young country — we only became a Federation in 1901 — our constitution is still quite up to date.

I think that if certain Americans stopped worshipping your outdated constitution, and if more Americans took a real interest in what is happening at home and abroad — and if they demonstrated a willingness to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem by VOTING — then maybe you would have a chance to turn the tide.

Repeatedly Americans say in these discussions that the majority of Americans are not interested in keeping up with the news. They watch Fox, if anything at all, and if it is not on Fox it didn’t happen.

Please don’t blame foreigners for a situation which America has gotten into all by itself.

America is probably Australia’s most important ally. It is not in our interest to see America self-destruct.

The only “Australian” who is contributing to the decline of awareness in America is Rupert Murdoch, who is no longer an Australian anyhow as he changed his citizenship years ago.

Australians will continue to post their opinions in these forums, and if you don’t like it, then at least try and understand that in the longer term we want only what is best for the USA.

Don’t blame…

In reply to A third political party?

The US Constitution for the peoples lazy ignorance. Most can’t even read it, little on understand it. It was written by some of the finist minds of the time. That level of thinking no longer exists in the American political sys. ( or the majority of the populace either )

Okay, so it’s the people

In reply to Don’t blame…

Can you offer any explanation as to why the “people” have become lazy and ignorant?

Is the social disease curable?

I hope you can come up with something more original than the oft quoted welfare system.

Now that sir…

In reply to Okay, so it’s the people

Is definately a good question. (and perhaps another discussion) No, it’s not the welfare sys., in fact, that is only used by the people to remain that way. No, I think the media has a much greater role in this present conundrum. (no, not only TV) There’s always the danger when people are kept (or trained to be) dumb. They then can be easily controled. (and we have a flat Earth again)

There are any number of reasons.

In reply to Okay, so it’s the people

And, I shall not presume to claim to know all of them; nor do I now have the time to enumerate all of those that immediately come to mind.

I will, however, here mention one that I recognized many years ago, with the result that I was labeled an elitist by some. That is that we have too many ill informed voters.

Now, we have always had, and shall always have, those who are less than adequately able to vote in an informed and intelligent manner. Until fairly recently, though, a substantial portion of such [b]did not vote[/b].

In the past several decades we have seen any number of measures intended to increase participation in elections, with the result that an increasingly large number of votes being cast are of no value other than to those who can sway such their way.

In short, we have too many stupid people voting.

This brings to mind a science fiction story in which:

1) People cast votes for policy proposals, not candidates for office.
2) All voters had to record both the premises that they considered and their reasoning which led them to conclude to support or oppose a proposal, as well as the consequences that they forsaw of both its passage and defeat.
3) All voting records were public.
4) Governmental positions were filled with those whose predicted outcomes best matched the realized ones.
5) The highest office was called the “Prime Predictor.”

“ill informed voters”

In reply to Okay, so it’s the people

If this is the case, then I feel a sadness for the once great nation of America.

Almost ALL Australians take a serious interest in keeping up with the news. Sometimes I will encounter a female who does not follow the news because “it is too unpleasant.”

However for the most part Australians are very aware of events which directly affect our country, which of course includes Iraq. They follow politics very closely and hold strong views.

Once again I must refer to our preferential system of voting. In any given electoral division (known as a “seat”) there will be a number of candidates. These will include a candidate from each of the major parties, and any number of representatives of minor parties and independents.

All boxes on the ballot paper must be numbered, in the order of preference of the voter. You may express your dissatisfaction with representatives of the major parties by not listing them first on the ballot paper.

HOWEVER, after minor parties and independents are eliminated because of attracting too few votes, your preferences will then count as your primary vote.

I think Australia has a particularly good electoral system. Voting is “compulsory” but only in the sense that you must register at a polling place. If you don’t wish to vote, you simply put a blank ballot paper in the box.

While I may not like the outcome of an election, at least I have the reassurance of knowing that it represents fairly accurately the feelings of the majority of Australians who go to the ballot place quite well informed of the issues presented by the various parties.

Far too many Americans are willfully stupid.

In reply to Okay, so it’s the people

Nearly half are unable to locate major world countries on a globe or map; a disturbingly large number cannot even locate the US!

Most have never read the US Constitution; fewer still, that of their respective State.

I would much prefer that these people [b]not[/b] vote, but confine their electoral participation to watching the results as reported on tv.

I believe most Congressmen and lawyers do not read the Constitution.

In reply to Don’t blame…

Therefore their opinions aren’t hindered by what they should do Constitutionally.

Law is predominately precedence. I wish that the Federalist papers were recognized as a foundational document by Supreme clowns like Suter, Kennedy, and Brewer. Then the New London decision would have had to have been decided for the property owner…

They’re able to slide by in that regard because …

In reply to I believe most Congressmen and lawyers do not read the Constitution.

the vast majority of the populace has’nt read it either.

The frightening aspect of this is that many claim to have not read it becaus they consider it irrelevant by virtue of its being merely a historical document.

The Constitution should be mandatory reading…

In reply to I believe most Congressmen and lawyers do not read the Constitution.

By the fourth grade…

It should be mandtory as civics classes used to be…

A sad, but true, observation

In reply to I believe most Congressmen and lawyers do not read the Constitution.

On the boards at military.com I’ve actually seen those who [b]proudly[/b] proclaim their ignorance of the US Constitution, as if such were some great virtue.

“…..a better quality of candidates…..”

In reply to A third political party?

1. When the news media stops putting people through the mill, forcing them and their families to undergo what’s tantamount to a public anal exam for anything and everything in his/her life, regardless of how it pertains to the merits of that person holding office.

2. When people get over their strange obsession to love seeing others succeed in a rags to riches story (both literally and figuratively), only to then love to see them torn down. (This is also advanced by the media.)

3. There are a lot of good people who could hold any public office effectively. But a drunk driving arrest in the past as a college student, having smoked pot in the 60s and 70s, past family issues, getting fired from a job, a visit to a psychologist, or any number of “skeletons” that a person would prefer stay in the closet will prevent those people from entering the arena. (A favorite of the news media.) People can overcome past mistakes, and can actually use them as a way to better themselves.

4. When political mudslinging, usually carried out in the media, is either eliminated or exposed for what it really is.

5. When the news media begins to understand it’s their function to simply report the news, not create the news. I believe the news media actually took-on a new “perceived” role after our Watergate scandal, and today, they actually see themselves as a fourth branch of government — the accountability branch.

It might sound as though I’m “blaming the media”, and I suppose I am to some degree. But they’re the vehicle for all those things to be brought to the public, so in the very least, they act as co-conspirators, so to speak.

Okay, and here’s one that doesn’t really involve the media.

When people get over their stupid notion that the role of government is NOT to provide an answer for every problem in their lives from the time they’re born to the time they die. Oh, but wait a minute. People didn’t think those things until that “stupid notion” was advance to them through the media.

Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

In reply to “…..a better quality of candidates…..”

Solve a Quadratic equation, and you may vote. Solve a more complex derivative you get 3 votes, 10 votes for a tensor… Integration in hyperspace, Vote until your fingers give up…

I like Heinlein’s idea

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

Serve in the military and you may vote.

Edit: Besides, what makes you think that an accomplished mathematician is more politically aware than, say, an accomplished mechanic? How about you have to pass the citizenship exam before you can vote? As native-born Americans, we should already know this information anyway. Sample questions: http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/main/pracquest.htm

An eminently good idea born of science fiction

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

This, from a story whose title and author I no longer recall:

1) People cast votes for policy proposals, not candidates for office.
2) All voters must record both the premises that they considered and their reasoning which led them to conclude to support or oppose a proposal, as well as the consequences that they foresaw of both its passage and defeat.
3) All voting records are public.
4) Governmental positions are filled by those whose predicted outcomes best match the realized ones.
5) The highest office is called the “Prime Predictor.”

Heinlein also reccomended the quadratic equation…

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

The math would show you can perform higher mental functions…

I think it would be be interesting to combine both ideas… The military service shows your care and responsibility, and willingness to do the difficult the Math the weighting of your vote…

Re. military service.

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

Please see my post at below, and then give me your honest assessment of the correlation between military service and being an informed and thoughtful voter.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2013787

Re: Military Service

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

I’ve seen it too, including some letters signed by senior officers that would have made a teacher shriek. The American military is a microcosm of American society: therefore, the ignorance and laziness of the general public is reproduced on a smaller scale. The only difference is the neat toys.

As far as testing voters, in my experience, solving quadratic equations might be too complex for most Americans today. How about finding their rear ends with their hands tied behind their backs? We could get at least a 25% success rate with that one.

NN – I would’nt bet on that.

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

I’d say 21.428571%, tops.

Query: What’s so perfect about this number?

We could give them bonus points for the correct answer.

To NN and Sandy.

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

The one thing that Heinlein asserted was that if you put your keister on the line for the body politic, you should have the stake in it. I know of only a few who have served who don’t vote.

There are exceptions, of course, but then we would have less stupidity if the Math suggestion was implemented. Rarely is someone who can prove they can do that level of Math going to vote for the Bread and Circusses that we now have coming out of Congress.

If we recognize that it is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to be in Congress, or prevented them from returning to law practice, or ban them from being a lobbyist, we’d eliminate much of the corruption, and the old boy network…

tjsanko – Unanswered question.

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

How do you reconcile your position here with the fact that ex-servicemen are no more informed and well reasoned than others, as witnessed by the perviously mention posts on boards such as military.com?

And, how many ex-servicemen truly put their live on the line. In fact, I would suggest that firemen consistently put themselves at greater risk than does the average serviceman.

Re: NN & Sandy

In reply to Let’s get Better Candidates, and better Voters.

“If we recognize that it is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to be in Congress, or prevented them from returning to law practice, or ban them from being a lobbyist, we’d eliminate much of the corruption, and the old boy network…”

I actually agree with you here. We need to do something, but what? And even if we ever come up with a solution most can agree on, it will be almost impossible to get it through both houses of Congress (See Ethics improvement bills, 1978-2006) and even two-thirds of the various statehouses would be difficult.

But there is that third method that might work if enough people were to actually quit bitching and stand up for something.

It wasn’t the media

In reply to “…..a better quality of candidates…..”

Remember Tammany Hall? The Daley machine in Chicago?

Our “outdated” constitution

In reply to A third political party?

Julian, with all due respect, I believe I know more about our constitution than you, and that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

You’ve made several references (in the past) to it being “outdated”, but you’ve not been real specific. Please enlighten us. Specifically, how is our constitution “outdated”? Sure, you might not agree with the gun clause or such, but that’s just an opinion; others will surely disagree.

Actually, I disagree that our constitution is outdated. In fact, I vehemently disagree. I don’t believe that our constitution should be brought up to current times at all, but rather the current times should be adjusted to reflect our constitution as originally intended.

There are plenty of Americans who share your sentiment, however. They believe that our constitution is a “living and breathing” document that can be changed to reflect “current times”. Although that’s true to some degree, considering the built-in methods to amend the document, but the original intention should remain intact. I believe our individual rights, as guaranteed by the original constitution, are literally being trampled upon. And those people (people who share your sentiment) only want to bring the constitution “up to date”, so to speak, to justify their trampling. That’s bass-ackwards, if you ask me!

A related comment regarding your opinion that our “electoral system sucks”.

No it doesn’t. It works just as it was intended to work as defined in our original constitution. (And remember, I believe that the current times should be adjusted to reflect our constitution as originally intended.)

If we were to do away with our electoral system, we might as well do away with our individual states and state lines.We’re almost there right now, considering the federal government has wielded so much power over the states. But it was intended to be the other way around. The states are the entities that were to ensure that the federal government didn’t grow too large, especially with all issues domestic. To do away with our electoral system is to concede that argument, and capitulate to a large federal government wielding even more power over the states.

That might be the one thing left (our electoral system) that’s the states’ “ace in the hole”. If we’re to change our federal government in a major way, “states’ rights” might just be the way to do it. (See note below.) What’s the difference between a state and a province? I know the answer (as do you, I’m sure), and that’s why we shouldn’t do it. (But for those reading this who don’t know, do your homework and find out.) We’re the USA, not the UPA.

Sorry, but I’m not willing to make such a concession. I don’t want to become the UPA, either in name or in practice. I still believe there may be a glimmer of hope to change current times to reflect our constitution as originally intended.

Note: Another way might be a new political party spun-off from one of the major two parties. (Most likely the Republican party to reflect a more libertarian viewpoint, but I’m not holding my breath.) And to address another one of your comments, that’s how “third parties” have been formed in the past — but only to eventually become one of the two major parties. This sentiment is why my libertarian views aren’t advanced by way of supporting the Libertarian Party, but rather trying to get the Republican Party to revert to its more Libertarian viewpoints, i.e. the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater.

P.S. And for the record, Julian. I don’t “worship” our constitution, nor does (if I may be so bold to attempt to speak for others with a like sentiment) anyone else. What I do “worship”, however, is my individual liberty as guaranteed to be protected under our constitution. If you can’t see the distinction, then you don’t understand me (or us?) at all.

There could be a new amendment.

In reply to Our “outdated” constitution

If passed by enough states, as the last group of amendments.

And a kudo to the next person who knows the other way and percentage… No fair looking…

I’m certain Sandy, and Max both know this, they are both inelligible for the kudo…

Sorry, Max, but I have to AGREE with you here.

In reply to Our “outdated” constitution

Try not to take it too badly.

Have a good weekend.

On your “FOX News” comment

In reply to A third political party?

Question: What are the viewership rating numbers for Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and CNN News? And let’s throw in PBS for grins?

I didn’t think you knew the answer (But I do).

Hint: Your comment was silly.

Maxwell says: “Blah, blah, blah …. “

In reply to A third political party?

After three and a half years at this website I am fully conversant with your views on just about everything which are repeated ad nauseum and never change.

I have reached a stage where I will adopt the attitude which you have adopted towards another peer, and simply not waste my time reading your posts.

So: “Blah, blah, blah …. ” I am not interested in being repeatedly reminded of your very narrow and bigoted views.

In case you are not fully conversant with the meaning of the word “bigot” I will help you out:

[b]bigot // n.
an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.[/b]

[Oxford dictionary]

Pop quiz – Julain’s message must be because. . . . .

In reply to Maxwell says: “Blah, blah, blah …. “

…..
A. He didn’t like how I correctly pointed out how the media obviously takes pleasure and profit in destroying people’s lives, destroying the political process, etc., and since Julian is an admitted “card-carrying” member of the media ……. well, you figure it out.

B. He couldn’t answer my questions and rebuttal concerning our constitution, and since he can’t win this debate, he runs from it.

C. He realized that the viewership of Fox News is really pretty small, when compared to all the other major networks, thereby making him look rather silly by his repeated Fox News nonsense.

D. He is displaying intolerant behavior towards another’s political theory (What is that, he said, being a bigot?).

E. All of the above.

And the correct answer is……….

Yes and no.

In reply to We cannot afford stupidity, or furriners to disuade us.

I wholeheartedly agree that the fault does not rest with Bush alone; both parties in Congress are culpable as well.

However, there are obviously certain functions that are within the purvue of the Executive branch that are not easily moderated by either of the other 2 branches without the co-operation of the Executive.

For example, in addition to the issues of “spying” on citizens, which was supposedly long ago settled, there is now the issue of 750+ Presidential “Signing Statements,” which amount to private, non-overridable, line item vetoes. Here the Executive branch is asserting that it is the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutionally allowable, by virtue of the President also being the Commander-in-Chief, and that Congress has no Constitutional power to challenge such, and that the Executive is therefore not answerable to Congress.

There are many, myself included, who find this to be greatly troubling. We do not accept the premise that we have nothing to fear from our government.

A committee has a brain?

In reply to We cannot afford stupidity, or furriners to disuade us.

I had always thought it was a form of life with two or more stomachs and NO brain.

I hope we get one

In reply to Let him run his full term

We haven’t really had a choice except between the lesser of two evils for the past 16 years.

Unfortunately, since Watergate took the selection of the candidates out of the smoke-filled rooms and sent it to the primaries, any serious candidates get chased out in the first few caucuses. The one criteria that was always met in the back rooms – “He won’t shame the party.” – is no longer even a consideration.

Not too much of a surprise

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

http://tinyurl.com/kfwy6

The picture alone is priceless.

Ah, yes, about those 750+ Presidential “Signing Statements.”

In reply to Not too much of a surprise

Sure beats the heck out of a veto; there’s no provision in the Constitution for over-riding said statements!

So, it’s basically a game of catch-me-if-you-can; and, if caught, bust me if you dare.

Of course, is’nt this precisely what we need in any good Commander-in-Cheif?

Makes me wonder…

In reply to Ah, yes, about those 750+ Presidential “Signing Statements.”

If some of his “Bushisms” are more of freudian slips than simple slips of the tongue.

“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” ?Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” ?George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” ?George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

“Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life.” ?George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004

“Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.” ?George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 25, 2003

“So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.” -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002. Regarding why Osama Bin Laden has not been captured.

More Bushisms – How to win friends & influence people, one word at a time.

In reply to Makes me wonder…

“Too many OB/GYN’s are’nt able to practice their love [b]with[/b] women all over the country.” – 06SEP04

“After all, Europe is America’s closest [b]ally[/b].” – 22FEB04

“Free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no concience, who kill at the [b]whim of a hat[/b]. – 17SEP04

“[b]September[/b] the [b]4th, 2001[/b], I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It’s a day I will never forget.” – 18OCT04.

“That’s why I went to Congress last September and proposed [b]fundamental, supplemental[/b] funding, which is money for armor and [b]body parts[/b]. – 04SEP04

“We are in no way, shape or form [b]should a human being play[/b] God.” – 14JAN05

“I think we were welcomed. But it was [b]not a peaceful welcome[/b].” – 12DEC05 – on US forces in Iraq

“We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can [b]more better[/b] do our job.” – 20SEP05

“I’m looking forward to a good night’s sleep [b]on the soil of a friend[/b].” 29JUN05 – on Denmark

“He was a [i]state sponsor of terror[/i]. [b]In other words[/b], the government had declared, you are a [i]state sponsor of terror[/i].” – 23JAN06 – on Saddam

“You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath [b]underseas and under fire[/b].” 10JAN06 – to US troops

It can happen to anyone.

In reply to Makes me wonder…

My son ran high school cross country.

I was at a road race a few years ago with my wife.
I said that I thought a woman looked hot… She was young, and attractive, had just finished a 5k. She had collapsed after a hard run and took down her top to douse heself with water. I did look, we were in public. I said she looked really hot. She was sweating very heavily. A 5K in 17 minutes is hard work. My wife was peeved for months…

I even wrote that I agreed with Julian once or twice… But, not on this.

I’m afraid that your little faux pas

In reply to It can happen to anyone.

does not put you in the same league as Bush.

Not that he is in a class of his own. Perhaps Colin would like to tell you about a certain long-term conservative premier of Queensland who had a lot more difficulty with the English language than George Bush.

Joh Bjelke Petersen was, however, a good financial manager.

Bushisms wouldn’t have gotten my wife so angry.

In reply to It can happen to anyone.

I wonder why?

Executive priviledge is nothing new.

In reply to Not too much of a surprise

Clinton put US parks into the perview of the UN. That is MY country he is letting Ahmed, or Jose, or Francois have control over.

The executive order is overused. Clinton tried to make the Presidency immune from special prosecutorial investigation. He was advised that that act alone would be grounds for impeechment…

Clinton did similar things with funding. As did Carter. I don’t know about Reagan and Bush because I was in an apolitical mood and not paying attention…

What is new is that Bush states what he will do and does it. Rather than hide it, he admits what he is doing. He at least is honest about it.

Rather than hide the truth, Bush reveals it, and even I get completely pissed about it…

Happens at the State & municipal levels too.

In reply to Executive priviledge is nothing new.

Pennsylvania recently adopted the “2003 International Property Maintenance Code,” (Google it and get ready to gag) and required that all municipalities implement and enforce it.

It does little, if anything, with regards to improving public safety, over and above the pre-existing local codes, but does add a lot of requirements that go toward appearances.

The local Code Enforcement Officer got on my case re. the vegetation, various wild flowers and elderberrys, under my White Pine tree, insisting that it was “weeds” and must be removed. It was obvious that, not only was he clueless as to what will and will not grow under such trees, but he did’nt care either. I demanded that he provide me with a copy of the new code, which he did. After reading it, I informed him that, per said code, I was designating the area under and around my pine to be a wild flower garden, and claiming it to be exempt from the general rule re. “weeds.”

As I had him dead to rights, and he knew it, he backed down on that issue. Of course, I’m now constantly in his sights.

So, now we’ve a bunch of foreigners telling us what our properties must and may not look like, all with the co-operation of the Commonwealth.

Impeach this –

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Please – If that was the case then everyone all the way down to John F Kennedy should have been impeached.

You have to look at it as a whole and not as a nit picky person who does crap based on how they feel and how the intelligence is.

Terrorist A calls from an AT&T line based in South Dakota to Terrorist B in New York (DOMESTIC CALL) who then calls Terrorist C in North Carolina (DOMESTIC CALL) who then calls Terrorist D in Florida (DOMESTIC CALL) who then calls head Terrorist E in Saudi Arabia (INTERNATIONAL CALL) who then relays a message to Terrorist F in California (INTERNATIONAL CALL) who relays a message to Terrorist A in South Dakota (DOMESTIC CALL)…

You see how this works? I think that you folks who are having a cardiac about it are putting too much feeling into it without doing much logical thinking…

But

In reply to Impeach this –

Unless I misunderstand, this isn’t wiretapping, where the agency gets permission to collect the data based on some evidence of possible wrong doing.

This is a massive collection of data from millions of people, in a fishing expedition. How far do you extend it. Do you abridge the privacy rights of a million people to find a dozen terrorists? How about 10 million? How about 100 million? Do you not feel like you are staninding with wet feet at the top of a slippery slope?

James

Admiral selectively employs the “end justifies the means” argument.

In reply to But

Were he to employ it universally, he would not have been able to suggest impeachment for JFK.

Therefore, he’s signaled his bias.

The result is that he believes that the [b]his[/b] desired ends justify [b]his[/b] chosen means.

As such, he’s not concerned with collateral damage to those who do not agree with him. Nor does he consider [b]all[/b] of the possible future consequences.

He may one day find out that the Law of Unintended Consequences has snuck up on him from behind and bit his ass!

Pot calling kettle black…

In reply to Admiral selectively employs the “end justifies the means” argument.

Kennedy did violate Cuban sovreignity. Without either UN or congressional approval he attempted the Bay of Pigs invasion. Via Executive orders. That was also to protect our country. It was never even considered something worth impeachable.

Aren’t you doing the same selective employment with your own actions?

Were you trying to get Clinton removed, Sandy.

Did you file military charges against him? For his bombing of the Sudanese Aspirin factory, For his indiscriminate bombing of the Slavs, or any other action unbecoming an officer for his other acts?

If these charges were filed by a serving officer those charges have real teeth and a fatal end. It would have been more significant than an impeachment, it would have been a military tribunal, and it would have been a simple conviction.

You show your bias, and your unthinking hatred. I at least admit and revel in my bias as a moral position.

While 3 lefts do in fact make a right, 2 or more wrongs do not.

In reply to Pot calling kettle black…

Firstly, the issue at hand is a present one, not one of the past.

More importantly, a government’s acts against its own citizenry is felt more deeply and strongly than is one against a foreign sovereign, owing to the very nature of such.

As an analogy, being struck by one’s parents is quite a different matter from being struck by a stranger; you live with the parents, not the stranger.

But that means the direction from the original was “right”.

In reply to While 3 lefts do in fact make a right, 2 or more wrongs do not.

1. That just proves the lefties are wrong everytime they start out.

2. If they eventually change enough they may get it “right”. Usually they throw more money at the situation and go more wrong…

3. When they start heading “right” they tend to go wrong again..

Yours is a much better idea

In reply to Impeach this –

Let’s spend Billions to surveille everything everyone does, all of the time in the hopes of catching a few crooks. After all we’re living in terror.

Better Domestic Terror than Foreign!

In reply to Yours is a much better idea

That way we all get to join in the games!

What do you mean ?

In reply to Better Domestic Terror than Foreign!

I think that’s a reasonable question.
You are so vague and/or full of ******* BS that ya’ beggar the imagination. It’s a game is it!?! What game? Where?

Naval academy? More like Navel academy wannabe. OOOO… ya bet we’re all impressed. I know I am. Fer sure, fer sure. DH!

Oh… Wait. I know you’ll kick serious a** with your tired lame, infamous, full of **** one-line remarks, DA ,so your fan(s) can go wild. I’m skeered over here. You betcha. FYVMYFA!

No offense…AH!

edited to clean it up. DA!

Can we please get a translator here?

In reply to What do you mean ?

.

And the crowd goes wild

In reply to Can we please get a translator here?

.

Have you ever listened to “Crucifixion,” ..

In reply to And the crowd goes wild

by Phil Ochs, particularly the version record by Jim & Jean?

excerpts –

“The spanish bulls are beaten; the crowd is soon beguiled.
The matador is beautiful, a symphony of style;
Excitement is estatic, passion places bets;
Gracefully he bows to ovations that he gets;
But the hands that are applauding are slippery with sweat,
And saliva is falling from their smiles”

“And the cross is trembling with desire.”

Disagree

In reply to Impeach this –

This isn’t about targeting known or even suspected terrorists. This is asking for the phone records for everyone. This is a clear case of the government further sliding down the slope of feeling they are not answerable to the people.

I will point out what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject:

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!

Do you apply your outrage equally across the board?

In reply to Disagree

In this case, a record of phone calls (numbers only) is being kept in a database which is then compared to known phone numbers of terrorist suspects. If a match is made, the phone calls are tagged. If no match is made, no further action is taken. I think that about sums it up. I can certainly understand why people would not like it, at least on the surface, but it seems to me people are being selective in their outrage. What other personal records and/or information is being gathered in government databases? And consider that some of the records are MORE intrusive than this silly phone call flap.

1. Income records are the first to stand out. You can’t earn a friggin’ penny without the government knowing about it.

2. Bank records of all deposits and withdraws.

3. Credit card purchases. If you buy a slurpie at 7-11 with a credit card, some federal agency can find out about it.

4. Cameras on the roads that could be (and are) an eye in the sky to follow you around.

5. The census records. I left my race blank (intentionally) on the last census form (2000, before Bush), and a census guy “coincidentally” knocked on my door to “verify” some things.

6. Voting records.

7. Driving records.

8. Birth records.

9. Death records.

10. Marriage records

11. Public library records.

12. Employment records.

13. Any lawsuit or court records.

14. Your physical description, and in some cases, facial recognition systems.

15. Satellites in the sky could take a picture of you tanning your fat ass in your own backyard.

16. Business records: You can’t legally open a stupid lemonade stand without filing the proper papers.

17. Postal address information: Why do you think it’s been illegal for private, house-to-house mail delivery companies to compete with the government’s Postal Service?

18. School records: You can’t take a class at a public school or state university without it being recorded in a government database.

19. I have to empty my pockets and take my shoes off at an airport. I’d much prefer racial profiling.

20. Personal property records. I can’t buy real estate, a car, a boat, a gun, fertilizer (thank you Timothy McVeigh), spray paint, or many other items without it being approved and/or recorded in a government database.

21. I can’t go to Las Vegas and gamble (since I often win!) without it being reported to the feds.

22. I can’t go to a football game without being frisked.

23. There’s a GPS transmitter in my cell phone.

I could go on and on. I’ll bet my list could reach 100 or more!

All of these things — AND MORE — are ALL before Bush. They ALL transcend any one president, any one party, and any one congress or administration. And these things have been going on and building for decades.

Point being, there are FAR MORE intrusive government “spying” programs and tactics that actually affect me and my life than this, which doesn’t affect me in the least. Moreover, whoever’s making a big to-do about this is not doing it for “privacy” reasons, but rather political reasons. If “privacy” was really the issue, where is the outrage concerning the REAL privacy invasion issues?

Personally, I don’t care if the phone call I place to my mother gets put into a data base. Hell, I don’t even care if they listen (which they’re not). It’s put into the phone company database, anyway; and the government’s ALWAYS had access to those phone company databases; and they’ve had access well before GWB took office. But I’m damn glad that if my neighbor make a call to Osama bin Laden, that a red flag will automatically pop up someplace.

ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE HYPOCRITES unless you show equal outrage to ALL of it.

Be outraged at all of it, or be outraged at none of it.

And if you’re not outraged at all of it, shut up about the most insignificant part of it.

Privacy

In reply to Do you apply your outrage equally across the board?

I know this was written to illustrate amount of snooping that is done into our lives.

And you well know that I am an advocate of individual freedoms, which cannot be exercised with the amount of snooping that is being done by both the government and private citizens.

For the record (in addition to being able to recall the written message when it is asked in the future), the best government is a small federal government and enpowered state and local governments.

And there is far too much federal government in our lives…

And yes, I am damned well outraged at the snooping into our private lives.

Go have a beer – and send me the bill!

In reply to Privacy

…
You said, “For the record (in addition to being able to recall the written message when it is asked in the future), the best government is a small federal government and empowered state and local governments. And there is far too much federal government in our lives.”

I’ll buy the beer for that sentiment!

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2010219

And an obvious question. How do you think we can get back to having a small federal government and empowered state and local governments? And do you think we’ll ever see it?

Smaller Government

In reply to Go have a beer – and send me the bill!

I think Thomas Jefferson was correct that there needs to be a revolution every 20 years and the people need to take control of their lives and their government.

Do I think it will happen? Not without a great deal of bloodshed. It took an armed rebellion to start our path to freedom when our nation was born. I am afraid that is exactly what it will take in the future to re-establish it.

The problem is… I don’t think the people have the firepower to do it.

In reply to Smaller Government

With the removal of weapons from the populace, and the Militia becoming Federalized, there is no balance to the power of the Federal government since about 1865…

Yes, and let me add to this list.

In reply to Do you apply your outrage equally across the board?

Your Secret ballot is no longer really secret.

It is even worse with the advent of computerized voting machines.

I volunteer at the board of elections. Politicos can get access to the database of past votes. They can check who voted for them and cross reference it against your registration entry. If they wnat to know how you vote, they can find out. They would have had to cross reference the stub number with the paper ballot at one time. Now they can do a single line of SQL to get that info…

Ballots

In reply to Yes, and let me add to this list.

Excellent comment.

I am also concerned with some of the issues that are being reported on the voting machines concerning the OS security and how easily they can be manipulated for vote fraud.

We won’t even had a dimpled chad to point at!

Yes, but the fact is in OHIO the Cleveland area has problems.

In reply to Yes, and let me add to this list.

The Democrats had long thrown out many ballots. Now they can’t… Ken Blackwell is investigating…

He understands this. Keep the corrupt hands off the ballots and you get a good accurate count… This seems to be changing the power structure in Cleveland. No more Vote fraud, Democrats loosing in the Metro area… Interesting at least…

BTW the may be Ohio’s first Black Govonor…

You don’t support the US Constitution, do you?

In reply to Impeach this –

If you did, you would not have made such a specious argument.

“He who would give up a small essential freedom for a little temporary security is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security.” – Ben Franklin.

Nor has he, or would he take an oath to do so.

In reply to You don’t support the US Constitution, do you?

He wants to have it applied the way he wants it applied. He is three steps left of center and wobbling to the left.

I think the real issue is this. Do idiotic people understand that the terrorists want to kill us?

Well, this is confusing.

In reply to Nor has he, or would he take an oath to do so.

It’s not clear who the “he” in the title of your post is; neither is the reference to an oath.

I was referring to…

In reply to Nor has he, or would he take an oath to do so.

Julian, OZ etc… There are so many targets, I forget my original target. They are just on your bandwagon of Bush hate…

Yes, it does get confusing at times.

In reply to I was referring to…

I should know, given the number of times it’s happened to me.

Ah, well, nothing to fret about.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

In reply to Impeach this –

I expected this to happen, but completely clandestinely.

WelKommen back

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

to 1933 folks :0

And, like Hitler, …

In reply to WelKommen back

GWB too seems to believe that, as Commander-in-Chief, he is both more knowledgable about war than is the military and destined to succeed.

Let’s not forget that Bush believes that he is but God’s servant in these matters.

I can hardy wait for the stadium rallies!

GWB isn’t a Hitler. He can’t speak well enough.

In reply to And, like Hitler, …

You can’t claim Bush is a great Orator like Hitler. There is no factual basis to that claim…

Back up from the abysss.

Never made such claim.

In reply to GWB isn’t a Hitler. He can’t speak well enough.

Only that Bush shares certain [b]specified[/b] traits with him.

Hitler’s strongest trait was Oratory.

In reply to Never made such claim.

There is virtually no similarity, except a desire for loyalty. That is a trait desired by all leaders…

I contend that there is a very important similarity, …

In reply to Hitler’s strongest trait was Oratory.

that being that each put their personal assessments of military affairs ahead of those of their military advisors.

Militarily speaking,…

In reply to Hitler’s strongest trait was Oratory.

Hitler was a Corporal and thought like a Corporal…

Bush was an officer… Big difference…

But, are the results qualitatively different?

In reply to Militarily speaking,…

And, bear in mind that Bush was a National Guard officer, who, despite his low score on the pilot’s aptitude test (a 25, the lowest score allowed), was [i]sworn in as an airman the day he applied.[/i]”

Yes, he may have been a pilot, but, so what?

The way to prevent 1933 is to not allow socialism to increase in the US.

In reply to WelKommen back

Let’s realize that socialism and totalitarianism were the NAZI goals.

Hitler was a dictator.

If we want to be wise and break the cycle, keep the Princeton Skull & Bones guys out of any office, or advisory role in the government. It would have been much the same with Kerry another Skull & Bones guy…

I suspect that socialist dictatorship isn’t one of GWBs goals.

Princeton ?:| Get your …. straight

In reply to The way to prevent 1933 is to not allow socialism to increase in the US.

Princeton and bones and a VietNam Vet named John Kerry, do NOT go together.!. And the Nazis (as National Socialist Party) were any thing but…. It was ‘Nationalism’ at it’s very worst. (Hitler himself despised Solalists and Comunists as well, He thought them all as ‘Jewish’, as most German Jewish people who were political at the time were.) You know nothing of then or the VietNam error either.

In all honesty, I’m not sure what GWB’s goals are.

In reply to The way to prevent 1933 is to not allow socialism to increase in the US.

I am not being sarcastic when I say that, I’m not certain that he has any long term goals. He seems to be more a person who just wants to be in charge.

Recall that it was his brother, Jeb, not he, who was being groomed by his father for the national stage.

Princeton Skull and Bones is a fraternity.

In reply to The way to prevent 1933 is to not allow socialism to increase in the US.

Both of them belonged to it. Bush resigned… Kerry is still reputed to be a “boner”

A Skull is a Skull. The people they are close to are the same kind of people with different names and ages…

I know that, but

In reply to Princeton Skull and Bones is a fraternity.

It’s not at Princeton.!.

It is actually meets at a Mausoleum on Princeton Property.

In reply to I know that, but

According to public reports…

Princeton was at one time a religious institution. Thus the Small church and graveyard belong to Princeton. The Mausoleum belongs to Princeton.

What I find Ironic –

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Traditionally, the Republican Party has held the belief that less governement = better government. They’ve always been the Party that wants less government restrictions on Business, less government intrusions on Individuals, and have been the Party of “Traditional Values”.

I’m not sure if this current Administration is following the Party line – collecting information on private citizens, secret courts , holding prisoners for years without charging them of crimes, Search and Seziure without warrents, etc. It seems as if this current Administration wants unfettered government involvement in every aspect of it’s citizen’s lives.

Just my $ .03 worth (adjusted for inflation).

You’re quite right. And, we’ll make it 4 cents.

In reply to What I find Ironic –

This is why some of the older pols, such as Sen. Spector, are taking public issue with Bush’s policies.

Concurrent with this is the problems that have arisen out of Bush’s continued defiance of Congress, as witnessed by the voluminous number of Presidental “Signing Statements,” over 750, issued by GWB.

The Republicans are caught in a trap of their own making.

On the one hand, they stand for smaller, less intrusive government. But, they also stand for big military and law enforcement, which entails a good deal of governmental control, not to mention considerable costs.

In times of peace and prosperity, there is less call for the latter of the aforesaid, so that the former can more easily be championed. But, in the absence of either peace or prosperity, they are faced with a dilemma.

Sounds like Fascism

In reply to What I find Ironic –

Over the years, I’ve become convinced that many Republicans are closet fascists, based on their response to criticism of government policy during Republican presidencies or times of conflict:
– Love it or leave it.
– If you’re not with us, you’re a traitor.
– We know what’s best for you.

These comments demonstrate to me that the person making them believes that the State is more important than the individual. That is definitely NOT the American way.

Fascism comes from the left, but the Verbiage isn’t Fascistic…

In reply to Sounds like Fascism

Fascism is the byproduct of socialism. National Socialism was fascistic, as was Italy… The Fascism comes out of despotic dictatorships… Not from a representative republic…

Fascism defined

In reply to Fascism comes from the left, but the Verbiage isn’t Fascistic…

From Merriam-Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

From The American Heritage Dictionary: A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

Don’t see no socialism in there! Fascism is, by either definition, as anti-socialist as you can get.

Nazi’s were fascists, and socialists. USSR, too. Cuba Ditto.

In reply to Fascism defined

It is amazing how bad that definition is…

What it got right was central control…
and a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. It is 180 degress wrong in it coming from the extreme right.

Italy was socialist and Fascist under Mussolini.
Nazi Germany was Socialist and Fascistic.
So was Argentina under Peron.

The problem is to become a dictatorship you need overwhelming support, that comes from the people… Then you can become state centered and control the means of production.

Fascism in implementation always has come out of a socialist movement, historically. It really isn’t right wing. That is a poor definition if it doesn’t recognize the root situation… The USSR was cretainly fascistic as is Cuba.

Don’t believe everything you read. Just because an total idiot wrote that definition, you need look at the best examples, and make sure it fits the definition…

Now I understand

In reply to Nazi’s were fascists, and socialists. USSR, too. Cuba Ditto.

So sorry to confuse you with facts, but I believe you are confusing populism and socialism.

Edit: clarify

Do you apply your outrage equally across the board??

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

.
In this case, a record of phone calls (numbers only) is being kept in a database which is then compared to known phone numbers of terrorist suspects. If a match is made, the phone calls are tagged. If no match is made, no further action is taken. I think that about sums it up. I can certainly understand why people would not like it, at least on the surface, but it seems to me people are being selective in their outrage. What other personal records and/or information is being gathered in government databases? And consider that some of the records are MORE intrusive than this silly phone call flap.

1. Income records are the first to stand out. You can’t earn a friggin’ penny without the government knowing about it.

2. Bank records of all deposits and withdraws.

3. Credit card purchases. If you buy a slurpie at 7-11 with a credit card, some federal agency can find out about it.

4. Cameras on the roads that could be (and are) an eye in the sky to follow you around.

5. The census records. I left my race blank (intentionally) on the last census form (2000, before Bush), and a census guy “coincidentally” knocked on my door to “verify” some things.

6. Voting records.

7. Driving records.

8. Birth records.

9. Death records.

10. Marriage records

11. Public library records.

12. Employment records.

13. Any lawsuit or court records.

14. Your physical description, and in some cases, facial recognition systems.

15. Satellites in the sky could take a picture of you tanning your fat ass in your own backyard.

16. Business records: You can’t legally open a stupid lemonade stand without filing the proper papers.

17. Postal address information: Why do you think it’s been illegal for private, house-to-house mail delivery companies to compete with the government’s Postal Service?

18. School records: You can’t take a class at a public school or state university without it being recorded in a government database.

19. I have to empty my pockets and take my shoes off at an airport. I’d much prefer racial profiling.

20. Personal property records. I can’t buy real estate, a car, a boat, a gun, fertilizer (thank you Timothy McVeigh), spray paint, or many other items without it being approved and/or recorded in a government database.

21. I can’t go to Las Vegas and gamble (since I often win!) without it being reported to the feds.

22. I can’t go to a football game without being frisked.

23. There’s a GPS transmitter in my cell phone.

I could go on and on. I’ll bet my list could reach 100 or more!

All of these things — AND MORE — are ALL before Bush. They ALL transcend any one president, any one party, and any one congress or administration. And these things have been going on and building for decades.

Point being, there are FAR MORE intrusive government “spying” programs and tactics that actually affect me and my life than this, which doesn’t affect me in the least. Moreover, whoever’s making a big to-do about this is not doing it for “privacy” reasons, but rather political reasons. If “privacy” was really the issue, where is the outrage concerning the REAL privacy invasion issues?

Personally, I don’t care if the phone call I place to my mother gets put into a data base. Hell, I don’t even care if they listen (which they’re not). It’s put into the phone company database, anyway; and the government’s ALWAYS had access to those phone company databases; and they’ve had access well before GWB took office. But I’m damn glad that if my neighbor make a call to Osama bin Laden, that a red flag will automatically pop up someplace.

ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE HYPOCRITES unless you show equal outrage to ALL of it.

Be outraged at all of it, or be outraged at none of it.

And if you’re not outraged at all of it, shut up about the most insignificant part of it.

deepsand is a traitor

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

……for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Bad Form!

In reply to deepsand is a traitor

Stating an opinion that you believe the government is wrong in a decision does not make him or anyone else a traitor.

It’s truly a shame that we can no longer have a discourse on any issue in this country without resorting to name calling.

I truly do expect more than this from one of my literate and insightful friends.

I will make an admission

In reply to Bad Form!

I do go over-board on the “name-calling”. And it’s probably happening with more frequency lately, as it’s something I never did (well, not too much) in the past. It’s probably the frustration coming out. Ever since 2000, President Bush has been literally under attack by his political enemies, both in government and politics, and in the press. (If you think he doesn’t have “political enemies” in the press, let me just say the names Helen Thomas, Molly Ivans, Dan Rather, et al, as only a few examples.) Say what you will about the guy, but it’s one thing after another after another, and almost all of them are mischaracterization at best, or blatant lies at worst. This is just another one of the mischaracterizations or lies.

No, I don’t think he’s doing everything right. But he’s not doing everything wrong either. When everything — ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING — he does gets torn apart, attacked, and mischaracterized in the press, it’s obvious what’s going on. Only the most ignorant among us can’t (or won’t) see it.

In this case, see my “for the record” message below.

And an added addition to that “for the record” message. If people are indeed trying to bring down the President of the United States, for reasons that are purely political, and they undermine his efforts in waging a war with an extremely dangerous and elusive enemy, then yes, I do indeed believe they are traitors.

Is deepsand a “traitor”? Hell, I don’t know. But if he’s not, then he’s extremely ignorant and stupid. (Not “name-calling”, per se, but rather only to show my perceived alternative.)

Well, okay. Maybe there is an alternative to being either a traitor or a person who’s extremely ignorant and stupid.

People are like cattle. Have you ever seen how one or two cowboys can take hundreds of cattle down a path? They just round up a few, get them going, and the rest all follow.

Okay, deepsand’s a cow.

deepsand is ignorant – This IS legal

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Just because some terrorist-loving blow-hards SAY it’s illegal, it doesn’t make it illegal.

How many times have these SAME blow-hards claimed that President Bush was acting illegally, but for some strange reason, they NEVER bring the activity in question before a court to decide its legality? They don’t ever bring the issue before a court because they are only spewing political rhetoric, not truth, and they know it.

The practice described in this discussion IS legal, and the government has been doing it for quite some time.

And in this case, they won’t challenge it in court, because they would be laughed out of court, because it IS legal, because of, in part, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was passed by Congress and signed by the President (President Clinton, that is), in 1994.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usamay2001_4.htm

You’re violating the oath you “claim” you took, deepsand. You’re a disgrace.

Are you a lawyer?

In reply to deepsand is ignorant – This IS legal

Specializing in constitutional law? If not, then your assertation that ?This IS legal? makes about as much sense as me diagnosing the insulation problems on the external tanks of the space shuttle by reading the New York Times. If it were so clear cut, we (the nation, the politicians, the pundits) would not be having such a debate. Politicians are not that stupid as to purposefully put their foot in their mouths.

Your quote??How many times have these SAME blow-hards claimed that President Bush was acting illegally, but for some strange reason, they NEVER bring the activity in question before a court to decide its legality?? Umm?yeah?in case you were unaware, the republicans control all three branches of government. The Dems in congress HAVE brought activity to question, but continually get shot down by the majority?which is?wait for it?the REPUBLICANS.

BTW, dispense with the ?But?Clinton did it!? attitude that has turned into such a defense of the right-wing. Two wrongs do not make a right. Our nation and our constitution are far more important than bi-partisanship.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot definitively say that this is legal or not. However, the link to the DoJ that you posted says that?

?Section 105 of CALEA seeks to ensure systems security and integrity by requiring that a ?telecommunications carrier ensure any interceptions of communications or access to call-identifying information . . . can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and . . . in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Commission.??

That is ?with a court order or other lawful authorization?, which implies a search warrant. It is my guess that the ??or other lawful authorization? will become the point of debate. Can the Prez give authorization? It?s gonna become another ?It depends on what the definition of ?is? is? situation.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that Bush?s current campaign for more Presidential power will have long lasting effects. Guess what?if Bush can do these things?so can Hilary (god forbid) if she is ever elected President. I, personally, am NOT comfortable with ANY President having powers that go unchecked (let alone a candidate to head the CIA who cannot even quote the 4th amendment?but that?s another story).

One more thing regarding your ?terrorist-loving blow-hards?, ?deepsand is a traitor? comment as well as similar comments you have made in the past. By doing this you are using a tactic that was outlined by Herman Goering who said that?

?The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders…tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.?

Do you realize that you are using the tactic of a key member of the Nazi regime? Good job, Max! (actually, I?m sure you are just reciting from right-wing pundits such as Savage, Colter, Hannity, Limbaugh and O?Reilly who just LOVE to spout the same rhetoric).

Max, I do not doubt your patriotism, but I?m afraid it has been tainted by the pundits I listed above. I?m sure that your true colors are ?red, white and blue?, but by spewing such filth it makes you look like your true colors are ?red, white and black?.

I contend that it IS legal. . . . . . . .

In reply to Are you a lawyer?

….because nobody has successfully challenged it to determine that it’s illegal. And believe me, if it was illegal, the Bush enemies would have had it in court already. You know it, and I know it.

Spare me the Hitler crap, please.

They have tried

In reply to I contend that it IS legal. . . . . . . .

and are continually blocked. Dems do not have subpoena powers as they are the minority, we will most likely have to wait until after the elections this year to get any investigation.

Here is a quote from a letter signed by over 50 members of congress on May 11th to Bush.

“It is time the American public and the Congress had more than press reports to establish the facts about NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. Several Members of Congress wrote to you nearly three months ago asking for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the NSA’s surveillance of Americans. We still have not received your response.

Every practical avenue for investigation has been stymied based on the feeblest of excuses. When Members of Congress wrote to the Inspector Generals of the Justice and Defense Departments, they refused to investigate. The Justice Department handed the matter to its Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation of professional legal misconduct, and then denied security clearances to its own investigators. The Defense Department handed the matter to NSA’s Inspector General, who never responded and who approved the eavesdropping at issue. The Government Accountability Office refused to investigate, anticipating you would block access to records by designating them foreign intelligence or counterintelligence materials. While the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings, they have not issued a single subpoena for witnesses or documentary evidence. Instead of investigation, all that emerges is a pattern of resisting investigation into the facts that Congress and the public deserve.”

This is the “absence of proof constitutes proof of absence” fallacy.

In reply to I contend that it IS legal. . . . . . . .

…

Max, the level of Sandy’s rhetoric is no more than sedition.

In reply to deepsand is ignorant – This IS legal

Any accusation of a capital crime should be reserved for actions such as material help such as the direction of launch systems to the Red Chinese. We should be going after The person who signed the executive order sending Loral missile launch systems to China.

Max, I believe the term is sedition, not treason…

I stand by my accusation

In reply to Max, the level of Sandy’s rhetoric is no more than sedition.

And I’m sure that all those fine Americans, many of them service men and women, the one’s that are indirectly being falsely accused of “spying” on American citizens, who are serving in a capacity to defend the United States, might make the same accusation. He’s actually helping the enemy by spreading false propaganda and by aiding in exposing one of our defensive measures.

I see it as sedition. Trying to cause a break within our country.

In reply to I stand by my accusation

I hope we can agree to disagree. I don’t see material aid.

He is reading the enemy’s script

In reply to I see it as sedition. Trying to cause a break within our country.

You see it your way, I’ll see it my way.

There seem to be more internal enemies than external…

In reply to He is reading the enemy’s script

That is my opinion anyway. External enemies stay quiet. The internal ones make noise…

A lot of noise….

Thanks for having my back!

In reply to Max, the level of Sandy’s rhetoric is no more than sedition.

…

I may disagree with what you say…

In reply to Thanks for having my back!

But I will defend your right to say/write it…

I do not think disagreement is treasonous, but it may be sedicious… The actions you recommend can take the comments from Nasty disagreement into sedition…

Let me get this straight; absent a conviction, no act is illegal?

In reply to deepsand is ignorant – This IS legal

And to think that I understood that it was the Law which defined such.

Thanks for setting me straight.

This is going to come in real handy if I ever get busted.

You are intentionally evading my point

In reply to Let me get this straight; absent a conviction, no act is illegal?

You have to have a court challenge before you start talking about conviction or acquittal. The political demagogues who are making such a charge are PROVEN to be shallow and dishonest by merely observing that they are presenting no such court challenge.

You’re an idiot — and wrong

Acquittal/conviction irrelevant to legality.

In reply to You are intentionally evading my point

You’re the one attempting to evade the issue, by obscuring it with that which only seems to be it.

If you understand this, then you are being deliberately evasive; if not, then you lack the ability to employ logical reasoning.

The choice is your’s to declare.

Your willfull ignorance…

In reply to You are intentionally evading my point

…Is absolutely astounding! See my post above entitled “They have tried”. Just because the Republican majority in Congress (not to mention the Bush administration) do not want to investigate this issue does NOT make it legal.

Jonathan Turney, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University (and a libertarian BTW) said on MSNBC, regarding the collection of phone records, that “there is NO law that allows the government to do this type of operation”

AND…Verizon is being sued by two NJ lawyers for violating privacy laws. Big kudos to Qwest for standing up to the NSA. Qwest asked the NSA for a letter of authorization from the US Attorney General’s office and the request was denied, so Qwest did not comply with the NSA’s request. If it’s so LEGAL, Max, why not get a signoff from the US Attorney General?

So whom is one to believe? A respected expert on congressional law or some guy on TR? Sorry Max…It’s not you!

So go ahead, put your hands over your ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA…I can’t heeeeaaarrrr you!”

The legality

In reply to deepsand is ignorant – This IS legal

As hard as it may be sometimes to admit, particularly when it could aid safety, the government has no power to do anything unless it is expressly given that power from the people by their representatives.

If two constitution points appear to be in conflict with one another, it is for the Supreme Court to sort it out.

Back in the 1970s

In reply to The legality

Back in the late 1970s (the Carter Administration, I believe), in an effort to expand law enforcement efforts in the bogus, expensive, and individual-liberty trampling war on drugs, Congress passed legislation to allow any law enforcement agency of government to collect and analyze, without any need for further warrants, any and all records of phone contacts, including the number that made the call, the number that received the call, and the date and time the call was made. I forgot what this law was named, but with your legal connections, perhaps you can verify this for us.

For Pete’s sake. Just watch CSI-Tulsa, or CSI-Bangor, or CSI-Anywhere, and you see them have access to a database of “who called whom and when” week after week, I mean night after night. If CSIs can do it legally (and “real ones” can), why not the NSA?

That’s all this is. And if a red flag pops up over a phone number of a known or suspected terrorist, then another law that’s already passed allows them to take it to the next level, whatever that might be.

My bottom line position is this: Regardless of any “outcry” by whomever, I’m certain that the Bush Administration has their legal ass covered. This is purely political, and any reasonably intelligent person knows it, or at least should know it. I’m really amazed at the otherwise intelligent people around here who are spouting-off in such a way. Geesh! Get real, is what I say.

There are SO damn many laws, and acts, and resolutions, and so on, that have been previously passed, that the government can “legally” do just about anything they damn well please. And no, I don’t like it. However, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to waging the war on Islamo-Fascism. (And watch some fool come-back and misrepresent what I just said.) It’s all the other crap that I want to put a stop to. Why are so many people bass-ackwards on this point?

I find it strange that most people who are up in arms about this kind of thing won’t join me in advocating reducing the size and scope of the federal government, in general, by about 50 percent (and that’s only for a start). If the role of the federal government was confined to primarily a role of representing and defending the USA in the world arena, and keeping their noses out of ALL business domestic, things like this would be a lot clearer and easier to reconcile. All of the idiots who have voted for all of the idiots and idiotic ideas over the past forty years to ensure their “domestic security from womb to tomb” now have exactly what they asked for. And they’re now crying about it. Well boo-hoo. All the idiots only got what they wanted.

(You’re about the only one, at this point, that I’d leave a reply for. I’m getting tired of these same old, worn-out arguments and discussions. I’ll read some of the messages, but not all, and I’m tired of replying.)

Sorry Max

In reply to Back in the 1970s

I wasn’t totally disagreeing with you. Your point about the law is true enough. The question seems to be whether or not the feds are supposed to have a warrant or not. Hell, they might, but it could be issued from a secret court. That makes is legal.

Of course, the government should be smaller. I doubt anyone rational disagrees with that. Most people jsut argue HOW that should happen.

All of these discussions can be much better if universal agreements are acknowledged and sides work towards a center solution. Unfortunately, that’s harder than basking one’s preferences through, most of the time…

For once, I’m leaving the office when I’m supposed to – remind me tomorrow to send the query to the librarian.

About the reduction of the size of the Federal government

In reply to Back in the 1970s

I don’t know about a 50% reduction across the board, or even by simply eliminating particular agencies, etc.

But I’d start with the elimination of (likely) all subsidies. (And yes, I have a good idea what that would do to the economy, if anyone wondered.)

(Business is not the business of the government)

Then I’d remove most foreign aid that goes in the form of defense spending. In other words, I wouldn’t GIVE weapons away, or give money for the purpose of buying weapons. (including loans)

(Money would be better spent protecting human rights in developing areas than helping defend already rich, industrialized countries.)

I’m not an expert, so I won’t commit to this one, but I would certainly ask the chiefs why we have so many bases around the world all the time. I understand the need to be able to deploy, but I also see staffing/maintaining all these sites all the time as a drain. I’d love to hear other ideas from people involved.

Redundant agencies – there must be some. Things are too huge now that there wouldn’t be.

The recent remodeling of the Pentagon was done on time and under budget (IIRC, after an initial lame contractor was removed), I want the guy who was in charge of that in the cabinet somewhere.

I’d hate to say it, but I’d build fences along the borders and monitor it with the Guard. I don’t see a better way to maintain safe borders at the moment. I would, however, encourage our neighbors to do the same. It just seems more amicable that way.

I would invest Federal money in cost reduction methods where energy is concerned. Spending the money now would be a short term expense that would increase jobs to rehab, retrofit, research, etc… The spent money would hit the multiplier and increase revenues enough to offset most of the expense. And in the long run, money would be saved. We would also be more selfsufficient where energy is concerned – I think we all know the various benefits of that. Win-win-win

There’s more, I’m sure, but that’s from the top of my head and I have to get back to some work…

Are Americans of 2 minds?

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Recent polls show that, while only one-half of Americans trust Bush re. privacy, nearly two-thirds have no problem with giving their phone records to the government.

Assuming that the samples in these 2 surveys are statistically equivalent, how to explain this apparent contradiction?

Is it that they believe that Congress and the Courts will serve to check abuse by the Executive branch? Or, that phone records provide no opportunity for abuse? Do they cling to the notion that only the “guilty” need fear?

Or, is it that they fail to follow their beliefs to their logical consequences, thereby failing to see the inate contradictions between their professed beliefs?

My bet is on the latter.

The true question

In reply to Are Americans of 2 minds?

Is: Do they have any ‘mind’ at all? I can’t even believe that Americans can really think for them-selves any more. Out side of the few I’ve met here at the Tech-Rep. It’s almost impossible to sit down and have ‘intelegent’ conversion with the ‘average’, ‘normal’ American. They’re clueless as to anything not presented to them from the ‘box’ (TV). And most of that is mindless garbage. (or worse, if anyone realizes that most past civilizations are studied by their garbage) -d

I would say no mind.

In reply to Are Americans of 2 minds?

The problem is most of us do want these domestic terrorist caught.

Most of us aren’t doing anything illegal, so this is on no relevance to us. It is a future danger, but we are all very short sighted.

Well, I side with Ben Franklin, when he said …

In reply to I would say no mind.

“He who would give up a small eseential freedom for a little temporary security is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security.”

I would also point you to the above quote from Thomas Jefferson, at

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2009400

Are you consistent?

In reply to Well, I side with Ben Franklin, when he said …

Can I surmise, then, that your comment (Franklin’s comment) on security will apply equally to “Social Security? And will you join me in supporting the abolition of the government mandated retirement program called “Social Security”, so as to remain compliant and consistent with Mr. Franklin’s sentiment, “He who would give up a small essential freedom for a little temporary security is a scoundrel, and deserves neither freedom nor security”?

I support abolishing the entire Social Security system, reimbursing those, in an equitable manner, who have paid into the system, and phasing it out over a forty year period.

Do you agree?

I agree, Max

In reply to Are you consistent?

Sandy shore is silent…

Max. I concur.

In reply to Are you consistent?

I view the Supreme Court decision that allowed such to stand as a lawful exercise of Congressional power, ostensibly implicitly granted by the phrase “general welfare,” along with other such decisions so gorunded, to have been contrary to both the general spirit of the Constitution as well as the intent of the 10th Amendment.

Our Constitution was intended to be one of enumerated powers, none of which support the claim that Congress has such powers as were here exercised.

Ben Franklin didn’t have Thermonuclear devices to worry about…

In reply to I would say no mind.

The big weapons of his day were much more limited.

That being said, this is legal for the CINC to do as per the any enemies foreign and domestic part of oath, and the war on terrorism resolution…

Well, their are any number of Constitutional scholars, …

In reply to Ben Franklin didn’t have Thermonuclear devices to worry about…

who are far more knowledgeable in these matters than either of us, who hold otherwise.

Do understand that I do not hold that maintaining either liberty or security without the other is easily obtained. For a balanced analysis of such, see my below post, at

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2012936

It is amazing…

In reply to Well, their are any number of Constitutional scholars, …

That people who want to expand the government to all kinds of entitlements are now wanting to limit a constitutionally mandated function of the executive branch…

You seem to have mistaken me for another.

In reply to It is amazing…

I definitely do [b]not[/b] qualify as a member of the class you describe.

Sandy I appreciate that. But look at your allies.

In reply to It is amazing…

It is time for you to think, If I agree with this crowd I have made a mistake.

Your allies in this viewpoint are Wesley Clark… Yuck, Nancy Pelosi, Ew!!!, Murtha, (I regret to say he was ever a Marine) and many of the Moonbat left.

Do not judge by those who seem to agree.

In reply to Sandy I appreciate that. But look at your allies.

If I did such, I could conclude that you and Max are “allies,” a position that I do not hold.

People and positions are distinctly different entities.

I use the Goofus MacDuff test.

In reply to Sandy I appreciate that. But look at your allies.

If you get all the info and achieve the wrong answer consistantly, that is a Goofus MacDuff.

I think in this case you are floating close to that line.

If I ever agree with ALGORE, I rethink my position. He is as close to Goofus as you can be and still breath.(but he hasn’t though about that, yet)

I use the Goofus MacDuff test.

In reply to Sandy I appreciate that. But look at your allies.

If you get all the info and achieve the wrong answer consistantly, that is a Goofus MacDuff.

I think in this case you are floating close to that line.

If I ever agree with ALGORE, I rethink my position. He is as close to Goofus as you can be and still breathe.(but he hasn’t though about that, yet)

Well, if someone with whom I have no bond agrees with me, …

In reply to Sandy I appreciate that. But look at your allies.

I simply chalk it up to their being rational, using good judgement, or having good taste re. the [i]specific[/i] matter on which we concur.

I do [b]not[/b] extrapolate from that agreement.

No, get your facts straight

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

The name of the caller and the audio portion of the call were never given to the NSA. Only the source, destination as well and time of the call was disclosed. If they want any more than that, they’d have to get a subpoena. You can debate all you like but at least get your facts right.

Get “my facts” right?

In reply to No, get your facts straight

It’s a published news article!!!

But the catch is…

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

The content of the calls would not be known anyway, but the contacts would allow them to find out who is contacting the terrorists.

That should be cooperated with. If you had no contact with terrorists, you should not have to worry.

Ben Franklin & Thomas Jefferson rejected this line; …

In reply to But the catch is…

and so do I.

To prevent such was precisely why the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution was set forth.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The point is we know the terrorists are making contacts inside the US.

In reply to But the catch is…

At that point the information requested is on a third party’s shoulders.

You have a right not to incriminate yourself, but on request you are required to testify against others.That is subpoena power.

This is now, the Susan McDougal hole… She refused to testify under oath. Not to her own actions, but to others’ actions… That isn’t protected by any law… But, thanks to a gutless Judiciary they let her out without a even a sworn statement… That allows Omerta to be recognized by the judge as legal.

That was a terrible precedent.

Once again, the issue here is domestic calls, …

In reply to The point is we know the terrorists are making contacts inside the US.

not international ones.

The US Constitution isn’t a mutually agreed upon suicide pact.

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

To preserve lives sometimes it is necessary to do what isn’t 100% kosher.

FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans. Why wasn’t he impeached. Some strategy critics he put in Mental hospitals without a trial for their sanity. These heineous acts were continued by Truman until long after VJ day.

Compered to these acts trying to find domestic terrorist connections is rather benign. Any impeachment call is a joke.

Once again, 2 or more wrongs do not make a right.

In reply to The US Constitution isn’t a mutually agreed upon suicide pact.

We cannot use past trangressions to justify contemporary ones.

The foreign contacts…

In reply to Once again, 2 or more wrongs do not make a right.

Make this unquestionably in the perview of the Executive branch… Is it legal? the only question is did Congress authorize Bush to go after terrorists.

Since they did authorize actions and the use of the Military in a joint statement it is a Declaration of war…

The issue here is DOMESTIC calls, …

In reply to The foreign contacts…

not international ones.

The present furor is regarding calls which both originated and terminated within the US.

As for a Declaration of War, the definition of such is far from being as clear and precise as you would hold. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I said the Constitution is not specific.

In reply to The issue here is DOMESTIC calls, …

Any joint congressional resolution to use force may be a declaration of war.

It would be more intelligent if we had a specific target like UNAMEITACOUNTRYSTAN, but our target was more nebulous than the borders drawn by Great Britain in 1948.

Still, the issue here is DOMESTIC calls, not …

In reply to I said the Constitution is not specific.

international ones.

All enemies foreign and domestic.

In reply to I said the Constitution is not specific.

HMMM!!!!

This is not to stop the campaign of an opponent, it is to locate and identify our enemies…

You don’t credit Bush with trying to keep us safe.

I do in this instance. I think that the use of records, and not conversations is a fair compromise.

I hold that warrant(s) required.

In reply to All enemies foreign and domestic.

As noted elsewhere, I hold that the actions in question can be held to be constitutionally valid only by way of the doctrine of implied powers, which I reject.

Under the doctrine of strict construction, and per Amendment IV of the US Constitution, such actions are forbidden in the absence of the issuance of appropriate warrant(s).

For the record

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

.
I’m not crazy about the practice either, but we are at war. I think this war is an absolutely HUGE deal, and apparently not too many people think so. At a time of war, we have to make allowances for certain things. Look at all the things Americans had to endure from 1941 to 1945. This is just one of those things — just like having to take my shoes off at the airport.

And it’s being mischaracterized in both the original discussion message and in the media.

First of all, “President Bush” is not listening to anyone’s phone conversations. To what end would he, specifically, want to listen to anybody’s phone conversation?

And why would anyone in government want to listen to you, deepsand, making an appointment with your psychiatrist, for example? Nobody cares that you call him 5 days a week. Nobody cares that you call Victoria’s Secret for home delivery of your panties. Nobody cares that you order inflatable dolls to snuggle up to. And nobody cares that you call all those 900 numbers day after day.

Nobody cares about you, or me, or any other everyday American citizen. Nobody is “spying on Americans”. They’re too damned busy and focused on trying to connect the dots between terrorists operating within the USA and those operating outside the USA.

And I seem to remember a LOT of criticism placed on the Bush administration (and the Clinton administration, for that matter) for failing to connect the dots that could have prevented 9-11.

They’re just trying to connect the friggin’ dots, no more, no less.

What would you have them do? Not do it?

Go ahead, dipstick. what’s the alternative?

Here is where you’re going to say that it should be done, but that “proper channels” weren’t taken to do it. To which I would say B.S. I’m sure President Bush has his legal ass covered. Besides, if you do make this argument, you’ll only be confirming that this is no more than an attempt to bring down the president — and it’s helping the enemy in the process. Way to go, traitor.

2 cents worth.

In reply to For the record

Max is right on all but one point. Dang near 100%.

Bush is covered by the over-reaching declaration of the War on terrorism, completely…

Congress was too vague, again…

Again, there are those who disagree.

In reply to 2 cents worth.

While Bush makes such a claim, it has yet to be settled that said resolution empowers him to ignore the FISA.

The FISA court is unconstitutional.

In reply to Again, there are those who disagree.

The executive branch is the branch charged with determining the Foreign surveilance… It is a Liberal landmark that the executive branch was dumb enough to let the Legislative branch get in the way…

I think Carter was not only the worst President of the 20th century but the weakest… FISA was enacted in his term… Clinton ignored FISA. Bush at least paid it lip service for a while… Then
leaks came out of FISA…

The FISA judge who resigned and is disclosing information should be tried…

FISA has its roots in the domestic spying of the ’60s.

In reply to Again, there are those who disagree.

In particular, it was the illegal spying by the CIA and FBI on US citizens, within the US, that led to the formation of the so called Church committee, which ultimately inspired the FISA and FISC.

Re. Church committee, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

Re. FISA, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

[b]FISA[/b], enacted in 1978, [b]predates Clinton[/b] by many years. Furthermore, his use or abuse of it is irrelevant to the present matter.

NOT Misuse, Leaks. If your boat is sinking…

In reply to FISA has its roots in the domestic spying of the ’60s.

You don’t hand the bilge pump to somebody who is retarded or suicidal. That is what happens with the liberal on the FISA. It is extra constitutional. It is not one of the District or appellate courts. It is made up by Congress to limit or direct executive power and answerable to Congress, the worst leakers of the bunch.

I hope they try Rockefeller and Durbin for their actions… Let a jury decide if what they did damaged US actions against the terrorists, or gave them comfort.

You need to decide whether you follow the doctrine of …

In reply to NOT Misuse, Leaks. If your boat is sinking…

strict construction or that of implied power.

You take issue with the attempt(s) by “[i]Congress to limit or direct executive power [/i].” In fact, it was the intent of our Founders that Congress in fact have such power to keep the Executive in check.

Furthermore, for the Executive to claim powers over and above those [b]specifically[/b] granted him by either the Constitution or Congress is a claim grounded in the doctrine of implied powers; yet, from other posts of yourself, you have given the impression that you are a strict constructionist.

How do you reconcile these seemingly contradictory stances?

I am not 100% consistant as a strict constructionist.

In reply to NOT Misuse, Leaks. If your boat is sinking…

I am also a pragmatist at some level.

If my neighbor Saladin wants to go on a AK47 spree, I merely want to be warned in time to get my .55 caliber Boys out of the safe, chamber a round and protect my family.

When his safety come off, He is in the X ring… If the law was broken to get the info I am not as concerned about the surveilance as 7.62 lead flying in my general direction. First things First.

1. Aim.
2. Fire,
3. Clean your weapon.
4. Hide it somewhere it will never be found.
5. Look very concerned.
6. Explain that most of the 45 propane canisters aren’t full. and that it takes 2 shots to set one off. one regular round to puncture and one tracer round.

Thank you for an honest answer.

In reply to NOT Misuse, Leaks. If your boat is sinking…

While I do try to hold to the doctrine of strict construction, there are still times when I have difficulty reconciling a particular position that I hold with it.

I long ago noted that, even though 2 or more may agree on a given set of premises, if a conclusion logically derived therefrom was in opposition to a sufficiently strongly held belief, that such would be rejected.

This is, of course, part of the human condition, in that we possess a mind that is comprised of both rational and irrational parts, with unequal weight being given the latter.

In any case, I find Bush’s stated position re. his powers as Commander-in-Chief to be grounded in the doctrine of implied powers, which I reject.

Don’t you mean “still?”

In reply to 2 cents worth.

The only time Congress isn’t vague is when they are passing out the pork, and even then they sometimes have trouble.

Principles DO matter.

In reply to For the record

Furthermore, I do recognize that balancing the need for securing both liberty and security is [b]not[/b] easily obtained. All the more reason to both insist and ensure that the law be followed.

For a balanced analysis re. this delicate balance, see

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2012936

As for Bush having his ass legally covered, I remain quite unconvinced. Cheney in fact advocated [b]not[/b] seeking warrants. See

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2012986

As for seeking to connect the dots, the difficulties in doing so make the potential payoff in this instance so small that it may have been unwise to risk the public trust. For more on this see

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2012984

He is covered by Congressional resolution…

In reply to Principles DO matter.

The resolution to procecute the War on terrorism put no limits to the actions, or should there be in a time of war…

An interesting tidbit is that there is no formal design for a declaration of war in the constitution… Virtually any joint resolution could be declaration of war if it recommends any action…

These issues are addressed elsewhere here.

In reply to He is covered by Congressional resolution…

I will, however, add the point that [b]no[/b] Congressional resolution stands superior in all regards to prior law.

The “Congress granted …” argument just does’nt cut it.

Actually it does…

In reply to He is covered by Congressional resolution…

Look at the charges that were laid at FDR about using St. Elizabeth’s asylum as a prison without trial for leakers…

He pointed to the all enemies foreign and domestic with his cigarette holder in 1943…

That was even more insidious than looking at phone records. Look at the internment of the Japanese Americans. Don’t say there is no precedence. FDR had the mail opened.

Practices of Executives do not LEGAL precedences make.

In reply to Actually it does…

And, what has this to do with my point re. Congressional actions standing [i]within[/i] the framework of existing law?

Back to the oath of office

In reply to Actually it does…

Enemies foreign and domestic. Simple and direct. Those here in the USA, Sandy.

Addressed above.

In reply to Back to the oath of office

See

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2017231

MOST EGREGIOUS!!!!!!

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Everyday I’m growing more and more disappointed with the American people. America has been a nation of people who have been able to see through Bull Fertilizer regardless of who the applicator is. Then why hasn’t America said enough to this Bush administration as to their spreading of “Bull Fertilizer”? This is the most egregious Administration ever to be in office, and I can’t understand why the American people are being so tolerant of this egregious behavior.

It has gone far beyond party affiliation; this has started to make Bush’s own party sick. Bush is not Presidential material; he doesn’t posses the qualities a leader of such an amazing country need. Most of the world hates America because of this Administration, who has managed to undo all or mostly all of the good deeds that America has been able to accomplish in the last 20 years. I’m not going to mention the most egregious things that he has done, just the most recently.

Domestic spying has its place in a society where there is threat of annihilation of that society by outside forces. But first lets clean up the inside forces that are against us, before we go and spy on the very people who he believes elected him! Why hasn’t anyone raised the question about the spies who have been caught spying in the higher ranks of our Government? We’ve heard about them being caught but why haven’t we heard about what has been done about it and with these traitors who were caught red handed? Some of who have been in very close proximity to George W. Bush in the White House!

What about the Vice President and his involvement in scandals that hasn’t been addressed that sheds bad light on our Country and the administration in place now. GWB and all his cronies need to be healed accountable for the egregious things they have done and are still doing. How can anyone expect other citizens to abide by the law when the heads of this country doesn’t? Some Presidents have been brought up on Impeachment charges for far lesser offensives than what is at hand today, and I haven’t heard one suggestion about Impeachment of this President!

obviously, it’s not…

In reply to MOST EGREGIOUS!!!!!!

It’s not that egregious to the American People. Ask them instead about the latest on Britney Spears, or whom ever they’re told is important today. (and every one ‘knows’ the world is only 10,000 years old and is flat, the rest is heresy!) and of course ‘IT’ and ‘Science’ in general is ‘Voodoo'(evil us).

You’re Talking Apples and Oranges Here!

In reply to obviously, it’s not…

That’s just it, if and/or when the United States is ever attacked again, far too many people will be some where with their heads in the clouds or where ever and won’t know what hit them. Not only is it healthy for everybody to be abreast of what is happening within the world but also to be informed as to what to do and when to do it if this should ever happen again. Britney Spears and Kevin will be doing, as everyone else will be doing, trying to survive.

The point is that too many are willfully stupid!

In reply to You’re Talking Apples and Oranges Here!

As long as they’re not personally harmed, they do’nt give a damn!

Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, 16MAY06 – “Civil Liberties & …

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Stratfor.com Services Subscriptions
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 05.16.2006

Civil Liberties and National Security
By George Friedman

USA Today published a story last week stating that U.S. telephone companies (Qwest excepted) had been handing over to the National Security Agency (NSA) logs of phone calls made by American citizens. This has, as one might expect, generated a fair bit of controversy — with opinions ranging from “It’s not only legal but a great idea” to “This proves that Bush arranged 9/11 so he could create a police state.” A fine time is being had by all. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to pause and consider the matter.

Let’s begin with an obvious question: How in God’s name did USA Today find out about a program that had to have been among the most closely held secrets in the intelligence community — not only because it would be embarrassing if discovered, but also because the entire program could work only if no one knew it was under way? No criticism of USA Today, but we would assume that the newspaper wasn’t running covert operations against the NSA. Therefore, someone gave them the story, and whoever gave them the story had to be cleared to know about it. That means that someone with a high security clearance leaked an NSA secret.

Americans have become so numbed to leaks at this point that no one really has discussed the implications of what we are seeing: The intelligence community is hemorrhaging classified information. It’s possible that this leak came from one of the few congressmen or senators or staffers on oversight committees who had been briefed on this material — but either way, we are seeing an extraordinary breakdown among those with access to classified material.

The reason for this latest disclosure is obviously the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be the head of the CIA. Before his appointment as deputy director of national intelligence, Hayden had been the head of the NSA, where he oversaw the collection and data-mining project involving private phone calls. Hayden’s nomination to the CIA has come under heavy criticism from Democrats and Republicans, who argue that he is an inappropriate choice for director. The release of the data-mining story to USA Today obviously was intended as a means of shooting down his nomination — which it might. But what is important here is not the fate of Hayden, but the fact that the Bush administration clearly has lost all control of the intelligence community — extended to include congressional oversight processes. That is not a trivial point.

At the heart of the argument is not the current breakdown in Washington, but the more significant question of why the NSA was running such a collection program and whether the program represented a serious threat to liberty. The standard debate is divided into two schools: those who regard the threat to liberty as trivial when compared to the security it provides, and those who regard the security it provides as trivial when compared to the threat to liberty. In this, each side is being dishonest. The real answer, we believe, is that the program does substantially improve security, and that it is a clear threat to liberty. People talk about hard choices all the time; with this program, Americans actually are facing one.

A Problem of Governments

Let’s begin with the liberty question. There is no way that a government program designed to track phone calls made by Americans is not a threat to liberty. We are not lawyers, and we are sure a good lawyer could make the argument either way. But whatever the law says, liberty means “my right to do what I want, within the law and due process, without the government having any knowledge of it.” This program violates that concept.

The core problem is that it is never clear what the government will do with the data it collects.

Consider two examples, involving two presidential administrations.

In 1970, Congress passed legislation called the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act that was designed explicitly to break organized crime groups. The special legislation was needed because organized crime groups were skilled at making more conventional prosecutions difficult. The Clinton administration used the RICO Act against anti-abortion activists. From a legal point of view, this was effective, but no one had ever envisioned the law being used this way when it was drafted. The government was taking the law to a place where its framers had never intended it to go.

Following 9/11, Congress passed a range of anti-terrorism laws that included the PATRIOT Act. The purpose of this was to stop al Qaeda, an organization that had killed thousands of people and was thought to be capable of plotting a nuclear attack. Under the same laws, the Bush administration has been monitoring a range of American left-wing groups — some of which well might have committed acts of violence, but none of which come close to posing the same level of threat as al Qaeda. In some technical sense, using anti-terrorism laws against animal-rights activists might be legitimate, but the framers of the law did not envision this extension.

What we are describing here is neither a Democratic nor a Republican disease. It is a problem of governments. They are not particularly trustworthy in the way they use laws or programs. More precisely, an extraordinary act is passed to give the government the powers to fight an extraordinary enemy — in these examples, the Mafia or al Qaeda. But governments will tend to extend this authority and apply it to ordinary events. How long, then, before the justification for tracking telephone calls is extended to finding child molesters, deadbeat dads and stolen car rings?

It is not that these things shouldn’t be stopped. Rather, the issue is that Americans have decided that such crimes must be stopped within a rigorous system of due process. The United States was founded on the premise that governments can be as dangerous as criminals. The entire premise of the American system is that governments are necessary evils and that their powers must be circumscribed. Americans accept that some criminals will go free, but they still limit the authority of the state to intrude in their lives. There is a belief that if you give government an inch, it will take a mile — all in the name of the public interest.

Now flip the analysis. Americans can live with child molesters, deadbeat dads and stolen car rings more readily than they can live with the dangers inherent in government power. But can one live with the threat from al Qaeda more readily than that from government power? That is the crucial question that must be answered. Does al Qaeda pose a threat that (a) cannot be managed within the structure of normal due process and (b) is so enormous that it requires an extension of government power? In the long run, is increased government power more or less dangerous than al Qaeda?

Due Process and Security Risks

We don’t mean to be ironic when we say this is a tough call. If all that al Qaeda can do was what they achieved on 9/11, we might be tempted to say that society could live more readily with that threat than with the threat of government oppression. But there is no reason to believe that the totality of al Qaeda’s capabilities and that of its spin-off groups was encapsulated in the 9/11 attacks. The possibility that al Qaeda might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, cannot be completely dismissed. There is no question but that the organization would use such weapons if they could. The possibility of several American cities being devastated by nuclear attacks is conceivable — and if there is only one chance in 100 of such an event, that is too much. The fact is that no one knows what the probabilities are.

Some of those who write to Stratfor argue that the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks to justify increasing its power. But if the administration was powerful enough to carry out 9/11 without anyone finding out, then it hardly seems likely that it needed a justification for oppression. It could just oppress. The fact is that al Qaeda (which claims the attacks) carried out the attacks, and that attacks by other groups are possible. They might be nuclear attacks — and stopping those is a social and moral imperative that might not be possible without a curtailment of liberty.

On both sides of the issue, it seems to us, there has developed a fundamental dishonesty. Civil libertarians demand that due process be respected in all instances, but without admitting openly the catastrophic risks they are willing to incur. Patrick Henry’s famous statement, “Give me liberty or give me death,” is a fundamental premise of American society. Civil libertarians demand liberty, but they deny that by doing so they are raising the possibility of death. They move past the tough part real fast.

The administration argues that government can be trusted with additional power. But one of the premises of American conservatism is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Conservatives believe that the state — and particularly the federal government — should never be trusted with power. Conservatives believe in “original sin,” meaning they believe that any ruler not only is capable of corruption, but likely to be corrupted by power. The entire purpose of the American regime is to protect citizens from a state that is, by definition, untrustworthy. The Bush administration moves past this tough part real fast as well.

Tough Discussions

It is important to consider what the NSA’s phone call monitoring program was intended to do. Al Qaeda’s great skill has been using a very small number of men, allowing them to blend into a targeted country, and then suddenly bringing them together for an attack. Al Qaeda’s command cell has always been difficult to penetrate; it consists of men who are related or who have known each other for years. They do not recruit new members into the original structure. Penetrating the organization is difficult. Moreover, the command cell may not know details of any particular operation in the field.

Human intelligence, in order to be effective, must be focused. As we say at Stratfor, we need a name, a picture and an address for the person who is likely to know the answer to an intelligence question. For al Qaeda’s operations in the United States, we do not have any of this. The purpose of the data-mining program simply would have been to identify possible names and addresses so that a picture could be pieced together and an intelligence operation mounted. The program was designed to identify complex patterns of phone calls and link the information to things already known from other sources, in order to locate possible al Qaeda networks.

In order to avoid violating civil liberties, a warrant for monitoring phone calls would be needed. It is impossible to get a warrant for such a project, however, unless you want to get a warrant for every American. The purpose of a warrant is to investigate a known suspect. In this case, the government had no known suspect. Identifying a suspect is exactly what this was about. The NSA was looking for 10 or 20 needles in a haystack of almost 300 million. The data-mining program would not be a particularly effective program by itself — it undoubtedly would have thrown out more false positives than anyone could follow up on. But in a conflict in which there are no good tools, this was a tool that had some utility. For all we know, a cell might have been located, or the program might never have been more than a waste of time.

The problem that critics of the program must address is simply this: If data mining of phone calls is objectionable, how would they suggest identifying al Qaeda operatives in the United States? We’re open to suggestions. The problem that defenders of the program have is that they expect to be trusted to use the data wisely, and to discipline themselves not to use it in pursuit of embezzlers, pornographers or people who disagree with the president. We’d love to be convinced.

Contrary to what many people say, this is not an unprecedented situation in American history. During the Civil War — another war that was unique and that was waged on American soil — the North was torn by dissent. Pro-Confederate sentiment ran deep in the border states that remained within the Union, as well as in other states. The federal government, under Lincoln, suspended many liberties. Lincoln went far beyond Bush — suspending the writ of habeas corpus, imposing martial law and so on. His legal basis for doing so was limited, but in his judgment, the survival of the United States required it.

Obviously, George W. Bush is no Lincoln. Of course, it must be remembered that during the Civil War, no one realized that Abraham Lincoln was a Lincoln. A lot of people in the North thought he was a Bush. Indeed, had the plans of some of his Cabinet members — particularly his secretary of war — gone forward after his assassination, Lincoln’s suspension of civil rights would be remembered even less than it is now.

The trade-off between liberty and security must be debated. The question of how you judge when a national emergency has passed must be debated. The current discussion of NSA data mining provides a perfect arena for that discussion. We do not have a clear answer of how the debate should come out. Indeed, our view is that the outcome of the debate is less important than that the discussion be held and that a national consensus emerge. Americans can live with a lot of different outcomes. They cannot live with the current intellectual and political chaos.

Civil libertarians must not be allowed to get away with trivializing the physical danger that they are courting by insisting that the rules of due process be followed. Supporters of the administration must not be allowed to get away with trivializing the threat to liberty that prosecution of the war against al Qaeda entails. No consensus can possibly emerge when both sides of the debate are dishonest with each other and themselves.

This is a case in which the outcome of the debate will determine the course of the war. Leaks of information about secret projects to a newspaper is a symptom of the disease: a complete collapse of any consensus as to what this war is, what it means, what it risks, what it will cost and what price Americans are not willing to pay for it. A covert war cannot be won without disciplined covert operations. That is no longer possible in this environment. A serious consensus on the rules is now a national security requirement.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Cut through the clutter with timely insights & analysis straight to your inbox every day with Stratfor?s new Premium Direct Email Service.

In response to your need for quick, to-the-point, relevant intelligence, we have launched a new level of service designed especially for our clients on the go. With little or no time to waste, we understand your requirement for fast, meaningful information you can use – in your business decisions, research endeavors, and even networking efforts.

Premium Direct is a new email-only service crafted to provide a comprehensive, on-the-move source for objective situation reports and analysis on the most critical developments of the day and their implications. Delivered in quick-reading executive formats, the line-up includes Morning Intelligence Briefs, Intelligence Summaries, Geopolitical Intelligence Briefs, Global Market Briefs and Daily Terrorism Briefs. At only about a quarter a day ? less than your morning paper ? staying confidently informed has never been easier or more affordable! Click here to learn more now!

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com . For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Geopolitical Intelligence Report?

Send them to http://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to sign up and begin receiving the Stratfor Weekly every Tuesday for FREE!

Newsletter Subscription
The GIR is e-mailed to you as part of your subscription to Stratfor. The information contained in the PPI is also available by logging in at http://www.stratfor.com . If you no longer wish to receive regular e-mails from Stratfor, please send a message to: service@stratfor.com with the subject line: UNSUBSCRIBE – GIR.

? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

Stratfor Terrorism Intelligence Report , 17MAY05 – “Tactical Realities …

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

Stratfor.com Services Subscriptions
TERRORISM INTELLIGENCE REPORT 05.17.2006

Tactical Realities in the Counterterrorism War
By Fred Burton

The British government last week released two reports concerning the July 7, 2005, suicide attacks in London. The first, by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), examined government efforts to collect and analyze intelligence pertaining to the case; the second, by the Home Office, outlined findings about the bombers, their backgrounds, motives and actions in greater detail. The reports have, not surprisingly, generated political reactions: Some members of Parliament have claimed that MI5 was not completely forthcoming in response to the ISC queries, and a few MPs have called for an independent investigation into events surrounding the attack — similar to the 9/11 Commission in the United States.

Be that as it may, the reports do provide a very interesting window into the internal workings of the British intelligence and security services. Even more significantly, they speak to problems of collection and analysis that occur whenever a Western government, through its intelligence and security apparatus, attempts to pre-empt vague, potential threats or to thwart an amorphous enemy. The same problems and issues now have surfaced several times following attacks by Islamist militants, whether in the United States, the Netherlands or Spain. In short, government bureaucracies do not deal well with ambiguity — and jihadist groups, particularly at the grassroots level, are nothing if not ambiguous. They are insular and dedicated, and they might not be meaningfully connected to the command, control and communication mechanism of any known militant groups or actors — which makes them exceedingly hard to identify, let alone pre-empt, before an attack is carried out.

As the political debates in London and, predating that, in Washington have shown, there is an expectation that governments somehow must prevent all terrorist attacks. When one occurs, there are political investigations into the cause of intelligence failures and, on occasion, finger-pointing and reorganizations result. The public, after all, needs to feel secure. But the uncomfortable truth in the war against jihadists is that there is no such thing as complete security. Given the nature of the threat and the enemy, no intelligence or security service in the world is capable of identifying every aspiring militant who lives in or enters a country and pre-empting their potential acts of violence. This is impossible even in states that employ draconian security measures; the challenges obviously are amplified in societies that value civil liberties and due process.

Within that context, the tactical challenges and expectations faced by counterterrorism agencies are useful to consider.

Threat Assessments

Before the July 7 rail bombings occurred, British authorities recognized the high risk that London would be attacked by jihadists. Government ministers and police had stated publicly on several occasions that it was “not a matter of ‘if’ such an attack would occur, but ‘when’.” This assessment was supported not only by external analysis and al Qaeda’s targeting criteria, but also by the fact that several significant terrorist cells had already been neutralized in Britain. These included the group behind the ricin plot, the al-Hindi cell and others. Furthermore, following the Madrid attacks in 2004, both British and American authorities assessed the passenger rail systems in their countries and found them vulnerable.

It is little surprise, then, that in the period directly before July 7, the British government’s official assessment was (to quote the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report) that “available intelligence and recent events indicate that terrorists have the capability to mount an attack and that such an attack is within the group’s current intent. It is assessed that an attack is likely to be a priority for the terrorists and might well be mounted.” And following the arrests of Richard Reid, Babar Ahmed, Sajid Badat, Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza, Sheikh Feisal, and other militant operatives and leaders — all British citizens — it clearly was possible that some attacks could be planned and carried out by homegrown militants.

With all of that knowledge, then, why was it not possible to keep the strike against London’s rail system from being carried out?

Puzzles

If the July 7 bombings are viewed in isolation, it would seem obvious that there were clues — pieces of a puzzle — that could have been fitted together to indicate the existence of a cell that posed a threat and warranted focused intelligence collection efforts — including physical surveillance, signals intelligence (sigint) and human intelligence (humint) penetration.

Anyone can be brilliant after the fact, but it is very difficult to read tea leaves in real-time — especially considering that the bombers did not exist in isolation. London is not Pyongyang, a heterogeneous society where the few resident foreigners can be easily monitored. Britain’s capital has not been dubbed “Londonistan” for nothing; it is a huge, multicultural city, home to many religious and political dissidents and refugees from the Middle East. Within the large Muslim populace are many of Pakistani origins. Thus, even when using profiling techniques, locating radical Islamists — who proportionally make up only a small percentage of this population — would be a tremendous undertaking. Within that, there is the further challenge of differentiating between what could be called “jihadist cheerleaders” — radicals who voice political or ideological support for al Qaeda and its cause, but are not actually violent — from the combat-hardened veterans of Afghanistan, Bosnia and other jihads, as well as all those falling in between.

In order to cope with this and sort through the galaxy of potential suspects, the British government developed three categories for targets — and allocated intelligence resources to each accordingly. The levels were:

Essential: someone likely to be directly involved in, or to have knowledge of, plans for terrorist activity.

Desirable: someone associated with people involved in, or with knowledge of, plans for terrorist acts; who is raising money for terrorist purposes; or who is in jail and would be an essential target if at large.

Other: someone who might be associated with people directly involved in, or who have knowledge of, plans for terrorist activity.

If someone is known to be directly linked with al Qaeda, it obviously would be a no-brainer to classify them as an “essential” intelligence target. These suspects would merit 24×7 physical and electronic surveillance — an endeavor that, on the back end, could tie up as many as 100 surveillance operatives, supervisors, snipers, technicians, photographers, analysts and interpreters.

But in the real world, intelligence is seldom, if ever, so black-and-white. And the very structure of al Qaeda, its offshoots and sympathizers is a further problem. Al Qaeda has been described as a “network of networks” or a “network of relationships” — a characterization that is ever more apt as the capabilities of the central leadership are degraded in the war. In application, this means there may no be any clear-cut chain of command, a specific building to target or communications structures on which to focus intelligence resources. The organization itself is nebulous, the targets hard to map and quantify.

The existence of grassroots operatives further complicates the equation; by definition, such jihadists might have limited or no interaction or relationship with known militants. This means that, without hard intelligence to fall back on, government agencies must place these operatives squarely into the “other” category, which warrants the least intelligence monitoring. And the difficulty of gathering hard intelligence about a person’s true status and intentions is at the crux of the dilemma facing the British and other governments.

Resources and Limitations

From a practical standpoint, how does one go about developing information that can identify or pre-empt terrorist plots? Three tools are standard: humint sources, signals sigint and analysis. All of these are useful, but none are perfect.

Recruiting human sources from the communities in which militants are likely to live and move is invaluable, but any source can only see what is within his field of vision. Militant cells are built on relationships and trust — which are difficult to establish quickly. And when the concern is about militants at the grassroots level, the universe of people that human sources would need to establish close relationships with becomes very large indeed. Moreover, even if a source is well-placed, it can be difficult to judge a suspect’s intentions unless one knows him or her intimately. In the case of the July 7 attacks, even many who knew the bombers well were surprised to learn of their involvement.

The utility of sigint also is limited; it does not work well when suspects practice careful operational security (such as, in al Qaeda’s case, foregoing the use of satellite telephones, which emit trackable signals). In the case of grassroots operatives, escaping scrutiny simply would mean not committing acts that would bring someone to the attention of authorities — such as communicating with known members of terrorist groups or visiting radical Internet sites.

In any setting, intelligence is little more than raw data until analysis is applied — but drawing the correct conclusions is difficult if one has incomplete data, is given the wrong kinds of material to analyze or lacks the proper mindset and training to make useful inferences.

In terms of pre-empting the July 7 bombings, then, the cards were stacked against the British intelligence community. The ability to identify the plotters and their plans was not a matter of putting a few puzzle pieces together, but more like sifting through the pieces of thousands of puzzles, all jumbled together in one big pile, and creating a picture — without the benefit of a box to show what it should look like in the end.

The July 7 Puzzle

As it turns out, the British still do not know all the details about how the July 7 attacks were planned and carried out, even with nearly a year of hindsight to aid them. From the pieces that have been connected so far, they have learned that Mohammed Siddique Khan — the apparent leader of the cell — visited Pakistan in 2003, and that he returned and spent several months there with another of the bombers, Shahzad Tanweer, between November 2004 and February 2005. The piece that would tell authorities who the men met with while in Pakistan is still missing, but it is believed that they had some contact with al Qaeda members. Indeed, al Qaeda distributed a copy of Siddique Khan’s martyrdom video — which was likely taped in Pakistan — along with edited footage from Ayman al-Zawahiri, supporting the notion that the July 7 cell was somehow connected to al Qaeda. It also is likely that the cell leader was trained in the manufacture of explosive mixtures and devices during one of his trips to Pakistan.

Siddique Khan has been a troublesome figure for British authorities, because he first came to their attention in the course of another matter: He was identified as a figure on the periphery of the investigation begun by the arrest in Pakistan of another suspect, computer expert Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan, and that led to the rollup of the al-Hindi cell in Britain. When one reads the ISC report, it is hard to understand how Siddique Khan even rose to the level of an “other” when authorities had not been able to identify him by name in the earlier investigation. However, Siddique Khan was among hundreds, if not thousands, of people whose names surfaced during the course of that investigation, and authorities did not have other evidence at that time that would have pulled him from the “other” category into the “essential” or “desirable” tiers for further monitoring.

The fact is, the resources available for surveillance, recruiting human sources and completing analysis from the field are finite for any government. In the British case particularly, one of the problems was that authorities had to devote significant resources to monitoring the “jihadist cheerleaders,” like Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Muhammed, in the “Londonistan” environment. Steps have, of course, been taken to address such problems in the months since the attacks. The Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2005 was passed to make it easier to imprison some of these targets or force them to flee the country, and police and MI6 have received funding to hire more staff — thus giving them ability to expand their intelligence coverage.

But none of this addresses the problems inherent in the “other” category — those who have not been identified as being directly involved in terrorist planning. It is from this tier that the July 7 bombers and the follow-on cell, which failed to complete a similar attack on July 21, arose. The question becomes, how, with limited resources, does one justify monitoring a group whose connections to terrorism are highly questionable, when one is also fully engaged in monitoring groups whose connections, it is believed, are not in question at all? This is how grassroots jihadists can slip through the net, sometimes with deadly effect.

There is a further tactical consideration here: How does one track the sale or purchase of materials that are used in building bombs, when the buyers are not otherwise of much interest to authorities? It is significant that the devices used in the July 7 attacks were much smaller than some of the massive “lorry bombs” employed by the IRA, and not nearly as sophisticated as many of the IRA devices. They cost very little to assemble, and efforts to collect the materials and assemble the devices would not have drawn much attention. Nevertheless, the devices used by the July 7 cells caused more deaths than any terrorist attack in Britain since the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The cell purposely chose soft targets and then used suicide operatives to guide their crudely assembled devices into the heart of the strike zone.

Conclusion

It is impossible to tell how many jihadist cells are or might be planning attacks in Britain, or even in the United States, at this time. There are many variables involved, and no government agency could be expected to provide complete security against potential — but unknown — threats. Moreover, with each arrest, each intelligence find, each videotaped speech or warning, the game changes: Each side shifts, adjusts and adapts to the moves being made by the other side in order to attain or maintain an advantage.

During the Cold War — which pitted two monolithic entities against each other — it sometimes happened that a single, extraordinarily well-placed informant or agent of influence could deliver a breakthrough that could, at least for a time, shift the advantage to one of the players. But in the game of grassroots jihad, hundreds such miracles would be needed.

None of this is intended to argue that the missions of intelligence and security agencies are futile, that funding should be cut off or efforts abandoned. In a world where complete safety is not possible, the question becomes one of funding and aligning resources to prevent the most serious threats to a society and mitigating the effects of attacks that cannot be prevented. Clearly, operations involving weapons of mass destruction would be viewed as unacceptable in any society, and government reasonably can be expected to use every available means to protect its citizens from such attacks.

From the public’s perspective, acknowledging that it is impossible to prevent all acts of violence ideally could be the starting point for creative discussions about new and smarter ways to focus efforts, collect information and turn it into actionable intelligence. It could be argued that if unreasonable expectations of government were shattered, members of the public will view more seriously their own need to assist in identifying and reporting potential threats — for the sake of their own safety, if no other reasons.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Cut through the clutter with timely insights & analysis straight to your inbox every day with Stratfor?s new Premium Direct Email Service.

In response to your need for quick, to-the-point, relevant intelligence, we have launched a new level of service designed especially for our clients on the go. With little or no time to waste, we understand your requirement for fast, meaningful information you can use – in your business decisions, research endeavors, and even networking efforts.

Premium Direct is a new email-only service crafted to provide a comprehensive, on-the-move source for objective situation reports and analysis on the most critical developments of the day and their implications. Delivered in quick-reading executive formats, the line-up includes Morning Intelligence Briefs, Intelligence Summaries, Geopolitical Intelligence Briefs, Global Market Briefs and Daily Terrorism Briefs. At only about a quarter a day ? less than your morning paper ? staying confidently informed has never been easier or more affordable! Click here to learn more now!

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at http://www.stratfor.com . For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Terrorism Intelligence Report?

Send them to http://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to sign up and begin receiving the Stratfor Weekly every Thursday for FREE!

Newsletter Subscription
The TIR is e-mailed to you as part of your subscription to Stratfor. The information contained in the PPI is also available by logging in at http://www.stratfor.com . If you no longer wish to receive regular e-mails from Stratfor, please send a message to: service@stratfor.com with the subject line: UNSUBSCRIBE – TIR.

? Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

Cheney the power behind the throne: Will the real President please step up?

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

The New York Times

May 14, 2006

Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, May 13 ? In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency’s strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.

The N.S.A.’s position ultimately prevailed. But just how Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the agency at the time, designed the program, persuaded wary N.S.A. officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits is not yet clear.

As the program’s overseer and chief salesman, General Hayden is certain to face questions about his role when he appears at a Senate hearing next week on his nomination as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Criticism of the surveillance program, which some lawmakers say is illegal, flared again this week with the disclosure that the N.S.A. had collected the phone records of millions of Americans in an effort to track terrorism suspects.

By several accounts, including those of the two officials, General Hayden, a 61-year-old Air Force officer who left the agency last year to become principal deputy director of national intelligence, was the man in the middle as President Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act urgently to stop future attacks.

On one side was a strong-willed vice president and his longtime legal adviser, David S. Addington, who believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country. Later, Mr. Cheney would personally arrange tightly controlled briefings on the program for select members of Congress.

On the other side were some lawyers and officials at the largest American intelligence agency, which was battered by eavesdropping scandals in the 1970’s and has since wielded its powerful technology with extreme care to avoid accusations of spying on Americans.

As in other areas of intelligence collection, including interrogation methods for terrorism suspects, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington took an aggressive view of what was permissible under the Constitution, the two intelligence officials said.

If people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, the vice president and Mr. Addington thought eavesdropping without warrants “could be done and should be done,” one of them said.

He added: “That’s not what the N.S.A. lawyers think.”

The other official said there was “a very healthy debate” over the issue. The vice president’s staff was “pushing and pushing, and it was up to the N.S.A. lawyers to draw a line and say absolutely not.”

Both officials said they were speaking about the internal discussions because of the significant national security and civil liberty issues involved and because they thought it was important for citizens to understand the interplay between Mr. Cheney’s office and the N.S.A. Both spoke favorably of General Hayden; one expressed no view on his nomination for the C.I.A. job, and the other was interviewed by The New York Times weeks before President Bush selected the general.

Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lee Anne McBride, declined to discuss the deliberations about the classified program. “As the administration, including the vice president, has said, this is terrorist surveillance, not domestic surveillance,” she said. “The vice president has explained this wartime measure is limited in scope and conducted in a lawful way that safeguards our civil liberties.”

Representatives for the N.S.A. and for the general declined to comment.

Even with the N.S.A. lawyers’ reported success in limiting its scope, the program represents a fundamental expansion of the agency’s practices, one that critics say is illegal. For the first time since 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed and began requiring court approval for all eavesdropping on United States soil, the N.S.A. is intentionally listening in on Americans’ calls without warrants.

The spying that would become such a divisive issue for the White House and for General Hayden grew out of a meeting days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush gathered his senior intelligence aides to brainstorm about ways to head off another attack.

“Is there anything more we could be doing, given the current laws?” the president later recalled asking.

General Hayden stepped forward. “There is,” he said, according to Mr. Bush’s recounting of the conversation in March during a town-hall-style meeting in Cleveland.

By all accounts, General Hayden was the principal architect of the plan. He saw the opportunity to use the N.S.A.’s enormous technological capabilities by loosening restrictions on the agency’s operations inside the United States.

For his part, Mr. Cheney helped justify the program with an expansive theory of presidential power, which he explained to traveling reporters a few days after The Times first reported on the program last December.

Mr. Cheney traced his views to his service as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford in the 1970’s, when post-Watergate changes, which included the FISA law, “served to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in a national security area.”

Senior intelligence officials outside the N.S.A. who discussed the matter in late 2001 with General Hayden said he accepted the White House and Justice Department argument that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to approve such eavesdropping on international calls.

“Hayden was no cowboy on this,” said another former intelligence official who was granted anonymity because it was the only way he would talk about a program that remains classified. “He was a stickler for staying within the framework laid out and making sure it was legal, and I think he believed that it was.”

The official said General Hayden appeared particularly concerned about ensuring that one end of each conversation was outside the United States. For his employees at the N.S.A., whose mission is foreign intelligence, avoiding purely domestic eavesdropping appears to have been crucial.

But critics of the program say the law does not allow spying on a caller in the United States without a warrant, period ? no matter whether the call is domestic or international.

“Both would violate FISA,” said Nancy Libin, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group.

Ms. Libin said limiting the intercepts without warrants to international calls “may have been a political calculation, because it sounds more reassuring.”

One indication that the restriction to international communications was dictated by more than legal considerations came at a House hearing last month. Asked whether the president had the authority to order eavesdropping without a warrant on purely domestic communications, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales replied, “I’m not going to rule it out.”

Despite the decision to focus on only international calls and e-mail messages, some domestic traffic was inadvertently picked up because of difficulties posed by cellphone and e-mail technology in determining whether a person was on American soil, as The Times reported last year.

And one government official, who had access to intelligence from the intercepts that he said he would discuss only if granted anonymity, believes that some of the purely domestic eavesdropping in the program’s early phase was intentional. No other officials have made that claim.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Saturday, “N.S.A. has not intentionally listened in on domestic-to-domestic calls without a court order.”

President Bush and other officials have denied that the program monitors domestic calls. They have, however, generally stated their comments in the present tense, leaving open the question of whether domestic calls may have been captured before the program’s rules were fully established.

After the program started, General Hayden was the one who briefed members of Congress on it and who later tried to dissuade The Times from reporting its existence.

When the newspaper published its first article on the program in December, the general found himself on the defensive. He had often insisted in interviews and public testimony that the N.S.A. always followed laws protecting Americans’ privacy. As the program’s disclosure provoked an outcry, he had to square those assurances with the fact that the program sidestepped the FISA statute.

Nonetheless, General Hayden took on a prominent role in explaining and defending the program. He appeared at the White House alongside Mr. Gonzales, spoke on television and gave an impassioned speech at the National Press Club in January.

Some of the program’s critics have found his visibility in defending a controversial presidential policy inappropriate for an intelligence professional. “There’s some unhappiness at N.S.A. with Hayden taking such an upfront role,” said Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian and former N.S.A. analyst who keeps in touch with some employees. “If the White House got them into this, why is Hayden the one taking the flak?”

But General Hayden seems determined to stand up for the agency’s conduct ? and his own. In the press club speech, General Hayden recounted remarks he made to N.S.A. employees two days after the Sept. 11 attacks: “We are going to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again.”

He said that the standards for what represented a “reasonable” intrusion into Americans’ privacy had changed “as smoke billowed from two American cities and a Pennsylvania farm field.”

“We acted accordingly,” he said.

In the speech, General Hayden hinted at the internal discussion of the proper limits of the N.S.A. program. Although he did not mention Mr. Cheney or his staff, he said the decision to limit the eavesdropping to international phone calls and e-mail messages was “one of the decisions that had been made collectively.”

“Certainly, I personally support it,” General Hayden said.

President Defends Pick

WASHINGTON, May 13 (Bloomberg News) ? In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush defended the qualifications of General Hayden to be C.I.A. director and sought to ease concern about the domestic eavesdropping program that the general helped create.

In General Hayden, “the men and women of the C.I.A. will have a strong leader who will support them as they work to disrupt terrorist attacks, penetrate closed societies and gain information that is vital to protecting our nation,” Mr. Bush said.

He urged the Senate to confirm the general “promptly.”

Sleeping with the Devil?

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

The New York Times

May 13, 2006

Questions Raised for Phone Giants in Spy Data Furor
By JOHN MARKOFF

The former chief executive of Qwest, the nation’s fourth-largest phone company, rebuffed government requests for the company’s calling records after 9/11 because of “a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process,” his lawyer said yesterday.

The statement on behalf of the former Qwest executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, followed a report that the other big phone companies ? AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon ? had complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records, without warrants, to increase its surveillance capabilities after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Those companies insisted yesterday that they were vigilant about their customers’ privacy, but did not directly address their cooperation with the government effort, which was reported on Thursday by USA Today. Verizon said that it provided customer information to a government agency “only where authorized by law for appropriately defined and focused purposes,” but that it could not comment on any relationship with a national security program that was “highly classified.”

Legal experts said the companies faced the prospect of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages over cooperation in the program, citing communications privacy legislation stretching back to the 1930’s. A federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan yesterday seeking as much as $50 billion in civil damages against Verizon on behalf of its subscribers.

For a second day, there was political fallout on Capitol Hill, where Senate Democrats intend to use next week’s confirmation hearings for a new C.I.A. director to press the Bush administration on its broad surveillance programs.

As senior lawmakers in Washington vowed to examine the phone database operation and possibly issue subpoenas to the telephone companies, executives at some of the companies said they would comply with requests to appear on Capitol Hill but stopped short of describing how much would be disclosed, at least in public sessions.

“If Congress asks us to appear, we will appear,” said Selim Bingol, a spokesman at AT&T. “We will act within the laws and rules that apply.”

Qwest was apparently alone among the four major telephone companies to have resisted the requests to cooperate with the government effort. A statement issued on behalf of Mr. Nacchio yesterday by his lawyer, Herbert J. Stern, said that after the government’s first approach in the fall of 2001, “Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request.”

“When he learned that no such authority had been granted, and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process,” Mr. Nacchio concluded that the requests violated federal privacy requirements “and issued instructions to refuse to comply.”

The statement said the requests continued until Mr. Nacchio left in June 2002. His departure came amid accusations of fraud at the company, and he now faces federal charges of insider trading.

The database reportedly assembled by the security agency from calling records has dozens of fields of information, including called and calling numbers and the duration of calls, but nothing related to the substance of the calls. But it could permit what intelligence analysts and commercial data miners refer to as “link analysis,” a statistical technique for investigators to identify calling patterns in a seemingly impenetrable mountain of digital data.

The law governing the release of phone company data has been modified repeatedly to grapple with changing computer and communications technologies that have increasingly bedeviled law enforcement agencies. The laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

Wiretapping ? actually listening to phone calls ? has been tightly regulated by these laws. But in general, the laws have set a lower legal standard required by the government to obtain what has traditionally been called pen register or trap-and-trace information ? calling records obtained when intelligence and police agencies attached a specialized device to subscribers’ telephone lines.

Those restrictions still hold, said a range of legal scholars, in the face of new computer databases with decades’ worth of calling records. AT&T created such technology during the 1990’s for use in fraud detection and has previously made such information available to law enforcement with proper warrants.

Orin Kerr, a former federal prosecutor and assistant professor at George Washington University, said his reading of the relevant statutes put the phone companies at risk for at least $1,000 per person whose records they disclosed without a court order.

“This is not a happy day for the general counsels” of the phone companies, he said. “If you have a class action involving 10 million Americans, that’s 10 million times $1,000 ? that’s 10 billion.”

The New Jersey lawyers who filed the federal suit against Verizon in Manhattan yesterday, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, said they would consider filing suits against BellSouth and AT&T in other jurisdictions.

“This is almost certainly the largest single intrusion into American civil liberties ever committed by any U.S. administration,” Mr. Afran said. “Americans expect their phone records to be private. That’s our bedrock governing principle of our phone system.” In addition to damages, the suit seeks an injunction against the security agency to stop the collection of phone numbers.

Several legal experts cited ambiguities in the laws that may be used by the government and the phone companies to defend the National Security Agency program.

“There’s a loophole,” said Mark Rasch, the former head of computer-crime investigations for the Justice Department and now the senior vice president of Solutionary, a computer security company. “Records of phones that have called each other without identifying information are not covered by any of these laws.”

Civil liberties lawyers were quick to dispute that claim.

“This is an incredible red herring,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy rights group that has sued AT&T over its cooperation with the government, including access to calling records. “There is no legal process that contemplates getting entire databases of data.”

The group sued AT&T in late January, contending that the company was violating the law by giving the government access to its customer call record data and permitting the agency to tap its Internet network. The suit followed reports in The New York Times in December that telecommunications companies had cooperated with such government requests without warrants.

A number of industry executives pointed to the national climate in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks to explain why phone companies might have risked legal entanglement in cooperating with the requests for data without warrants.

An AT&T spokesman said yesterday that the company had gotten some calls and e-mail messages about the news reports, but characterized the volume as “not heavy” and said there were responses on both sides of the issue.

Reaction around the country also appeared to be divided.

Cathy Reed, 45, a wealth manager from Austin, Tex., who was visiting Boston, said she did not see a problem with the government’s reviewing call logs. “I really don’t think it matters,” she said. “I bet every credit card company already has them.”

Others responded critically. Pat Randall, 63, a receptionist at an Atlanta high-rise, said, “Our phone conversations are just personal, and to me, the phone companies that cooperated, I think we should move our phone services to the company that did not cooperate.”

While the telephone companies have both business contracts and regulatory issues before the federal government, executives in the industry yesterday dismissed the notion that they felt pressure to take part in any surveillance programs. The small group of executives with the security clearance necessary to deal with the government on such matters, they said, are separate from the regulatory and government contracting divisions of the companies.

Reporting for this article was contributed by Ken Belson, Brenda Goodman, Stephen Labaton, Matt Richtel and Katie Zezima.

I just can’t believe whats going on lately

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

We are losing more rights everyday and Americans are not making their voices heard enough. We need to demand accountability of this government.

The Bush Administration operates in the shadows just like Al-Qaida and is incompetent to boot. Even if we are at war, I don’t trust their intentions in any venue. If they wanted real security for this country, they would close our southern border.

I’m not sure if I’m more afraid of Al-Qaida or the Bush Administration. They’re both pretty scary to me.

I have a couple of links.

Opinion: Why NSA spying puts the U.S. in danger
A former analyst looks at the agency’s current controversy

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000515&source=NLT_SEC&nlid=38

Surveillance society: Growing daily?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=125&tag=nl.e539

puts the US in danger?

In reply to I just can’t believe whats going on lately

[i]””We have got to collect intelligence on the enemy.” I fully agree. But the enemy numbers in the hundreds at best. “[/i]

The author believes there are only a few hundred terroritist? So much for crediblity?

Think of it this way

In reply to puts the US in danger?

Here is the context of that statement:

“I think Sen. Jon Kyl, a strong supporter of the NSA domestic spying program, said it best: “We have got to collect intelligence on the enemy.” I fully agree. But the enemy numbers in the hundreds at best. the NSA is collecting data on hundreds of millions of people who are clearly not the enemy. These numbers speak for themselves.”

I think he means there are more efficient ways to find the terrorists than this program. There may be only “hundreds (at best)” found through the domestic spying program, but there are better, more productive ways to use our resources. Instead, the NSA is collecting information on people who have done nothing wrong, with little gleaned as a result. I’d like to see just how many terrorists they found this way.

If they really want to make a difference, they should take control of our ports and borders. We have no idea who is in this country. Find out. What about people who have overstayed their visas? Use resources to track them down and start keeping better track of them.

I think the American people can do a better job than the NSA. Here’s a true story. My friend lives in a condo community. Her fairly new neighbors seemed nice enough, a middle-eastern type couple and their grown son. They were very quiet. They didn’t fit into the community though. Their blinds were always drawn. They never went out much. One day, one of the other neighbors ran into them unexpectedly as they were coming out of their door. Their door was open and she saw that they had no furniture after living there for almost a year! She thought something was funny about that and called the FBI. Shortly thereafter, they disappeared. No noise. No moving trucks. Just gone.

If there is a way to catch scumbag terrorists

In reply to Think of it this way

I don’t WANT it in the news.

If you have a way to catch them, and then advertise on the news the way we will catch them, how many do you think this will catch? The reporting of what would be effective ways to catch the terrorists only undermines our security and should be treated as the treason that it is.

As for the phone logs, I do have a theory about that. If they KNOW they will not be able to find the needle in that hay stack, what better way to block that avenue than to let the terrorists KNOW they are listening so they will stop using that method of contact? Sounds like the only thing that makes sence and is great thinking.

They WERE monitoring cell phones to look for ben laden until dumbass reporters tipped benny off to it by reporting it. Accident? You decide.

As for sleeper cells, a single family that is clean cut living in a white neighborhood is more likely than in the muslim communites, as per documentation taken from raided terrorist training camps. The muslims living in a nation are less likely to be sympathetic to a plan to launch a terrorist attack.

Quite right.

In reply to If there is a way to catch scumbag terrorists

Many forget, if they even knew, that [i]disinformation[/i] is a very important tactic in any game, be it poker or politics.

It is the only thing that makes sense of it all

In reply to Quite right.

on why they would allow this to get out like they did.

Also, it drives me nuts then people think they “have a right to know” everything that is being done.

The reporters were going nuts when they weren’t told in advance where we were going to do OPs. People seem to forget that the enemy listens to the news too.

and Sandy, I would say for most, they never knew.

Even if given full “knowledge,” …

In reply to It is the only thing that makes sense of it all

how many would truly [i]understand[/i]?

I long ago gave up the notion of ever being able to “make sense of it [i]all[/i].” I figure it’s a good day when I can make some sense of just that small portion that impacts my life. Anything beyond that is a bonus, and cause for celebration.

Do you really think terrorists don’t know the phones are tapped?

In reply to If there is a way to catch scumbag terrorists

I, didn’t know MY phone was tapped! I would be very surprised to catch any terrorist of value with this method of intelligence gathering.

I’m kind of mixed on the disclosure of the program on the news. On the one hand, I think it is a breach of the public trust by the government, but then I understand what it’s disclosure to the public means to national security.

I would have felt better about it if Bush did it with a warrant. There should always be oversight from the courts.

Did you see this on eweek? http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1965853,00.asp?kc=EWMS102049TX1K0100487 I didn’t read the entire document, but what I did read bothers me.

Well, you can bet your ass they know now

In reply to Do you really think terrorists don’t know the phones are tapped?

They didn’t know a couple of years ago, but they damn sure know now.

Isn’t that just great?

Telcos between a rock & a hard place,

In reply to Well, it seems that GWB has been spying on DOMESTIC calls as well!

NSA Case Puts Companies on Notice

It’s a no-win situation for telecom providers.

Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, May 25, 2006

A shadowy “three letter” U.S. government agency calls your company and asks for copies of your private customer data … the kind you don’t share with outsiders and can get sued for losing. The agency says it needs the data to track terrorists, but won’t get too specific about how.

Your choices:

Send the information right over.
Ask to see a court-issued warrant.
Pretend you’ve got a bad connection and hang up.
This is more than an academic exercise. According to reports in USA Today, major U.S. telecom carriers turned over the telephone records of millions of residents to the U.S. National Security Agency for use in tracking domestic terrorist communications.

Obey the Government, Get Sued
Reports about the program have put the telecom carriers in a difficult position. AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon all face class-action lawsuits, filed in recent days, seeking $200 billion in damages for violating customer privacy.

With the threat of another September 11-style attack on one side and cherished Fourth Amendment protections on the other, telecom carriers are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, says Jeff Kagan, an independent telecom analyst.

Reports about the phone-call monitoring claim AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon turned over customer information. Qwest, another “Baby Bell,” did not. That company denied the NSA request when government agents could not produce a court-issued warrant, said Herbert J. Stern, lawyer for ex-CEO Joseph Nacchio.

Stand Your Ground, Go to Court
Telecom carriers aren’t alone in receiving government requests for private data. Google this year fought a Department of Justice request for search records in a case involving the Child Online Protection Act. In March, a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the Department of Justice also subpoenaed 34 ISPs, including Verizon and major Internet search and security firms in that case. According to the documents obtained by InformationWeek, some of those companies, including Verizon, objected to the requests, citing the sensitivity of the data being requested.

Bolstered by the PATRIOT Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has increased the use of National Security Letters, an arcane tool with roots in the Cold War that allows the government to demand customer records and sensitive data without court approval. Under PATRIOT Act provisions, recipients are barred from even acknowledging that they received such a letter.

The companies in question in the NSA case maintain that the requests were not for wiretapping access and that they were complying with the law when they turned over the call records. With no end in sight to the war on terror and the U.S. government casting an ever wider net in its search for domestic terrorists, companies need to weigh their options carefully, said Jody Westby, CEO of Global Cyber Risk, an IT consultancy.

Companies have several options, including fighting the requests in court. When weighing the public relations and stock-price risks, [b]companies may find that the public expectation of privacy trumps government demands[/b], Westby said. [b]”Whether or not the government follows its due process, companies have an obligation to follow theirs,”[/b] he explained.

[Author]

Replies