Sunday morning in the U.S.A.

[Paintedbird]

I woke this holy Sunday morn to read that we're now being wiretapped and otherwise monitored by the NSA, the FBI, and NOW the Pentagon, which admits it may have gone too far.
Furthermore, it seems all three have been illegally at it against U.S. citizens with no terrorists ties or international calls; and the Administration is demanding knowledge of the Google searches we've all been conducting.
Have a good day.

[Axegrinder]

Anything you say.... can and will be held against you....in a court of law.

I don't believe that we're winning the fight against our "own" governments domestic terrorism.

Is America being destroyed from the inside out?

Additional thought:
We're fighting an enemy[terrorism] that has been around forever,with no way of knowing when this war will be over[never].
So how long do we have to keep giving up America's civil liberties in the name of national security?
I welcome the thoughts of those who support wiretapping.

[BurgundyNGold]

Got a link, PB?

I didn't think so.

[Paintedbird]

Got a link, PB?

I didn't think so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek

[Axegrinder]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek/

Here's something else to ponder...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965524/site/newsweek/from/RS.1/

What makes this case different is that the intended use of the information is not related to national security, but the government's continuing attempt to police Internet porn. In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), but courts have blocked its implementation due to First Amendment concerns.

[akhhorus]

Secret wiretaps have been going on since the 70s. Bush just decided to a few that FISA refused to grant a warrant for. This is hardly a scandal. Bush's people will go up and point out how some of them have done some good and Congress with add a cosmetic law to "limit" these and nothing more will happen.

[BurgundyNGold]

I woke this holy Sunday morn to read that we're now being wiretapped and otherwise monitored by the NSA, the FBI, and NOW the Pentagon, which admits it may have gone too far.
Not in this article. This article, as far as I can surmise is about a government agency monitoring counterculture activities. And somehow you think this is something new? The FBI, Secret Service and, more recently, the ATF has been doing this for years. Is it right? I don't think so, but it's right there on "the edge", pardon the CIFA pun. Perhaps if CIFA had been doing this before 9/11, we might've been able to prevent the attacks.

Furthermore, it seems all three have been illegally at it against U.S. citizens with no terrorists ties or international calls;
Once again, not in this article. What you have here is that a DOD representative was admitting to CIFA keeping some files beyond allowable 90 day window, which is against regulations. It makes no specific mention that the people being surveilled had or had not international phone calls or unsavory ties. You just added that in for effect. Sorry, people aren't so stupid up here to buy what you're selling.

and the Administration is demanding knowledge of the Google searches we've all been conducting.
Again, not in this article. Your reference here isn't even in the right place either, as it has nothing to do with personal privacy. The government is asking that Google participate with a federal study on the availability of porn on the Internet in an aggregate sense -- not invading the privacy of individuals.

Personally, I think they government has more important things to do with our money and that such a study is conservative bunk. Stay strong Google!

Have a good day.
The sad thing is that I'm not even a conservative, and yet I have to debunk your posts.

[Paintedbird]

Not in this article. This article, as far as I can surmise is about a government agency monitoring counterculture activities. And somehow you think this is something new? The FBI, Secret Service and, more recently, the ATF has been doing this for years. Is it right? I don't think so, but it's right there on "the edge", pardon the CIFA pun. Perhaps if CIFA had been doing this before 9/11, we might've been able to prevent the attacks.


Once again, not in this article. What you have here is that a DOD representative was admitting to CIFA keeping some files beyond allowable 90 day window, which is against regulations. It makes no specific mention that the people being surveilled had or had not international phone calls or unsavory ties. You just added that in for effect. Sorry, people aren't so stupid up here to buy what you're selling.


Again, not in this article. Your reference here isn't even in the right place either, as it has nothing to do with personal privacy. The government is asking that Google participate with a federal study on the availability of porn on the Internet in an aggregate sense -- not invading the privacy of individuals.

Personally, I think they government has more important things to do with our money and that such a study is conservative bunk. Stay strong Google!


The sad thing is that I'm not even a conservative, and yet I have to debunk your posts.

You debunked nothing. The link I gave had nothing to do with the last two items. Both have already been established and there was no need to provide a link for them-- the last two are already admitted to and are common knowledge. Do you want me to provide a link to prove it's Sunday.

As for the porn excuse for monitoring Google: I flat out don't believe the government's excuse (which is not a valid one at any rate); nor does Google; nor does anyone who knows the real George accept that the Admin. will stop at aggregate stats. The potential use of Google records for political control and blackmail is staggering; the widespread fear of such a use could destroy Google and cast a chill over internet use. Bush is already using the IRS. I'm tired of your stupid games. You've been led to the water a thousand times and still you will not drink. You simply cannot accept an obvious reality that is too horrible for you to stomach.
I hope you don't drown.

Here's another little news item for you: Let's call it the China connection.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=10441&sid=6326812&con_type=3

[Paintedbird]

Secret wiretaps have been going on since the 70s. Bush just decided to a few that FISA refused to grant a warrant for. This is hardly a scandal. Bush's people will go up and point out how some of them have done some good and Congress with add a cosmetic law to "limit" these and nothing more will happen.

Would it be a scandal if the President lined up homeless people and bashed their heads in with a bat?

[Fathead]

Would it be a scandal if the President lined up homeless people and bashed their heads in with a bat?



Has that been done since the 70s?

[dukeuch]

Secret wiretaps have been going on since the 70s. Bush just decided to a few that FISA refused to grant a warrant for. This is hardly a scandal. Bush's people will go up and point out how some of them have done some good and Congress with add a cosmetic law to "limit" these and nothing more will happen.

I think you are wrong. Ever since FISA, there have been only a hnadful of warrants refused, nobody disputes that. The administration has acknowleged at least thousands of wiretaps being conducted without even applying for warrants, even thought the warrants are pretty easy to get, and wiretapping can legally be undertaken for some amount of time before the arrant is applied for (two days, I think).

[akhhorus]

I think you are wrong. Ever since FISA, there have been only a hnadful of warrants refused, nobody disputes that. The administration has acknowleged at least thousands of wiretaps being conducted without even applying for warrants, even thought the warrants are pretty easy to get, and wiretapping can legally be undertaken for some amount of time before the arrant is applied for (two days, I think).

And the President has the right to wiretap without a FISA warrant, as long as he goes in front of FISA at some point(within a week) and defends his decision. Every President since when FISA was created has done this. Bush might not have gone in front of FISA for some wiretaps. This isn't a major scandal at all.

[Ibleedburgundy]

And the President has the right to wiretap without a FISA warrant, as long as he goes in front of FISA at some point(within a week) and defends his decision. Every President since when FISA was created has done this. Bush might not have gone in front of FISA for some wiretaps. This isn't a major scandal at all.

It could set a pretty major precedent though.

[akhhorus]

It could set a pretty major precedent though.

And if the people are really outraged about this, Congress will do something. The polls are split on this and the congress will have hearing, but you and I both know nothing will be done. And the Dems, when they take the WH back in 2020, will do the same thing.

[BurgundyNGold]

You debunked nothing. The link I gave had nothing to do with the last two items. Both have already been established and there was no need to provide a link for them-- the last two are already admitted to and are common knowledge. Do you want me to provide a link to prove it's Sunday.
You started a thread that reads like the Pentagon had been wiretapping people illegally and that the Pentagon admitted it had gone too far. Then you tried to run out without backing it up with a link... again. However, an actual read of the article montioned not such wiretapping by the Pentagon and, upon closer review, shows that the only thing that CIFA did that could be classified as wrong was keeping files on US citizens longer than the allowable 90 day window - which was attributed to a clerical error.

Where exactly is the story here? That the government keeps some folks under surveillance? While I might not like it, that practice is not new to this administration and the fact that a government agency kept some files too long is hardly worth starting a thread over.

As for the porn excuse for monitoring Google: I flat out don't believe the government's excuse (which is not a valid one at any rate); nor does Google; nor does anyone who knows the real George accept that the Admin. will stop at aggregate stats. The potential use of Google records for political control and blackmail is staggering; the widespread fear of such a use could destroy Google and cast a chill over internet use. Bush is already using the IRS. I'm tired of your stupid games. You've been led to the water a thousand times and still you will not drink. You simply cannot accept an obvious reality that is too horrible for you to stomach.
There is nothing obvious here aside from your disdain for the truth and your contempt for anyone who does not think as you do. Not surpirsingly, the Google story -- which is very much about porn according to the Washington Post and other sources -- doesn't appear in the article about the Pentagon either.

Now either you are purposely attempting to elicit a response and misleading people by wording your initial post that way or you're writing does not lend itself to success in the field. Take your pick.

[dukeuch]

And the President has the right to wiretap without a FISA warrant, as long as he goes in front of FISA at some point(within a week) and defends his decision. Every President since when FISA was created has done this. Bush might not have gone in front of FISA for some wiretaps. This isn't a major scandal at all.

You are saying Bush violated the law yourself when you correctly observe that he has the right "...as long as he goes in front of FISA at some point" (I think you are worng about the one week part, but i'll let you have it). The only control in place is that eventually, and in not too long a time frame, evidence must be presented to an extremely compliant review committee to make sure that there is some basis for the wiretaps. Bush has not, and does not thisnk he needs to go in fornt of the review committee. History tells us that the need for a review has not hampered the ability to conduct secret wiretaps in the past, so shouldn't we be worried when the Admin how says, well, we don't want even that oversight? I mean, the requirement does not prevent them from quickly beginning wiretaps without needing to get prior approaval, nobody has argued that the requirement has prevented wiretaps in the past, so what's the issue?

[akhhorus]

You are saying Bush violated the law yourself when you correctly observe that he has the right "...as long as he goes in front of FISA at some point" (I think you are worng about the one week part, but i'll let you have it).

It is one week, but there's two accusations: 1-that he ignored FISA and tapped after they refused to grant a warrant. 2-That he didn't go back in front of FISA after the wiretapping occured.

The only control in place is that eventually, and in not too long a time frame, evidence must be presented to an extremely compliant review committee to make sure that there is some basis for the wiretaps. Bush has not, and does not thisnk he needs to go in fornt of the review committee. History tells us that the need for a review has not hampered the ability to conduct secret wiretaps in the past, so shouldn't we be worried when the Admin how says, well, we don't want even that oversight? I mean, the requirement does not prevent them from quickly beginning wiretaps without needing to get prior approaval, nobody has argued that the requirement has prevented wiretaps in the past, so what's the issue?

And if this all true, Congress will care. I suspect that they will and they wont. Bush is claiming that the amendment that authorized "any and all force to deal with the terrorist threat" gives him this authority. This an interesting interpretation of the amendment, and there is nothign specifically that would contradict Bush. Congress might step in and change the wording and issue a law that closes this loophole, but Bush hardly acted illegally. And pressing this issue is a bad one for the Dems because it allows Bush to look like the defender of the US.

[dukeuch]

It is one week, but there's two accusations: 1-that he ignored FISA and tapped after they refused to grant a warrant. 2-That he didn't go back in front of FISA after the wiretapping occured.



And if this all true, Congress will care. I suspect that they will and they wont. Bush is claiming that the amendment that authorized "any and all force to deal with the terrorist threat" gives him this authority. This an interesting interpretation of the amendment, and there is nothign specifically that would contradict Bush. Congress might step in and change the wording and issue a law that closes this loophole, but Bush hardly acted illegally. And pressing this issue is a bad one for the Dems because it allows Bush to look like the defender of the US.

Man, I'd really like to see the link to "he ignored the refusal of a warrant", becuase that's even worse. I am pretty comfortable in saying that the gist of the hubub is that they were conducting wiretaps without even attempting to get warrants, and don't think that they should have to get warrants.

[akhhorus]

Man, I'd really like to see the link to "he ignored the refusal of a warrant", becuase that's even worse. I am pretty comfortable in saying that the gist of the hubub is that they were conducting wiretaps without even attempting to get warrants, and don't think that they should have to get warrants.

In was in the Post during the last week of december. They did attempt to get warrants from FISA, FISA rejected them and they used a loophole: Bush can order wiretaps and just has to go to FISA to approve after the fact. Now he went back to FISA for some of them(no word on how they ruled), but there's nothing that says he can't do that.