The State of The Union

[schmosef]

There is nothing in that that explains why they didn't ask for the law to be changed instead of just flagrantly violating it.
At that time they could have had ANYTHING they asked for.

As a Canadian, I don't really have an opinion on this issue.

But I do have a question... If they could have had it anyway, why are people so upset that they took it?

Also, (and I only provide this as a talking point, I really have no formal opinion) I believe that the reason they gave for not having the law changed in a public way was that they didn't want to tip off the terrorists that they could now be monitored more effectively than before.

[cjolley]

Not anything. Just monitor the incoming and outgoing calls of AQ operatives overseas. Do you think they have constitutional protections? Pffttt...

Dr. Mordrid

If that was all it was then there wouldn't be any debate.
Pffttt... yourself.


Hey Liz!
You started this.
What's your take?
Or are you still writing?

[cjolley]

...
But I do have a question... If they could have had it anyway, why are people so upset that they took it?
...

This question is so silly I'm tempted to pass it off as retorical.
But here is your answer:

I think the traffic control police could get the speed limit on a road changed to just about anything they tell the authorities it needs to be for public safety.
But, I don't think that that fact would give them the right to write me a speeding ticket at any time for any speed they thought was justified at the time.

Bush and Cheney are saying:
"We have the power to do anything we want.
Trust us, we won't abuse it."

Well, I don't trust them.
And I cirtainly don't trust all of the future Presidents that that theory would give that power to.

[Dr Mordrid]

That IS all there is to it.

The NSA computers monitor for incoming or outgoing calls to known or suspected AQ numbers. When flagged an analyist determines if it's of use by looking at the outside part of the conversation. From there things go as normal in criminal investigations.

NOBODY is listening in on your conversation with a European mistress or anything like that.

Antipsychotics are good for paranoia

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

That IS all there is to it.

The NSA computers monitor for incoming or outgoing calls to known or suspected AQ numbers. When flagged an analyist determines if it's of use by looking at the outside part of the conversation. From there things go as normal in criminal investigations.
...

Then why is going through the after-the-fact warrant proccess of the FISA Court a problem?

One judge on that court has already resigned in protest because he thinks the nonwarranted taps are illegal and that NSA has tainted warrants the court issued by using information from the nonwarranted ones to get other warrants.

[Wombat]

NOBODY is listening in on your conversation with a European mistress or anything like that.

Antipsychotics are good for paranoia

Dr. Mordrid

What about secretly monitoring domestic Quaker meetings? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

[cjolley]

What about secretly monitoring domestic Quaker meetings? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

Just shut up and trust in Bush.

[KvHagedorn]

There will always be some fanatical dems going through those reports with a fine toothed comb to find some mud to sling. If the quaker meeting is the worst they can come up with, pfft. There used to be a draft, and before that, press gangs. If the Brits had not used press gangs and stolen the Danish Navy, Napoleon might have won that war. Now the military cannot even send a recruiter to pitch voluntary service in time of war without some activist group outside slinging epithets at them? Of course they were investigated.

FDR (who I know you liberals view as a god) did a whole lot worse during his terms in office when we were at war, so stop being a bunch of damned hypocrites. This war is even more a war of infiltration, concentrated at home, and we need to find out which Arab is innocent and which is not.. that is, unless you want to deport them all.

[RC Agent]

Not anything. Just monitor the incoming and outgoing calls of AQ operatives overseas. Do you think they have constitutional protections? Pffttt...

Dr. Mordrid

What a load of BS!!! It's not just that! Anyone else who spouts this crap is just that, full of crap.

[RC Agent]

Just shut up and trust in Bush.

Yeap, that seems to be going around.

[Wombat]

There will always be some fanatical dems going through those reports with a fine toothed comb to find some mud to sling. If the quaker meeting is the worst they can come up with, pfft.

As usual, your cluelessness shows. Quakers are *extreme* pacifists. Just being a Quaker is enough to qualify for C.O. status, because they don't believe in using violence. If *these people* are what the gov't is saying are a terrorist threat, then that's proof positive to me that this is really just about watching the administration's opponents, not about keeping our nation safe.

Really, KvH, what would a better example of "this policy is bullshit" be? Quakers are just about as ridiculous a suspect as anything I can think of.

[schmosef]

This question is so silly I'm tempted to pass it off as retorical.
But here is your answer:

I think the traffic control police could get the speed limit on a road changed to just about anything they tell the authorities it needs to be for public safety.
But, I don't think that that fact would give them the right to write me a speeding ticket at any time for any speed they thought was justified at the time.

Bush and Cheney are saying:
"We have the power to do anything we want.
Trust us, we won't abuse it."

Well, I don't trust them.
And I cirtainly don't trust all of the future Presidents that that theory would give that power to.

My question was most certainly NOT retorical. I don't feel that your analogy is apt. It's close, but not quite there.

Anyway, just a disinterested observer. No real opinion on this. I'm sure if I was American I would care though.

I just remembered something...

I was in Israel on vacation when 9-11 happened. Later that day I was on the phone with an employee who didn't know anything about Islam and was asking me all sorts of questions about it and if I thought it was violent by nature, etc.

I remember being very guarded with my words because I was sure that if I said the wrong things some computer that was spying on communications might red-flag the recording of our conversation and waste government resources because someone would have to spend time listening to what we said before realising that we were innocuous.

Oh the times we live in...

[Technoid]

There will always be some fanatical dems going through those reports with a fine toothed comb to find some mud to sling. If the quaker meeting is the worst they can come up with, pfft. There used to be a draft, and before that, press gangs. If the Brits had not used press gangs and stolen the Danish Navy, Napoleon might have won that war. Now the military cannot even send a recruiter to pitch voluntary service in time of war without some activist group outside slinging epithets at them? Of course they were investigated.

FDR (who I know you liberals view as a god) did a whole lot worse during his terms in office when we were at war, so stop being a bunch of damned hypocrites. This war is even more a war of infiltration, concentrated at home, and we need to find out which Arab is innocent and which is not.. that is, unless you want to deport them all.

Uhm, so what you mean is that as long as somebody has done something equally questionable before you do it's okay to do it?

[cjolley]

My question was most certainly NOT retorical.

then here is my more lengthy answer:

The government has to follow the law if we are to maintain our freedoms.

Any other policy leads to results like those of the former Soviet Union, which had a wonderfull constitution, elections and laws.
The government just did not follow them, because well, it was the government and took for it's self the power not to.
Much to the detriment of hundreds of millions of people.

I work for a small governmental unit (county) that collects taxes.
Unlike a corperation would do, if we are out of balance by a penny at the end of the day, a well paid programmer and a well paid auditor will get together and figure out what happened.
A corporation would simply write it off as not being worth chasing.
We can't do that because the law states that we will balance our books.
And at the bottom of the slippery slope that letting that penny go marks the edge of is a terrible abyss.
That abyss is governmental lawlessness.

[schmosef]

then here is my more lengthy answer:

The government has to follow the law if we are to maintain our freedoms.

Any other policy leads to results like those of the former Soviet Union, which had a wonderfull constitution, elections and laws.
The government just did not follow them, because well, it was the government and took for it's self the power not to.
Much to the detriment of hundreds of millions of people.

I work for a small governmental unit (county) that collects taxes.
Unlike a corperation would do, if we are out of balance by a penny at the end of the day, a well paid programmer and a well paid auditor will get together and figure out what happened.
A corporation would simply write it off as not being worth chasing.
We can't do that because the law states that we will balance our books.
And at the bottom of the slippery slope that letting that penny go marks the edge of is a terrible abyss.
That abyss is governmental lawlessness.

Ok, the slippery slope concept I agree with.