NSA wiretap followup: Why computer-automated mass surveillance is a bad idea

My previous post on the NSA wiretap story was dedicated to looking at the possible technology involved. Now, I'll tell you what's wrong with it.<BR><BR>Story

 

[Ybarra38]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nitts:<BR><BR><BR>Sure, if they could say for certain it came from OBL's personal line, but hopefully you're understanding of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and any number of the other sophisticated, well funded, often state-backed organizations ready and willing to enact 9/11 part 2 aren't so easily identified while amongst our midst. How do you know what Osama's phone number is if you're not allowed to detect it? Why were we unable to detect Mohammed Atta and his gang of murderers?<BR><BR>There need to be some checks and balances sure, but purposely deafening yourself isn't the answer. For example, it could easily be that detection is legal, but to <B>act</B> on any of the intelligence requires a judge's permission.<BR>(obviously an oversimplification, but you get the general idea). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Once again, a straw man argument. <BR>...<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This wiretapping business revolves around straw man arguments. Hannible's entire argument centers around speculation. The fears involved are pure speculation. The fear that the Republic will be lost because a single administration decided to use a certain group of technologies to find a specific subset of enemies is absurd. Fear mongering is all about taking a subset of fear and turning it into the paramount end of the world. Bush did it with Saddam, now his opponents are doing it with every bit of information they can get their hands on.<BR><BR>If it turns out that the Administration is spying on vegans and anti-Christmas department stores, then I'll join in the ranting and raving. If it turns out that the NSA is targetting possible ties to terrorism exclusively, then I'll simply ask Congress to explicitly change the rules such that a future adminstration can't use this precedent to spy on vegans and anti-Christmas department stores in the future. Seems rather simple.<BR><BR>To actually use this information in a court of law against those not tied to terrorism will require explicit warrants whether Bush is or isn't required to get a warrant to search for terror. Basically, he has a bulk warrant given to him by his war-time Constitutional powers and the disclosure to select elected members of Congress. To go outside this bulk warrant would be his downfall.<BR><BR><BR>This post is my downfall.

 

[hugo]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."<BR><BR>I think the key word GWB has forgotten is "Constitution." In times of crises it is even more important that the Constitution and it's ideals be adhered to. War has always been the easiest way for governments to grab and hold onto more power. Liberty is too rare a thing to haphazardly throw away just because you think a unaccountable dictatorship would be more efficient. We've been giving up bits and pieces of liberty for a long long time now. While we are not in a 1984 world right now, who can successfully argue that it's not the track we're going down?

 

[tmj0nes99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For sure the NSA has more than a few Cray X1s. Cray's new machines ( X1E and XD1) are built around opterons. In addition to all sorts of fancy interconnects, they have ASIC processors that feed the opteron. These machines are already in use by the Air Force for satellite surveilance processing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>"Just imagine, for a moment, that 0.1% of all the calls that go through this system <BR>score hits. Now let's suppose the system processes 2 million calls a day."<BR><BR>I work at a small, but national, phone company - a CLEC. I just did a query on our billing database and we have maybe 5 million lines total. We are small, but not tiny. ATT + Qwest + Bell South + every other phone co + cell phones + etc. = well over a 300 million phone lines. If we assume people who have a line use it, maybe five calls a day, you're looking at a billion calls a day.<BR><BR>This <a href='http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/telecom.htm'>link</a> has some data for 2001, and includes this quote, "TeleGeography reports that 'Consumers and businesses worldwide spent 144 billion minutes'”or a combined total of 274,000 years'”on calls abroad in 2001.'"<BR><BR>144 billion / 365 = 394,520,547.94 international minutes per day. If each call lasts an average of three minutes then that's 131,506,949 international calls per day. So, 131,000,000 * 0.01 = 1,310,000 calls to monitor. That's just the number of calls. Each call will generate a sizable amount of data - both signaling (call set-up, tear-down, ANI, etc) as well as whatever sound recording is taking place. Even if you could cut the number of interesting calls down by half, five-hundred million calls is just too many. To approach the problem in this manner is completely wrong.<BR><BR>A brute force approach like this works in chess, but is inappropriate for this problem.

 

[NickN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Ybarra38:<BR>Basically, he has a bulk warrant given to him by his war-time Constitutional powers and the disclosure to select elected members of Congress. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Two questions. What exactly are those "wartime" powers that give the president a bulk warrant, and given that war hasn't been declared how did he get them? I recall that only Congress has the authority to declare war and they haven't done so in years. Therefore how can the President claim any "wartime" powers?

 

[Ray Sanders]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hugo:<BR>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."<BR><BR>I think the key word GWB has forgotten is "Constitution." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I don't think he has forgotten about it at all (if this story is correct).<BR><BR>Link obtained from craigsblog.

 

[beeblebrox]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J4yDubs:<BR>I wonder if your view will change if/when, heaven forbid, Hillary Clinton gets elected to be President of the USA. Remember what you're saying now will also apply then'¦ </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is one of my greatest fears, and I also believe it is more likely to happen than most people think. The Hillary in 2008? I fear so.

 

[TheShark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>Do any of you folks who claim to be so outraged by this ever fly on airplanes? I do all of the time and I never see anyone complaining about all of the security measures that are employed to keep flying safe, or at least attempt to. Yes, it includes actual spying in airports not to mention X-ray machines that reveal "my stuff" to federal government employees. Let's not even mention armed air marshalls flying incognito on domestic flights.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There's a first for everything. I think a lot of the security measures for flying are total bullshit. The entire no-fly list / show ID / ticked passengers only on the concourse / crap is such a pathetic farce that I find it totally inconceivable that it's true purpose is stopping terrorists. Do I bitch and moan about it at the airport? No, because then I probably wouldn't ever get to where I'm going. So instead, I shut up and play along. But if you think that any terrorist with two brain cells to rub together can't fly on any domestic flight they want, let me tell you here and now that you are flat out wrong.<BR><BR>So, in the future, you can't say you never hear anyone complaining about airline security.

 

[TheShark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ybarra38:<BR><BR>This wiretapping business revolves around straw man arguments. Hannible's entire argument centers around speculation. The fears involved are pure speculation. The fear that the Republic will be lost because a single administration decided to use a certain group of technologies to find a specific subset of enemies is absurd. Fear mongering is all about taking a subset of fear and turning it into the paramount end of the world. Bush did it with Saddam, now his opponents are doing it with every bit of information they can get their hands on.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm going to call straw man once again. There is <I>not</I> the "fear that the Republic will be lost because a single administration decided to use a certain group of technologies to find a specific subset of enemies". The fear is that we are losing the Republic because the administration is publicly pushing for the right to a) spy on citizens without a warrant or judicial oversight in violation of the Constitution b) detain citizens indefinitely indefinitely without judicial redress in violation of the Consititution and c) torture detainee's in violation of pretty much every standard of human decency. And that moreover lots of Americans actually seem willing to go along with such totalitarian actions. I'm sorry, but I find the administration's position to be so blatantly offensive and outside of what I consider acceptable behavior I don't understand how anybody signs off on it.

 

[Nutz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>Do any of you folks who claim to be so outraged by this ever fly on airplanes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, I do. Most are only effective at making you feel safer. True and complete safety cannot be achieved in the face of a determined, semi-intelligent individual or group. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly, I don't mind a computer analyzing my voice for a few seconds and then moving on. Why anyone would equate this with storm troopers surrounding their house at 2AM is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because both methods impinge on the principles this nation was founded upon, namely a right to privacy without judicial oversight. Either what they're doing goes against the ideals this nation stands for, or it doesn't. Its like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't. There is no grey area. Bush crossed the line here, regardless of whether or not the means justified the ends. And that's not to mention the fact that what he did, he could have done the right was, with judicial oversight, and just had to show a valid reason for the wiretaps up to 72 hours after the fact. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lastly, Hannibal, you ask Why not put more resources into human intelligence gathering instead of high-tech surveilance? I'm quite sure the government is doing just that but then there will be those who are concerned that human intelligence gathering is just another term for "spying on innocent people". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The United States' Constitution doesn't apply to "innocent people" in foreign lands, which is where the NSA's focus is (unless approved by a judge or three).

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nutz:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly, I don't mind a computer analyzing my voice for a few seconds and then moving on. Why anyone would equate this with storm troopers surrounding their house at 2AM is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because both methods impinge on the principles this nation was founded upon, namely a right to privacy without judicial oversight. Either what they're doing goes against the ideals this nation stands for, or it doesn't. Its like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't. There is no grey area. Bush crossed the line here, regardless of whether or not the means justified the ends. And that's not to mention the fact that what he did, he could have done the right was, with judicial oversight, and just had to show a valid reason for the wiretaps up to 72 hours after the fact. <BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Saying that they are the same thing because they both "impinge on the principles this nation was founded upon" is like saying that a papercut and amputation are both the same thing because they both hurt.<BR><BR>One is clearly, CLEARLY worse than the other and they should NOT be equated.

 

[Major Jem]

Lots of interesting discussion here. Working in and around the government over the last couple decades, it's easy to forget how conspiracy-minded people can be when they have to rely on the press for their information.<BR><BR>A few things to consider:<BR><BR>1) Many of you have read media articles about areas (like IT) where you have expertise. If your experience is like mine, almost all such articles get some things right and some things wrong (laughably so, at times). What makes you think the New York Times is any smarter about this subject than they are about your area of expertise? Given that the sources for this "expose" are unidentified, there is no way to objectively know whether they have any real insight into the program or its legality. Nor can it be determined whether these sources are providing accurate information--people sometimes use the press to advance a less-than-pure agenda (e.g., the RatherGate fiasco of a year or so ago).<BR><BR>2) Hannibal's comment about all the amateur Constitutional scholars is right on the money. I haven't seen anyone with that sort of expertise comment on this thread, so even if we could rely on the NYT reporting (which we can't--see above), all of us are "just guessin'" about the legality of all of this.<BR><BR>3) The folks at NSA are not (repeat NOT) closely aligned with any particular political party or senior official--most of them are civilian employees who live in (Blue-State) Maryland, as it turns out. They are well-trained on at least the basic points of the legal issues involved, as are ALL members of the US Intelligence Community (training is conducted annually and is mandatory). Those intimately involved in decisions about handling data regarding "US Persons" (the term used in the relevant laws and policies) are advised by legal counsel who are responsible for having a detailed understanding of the relevant case law and are mindful of the precedent that holds responsible leaders INDIVIDUALLY responsible for violations of civil rights. Further, there are at least two sets of processes outside the "chain of command" available for personnel who are concerned about wrongdoing--the Inspector General and the Intelligence Oversight process.<BR><BR>4) As reported, the activities are not focused on US citizens calling each other here in the states--they're focused on linkages to foreign agents (members of terror groups are treated as foreign agents in the relevant laws and policy guidance), and a few of those links cross into the US.<BR><BR>5) While the Congress did not issue a formal Declaration of War, it has passed legislation authorizing use of force (I'm sure a legal scholar could explain the difference, but to a layman like me it would seem to be relatively minor). And Congress has been kept "in the loop"--hence the eagerness for Sen. Rockafeller and others (from both sides of the aisle) to place themselves before the cameras and microphones proclaiming that fact.<BR><BR>In short, the situation is not remotely as dire as some of you fear. That does not mean that oversight isn't warranted--it is, and is being conducted. The whole truth of this will come out--but given the sensitivity of the program, you may have to wait a few decades for the relevant "insider" study to appear on the CIA's web site (or whatever mechanism is in use in 20-30 years to provide their Studies in Intelligence series).

 

[takes12no1]

Your responses speaks for themselves. <B>apparently they don't since you keep misinterpreting them.</B>Each of your responses are either deliberate misinterpretations <B>So your saying that when one person reads another persons post and gets the wrong idea about what that person wrote, it's deliberate? You and I obviously aren't communicating well.</B>or undemrine the points of your previous post.<B>hugh?</B> I'll address the two that are most pernicious.<BR><BR>First, the judging others bit. That one is taken out of context all of the time by people who are afraid to be judged. I have no such qualms. Here is the quote from Matthew for your edification: <BR><BR>1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. <BR><BR>2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.<BR><BR>3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? <BR><BR>4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? <BR><BR>5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."<BR><BR>I'm not worried about judging Bush but, rather, Bush should be worried about judging others as he has rather large plank in his own eye. Incidentally, I'm not Christian either, but I respect wisdom wherever I find it. <B>I'm sorry I don't get it. Who is GB judging?</B><BR><BR>Second, I equally hold in contempt people that only do what is popular, but sometimes what is popular is what is right. They aren't mutually exclusive. <B>OF COURSE</B>In any case, if you think Bush is acting "manly" you have a very impoverished sense of what it is to be a man.<B>See here is were we were not communicating. I should have written Bush is "simply" a man, meaning he is a human. He's not the devil.</B> Bush is acting like a petulant, spoiled adolescent who believes he should always get what he wants.<B>That's a nice opinion and I disagree. I think he is being a great leader.</B> Somebody with a little wisdom once said, "A man's got to know his limitations".<B>I don't understand your point here. I mean this program we are talking aobut was within the law. He didn't just decide that. He consulted with the Justice department. Just because Barbara Streisand thinks it's wrong doesn't make it against the law.</B><BR><BR>I'll grant that lumping everyone together as "Bush Supporters" is pretty heavy handed. In general, I guess by that I mean these folks who will support Bush even though he patently contradicts what they claim to hold sacred.<B>By this I assume you mean the Constitution. News Flash, the "Republic" died with the civil war. But I thought you libs love to call the constitution a living breathing document.</B> They should just admit that they love the naked display of power. <B>I love being naked, does that count? SO your saying you dislike Bush because he actually uses his lawful powers?</B>They are tired of the hand-wringing of other presidents. That's understandable. Unfortunately, the first decisive president we have had in a long time is decidedly wrong on most issues.<B>So you believe he is "wrong on most issue's" and I don't. So if I agree with many of his decisions, I'm a fascist? That's odd thinking. I guess it comforts you to think that everyone that disagrees with you is uneducated and ignorant. But they really aren't.</B> "Our leader, right or wrong" is the motto of fascists. Really, it is. Look it up.<B>I couldn't find the official fascist website, soif you could provide a link..thanks.</B> In fact, you could do with a little education all around. If you are going to say things, at least know what you are talking about.<B>please define what I am uneducated about. So that I may learn and grow.</B><BR><BR>P.S. Sorry, I can't resist one last comment. I'm not the one with a chip on my shoulder about accents. You have some strange ideas about North-Easterners. How do you even know whether I'm originally from the Northeast and that I just don't happen to live here?<B>I don't know anything about you except that you took offense to the pseudo-intellectual comment. My list of bush hating subcultures was by no means complete. I just listed 3 that applied mostly in ArsLand. So if you aren't one of them then it's not about you..get it?</B>[/QUOTE]<BR><BR>look my original post was simple.<BR>If I was in Bushes shoes, it might be a strategy of mine to leak out news about programs that freak terrorists out and make them resort to other less efficient ways to communicate, they are after all in general not too bright and a bit paranoid. No one here knows if that's what happended, and it probably wasn't the way it happened. <BR><BR>How did you get out of that, that I'm a coolaid drinking Bush FanBoy? What happens when you assume?

 

[Nutz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nutz:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly, I don't mind a computer analyzing my voice for a few seconds and then moving on. Why anyone would equate this with storm troopers surrounding their house at 2AM is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Because both methods impinge on the principles this nation was founded upon, namely a right to privacy without judicial oversight. Either what they're doing goes against the ideals this nation stands for, or it doesn't. Its like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't. There is no grey area. Bush crossed the line here, regardless of whether or not the means justified the ends. And that's not to mention the fact that what he did, he could have done the right was, with judicial oversight, and just had to show a valid reason for the wiretaps up to 72 hours after the fact. <BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Saying that they are the same thing because they both "impinge on the principles this nation was founded upon" is like saying that a papercut and amputation are both the same thing because they both hurt.<BR><BR>One is clearly, CLEARLY worse than the other and they should NOT be equated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>In this regard we're just going to agree to disagree. Yes, I acknowledge the latter has a more meaningful impact on the person. Common sense tells us that. But as a free nation, from an ideological standpoint both go against what it means to be "American". In that respect they are equal (as they both diminish freedom).

 

[ai0tron]

people who are pro-bush cant even claim to be psuedo intellecutal. More like, psuedo-fucking retarded...

 

[NickN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Enron:<BR>One is clearly, CLEARLY worse than the other and they should NOT be equated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's not so clear to me. Which is worse depends on the results of the action. In either case you may be completely unaware anything has happened. I'd rather have storm troopers at 2 AM to bust the crack house next door than get caught up in the bureaucracy of some no-fly list because I happen to say the wrong word at the wrong time on the phone.

 

[hudson1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NickN:<BR>If you complain loudly about airport security they won't let you fly. If you complain loudly while flying they'll arrest you when you land. From time to time the GAO audits airport security and virtually always finds it to be ineffective. Airport security is more about making you feel safe than actually making you safe. Real security is too inconvenient for the US. If you want to see the difference fly out of Tel Aviv some time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was expecting the automatic "air travel security is ineffective" argument and sure enough I got it. How do you know it's ineffective? Are you saying that we shouldn't have any air travel security at all since what we're doing doesn't make any difference? I think you'd be labeled a crackpot if that's your real position.<BR><BR>Further, I wasn't referring to people complaining loudly while they're going through metal detectors, etc. What I meant was that I don't see people walking around anywhere complaining about airport security. Just about everyone I know who travels has said that they don't mind the security hurdles because they think we need it and are glad we have it.

 

[hudson1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by J4yDubs:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>Do any of you folks who claim to be so outraged by this ever fly on airplanes? <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I fly all the time. By doing so, I consent to all the things you listed. If I didn't consent, I wouldn't fly, my choice. I don't see any parallels between that and the topic at hand. Please explain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>So, if you're in Los Angeles and need to communicate with someone in Boston, you'll consent to being magnetized, have you luggage X-rayed, and whatever else but you're up in arms with a government computer taking a voice pattern from a few seconds of making the telephone call with that person in Boston?<BR><BR>If you consent to all that to fly then why not when making a call? If you don't like it, send a letter just like you could drive from LA to Boston if you don't like airport security.

 

[Nutz]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69886,00.html?tw=rss.TOP<BR><BR>While heated and somewhat inflmmatory, she does a good job of nailing down the points of what's wrong with the current administration's practices. All of the things she brings up are undisputed facts, that once evaluated with even the most basic form of critical thinking are pretty much unopen to interpretation. How someone to this day can defend what has occured as a good thing is beyond me. Who cares if its in the name of securing the country if his actions are far worse than that of those that would do us harm. By taking away what makes America the greatest nation on Earth, Bush is doing far more harm to this nation than any terrorist could ever dream. Put simply, what has occured under GWB is blatantly unAmerican.<BR><BR>The entire Bush administration can be summed up with a single pharse: <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The road to hell is paved with good intentions. - Samuel Johnson </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Nutz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>What I meant was that I don't see people walking around anywhere complaining about airport security. Just about everyone I know who travels has said that they don't mind the security hurdles because they think we need it and are glad we have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Refer to the boiling frog analogy.

 

[jpau]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Origninally posted Major Jem<BR>5) While the Congress did not issue a formal Declaration of War, it has passed legislation authorizing use of force (I'm sure a legal scholar could explain the difference, but to a layman like me it would seem to be relatively minor). And Congress has been kept "in the loop"--hence the eagerness for Sen. Rockafeller and others (from both sides of the aisle) to place themselves before the cameras and microphones proclaiming that fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Authorizing a 'use of force' and authorizing the executive branch to ignore the constitution are 2 different things, even a layman like you should get that.<BR><BR>After you make your argument that we are making assumptions without knowing the facts, you then assert that Congress was kept 'in the loop'. Where did you hear that, a republican talking points memo? Congressmen right and left are saying that they were NOT kept in the loop. Stop believing everything on Fox news please, for you are making the same type of assumption that you are attacking.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Major Jem:<BR>Lots of interesting discussion here. Working in and around the government over the last couple decades, it's easy to forget how conspiracy-minded people can be when they have to rely on the press for their information.<BR><BR>A few things to consider:<BR><BR>1) Many of you have read media articles about areas (like IT) where you have expertise. If your experience is like mine, almost all such articles get some things right and some things wrong (laughably so, at times). What makes you think the New York Times is any smarter about this subject than they are about your area of expertise? Given that the sources for this "expose" are unidentified, there is no way to objectively know whether they have any real insight into the program or its legality. Nor can it be determined whether these sources are providing accurate information--people sometimes use the press to advance a less-than-pure agenda (e.g., the RatherGate fiasco of a year or so ago).<BR><BR>2) Hannibal's comment about all the amateur Constitutional scholars is right on the money. I haven't seen anyone with that sort of expertise comment on this thread, so even if we could rely on the NYT reporting (which we can't--see above), all of us are "just guessin'" about the legality of all of this.<BR><BR>3) The folks at NSA are not (repeat NOT) closely aligned with any particular political party or senior official--most of them are civilian employees who live in (Blue-State) Maryland, as it turns out. They are well-trained on at least the basic points of the legal issues involved, as are ALL members of the US Intelligence Community (training is conducted annually and is mandatory). Those intimately involved in decisions about handling data regarding "US Persons" (the term used in the relevant laws and policies) are advised by legal counsel who are responsible for having a detailed understanding of the relevant case law and are mindful of the precedent that holds responsible leaders INDIVIDUALLY responsible for violations of civil rights. Further, there are at least two sets of processes outside the "chain of command" available for personnel who are concerned about wrongdoing--the Inspector General and the Intelligence Oversight process.<BR><BR>4) As reported, the activities are not focused on US citizens calling each other here in the states--they're focused on linkages to foreign agents (members of terror groups are treated as foreign agents in the relevant laws and policy guidance), and a few of those links cross into the US.<BR><BR>5) While the Congress did not issue a formal Declaration of War, it has passed legislation authorizing use of force (I'm sure a legal scholar could explain the difference, but to a layman like me it would seem to be relatively minor). And Congress has been kept "in the loop"--hence the eagerness for Sen. Rockafeller and others (from both sides of the aisle) to place themselves before the cameras and microphones proclaiming that fact.<BR><BR>In short, the situation is not remotely as dire as some of you fear. That does not mean that oversight isn't warranted--it is, and is being conducted. The whole truth of this will come out--but given the sensitivity of the program, you may have to wait a few decades for the relevant "insider" study to appear on the CIA's web site (or whatever mechanism is in use in 20-30 years to provide their Studies in Intelligence series). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I worked for a government agency for over a year; and I can say this much. The overwhelming majority of people that actually RUN the day to day business of the gov't lean democratic. Why? Because Democratic administrations typically spend more on running the govt than republican ones do, so that means more money for your budget. I get the feeling that most people here assume that the entire big bad evil govt is run by republican partisans.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ray Sanders:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hugo:<BR>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."<BR><BR>I think the key word GWB has forgotten is "Constitution." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I don't think he has forgotten about it at all (if this story is correct).<BR><BR>Link obtained from craigsblog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I wouldn't believe anything you read on CapitolHillBlue, regardless of how nice it would be to do so.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jpau:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Origninally posted Major Jem<BR>5) While the Congress did not issue a formal Declaration of War, it has passed legislation authorizing use of force (I'm sure a legal scholar could explain the difference, but to a layman like me it would seem to be relatively minor). And Congress has been kept "in the loop"--hence the eagerness for Sen. Rockafeller and others (from both sides of the aisle) to place themselves before the cameras and microphones proclaiming that fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Authorizing a 'use of force' and authorizing the executive branch to ignore the constitution are 2 different things, even a layman like you should get that.<BR><BR>After you make your argument that we are making assumptions without knowing the facts, you then assert that Congress was kept 'in the loop'. Where did you hear that, a republican talking points memo? Congressmen right and left are saying that they were NOT kept in the loop. Stop believing everything on Fox news please, for you are making the same type of assumption that you are attacking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Congress WAS kept in the loop, somewhat. Certain members of Congress and the Senate(those that sit on intelligence committees) were briefed on it.<BR><BR>"A republican talking points memo?" I love how the other side assumes that republicans are non-thinking spin control robots that adhere to the talking points memo commands of their Great Dark Overlords GWB and Karl Rove with help from Darth Cheney. <BR><BR>Welcome to the world of Politics, your boys work in the exact same manner.

 

[hudson1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nutz:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>What I meant was that I don't see people walking around anywhere complaining about airport security. Just about everyone I know who travels has said that they don't mind the security hurdles because they think we need it and are glad we have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Refer to the boiling frog analogy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Frogs don't have "thoughts" and if they did I doubt they'd appreciate being put in the pot, whether it starts off cold or not. So, maybe you could explain what you're trying to say?

 

[J4yDubs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>So, if you're in Los Angeles and need to communicate with someone in Boston, you'll consent to being magnetized, have you luggage X-rayed, and whatever else but you're up in arms with a government computer taking a voice pattern from a few seconds of making the telephone call with that person in Boston?<BR><BR>If you consent to all that to fly then why not when making a call? If you don't like it, send a letter just like you could drive from LA to Boston if you don't like airport security.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>According to the constitution and its amendments what you describe is illegal. By making the phone call, I never consented to the action you describe and would, if fact, expect that action to NOT be taken. I don't have to resort to sending a letter because the action you describe should never take place. Get it now?<BR><BR>John

 

[Tweeker]

From Salon.com The Dynamic of a Bush Scandal: How the Spying Story Will Unfold (and Fade)

 

[NickN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR>Congress WAS kept in the loop, somewhat. Certain members of Congress and the Senate(those that sit on intelligence committees) were briefed on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's not what the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee recalls (as originally posted on this thread by Ray Sanders).<BR><BR>Miami Herald<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham reiterated Tuesday that the Bush administration never briefed him, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, about a covert domestic wiretap program -- and suggested the possibility that it grew out of ``a creep of presidential authority.''<BR><BR>Rather, Graham recalled being summoned to a classified briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney in late 2001 or early 2002. He was informed about a presidential directive that let the National Security Agency eavesdrop on overseas calls that moved through U.S. communications lines -- not people speaking on the phone inside the United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Freeman]

Here are the facts at this point:<BR><BR>1.) John Dean (former counsel to Richard M. Nixon) has stated that until George W. Bush spoke to the nation, he had never heard a President verbally admit to an impeachable offense. Now I think the pedigree of Mr. Dean (having been WH counsel during the Watergate affair) speaks for itself and is more than adequate. But Mr. Dean is only one ( albeit authoritative ) voice in a sea of voices coming from very knowledgeable people that are expressing the singular opinion that Junior has broken the law.<BR><BR><BR>2.) The Republicans have incorporated into their vaunted Talking Points ( often half truths or even blatant lies ) that ranking Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee ( Jay Rockefeller (hand written letter of concern), Jane Harman, & Nancy Pelosi (another (classified) letter of concern) ) were briefed on this surveillance plan and yet, they didn't speak out against it.<BR><BR>That is very true, they have not said anything - that is until now - now that Junior is publicly blathering on about how proud he is to be protecting all of us.<BR><BR>The reason these Democratic legislators haven't said anything ( either publicly or privately ) is because the law prohibits them from discussing the classified matter with anyone.<BR><BR>Obviously, Republicans have a tremendously difficult time ( as evidenced by this affair and that of Valerie Plame ) knowing how to behave and act with regard to anything that is of a classified nature.<BR><BR>At this point, if Junior were caught on live television murdering and then eating a baby, his supporters would step up to his defense with something like - "He is our President, he was hungry, and this was a painful but necessary act ( <B><I>for Him</I></B> ) to defend the country by keeping our President from starving."<BR><BR>.

 

[Tweeker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So, if you're in Los Angeles and need to communicate with someone in Boston, you'll consent to being magnetized, have you luggage X-rayed, and whatever else but you're up in arms with a government computer taking a voice pattern from a few seconds of making the telephone call with that person in Boston?<BR><BR> If you consent to all that to fly then why not when making a call? If you don't like it, send a letter just like you could drive from LA to Boston if you don't like airport security.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Is it asking too much to least know which law requires you to have ID to fly? <BR><BR> <BR><BR>Commentary by Bruce Fein, a former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President Reagan in The Washington Times.

 

[TheShark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>"A republican talking points memo?" I love how the other side assumes that republicans are non-thinking spin control robots that adhere to the talking points memo commands of their Great Dark Overlords GWB and Karl Rove with help from Darth Cheney. <BR><BR>Welcome to the world of Politics, your boys work in the exact same manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>These two paragraphs confuse me. In the first, you seem to make light of the assumption that Republicans use talking point memos. And then in the second you seem confirm that that is in fact the case. But don't make the assumption that just because you are a non-thinking spin control robot that the rest of us are.

 

[Freeman]

Tweeker, your Salon link is all at once, great, sad, and true.

 

[takes12no1]

So alot of people keep bringing up the constitution, and trying to say that Bush is ignoring the constitution. I assume we are refering to Amendment 4. Perhaps you should actually read a little about it first.<BR>Fourth Amendment on Wikipedia.<BR><BR>You claim he's breaking the law, but he really isn't. Also a violation of the 4rth has usually resulted only in evidence being inadmissable in court. So, I can understand if you are a privacy advocate, and perhaps you should work on getting the laws changed, but to call Bush a criminal, etc, is just plain wrong.

 

[Unseelie23]

<I>"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."</I> -- George Bush, April 2004

 

[Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by takes12no1:<BR>You claim he's breaking the law, but he really isn't. Also a violation of the 4rth has usually resulted only in evidence being inadmissable in court. So, I can understand if you are a privacy advocate, and perhaps you should work on getting the laws changed, but to call Bush a criminal, etc, is just plain wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well that settles it then.<BR><BR>And here all these very important and knowledgeable people are wasting their time and ours debating Constitutional Law and the duties of Government when they could just simply call you and get the definitive word.<BR><BR>There, that was easy.<BR><BR><B>takes12no1,</B><BR>Just so you know, I am using a communication vehicle known as 'facetious sarcasm' regarding your ill-informed post(s). There is nothing in the real world that comes remotely close to supporting your position(s).<BR><BR>.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>"A republican talking points memo?" I love how the other side assumes that republicans are non-thinking spin control robots that adhere to the talking points memo commands of their Great Dark Overlords GWB and Karl Rove with help from Darth Cheney. <BR><BR>Welcome to the world of Politics, your boys work in the exact same manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>These two paragraphs confuse me. In the first, you seem to make light of the assumption that Republicans use talking point memos. And then in the second you seem confirm that that is in fact the case. But don't make the assumption that just because you are a non-thinking spin control robot that the rest of us are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Insults, insults, and more insults. Is that all your side has? From reading this thread, it appears that is the case. There's maybe 3 or 4 of us that think this is NOT the end of the Republic and none of us have resorted to the above.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>I worked for a government agency for over a year; and I can say this much. The overwhelming majority of people that actually RUN the day to day business of the gov't lean democratic. Why? Because Democratic administrations typically spend more on running the govt than republican ones do, so that means more money for your budget. I get the feeling that most people here assume that the entire big bad evil govt is run by republican partisans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>'<BR>That's a nice talking point, but it doesn't actually bear any relationship to actual reality. The size of the US government always grows when there's an R in the White House, and has grown larger and faster under GWB than at any time since Nixon.<BR><BR>Edit - since I'm bound to be asked for figures:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)'”with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)'”the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn't include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>View image: http://homepage.mac.com/jonboyg/spending.gif <BR><BR>http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

 

[J4yDubs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by takes12no1:<BR>You claim he's breaking the law, but he really isn't. Also a violation of the 4rth has usually resulted only in evidence being inadmissable in court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You're going to have to explain your position better because I have no idea what you are talking about. "but he really isn't" doesn't explain anything.<BR><BR>John

 

[TheShark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>"A republican talking points memo?" I love how the other side assumes that republicans are non-thinking spin control robots that adhere to the talking points memo commands of their Great Dark Overlords GWB and Karl Rove with help from Darth Cheney. <BR><BR>Welcome to the world of Politics, your boys work in the exact same manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>These two paragraphs confuse me. In the first, you seem to make light of the assumption that Republicans use talking point memos. And then in the second you seem confirm that that is in fact the case. But don't make the assumption that just because you are a non-thinking spin control robot that the rest of us are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Insults, insults, and more insults. Is that all your side has? From reading this thread, it appears that is the case. There's maybe 3 or 4 of us that think this is NOT the end of the Republic and none of us have resorted to the above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Resorted to what? The second paragraph of yours basically says the first is true. Besides, they are your own words.<BR><BR>WRT "none of us have resorted to the above", have you read this thread? How about "takes12no1" in his first post: "Again and again you foreign wackos, GB haters, and Northeast pseudo-intellectuals underestimate the intelligence of the administration." Looks like a bunch of insults to me. But whatever, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. 15 posts? And a nick of one of the biggest frauds in recent memory? Hell, most of your posts are just complaining about "the other side".

 

[FunkTron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ai0tron:<BR>people who are pro-bush cant even claim to be psuedo intellecutal. More like, psuedo-fucking retarded... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>LMFAO!!! I'm not going to pick a side either way here, because I don't agree with picking sides politically. I agree with picking issues and addressing them for what they are worth..<BR><BR>But I have to say here...<BR>1. It's pseudo (SOO-doh), not psuedo (SWAY-doh)<BR>2. The prefix pseudo-'s definition: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=def...do&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8<BR><BR>To sum up: You attempted to call pro-Bush folks retarded, but ended up misspelling the prefix and saying they are fake retards.<BR><BR>:-D<BR><BR>Thanks for the laugh.

 

[NickN]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hudson1:<BR>I was expecting the automatic "air travel security is ineffective" argument and sure enough I got it. How do you know it's ineffective? Are you saying that we shouldn't have any air travel security at all since what we're doing doesn't make any difference? I think you'd be labeled a crackpot if that's your real position.<BR><BR>Further, I wasn't referring to people complaining loudly while they're going through metal detectors, etc. What I meant was that I don't see people walking around anywhere complaining about airport security. Just about everyone I know who travels has said that they don't mind the security hurdles because they think we need it and are glad we have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If you read my original post you'd have seen that I know it's ineffective because the Government Accounting Office regularly audits airport security and that's what they report. The argument for creating the TIA was that the airlines weren't motivated to spend the money for good security. Of course a year or two after the TIA was created the government was underfunding it.<BR><BR>What I'm saying is that the US population doesn't want serious security because it's inconvenient. Back in about 2002 when you had to arrive at the airport two or three hours before domestic departures I heard plenty of people complaining. By and large, the people are getting what they want. They feel safe because they can't take tweezers on the plane, but they ignore the statistics about how easy it is to carry a gun on board.