This is not good. Do you have a source I can read? MC

Its from the NYT so you may want to wait a day to see if its actually true or not. Looking at the report they made earlier this week about phony ballots coming across the Iraq border which later proved false.



http://www.nytimes.com/...amp;pagewanted=print

Yeah, those lying sons of bitches. They say they held off publishing for a year to do more reporting, and the WH asked them not to publish. The only real story here is why isn't there a special prosecutor to go after the leakers. Right, Art?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yeah, those lying sons of bitches.



Never thought I'd see Ken slam the NYT. I love it.

now.

By the way, did you notice how there was nothing on the editorial pages about the Iraq elections? Neither the Times nor the Wash. Post.

What liberal media?

Yeah, I mean the NYTimes only had it as its lead article on today's front page. Much larger than their own article on the NSA being given authorization to conduct surveillance on Americans in the US without a court order.

Damned lying, liberal rags.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Wiretaps, 'listening stations' around the world, HUMINT, SIGINT, [ ]int and you people are JUST NOW figuring this $hit out?

Pox on you! Why get your BP out of whack? Get on your rollers, off the couch and do your workout.

Enjoy the day while you're at it, too!

- kd

---

kestrel driver


DonorsChoose.org (!!!)
bogolight.com (!!!)

Who were they spying on? What was the objective? I think those are very important questions.

For those who object to it, let me ask a question. Would you be upset if the NSA had been spying on the 19 POC's (pieces of crap) that carried out 9/11, and had been able to prevent it? Would you say that the "spying on America" in that case would have been justified and a good thing? <edited to add: What about Tim McVeigh? Would you have minded if they had spied on him and prevented the Oklahoma City bombing? >>

Now, what's worse? Spying on people you suspect are here to do harm to this country and it's people? Or gathering the FBI records of all members of congress so that you can collect all their dirty secrets to use as leverage?



<<edited to add:>> If the FBI/NSA suspected me of conspiring to commit a terrorist act - I would not object to them tapping my phones. I honestly would not have a problem with it if they had reason to suspect me. I've got nothing to hide.

Why are we spying on anyone on American soil? I thought we were fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here? Aren't they all over there right now? Or are there a few stragglers in the US and Europe who didn't get the Al Qaeda email? Geez, talk about poor intelligence?

So you think it's okay for the government to search anyone, any time, anywhere, without judicial oversight, if they have a "reason" to suspect you? You think the Founders had that lenient a definition of "unreasonable"? You think it's okay for the government to go around the current system of checks and balances (like requiring a court order, where probable cause needs to be shown) to spy on US citizens? Do you remember the Nixon Administration and their illegal spying on various ne'er-do-wells like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Nah, no possible chance of misuse of power here.

Here's a fun math scenario for you. Let's say that the NSA has a software program that analyzes all known data and communications, and can identify 99% of terrorists in this country. Let's also be really, really generous and say that it has a false positive rate of .01% (that is, it correctly identifies 99.99% of innocent people). Let's say there are 1,000 terrorists in the country. NSA identifies 990 of them. It also gets false positives on (given 300 million people in the country) 30,000 innocent people. Okay to use the program?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

By the way, did you notice how there was nothing on the editorial pages about the Iraq elections? Neither the Times nor the Wash. Post.

Did you see the front page?

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Would you be upset if the NSA had been spying on the 19 POC's (pieces of crap) that carried out 9/11, and had been able to prevent it? Would you say that the "spying on America" in that case would have been justified and a good thing? <edited to add: What about Tim McVeigh? Would you have minded if they had spied on him and prevented the Oklahoma City bombing? >>


The problem is there is no accountability, they can spy on anyone and then justify themselves after the fact. It is a dangerous slope. I think the intelligence history of this country shows that they have no clue what they are doing so I don't trust them in the least. I find it very odd that a "Conservative" government, always preaching about less government involvement, is increasing government involvement in our lives and then justifying it by fighting terror. It appears this "war on terror" is being used to justify any and everything these days.


Now, what's worse? Spying on people you suspect are here to do harm to this country and it's people? Or gathering the FBI records of all members of congress so that you can collect all their dirty secrets to use as leverage?


2 wrongs do not make a right. Why not stop it all?


If the FBI/NSA suspected me of conspiring to commit a terrorist act - I would not object to them tapping my phones. I honestly would not have a problem with it if they had reason to suspect me. I've got nothing to hide

I doubt that. What if they tapped your phones and then made your private conversation public? What if they did not give you reasons they suspected you? What if they arrested you on the suspicion that they did not tell you about and put you away for a few years, because your last name happens to be Arabic?

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I see your point about accountability. I have to admit that I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were justified in spying on each person. Having worked with and around government people, you would think that I would have learned that not everyone doing their job is actually good at it.

Maybe I should amend my comments to say that I don't mind them spying IN America as long as there is some judicial oversight.

I think we agree on that, especially since it appears that the level of "proof" needed by the current judicial system (FISC) is pretty low. To skip it entirely opens the door wide open for abuse.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I agree it is a real balancing act. On one hand, no one could argue if they were able to interrupt a terrorist attack by wire taps or spying and I'm pretty sure this is going on all the time but on the other, how do you put reigns on people to stop the potential abuse.

The other problem is getting permission to spy. If there was an immediate tip and you only had a few hours to avoid a potential disaster, you don't want the long chain of command to take too long.

I certainly understand your point about having nothing to hide (I feel the same) but there are abuses of power. It's a tough call but I think you have to err on the side of individual rights.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I can't disagree with anything you said, it really is a gray issue. But, I'm going to be too careful agreeing with you because I don't want to become one of those on your signature line. Though it probably would help my stature here since I'm one of those posters who hasn't achieved the mystical post count that gives me credibility :)

It also gets false positives on (given 300 million people in the country) 30,000 innocent people

Just some clarification here. The order was only to monitor international calls and emails which makes the potential population much smaller. The NSA didn't just blanketly monitor random Americans and the article actually says that the N.S.A. only 'eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people" which is a super tiny percentage of people. So, while you ask if it is okay for the "government to search anyone, any time, anywhere" I would say that actually it is a very select group of people.

Interesting timing it looks like. Make a difference?

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans .....

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting...

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

I have no problem with this at all!

---

"US NAVY DIVERS GO DEEPER AND STAY LONGER"

Ah, how quickly the "shoot the messenger" gambit is unleashed...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I was presenting a hypothetical that questioned the value of a net spread too widely. Also, the quote you have above from the article ends with "at any given time".

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

WASHINGTON DESK - Presidential candidate, Bob Dole(R) criticized the Clinton White House on Saturday for improperly using confidential FBI files for political purposes. At issue are FBI files on more than 300 Republicans.White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday, called the files fiasco an "inexcusable" mistake. The Wall Street Journal today called the FBI flap an "inexcusable" blunder by Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.

---

_________________________________
I'll be what I am
A solitary man

Well it is a poor choice on his part to release a book on the heels of this type of story. It looks like a PR move to sell books which cheapens his message.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

This is what I hate about politics. It is a newsworthy story that is open for debate and what we get are the same old tiring attacks that try to deflect attention from the underlying article.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

And, next, the "But Clinton..." defense. Who would have guessed?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You leave yourself an escape with the "some" judicial oversight. Either you have oversight or you do not. would you then be critical of just 'who' is a part of the judicial oversight committee or 'how many?'

Tough question but, then you get into how long, when, why. And as you, I work with government people and I agree with your "not everyone doing their job is ... good at it."

- kd

---

kestrel driver


DonorsChoose.org (!!!)
bogolight.com (!!!)

Casey, I don't disagree but doesn't some of the fault for this rest with him, the NYT and his publisher for timing the two? They knew this would come up as soon as people figured it out. You can't just blame the other side

Casey, I don't disagree

Sorry, not quite good enough to be on my signature line. I'm sure you're disappointed.

but doesn't some of the fault for this rest with him, the NYT and his publisher for timing the two?

Yes. Very poor timing.

You can't just blame the other side

There are no sides, both parties have been jumping on opportunities like this and it really makes open dialog on important and tough issues difficult. On this, no party has a monopoly.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

I was presenting a hypothetical that questioned the value of a net spread too widely. Also, the quote you have above from the article ends with "at any given time".


Understood, but those numbers don't show me a wide net but a focused beam. I would bet the 500 stays largely the same with only small changes over time.

There are no sides, both parties have been jumping on opportunities like this and it really makes open dialog on important and tough issues difficult. On this, no party has a monopoly.

True, but if I had a story that was of this magnitude I would not want to cloud it with the fact I was pimping a new book. Let the story stand on its own or don't put it in the NYT and publish your book.

What tiring attacks? To me its the same old NYTtrick of not telling the whole story.

I hope you are joking.

I am sure that we were "spying" on noone of any importance. I think it was old lady Betty at the end of the street and the old dude who had his leg amputated because of Diabetes. We don't have anything to worry about. The USA wasn't spying on anybody that may be important I am sure of it, so no worries. But you might want to check on it, they might be spying on you, do you think you are a legitimate person of interest? Could you be considered a potential danger to this country? Or are you just some random who the Government wants to watch?

Well, whatever you think of the NY Times report, it looks like the Senate isn't putting ideology over facts and what matters for this country. Today, the Senate blocked the renewal of the Patriot Act because it doesn't sufficiently protect civil liberties. And, of course, many republicans participated in this vote. It seems that some conservatives weren't thrilled either about the fact that the government has been monitoring Americans with no oversight. Apparently, this spying is real; it's not just a myth created by the liberal media.

But you might want to check on it, they might be spying on you, do you think you are a legitimate person of interest? Could you be considered a potential danger to this country?

Yeah, why do we need those stupid Constitutional protections at all? Everyone knows that the innocent have nothing to fear from the government. Sheesh.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Freedom isn't free you America hater you!!!

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

That is a tough one. No one with anything to hide should care if they are being watched. But that kind of power would eventually get abused. The guy who runs the machine would want to see if his girlfriend is cheating on him, or listen to his wife's boss. This is very obviously "unreasonable". That is why the framers put a Judge between the people and the police, I guess.

I am much less of an issue over international emails and phone calls though.

I am very anxious to see if NYT is full of shit on this.

yes, that's right it's probably more of an entertainment thing anyway, maybe hack into some international porn sites etc.. the possibilities are endless.

As for our Constitutional protections, I look at them like condoms, good sometimes when you've done something very dirty and a nuisance otherwise. Keep it clean and we should all be fine.

Ken, given this quote from the article:

The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

Can you please define the term secret as used in the article?

Yes, every single leaker of classified information for this article should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Here is what's disturbing about this case. It is safe to assume the administration could have gotten FISA warrants for most, if not all, of these cases. Recent reporting has shown that FISA warrants have been handed out generously since 9/11/. So why not get these warrants all the time?

The government's argument is that it needs to move quickly and, in some cases, it doesn't have time to get these warrants. My question is this: Why not aim for a compromise? In these rare cases, why not start a wiretap and then get FISA permission in a reasonable amount of time? That seems far better than circumventing the entire legal structure that was setup to ensure that the government wouldn't abuse its eavesdropping powers -- a power that it has definitely abused in the past.

It strikes me that the administration is less concerned with getting timely permission than with the possibility that permission could ultimately be denied (because it tends to overreach). So the solution is to just do an end run around the system altogether.

Here we have an administration that first tried to do away with the right to a lawyer and a trial - -basic habeas corpus. Now it is upending our system of checks and balances. Good job Dick.

"Y'all okay with the President having given approval for the NSA to spy on Americans (domestically) without the legally required court approval?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am absolutely fine with it.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Matter of fact, now that I think about it, I wish they had been doing a little more of in the 60 days prior to September 10, 2001.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I am so much in agreement with this. I am very willing to give up liberties in order to allow my freaking library records to be public record. I know it is more complicated than that, but really, what do we have to hide.

I am wondering if anyone who has their panties in a wad about this, actually read the article. It has to do with the NSA monitoring international phone calls in select cases. I am obviously missing something, since I have assumed that they monitor all international calls anyway, and if not, why not?

In terms of the decision making process, it was done while informing Congressional leaders of both parties and the judge who runs the security court.

I am still hoping Ken will define the term "secret" as used in the NY Times article.

A few points in response:

First, this program was not widely known. Something like 3 people in the entire justice department knew about it, including one judge who oversaw the FISA court. Also a select number of congress leaders were also told about it. I am not sure that they were asked whether this program could exist. It seems that they were more informed that it existed after the fact.

Second, people on our soil do get wiretapped. That happens fairly often, but it is done with a warrant. A FISA court takes a look at it and signs off. That's an important difference.

So it boils down to this: Bush/Cheney decided that it didn't need to work with laws made by Congress that require a warrant for a tap (a law made to protect our constitutional rights under the 4th amendment). And it didn't need to work with courts expressly made for these purposes. To hell with checks and balances in short.

Sorry bud you are flat wrong. The NYT whole agenda was to make it look like it was the president, acting independently when in fact that is the farthest thing from the truth. The key quote from his speech today:

"Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities."



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html

Senate Armed Services Committee...

House Intelligence Committee...

and their respective staff liaisons.

-kd

---

kestrel driver


DonorsChoose.org (!!!)
bogolight.com (!!!)

I don't see where what you posted contradicted anything that rundhc said....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

You realize, of course, that Franklin was saying that people who are willing to give the government more power (giving up liberty) in the name of "security" will end up less secure and with less freedom, which is contradictory to what you and Tom are saying?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yeah, you're right. I was drunk when I read the quote and more drunk when I posted it.

http://www.merchantduvin.com/..._winter_welcome.html

Sammy Smith Winter Welcome...soooo good!