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