The widespread cameras bother me a lot more than this policy. I don't have an employer, but fully respect that he can monitor my email and phone while I am working. Again, I don't like it, but I deal.

I don't get your point.

I don't have an employer, but fully respect that he can monitor my email and phone while I am working.

Great comparison, because it isn't as if the president works for us, or anything.

---

"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."

Art, My point is that there is "spying" happening everyday, in many ways and without peoples knowledge. With RFID technology, retailers and others will be able to 'track you down' wherever you go. For instance when you by a pack of razorblades at your local market and take them home, the package sends out a signal that allows the package to be tracked straight to your house. This technology will be on credit cards pretty soon and you are not going to have a choice to 'opt out.' People would be extremely naive to think there's no room for abuse with this type of technology, so where's the outrage? The government has been spying on Americans forever, this is how the FBI catches badguys. There are all kinds of methods being used and it's not just the government.

If I wanted to learn something about someone, I would hire a private investigator to follow them around and send me whatever information I asked for. They could park out side a persons house and monitor their computer. Anyone can do it.

A few months ago I had a tech come to my house and set up my wireless network. He installed some high tech security software so I could not be monitored. At the same time, he showed me how three of my neighbors had no security at all and if I wanted to "spy" on them, how I could do it.

I'm surprised that people don't understand the level of spying that already exists.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I didn't say anything like your spin about law enforcement. I made my points perfectly clearly that the illegality of the monitoring is unlikely. Not even the Democrats are willing to brand the action as illegal.

On the other hand, we do know for certain that those who leaked the information definitely violated the law. I hope you will opinine on what action you think should be taken in regard to their violations:

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 798) prohibits the disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information, specifically including classified information regarding communications intelligence:

a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

***

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government...

***

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The following subsection (b) makes clear the applicability of the act to the informants and information related to the Times story:

The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

I seriously doubt that these actions by the President are illegal. You are going to have to show me a law that is directly on target to this situation and these circumstances.


I was thinking this morning that this action by the President will finally be one where both sides agree he made a mistake because it is such a slam dunk, he was acting illegally.

I came here and started reading how the usual suspects were defending even this action and I am now convinced that Bush can do no wrong with about half the population. It is becoming clear that many of the pro-Bush supporters lack credibility because they can never even once admit their hero is human.

I honestly think that Bush could authorize the surveillance of any American, without justification, and half the population in the country would support him without question. Freedom and democracy are clearly things other countries should have.

---

__________________________________________________

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 honestly think that Bush could authorize the surveillance of any American, without justification, and half the population in the country would support him without question."

Actually, I am quite certain you are being dishonest with that statement. At a minimum, you are just wrong.

The fallacy you commit is that you miss the obvious point that in order for an activity to be against the law, there has to be a law that specifically proscribes it.

The extent you will go to defend the President is very admirable, but this is clearly stretching things to the point of dishonesty. You really need to apply for a position in the White House, you are more of an apologist for Bush than anyone I have ever heard. Impressive really.

---

__________________________________________________

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

Your comments are not usually so devoid of content, Casey.

You're right. I honestly thought this morning that on this issue, the LR would be in full agreement and I just see you stretching a lot to defend the Bush policy.

I will admit that it is a difficult issue, in general, to balance constitutional rights with the protection of citizens but the last thing you can do is abolish the protections of the Constitution, and justify it by saying you are protecting the citizens, the Constitution protects, not the President's ability to circumvent it in difficult times.

I am surprised because I thought you would be against Bush on this issue. I have seen you say on other issues you think the administration is wrong (ie. on the spending side where the Republicans are out of control) and you are normally a staunch defender of the Constitution, so this surprises me.

In all honesty, I can't offer more insight because I thought it was a slam dunk issue but it just goes to show you there will never be something both "sides" can agree on. I guess that's healthy but I have to wonder if the battle lines are such that everything is becoming black and white, you are either with us or against us on all issues. I hope not.

---

__________________________________________________

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

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying. It simply isn't. We are talking international communications only with lots of people in the loop to control the program.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying. It simply isn't. We are talking international communications only with lots of people in the loop to control the program.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

Okay, I can at least respect that defense and not the blindly following Bush because he said so that I have been hearing this morning (not from you).

---

__________________________________________________

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

Thank you. Occasional reminders of why I do like arguing with you are appreciated.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

But it does Art.

It involves international communications only.

You're wrong. In some cases the communication may originate overseas but the person on the other end, in the US, is an American citizen.

Art I'm pretty convinced by now that if George Bush arrived at your house, shot your dog, scratched your bike and f**ked you in the ass you'd be here the next day telling us that your dog was no good, you didn't like your bike much anyway and Dubya is great in the sack.

---

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

I think we're down to about 35% now.

---

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

Art I'm pretty convinced by now that if George Bush arrived at your house, shot your dog, scratched your bike and f**ked you in the ass

Scratching Art's bike may be going too far.

---

__________________________________________________

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

It's not a difficult issue. Obey the law. If you feel you must break the law to meet some higher goal, go ahead and break the law, but 'fess up and take the heat afterwards (like, if you tortured the wrong guy to get information on that "imminent" attack, you are screwed; if you were right and saved a bunch of lives, you get the Presidential pardon and everyone looks good).

---

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

For instance when you by a pack of razorblades at your local market and take them home, the package sends out a signal that allows the package to be tracked straight to your house

Are you insane? Hear a lot of black helicopters at night?

---

_______________________________________________

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying.

It is not being presented that way.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

Why?

---

"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."

He's not insane.



Most cell phones these days have an RFID chip which can be tracked by satellite. Most cars have them. Most laptops have them. Pretty soon all credit cards will have them. If your government wants to toss the constitution out the window and track the movements and converstaions of US citizens without a warrant, it is very easy to do.

GM will soon be coming out with a version of onstar where parents can track their teenage drivers on the internet..where they are, how fast they are driving etc.

Walmart uses RFID chip technology to track inventory and has chips in almost everything they sell....although the chips they use can only be tracked by a scanner at very close range.

Starbucks tried a program here in CA a couple of years ago where they put RFID scanners outside some stores that picked up chips in the phones of passers by and they received an automatic phone call telling them that Lattes were on sale or that they had fresh pumpkin muffins. The CA legislature got wind of it and passed a law banning telemarketing calls to cell phones.

RFID technology is here to stay and pretty soon we'll all have one implanted under our skin that will hold all of our medical records etc so that if we get into a car wreck or something the emergency room physician will know if you're allergic to penicinllin.

---

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

In all cases only international communication was involved. Not to be an ass, but communication between someone in the US and someone overseas is international communication. It is not domestic communication.

If it involved domestic communication between US citizens, then the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the well established instances of expectation of privacy would properly come into play.

I don't even know why this is an issue, since I just don't see how anyone could have an expectation of privacy for international communications.

Prior to the order that is at issue, NSA only intercepted purely international communications -- foreign on both ends. This marked a change in procedure where one end of the communication was state side. I do not know enough about the various laws to determine if it is illegal. I am concerned about the increase in surveillance but am somewhat comforted that the court was notified as were congressional leaders including Pelosi and I think Rockefeller. I think the concern and interest is warranted. I think the outrage is contrived.