Eavesdropping Helpful Against Terrorist Plot [UPDATED] 486
AcidPenguin9873 writes "The New York Times reports that the U.S. government's ability to eavesdrop on personal communications helped break up a terrorist plot in Germany. The intercepted phone calls and emails revealed a connection between the plotters and a breakaway cell of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad Union. What does this mean for the future of privacy in personal communications? From the article: '[Director of national intelligence Mike McConnell's] remarks also represent part of intensifying effort by Bush administration officials to make permanent a law that is scheduled to expire in about five months. Without the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. McConnell said the nation would lose "50 percent of our ability to track, understand and know about these terrorists, what they're doing to train, what they're doing to recruit and what they're doing to try to get into this country.'" Update: 09/13 12:59 GMT by J : See followup story.
So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So..? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin (disputed, possibly Richard Jackson)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
...American authorities cooperated closely with the German authorities, sharing intercepts of e-mail messages and telephone calls between Germany and both Pakistan and Turkey, which tipped off the German authorities to the plot last fall.
How does intercepting emails between Germany and Pakistan suspend US citizen rights? Are we applying Constitutional protection to Germans and Pakistanis now?
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I like your sig! The sentiment is very similar to my own.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand, but it seems that people are so interested in handcuffing our government that they confuse foreign intelligence with domestic spying and try to shut it all down.
After the attacks that occurred six years ago today, everyone was asking, "how did this happen?", "why were we not able to stop it?", and "what are we going to do to prevent it from happening again?". I remember administration staffers being grilled by congressional committees pointing out things like a PDB titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack the US" and Michael Moore documentaries trying to place blame rather than trying to find resolutions. Can you blame the administration for taking action?
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm. They equate evesdropping and datamining to kicking down doors and rummaging through drawers looking for something that might be considered illegal. They are convinced that a government that taps calls made to Afghanistan is the same as Orwell's Big Brother. Just read some of the comments posted here that are comparing intercepting German emails to Turkey to turning the US into a barbed wire laden police state. No one is suggesting that. If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
I fear that these people are not aware of what we are up against. There are attacks being planned that make Beslan [wikipedia.org] look like a school yard scuffle. I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable. Just because I don't care if the government listens to my phone call to Dominoes doesn't mean I'll be OK with having to pass through a checkpoint to buy groceries. The idea is to allow the government do their job with as little inconvenience to me as possible. The idea that someone may be eavesdropping (although the chances are virtually nil) will not change what I say or limit me in the least. I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted [wikipedia.org] and there is hell to pay.
BTW, I like your sig! The sentiment is very similar to my own.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind. I'm just tired of the brownshirt downmodding that I see here way too often. If you disagree, don't silence me, tell me why and state your case. That's what free speech is all about!
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I assure you it does, and it does. And a government that intends to relegate the vast majority of the population to the status of "labor pool" has an interest in what *everybody* has to say about it. The best way to stop revolutionary dissent is catching it while it's still dinner-table conversation. For instance, imagine if the British had known of a certain little Tea Party that was being planned while it was still just in the stages of two guy chatting about a nice idea. Had the British colonial powers had ubiquitous eavesdropping throughout the colonial lands, history would have turned out very, very differently. Of course, your sentiments indicate that you trust the government implicitly, and will likely consider this view to be crazy left wing hippie talk.
You can't be serious? You're either too young or too dumb to understand the concept of a slippery slope. You're also obviously unaware of the fact that more innocent people die in car crashes every year than died in terrorist attacks in all of the 20 century. Where are the billions in declaring war on people who don't wear seat belts? Would you support police cameras in your garage to check that you were wearing your seatbelt before you left your driveway? Perspective is a wonderful thing. Pity you don't have any.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was trying to fly from Oakland to Detroit.
I could not produce a drivers license.
I did not drive to the airport.
I did not intend to drive the plane.
I did not intend to drive on vacation.
I was not allowed to proceed. I HAD TO go get a special
semi - strip seach before I was handed papers that would let me travel.
This was December 2006, in the United States of America.
MY right to travel without papers was infringed.
You have no point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't blame them for taking action in general, but its the types of actions that they take that I take issue with. I don't want to handcuff the government per se, but rather I want there to be leash or fence beyond which it cannot operate except in times of dire need. The systems we had in place prior to the events of 6 years ago were adequate to forewarn us of the impending attack, if only the individual intelligence agencies had the means to share the data they had collected (as discovered during that same post-attack questioning you mentioned). To bridge this communications gap, the Department of Homeland Defense was created - if that department was doing only the job it was created for in that respect, I believe we'd be fine.
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm.
I realize this, my beef with the system comes from the fact that all of these systems have little to no non-executive oversight (FISA circumvention, etc), so the potential for abuse by a lone individual with an agenda is much higher.
If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
Having the locks on the doors is my choice. I could remove them if I so chose. I can't just tell anyone who may or may not be monitoring my use of the telecommunications infrastructure to cut it out.
I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable.
I'm of the opinion, given my above responses, that giving up our rights in unnecessary - I think the old maxim "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" holds true here. It is often bandied about that we fight to preserve our way of life - but are not these rights a fundamental part of that way of life? Further, when the time comes that we no longer need those protections, who is to say that the government will give those rights we traded back? Further still, if one listens to how certain pundits ("far right personalities" if you will) want to change the world into a fascist state, then removing any of our rights is a step in that direction regardless of the reasons for which they are relinquished, and should be opposed.
I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.
The scary part is, with all the secrecy surrounding many of these abuses (and indeed, this administration's policies in general), we don't know what, if any, more secret abuses might have taken (or might be taking!) place. Also, in the case of a lone individual, you are only looking at a conspiracy of one, and that's a tough nut to crack. I believe this in itself is a good argument for a more transparent government.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind.
Not at all!
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not against the government using FISA to intercept communications to fight CRIME ('terrorism' is vague, and overly subjective) but I am AGAINST the government doing so without warrants, going against their own prescribed checks and balances. The FISA court was set up to handle this type of thing. The FISA court was sidestepped by the current administration for years before it came to light. The government should do what it can to maintain national security, however it should do so LEGALLY.Oh really? Proof? Maybe you ought to report that to someone if you have information of a national security nature. Or are you just using vague scare tactics to push policy?I, and many others, are NOT willing.Really? Hell to pay? Voluntary resignations and the firing/court martials of low level NCOs is hardly hell being paid. Maybe if someone responsible for OKing various abuses were ever charged, or [gasp] impeached then your sentiment would be comforting. From what we have seen thus far, a wrist slap is the most anyone has gotten. Case in point: although the FISA court was the ONLY legal way to tap certain international calls it was sidestepped completely by this administration. In total defiance of the law. Name one conviction of someone involved in ordering or executing those wiretaps without going through FISA. Zero accountability. It matters not whether the President, his legal council, or anyone other than SCOTUS thought the law should be different. It was defined, it was breached as defined, not one bit of accountability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that the "4th branch" of democracy - a free and informed press - is both extremely im
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Something you fail to understand is that the "government" doesn't care, but the individual people, who are employed by the government, certainly do. Information is power, and people who want power tend to be in the position to have access to that information.
It took years for J. Edgar Hoover's files to become publicly known because he used them primarily to blackm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So..? (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have any provisions limiting it to apply only to Americans. It is prohibitions on what the government may do, and they don't have national restrictions, they apply to the actions of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, what is the point of defeating terrorism if we destroy ourselves in the process? If America is destroyed by terrorists, fine, we lost the fight, and the world is a darker place. But if we corrupt our own natio
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what is missing here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Did we find the plot BEFORE the Germans got involved?
Was this plot uncovered through basic German police work?
or
Was this plot uncovered through our massive surveillance program of all communications that we can get into?
I'm a little bit suspicious as to the TIMING of this announcement, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Did NSA use its newly acquired wiretap "cooperation" powers to make a USA company franchise operating under German jurisdiction conduct a wiretap in American favour of GERMAN internal traffic without permission under German law?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But American companies operating in foreign countries are bound by LOCAL laws. Does American government and legal system like it or not is irrelevant.
Considering the way modern phone calls are routed I would not be surprised if this was tapped on Level3, Global Crossing or someone's else network in Germany or while delivering a call from Germany to Germany. From there on it is subject to German privacy legislation and the American company in question by violating it has forfeighted the terms of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would also like to point out that your argument is specious... Proper checks include simple things like getting a court order to run the wire-taps.
You are confusing power that is acceptable under the constitution and power that isn't. It is quite possible and easy to remain safe AND to remain constitutional.
Please turn in your voter card, you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not making up the rules. It is called the Constitution.
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen to that. What people don't seem to get in this day and age is that there is no such thing as zero risk. No matter how thoroughly you screen, no matter how thoroughly you eavesdrop, eventually someone somehow will get through. Therefore we need to say, "What is an acceptable risk, taking into account the fact that the lower we set the threshold, the more civil liberties and conveniences we'll be giving up?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
McCain-Feingold makes it a felony for a "corporation" (company, grassroots organization, an incorporated blog or Internet site that takes subscribers) to mention in advertising or on a web site any Congressman within two months of an election. And there are hundreds of pages of complex election "reform" laws that came out of McCain-Feingold just like this one. Given the complexity, organizations may simply decide to walk away from the political arena, fearing having to fight a
Re: (Score:2)
Is Germany, Pakistan and Turkey now part of the United States? No? Then why should our government give Constitutiona
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chaining everyone up will actually change the way we live our lives. Listening in on conversations in a foreign country doesn't change my life at all.
Re:So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
The semi-secret (they've been leaked, but aren't officially talked about) agreements between the US and other countries are two-way.
The British are heavily involved, and the way it works is that the British are given wiretap access to US calls, which is legal under British law - though it breaks US law, the violation is occurring in Britain, beyond the reach of US law. They then report back to the US government what they heard. We do the same for their domestic calls, and give them the results.
It's a nasty little mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So..? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So..? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the increase in safety cannot be gained without a decrease in essential liberty, then my choice would be to accept the increased risk, not trade away my freedom.
And especially in the case of "terrorism" there is NO valid reason to destroy any liberty in the name of safety, as the risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent. It's barely a blip if you look at the actual risk numbers. The only effect on my life terrorism has had is the massive overreaction creating problems for me - which is far worse than the terrorism itself could ever hope to be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, you will need to define what you consider "essential" liberty. (You will note that my original question was about any liberty, not essential liberty). Is driving on whatever side of the road at whatever speed you choose an "essential" liberty? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against traffic accidents? Is a l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for knowing someone who died, if you live in the U.S., do you know anyone who was directly affected by th
Helping against terror plots (Score:2, Insightful)
You know what also helps stop terror plots? Turning a country into a giant maximum security prison. Maybe we could have a study that tests that out.
Yes, violating privacy can help law enforcement. No ****. People oppose any given measure because they don't consider that tradeoff justifiable, NOT because they are unsure if it's useful. (Though in fairness, I guess a lot of people feel compelled to go all the way and think they have to consider
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, a lot of what has been happening lately probably *is* unhelpful. For example, banning anything pointy (nail clippers?) from airplanes -- what prevents another 9/11 is a change in attitude among passengers, not a complete lack of sharp things.
That said, there are plenty of things I oppose because I find the tradeoff abhorrent -- like the eavesdropping and other privacy invasions, and the imprisonment without due process, and...
Soviet Russia Had Very Little Crime (Score:2)
Well they would say that, wouldnt they? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those who would give up... (Score:3, Insightful)
--Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously-- the whole point of our revolution was to trade the "security" of tyranny for freedom.
Which also means... (Score:3, Interesting)
--Workindev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not all past quotes are applicable in modern times. The sentiment expressed by this quote, however, rings true for all times.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or old age! (Score:2)
Not very many Americans are killed by nuclear bombs.
Some Americans are killed by terrorists. But the number is just slightly higher than the number of Americans killed by nuclear bombs.
Far, FAR, FAR more likely, you'll die of something related to eating too much junk food.
Well DUH! Our military being in Iraq might have been a subtle clue,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it is (Score:5, Interesting)
Which we appear to be heading towards faster and faster with each passing day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>
> Which we appear to be heading towards faster and faster with each passing day!
USSR's NKVD/GRU/KGB/FSB: Proof-of-concept, R&D labs, etc.
DDR's STASI: Alpha release. A society of informers, all recordkeeping on paper. Economy collapses due to 25% of the population being informants instead of doing anything productive.
China's Great Firewall: Beta programme. Deploy Western tec
The only way to protect ourselves... (Score:2)
some missing tags: (Score:2)
RS
Re: (Score:2)
that would be about as useful as the "k" tag that is on there already.
The United States welcomes its 51st state: Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, Germany is one of the 135 countries that we currently occupy. Here is the list:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile
China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote D'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic
Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador
Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana
Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia
Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique
Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Norway
Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore
Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden
Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia
Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom
Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
source [lewrockwell.com]
Re:The United States' 51st state, not a flame (Score:2)
RS
Re: (Score:2)
What is more odd is that more than half of the countries we occupied were occupied under a Democrat-leaning Executive and Congress.
Many of those countries listed are permanent occupations, with actual military bases installed. Some of the countries are odd to see there (Spain? Australia? Austria? Poland?)
There is no surprise when I travel Europe or Asia and actually feel the hatred by the common
Re: (Score:2)
There is no surprise when I travel Europe or Asia and actually feel the hatred by the common citizens towards the U.S. It takes a lot of time, but I've explained to many people that the U.S. government has no connection to U.S. citizens: they've moved beyond common ideals such as "by the People", and it is both parties' faults.
I'm sure many of the subjects of the EU sympathize, since they are in the same boat...a decidedly undemocratic bureaucracy deciding what's best for all of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Thoughtful Speculation: "I suspect his post seemed only marginally applicable to the current discussion and mods saw a high-falutin' tone, resulting in a flamebait mod."
Sardonic Proposition: "Misplaced Tone is a serious problem on the internet. From now on, I suggest all meatbags be required to place stage direction before any change in tone, until ther
Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously. (Score:5, Insightful)
The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory. We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.
You undermine your own point through exaggeration and inflated rhetoric.
Re:Cut the crap and you'll be taken seriously. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't? So if China had a military base, say in Houston, TX, you would not feel occupied? You'd feel safer?
YOU may not think it is an occupation, but I've visited more than a few dozen countries with U.S. military bases (including Poland, where I have a home not far from the U.S. base in Poznan) and the residents don't understand the point of U.S. troops on their soil, not even for defensive purposes. Almost all of those countries have their own military bodies, and many of the residents near those bases are uncertain about Imperialist nations presenting a military presence in their country. This is from direct conversations I've had in peaceful nations.
The term 'occupation' indicates control over territory.
I can basically agree with this, but I don't think that's what the other countries necessarily feel. Just because U.S. troops might have been invited by past regimes, does not meant that they are there because the citizens of a nation wanted them there. Occupation may be by force, or it might be welcomed because a leader who uses force welcomed the new regime for whatever purpose. In either way, those directly facing the military base as a neighbor are not usually happy with the troops that are there.
We don't 'occupy' Cuba. We have a naval base there, but we don't control the rest of the country. (Unless you think that Castro is just a U.S. puppet. Or something.) To be honest, the world would probably be a significantly safer place if the U.S. did have significant control over several of the countries on that list, but we don't.
Occupation does not generally mean direct control by the troops or the military. In many cases, the control comes from the leaders of the occupying country over the leaders of the occupied country, even if it is not open contact with communique available to the citizens of either countries.
The U.S. doesn't have control over any nation it tried to maintain control over. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, so why would you feel that the world would be a better place if the U.S. had tried to control anyone else?
Hello, Abdul? (Score:5, Funny)
[*] That is Pashtun for, "Don't call me in my cell phone, the Satanists are on to it. just send emails using 2048 bit encryption."
Supids terrorists only (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the NSA reads ALL emails in the world (may be be true, but more realistic than to assume they dont), they can easily create contact networks of encrypted mail transfer.
Get enough data, and they can build up a lot of circumstancial evicende.
(of course this only works as long as only a very small fraction use encryption, making the mere existance of encryption a trackable property)
Now think like a SMART terrorist. (Score:2)
Then, how would that SMART terrorist implement it? And disseminate the information?
Spies have been doing it for years. Radios, encrypted transmissions, letter drops, etc.
Wouldn't the FIRST less of terrorist school be: "Americans listen to everything. Do NOT use your cell phone or email."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in favor of this law, but this is a pretty stupid reason to oppose eavesdropping. Its like saying the police will only catch the dumb criminals, and let the smart ones get away, and therefore we shouldn't have police.
Re: (Score:2)
Evesdropping helped, but was the new law necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it helpful? (Score:2)
"Fight Terrorism".
Now look at the number of "terrorist events" that have happened "successfully".
If the number of terrorist events is not declining, then one cannot conclude that the billions we throw at this (and lives lost and rights that we throw away), are "helpful".
NY Times did not report that (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't make it false (or true), but it's much different than a statement of fact.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
The story is easily identified as propaganda anyway. Headline needs to be edited according to the parent post.
Who's against eavesdropping with oversight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Islamic Jihad Union? (Score:2)
Wankers.
Sorry, but what about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Future? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, there's no such thing as a 'terrorist' - but at least you're getting cheap oil out of Afghanistan. I mean Iraq. I mean more expensive.
Targeted or dragnet? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're claiming this was part of a Carnivore/Echelon style dragnet, then hurray for catching the one tuna in a net bursting with dolphins.
The article mentions listening in on the members of a specific terrorist group, so I'm taking that to mean they already had suspects, and surveilling these suspects allowed them to discover the plot. I.e. the targeted search that is good.
However you can tell in articles like this that they want you to believe that this justifies extended surveillance powers, in particular the we-should-be-able-to-spy-on-anyone-any-time kind.
The article also mentions FISA and how Bush is trying to extend the law that will expire. It is very important to remember that the whole problem with Bush's program was that he couldn't even be bothered to go to the FISA court to get back-dated warrants. The best explanation for why that I've heard so far being that the program was spying on so many people that it was infeasible to actually get a warrant for each one. If they can't take the time to get a warrant for each one, then they certainly couldn't have taken the time to establish probably cause that any of these people were terrorists, and ergo they wouldn't have been granted by FISA anyway.
So look at this how it is -- a success for law enforcement, of the traditional pre-USAPATRIOT and pre-NSA-wiretapping kind. Don't see it how they want you too -- as justification for removing what few of our privacy protections remain, and justification for allowing the Executive branch and law enforcement to operate outside the 4th Ammendment.
Not Another Police State Rant (Score:2)
It's okay to complain, but don't do anything like say, write a letter to your representatives demanding more information about the programs. (No doubt there are many) In fact, write it by hand and sign it. Now, how many
It's
most of the terrorists had german ancestry (Score:2)
the problem is lack of warrants (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't Believe It (Score:2)
SHIFTING THE FOCUS! (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the discussion by opponents has not been against eavesdropping, but that with current law, there is no OVERSIGHT by any governmental agency of the eavesdropping. Prior laws always allowed eavesdropping
I'm too lazy to provide links, but it has been documented both that a) during the time of the court-order requirement, almost no court order requests were denied (something like 2 in 17,000); and b) during the non-court order law there were some thousands of eavesdropping events that were shown to have no connection to terrorism.
The reason, plain and simple, for articles like this is that the US administration is fearmongering to push the strategy that they do not want oversight into what they are doing. This is a bad thing. Democracy dies behind closed doors. Don't be fooled. Keep the focus where it should be!
Police Save Lives of Terrorists (Score:2)
Based on reports of what type of explosive they were trying to make. The police saved their lives.
Peroxide based explosives are very very tricky things that can even blow up by being exposed to light. In most countries you are not even alowed to transport them.
Like the binary explosives before them, yes it can be done in theroy but not in practice. Does anyone else see a pattern here...
Unasked/Unanswered Question (Score:3, Interesting)
"Was the surveillance covered by the relatively uncontroversial provisions for surveillance conducted overseas, was it covered by the relatively uncontroversial provisions where the surveillance is reviewed by the appropriate court, or was it done under the provisions for warrantless wiretaps and data mining that are very controversial?"
Are McConnell and the Bush administration trying to run a public relations gambit by association again? Are they trying to use the fact that electronic surveillance of some sort, possibly based on relatively uncontroversial provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, led to the arrests to get the controversial provisions of the FISA extended as well? I recognize that this may be classified information that should not be publicly disseminated. However, our elected representatives should be asking these questions and have a right to get truthful, complete, and non-evasive answers from the executve branch. If they do receive evasive answers, then the assumption should be that these programs are not necessary and should not be renewed.
--Paul
These people are liars (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorist-free East Germany (Score:4, Insightful)
Spying on our own people without even a warrant is terrorism. It's political control by fear and threat of force.
Under Bush, the terrorists have won everything, because Bush is a terrorist. Even in Germany, people aren't safe from Bush's terrorism. Bush is indeed the greatest terrorist of them all. By any measure, including by body count (the way terrorists terrorize) and by how much liberty he's destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
That is "classified information, and releasing the details will help the terrorists, and result in dead Americans."
In other words "We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you."
More Americans will die like Mrs. Buttle's husband, than will ever be exposed to "terrorists".
Live free or die, you little worms. "I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you."
Re: (Score:2)
Lets assume for the moment that wiretapping is very helpful. Why
do we have to get rid of the court oversight? I don't think we
should hand this much power to anyone.
yes, and despite all the alarmism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem in concept with tapping calls made to people outside of the US provided that warrants are drawn up
Re: (Score:2)
Are you implying that foreign citizens are afforded US Constitutional protection?
The laws that were drawn up worked well enough for a decade against the Soviets, so there's little reason to think that they wouldn't work against would-be terrorists who are almost always far less sophisticated.
We are not fighting the Soviets. Soviet citizens wer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were you, I'd look for forums where thinking is less likely to be accurate and where new social, scientific, or religious ideas are scorned upon.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is for the President to comply with the law, and not ignore the need for warrants simply because it's inconvenient.
Is that a good enough solution for you? I'll admit the biggest problem with this solution is implementing it, since nobody seems to be able to force our President to obey the law and he certainly isn't planning on doing so of
Re:Tell Me Again... (Score:4, Informative)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 >
2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've had lots of bombs go off. Some, like the "bomb" in the USS Maine in Cuba that launched our takeover of the Philipines, C
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)