NSA logging all domestic calls

[NorthSideSox72]

thats an extremely bold statement that, I would argue, few agree with. until now, i have honestly never met someone that has plainly said that they would prefer to have terrorist bombings on US soil instead of having this NSA program that is listening to our phone conversations. i guess this is where the ranks part ways on the issue. ive said before that i would rather have a prez trying to do too much than i would a prez who sits around and waits to be attacked. i believe this is a substantial reason why bush was elected in the last election.

I think you are right about a major reason Bush was re-elected. But I also think thats a very short-sighted view, and more and more of the American public is learning that.

 

What's the famous quote? He would give up freedom for security deserves neither? I think people are starting to learn that.

 

And I'd actually agree with Rex on that particular point. I'd rather have a car bomb or two, and the associated death toll, than hand over our rights on a platter. The government can do a LOT more than they are right now to secure this country WITHOUT stomping all over the Constitution. They just seem unwilling to go the hard road and do those things.

[samclemens]

I think you are right about a major reason Bush was re-elected. But I also think thats a very short-sighted view, and more and more of the American public is learning that.

 

What's the famous quote? He would give up freedom for security deserves neither? I think people are starting to learn that.

 

And I'd actually agree with Rex on that particular point. I'd rather have a car bomb or two, and the associated death toll, than hand over our rights on a platter. The government can do a LOT more than they are right now to secure this country WITHOUT stomping all over the Constitution. They just seem unwilling to go the hard road and do those things.

 

what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house.

[NorthSideSox72]

what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house.

The things that they are avoiding are the ones that take more than a 4 year term to have an impact. Like addressing the roots of the hatred. Acknowledging our mistakes in the region publicly might be a good start. Also, and this is a really tough one, I think we need to focus more on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And focus on more than events and people - focus on a long term solution and, if necessary, bring down the hammer on both sides (I am not saying that is some easy thing, but its THE nexus point in the region politically, in my mind).

 

The biggest thing we can do is get off oil. Now. No more B.S. As soon as we stop relying on that region in any economic way, we suddenly have a breadth of possible tools at our disposal in the region. There is little more important than that right now.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The things that they are avoiding are the ones that take more than a 4 year term to have an impact. Like addressing the roots of the hatred. Acknowledging our mistakes in the region publicly might be a good start. Also, and this is a really tough one, I think we need to focus more on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And focus on more than events and people - focus on a long term solution and, if necessary, bring down the hammer on both sides (I am not saying that is some easy thing, but its THE nexus point in the region politically, in my mind).

 

The biggest thing we can do is get off oil. Now. No more B.S. As soon as we stop relying on that region in any economic way, we suddenly have a breadth of possible tools at our disposal in the region. There is little more important than that right now.

 

One point I dont agree with and the other I TOTALLY agree with.

 

1st point: Personally, I dont give a whit about why the Islamo-fascist movement doesn't like America. There's nothing we can do to stop them from hating us so much when they are taught from the time they are born that America is evil and full of godless infidels.

 

2nd point: I couldn't agree with you more about the need to get off of our oil addiction. I look at Brazil with envy because they did what they had to do and now they are completely energy independent. I really hope that I can live to see the day when we're as independent as they are and can tell the Middle East to go to hell.

[Rex Kickass]

what are "those things"? im sorry, but what could the gov't do specifically without raising constitutional issues? be realistic in your answer, keep in mind what democrats will and will not block in the house.

 

Those things would be simple. How about securing our ports? How about rebuilding the CIA's human intelligence unit abroad? How about not revealing the names of undercover operatives for political payback?

 

Even better, how about working with the massive population from which terrorist organizations draw their recruits from and actively win their hearts and minds by being respectful of the culture in which they live while bettering the poverty that their culture suffers from?

 

That last one is hard. It takes a while to do and it requires diplomacy and some eating of crow - something that this administration and many others before it have proven themselves again and again unable to do. Instead, we get color coded charts, and laws getting broken and freedoms being abridged in the name of protecting the rule of law and freedom.

 

The truth is you'll never be truly safe from someone hell bent on strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing their s*** up in a city, or on a bus or wherever. If that's all you want, go find your fortified panic room and stay there. Because all the wiretaps in the world and all the closed circuit surveillance isn't going to keep Joe Terrorist from blowing s*** up if he really wants to.

 

Because if that were the case, the IRA's back would have been broken by 1985 and Al-Qaida wouldn't have dared bomb s*** in Madrid or the UK. European countries have a lot of the same "protections" that our administration seems to be moving to, but as you can see - they payoff isn't worth the cost. Because terrorism is still happening in Europe, just like it is everywhere in the world. What solves the problem? Being realistic about the problem. Not wiretapping every phone in America and certainly not logging a bunch of phone calls to see who calls whom.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Those things would be simple. How about securing our ports? How about rebuilding the CIA's human intelligence unit abroad? How about not revealing the names of undercover operatives for political payback?

 

Even better, how about working with the massive population from which terrorist organizations draw their recruits from and actively win their hearts and minds by being respectful of the culture in which they live while bettering the poverty that their culture suffers from?

 

That last one is hard. It takes a while to do and it requires diplomacy and some eating of crow - something that this administration and many others before it have proven themselves again and again unable to do. Instead, we get color coded charts, and laws getting broken and freedoms being abridged in the name of protecting the rule of law and freedom.

 

The truth is you'll never be truly safe from someone hell bent on strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing their s*** up in a city, or on a bus or wherever. If that's all you want, go find your fortified panic room and stay there. Because all the wiretaps in the world and all the closed circuit surveillance isn't going to keep Joe Terrorist from blowing s*** up if he really wants to.

 

Because if that were the case, the IRA's back would have been broken by 1985 and Al-Qaida wouldn't have dared bomb s*** in Madrid or the UK. European countries have a lot of the same "protections" that our administration seems to be moving to, but as you can see - they payoff isn't worth the cost. Because terrorism is still happening in Europe, just like it is everywhere in the world. What solves the problem? Being realistic about the problem. Not wiretapping every phone in America and certainly not logging a bunch of phone calls to see who calls whom.

 

 

Its wonderfully ironic how Democrats now want us to recruit more Humint sources when they spent the whole of the 1990s tearing that structure to the ground and hauling away the wreckage.

 

The fact of the matter is, Rex, that we spend billions of dollars on aid to Muslim countries, we make them insanely rich with oil money and look at how we're repaid. What did the U.S. do when Iran had a massive earthquake last year? What did we do when the same thing happened to Pakistan? What do people in those countries think of us? They hate our guts. There is nothing we can do to change the minds of these Islamo-fascists because they are born and raised to hate America.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about people.

[Controlled Chaos]

I believe that they are actually screening, electronically, the contents of each conversation, not just looking for patterns of phone numbers.

 

No, it's phone numbers.

 

Its truly staggering to me that people on this board who align themselves with the GOP are OK with this.

 

I am OK with this and it has nothing to do with the GOP. It has to do with protecting this country. If 6 months from now we catch a terrorist, wouldn't it be extremely beneficial for the NSA, CIA, FBI or who ever the hell does it, to look back and see who they called when. Wouldn't it be beneficial to capture a whole cell or multiple cells because of this program. This is not to track John and Mary Jones. This is not infinging on your rights to have a private and secure conversation. Your number willl never even be looked at unless you're speaking to someone you shouldn't be. This program can be an enormous help in the fight. I mean you people do know that terrorists don't walk around with signs that say "I want to kill Americans." We don't know who they are right now. If we do catch one...we can go back and see who they have links to. We can catch others that want to blow up our buildings. We can catch others that want to kill our way of life. Yeah, I'm all for that. If you think it's just because of party affiliation then so be it.

 

The only way we can keep terrorists from taking out freedoms, is if we voluntarily give them up The rights are only there to protect guilty people. We don't need freedom of speech if we don't say things the government doesn't like. We don't need legal protection from the government searching our homes anytime they like, if we don't have anything in our homes that the government doesn't like. We don't need our guns, the government has plenty. If the government telle me I don't need rights to stay alive, then let's give them up.

 

Yes Tex cause a phone NUMBER database has to do with losing our freedom of speech, search and guns. There are hundered of databases out there. Why do you think you keep getting letters from John Kerry that you so graciously post here. You are in their database and because of that you are in other Democratic databases.

 

I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed

Your freedom curtailed?? Are you kidding me? Your freedom of a phone number log? You'd rather have the occasional bombing, resulting in countless deaths of innocent lives, then the government having a list of numbers coming to and from your house stored in a database?? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Controlled Chaos

[YASNY]

How anyone could reasonably expect the privacy of having the calls placed from their phone not to be accessible by the government is beyond me. Did you people ever watch Law & Order? They are always checking phone records and not needing any warrants to do so.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am OK with this and it has nothing to do with the GOP. It has to do with protecting this country. If 6 months from now we catch a terrorist, wouldn't it be extremely beneficial for the NSA, CIA, FBI or who ever the hell does it, to look back and see who they called when. Wouldn't it be beneficial to capture a whole cell or multiple cells because of this program. This is not to track John and Mary Jones. This is not infinging on your rights to have a private and secure conversation. Your number willl never even be looked at unless you're speaking to someone you shouldn't be. This program can be an enormous help in the fight. I mean you people do know that terrorists don't walk around with signs that say "I want to kill Americans." We don't know who they are right now. If we do catch one...we can go back and see who they have links to. We can catch others that want to blow up our buildings. We can catch others that want to kill our way of life. Yeah, I'm all for that. If you think it's just because of party affiliation then so be it.

Of course it would be beneficial to know who they called. Which is why they should get a warrant for THAT PERSON'S phone records if/when they need it. No one is saying otherwise. The problem is that they decided it was OK to just collect all the phone records they wanted without any sort of cause.

 

As for Law & Order, while I believe a warrant is needed for that type of thing at least some of the time, even if it isn't, they still need cause. That information is not public record. The legal hurdle for that cause may be lower than what is needed for a physical search warrant, but some sort of cause is still required. This program pulls data with no cause established whatsoever. Cause is applicable to the subject, and this search has no subject - it is hitting everyone in this country who uses a phone. That is not acceptable to me.

[Texsox]

How anyone could reasonably expect the privacy of having the calls placed from their phone not to be accessible by the government is beyond me. Did you people ever watch Law & Order? They are always checking phone records and not needing any warrants to do so.

 

It seems to me they are getting warrants. It's just so routine it is hardly mentioned. Anyway, they are investigating a specific person. I don't think it's the expectation of privacy, it's the government now starting off with the notion that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

 

If we have to give up freedom of speech, search and seizure laws, maybe torture a few people, to keep giant sharks from invading Utah, I think we should do it. If we try and save our freedoms and rights, the terrorists will take them away.

 

I don't know where the balance is, perhaps we are too free. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty is a quaint notion from a long gone era and we should just turn our lives over the to government for scrutiny. Last someone from a terrorist task force know our every move, perhaps tell them before it happens. After all, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, isn't it?

 

I'll bet terrorists will have guns, why don't we start by having police track everyone with a gun in this country? Perhaps, for the privilege of owning a gun, and being a part of a well armed militia, the government should be allowed to enter your home, anytime, and check on them. After all if it stops one terrorist attack. I have nothing to hide, I'll be the first one. I'm innocent, and anyone who doesn't agree with this, must have something to hide.

[Balta1701]

ABC News: the government is monitoring who reporters call.

 

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

 

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

 

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

 

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

[FlaSoxxJim]

No, it's phone numbers.

 

. . .

 

Yes Tex cause a phone NUMBER database has to do with losing our freedom of speech, search and guns.

 

. . .

 

Your freedom curtailed?? Are you kidding me? Your freedom of a phone number log? . . .

 

So, as today's Brian Ross and Richard Esposito story is breaking that ABC News, WaPo, and NYT reporters are having their call logs tracked by the government in an effort to root out confidential sources, you can insist that freedoms are not curtailed by this intrusion?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...al_source_.html

 

It is an equally simple matter to track call logs of all your political opponents, whistleblowing current and former CIA or NSA officials, or pesky Special Prosecutors so you can stay a step ahead of them.

 

But it's all good. Don't talk to anybody the government doesn't want you to talk to and don't challenge anything they do and you won't have a problem.

[Balta1701]

$200 billion : the new value of the main lawsuit over this program, now that both Bellsouth and AT&T have been added along with Verizon.

[kapkomet]

So, as today's Brian Ross and Richard Esposito story is breaking that ABC News, WaPo, and NYT reporters are having their call logs tracked by the government in an effort to root out confidential sources, you can insist that freedoms are not curtailed by this intrusion?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...al_source_.html

 

It is an equally simple matter to track call logs of all your political opponents, whistleblowing current and former CIA or NSA officials, or pesky Special Prosecutors so you can stay a step ahead of them.

 

But it's all good. Don't talk to anybody the government doesn't want you to talk to and don't challenge anything they do and you won't have a problem.

What bullls***. *I* could have called those people after the story broke, just for s***s and giggles to watch them squirm. Why is it that everything has to be believed, evil, and sinister? Whatever.

[FlaSoxxJim]

What bullls***. *I* could have called those people after the story broke, just for s***s and giggles to watch them squirm. Why is it that everything has to be believed, evil, and sinister? Whatever.

 

It is a shame you would consider that a s***s and giggles kind of activity.

 

The FBI has confirmed that they have "backtracked" journo phone records.

 

They have done so using National Security Letters issued under the authority of the Patriot Act (Wow, who could have foreseen the Patriot Act would be abused?), even though the National Security Letters are suppused to be used in terrorism cases. Not to hunt down journalists' sources, and send a chilling message to the news media that freedom of the press is an antiquated concept.

 

You don't get even the faintest whiff of fascism here?

 

Whatever.

[Cknolls]

I'd rather the occasional bombing than having my freedom curtailed. Because the occasional bombing is going to happen whether or not we track everyone on camera and tap phones at will. Just ask the folks in London.

 

This sort of stuff stops nothing, ultimately, and its a greater reliance on technology and not actual human intelligence that gave us the intelligence problem we currently have in the first place.

 

Wasn't the bombing a result of not monitoring these s***bags?

 

One day after the Washington Post poll you mention came out, Newsweek also came out with a poll on the subject, and got results in the opposite direction.

It's probably also worth noting that the Washington Post only was able to poll 502 people, as they did their poll in a rush in 1 night. The Newsweek poll is over 1000. That means the WaPo poll is more likely to be either biased or just off by within 5 percentage points by random chances.

 

They also asked entirely different questions.

[Controlled Chaos]

It is a shame you would consider that a s***s and giggles kind of activity.

 

The FBI has confirmed that they have "backtracked" journo phone records.

 

They have done so using National Security Letters issued under the authority of the Patriot Act (Wow, who could have foreseen the Patriot Act would be abused?), even though the National Security Letters are suppused to be used in terrorism cases. Not to hunt down journalists' sources, and send a chilling message to the news media that freedom of the press is an antiquated concept.

 

You don't get even the faintest whiff of fascism here?

 

Whatever.

 

Any kind of link to support this?

[Texsox]

Is it necessary for the population to monitor the government and know what the goverment is doing? Or should be just allow the government to tell us?

 

Is it necessary for individuals to have a means to report when the government is doing something wrong?

 

Who can do that, and what controls should the government be allowed to place on the very group the citizens have selected to monitor the government?

 

I am more concerned about curtailing the press than my own phone records.

[Cknolls]

It seems to me they are getting warrants. It's just so routine it is hardly mentioned. Anyway, they are investigating a specific person. I don't think it's the expectation of privacy, it's the government now starting off with the notion that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

 

If we have to give up freedom of speech, search and seizure laws, maybe torture a few people, to keep giant sharks from invading Utah, I think we should do it. If we try and save our freedoms and rights, the terrorists will take them away.

 

I don't know where the balance is, perhaps we are too free. Perhaps innocent until proven guilty is a quaint notion from a long gone era and we should just turn our lives over the to government for scrutiny. Last someone from a terrorist task force know our every move, perhaps tell them before it happens. After all, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, isn't it?

 

I'll bet terrorists will have guns, why don't we start by having police track everyone with a gun in this country? Perhaps, for the privilege of owning a gun, and being a part of a well armed militia, the government should be allowed to enter your home, anytime, and check on them. After all if it stops one terrorist attack. I have nothing to hide, I'll be the first one. I'm innocent, and anyone who doesn't agree with this, must have something to hide.

Very Rational.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Any kind of link to support this?

 

Of course there is:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...cknowledge.html

 

FBI Acknowledges: Journalists' Phone Records are Fair Game

 

May 16, 2006 12:25 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

 

The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

 

"It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official.

 

The acknowledgement followed our blotter item that ABC News reporters had been warned by a federal source that the government knew who we were calling.

 

The official said our blotter item was wrong to suggest that ABC News phone calls were being "tracked."

 

"Think of it more as backtracking," said a senior federal official.

[Texsox]

See, he fulfilled that campaign promise to streamline government and make things easier.

[Rex Kickass]

Wasn't the bombing a result of not monitoring these s***bags?

They also asked entirely different questions.

 

We were monitoring the s***bags and increasingly urgent warnings from field ops were being ignored.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is a thought for the day on this.

 

Mr. Hayden, the current nominee to head up the CIA, said today that the eavesdropping program(s) were legal (unclear which ones he was referring to). What I thought was interesting was, the guy is there being questioned, in his full dress military uniform - stars, bars and boards.

 

Given the touchiness of this subject, if Bush was trying to ease fears about this nomination, wouldn't it have been smart o have him there in a business suit, instead of a uniform? I mean, if I am wary of the government spying on me, and I look on TV and see the new CIA director is a military general, that is NOT going to make me feel better. It will in fact make me feel worse.

 

Just seems like a poor marketing decision.

[Texsox]

I applaud Bush and Co. for their honesty in this nomination. He's a military guy and they aren't hiding it.