Wiretapping Ruling

[Lilith]

NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html?hp&ex=1155873600&en=a6f8950517248da0&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Just curious about whether you think security or privacy should prevail in this matter. What are your feelings about a government wiretapping with no warrant?

[scotzoidman]

I don't think either should "prevail", this is another case of the executive branch run rampant & ignoring the other two branches...& a president still convinced that he is the monarch & the rest of us should start liking it...

[Lilith]

I have to say I was not paying very close attention to the infringement of my rights until it came to Pixies and other such sites but now it seems that I get really heated up when I think about all the things I am dealing with in the name of "security".

Why does it all feel so far left when it's coming from the far right? Is the continuem circular and not linear as I had always imagined.

[PantyFanatic]

"THAT" couldn't happen to us, in this day and age, is the linear continuum of history. :rolleyes:

[Lilith]

Shit!!! The old man got ME in a spelling error. It must be judgement day :D

[PantyFanatic]

:rofl: I just copied. Microsoft spell-check got both of us. lol

[Steph]

Shit!!! The old man got ME in a spelling error. It must be judgement day :D

Have the locusts descended? :boohoo:

[gekkogecko]

The only "security" provided by the blatantly illegal wiretapping is the security of the current administration against possible impeachment & prosecution for such illegal activities (as well as others) , after King george II is removed from office.

The real problem with this ruling is that there is no way that this adminstration will in any way be prevented from said illegal activities in the future. Just forced to conceal them better behind outrageous claims of "national security", "antiterrorism", and "defending democracy".

[jay-t]

The Russians had a saying " I love my country ; But I fear my Government"

[Scarecrow]

I think it is funny that a private citizen with a radio scanner can listen to any converstation he can pick up but for the government to do it is illegal. The do not tape any wires. The pick up open air transmitions that are open to anyone with the right equipment. JMHO

P.S. No one really listens to the transmitions. They are taped and a computer scans it for "hits". If the computer finds a "hit" then it will be checked by a human, other wise it is automaticly wiped after a set amount of time.

[dicksbro]

I guess I'm not aware of any attempt by the government to "wire tap" private, American citizen conversations ... only to tape/listen in on calls from or to overseas destinations where there is a likely terrorist connection. If that is true (and I have no way of knowing), more power to them. Last thing I want to see is a half dozen planes from London blowing up or a major bridge, tunnel or rail link blown up.

I really have no reason right now to think that they are doing anything that would give me reason to worry about the wire taps, and, until I learn otherwise, I don't think I'd be too worried. That's just my humble opinion.

[Fangtasia]

Considering the already do monitor calls here i'm sure....i have no probs with it at all i've got nothing to hide...but i must say i have stopped calling my car the old bomb *LOL* i can just see the special forces storming my door *LOL*

[Lilith]

LOL Good move ^^^

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Let us not make the mistake of assuming that all Federal wiretaps require warrants. That is false. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/), is unambiguous: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year...". This legislation was passed in 1978, and revised over the years by the Legislature (Congress) for use by the Executive (Administration) and has repeatedly passed the constitutional test by the Judiciary.

Good electronic intelligence (in this instance wiretapping), can be, as the Justice Department lawyers correctly pointed out, very important to covert operations such as combating terrorist organizations. Securing useful information about the plans of enemy operations increases the likelihood of a successful defense. The utility of information from warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens by the Federal government must be very high indeed to avoid running up against the Constitution.

The case seems straightforward. The F.I.S.A. empowers the Executive to wiretap (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) if the “Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that . . . there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”

What the judge took exception to is that this legislation was used to justify an eavesdropping program which included U.S. citizens during a period when the U.S. was not at war.

For those who, like me, are most comfortable with the democratic model of government, a program of surveillance which includes U.S. citizens should involve more than just the executive branch. It is good to learn that the Federal Judiciary agrees.

[Jude30]

The NSA has been intercepting all outgoing calls from this country since at least the 60's. Maybe Bush is just the first president dumb enough to admit that they do this.

[Sharni]

Not the only country the US monitors either *L*

[Lilith]

Very true Sharni.

[jseal]

Yes’m.

Other than perhaps the Vatican, Monaco, and Liechtenstein, I can think of few nations which should naturally be excluded from that list.

Can you?

[Aqua]

I've heard more than a few people take the side of 'Well, if you don't have anything to hide there's no problem.'

I think it's a bad stance to take. They (those conducting the wiretaps) may just decide to change what they'll looking for. Right now it's a question of 'terrorist activities', but what if the target becomes lewd and lascivious behavior?

Also, (in my understanding), wiretaps of this sort can be put in place without a warrant, but the warrant is to be obtained after the fact to allow for situations where time is a factor. To not do so is illegal.

[Sharni]

Well i don't have anything Aqua......and i honestly doubt they would target that

I would much rather them listen in and foil an attack or problem before it arises....but then thats just my opinion

[Sharni]

Yes’m.

Other than perhaps the Vatican, Monaco, and Liechtenstein, I can think of few nations which should naturally be excluded from that list.

Can you?
Nope...i dont believe anyone should be excluded...1 in all in is my stance

[Aqua]

Well i don't have anything Aqua......and i honestly doubt they would target that

I would much rather them listen in and foil an attack or problem before it arises....but then thats just my opinion
Certainly catching criminals and terrorists is a good thing. Should we allow them to enter our homes or have access to our computers whenever they want also... without a warrant?

And it does seem unlikely that they would target lewdness, but that's merely an example that would hit close to home for many of us and we should not forget the change in what is legally allowed on websites in the US concerning sexuality. That was something I doubted would be targeted, and yet it happened.

[PantyFanatic]

Are "limit" and "righteous zealot" compatible terms or oxymorons? :confused:

[PantyFanatic]

Lord Acton had thoughts about absolute power (http://www.libertystory.net/LSTHINKACTON.html). :rolleyes2

[Sharni]

Certainly catching criminals and terrorists is a good thing. Should we allow them to enter our homes or have access to our computers whenever they want also... without a warrant?

And it does seem unlikely that they would target lewdness, but that's merely an example that would hit close to home for many of us and we should not forget the change in what is legally allowed on websites in the US concerning sexuality. That was something I doubted would be targeted, and yet it happened.
I have no prob with them entering my home or having access to my puter (which i'm sure they probably do)

I don't have Big Brother is watching syndrome *L* they can watch me all they like...i'm a pretty boring person

As for the law on pornography...the only things that are targeted here and in the US are illegal activities...and that is how it should be

[Lilith]

I have no prob with them entering my home or having access to my puter (which i'm sure they probably do)

I don't have Big Brother is watching syndrome *L* they can watch me all they like...i'm a pretty boring person

As for the law on pornagraphy...the only things that are targeted here are illegal activities...and that is how it should be

The problem for me is that here they are deciding that some things that I see as perfectly normal, are obscene and making/enforcing laws to protect us from these, now deemed to be illegal activities, such as touching my vagina in a picture on the web. I think if they want to look on my computer to see if I made and distributed said picture they should have to have a warrant. I think currently they do and I want to make sure this administration understands that.

[Sharni]

Displaying a pic of touching your vagina isnt illegal *L*....the only reason we cant show it here is we do not have the real names and such of those posting the pics....

I still see many a porn site with women touching the vaginas....the only difference is they have the blurb displayed that they have ensured all their models are over 18 (ie have names other required info)

[jseal]

Aqua,

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I get the impression that you think that U.S. law enforcement officials can search our homes and computers without a warrant.

I believe that is very much the exception rather than the rule. U.S. law enforcement agencies are limited by the first and forth amendments to the constitution which protect the U.S. citizen’s freedom of speech and their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Taylor ruled the intercept program unconstitutional as it allowed monitoring of U.S. citizens' phone calls abroad without a warrant.

I am not suggesting that wiretaps and searches cannot take place, only that a court must issue a warrant before they can legally occur. The FBI has the authority to place wiretaps. Prior to doing so, they must obtain a warrant from a Federal judge after showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The FBI can also get wiretap warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with fewer restrictions, but only if gathering foreign intelligence is the "significant purpose" for the warrant.

The Patriot Act made it easier for the FBI to get a warrant, and now allows nearly any search to be made in secret.

So yes, we have lost some our traditional civil liberties, but in the absence of a warrant, a wiretap / search / intercept of a U.S. citizen’s communication remains unconstitutional. Regrettable but true. I try to keep in mind the context within which these losses occurred, and that we here in the States still retain far more civil liberties than in many other countries. Small solace, I’ll admit, but the enemy has demonstrated an ability to take advantage of all available opportunities.

[gekkogecko]

I get the impression that you think that U.S. law enforcement officials can search our homes and computers without a warrant.


"Can", as in "have the ability to"? (The actual definition of "can") Yes, they can.
"Can", as in "is it legal for them to do so"? No, they can't.
"Can" as in, "do they do it anyway"? Yes, they do. If one believes otherwise, one is delusional. But:


I believe that is very much the exception rather than the rule.


So, in your particular case, you're not delusional: but I majorly disagree with the rarity of these incidents. I believe it's done routinely.


I am not suggesting that wiretaps and searches cannot take place, only that a court must issue a warrant before they can legally occur.


But only in some cases. And the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded in the name of fighting "terrorism".

You must remember that this is coming from an administration that:
1. Has directly lied about the origins of said terrorism.
2. Manipulated intelligence information, both for the purposes of starting a foreign war, and for domestic political purposes.
3. Directly lied about and fabricated said intelligence information.
4. Has allegedly set up secret prisons to hold indefinitely, without charges, and without notification of the the International Red Cross, the families of those incarcerated, or any watchdog group, people arbitrarily designated as "illegal combatants".
5. Has introduced legislation to secretly designate US citizens as "terrorists" or "illegal combatants", hold them indefinitely, without charge, and deny them access to legal representation and deny them access to the "evidence" against them if and when the powers-that-be do decide to conduct a "trial".
6. Is directing the NSA, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies to conduct wholesale interception and recording of US citizens communications, hoping to somehow catch terrorists by keying in on certain arbitrarily-designated "key" words or phrases.

Given all this, warrantless, illegal wiretaps are somehow limited or the exception?

No way.

[Oldfart]

There is one aspect that everyone seems to have missed.

It's alright to eavesdrop on foreigners like me, with no thought for my right to privacy.

The concept that Americans are superior to the point that they have global rights not open to folks like me is a little worrying.

[Lilith]

There is one aspect that everyone seems to have missed.

It's alright to eavesdrop on foreigners like me, with no thought for my right to privacy.

The concept that Americans are superior to the point that they have global rights not open to folks like me is a little worrying.

amen. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is wrong. For me justifications are just excuses.

[Oldfart]

What she said.

[Sharni]

I didnt miss it...its just not a big deal to me

I also believe that everyone on this earth should be in a DNA register (current people and then from birth)....i also agree with the card they are trying to bring into OZ...but again thats just me

[jseal]

gekkogecko,

Your post above opens with an assessment of what U.S. law enforcement officials can and can’t do.

OK. With serious reservations about the assertion that if one disagrees with you one is delusional, I can accept that.

You follow this with a determination that I am not delusional.

Good. We agree about that.

We begin to part ways with the next assertion. Working on the assumption that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”, would you please list the cases where searches and wiretaps have been executed on U.S. citizens without first securing a warrant from a Federal judge? You need not limit this list to only those instances were the justification is “fighting terrorism” unless you wish to. This would seem to be the kind of list that the ACLU would be aware of, but if there are alternative reputable (no fruitcake bloggers please) sources for this information, feel free to use them instead – or in addition to – any other list supporting your claim.

I have been wrong frequently enough in the past to know that I may be wrong about this, but I have the suspicion that – and let me repeat this to ensure that we are singing from the same score here - the list of the cases where searches and wiretaps have been executed on U.S. citizens without first securing a warrant from a Federal judge will be a rather short one - certainly in comparison to the size of the list of the searches which had been first blessed at the Federal bench. Further, when you have this list you may wish to check how many of these searches and wiretaps – or any evidence gathered from them - were subsequently ruled as admissible for a prosecution.

A list of six claimed unsavory attributes of the current administration follows.

OK. Your claims may be debated, and may be in a subsequent post, but let us take them as presented.

You conclude that because the current administration is (supposedly) guilty of the six listed attributes and behaviors, it follows then that federal prosecutors in Boise Idaho, Boston Massachusetts, Seattle, Washington, and throughout these United States are executing unconstitutional searches and seizures on American citizens.

Forgive me for asking, but why would a federal prosecutor in, say, Sacramento, California feel comfortable organizing an activity which she knows in advance will be thrown out of court, and at the same time receive a legal lashing from a Federal judge? Are we to believe that she would do so because an administration which she may not have voted for “manipulated intelligence information”, or “lied about and fabricated said intelligence information”?

I hope you’ll not take it too amiss if I say that I find this line of reasoning – particularly when wholly unsupported (although hopefully that is only a temporary situation) by any evidence, to be a trifle strained.

[Scarecrow]

Every administration since JFK has used the NSA in this fashion, so what should we do with past Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush I and Clinton for doing the exact same thing???????

[Lilith]

You can do whatever you want with the first 3. I'll handle Billy.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Not only is it not wrong for a country to engage in intelligence gathering, not only is it necessary and normal, but it is a correct and proper activity of a democratic government. Intelligence gathering and espionage (obtaining secret or confidential information about a country, organization, or society without permission), by providing a national government with additional information on which to act, increases the security of the citizens.

There is no issue of Americans being superior, equal to, or inferior to citizens of any other country. The United States gathers intelligence – spies on if you prefer – the UK, which does the same to France, which does the same to Morocco, which gathers intelligence on Egypt which spies on Malaysia, whose agents attempt to find out what Australia is doing, which has a surveillance program on Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Here is a link to a list of over 70 countries (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/index.html) with intelligence gathering agencies. Note the names of the first five entries in the list.

Who among us would have prohibited U.S. intelligence organizations from gathering information which could have prevented 9/11 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm)? Who among us would have prohibited British intelligence organizations from gathering the information which did prevent the bombings of the U.S. bound flights from the U.K. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5272264.stm)?

Without a doubt, the world would be a more dangerous place were it not for the intelligence gathering organs of the various sovereign nations uncovering the plans that each has for the other and in so doing preventing the more malicious plans.

[moose]

this was on our news service today :-
Who’s listening in on the telephone? The latest figures on federal telephone bugging warrants show that 8969 have been issued in the three years to June 2005, with 2889 being granted in 2004-05. With some warrants covering more than 10 different telephone services and being in force for an average of more than seven weeks, that’s a lot of calls being monitored. And with 11 law enforcement agencies able to apply for interception warrants and a further five agencies able to access intercepted material, there’s also a lot of people listening.

[Scarecrow]

There is one aspect that everyone seems to have missed.

It's alright to eavesdrop on foreigners like me, with no thought for my right to privacy.

The concept that Americans are superior to the point that they have global rights not open to folks like me is a little worrying.

The Aussie government listens to conversations from the USA, is that right? Every country has there own agency for listening to foriegn nations. I will say that is illiegal in the USA to listen to freindly nations communication. So we get Japan to listen to Taiwan and Taiwan to listen to the Aussies and so on. That is just the way the world works.

[Fangtasia]

There was a interview shown here of a man who worked in an American owned facility here on Australian soil....and 'the voice changed blacked out man' (for fear of reprisals) informed the Aussies that that facility was a monitoring facility....it monitored all calls for keywords and sent all info collected back to the US...
"blacked out guy' also stated that most info was not passed onto Aussie officials....now that part, if true, i don't agree with......we are Allies afterall

But essentually i would say that everyone listens to everyone...

[gekkogecko]

OK. With serious reservations about the assertion that if one disagrees with you one is delusional, I can accept that.


That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.


Working on the assumption that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”, would you please list the cases where searches and wiretaps have been executed on U.S. citizens without first securing a warrant from a Federal judge?


I may be wrong here, but you seem to have taken my use of the word "cases" in the above post to be "court cases". If so, this is my fault for careless wording. In that part of the post, I should probably have written "examples", or "instances".


You conclude that because the current administration is (supposedly) guilty of the six listed attributes and behaviors, it follows then that federal prosecutors in Boise Idaho, Boston Massachusetts, Seattle, Washington, and throughout these United States are executing unconstitutional searches and seizures on American citizens.


In these particular cases (and here, yes, these are legal cases), the actions of the federal prosecutors may be unconstitutional. We will have to see as they make their way through the court system. In the final analysis, whether or not something is unconstitutional depends on not on what the US Constitution actually says, but rather what the US supreme Court says it says.

[jseal]

...That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said…
Well, perhaps. Here is what you wrote.
…"Can" as in, "do they do it anyway"? Yes, they do. If one believes otherwise, one is delusional… (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showthread.php?t=28800&page=2&pp=28)

…In the final analysis, whether or not something is unconstitutional depends on not on what the US Constitution actually says, but rather what the US supreme Court says it says.
Yes. No arguments there. The Legislature passes law, the Executive implements law, and the Judiciary interprets law. That is one of the reasons I’d like to see a more liberal Chief Executive, as the President nominates the Supreme Court Justices. The U.S. Constitution has never, thankfully, been carved in stone, but rather has been interpreted by seasoned jurists within the context of the United States of the time.

I was thinking perhaps that we might graph the value of the number unwarranted searches and wiretaps (the bad count) divided by the number of searches and wiretaps which had previously been approved by a federal judge (the good count) over time. If the results showed a positive trend line then we could conclude that you concerns were justified. If the trend line was flat or negative, then we could conclude that the situation was, if nothing else, less worrisome than might appear if one’s only source of information was a nearby newspaper.

To really get the goods on the current administration, what would be ideal would be to start the graph in 1997. That way, if there is a change in the slope of the graph from flat or negative to positive starting in 2000 (or thereabouts) and continuing to date, you would have a very strong indication indeed that the problem exists, and that it is unambiguously associated in time with the current occupants of the White House.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

On the general subject about the merit or value of foreign intelligence in shaping the decision making process of nations (influencing foreign policy), this item became available just today from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (http://intelligence.house.gov/) of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Recognizing there are significant gaps in the Intelligence Community’s Iran reporting (http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Release082306.pdf), it goes on to recommend stepped up coverage of Iran, including enhancing human intelligence and Farsi-language capabilities and improving intelligence coordination and analysis to eliminate duplication.”

Also, on the role intelligence plays in protecting the border (http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Release081406.pdf) …

etc. etc. etc.

[Belial]

There was a interview shown here of a man who worked in an American owned facility here on Australian soil....and 'the voice changed blacked out man' (for fear of reprisals) informed the Aussies that that facility was a monitoring facility....it monitored all calls for keywords and sent all info collected back to the US...
"blacked out guy' also stated that most info was not passed onto Aussie officials....now that part, if true, i don't agree with......we are Allies afterall

But essentually i would say that everyone listens to everyone...

Would that be Pine Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap) ?

[wyndhy]

they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither. ~ ben franklin

[gekkogecko]

Well, perhaps. Here is what you wrote.


Exactly-what I wrote was "If you believe the US government does not engage in illegal wiretappiig without a warrant, one is delusional".

That has nothing to do with whether or not one agrees with me: thus, to say that I said it does is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.


I was thinking perhaps that we might graph the value of the number unwarranted searches and wiretaps (the bad count) divided by the number of searches and wiretaps which had previously been approved by a federal judge (the good count) over time. If the results showed a positive trend line then we could conclude that you concerns were justified. If the trend line was flat or negative, then we could conclude that the situation was, if nothing else, less worrisome than might appear if one’s only source of information was a nearby newspaper.

To really get the goods on the current administration, what would be ideal would be to start the graph in 1997. That way, if there is a change in the slope of the graph from flat or negative to positive starting in 2000 (or thereabouts) and continuing to date, you would have a very strong indication indeed that the problem exists, and that it is unambiguously associated in time with the current occupants of the White House.

This course of action as outlined would be a useful experiment indeed. Hm, does either of us have the time and resources to devote to such a project? (Not just a rhetorical question).

[jseal]

gekkogecko,

…what I wrote was "If you believe the US government does not engage in illegal wiretappiig without a warrant, one is delusional"…
That is not what you wrote. Let us look again at what you wrote.
"Can" as in, "do they do it anyway"? Yes, they do. If one believes otherwise, one is delusional. (http://www.pixies-place.com:81/forums/showthread.php?t=28800&page=2&pp=28)
You expressed your opinion clearly “Yes, they do.”
You then expressed your opinion clearly about those who do not agree with you “If one believes otherwise, one is delusional.”
These two declarative sentences equate those who disagree with your opinion as delusional.

No sir, I believe there is no mischaracterization.

This course of action as outlined would be a useful experiment indeed.
Yes sir, I think it would be.

…Hm, does either of us have the time and resources to devote to such a project? (Not just a rhetorical question).
I presume this is your way of saying that you decline to provide evidence to support your claims that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”. Perhaps you believe that unnecessary. I trust you will excuse me if I point out that unsubstantiated claims are less convincing than those backed up by evidence.

[Fangtasia]

Would that be Pine Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap) ?
I don't think it was Belial...but i cant quite remember all the details as it was ages ago i watched that.....will sniff around later and see if i can find anything on it

[gekkogecko]

You expressed your opinion clearly “Yes, they do.”


This is not an "opinion". This is a statement of fact, one that you yourself acknowledged when you wrote about the frequency of occurrence. That latter part-the frequency of such occurrences-is where we disagreed, and where the aspect of opinion comes in.


You then expressed your opinion clearly about those who do not agree with you “If one believes otherwise, one is delusional.”
These two declarative sentences equate those who disagree with your opinion as delusional.

No sir, I believe there is no mischaracterization.


There is a mischaracterization, and since you insist on continuing such, I must question your motivations in doing so. To whit, I will further point out that I regard this continued mischaracterization as an offensive trivilization of my position.


I presume this is your way of saying that you decline to provide evidence to support your claims that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”. Perhaps you believe that unnecessary.


No, I was stating exactly the situation here: it would be a valuable exercise to gather the data on the number of warrantless searches that have taken place since the current administration took office, and compare that data with previous occurrences of warrantless searches. However, the obstacles to such data gatherign should be obvious. I honestly don't have the time to devote to such a project on my own. I doubt you do, either. To make it more explicit: I *may* have the time to devote to such data-gathering as part of a colleective effort. Do you, in fact, have the time to work as a team? If so, I suggest we take this to PM, as it's getting too long and detailed for such replies, and also drifting somewhat off the topic of this thread.

[jseal]

they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither. ~ ben franklin
wyndhy,

Yes Mam. I agree with both him and you.

The Devil is, however, often found among the details. I wonder which of the many liberties we enjoy today are the essential ones to which the good Mr. Franklin refers.

[BIBI]

ssdd

[jseal]

ssdd
BIBI,

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Oldfart]

Mr Franklin lived in a simpler, more black and white time.

The ethics of the eighteenth century, like the seventh century Islam the extreme islamists seem to aspire to, have much good in them, but are not appropriate for the 21st Century.

The right to travel where you want at the maximum possible speed is tempered by the needs of society.

We make a million "best choice" decisions which erode freedoms, but allow us to live in a society, not anarchy.

[Lilith]

ssdd

mind reader :x:

[wyndhy]

i'd say the right to privacy is as essential now as it ever was. privacy is privacy, no matter what era you live in. just becasue it's now more easily possible for communtications to be intercepted does not give them the right to do so. infiltration, training, diplomacy and foriegn policy changes will and could do more for keeping us safe than culling through the billion+ conversations of average people will ever accomplish.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

The right to privacy varies not only by country, but also in time. That may be the reason that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. constitution, they didn’t think it appropriate. The Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that one existed until Griswold v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479) in 1965.

Incidentally, while the sentiment "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605)" is one we both buy into, you may find the link interesting.

What foreign policy changes do you think might help?

[jseal]

gekkogecko,

I am flattered by the suggestion that my concurrence with a claim you made has somehow helped move the claim from opinion toward fact. In all humility however, I must demur. The very best to which our shared agreement could aspire would be to establish the claim as general or common knowledge. As my observations of what you wrote about the delusional states of others offends you, I shall not do so.

In re your proposal for our teamwork: as we do, I believe, share a preferred vision of what some might describe as a more liberal future Administration, (and Congress, for that matter) I have already described the data which would be useful to collect, suggested a sample size (and why), and what I think might be a persuasive display mode. I have even identified an organization which might be in a position to provide the statistics to support your claim. The claim was yours sir, not mine. It is your responsibility to substantiate it.

If you wish people to accept your claims on faith, that is up to you. I am familiar with others who expect that, some periodically.

[wyndhy]

yes, interesting. paraphrased rather badly, but the sentiment is the same nevertheless and it can still be attributed to mr. franklin.




policy changes...i'm going for a broad idea here... live and let live. no harm, no foul. respect differences. acknowledge existences.
to take a cue from the beginnings of the original massive islamic empire (the ottoman): if you can contribute to our society in a meaningful and productive way, i don't really care what else your goals, ideals or beliefs are. i suppose it's a little late for some of that. the sparks of indignation have ignited and i wonder if there is any going back.

pissing contests. where would the world be without them...?

[wyndhy]

and let me rephrase to say an expectation of privacy instead of right. but just because it wasn't written into the constitution - as the article points out - does not mean it is not expected or granted, also as the article points out.

[rabbit]

NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html?hp&ex=1155873600&en=a6f8950517248da0&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Just curious about whether you think security or privacy should prevail in this matter. What are your feelings about a government wiretapping with no warrant?


In this case, where wiretapping is a necessity of the times in order to protect the Nation from those who mean us harm, the ruling is a win for Osama Bin Laden.

I want the government to do everything in its power to keep us safe. Uncle Sam isn't interested in my calls to Mom or Aunt Sally. Too many of us warp this into a conspiracy so broad and evil that we miss the intent of the act, which is to protect us from terrorism.

The day this wiretapping is bent to include prosecuting non-terrorist acts, such as phone sex, is the day impeachment proceedings and firings take place.

As for the oft quoted Mr. Franklin, I feel his words of counsel are misplaced in this case. I daresay he would agree with the government's program in that intellegence gathering for the purpose of protecting the Nation is indeed a necessary and proper act.

At the risk of provoking my liberal Pixie friends, which I do not wish to do, I would suggest that the protest would not be nearly as vociferous had Mr. Clinton been the one authorizing it under similar circumstances.

[Lilith]

I guess that speaks volumes about trust.


As one of your liberal Pixies friends, I have to wonder if any of this would have been at all an issue. It seems 41 and 43 have had the ability to piss off extremist in the middle east like no other presidents have.

[wyndhy]

for myself...i'm not so sure franklin would have been in favor of the patriot act, but of course we'll never know...the dude's dead :D. i just wanna say that i (mis)quoted him, i did not mean to bring his views into it. i was only expressing my own by stealing his.


MHO:
our government is only in favor of protecting our privacy when it comes to other companies or people or governments. i think that they (our govn't) would prefer to have our personal data, and they'd like to reserve the ability, and the right, to access any part of it that suits them at any time it suits them.

i am not a conspiracy theorist but...:D

the problem is that once a line is drawn it is never completely erased. it might move around, but it never goes away. take income tax for example. it too was begun as a temporary act of govn’t…as a means of raising money to support a war-effort, but over a hundred years later, it remains and it’s spawned its own juggernaut that needs an entire industry of lawyers, accountants and software, not to mention the bureaucracy that is the irs.

the patriot act was also a temporary measure created during "war time", and created in fear - a bad time to make laws - as opposed to a need for money (as income taxes were). BUT, almost as soon as it was passed, the lobbying began for extending it and even making some parts of it indefinite.

if you are an upstanding, moral citizen, the removal of some basic rights granted by the act shouldn't bother you nor will it affect you, but who decides that? they have already begun arresting, questioning, and detaining people for just talking about their views and ideas (the peeps who wondered what would happen if they blew up the holland tunnel, for example). blowing up a tunnel is bad, i know, but they didn’t even have a real plan, money or materials, they were just wondering. i’ve wondered about shit like that. i’ve wondered about shit worse than that.

ever see the movie minority report? :eek:

[jseal]

There is enough for all:

39: Iran hostage crisis (http://experts.about.com/e/i/ir/Iran_hostage_crisis.htm)

40: Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing (http://terrorism.about.com/od/terroristattacksindepth/a/marinebarracks.htm)

42: World Trade Center bombing (http://www.answers.com/topic/world-trade-center-bombing)

[Oldfart]

Wasn't Ben a secret agent among other things.

[rabbit]

There is enough for all:

39: Iran hostage crisis (http://experts.about.com/e/i/ir/Iran_hostage_crisis.htm)

40: Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing (http://terrorism.about.com/od/terroristattacksindepth/a/marinebarracks.htm)

42: World Trade Center bombing (http://www.answers.com/topic/world-trade-center-bombing)

Excellent points, jseal. The Middle East extremists are truly non-discriminatory when it comes to Democrats and Republicans...they hate Americans...all of us.

Never forget that.

I hate it when I have to take my shoes off at the airport because some piece of shit once tried to blow up his shoe. I hate it that we need wiretapping and Patriot Act and our troops overseas. But the world we live in demands such actions for us to be made safe.

I don't agree with Rummy on much but one thing he has right: If we do not fight them there, we will surely fight them here.

[scotzoidman]

Wasn't Ben a secret agent among other things.
In a sense, yes...during the Revolution, he was in France as a diplomat, the true mission being to seduce the French into supporting our little cause...he also functioned as perhaps the first American spin doctor there...

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Yes Mam. Minority Report is good Science Fiction entertainment. Phillip K. Dick was a famous SF author.

The problem of getting the correct balance of liberty and security is intractable. Just how difficult it can be to balance liberties against security can be seen in a Senate bill, S.390 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00390:@@@L&summ2=m&), introduced in 1995 with the approval of the Clinton administration. Note that 3 of the 7 cosponsors are generally considered liberals: Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Kerrey, and Sen. Mikulski. The pressures for some apparent action by the government can be very powerful indeed.

The critical assessment of the effort - from the right then, from the left now (http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/rites.htm) – always sounds the same.

Laws can be written so that they are time limited. The 1798 Sedition Act (http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/sedact.shtml) had a sunset clause written into it, and was allowed to lapse. If a law does not have a sunset clause, like The Espionage Act Of 1917 (http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Espionage.htm), it can be more difficult to get rid of. The act was subsequently repealed in 1921.

Of the two techniques, I prefer the first. It require periodic effort to keep it in force, rather than requiring the effort to repeal it. Once the perceived need for the law falls below some minimum, the votes to retain it will also.