It’s surprising that 63 percent of Americans at least initially said they had no problem with the National Security Agency collecting data about millions of domestic phone calls, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll last week. Only 24 percent strongly disapproved.
You wonder: What if bank records are next? Is that OK, too? Where do we draw the line? And are that many Americans so ready to trade civil liberties for security?
The numbers suggest this latest NSA “scandal” may actually help bump Bush’s abysmal poll numbers, at least in the short term, because Americans tend to support aggressive anti-terror tactics, as argued by blogger mysterypollster.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
78 Comments
That’s funny, I saw a poll on the front page of USA Today that said 51% oppose the culling of billions of phone calls as ‘too intrusive.’ But you know what, that must be because they are evil liberals who just hate Amerka!:)
Now we get news that the ABC journalists who reported on the story are being targeted by government monitors. Don’t you just love living in a country where the government retaliates against you for telling the truth? On their blog there were disturbing posts from presumably ’small government’ conservatives who argued for the people who exposed this program to be tried with treason, imprisoned, or worse, shot. Hey conservatives, I have an idea: if you do not like living in a country with a free press whose job, no, OBLIGATION is to expose government wrongdoing, even at the top levels of government, I know a couple places where you would fit in well, where everyone understands the importance of marching lockstep with the government and thinking alike, and where no dissent is brooked. As a matter of fact, you probably would like it better in China, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or North Korea, because thinking for yourselves and analyzing facts and reality is HARD, ain’t it? Much easier to let Terry Fox and Pat Roberts think for you.
America America uber Alles
Where ya been Randy. The already got the bank records. Yep, the sure did. Your bank is required by law to report anything “suspicious” and if you withdraw more than the government says is ok, they are required to report that too. All sorts of businesses can now get information off your bank and you will never know it.
Yep..and the government demands several forms of ID when opening a bank account as well. The evil government learned (after the fact) that Mohammed Atta and his pals were moving large sums of cash around to finance their operation.
So, now the evil government has access to suspicious bank transactions. Just because the evil government is trying to prevent another 9/11 attack.
Evil government. How dare they try to protect us by collecting information. How dare they intrude on our lives and force us to live under a microscope, just because a sworn enemy has vowed to kill as many Americans as they can.
We must stop this evil government from protecting us. We must have our privacy..up to the time we are blown into little tiny bits by another suicide bomber who was free to call, bank and move about as he wished.
Yep..evil government at work again.
Actually the Government has been having bank notify them about large deposits and withdraws for longer then 9-11. It used it to combat crime.
Cash transactions of $10k or more are required to be reported. In addition, it is a federal crime to move cash in amounts under the $10k limit for the purpose of avoiding the reporting requirements.
Been that way for some time, long before 9/11, for crime. When people transact in large amounts in cash, generally, they’re doing something illegal. So banks have to report.
Dear Randy,
Are you incredibly stupid? None of the data collected is name specific. This latest ’scandal’ by the NSA is no more intrusive than the DOT researching traffic patterns or the FAA studying flight patterns.
All legal.
The only purpose of this ‘latest news’ is propaganda to torpedo Hayden’s confirmation hearings.
Hank
No, Hank, Randy isn’t incredibly stupid.
Why don’t you lay off the editors? They’re just doing their jobs here.
If you want just your side of the story, keep listening to convicted drug-user, Rush Limbaugh.
BTW, you might want to come up with a defense of your president that doesn’t involve name-calling his opponents.
It’s hard to break old habits, I know, but repeat after me the Man’s Prayer–
“I’m a man and I can change, if I have to, I guess . . .”
Lefthook,
Perhaps you could give us what you think the editors job description is so that we might try to avoid any future misunderstandings like expecting them to report the facts?
“Evil government. How dare they try to protect us by collecting information. How dare they intrude on our lives and force us to live under a microscope, just because a sworn enemy has vowed to kill as many Americans as they can.”
Well, Rap, if you believe this administration does anything for anybody’s good except its own, you aren’t looking at the facts.
Did they invade Iraq “to keep us safe?” 2500 dead soldiers and the place is a mess. Quick–who’s the Prime Minister THIS WEEK?
Did they cut taxes for the rich “to help all Americans”–you know the tax cuts that created the largest deficit in history and the largest national debt in history? Those “tax cuts” are nothing but a deferral of costs to future taxpayers, with interest of course.
Did they rush to help the poor in New Orleans after a catagory four hurricaine devestated the city? They sent troops in so that none of the “unwanted” could cross local bridges.
So far Bush has shown nothing but contempt for helping the average American. Why should this NSA spy thing be any different?
Thank you for one of the most blatant attemts at taking things out of context Lefthook.
Nathan,
PART of the editors job is to submit editorials and stimulate discussion of opinions.
Another part, related to the above is to give us topics to dicsuss here.
I’d say they are doing their job. That some disagree on principles with the editors does not make the editors “incredibly stupid”.
Hanks job seems to be attacking the editors on any occsaion they even seem to hint at questioining george bush or stipulating that America is less than the absolute pinnacle of national accomplishment.
He seems rather alone in that perspective. I know I do not share it. I should not like our media to be resemblant of it. (We have Fox news for that)
The FACTS Nathan, are that an increasing number of Americans are rightly concerned that folks likemided with Hank are accumulating entirely too much power. Randy did his job in bringing it here for considertion.
Hehehe, ditto that, JR.
If an editor posted a blog starter with the headling, “George Bush = Great Leader,” Hank would be mad they didn’t call him the “greatest leader EVER.”
The Bible calls that idolotry.
The Price news Network news at 5
(Opening music: “God Bless America)
Hank Price:” Good evening America! It’s another great day in the greatest country that God gave man!
Nathan”That’s right Hank! Life is swell! We are so lucky to be blessed with the wisest leader in the history of history! We can all be so happily assured that he will bring everything that is good and wonderful to the whole world! Then everbody can be as happy as we are!
Hank Price: That’s right Nathan! Well folks that’s the news! If you don’t like it it’s your fault because you’re stupid! Good night and God Bless America!
Closing music: (Ode to george bush) Cue video of laughing white children at play, fading to military footage, fading to a smiling waving george bush, fade to black.
I think I prefer Colbert.
Ah yes, when all else fails resort to the same old tactic of ridicule.
JR,
The first false premise is that my father was somehow attacking Randy.
The second was that this is what he always does.
The third was that we are implying that the editors posting here is somehow bad or wrong.
If the editors wish to post here then they will have their ideas and opinions challanged and questioned.
The ediotors have shown through many of their blogs that they are more into the sensationalism tactics of what I would consdier to be poor blogging yet alone journalism.
Just as easily as you say what we are doing is based on our disagreement with their opinion your defense of them too is nothing more than your siding with someone who is saying something you agree with.
This is all nice and dandy. I want to talk about the facts.
Good posts, all.
What I think is so interesting about this story is how conservatives are taking the side of a large intrusive “Nanny” government (the government is only trying to protect us from murderous terrorists) where the more liberal side posters (usually more sympathetic to a more activist government) are arguing against the intrusiveness of the government in this case.
Interesting role reversal, don’t you agree?
Me defend the editors?!Perish the thought.
I would say that “are you incredibly stupid?” as posted to an editor submitting something for consideration is a bit much though.
Randy’s header does not express any bias or ideal on his part. He is obvously concerned that Americans are allowing too much government intrusion and executive power……you know kindof like conservatives used to. He ponders whether and why Americans at large are not more concerned. I am yes of a like mind.
I’d agree with you that the editors can be a bit sensational. (we roll out Rhondas fainting couch every now and again) But this is an opinion forum. You do not stimulate opinion by being boring.
If Randy is wrong his posted statistics prove it. If you disagree his premise say it. You don’t get to be right by calling those who disagree with you stupid.
Although in this particular matter, I have to wonder what some folks are thinking or if they are thinking beyond what they agree with.
Having read the next thread, I think LH answered my question there. I would refer others to that thread.
DD,
You infer that conservatives support of the government defending America is intruding into our lives.
When I don’t see it as intruding into my life anymore than like my father has already said about doing a study on traffic.
That is the disconnect. You keep claiming this is intruding into your lives or it is a “nanny” government when I see that as little more than a gross exageration.
Rap doesn’t have it all together because he doesn’t have all his parts. He fell asleep next to one of the “terrorist pods.”
The embrace of growing government power and powers of observation and monitoring of citizens by some on the right totally confuses me.
Nathan? or Hank
Wouldn’t you agree that in order for a society to remain free its citizentry must have the ability to suddenly and perhaps violently overthrow it’s government?
We have elections that are at least supposed to be “revolutionary” release valves. If we don’t like the government we change it.
But what if elections were not enough. What if true revolution was needed. Isn’t it best that the people maintain some capacity to rebel? Isn’t that what you cite the 2nd Amendment as being for?
But if the government knows your every move. If they could monitor your every activity and communicated, printed or even spoken word, would not revolution become impossible? Your guns would be of little use.
I am not afraid of terrorists to the point of letting government monitor commnications. In fact I call it an outright lie that that is even their intention.
More than 90% of cargo containers entering this country go unchecked. Our border is a sieve. As long as these potential gates for terrorism go almost entirely unadressed, I am not inclined to take seriously that government is monitoring my communications to “protect ” me. What a terrorist might be saying on a phone would seem to be the least of concerns.
Perhaps your embrace for this policy stems from your support this president. You would do well to remember that the chief executive may not always be so agreeable to your ideals. Would you still afford him or her this power?
“Perhaps your embrace for this policy stems from your support this president. You would do well to remember that the chief executive may not always be so agreeable to your ideals. Would you still afford him or her this power?”
One has to wonder, JR. How would they react if this happened under Clinton? Hank mentioned Echelon earlier (which, as an Internet activist, I had severely criticized at the time, BTW), but neglected to mention that it targeted only open communications (which, in theory, ANYONE with the technical know-how can tap). What’s being done here is far more intrusive and extreme–and illegal.
Privacy issues aside, using these type of wide sweeps is a tranparently MORONIC waste of time of resources (that is, assuming their goal is to catch terrorists–I ain’t buying it, and you shouldn’t either!). Even the best data-mining techniques choke and die when the bulk of your data is irrelevant. As they in the CS field, “garbage in, garbage out.”
May I assume, then, folks, that a national gun registry is completely cool with you?
1. The NSA program, if it is as described, is not unconstitutional. See SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
2. If, as it appears, the phone companies gave the raw data to the gov’t, that’s not illegal either. Whether the companies should have done so is another matter.
3. I know nothing about “data mining,” but those I read on both this blog and others who appear to have experience in the field seem to say that it is amazing the information that can be gleaned. As I noted earlier, I’d be amazed if the NSA WASN’T doing something like this, and would consider it incompetence of the highest order if they weren’t.
Given the reality that entry into this country is impossible to stop, given our vast coastlines and undefended borders, it only makes sense to attempt to glean if those who would do us harm are here and what they might be doing from the information that is available. Again, when 9/11 happens again (and it will, sooner or later), the gov’t doesn’t want to be falted for not doing everything in their power to “connect the dots.”
Am I concerned about living in a society where my “privacy” is largely an illusion? Sure, but we crossed that bridge some 20 years ago, unfortunately, for commercial and convenience reasons. How many of you bank on-line? Use e-bay? etc., etc. There are mountains of “private” data on you all over the place, if someone just looks. The NSA is looking, and for a specific purpose. The fact that it makes us uncomfortable (and it should) does not make it illegal, nor unwise.
Hmmm, the polls have turned.
Actually, this is a lovely vice that the Pinochet of the Potomac finds himself in.
Alienate his base or alienate Hispanics and Latinos. Faux conservatives can’t win a national election without either.
Predictably, Dumbya chose his base – path of least resistance due to obvious intellect issues, as this blog reinforces every day.
But now, the real conservatives and the wingnuts are furious. Michael Savage is calling for the removal of all incumbent Republicans. And the Hispanics aren’t lining up in support, either.
Memo to the Democrats: Shut up for awhile. This one may be too locked down for even your native stupidity to blow.
JR,
Let me answer your questions:
“Wouldn’t you agree that in order for a society to remain free its citizentry must have the ability to suddenly and perhaps violently overthrow it’s government?”
Yes.
“Isn’t it best that the people maintain some capacity to rebel? Isn’t that what you cite the 2nd Amendment as being for?”
One of 3 reasons. That being one of the 2 primary ones.
“But if the government knows your every move. If they could monitor your every activity and communicated, printed or even spoken word, would not revolution become impossible?”
I don’t think so. Hard, but not impossible.
None of your questions or assumptions pertain to this though.
Once again, like most people who are looking for anything to attack Bush with, you are assuming the worst and overexagerating what is truely happening.
The NSA is doing something that I would consider to not be detrimental to our civil libreties while you are speaking about it like a complete government takeover and dictatorship.
As far as containers and border security goes, I would venture to say that being able to interecept terrorist communications will go much farther in actually preventing further acts of terrorism than simply waitig in a defense for them to be caught.
As long as you refuse to talk about the facts of this program and merely speak about it with all this reactionary overexerated claims then we will get no where.
I am looking at this with facts and you are using your emotion.
“Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” — Benjamin Franklin
The truth is, this administration believes they are above the law (”I am the law!). There actions of doing these dragnets and survelliance without a warrant IS illegal and should be handled harshly. All they had to do was ask the FISA court for a warrant, that’s it. I seriously doubt they would have been turned down, provided they had even a whiff of probable cause. However, this domestic phone number profiling is ridiculous…unwarranted = illegal!
Hypothetically speaking Nicki:
You have no problem with what the President and the NSA are doing, just that they didn’t get permission from FISA?
So, if legally speaking, they didn’t need to get permission from FISA you are ok with it?
Nathan:”You infer that conservatives support of the government defending America is intruding into our lives.
“When I don’t see it as intruding into my life anymore than like my father has already said about doing a study on traffic.”
“That is the disconnect. You keep claiming this is intruding into your lives or it is a “nanny” government when I see that as little more than a gross exageration.”
I have, in fact, never made such a claim – please don’t put words in my mouth to dispute – that is a pathetic debating tactic. If you had read my posts on other threads, you would see that I tend to agree with you and your fathers’ contentions here (provided that the NSA IS doing Social Network Analysis). The problem is: this is a secret program and neither you, me, nor your dad have any real clue as to what the NSA is doing. So, you and your father’s arguments fall victim to the logical fallacy of “argumenten ad ignorantum” – arguing from ignorance about the truth of your premises.
The above is something I believe you often do. I praise your consistency. Well done.
GMC70,You are probably wrong in your contention that the NSA can demand phone records without FISA court orders. The following is from a USA Today article. It appears Quest has been able to stave off NSA demands. With FISA court approval, NSA would be able to legally demand the records. Without, they are opening the phone companies up to massive fines:
“According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as “product” in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest’s lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest’s participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest’s patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest’s foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.”
If the NSA request is legal, wouldn’t you think Quest would have no option BUT to provide the records? If the NSA request is indeed needed to combat terrorism, wouldn’t you think FISA would provide the required order without hesitation? It appears both Quest and a majority of the American people have serious doubts about this latest “Big Brother” demand from this administration.
I’d agree with what Darwin said Nathan.
I’d also observe that you as active duty military are bound by different laws from most of us as to what you can freely say. I do not suggest that you are being coerced to post as you do. I merely note that your perspective may be a bit trended toward supporting your Supreme commander which is of course your duty.
You say emotion and hatred of the pResident clouds my arguement. Is it rude to suggest that agreement with the administration coupled with the obligation of duty clouds yours?
As Darwin has said, we cannot really know the scope of what the nsa is doing. Very few of our elected representatives have any oversight of it. What little the few of them do know they cannot share.It cannot have escaped your notice Nathan that this is not just a concern to liberals and opponents of the current pResident. In fact, your cavalier attitude toward the activities of the nsa seems at odds with most informed folks on both sides.
Isn’t it possible you are wrong. And isn’t it your obligation as an American to err on the side of liberty?
DD,
I was not trying to misrepresent your opinion at all. If you would care to explain what you meant when you said this then:
“What I think is so interesting about this story is how conservatives are taking the side of a large intrusive “Nanny” government (the government is only trying to protect us from murderous terrorists) where the more liberal side posters (usually more sympathetic to a more activist government) are arguing against the intrusiveness of the government in this case.
Interesting role reversal, don’t you agree? ”
It seemed pretty clear to me that you were trying to say that conservatives are in agreement with an intrusive “nanny” government.
If your case is that none of us no what the NSA is really doing then it works both ways.
Every single comment about how what the NSA is doind is wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, etc…
is nothing more than “argumenten ad ignorantum”
So according to you no one can say if it is wrong either.
Yet you choose to only badger me with your statements of logical falacy.
Why not say the same about everyone else’s arguments against the NSA?
JR,
I am not saying my emotions play no role in this.
I am not using them in this discussion like you.
I want to discuss the facts.
You keep throwing in statements like this:
“And isn’t it your obligation as an American to err on the side of liberty?”
How is what the NSA doing hurting your liberty?
Instead of saying that those who are informed about this have diffent opinions why don’t you tell me what information they were informed with to change their minds?
Last night when every politician in Washington was looking for a television camera to add their commentary to the immigration “debate,” and most Washington reporters were trying to figure out whether Karl Rove will be indicted this week, little attention went to what could turn out to be the most significant story of the day. But, as John Nichols writes, that should change when journalists wake up to the fact that they have apparently become the latest targets of the administration’s eavesdropping.
Walker
Quest declined over concerns over civil liability. Maybe they have legitimate concerns. The relevent legal question, however, is whether the gov’t violates the law by asking the phone co’s for the records to do the “data-mining.” That answer is easy – no.
“I want to discuss the facts”
Yes Nathan, so do I.
Now admittedly, you are not yet among those who call the very revelation of the nsa activities treason. But there are those of your bent who do.
How can we discuss facts in the face of such secrecy and evolving lies?
A better poster than me can post links as to how this administratrions “efforts to protect us” have eveloved.
First we were told monitoring was limited only calls outside the US and only the foreign side of the conversation subject. There would be no monitoring domestically.
There have been other steps in the story but we are now to the point of most Americans having the calls they make subject to scrutiny….and suspicion.
We cannot discuss facts when they keep changing and are not entirely revealed.
Will you join me in a call to fully expose and explain the activities of the nsa so that we can discuss the facts?
Wish I could claim this as original, but no (that’s what lawyers do – plagarize shamelessly!!). A poster on another blog posted this analogy, an interesting one:
Compare this program to a search of a home, a search in the classic sense and the most hallowed 4th amend. ground.
Searching a home clearly requires a warrant, with almost no exceptions. Sitting off a house and observing who comes and goes, and when, clearly does not.
So – is this program more like searching a house, or sitting off the house and observing?
Thoughts?
And if you believe they are not looking at records of political opponents, then you need to wake up and smell the coffee, or pull you head out, or some other platitude. How do you know they aren’t? Well they say they aren’t, and they’ve never lied to us right?
Nathan:”Why not say the same about everyone else’s arguments against the NSA?”
Obvioulsy, any argument “for” or “against” would be seriously hindered by our lack of knowledge about this secret program.
Below my post on the “Spying Programs need oversight” – rebuts the claims of Rich and our very own Ruby. So, you see, I have done what your are complaining that I have not done. Please do research before making an ass of yourself – I feel embarrassed for ya, Nathan.**********************************Rich:”Its gusher of data wasted F.B.I. time and manpower on wild-goose chases and minor leads while uncovering no new active Qaeda plots in the United States.”
Ruby:”To have a database where you can track phone calls once you know a terrorist has called a certain number is necessary.”
What a juxtaposition: Frank Rich and Ruby. :-)
How would either Ruby or Rich know what they are claiming above? Truth is: neither one of them could possibly know. These programs operate in secret, with precious little congressional oversight. I don’t know that I need to know the operational details of these programs (certainly, secrecy has its place), but congress does need to know what is being done — it is their job!
Posted by: Darwin’sDisciple | May 14, 2006 at 11:02 AM
It’s kind of like arguing for creationism. There’s no facts or evidence, but we know God did it.
GMC70,If indeed the NSA is data mining ONLY, then you may have a point, but I would argue it nonetheless. But the point, does the NSA violate current law by asking for the phone records, then no is the answer. If NSA is demanding the records then yes, they are in violation.
If they are ASKING, then the companies that complied with the request have opened themselves up to massive lawsuits. Kind of stupid of corporations whose main purpose is to make money for their shareholders, don’t you think?
And, as JR so aptly put, we have no idea of what, exactly, the NSA and all the intelligence agencies are doing with the data. Everything we are talking about, including data mining, is speculation. But given this administrations propensity towards secrecy in most, if not all, matters, and their resolution to bypass FISA in just about every matter where it could be used, makes me wonder if this whole thing is legal from the get go.People do indeed have serious concerns. As Ben Franklin said, “people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
J.R.:”Will you join me in a call to fully expose and explain the activities of the nsa so that we can discuss the facts?”
I will join you in the call to at least fully appraise the Congress of what is going on. Though I would love to know the operational details of this program, secrecy is needed for such programs, most likely.
JM- excellent.TRACY – exactly.
An astute comparison GMC.
I should say that what is being done is akin to “sitting off the house and observing.”
Of course I can make that example serve my point.
First, if we sit off a house and observe who comes and goes, and then find later that illegal activity occurs in that house, we might assume wrongly that anyone living in, frequenting, or even visiting that house is suspect.
Our justice system presumes at least to presume innocence before assuming guilt.
Secondly, if a police car sits for hours, days, or weeks at a time in front of my house; my inclination would be to demand the authorities justify themselves. If they failed to do so, I would pursue my legal options to not be harrassed without probable cause.This is how the example you give applies as far as it does.
But while I can see a car lurking about the neighborhood and demand to know why, I cannot know if my commuications are being tapped or what is being inferred from them.Again my right would seem to be in the presumption of innocence.
You are making some progress GMC at seeing a bit beyond what is legal. You also show promise in at least considering whether an activity is “right”.
And TRACY when Nathan insists upon arguing about matters of faith, which he often does, he is most clearly demonstrating the logic fallacy “argumentum ad ignorantum”.
As I said above, I salute his consistency.
Yep, when you start arguing about Christianity, it’s too late.You already missed the point.
DD,
It is not my responsiblity to read everything you have ever written on the blog and if my failure to do so allows you the opportunity to call me names then feel free.
I believe that is called the ad hominem fallacy.
Saaaaaaluuuute!!!!
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I have yet to say one thing about my faith or Christianity and here is DD bringing it up.
DD,
Too hard to keep this on the subject?
Yep, when you start arguing about Christianity, it’s too late.You already missed the point.
As Ben Franklin said, “people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
I keep hearing this quote from both sides. I hate to pick nits, but it’s likely that Franklin never said this. Franklin, in fact, denied that the line attributed to him was his.
and this version is only one of many misquotings of a line Franklin probably didn’t say in any case.
But it is a rather catchy phrase to throw around in a discussion when you are sensationalizing things…
JR -
We’re talking about a legal issue here. What is “right” is amorphous and intangible, inexact and unable to be agreed upon. It’s like defining “fairness” or “justice.”
What is “legal” is generally definable and determinable, ultimately, by a court.
I’ll stick to what is legal. Deal with what I can, leave the windmill tilting to others.
And it is not “harassment” for that car to sit and watch your house, for weeks, if they like. Just as a police car can follow you around, on public streets, as long as they like. Or call your tag number in for wants or warrants at any time, for any reason. Further, neither the officer nor the prosecutor, need presume you’re innocent. I make no such presumption about the persons in the files that come across my desk. By the time I have decided to prosecute a case, in fact, I have decided they are guilty; otherwise, I would not file. A jury is required to keep that presumption until the close of evidence; I am not.
And I’m glad you like the analogy – I just wish I had thought of it!
“I believe that is called the ad hominem fallacy.”
Sorry Knownothing,When it is an accurate description it is not an ad hominem argument.
Generally, I see you as so pathetic that you are not worthy of even responding to. I am going back to policy of ignoring you.
I take no pleasure in pointing out what a dumb ass you are. Besides, it is clearly redundant when you – all by yourself – do such a splendid job of that.
QED.
I’m taking my toys and going home!
I heard on Faux News a few minutes ago that Verizon and SBC are now denying that they gave any records to the fed.
Nathan, as long as I’m the one paying for my phone service, I object to having the government or anybody else for that matter, monitoring my phone calls. Yes, I know that’s not the way it works, but it should.
It’s not so much that I have a big problem with data mining. As has been amply discussed on this thread, data mining has been going on for years in business. But it gives me a creepy feeling when our government does it. It’s data mining now, but what will the government do at some future point with all that data? Government has proven itself unreliable at best, and criminal at worst in handling data. The “need” now may be terrorism, but what will be the excuse to use that data 5 years from now? What particular data do they have a right to use?
Conservatives, this action sets a precedent that won’t be limited to just phone calls. If we let this pass, what’s to say a future, more liberal administration might not use the same tactics to identify gun owners? What’s sauce for the goose….
Most of my guns are registered.I don’t want to be on some secret government gun registry.
For me. it’s not so much “what” they’re doing, it’s that they do it in the first place.
X,I heard on NPR that Bell South said the same thing. I wonder if their denials are baloney; or if they are true, what could that mean? Bush is telling the truth? It has to happen sometimes, I guess.
DD & XXX,The word I’m getting is that their denials are being very carefully worded. They are doing so because of the massive lawsuits threatened. I have no doubt the USA today articles are correct. It remains to be seen as to the level of release the phone companies are guilty of.
Only in America would people be “guilty” of trying to stop terrorism…
I wonder, are you totally against what the NSA is doing or do you think it is ok just should have been done in FISA?
Wake-up, sleeping beauty, there’s no such thing as “terrorism.”
That’s the “smoke and mirror” machine.
Just out of curiosity then…
What was the attack on the World Trade Center?
Retaliation for 60 years of murdering Palestinians, stealing their land, homes and farms.
oh…
thanks for answering
Nathan, If you read the “9/11 report,” you’ll understand.
LOoks like the USA Article might be a Dan Ratherized article. All fabrication.
Thank you again Ed.
Both Verizon and Bellsouth have said they have not sent any information to the NSA. They both claim the USA Today article is false. ATT has not responded, but is speculated to announce the same.
HAVE YOU SEEN ALL THE CAMERAS MOUNTED ON TOP OF ALL THE STOP LIGHTS THAT ARE WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVE NOW? check it out! You can run …… but, you can’y hide! We are watching your every move!
0|0-Uncle Sam!
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 did indeed permit warrantless trap-and-trace, GMC. BUT federal law requires that official certify before a court of law that ALL such searches, individually, are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usapatriot_redline.htm#18usc3121
Since it’s HIGHLY unlikely such a declaration was made (Bush’s people have some problems with this whole separation-of-powers thing), I MAINTAIN that it was ILLEGAL.
And also STUPID, if you want to catch terrorists: if they had the level of detailed information they needed to properly sort the wheat from the chaff then. . .they wouldn’t have need to go after millions of numbers. It’s self-defeating logic.At best, it was/is a huge fishing expedition, guaranteed to produce huge numbers of false hits.
And by the way, GMC, the law might be decided–for now–but Justice Stewart was right.
Who needs records. We just have their computers send all their call logs to us. The internet is good for something! It helps to have a few programmers too! We don’t need any records we already have them!
GMC?
You are correct that the Franklin quote Re: Liberty is oft quoted but badly mangled. You are not correct that it is not attributable to Franklin. Here for you for my first time ever (I’m still learning too) is my first cut and paste.
LibertyThey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin FranklinSource:http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
There it is counselor.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
Oh and as to Hank? Let’s have a look at what he has had to say on the matter of government oversight and “prtotecting us”.
I’m all for repealing the 19th amendment in this country. Maybe then the government could get back to the original intent of our constitution of defending the country instead of being our baby sitter.HankPosted by: Hank Price | August 29, 2005 at 11:57 AM
It seems Hank has a problem not just with Randy but half the population of the United States! Since he said that, Condi Rice was made Secretary of State!
Hey Hank? Is bush our babysitter? Is he watching us for our own benefit?
JR,
I love ya man, but ya got to get a life!
Hank
JR
While Franklin certainly made some similar statements, it appears this particular quote, though often attributed to him (and understandably) was not his, and he denied same to David Hume.
Here’s my link (I’m a relative rookie at this too):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Interesting. Not really important, or on topic, but interesting.
“May I assume, then, folks, that a national gun registry is completely cool with you?”
Terrorists have guns, just like cell phones, so why not track both?
Just in the interest of protecting us of course!
Rage, we should all repeat your quote as often as necessary. If they wanna tap my phones, I want a registry of weapons that are being stockpiled by potential terrorists.
I cant wait for Hillary to have all this information…
So if Franklin didnt say it, the phrase has no value?
Look, over there, a bright and shiney object?
The phrase is correct, no matter the person uttering it.
Since it is gmc’s job to TAKE AWAY liberty, why are we surprised that he supports those who distain freedom?
Ya know, those pesky civil liberties cause untold difficulties for the jackboot crowd.
Prosecution is SO MUCH easier in a totalitarian dictatorship. Maybe bush’s dream is gmc’s too?
Three words: Hillary’s gun registry
After all, if you arent doing anything WRONG with those guns, why should you worry?
Only terrorists need to worry about gun registration.
KFG,
Guess what? Your phone number is already in a database…
THE PHONE BOOK!
The analogy is lacking. If it gives you something to blog about, as it apears it does, good luck!
Gee nathan, I see you didnt respond to the substance. Dont worry, hillary will give you a pass when SHE is in charge of all the info collected by ChoicePoint.
You did know that PRIVATE contractors were collecting data for the preznit and dead eye dick, didnt you?
http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=503
See for yourself what models of virtue (CEO under SEC investigation, lawsuits, turning the data over to identity thieves, etc) YOUR government is using to collect data on it’s law abiding citizens.
But of course, like the gun owner registry, if these citizens arent consorting with terrorists, they really shouldnt worry…
After all CHOICEPOINT did the voter lists for katherine harris and the preznit’s brother in Florida. THAT should give them plenty of no bid contracts, er… I mean, experience in ethical data collection.