Constructive gadfly

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]


Comments (Page 3)
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Dec 25, 2005

I agree, but other wars did not have the extraordinary options to spy domestically as now. Intercepting messages enroute is one thing--but not open without a court order sealed letters once mailed--but checking into e-mail and chat rooms is hardly a targeted method. Besides, you make presidents sound like unscrupulous dictators.

You are not correct.  The methods have changed due to technology.  But that is all.  The end result is more subtle now, but no different.

on Dec 25, 2005
a week after the initial admission--and in contrast to the very limited program described then--it now appears very likely this was a data mining operation very much like the one proposed by the tia (which was rejected by the congress).

considering this is just the most recently discovered attempt at an end-run around the law and common decency, let me pose what seems to be an obvious question: at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?
on Dec 25, 2005
considering this is just the most recently discovered attempt at an end-run around the law and common decency, let me pose what seems to be an obvious question: at what point will you finally agree this administration is convinced it's a law unto itself?


When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal! Until then it's all hearsay or someones opinion that they have done something wrong. GW said he used wiretaps without a warrent. Okay. Is it against the law? We don't know that now do we? Because we are not privy to all the details surrounding it. This "is" America, isn't it? Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell? So now I'll ask "you" an obvious question KB. "At what point will you finally agree this administration gets its day in court BEFORE you sit there and convince yourself that they're guilty of something"?
on Dec 26, 2005
When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal!


no conviction is needed for the administration to stop its assaults on the balance of power.
on Dec 26, 2005
When they are actually "convicted" of doing something illegal!


no conviction is needed for the administration to stop its assaults on the balance of power.


See, therein lies the problem. Until they are convicted of something wrong, what you're saying is just an opinion, your opinion. And like mine....not worth a lot.
on Dec 26, 2005
Yesterday the New York Times answered the question of WHY BUSH IGNORED THE 1978 F.I.S.A. law. What is taking place at NSA is eavesdropping on millions of calls and E-mails with sophisticated computers that harvest those calls and E-mails that meet the patterns that the NSA has established. The messages that are selected by the computer systems are then monitored by analysts to determine if they are harmless or contain information relating to our security.

Thus, the statements by Bush and his senior aids that stressed the executive order allowing warrant less surveillance was limited was untrue. The NSA, under the President’s secret order, has become Big Brother. The number of total calls and E-mails monitored by the computers at the NSA most likely number in the millions each day. Calls analysts review which the computers identify of potential interest could be in the thousands each day and the limited number acknowledged by Bush are those analysts actually listen to in detail.

Now we know WHY Bush was so unhappy when the New York Times first ran this story. WE also know WHY Bush is not obtaining warrants under the 1978 law. The volume is so great, warrants either before or within 72 hours is impossible. The only practical way they could in part comply with the law is to seek warrants for those messages the analysts believe have security implications AFTER THE FACT.
This is the link to the New York Times artticle. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1135436997-BxsIb0sDi3aejNbe/KWATw
on Dec 26, 2005
Yesterday the New York Times answered the question of WHY BUSH IGNORED THE 1978 F.I.S.A. law. What is taking place at NSA is eavesdropping on millions of calls and E-mails with sophisticated computers that harvest those calls and E-mails that meet the patterns that the NSA has established. The messages that are selected by the computer systems are then monitored by analysts to determine if they are harmless or contain information relating to our security.

Thus, the statements by Bush and his senior aids that stressed the executive order allowing warrant less surveillance was limited was untrue. The NSA, under the President’s secret order, has become Big Brother. The number of total calls and E-mails monitored by the computers at the NSA most likely number in the millions each day. Calls analysts review which the computers identify of potential interest could be in the thousands each day and the limited number acknowledged by Bush are those analysts actually listen to in detail.

Now we know WHY Bush was so unhappy when the New York Times first ran this story. WE also know WHY Bush is not obtaining warrants under the 1978 law. The volume is so great, warrants either before or within 72 hours is impossible. The only practical way they could in part comply with the law is to seek warrants for those messages the analysts believe have security implications AFTER THE FACT.
This is the link to the New York Times artticle. Link


Answer this question col....if this is such a hot story, why is the NYT the only paper pushing it?
on Dec 26, 2005
Nah, I don't think for a second that the conservative end of JU is overwhelmingly supportive. I think most of us have reserved judgment either way. Some of the more outspoken have been supportive, sure, but when you start adding up the names I don' think you can call it overwhelming.
on Dec 26, 2005
The NYT was 100% on with first story that caused Bush to do a 180 in a single day. It also answers two key questions.

First, how the NSA staff chooses from the millions of messages the ones they will listen to?

Second, it answers why Bush choose NOT to use the 1978 law. They are on a fishing expedition and the number of calls is too great. By allowing the computers to review millions of calls and sort out those that may be of interest, they cover the waterfront i.e. 1984.
on Dec 26, 2005
Second, it answers why Bush choose NOT to use the 1978 law. They are on a fishing expedition and the number of calls is too great. By allowing the computers to review millions of calls and sort out those that may be of interest, they cover the waterfront i.e. 1984.


What a crock of ca-ca!!! They have been allowed to sift through "1%" of all domestic calls. The actual wiretaps were for very "specific" individuals. But I've come to expect no less from you! This is the general consensus of the NYT aricle. "You" call this a "fishing" expidition. Most others would call this gathering intel.


The New York Times article contains a number of truly-astounding allegations, many of which are based on information gathered from anonymous government sources.


Notice how no one will come forward to back-up their "allegations".
on Dec 26, 2005
The term is Data-Mining and it amounts to fishing. The issue is very simple, did Bush violate the law? The court will need to determine that and if he did he needs to be held accountable!
on Dec 26, 2005
I don' think you can call it overwhelming.
I might grant you that; however, in some comment of yours you said you were categorized as liberal. There are, of course, openminded conservatives is what I would label you.
on Dec 27, 2005
In spite of all these comments, it is clear that many of you are on the side of aggressively invading privacy indiscriminately. 
on Dec 27, 2005
Don't put words in our mouths, Steve. We can speak for ourselves. I, for one, am not "on the side of aggressively invading privacy indiscriminately." I am for preventing another tragic terrorist attack if at all possible. We need to figure out how we can do that without all privacy being lost.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 27, 2005
stop plotting your terrorist activities via telephone


i've always felt sedition should only be conducted face-to-face, but avoiding phones is just one aspect. what about those conspiratorial emails, traitorous credit card transactions, etc.? ya know how difficult it is keeping your tuna trawls free of the odd incidental dolphin and sea turtle...or 20.
6 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last