You Yanks are incredible over 30,000 killed & 80,000 maimed by guns last year. Yet, less than these figures have been attributed to Terorists since 1994, when statics commenced.
Thus, it seems to me the Bend Over Bush Boys have got the general population totally bluffed.

Was that supposed to make any sense whatsoever?

Relevancy: 0
Articulation: 0

Admit it, you just wanted to make up a reason to use your clever little catch phrase didn't you.

I heard on the 1st day of coverage, that the 3 companies were paid for these records. Is this true? It makes the whole situation stink even more!!!!

Uncle Sam has probably been doing it for years anyway.

Consider the Source

Last time I checked this was America. We protect our people. If you like living here and the freedom and protection provided, then be thankful. If you are a terrorist living here then be very afraid. It has nothing to with Liberal or Conservative politics. If you agree or disagree that the American government should have your phone records for the purpose of protecting you from terrorists does not matter.

Even if you are an irresponsible American journalist,because of the protection America provides, you can write what you think will sell a story. Consider the sources quoted by a journalist and I use that term loosely. To qoute, "... although not identified, "people with direct knowledge of the arrangement (NSA collecting phone call records) are cited as the source." Quoting again, "... sources say the domestic spying program is much larger than the administration has acknowledged." Un-named sources can be quoted by American journalists. Do you think that was the spirit of the amendment by the writers of the Constitution?

Further, again we read some more pure speculation from an American journalist qouting those un-named sources, "Additionally, sources say the domestic spying program is much larger than the administration has acknowledged. It also seems to indicate President Bush may have either intentionally misled the country or simply was not fully informed about the program..." ? You journalists trying to sell a story can draw any conclusion you want, and almost publish anything. I prefer to believe the President is running a tight ship.

Let's please consider the source...

I Loosely quote: "There are WMDs in Iraq" (republican), "The levees weren't breached"(democrat), "We never thought the levees would break" (republican), "I did not have relations with that woman" (democrat), "No more taxes" (republican), .. need I go on?

Look, I am a conservative, but even I have a limit for believing govt officials. If you are a dem or rep and just think your "guy" is perfect, then you really have no idea about reality. Fortunately, congress will investigate, and our great governmental system will work (that was not being sarcastic).

Please read here, I think some people are beginning to wake up a bit:
http://www.usatoday.com/..._x.htm?csp=34&ord=2

Don't get me wrong, I want any bas**** planning attacks on the US to get their just deserts, but I don't want to sell our country's soul for it.

"We never thought the levees would break" (republican),

Say what? New Orleans and Louisiana are run by Democrats, buddy.

On multiple occasions it has been proven that Iraq had illegal weapons. No WMD's huh? I don't know, I recall a year or two ago them finding a stash of buried chemical warheads. Yes, empty...but combine that with the chem. lab they found a month or two ago? Along with the several mobile labs found a few years ago? Why doesn't the media ever report on that?

Don't believe the government officials, but at least take the word of those coming back from Iraq right now...with pictures and video of the things you don't see broadcast on national TV.

It's a double edged sword... If there is a problem, it should have been prevented and when someone tries to prevent a situation they are wasting money or stepping on toes.

For all the BetaNews readers who DON'T think illegal spying is a bad idea and that you have no right to privacy, please post your personal phone numbers here with your real name, address, and social security number below.

Or what? You don't want us to know your phone number? Why, when all you conservatives are arguing it doesn't matter? Next thing you'll be arguing that:

(1) Junk mail is a good thing!
(2) Spam is a great thing!
(3) Telemarketing is a corporate right!

Here's the perfect picture of every contemporary conservative (only none of them will sign up to fight in Bush's war, but instead of picking up a rifle, they pick up a keyboard, ooooo, that's a tough guy). There are lots of real reasons why Bush is at 29% and dropping daily.

I totally agree! Illegal spying is a terrible thing and those who think it's a good idea should be shot.

Only thing I can't figure is your placement of this post here since this article isn't about anything illegal or spying....kinda wierd.

Read my other posts to find out the specific illegalities of Bush's behavior. And just a note: you didn't leave us your name and phone number, so I guess that puts you a liberal side of this issue.

Thank you for supporting the Constitution!

"illegal spying"

How is it illegal, what law did they break? What right did you lose by the NSA building a database of phone calls?

That's what I thought.

Oh I read your other posts. Too bad you were totally wrong, as pointed out by several other people. Sorry if you refuse to accept that *shrug*

And I didn't leave my number because I hate Phishing scam artists almost as much as I hate illegal spying a*holes.

All that puts me squarly on the Independant ticket. Sorry to dissapoint.

Oh...and your welcome.

No one here has argued that "illegal spying" is good.

Nice analogy... an open forum and a govt agency designed to protect you.

I know exactly what they broke, and i'll tell ya! They broke nothing.

"You don't want us to know your phone number? Why, when all you conservatives are arguing it doesn't matter?"

'They' know our phone numbers already anyway. :)

Oh no, the NSA found out I just called called my mother, and then half a dozen gun stores in the area. Whaaaa. If you have to worry about them knowing that, then the reason they are doing this is because of people like you.

You paint with a wide brush but you are most uninformed. The fact is that this issue has from the beginning crossed the partisan lines. I think the root of how you feel about this is driven by how much you trust the government not from whether you live in a red or blue state. Because I know a great deal of history I do not trust my government...nor any other for that matter.

Oh and how many foreign deployed tours did you do zridling? Maybe you did pick up a weapon and serve, but you sound like an armchair commando. You get no respect from me. I did 2 tours in the persian gulf...and I am proficient in the use of things much more deadly than a keyboard. Although some would argue that I am bad at that.

This could all be solved if people would just vote!

The NSA has been doing this for many years, it was reported 7 years ago on 60 Minutes when CLINTON was president, but the media and Dems in office didn't make a fuss about it at the time. This is OLD NEWS that bush haters are pretneding is new news and a strike against him.

You are spot-on.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the republicants were quiet while Clinton spied on Americans. Right.... Remember, these were the same crazies who thought Monica would coerce him into giving up state secrets.

this reminds me of the x-files....

...this reminds me of trying to talk to my ex wife.

I tried to tell them we had a leak, but they kept telling me that all leaks has been .. dealt with. Now look, you all know about our collosal blunder. Oh well, we still own everything so no biggie.

So much for "Land of the free" huh? Boy I'm glad I live outside the country which is run by George W. Hitler. My favorite comment here was "i see no problem with this." I bet this guy voted for Bush. Another thing I love is the fact most Americans don't even realize what their administration is doing. They can violate every single one of your civil rights and get away with it, simply by claiming it was done to prevent terrorism. Now if only Dubya could use that blanket statement to constitutionalize indefinate re-electing, you'd have yourselves a dict..err, president for the next 30 years.

"They can violate every single one of your civil rights and get away with it"

Please...name one civil right of mine that was violated by this...just one.

"Another thing I love is the fact most Americans don't even realize what their administration is doing."

Know what I love? Idiots who live outside this country who feel they know better how to run it then the people who actually live here. LIke they have ANY clue whatsoever.

""Know what I love? Idiots who live outside this country who feel they know better how to run it then the people who actually live here. LIke they have ANY clue whatsoever.""

Sounds like you may be referring to the U.S.A attitude towards Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other places that the the Americans "who feel they know better how to run it then the people who actually live there. Like the Yanks have ANY clue whatsoever!!!

Really? Do I feel that way? Wow what an amazing thing. Do tell...show me one place I have eluded to that. Oh wait you cant? Right thats because you love stereotypes.

Just as I thought, an idiot.
No point in my trying to carry on a discussion with a self centered, mental retard.
Typical, can dish out the dirt but cannot take it back. I feel so sorry for you! Would you like the name of a good psychiatrist or are you too busy watching The Simpsons?

Oh i see...another rijp. Doesnt actually have anything to discuss or an argument to make, he just likes to throw insults around.

Here, understand this if you can. I replied to a specific person making stupid remarks about how HE thinks my country should be run. You reply to me accusing the entire population of my country of doing the same without knowing a damn thing about me or anyone else who lives here.

So who exactly is an idiot here? Which of us is unstable? Oh right that would be your bigotted self centered ass. Sorry if you can't comprehend simple logic but thats your own damn fault. Go back to school, learn reading comprehension and while your at it, learn tolerance for people outside your own clique, THEN come back and try and have a discussion with the big people.

Actually you're both idiots.

I think I agree more with Arakiel though. I REALLY (read: REAAAAALLLY) hate when people that don't even live here talk like they know what I need or want.

I'm gonna say this once. If you don't live here, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! and talk to your friends about all the awefull things happening in your own country.

And for the record, I'm watching adult swim. Simpsons is sooo 1998. Freak.

Are you listening to yourself Arakiel?

Are you reading dwaterman?

You agree with me but, i'm an idiot?

Nutjob

Hey, as long as we can still publically b**** about our government while chewing bubblegum, screaming at homosexuals saying they are going to hell, blowing up used cars in the desert and pissing on a baby seal, it's still a land of the free.

Well, you might get a $35 ticket for the baby seal.

We didn't "want" to go to Vietnam. It was a different situation.

Would you rather live in Iraq now? Or while Saddam was in power. Personally, I'd rather live there now. Now there's Burger Kings, Subways and McDonalds. I think there is an Arby's somewhere too, if I remember correctly...

Funny... pointing out my choice of words.

i see no problem with this.

Ok, for those that think this is legal and "right", please read this story:
http://www.usatoday.com/..._x.htm?csp=34&ord=1

At least everyone isn't bending over...

That article didn't give any specifics about legality, just some careful wording to make seem that way. All they said was that Quest's CEO came to a conclusion. I love the spin though...

"The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. It does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is"

Funny how they call the NSA a spy agency in the same breathe that they admit that no one is listening to your calls.

I wonder where Voip falls in all of this...

You need to wake up, how do "you" know what they are really doing?

Read this and....be thankful. The FBI can request these records, the telecoms "shall comply" and then the FBI can legally transfer them to the NSA since the NSA is pursing a terror investigation.

http://www4.law.cornell....8_00002709----000-.html

You know reading this again this section C caught my eye. I wonder who illegally leaked this program to the press.

BTW this is really an old story the NYTimes published in December. The media is regurgitating it this week in an attempt to smear the Hayden CIA nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2...00&pagewanted=print

You need to take a deep breathe... why do you assume they are lying?

How do you?

You seem to think they're going to do all sorts of horrible things with this data.

Where's your credible source where you're getting this information?

We've got a Supreme Court, case law, and the entire US government backing us, not to mention common sense...

What have you got?

Where to begin... Nukes in Iraq! Monica Lewinsky! The Plame case! Iran-Contra! etc..

Wow, and you really believe anything they say, without question, you really are pretty dumb.

I just want accountability and independent assurances, and there are a few congress members that will do the right thing. Your right, there is a full system here, and I hope they get involved to save our rights. I have faith in the system, but I;m loosing it in the individuals.

Would love to oblige you, but the EFF suit was dismissed by the top. Your right I have no proof, this is no big deal lets just go on..

No, I don't just believe anything they say. Do I weigh the possible advantages of this data verses the realistic liberty lost in them collecting it from me? Yes. I'd rather have my call data sitting in some database collecting dust if it'll contribute in any way to avoiding terrorism. So color me dumb.

Do you know what CLASSIFIED means?

Right, didn't think so.

No one but the personel on program should know what they are really doing.

It's not impacting your personal life, so get over it.

DOH, posted as a reply to the wrong comment.

Holy crap, a second spot-on post!

good post
i hope everyone reads the links and stops complaining about rights being violated
there's no one being hurt here
maybe people should be more concerened about the rights of people being murdurded and assaulted in their very own cities, before worrying about rights they think they might have, and the protection their government provides that they seem so willing to give up

Does anyone else get the feeling that somewhere, under the White House, Bush and Osama are laughing their butts off over a martini at how they destroyed America?

Illegal databases, illegal surveillance, warrantless searches, indefinite detention... It's all the same thing — the Bush Administration's War on the Constitution.

More likely they are laughing at how we keep tipping them off. Like when the Washington Post said we were monitoring Osama's satellite phone and he stopped using it.

Or when the NYTimes ignored the Espoinage Act and published illegally leaked details of the NSA intercept programs and we see a sudden surge in the sales of disposable cell phones (per ABC).

This is why when you listen to Mahmoud or Osama they keep bringing up talking points you hear from the American left. They know that if they keep feeding this fire, dimwitted demogagues will ensure that our security doesn't become too strong for their comfort.

One good point I will agree with you on completely.

I totally agree with "zridling"

Speaking of Mahmoud....did anyone else see this parody of his letter to President Bush? It's hillarious!

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/06/050906.html

"Our people glow with pride over our nuclear efforts, sometimes literally."

Brilliant. I really gotta stop reading this stuff at work...

Yes, but if you did stop you would never have learned that Hezbollah had a "female auxillary wing"....

I do a taunting dance and c*** my hips mockingly!

point taken...

Careful, you're having fun on Betanews. People might start thinking you're obnoxio...

...Oh, scratch that.

I don't see why they don't make it law to have CCTV in every room of every house, appartment, etc. Doing so would reduce so many crimes. Dommestic violence, child abuse, terrorism, etc.

They should also enforce a curfew as it would basically stop all crime while the curfew is in effect. Anyone outside during the curfew should obviously be detained.

Freedoms are wants not needs. Nobody NEEDS freedom. They just need to be safe from criminals and terrorists. CCTV in homes and a curfew would do that. I do not understand why we do not do what I have suggested.

Assuming you being sarcastic (you never know here), I agree completely, if you have done nothing worng, then this should "prove" your innocence.

I'm all for being secure, why not spend this money fighting Cancer, Heart Disease, car safety, etc. Many, many more people will die of these causes then this nebulous war on "insert fad here".

oooh i have just noticed something... Pc_tool finally found something as obnoxious as himself and his name is KELLINO!!
(BTW I DO NOT WANNA START AN ARGUMENT ARGUING WITH YOU WOULD TAKE YEARS!!)
I also do not mean that you are wrong, u hardly ever are but the way u say everything...
just putting out there,
post a reply if you agree :)

lmao..

I agree!

Really. I know I am obnoxious. *shrug*

Born that way, my friend, I work with what I got, and it works for me.

*grin*

Don't get much better than that.

Honestly, though, I don't see Kellino as being obnoxious. Every post I've read by him has been very civil, and fact-oriented. Very little emotion there.

Not what I'd consider to be obnoxious.

hehe...well I suppose one could say that the frequency of my posting has been obnoxious.

I read BetaNews most every day and I've posted on some techie issues on occassion.

I think the difference is that on this issue I am much better informed compared to the tin-foil-hat crowd, combined with my concern for the security of this country.

Say what you want about politics and who you like and who you hate. That's great and we can all have opinions. But come on here are start bashing America for turning into a Nazi state because we're trying to find terrorists and you better beleive I'm going to start knocking some sense into a few heads :)

Obnoxious...what about me? I am feeling left out here.

Am I not arrogant enough? Do I not type enough longwinded sermons?

I see that I must redouble my efforts if I want to be mentioned in the halls of the annoying ones.

I got it. My posting here is erratic and not a continuous buzz of bothersome blather (sorry could not help myself - had to throw that in there). I will do better in the future and soon will be know as Obnox_us.

Looking forward to it!

*grin*

...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 26 years ago
that there's no "expectation of privacy" in the
phone numbers you call.

Analysis of phone calls -without wiretapping
of call content- violates neither the Constitution
nor case law.

For crying out loud: The President is protecting
us from terrorists !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

BREAKING NEWS:

Concerned that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have violated the civil liberties of Americans by analyzing records of millions of phone calls to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, a bipartisan coalition in Congress today will unveil legislation to scrap the NSA and replace it with a more ‘transparent’ spy agency.

“There’s nothing like sunshine to ensure accountability,” said an unnamed Congressional aide who spoke in exchange for a lobster dinner, a fine chianti and a $12 Macanudo cigar. “Just because the enemy is among us, using our telecommunications infrastructure to plot the next major attack, doesn’t mean the government can sneak around doing secret stuff simply to save a few thousand, or million, lives. We have rights.”

Under the terms of the bill, the OSI website will include a list of all covert agents, with photos, home addresses, email links and IM screennames. As the OSI gathers data, it will be accessible in real-time through the website to “premium subscribers,” but even non-members will be able to view the aggregated data, and listen to brief, sample clips of legally intercepted phone calls.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2257

*laughing*

OSI. (Open Source Intelligence)

Lovely. I'll have to add that site to my faves.

I see all the quibbling about this or that statute or a different interpretation of the Bill of Rights and most seem to miss the point.

Some even advocate completely giving up some rights in exchange for temporary security...this is very foolish. Security comes and goes but once you give up rights to your government, you have to TAKE them back. It is not in the nature of leaders to willingly relinquish power. The times that leaders do not seek re-election is quite small.

Unfortunately most people really don't understand the purpose of the Constitution. It was written to define specific limits to the power of the government. It was never intended to limit the power of the people. The most important aspect of its intent is that any power not specifically given to the government is prohibited. And, any right of people not specifically listed is protected by default. This means that the leaders we elect should do all in their power to protect any erosion of our rights by resisting the impulse to find loopholes in the constitution in order to increase the power of the government. It should be amended to protect our rights when technology brings new ways in which we can be subjugated.

The oaths of office for our leaders are centered around them protecting the Constitution, not protecting Americans. Americans will do what is needed to protect ourselves. We don't need to give up any rights to do it. By finding loopholes in the constitution or allowing their subordinates to do so our leaders (president on down) have failed to uphold their oaths of office.

That they are protecting Americans is a pathetic excuse to become an oathbreaker. America has survived for centuries without their brilliant solutions for securing this nation. It is hubris to think that they know anything that the framers of the constitution did not. Those framers who were faced on every side by hostility and enemies within and without were in a far more perilous position then than the one in which we now stand. They could claim neither military or ecomomic might but they held fast to the ideals that had won them free from tyranny. They resisted the urge to place yet another yoke of slavery on the American people in the name of security. I am sure it was tempting, I am sure they debated it, but in the end they chose rightly.

The result of their courage and wisdom is the heritage of independence we now squander. Paid for by the blood of our ancestors. They knew, just as we now know that the enemy (terrorists in this case) hold no real threat to this country...what are they going do to invade florida and roll up the east coast in a mighty wave of arms and men? No they will prick us and tease us until we blunder about...maddened and blind we will destroy ourselves by giving up the thing that they could never take by force...our ideas. Little by little, piece by piece, each step not really that bad..after all, it's legal (if you stand on your head and squint), or its necessary - in order to protect the country. I don't even think that our leaders are evil for seeking to abrogate our rights...they (I hope) think that they are doing right to protect the poor ignorant masses. It is shortsighted and dangerous.

One of the founders of this country said - "Those who would give up liberty in exchange for temporary security deserve neither" - sorry if I misquoted but that is what I remember.

Ultimately, we who are Americans bear responsibility for protecting the Constitution and our liberty. It is we who have failed by electing those who would tickle our ears with their lies and fill our bellies with handouts wrested from the hands of those who have prospered and to be scattered like crumbs to those who refuse to work in exchange for power and influence. These same leaders now extend their power over us and whittle away at our rights...and we let them...just so that we can sleep a little safer.

Someday we will find out that we have let in the tiger in order to keep out the fox...who will save us then?

You said:

"One of the founders of this country said - "Those who would give up liberty in exchange for temporary security deserve neither" - sorry if I misquoted but that is what I remember."

Let me help you out. That was Benjamin Franklin and the correct quote is "those who would give up essential liberty..."

Is knowing that the NSA is not collecting a master database of all calls so that they can analyze who terrorists are communicating with an "essential liberty"? I consider security an essential liberty -- but what would Franklin say?

It turns out that Franklin was very active in espionage. He was a member of the original committee to review and publish intercepted communications from England! Gasp! Benjamin Franklin was a spy and violated our civil liberities!

The CIA has more on Benjamin Franklins espionage acitivtes here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/p.../intelltech.shtml#inter

"Americans will do what is needed to protect ourselves."

Yeah. That attitude has worked *so* well for us in the past.

Try feeding that line to pusta80's neighbor, and see how far it gets you.

But you are right in a way.

We *can* do something about it. We can allow our government to do what is necessary and sensible to protect our way of life.

Lets also try and have some perspective here, eh? A little context never hurt anyone. The Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who absolutely *despised* governements.

I welcome the issue of perspective to this topic it is important to broaden your perspective to encompass more than just what you see in front of you every day. In fact why stop with your lifetime.

I should have been more specific but I hoped that most here would glean my meaning from context.

While the death of one person or thousands of people is most tragic it is not a good meaure by which to weigh the value of our rights. How many people must be protected in order to give up a specific right...is it 10, 1000, maybe a million is the right price for a part of the constitution to be snipped off and buried.

I actually addressed my comments more broadly than just this specific issue. It is arguable that collecting phone records from all Americans will be all that helpful. The amount of data is so massive and the possible patterns so obscure that it will take a diviners rod to point to anything useful. The benefits of this data from a tyrants point of view is priceless.

Was it legal for the NSA to grab this data? Possibly it was, that is a long discussion best done it the courts. But was it legal for the government to tap and tape foreign calls withtout a warrant? This one is close to being illegal if not outrightly so.

My context (and perspective if you will) is broader than a single issue but it touches directly on this one. If you compare the rights that someone had here 100 years ago and compare them now, you would be shocked at what you found. There are things you cannot say, there are things that you cannot do with your property. There are certain thoughts that you are not allowed to express. The government can now sieze your property and your children with no due process. In the name of suspicion of Terrorism you have far fewer rights than you believe you do. You can be arrested and held for quite some time if they use the word Terrorist in accusing you.

Most of the time this power is used for the purpose in which it was taken...but what about when it is not. I enjoyed a movie called Enemy of the State with Will Smith...unfortunately, it was a bit wrapped up in conspiracy theories for my taste but it did have some scary things in it...what if you became that enemy through no fault of your own...it has happened. Remember the Olympics bombing and the guard who had his life torn apart...that could be you. I am sure that he would have a good perspective for this conversation.

The founding fathers did not hate government, they hated tyranny and the ideas that said that some people were born to rule over others. The thinking that they expressed was far to eloquent to fix their hate on any target so broad as government, or so useless. After all, we need government or there could be no order. We need law or their could be no freedom. They knew this, but they also knew what darkness dwells in the heart of some men. They knew that to hand absolute power to any save the people themselves was folly. I do not say all is lost, but I do feel that we are heading in the wrong direction and for the wrong reasons.

You said:

"Was it legal for the NSA to grab this data? Possibly it was, that is a long discussion best done it the courts. But was it legal for the government to tap and tape foreign calls withtout a warrant? This one is close to being illegal if not outrightly so."

Wrong. The US Courts have consistently ruled to the contrary and the FISA judges (and authors) just testified that the President has the authority.

I'm not going to repeat myself again but scroll down and you'll see some of the case law I quoted.

"The amount of data is so massive and the possible patterns so obscure that it will take a diviners rod to point to anything useful. The benefits of this data from a tyrants point of view is priceless."

Your argument eats itself. If it's no use against terrorists because it's impossible to sift through, how would it be useful to a tyrant?

Perhaps they could pinpoint specific numbers?

If you don't think they can narrow it down, you're not understanding their intent.

"If you compare the rights that someone had here 100 years ago and compare them now, you would be shocked at what you found. "

What rights haev we lost in the last 100 years? Now, can you tell me what rights we've gained? Because I can tell you for sure, that thousands of folks in 1906 would have *loved* to be able to vote....

"Most of the time this power is used for the purpose in which it was taken...but what about when it is not."

Yes, of course. Limit what we can do to protect ourselves because of some nebulous possibility raised by concpiracy buffs.

Good idea.

Usually I agree with most of your posts. This time, you and I are at opposite poles, apparently.

Too many folks can find and quote caselaw from this or that decision. I was deliberately generous in my statement because I am not a lawyer, even an armchair one. What I am is veteran. I risked my life to protect the constitution and I feel violated that I am spied upon by my government. No matter how technically legal it is...it is still wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe I would be among the victims of an attack that was prevented, maybe my children would. As horrible as that would be, the price is too high. I understand what it is like to live without liberty. I had lived in 3 countries by the time I was 5. I have been around the world twice and would rather die than see our nation become like some of those others.

You can pontificate on this or that statute all you want...wrong is wrong even if the motive is good. Even if the immidiate result is postive.

It is clear that my thoughts will convince few reading this. That is not my job, really it could be said that I am wasting my words, but I do feel vindicated in that I have said it. It has helped to crystallize my own feelings on the matter. However you feel about this, please make sure that you vote. I did not serve this country so that you can abdicate your duty.

"Too many folks can find and quote caselaw from this or that decision."

After reading this thread, I'd say too few of them can. ;P

I understand where you are coming from, but you are mistaken if you think you are being spied upon.

The gathered data is unseen by humans until something is triggered. (A call to a known terrorist associated number, a call to you from such a number, etc...)

Us non-terror-associated folk never get looked at. I see no violation of privacy or our rights here.

Since you are specific, so will I be.

A tyrant wishing to use the data collected with have a different purpose in mind. A purpose better suited to using the kind of data collected. An exmaple of this is to tie together groups by correllating news events with call patterns. An event that is particularly egregious to a specific group will trigger more activity, which can be traced and linked. The same activity may not yield any such large activity if Terrorists are being sought. After all, how would one or two phone calls stand out before or after an event. Thousands might, such as a specific enthic or religous group being upset by something. Thus you have a great profiling tool if you watch the timeline, but there are not mass number of terrorists in this country that need to be profiled and located. You can get better results from just following the chains that you have (pulling records for specific numbers) than by casting such a large net. I just came up with that off the top of my head...how much better could someone who had the time and motivation do?

I used 100 years as an example and I do have specifics. If you go back further you can find more I am certain. You will notice that I did not claim we have made only backward progress, there has clearly been some (like getting rid of slavery in the 19th century). What I referred to was that you can lose your freedom or your children and face the onus of proving your innocence instead of the other way. I know this because I had my sister taken from my family by the state. Without any chance to refute in court she was placed in foster care and the next time I saw her was at her funeral. She had some emotional/physciatric issues and convinced a case worker that she was being disciplined too often. I am sure that she regretted doing this after the first time she was raped by a caretaker.

I don't like conspiracy theories and try to keep my thoughts more focused than nebulous but all it takes is a look at history to see that the government is a far greater threat than an enemy. Just look at the number of civilians killed by war vs the number killed by their own government. If you do your homework you will find between 60-80Million killed by their own government in the last century. How many killed by terrorism or war? Not sure but if it tops 5 million I would be shocked.

I don't mind disagreeing as you are fairly civil with it but you you are a good person. It would help if you did not give everyone that same benefit when you consider what they could do in a tyrants shoes...look at North Korea, the ruler there is not a good person. He starves and subjugates his people...because they let him.

You better believe I vote.

As far as defending the Constitution, you can't simply point to the 4th Amendment and say "aha! you've broken the law!".

You have to compare it with other elements such as the President's powers specified in Article II on the Constitution.

This is why we have a court system to interepret such conflicts and these judges -- over decades -- have consistently ruled that:

a) the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment does NOT apply to Executive searches when done for intelligence (as opposed to criminal) purposes.

b) Congress can NOT pass laws that "unduly fustrate" the President's Consitutional powers enumerated in Article II of the Constitution.

I appreciate you concern for the Consitution, but in decades of court opinions, we can't seem to find anything to suggest that the Constitution has been violated with anything the NSA has done.

Nor can anyone put a victim before a microphone and explain how this program "violated" their civil rights.

"After all, how would one or two phone calls stand out before or after an event."

There are numbers already linked. They track those numbers, and calls made to or from them, and the same for the next layer, and so on. Quite easy, even if you have only a few numbers from which to start.

Add into this our ability to recognize patterns, compare them to millions of others, and pick out specific variances within seconds, and I think we've got a pretty good way to track possible risks.

"Just look at the number of civilians killed by war vs the number killed by their own government. If you do your homework you will find between 60-80Million killed by their own government in the last century."

That is the fault of specific governments amd most likely (as I don't know where you got your numbers) includes those that died voluntarily in *defense* of their governments. (Civies can defenfd their governments as well.) This has little to do with the curernt situation.

"It would help if you did not give everyone that same benefit when you consider what they could do in a tyrants shoes..."

I consider what can be done in a tyrants shoes.

I currently don't see anything more at the head of the US right now than a bumbling idiot. I thank my lucky stars daily that he has folks with actual intelligence and experience to guide him.

I'm not fooling myself, but I am also not going to disparage a service that can help so much based on what some tyrant in the future *might* or might *not* do with it.

"look at North Korea, the ruler there is not a good person. He starves and subjugates his people...because they let him."

You imply they have an alternative. Rebellion? Revolution? Civilians against the entire might of the NK military? That way lies massacre. Perhaps, if they had a military ally...

I understand the distinctions you make but I still don't agree.

You may ask yourself: have I done or said anything that would link me in any database to any person even perpherally associated with any counter-terrorism or intelligence interest. If in fact you have, one of the first things that may happen is that you are closely examined through both the criminal and intelligence arms of Government. Homeland Security means that they share data now. You can bet that one of the first orders of business is getting any dirt on you that will give them anything to get a criminal search warrant on you. Or maybe just skip that and have a midnight warrantless silent search and throw a keylogger on your pc.

You are kidding yourself if you think that anything will be held back from what they find out of some altruistic sense of protecting their suspect. All will be used. If they have to get you in a room and threaten to turn over info to law enforcement in order to get your cooperation...they will do it. These people are not evil. They believe they are doing right, but they will go as far as they are allowed to in pursuit of their goal. I appload this actually, they should be aggressive, but we need to make sure that the limits they are given are more balanced than they are now.

You make good points so I will not respond to all. I don't want to get off topic arguing numbers but I can name a few leaders that have lots of zeros in the numbers of the people they killed. Stalin, Pol-pot, Hitler just to name a few and they finished off close to 60Million by themselves.

If the numbers are linked and they already have some info, why do they need it all. Why do they not just follow the chains they have and any others it leads to? Why do they need my phone bill if I have never called or been called by any numbers they are watching? Is it so they don't have to take the time and effort to keep getting more info? (just login and there it all is...saves time and makes our HS folks not have to leave their chair). I find that a poor reason for gathering massive amounts of such easy to abuse data. I am sure that someone can find better reasons to justify it or come up with more plausible reasons to gather this data, but that seems like putting the cart before the horse (if you build it they will come...).

I agree, North Korea would be a massacre if revolt was attempted. Perhaps it is not worth it to them, only they can decide that. I am sure an ally would help but an outside enemy can sometimes prop up a government that would fall otherwise so it is a double edged sword.

"You can bet that one of the first orders of business is getting any dirt on you that will give them anything to get a criminal search warrant on you."

This information *cannot* be used to issue a search warrant. It's called checks and balances. The information *cannot* be used to instigate criminal proceedings.

"Or maybe just skip that and have a midnight warrantless silent search and throw a keylogger on your pc. "

Your tinfoil's starting to show. ;)

Exactly. I just stepped out for a Starbucks run and I heard a caller on the Rush Limbuagh show who *worked* on this NSA program explain that if he listened to call and learned that party A and party B were conspiring to rob a bank, he could say nothing to no one, or else he would have 15 years in jail.

Say what you want about the show or the caller, but if you research the facts you'll find that what the caller said is accurate.

There is a huge distinction between collecting intelligence for national security and for a criminal investigation.

If this NSA employee were to tip off the FBI, that evidence would not only NOT be admissible in court, but he would get 15 years in jail.

The opposition to this program is nothing more than ill-informed fear-mongering while ignoring a demonstrable threat to our security.

"Stalin, Pol-pot, Hitler just to name a few and they finished off close to 60Million by themselves."

All folks, I would hope, would get the same treatment from the US that we gave Saddam, if they were doing what they did back then, today.

"If the numbers are linked and they already have some info, why do they need it all. "

For the simple reason that it is easier to tap data you already have than to go through 20 different hoops for each bit. The time (we're talking weeks here) saved could easily spell the difference between a plane getting off the ground, or not.

Please don;t feel you're inconveniencing anyone with this debate. We're off the radar now, so most folks aren't even checking in anymore, and there's nothing I quite like so much as an intelligent discussion between reasonable folk.

I will answer both posts as they both have merit. I understand that the checks are there, but there still exists abuse. I am not worried about the exceptions really. What bothers me is that they don't have to give the data to anyone else to abuse it. Now that we are so inward focused for National Security threats you have many more people on the radar than before. White supremacists are now being monitored by the NSA and not just the FBI (yes I know they are freaks but how long until it extends to anyone who disagrees with particular ideas). I am not saying that I think we are there yet, but I have found myself spouting pretty radical statements like (pretty soon we will have to take back our government). How close is that to "it is time to blow up the evildoers"? There are always those who exist at the fringe and wait for the mothership. They should not have to explain their phone calls to the NSA.

Oh and if you are not already wearing your shield/foil hat how can we even have a debate on this...obviously the government mind control rays have taken your conscious will away. I must be arguing with Big Brother now...oh well.

"There are always those who exist at the fringe and wait for the mothership. They should not have to explain their phone calls to the NSA."

And who says they will? Again... and I don't want to belabor the point, but it bears repeating:

Human eyes do not see the data unless a computer has flagged one of the numbers involved as linked to a terorist cell or operative. (And I gotta believe they filter out the Pizza Hut calls)

"Oh and if you are not already wearing your shield/foil hat how can we even have a debate on this...obviously the government mind control rays have taken your conscious will away. I must be arguing with Big Brother now...oh well."

*grin*

Tinfoil actually strengthens RFID signals last I heard...but that was from someone currently wearing one, so.... ;)

I can't agree with you more on your last point. I think that you have hit on the meat of part of the reason the NSA wants the info as well. It is easier/quicker. They want to do a good job but I think it is dangerous for them to have that kind of data long term. They will not give that kind of thing up once we have crested the hill of this current struggle against islamic terrorists.

I do hope that we would not see more of the genocide that marked the 20th century but who could stand against the US if we descended to that? I really don't see it happening anytime soon but any nation can get that low...especially if they dont' think it can happen to them.

I reversed the order of your points....Hah! figure that out. My time is short as my workday is almost over so I have to resort to sly tricks to befuddle you.

I'm confident that our Constitution protects US citizens from efforts to go "blow up the evil doers" :) Well although one could agrgue that Janet Reno crossed the line when dealing with Waco....

Besides, the NSA programs under Bush monitors calls where one party is international (the other is just calling records). Some Senator -- I think it was Biden of all people -- asked during the NSA hearings "well why don't we monitor domestic-domestic calls also?"

"Human eyes do not see the data unless a computer has flagged one of the numbers involved as linked to a terorist cell or operative. (And I gotta believe they filter out the Pizza Hut calls)"

Ok that was funny.

Actually I did mean that as it sounded. I know that they are not trolling content but nutjobs call some pretty strange places. That is not a crime.

I think we have narrowed where we disagree and I am more of a paranoiac that you are when it comes to this topic. I like to think that it is due to age and wisdom but perhaps I have a seat on the saucer reserved for me as well.

Part of the problem is that when this sort of thing is normallized it will be that much easier for the NSA to troll ISP records and pretty soon you get a call from the NSA call center saying "Mr. Anderson, My name is Frank and I will be your NSA case manager this evening. We noticed that you visited a site called Hermaphrodite midgets of the Jihad on the 11th of April 2006 at 1:50AM. We need to ask you a few questions..." Pretty soon this person has pushed one of the buttons in front of him. You had better hope it is Harmless Nutjob and not Possible Enemy Agent, Religious Extremist, or even worse "Dispatch Black Helicopter".

Just remember...just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you.

*edited for humor

[]i"Just remember...just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you."[/i]

Of course, a paranoid is...by definition...paranoid.

par·a·noid
adj.

1. Relating to, characteristic of, or affected with paranoia.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational* fear or distrust of others: a paranoid suspicion that the phone might be bugged.

*emphasis added by yours truely.

Heh...not exactly the most tasteful way to paint it, but, if the shoe fits...

This calls to question how we define irrational, which leads to Reason, which as we all know is a perfect segue into a discussion of Philosophy.

It has been proven that nothing in the known universe can kill a forum thread quicker and deader than Philosophy. Unless of course someone invokes Godwin's Law (link below).

I already tried that here and this thread survived just like it was hosted in the Axis history forums. Resilient eh?

My philosophy is complex. I respect the Objectivist work of Rand but I find that it lacks foundation. I won't go deeper here but that should give you a glimse.

Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin\'s_law

Oh and Kellino I am not ignoring you I am just sloppy.

What's scarier:

That I know Godwin's law, or that the only two people left in this thread can remember back that far....

As for philosophy...

...and stop me if you've heard this one:

A 'philo' professor is giving a final exam. He didn't prepare, due to a family emergency, so in a moment of inspiration, sets a rock on the table and tells the students:

"Without using any of the 5 senses, or any physical medium, prove this rock does, or does not exist."

Only one student got an A. He walked up to the desk after scribbling furiously for about 10 seconds, set his paper down and walked out.

When the Instructor turned the paper over, he saw only two words:

"What rock?"

Feh...

And we're just not worth your personal time, eh?

Yeah...I see how you are. Draw folks into a nice intellectual discussion and then *poof* disappear like the the evanescent morning dew on a bright new day.

(Do I get extra points for big words?)

And that I think is a fitting end. Please join me in declaring the horse dead and the beating complete.

Wow!
I am impressed. Points so given. Problem with the personal time. Less ofa value judgement and more a lack of it. I have 4 kids and 2 jobs. Kinda slow today so I had time to type.

And you are probably being overgenerous with the morning dew. I just sweat a lot. I have not been morning dew for years.

heh...

3 kids, one job...but I feel for ya. ;)

Done.

Shall I call a toast?

BS, that's what they use Gitmo for, no court, no judges, no rights....

Yeah, tighten that tinfoil hat a bit, pal.

You know he's got a point. Perhaps we should do what FDR did and have them tried in a military tribunal and then executed.

*The NSA declined to comment. But several experts said it seemed likely the agency would want to assemble a picture from more than just landline phone records. Other forms of communication, including cell phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, likely are trackable targets as well, at least on international networks if not inside the U.S.

To be sure, monitoring newer communications services is probably harder than getting billing records from landline phones. USA Today reported that the NSA has collected call logs from the three largest U.S. phone companies, BellSouth Corp., AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.

That level of cooperation confirmed the fears of many privacy analysts, who pointed out that AT&T is already being sued in federal court in San Francisco for allegedly giving the NSA access to contents of its phone and Internet networks. The charges are based on documents from a former AT&T technician.*

"The charges are based on documents from a former AT&T technician."

...and will be dropped pretty damn quick, I'll bet.

Too bad, I'd like to see this get the nod of the Supreme Court, if only to shut up half the knuckleheads in here.

The Supreme Court would laugh and decline to even hear the case, leaving in place the existing case law which cleary asserts the legality of this program.

It won't make the court, no one is classiefied high enough to deal with the matter.

"leaving in place the existing case law which cleary asserts the legality of this program."

For those less able to comprehend (snoecks, I'm looking at you), that means it has *already* made the court, and gottten it's nod of approval.

What?….. You actually think things like this haven’t happened for years before 9-11. To protect a nation from a world full of people who would love to see the United States fall it takes aggressive action on a massive scale. Any nation should use whatever means necessary to ensure their survival and it has an obligation to protect its people by all means.
So then someone says “Yeah but dude that’s big brother and they are going to start a Nazi state blaa blaaa blaaa” . That argument is just plan asinine. Big government isn’t after your petty deviations from laws. And they aren’t wasting time throwing money at YOU. Big Govt could care less about your feeble pot plant growing in your back yard. Only local PD really cares about that. Your big brother doesn’t want you. You’re not that important.
Sometimes it scares me to think how easily our great nation would be knocked over if we allowed the wieners to run this country. We Americans fail to understand just how many nations truly hate us. If you want this life as you know it to continue we have to be aggressive.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

That sounds angry huh? Maybe I should just shut up and keep my comments to myself lol. Was just some rant I had lol :)

I'll get off the soap box now... next up lol

Don't let these people intimidate you. You should feel free to post any comments you wish.

If they don't align with the others, we will let you know :)

I just found the link to the CBS 60 Minutes article on Clinton's Echelon:

http://www.cbsnews.com/s...inutes/main164651.shtml

Note that Clinton's activities took place before 9-11 and also note that the NSA program leaked this week only reveals calling records (as opposed to the actual content of calls).

Also note that one of the 9-11 hijackers made several calls to an overseas Al Queda cell in Summer 2001 and unfortunately we never intercepted those calls.

Also note that despite some faux outrage by some, no one is arguing that the aggregation of these calling records by the NSA was illegal, because they can't defend those statements.

But Clinton is good and Bush is evil. Impeach Bush because he's destroying our rights...yeah...that's the ticket!

To infer that Clinton was responsible for Echelon is like saying Al Gore invented the internet. Echelon's roots date to post-WW II.

You are correct about Echelon's roots and I was not infering that Clinton was responsible.

Here's the question: If under the Clinton Administration we can have a program where purely domestic calls are listened too -- then why after 9-11 is there all this outrage about the NSA under the Bush Administration collecting records of who called whom, so that those communicating with known terrorists can be identified?

There is no good answer to that question other than bias and ignorance.

I agree with you totally! It's called liberals finding anything they can and blowing it out of proportion to unseat Bush and the Republicans.

Liberals don't have to do a dammed thing to see that happen.

The comments below demonstrate what happens when our public schools are failing America's youth.

I still think it's inbreed.

The Media has to shoulder some of the blame here as well. It's not just the school system. Some folks take what they see on TV as gospel.

inbreeding.

Miss a few ESL courses?

but it was on TV so it must be real!

Aint that the truth..

It's the Bush Administration that's ****ing up everything. Like, "one end must be outside the US", like it justifies it. They're just making it a lot easier for the terrorists, that's all. And, what's even worse, they're making it easier for the terrorist leaders to get new people to join them, like "look how bad the americans are, they don't respect any citizen' rights". Which, unfortunately, is becoming true by the day...Plain stupid...

Uh...

Clinton - ECHELON?

Dude, where have you been?

"They're just making it a lot easier for the terrorists, that's all."

Name one way.

"they don't respect any citizen' rights". Which, unfortunately, is becoming true by the day"

Name one. What right is being violated, retard?

The right to privacy, you brainless moron.

Good comeback! (LOL)

Funny that the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way, but facts never get in the way of the paranoid community.

I blame it on inbreed.

What privacy have they violated?

Have they published any of the data?

Have they otherwise disclosed *any* of the information?

No?

So...it's not publicly available then?

Huh... So, what right have you lost?

You don't have a right to privacy where National Security is at stake, sorry. Not sure what cartoon network you were watching, but that's not true.

We do, actually. And our privacy is protected.

Again, this is the government, not joe blow down the street.

Our privacy is intact. They will not release it, disclose it, or misplace it. Hell, they don't even *see* it.

If you scare enough people and install some "friendly" judges it's funny to see how far you can go.

You mean the same Supreme Court that said some rich guy can take your home so he can build a hotel on it, right? Yeah, they're lookin' out for you. Uh-huh.

I share your disagreement with the progressives on the Supreme Court who voted in favor of seizing property for the "public good" (the good was more tax revenue).

However there is already a substantial volume of case law on the subject of warrantless searches for national security (which started well before the Bush adminstration) and the opinions there are remarkably consistent.

Actually I think the point was in response to a right to privacy -- which is something never mentioned in the Constitution.

Good for Qwest. It would be nice if the other telecoms had the guts to stand up for themselves and tell the NSA to butt out.

Good for quest?

They'll give out *more* information than the gov is requesting to "Business Patners" at their discretion....but won't support an effort to track down terrorists?

Yeah.. Way to go Qwest.

Here's my thoughts showing how easy this is to be defeated by anyone who actually was a terrorist.

Homing pigeons, not to be mistken for carrier pigeons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homing_pigeon

"Messenger pigeons were used as early as 1150 in Baghdad and also later by Genghis Khan."

"Flights as long as 1689 miles have been recorded by exceptional birds in competition pigeon racing. Their average flying speed over moderate distances is around 30 miles per hour, but they can achieve bursts of speed up to 60 mph."

For the kind of messages generally required, and with basic knowledge of cryptography then all of this can be rendered useless. :-)

No this would not work then we would just start breeding eagles (Gotta be Bald Eagles the other ones are terrorists.) and there go all the pigeons and other small birds.

"one end of the communication must be outside the United States"

I can't see why this should make a difference. It's just as wrong.

And it's also b*llsh*t that all my e-mails send with gmail are being scanned/read by the NSA. I live in Europe and the NSA shouldn't have any rights to do so.
Nowadays I add some lines of text in white to my e-mails like: Last night was the bomb, fell in a bush but I had a killer time.
Maybe a bit childish but it'll pop up some red flags over there. At least keeps them busy.

What laws is Bush and the Telcos breaking?

(1) It violates the Stored Communications Act. The Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” The first four clearly don’t apply. As for administrative subpoenas, where a government agency asks for records without court approval, there is a simple answer – the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority, and it is the NSA that reportedly got the phone records.

(2) The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation. Section 2707 of the Stored Communications Act gives a private right of action to any telephone customer “aggrieved by any violation.” If the phone company acted with a “knowing or intentional state of mind,” then the customer wins actual harm, attorney’s fees, and “in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.”

(The phone companies might say they didn’t “know” they were violating the law. But USA Today reports that Qwest’s lawyers knew about the legal risks, which are bright and clear in the statute book.)

(3) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act doesn’t get the telcos off the hook. According to USA Today, the NSA did not go to the FISA court to get a court order. And Qwest is quoted as saying that the Attorney General would not certify that the request was lawful under FISA. So FISA provides no defense for the phone companies, either.

In other words, for every 1 million Americans whose records were turned over to NSA, the telcos could be liable for $1 billion in penalties, plus attorneys fees. You do the math. Bush's war on the constitution will soon render America no more, since there's no law he thinks applies to him.

Finally an intelligent response. I'll bet it was hard work cutting and pasting this from a progressive web site with an agenda. Fortunately for Americans, you're still wrong.

This deals with information obtained for criminal purposes -- not national security. The courts have ruled over the decades since telephones were commonplace consistently that neither the 4th Amendment nor Congressional legislation can impede on the President's powers to collect intelligence for national security purposes.

Furthermore, if this law applied to the letter, Qwest would be violating it with their privacy policy which states that they will give customer phone records to the business partner of their choice (as they deem "appropriate").

But seriously, nice try.

By the way ABC this morning released a poll showing that 66% of Americans have no problem with this. I guess it is just the tin-foil-hat paranoid community that has a problem with this. I guess they were afraid that someone at the NSA discovered that they were calling 976 numbers and might feel a wee bit embarrassed. Of course this assumes that anyone at the NSA gives a hoot who these idiots are calling and that the NSA is doing anything beyond discovering who is communicating with numbers that belong to known terrorists. I'm sure that in their spare time (with billions of calls they have plenty) they search to see what names called 1-976-BANGME and snicker at you. That must be rough.

One has to wonder how America's democracy ever survived FDR's "abuses" (wiretapping, exceuting spies, internment of Japanese Americans, etc.). Oh that's right he was a Democrat and back then it was a "real war" so it's all good.

Too bad they're not.

All of the pattern recognition and variance detection is done by computer...hiuman eyes aren't even seeing this stuff.

(I'm sure *you* knew that....but apparently there are some here who don't even know they aren't recording the actual conversations)

Face it.... It is highly unlikely those fools in Congress will get any answers and no one will get anywhere trying to penalize the NSA. I'm glad we have them around. Sen. Leahy needs to just retire.

If you hate freedom and liberty so much, why do you live in America? You must wake up every morning wondering how to further destroy the constitution you hate. Let me guess, you were too chicken to sign up for Bush's war and you believe the best way to fight the terrorists is to attack Americans by suspecting ALL of them of being criminals? Only a coward would think that!

Chavez gives his people .12 cent/gal. gas. We got the privilege of paying BushCo/Halliburton and Exxon $3.40 while giving up another right in the Constitution that at least FDR fought to protect.

And by the way, ThinkProgress listed that, but it was really from the original USA Today report.

hehehe....I'm sorry....I'm afraid I'm just too busy laughing to respond to this....

Especially Hugo Chavez...that's just priceless.

It's estimated that 10% of the population, at any given time, would prefer a dictator to freedom. Freedom's just to much work and responsibility for them. kellino is one of the lazy 10%.

Sounds about right. And that 10% would pick a Stalinist like Che to lead them.

In spongy-poo's world, my voting, and participation in public policy and discourse makes me "lazy".

Perhaps if I were only as enlightened as him, for it seems that only he has access to the Truth. Everyone else who disagrees with him is either foolish or lazy.

I suspect this is why liberals resort to name calling and accusations -- they can't sustain a debate on principle alone.

First, you assume I'm a liberal and I'm a member of neither party. Second, you accuse me of being unable to carry on the debate, but you were compelled to respond. So, your point is that you disagree with what I said? Okay, but based on your response, I'll have to stand by my original comment.

Brilliant! You stand by your original argument which was that I'm lazy. Yes, your opinions are principled and you never stoop to lame accusations...

lol america is starting to look like that one movie.. forgot its name i think its minorty report .
where the cops can see a crime in advance and arrest someone without him having done anything, (am i right about the movie?)
i live in germany heehee ... i can call my friends in something us germans call : "privacy" if u want the defintion look it up in a non-american dictionary, they probably took it out of there

We're glad you are in Germany. You can stay there too. Let some rogue nation invade you... first place you all will turn is to America for assistance.

Since Iraq is looking for a Bill of Rights, maybe we should send them ours, since we're not using it any more!

Why do conservatives absolutely hate America and American values?

Why do liberals hate protecting the civil rights (i.e. life) of America's citizens on the basis of nebulous "erosion of civil rights" -- while they can not demonstrate how anyone has been harmed or lost any rights (at least those recongized by US Courts and not clueless kneejerk liberals)-- nor have such claims ever been upheld in the history of the US Federal Court system? (not to mention an overwhleming volume of case law to support the programs).

I'm curious, which Article of the Constitution enumerates your right to not have your phone records aggregated into a mining database so that the Executive -- which is charged under Article II with defending the Republic and it's citizens -- can identify who might be communicating with phone numbers associated with known terrorists? And if you can even answer that, show me any federal case law to back it up.

If we knew that 9-11 could have been prevented by intercepting terrorist communications, couldn't a President be impeached for not correcting this?

Nah! Why would we want to connect the dots and protect the Republic. 9-11 was all staged anyways. No American civil rights were lost on that day. Terrorists have a right to communicate without being spied on. Besides, there are some jobs Americans just won't do (like observing our enemies).

I'm still waiting for any opponent of this program to say anything remotely brilliant -- let alone intelligent.

I have one thing to say, from our great Bill of Rights which seem very damaged right now...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yes, lets just give up everything our soldiers are fighting for over seas. Heck, I don't expect them to return to the same country they left. I am so glad you are willing to give your rights away, so next time any crime happens in your neighborhood, by ALL means please let your house be searched at will. Since you have nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a problem.

Gee wiz man, we fought against Great Britain for illegal search and seizure, now we don't give a rats tail about it?

I can tell your either a HS dropout or you didn't study history, since obviously you need a history lesson.

Oh that's priceless -- a liberal being an absolutist with any part of the Constitution.

First of all this doesn't apply to todays news which is merely phone calling patterns and not conversations themselves. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that there is no right of privacy regarding phone records and has never been seriously challenged in the courts. How else can you explain how Qwest is able to give your calling records to business partners of their choice? Doh!

If you are referring to the NSA Intercept program you're setill hopelessly wrong but at least you're in the ballpark.

So here's the $10 million dollar question: Can the Executive conduct searches for national security without a warrant? Let's ask our judges -- the um...well the US Judges.

I have over a half dozen cases I can quote from here, but since I'm dealing with limited attention spans here are the juiciest tidbits:

1980 US v. Trong:

"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."

hmm..and was this a common view by the Federal Courts?

1984 US v. Duggan:

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."

Virtually every court? wow? Not to mention that the FISA judges (some of them whom wrote the law) testified this Spring before the Senate Foreign Intelligence committee and concluded that Congressional legislation can NOT limit a President's Constitutional powers. To accept this premise would result in an unconstitutional Congressional power grab.

I'm glad you cherish the Constitution. Now it's time to start understanding what it really means instead of listening to underinformed demogouges who could care less about our national security.

Would you now like to retract your allgation that I am a high school drop out with no knowledge of history? Probably not, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity anyways :^)

I might just surprise you here, I am a conservative, and proud to be one, how do you think I know the Bill of Rights :). I am NOT proud of our current president, since he is for big government in every way, and supports ideas that are not conservative in nature (i.e. illegal immigration policies, big spending, pork barrel budgets, and I can go on..). The ONLY accomplishment so far, lower taxes and fortunately two good supreme court justices who may not have the same opinions as those that you stated.

This is about US to US calls BTW which negate both your arguments.

So you know court cases, very good, but do you know why the Bill of Rights was created?

you did suprise me. I assumed I was still talking to first post which challeneged conservatives. I stand corrected (on that point anyways :^)

US-to-US calls? Which program are you referring to now? Echelon under the Clinton Administation where even baby monitors were recorded?

Why was the Bill of Rights created? um..well there are many answers there and we could have a long discussion of The Federalist Papers and other writings, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make so I figure I'll allow you to go ahead and make it :)

this is just another reason not just the president, but the entire whole administration should not only be removed by any means necessary, but also face criminal charges and ALL spend a verrrryyy long time in prison (and not one of those cushy country club ones either). Its already been proven that the only terrorists behind 9/11 was not from foriegn soil, but from the white house; it's already been proven that there were never any weapons of mass destruction... how many more US soldiers have to loose their lives to further the facist regieme currently presiding over the usa? how many more lies will we be fed? how much more evidence will be withheld? have we all come THAT complacent that we will let everything this country once stood for is flushed down the toilet? http://reopen911.org/

Wow, are you really quoting that website as fact? A blue screen was used to fake a second plane hitting the trade center?? One of my neighbors husband was on the second plane, maybe you could tell her what really happened?

Well here is an historical fact for ya:

The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

So who needs a history lesson?

They are monitoring the traffic over public phone lines. You act as though someone is listening in on all your calls.

:)
The original poster did lambast conservatives, I do feel like that right now as well. As a fellow conservative, please look around a bit,if you just think of Bush as Clinton for a minute and really look at all these things going on, whether legal or not, they aren't "right".

People died for our freedoms, yet we seem to be wasting them away, and I really don't think this is a liberal press thing, as even 'true' conservatives in Congress are outraged. I really hoped Bush would be a better pres than this.

Wow, what an amazing change in your tone as soom as he clarified his conservative credentials. Right back in lockstep, eh dittohead.

Yes, I completely changed my position there, didn't I?

But it seems par for the course that a liberal should focus on tone and feeling, rather than facts and logic.

Besides, I don't beleive that he is a conservative but was interested to see how he would respond.

Any more billiance to share with us?

Again with the false assumptions. And now, your excuse is that you're being sneaky??? No, I don't have anything else to share with you.

heh..speaking of Qwest let's have a look at their privacy policy shall we?:

"As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

and this:

"Our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you."

Heaven forbid if the NSA should ever get their nefarious hands on this super-secret information. Why they might actually find some terrorists or something....

http://www.qwest.com/legal/privacyGeneral.html

I guess the Qwest lawyers read their Constitution, differently. And correctly.

Please educate us and direct us to any federal court case that upholds your assertation.

I have a degree in Constitutional Law and I eagerly await your response.

For crying out loud former Clinton staffer George Stephenaplos said on ABC today that there is no question that this program is legal.

The guy can't read the article, the constitution, or the thread.

You expect him to do actual *research*??

lmao..

You must have the patience of the Gods.

Here is a quote I came across from someone much smarter than I:

"Is not life the most important of civil liberties? These intelligence programs are trashed without any curiosity as to whether they've prevented any attacks and saved any lives. The hostile responses are largely knee-jerk and lack any kind of context. The arguments are abstract and descend into fear-mongering. While I'm all for philosophical debates, how about a little more reality when it comes to fighting and winning this war—a real war against a horrific enemy."

And for those who are convinced that what George W. Bush is stealing our rights, take a look at what FDR did. He blew off Congress AND the Supreme Court in favor of J. Edgar Hoover's wiretapping for intellegence because we were at war dammit, and had German spies tried in tribunals so that they could be executed instead of sent to a SuperMax and being fed at taypayer expense.

Less than what Bush has done -- espeically when you add the bombing of civilian factories (Germany) and the internment of the Japansese Americans -- but that's all good because he was a Democrat. But if George W. Bush tries to "connect the dots" to prevent future attacks our entire Democracy and our civil liberties are in peril...

Where's that quote from? I love it.

http://levin.nationalrev...OGJlMDIwNmNiMGEyZGRiNmQ=

Gasp! George W. Bush now knows that I called 1-900 numbers! I hope they don't send the black helicopters to take me away to a secret prision in Europe....

The brainpower that is on display here is amusing to watch. One person responded:

"This kind of data collection is illegal and impeges on the freedom of speech of American Citizens. ...we cannot protect privacy and freedom of speech of American Citizens..."

News flash: The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that there is no privacy protection for your phone records becuase there is no expectation of privacy. For crying out load the phone companies have logs of all this stuff and law enfocement will subponea these records for criminal cases.

News Flash: The Clinton Adminsitation's use of the Echelon program actually LISTEND to conversations of purely domestic phone calls. 60 Minutes did a story on this in 2000.

And why would we want to collect such records? Um..well if you new that phone number XYZ belonged to a terrorist wouldn't you like to cross reference a master database and see who called this number and how frequently?

Some here will say "no" on the basis that there is no terrorist threat (more likely I suspect an irrational hatred of the Bush Administration that prohibits their brains from any honest exercise in logic). The fact that one of the 9-11 hijackers placed dozens of calls to an Al Queda cell from San Diego is not significant to them. Nor is the report on the London bombings this week which revealed many phone calls with a cell in Pakistan immediately before the London bus bombings.

Yes, George W. Bush has nothing better to do that do see what every 300 million of you have been doing.

Idiots....these people would move to Poland in 1939 if they could...

"these people would move to Poland in 1939 if they could..."

Too funny.

I just wish I could help 'em with that.

Thank God there is some sanity in this thread.

In reference to the Bush polls--I think Bush screwed up by not following through with his word and not EXPLAINING the whole security at the ports issue. (funny that story just DISAPPEARED. Media truly has 100% complete control over American politics...sad) I also think his biggest screw up is his lack of balls regarding the immigration issues. He's supposed to be a John Wayne Texan, instead he's borderline liberal!

So...why are the polls low? Reasons above--if I was polled I'd vote him down now too. NSA? Nope, I already figured that was going on. Iraq? Though he had some bad moments with the press, and though he unknowingly told us that WMD were in Iraq (based on the intelligence he had at the time, there were WMD. Intelligence was wrong.), I was behind Bush despite that spin.

It's the immigration issue that finally lost my confidence...I pray he has the gall to speak in front of the press and tell it how it is no matter how many left wingers there are. If they even successfully impeach him--if HE does the right thing, America will be better off for it; whether the polls agree or not.

ypou state:
"The fact that one of the 9-11 hijackers placed dozens of calls to an Al Queda cell from San Diego is not significant to them."

is this one of the hijackers who were supposed to have died in the crashes but were later shown to be alive anmd kicking ? dont believe everything your told without researching yourself. the easiest lies to pull off are those which are never questioned

I question what you say more than what he says, since you use the most common losing argument and smear tactics:

1. You decided to debate one issue that is insignificant to the point he was making.

2. You call him a liar, you proclaim to research facts--and yet you cannot take the time to back up your claims?

3. Even worse--not only do you not type in a URL, but you also choose not to run a spell-check utility either?

Yes, I made it all up.

Oh and here is a link to a Wall Street Journal article. In fact I'll even post a paragrah here as I doubt you're sufficiently curious to click the link and read it:

"NBC News aired an "exclusive" story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda "switchboard" inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, "The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying." Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as "spying on Americans." Instead, it was called one of the "missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.""

http://www.opinionjourna...ature.html?id=110007891

I was going really thinking you were on to something, until you broke out the old line that Bush didn't know there were no WMDs. Seriously, nobody but the most robotic dittohead believes that fable anymore. It's like still believing Barry Bonds didn't know the cream and the clear were steroids; people just look at you with pity.

The bushy apologists in here are so freaking afraid of the terrorists they'd sell their own mother down the river for protection. pu*****, the lot of you. Then you have the sick gall to use the Constitution to defend your BS. This administration isn't protecting anything but their own interests and this information is used for political purposes whether or not you want to believe ill of your beloved dictator.

"sell their own mother down the river for protection."

Yeah, allowing the gov to monitor a public utility is *so* comparable to selling your mom down a river.

I don't apologize for anyone. I *hate* Bush.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Always thinking with emotion, never following any reasoning of yours all the way to the end...

...Or maybe you're right! I just saw 43 mothers floating down the river! Oh, and look--TV is actually showing sexual organs walking around in the White House! :P

Oh waah, poor citizens there's a list of people you've called!

Back in the day (long long time ago, you know early 90's) I worked for a private long distance company that had the ability to listen to people's international phone calls. If you think phone companies can't or don't do that today you are smoking some crazy stuff. They aren't singling anyone out, it's just a database. I bet Walmart has more "personal" information about you than NSA will ever care about.

Exactly.

Wow... I'm actually agreeing with you...

...scary.

Bound to happen some day...

Infinitie Variety, and all.

It's the same cry over and over "my rights, my rights" not too long ago it was "national ID" what the hell do people think their drivers license is?!

Hint: It's a national ID issued by a state. OH NO, it has personal information in it!!! The government knows my hair color WE ARE ALL GONNA HAVE BARCODES ON OUR HEADS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOWUH!

Want proof that it's a national ID? Get a suspension in one state and try to get a license in another (you can't and it's been that way for years).

Whatever. heh

Yes, I am of the "infinite" variety.

Thank goodness, huh? heh

Wow...I'm actually agreeing with you too.

(Did you just hear that echo?)

lmao...

One spelling error among *thousands* of years, and it has to be in response to a post by fewt.

...figures.

Are you a fellow infinitie?

True, I don't even know why NSA bothers, since corporations have far more data on everybody than they do. They could probably get it on clearance sale, too.

This kind of data collection is illegal and impeges on the freedom of speech of American Citizens. If we cannot protect privacy and freedom of speech of American Citizens, how can we advocate the same thing for anybody else in the world and sacrifice over 3000 american lives in Iraq under false pretense of advocating democracy.

"This kind of data collection is illegal"

BS. It's a public utility.

"If we cannot protect privacy and freedom of speech of American Citizens,"

This has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, and has nothing, really to do with privacy. It's a public network, and they are not releasing the information they gather. If they *did*, it would be an issue.

You don't know the facts.

You don't even know your rights.

Read more, post less.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR REVOLUTION.

That's right. Keep spinning. Best for people like you to remain light-headed and stupid.

Did you honestly think nothing would change after 9/11?

Do you honestly think they're out to get *you*?

Well, the governement isn't...but the terrorists just might.

Let's hope our government has enough folks sifting through all that data to stop 'em before they get to you, eh?

How clever, whenever the republicans get called out on something pull the old 9/11 card. It's a free pass for any behavior. But, but terror! I'm scared! I don't need my rights, please save me!

SHEEP

You'd rather be left to your own devices, eh? Save yourself?

I'll buy you a plane ticket, my friend. Send ya right on over to Iraq.

Protect yourself, indeed.

You moan about rights. What have they done to disturb them? Have they made *any* data public?

No?

Sounds like it's still private then...not that it was ever guaranteed over public phone lines, jackass.

You're not scared? The foolish never are.

Bush's approval rating is down to 28 percent, we are stuck in a stupid war with no way out that we had no business being in, the economy is s*** and all in the name of protecting us from turr. You love this administration so much why don't you get your stupid a** over there instead, rather than posting on a message board about how great you are. Yeah I'm scared, I'm scared of morons like you.

This is the kind of thinking that got Hitler into power. Do you want a police state in USA if does not exist already?

How great I am?

Have I said one thing about myself in this entire freaking thread?

Nice tactic.

"we are stuck in a stupid war with no way out that we had no business being in"

Pretty much sums up your level of understanding. Sorry to waste your time. You're obviously unable to grasp even the most basic concepts of human rights.

Amen

roflmao..

This is how Hitler got into power? Really?

My history books must have all been wrong then...

lmao.. Wow.

Police state? Hardly. We're talking about monitoring a public utility here, not standing guards in every building.

Yeah, you're pretty much coming off as Captain America with your stupid rants. It's all about duty to our country! Let them tap our phones, let them take our rights! We all have a duty to stop turr and make the world safe for FREEDOM!!!

Oh and the fact that you think Iraq was about human rights makes you an even bigger retard. Why aren't we in Africa then, saving all those people. What about all the other countries with human rights issues? It had nothing to do with getting Saddam for his daddy did it? The entire world hates us now, the middle east is an unstable disaster area, thousands of soldiers are dying and what have we accomplished over there? Despite what you and your cronies think we are not the world police. Dimwit.

Can we stop using 9/11 as a crutch for everything that the goverment does. Freedom is still freedom.

"Let them tap our phones, let them take our rights! "

When did our rights include not being monitored on a public network?

Must have missed that one.

Lesee...

Africa? Done. When ruthless dictators ruled, we stepped in. Now we offer the most aid to that country in the world. Yeah... we're iognoring it.

Saddam was ruthlessly killing thousands. I suppose you'd just like to sit back and watch, right?

No, we're not the "World Police". But we do stand up when some dictator gets it in his head to start killing off his people.

I know...I know.. The world would be better off without all those innocents, right?

HAHAHAHAHA

Good luck with that.

Name one freedom you've lost.

And this does *nothing* to limit or reduce it.

Why is it you feel that simple monitoring of phone activity infringes upon your rights?

They publish nothing. They don't make *any* of it public. No-one will know you called all those 976 numbers.

This has nothing to do with your right to privacy.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Just...

...thank you.

*applause*

Two big rounds of--

meh...

He'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

What about the dictator who murdered 3000 in NYC in Sept 2001?

http://video.google.com/...3801&q=loose+change

you say:
"Saddam was ruthlessly killing thousands. I suppose you'd just like to sit back and watch, right?"

ummm yes, what saddam does in his own country is NONE of the US's business

and also:
"No, we're not the "World Police". But we do stand up when some dictator gets it in his head to start killing off his people. "

so our intervention.. the US INVADING a soveriegn nation and killing thousands of innocents themselves just to get to one person... thats right? you truely are a sick individual

"ummm yes, what saddam does in his own country is NONE of the US's business"

Have you have no respect for the lives of others?

Who's the "sick" one here? Just let him keep on with his genocide, eh? Yeah...we should have let Hitler keep it up too, eh?

"the US INVADING a soveriegn nation and killing thousands of innocents themselves just to get to one person."

...and the countless factions looking to bring back his regime.

But you don't care...so why am I even bothering.

Dictater, eh? He lost his "power" long ago. We went after his stronghold, his organization; we just haven't caught him yet. Do you think we've stopped trying?

You use the same tactics that 90% of the other left-wingers do--forget debating the issue if you lose. Instead, change the subject and attack another view. After successfully being counter-attacked two or three times, you will then resort to using personal attacks. I predict you will either disappear after attacking my statements and being counterattacked, or you will then use personal attacks rather than logic and reason. Prove me wrong.

...

and what is your next prediciton, Oh Wise One?

Got an inside tip on the winning lottery numbers? You seem to have hit that last one dead on...

It does seem to be an oft used excuse. Like the guy who was mistakenly arrested for paying for something with what the idiot clerk thought was counterfeit money. It was really just a bunch of two-dollar bills, but the dee-da-dee clerk didn't know they were real. The local police chief, when asked about it, started his excuse with, "Well, in a post 9/11 world..."

Bill of Rights

*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.*

WTF does Common Defense mean, if its NOT EVERYONE's Job?

Maybe you weren't there during the drafting of the Constitution, but you AGREE to abide by its establishment. Its OF the people BY the people, FOR the people.

If that's not a declaration of "...do whatever to protect its citizens..." then what the hell do you call it?

That's the Consitution genius, not the Bill of Rights. Before telling people that they don't know there history you might want to make sure you know yours. Oh and once again, what does that have to do with them wire tapping citizen's phone calls? I don't think that paragraph means what you think it means. Keep pulling stuff out of your republican a** though, maybe you'll come up with something that makes sense one of these days.

"Maybe you weren't there during the drafting of the Constitution"

He obviously knows.

Ever made a typo? No? I bet your s*** doesn't stink, either?

You don't think you have any responsibility to this country, do you? Glad to just leave it to the rest of us?

Niiice.

It is your right of course. And we'll keep wasting our resources on thankless little s***s like you. So rest easy, my friend. All us "geniuses" are out here chasing terrorists, tracking criminals, and keeping this country safe so you can keep feeling all entitled.

Not that you ever did a damned thing in your life to deserve it...

Aw, the poo widdle repugnican is getting mad. Our reponsibility to this country does not include being spied on, but by all means let them use the constitution as toilet paper, stupid bush sheep.

Oh, and try not to cry.

Actually, dumb ass, the bill of rights is PART of the constitution, you incompetent loser.

United States Constitution
Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was completed on September 17, 1787, with its adoption by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was later ratified by special conventions in each state. It created a federal union of sovereign states, and a federal government to operate that union. It replaced the less well-defined union that existed under the Articles of Confederation. It took effect on March 4, 1789 and has served as a model for the constitutions of numerous other nations. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest federal constitution currently in use.[1]

* 1 History
* 2 Preamble
* 3 Articles of the Constitution
o 3.1 Legislative power
o 3.2 Executive power
o 3.3 Judicial power
o 3.4 States' powers and limits
o 3.5 Process of amendment
o 3.6 Federal power
o 3.7 Ratification
o 3.8 Corrections
* 4 Provisions for amendment
* 5 Amendments
o 5.1 The Bill of Rights (1–10)
+ 5.1.1 First Amendment
+ 5.1.2 Second Amendment
+ 5.1.3 Third Amendment
+ 5.1.4 Fourth Amendment
+ 5.1.5 Fifth Amendment
+ 5.1.6 Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments
+ 5.1.7 Ninth and Tenth Amendments
o 5.2 Subsequent amendments (11–27)
o 5.3 Unratified Amendments
o 5.4 Expired Amendments
o 5.5 Proposals for amendments
* 6 International influences on the Constitution
* 7 Legality of the Constitution
* 8 See also
o 8.1 General
o 8.2 Related documents
o 8.3 Related Authors
* 9 References
* 10 External links
o 10.1 National Archives
o 10.2 Official U.S. government sources
o 10.3 Non-government web sites
o 10.4 Activist/advocacy web sites

Don't go stealing my lines, there you unoriginal ingrate.

Our responsibility to this country is to protect it citizens, even stupid ****s like you.

lmao..

How little you know... Republican? Now that's funny.

Your responsibility to this country includes far more than just allowing them to do what is necessary to protect the country.

You have no understanding of what the constitution allows and does not. You simply assume, like all the rest, that they can't do anything that might *gasp* inconvenience your privileged, whiney ass.

Get used to it.

You quoted the preamble, and called it the Bill of Rights. You messed up, quit crying like a little p**** about it.

Yeah, tapping everyone's phone calls is really protecting us. If that's what you call protection you can keep it, I don't want your kind of protection. Asshat.

Is it protecting us?

Are you serious?

They can now trace calls between terrorists residing within our country to *any* and *every* other person they've contacted. It opens up an enormous amount of possibility where we can now pinpoint who they've been talking to, where the calls originated, and when they were made.

Yeah...useless.

Whatever.

What the NSA is doing is illegal, don't try backing it up with the constitution you tard. They've been wiping their asses on the consitution for years now and sheep like you sit and defend them. LOL, stupid bushbots.

Bulls***.

Monitoring a public utility is illegal?

Really?

Show me where it states that.

Name the law they are in violation of.

Right.

The question, of course, was "Name one thing you're *really* good at spewing".

At least you got that one right. :)

"If that's what you call protection you can keep it, I don't want your kind of protection."

Then...leave...Canada is ..^^^.. that way.

Your argument, while compelling, just proves how truly ignorant you are.

Oddly, I still haven't seen one person answer the questions: "Name one law that was broken?" or "Name one freedom you have lost?"

And of course it says nothing about "tapping your phone" in the article, just recording numbers called....hummm.

Oh yeah, did you guys also realize that your ISP records all your Internet traffic too? Is that illegal too, or just what the Bush Administration is doing is?

I believe that somewhere in the constitution is a statement to the effect of "it is the right of every citizen to resist tryranny" or something to that effect... well, we have a tyrant in office, who's resistiing? many are and they are all mocked by the rest of you sheep who cant see the forest for the trees

You just lost it.

Tyranny? Now he's a tyrant?

God forbid anyone should want to protect the US form further attacks.

Whya re they resisting? What's been done? What freedoms have you lost, what rights have been taken away?

Nothing.

You're all whining because the Media loves it.

*Naturalization Oath of Allegiance
to the United States of America

Oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."*

You people need to know your history, its there in black and white.

Security IS the job of EVERYONE.

LOL, that's for immigrants becoming citizens. Those of us who were born here never took any oath like that. What the hell does any of that have to do with the government spying on us anyway?

So immigrants have more duty to this country than you? Just because you were born here?

Entitled F'ing jackass.

No, but phone tapping doesn't have anything to do with duty to this country. I was just pointing out that was an immigration oath and has jack squat to do with this issue. I never took any oath that said my rights could be taken away as a "duty to my country". Having our phone calls tapped has nothing to do with duty. Going by that logic if they made us all line up and present our "papers" that would be duty to our country too.

Entitled suck my balls.

Since when has anyone promised you phones would be private?

It's a freaking public utility, brainiac.

You have a duty to this country to abide it's laws, and to let them do what they need to do to protect you and the rest of the country.

If that involves wire-tapping, so be it.

It was to include that security is EVERYONE's job. It doesn't have anything to do with spy on us, by the way, its not spying, james bond junkie, its monitoring. Spying would imply there is espionage, so they aren't "spying" dimwit.

*Main Entry: 1spy
Pronunciation: 'spI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): spied; spy·ing
Etymology: Middle English spien, from Old French espier, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German spehOn to spy; akin to Latin specere to look, look at, Greek skeptesthai & skopein to watch, look at, consider
transitive senses
1 : to watch secretly usually for hostile purposes
2 : to catch sight of : SEE
3 : to search or look for intensively
intransitive senses
1 : to observe or search for something : LOOK
2 : to watch secretly as a spy*

They are not hostile, they aren't actively searching, they are just "watching" and have the capability to log and record your events, but its not in secret they pretty much are in the open about it.

Now answer the damn question, dork, are you hiding something? If not, then what the hell is the problem with watching what you do?

"Entitled suck my balls."

Been waiting a while for that to happen, huh?

Did you get the part about personal attacks right above the post box?

My bad. I called him an Entitled F'ing jackass.

I usually try to avoid such things, but in this case, I felt justified in doing so.

last time I checked, up until the passing into law of the patriot act II, wire tapping REQUIRED a court order and to get that you had to show a justyifiable reason to have the line tapped. but, the patriot act II - when it passed into law, gave any government entity the PRIVELIDGE to listen into ANY conversation by ANYONE if they thought there might be terrorist or subversive (note I used "OR SUBVERSIVE")activity present.
what that law did was gave the government carte blanche to listen to everyone for no reason and if they were confronted they could claim either terrorist activity or activity subversive to the aims of the government.

Dude...

We aren't even talking about LISTENING.

Did you RTFA? We're talking about logging 4 little peices of info:

Phone number originated, phone number destination, time started, and time ended.

Helps to have a clue.

heh

"personal attacks will not be tolerated"

ROFL! Now THAT is a law that gets broken!

I can't wait till some super liberal, intrusive government takes over when the republicans finally trip on their incompetents. Then have it use these programs to delve into your life ever more. Protection? Check. Protecting you from yourself is an easy next step.
Phone calls indicate you've ordered out too many times this week. For the benefit of society you will penalized by a revocation of your insurance. Others should not pay for your lack of will power. Or what about scanning the airwaves for key un-PC terms for citezens needing re-education. I definetely think Hilary should have access to personal information from every conservative organization and individual.
If an a****** kills someone with a gun you don't set up a program of surveillance of all gun owners.
How many thousands of people die from terrorism? and smoking? and sport accidents? how about toilet accidents?
Idiots.

If you recall, only a month or so ago George Bush said only a few calls had been intercepted and only when one end was outside the US. Then they changed the story and said that there were more calls and data intercepted and after that they said that not all calls had one party outside the US. Now each day they are getting caught and having to admit to more and more "surveilance" on everyones call, not just suspected persons. This massive abuse of power is similar to some of the things that led our forefathers to leave Europe and come to America. These people are trampling on the very basis of our Constitution. They continue to cry wolf (terrorist) over and over to justify their illegal and un-American actions. This has nothing to do with political party affiliation. It has everything to do with a struggle to maintain power and influence.

Exactly, he's a bumbling liar. He's proven that countless times. How many more lies before people wake up?

I think you are complete moron, All republicans are bad, and everything you say here on out, will be suspect, because you are obviously a Democrat and you won't give an objective opinion.

clinton, now there is a shining example, and he NEVER lied, noooo..

You need to look at yourself, jack.

Oh my god. Bush lied to get us into a war and now thousands of people are dead because of it and more countries hate us then ever before. Clinton lied about getting a blow job. Yeah that's totally the same thing.

You are a ****ing moron.

Yeah.

He lied.

He's a jackass for doing so.

It does not for one second though, make the war in Iraq any less of a stand we *needed* to make against a dictator who ruthlessly violated human rights and murdered thousands of people.

He needed to be removed. No-one else was going to do it.

Yep, I recall my history class.
"Children, the Pilgrims left England looking for a place where they could make phone calls without the King listening in."

Maintain power and influence? Who's taking it? And whose power and influence?

Nah, you wanna b**** about GWB, b**** about the lousy economy, the loss of good jobs, the immigration mess, his arming of the only potential enemy the US has, China.

But doing a time honored thing like looking in all places for eveidence of enemies. Only the true Bush hater can spin that into an issue.

"Yes Betty, I'd rather have 9-11 II than have people fish through calls and call records."

Are you among the group who whines that the CIA did not stop 9-11? But of course want them to ignore sources of information.

Grow up.

"Read my lips": should have happened with the first Bush IMO. Blame it on him :)

Heh.

He was a pansy. ;P

Nah. He tried, just not hard enough. He caved to the UN.

Baby Bush weasled his way in. I don't think he won any friends doing that. I'd have had respect for the guy if he'd have just told the UN where to stick it and done what needed to be done.

We've enough weasles in the world, TYVM.

I agree for the most part with this post. if someone lies to you once and gets caught, you are wary of believine them again, if they repeatedly lie over and over and over again and are repeatedly caught in their lies, then you pretty much disbelieve everything they say. natural order of things :)

I'll bet that excuse conforts you at nite, huh. That's a shame, truly.

Right. You're another one of those folks who just doesn't care, right?

Every other country in the world can go ahead and slaughter thousands, and you'd just sit there watching your Family Guy...not a care in the world.

I have problems with our Gov trying to force our 'bible-belt' ethics down everyone else's throats, but when it comes to the senseless slaughter of thousands, I applaud them for stepping in and putting a stop to it.

You should check the history of our interventions. Some have been truly altruistic and for the good of the victims of the offender. Others have been aimed at only financial or geopolitical gain, and even meant to "encourage" corporate profit (Banana Republic ain't just a store). I'm not convinced that Iraq was wholly altruistic and I certainly wish that 30,000 Iraqis had not been killed during our effort at preventing "slaughter."

How many of those were pointing guns at us?

Sometimes me and my friends make fake phone calls talking about bombing something and then we have phone sex just to make the FBI feel like idiots if they are listening.

Probably not the greatest thing to do these days.

Keep that up and you'll surely end up in jail... who will feel like an idiot then?

Let's be objective people. I really can understand being upset over this type of thing, but I cannot understand the "good intentions" behind revealing classified information. Heck, why does everyone assume that even the President was aware of this prior to the press release? If he was, then why didn't Clinton, Reagan, or former President Bush speak up about it? These last two questions are for debate in a different setting, I suppose.

"The timing of the story is especially troubling, considering Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden was tapped on Monday by President Bush to head the CIA."

Is it possible--I'm not saying it is, but seriously follow this through before releasing political flames--is it possible that this was timed politically? Why was it not mentioned in the last "leak"? What else are they planning to leak just prior to the 2008 election, I wonder?

Is it also possible that someone withen is working for the enemy? These are all unproven (but currently cannot be DISPROVEN) assertions, but kinda makes you think.

I do know with 100% certainty though that it is absolutely 100% Bush's fault right now, although in 2007 it will have been 100% the Republican Party's fault :) Yep, just like Clinton's negligence is 100% reason that the 9-11 attacks occurred! (this last paragraph is sarcasm, for you die-hard political fanboys)

The Democrats want to win the mid-term elections!!!

..and so do the republicans.

*gasp*

Thanks for that nugget of absurdly obvious stupidity.

This article says that they have call records, not the calls themselves. I could see that being legitamite looking for some sort of pattern. It would have to be a computer, no human could possibly look at enough of the calls to determine a pattern. One thing they could be doing is looking at the patterns of the kooks that took out the towers and then see if there are any other similar looking patterns.

They could also be tying the calls from someone who placed a call outside the country to known terrorist locations and then tie those back to interstate calls. Seeing if a pattern develops there.

It is just the records, what number dialed what number, probably whether they were cell phones, land lines, apartments, stores, etc.

lol, i just hope they got a good crack on my various phone-s3x calls .... i always knew there was someone else there listening ... now i know who it was ....

who really cares? they can look at my phone records all they want, i have nothing to hide. and its not like the government cares if you called someone elses wife, or looked at porn on your computer, or many things that are minor crimes. they arent going to listen to your phone conversations just because you smoked a little pot back in the day or jaywalked, they dont care. they just dont want to see thousands of people die. is it really worth the possibility of NOT saving countless lives just so the government doesnt know you called your mom on mothers day, or you called you wife from a bar saying you would be home late?

that's what I am saying!!!

I can't wait till some super liberal, intrusive government takes over when the republicans finally trip on their incompetents. Then have it use these programs to delve into your life ever more. Protection? Check. Protecting you from yourself is an easy next step.
Phone calls indicate you've ordered out too many times this week. For the benefit of society you will penalized by a revocation of your insurance. Others should not pay for your lack of will power. Or what about scanning the airwaves for key un-PC terms for citezens needing re-education. I definetely think Hilary should have access to personal information from every conservative organization and individual.
If an a****** kills someone with a gun you don't set up a program of surveillance of all gun owners.
How many thousands of people die from terrorism? and smoking? and sport accidents? how about toilet accidents?
Idiots.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

Yeah, and that lawsuit should be thrown out. Why wouldn't AT&T comply? Eventually the government would just force them to do it anyway. So you may as well volunteer, while its STILL volunteer.

They must be in dire need of contributions. That suit will go nowhere.

Good read, thanks for posting it.

Obviously this is essential... Once the NSA/FBI/CIA catch/eye a suspect, they can immediately go through his calls (even to pay phones) and figure out what's going on VERY quickly. I'm sure these NSA guys have HARD EVIDENCE where this practice/method has PROVABLY saved a few lives here and there in the past few years. The press isn't gonna be privy to such a report, see...

I don't fear my government, thus, keep doing what you're doing. If you fear them, keep whining, but know this: nothing you can do ("vote" for president lol) is going to change that. Every president from any major political party understands these actions are A MUST in today's crazy world...

You are doing a disservice to your readers when you infer the Administration had previously lied when they've indicated the NSA program was not "recording or listening" to domestic calls. It sounds like perfectly good sense to know what are routine pattern calls in the United States. That way an unusual call would stand out.

You would be the first to scream the Administration wasn't protecting you should another terrorist attack occur on our soil.

Bingo! That is so true. They did scream where is our protection.. well now they are doing something about it.

exactly what is a pattern of calls? how does one spot an irregular pattern of calls? how does one unusual call stand out in the trillions of calls made in a day?

perhaps the government is not doing a good job of protecting. cnn did a story about a border "checkpoint" in minnesota where you can literally drive right through the checkpoint. you are required to stop and push a button and identify yourself to someone who is 20 miles away. there is no one there to make you stop though. further the button rarely worked.

instead of employing a bunch of people to sift through a bunch of numbers why don't we pay one guy to man the station in minnesota?

"exactly what is a pattern of calls? how does one spot an irregular pattern of calls? how does one unusual call stand out in the trillions of calls made in a day?"

One example: A line in use for 3 years, never having made a long distance call, makes 2 outside the US, and one to florida within a week.

Yes, there are chances it is benign. But also a rather large chance it is not. Best to be sure, eh?

Ever hear of math? They've got these things...called formulas...that can really do amazing things with pattern recognitiona and variance detection.

guess that makes me a terrorist because up until last month, in 40+ years I never called out of state or overseas, then just last week I called canada twice, and mexico once and then there was that call to Romania... damn, I am just going down hill fast arent I... I wont even mention the calls I made to washington or to tenessee

To quote my post, which you apparently didn't read:

"Yes, there are chances it is benign."

Yeah, they did a great job the first time, huh.

yeah, I agree with Horsecharles.. besides, ALL phone companies keep logs of EVERY phone call for many years, and if they don't do regular maintenance, the logs go back as many years as they keep.. Again, so what?

No news here, has been ongoing since shortly after WWII.......

This article is somewhat misleading. They don't have recordings of phone conversations. The only thing that is logged is what phone number called another phone number. That is it. Phone companies having been keeping logs like this for years. The only difference is that the government requested those logs from a number of phone companies, and they obliged.

They're not sitting around recording all phone conversations. That would be a database nightmare. Even if you could somehow record all phone conversations from those companies, you couldn't possibly go through them all looking for terrorists plotting activities.

It is my opinion that this article is biased because it fails to make the distinction between call logs(what number called which phone when) and call tapping.

Therefore, Bush was not lying when he said that they only tapped phone conversations that went out of the US.

So far you are just reiterating what the article says..

But they SHOULD sit aroud and record phone conversations, that's their job. I contend they HAVE been listening to conversations for years, but you will never get CIA/FBI to admit, but I suspedt they do it and have been doing it.

My question still remains, so what? What is the big deal? If you have something to hide, then you should be afraid, me, listen, I dont' care. I doesn't bother me, read my emails, do whatever you have to for security, but do it to EVERYONE equally, not just some.. TAP all phone calls, make sure terrorirsts don't have an edge.

If you have a problem with our Government listening and recording conversations on a REGULATED company (not private) then planes are leaving every hour bound for Europe or other countries... You can move out.

So if Qwest declined to participate why couldn't AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth have done the same? In this particular case a court order IS required to legally get these call records. The Patriot Act does not give the government the right to consider everyone guilty until proven innocent.

In fact, wireless companies such as T-Mobile, to name one, do NOT release call records to anyone unless they get a court order. No exceptions.

Qwest should be denied any future federal contract for not cooperating in the protection of America. Any contracts they currently hold should be cancelled.

it's called a privacy policy. last time i checked there was no law that said a company had to hand over anything to the government without those new fangled subpoenas.

if anything Qwest should be lauded for doing their best to keep in line with their established policies.

also, "protection of america" my a** by sifting through endless lists of phone numbers??? surely there must be a better way to protect america.

I agree about the endlist list of phone numbers.

To me, the only usefulness this could serve is a sort of "after the fact" data hunt, when a terror attack happens.

I can only see it being helpful in figuring out how terrorists organized themselves after an attack has already happened.

I migrated here from a third-world country. I found it funny because it seems that I do appreciate this country (USA) more than the people who lived here for their entire life. I wish I could tell you how much you guys (Americans) are so blessed and have full of opportunity to do good and to be good and be well. I have friends and relatives all over the world and they all wanted to come here and have the same opportunity that I have. You have the best liberty in the world and yet just because a humor that the government is listening to your electronic phone calls make some of you declaring “no justice”? Do that in Iraq during the madman regime and you’ll be shot. Do that in communist Korea or China and even your family will be in trouble. Learn to appreciate what you have and do the right thing to help fight terrorism rather than siding with the enemy. Don’t complain for something that was handed down to you (your liberty) thru others blood (soldiers who died to give you that liberty). USA is not perfect but compare to others, it is the closest thing.

you don't have a choice to decline where security is concerned, sorry.. they didn't VOLUNTEER, but they would EVENTUALLY be encouraged to comply.. otherwise, they will just do it anyway.

The patriot act is nothing more than a contrivince to appear to doing something, so people will quit lambasting the government for preventing a terrorist act, that NO ONE on the planet could stop.

Consider, the bombings in London, was that stoppable? We even (the USA) TOLD Scotland Yard there were possible terrorists attacks on their subway system and they STILL failed to act. So don't go blaming the US government for preventing this.

If people are hell bent on causing trouble, there is NOTHING you can do. Period.

You can however, not be caught with your nibblets over the fire, if you spy on conversations, watch peoples email, and follow what they do from their computer.. if that will prevent even a 50% more terrorist from attacking, thaat would be sufficient.

I do not take my civil rights in my country for granted, and I will make sure they're guaranteed. While foreign and domestic conflict must be addressed, fundamental American freedoms can not be compromised for any reason. To compromise the freedoms others died for is civic treason.

Its not a PRIVATE phone like. Its a PUBLIC Utility, regulated by GOVERNMENT laws, over COMMON lines, where the hell do you expect privacy there, dipweed?

So what's been compromised here?

Thought so...

Pattern recognition, variance detection, and of course, you are rigth also about the "after the fact" tracking down of suspects, conspirators, and possible links to other cells.

Pretty invaluable stuff.

Freedom from unreasonable search. Phone records aren't a big deal? How would records of person-to-person communication be? Of course, only the names of the people involved would be recorded. Or IPs in internet communication? Keeping an eye on patterns in international calls to suspect nations is excusable, but U.S. to U.S. communication is going way too far.

Although a small infringement might not seem critical, it could just be the tip of the iceberg or the beginning of a downhill slide. There simply are too few checks and balances to control our spy agencies on domestic issues.

If the call goes through a relay center. That's one place where a wiretap is guaranteed not to be. I recall that from when I was a relay operator.

Wow, you managed to increase your vocabulary with yet another insulting word and learned what a run-on sentence is. You're coming up in the world.

"Freedom from unreasonable search."

Excuse me?

Maybe I simply forgot, but how is monitoring of phone calls on a

!!!!!!PUBLIC FREAKING NETWORK!!!!!

...classified as unreasonable search?????

Jesus!

YOU CANNOT BE THIS STUPID!

Over the top? Yeah, I guess.

Look, it's a public network, dude. Get over it. You've lost nothing.

Phone numbers: Public
IP addresses: Public

Did you see the word 'Private' there? No?

Didn't think so.

And this?

"Although a small infringement might not seem critical, it could just be the tip of the iceberg or the beginning of a downhill slide."

Classic. Pandered by every conspiracy nut-job since...well, the beginning of civilization.

What's your next trick?

nah...I've heard 'dipweed' before.

I think it's actually a decade or two old, though.

Explains why you've never heard it.

Compiling data to establish a pattern to investigate is not an assumption of guilt.

what about the right to DUE PROCESS... first the entity must establish a reason for the action (ie: give a reason why they are monitoring that specific line or that specific person), then they must get a court order allowing the monitoring (and these are time sensitive things, they dont allow of indefinite monitoring), then they must establist the tap to monitor the line. if after so long of a time they find no susp[icious activity then they must abandon the tap. all this costs MONEY people... are the us taxpayer dollars well spent on this activity? NO! are there better places to put that revenue? YES

if these records are public then I guess i can just go and get YOUR info? nope, doesnt woork that way. there are guidelines in use to prevent people from gaining access to others' info such as it were. all this is is just another abuse of executive branch power.

here's a nice conspiracy theroy. and I say theroy because it has YET to be proven, years after the fact... foriegn terrorists were behind the 9/11 attacks

on the contraty, everyone who has willingly just given the terrorists in ppower of the us what they wanted should be treated as trasonous and should be banished forever from the us :)

The internet is a public service that is largely regulated by the US government but I still have the right to transmit a fake IP address that has no reverse DNS to websites I visit so I can hide my identity. Therefore, if I'm using my home phone to make a personal call through the government regulated phone network I should have the right to make an anonymous phone call.

I really do not see your point. While both of these are 'public', the information on the sites you visit, or the people you talk to is definitely private.

If the NSA was compiling a phone book, I could see your point, but they are doing something quite different.

"Classic. Pandered by every conspiracy nut-job since...well, the beginning of civilization. "

So you are saying the infallible government is not to be understood, checked, balanced, or questioned. I think you are the nut-job.

Out of interest, what happens if someone says "Okay, you're right - the telephone is a public utility, so I'm building a simple, but closed non-public route of communication, using *some form of non-specified technology*. It has no telephones, routes only to people I want to communicate with, and you won't be able to tell when it's in use and when it's not.

Do you imagine that the government would then say "Darn, it's non-public - he has a right to privacy and we can't monitor it"?

I'd find it far more likely that suddenly lots of attention would be paid to you, and they would *insist* on having access to your communications system.

If you go through the same hoops, sure. Doubt you have the equipment, though.

Checks and balances apply to what they do with the information.

If they were to publicize it, there would be consequences.

It is *still* private. They're *not* disclosing any of it.

Checks and balances are still functioning just fine in that department.

Now all we need are the same checks and balances on Corporations and NFP organizations.

How does this apply to a public, government regulated utility?

That is just the type of crap the NSA and other law enforcement agencies should be looking at.... That is a prime example of an unsual pattern.

Yap! I agree! there's a lot of ways to communicate other than electronic phones. If you think your privacy is being compromised then secure it or find another means to communicate.
The goverment's job is to give you ways or choices to secure your self and NOT to do it for you! If you live in Los Angeles which prone to earth quakes, the goverment won't force you to move out there but it is your choice and responsibility and they will give options to help you help yourself in such events. This is the fundamental of freedom.

Abuse of executive power is to gain individuals' benefit and not to give protection to American people. hmmm... Your public phone number have to be private display only? Have you seen any yellow book lately?

"Checks and balances"??? You've GOT to be kidding. You don't really believe there are any, do you?

Yeah, there is that whole nagging subpoena thing, and the special court that was set up to here the requests, all of which have been ignored. Frankly, if the administration hadn't circumvented the court, I don't think nearly as many people would object.

Make me wonder what someone might be able to do with VOIP.

Yes. I do.

Laws are created by the gov and dissolved by the Courts pretty regularly. You'd notice, if you bothered to pay any attention.

Not a bad thought...though the Internet is not what one might call the most 'private' of networks either...

Uh-huh. The Executive Branch has more power than ever, especially with those wonderful signing statements that allow circumvention of law. The FISA courts have been literally ignored. The Congress whines a bit and then rubber stamps everything. And, the courts have now developed a habit of delaying or ignoring decisions on matters that would address most violations by the government of current law. That's NOT what I call "checks and balances," but hey, if it works for you, you'll vote one way and I the other.

True, but certain software can make it appear that I am Sven, browsing the net from Sweden. Not sure that could be made to cover VOIP, too, though.

If you want to make a private phone call, T-Mobile and Cingular are currently not releasing call records to the government without a court subpoena.

As for browsing the internet anonymously, check out this website: "www.anonymizer.com".

Oh, I've heard it before. Just pointing out that he's managed to learn another insulting word. Useful for when one can't find enough words in one's regular vocabulary.

Personally I think this is crap.

I don't think they should be allowed to do this just because they are the Government.

I'm not sure what's up as of late but the U.S.A. seems to be getting worse and worse.

I still love this country and I love living here. I just don't like all the BS going on.

Without playing either side of the situation presented, I will say this...

If everyone with the same feelings you're presenting would get out and vote on a regular basis, I think a lot of this could change. I want to be clear, I'm NOT saying that *you* don't vote, but I hear many people with the same feelings you brought forth who spend election day mowing the yard or watching movies instead of making a difference.

What will it take to get these people off their bumms and into a polling station?

this isn't BS, this is security.

Do you want 911 to happen again? FBI and CIA (even though it wasn't their fault) had egg on their face, they will do whatever it takes to keep this from happening again.

and this stuff has been going on for years.. not just recently.. WE have more conscious and ability to share this info, that's all.. news travels around the globe in seconds thanks to the internet.

I still don't see what the problem is. Explain to me why this is a problem for you?

Are you a terrorist? Are you arranging for drug deals over the phone? Do you have ties to the mob? Are you hiding something? NO?

Then don't worry about it.

I agree.

And for the record I do vote. :-)

I know you weren't saying that "I" don't.

They had plenty of warning about 9/11 before it happened. They don't need to listen to all of the phone calls within the USA.

It's their fault for ignoring the data that they had before 9/11.

Our government is turning into asshats.

Remember what Ben Franklin said: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

Right now we are trading liberty for security. That's what is BS.

OH yeah, they had plenty of warning.. Yeah.

You don't really have a clue how many threats the 911 and FBI, CIA, and State and local police get every single day do you?

Yeah they had notice, along with 1 million OTHER threats, which one can you believe and which one do you take as credible? That's the problem.

Before 911 there were millions of threats every day. After 911 we still get more threats, except now they have to treat them ALL with a bit more seriousness, because we won't know where the next attack can come from.

They didn't ignore anything. You are listening to those groups that "say" they warned the government about Al Quaida, of course they want to look good, and people will listen NOW because people want answers.. Well Terrorists do stuff in this country ALL the time, now that 911 happened, people are a lot more obvservant, whereas we weren't before.

ITs EVERYONE'S job to protect US, not just Police, Fire, FBI, CIA, et. al.. Its YOUR job and MY job. Its not them, its US!

How did we get liberty in the first place? We FOUGHT for it, that's how. We aren't trading, you can't have Liberty without Security, if you think you are trading one for the other, you are living in a dream world.

Blah Blah Blah Blah.

Words words words.....

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

All been said before.

A smart person trying to do something harmful will speak in code over the phone. They will not say "fellow terrorists, let's explode the bomb!" and which would trigger the calls. A tapping policy is much more about giving power to a (secret) police to pressure people into fear. Also, there are laws who make everyone a criminal. Have you ever sang "Happy Birthday" in a public place without paying royalties? That's illegal. What about a government in a state of war led by people saying "You are either with us or against us?" What if criticising/naming certain officials also triggers a call? What if you have to censor what you say on the phone in order to avoid difficulty getting clearance for future employment (or avoid being fired "for security reasons")?

Giving guarantees of protection from terrorist attacks for a continent-sized country is retarded BS. The real result is more power to the Executive branch, and infinitely more possibilities for abusing this power. In other words, the "attack on freedom" was 100% successful, and it was an attack masterfully executed by parts of our power-hungry government. The attacks on the buildings were insane, dark, illogical terrorist acts which was used as a pretext.

what rock have you been living under? the 9/11 commission found that multiple agencies ignored multiple chances to prevent the attacks. that's besides the point though ...

the point is how does logging every phone call ever made make us safer? it doesn't. the government needs to focus it's efforts instead of trying to grab every piece of data on everyone. the bottom line is that it's not targeted enough and it's a waste of time.

also, contrary to your opinion america's citizens are not required to protect america.

Actually, I think it is the Congress who is power hungry. Someone up there mistook the word "oversight" and thought it meant "Congress" had to give a stamp of approval for everything. I don't recall Congress electing the President nor the Constitution indicating a President's wartime powers must be approved in advance.

Don't even begin to get me going on the word, "appropriation." HAHAHA

Sigh, it is NOT security, if you think they can make the country secure by logging all the phone calls and such, you need to go get some common sense. Being "aware" of what's going on IS security, as well as taking appropriate actions to counter the information that you recieve.

The government had plenty of warnings and not just on the phone. They had plenty of warnings from other nations. Do you think that 911 would not have happened if they had logged each and every call BEFORE 911?? Sure ... it still would have happened anyway because the US intelligent forces were stupid and failed to act on what information they had.

The problem is, they're wasting our tax dollars ... I have a problem with that. I could care less if they are listening, though that's somewhat annoying. Will it stop, I seriously doubt that. Has it been goin on for years? Anyone who thinks it has not is not very well informed.

Security ... right, it's just another way to invade our privacy even more ...

Amen, although I have to disagree with your idea about Americans ... although technically you are correct, Citizens are NOT required to protect America. I believe that this is part of what is wrong with America, its citizens don't really protect it, but they sure as heck want all the freedoms we enjoy here now don't they.

"The National Security Agency has been collecting phone call records from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth containing the phone calls of tens of millions of Americans. However, the program does not involve the NSA listening to the phone calls, sources told the USA Today in a story published Thursday."

Where the f**k does it say anything about listening? It says it does NOT involve the NSA listening...

Do we have a comprehension problem???

Yeah, so they speak in code, so your answer is even if they listen, it wouldn't do any good anyway? Please!

People can mask it, but in the interim if they feel they are being watched, maybe they wouldn't attempt it in the FIRST place, that's why its security.

singing happy birthday in a public place is NOT illegal, that's freedom of speech. If however you play the original artist song in a public place without their permission, THAT'S illegal. This is actual precedent, the Supreme Court ruled on this very same topic, that happy birthday is not copyrighted, for one thing, we don't know for SURE who wrote it.. there are a couple of people claiming responsiblity.. That is a poor example.

You also should watch what you say, if you are naming individuals and criticising, then maybe YOU are part of the problem, and you are saying this like people don't try this every day. People take responsibility for stuff they didn't even do.. they are trying to draw attention to themself, so what?

You act like this can be used against you, and you are reading WAY too much into this. For one thing, they HAVE been listening to phone calls all these years, I just know it. They are NOW trying to be politically correct, and also server as a warning to others that WE are publically announcing it, but they have been doing it long before now.

If you have to censor what you say on the phone, and it comes back to haunt you, perhaps you aren't the type person they want in the first place, that's called paranoia.

In the second place, they are using this as a global deterent to prevent crime and terrorism. EVERYONE NOW is aware that we are taking steps to listen in on phone convos. OK, so now you know, so you can't plead in court that you have a right to privacy. No you don't, because its now official. That's where this will come into play, so if a criminal is found to be guilty, they can use phone conversations against them without fighting additional legal battles, THIS is where you fail to realize, they aren't after you, they are doing this to open to the door for FUTURE conversations and prevent hiding behind the "private use phone BS". They don't need to waste time getting a wiretap, they can just proceed, and you can't claim that phone conversations are priveledged with your priest or attorney.

*Giving guarantees of protection from terrorist attacks for a continent-sized country is retarded BS.*

either you are totally insane, living in some cave in kentucky, or you are the most insecure, blatantly lame person in the universe. This isn't a guarantee, its PART of a solution. What they are supposed to just say oh well, I guess we can just post 2 more guards at the airport, and that will help alleviate the problem.

9/11 was a wake up call. For EVERYONE. ALL countries are taking a more defensive stand against terrorism, because it proved they are willing to do whatever it takes to blow s*** up.

AND they don't come from third world nations, we have snipers, we have T. McVeigh, we have Eric Rudolph, the list is endless, they weren't on a damn terrorist watch list, those were citizens.

No we can't GUARANTEE to protect everyone, but WE CAN and WILL take steps to drastically reduce it. If the Government doesnt' do anything, people raise hell. If the Government thinks its a good idea to have the national guard at every airport, people raise hell. If the G-men think we need to listen to phone call, people raise hell.

Maybe you should start your own nation, and you can pretend you can't lift a finger to help, and when you get attacked, don't call the red phone in Washington, cause we don't even care! You HAD your chance.

There was no "attack on freedom".. It was a personal attack on the USA. They didn't take away our freedom or liberties. I keep reading and hearing this crap, what liberty, rights, and freedoms did you lose EXACTLY? I don't see anything, a minor inconvenience, so what. that is a SMALL price to pay for FUTURE protection.

So if a guy straps himself to a bomb in NY, goes to a bank, and blows up, as soon as he walks in the door, that is 100% successful. what the hell does that prove? I suppose they should have seen that coming too?

So you are claiming conspiracy theory that our Government has something to do with 9/11.

-pause for reflection and figure out which way this dumb a** needs to understand-

umm.. are you a complete idiot? You think the Government had something to do with 9/11. you are now an Anti-American, dumb ****. You shouldn't post anymore, because you have ZERO credibility, the government is after you and you need to be sterilized so you don't reproduce, and your entire family nuked.

I think you should sue your brain for non-support, you air head.

There are bad people in this world, they are jealous of our culture, nothing more. They aren't happy and they don't want anyone else to be happy, PERIOD.

The problem with having so much information is that it means you can miss more things. You can't really win either way. If you don't have enough information you lose, if you have too much information you are overloaded, miss something and lose. Look at the London Bombings of last year (7/7), just today it was announced they were not resourced to deal with it which is why it happened.

If I were a terrorist and I wanted to attack somewhere I would flood the network with as much junk data as possible, chances are it would work in my favour these days.

Yea and they also showed they ignored others as well, did you read the damn thing? They took out the part about the other 1 million bomb threats, president assasinations, buildings that were to be attacked, malls exposed, games playing. They had several attempts on the Superbowl, but did anything happen, no.

They had so many, which one do you decipher as real, that's the damn point. I am going to recommend that you become the head of the Homeland, because if you have some crystal ball where you can PRECISELY predict when and where, with 100% certainty, then you should be the one in charge.

If not, then STFU, because you are listening to much NPR, of COURSE they have previously knowledge. but just how the **** did you expect them to separate the real from the other nut jobs that threatened to blow up other places all over the world.

Did you also read that same report, they threatened not only the White house, pentagon, but Mall of America, Disney World, NASA, the damn list is endless, you one sided bafoon

Those other places weren't attacked, but obviously the World Trade center was.

And evidently you don't know your oathe, dumb ass, its written in the constitution, protection from ALL threats foreign and domestic IS part of your OATHE jack ass, perhaps you fell asleep or you were too busy spanking the monkey in citizen class, you moron.

To quote you

"Yeah they had notice, along with 1 million OTHER threats, which one can you believe and which one do you take as credible? That's the problem."

And with all this extra data they are getting 10 million other threats a day. I fail to see how that has helped the situation.

It didn't, but you tell me how they are supposed to find the REAL threat with 1 million phone calls? huh? Tell me that, oh wise one.

Its easy to see when you have hindsight, but I didn't see your name at the top of the list of people that "saw this coming"..

Noone saw this coming, it was a random threat, with no viable evidence to support it.

Bulls***! It is your job.

Bill of Rights, Preamble, Citizen Oath, its all over the damn place.

Why do you think the forefathers have the right to bear arms as the second damn amendment.

Its EVERYONE's job to be vigilant. Maybe this is the problem, you people think its someone ELSE's job and you look the other way, well I think we found out why terrorists go unnoticed, because YOU people don't give a flip.

Ah, ok, well now I know who I am dealing with.

The Police rely on tips from people. If you DON'T give your side of a story, you are required to watch what goes on around you, and report what you see, if you see an accident, and you are a witness, you can be cited.. If you leave and don't give your side of the story.

These are all things as being a citizen of the USA...

Run out of your own ideas sport? Gotta quote dead old guys? Do you have the slightest idea of the context of the quote so often spouted by the idea challenged?

Plenty of warning. Yes, of course. That's what the record shows. You must belong to the group of "well-informed" Americans who paniced over the bird flu TV show.

"Sigh, it is NOT security, if you think they can make the country secure by logging all the phone calls and such, you need to go get some common sense. Being "aware" of what's going on IS security, as well as taking appropriate actions to counter the information that you recieve."

Huh? are you serious? Logging calls and analyzing the data would be an attempt at being aware in order to be more secure. Oh wait, I see what you are saying... we should only log the calls made by terrorists to terrorists. If you are going to find the needle in the haystack, you'll have to touch the hay.

"The government had plenty of warnings and not just on the phone. They had plenty of warnings from other nations. Do you think that 911 would not have happened if they had logged each and every call BEFORE 911?? Sure ... it still would have happened anyway because the US intelligent forces were stupid and failed to act on what information they had."

Do you think that all of the intelligence that came in prior to 9/11 pertained to those attacks and was accurate? I guess you're right, the government that you elected doesn't really care about your freedom, they just want to invade your privacy. Freedom should have no cost at all, right? It should just be included at no charge when you are born in the USA.

What liberty are we trading for security here? Better yet, what is liberty?

"I agree.

And for the record I do vote. :-)

I know you weren't saying that "I" don't."

Based on your knowledge of the facts, I would contend that you shouldn't.

Finally, someone admits their preference for a dictatorship, or maybe you prefer aristocracy?

All the more reason he should.

Sounds more like some dictator-as-God theocracy to me... :-P

More seriously, checks and balances make this country work. The executive (president), legislative (congress), and judiciary (courts) all check and balance each other. While congress may 'review' actions of the executive, they couldn't actually start these things themselves. The problem isn't congress reviewing executive actions too much. Only when nothing gets done is that a problem. (In this case, it's too much getting done if anything)

That makes sense.

When will they start tracking all visits to web sites? VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS.

Its impossible to track ALL websites. I could start a website tomorrow.. you would never know about it..

Democrats were the problem, that's why we are in the mess in the FIRST place. Clinton, couldn't keep it in his pants, and he didn't pay attention.. Republicans aren't the problem.

Despite whatever political party you are affiliated, they ALL have some money motivated plan to do something THEY want, Democrats and Republicans alike. Nobody is perfect. they may make you happy, but they will inevitably piss someone else off.

Remember we are speaking about professional polititians, far removed from serving their voters and very interested in serving their lobbyists and careers.

Once one's personal vision and conscience is replaced by dedication to personal benefits, parties become irrelevant.

I don't care about Democrats/Republicans.

I care about $billions in debt, skyrocketing gas prices (and oil company profits I pay for), s***ty education (=s***ty future) and world politics which convince hundreds of people in Iran/Iraq/wherever that killing any American including ME and my family is a good idea.

Hey that's a good thing. Blame Democrats!
Even what Bush and Cheney does, lets blame Democrats. To tell you the truth, you are one in a million. No two millions!

Its not impossible to track all websites, this is what most search engines do. The government has more than enough resources to do the same thing. Every website has an address, be it a registered domain or just an IP address, either way it comes down to IP address, and IP addresses are finite, sure there are a lot but the NSA, etc could check every single IP address 10 times a day and still have resources spare.

...like the Dems wouldn't do the same.

*sigh*

Like it's a bad thing... They know you've been to porn sites? Bummer.

What's the problem? They aren't telling anyone else. They aren't using it against you.

You get to browse the web, just as you did before...and the gov has one more avenue down which to chase criminals and terrorists.

This is a bad thing?

Dude the search engines search for KNOWN websites, how the hell do you assume a search engine can find my site? Its not hosted on the web, its on my computer?

Are you computer illiterate? I have a website on my computer right now.. search for it. You WILL NOT FIND it, you lame brain. Because its not hosted outside of my house. I could give links to it, but a search engine can only find sites it has ACCESS to.

You are extremely short sighted. That's only IF they register it. ANY IP address can be a potential website, but they can't ASSUME every one will have a website now will they? NO!

And you give WAY too much credit for resources that the government has, they can't check EVERY IP address, that too is ALSO impossible, that's why they rely on ISP's to LOG traffic, you newb.

So the NSA is able to record every single phone call in the US yet they are unable to scan ~4billion IP addresses? Also that is the whole IPv4 range, they could cut it down to just the IP addresses in the US which would make the list much smaller.

If a company such as Google or Yahoo can index several billion pages I am pretty sure the US government could check every single IP address. Hell a kid with a port scanner could do a pretty good job, imagine what the NSA could do with all of their computers.

Very well said and it does make sense!

Guilty hates the light but loves the darkness in "privacy" hehehe.

Just that u US citizens understand: Travel Pattern profiling, email profiling, webbrowse profiling, telephone profiling.... trust your government not to ask your children to report on the parents...... big bro 1984 is here !!!!! Your liberties were permanently voided September 2001.

I agree, except for this liberty voided thing. They have not VOIDED anything. This is still a free country, nothing has changed.. aren't you still free to come and go? Do you see checkpoints on the road? NO!

There were changes to protect our security, but that's all.

Good job!

Checkpoints are next

Give it 10 years and I am sure you will have check points.

And is that a bad thing?

All of you people seem to forget that these things are all aimed at terroists and criminals.

So they collect my data? Big deal.

So they ask for my ID? Big deal.

I've nothing to hide. Do you?

You say it as though it's a bad thing.

Exactly! That's why we carry ID... You want it? here you go.

And yes, they aren't realizing that its the people that DON'T have legal documents, which is why they are trying to get rid of illegal aliens, too many to sort through...

Yes I do see them and have for years.
DUI/Safety 'Checkpoints'.
You get your license checked, you are ran through NCIC for wants and warrants, check your insurance, they can/will/do search any vehicle they see fit. Drugs you know.

When I was a kid, that is what we were told happened in the nasty Soviet Union. "Papers Comrade".

Have you heard of the word "Rapture" or "second coming of Jesus Christ"? It may seems old but read the book of Revelation then followed by book of Daniel. Amazing how this books tells why things are happening today and what will happen in the future. Anyways the books tells that after the Rapture comes some one will solve the world problem especially the problem between Israel and its enemies. That would be the anti-Christ. After 3 1/2 years he will declare to the world that he is the Messiah and would require everyone to have mark of 666 before you can buy anything. The 666 mark means that you have to renounce God or Jesus Christ. Please try and read these books and you'll understand more what I said. You will loose nothing if you do.

I tell you, that day is coming near. Everyone, including Israel, is tired of fighting the "Zionism" war. Whoever can solve the world crisis and it will be soon, is the one. Have you ever wonder why the focus of the world seems to be Israel? Because the Bible says so!

lmao...

Yeah. Sure.

...or perhaps it's because some religious zealots won't drop it and face facts.

God is dead.

There are many gods in man's life. Money, fame and even beliefs. Your god is dead. But the one true God is alive. You will meet Him one day. But unfortunately it might be your first and last day of seeing Him also. Hell is FOREVER and EVER! You don't beleive it? hehehe you will find out when you die!

I think we should assume that we have no privacy:period. And move on.

Oh, and revolt against what was once a great nation.

That pretty much echo's my thoughts.

Yes, and that's the way it should be.

No privacy, at least to those agencies who are empowered to protect us..

Its still a great nation, you need to move to Europe or Iraq so you will learn to appreciate what you have in the USA.

Definitely echoes my thoughts as well. Sometimes, we as Americans, have short memories of history. At least we are free to say what we feel and even disagree. See if you get such treatment in whatever third rate nation you care to live.

(Over)Rijp, i bet you, you've never been outside of disneyland, let alone outside of the USA...

it's called a fishing expedition and the courts don't allow you to do that. Qwest has every right to deny the government access without a subpoena.

our country is built on a series of checks and balances. if we decide the government should have absolute power to spy on every individual we might as well rename ourselves the New USSR or New Germany.

Creating a database of call detail records is actually a pretty good idea if your goal is to identify possible links between suspected or known terrorists. I can imagine a scenario where the government might know a telephone number of a known terrorist (either in the US or not). If they could then search all US call records for some time period to identify calls to/from that number this could give them useful leads.

Here are some questions for a couple hypothetical scenarios:

1) If the government keeps such a database, and never makes any queries against it. Is this an illegal intrusion in anyones's privacy?

2) If the government keeps such a database, and never makes any queries against it that brings up any call records associated with you. Is this an intrusion of your privacy?

Is the creation of the database an illegal intrusion of people's constitutional rights? Or does the legality of the database depend upon the purposes and procedures of how the data are used?

From my perspective this database could be useful, maybe very useful, for counter-terrorism activities. I would guess that this kind of a database might also exist for airtravel as I suppose each carrier keeps electronic records of all tickets sold and used. Although I imagine it would be more difficult to uniquely identify people in the same way that telephone numbers are unique.

Comets approaching the Earth around May 24-26 2006 are showing the possibility of hitting the Altantic Ocean, and causing Tsunamis. People living along the coasts need to be careful, and be on the watch, and get the word out. Read about the news and possibilities here:

----------
http://www.savelivesinmay.com
----------

Acutally, it's perfectly fine for the governement to have any and all data they want on you.

What protects us is that they cannot use it, by itself, against us.

How it is used is what the courts are there to protect. Those are your checks and balances.

Welcome to the new world, where national security and the protection of our way of life is a tad more important than wether or not the gov knows about your massive porn collection.

Dunno about rijp, but I've been to several countries in Europe, as well as Canada, and the Bahamas.

I'm glad I live in the USA.

I assume you had a point...must have missed it.

Fine call it whatever the hell you want, its intended to fish for BAD people, not the good ones. That's the part you are missing.

Qwest has a right to follow the law. They, along with every other phone company, AGREE to be a company, which means the have certain responsibilities to DIVULGE info.

Either way, I don't care if you understand or even agree, the NSA can get info IF they want it bad enough. They will ask nicely once.. after that, they will get the info they seek anyway, except now they will be looking much harder..

Checks and balances, you mean like watching people to make sure they balance? You can't have it both ways.. how are we to insure people are in check? WE have to have a way to monitor them, illegal people AREN'T going to be so obvious.

No, I like tommorrow land and frontier land. They are my favorites.

And no I haven't been outside the USA, they don't have disney land/world.

I bet you haven't been past the 4th grade either have you? Thanks for the delightful commentary, was there a point to this?

Westworld for me, Baby!

w00t!

Yeah no privacy. Let's have the secret police come and randomly go through everyone's house. If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid. Let's let them listen to me talk to my mother or father about whatever. Once they've taken your privacy rights away from you what then? They can just keep taking your rights over and over again. After all what are you going to do now that they are always watching you? And if it comes to a dictatorship how will you defend yourself? They'll know every dissenting voice. Isn't America about freedom? So if we take away freedoms to protect against terrorism or whatever hasn't the terrorists won? A man who would trade his freedom for peace of mind is a fool.

Now that's a segue.

Uh huh.... I don't see how anyone can compare Iraq to European (EU) countries!

To: The-One and the rest who seem to keep quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Well here is an historical fact for ya:

The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

"We doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote. He noted the court had said "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

So who needs a history lesson?

What do you have in the US that I do not have in the UK regarding freedoms?

My uncle and auntie are from UK (migrated there 20 years ago). After they visited us here they seems desperate to come over here now. So probably its more than freedom, but I do heard one of their reason while they were talking to my parents and that is tax?

it not comparing EU to Irag but comparing USA to EU and Iraq.

That goes for me too especially coming from a third-world country. Compare to our lives there, you are literally living in the land of milk and honey. The only way for some of you to understand that is to live outside the USA in a third world nation for at least one full month.

When I first got here I had "culture-shock". Shock into how much its easy to live here.

I don't give a monkey's a** whether this is legal or illegal, or a rat's prostrate for constitutions and bills. It was legal in Nazi Germany to arrest and gas Jews. It was written in law in the USSR that you couldn't dis the party, and in some tribal law somewhere it's probably OK to eat your sister's babies.

"The Law" is irrelevant.

What +is+ relevant is absolute moral rights and wrongs, and it is morally wrong to impede the freedom of a person so long as that person is not impeding the freedom of another.

I don't live in the US, but in a country that is attempting to go the same way. The answer is to Disobey laws that are wrong. If enough people disobey laws then those laws cannot be maintained indefinately.

Force change through civil disobediance.... people really do have the power, it's just that the system has numbed and dumbed everyone into a state of - well - blind fear frankly.

You missed Euro Disney???

"Fine call it whatever the hell you want, its intended to fish for BAD people, not the good ones. That's the part you are missing."

That is exactly the attitude nazi germany had for the ten years preceding WWII.

"What +is+ relevant is absolute moral rights and wrongs, and it is morally wrong to impede the freedom of a person so long as that person is not impeding the freedom of another."

What freedom are you missing because of this?

The privacy of my personal communications is the freedom to which I refer.

If it were not a "freedom" it would be OK to randomly strap a tape recorder to anybody you met in the street, or for any person to install video cameras in any house in the country and watch them 24/7.

All freedoms are a moral issue. For instance, the reason it is wrong to murder is because you take away an individual's freedom to live. Similarly to rape is to take a away a person's right to sexual choice... etc etc.

Is is morally wrong to take ANY freedom away (unless that person is using their freedom to impede another's freedom), and thus what the "law" says about it is irrelevant.

If that were not the case, then any law would trump the morality of that law - thus it would have been morally Ok to gas Jews in Germany because the law said it was.

Unless you believe that to be the case then denying what I say is correct reveals your argument to be a logical fallacy.

The only arguments that are valid would be:

1.A sincere belief that law always trumps morality whatever that law is.

2. A sincere belief that individual freedom is not a moral issue and can always be violated in any way any individual wishes to do.

3. A sincere belief that there is no such thing as morality (a person making this argument is clinically called a psycopath)

4. A belief in morality, but a sincere disregard for all forms of it. (this is called evil)

If you are not in any of the above camps then it's very easy to prove that you are logically wrong and that I am right.

Your personal communications through a public service are private. Do you have a moral issue with the telcos harvesting that information in the first place? I'll bet it is even stored in a database... and analyzed too.

Is it morally wrong for a police officer to point a radar gun at you if you aren't speeding? How about road checks? They stop every car, not just the criminals.

Damn them all for attempting to insure the safety of others.

It is amazing the amount of personal information a person will offer if they think they are going get or win something. Think of this as a sweepstakes and the prize is a better chance at not being killed while enjoying your freedom.

Freedom does require that we do everything that the law permits. Our morals set some of our personal limits... I think most of us realize that genocide is wrong, legal or not.

"Do you have a moral issue with the telcos harvesting that information in the first place? I'll bet it is even stored in a database... and analyzed too."

That depends. I don't have an issues with them knowing that I dialled number x on date y. However, I do have an issue with them knowing the content of my communication, yes. A similar analagy is postal mail: it is acceptable that they may know where the package came from and where it is going, but it is not acceptable that they open my mail without any reason.

"Is it morally wrong for a police officer to point a radar gun at you if you aren't speeding?"

No, as long as my details are not recorded if I was not speeding.

"How about road checks? They stop every car, not just the criminals."

Yes, this is wrong unless I am entering private property and that iit is the wish of the private company/individual to stop and check me. When I travel on public-owned property I should not be stopped without reason.

"It is amazing the amount of personal information a person will offer if they think they are going get or win something. Think of this as a sweepstakes and the prize is a better chance at not being killed while enjoying your freedom."

True, but morality is not based on whether people are stupid or gullible enough to give it up.

"Freedom does require that we do everything that the law permits. "

Unless every law is morally sound (which they are not) then enforcement of this rule is an immoral act.

"Damn them all for attempting to insure the safety of others. "

Very useful, fear.

That depends. I don't have an issues with them knowing that I dialled number x on date y. However, I do have an issue with them knowing the content of my communication, yes. A similar analagy is postal mail: it is acceptable that they may know where the package came from and where it is going, but it is not acceptable that they open my mail without any reason.

Did you read the article?

Freedom does require that we do everything that the law permits.

Should have read "does not". Sorry for the typo.

Unless every law is morally sound (which they are not) then enforcement of this rule is an immoral act.

The problem with your theory is that moral beliefs are not consistent and the law generally is. There must be a uniform set of rules in place to function as a society. You cannot break laws just because you disagree with them. I believe that paying taxes impedes on my freedom to spend the money that I have earned the way I would like. Should I not pay my taxes? I think it is morally wrong to take money from another person... legal or not. Freedom is not a divine right and freedom does not come without responsibility.

"Did you read the article?"

Yeah, but I don't trust them. LOL.

"Should have read "does not". Sorry for the typo."

NP

"The problem with your theory is that moral beliefs are not consistent and the law generally is. There must be a uniform set of rules in place to function as a society. You cannot break laws just because you disagree with them. I believe that paying taxes impedes on my freedom to spend the money that I have earned the way I would like. Should I not pay my taxes? I think it is morally wrong to take money from another person... legal or not. Freedom is not a divine right and freedom does not come without responsibility."

Yes, subjective "morality" differs immensely from culture to culture and person to person, but in fact that is fools morality if you like - fake morality that most people go around claiming as "truth". It is just opinions, and mainly on issues that don't have anything to do with true objective morality at all.

For instance, below you talk about taxes and whether you should pay them or not, and property as to whether you should steal it or not. Those are not objective moral issues for one reason and one reason alone: taxes(money) and property (possession) are not real things, they are only social concept - imaginary inventions to create a society. As such to apply morality to them is ridiculous.

Morality only applies to sentient living beings and their treatment: humans.

The crimes of refusing to pay tax or stealing property are not morally wrong, they are simply anti-social. They should be punished in those terms.

The proof of the pudding is simple - morality will always trump social issues. For instance, if your wife is dying of illness and has 10 minutes to live, and the man next door has the cure, but won't sell it for less than $1m, which you don't have, then it +is+ morally right to go steal that cure, or the money to purchase it. It is anti-social to do so, but still morally right.

(change the slash to an apostrophe in the link below - damn beta news!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/...es_of_moral_development

Objective morality is built into us - even a human deprived of social conditioning will recognize that it is wrong to kill another human being... it is part of sentience that divides us from animals. And the extension is that we ALL know when we have done something wrong by harming another person - which is always the act of taking away their freedom in one form or another - it's called conscience and although we may choose to ignore it, we all have one (bar the rare condition of psycopaths).

That is the +only+ objective morality, and it trumps all other considerations.

:-)