Login:
Password:

NSA Has Record of US-to-US Calls

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

May 11, 2006, 12:00 PM

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.

The lists include calls made within the United States, something the Bush administration has previously denied. Officials have said the spying program, uncovered in December, only involves international calls. But this latest revelation seems to indicate that this is not the case.

According to the story, although not identified, "people with direct knowledge of the arrangement" are cited as the source. 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.

As head of the NSA from March 1999 through April 2005, he would have overseen such a program. These latest revelations could further complicate what is expected to be a difficult nomination process for Hayden. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed opposition to his confirmation.

The ultimate goal of the logging project is to create a database of every call ever made, making it the largest database ever assembled, says a source. The NSA then is pouring over the data to look for calling patterns that could indicate terrorist activity.

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 when he said "one end of the communication must be outside the United States" to trigger surveillance.

The White House refused to talk to USA Today about the revelations. It should be mentioned, however, that data collection from phone companies involving the "externals" is rather common, but not on a scale that is being described here.

Only one company has declined participation in the program, Qwest. Sources say the company declined as it did not agree with the NSA's assertion that no court order was needed in order to hand over the records of its customers.

Add a Comment (408 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By drugshome

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 8:38 PM

http://DrugsHome.com

Score: 0

By marrix

posted May 15, 2006 - 9:09 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 15, 2006 - 11:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By girlfriday

edited May 15, 2006 - 10:47 AM

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!!!!

Score: 0

By crazeebob2000

posted May 14, 2006 - 8:34 PM

Uncle Sam has probably been doing it for years anyway.

Score: 0

By hcoyote

posted May 14, 2006 - 4:25 PM

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.

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 14, 2006 - 7:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By TehJohnus

posted May 15, 2006 - 6:12 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted May 14, 2006 - 11:20 PM

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

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

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 15, 2006 - 6:04 PM

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.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited May 14, 2006 - 12:31 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 15, 2006 - 11:27 AM

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.

Score: 0

By TehJohnus

posted May 15, 2006 - 5:55 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited May 14, 2006 - 2:45 PM

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

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

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 14, 2006 - 8:22 AM

"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.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted May 14, 2006 - 5:06 PM

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

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 13, 2006 - 11:56 PM

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.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 14, 2006 - 12:17 AM

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!

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 14, 2006 - 8:25 AM

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.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted May 13, 2006 - 7:20 PM

This could all be solved if people would just vote!

Score: 0

By DeKoquonut

posted May 13, 2006 - 12:16 PM

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.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 13, 2006 - 11:37 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted May 13, 2006 - 7:05 PM

You are spot-on.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 13, 2006 - 3:50 AM

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

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 14, 2006 - 12:01 PM

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

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted May 13, 2006 - 12:32 AM

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.

Score: 0

By kashin

edited May 12, 2006 - 10:30 PM

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.

Score: 0

By TehJohnus

posted May 15, 2006 - 6:04 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 12, 2006 - 10:46 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By jofin

posted May 13, 2006 - 1:15 PM

""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!!!

Score: 0

By TehJohnus

posted May 15, 2006 - 6:08 AM

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...

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 13, 2006 - 2:47 PM

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.

Score: 0

By jofin

posted May 13, 2006 - 6:59 PM

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?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 13, 2006 - 10:31 PM

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.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 14, 2006 - 12:05 PM

Are you listening to yourself Arakiel?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 14, 2006 - 12:14 PM

Are you reading dwaterman?

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 15, 2006 - 10:51 AM

Funny... pointing out my choice of words.

Score: 0

By linkdup

posted May 14, 2006 - 1:05 AM

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.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 14, 2006 - 12:14 PM

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

Nutjob

Score: 0

By tjsooley

edited May 12, 2006 - 9:20 PM

i see no problem with this.

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 12, 2006 - 5:47 PM

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...

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 8:46 PM

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

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 15, 2006 - 11:02 AM

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

Score: 0

By Desides

posted May 13, 2006 - 7:06 PM

Holy crap, a second spot-on post!

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 12, 2006 - 8:14 PM

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...

Score: 0

By The-One

posted May 12, 2006 - 8:31 PM

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

Score: 0

By fewt

edited May 13, 2006 - 9:19 AM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 10:21 PM

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?

Score: 0

By The-One

posted May 12, 2006 - 10:51 PM

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..

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 12, 2006 - 10:07 PM

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

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 12, 2006 - 10:57 PM

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.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted May 12, 2006 - 11:55 PM

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.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:14 PM

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.

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:22 PM

I totally agree with "zridling"

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 2:31 PM

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.

Score: 0

By kellino

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:55 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:03 PM

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

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

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:23 PM

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!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 12, 2006 - 4:29 PM

point taken...

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

...Oh, scratch that.

Score: 0

By The-One

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:04 PM

One good point I will agree with you on completely.

Score: 0

By deadmonkey

posted May 12, 2006 - 1:57 PM

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.

Score: 0

By The-One

edited May 12, 2006 - 2:16 PM

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".

Score: 0

By Dirrty_Harry

posted May 12, 2006 - 1:51 PM

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 :)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:46 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:16 PM

Looking forward to it!

*grin*

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 1:58 PM

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.

Score: 0

By kellino

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:23 PM

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 :)

Score: 0

By PC Rat

edited May 12, 2006 - 1:36 PM

...

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

...

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 12:51 PM

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

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 12:55 PM

*laughing*

OSI. (Open Source Intelligence)

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

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 12, 2006 - 12:06 PM

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?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 12:17 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 12, 2006 - 12:45 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 12:50 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 1:13 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 12, 2006 - 1:55 PM

"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...

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:25 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited May 12, 2006 - 3:01 PM

"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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:24 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:01 PM

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?)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:07 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:08 PM

heh...

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

Score: 0

By kellino

posted May 12, 2006 - 12:44 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 12:54 PM

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.

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 1:19 PM

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.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:13 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 2:29 PM

"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. ;)

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 2:54 PM

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.

Score: 0

By snoecks

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:19 PM

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

Score: 0

By kellino

edited May 12, 2006 - 10:48 PM

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.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 12, 2006 - 4:25 PM

Yeah, tighten that tinfoil hat a bit, pal.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 12, 2006 - 3:16 PM

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