Deleted - Off Topic

There are federal laws that protect our privacy. Below is the privacy statement from Sprint PCS.
Protection of Sprint Nextel and Others. We disclose personal information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law (e.g., legal process, E911 information); to enforce or apply our customer agreements; to initiate, render, bill, and collect for services; protect our rights or property, or those of users of our services; to protect other service providers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services; facilitate or verify the appropriate calculation of taxes, fees, or other obligations due to a local, state, or federal government requirement, or eligibility for government benefits; or if we reasonably believe that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of communications or justifies disclosure of records without delay.

Each company involved will have to prove a “legal” reason to allow the law to be violated. If not, this could be the mother of all class action law suits.

Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. George Bush

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth USA Today

Jon Kyle said they are only collecting information on their enemies.

Since they are collecting information on every phone call made in the US, it sounds like the Republicans have declared war on every citizen of the United States.

Well, I see the two mental midgets have posted as usual.

This is a good thing. We need to catch these terrorists, not let them kill us like Ash and Barney would like.

how exactly is listing your phone calls protected? It's not the same as listening in. I think that you libs should put your hatred aside and actually read up on the law.

Art Patscheck

Your lack of little grey cells is astounding. Why would Ash & Barney want another terrorist attack on America.

Sometimes, you have to use that organ the good Lord gave you, and I don't mean the one south of your belt buckle.

"how exactly is listing your phone calls protected?"

1) FISA

2) Section 222 of the Communications Act

Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

Unless of course, The Decider has decided he didn't need to comply with this law either.

Hey Barney:

Do you want the terrorists to kill us. I sure don't.

Over and over again, the Right seeks to muddy the waters of the NSA scandal with Bush's oft-repeated line "if al-qaeda is calling, we want to know what they're saying!".

For the umpteenth time, NO ONE is against listening to calls from al-qaeda, and the scandal with the NSA wiretapping has *nothing* to do with listening in on al-qaeda operatives. Indeed, there is a long-standing framework in place for doing this kind of listening immediately and without hinderance. That framwork is called FISA. It's very simple: you listen first, then within 72-hours you seek the warrant from FISA, AFTER you have listened. In cases of suspected terrorists calling the US, FISA always has given approval. Any questions?

Yes, as President of the United States, Mr Bush, as he is fond of repeating ad nauseum, is charged with doing everything necessary under the law to protect us from another attack. But you can imagine that listening in without any oversight whatsoever is a power that can very easily be abused. That is why the FISA framework was made into law - it allows both unfettered eavesdropping on those who might wish to cause us harm, and provides the retrospective oversight to prevent abuse.

So the scandal isn't over listening to terrorists - it is about the Bushies unilaterally deciding that they could ignore the established lawful framework by disposing with any retrospective oversight. Even the most unquestioning and staunchest Bush cultists must ask themselves: why didn't the Bushies just use the FISA framework?

The dissemblings provided by Al Gonzalez on this question are pretty unconvincing. Admit it: if the Bushies decided to skirt FISA, then it must have been because they knew that some of the calls they were listening to would not have been approved by the FISA court. Given FISA's historical willingness to grant retrospective warrants in 99.9% of suspected terrorist cases, then the key question becomes: who were they really listening to? Was it just terrorist suspects? Or was it political opponents, such as the campaigns of democrats like John Kerry? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe we will eventually get those records supoenaed...

Re:bush, as a famous Dylan once said,"I don't believe you". That's the core of the issue, bush has been caught in so many lies that he has no credibility any longer. Very,very sad. Peace

U.S. Code collection

2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records

Paragraph 2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—
(A) name;
(B) address;
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph 1

Paragraph 1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity—
(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or [1]
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2)..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html

Ash,

USA Today NSA Scoop Not News
The USA Today "scoop" on the NSA's massive telephone surveillance program isn't really news at all - though liberal media outlets have been blaring the story as a shocking revelation all Thursday morning.

The Agency, the paper announced ominously, "has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans . . . 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."

But as NewsMax noted in December - back when the New York Times tried to ballyhoo a similar story about the NSA's terrorist surveillance program - CBS's "60 Minutes" blew the lid off the agency's domestic wiretapping in Feb. 2000, when the Clinton administration was using it for all sorts of unauthorized purposes.

"60 Minutes" host Steve Kroft introduced the segment by saying:
"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
Now, more than six years later, the big media is pretending that this is all brand new - something cooked up by President Bush in a mad rush to shred the Constitutional rights of every American.
But even USA Today had to admit in its own report that the NSA wiretapping program has "been done before, though never on this large a scale."

Pin this on the Donky, Ash. Your post makes YOU the liar. You don't understand what is going on it seems. Read before you tout your BS.

WASHINGTON, May 10 — An investigation by the Justice Department ethics office into the conduct of department lawyers who approved the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program has been closed because investigators were denied security clearances, according to a letter sent to Congress on Wednesday.

What do they have to hide?

Hayden's nomination is DOA!

Good points ASH.

You call it a "Terrorist Surveillance Program," but I believe you are talking about the NSA's massive database of Americans' phone calls.

So, are 200 million Americans terrorist, or is it really a domestic surveillance program?

If we are really tracking 200 million terrorist, and they are all here in the US, when are we going to start arresting these American terrorist?

The rhetoric on this site should be offensive to every American; it mirrors the Bush policy, and maybe that's why his approval rating is so low.

Am I a terrorist or an American?

Ash, do you even bother to read.

Where does it say specific or any kind of data about contents of the call are captured?

Get back to me when you find that. It seems to me they are capturing calling aggregate data that doesn't do a damn thing to your privacy. Or are you calling 1-900-Im-a-liberal daily with Howard Dean breathing heavy on the other end so much it's starting to get your panties in a wad?

Show us WHERE your privacy was exposed or not protected.

We will be waiting.

"Hey Barney:

Do you want the terrorists to kill us. I sure don't."

I'll bet you don't want abortions either. I'll bet you don't want high taxes either. I'll bet you don't want religion to go away either.

And on and on, yet you guys and your ilk go out of their way to make sure those things happen all of the time.

key question becomes: who were they really listening to? Was it just terrorist suspects? Or was it political opponents, such as the campaigns of democrats like John Kerry? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe we will eventually get those records subpoenaed...

What’s wrong with that? Is it against the rules to catch the bad guys?

Warriornation barked

Ash, do you even bother to read.

Where does it say specific or any kind of data about contents of the call are captured?

I think the specific info is kept in a seperate database. I think the point is the President is in clear violation of the law, and that's reason enough for anyone to be angry.

Here's a better question... where does it say that they have probable cause and judicial oversight for gathering *our* phone records. I didn't find that in the story. It's like the whole wmd thing. Bush's says that they exist, Rummy says he knows where they are, but at the end if the day, it was all a Bush Admin Pipe Dream. I think the legal authority for this domestic surveillance program is like WMD in Iraq; they keep saying it's legal to spy on American's without cause, but in reality, it's just not legal. In fact, it's illegal, and this administration is in clear violation of the law.

"I don't know enough about the details except that I am willing to find out because I'm not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel: "The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?"

Bush, you are tearing your party apart.

Barney and Ash,

Once again, you are making an assumption unsupported by facts...for the umpteenth time, President Bush isn't listening in on your phone calls. The NSA program is a signals intelligence program designed to detect enemy communications. That is all it is - signals intelligence; not "domestic spying" and not "warrantless wiretaps".

Drop the paranoia, its making you look silly.

dl asked in a smart way...
What’s wrong with that? Is it against the rules to catch the bad guys?

I don't care what you do with the bad guys... It's clearly against the rules and the laws to spy on American citizens without probable cause and judicial oversight. I think that's what is wrong with that:)

Does anyone wonder those idiots couldn't get security clearance? The terrorist sympathizers/democrats/MSM don't care about Americans. What next, outlaw phonebooks? Have you checked the internet? YOu can get someone's call history for $25!!! Hollywood snoops our computers for illegal downloads, you can't drive without a seatbelt, can't offend anyone, can't own a gun, and you are worried about your phone number in a computer??? You hate BUsh so much that you refuse to acknowledge that the name, address, etc. is not connected to a number. If we get a call from AL Queda to a NY #, and we want to know everyone the NY called, and so on, why go to 4 different phone companies when it is all in one computer? It is not spying to have someone's phone number. SHould we have an execution for misdialed numbers?

dl says "Is it against the rules to catch the bad guys?

And the answer is: No, it's not.

Which makes you wonder... since there is nothing at all wrong with listening in on calls from al-qaeda, then why didn't the Bushians just go get the retrospective FISA warrants? From their increasingly odd behavior, it is becoming more and more obvious that the Bushians were listening in on their own domestic political opponents, a la Richard Nixon, which of course the FISA courts would disallow. The Bushians are merely hiding behind the pretext of "fighting terrorism" to avoid prosecution.

At this point it seems likely that the Bush presidency will end as ignonimously as Nixon's. What will you poor lost cult followers do then?

Ash - and some other libs - Good law references.

First off - we don't know if its true. That would be a VERY large list and I don't think their really up to it. I believe that the FBI was running a data mining operation (thats what this kind of project would be called) looking for terrorist relationships. Seems like a pretty big picture to look at to find terrorists. Akin to searching old ladies at airports - just not cost effective.

Second - and this is the tough one - the NSA is military. Military actions during wartime are not bound by civil laws. How else could the U.S. Army have killed thousands and thousands of American citizens? How? Because they were in rebellion and deemed enemy combatants.

So rather than jumping to conclusions lets remember that the NSA is not the Justice Department. It is the military. And we really don't have enough provable facts to jump to any conclusions.

Mark -

you write: ...for the umpteenth time, President Bush isn't listening in on your phone calls. The NSA program is a signals intelligence program designed to detect enemy communications. That is all it is - signals intelligence; not "domestic spying" and not "warrantless wiretaps".

Your argument about the signals intelligence is well taken. It is important to make the distinction that this newly revealed program is not the same as listening to actual content of phone calls.

Nevertheless, when you say categorically that "President Bush is not listening to your calls", my response would be that nobody knows which calls the administration has directed the NSA to listen to. Under the other NSA program that actually does listen to the content of calls, the admin has decided that there shall be no indepedent, court-warranted oversight. So outside of the NSA and the White House, nobody knows who they are listening to. One doesn't have to be paranoid to wonder why FISA was quietly tossed aside.

Okay Paul. I give. It's not brand spanking new news.
That just doesn't a) Make me a liar. b) make it any less true or less dangerous.

"Drop the paranoia, its making you look silly"

Well I must say Mark, Joseph McCarthy couldn't have said it any better.

Sorry Kahn, just saying you don't think they are up to it doesn't cut it.

"Military actions during wartime are not bound by civil laws."

Kahn, when does this "wartime" period end - when every single terrorist is captured/killed? Define it for me & the rest of us.

Page 5 of the USA Away article specifically states the program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

Well maf we know at least thru W.'s term. He got us in, is enjoying the expanded powers it has afforded him, and has no idea how to get us out.

Re:bush, as a famous Dylan once said,"I don't believe you". That's the core of the issue, bush has been caught in so many lies that he has no credibility any longer. Very,very sad. Peace

Could someone here--with a lower IQ than mine--please decipher Steve's drivel above? Barney, Ash, Tom, mf35, give it a go. I'd ask Steve, but being that he's the head idiot troll, he probably doesn't even know what he wrote.

This B/S story was published in USA Today for one purpose--to railroad Hayden's nomination. It won't work, nor will all the phony concern the usual idiots--Leakey, Turbin, et.al.--are displaying. This is not even worth debating, especially with the loser trolls we have here...

Jack Cafferty on CNN:

Cafferty: We all hope nothing happens to Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cause he might be all that stands between us and a full blown dictatorship in this country. He's vowed to question these phone company executives about volunteering to provide the government with my telephone records, and yours, and tens of millions of other Americans.

Shortly after 9/11, AT7T, Verizon, and BellSouth began providing the super-secret NSA with information on phone calls of millions of our citizens, all part of the War on Terror, President Bush says. Why don't you go find Osama bin Laden, and seal the country's borders, and start inspecting the containers that come into our ports?

The President rushed out this morning in the wake of this front page story in USA Today and declared the government is doing nothing wrong, and all this is just fine. Is it? Is it legal? Then why did the Justice Department suddenly drop its investigation of the warrantless spying on citizens because the NSA said Justice Department lawyers didn't have the necessary security clearance to do the investigation. Read that sentence again. A secret government agency has told our Justice Department that it's not allowed to investigate it. And the Justice Department just says ok and drops the whole thing. We're in some serious trouble, boys and girls"

I'm with Aarontime on this one -- and Arlen Specter. And, apparently, Gen. Hayden. Surprise, surprise.

If FISA is inadequate, fix it. Trust but verify. And for the life of me, I really don't understand why so many Republicans have a problem with that. If you really think about it, opposing proper oversight for this program is kinda nuts. Practically everyone's for it, as long as proper oversight is in place. If you allow it for Bush now without oversight, you are required to allow it for all presidents in the future -- even (shudder) President Hillary. Do you guys REALLY want that?

Yourmama

Show us where he's spying and it's against the law what they are doing? Show me where a Ruling has come down to suggest that.

Thanks

,i>"with a lower iq than mine"

keef, I don't think there is anyone here that fits the bill, sorry.

"This B/S story was published in USA Today for one purpose--to railroad Hayden's nomination."

keefer, you'd better retract that straightaway, or else Mark will say you are being a silly paranoid!

your friend, ashbreath

Rico: "I really don't understand why so many Republicans have a problem with that."

Rico I have a theory about that. This country is so divided, there is so much hatred that the Republicans would rather have their cajones sauteed than admit they are wrong about something. To be fair the Democrats can be that way too. But we're talking about fundamental freedoms that has always defined our country. And the Repugs can't even say that it is a good idea to have some oversight.

I lived through the 60's as a young adult and can tell you there is more division now than there was then. And to think this president came into office in 2000 promising to unite us. But his arrogance and inability to listen to the people and inability to admit making mistakes has given us this polarized society. I just hope we can make it through these next 3 years!

No warrant...hmmm. Didn't think they would be granted one...

Looks illegal, sounds illegal, must be a crime.

Ash,

At least for McCarthy there really were some communists in the State Department...what you guys are going on is this:

Because the President cannot provide you with detailed information of what has been looked at in the NSA program, your automatic, hate-Bush-at-all-costs assumption is that there is something wrong. Sorry, doesn't work that way - if you have evidence of a crime, then present it...without that,you are just making wild, unsupported accusations.

The relevant judicial and legislative bodies have been advised of this program and as far as evidence is concerned, it is a signals intelligence operation aimed at the armed enemies of the United States in wartime. Unless and until we see something CONCRETE to the contrary, then we have to work on this assumption.

Bravo President Bush. This is another reason why the dems cannot get anywhere near power or any position of authority. The dems are just too irresponsible and disgraceful. The USA has not been attacked in over 4 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.

Aarontime,

I refuse to believe that the good and honorable men and women of the NSA would lend themselves to a clearly illegal, immoral operation...I trust that if an illegal or immoral order rolled down to them that at least some of them would advise the relevant legislative and judicial authorities.

You have no evidence that anything nefarious is going on - all you've got are accusations and suppositions. I, for one, do not think we should engage in government policy based upon accusations and suppositions.

Ash

Do you have a paying job?

Why do you ask, War Boy? Are you collecting information for my dossier?

Mark,

What about my assertion that this administrations arrogance has made the bed he is now forced to sleep in?

Ash said: "I lived through the 60's as a young adult and can tell you there is more division now than there was then."

I did, too. Once I participated in a sit-in. I don't remember what for, lol! But as far as saying "there is more division now than there was then." I'm not sure I agree. It's just different, I think. Back then it was more of a generational issue pure and simple. These days it's much more complicated. I don't know how to explain it. But I think it's clear that the divisions we see are often unreasonable, meaning they derive their energy from pure ideological grounds rather than anything based on reason. And the ideological grounds don't even have to make any sense in any logical context, as far as I can tell. It only only seems to matter most which party manages to claim which turf first. Once the lines are drawn, any sort of objective reality doesn't seem to matter.

That is to say, the primary assumption seems to be that no one from the other side can ever be right. I find that assumption patently ridiculous. I cannot, will not accept iy. The message is not wrong simply because you don't like the messenger. The message is wrong because the message is wrong. Period. Granted, there are times when even I don't trust the source because I have developed an opinion over time about the general reliability of the source. That comes into play -- In general, I will tend to consider some sources more scrupulously than others. But the fact remains that even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

Ash said further: "And to think this president came into office in 2000 promising to unite us."

A lot has happened between then and now. And you can't blame all of it on Bush.

Ash said again: "But his arrogance and inability to listen to the people and inability to admit making mistakes has given us this polarized society."

There is some truth to that. I both wish he could do a better job of listening to the people, and wish the people could do a better job of appreciating the fact that the guy is human. It may be that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but no clock is 100% right 100% of the time. We are all human. I have to agree that his profound inability to admit mistakes does tend to exacerbate the problem. Then again, I'm not a politician. And you have to accept that there are always two realities in tension -- political reality and objective reality. If everyone was 100% informed all the time, those realities would be the same. That is, of course, impossible. But to the extent that people are not, those realities are not. So I ask you... what do you do about that? Any ideas?

Mark said: "You have no evidence that anything nefarious is going on - all you've got are accusations and suppositions. I, for one, do not think we should engage in government policy based upon accusations and suppositions."

So is that a vote for or against the Whistle Blower Act? If there is no way to get to the bottom of things, in what sense can any possible illegal activities ever see the light of day, and rise above accusation and supposition? Remember, Bush is not going to be president forever. Trust, but verify.

This is a non-story, just a rehash of the NY Times Article in December of 2005. There is no spying on people.

Rico, it's been pretty well publicized that the ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed about the NSA surveillance program on a dozen or so occasions, so there has been oversight. In fact, it is likely one of those members, Senator Rockefeller, D-WV, who leaked the story to the NYT in the first place.

I guess the average person who has never dealt with highly sensitive, classified information, probably doesn't relate to the concepts of "need to know" and "compartmentation". Trust me when I say, you would not want general Congressional oversight on the details of a program like this.

If Kerry were President, and he was not authorizing a program like this, now that would be grounds for impeachment.

I will take the discussion over spying to protect this country to what the Demwits are offering

any day of the week, my guess so will most voters

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Rico. I wish I had some answers for you but I really don't. Listen I'm just some hack out here mouthing off a lot. So is everybody that is posting here. But George Bush is the President of the United States. One would think he is above this kind of fray, but maybe he is just so insecure he can't admit to mistakes. You know if the guy just once appeared sincerely humble I think I could be more conciliatory myself. But the more he and Mark Noonan dig in their heels, the more I do and everyone loses.

One would suspect a 31% approval rating would be a wake up call. But apparently not.

"Trust me" -Spook

Like they say, trust but verify.

Frankly it is just Bush's long record of lies that make 65% of this country suspicious of him and his programs.

Does anyone here really believe this is legal?

Why didn't the NSA go to the FISA court like Quest asked them to?

Do you believe the president when he says 'trust me' and has that getting yellow cake from Africa look on his face.

What possible authority did they have to engage in a massive spying operation on Americans?

All you " true ' conservatives should feel uncomfortable with this. I thought conservatives were against this kind of stuff.

-Joe

Ash said: "But the more he and Mark Noonan dig in their heels, the more I do and everyone loses."

Think about that.

Rico, I am thinking about that. I hope you meant everyone should.

Spook said: "I guess the average person who has never dealt with highly sensitive, classified information, probably doesn't relate to the concepts of "need to know" and "compartmentation". Trust me when I say, you would not want general Congressional oversight on the details of a program like this."

I agree. But general Congressional oversight is not the only option, nor the most appropriate one, IMHO. I repeat... If FISA is inadequate, fix it. That's Spector's opinion, and I agree. Trust but verify. Think over the long term -- the implications trusting without verification are very ominous. The proper nexus of that verification process in this particular case is the FISA court, properly modified, not the general congress. By the way, I don't buy your contention that Jay Rockefeller is the source of the leak.

And when you say, "it's been pretty well publicized that the ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were briefed about the NSA surveillance program on a dozen or so occasions, so there has been oversight."

Those were briefings. No more, no less. The members so briefed were not allowed to consult with anyone, not with aides, not with judicial counsel, not anyone. They could ask questions, but not probing ones, and they could only accept the answers they got -- without being able to verify the veracity of those answers in any way. That's not oversight. I would think that you of all people should be able to appreciate that.

Retired Spook,

RE: "I guess the average person who has never dealt with highly sensitive, classified information, probably doesn't relate to the concepts of 'need to know' and 'compartmentation'. Trust me when I say, you would not want general Congressional oversight on the details of a program like this."

You're definitely right about the average liberal, especially if the ones commenting here are any indicator. I don't see any indication they are even capable of understanding the concept or facts either. I'll bet liberals would tell you that any member of Congress has access or should be permitted access to any and all classified information... because they are a member of Congress!

Which is worse? ...Spies and traitors who sell our nation's secrets to our enemies for personal gain? ...Those who leak or pass out our nation's secrets freely to the press for the entire world know? Both should be in prison for a long, long time... or worse!

Someone (perhaps her husband even) allegedly leaks Valerie Plame's name to the press and the liberal Democrats are outraged, incensed, and demanding "justice" (a.k.a. revenge!).

Someone tells the entire world and our enemies about America's ongoing programs to stop terrorists, to protect American cities, and to save American lives and the liberal Democrats call that a "civic duty" or "patriotic act".

I wouldn't trust a liberal with their "whistleblower mentality" with any national security secrets... or anything else for that matter!

AAR

Joe,

RE: "Does anyone here really believe this is legal?"

YES!!!

RE: "...to engage in a massive spying operation on Americans?"

Calling all information collection "spying" does not make it so. Everything is "spying" to the liberals because that conveys the most negative connotation without revealing and discussing the real facts!

Do you consider all those who gather and record information on Americans spies?

Are the companies that gather all of that credit information on Americans spies?

Are those who collect data on the Internet all spies?

Why don't you go after all of them?

AAR

Ash said: "Rico, I am thinking about that. I hope you meant everyone should."

I meant both -- you and everyone. You in particular, however, might be ready to think about it at the present time. But who knows -- there may be others. In the end, anger just breeds more anger. I think it was Gozer (then again, maybe not -- I'm terrible with names) who said recently on another topic that the problem with blogging is that text alone doesn't convey anything in the way of inflection (I'm paraphrasing). Frank Zappa once said something very similar: "words on a page don't have eyebrows".

One of these days I hope that most people will ultimately realize that we have more in common than that which separates us. Then again, I also hope that pigs will someday fly. Lol!

Mark -

You say, "I refuse to believe that the good and honorable men and women of the NSA would lend themselves to a clearly illegal, immoral operation...I trust that if an illegal or immoral order rolled down to them that at least some of them would advise the relevant legislative and judicial authorities."

hmmmm. When you say "advise the relevant authorities"... do you mean... blow the whistle? Leak?! Oh my Lord! Come on Mark, you know very well that the administration has put the fear of God into any would-be whistle blowers. A strong message has been sent out repeatedly by this administration that anyone notifying any "authorities" of possibly illegal doings shall be punished, fired, and/or stripped of their pensions.

Many honorable professionals within the CIA, NSA, State Dept, the Administration itself, and even from within the ranks of the armed services have tried to alert the "authorities" of the illegal and immoral activities of this White House. Indeed, these patriots are the only reason we even know about these activities. Far from considering them "good and honorable", however, the attack dogs of the Bushian Right immediately set upon these patriots - firing, marginalizing, swift-boating and smearing them. In this context, it is absurd to say that nothing underhanded or nefarious is happening with the warrantless wiretapping program because NSA staffers would report any such activity to the authorities.

And just who are these supposed "authorities" anyway? There is now no oversight body for these wiretapping activities. The only "authority" this White House recognizes is its own.

You go on to say, "You have no evidence that anything nefarious is going on - all you've got are accusations and suppositions. I, for one, do not think we should engage in government policy based upon accusations and suppositions." Well, anytime any evidence of possible wrong-doing does come forward, you Bushians scream "treason!" In any case, Mark, the truth is that nobody knows who was being wiretapped, precisely because there were no warrants sought. But the very fact that no warrants were sought - in clear contravention of established law - indicates the strong possibility that not everything about the wiretapping program was on the up and up.

Again, the rationale for skirting FISA given by the attorney general is a ludicrous stretch at best. It makes you wonder what the real motivations were for this unusual (and extra-legal) deviation from long-standing practices. I think it is time for the "authorities" (whoever they may be!) to know precisely who the adminsitration was listening to.

Mark -

You say, "I refuse to believe that the good and honorable men and women of the NSA would lend themselves to a clearly illegal, immoral operation...I trust that if an illegal or immoral order rolled down to them that at least some of them would advise the relevant legislative and judicial authorities."

hmmmm. When you say "advise the relevant authorities"... do you mean... blow the whistle? Leak?! Oh my Lord! Come on Mark, you know very well that the administration has put the fear of God into any would-be whistle blowers. A strong message has been sent out repeatedly by this administration that anyone notifying any "authorities" of possibly illegal doings shall be punished, fired, and/or stripped of their pensions.

Many honorable professionals within the CIA, NSA, State Dept, the Administration itself, and even from within the ranks of the armed services have tried to alert the "authorities" of the illegal and immoral activities of this White House. Indeed, these patriots are the only reason we even know about these activities. Far from considering them "good and honorable", however, the attack dogs of the Bushian Right immediately set upon these patriots - firing, marginalizing, swift-boating and smearing them. In this context, it is absurd to say that nothing underhanded or nefarious is happening with the warrantless wiretapping program because NSA staffers would report any such activity to the authorities.

And just who are these supposed "authorities" anyway? There is now no oversight body for these wiretapping activities. The only "authority" this White House recognizes is its own.

You go on to say, "You have no evidence that anything nefarious is going on - all you've got are accusations and suppositions. I, for one, do not think we should engage in government policy based upon accusations and suppositions." Well, anytime any evidence of possible wrong-doing does come forward, you Bushians scream "treason!" In any case, Mark, the truth is that nobody knows who was being wiretapped, precisely because there were no warrants sought. But the very fact that no warrants were sought - in clear contravention of established law - indicates the strong possibility that not everything about the wiretapping program was on the up and up.

Again, the rationale for skirting FISA given by the attorney general is a ludicrous stretch at best. It makes you wonder what the real motivations were for this unusual (and extra-legal) deviation from long-standing practices. I think it is time for the "authorities" (whoever they may be!) to know precisely who the adminsitration was listening to.

sorry for the double!

Aaron,

Over at Powerline, it was noted earlier that for the NSA to listen in on your phone calls, it would take 35,000 just to be allowed to listen in to 1 second of each phone call made each day in the US...what this points out is that whatever this program is about, IT ISN'T ABOUT LISTENING TO YOUR PHONE CALLS.

I wish you guys would drop that angle - it is frustrating to have to deal with such an absurd idea.

As for the authorities - I mean precisely that: there are sundry mechanisms for a government employee to report malfeasance...without leaking; leaking is an act of sabotage, not an act of dedication to the country...all leaking has done is advise the enemy what we are up to.

Ricorun,

The Whistle Blower Act does not state that the whistle blower will tell USA Today...and honorable employee of the government seeking to ensure that things are being done properly would use the Whistle Blower Act...he would leak it to the press.

Ash,

The Administration doesn't have a bed it needs to sleep in...you see, in spite of your polemics and MSM coverage and bogus polls, things are not what you think out there...November will be the proof, but what we have here is a tremendously successful effort - foreign and domestic - at winning the War on Terrorism.

You guys just go right ahead and campaign as if this were a domestic spying program...

Mark

Your posts in late decdember argue - what is wrong with listenting in on terrorists calls.

How did we get from listening to the bad guys to recording all, ALL americans? We have made a big step closer big brother under this president.

It was also interesting to read your rah-rah posts when GW was hovering at 50% and how he was bouncing back. Just a few months later, a solid majority of america today believes it was wrong to go to iraq.

-Joe

How did we get from listening to the bad guys to recording all, ALL americans?

We didn't, Joe, and for you to ask that question only illustrates what a total dimwit you are.

Ash,

Just saying you think their up to something doesn't cut it either.

IF the NSA is compiling a list of telephone relationships so they can quickly apply intercepted intelligence against it - I'm OK with that. I think you'll find its legal. And that this was a leak timed to derail the Hayden nomination with an exciting but irrelevent piece of news. It also demonstrates how easily the Democrats are willing to undermine active intelligence programs to further their own political agenda.

So - sue the government. Take em to court. And lose.

Big Brother is here! We have no right to privacy? I could understand this going on for a little while after 9/11 but holy shit it has been almost 5 years! What makes Bush think he is above the constitution of the United States! God Save US All!!!! Fascism is here.

-Joe

RE: "How did we get from listening to the bad guys to recording all, ALL americans?"

WE DID NOT get to that point!!!

YOU and the LIBERAL LEFT got to that point through your own [mis]interpretation of the available facts and information in order to maximize and sensationalize your never ending rhetoric and propaganda efforts!

What part of the English language do you not understand?

According to the USA Today article, "This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity..."

It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to listen in on or to record every call made every day to, from, and within the United States. This data base can, however, be used to identify suspicious patterns in order that those who are trying to protect us (and even you) from terrorists can get warrants to listen in on selected suspicious calls. If the information shows a large number of calls to a remote mountain peak in Afghanistan or Pakistan, we just might want to devote our limited resources to listen in on some of those calls. If several calls are involved from multiple locations within the U.S., it could indicate planning for a coordinated attack and we may want to listen in on several "judge approved" calls until we can determine if attacks are being planned against Americans.

Credit card companies already have more of YOUR OWN PERSONAL information than a list of telephone numbers called from another telephone number! What about the information collected and maintained by Microsoft, YaHoo, and other Internet sites? Where is your outrage against all of these? Why don't you actively oppose and sensationalize their data collection efforts and data bases?

Clearly liberal Democrats OPPOSE all REASONABLE and logical EFFORTS to PROTECT Americans FROM ATTACK. Liberal Democrats only want to BLAME others AFTER an ATTACK! Americans need to understand that fact and vote accordingly.

Fortunately, President Bush knows that part of his job is to PROTECT AMERICANS FROM ATTACK in spite of liberal Democrat efforts to stop him!

AAR

Ash,

The reason I called you a liar is simple. When you don't present the whole truth, take things out of context, in order to say something is true when it's not, and you do it intentionally, your lying. As far as I know you did it intentionally. Of course if you did not, I apologize.

Thanks for conceding to my point.

jim,

RE: "Big Brother is here! We have no right to privacy? I could understand this going on for a little while after 9/11 but holy shit it has been almost 5 years! What makes Bush think he is above the constitution of the United States! God Save US All!!!! Fascism is here."

Forget about NSA's database of which phone numbers were called from another phone number.

That's small potatoes -- NOTHING -- compared to at least one HUGE database the government has been building and accumulating information and data on Americans for years... well before the NSA's database after 9/11! Many people have objected to the government maintaining this information, but so far, no one has been able to stop them. Unfortunately, most members of Congress, including Democrats, have supported and even encouraged the government's efforts.

That database IS LOADED with all sorts of PERSONAL and PRIVATE INFORMATION about you, your spouse, and possibly your children. The government has even used the information from that database to take people's money and put others in jail!

Perhaps the liberal left can get on this one and force the government to stop their "big brother","strong arm","spying" tactics and efforts. This is a real privacy issue and we need to stop it now before it's too late!!!

AAR

Warriornation said...
Show us where he's spying and it's against the law what they are doing?

Here Bush became the first US President to openly admit to breaking the law. He said that he was listening to AMERICAN CITIZENS phone calls, INSIDE THE US, WITHOUT WARRANT OR PROBABLE CAUSE. I'd like the US Constitution for you, but then my post won't make it here. It's the fourth amendment that I believe you are looking for.

Show me where a Ruling has come down to suggest that.

Excuse me, but to suggest what? You want to see a court ruling that suggest you need probable cause to and court to get a warrant? Or, would you like me to link you something that suggest that the President is NOT above the law? How about a video of him saying that he isn't above the law, and that he needs a warrant to listen to AMERICAN CITIZENS PHONE CALLS? I can only link so much at a time, but you can google all of this.

Thanks

No, Thank You!

"I think you'll find its legal. And that this was a leak timed to derail the Hayden nomination with an exciting but irrelevent piece of news."

I think you will find it's in fact illegal for the phone companies to release our phone information. In fact Verizon has just been slapped with a billion dollar law suit. Guess we'll see if it's illegal or not.

As far as undermining the Hayden nomination, so be it. Reporting is what the press should be doing. If Hayden hasn't done anything illegal he should get the post. If he has done something illegal, he won't. Don't see what's wrong there.

"Show us WHERE your privacy was exposed or not protected."

That's a pretty silly argument war boy. If I knew about it it wouldn't be a super secr

Wait no longer.

Jomama....if he broke the law he would be prosecuted for doing so. I said show me where he broke the law and it was confirmed he broke the law by US authorities, not the left wing liberal New York Times.

I'm still waiting...thank you.

Mark -

You didn't need to run over to Powerline to make your point - I already conceded the point in an earlier post here, saying that it was important to differentiate between a program that merely logs which phone numbers are calling which, and a program which actual listens in on selected calls. Obviously, it is impossible to listen to all calls. But you have to admit that without oversight, it would be awfully tempting for the administration to listen in on its domestic political opponents. Nixon's guys couldn't resist the temptation either - why would we assume the Bushians are above that sort of thing?

You go on to say "...there are sundry mechanisms for a government employee to report malfeasance...without leaking; leaking is an act of sabotage, not an act of dedication to the country...all leaking has done is advise the enemy what we are up to."

Again, Mark, I question to which authority CIA or NSA agents would feel comfortable reporting unlawful activity to. Any internal affairs offices set up to report abuses are bound to be stuffed with Bushian stooges (uh, I mean "political appointees"). Porter Goss was specifically brought in to purge the CIA of staff that disagree with Bush. Under those circumstances, patriotic NSA and CIA personnel really have no other choice that to go public.

Aarontime,

RE: "...it would be awfully tempting for the administration to listen in on its domestic political opponents."

I guess I have more faith in the liberal courts than the liberals do. Any attempt at something like that, or to use the information in a manner that really does constitute "unlawful" surveillance, wiretapping, gathering information on political opponents, or other use would be thrown out by the courts. It would also be met with near unanimous outrage from both Democrats and Republicans. Remember Watergate? Most recently, look at the democrats attempt to illegally obtained Maryland's Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele's credit report.

As to your comments about the CIA and NSA, I disagree. I don't recall seeing anything from President Bush or his staff that he wants problems in NSA fixed because they disagree with him. The mere fact that we are seeing all of these leaks of classified information clearly shows there are some real problems there. The fact that we have been getting bad intelligence means there are some real problems there. And, if the CIA and NSA staff have taken it upon themselves to decide to support the President or not support the President, there are some real problems there. Who do they decide to support next? To whom, or which newspaper or media outlet do they owe their allegiance tomorrow?

If a person dose not want to work with classified information, follow the rules, and protect it's secret... regardless of whether they personally disagree with it or not, then find another job. Classified information is classified for a reason. It is not up to each employee to make their own determination of whether or not to release that information. If they want to write stories for the press and express their opinions to the media, get a job as a news reporter.

If a person sells classified information for personal gain, they are a spy and traitor and can spend years or their life in prison, or even get the death penalty. If a person gives that information away to the world and our enemies through the media, they are no less a traitor and should be prosecuted and punished accordingly!

If they release unauthorized classified information, go to jail... go directly to jail!

AAR

AAR -

RE: "I guess I have more faith in the liberal courts than the liberals do. Any attempt at something like that, or to use the information in a manner that really does constitute "unlawful" surveillance, wiretapping, gathering information on political opponents, or other use would be thrown out by the courts."

Uh, newsflash AAR: the courts have been totally kept in the dark about the wiretaps - how are they going to know is wrongdoing has occured? Haven't you been paying attention? That's what this debate is all about: the Bushians have decided to bypass retrospective warrants through the FISA courts for its NSA wiretapping program. The Bushians have fully admitted to the eavesdropping of selected calls without retrospective warrants (after they denied it for more than 3 years)

You are correct about thing, however. If the courts knew that wiretapping was done on political opponents, you are absolutely right that it would get "thrown out by the courts", as you say. That, my dear AAR, is probably why the Bushians have decided not to let the courts know about the wiretappings.

Secondly, RE: the CIA and NSA... No, the purges of the CIA under Goss were not about a much needed shake up of the organization, or to make our intelligence services better. It was to rid the CIA of those who are perceived to disagree with the neo-con's efforts to invade other countries. In fact, the purging of long-time professionals from the CIA and their replacement with Bush sycophants does severe harm to our intel agencies (kind of like stacking FEMA with political cronies who have no credentials in emergency management!).

You might find this aptly named op-ed entitled "Langley Lobotomy" to be enlightening:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20889-2004Nov29.html

Aarontime,

Yes, I'm paying attention, are you? I can't say the same about the liberal left!

RE: "Uh, newsflash AAR: the courts have been totally kept in the dark about the wiretaps - how are they going to know is wrongdoing has occured? Haven't you been paying attention? That's what this debate is all about: the Bushians have decided to bypass retrospective warrants through the FISA courts for its NSA wiretapping program. The Bushians have fully admitted to the eavesdropping of selected calls without retrospective warrants (after they denied it for more than 3 years)."

What I mean is that if Republicans got information on their political opponents through illegal wiretaps or listening in on their calls -- and tried to use it openly against them -- the courts would toss that quicker than a hot potato. Obviously, if they got information and didn't use it, or no one knew they had it, the courts wouldn't know about it either.

Now, I suppose Republicans could use the NSA and CIA to casually listen in on Democrats discussing their latest strategy and risk being exposed, but that makes as much sense as saying that Democrats will stop their anti-Bush, anti-American hate campaign today! It ain't gonna happen! You are basing your assumptions on what Democrats would do.

The liberal employees at NSA and CIA can't even keep a secret to protect our secret efforts to stop terrorists from destroying more American targets, even cities, and killing even more Americans.

It is totally unreasonable to believe that NSA and CIA employees would keep their mouths shut while Republicans were casually searching through the billions of calls and trying to listen in on their fellow liberals.

Knowing that NSA and CIA have this "need" to spill all of our secrets to the liberal media, Republicans would certainly not use those agencies, or any government agency to collect information on their opponents. There are too many other "safer", less risky, and more effective ways to do that and... with "trusted" people who would be much more likely to keep their mouths shut!

You and the liberal left are the ones who continue to call the NSA efforts "wire tapping". Even USA Today said they were not listening in on the calls, just collecting information on what number was called from another number. As to listening in on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda phoning "home" from overseas, I don't think that is illegal either.

I think Democrats should go on the record and SHOW all Americans that they will stand up for American and protect the information on their calling record -- even if it KILLS them. I think you and the liberal left should call, write, and e-mail your Democrat House and Senate members and demand that they introduce a bill demanding the government stop these "illegal" efforts to "spy" on Al Qaeda and to protect the American people from more attacks. After all, those attacks have not actually happened so why are we worried about it until it does happen, right!

I will even call my Republican members and ask that they allow the Democrats introduce and vote on the bill... as long as you get an agreement all of the Democrats will vote for it. The bill will not pass because all Republicans will vote against it, but we can SHOW the American people where the Democrats really stand!

And Aarontime, it is obvious that the CIA and NSA needs even more purging to remove the traitors and spys who willing give our national secrets to the world press and our enemies. I want to see some of them jailed for life! Maybe the other traitors would leave or learn to keep their mouths shut as required by law! Or, do you support breaking the law too, as well as releasing information to our enemies?

It's amazing the things you liberals will defend with OUR LIVES!

AAR