White House says spying broader than known: report

[ACW]

Question for all those who think this is no big deal: Would you trust a President Hillary Clinton with this power?

[twa]

Question for all those who think this is no big deal: Would you trust a President Hillary Clinton with this power?

The lady with the magic FBI files?

Sure, as much as I trust any politician.

Of course I remain well armed,and plan to stay that way.

[Popeman38]

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

For all those that decry a loss of privacy, I am not sure that we are entitled to privacy. We are entitled to be secure in our homes. That means that if you pick up a phone and dial cave #9 in Afghanistan, you are no longer in your home. You are now broadcasting your conversation over publically owned transmission lines (the phone companies are all publically traded, meaning that the shareholders own the lines). You should not be safe to conduct terror training. The govt should be able to use these calls against you. And all of those that suggest we fall back on the ever trusty FISA Act should do themselves a favor and actually read it.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

By doing so, you will notic how old and dated it is. This severly restricts any action.

[PeterMP]

And all of those that suggest we fall back on the ever trusty FISA Act should do themselves a favor and actually read it.By doing so, you will notic how old and dated it is. This severly restricts any action.

Here's an idea change it. There is no law that says FISA can't be changed (in fact it has been modified since originally written). That's how laws are suppossed to work. The goverment really shouldn't say we don't like this law and think it is out dated so we are just going to break it. I mean that is illegal even if you are the goverment and is the sort of thing people should go to jail for. Beyond that, it sets an awful example to everbody, especially since the goverment are the ones that write/enforce them.

[Popeman38]

Here's an idea change it. There is no law that says FISA can't be changed (in fact it has been modified since originally written). That's how laws are suppossed to work. The goverment really shouldn't say we don't like this law and think it is out dated so we are just going to break it. I mean that is illegal even if you are the goverment and is the sort of thing people should go to jail for. Beyond that, it sets an awful example to everbody, especially since the goverment are the ones that write/enforce them.

They are trying to change it. Certain members of Coongress have come out vehemently against it. You have some publically saying that changing the updating laws is akin to implementing another Patriot Act.

[Koolblue13]

They are trying to change it. Certain members of Coongress have come out vehemently against it. You have some publically saying that changing the updating laws is akin to implementing another Patriot Act.

Which they tryed to do and IMO, lucky for us, it failed.

[Burgold]

Maybe they are facing resistance now, but I bet prior to the last election they would have faced much less and still they were hesitant to address this through proper procedures. I think it's because in their hearts they know that they are treading shallow water.

[Popeman38]

Maybe they are facing resistance now, but I bet prior to the last election they would have faced much less and still they were hesitant to address this through proper procedures. I think it's because in their hearts they know that they are treading shallow water.

How exactly do you tread shallow water?

[PeterMP]

They are trying to change it. Certain members of Coongress have come out vehemently against it. You have some publically saying that changing the updating laws is akin to implementing another Patriot Act.

It's called debate. Remember the other side gets to voice their opinion too. I mean that was only to be expected AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS IGNORING THE LAW IN PLACE. Is it really surprising they are a little leary about giving them more power?

Anyway in what other situation do people get to say, yeah we broke the law because we didn't like, but now that you found out we want you to change it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

They are trying to change it. Certain members of Coongress have come out vehemently against it. You have some publically saying that changing the updating laws is akin to implementing another Patriot Act.

So, if Congress doesn't behave as the White House wants, the White House can summarily dismiss a law?

[Larry]

For all those that decry a loss of privacy, I am not sure that we are entitled to privacy. We are entitled to be secure in our homes. That means that if you pick up a phone and dial cave #9 in Afghanistan, you are no longer in your home. You are now broadcasting your conversation over publically owned transmission lines (the phone companies are all publically traded, meaning that the shareholders own the lines). You should not be safe to conduct terror training. The govt should be able to use these calls against you. And all of those that suggest we fall back on the ever trusty FISA Act should do themselves a favor and actually read it.By doing so, you will notic how old and dated it is. This severly restricts any action.

Thus speaketh Popeman, who actually quoted the 4th amendment, and then pretended that the words "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", somehow means "when locked in their homes with the windows boarded over". (And who also seems to believe that "owned by a corporation" means "publicly owned".)

(And that's before we even get to the claim that, when a law is old (apparently defined as "written to apply to the previous administration"), that the correct, Constitutional method of dealing with this problem is a Presidential Declaration that laws are now irrelevant, and will be ignored, no need to even ask for new ones, because I probably won't follow them, either.)

[Larry]

Maybe they are facing resistance now, but I bet prior to the last election they would have faced much less and still they were hesitant to address this through proper procedures. I think it's because in their hearts they know that they are treading shallow water.

Actually, the previous Congress was practically groveling to Bush, "Please tell us which parts of the law you've been breaking, so we can write you a blanker check than you've already got". Bush refused to even tell Congress what he wanted.

(My theory about that is that his reason is only partially a case of him demanding unlimited power. I'd bet that a more believable and practical reason for him not telling Congress what he wanted is that he didn't want to admit exactly how far he's been breaking the law. I suspect another factor is that, if he tells Congress that, say, "I need permission to torture citizens", then that would be like him admitting that he knew he didn't have that authority, already. That and the fact that, if he tells Congress what he wants, Congress will likely use his wish list as the opening offer in a negotiation, and that, therefore, opens the door to the possibility that Congress will say "no" to some of the powers that he's already been using, anyway, and that would then make him even more legally liable than if he simply "assumes" that he has the power already.)

(You know, then he'd be in the same position as if he'd asked the UN for authorization to invade Iraq, and then the UN had said "no". It would have made it tougher for him to claim that he invaded Iraq because the UN said it was OK with a straight face.)

[PeterMP]

(My theory about that is that his reason is only partially a case of him demanding unlimited power. I'd bet that a more believable and practical reason for him not telling Congress what he wanted is that he didn't want to admit exactly how far he's been breaking the law. I suspect another factor is that, if he tells Congress that, say, "I need permission to torture citizens", then that would be like him admitting that he knew he didn't have that authority, already. That and the fact that, if he tells Congress what he wants, Congress will likely use his wish list as the opening offer in a negotiation, and that, therefore, opens the door to the possibility that Congress will say "no" to some of the powers that he's already been using, anyway, and that would then make him even more legally liable than if he simply "assumes" that he has the power already.)

(You know, then he'd be in the same position as if he'd asked the UN for authorization to invade Iraq, and then the UN had said "no". It would have made it tougher for him to claim that he invaded Iraq because the UN said it was OK with a straight face.)

And I thought I liked to use paranthesis. Could you have put one parathentic comment inside of another one? That would have made it complete.

[helptheSKINS]

OK, here we go.......I guarantee if we had another attack on the country because the gov't was unable to gather intelligence, all of you would be calling for Bush's head. The fact is that the gov't is not listening to your phone calls, they are listening to people whom they find suspicious (for example: many trips and calls to certain areas of the middle east). I'm so tired of people saying their rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. Please start googling and find all these examples of average American citizens being violated. You want to b1tch about the gov't for trying to prevent attacks and you want to b1tch if there is one. How many people could have died 2006 plot that included many UK to US flights. Without the measures so many of you are whining about, that plot may have succeeded and hundereds of people would have died. The gov't is not out to get you, they are trying to save lives. You are not being targeted, potential terrorists are.

[Larry]

And I thought I liked to use paranthesis. Could you have put one parathentic comment inside of another one? That would have made it complete.

Actually, I often do.

(Not always, mind you. (Although some people (incorrectly, IMO) like to claim that I (almost) always do.))

[Larry]

OK, here we go.......I guarantee if we had another attack on the country because the gov't was unable to gather intelligence, all of you would be calling for Bush's head.

1) Then you would be wrong.

2) Frankly, I suspect that I'm both more informed as to what my opinions are, and am better able to express them, than you are. (I suspect that many others feel the same way about their opinions.)

Therefore, I'd suggest that you stick to expressing your opinions (about the world), rather than expressing your opinions about your opinions about what our opinions would be in a situation that you've invented.

The fact is that the gov't is not listening to your phone calls, they are listening to people whom they find suspicious (for example: many trips and calls to certain areas of the middle east).

Wow, and here I thought you were just some guy debating a straw man that you'd pulled out of your . . . ignorance. But no, turns out that you're aware of exactly the criteria being used to determine when to ignore the law, and of which cases it has and hasn't been done.

Are you sure you're cleared to release this classified information you've revealed to us? (Dick, is that you?)

After all, now that you've revealed that the only time that calls are monitored is if there are too many calls to one particular area, are you really certain that the terrorists, now that you've revealed the selection criteria being used, won't, say, call somebody in France, and have that person relay the call?

(And let's just skip over the fact that the only way the government can spot people making "too many calls to certain areas", is by monitoring all calls.)

(Yes: stunning news, there: The only way to determine which calls are suspicious, is to monitor all calls, and decide which ones are suspicious later.)

You want to b1tch about the gov't for trying to prevent attacks and you want to b1tch if there is one.

I think I've already covered how much I care about how offended you are because of what you think I will do in the future.

How many people could have died 2006 plot that included many UK to US flights. Without the measures so many of you are whining about, that plot may have succeeded and hundereds of people would have died.

Could you please mention to me exactly which warrantless wiretap it was which foiled this dastardly plot? I thought the government said it was foiled because a drug store clerk called the cops.

(In fact, I was under the impression that every terrorist plot that we've announced was foiled, was foiled because an alert citizen notified law enforcement, who then followed legal, constitutional procedures. Which doesn't seem to prevent the Red Kool-Aid drinkers from believing as Gospel that it's just utterly impossible for law enforcement to fight terrorism, in fact, when they want to slap a label on a leftie, the one they like to use is to declare that "he thinks terrorism is a law enforcement problem". Completely ignoring the fact that so far, law enforcement has been responsible for every single success we've had against terrorism since 9/11.)

[PeterMP]

OK, here we go.......I guarantee if we had another attack on the country because the gov't was unable to gather intelligence, all of you would be calling for Bush's head. The fact is that the gov't is not listening to your phone calls, they are listening to people whom they find suspicious (for example: many trips and calls to certain areas of the middle east). I'm so tired of people saying their rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. Please start googling and find all these examples of average American citizens being violated. You want to b1tch about the gov't for trying to prevent attacks and you want to b1tch if there is one. How many people could have died 2006 plot that included many UK to US flights. Without the measures so many of you are whining about, that plot may have succeeded and hundereds of people would have died. The gov't is not out to get you, they are trying to save lives. You are not being targeted, potential terrorists are.

Well, see the problem is I'm not much of a liberal. In fact, I consider myself a conservative. A law and order conservative. If you don't like the law on the books, then change it. The problem is what they are doing is ILLEGAL. If it was legal, I'd probably have no problem w/ them doing it, but I really think the goverment should at least try not to do things that are ILLEGAL.

[Koolblue13]

OK, here we go.......I guarantee if we had another attack on the country because the gov't was unable to gather intelligence, all of you would be calling for Bush's head. The fact is that the gov't is not listening to your phone calls, they are listening to people whom they find suspicious (for example: many trips and calls to certain areas of the middle east). I'm so tired of people saying their rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. Please start googling and find all these examples of average American citizens being violated. You want to b1tch about the gov't for trying to prevent attacks and you want to b1tch if there is one. How many people could have died 2006 plot that included many UK to US flights. Without the measures so many of you are whining about, that plot may have succeeded and hundereds of people would have died. The gov't is not out to get you, they are trying to save lives. You are not being targeted, potential terrorists are.

GO TEAM!:laugh: USA USA USA

[cjcdaman]

Well, see the problem is I'm not much of a liberal. In fact, I consider myself a conservative. A law and order conservative. If you don't like the law on the books, then change it. The problem is what they are doing is ILLEGAL. If it was legal, I'd probably have no problem w/ them doing it, but I really think the goverment should at least try not to do things that are ILLEGAL.

GO TEAM!:laugh: USA USA USA

I have a question for both of you. If a terrorist attack occurs, and our government would have been able to stop it if it had been able to listen to some of the phone calls made by the terrorists . . . what would your stance be?

[Koolblue13]

I have a question for both of you. If a terrorist attack occurs, and our government would have been able to stop it if it had been able to listen to some of the phone calls made by the terrorists . . . what would your stance be?

My joke of a comment was more about the style of the post then what was said.

But to answer your question, I don't want my phone tapped and more importantly, when it is, I don't want to be lied to about it. Using your arguement, just like Helpies post, is how we will continue to lose more control of our own lives to the Federal gov't and i'm not okay with that.

[cjcdaman]

But to answer your question, I don't want my phone tapped and more importantly, when it is, I don't want to be lied to about it. Using your arguement, just like Helpies post, is how we will continue to lose more control of our own lives to the Federal gov't and i'm not okay with that.

I can respect that. My only thing is . . . imagine 3,000 or more citizens being killed and our government would have been able to stop the attack beforehand if it were allowed to listen into the calls. Imagine if one of your family members or friends were killed in the attack. Would you views change?

And I agree with helptheSKINS. I think the government is listening to phone calls from suspicious individuals, not Joe Schmo.

[PeterMP]

I have a question for both of you. If a terrorist attack occurs, and our government would have been able to stop it if it had been able to listen to some of the phone calls made by the terrorists . . . what would your stance be?

My response would be that the Bush administration screwed up again and rather than handeling this any number of ways that almost certainly would have allowed them to LEGALLY pursue wire tapping of expected terrorist and terrorist sympathizers:

1. Quitely going to congress after 9/11 and explaining why FISA was inadequate and asking them to change x, y, and z quitely and stick it in as part of some unrelated bill.

2. Telling Congress the congress in which they had the majority and that was willing to work w/ them to get what needed to be done accomplished instead the obfuscated and delayed and ended up w/ a hostile congress as a result of the off year election (which Larry has already pointed out).

They instead pursued a course that was doomed for failure from the start (pursued a course that is blatantly illegal, hid that they were doing, when it was discovered they lied about doing it, and then lastly refused to cooperate w/ a Congress that was likely to be sympathetic), and that it would be nice to have some competent Republicans run the country for a while that could see long term ramifications better and would have known there was no way they could brief the senior Congressional leadership of what they were doing AND keep it a secret and that once it was out there would be trouble.

So yes, I'll blame Bush, and I'll blame him for not doing the wire tapping, but I'll blame him because he acted in a manner that was bound to prevent him from being able to do it legally from the start and then compounded the problem w/ multiple bad decisions along the way and in the end created an enviroment where it was not possible to make it legal and everybody knows they were doing it.

[ACW]

So yes, I'll blame Bush, and I'll blame him for not doing the wire tapping, but I'll blame him because he acted in a manner that was bound to prevent him from being able to do it legally from the start and then compounded the problem w/ multiple bad decisions along the way and in the end created an enviroment where it was not possible to make it legal and everybody knows they were doing it.

:applause:

[cjcdaman]

My response would be that the Bush administration screwed up again and rather than handeling this any number of ways that almost certainly would have allowed them to LEGALLY pursue wire tapping of expected terrorist and terrorist sympathizers:

1. Quitely going to congress after 9/11 and explaining why FISA was inadequate and asking them to change x, y, and z quitely and stick it in as part of some unrelated bill.

2. Telling Congress the congress in which they had the majority and that was willing to work w/ them to get what needed to be done accomplished instead the obfuscated and delayed and ended up w/ a hostile congress as a result of the off year election (which Larry has already pointed out).

They instead pursued a course that was doomed for failure from the start (pursued a course that is blatantly illegal, hid that they were doing, when it was discovered they lied about doing it, and then lastly refused to cooperate w/ a Congress that was likely to be sympathetic), and that it would be nice to have some competent Republicans run the country for a while that could see long term ramifications better and would have known there was no way they could brief the senior Congressional leadership of what they were doing AND keep it a secret and that once it was out there would be trouble.

So yes, I'll blame Bush, and I'll blame him for not doing the wire tapping, but I'll blame him because he acted in a manner that was bound to prevent him from being able to do it legally from the start and then compounded the problem w/ multiple bad decisions along the way and in the end created an enviroment where it was not possible to make it legal and everybody knows they were doing it.

A simple yes would have been fine. :laugh:

My only response to that is what I have in bold text. You would blame him for not wire tapping, even though he was prevented from doing it?

[PeterMP]

A simple yes would have been fine. :laugh:

My only response to that is what I have in bold text. You would blame him for not wire tapping, even though he was prevented from doing it?

That's an over simplification, but if you actually read the last post you know that. Maybe that's all you can and handle and that's fine.