Slashdot Mirror
NSA Spying Comes Under Attack
maotx writes "The NSA's no-longer-secret surveillance program came under a two-pronged attack this week on both political and legal fronts. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania threatens to cut funding to NSA's spying program if President Bush's administration does not come clean on how it works. Separately, two hearing dates have been set for a lawsuit that seeks to prove that AT&T illegally cooperated with the NSA and violated federal wiretapping laws in doing so. Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'"
The public doesn't care. They have their Idol, they have their gas guzzingly SUV. What do they care that the president is the one breathing heavy on the other end of the line.
Personal liberties? What are those?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'
Sadly, like most things in the US, all that will build up is public apathy. This is the same apathy we see every year with laughingly low voter turnouts. Many people in America are perfectly happy not knowing what is going on and sadly enough have no clue the NSA has been spying on Americans. Those who do know are often perfectly happy to say, "They are only listening to the terrorist. They are just trying to keep up safe."
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies. If they feel a bit safer, they are more then glad to hand over every last civil liberty, until we are nothing more then a military state. Our country has come a long way since Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
And we should care, why, exactly?
Because a senator is making a little noise to the public, increasing awareness, and pointing out how that what the NSA, ATT, and the Bush Administration did quite possible violates our Constitution?
Who cares if it is election time or not? Just as long as progress is being made.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
The constitution was designed to protect us from the mob rule of people that simply don't care about being spyed on as they "have nothing to hide." If it was up to "the people" we'd get rid of most of the bill of rights and our natural freedoms. Politicians pandering to the people got us into this mess, I suspect pandering to them now isn't going to help. Sometimes defending constitutional principle demands standing up against the people, but few dare tell the electorate what they need to hear because they are too busy telling them what they want to hear.
Whenever I hear or see a quote from Senator Specter I am always filled with a little pride that he's from Pennsylvania. He's the only politician in Congress I've any respect for.
We should care because even biased people with an obvious agenda can be right sometimes.
The only way the attitudes will change is if impeachment is successful and heads roll along the line. Til then, the mouth-breathers will continue to support this administration and their crimes.
Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?
Because your rights as a citizen of the United States of America should always have a higher priority than your loyalty to any political party. Always.
This sig intentionally left blank.
until he retracted his comments. cutting the purse strings would be a nice way to force this little police state program into the light. god, let's hope the democrats win a majority in the fall. the republican party is out of control.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Here's a senario.
Osama emails an intermediary to correspond information that's of interest to US national security. That intermidiary forwards it to a sleeper in the US. That now puts this correpsondance under the jurisdiction of required warrants under the FISA court right? The argument of rapid response is covered by the fact that such spying can occur post-occurance when deemed appropriate.
That all sounds quite reasonable and puts to question why the administration felt it necesary to circumvent such proceedures.
However, here's another senario.
Osama emails his buddies about the kick ass humus in the old neighborhood. He CC's 1000 random spam US email addresses. One of the go betweens of the email forwards it yet again with another 1000 random US email addresses and so on and so forth. Is this outrage over warrantless spying circumventing the logic of current technology? When FISA was established to spy on possible Soviet interests within the US in 1978 we were in a totally different technological environment. It was an era of land line based communication. Call the Bush presidency what you will but I think it's a large mistake to cripple the speed of intelligence agencies in the name of a Bush witch hunt. Should some other president in the future expect the NSA to submit 10000 warrants due to one email string, even after the fact? If congress authorizes war (and make no mistake that there is no difference according to the courts between declaring war and authorizing use of force), should intelligence agencies be able to monitor anything and everything coming out of that country regardless of where the destination may be?
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The one Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. The Senator to call for the censure of Bush over the whole wiretapping thing in the first place. If anyone's the One Good Senator, it's Feingold.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
It's not about rights. It's about duty. Duty to the Constitution and duty to the children. The problem is that so many people are concerned about getting theirs (their rights, their share, their piece of the pie) that they forget their duties...
In addition, substantial authority indicates that the President has inherent constitutional authority over the gathering of foreign intelligence
So, then please explain to us laymen:
A. Why that applies to domestic wiretapping.
B. Where the "inherent constitutional authority" to violate the Bill of Rights comes from.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Perhaps you're right that the administration's only goal is to fight terrorism. Sadly, that doesn't mean those will be the only effects. Precedents are being set down that will be available for use by future administrations.
It's all about trust. You may trust the current administration, but do you trust an unchecked government in general? Would you trust your brother to install a closed circuit television to watch your house while you're away? Probably, but what happens when your brother is replaced by the perverted old man who lives next door? Still so trusting?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it would be best not to install that camera afterall.
What i don't uderstand is why Bush would circumvent a kangaroo court designed to rubber stamp what he wants anyway? It's not like any of the judges on the FISA court care about the constitution or the US citizens. They are there simply to put a patina of legality on whatever Bush wants to do.
As for your legal analysis: It seems many highly esperienced legal professionals disagree with you. These professionals include law professors, judges, and other lawyers. I don't think I will simply accept your word on this matter.
I was going to say we should let the supreme court handle it but they don't really care about the constitution either. Really the court system is a joke now isn't it.
evil is as evil does
Yeah, those dastardly anti-Bush Republican committee chairs. Always out to destroy the President and embarrass his party at all costs, particularly in an election year.
Its about him bashing the current administration.
Dont fool yourself into thinking otherwize.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's kinda like Bush senior. I hated Bush senior. God I wanted him out of office. I thought his policies sucked, I thought he didn't give a damn about the american people, I thought his economic policy was hilariously incompetent. Thought he took too many vacations.
But today, I can look back on him and think, "Well yea, he wasn't the best...But I didn't fear for the country with him in charge." No I didn't agree with him, but I could see where he was coming from, and I could see that he was making decisions based on strong evidence. I may not have agreed with the decisions, but I could see how someone might agree with them.
There are two types of unwinnable arguments. In one, you're arguing with someone, and you end up having to agree to disagree. They believe what they believe, and it's not crazy, it's just not what you believe. Their analysis is rational, you both agree on all the facts, you just come to different conclusions based on the facts.
Then there are the people whose descisions are based on things besides rational thought. They add too much weight to facts that are incidental to the point, they make leaps of logic (faith?) that are unwarranted by the strength of their premises. They argue based on their personal beliefs and feelings rather than on the actual facts, and they misrepresent the facts to support their beliefs.
Having seen far too much of the latter in the last 10 years, I am heartened and refreshed when I come across the former.
Pretty sad.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Wiretap the Congressmen, the real criminals :)
Let's be reaonable here. A proposal, even a "good" one, has only a chance to pass when the majority of the ones voting is in favor.
Now, if I KNOW my proposal has no snowball in hell chance, I can propose whatever I want. I could propose to freeze funding on military, if I feel the general population is against more weapons while I know that the majority of the congress is in favor of spending for guns. Even if I want to buy more artillery myself.
That way I get good press (remember, elections in Fall), people will believe that I'm the "good" guy, the voting itself isn't covered in the news and everything stays the same.
Except that the general population thinks that I (or "we", as in, "my party") wants to do what they want. While doing what we want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.