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.'"

Comments

He's going to be waiting a long time

[grasshoppa]

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?

People Do Not Care

[thebdj]

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."

Re:People Do Not Care

[lbrandy]

Because we're living in such times that we're constantly obtaining "a little safety", allegedly, and certainly giving up liberties on a fairly regular basis. That's how. It should be invoked even more often these days, I'd think. If it's tired, that's only because it's getting so much exercise. It's surely not losing meaning and relevance.

Listen, I appreciate the Ben Franklin quote. It's quite brilliant... however trotting out something a founding father said as anything other than a well-worded insight, is just.. for lack of a better word.. idolatry.

We trade freedom for safety a hundred different ways every day. I could use the same quote at every part of the spectrum in the tradeoffs. Being forced to get a state driver's liscense is giving up some of your freedoms in return for some level of safety on the roads... Traffic law enforcement is giving up your freedoms... First ammendment restrictions (FIRE!!) is giving up some of your freedoms... this can go on ad nauseam. Just trotting out this same tired old quote as defense of freedom, on its own, is just poor logic. It's a warning against govermental "feature creep". It isn't the -answer- to protecting freedom.

Re:People Do Not Care

[iminplaya]

The majority of people in America are too stupid...

You're cutting them a lot of slack. That would assume some innocence on their part. I contend that they are just as despicable and corrupt as the people they elect. They vote for their own personal interests. They vote against their neighbors' or the community's, or the nation's, or the world's...if it collides with their agenda. They feign ignorance to avoid responsibility for their actions, or in this case, their votes. Is their version of "plausible deniability". This is why some people say, "There are no innocents.", and I tend to agree. The only thing that is saving us is the gridlock they create. That's the only thing that make a democracy better than a direct dictatorship.

Re:Yadda, yadda

[maotx]

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.

Heads should roll!

[TheSpatulaOfLove]

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?

Re:Yadda, yadda

[Keith Russell]

And we should care, why, exactly?

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.

I got all excited

[Phoenix666]

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.

Feingold!

[loqi]

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.

Re:FISA Court Anyone?

[killjoe]

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.

Re:What is Spector really saying

[DragonWriter]

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.

Re:What the item leaves out

[SatanicPuppy]

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.