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

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

[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.

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.