Justice Department To Review Domestic Spying

orgelspieler writes, "According to the New York Times, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine has opened a review of his department's role in the domestic spying program. Democrats (and some Republicans) have been requesting an all-out investigation into the legality of the so-called 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' since it was made public. But this new inquiry stops short of evaluating the constitutional legitimacy of the program." From the article: "The review, Mr. Fine said in his letter, will examine the controls in place at the Justice Department for the eavesdropping, the way information developed from it was used, and the department's 'compliance with legal requirements governing the program'... Several Democrats suggested that the timing of his review might be tied to their takeover of Congress in this month's midterm elections as a way to preempt expected Democratic investigations of the N.S.A. program."

Comments

There is one reason for this

[finkployd]

And one reason alone...

"I'm sorry Senator, I cannot comment on the program due to an ongoing Justice Department investigation" - Alberto Gonzales, speaking to the new Democrat controlled congress sometime next year

Finkployd

It doesn't exist.

[Rastignac]

Domestic spying program is not real. My computer is safe and nobody is sp+++NO CARRIER

They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[eldavojohn]

"I'm sorry Senator, I cannot comment on the program due to an ongoing Justice Department investigation" - Alberto Gonzales, speaking to the new Democrat controlled congress sometime next year

He sure isn't afraid to speak his mind now. And I think that's been his stance since the beginning.

Regardless if they're doing this to prevent a congressional hearing, I think all of Bush's cabinet are in up to their necks with this thing. They've promoted it, publicly praised it & even publicly defended it--I'm excited to see it publicly scrutinized & watch revisionist history write them all off as enemies of the constitution. I mean, my grandfather tells me about the horrible things the president authorized against Japanese-Americans during World War II & my father tells me the horrible things that Nixon did. I'm sure there will a time when I'm a haggled old coot that keeps telling my kids how lucky they are not to have a president that's pushing for government archival of their phone & internet records--and that's the only part I knew about which mean it must be twice as worse! So I put an onion in my pocket which was the style at the time ...

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[finkployd]

I'd say there's a chance they're doing this in order to say "oh wow, this is way overboard and shouldn't be done any more" and kill the program, just in time for Democrats to not get their hands on it.

You know, it's funny. I have a lot of friends and family who believe Bush can do no wrong (since we are at war and he is protecting us all) with all of these executive power grabs, but their eyes glass over and faces go black when I ask if they would be comfortable with Kerry or Hillery Clinton bringing those same surveillance and detention powers to bear against gun owners, anti-abortion activists, other conservative groups, etc. Did everyone just forget that Bush (who they oddly trust implicitly) will not be in power forever.

Finkployd

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Anonymous Coward]

Revisionist history, eh?

This domestic spying is without warrant. Thus, it very clearly violates that amendment of the Constitution known as the Fourth. It also is against the very specific set of statutes known as the FISA statutes. FISA is short for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If an executive branch office wants to spy on the American people because they think they may gain foreign intelligence (i.e., the infamous bad guys were calling into the United States so we had to spy on all of you excuse), the executive branch officer is required by law to follow the law. The law governing is the FISA statutes. Bush chose consciously and intentionally not to follow the law. He chose consciously and intentionally not to get the required warrant. It is not in any way revisionist history to call George Bush an enemy of the Constitution and thus an enemy of the United States of America. This is but one of his many Constitutional violations. Nixon looks like a saint.

Japanese internment was very much a wrong, It did not take a revision of history for reparations to be made and the government to very publicly apologize for what it did (something Nixon and the Reagan-Bush-I-Iran-Contra-Affair-Cabal have never done). And a country known as Japan attacked the United States. Did the American people attack George Bush? Is that why his domestic surveillance program in violation of FISA and without warrants is okie-dokey?

It is not revisionist history to call George Bush a traitor to this country for his numerous conscious choices to violate the United States Constitution and our law. It is a joke to have the justice department investigate its own boss.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

Did everyone just forget that Bush (who they oddly trust implicitly) will not be in power forever.

And that this 'war' will continue forever, too.

Conservativism==Whatever the Republicans in power are doing, exactly until the Americans get so annoyed at them they vote them out or they have obvciously failed, at which point the whole thing becomes fake conservativism..real conservativism, you see, has never been tried, or never been tried correctly.

It's a lot like communism that way. All the failings are on the implementation and the people who try, or just pretend to try, to implement it, and it is never wrong.

Just wait. They're already turning on Bush, talking about how he's not really conservative. They are, of course, correct, but everyone else started pointing that out six fucking years ago. They don't get to disown him after years and years of sucking up.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[LifesABeach]

I think that Congress is looking for water in a dry hole. Let us consider that the president's people have made the right actions over the last 6 years. Because, we all know, the president could not sell umbrellas, or wind shield wipers in a rain storm. If the president was really interested in hosing the expansion of Islam, he would move America in the direction of the Hydrogen Dollar, he has not. I just find it hard to accept that the pipe line from Iraq through Jordan through Israel/Lebanon is to be the corner stone of the current administration's legacy. It is like watching a junkie rationalize their next fix.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[finkployd]

Just wait. They're already turning on Bush, talking about how he's not really conservative. They are, of course, correct, but everyone else started pointing that out six fucking years ago. They don't get to disown him after years and years of sucking up.

This is true, and I was really annoyed at the TV talking heads who just woke up after the election and realized that what the republicans have been doing is not "fiscally conservative" and maybe that is what turned off much of their base. Really? hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave is not fiscally conservative? Who knew?

Unfortunately for most people it seems conservative means "against gay marriage, against terrorists, and against abortions" and as long as those three are met, nothing else matters. Sad state of affairs.

Finkployd

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Guppy06]

"I mean, my grandfather tells me about the horrible things the president authorized against Japanese-Americans during World War II"

And is Franklin Roosevelt reviled today because of it? No, we put him on the dime.

The only president I can think of that approached this level of contemporary controversy in office over executive powers and the like is Lincoln, and we put him on money too. I believe I've said it before, but as much as we dislike Bush, until 2009 January 20, he's just an assasin's bullet away from being memorialized and being referred to in the same tone as FDR and Lincoln.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Kadin2048]

This is true, of course. It comes about because there are a lot of people in America who like to call themselves "conservative," but have no concept of what that means and really would be best described as "authoritarian." The basic tenets of authoritarianism are the subjugation of the individual to the group's ideals, something that you can see any time a so-called 'conservative' starts talking about how those pesky "rights" need to be "re-examined" because of "national security." (Sound familiar?) The authoritarian focus also comes through on other typical key issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. In each case, emphasis is placed on 'shared values' instead of individual choice. This isn't conservative. It's just giving small, petty people an opportunity to regulate the lives of others; something which they do with gusto, given the opportunity.

The problem is, when a large group of people essentially hijack a term and take it as their own, there's not a lot you can do about it. I used to call myself a conservative, until I realized that I didn't agree with any of the new Evangelical would-be "conservatives." Like a lot of other people I know, I now tend to describe myself more in terms of libertarianism.

Bush, I think, will be viewed as an interesting figure in hindsight. He was neither a conservative nor really an authoritarian, because by all accounts he doesn't have much in the way of personal convictions or opinions either way. He and others in the Republican party seem to see themselves as having played the Evangelical bloc, secretly scorning them even as they paid lip service to whatever issues and stances that were required to stay on top and consolidate power. In terms of straight political maneuvering, the neo-con takeover of the Republican party and subsequent rise to power is quite amazing. I think you'd have to look back to the days of organized crime and the labor movement to find a time when a small group of people so thoroughly took over a part of the political process and got away with it, less so because of their own secrecy but because of the public's unwillingness to confront what was plainly happening.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Slithe]

I once a read a blog entry that dealt with the same subject, although it criticized the technocrats on the left. It looks like technocracy is a bipartisan practice.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

The problem is, when a large group of people essentially hijack a term and take it as their own, there's not a lot you can do about it. I used to call myself a conservative, until I realized that I didn't agree with any of the new Evangelical would-be "conservatives." Like a lot of other people I know, I now tend to describe myself more in terms of libertarianism.

The actual problem is that there is no actual conservative philosophy. At all.

It means, at various times 'We want things to stay the way they are.', 'We want things to return to a mythical golden era', 'We want to reduce spending', 'We want to implement moral codes as law', along with various bigotted concepts that have snuck in, and probably more I haven't thought of.

Your thoughts are, kinda, what I'm complaining about, like there's some 'real' conservatism and people have lost their way. Although you've officially given up finding it, which is good, the point is, really, it never existed, at all, in any form. There never was, and never will be, a 'conservative' movement, because there's no principles behind in, it's just emptiness. All they know is they all have some disagreement with the left, or want something that the left won't give them. (Like the neocons, who got kicked out of the left back in the 70s because they were complete raving loonies who thought you could bring democracy to other countries at gunpoint.)

You can see there's nothing behind it by going back in time one decade and comparing what they said about Clinton to what they say now:
Waco:bad::torture:good
FISA:infringement of rights::wiretapping in violation FISA:good
UN peacekeeping:bad::invading an innocent country:good
Impeachment over something unrelated to the office:good::Impeachment over something related to the office:bad
Ethics reforms while running for office:good::even vaguely having ethics in office:bad.

'Conservatives' do not stand in some fixed position and compare things objectively to that position. They instead say and do whatever the leadership says, it is, by defination, 'conservative', and that's all 'conservative' is, there is nothing else.

The left, OTOH, is made of just two movements, the progressive movement (Fighting for the government to solve problems, especially with the downtrodden) and the liberal movement (The principles this country was founded on, with rule of law and democracy and civil rights.). In general they go in the same direction, but you can see this conflict in, for example, affirmative action, where the progressive thought is to 'fix wrongs' in the past, and the liberal thought is to treat everyone completely equal no matter what. The ACLU is very liberal, and most left religious groups are very progressive. The 'left' has two positions it's standing in, and sometimes they fight each other.

But sometimes they point in the same direction anyway: The liberals object to the Iraq war because we were lied and tricked into it, subvert the democratic process, and people are getting tortured and wiretapped and all sorts of civil liberty issues are happening. And the progressives object to the Iraq war because the poor are dying for no damn reason at all while the rich are getting even more insanely super-duper rich, and that, um, we don't seem to be accomplishing anything.(1) (That's not to say, of course, that you can't be both liberal and progressive and object to it for both reasons.)

And, thanks to the current economic inequality, and the war, a bunch of progressives just got elected to Congress.

Of course, as the media is full of complete idiots, no one in it actually appears to understand ANY of this, and the right is presented as if it actually has some sort of coherent position, and left as if it only has, maybe, one, and usually not even that.

1) The progressive movement understands that, when something doesn't work, you should actually stop doing it, re: Prohibition, which was the great progressive mistake.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[walt-sjc]

To make your long post short, the bottom line is that being conservative does not necesarily mean you are a Republican, and just because you are a Republican, does not mean that you are a conservative.

It's also fairly well known that the Republican party TODAY bears little resemblance to the party 20 years ago. I can say the same thing about the democratic party. Both parties have been highjacked by fringe groups that don't represent the majority of Americans and have been subverted by lobbyists weilding big dollars.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Moofie]

"And is Franklin Roosevelt reviled today because of it?"

I detest his legacy of cowardice and manipulation. Of course, I only have one vote, so nobody has to care.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Moofie]

The problem is, in America's binary political landscape, the "other side" is exactly as authoritarian, only they wish to control different aspects of your life.

Unfortunately, you can't vote for anybody without throwing away about half of your civil liberties. The only difference is, which half?

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

That's not what I said at all. I said there is no such thing as a conservative. The philosophy doesn't exist. There is no concept behind the word 'conservative'.

When the Democrats are in power, 'conservative' is 'what the government isn't doing'. When the Republicans are in power, 'conservative' is 'what the government is doing', until the morally backrupt conservatives run us off a cliff or into a wall, at which point people like you say 'Oh, those were just random Republicans, not real conservatives'.

The Republicans like to pretend there's some sort of 'fiscally and morally conservative' point that exists and that, inexplicably, all the politicians they keep running for office fall short of. There isn't such a point, or, if there is, it is outside of the political system in this country.

The left, OTOH, as I explained quite clearly, does have a philosophy. In fact, they have two. Politicians on the left almost always fall short of one or the other of them, and sometimes they fall short of both. (Sometimes they get kicked out of the party for falling short of both, and I think everyone knows what Senator I'm thinking of.) The difference, however, is that there is an actual set or two of standards, and the Democrats actually have people who understand and follow them.

I like how everyone keeps trying to make my posts fit in the Republican narrative that there are actually such things as 'real conservatives', and our failure is that we, for some reason, seem unable to elect them, when that's exactly the opposite of my post. It's getting kinda funny.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Susceptor]

you guys should really read up on your 4th amendment rights. A this point its not what can the government do, its what can the government not do, because the 4th amendment is swiss cheese. There are so many exceptions and ifs and buts thanks to the conservative supreme court of the last 20 years, that we could for all intents and purposes rewrite the 4th amendment, completely ejecting the warrant requirement (which is hardly used anyway now anyways) and replacing probable cause with reasonable suspicion, because in todays world cops only need PC to arrest, they can do just about anything else without warrant or probable cause. A search of the home still requires a warrant and PC in some cases, but cops usually go around the requirement anyway by doing a knock and talk. Even when they do get a warrant, the judge can make a mistake and give warrant when there is no PC, and not be second guessed. Anyway, my point is simply that at this point we dont really have a 4th amendment right to privacy as most people here probably imagine. In fact, anything that goes through an intermediary is not protected by the 4th amendment, and that INCLUDES you email, your phone conversations, bank records, trash, etc etc. So when Gonzales says that he is not violating the constitution, he can actually say it with a straight face, because according to our highest court, he really isnt violating our rights because we didnt have any privacy expectation in our coversations, email, etc to begin with.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Walter Carver]

No problem. Bush will just over-ride the law "For The Good Of All" (TM) and stay in power forever (well, until he dies).

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Scudsucker]

And is Franklin Roosevelt reviled today because of it? No, we put him on the dime.

And the difference between FDR and Bush is that putting Japanese Americans in camps was the one black mark on an otherwise stellar presidency. In 50 years we might look back and decide that naming a reef a national monument was the only thing Bush managed to do right in 8 years.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Scudsucker]

I have a lot of friends and family who believe Bush can do no wrong (since we are at war and he is protecting us all) with all of these executive power grabs, but their eyes glass over and faces go black when I ask if they would be comfortable with Kerry or Hillery Clinton bringing those same surveillance and detention powers to bear against gun owners, anti-abortion activists, other conservative groups, etc. Did everyone just forget that Bush (who they oddly trust implicitly) will not be in power forever.

I also like to ask those sorts of people an additional question: what if we didn't have the 25th Amendment and Bill Clinton was still in office? What if he took the exact same actions that Bush has over the last 6 years for the exact same reasons? Would they have supported Clinton as much as they did Bush through My Pet Goat, Katrina, Iraq, waterboarding, warrantless spying, indefinite detentions without trial, etc etc?

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[walt-sjc]

there is no such thing as a conservative

I strongly suggest that you look up the words conservative and conservatism on webster.com, as they (along with millions of Americans) seem to disagree with you. While there isn't a "Conservitive" party in the US at the moment, there has been conservative groups for years - see http://www.conservative.org/ for one example. Wikipedia has a nice article too.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Guppy06]

"was the one black mark on an otherwise stellar presidency."

So expanding federal, and particularly executive, power by leaps and bounds, using his four terms in office to stack the Supreme Court in his favor, and the like were all signs of a "stellar presidency?" Many of the things we decry Bush for were first accomplished by Franklin Roosevelt, and often to greater effect.

If his presidency was so stellar, why the rush to propose and ratify the Twenty-Second Amendment so soon after his death?

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

Have you actually read the Wikipedia article?

American conservatism is a constellation of political ideologies within the United States under the blanket heading of conservative. Included are fiscal conservatives, free market or economic liberals, social conservatives,[1] and religious conservatives,[2][3] as well as supporters of a strong American military, opponents of internationalism,[4] and proponents of states' rights.[5]

That's not a philosophy. Like I said, some of those directly conflict.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

The left is not that authoritian. You're probably confusing it with the boogie-man left, the ficitional entitity that the Republicans are fighting.

The worse that that Democrats, more specifically the progressive aspect of the Democrats, do is attempt to restrict guns. That's, well, pretty much it. It's stupid, and a violation of civil rights, but there it is.

Oh, and for some idiotic reason they sometimes want to label music and video games and other stuff.

Everything else 'the left' wants to do is, well, made up. Republicans scour the wackiest left-wing people they can find, and attribute the craziest things they say as if they are some sort of official position of the Democratic party. 'Look, this college profession said X, the Democrats want X!'. Um, no.

But, hey, the great thing is I don't need to convince you. There's no reason to even have a conversation about this. You just need to check back in in two years, and see exactly what rights of yours have vanished and whether the rights stolen by Bush have come back. In fact, some of them might be back in as little as two months.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Moofie]

Um, what did you think I was talking about? "The Left isn't authoritarian, but they do want the government and the police to be the only people with guns. But don't worry, they're here to protect you. Promise."

That's more than authoritarian enough for my taste.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

And that's 'half' your rights? The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, thirteenth(1), fourteenth, and twenty-fourth(2) amendments together are as important as the second?

1) The US has purchased people in Afghan that have not charged with any crime, and shipped them to Guantanamo to be tortured as extras in the war on terror. They aren't prisoners, prisoners have rights and are not purchased as generic 'terrorists'. (Bounties are for named people that are already wanted by the legal system. They don't say 'We'll give you ten thousand dollars for each kidnapper you show up with. Go and find some, no evidence required!'.) 'Enemy Combatants' that were turned in, for money, with no evidence, is a slave trade by any definition of the word 'slave'. Which is why we can beat them.

2) At least, the Republicans in this state keep trying to implement a poll tax, aka, requiring people to purchase voter ID.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Moofie]

Why do you assume that I must support the Republicans if I oppose the Democrats?

The 2nd Amendment is the GUARANTOR of all the other rights. You might also note that the Democrats seem to be just fine selling us out to big businesses, and taxing us to death.

As far as 2), I know of zero candidates who have even MENTIONED advocacy of modern, equitable, accurate voting mechanisms. That's because the Republicans and Democrats aren't interested in reflecting their constituency, they're interested in maintaining their duopoly.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[DavidTC]

The 2nd Amendment is the GUARANTOR of all the other rights.

And the Democrats don't actually do anything about it. It's an invented wedge issue. Some Democrats want to limit access to certain guns in certain places. The party as a whole doesn't do anything about them, and almost no such legislation actually gets passed.

You might also note that the Democrats seem to be just fine selling us out to big businesses, and taxing us to death.

And they last taxed us to death...when, exactly? When did these horribly crippling taxes happen?

One thing for sure, they'll happen in the future, and probably under Democratic control. It won't be the Democrat's fault, though, it will be to pay off the drunk-sailor-in-a-whorehouse Republicans debts.

As far as 2), I know of zero candidates who have even MENTIONED advocacy of modern, equitable, accurate voting mechanisms. That's because the Republicans and Democrats aren't interested in reflecting their constituency, they're interested in maintaining their duopoly.

Well, that's an interesting theory you have there. That was in 2004, BTW. The Republicans ignored it. (Despite some of them cosponsoring it!) In 2007, thanks to the Democratic majority, she's taking over the 'Senate Rules and Administration Committee', which, of course, is in charge of rule making for elections. So, to recap: An important Democrat has been yelling about electronic voting machines for at least two years, with the support of, at least, Harry Reid, and now that the Democrats are in power she's immediately being appointed to, you know, run the elections, and the Democrats are vowing to hold hearings on it. Yeah, damn, it's like the Democrats don't care about voting machines at all.

Of course, you don't 'know' this because the media doesn't think it's even vaguely important to present Democratic ideas, and you're bought the lie that both parties are the same. We'll see how much you're paying attention over the next years as the Democrats actually attempt to solve problems, instead of shoveling money as fast as possible to their friends and pulling stunts to pander to the religious right.

Re:They'll Still Be Remembered For What They Did

[Scudsucker]

So expanding federal, and particularly executive, power by leaps and bounds, using his four terms in office to stack the Supreme Court in his favor, and the like were all signs of a "stellar presidency?"

Yes, absolutely. This country was facing the worst economic crisis in its history, and the worst war in history. Neither crisis could have been handled WITHOUT a strong federal government. Hoover tried the "hands off" approach and it failed. "Staying the course" could have left the U.S. a third world country and three continents and five billion people under the control of the Axis powers.

Many of the things we decry Bush for were first accomplished by Franklin Roosevelt, and often to greater effect.

Like what. You talk about Supreme Court justices, but if you check the Constitution, you'll find no number specified. IIRC there have been as few as 7 and as many as 15 justices. Asking Congress to approve more justices was a perfectly legal move for FDR to make.

The problem isn't that Bush wanted more government power to combat terrorism, the problem is that he is raping the foundations of this country (checks & balances, habeas corpus, Bill of Rights) and yet is so fucking incompetent that he doesn't even know when an Arab company is going to take control of the largest ports in the United States.

If his presidency was so stellar, why the rush to propose and ratify the Twenty-Second Amendment so soon after his death?

Because Republicans had control of Congress and wanted to prevent another 4 term Democratic president. Notice how much they regretted their actions when Reagan's second term was expiring.

Preemptive strike

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a preemptive move. Either the justice department can order an inquiry (Justice dept = Bush cronies), or Congress can order a special investigator (which would be independent).

So this is a preemptive move, designed to head off a full investigation.

Re:Preemptive strike

[TheSolomon]

It may be engineered as a preemptive move, but I don't see how it will have any blocking affect. Do we really believe Democrats will think to themselves: "Oh, I don't need to investigate now, there's this other [decidedly smaller] investigation going on. That's good enough."

If the Democrats really want to start a far reaching investigation into the matter, they will. There can be multiple investigations occurring simultaneously. In fact, given the limited scope of this current investigation, I doubt there would be very much overlap at all. If the Democrats see a value to the current investigation, they may "wait and see," but they are certainly smart enough to start a new investigation should this current probe bear nothing of importance.

Re:Preemptive strike

[walt-sjc]

Well, yeah. Fox watching the hen house. It will be no surprise when they release their findings.

Stops short?

[ScentCone]

But this new inquiry stops short of evaluating the constitutional legitimacy of the program

Unless, when they say "Justice Department" they actually mean "Judges," then of course it "stops short" of determining the constitutionality of a program. That's what judges do. They don't always do it well, but that's what they do.

Re:Stops short?

[DannyO152]

Absolutely correct. The Justice Department will make a finding about the operations as they relate to current law. (The really interesting bet is whether they will resort to referencing Presidential War Powers to aid the lipsticking of this pig.)

Regarding constitutionality, judges don't investigate that. They ajudicate a dispute between two parties, one of whom is arguing that some activity or law is harming them and is in conflict with another law or the Constitution. The other argues that there was no harm or no conflict, unless you're the Bush Administration, who have been responding to these suits by requesting the cases be dismissed as there may be state secrets at risk if a case proceeds.

Re:Stops short?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

They key is "request". A case is dropped only by the consent of the plaintif or a ruling of the court.

Point 2 is that Judges DO rule on constitutionality, and they are the final word. Article III of the constitution. Try reading it some time.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[s31523]

And how do you know this? Because they told you so? There are probably numerous terror cells living here in the US that the G-men are interested in, and monitoring internal US phone traffic is probably a good way to get a lead or two. If the G-men aren't doing it, the declaration that it is OK is one step away, since the international program sets a precedent. And soon after that, the G-men might say well, these criminals types are a "threat" so we need to include them too, and so on and so on.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[kahei]

Oh, right. That's ok. As long as it's limited to people whom someone, somewhere, for reason's you'll never know, has decided to call 'known terrorists'.

Phew.

That's a weight off my mind.

I guess it seemed like there was a problem, but really, there wasn't.

Well, I'm off to sit in a field of cotton wool hugging a giant kitten, in Fluffiton, the land where everything is soft and fluffy.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

Sigh....

And how do you know this? Because they told you so?

Yes, actually. If we all took your stance then we could assume the government is kidnapping babies out of hospital maternity wards and turning them into mutant super fighters. How do you know they're not? Because they told you so? You naive fool!

After all, you have no proof one way or the other. So yes, we go by what has been released to the public so far and we don't need to make up more conspiracy theories.

There are probably numerous terror cells living here in the US that the G-men are interested in...

Yes, the feds are monitoring groups within the U.S., but it has nothing to do with this particular program or these particular accusations.

Wow... only 10 posts...

[smilindog2000]

Does anyone else find it interesting how slowly the slashdot crowd is responding to this topic? I figure it's one of three things, but I can't guess which:

- We're too tired of talking about this issue
- We realize that we all agree it's evil, and that no one is listening to slashdot
- We're somewhat afraid that this topic will actually be read carefully by the Justice Department

Re:Wow... only 10 posts...

[mr_matticus]

The thought that the Justice Department would commit the resources to read Slashdot-word-vomit is more terrifying than, well, terrorism.

Re:Wow... only 10 posts...

[rucs_hack]

thats because the non American readers are all sat hitting refresh and shouting 'FIGHT! FIGHT!'

This one is going to be good...

Re:Wow... only 10 posts...

[kevin_conaway]

Its only 8:44 am EST, most of us haven't enjoyed our coffee yet. Furthermore, what much more can we say that already hasn't been said?

• Its about time!
• Its a trap!
• Cowboy Neal..or something

Re:Wow... only 10 posts...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Its only 8:44 am EST, most of us haven't enjoyed our coffee yet. Furthermore, what much more can we say that already hasn't been said?

• Its about time!
• Its a trap!

Cowboy Neal..or something

You forgot:

• Poland
• "I for one welcome our Department of Justice Overlords"

Re:Wow... only 10 posts...

[houghi]

You forgot one:

- We wait for a repost

Clinton's People Impressed with it.

[sycodon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-62440 89,00.html

But that will not prevent the coming Congressional Wankfest and Witch Hunt. Henry Waxman as much as said so.

The next two years will be a reprisal of the inept, ill conceived and utterly useless Iran Contra Hearings.

Re:Clinton's People Impressed with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As well it should be a lynching party..

Most intelligent people do not question the existence of the program but rather how it
is being implemented. The administration comes along and says hey we do not like how
judges rule sometimes so lets just cut them out of the program by removing the oversite. That
just is not how stuff is supposed to work in the ole USA. That judicial oversite is there
to provide balance to the system, without it abuse is nearly certain.

Re:Clinton's People Impressed with it.

[Darby]

The next two years will be a reprisal of the inept, ill conceived and utterly useless Iran Contra Hearings.

Those were hardly useless.

They proved beyond any possibility of a doubt that the US government will willfully and with malice aforethought engage in treasonous activities in support of terrorists. The fact that so few Americans will actually learn from this sort of blatantly obvious in your face proof that we get stuck with the same fucking traitors in a new administration.
Hell the fact that Reagan and his entire administration aren't *still* in prison or dead for those crimes is whatemboldened the same fuckers to go that much farther this time.

So they weren't useless.
It's just that the knowledge gained from them isn't being used in any sort of a positive manner.

This program sounds fishy.

[giantsquidmarks]

W says with this program he's "listening to al queda operatives in the United States make plans". My question is, if W knows al queda's phone number, why doesn't he go and bust them?

In all these years one can count the number of terrorist convictions racked up by the DOJ on one hand. Experts are saying there is no vast al queda presence in the United States (see PBS Frontline "enemy within" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithi n/view/)

Who the heck are they listening to...?

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[lawpoop]

This is not hard to figure out. I am not being overly dramatic here, and I ask you to look at the sources I am citing and consider what I am saying seriously.

These people basically have a centralized, facist mindset. They don't really believe in freedom; they think that the masses people need to be managed and controlled. They believe that there should be a class of ruling elites who run the show, and then the common folk, who have no real power or influence. They view society as a corporation, with a few owners, some managers, and a bunch of peon workers who just take orders. They want to be the CEO sitting in the control chair, watching a real-time dashboard of everything that everyone is doing.

All of this tracking and surveillance they are doing has nothing to do with watching Al Qaida and terrorists. What they want to do is what all totalitarian governments -- be they communist or fascist -- want to do: track everybody. That way you can have control over everybody. Knowledge is power. Check out "IBM and the Holocaust". The Nazis were using then state-of-the-art information processing technology to keep track of Jews, opposition groups, everybody. Everybody had a number, everybody had a file. The same thing happened in communist Russia and in Iraq under Hussein. It's the calling card of totalitarianism.

The smoking gun is the Total Information Awareness program which was introduced shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It is a conglomerate database of all electronic information that exists about everybody in the US -- all your bank, medical, school, work records -- even the purchases you make with your shopping club card. Due to public outcry, the program was ostensibly canceled, but in actuality all of the seperate features were just broken up into smaller programs. Check out the wikipedia article linked above.

9/11 was the excuse for all of these fascistic plans to come out of the woodwork and be given a go. Yes, we do need to be protected from Al Qaida and other terrorists, but not at the expense of the constitution.

Things are not bad yet, but they could go bad. Pieces are being moved into place that would give a dictator all of the tools that he would need to exercise incredible power. We are already seeing the media bullied, silenced, and propagandized. I guess the next sign of things getting worse would probably be disappearances and prominent people flee^H^H^H^Hleaving the country.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[b0s0z0ku]

Experts are saying there is no vast al queda presence in the United States

So the main solution to our Al-Qaeda problem is to basically strengthen our borders so that it's more difficult for Al Qaeda operatives to enter. That actually can be done without negative impact on domestic freedoms.

-b.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[SamuraiMike]

In all these years one can count the number of terrorist convictions racked up by the DOJ on one hand.

It's hard to get convictions on terrorist charges when your strategy for such suspects is to hold them indefinitely without a trial...

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[cold fjord]

In all these years one can count the number of terrorist convictions racked up by the DOJ on one hand.

How is it that people keep getting this so wrong ? Mind you, that link is only some of the cases. Good grief.

My question is, if W knows al queda's phone number, why doesn't he go and bust them?

One end of those calls is overseas. Some are mobile phones. Some will end in countries that don't cooperate with the US. In some cases they just might want to watch to see who they keep talking to. They might be periodic calls to / from a pay phone. I have no doubt there are many other reasons.

Who the heck are they listening to...?

Al Qaeda members, associates, and their affilates.

It isn't hard, but it does take a tiny amount of effort.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[Moofie]

Ooh, yeah, that'll work. Let's build two fences 3000 miles long! GENIUS!

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[Moofie]

"Al Qaeda members, associates, and their affilates."

OK, there's three degrees of separation. You want to do the math and figure out what percentage of the American populace that includes? You still OK with this?

Oh, never mind. You probably think that you have nothing to hide, therefore you have nothing to fear. What a nice little illusion that must be.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[b0s0z0ku]

Ooh, yeah, that'll work. Let's build two fences 3000 miles long! GENIUS!

Mexican border isn't 3k miles long, genius :) But I don't see how monitoring the border strip with electronic devices would be a huge problem - no need to build a physical fence. Just track illegal crossers and catch them later. That along with improved tech to see what's coming in to the US in vehicles.

By the way, most of the Al Qaeda hijackers came into the US *legally*, so increased restrictions on legal immigration from certain countries have my support, however politically incorrect they may be.

-b.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[Moofie]

What the hell was I thinking? We only need 2000 miles of fence. EVEN MORE GENIUS. Oh, wait, there are those pesky boat people on the Gulf coast. Yup, better just build a 30' concrete wall around the perimeter of the nation.

That'll work.

Really.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[b0s0z0ku]

. Oh, wait, there are those pesky boat people on the Gulf coast.

Our Coast Guard does a pretty decent job fishing them out of the drink. They'd do a better job if there were more of them. Unfortunately, some of them are now stationed in the Middle East (yes, Coast Guardsmen are being sent to Iraq to guard US naval assets).

-b.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[cold fjord]

OK, there's three degrees of separation. You want to do the math and figure out what percentage of the American populace that includes? You still OK with this?

Well, lets take a look at this, shall we?

Al Qaeda:
Members - Actual members of Al Qaeda
Associates - Not Al Qaeda members, but are in direct contact to provide funding, equipment, reconnaissance, or other aid.
Affiliates - Members of affiliated terrorist organizations, like The Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat

Communications among this group for the purposes of conducting terrorism is one degree separation from a terrorist, which is the relevant metric here. The population in the US that this accounts for? I estimate 2-4,000, maybe as much as 10,000. Am I OK with the government monitoring their communications? You bet.

If you want to add in volunteers, people in the US who are not members, associates, or affiliates of Al Qaeda, but who support their goals and are presently willing to engage in armed combat or provide material support to them (like these recently arrested volunteers), then the number is going to jump up quite a bit. I would think it is at least 10-20,000. Should they be watched? You bet.

As to the percentages, I'll let you work that out, but I'll give you a hint. The fraction is on the order of 1/12,000. Staggering, eh?

Oh, never mind. You probably think that you have nothing to hide, therefore you have nothing to fear.

No, what I actually think is that power of the government to conduct surveillance on members of Al Qaeda or people in direct contact with them for the purposes of conducting terrorism has little or no connection with the privacy rights of practically any Americans. Personally, I enjoy my privacy at least as much as the average person. Government surveillance of Al Qaeda members isn't going to change that.

What a nice little illusion that must be.

The word you are looking for is "clue", C L U E. This isn't rocket science, but you still need a clue.

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[cold fjord]

This is not hard to figure out. I am not being overly dramatic here, and I ask you to look at the sources I am citing and consider what I am saying seriously.

OK.

These people basically have a centralized, facist mindset.

Which people are you refering to? I guess we have to dig.

All of this tracking and surveillance they are doing has nothing to do with watching Al Qaida and terrorists. What they want to do is what all totalitarian governments -- be they communist or fascist -- want to do: track everybody.

OK, so its not about terrorism, its about tracking people. So how do we know who is behind it?

Everybody had a number, everybody had a file. The same thing happened in communist Russia and in Iraq under Hussein. It's the calling card of totalitarianism.

Ah! The key event. Giving people numbers, and establishing files is the key! After all, you can't track and control people if you don't have numbers and files on them, can you?

So who was it that established the numbers and files, and when? Googling.....

Ah ha! Here it is!

Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number.

Here I was, thinking that we simply lived in a modern, bureaucratic state with social welfare benefits, and it turns out that it is all a secret plan established and repeatedly expanded by Democrats to number, track, and control us all! Insidious! Ingenious! And they just took control of Congress with promises to further expand social welfare programs! I thought that they were just beneficail social welfare programs, but your case that they are the road to totalitarianism is worth study.

Yes, we do need to be protected from Al Qaida and other terrorists, but not at the expense of the constitution.

Yes, that is a worry. President Roosevelt did directly threaten to pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices to get them to stop rulling all of the social programs he was pushing as unconstitutional. That should have been a key tip off, don't you think? Clearly, President Bush is in the junior leagues when it comes to influencing the Supreme Court even if you assume the more lurid fantasies about his designs on the court are true.

Things are not bad yet, but they could go bad. Pieces are being moved into place that would give a dictator all of the tools that he would need to exercise incredible power. We are already seeing the media bullied, silenced, and propagandized. I guess the next sign of things getting worse would probably be disappearances and prominent people flee^H^H^H^Hleaving the country.

It is hard to get good information from the media about the war against the Islamist extremist terrorists, especially when the media uses imposters as "news sources".

Where do you think people will go? Eurabia? It looks like France is in worse trouble than the United States:

Since appeasement alone is not a strategy. French authorities are keeping a force of some 50,000 riot police in permanent stand-by. A ministry spokesman said it is important to find "the good balance: not overreact to the situation, but at the same time, not underestimate it either."

A local prefect (a provincial governor) added: "In case of trouble, we will have to

Re:This program sounds fishy.

[Moofie]

So you think that that's the end of it? They pinkie-swear that they're just listening to terrorists, and never never EVER to anybody else?

Not alleged drug runners?
Not alleged pedophiles?
Not alleged jaywalkers?

How do we know that they're doing what they say they're doing? Upon what do you base your trust?

To think I voted for Bush

[arrgster]

I can't believe I voted for Bush the first time. Had I know he would willing to ignore our constitution and way of life in the name of safety, I would have never considered him. Top that off with hiring a guy like Alberto Gonzales (whom I dislike even more than Bush), I just feel like an idiot... I'm not willing to turn this country into Nazi Germany out of fear of some guy who might come up with a creative way to kill me.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[finkployd]

I can't believe I voted for Bush the first time. Had I know he would willing to ignore our constitution and way of life in the name of safety, I would have never considered him.

You and me both, but really it was hard to forsee.

I mean, we just went through the Clinton years where Gore was spearheading the clipper initiative which would have effectively make privacy (and all non clipper crypto) illegal and given the government the ability to spy on everything, while having John Ashcroft emerge as the champion of privacy by leading the opposition to the clipper initiative. I really didn't expect the total and complete 180 on the issue.

Now I know better, both parties are want total access to our lives and supreme executive power (all in the name of keeping us safe). They just pretend to be outraged when the other party is in office and expanding those powers. Believe me, if the democrats take the whitehouse next election they will completely forget about their opposition to any spying and the republicians will suddenly oppose it.

Finkployd

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[EvilTwinSkippy]

What I get a kick out of is the fact that the reason for snooping morphs and changes. In the 90's it was to reign in the drug dealers who were using crypto to shove cocaine up our children's noses. Now it's terrorists. In 6 years it will be the andorian attack fleet.

(Spasms)

WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA. OCEANA IS OUR ALLY...

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[neoform]

Don't you love the ability to choose between the two options given to you?

A) Democrats

A) Republicans

(no, that's not a typo)

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[DavidTC]

Unfortunately, they didn't realize that, in 2000, the election was actually:

A) Democrats

B) Neocons

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[b0s0z0ku]

Don't you love the ability to choose between the two options given to you?

One more reason why people should strongly push for approval voting . It allows one to vote for a 3rd party or independent candidate without "wasting" their vote, and isn't more difficult for anyone to understand than our current system.

-b.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[Captain Splendid]

I would have gone more with something like this:

A) Pussies

B) Idiots

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[DavidTC]

I don't understand. Where are the Democrats in that?

I mean, they're not the party that gets elected by making the American public wet their pants by waving imaginary dirty bombs around. The Democrats are, according to the Republicans, endangering the US, which is where they, in fact, live. If that's not living on the edge I don't know what is. So they're not the pussies.

And while they may have proposed stupid things in the past, at least they didn't, you know, stupidly invade Iraq.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[Captain Splendid]

And while they may have proposed stupid things in the past, at least they didn't, you know, stupidly invade Iraq.

No, they just signed off on it and pretty much everything else that followed. I'll grant you the Dems seem to be acting like they have a clue lately, but it's mostly too little too late, the damage is done.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[Darby]

I can't believe I voted for Bush the first time. Had I know he would willing to ignore our constitution and way of life in the name of safety, I would have never considered him.

Had you put any thought whatsoever into your decision then you would have not made such an idiotic mistake.

Had you done your fucking job as a citizen, then you would have *known* that that is exactly what you were voting for.

There is no excuse whatsoever for having voted for Bush at all either time.

Maybe next time you'll do a little bit of research first instead of betraying your country *again*.

I just feel like an idiot...

Well, you should feel like an idiot. But just feeling that way isn't enough. You need to figure out how it was that fucking *easy* to fool you. Why is it that you were so completely incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills?
How could you allow yourself to be fooled by blatantly obvious tricks that have been used again and again throughout history when there were people telling you exactly what was going on at the time?!?

Until you can answer those questions honestly and deal with the fact that your decision making skills are utter crap, you will continue to be duped by morons using the same old tricks.

I mean seriously, if you did not know for a fact, that your vote for Bush in 2000 was a vote to make up lies to justify an invasion of Iraq, then you are a complete failure as a citizen.

If you do not know *now* that that is exactly what you voted for and why you should have known that at the time, then you are still an utter failure and will continue to be so.

There is no excuse for not having known what you were voting for and then having the fucking audacity to show your face at your polling location and betray this country, which is what you did.

I'm not willing to turn this country into Nazi Germany out of fear of some guy who might come up with a creative way to kill me.

Too late, you already did that and you did it completely willingly. Take some personal responsibility for your actions, treasonous though they were.
Until you can honestly deal with your failings as a person and as a citizen, then You will continue to aid in bringing fascism to America.

Whining lies about how you're not willing to do what you willingly did show that you haven't learned a fucking thing.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[Scudsucker]

I mean, we just went through the Clinton years where Gore was spearheading the clipper initiative which would have effectively make privacy (and all non clipper crypto) illegal

I've told you a million times to stop exaggurating! The idea with the Clipper chip was to give the government a backdoor to spy on communications, yes, but unlike they NSA program, they would have still needed warrants to tap in.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[finkployd]

The idea with the Clipper chip was to give the government a backdoor to spy on communications, yes, but unlike they NSA program, they would have still needed warrants to tap in.

Yes, and we know that GW Bush was the first President to ever engaging in spying without warrants (he was the first to proudly admit it though).

The clipper chip was part of a larger initiative which did involve outlawing private research into cryptography, which the NSA deemed to be their sole domain. Go read "The Electronic Privacy Papers" it is quite and interesting collection of position papers and declassified government documents.

The implications for business would also have been huge. No non-US company in their right mind would use such technology on the assumption that the US would naturally be engaging in corporate espionage and passing any helpful titbits along to good old US companies. Not not mention the fact that the US does not "own" cryptography and the rest of the world would certainly have stronger, better, and non compromised algorithms which we would have been outlawed from using. The whole e-commerce thing would probably have happened everywhere BUT the US.

Finkployd

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[Scudsucker]

Yes, and we know that GW Bush was the first President to ever engaging in spying without warrants

Yes, everyone knows that Bush wasn't the first to order warrantless spying, but so far I've heard a whole lot of talk and not a whole lot of proof.

In any case, I doubt any other modern presidents have done anything like Bush's varied shenanigans, for two reasons. The first is Richard Nixon. The second is Plausible Deniability. And Bush is almost certinally the first to president to order it on such a massive scale.

The clipper chip was part of a larger initiative which did involve outlawing private research into cryptography, which the NSA deemed to be their sole domain. Go read "The Electronic Privacy Papers" it is quite and interesting collection of position papers and declassified government documents.

Yes, the clipper chip was a fantastically horrible idea on many fronts, but it was still a far cry from making privacy "illegal", as you first stated. And this administration has gone waaaay beyond the Clipper with their secret prisons, torture, warrantless spying, no trials for prisoners, etc etc. We haven't seen civil rights violations from the Executive Branch this grotesque since Executive Order 9066.

Re:To think I voted for Bush

[finkployd]

In any case, I doubt any other modern presidents have done anything like Bush's varied shenanigans, for two reasons. The first is Richard Nixon. The second is Plausible Deniability. And Bush is almost certinally the first to president to order it on such a massive scale.

Absolutely not, I am certainly not trying to excuse Bush's totally inexcusable actions by pointing out that others did similar things. And of course Bush has been much more blatant about what he is doing and is doing it on a vastly more terrifying scale than anyone previously.

What I AM saying however is that to pretend that the Democrats are pro-privacy and would never abuse power in a similar way is the height of ignorance. The party in power wants more of it, the opposition party wants to pretend to be on your (the voter's) side against the big bad evil majority party until they get their hands on some of that power. If you want to vote democrat because they will abuse power and trample the constitution less than the Republicans have been, then by all means do it, with my blessing. But don't delude yourself into thinking they care about the constitution beyond using it as a way to attack Bush. Once elected, they will totally forget their opposition to his heavy handed tactics.

Yes, the clipper chip was a fantastically horrible idea on many fronts, but it was still a far cry from making privacy "illegal", as you first stated.

The clipper chip itself would not obviously, but if you read the declassified memos and government reports the chip was part of a larger scheme to outlaw all private research and development in cryptography. The NSA was making the legal argument that crypto was exclusively their domain and nobody else was allowed to play. The game plan was to immediately classify any crypto that was produced outside of their ivory tower. So no, privacy itself would not be illegal but attempting to use math to ensure your privacy would have been.

And this administration has gone waaaay beyond the Clipper with their secret prisons, torture, warrantless spying, no trials for prisoners, etc etc.

Agreed, but only because they were the first to have the balls to try it (and post 9/11 political environment which made it palpable), not because the Democrats have always been to noble and virtuous to ever consider such things. I will however concede that they as a party would be less likely to carry it to the sick extreme that Bush and Co. have. "Lesser of two evils" and all that.

Finkployd

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Mo Bedda]

And your opinion is based on?

My understanding is that the true nature and extent of this program is still top secret. All that has been released to the public is a couple of leaks and a bunch of denials/justifications from the government. Given the fact that before the leaks Bush was claiming that they were getting warrants for all their tapping, what is the rational basis for believing what they say now? If this program is still top secret, doesn't the Administration actually have a duty to lie about or obfuscate the true nature and extent of the program?

The program as you and the Administration describe it could easily fit within the existing FISA law. Which raises the question, why risk the political and legal fall-out of avoiding the FISA court if you don't have to? Why is the lame duck Congress trying to push through new legislation to authorize the program if the program could actually fit within the existing legal framework?

Glenn Fine

[coinreturn]

I just hope this Glenn Fine isn't related to Larry Fine (Wise guy, eh?)

Why is there an investigation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is there even an investigation needed? It's clear that "domestic spying" (here in Europe we know enough about it to just call it what it is: fascism) is completely contrary to the very nature and essence of what America theoretically represents.

Put simply, no investigation is necessary to determine that the "domestic spying" is unacceptable, should thus be immediately stopped, and legislation passed to prevent such nonsense from arising in the future. The fact that the Democrats haven't immediately put an end to it suggests to the rest of the world that they're not truly different at all from those in the Bush administration.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[finkployd]

What the headline calls domestic spying is actually the tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States who is a known terrorist or member of Al Queda.

Of course, and as we well know the government is totally infallible and would never falsely accuse anyone of being a terrorist or anything else. Even when they know they could get away with it because there is absolutely no independent oversight (gotta keep those activist judges out of the loop, they just complicate matters). We have a strict system of checks and balances in this country, and of course habeas corpus and presumption of innocence applies to us all....unless you are a known terrorists. "Known to who" you ask? "What makes one a known terrorist" you ask? Those are dangerous, un-American questions, boy. You best let the President do his work and keep us all safe and not worry about insignificant details like that.

It is not, as some believe, the government wiretapping phone calls internal to the United States.

Nope, absolutely not. I mean, before someone leaked it we did not think they were wiretapping any calls without properly obtaining warrants, but since it was leaked we know that they are wiretapping international calls without warrants. We still think they are not tapping internal calls this way, and what are the chances we would be wrong again?

And when it comes to the Internet, I'm sure those classified NSA server closets that AT&T has are where they keep the doughnuts.

Finkployd

"Domestic"?

[Diamon]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong (and will probably try even if I'm right and they're wrong) but isn't the spying program we're talking about calls that original foreignly and only terminate domestically? Based on on the criteria that the spying program is being called "domestic" all cars sold in the US would be domestic regardless of location of manufacture and assembly unless you go to a dealership in a foreign country and purchase the car there and import it, it is no longer foreign. All wines are now "domestic" it doesn't matter where the grapes are grown, fermented and bottled if the sale happens locally it is now "domestic". Money transfers from secret Swiss bank accounts are now "domestic" transactions as long as the transfer terminates in your account held with a US bank. We're talking about international phone calls that originate at a foreign country and only terminate domestically.

Now having said that, does that mean we shouldn't worry about the program? Not necessarily, you can say it's only terrorists phone calls that are being tapped into, but odds are it's more than likely it also applies to suspected terrorists and suspicion is not a very high bar to set. Additionally if you allow the government to spy on any foreign calls how long until we see certain calls being rerouted through overseas circuits so that they can be declared foreign and be subject to policies established for foreign calls. There are real issues to be looked at but throwing up a smoke screen and calling it "domestic" spying isn't the way to get to the real issues to be concerned with.

Re:"Domestic"?

[Pojut]

While I can understand where you are coming from, answer me this:

How do they find out who is a terrorist and who is not? A part of that process is listening into RANDOM conversations with people they THINK might have SOME connection.

In translation: They are grasping at straws. What are you going to do when they grab yours?

Re:"Domestic"?

[d3ac0n]

Diamon,

You are correct in that the spying program is not "Domestic". This is just a term thrown around by politicos that want to frame the debate as one where one side is "Protecting the freedoms of Americans" and the other side is "Trying to take away our freedoms". The truth of the matter is that this is a program used to keep tabs on terrorist suspects abroad and their contacts in the United States. It's important and necessary as one of the weaknesses of any terrorist organization is thier communication link. As they are not a nation-state with the resources to develop thier own communications technology, they must rely on civilian technologies to for thier CAC functions. By tapping into these lines of communication we can thwart their efforts to attack us.

The problem with many of those that don't like this program is that they see Terrorism in much the same way that the Clinton administration did. As a law-enforcement problem. That type of limited vision is how we ended up with 9/11 in the first place. By not treating terrorism as what it is, a MILITARY action against the US and other countries by an organized but decentralized force, and assuming that subpoenas, police and lawyers will be effective in stopping a global jihad, we place ourselves directly in the line of fire for another terror attack.

But there are plenty of people on Slashdot with mod points that just don't get that. Of course, many of them also think that Michael Moore is a visionary and Al Gore is an Environmental genius. There's no accounting for Common Sense I guess.

Re:"Domestic"?

[Red Flayer]

but isn't the spying program we're talking about calls that original foreignly and only terminate domestically?

No. The program involves surveillance of purely domestic activity as well -- the program is 'limited' to people who are suspected of having contact with foreigners with links to al Qaeda. Once the connection with a foreign person of interest is established, the administration feels that the domestic person is then an OK target for surveillance. The program isn't/wasn't limited to wiretaps -- it also involved field teams doing surveillance, mail sniffing, etc.

Re:"Domestic"?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

the program is 'limited' to people who are suspected of having contact with foreigners with links to al Qaeda

God help us all if Kevin Bacon ever ends up on a watchlist. I have a Bacon number of 2.0.

<i>First they came for the actors who worked with Kevin Bacon. And I said nothing. And then they come for the people who worked with the people who worked with Kevin Bacon...</i>

Re:"Domestic"?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

No, it also includes domestic calls that go out internationally. Bascially if you have any friends or relatives overseas, you would be subject to monitoring. Because, you know, Al Queda has cells everywhere. Saudi Arabia. Germany. Canada.

Re:"Domestic"?

[freedom_india]

"...tabs on terrorist suspects abroad and their contacts in the United States. "
So, how do you classify a person as a terrorist SUSPECT?? Isn;t it the same definition as a "Person of Interest".
Michael Moore may be a boor and uncouth, but he atleast tries to bring the truth into blinding light.
Are you saying Michael Woodward who wrote Plan of Attack and the rest of "Bush at War:" books as criminal?
Since when is it illgal in US to expose the reckless witless war mongering of presidents? Since when is it criminal to try to expose those who commit an actual crime?
Two Crimes don't make a right.

Is it not a crime if i break into a Bank and stole Money? Assuming i had $10,000 on deposit in the Bank, and i needed money at 2 AM, can i break into the bank to steal just $9,900? (less than my deposit)?
Before i could even count it, i would be counting the bars on my high-sec prison, and no amount of defence would save me.

The discussion here is about breaking the law. I frankly think you are trying to change the subject matter by bringing in TERROR flag, as Bushy and Cheney has done for past 5 years.
Since when is it alright to BREAK the LAW to PREVENT a supposedly criminal act (which has not happened)
You would love Minority Report i guess.

Bush BROKE the Law of the Land: The same law he vowed to protect, and like Nixon, he must either resign or be impeached and sent to prison after a due conviction.

But am doubtful it will ever happen,
You reps weenies would definitely do something to make it not happen.

Re:"Domestic"?

[mikelieman]

"How do they find out who is a terrorist and who is not? "

Without a right to a Writ O Habeas Corpus, that's not a relevant issue.

Re:"Domestic"?

[Pojut]

Truer words are rarely spoken, good sir.

Re:"Domestic"?

[funwithBSD]

You may be unaware of this, but no communications outside the US borders are covered by the US rights to privacy. If you make a call outside the US, or into the US, it can be monitored.
See here:
http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/204.php

Now if both sides of the communication are US citizens, they need FASA approval. If one end is NOT a US citizen, then listening in is fair game.

Now, there are other rights, like not being able to use that information for anything other than National Security. You could, for example, detail killing your wife, and they could not use it to arrest you.

Re:"Domestic"?

[An Onerous Coward]

If by "terror suspect" you mean "person who lives outside the United States," then I can see how you make a lick of sense.

Otherwise, given that the Justice Department has steadfastly refused to give any details on who is being monitored (to avoid "aiding the terr'ists") you don't know who is being monitored, or for what reasons. You have no way of gauging their decisions on who should and shouldn't be monitored. You have no way of gauging whether anyone's civil rights are being violated. You have no way of gauging whether the people running the program have valid probable cause for being suspicious of the people they're listening in on.

All you have is the promise of your president that the people we're spying on are bad people or are talking to bad people. But if they already know that, then why can't they just get a warrant? I can see only two possible reasons. The first is that these wiretappings really don't pass the sniff test. The second is that the Executive branch no longer feels constrained by the Judicial branch. I leave it to you to decide which is scarier.

Re:"Domestic"?

[Darby]

The truth of the matter is that this is a program used to keep tabs on terrorist suspects abroad and their contacts in the United States. It's important and necessary as one of the weaknesses of any terrorist organization is thier communication link.

If that's the truth of the matter then prove it.

Oh right, you can't can you? You, in fact, have no sane reason whatsoever to believe that ridiculous nonsense, do you?

In fact, all you have done is repeat a proven lie by Bush, who has lied about damn near everything he's said.

So, no matter how many times you repeat the same ignorant lies after people have already posted the links *proving* you to be a liar, there are still people who pay attention. There are still people who actually like the idea of a free country and will stand up against idiotic liars like yourself whose cowardly bootlicking of known traitors demonstrates clearly their complete lack of character and their utter contempt for their fellow human beings.

So, nice try, Sparky, but a lie repeated over and over again is still a lie.

And you are still a liar.
An extremely ignorant one too as several people have already linked to the *proof* that you're a fucking liar.

Re:"Domestic"?

[toddhisattva]

When people and goods cross a border, they can be searched.

When comms cross a border, they can be monitored.

It's easy to score points with the paranoid conspiracy nuts, "THEY ARE LISTENING TO YOU!"

Duh. They should! It's stuff crossing a border. Crossing a border. Crossing a border. (Must be repeated because leftists are stupid, leftists are stupid, leftists are stupid).

Want secure comms? Use good crypto.

Re:"Domestic"?

[pimpimpim]

Yes it's that simple! Just remember, as long as you don't have foreign friends, you'll be ok! Nothing to worry about here, you can all sleep safely.

Re:"Domestic"?

[Copid]

The problem with many of those that don't like this program is that they see Terrorism in much the same way that the Clinton administration did. As a law-enforcement problem. That type of limited vision is how we ended up with 9/11 in the first place. By not treating terrorism as what it is, a MILITARY action against the US and other countries by an organized but decentralized force, and assuming that subpoenas, police and lawyers will be effective in stopping a global jihad, we place ourselves directly in the line of fire for another terror attack.

Terrorism IS generally a law-enforcement problem. Your adversaries are private citizens, not necessarily supported by any government entity. They often reside within your borders, and the things that they do are illegal. They can be wiretapped with warrants, arrested by police, tried, and put in jail. There is nothing about their activities that make them magical or otherwise in need of tools other than those used against organized crime.

If they're being sponsored by a government (e.g. Afghanistan), then you have yourself a war. When you can specify an enemy (not an idea like "terrorism") and objectives to neutralize the enemy, then you can have a war. You can't start an open ended war against a vague notion like "drugs" or "terror," demand a bunch of new powers, fight nobody in particular for years on end, and hope to be successful at doing anything other than expanding your authority. That's all this has always been about.

Seriously. Think about what you just said. The wiretapping that the Bush administration is doing is legal if a warrant is issued. All the Bush administration wants to do is remove the accountability. Can you explain to me how we might have averted 9/11 if the government hadn't had to get a warrant for wiretapping?

Re:"Domestic"?

[freedom_india]

Yes i agree with you.
But tell me one answer: Why was the Law of the [Home]Land broken to monitor the stuff crossing the border?
Why do we have laws if they are to be broken at the slightest flimsy?
We could revert back to Monarchy.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[QCompson]

What the headline calls domestic spying is actually the tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States who is a known terrorist or member of Al Queda. It is not, as some believe, the government wiretapping phone calls internal to the United States.

So if being monitored by the government, without a warrant or any oversight, while you make a call to Canada from within your own house doesn't bother you, I assume you also wouldn't mind if the government listened to any phone calls you make purely inside the United States?

I'm curious why one seems acceptable to many anti-bill-of-righters but the other presumably is not.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Red Flayer]

Or, they could know that fdiskne1's original post was false. The domestic curveillance program involved wiretaps and other surveillance of people in the US suspected to have had contact with al-Qaeda. It included the eavesdropping of completely domestic calls. Contrary to what you've been led to believe, the international calls were not the only thing monitored.

yeah

[arrgster]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you.

I'll believe it when I see results

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Seriously, when they start frog marching DOJ officials for high crimes and misdemenors, I'll believe that congress is sincere. Until that point I'll be treating this as a dog and pony show to appease the rabble.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Qzukk]

so they could take over the Iraqi Oilfields

I seem to recall a few years back when Bush was claiming that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. Of course, now that the cost of the war is expected to pass one or maybe two trillion dollars, Iraqi oil couldn't pay for it, so it's easy to backpedal on that claim.

You are correct sir.

No, he is wrong, there are two programs. One which tapped calls internationally as the grandparent posted, and a second one that collected phone records on nearly every single American's domestic calls. Did you call in for pizza? Did a terrorist call in for pizza (God forbid that terrorists actually run the pizza delivery place, mafia style)? Does it matter? Who knows! Nobody knows what the NSA is going to use such an enormous block of data for, since the vast majority (99.999999999999%?) of the calls have nothing to do with terrorism. Google other articles about Qwest's refusal to participate to see the millions in juicy taxpayer dollars they passed up that the other telecoms were apparently all too happy to suck out of your tax dollars for this service.

is infested with many of the same moonbat types

It's a shame the infestation hasn't managed to drive out the infestation of ignorant Bush supporters who can't even keep track of what their president is doing. Maybe we need to swallow a cat to get the spider now?

But is it impeachable?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be illegal without a FISA warrant, but nobody will prosecute Bush if it truly has only been used for terrorist related work. That's the difference and the reason for investigating.

He's loaded the NSA and CIA with his cronies, if the DOJ finds anything bad, those cronies will accept the blame on behalf of the NSA or CIA and apologize to the President for their failures and a cosy stitch-up will happen, just like the CIA took the flak for over WMDs in Iraq.

However if the independent investigator gets in, he'll speak to the real NSA staff, and the real CIA intelligence men and get the real story and real guilt will be determined.

"The fact that the Democrats haven't immediately put an end to it suggests"

You do understand that they're not yet in power?

Re:But is it impeachable?

[Shajenko42]

It's only impeachable if over half of the US House Representatives say it is, and only convictable (is that a word?) if two-thirds of the US Senators say it is.

They could remove him for having a ham sandwich if they so desired, so long as enough of them wanted to.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Dare nMc]

tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States

you are correct the exposed warantless tapping is international calls, and then any calls that are tied to those international calls.
however the survelance was (supposidly) all domestic calls, they were/are accused of data-mining all phone calls, ie who you called, who called you, and how long you talked. That was all phone calls, domestic, longdistance, and international. This data would then be used with the international tapping to get warrants on the rest of us, unless one or both are declared un-constitutional.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[PhysicsPhil]

What the headline calls domestic spying is actually the tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States who is a known terrorist or member of Al Queda. It is not, as some believe, the government wiretapping phone calls internal to the United States.

Would the people that determine the known list of terrorists be the same ones who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

'Revisionist History'?

[FatSean]

Are you implying that Bush's spy plan was constitutional? I don't see where 'revisionist history' comes into play here...Bush and Co. seem to prefer 'revisionist present' where they lie through their teeth until the evidence of their evilness can no longer be denied.

lying is evil.

Does this mean it will be on the final exam?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I mean, if the DOJ is taking the trouble to review it the prof must have told them it will be on the test. Though with all these benchmarks going around maybe it's a federal requirement now...

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[hey!]

It has long been established that people do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in records of who they call. SCOTUS ruled this in Smith v. Maryland,which allowed law enforcement to collect this data without a warrant.

Congress disagreed, and passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986. However ECPA has exceptions for intelligence gathering, and IIRC the Patriot Act further relaxes these.

The programs -- as they are asserted to be -- probably pass constitutional and statutory muster. At least based on the current state of the law, not what the law ought to be.

What is problematic about this is the way we (and Congress) learned about them. For one thing, the President doesn't have power to spend money on such things on his own authority; spending authorization has to start in the House; at the very least Congress was very sloppy in its budgetary oversight.

But even more important, it suggests that Congress is not able to exercise oversight over the program. The separation of powers argument cuts both ways: the Constitution clearly tasks Congress with regulating (not directing) the activities of the Executive Branch. The framers, with an eye to the history of the Stuart monarchs and the English Civil War, placed budgetary power in the hands of the most representative organ of government: the House of Representatives, precisely for the purpose of curbing the power of the President to conduct war on his own authority, in a manner answerable only to himself.

The fruits of unaccountable authority are distrust. We don't know that the program only does what it is claimed to do, and we are entitled to be skeptical becasue if it is as innocuous as claimed, why keep it secret even from Congress, which routinely exercises oversight of secret programs?

We should really worry when

[Enrique1218]

the first judge allow into evidence recordings collected without a warrant. This warrantless wiretapping hasn't been brought up before the courts where I suspect all evidence collected in that manner will be thrown out. No American will be convicted on it. Any worry I do have is supression of dissenting voice using illegal wiretaps.

Re:We should really worry when

[element-o.p.]

I have one additional worry. Since Bush has said that terrorist suspects go to Guantanamo (or other, similar prisons) and do not have to be given a criminal trial according to U.S. law, then how many people arrested due to evidence collected by the warrantless wiretapping will ever see a court?

That is something I really think is scary...

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[d3ac0n]

Except that it WASN'T false. His post contained exactly what we know about the program. You can make all the suppositions and theories you want, but that's all they are. suppositions and theories.

My point was that the OP post shouldn't have been modded down as now the entire conversation can't be placed in context. All you see is one side's view, and no opposing opinion.

Personally I don't have a problem with this program. How the heck else are we going to find out this information? We TRIED the "law enforcement" method already under the Clinton Administration. What did that get us? The USS Cole, the first tower bombing, and eventually, 9/11. Gee, that was working well.

This is a MILITARY ISSUE. Which means that the President, via his commander-in-chief powers, can do things that would be illegal for ordinary civilian law enforcment. He can do this because we are in a state of declared war. Once we are no longer in a state of war, he can no longer run this program.

This is why Congress is acting to change the laws, and why it is undergoing judicial review. This program needs to be run outside a state of war, and the current laws won't allow that.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[jamar0303]

And some would call you a moonbat for not paying attention to ACs.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[lawpoop]

It has publicly come out that they are wiretapping domestic calls.

From the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article article at wikipedia:

"On May 22, 2006, it was reported by Seymour Hersh and Wired News that under this authority, the NSA had installed monitoring and interception supercomputers within the routing hubs of almost all major US telecoms companies capable of intercepting and monitoring a large proportion of all domestic and international telephone and Internet connections, and had used this to perform mass eavesdropping and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary Americans without judicial warrants. " [Emphasis mine]

Here is the link to the Hersh article, and here is the link to the Wired article.

Please, wake up.

Posse Without a Warrant

[Doc Ruby]

The NSA warrantless wiretapping is already officially illegal.

Bush violated the FISA. The FISA is an exception to basic Constitutional guarantees of protection from government privacy invasion and arbitrary searches, within an extended compromise with rare, extreme cases where the government claims extraordinary necessity for speed and secrecy that the normal due process cannot accommodate.

Bush violated the FISA exception that requires him to get a warrant. Therefore he violated the Constitution. Many times, over many years. As a matter of policy, with a large staff behind him. Bush is a criminal of the highest order. That means impeachment. You or I would go to Federal prison for years and be bankrupted. Bush will clear brush at his ranch.

Re:Posse Without a Warrant

[Doc Ruby]

People are used to treating politicians like nobility, after millennia of class traditions. Celebrity culture is the ultimate expression. And power is always used to avoid accountability for risk.

We should hold our politicians to a higher standard than private citizens, as the public trust makes pefect audits impossible, and our exposure to their risks is greater than in private.

Fortunately, the US government is based on competition among powers and accountability. The party system, especially the Republican Party, has created conspiracies to thwart those separations of powers that have made government unaccountable to itself or the people, especially the past 6-12 years. But now the opposition Democratic Party controls the more powerful branch, the Legislative. And there are many ways to start impeaching.

Asking how is the very beginning, after the crimes have been committed.

Re:Posse Without a Warrant

[Doc Ruby]

Here's a whole book on how to indict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell before a Grand Jury.

"Land of the Free".

[FatSean]

We're becoming more and more like the European Surveilance State...and who would have thought the REPUBLICANS would be driving it.

I thought I could at least trust the Republicans to spend less of my money and to reduce gov't intrusion into my private life....now what the fuck are they good for?!

Re:"Land of the Free".

[hey!]

I thought I could at least trust the Republicans to spend less of my money and to reduce gov't intrusion into my private life....now what the fuck are they good for?!

Well, as much as I hope the Democrats capture the White House, I think the past six years demonstrates the value of divided government.

Putting my partisan hat on, I have to say I'm not surprised. The Republicans have told us all along that government is a scam to steal money from taxpayers and trample the liberties of the individual. So, what should we expect when we re-elect people who believe that, other than they want to keep the scam running? An honest man might go for one or two terms to put a stop to things, but the excuses run thin after five successive terms in the majority.

Re:We need a poll

[b0s0z0ku]

"Do you think George Bush should be impeached for breaking the FISA law?"

How about "tried for treason"? Supposedly, he blocked some investigations into al-Qaeda operations before 9/11 in order to appease his Saudi oil-buddies. *If* this is true (and we won't know without a fair trial) he deserves the usual penalty for treason.

-b.

It's about breaking the law

[jamie]

Personally I don't have a problem with this program. How the heck else are we going to find out this information?

How about... legally?

The problem that Democrats and other patriot have is not with the wiretapping. Listening in on phone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists abroad is, everyone agrees, a good thing, and entirely legal if it is done according to the law of the land. That means getting a warrant from the FISA court.

The issue with Bush's wiretapping is that it violates that law. Bush is engaging in warrantless wiretapping of those phone calls.

(And, incidentally, the administration has never given a plausible reason why it can't get warrants. The FISA court is notorious for rubber-stamping requests -- it rarely turns them down. And the request can be made retroactively, so it's not like a warrant would hold up a time-sensitive investigation.)

Please don't turn this into an issue of whether or not we should listen in on phone calls with a suspected terrorist on one end. Everyone agrees we should. The question is whether the law should apply to the president, and whether warrants should be required before listening in on Americans' phone calls.

The question which the Department of Justice will now, for a second time, investigate, is what role the Department of Justice had in this violation of the law. Whether it really makes sense for Bush's DoJ to investigate itself, I can't say. (The first investigation, long-delayed, was eventually cancelled when -- I am not making this up -- George W. Bush personally refused to grant security clearance to the investigators.)

He can do this because we are in a state of declared war.

You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in July confirmed that there's been no declaration of war and that this therefore does not affect the legality of this program.

Re:It's about breaking the law

[timminator]

Actually, it is not illegal. RTFFR. RTFEO.
NSA activities were not a controversy or a conspiracy until certain Democrats said it was.

Re:It's about breaking the law

[jamie]

Actually, it is not illegal.

Wrong. "A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." If you think Bush's surveillance is authorized by statute, please look the statute up and quote it to me.

Good luck, since the President's own Attorney General acknowledged that the law requires warrants:

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Paladin144]

If we all took your stance then we could assume the government is kidnapping babies out of hospital maternity wards and turning them into mutant super fighters. How do you know they're not? Because they told you so? You naive fool!

This was modded insightful?!!

Can you please let me know when, throughout all of human history, it was a good idea to blindly trust the government?

Lord knows the government has NEVER lied before, right? What the fuck are you smoking and can I get about 3 pounds of it delivered to my house?

And this doesn't even take into account the well-documented galaxy of lies spun by the Bush administration. The Bush regime is probably the most deceptive, despicable and heinous American presidency ever. So could you please explain to me again why we should blindly trust these people?

I guess since you don't know your history you're condemned to repeat it.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[fdiskne1]

To you and all the others that are saying I don't care about being monitored, what exactly in my post made you decide that I didn't care about being monitored? I stated a fact, or according to some, a lie made by the administration. I did not say it was right or wrong. I don't see my opinion anywhere in my post.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[d3ac0n]

You are correct sir.

Unfortunately, /. is infested with many of the same moonbat types that think that the Bush Administration actually planned 9/11 in conjuction with the Eeeevil Jews to implicate innocent Muslims so they could take over the Iraqi Oilfields, and then grant exclusive oil-rights to Haliburton while making obscene profits on the backs of "working class" Americans and randomly shooting people while going hunting!

So yeah, be prepared to be modded down and modded down hard. There isn't room for anything outside the /. groupthink.

Just making moonbats waste their mod points again. This is fun!

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[HobophobE]

Yes, actually. If we all took your stance then we could assume the government is kidnapping babies out of hospital maternity wards and turning them into mutant super fighters. How do you know they're not? Because they told you so? You naive fool!And if we all took your stance we'd be faced with another record deficit, a lackluster economy, a city and people left for dead, another attacked, and a couple of major armed conflicts that are giant messes.

Oh.

Wait. After all, you have no proof one way or the other. So yes, we go by what has been released to the public so far and we don't need to make up more conspiracy theories.Paging Benjamin Franklin! Wow. Remember the ethic of the Bill of Rights at all? It's kind of an implicit suggestion that we ought not blindly trust our government, friend. You know, there's reasons for all of those rights to be there and that we're protected in those various ways...because otherwise the government is dysfunctional and we're all wasting our goddamn time.

So let me remind you that, based on what we've _seen_, which is more reliable than what we've been told, our government doesn't have a clue. And they don't have one badly. Do you trust the fact of their track record or the vagueness of their rhetoric?

You are invited to awaken and join the rest of us for freedom. BYOI (Bring your own ideas)

So-called so-called

[toddhisattva]

It is called the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

It is so-called domestic spying by the enemy media.

Bush's Eight Rules of Modern Autocratic Government

[glider0524]

1. This war on terrorism is our new Cold War. It will last a generation or two.
2. Because we are at war it is necessary to engage in certain behaviors--renditions, torture, domestic spying, secret prisons, etc.
3. We cannot tell you what we are doing because it would compromise national security during a time of war.
4. The courts cannot review what we are doing because it will compromise national security during a time of war.
5. Any newspaper reporter or news outlet that reports a leak of these programs can be put under oath and forced to reveal sources, under threat of going to jail for contempt.
6. Only select members of Congress can know what we are doing. But they cannot tell anyone because it will compromise national security.
7. When Congress passes laws, the president has the right to ignore these law if he believes they infringe upon his war powers or his role as Commander in Chief.
8. The courts cannot review the president's decision in rule no. 7 because it would compromise national security.

These rules have the very convenient effect of disabling ALL of the checks and balances on the executive branch of the government. Frankly, unless many thousands of Americans are dying, violence is erupting everywhere, and this country is teetering on the brink of economic/political oblivion, I see no reason to install an emergency autocratic government. Even if we were at that point, I would still want some above-board cost/benefit arguments explained to me as to how I'm going to be safer in reality (as to just "feeling" safer) by giving up some of my civil liberties and watching the world learn to hate us.

Much like the rest of his political strategy (Iraq war, etc), Bush puts forward nothing but a flim-flam job of justifying inflated neo-con theories of the use of discretionary executive force. How nice it would be to make all the trains run exactly on time, if we could just arrest anyone who used to make them run late? Fascism has a certain appeal when you don't realize that it actually is fascism.

We need checks and balances in the country.. anybody who doesn't believe that should closely read the Federalist Papers. Those guys were certified geniuses in the realistic exercise of power. They had the benefit of 1,000 years of European wars and history to examine human nature at its Machiavellian worst. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they set up checks on presidential power, they envisioned internal and external threats to the country every bit as clear and present as they are today.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[DavidTC]

After all, you have no proof one way or the other. So yes, we go by what has been released to the public so far and we don't need to make up more conspiracy theories.

FISA doesn't allow the government to spy on communication between Americans and terrorists without a warrant, you lying sack of shit:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

Period. That's what the law says.

There's no other way to intercept without a court order, or at least a retroactive court order. (There are plenty of ways, however, to intercept with one.) Now, we can argue if that requirement is a good idea, or if it can be removed without constitutional issues. But it's right there, in the law. The Attorney General did not authorize the spying under that rule, because he knew he was listening to Americans. So the president is not 'withstanding other laws', specifically the law: 'A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute'.

So, as the executive branch has, you know, already admitted breaking the law(1), so maybe taking their word as to to, exactly, how much of the law they are breaking is not a good idea.

And stop saying 'the government'. I trust the government to follow the law. 'The government' includes the judicial branch issuing warrants and the legislative branch doing oversight of the program in general. It's the executive branch that decided to operate outside of that framework.

1) Yes, they have. Their 'AUMF authorized it' theory, which was actually only advanced by the media whores and not the administration, was shot down in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the courts said that authorization to invade a country didn't magically invalidate other laws, especially laws designed to cover, duh, war time. The AUMF could not, and does not, void FISA, anymore than it voided the UCMJ.

The only other thoery they have, and the only one they've actually advanced, is their nonsensical one that basically reduces to 'If the president does it, it's not illegal', which is just so manifestly incorrect under our system of government that it's actually hard to explain why, except to explain that all people must follow the law at all times unless explicitly noted.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Red Flayer]

You can make all the suppositions and theories you want, but that's all they are. suppositions and theories.

The White House has not acknowledged that it eavesdrops on purely domestic telephone conversations, yet it has been widely reported that it did.

He can do this because we are in a state of declared war. Once we are no longer in a state of war, he can no longer run this program.

Are you kidding me? Did you really drink the kool-aid, or what? We are not in a state of declared war at all, no more than we've been in one since the "War on Drugs" began.

can do things that would be illegal for ordinary civilian law enforcment

I think you need to re-examine the case law in re: civil rights in time of war. SCOTUS has ruled that a state of war does not affect civil liberties.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

Wow, man, what an asshole to call me a lying sack of shit because you don't agree with me... what, exactly, was I lying about? That we don't need to make up conspiracy theories? That's what you quoted, after all. Holy shit, anonymity on the internet strikes again. Well, I can lower myself to your level, you fucking coward asshole cowering behind an anonymous username.

Did I once, in my post, say the government wasn't wrong? Holy crap.

Re:We need a poll

[sbenj]

Blocked? I've seen lots of support for the notion that he was at the very least severely negligent pre-9/11. I'm not sure what constitutes "criminal" negligence, although I'd guess that it'd involve something like a clear dereliction of duty. Perhaps someone with more legal knowledge can chime in. In any case I'd imagine that criminal negligence would be extremely difficult to prove or to support as an article of impeachment, although it might be useful politically, underscoring the falsity of Bush's pursuit of Al Quaeda.
In any case, I've never seen any support (or even claim) that he actively tried to impede investigation into Al Quaeda. Citations please?

Re:We need a poll

[b0s0z0ku]

In any case, I've never seen any support (or even claim) that he actively tried to impede investigation into Al Quaeda. Citations please?

It's far from proven, but there may be enough evidence for indictment and trial. Google for "Phoenix Memo." (Actually this implicated Ashcroft more than Bush.)

-b.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

My god, reading comprehension has taken a nose dive on Slashdot. I didn't say to trust the government, I said we can only go on what information is given to us. It wasn't the government that told us about the wiretapping program, was it? So if the NYT comes up with evidence to prove the existence of another program, then fine. Until you have some evidence, though, it's just a conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with this topic.

Re:We need a poll

[sbenj]

Ahh, hadn't seen it (here's the link, for anyone interested phoenix memo"). In any case, it doesn't support your use of the word "blocked", which implies an active role in supressing investigation. Negligent, incompentant? Absotlutely. Whaddelseyagot?

DoD (NSA) has no standing in civilian courts

[thule]

The NSA is part of the NSA. The military does not go to civilian courts for monitoring communication on battlefields. Once the NSA discovered that a known enemy (the wiretap target) has contacted someone within the US, they pass this information to the FBI. The FBI at this point needs to go to the FISA court to make the person within the US a target of a wiretap. Note that it has be reported that FISA judges will not grant a warrant purely on information from the NSA. The FBI must find some other information to support their request for a wiretap.

This is similar to any other wiretap in that the warrant. The warrant does not cover the people that call or receive calls from the target. Police can use information collected from monitoring the target to get wiretaps on others.

How is this illegal? The NSA is doing their job with the primary target. It is completely legal to generate leads off of the primary target. Further investigation on the people that contact the primary will require further warrants. This is the acceptable way of doing things and has been for quite some time.

Re:DoD (NSA) has no standing in civilian courts

[sgtrock]

I assume that your first sentence was meant to read, "The NSA is part of the DoD." That's not actually correct. The NSA's charter consists of a one page executive order that was signed by Harry Truman. So far as I know, that charter has never been made public.

The NSA does consume a great deal of data that comes from the DoD, but the DoD has little influence on how that data is interpreted, or how any resultant information is republished.

The NSA at one time (may still do so for all I know) have complete responsibility for all encryption hardware used by the US gov't. That included all encryption hardware used by the DoD. I was in the Navy for nearly 4 years before I realized that the gear that I was maintaining actually did not belong to my command.

Re:DoD (NSA) has no standing in civilian courts

[Doc Ruby]

That's funny, the Congress disagreed totally with you when it wrote the FISA, after the last uncontrolled tyrant, Nixon, spied on us with the CIA and NSA. And the Federal judge disagreed with you, too. Bush and his lawyer Gonzales seem to agree with you, though. There's a legal authority to respect.

"It has been reported"? What is this, Fox News? The FISA court has granted practically every warrant, including post-facto warrants, that Bush has asked for.

Bush has been violating the perfectly clear FISA that would have suited his claimed needs perfectly. Why not get a warrant? Because he's a tyrant creating precedents for his gang's Unitary Executive monarcy, unaccountable to either Legislative or Judicial branches. And because he's probably spying on political and economic competitors, or trying to create the ability for a tyrant to do so without getting caught or punished.

Why are you so into this criminal presidential behavior? What's wrong with just using the FISA?

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Paladin144]

I didn't say to trust the government, I said we can only go on what information is given to us.

Uh... now who's having comprehension problems? What's the difference between trusting the government and just accepting the information that is "given to us"? Either way it's passive. What about DEMANDING answers?! I guess you don't believe in holding the government accountable. I know that there are true Americans out there who, unlike you, actually take this shit seriously. We can't let the government monitor our every action. That's not the government's purpose (seems an awful lot like a nanny-state, doesn't it?) and it's the first step towards fascism.

I'm sure that when President Hillary Clinton expands this program to include monitoring for instances of "hate speech" you'll still have no problems with it. "Hate speech" will be defined loosely as anything reeking of a conservative ideology. You won't be arrested of course. Just flagged and put into a database for further monitoring. Bitching about the government is basically terrorism, ya know. And terrorists must be stopped at all costs. Including limiting our freedom in exchange for empty promises of security. Right?

Until you have some evidence, though, it's just a conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with this topic.

No, it has everything to do with this topic. And whipping out the "conspiracy theory" canard proves that you have no case. Conspiracies happen all the time in Washington. If you're too naive to understand that then you're just a minnow swimming with the sharks.

As for evidence, we have enough already to demand answers.

Or should we wait until the answers are "given to us"?

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[ubrgeek]

Who knew Tony Snow read Slashdot ;)

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[mrchaotica]

Yes, actually. If we all took your stance then we could assume the government is kidnapping babies out of hospital maternity wards and turning them into mutant super fighters. How do you know they're not? Because they told you so? You naive fool!

If I assume that the government is doing that and I'm wrong, everything is fine. But if I assume that the government isn't doing that and I'm wrong, we're all fucked. So what's the bottom line? When it comes to government, a little paranoia is healthy!

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

Again, I ask, where am I SUPPORTING any of what the government is doing?

The post I was responding to says "There are probably numerous terror cells living here in the US ... these criminals types are a "threat" so we need to include them too, and so on and so on."

In other words, he doesn't know, and he's making stuff up. There are certainly cells here, and they are hopefully being monitored - but until you get some evidence that it's without warrants, then it's merely a conspiracy theory. Now, if someone presents some actual evidence, then it's a different story, and no, I wouldn't rely on the government for that - it was the New York Times that spilled the beans on the wiretapping. I don't particularly like the NYT, but I don't dismiss their reporting on this matter, either.

And so there ARE people asking questions, we DON'T need to make up accusations of wrongdoing when we have enough evidence to actually investigate.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[mrchaotica]

known terrorist or member of Al Queda

And how do you know if a person is a terrorist? Obviously, by convicting him of it in a court of law. Until then, the person being spied on is a lawful private citizen, with all the rights affirmed by the Constitution!

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

But I completely agree... but this guy I was responding to was merely making stuff up. Saying "I have a theory that the government is doing [something], and I'm going to prove it!" is a far cry from saying "Well, the government is doing this, so you are blind because they might be doing something else, too!"

I also think the movie Conspiracy Theory is highly underrated.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Paladin144]

Again, I ask, where am I SUPPORTING any of what the government is doing?

Blind obedience to the government is tacit support.

The rest of your post is just regurgitation. You seem to be avoiding taking a firm position (flip-flopper!) because you know I will nail your balls to the wall when you do. Good luck with that.

I just have to pick on you for this one, though:

but until you get some evidence that it's without warrants, then it's merely a conspiracy theory

Aahhahaaaa!! Your ignorance is perfect shield for your argument, isn't it? Hahahaaaaa. You fool, the Bush administration has admitted on numerous occasions that they monitored people without warrants. They even tried to ram a bill through Congress that would make the program legal -- obviously this would not be necessary if the program already was legal.

And this is my favorite part of your Kerry-esque tap-dance routine:

Now, if someone presents some actual evidence, then it's a different story...we DON'T need to make up accusations of wrongdoing when we have enough evidence to actually investigate.

So is there evidence or isn't there? I guess with your head stuck so deep in the sand you wouldn't know. That's the whole point, though, isn't it? Me and several other posters have provided you with tons of evidence, but it's clear from your posts that you've studiously avoided reading any of them. Either that or your comprehension skills are so incredibly low that you shouldn't be able to string 2 sentences together. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it's clear that your ignorance is actually stupidity -- that is, "willful ignorance." I hope you will actually read my links this time. The fate of our nation depends on people waking up to the malfeasance infesting Washington.

Re:Bush's Eight Rules of Modern Autocratic Governm

[lawpoop]

Mod parent up!

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[lawpoop]

" There are certainly cells here, and they are hopefully being monitored - but until you get some evidence that it's without warrants, then it's merely a conspiracy theory. Now, if someone presents some actual evidence, then it's a different story, and no, I wouldn't rely on the government for that - it was the New York Times that spilled the beans on the wiretapping"

You have a classic case of nerdism. You're going for form over reality. You are taking this opportunity to give patronizing lessons in logic when our liberty and form of government are being threatened.

Yes, it technically is a conspiracy theory to claim that our government is tapping our phones. We have no evidence. How would we get that evidence? Should journalist or the government investigate and see if the government is listening without warrants? If so, why should they follow up some loony conspiracy theory? They might as well investigate the Air Force covering up an extra-terrestrial saucer crash in Roswell.

You see, you are correct in the technical sense when you say this is merely a conspiracy theory. However, the political implication of using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' means that whatever the claim is, it is totally batshit crazy, on the level of space aliens or Loch Ness monsters. The reality is that there is a real danger that parts of our government are breaking the law, and we need to take it seriously. When you call it a 'conspiracy theory', you are technically correct, but the implication of what you are saying is "this is totally crazy, ignore whoever says this because they have lost their mind, and don't follow up on this issue any more".

You have no evidence that there are Al Qaida cells operating in the US. You merely have the word of the government or the media. You don't have any independently verifiable, concrete evidence. All we have to rely on is someone's word. Neither you nor I will never, *ever*, get to see the evidence, question the accused or the witnesses. The scientific method is unavailable to us in this situation.

Simply asking questions is not enough. People can ask all the questions they want. Wrongdoers will never give you truthful answers. Without the power to investigate, we will never find out the truth. Seymore Hersh didn't get his information from asking questions; he was given information from insiders who had inside knowledge and approached *him*. They risked their livelihood and career, possibly even their life to bring him this information. This is, after all, a matter of national security.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[DavidTC]

Did I once, in my post, say the government wasn't wrong?

Yes, you did in fact say that. Or at least, you said they were operating legally.

The first poster said: What the headline calls domestic spying is actually the tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States who is a known terrorist or member of Al Queda. It is not, as some believe, the government wiretapping phone calls internal to the United States.

Then someone said: And how do you know this? Because they told you so?

And you said: Yes, actually. ... After all, you have no proof one way or the other. So yes, we go by what has been released to the public so far and we don't need to make up more conspiracy theories.

Which is all well and good, except what has been admitted it is illegal. The 'proof' is already there.

Now, in theory, you could have been agreeing he broke the law, but just not via the specific actions the GP said, which doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's basically saying 'I don't see why they have to search his house, he already confessed to killing that girl. We should just trust him that he didn't kill anyone else. Stop making up conspiracies.'.

I have to disagree with you on this

[MarkusQ]

While I generally agree with you on most points, I'll have to take exception to this one. The fact that people misuse a term to cloak their misdeeds does not mean that the term never had a cogent meaning, or that it is devoid of substance.

Would you say that "the word 'new' doesn't mean anything," for example, just because "New!" has been plastered all over thousands of products that weren't new at all? Or would you just say that the people who misused the word were lying?

I am a conservative. As such I have vocally opposed almost everything that this administration has done, since the spring of 2001 (at the time, it was Cheney's energy task force and their handling of the Florida recount that had me up in arms). If you google for my posts here and elsewere you will find a consistent pattern motivated by a single, clearly conservative theme:

Don't throw out, risk, abandon, or dismantle something of value for vague or incoherent reasons, no matter how swell the flim-flam show.

• I'm against selling off the national parks.
• I'm against invading other countries based on hearsay and wild ass guesses
• I'm against running up debt by reducing taxes without reducing spending
• I'm against giving up constitutional rights
• I'm against new-fangled magic voting systems
• I'm against secret prisons and torture
• I'm against throwing out habeas corpus

And on and on. This isn't a recent rejection of Bush on his way down; I have been mad had him and his ilk far longer than 80% of his present critics, and on principled, conservative grounds. Google me if you want proof.

--MarkusQ, conservative curmudgeon and proud of it.

Re:I have to disagree with you on this

[DavidTC]

I'll agree with you that it would be nice if that was what being 'conservative' meant.

But the problem is, it hasn't. 'Conservative' wasn't 'stolen', it never stood for that, that's never been the philosophy of any 'conservative' elected to office, at all, except maybe Ron Paul, and, guess what? He calls himself a libertarian, not a 'conservative', and is pretty damn far outside mainstream Republican politics.

Have you ever talked with a communist before? One who actually believes that 'communism has never really been tried', and, thus, it is hasn't been disproven? That have a list of reasons that China and Russia and North Korea and Vietnam and, well, all over communist countries aren't really communists to start with and/or were successful until they stopped being communist?

Conservatives are sounding an awful lot like those guys, where they have a position they're sure will work, if only the people they put in charge of themselves would actually, you know, do that thing.

Of course, they can't even agree on what that thing is. 'Small government', 'don't change the laws', and 'socially conservative, aka, regulate morality' are all mutually exclusive of each other, and all of them have been called 'conservative' for a good 50 years. I don't know if you can technically have three things that are mutually exclusive of each other, but passing laws regulating morality makes the government bigger, and is a change. Reducing the government is also a change, and disallows regulating morality. Not changing the laws disallows both reducing the government and regulating morality. Seriously, the fact that all three of these things are supposedly 'conservative' just shows that conservative wasn't stolen, it was missing to start with.(1)

And I'm sure you've been against Bush from almost the start. Most people who've been paying attention have. I'm not trying to insult everyone who calls themselves 'conservative' by attching Bush to them, I'm just pointing out that 'conservative' is so empty it was possible for his actions to, impossibly, be considered as such.

And I'm not sure being 'against' change, or 'resisting' change, in general is any sort of logical political philosophy anyway. That would imply that you think every single law is exactly at the right place, needing only some slow adjustments, and you'd want, for example, us to stop torturing people very slowly, reducing the amount over a period of five years or so to zero.

Obviously, you don't think that, but that's because you're actually a liberal, not a conservative. Almost all your list is liberal objections, with 'selling national parks' being somewhat progressive/socialist and 'reducing taxes without reducing spending' being the little known 'Let's not do incredibly stupid things' political philosophy.

1) Note those aren't goals, which can be mutually exclusive in the final stages, like, I said, affirmative action is, but positions, which are mutually exclusive to start with. You can fight to maximize both X and Y, or whatever, even if it turns out that you eventually get to a point where you can either add a bit more to X or Y and you must choose. You cannot fight to maximize X, minimize X, and leave X the same, all at the same time.

Outstandingly well said.

[Kadin2048]

That's the most elegant one-sentence summary of true conservatism that I've heard in a long time. You sure you don't want to run for office?

I think the GP's biggest mistake is in thinking that being a "conservative" means pining for the past; something that happened long ago, or perhaps never at all. That's not, in my opinion, true at all. To be a conservative is to see the good in the situation as it is currently, and to use caution in changing it, lest the situation become worse due to poorly-thought-out meddling. Thus I think it's fundamentally a optimistic philosophy, and not at all the pessimistic 'good old days' point-of-view that liberals and progressives make it out to be.

Although I did find the GP's explanation of the philosophical difference between progressives and liberals interesting (I had always assumed that a "progressive" was just a pretentious college-student word for "liberal").

Re:Outstandingly well said.

[MarkusQ]

Although I did find the GP's explanation of the philosophical difference between progressives and liberals interesting (I had always assumed that a "progressive" was just a pretentious college-student word for "liberal").

Agreed. Interestingly, there is a sort of overlap between the real-conservative world view and that of the true progressive (I'm thinking Lord Macaulay style here): both are concerned with improving the world by making only well reasoned, justified changes and eschewing both change for the sake of change and a neo-Luddite stasis quo.

In short, they are in many ways closer together than either is to the poles of the dominant "corporate sponsored neo-fascist fundamentalists right wing" vs. "corporate sponsored neo-socialist loony fringe group left wing" spectrum as presented in the corporate owned media. Of course, you'll never hear that in the MSM.

--MarkusQ

Re:Outstandingly well said.

[DavidTC]

I had always assumed that a "progressive" was just a pretentious college-student word for "liberal"

Heh. The joke here is that the left started as 'progressive', way back in at the turn of the last century. Unions, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, food labeling laws, all courtesy of the Progressive Era.

In addition to the great progressive fuckup, Prohibition. People think that was about morality, but it actually was about the negative behaviors associated with alcohol, like wife-beating and not providing for your family. (It was mostly men who drank.) There was a huge overlap between woman's Suffrage and the Temperance movement.

Most of the problems Prohibition was trying to stop were actually stopped with legalizing divorce and child support and outlawing husbands raping their wives and stuff like that.

Then there was fun in the 30s with actual anarchists and communists and stuff, because the 'mainstream' had swung to the left too, with FDR, so the fringe of the left got a little kooky. And the left originally shunned minorities, and in fact tried to protect their jobs from them. (Of course, who these 'minorities' were depending on where you were. Sometimes it was a Irish coming in and 'taking our jobs', sometimes the Italians, sometimes the Chinese, whoever they were, they were always 'taking our jobs'.)

And then...something happened in the late 1940s. The liberals invaded the Democratic party, proclaiming equal rights for blacks. I honestly don't understand what happened there, but they did. Enough of the Democratic party was outraged that they left and ran on the Dixiecrat ticket.

Since then, the 'left' has been a weird mix of the two, often with no one appearing to understand why, for example, some on the left are in favor of gun control (The progressives think it would reduce crime) and some against it (The liberals thinks guns are a right, and that's the end of it.).

That's, like, progressive history, and I'm mostly a progressive. (Although I don't think gun control is a good idea.) Liberal history traces back to John Locke and the enlightenment, and is the foundation of the US, although I'm not sure what it was doing between that and the 1940s.

Re:Outstandingly well said.

[DavidTC]

Agreed. Interestingly, there is a sort of overlap between the real-conservative world view and that of the true progressive (I'm thinking Lord Macaulay style here): both are concerned with improving the world by making only well reasoned, justified changes and eschewing both change for the sake of change and a neo-Luddite stasis quo.

I agree with you, except for the fact you haven't noticed that the 'real-conservative' world view you think exists doesn't actually exist, and the only people actually promoting 'slowly but surely trying to solve problems' are the progressives. ;)

You want deliberative progressives, ones that err on the side of changing too slowly instead of changing too quickly. This is fine, different people have different priorities and speeds. But you don't want your fictional conservatives that don't appear to actually exist or run for office. ;)

Re:Outstandingly well said.

[shutdown -p now]

I think the GP's biggest mistake is in thinking that being a "conservative" means pining for the past

Indeed, becaause "pining for the past" actually has a different term to describe it: "reactionary".

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

"...we go by what has been released to the public..."

That doesn't mean what the government has released - after all, it was the NYT that brought this whole thing to light. He was making stuff up.

And the matter IS being investigated and I'm sure we'll all find out what is uncovered; there's no point in making unsubtantiated claims. The problem I have with your analogy is that someone IS investigating the murder and the OP is saying "he might have killed that guy down the street, too! And that unsolved murder in the alley last year!"

It's all just hearsay. The problem I have with it is that while I don't like the Bush administration, many people just make stuff up and blame the administration for it, so we might as well accuse them of stealing babies to may mutant super fighters.

Hee

[Mark_MF-WN]

This is the funniest thing I've heard all day...

Very true though -- it highlights precisely why the power of government is supposed to be limited. Whatever power you give to the leaders you favour, you're also giving to the leaders you oppose.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[gfxguy]

You have a classic case of nerdism. You're going for form over reality.

Well, you may be right. I am proudly a nerd, but while I think I am somewhere in the middle politically (I do NOT like or support the Bush administration), I see a hypocrisy about how the administration is treated compared to past administrations and other politicians. If you think GW Bush is the greatest threat to liberty our country has faced then you may have forgotten history.

You are taking this opportunity to give patronizing lessons in logic when our liberty and form of government are being threatened.

But you have a classic case of fear-mongering. I don't support government efforts to circumvent the constitution. Our liberty is not being threatened any more by the Bush administration than it is by any number of other politicians and special interest groups; and our form of government has changed greatly since it's inception (from a very small government created by people who fought for individual freedoms) to a gigantic behemoth that already runs a large part of what should be your private life, deciding which schools you should go to and sticking their nose in the day to day operations of our businesses and a whole lot more. Government offices aren't even filled the way they were intended to be filled (Senators represented the state, while congressmen represented the people - now they all represent the people; the 17th ammendment f-ked that up).

The addition of the 16th ammendment opened up a whole new can of worms that changed the way our government ran forever, as now instead of being public servents, political offices became offices of power - power over money. Want a tax break? A small donation to my campaign might help your issue appear on my radar screen.

So "our form of government" is long since twisted and fouled, there's nothing new the Bush adminsitration is doing to ruin it. They haven't changed the way elections work, they haven't changed terms of offices, and the system of "checks and balances" has already seen legislation pushed by the Bush administration shot down by the supreme court.

I may be nit-picking, but you guys are just plain overreacting.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[An Onerous Coward]

No, he is not correct.

The program he describes is one that the FISA courts wouldn't think twice about approving surveillance on. In fact, if we already know that a phone call has a "known terrorist" on one end (someone they're already surveilling) then they should already have the warrant to listen in on the call, regardless of who is on the other end of the line or where the call is being placed from.

No, the only way the program makes sense is if they're randomly listening in on any phonecalls between the U.S. and "evil terrorist countries".

Okay, yes, the last sentence is correct, in its own saggy, strawman way. Not many people are claiming that they're listening in on entirely domestic calls, so where the post you're congratulating is correct it is also irrelevant. The important thing is that you need a warrant to listen in to calls where one party is in the U.S. Which the Bush Administration is not getting. Which makes the whole program illegal from top to bottom.

Keep congratulating yourself for going against the Slashdot groupthink. But be warned: sometimes the groupthink you rail against is nothing more than reality.

Holy cow!

[arrgster]

whhhooo get up on the wrong side of bed today?

Yes, I screwed up a bit and voted for the wrong guy back in 2000. The in 2004 I voted the other side. I'm an independent, Generally I vote opposite of who is in power as a matter of keeping things in the middle. I think if we go right or left too far then we have problems. At the moment this country has gone way way to the right and things are getting bad. Fortunately we just made some changes and the left will be slightly more powerful and will start to swing things back.

So my reason for voting for bush was the party he was part of, what I didn't see coming was the republicans gaining too much power. Had I know that, I would have preferred a democrat in there to keep things reasonable. I like some things about democrats, and I like some things about republicans. They both have their flaws so I'm not going to go quite as far as you seem to have and claim one is perfect and the other shouldn't exist.

BTW, next time you try to make a point don't be so combative. Being rude and mean only makes the other side defensive and more likely to disagree with you simply because they don't like you.

Re:Holy cow!

[Darby]

Yes, I screwed up a bit and voted for the wrong guy back in 2000.

"a bit" Good lord, your ability to shirk responsibility for your own actions is amazing.

*You* sent innocent people to death camps to be tortured and murdered on the whim of an idiotic traitor.
*You* actively supported making up lies as an excuse to invade a country which has left hundreds of thousands of people dead.

You could have taken 5 minutes out of your day to learn enough to avoid making such an idiotic decision, but you didn't and so here we are and to you that's "a bit" of a mistake.

Hell, by your standards, I could break into your house, tie up you and your whole family, rape them, pets and all, and torch the place leaving you all to burn and I would only have committed a minor faux pas

You should really try to get a sense of perspective and take a little responsibility for yourself.

. At the moment this country has gone way way to the right and things are getting bad. Fortunately we just made some changes and the left will be slightly more powerful and will start to swing things back.


"Getting bad"

We are running death camps. That's a little beyond "getting".

If you honestly believe the Democrats will save the day here, then you're even more foolish than you've already proven yourself to be. If there were more people like me, then they'd be forced to. As there are so many people like you who have proven yourself to be trivially easy to dupe using moronically simple tactics and further to fight tooth and nail against even dealing with their mistake honestly once it's fucking obvious, they will pull the same old shit and you will, once again, fall for the same shit since you have proven that you haven't learned a god damned thing from it.

So my reason for voting for bush was the party he was part of, what I didn't see coming was the republicans gaining too much power.

Yeah, that was tough to predict.

They both have their flaws so I'm not going to go quite as far as you seem to have and claim one is perfect and the other shouldn't exist.

Now point me to where I said anything that a reasonable person could translate as that?

I'm waiting....
Oh yeah, I didn't.

Both parties suck. I've sure as shit never claimed that the Democrats are perfect.
Hell, they aren't even good.

That is irrelevant to the fact that the Republicans are worse by any reasonable metric.

It is also entirely irrelevant to the fact that the plan for the invasion of Iraq using an attack on America was far and away the biggest agenda item for the Bushies and whether or not you give enough of a shit to pay any attention it was the only major agenda item they had.

So voting for what was quite obviously *even at the time* the worse of two evils isn't a good excuse for anything.

Being rude and mean only makes the other side defensive and more likely to disagree with you simply because they don't like you.

Look, I'm not suffering from any delusion that I'll be able to convince you of anything.
Were you willing to listen to reason and deal with the consequences of your actions, we wouldn't be having this discussion since you already would have done so in the first place and we wouldn't be in this situation.

You will disagree with me regardless, since agreeing with me would mean that you would have to take responsibility for your actions and there is no way in hell you'll do that.

You are an active accessory to mass murder and torture and the looting of America
Had you and those like you done your fucking job as a citizen then we would not be in this situation.
You failed badly at the simple task of realising what Bush and his cronies were up to, and your support is *directly* responsible for the death camps we have set up in third world shit holes.

So I laugh at your accusations of "rudeness" for 2 reasons.

1) Courtesy would make no difference to a person willing to s

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[DavidTC]

The matter is not, in fact, being investigated.

It might be investigated after the Democrats take power, but there is no actual investigation at this point.

Mod up

[Mr2001]

We live in a two-party system because of Duverger's law. Complaining about how Democrats and Republicans are all the same won't do anything; the most you can hope for is two different parties to choose from, and then in a few years, those two will be the same anyway. It's how the system works. The only way to change it is to change the way we run elections: approval voting, ranked voting, or proportional representation.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[Slur]

Would the people that determine the known list of terrorists be the same ones who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

I know you know this Phil, but just to enlighten the deluded masses...

1. No one close to the intelligence ever believed this was the case.

2. No ordinary citizen with an ounce of sense ever believed this was the case.

3. Public officials merely pretended to believe it - you could see the dollar signs in their eyes.

4. Iraq was primarily a means to funnel billions to American defense contractors and shore up Republican power.

5. George Bush does what he's told by his industrial base. He is a soulless figurehead, dumb as a stone.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[HomelessInLaJolla]

> you guys are just plain overreacting

The difference between unchecked, unwarranted, illegal surveillance of innocent citizens and kidnapping babies and turning them into superfighters is that one is extraordinarily easy and the infrastructure is already in place while the other is still on the fringes of science fiction, respectively.

Colleges use automatic keyword monitoring systems on telephones and e-mail (for insurance liability purposes). Why is it so difficult to accept that the government, which has a much larger interest, does the same? History shows us that whenever an authoritarian body can do something then they will do it until they are forced to not do it. The US government is no different.

Accept reality my friend. The technology for, and a reasonably attainable level of near comprehensive implementation of, automated monitoring of nearly every telephone and e-mail transaction has been available for fifteen, maybe twenty, years. To try and convince yourself that it hasn't been used is no better than sticking your head in the sand or your fingers in your ears (or both).

True reality:

- Nearly every telephone call, domestic or international, is filtered through automated monitoring systems.
- Real citizens, with no terrorist ties, have been subjects of special investigations.
- Some of those special investigations have resulted in events which can be described as harassment.
- Some of that harassment has resulted in real-world impacts on those citizens' careers, families, and social lives.
- There is no recourse because the citizenry will never know when such things have occurred--other than to think,"Holy crap! What did I do to deserve such a long string of such hopelessly bad luck???"
- There is no recourse because even if they did know when such a thing had occurred they will never have access to the information which could be used as evidence to prove it
- There is no recourse because even if they knew where to begin looking for the proper information they would most certainly be derided as a "conspiracy theorist" (as you have done) by their peers
- There is no recourse because even if they could detach themselves from the derision and knew where to begin looking for the proper information there isn't an attorney in the nation which would risk his or her career attempting to prosecute a defamation of character case against a special investigative branch (which may or may not even formally exist) of the FBI/CIA/NSA/military/or some private investigator hired by a federal level Senate or House subcommittee.

There is no policing of or recourse against a large, overbearing, unchecked government. That is reality. The world is not a perfect place where everyone follows the rules--and you should quit posting as if you think it is. The only thing more pitiable than your naivete is the vehemence with which you attack anyone who questions it.

Dude

[arrgster]

You got issues.. unless this is just a joke and I'm being gullible.. You're certainly giving me that few sandwiches short of a picnic basket feeling...

Re:Dude

[Darby]

You got issues.. unless this is just a joke and I'm being gullible..

Expecting you to take responsibility for *your* actions is a joke indicating that *I* have issues?!?

That's rich.

In other news...

[tcc3]

Fox to guard henhouse.

Your argument doesn't hold water

[MarkusQ]

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.

You are conflating at least four different things: the concept of a conservative philosophy, the various consequences of following this philosophy in different contexts, the people who use the term to label themselves, and the question of when (if ever) a given instance of conservative philosophy would "work." In addition you appear to be falling into the labeling trap, which has been laid for you by the mass media to create a sense of conflict and discourage rational discourse.

• If you don't like my definition, go to the dictionary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. "Conservative (n) One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver."
• The concept of a conservative philosophy as I outlined it perfectly describes all of the various things that are called "conservative"; they differ, however, in what they think is "something of value." This doesn't mean that the concept of conservation is somehow in doubt. You and I can both be collectors, even if I choose to collect stamps and you choose to collect model cars. Heck, you can even choose to collect canceled stamps, while I prefer to collect uncut sheets of them, putting us into exactly the sort of conflict you describe among conservatives and yet no reasonable person would take this to mean that we couldn't both be collectors, let alone saying that this somehow meant that there were no real collectors.
• Likewise, the fact that people who describe themselves as conservative don't follow any discernibly conservative principles has no bearing on the question of whether or not such principles exist. Many people have claimed to be Napoleon over the years, and none is recent memory has been correct. But you can not deduce from that that Napoleon never existed.
• As for the communism strawman, which has been well dissected elsewhere, I'll only point out that communism does work, as evidenced by the fact that almost all capitalists organize their households along strictly communist principles, rarely if ever charging their babies the fair market rate for food or demanding that they pay rent in strict proportion to the amount of space they use.
• The philosophy I stated, "Don't throw out, risk, abandon, or dismantle something of value for vague or incoherent reasons, no matter how swell the flim-flam show," is markedly different than your rewording as "being 'against' change, or 'resisting' change, in general", which I trust you will recognize.
• As for your claim that I am "actually a liberal" I could turn around and rebut you in kind, since the sort of meaning-denying attack you are launching on the word "conservative" was not too long ago used against the word "liberal" (thus it becoming known, for a while, as "the L word") but I will not. I objected to that attempt at new-speak just as strongly as I object to yours (being conservative, I tend to dislike the debasement of language for political ends).
• What made it possible for Bush to get away with claiming against all logic to be a conservative was not the semantic content of the word (or lack thereof) but the corporate media that lets him get away with saying outlandishly false things and never calls him on them. cf. His claim that there isn't a civil war in Iraq and Al-Qaida is behind it. I have sometimes thought that he could claim to be a giraffe and they would print his claim without question.

  But even if they did, I wouldn't deduce from that that giraffes didn't exist, merely that he was lying and the press were aiding and abetting him.

• Nothing in what I said (or believe) requires that torture be stopped gradually (unless you hold that it is "something of value"). On the other contrary, as I see the high regard in which much of the world still hold America as something of great value, I would and do (consistent with my principles) advocate the immediate repudiation of

Re:Your argument doesn't hold water

[DavidTC]

I'm not saying that the 'conservative' you think exists cannot exist.

There are merely two problems. One, as you pointed you, conservatives have differing ideas on what the goals are. Even if we leave out the lunatics who want a theocracy or a invade the entire world, 'conservatives' differ too much in goals.

Some of them want a near anarchy, some of them want an almost socialist country, some of them want to crack down on harmful business activities, some of them think the market will fix everything, etc.

So...the guiding principle is...carefulness? That's not a philosophy. Everyone is voting on where to take a trip, and you're in the 'As long as we drive carefully' category, and just personally want to go to Washington DC. Other people in your group want to go to New York or Seattle or Mexico.

You. Can't. Vote. Being. Careful. As. A. Destination.

It's the destination that matters in politics. People who think we should slowly raise the minimum wage to 8 dollars an hour have a lot more in common than people who think we should instantly raise it that high than they do with people think we should slowly lower it to 2 dollars an hour.

The other problem that, even pretending 'careful' was a destination, no political party runs on the platform of 'slow, deliberate change'. The Republicans certainly don't. They are flatly opposed to certain changes, rejecting it out of hand, and completely in favor of other changes.

The Democrats, appear, at least, to take their time and debate issues with the country. Remember Hillary's health care initiative?

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[cold fjord]

And how do you know if a person is a terrorist? Obviously, by convicting him of it in a court of law.

Conviction in a court of law determines questions of legal guilt. It isn't necessary for making administrative findings or findings of fact. It also doesn't displace simple observation.

How do you know if someone might be a bowler? By finding them on a copy of the bowling league roster, watching them attend meetings at the bowling alley, maybe observing that they get bowling league newsletters or emails, finding records of sales of bowling balls to them, getting tips from their associates about their bowling habits, maybe a series of mysterious trips to cities hosting bowling tournaments, pictures of them at bowling camp, maybe postings on bowldot.org or participating in bowling chat rooms, maybe a guest in their house notices bowling trophies, or someone overhears them proclaiming the triumph of bowling over curling and death to all bocce ball players. What do you think?

If bowling was illegal, you would need a court conviction to punish them for bowling related activities, not to determine for administrative or intelligence purposes if they were a bowler, or associated with bowlers. Figuring out that someone is a terrorist, and punishing them for terrorist acts works pretty much the same way.*

Good grief.

* For the truly obtuse, I am not suggesting in any way that bowlers are terrorists, or that bowling is or should be illegal. Bowling is a fine sport of peace, love, and brotherhood. The world would probably be much better off if more people enjoyed a beverage over a bowling match. Just be careful where you toss those balls. :)

Descarte forgive me...

[MarkusQ]

I agree with you, except for the fact you haven't noticed that the 'real-conservative' world view you think exists doesn't actually exist, and the only people actually promoting 'slowly but surely trying to solve problems' are the progressives. ;)

I post therefore I am. You may be good, but I seriously doubt you can convince me that I don't actually exist, and since I have my world view you would be hard pressed to convince me that there isn't at least one person out there (or rather, out here, since it would be me) that holds my world view.

You are free to call me a deliberative progressive if you like. There are others that have called me a paleo-conservative, a western conservative, a libertarian democrat, a fool, a progressive fiscal conservative, a tightwad liberal, and more. For my part, I'll continue to call myself what I have always called myself, a conservative, and continue to support, vote for, and advocate candidates and causes that are consistant with my world view, regardless of what they call themselves and regardless of whether you think I exist or not.

--MarkusQ

Re:Descarte forgive me...

[DavidTC]

You can call yourself whatever you want, and you can call whatever you believe whatever you want.

Obviously some people on right actually hold political positions, and obviously some of them refer to their thoughts as 'conservative'. They can't agree on what this is, and the 'conservative' you're talking about is not actually reflected in any politician that the right runs.

The fact no one can figure out what term to call you should sorta clue you into that. The reason that no one can figure it out is that you assert you are 'conservative' to start with, and thus you end up with all sorts of weird labels that people who incorrectly insist they're on the right have called themselves. Drop that assertion, and everyone knows exactly what to call you. You're a progressive who urges caution, and like I mentioned earlier, probably a bit of a liberal too. (1)

But that won't happen, as you are associating with the wrong people. You are in McDonalds wondering why they never seem to be able to sell you a pizza. Well, um, they don't make pizza.

There is no political philosophy of the people who run for office on the right, except 'We're not the left', and the left actually has elected a group of people who think the way you do, we're actually selling pizza. (We just got a lot of pizza elected to Congress.)

It doesn't matter if half the customers there want pizza, and some have even brought their own and snuck it in until McDonalds, in some theoretical universe, starts serving pizza. You're in the wrong store.

Sadly, while you're there, you're buying soft drinks and other things to hold you over, so it is in McDonalds' interest to not correct your misconception that you will actually be able to purchase pizza at some time in the future. They are anti-pizza, it's reflected in their stances of 'small government' and 'don't tax the rich'. (Of course, in their 'legislate morality' concept, they have pizza, but it's a mushroom, sauerkraut, vanilla ice cream, and small-shards-of-metal pizza, raw.)

And, yes, I know you probably voted Democratic the last election, because, well, McDonalds has managed to burn down half the city. The problem is that you still consider yourself based in McDonalds, and you're waiting for them to fix their supposed problems with the pizza oven that they do not, in fact, possess.

1) Although objecting to torture and infringing various rights might just mean you are actually a human American, as opposed to elected Republicans, many who appear to be some sort of daywalking vampires.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[cold fjord]

Would the people that determine the known list of terrorists be the same ones who were certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

That is very unlikely. Terrorism and Counter-proliferation are very different disciplines, requiring different knowledge bases and skills. WMD would be mainly CIA & DIA. Terrorism would be a different part of CIA & DIA, shared with FBI.

If it makes you feel any better, they did find a number of active, banned weapons programs in Iraq though, not to mention a few other surprises. It is clear that Saddam still had an interest, and was prepared to resume WMD activities as soon as sanctions were lifted. As to the actual weapons, maybe they really were all destroyed, or maybe they were transferred to Syria. We may never really know for sure.

Getting good intelligence on weapons development and counts of deployed weapons in authoritarian countries is a very difficult problem for intelligence agencies. It is by no means uncommon for major foreign weapons systems to be missed, their capabilities misjudged, or occasionally overstated. South Africa was an undeclared nuclear power for a time, and nobody actually knew until they announced that they had dismantled their weapons. China recently displayed a new type of attack submarine that took the US by surprise.

Kudos on the rhetorical device.

Re:We need a poll

[cold fjord]

*If* this is true (and we won't know without a fair trial) he deserves the usual penalty for treason.

A Pulitzer Prize?

dude, chill

[Scudsucker]

Yes, everyone SHOULD have known that Bush was a douchebag in 2000. But I don't think anyone could have predicted what a fascist douchebag he would turn out to be.

Re:dude, chill

[Darby]

But I don't think anyone could have predicted what a fascist douchebag he would turn out to be.

If that were true then there wouldn't have been so fucking many people predicting *exactly* that, now would there?

They stated flat out before the election that they planned on invading Iraq and they knew damn well that they wouldn't have support for it so it would be necessary to use an attack on the US as an excuse to do so.
This was in a policy paper that came out in 2000 before the election.

Obviously once they plan on misusing an attack on our country they're going to have to be fascists since otherwise they get thrown in fucking prison and executed.

These aren't difficult things to think through. All you would have had to do back then to know what would happen if Bush were elected was simply to *read the fucking policy papers put out by the administration*.

So your idiotic lie stands proven for what it is.

Anybody with a scrap of integrity predicted what would happen and did it easilly.
You really shouldn't be wasting your time making excuses for people too lazy to spend 5 minutes researching before voting for the president of the United States. You should be figuring out how easy it was to predict the current situation and figuring out how you can do it next time. So you don't make the same fucking mistake.

bullshit

[Scudsucker]

What the headline calls domestic spying is actually the tapping of phone calls to and from people inside the United States to and from someone outside the United States who is a known terrorist or member of Al Queda.

Existing law allows the government to spy on suspected terrorists to their hearts content. With warrants through the FISA court. So when when Administration officials claim that NSA wiretapping is needed to spy on suspected terrorists, they are lying through their teeth. As warrantless wiretapping isn't need to spy on suspects, it must be for just one thing: spying people who are NOT suspects. And that is straight up fascism my friend.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[timminator]

Actually, if you (and the subset of passionate, yet ignorant democrats who started this "controversy" in preparation for the elections) had actually read the relevant UNCLASSIFIED executive orders, you would have realized that there was nothing illegal about NSA activities whatsoever.

RTFFR - Read the Federal Register (tinfoil hats optional)

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[hey!]

If I followed your car around everywhere you went and taped you everywhere you go (on public roads), according to the SCOTUS, obviously you would have no problem with this right? After all, the SCOTUS ruled that you don't have an expectation of privacy when you're in public.

Not true. You have an expectation of privacy in public places, it's just not the same as what you have in private places. See Nader v. General Motors for example.

Re:What the Program Actually Is

[finkployd]

Actually, if you (and the subset of passionate, yet ignorant democrats who started this "controversy" in preparation for the elections) had actually read the relevant UNCLASSIFIED executive orders, you would have realized that there was nothing illegal about NSA activities whatsoever.

His activities are most certainly in violation of the FISA laws, which allow for warrant less wiretapping only for 72 hours during which time a warrant MUST be applied for along with an explanation of why the wiretapping was so urgent.

His position is basically that during a time of war, the law basically does not apply to the executive branch. Bush can literally do no wrong as long as he declares us to be at war and his actions are to "keep us safe". Executive Orders are really the bane of any democracy, and I hated them when Clinton used them left and right also. The idea that the executive branch can circumvent the entire legislative process by just unilaterally declaring laws is pretty messed up.

Either way, it seems most legal scholars (including the whole of the ABA) believe the program to be illegal. And while there is debate, it is certainly the the cut and dry "just read the law and you will clearly see" argument you are putting forward.

Finkployd

You made me laugh at least

[MarkusQ]

I'm a big fan of analogies, but you completely lost me there.

And, yes, I know you probably voted Democratic the last election, because, well, McDonalds has managed to burn down half the city. The problem is that you still consider yourself based in McDonalds, and you're waiting for them to fix their supposed problems with the pizza oven that they do not, in fact, possess.

Actually, I voted Democrat because:

• Our governor, a Democrat, has been doing a good job while the Republican challenger is someone I know personally and wouldn't tust to wash my car.
• Our representative, a Republican, was a major slimeball and obvious lunatic whose only claim to the job was his ability to rubber stamp any dumb idea put forward by the administration
• Our senator, again a Republican, was almost as bad but not as obviously crazy; I voted against him but he won anyway.
• And so on down the ticket.

None of them said anything about fixing a pizza oven, though I wouldn't put it past our ex-rep to babble something like that if he thought it would win him votes.

--MarkusQ

P.S. All joking aside, and giving your argument credit for intent if not clarity, the problem here seems to be that you are assuming that because I label myself in some way I will automatically vote for people who label themselves the same way; you are accusing me of red team/blue team thinking.

What in fact happens is that I evaluate the candidates and ballot issues on the merits, and don't pay much attention to what they call themselves, though the do get points off for lying (e.g. if you run as a Communist but support private property rights, you won't get my vote even if I agree with you because I don't like hypocrisy). My political philosophy guides my choices because I follow it not because other people claim to.

Re:You made me laugh at least

[DavidTC]

Okay, instead of analogies, let me try to explain.

You are in position of a set of political beliefs, as is everyone else. You refer to these beliefs as 'conservative'.

Unfortunately, 'conservative' is also used by people who have completely orthogonal beliefs to yours, and also by people who have completely opposite beliefs to yourself.

That doesn't really matter, though, except that the people who are 'conservative' leaders either don't grasp this, or do grasp it and deliberately don't bring it up. There are sub-categories that have been invented, but not by the actual politicians, and they aren't used by them.

Because this 'conservative' that they don't bother to explain is such an absurd contradictory mishmash of concepts, any behavior on their part can be called 'conservative' or 'not conservative'. (They often used 'liberal' to mean 'not conservative', confusingly enough.)

This is what I mean by 'There is no actual conservative philosophy. Conservative is whatever a popular Republican in office is doing or wants to do. If it's not a Republican, or if they have become unpopular, they magically become non-conservative.'.

It's actually gotten so absurd that behaviors that fit under no definition of conservative, like torture, are 'conservative' if conservative leaders do them.

I.e., 'conservative' does not exist. You can have whatever political philosophy you want, and call it whatever you want, just like you call trees 'flerbs'. However, communication requires some sort of mutual terminology, and 'conservative' is a null term. It is at the point it is 'Conservative is whatever conservative leaders define as conservative', and hence is not useful as a reference to anything. It might have been in the past, but by 'the past' I'm pretty certain I'm talking about the 1920s(1), not the 1980s.

The label you call yourself, politically, is not incredibly important. Anyone who votes labels is sorta silly.

The actual problem is, at some point, someone made up this hypothetical 'conservative' concept and, well, lied to you, asserting that it actually existed and the Republican party was it. As you're not an idiot, you soon realized that the Republican party was about as far from this 'conservative' as can be.

But you still hold this sort of false hope that these hypothetical 'conservatives' exist on the right, that somewhere, somehow, the right will find their way back to their true principles. This is helped by the fact that 'conservative' means 'good' for all people on the right, so you and a Christianist theocrat and a libertarian can all hear how someone's 'a conservative' and be happy, until, of course, he fails two or even three of you.

1) In the 1920s, it was a reaction to the Progressive Era, sorta like now, but it was only a reaction to that. No fake religion, no crazy economic theories, just the sole, simple concept that they did not like some of what the progressives were doing. (Which was fine, because some of those ideas were stupid. They had a lot of crazy utopia theories back then.)

And you can prove this...how?

[MarkusQ]

Everyone is voting on where to take a trip, and you're in the 'As long as we drive carefully' category, and just personally want to go to Washington DC. Other people in your group want to go to New York or Seattle or Mexico.

You. Can't. Vote. Being. Careful. As. A. Destination.

Why not? It may not seem like a good way to vote to you, and your phrasing makes it sound silly, by what exactly is to stop me from looking over the various options and deciding between them solely on the basis of my assumed risk aversion? You flatly state that it isn't possible but I don't see how you plan to support it, let alone prove it to the point that it justifies Spelling. Out. One. Word. At. A. Time. Like. You. Think. I'm. Stupid.

Further, you keep mischaracterizing my position as favoring being slow and cautious, despite the fact that I have several times pointed out that I am not opposed to change, even rapid or risky change, but only to ill thought out change for the sake of change.

But more to the point, you keep doing this conservative=Republican=bad vs. progressive=Democrat=good gymnastics that leads to exactly the sort of mess we find ourselves in. Voting for a party that pays lip service to your beliefs is a sure road to hell. Vote for individuals based on your assessment of their actions, and keep tabs on 'em after they get in office. Otherwise they will play you for a patsy as sure as anything.

--MarkusQ

P.S. If something can't be a philosophy unless some political party runs on it as a platform, where does that leave existentialism? I'm just asking.

Re:And you can prove this...how?

[DavidTC]

First of all, I've never said Democrats are good, and I've even said progressive ideas are sometimes rather dumb.

I will say Republicans, at this point, are bad, period, but it doesn't have a lot to with any sort of political philosophy, but rather the specific circumstances they have lead us into, with civil liberties thrown out the window and us throwing good money after bad. And, of course, bootstrapping a terrorist problem that will be with us for the next decade or more.

Actually, I take it back. It did have to do with a political philosophy. Specifically, the lack thereof. Didn't Republicans used to be non-interventionists? No, that's right, I forgot for a second, they're whatever they want to be, because there's no philosophy there.

And of course something can be a philosophy without it being a political one. Philosophies are premises, and conclusions to the premises, that govern behavior.

However, nothing can be philosophy unless it explains why first, with that logically leading to a 'how'. First it's 'What should our goals be?' and then 'So how should we get there?'.

People can disagree on the first. People can agree on the first and disagree on the second. However, agreeing on the second and not even considering the first doesn't appear to make a lot of sense, in a political philosophy or just a general one.

As you didn't get my direction analogy, I will use different political philosophies. They are very simple and mysteriously exist in a vacuum, but you get the point:

1) It is the job of society to care for people who cannot care for themselves, so a good thing to do is to keep unemployment low, which we can do by X.
2) Unemployed people are a drain on the economy, so a good thing to do is to keep unemployment low, which we can do by X.
3) It is the job of society to care for people who cannot care for themselves, so we should give all unemployed people free money and housing.

The first two philosophies, although starting with different 'whys', superficially line up the 'how'. The first and last start from the same 'why', and end up at different 'hows'. There's a rather large problem, though:

1) It is the job of society to care for people who cannot care for themselves, so a good thing to do is to keep unemployment low, which we can do by X, and for the people who still can't find work, get them some training and housing until they do.
2) Unemployed people are a drain on the economy, so a good thing to do is to keep unemployment low, which we can do by X, and for the people who still can't find work, we will shoot them.
3) It is the job of society to care for people who cannot care for themselves, so we should give all unemployed people free money and housing. As this is obviously expensive, we should try to find them work, which we can do by X.

See what happened? The two people who started with the same step fell completely apart. The two people who started with the same goal, however, got closer. The 'why' is a lot more important than the 'how'.

Someone carefully creating a fascist dictatorship step by step probably doesn't actually have anything in common with you, no matter how carefully they operate and test every change before moving on to the next step. You've labeled the political means, the means being 'reach the goal via careful deliberation and thought, followed by a slow implementation to get rid of the bugs', but you left out the goal.

1) Health insurance is broken, therefore, we need to deliberate and carefully and come up with a plan to fix that, which we will then phase in. (conservative?)
3) The executive branch doesn't have enough power, therefore, we need to deliberate and carefully and come up with a plan to fix that, which we will then phase in. (conservative?)
2) Health insurance is broken, therefore, let's first expand Medicare to cover people until they are 21 as a first step. (progressive)

See the rather goofy logic there? You can't say 'I

Daywalking vampires

[MarkusQ]

Although objecting to torture and infringing various rights might just mean you are actually a human American, as opposed to elected Republicans, many who appear to be some sort of daywalking vampires.

Cute.

But the more likely explanation is that they are just a loose coalition of deeply repressed individuals (closet gays, S&M types, and other gender issues, people with cycle of abuse and authority problems, closet xenophobes, kleptomanics, etc.) What holds them together is a shared agreement to never, ever confront their deamons directly but rather to bundle them up and make a patchwork boogie man out of them on which they can play out their internal issues without personal risk. This explains pretty much the entire movement, especially when you consider that it makes them so easy to manipulate that they have no trouble picking up corporate puppet masters willing to foot the bills to get them in office.

Not as exciting as daywalking vampires, perhaps, but plenty scare enough for me.

--MarkusQ

Re:Daywalking vampires

[DavidTC]

Well, hell, I don't even know why we're arguing with each other if that's what you think of Republicans. ;) I don't even think that badly of all them.

The level of repression is getting really scary, though. There really are three kinds of morality preaching right-wing leaders:

1) They don't believe what they're saying. I.e., Ralph Reed.
2) They believe what they're saying, but somehow it doesn't apply to them. I.e., Newt Gingrich.
3) They are fighting inner demons that urge them to do exactly what they are fighting against, and they assume everyone else has these demons. The extreme example of this, of course, is Foley.

There is also a fourth category of people, those who honestly believe and are inherently decent people, I.e, Joel Hunter.(1)

Such a belief is more or less incompatible with being on the religious right, though, as the religious right is all about punishing people and Christianity is about loving God and loving each other. Decent people don't want to punish each other for sinning, or even punish people at all, although it's obviously sometimes necessary. Only wackjobs like to stand up there and say 'You have sinned against job, and now you will burn in the firey pits of hell!' like they're pleased to be able to declaim it is so.

But, getting back to torture, we've got, like, a 0 level there, where they don't even pretend to be moral, but somehow, magically, we're supposed to consider them so.

1) If you don't know who that is, google it, it's a funny story. Basically, they picked him to lead the Christian Coalition, so he started working out ways to feed the poor and not harm the earth. They all said 'Whoa, what are you, some sort of liberal hippy? Start gay bashing and fight abortion, like Jesus said!', so he declined the job.

A scatter shot response

[MarkusQ]

A scatter shot response, because I don't have much time this morning:

• Everyone is opposed to anything that they think is 'ill thought out', that's what that means. No one's in favor of doing things in an ill thought out manner, regardless whether it's because someone wants change for the sake of change, or because Congress was just really drunk.

  You obviously need to get out more. Specifically, if this were not a public forum, I could give you a few names and numbers and would be willing to bet that by the third date (if you made it that far) the question would have devolved to which ill-thought out thing seemed less objectionable. You are right that reasonable people are never in favor of doing things in an ill-thought-out manner. You are wrong in assuming that all (or even most) people are reasonable.

• However, nothing can be philosophy unless it explains why first, with that logically leading to a 'how'.

  You left out a step that should (IMHO) come before the others: what should we change. Then comes why, and finally how. You keep misreading my definition of conservative as an answer to "How?" (which it is not) rather than as an answer to the "What?" question (which you aren't even asking). The whole point isn't to do things slowly, or carefully, but rather to refrain from changing things that are working. I am not saying "Fix things slowly" I'm saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

  And yes, there are a great many people who set about trying to fix X for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with the "is it working?" question. So this is not a hollow distinction. In fact, my post on the "day walking vampires" thread outlines my main reason for thinking that many of the core Republicans are not conservative: they are deciding what to change based on their internal repressed desires and not on any objective conservative principle. At best, they could claim to be conservative only by saying something like "My personal self esteem is an important national asset, and must be maintained at all costs. Nothing matters more than my sense of self importance, and I am willing to trash everything this nation stands for to protect it" at which point I would say "OK, you're a conservative all right. And I respect your honesty. But your priorities are a tad out of whack."

  To reiterate: conservatism is about what problems should be addressed, not about how.

• Most of the rest of your points are aimed at this straw man you've constructed and not at my actual position, and my kids are calling, so I'll not respond to them now.

--MarkusQ

Re:A scatter shot response

[DavidTC]

conservatism is about what problems should be addressed, not about how.

And these are?

Re:A scatter shot response

[MarkusQ]

conservatism is about what problems should be addressed, not about how.

And these are?

*sigh* I could (and probably should) just answer by giving the same definition I gave to start with, inverted by the application of a little formal logic to provide a grammatical answer to the question as posed: The government should only address problems which can be addressed without throwing out, risking, abandoning, or dismantling something of value except for specific, coherent reasons that aren't part of a flim-flam show.

The bigger problem is that you felt the need to ask the question at all (which suggests that we just aren't communicating).

Suppose I said that "This arson law is about which people should be located and arrested, not about how to find them or capture them" and you said "And these people are?" as if you expected my to pop off a list of arsonists.

Conservatism (and, for that matter, progressivism, at least as practiced in some quarters) provides a framework for narrowing down your choices of which issues are good candidates for political solutions. It does not provide a ready list all made up in advance of the facts; and the people who come to the table with such a list are generally ideologues with no need of a political philosophy since all the answers are already provided by their ideology. With that in mind, I will repeat as clearly as I can what I have said several times on this and related threads: I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You are trying to fight a conservative vs. progressive battle that is at this point in history no more real (or at least no more fundamental) than the taste-great/less-filling tripe the public is spoon fed on American Idol or Survivor or whatever. The real battle is between the bulk of the world and a small but powerful group of people who are willing to do or say anything to get and maintain power over the rest of us, even if it kills us. Granted, there are considerable faction fights within both groups, but the big issue isn't so much what color jersey the bastards wear or what terms they use as they try to lie us into WWIII, but that they are doing it at all. I would dearly love to get back to the point where you and I could argue about the best way to handle street crime, and how best to fund things like the space program, but right now we should probably focus on the heavily armed lunatics that are willing to destroy everything that America (or Islam, or whatever) stands for in order to seize and hold control over the oil that they think we must keep burning until we run out, it kills us, or both.

--MarkusQ