"Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?"
- Thread starter EDouble
- Start date
I don't even need to read the Patriot Act to be able to point out that at least one of your rights has been violated: the right to privacy. The fact that they can spy on your conversations without a warrant violates your right to privacy. It's not the fact that thay are spying on these people that bothers me, it's the fact that they can't even follow legitimate procedures, or at least come up with a way to expedite these procedures when it comes to this kind of thing.
This isnt new guys. Hello. What do you think phones are? They were invented so the goverment could spy on us. Not just spy on americans but the whole world. Look at your phone, on the inside you will see an american flag. All phones are made by the us goverment in a secret location that isnt known to me at this time. I havent tracked it down yet because my blackberry is messed up but ill inform you guys later.
We're the fucking citizens of this country, that's who we are. G.W. Bush, his administration, the NSA.. they all work for us. It's not the other way around. The moment we give up our right to check their asses is the moment we become oppressed.
This country and the Bush administration have seemingly forgotten that the legislature is the supreme power in the government. During Bush's tenure, the executive has frequently overstepped its bounds, used political threats to force the legislature's hand, and has sought to realize its own ambitions, rather than those of the nation. Machiavelli, Rousseau, and any other republican theorist would be in uproar over the actions of this government.
Tyranny is defined in political philosophy as "power beyond right." Think about that and whether or not Bush's actions classify him as a tyrant.
This country and the Bush administration have seemingly forgotten that the legislature is the supreme power in the government. During Bush's tenure, the executive has frequently overstepped its bounds, used political threats to force the legislature's hand, and has sought to realize its own ambitions, rather than those of the nation. Machiavelli, Rousseau, and any other republican theorist would be in uproar over the actions of this government.
Tyranny is defined in political philosophy as "power beyond right." Think about that and whether or not Bush's actions classify him as a tyrant.
what about carter and clinton, are they tyrants too? i guess we have been oppressed before either of us were born. 
if a person who may be a suspected terrorist or have ties to a terrorist makes an international phone call to a place like syria you dont think the nsa or another govt agency should listen in? do you think they should hang up, get a warrent and then hope they make another phone call or send another message?
if a person who may be a suspected terrorist or have ties to a terrorist makes an international phone call to a place like syria you dont think the nsa or another govt agency should listen in? do you think they should hang up, get a warrent and then hope they make another phone call or send another message?
PuffnScruff said:
what about carter and clinton, are they tyrants too? i guess we have been oppressed before either of us were born.
if a person who may be a suspected terrorist or have ties to a terrorist makes an international phone call to a place like syria you dont think the nsa or another govt agency should listen in? do you think they should hang up, get a warrent and then hope they make another phone call or send another message?
if a person who may be a suspected terrorist or have ties to a terrorist makes an international phone call to a place like syria you dont think the nsa or another govt agency should listen in? do you think they should hang up, get a warrent and then hope they make another phone call or send another message?
I think that the executive branch should operate within the guidelines (also known as laws) that the legislature and the country have designated. There's a reason why they need to get a warrant first, just like there's a reason why Congress must approve wars, and why the House can impeach a president, and why the Senate must approve judicial nominations.
I don't approve of any extralegal actions by any government official, whether he be a Republican or a Democrat or a Federalist or a Whig or Bloc Quebecois or whatever the hell he may be.
i still find it funny that you think i am a republican.
the other thing that is funny is how you are either ignorant to the fact or choose to ignore the fact that both carter and clinton have done similar things. carter actually did spy on the phone calls of americans. clinton says he had "inherent authority" to order physical searches ,including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.
how am i bashing two presidents when i am asking you are they tryants in your eyes since they did similar actions?
too answer your question no i dont believe cutting funding for education to fight terrorism is good. i think it is a completely bad idea.
the other thing that is funny is how you are either ignorant to the fact or choose to ignore the fact that both carter and clinton have done similar things. carter actually did spy on the phone calls of americans. clinton says he had "inherent authority" to order physical searches ,including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.
how am i bashing two presidents when i am asking you are they tryants in your eyes since they did similar actions?
too answer your question no i dont believe cutting funding for education to fight terrorism is good. i think it is a completely bad idea.
What else am I support to assume from your undying support of Bush and your criticism of CNN for their "liberal bias"?
I guess you could say that I'm ignorant to the fact because I don't know and haven't researched what Clinton and Carter did. I'm more concerned with what's going on today, because that's what we can change. That's what we can improve. If I find the time/motivation, I will research that and will give you my conclusions on the matter. For now, I ask that you cease your efforts in trying to defer the attention away from Bush.
Also, to be considered a tyrant, the actions of the official in question must be perpetual. A single act cannot establish such a title. Who's to say who is and isn't then? The people.
And that question was rhetorical
I guess you could say that I'm ignorant to the fact because I don't know and haven't researched what Clinton and Carter did. I'm more concerned with what's going on today, because that's what we can change. That's what we can improve. If I find the time/motivation, I will research that and will give you my conclusions on the matter. For now, I ask that you cease your efforts in trying to defer the attention away from Bush.
Also, to be considered a tyrant, the actions of the official in question must be perpetual. A single act cannot establish such a title. Who's to say who is and isn't then? The people.
And that question was rhetorical
AmerikazMost said:
What else am I support to assume from your undying support of Bush and your criticism of CNN for their "liberal bias"?
I guess you could say that I'm ignorant to the fact because I don't know and haven't researched what Clinton and Carter did. I'm more concerned with what's going on today, because that's what we can change. That's what we can improve. If I find the time/motivation, I will research that and will give you my conclusions on the matter. For now, I ask that you cease your efforts in trying to defer the attention away from Bush.
Also, to be considered a tyrant, the actions of the official in question must be perpetual. A single act cannot establish such a title. Who's to say who is and isn't then? The people.
And that question was rhetorical
I guess you could say that I'm ignorant to the fact because I don't know and haven't researched what Clinton and Carter did. I'm more concerned with what's going on today, because that's what we can change. That's what we can improve. If I find the time/motivation, I will research that and will give you my conclusions on the matter. For now, I ask that you cease your efforts in trying to defer the attention away from Bush.
Also, to be considered a tyrant, the actions of the official in question must be perpetual. A single act cannot establish such a title. Who's to say who is and isn't then? The people.
And that question was rhetorical
but i can see were you and other people on the board can assume that i am a republican
i dont support president bush on everything, but there are some things i do. i do think people love to hate him, and love to say "fuck bush" and jump on the "this war is only for oil" bandwagon. i mean if this war was for iraq's oil then clinton must have wanted it too since he tried more than a few times to take saddam out. clinton just learned the hard way that he fails at using militray force.
i dont think bush is a tryant in this case or that he really did anything illegal. i think that like carter and clinton, they both did their actions with in a legal matter and they acted in a way they feel is best for the american people. i have no doubt that bushs (carters and clintons also) adminstration and legal council found some loop hole in the system that allows them to do this.
its too early to tell we'll just have to wait for the investigation to come out.
but i do find it funny that the person who wrote the new york times article has a book coming out next month.
Let me get this straight. Lawmakers are enraged because President Bush had authorized possibly illegal spying on 36 Americans over the past four years? Well, I'm enraged that there hasn't been more! Does anyone really believe there are only 36 people in this country, over a period of four years, who want to do us harm? There are probably thousands -- and lawmakers are enraged over 36? Give me a break.
I'd bet there are at least 40 Senators alone that want to do us harm, they call themselves Democrats.
Actually, that 36 ppl thing is such bad reporting it's unbelievable. The true story is that Bush has apparently "re-authorized" his 4th-amendment-free wiretapping program 30-some times since 2001, covering periods of 45 days. And the number of people affected is "classified," but it's more than 36, that's fer sure.
Even though I don't like her, I have to quote Ann Coulter here: "Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million."
Agreed.
I'd bet there are at least 40 Senators alone that want to do us harm, they call themselves Democrats.
Actually, that 36 ppl thing is such bad reporting it's unbelievable. The true story is that Bush has apparently "re-authorized" his 4th-amendment-free wiretapping program 30-some times since 2001, covering periods of 45 days. And the number of people affected is "classified," but it's more than 36, that's fer sure.
Even though I don't like her, I have to quote Ann Coulter here: "Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million."
Agreed.
If the govenrment has enough evidence on someone to believe they have ties to terrorism, then there should be enough evidence to get a warrant. See that is what you don't seem to get. Its not that they can't get a warrant, but I believe the way they are gathering evidence to prove whether someone has terrorist ties or not IS by spying on them. Which means in order to get a warrant to arrest these people they have to violate their privacy.
Now that I've re-read your post, you've proven my point
Why are they listening to his phone call in the first place? The debate here is whether or not they should have to get a warrant to be able to monitor calls. They should have to get one before they can monitor calls, not after they are already monitoring calls and hear something suspicious. Like I said before, if they have enough evidence on someone to believe he has ties to terror, then they should have enough evidence to be able to get a warrant. Unless they have no evidence on these people and just assume that because they are calling Syria or somewhere like that, that they must be plotting something. Law abiding citizens have family in these places too. It seems to me that it's not that they don't want to have to get a warrant, it's that they don't have enough (or any) evidence to get one.
Now that I've re-read your post, you've proven my point
Why are they listening to his phone call in the first place? The debate here is whether or not they should have to get a warrant to be able to monitor calls. They should have to get one before they can monitor calls, not after they are already monitoring calls and hear something suspicious. Like I said before, if they have enough evidence on someone to believe he has ties to terror, then they should have enough evidence to be able to get a warrant. Unless they have no evidence on these people and just assume that because they are calling Syria or somewhere like that, that they must be plotting something. Law abiding citizens have family in these places too. It seems to me that it's not that they don't want to have to get a warrant, it's that they don't have enough (or any) evidence to get one.
I have a few problems with the domestic spying that Bush allowed.
First, it's possible to get a retroactive approval within 3 days of the tapping by going to a judge. In otherwords, they could actually do a warrantless tapping on a Monday and get it authorized and legalized the following Thursday.
Second, the judges almost certainly would be lenient in authorizing warrants regarding these national security concerns. In otherwords, the administration is unnecessarily cutting out judicial oversight as a technical check and balance on the executive branch in this capacity.
Third, the legal justifications put forth by the Administration have intentionally misconstrued legislation passed by the Congress on September 15. While it might be true that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is outdated, it would be a better approach to revise FISA then to subvert it entirely.
Fourth, and most importantly, this type of action is only the beginning of what constitutes a very slippery slope. While it might make total sense to monitor potential terrorists, with no check on the executive branch determining who proper targets are, distinguishing between a proper target and an improper target are at the complete behest of the Administration. We had a major problem with this only 30 years ago.
First, it's possible to get a retroactive approval within 3 days of the tapping by going to a judge. In otherwords, they could actually do a warrantless tapping on a Monday and get it authorized and legalized the following Thursday.
Second, the judges almost certainly would be lenient in authorizing warrants regarding these national security concerns. In otherwords, the administration is unnecessarily cutting out judicial oversight as a technical check and balance on the executive branch in this capacity.
Third, the legal justifications put forth by the Administration have intentionally misconstrued legislation passed by the Congress on September 15. While it might be true that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is outdated, it would be a better approach to revise FISA then to subvert it entirely.
Fourth, and most importantly, this type of action is only the beginning of what constitutes a very slippery slope. While it might make total sense to monitor potential terrorists, with no check on the executive branch determining who proper targets are, distinguishing between a proper target and an improper target are at the complete behest of the Administration. We had a major problem with this only 30 years ago.
:thumb: :thumb: exactly! Like i said before who's monitoring the monitor? What Bush deems a threat an what you and i deem a threat are 2 different things, and who's to say that somewhere down the road, so an so makes some comment about how they dont like the way the government is doing its job, then their being tapped and investigated! I can not see how people fail to see or realize how sick an horrible this shit really is, to me Bush is no better then Saddam Hussien, Saddam arrested an tortured people without warrant, mearly hearsay, Bush does it but in the name of fighting "Terrorism" an people blantinly (sp) support him, if some of ya'll dont see the hyprocracy in what him an his administration are doing, then surely you will enjoy when the troops are goosestepping down your local neighborhoods an carting you off to "containment camps" for the sake of "fighting Terrorism". Dont think it can happen? Neither did most Germans or German Jews for that matter. Peace, nice post Morris.
Aye. It's not that people who are against this are against stopping potential terrorists.
The point indeed, and that's what Morrisy here makes, is that it's messing the political system up. The whole principle behind democracies is that no branch of government will ever gain a disproportionate amount of power and influence. And that there is being jeopardized right now.
And frankly, that's worrying.
The point indeed, and that's what Morrisy here makes, is that it's messing the political system up. The whole principle behind democracies is that no branch of government will ever gain a disproportionate amount of power and influence. And that there is being jeopardized right now.
And frankly, that's worrying.
this thread's been dead for a while, but i thought this was worth posting
NSA Web Site Puts 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN
AP Internet Writer
Dec 28 4:44 PM US/Eastern
NEW YORK - The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them. These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 _ likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.
"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies _ those that aren't automatically deleted right away _ unless there is a "compelling need."
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
NSA Web Site Puts 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN
AP Internet Writer
Dec 28 4:44 PM US/Eastern
NEW YORK - The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them. These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 _ likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.
"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies _ those that aren't automatically deleted right away _ unless there is a "compelling need."
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.