New USATODAY report shows NSA had collected Tens of Millions of Phone Calls - Page 5




View Poll Results :Does the NSA have the right to collect Millions of Conversations without a warrent?
Yes, this ability is vital in the war against Terror 10 41.67%
No, this a violation of Privacy. The Govornment must obtain a Warrent. 14 58.33%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
May 14th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
IG, I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.
Mmmh, not sure. I read "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security...".
An is an indeterminate article and it seems to indicate one of several. In fact Franklin uses the word "liberty" without article further on and this means he would make a difference between them. Maybe. I'm just not sure.
May 14th, 2006  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Lt. Henderson

Ben Franklin worried about British Redcoats who were a greater threat to American Security than abunch of muslim fanatics. Whats more worrying,? Being frightened to death that you might be involved in a terror attack (about 10 Million to 1 odds) or fighting against the full military occupation of an enemy thats far better equipped, far better trained, far more numerous than you. Franklins statement rings even more true.
Franklin didn't know terrorism would be an issue. How could he have? Besides, we aren't fighting a war against full military occupation...We are fighting those 10 Million to 1 odds. Im sure the families of all those people who died in the 9-11 attacks would be greatful to hear you take that attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
But, we arn't in Iraq. Nobody has declared Martial law, There arnt any car bombs going off daily, or random bursts of indiscrimate small arms fire. You are letting yourself be governed by your fear, and the government for us to sacrifice democracy because of it (thats what terrorists want). By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win.
Car bombs are going off quite frequently. Insurgents continue to fire at our troops as we advance through cities.I can show you numerous articles from the past few weeks, even days, from newspapers where soldiers have been killed by bombs, or insurgency fire. I am letting myself be governed by the fact that terrorism is HERE. Its alive and well and we need to protect ourselves from it. Sure there are small odds that I personally will be affected by terrorism directly, but what about those people who did die? Surely they were thinking that nothing bad would happen to them on the day they boarded those planes. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/...ap2744546.html
like this one for example...it may not be directed at our troops but it is still happening.

"By sacrificing our freedoms by allowing fear to take control you are letting the terrorists win."-Number one, I dont let fear take control. Im flying up to Pennsylvania to be an usher at my cousin's wedding. That is not I repeat not letting the terrorists win. Being afraid to live normally would be letting the terrorists win.Terrorists want to cause nationwide panic and to watch our government crumble. Terrorists didn't know that the attack on our country would simply unite us further. They dont care if the government takes our rights, they care that they scared us into hiding. Terrorists are nothing more than bullies. If the scare tactic doesn't work, then all they can do is try their best to try to fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 Million Americans just because al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something. Thats like bringing your own parachaute on a airliner just in case the plane might crash. Again, thats fear, if not paranoia talking (no insult intended). You cannot live your life on what *MIGHT* happen. If you do, then al Qaeda wins. Remember what Winston Churchill said "We have Nothing to fear but fear itself". Fear is the most potent weapon the terrorists have.
What are you asking here? All I see is a statement...Do you mean,"Would limiting the civil liberties of all 280 million Americans just because Al-Qaeda (less than 18000 members) might do something be justified?" if that is what you mean then let me respond thus: YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you. If you live your life on what might happen, you are not letting Al-Qaeda win, you are simply a cautious individual. There were people before 9-11 that were afraid of flying...That doesn't mean they let the terrorists win there does it? As to the Churchill quote, he is right, only because fear is the only thing we DO fear. Fear of flying just means fear. Fear of death just means fear. Fear is the only thing we can fear because all fears trace back to a basic FEAR. Do you get what Im saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
We can hardly compare Star Wars to President Bush.
Oh but you can. For example, use Fear in order to control the masses and silence dissent. Ring any bells? How about the DHS color coded threat level system? Usefulness to stop terrorists = 0, usefulness to scare Mom and Dad = priceless. Or how about Cheney stating in the 2004 election that the only way to stop another 9/11 attack is to vote for Bush.
The threat level was to put Americans on alert...It was simply to us on our guard...If we knew something might happen, then we were less likely to do things that would put us in danger. Usefulness to stop terrorists=0, usefulness to decrease the odds of terrorists inflicting harm GREATLY!=priceless.I never heard Cheney say that...Could you post a citation for that? And if he did say it, then he was right wasnt he...We voted Bush in, and nothing else happened to the US directly...Now, if we had voted for Senator Kerry, he probably would have pulled troops out of the Middle East, then the terrorists could have taken the offensive...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
IG

I think you are misinterpreting Franklin. Franklin is saying all liberty in and of itself is essential, not specific parts of liberty. All of it is essential.

Phoenix

You shouldnt be worried if you are not doing any thing wrong.

Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.
Now then. Im going to go stretch my fingers because of the cramping...
May 14th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
Why are you worried when you are not American and don't live in the United States?

I am an American citizen and regardless of where I live this is my concern and hardly any of yours.

How about the soldiers in Iraq? By your logic they shouldn't give a damn either.

Did you honestly think about this before you said it?
Yep. Well, I should be more worried since I am of the Iranian origin, I have too many American friends calling me here and I do call them and we TALK about politics on the phone and almost every thing related to Iran and terrorism and democracy and almost every other thing you imagine.... AND I am not worried at all. My friends in the States are not worried at all too.
But I believe Bush knows how to fight terrorism and DemocRATs are too coward to fight the terrorists.

marsh says:
Quote:
Ever read George Orwells '1984'? That was just the justification of 'Big Brother' and of all dictators everywhere. Just because you might not be doing anything illegal doesnt mean 'Big Brother' is not going to collect data on you. Remember Tom Delay? He used the FAA communication systems to track the personal aircraft of several prominent Texas Democrats. A prime example of how easy it is to abuse power.
Orwell's 1984 applies to State run by Leftist/Socialist governments not the USA
--
Boots
May 14th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Lt. Henderson

1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.

2. I was referring to what is happening in the United States, not Iraq. Even if we were to accept the fact that they government may spy on its citizenry in the direst of situations, there is no justification within the USA of right now. 9/11 might have been considered justification, but it was 5 Years ago. If you want to keep spying on ordinary Americans for something that happened 5 years ago you might as well start spying on Japanese-Americans as well, just in case they are planning another Pearl Harbor.

YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you.

3. Your mistaken on both counts, it is not justified (no martial law declared in the US) as I pointed out above, and it DOES effect me, because their are certain details about my private life that are not illegal, but are private. And I absolutely don't want the government sticking its nose into it. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the PRC are all examples of countries that regular monitor its citizens. Do you really want to follow their example? Just talk to Bulldogg (he lives in the PRC), he'll tell you all about what its like living with the Chinese eyes that are constantly monitoring his internet activities. Do you really want to go there just to make ourselves feel better about a very distant threat? Like the old saying goes, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".

Another point, if this ability to monitor calls is so necessary, how come the FBI, CIA or NSA never requested it? Nor has ANY of them complained about FISA. Not one of these agencies ever requested the ability to superceed FISA. Bush has admitted (and tried to justify) that HE was the one who gave the order for them to spy on Americans, not the other way around. This makes me deeply suspicous about the Presidents motives. Since when has the president granted extra powers to the security agencies without a formal request by them? This is why I think this secret wiretapping (like Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Sounds more like the president (whom has a well known reputation for secrecy and paranoia) wanting to keep tabs on what is said behind his back, a throwback to the Nixon era.

4. How many terrorist attacks has the DHS threat assement actually stopped? Answer, ZERO. We know thats true because if it had stopped a single one Bush would be bragging about it nonstop. Most (if not all) of the alerts were in fact false alarms based on very flismy, non-substiatated evidence. Al-Qaeda must be laughing its ass at us as we jump at our own shadows. I know someone is going to ask the question of why then we havent had a repeat of 9/11? The answer is because al-Qaida has changed its strategy, it wants to isolate us by attacking our Allies.

Finally (my fingers are numb too) You asked for a Citation from Cheney:

Speech from September 8 2004, Des Moines Iowa:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again ... that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

Right there, he says if we chose wrong (meaning Kerry) we will get hit again. Dont you think thats fear mongering?

'Fear is the path to the Dark Side'... - Jedi Master Yoda
May 14th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.
So you are willing to ignore your own logic, brain and feelings for the sake of an old and outdated Franklin's argument?

I see!
May 15th, 2006  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix80
So you are willing to ignore your own logic, brain and feelings for the sake of an old and outdated Franklin's argument?
Phoenix!
The arguments of the Founding Fathers are never old and outdated. They may at the most be "misinterpreted".
May 15th, 2006  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Phoenix!
The arguments of the Founding Fathers are never old and outdated. They may at the most be "misinterpreted".
LoL

I just wanted to clarify things for a french based American with little info on who his real enemy is... Terrorists or Pres. Bush
May 15th, 2006  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Lt. Henderson

1. I'm not making that arguement, I'm saying that Franklin during his time faced an enemy for more dangerous then terrorists. So if Franklin told us not to sacrifice our liberty in order to gain a small bit of security (in reference to the British Army) then we should not do it either, 230 years for al Qaeda which is a lesser threat.
Franklin knew his enemy. Like I said in my first dissection of your posts,Franklin didnt have to worry about attacks like this...Franklin had to worry about torching..I dunno if rifles then were more dangerous than bombs now btw...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
2. I was referring to what is happening in the United States, not Iraq. Even if we were to accept the fact that they government may spy on its citizenry in the direst of situations, there is no justification within the USA of right now. 9/11 might have been considered justification, but it was 5 Years ago. If you want to keep spying on ordinary Americans for something that happened 5 years ago you might as well start spying on Japanese-Americans as well, just in case they are planning another Pearl Harbor.
Yes, it was 5 years ago, but we are still fighting the war are we not? 5 years doesn't change the threat. It is still alive and kicking.

YES. It is justified because, unless you are a terrorist,it doesn't effect you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. Your mistaken on both counts, it is not justified (no martial law declared in the US) as I pointed out above, and it DOES effect me, because their are certain details about my private life that are not illegal, but are private. And I absolutely don't want the government sticking its nose into it. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the PRC are all examples of countries that regular monitor its citizens. Do you really want to follow their example? Just talk to Bulldogg (he lives in the PRC), he'll tell you all about what its like living with the Chinese eyes that are constantly monitoring his internet activities. Do you really want to go there just to make ourselves feel better about a very distant threat? Like the old saying goes, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".
It is justified because we are still at war. Of course we don't know how we are being surveyed, so we don't know if your privacy is being invaded by humans...If it is selective screening by computer, and the computer only picks up on conversations using key words in key patterns, then your private life is safe no? Unless your private life includes the words "al-queda, terrorist, attack, pentagon, white house. etc...Like I said before, if you dont have anything to hide, you dont have anything to worry about. And if the thing you want to tell someone is so important, just write em a letter...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Another point, if this ability to monitor calls is so necessary, how come the FBI, CIA or NSA never requested it? Nor has ANY of them complained about FISA. Not one of these agencies ever requested the ability to superceed FISA. Bush has admitted (and tried to justify) that HE was the one who gave the order for them to spy on Americans, not the other way around. This makes me deeply suspicous about the Presidents motives. Since when has the president granted extra powers to the security agencies without a formal request by them? This is why I think this secret wiretapping (like Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Sounds more like the president (whom has a well known reputation for secrecy and paranoia) wanting to keep tabs on what is said behind his back, a throwback to the Nixon era.
I couldn't tell you. Not without knowing EVERY SINGLE FACT that the President and all above mentioned agencies know. I don't criticize the man on the ground without knowing all the facts first. They may know something neither of us do that changes opinions...I highly doubt that the President, even President Bush, would stoop to wiretapping to hear what others say. He already knows his approval rating is in the toilet, so why would he need to know further?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
4. How many terrorist attacks has the DHS threat assement actually stopped? Answer, ZERO. We know thats true because if it had stopped a single one Bush would be bragging about it nonstop. Most (if not all) of the alerts were in fact false alarms based on very flismy, non-substiatated evidence. Al-Qaeda must be laughing its ass at us as we jump at our own shadows. I know someone is going to ask the question of why then we havent had a repeat of 9/11? The answer is because al-Qaida has changed its strategy, it wants to isolate us by attacking our Allies.
Sure, because when we know about the possible attacks before they happen, we tend to be a little less careless...Its a possible attack. Not a guaraunteed attack. Who else has Al-Qaeda attacked directly? If you haven't noticed, we aren't too popular right now...We really don't have many allies...I would like to know who all Al-Qaeda has attacked full front...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Finally (my fingers are numb too) You asked for a Citation from Cheney:

Speech from September 8 2004, Des Moines Iowa:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again ... that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.

Right there, he says if we chose wrong (meaning Kerry) we will get hit again. Dont you think thats fear mongering?

'Fear is the path to the Dark Side'... - Jedi Master Yoda
He's probably right...Kerry wanted to pull the troops out of Iraq, correct? That would put Al-Qaeda on the offensive and could have made the US vulnerable to an attack.Everyone has fear...Yoda had fear(I cant believe Im discussing a fictional green midget on a military forum)he just didn't show it.
May 15th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Lt. Henderson (and to people that think this wiretapping is a good idea)

I was going to reply to you, but I happen to be reading the NY Times and editor Bob Herbert wrote today by coincidence on this very subject. He hits the nail right on the head. You need a subscription so I took the liberty of pasting it below. I highlighted parts i think are important,pay particular attention to the last paragraph I bolded.

One final point because it relates. In 2004 John Kerry did not want to remove the troops, he wanted to send more of them in. Cheney statements were designed to scare you into voting for them, and it worked. As Herbert says below, FEAR is the only asset the president has.

America the Fearful


By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 15, 2006

In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.


Herbert's Heroes

Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.

If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.

Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration's collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.
The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country. It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.
Hey, the president has made it clear that when Al Qaeda is calling, he wants to be listening, and you never know where that lead may turn up.
The problem (besides the fact that the president has been as effective hunting bin Laden as Dick Cheney was in hunting quail) is that in its fearmongering and power-grabbing the Bush administration has trampled all over the Constitution, the democratic process and the hallowed American tradition of government checks and balances.
Short of having them taken away from us, there is probably no way to fully appreciate the wonder and the glory of our rights and liberties here in the United States, including the right to privacy.
The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.
If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.
So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.
The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.
There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
May 15th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
This is just like the gay marriage issue, I finally said yes to gay marriage just to get everyone to shut up about it, would that make you happy here?

Besides, I have no sway over either issue.