Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire MORE FODDER FOR THE POLITICAL GRIST MILL

We are so close in the spirit of the law and so far in the application (grin). I can fathom any number of scenarios where the information might be abused. However, the same can be said of any government agency. For example, the IRS has more of my private information than I do. My point is, if we are going to base our tolerance of NSA activity on what the NSA might do or might be doing, why should they even exist? Why should the FBI exist? They might abuse our liberties as well (and indeed, have). I guess I am not clear on what you are advocating. What do you think the government can and should be able to do to prosecute the GWOT? Andrew McCarthy explained it well when he said that the difference between law enforcement and national security is the difference between a prosecutorial paradigm and a preventive paradigm. Our legal system is set up to prosecute criminals after the fact and we hope there is a deterrent effect. But with national security, when we are aware of a movement against the country, should the paradigm not be preventive?

Dang, Joe, I thought you were a struggling public interest lawyer near an Indian reservation.....didn't know you were socking it away in Caymans. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> good on you, boy.

I'll be sending you your rich Repulican kit soon, with a porch flag, instructions for accessing the secret clean air supply we keep for ourselves while polluting everybody else's air, and of course you'll have to start being mean to children, women, the disabled, gays, lesbians and the transgendered, old people, illegal aliens.....well, just about everybody but us.

But you will get the patriotic thrill of paying over a third of your income to Uncle Sam. Welcome to the club. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Maybe, maybe not. The Patriot Act, together with the fine print in customer service agreements with telephone companies, may get you there. I guess all I am saying is that, what is wrong with the NSA taking advantage of any legal means to fulfill its purpose? If it is in fact operating illegally, then that is another story. That has not been shown yet. Look, I am with you guys on limited government - believe me. However, we have to be able to defend our national security or we will lose the framework we have that secures our God-given rights (what is left of them).

The "Hey, I have nothing to hide and Im not doing anything wrong, so listen in all you want, search all you want" attitudes just absolutely kill me! You place no value on your privacy because you're legal? You don't see the not so far fetched things that can come from sliding down that slippery slope?

Shame shame on any here with that attitude who at the same time whine about gun regulation! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

As we speak they have record of none. Who said I had any anyhow????

VA,

Been a while since I read Smith v. Maryland...IIRC didn't it involve warrants for pin registers? It was not a blanket "statistical compilation" like this?

I don't know if that is directed at me, but my point is not that I don't need to be secure in my belongings or my communications. Rather it is that this measure does not affect my "privacy," at least not without assuming something not in the record.

I see the uproar as more about another club to wield against the President. If everyone is really concerned about their privacy, then where is the outrage over taxing authorities that maintain much more personal information than this NSA database? Where is the outrage over the information maintained by public schools, the Social Security Adm., health care organizations, marketing databases (that are shared with gov. agencies), etc, etc,? Those bother me more than some database of 1's and 0's pored over by some wierdly-smart analyst in a cubicle on the east coast.

I think that is right. However, Smith does stand for the notion that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in the numbers dialed on a phone. I.e., the 4th Amendment does not attach to government monitoring of numbers dialed. There are some other statutory laws that are relevant, as Joe pointed out, but it has not been shown that the measures in question violate those statutes. Maybe there are more "bad facts" that we are not aware of, but I am only addressing what has been reported.

It seems to me the uproar is all demogogery, from both sides who can't fall over each other fast enough to try and make political points with this.

1. The technique of collecting and analyzing phone traffic for national security purposes was approved by Congress in 1994.

2. At least 21 members of Congress were fully appraised of the implementation of the above Congressional authorization by NSA. Its not the Administration's fault if Congressional leaders do not communicate with their members.

3. You can't see the patterns that may be terrorist activity if you can't look at all or most of the traffic. NSA fully reported to those in Congress it was required to about how the program works. Its all just unidentified numbers being tracked regarding to and from calls and duration. No other information is known until an alarming pattern is found. Then there are legal protocols to gain further identifying information.

4. In these times I would be upset if the government wasn't doing this. Perhaps if Clinton had implemented it as he was authorized to do 911 could have been prevented.

JMHO

How would you like to be President right now? It is decision time,your sworn to uphold the constitution, provide for the peoples defense, welfare what ever else everyone seems to want. Yes I know thats the job. A hurricane comes along go there stick your arms up in the air and stop it. That won't work will it, so what about a bunch of fanatics trying to blow us up again. How do you deal with them IF you don't know who what when or where. Make up your mind what do you want. Everone knows what could happen if this country became a police state.
That list of firearms owned by you and I would mean nothing because even if you didn't open the door they would have them. What they don't have a list? They will have them anyway because everyone will be searched. I'm more afraid of the liberal thinking and lawyers that someone going down a list of
phone numbers saying oh this guy he called Roosterpoop Oh thats his son.
Let me ask you what do think of Mexico hireing an attorney to
file suit against the sheriff in Arizona who is trying to inforce boarder security? We need to start to stick together on things
rather then pull every dam thing apart.

Sounds to me like this should be a free market issue.

Let victims of a terrorist attack sue telephone companies for sitting on information that could have been used to prevent it--unless their customer contract specifies that they waive their right to such a suit.

Then, with the prospect of being sued out of business hanging over their heads, let the phone companies figure it out.

Whatever they come up with will be much more effective than anything the NSA can do, and--most important--it'll be subject to the free market. If the NSA leaks or misuses your information, you're hosed. If a private telephone company does it, you hold a press conference and watch customers bleed away by the millions to competitors while it desperately struggles to fix whatever problems led to the issue, and perhaps even bribes you to call another press conference to say nice things about it and the way it's treating you.

Regardless of what the Constitution or the law says, the government cannot be responsible for national security from terrorist attacks. Terrorism is too diffuse a threat to address with a monolithic organization. (I wonder how many politicians of today would recognize the term "Maginot Line?") Individuals have to deal with it--just as they may have done on Flight 93 and as they apparently did not do on the WTC airliners.

The government makes two, and only two, contributions to the War On Terror: first, it inspires terrorism by arrogant and oppressive foreign policies; and second, it enables terrorism by making ever more difficult the task of the individuals who must respond to it when it happens.

(Some would say it also commits terrorism by bombing weddings and funerals and so forth, but I'm rather persnickety about the definition of the word "terrorism" and I don't believe it's possible for a government to commit terrorism.)

AEL;

NSA has no mandate for domestic spying. That's what this is, it's wrong, it sucks, and it needs to stop. Period.

Giving up rights and freedoms for some mask of security is NOT what this country is about; never has been, and damned well shouldn't be.

Benjamin Franklin on the importance of Liberty:




If only Uncle George and the Beltway Sewer Rats would heed the wisdom of the ages.

HBB