The FISA debate as an example of rightward drift in American politics

What you claim to want, and what you are demonstrably willing to allow, are two different things.

I'm more interested in what people are willing to allow, and the excuses they come up with for allowing it. I think that's a better indication of what's going to happen than what they want.

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, you don't actually know much of anything about the program. You are getting information from sources who do not have it (they cannot have it, since there were no warrants ) or have reason to lie and/or mislead (since they're the perps, and possibly sincere in their self-evaluations).

It wouldn't take more than one or two - and it wouldn't take actual "lying", on the part of, let's say, a sincere agent who thought he really was protecting the US from terrorism by tapping Obama's phone and turning the records over to Hayden.

And the point is, you don't know; Risen doesn't know; nobody except the perps knows, and the perps don't even necessarily know about each other. That's a simple fact, inherent in the setup of any warrantless wiretapping operation. There has been no oversight. The wiretappers have done whatever they wanted to do, and they don't have to show any records or tell anyone anything.

Now you are claiming that tyranny does not work by such threats, because some people (you, for example) don't feel threatened by some of tyranny's more common setups (warrantless search, for example). Contrary observations, say of actual tyranny and how it has worked in the past, are "subjective opinions". OK.

Oh, that's not too difficult to understand, especially when it is explained so clearly by people like you, who think that the inherent threat of warrantless search powers in the hands of a central government to the freedoms and liberties of its citizenry is a "subjective opinion".

But you mistake my call. I don't want to call a crusade, I want to call the cops. I want the people who have admitted to installing waarrantless wiretaps in defiance of the law to be accused of installing warrantless wiretaps in defiance of the law, and tried in public court for installing warrantless wiretaps in defiance of the law, and suffer the penalties prescribed by that law for defiantly installing warrantless wiretaps.

And if it is impossible to call the cops when such laws are defied, I want the implications of that publicly recognized. How far above the law has this administration become ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i have talked to people WHO WORK IN THE TELECOM INDUSTRY based on what they told this is how i figure what they are doing

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said what I'm willing to allow — several posts ago. To reiterate, I have no problem with the NSA's program, as I understand it. What I have a problem with is how it came about and the fact that it seems to have little or no oversight. If it has proper oversight — that is, if FISA is altered and the warrant procedure expedited — and measures are put into place that prevents the access the program has to the telecoms from being abused, then I'm all for the program continuing — indefinitely.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, your knowledge — and irritation — with this program comes from the same sources. But of course, your appreciation is correct. Mine is wrong.

Sure.

Whatever.

The problem is that's not how journalism good works — and you know it.

Risen, who has been charged with inaccuracies by NSA by the way, has numerous sources that independently confirm information for him before he prints it. In other words, it's not one or two people: It's several people, and presumably, Risen makes sure they aren't working together to stay on song as best as he can.

Now, is there the possibility that Risen is just plain wrong? Sure, there is. But much of his reporting on the program, which won him a Pulitzer, has since been confired by other reporting. I suppose those sources could be lying, too, but I hope by now, you see how silly this game becomes. Attack this source, question that source, and so on and so forth. At some point, you just look stupid, calling everyone a liar. But hey, knock yourself out. The world is wrong — and you, in all your infinite wisdom, is correct.

As people, most of the issues that confront us in life are things we can't honestly be 100 percent sure about. The best we can do is assess such situations based on the best information we have. I'm doing that here, while you're busy making claims about the unknown and siezing on the unknown as some kind of evidence. Forgive me, if I view such methodology as just fucking stupid...

I really don't care how you think tyranny works, nor do I think it's relevant. My point is that your attempt to label the program as a form of tyranny is typical of the unneccesary sort of hyperbole that partisans like yourself saddle this issue with, and in doing so, muddle it so that a rationale solution remains elusive. This should be about what's best for the security interests of the country, the law and the people protected by both. And while you may think you are acting for one or all of the above, your continued insistance on being inaccurate, proferring opinion as fact and biased and hypothetical delusions as reality are actually enabling both sides of the aisle to avoid dealing with the real issue. Congrats.

Ice, again are you trying to be an argumenative asshole? Are you? If so, you're succeeding. I mean, I've lost track of how many times I've told you that I WANT OVERSIGHT of this program. But yeah, you're right. Apparently, I think nothing of the threat...

At what point in our history have intelligence officers ever gone to jail?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dangerous morons

Okay, I'll repeat the question:

If we're supposed to give the Bush administration and its agencies the benefit of the doubt, why are they lying?​

If they're right, why are they lying?

If they're just, why are they lying?

If they have the facts on their side, why are they lying?

Some would have us grant the government whatever intrusive authority it wants because nobody has yet provided specific evidence of a certain type of abuse of that authority. While this point seems to overlook the idea that people abusing authority aren't exactly going to advertise that fact, and will likely make efforts to conceal their abuses, the argument in favor of giving the Bush administration greater intrusive authority also presumes good faith where there is, demonstrably, none to be found.

And that kind of stupidity is just dangerous.

Bush's bootlickers need to wake up and realize they're putting us all at risk. They're a contemptuous bunch who trade in a disgusting and abstract currency. It's hard to figure what it is they think they're gaining by making excuses for a bunch of megalomaniacal liars looking to establish a century of strife, fear, and hatred among humanity.

 

Why respond to such hyperbole?

I mean, seriously: "a bunch of megalomaniacal liars looking to establish a century of strife, fear, and hatred among humanity."

It's impossible to take tripe like that seriously — or to imagine that you want anything other than a response that confirms this ridiculous conclusion.

 

Basically, the Republicans want to data mine, which means computers gather lots and lots of information which they can search later when they know the right parameters. You can't get a warrant for this kind of searching, since it means spying on all Americans, even those not suspected of anything. It's a dangerous precedent to allow this, since the information could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. It's also unconstitutional.

 

like i said they tapped into the main fibers

 

Yeah, there's no real "tapping", the connections are built into the system from the beginning.

 

If they build it, apparently you will come

Welcome to the New American Century.

Well, at least this time I got a Bush advocate's attention. Without the "hyperbole" to complain about, the issue didn't seem to be one Bush's supporters wanted to address. And, as you've shown, even with the "hyperbole", they'd still rather ignore the issue.

Tell me, Counte, why are you advocating dishonesty? Why do you seek to protect the liars?

Answer the question if you're capable:

If we're supposed to give the Bush administration and its agencies the benefit of the doubt, why are they lying?​

You want to give the executive the benefit of the doubt on an issue about which its agents are lying. Help us understand why we should do that.

 

I'm not claiming knowledge. I'm claiming ignorance - yours, mine, everyone's - of the details of operation of any concealed warrantless wiretapping operation.

The only knowledge I am claiming is of the physical existence of the program as set up, and the fact of its concealment.

Sounds wonderful. "As best he can" is of course not good enough to allay even the smallest of fears - best practices are impossible in the case of a secret, concealed, warrantless wiretap operation. There do not exist numerous independent sources of most information about such an operation - especially negative information, information about the absence of abuse anywhere or at any time, such as is most at issue here.

Who cares ? If he is right, we have been lucky beyond hope. If he is wrong, the ordinary has happened. Either way, the reaction should be the same - subpeonas, hearings, indictments, trials, impeachments, etc.

Reading comprehension - once again your point depends on your lack of it. The program is of a type common to tyranny, and avoided by citizens who do not wish to be tyrannized. It is a tool of tyranny, not a form of it. It is useful for its inherent threat, as well as direct employment. It is not a tool or form of a free people's government.

Let's keep it simple: when the Founders included, in the US Constitution (which is still the law around here, made even more explicit by FISA) a blanket prohibition against warrantless searches, they did not make exception for well-motivated administrations acting in the best interests of the citizenry. They forbade them all. Any idea why ?

There's always their bosses. We could focus on them. But there have been a lot of firsts achieved by this administration. How about April, 2009, as reasonable timetable ? Work for you ?

 

Not true. The program, as described, does not data mine. Like a lot of others here, you are just saying things and you have absolutely nothing beyond your allegation to back it up. Data mining is fucking useless.

Or your partisan version of it...

To answer both questions would presume that I agree with their bullshit premises, which I don't. I mean, who is lying here? Examples, please. So far as I know, the program was covert. There was no reason to lie about it, because nobody knew about it. Then, it was exposed and an argument ensued over whether it was legal or not. Now the public argument seems to have shifted to how much of the program the Congress is willing to authorize under new FISA provisions.

Again, try positing a question not laden with your bullshit.

The NSA is not an "agency" of the administration. It is a military organization that answers to the Department of Defense. And yes, the president, through the DOD, can order the NSA to do things, but it's hardly the president's play thing. It is answerable to the Congress, too. Most especially it is answerable to the intelligence committees and the various committees that control its budgets.

And in this case, the pertinent case, we have Hayden on record as saying the program was his idea in the wake of 9/11. So once again, you, like several other people in this thread, have blown reality into contortions that fit your particular viewpoint.

I've argued, rather consistently, for oversight. The only thing I've done in this thread is debunk various "theories" or "hypotheticals" or whatever else people want to call them in an (apparently vain) effort to keep the conversation focussed and as close to what we really know as possible. But apparently, that's enough for the usual ilk, who would rather puff their chests out and offer up rumor, innuendo and other forms of unsubstantiated nonsense and drivel they hear or create (in their own minds) to satisfy their particular political bent and feelings. Fine, but none of you should labor under the notion you're making an honest judgment based on an actual understanding of the situation. You're acting out of fear and emotion. Nothing more.

 

bullshit you don't tap a major fiber like they have unless your data mining. well i can think of other reason but they are more unsavory

 

countezero: "The program, as described, does not data mine."

The program as described, as it has been carried out previously, as it is conducted now, and as it is proposed to continue, all clearly involves data-mining. Data-mining has long been a mainstay of automated elint analysis. Data-mining per se does not trigger a requirement for court review, so long as it does not raise a "suspicion" or "expectation" that a particular targeted person will be calling the US. Data-mining involving the communications of millions of USAmericans can and does freely proceed without this trigger for oversight. The earliest mollifications from the W Bush Administration about FISA concerns were that they were only looking for "patterns" and not eavesdropping without warrant on USAmericans. If you honestly believe that there is no US government data-mining of US Citizen communications underway without warrant, and you are genuinely interested in the subject, then you are being incredibly selective in what you learn.

"The NSA is not an "agency" of the administration. It is a military organization that answers to the Department of Defense. And yes, the president, through the DOD, can order the NSA to do things, but it's hardly the president's play thing. It is answerable to the Congress, too. Most especially it is answerable to the intelligence committees and the various committees that control its budgets."

That's a very convoluted confusion of the basic premise that all government agencies are subject to protections of the Constitutional rights of USAmericans.

 

Echelon has been around for years...

ECHELON is a name used in global media and in popular culture to describe a signals intelligence collection and analysis network operated on behalf of the five signatory states to the UKUSA agreement; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, known as AUSCANZUKUS.[1]

The system has been reported in a number of public sources.[2] Its capabilities and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001.[3]

In its report, the European Parliament states that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of evidence presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks and microwave links. The committee further concluded that "the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

 

Not without warrants.

btw: The committees that control its budget are of course composed of human beings, who are on average at least as vulnerable to warrantless wiretapping as anyone else should they prove recalcitrant and intrusive.

The ranking Republican in the oversight committee most directly involved said he had been lied to by administration reps. The President stated in public appearances that all wiretapping of Americans involved "getting a warrant from a judge", months after he had signed the executive order establishing the program. Several administration officials denied wiretapping Americans without warrants, up until the whole thing came out;

and even now we see attempts to deflect recognition of the plain facts - assertions that even though they could have they didn't really listen, as though that made much difference, etc.

But of course concealing an operation like that is as bad as lying about it anyway. If no one thought to ask the right people whether the Current Administration had set up a warrantless wiretapping operation on all US citizens, then no one was lied to. The point ?

 

(Insert title here)

Most recently, the Attorney General of the United States of America. Maybe you missed that episode.

Try this link as a starting point, or, if you really want to read a longer consideration of the mess, try this link.

Or there was Colorado Sen. Allard's chief of staff, Sean Conway, trying so hard to sell the drama. There's nothing about Conway's absurd fearmongering that should be unfamiliar to anyone—regardless of whether they agree with what he said or not—who has been paying attention to the rhetoric of this American Age of Terror.

I know it's just my radical, ruby-red Marxism, but I'm of the opinion that if the terrorist threat is so grave, a bit of integrity and rational consideration would probably be to our best interest.

What? Oh, right. When the Bush administration communicates calculated falsehoods, it's bullshit to call it a lie.

Something about bullshit goes here.

To which branch of the government does the Department of Defense belong? Congressional? Judicial? I mean, it can't be the executive, right? If the National Security Agency, in being part of DoD, is not part of the executive administration.

So are other parts of the executive administration. Unless, of course, the administration decides otherwise. Right? That's why Mukasey won't pursue Congressional contempt issues against fellow members of the Bush administration.

What does Hayden have to do with the Attorney General of the United States lying in order to pander for political outcomes? The idea itself is its own consideration. People worry about what that idea equals. The administration says the country needs this idea actualized. People are expected to not worry about the idea's darker implications; yet if this is the case, it's puzzling to figure why the administration is lying in order to frighten people into supporting the idea. If the idea has just merits, then those merits should be a little more apparent. If those merits are so persuasive, why does the administration need to lie in order to persuade people to accept the merits and set aside their concerns?

Your argument for oversight would seem to make a number of simplistic presumptions that cannot, in good faith, be recognized in the current administration. This is, after all, an administration that has attempted to some degree of success to shield its actions from Congressional oversight. It is an administration that has lied to Congress, the American people, and the world. It is an administration that has refused to follow its own executive orders so that certain information might be withheld from oversight and investigation.

Now, think back to the original purpose of this topic. The rightward drift of American politics. Once upon a time, conservatives worried about FISA as it was. We've moved so far to the right that concerns once voiced by prominent conservatives are now considered fringe leftist. And the administration is asking to expand FISA, to intrude directly onto those concerns. And, apparently, that's nobody's business but the administration's:

Your dismissal of those who disagree with you as a monolithic bloc is dishonest, and would be discouraging except for the fact that we're already accustomed to that sort of ignorant arrogance from you.

Just like William Safire in 1978, right?

Of course, there was a Democrat in the White House in 1978, so maybe that's why conservatives objected.

The point is not that it is somehow illegitimate to argue that changing circumstances through time require changing standards. Rather, the point is that the argument, as it is being made right now, is dishonest. In rooting after the incident Mukasey recalled in San Francisco, the closest anyone can get is a letter (.pdf) from Mukasey and DNI McConnell to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that seems to suggest it was executive administration policy, and not FISA, that botched an alleged inbound phone call from Al Qaeda to the United States. And yet this example is put before the people as a reason that Congress should change FISA.

One last note, Counte, since you're reading Risen at present. Or maybe you've finished it. But perhaps you'd be willing to share your insights on a certain point:

Now, given that these changes didn't stop 9/11, why would Mukasey imply otherwise, and why should we believe that changing FISA will help in the future?

The reality is that we had all the information we needed save for an engraved invitation, and it was systemic issues, not the law, that caused our government to miss what hindsight suggests was fairly obvious.

Say what you will about hindsight. I'm more interested in how changing FISA is expected to accomplish what the proposed changes failed to accomplish.
____________________

Notes:

Safire, William. Quoted in Glenn Greenwald, "The "liberal" position on the Surveillance State". Unclaimed Territory. March 2, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/02/fisa/index.html

Maddow, Rachel. "#3 FISA Fables". Countdown With Keith Olbermann. MSNBC. April 1, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918691/

Leopold, Jason. "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11". Truthout.org. January 13, 2006. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920

See Also:

"Without Honor"? Better Reading. April 15, 2008. http://better-reading.blogspot.com/2008/04/without-honor.html

B.D.'s Last Refuge. "Good men with honor". April 16, 2008. http://bdhilling.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/good-men-with-honor/

B.D.'s Last Refuge. "Quote of the Week — Conway on illegal wiretapping". February 25, 2008. http://bdhilling.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/quote-of-the-week-conway-on-illegal-wiretapping/

 

i still want to know why they are tapping major fibers