I don't really understand how you don't see this as "search and seizure"? OK. What if there was a serious drug problem in your neighborhood. And the cops went into every single house in your neighborhood without permission or a warrant to look around and see if they found anything related to illegal drugs in there? Would that be OK? Do you think that is any different than scanning all of our e-mails looking for certain words to see if we could possibly be involved in a crime? How is it any different? Does the search need to be physical before you start feeling it's a violation of your privacy? What if the government opened every single piece of mail you received or sent and read it to make sure there was nothing illegal in it? Or better yet scanned it and stored it in a database? Would you be OK with that too?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter PlasmaDogPlasma
- Start date
Fennis
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't want to rehash my opinions about libertarianism. Briefly I was one; then they left me, not the other way around.
I'm not so much afraid of terrorists, but I do want to defeat them. I think that this is a worthy tool to do so. I don't think it significantly infringes upon my civil liberties, therefore I don't regard it as some great trade-off.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
And you keep ignoring the second half of my argument.This is what we keep telling you is the problem.
timschochet
Footballguy
The drug search would not be OK. Searching through physical mail would not be OK. Searching through a billion emails for terrorist code words is OK.
I think you missed my point there about great harm coming from good intentions.
Anyways, protecting against a tyrannical government is one of the reasons the founders left us a clear 2nd and 4th amendment. I don't find it at all surprising that someone who argues against both would think resistance is futile.
Because it is bull####.And you keep ignoring the second half of my argument.This is what we keep telling you is the problem.
I don't see how e-mail and physical mail are remotely different.
Are your postings here on this board somehow different than The Federalist Papers?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Gotta run guys. I'm sure most of you are sick of hearing from me anyhow. I've made my arguments, no point in repeating them. If you want to regard me as a rube or an idiot, so be it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
I had a working theory that this was an [SIZE=10.5pt]elaborate [/SIZE]ruse for Snowden to somewhow break up with his gf.
but in any case shes single now boys have at her: http://twitpic.com/cwjlnp Shes a pole dancer.
but in any case shes single now boys have at her: http://twitpic.com/cwjlnp Shes a pole dancer.
Last edited by a moderator:
What exactly is the difference between searching through billions of pieces of physical mail and billions of pieces of electronic mail looking for "terrorist code words"?
I'm so confused...
Politician Spock
Footballguy
You are arguing against the 4th amendment right now!
If the government CAN do what we have just realized it is doing, then we are just realizing the 4th amendment has essentially been revoked.
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't think they are talking about "good and evil" They are talking about overstepping. That's the wrong thing. With the data available to them, it's a matter of time that it's used in a way it wasn't intended. They've proven time and time again that when given the opportunity, they'll take advantage. You're saying they won't do that. Others are saying they will. It's hard to argue they won't given their history. What do you believe has changed that they won't overstep? That's what I'd like to understand from you.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not everyone shares your absolutist views of the 4th Amendment. As I mentioned earlier, many constitutional scholars disagree with you.Slapdash said:
Personally, I would like to see this go before the Supreme Court. Let's see what they say about it.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Sales of the book 1984 have increased 3116% at Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/books/ref=zg_bsms_nav_mov_1_mov?tag=vglnkc4772-20#1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/books/ref=zg_bsms_nav_mov_1_mov?tag=vglnkc4772-20#1
timschochet
Footballguy
I just wrote that it's a reasonable assumption that the government will screw things up. But overall I feel it's a worthwhile program, at least as best as I understand it. The good outweighs the bad, IMO.The Commish said:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Hence the need for limits. Hence the existance of the Bill of Rights.
[SIZE=10.5pt]It isn't absolutist. It is recognizing that going through someone's mail and going through their email is the same thing. Just because one is easier to get away with doesn't make it conceptually different. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Your "constitutional scholars" that you keep posting about just appear to be a few members of the Washington elite with self-interest in propagating the security state.[/SIZE]
timschochet
Footballguy
Alan Dershowitz
Al Franken
Diane Feinstein
Jeffrey Toobin
Richard Cohen
These are all self-identified liberals who basically agree with me on this subject. And there are many more. However, there are also many progressive voices who strongly disagree. Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers and who I knew personally in college (he was one of my professors) wrote a very powerful op-ed piece this morning expressing the same opinion as Slapdash in this forum. (If I can find it, I will post it here.)
On the conservative side of things, opinion is equally divided, with Rand Paul and most Tea Party types leading the charge in attack of the program, and George Will, John McCain, and the Wall Street Journal in favor.
Al Franken
Diane Feinstein
Jeffrey Toobin
Richard Cohen
These are all self-identified liberals who basically agree with me on this subject. And there are many more. However, there are also many progressive voices who strongly disagree. Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers and who I knew personally in college (he was one of my professors) wrote a very powerful op-ed piece this morning expressing the same opinion as Slapdash in this forum. (If I can find it, I will post it here.)
On the conservative side of things, opinion is equally divided, with Rand Paul and most Tea Party types leading the charge in attack of the program, and George Will, John McCain, and the Wall Street Journal in favor.
timschochet
Footballguy
Here's is the Ellsberg piece:
http://www.ellsberg.net/
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an “executive coup” against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: “It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp.”
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were “briefed” on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people’s privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That’s why Bradley Mannning and I –both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that’s why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America’s intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – “at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left.”
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
So we have fallen into Senator Church’s abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.
But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.
http://www.ellsberg.net/
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an “executive coup” against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: “It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp.”
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were “briefed” on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people’s privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That’s why Bradley Mannning and I –both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that’s why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America’s intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – “at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left.”
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
So we have fallen into Senator Church’s abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.
But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people’s privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
Professor Ellsberg was doing well (though I disagree with him). But at this point in the piece he falls into the same paranoia which is so prevalent in this thread. Police states have existed for many years before this technology and they didn't need it to exist. Simply put regarding the bolded, our government already had the "full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state"- they've had it since the country began. They've just never chosen to put it into place. If they do at some point decide to violate the Constitution, then the Constitution is not a shield against it. Our Constitution is strong because our government and people believe in it. When we stop believing in it, it becomes useless- and THAT, not access to technology, is what we need to fear the most.
Incidentally, I do not believe Professor Ellsberg when he states his opinion that "obviously, the United States is not now a police state,", because I clearly recall in several of his lectures (in 1987 at UC Irvine) him stating that America WAS a police state by any definition. He was a radical then, and remains one now, and I'm strongly betting he believes that we ARE a police state already. He's being disingenuous here.
Professor Ellsberg was doing well (though I disagree with him). But at this point in the piece he falls into the same paranoia which is so prevalent in this thread. Police states have existed for many years before this technology and they didn't need it to exist. Simply put regarding the bolded, our government already had the "full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state"- they've had it since the country began. They've just never chosen to put it into place. If they do at some point decide to violate the Constitution, then the Constitution is not a shield against it. Our Constitution is strong because our government and people believe in it. When we stop believing in it, it becomes useless- and THAT, not access to technology, is what we need to fear the most.
Incidentally, I do not believe Professor Ellsberg when he states his opinion that "obviously, the United States is not now a police state,", because I clearly recall in several of his lectures (in 1987 at UC Irvine) him stating that America WAS a police state by any definition. He was a radical then, and remains one now, and I'm strongly betting he believes that we ARE a police state already. He's being disingenuous here.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's rather ironic to me that the same people who attack me for trusting the government's intentions are confident that they can put the genie back in the bottle by simply ending the Patriot Act. Who's kidding whom?
Last edited by a moderator:
It is in place right now.
It is meaningless to keep repeating police states existed without this technology. That is a distraction to the debate of whether the technology should be used in this manner to constantly surveil everything they can get their paws on.
jonessed
Footballguy
That's despicable. Apparently we have to seek our free press out in Great Britain. How incredibly ironic.Credit to Greenwald for being willing to bring this to light. Apparently he has prepped a series of stories and we will be seeing more than the tip of the iceberg.Statorama said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Jojo the circus boy
Footballguy
timschochet said:
Tim still refuses to see the difference. SMH On another note:I think this thing has legs and something positive will come of it.You mean like the concept that the rights provided in the fourth amendment and due process clauses don't matter as long as they are thrown out in the name of "safety"? Is that what you mean about not believing in it?
Politician Spock
Footballguy
There's $80 billion in spending, and nearly one million jobs in this program. Of course there are going to be politicians who don't want to bring it to a grinding halt, and lose that money and jobs in their constituencies.It isn't absolutist. It is recognizing that going through someone's mail and going through their email is the same thing. Just because one is easier to get away with doesn't make it conceptually different. Your "constitutional scholars" that you keep posting about just appear to be a few members of the Washington elite with self-interest in propagating the security state.
There are also going to be politicians who fear terrorism so much that they believe no cost is too great, be it financial or in civil rights, to fight it.
They will spin it, as Tim spun it early, to say "I'm not so much afraid of terrorists, but I do want to defeat them." It deflects the real fear into a focus on winning. What's wrong with winning? We all want to be winners, right? We all want to be on the winning team.
But terrorism cannot be defeated. I can no more be defeated than murder can be defeated, than rape can be defeated, than theft can be defeated, etc, etc.... To want to defeat it is noble. To believe it can be defeated is folly.
Through this fear of terrorism, or the quest to defeat it as it is spun to be, as well as through the massive financial benefit the program has to constituencies represented by politicians, the 4th amendment has essentially be revoked.
I as well hope this can now go before the courts. This recent revelation may have provided the assets needed to build a constitutional lawsuit against the government. If so, let it ride, and hope that the over 11 years of not having the assets needed to build a lawsuit has not caused us to cross the line of no return.
For if we have, the 4th amendment is dead.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Of course the government would keep doing it even if the Patriot Act was revoked. Government continues doing illegal things until the people sue them in court to stop. The only reason what they are doing right now is even considered to be legal is BECAUSE of the Patriot Act. Revoking it won't put the genie back in the bottle. What it does is takes away what the genie believes makes his behavior legal.
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
With the extent of the NSA spying on us, how are we guaranteed our right to speak and associate anonymously? (AKA the First Amendment)
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
If the government in 1942 could have seen who had been talking with the Nisei, who ran businesses that catered to them, who ordered from their businesses, who lived in areas with high concentrations of them -- basically looked at everyone in the US who had dealings with Japanese Americans -- do you think there would have been more or fewer people interned?timschochet said:
Doug B
Footballguy
Sue to get them to stop? So they lose in court, and then keep doing it? Not much of a win.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Funny how this accusation comes up repeatedly.Nikki2200 said:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Oh sure you are. As long as your auto-correct doesn't accidentally put the word "bomb" in a text message you send.
I would also reeeeeeeally interested to see what words or phrases they are "searching" for if that is what they are doing. Are we talking Islamic terrorist terms only? Or would this extend to other activist groups that they may perceive as a threat or a nuisance?
I don't understand how anyone cannot see this as taking a giant dump on every principle our country was founded upon.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Can you site an example of where the government lost in court, and kept doing what they were doing.
jonessed
Footballguy
Tim has a tendency to redefine history and/or definitions to support his view. It's a side effect of being myopic. He's also completely oblivious to it.
Why do you assume they would lose? Rand Paul said he was actually going to put together a class action lawsuit and bring this before the courts.
ETA: Nevermind. Read wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Interesting commonality on this list and yourself. Is it a Jewish thing to be more accepting of a surveillance state?
mattdaddy
Footballguy
So it used to be that the rubes would say "stop being so paranoid, it's not like the government is watching everything you are doing." Now they say, "Well so the government is watching you but it's ok because they have good intentions and your interests in mind." As if the government is one monolithic thing and not made of human beings. This is some weird level of rationalization that I will never get. It's not ok, it does violate the 4th amendment and it's total BS that most people are ok with it. There just too apathetic or scared to do anything about it. I really can't wait to see the tech communities response to this. I have a feeling it's going to be nothing short of amazing.
Doug B
Footballguy
Nope. I just believe they'd keep doing what they're doing, but do a (far) better job of keeping it below board.
Such a cite would be an interesting read ... trying to work out how to find something like that.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I don't disagree with you.However, I would much prefer a situation where the government knows that it will have to break the law to do it, as opposed to a situation where it believes doing it is perfectly legal.The times where it choses to do it will be few and far between, as opposed to what we have now where the government chose to create a sweeping collection of anything and everything just in case it might have use for it later.
Similar threads
