What's new
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)

5 digit know nothing said:
Quez said:
Am I the only one who thinks this guy Snowdens story doesn't add up?

Check out his wikipedia,
On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces.%5B1%5D He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"%5B8%5D but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland,%5B15%5D before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work on IT security.%5B16%5D

So this high school drop out is in the military for 4 months, and then breaks both of his legs. He is then hired by the NSA as a security guard at a covert CIA facility? Is the CIA really hiring high school drop outs to secure top secret facilities? And at what point do you get promoted from security guard to IT? :fishy:
What is it so unbelievable?

He was an army brat, that's probably why he didn't complete high school, not because he was dumb.

I think you overvalue a college education, particularly in the I.T. Field where you typically learn none of that in school, it is all on the job.
I'm not trying to knock his education so much as his lack of any kind of professional or military experience. The unbelievable part is how easy it is to become a security guard at a top secret US faciliy. If someone barely out of basic training can have access to a top secret facility that is a problem. Also, how exactly do you go from being a security guard to being in IT security? Did he just one day trade in his security belt for a Gov't issued laptop? I would think it would be pretty hard to get into any kind of CIA position. Like retired military, years of experience, etc. Also, this guy could have been a plant from a foreign Gov't from the begining. During his travels abroad he could have been influneced by China or Japan, then enlisted in the military. I have heard some stories about people trying to get CIA and Gov't jobs. They send people to talk to old roomates, and everyone in your background. Not saying they didn't do this, but it seems like he jumped up to high level top secret very quickly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
X
Yes, you have shown your lack of understanding about this in the gun control thread. Nice to see that you're consistent, and also that you have learned nothing.
Didn't you mean to quote yourself?

 
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing. There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate. But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
Point to where the Founding Fathers were accepting of secret courts and provisions that allow the SCOTUS to throw cases out due to compromising national security.
 
In a secret program called HTLINGUAL, the CIA screened more than 28 million first-class letters and opened 215,000 of them between 1953 and 1973, even though the Supreme Court held as far back as 1878 in Ex parte Jackson and reaffirmed in 1970 in U.S. v. Van Leeuwen that the Fourth Amendment bars third parties from opening first-class mail without a warrant. The programs stated purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence, but it targeted domestic peace and civil rights activists as well. In a 1962 memo to the director of the CIAs Office of Security, the deputy chief of the counterintelligence staff warned that the program could lead to grave charges of criminal misuse of the mails and therefore U.S. intelligence agencies must vigorously deny HTLINGUAL, which should be relatively easy to hush up.
So is your conclusion that we have been living in a police state for the past 50 years?
No. (Thank you, Church Committee.) Is it still your position that nothing nefarious will be done with the data the government collects?
That was never my position. My position is that the program is worthwhile but that we need to keep an eye on it to make sure it is not used in such a manner.
We can't keep an eye on a secret program. That doesn't make any sense.
We already are. We have elected officials and appointed judges investigating this and making sure it is kosher. If we're not going to trust the people we chose freely to run our government, what is the point of this entire discussion?
So no issues with secret court opinions and classified breifings with Congress? We elected those people so they don't need to answer to us.

Probably the stupidest argument I have ever seen in a political thread.
Is it stupid, or is it the republican system that our Founding Fathers intended?

The congress does need to answer to us- on election day. They don't need to answer to us on the days between election days. We don't live in a pure democracy (thankfully.)

As far as secret court opinions, I believe national security is a good reason to keep certain things secret.

 
I'm not trying to knock his education so much as his lack of any kind of professional or military experience. The unbelievable part is how easy it is to become a security guard at a top secret US faciliy. If someone barely out of basic training can have access to a top secret facility that is a problem. Also, how exactly do you go from being a security guard to being in IT security? Did he just one day trade in his security belt for a Gov't issued laptop? I would think it would be pretty hard to get into any kind of CIA position. Like retired military, years of experience, etc. Also, this guy could have been a plant from a foreign Gov't from the begining. During his travels abroad he could have been influneced by China or Japan, then enlisted in the military. I have heard some stories about people trying to get CIA and Gov't jobs. They send people to talk to old roomates, and everyone in your background. Not saying they didn't do this, but it seems like he jumped up to high level top secret very quickly.
CIA was hiring directly out of college where I went. I think if he proves himself over time with his tech abilities they would advance from within. He is 29 years old, you can do a lot in 11 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing. There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate. But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
Point to where the Founding Fathers were accepting of secret courts and provisions that allow the SCOTUS to throw cases out due to compromising national security.
Why don't you point to where they weren't?

I'm not a huge fan of secrecy, as I've stated over and over again. I would prefer this stuff be more out in the open. But secrecy CAN be vital to national security, and I reject utterly the notion that the secrecy is evidence of nefarious activity all by itself.

 
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing. There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate. But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
The Legislative branch creates the nation's law. The executive branch exectues the nation's law. The judicial branch enforces the nation's law.Only the judicial branch is tasked with enforcing the Bill of Rights. However, they can only enforce it WHEN someone can make a case that they've been harmed and they then have to rule on the case. When all three branches can operate IN SECRET, the people can never make a case against what they are doing, even if what they are doing in secret cleary violates the Bill of Rights.
 
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing. There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate. But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
Point to where the Founding Fathers were accepting of secret courts and provisions that allow the SCOTUS to throw cases out due to compromising national security.
Why don't you point to where they weren't? I'm not a huge fan of secrecy, as I've stated over and over again. I would prefer this stuff be more out in the open. But secrecy CAN be vital to national security, and I reject utterly the notion that the secrecy is evidence of nefarious activity all by itself.
How can you call it checks and balances, when they have a trump card called "national security" whenever they damn well please?
 
In a secret program called HTLINGUAL, the CIA screened more than 28 million first-class letters and opened 215,000 of them between 1953 and 1973, even though the Supreme Court held as far back as 1878 in Ex parte Jackson and reaffirmed in 1970 in U.S. v. Van Leeuwen that the Fourth Amendment bars third parties from opening first-class mail without a warrant. The programs stated purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence, but it targeted domestic peace and civil rights activists as well. In a 1962 memo to the director of the CIAs Office of Security, the deputy chief of the counterintelligence staff warned that the program could lead to grave charges of criminal misuse of the mails and therefore U.S. intelligence agencies must vigorously deny HTLINGUAL, which should be relatively easy to hush up.
So is your conclusion that we have been living in a police state for the past 50 years?
No. (Thank you, Church Committee.) Is it still your position that nothing nefarious will be done with the data the government collects?
That was never my position. My position is that the program is worthwhile but that we need to keep an eye on it to make sure it is not used in such a manner.
We can't keep an eye on a secret program. That doesn't make any sense.
We already are. We have elected officials and appointed judges investigating this and making sure it is kosher. If we're not going to trust the people we chose freely to run our government, what is the point of this entire discussion?
So no issues with secret court opinions and classified breifings with Congress? We elected those people so they don't need to answer to us.

Probably the stupidest argument I have ever seen in a political thread.
Is it stupid, or is it the republican system that our Founding Fathers intended?

The congress does need to answer to us- on election day. They don't need to answer to us on the days between election days. We don't live in a pure democracy (thankfully.)

As far as secret court opinions, I believe national security is a good reason to keep certain things secret.
It is very stupid.

How can they answer to a population they are keeping massive programs secret from? The ultimate check in our system is the people, but the people can't check what they don't know. The Founding Fathers didn't intend a system where the government could violate the Bill of Rights they wrote in secret without having the legal "justifications" for it ever seeing the light of day.

 
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights only works if we can trust our elected and appointed officials to enforce it.
Yet another declaration you pulled out of your ###.
What the heck are you talking about. I assumed you were a bit smarter than 5 digit Know Nothing. There is not a single law on the books, and this includes the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, that is effective unless we can trust those in charge to carry it out. The reason that the Founding Fathers imposed checks and balances is because they figured that if one branch of government became corrupt or evil, the other branches would fix it. Hence the PRISM plan, which, based on my understanding, requires approval from all 3 branches to operate. But if you determine that all 3 branches of government are untrustworthy at the same time, then you can forget the Bill of Rights and all other law. Your only alternatives then are either acceptance of a dictatorship or revolution.
The Legislative branch creates the nation's law. The executive branch exectues the nation's law. The judicial branch enforces the nation's law.Only the judicial branch is tasked with enforcing the Bill of Rights. However, they can only enforce it WHEN someone can make a case that they've been harmed and they then have to rule on the case. When all three branches can operate IN SECRET, the people can never make a case against what they are doing, even if what they are doing in secret cleary violates the Bill of Rights.
You must not be familiar with the rubber stamp amendment.
 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/nsa-chief-says-phone-record-logs-halted-terror-threats.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

WASHINGTON — The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that “dozens” of terrorism threats had been halted by the agency’s huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans, while a senator briefed on the program disclosed that the telephone records are destroyed after five years.

The director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who heads both the N.S.A. and United States Cyber Command, which runs the military’s offensive and defensive use of cyberweapons, told skeptical members of the Senate Appropriations Committee that his agency was doing exactly what Congress authorized after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

General Alexander said he welcomed debate over the legal justification for the program because “what we’re doing to protect American citizens here is the right thing.” He said the agency “takes great pride in protecting this nation and our civil liberties and privacy” under the oversight of Congress and the courts.

“We aren’t trying to hide it,” he said. “We’re trying to protect America. So we need your help in doing that. This isn’t something that’s just N.S.A. or the administration doing it on its own. This is what our nation expects our government to do for us.”

But in his spirited exchanges with committee members, notably Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, General Alexander said he was seeking to declassify many details about the program now that they have been leaked by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor who came forward to say he was the source of documents about the phone log program and other classified matters.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the first to disclose that the records are eventually destroyed. She said that she planned to hold a classified hearing on Thursday on the program. But at the Wednesday hearing, where testimony about the government’s planned $13 billion spending on cybersecurity was largely swept aside for a discussion of the surveillance program, Ms. Feinstein also revealed that investigators had used the database for purposes beyond countering terrorism, suggesting it might have also been employed in slowing Iran’s nuclear program.

Analysts can look at the domestic calling data only if there is a reason to suspect it is “actually related to Al Qaeda or to Iran,” she said, adding: “The vast majority of the records in the database are never accessed and are deleted after a period of five years. To look at or use the content of a call, a court warrant must be obtained.”

In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent “dozens of terrorist attacks” both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.

In his testimony, General Alexander said he had “grave concerns” about how Mr. Snowden had access to such a wide range of top-secret information, from the details of a secret program called Prism to speed the government’s search of Internet materials to a presidential document on cyberstrategy. He said the entire intelligence community was looking at the security of its networks — something other government officials vowed to do after the WikiLeaks disclosures three years ago.

Under the Prism program, the N.S.A. collects information from American Internet companies like Google without individual court orders if the request is targeted at noncitizens abroad. That program derives from a 2008 surveillance law that was openly debated in Congress.

As part of the review from the fallout of leaks about Prism and the phone program, intelligence agencies will seek to determine whether terrorist suspects have increased their use of code words or couriers, have stopped using networks like Facebook or Skype, or have “gone silent” and can no longer be found, current and former senior American officials said separately from the hearing.

The review, which will most likely last for months to determine the long-term impact of the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, will also include a “cost benefit analysis” of the programs.

“Now that it’s out there, it will be looked at in a different way,” one of the current officials said. “Everyone’s raising questions about whether they have been compromised and whether to continue with them at the same pace. They are wondering whether or not they are going to continue to yield good information.”

While senior intelligence officials — including James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence — have asserted that the disclosures have significantly damaged the government’s intelligence capabilities, the current and former officials were far less sure of the lasting impact.

Philip Mudd, a former F.B.I. deputy director for national security, said that there could be some short-term impact on the programs but that terrorists would find it very hard to function without using electronic communications. “Good luck trying to communicate in this world without leaving a digital exhaust — that’s not going to happen,” he said.

Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, called for the prosecution of journalists who published the classified information in the documents leaked by Mr. Snowden. Mr. King told Fox News he was specifically talking about Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian, whom he accused of threatening to release the names of covert C.I.A. agents.

On Twitter, Mr. Greenwald said it was a “lie” that he had made such a threat, and shot back with a reference to Mr. King’s past support for the Irish Republican Army: “Only in America can a renowned and devoted terrorism supporter like Peter King be the arbiter of national security and treason,” he wrote.

Public opinion, judging by two polls with differently worded questions that yielded different results, is divided over the government’s tracking of the communications of Americans. In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll conducted June 6-9, 56 percent of Americans said the N.S.A’s program tracking the phone records of “millions of Americans” was an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, while 41 percent said it was unacceptable. But a CBS News poll conducted June 9-10, which instead asked about collecting phone records of “ordinary Americans,” found that just 38 percent supported it and 58 percent opposed it.

 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" have changed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While senior intelligence officials — including James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence — have asserted that the disclosures have significantly damaged the government’s intelligence capabilities, the current and former officials were far less sure of the lasting impact.

Philip Mudd, a former F.B.I. deputy director for national security, said that there could be some short-term impact on the programs but that terrorists would find it very hard to function without using electronic communications. “Good luck trying to communicate in this world without leaving a digital exhaust — that’s not going to happen,” he said.

Putting aside all other arguments we are having in this thread- this is why I actually agree with most of you here that Snowden should not be considered a traitor, and should not face serious penalties for his actions. He did break the law so I suppose he should face SOME penalty- but not a significant one. I don't think that our national security has been damaged by Snowden's revelations, unless there's something I'm missing.

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao:

I think you meant: "unverifiable claims".

Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-usa-security-poll-idUSBRE95B1AF20130612
(Reuters) - Roughly one in three Americans say the former security contractor who leaked details of top-secret U.S. surveillance activity is a patriot and should not be prosecuted, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.Some 23 percent of those surveyed said former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is a traitor while 31 percent said he is a patriot. Another 46 percent said they did not know.Snowden, 29, revealed last week that the NSA is monitoring a wide swath of telephone and Internet activity as part of its counterterrorism efforts."I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American," Snowden told the South China Post, an English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, in an interview published on Wednesday.U.S. authorities have said they are weighing possible criminal charges against Snowden, who was an employee of Virginia-based consultant Booz Allen Hamilton when he leaked documents indicating the NSA's surveillance of Americans is much broader than had been disclosed publicly.In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 35 percent of those surveyed said Snowden should not face charges while 25 percent said he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Another 40 percent said they did not know.Snowden told the South China Post he intends to stay in Hong Kong and fight any effort to extradite him to the United States to face legal action.The online survey of 645 Americans was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday. It has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points for each result.Snowden's revelations, first reported by Britain's Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post, have fueled a national discussion over how the United States should balance its national security efforts with Americans' right to privacy in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks.The disclosures have sparked a mix of condemnation and praise. Many members of Congress - which for years had received secret briefings on the NSA's surveillance tactics - have been particularly critical of Snowden. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, called Snowden a "traitor" in a television interview, a sentiment echoed by U.S. intelligence officials.Snowden also has been the focus of several online support campaigns, an indication that his effort to expose the surveillance tactics has resonated with some Americans.A petition urging President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden for any crimes he may have committed has collected 63,000 signatures on the White House website since it was posted by a reader on Sunday. The White House reviews and responds to any petition that gathers more than 100,000 signatures.Reuters/Ipsos polling conducted since the leaks were revealed last Thursday have found Americans divided over the merits of the NSA surveillance program.Some 45 percent of those surveyed say the program is acceptable under some circumstances, while 37 percent say it is completely unacceptable, the polling found. Only 6 percent say they have no objections to the program.
 
Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, called for the prosecution of journalists who published the classified information in the documents leaked by Mr. Snowden. Mr. King told Fox News he was specifically talking about Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian, whom he accused of threatening to release the names of covert C.I.A. agents.

Damn this King is such an idiot. I have no love for Greenwald (for reasons unrelated to the Snowden revelations), but where do our elected officials get off calling for the prosecution of journalists? Completely outrageous.

 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao:

I think you meant: "unverifiable claims".

Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?

 
In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent “dozens of terrorist attacks” both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.
So which is it? Pretty squish comments for the "facts" implied by Tim and in the headline of the article.

 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
If you tell people they'll go to prison for failing to provide you with information, that's pretty compulsory.

 
In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent “dozens of terrorist attacks” both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.
So which is it? Pretty squish comments for the "facts" implied by Tim and in the headline of the article.
Again, why do you care? You think this guy, and the people he works for, are all liars intent on doing you harm.

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
You prattle on about "voluntary compliance" with the IRS and then call my arguments beyond stupid. I think I'll just let this speak for itself.

 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
If you tell people they'll go to prison for failing to provide you with information, that's pretty compulsory.
I agree! As do many others. But no court has agreed with our definition of what the word "compelled" means. Thus in the court's mind, the word "compelled" in the 5th amendment has not been violated by arresting people who do not file, and everything the IRS has on us was given to them voluntarily. If the 5th amendment did not exist, they would just make it clear that filing with the IRS is mandetory. It's only because of the 5th that we have this weird "voluntary, but illegal if you don't" situation that so many people point out is ridiculous, and the government can't make it any clearer.
 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
You prattle on about "voluntary compliance" with the IRS and then call my arguments beyond stupid. I think I'll just let this speak for itself.
"Voluntary compliance" is from the IRS tax code. It's not my phrase.
 
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Just like LE fights everyday crimes which harm a lot more people every single day than terrorist acts ever could. But if they do not follow procedure and afford criminals their rights under the Fourth Amendment and others, the criminals walk free. This happens all the time. I've been trying to get Tim to explain what is different about regular old crime and terrorism, but the answer is just that terrorism is special I guess, even though it is a far far lesser threat than dozens of other activities.

I don't know why I'm trying to understand this, but why is it the police are not allowed to violate a suspect's civil liberties, even if that results in a positive end either by catching a criminal or preventing a crime? But when it comes to terrorism, that's special. I guess because it's really bad? Or somehow it's "different" even though I fail to see how it's any different than any person in this country planning and carrying out a violent act other than the fact that it has a political or religious motivation to it.

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.)

I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.

When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.

 
If we are going to freely trust the people we chose to run our government, what is the point of the Bill of Rights?
When looked at from a certain perspective ... it's all kind of a house of cards without some level of implicit trust in the system..
I agree. What I disagree with is the assertion that the Bill of Rights only works when we trust the government to enforce it.That's hogwash.The Bill of Rights is ONLY enforced when a person, or people, sue the government. The Bill of Rights is NEVER enforced until the process is begun by the people. Even the judicial branch, which is the only branch that CAN enforce law, such as the Bill of Rights, DOES NOT enforece anything until it accepts a case to enforce a ruling... and if the plantiff can't show they've been harmed, the court won't even hear the case.
 
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Just like LE fights everyday crimes which harm a lot more people every single day than terrorist acts ever could. But if they do not follow procedure and afford criminals their rights under the Fourth Amendment and others, the criminals walk free. This happens all the time. I've been trying to get Tim to explain what is different about regular old crime and terrorism, but the answer is just that terrorism is special I guess, even though it is a far far lesser threat than dozens of other activities.

I don't know why I'm trying to understand this, but why is it the police are not allowed to violate a suspect's civil liberties, even if that results in a positive end either by catching a criminal or preventing a crime? But when it comes to terrorism, that's special. I guess because it's really bad? Or somehow it's "different" even though I fail to see how it's any different than any person in this country planning and carrying out a violent act other than the fact that it has a political or religious motivation to it.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I don't believe that we should ever violate civil liberties, whether in pursuit of terrorism OR common criminals. I don't regard the NSA programs as a violation of civil liberties. The reason that I don't think they should be used against common criminals is because it's unnecessary and wouldn't work anyhow. The only way to use such a system against common criminals would be to specifically target certain people, and that WOULD be a violation of civil liberties. The type of search they're using against terrorists- running algorithms and trying to establish code words and patterns based on outside intelligence- would have no impact whatsoever on common criminals.

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.) I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.
Government not having access to private data is not "absolute". There is already a process in place for the government to take if they need to collect private data. It is not "absolutist" to believe the government should go through that process BEFORE collecting private data. It is simply stating the government should use the process the Bill of Rights gives it.
 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.) I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.
Government not having access to private data is not "absolute". There is already a process in place for the government to take if they need to collect private data. It is not "absolutist" to believe the government should go through that process BEFORE collecting private data. It is simply stating the government should use the process the Bill of Rights gives it.
The question is whether or not the data, as collected in mass numbers, is considered "private" and thus subject to the 4th Amendment. I hold that it is "absolutist" to regard it as such- just as it is absolutist to regard shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as free speech, just as it is absolutist to regard all gun control laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.

 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
If you tell people they'll go to prison for failing to provide you with information, that's pretty compulsory.
I agree! As do many others. But no court has agreed with our definition of what the word "compelled" means. Thus in the court's mind, the word "compelled" in the 5th amendment has not been violated by arresting people who do not file, and everything the IRS has on us was given to them voluntarily. If the 5th amendment did not exist, they would just make it clear that filing with the IRS is mandetory. It's only because of the 5th that we have this weird "voluntary, but illegal if you don't" situation that so many people point out is ridiculous, and the government can't make it any clearer.
No, in the Court's mind, requiring someone to file tax returns isn't compelling that person to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. You can't get out of adhering to other laws just because they involve providing information to the government.

 
Using Dorner as an example, when someone becomes a high value target, what is stopping someone with high enough clearance from producing a report including every phone call and every email Dorner has ever made or sent in the past 5 years?

 
Point to where the Founding Fathers were accepting of secret courts and provisions that allow the SCOTUS to throw cases out due to compromising national security.
Why don't you point to where they weren't?I'm not a huge fan of secrecy, as I've stated over and over again. I would prefer this stuff be more out in the open. But secrecy CAN be vital to national security, and I reject utterly the notion that the secrecy is evidence of nefarious activity all by itself.
I can point to where JFK wasn't:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
I hear you loud and clear tim, saying "But secrecy CAN be vital to national security". Please read over and over and over again where JFK said "We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."JFK is disagreeing with you completely... and is saying "WE" disagreed with you "long ago".

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.
Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.) I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.
Government not having access to private data is not "absolute". There is already a process in place for the government to take if they need to collect private data. It is not "absolutist" to believe the government should go through that process BEFORE collecting private data. It is simply stating the government should use the process the Bill of Rights gives it.
The question is whether or not the data, as collected in mass numbers, is considered "private" and thus subject to the 4th Amendment. I hold that it is "absolutist" to regard it as such- just as it is absolutist to regard shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as free speech, just as it is absolutist to regard all gun control laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.
There is no question that data regarding my private business relationship with Verizon, and their private business relationship with me, is private. This is NOT up for debate.
 
Watch around 5 minutes or so from where I bookmarked this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P7bQ7wwGnQQ#t=1768sIf you've got a couple hours, watch the whole thing. But the five minutes from the bookmark explain how the IRS code is written to say "voluntary compliance". If it was written as mandatory compliance, it would violate the 5th amendment, as being mandatory compells people to be a witness against themselves by giving the government info that can incriminate them.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant. Try not filing your taxes and get back to me if your feelings on what is meant by "voluntary compliance" has changed.
In no way was I suggesting that you don't have to file your taxes. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime. But it won't be for any crime that they could have jailed you for had you given them information that would incriminate yourself. You're damned if you do (filling and be incriminated by the info you gave them), or your damned if you don't (not filing, and being guilty of tax fraud)... but you're damned for different reasons.The point I made is the information the IRS has received from us was collected via "voluntary compliance". Thus, they can incriminate us besaed on that information because we voluntarily gave it to them. Which means nothing the IRS has on us violates the Bill of Rights.For timschochet to use that as an example of why we should trust the info collected via PRISM is beyond stupid. Nothing in PRISM about us was given to them voluntarily. They obtained it without warrant. It violates the Bill of Rights.
If you tell people they'll go to prison for failing to provide you with information, that's pretty compulsory.
I agree! As do many others. But no court has agreed with our definition of what the word "compelled" means. Thus in the court's mind, the word "compelled" in the 5th amendment has not been violated by arresting people who do not file, and everything the IRS has on us was given to them voluntarily. If the 5th amendment did not exist, they would just make it clear that filing with the IRS is mandetory. It's only because of the 5th that we have this weird "voluntary, but illegal if you don't" situation that so many people point out is ridiculous, and the government can't make it any clearer.
No, in the Court's mind, requiring someone to file tax returns isn't compelling that person to be a witness against himself in a criminal case. You can't get out of adhering to other laws just because they involve providing information to the government.
I'm not arguing against the government's justification that one is not compelled, and having their 5th amendment right violated. I'm pointing out that because failing to "adhering to other laws" you will be arrested for not voluntarily complying to the IRS tax code. Which gives IRS access to voluntarily given private data.
 
The Bill of Rights is ONLY enforced when a person, or people, sue the government. The Bill of Rights is NEVER enforced until the process is begun by the people. Even the judicial branch, which is the only branch that CAN enforce law, such as the Bill of Rights, DOES NOT enforece anything until it accepts a case to enforce a ruling... and if the plantiff can't show they've been harmed, the court won't even hear the case.
If we accept the bolded as given, I'm wondering on what the ACLU is basing their current case against the NSA? Might there be exceptions to the standard of harm you mentioned?

 
The Bill of Rights is ONLY enforced when a person, or people, sue the government. The Bill of Rights is NEVER enforced until the process is begun by the people. Even the judicial branch, which is the only branch that CAN enforce law, such as the Bill of Rights, DOES NOT enforece anything until it accepts a case to enforce a ruling... and if the plantiff can't show they've been harmed, the court won't even hear the case.
If we accept the bolded as given, I'm wondering on what the ACLU is basing their current case against the NSA? Might there be exceptions to the standard of harm you mentioned?
The ACLU has had the position that the Patriot Act is an unconstitional law since the day it was adopted, but for 11 years we've had no evidence of what the government is doing under the Patriot Act. Two lawsuits were attempted in the past against it, but the courts decided not to hear the cases because the cases did not show the plantif had incurred harm. With what has been brought to light in the past week, I'm hearing rumors all over the intenet of organizations believing they now have a case the courts will accept to hear.
 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao:

I think you meant: "unverifiable claims".

Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?
I'm not dealing with hypotheticals on a program that has no public oversight.

 
The Bill of Rights is ONLY enforced when a person, or people, sue the government. The Bill of Rights is NEVER enforced until the process is begun by the people. Even the judicial branch, which is the only branch that CAN enforce law, such as the Bill of Rights, DOES NOT enforece anything until it accepts a case to enforce a ruling... and if the plantiff can't show they've been harmed, the court won't even hear the case.
If we accept the bolded as given, I'm wondering on what the ACLU is basing their current case against the NSA? Might there be exceptions to the standard of harm you mentioned?
The ACLU themselves are claiming they have been harmed and that is the basis of the lawsuit.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

...

The ACLU is a customer of Verizon Business Network Services, which was the recipient of a secret FISA Court order published by The Guardian last week. The order required the company to "turn over on 'an ongoing daily basis' phone call details" such as who calls are placed to and from, and when those calls are made. The lawsuit argues that the government's blanket seizure of and ability to search the ACLU's phone records compromises sensitive information about its work, undermining the organization's ability to engage in legitimate communications with clients, journalists, advocacy partners, and others.

...
 
In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent “dozens of terrorist attacks” both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.
So which is it? Pretty squish comments for the "facts" implied by Tim and in the headline of the article.
Again, why do you care? You think this guy, and the people he works for, are all liars intent on doing you harm.
No I don't, you're putting words in my mouth jackass.

 
OK guys. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. All of you seem to think this is a much bigger deal than I do. That's fine. Being a punching bag does get tiresome after a while, though. I'm going to leave this thread alone now for a while, until I think of something new to post that is not just a repeat of stuff I've already said, or if somebody else comes up with a new argument I haven't considered. Until then, I'll leave you guys to it...
Glad to see we can take you at your word....

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
What's most interesting is how he side-stepped the effectiveness of phone logging by pooling results with other methods that aren't related.
 
In a robust defense of the phone program, General Alexander said that it had been critical in helping to prevent “dozens of terrorist attacks” both in the United States and abroad and that the intelligence community was considering declassifying examples to better explain the program. He did not clarify whether the records used in such investigations would have been available through individual subpoenas without the database. He also later walked back the assertion slightly, saying the phone log database was used in conjunction with other programs.
So which is it? Pretty squish comments for the "facts" implied by Tim and in the headline of the article.
Again, why do you care? You think this guy, and the people he works for, are all liars intent on doing you harm.
No I don't, you're putting words in my mouth jackass.
Wow. Seems to me you've been doing that to me the entire time. Difference is, I haven't called you names.

If I misrepresented your statements I apologize. There is no need for you to insult me. Your comments seem to bear an animosity towards me that I cannot fathom. I don't share it. If anything, I respect your views on this matter.

 
Finally some facts to counter all of the fearmongering:
"facts" :lmao: I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
What's most interesting is how he side-stepped the effectiveness of phone logging by pooling results with other methods that aren't related.
Yeah, I caught that on a re-read. Awfully fine journalism going down at the NYT there to mislead.

 
OK guys. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. All of you seem to think this is a much bigger deal than I do. That's fine. Being a punching bag does get tiresome after a while, though. I'm going to leave this thread alone now for a while, until I think of something new to post that is not just a repeat of stuff I've already said, or if somebody else comes up with a new argument I haven't considered. Until then, I'll leave you guys to it...
Glad to see we can take you at your word....
Some new ideas have come up. Anyhow, you guys treat me too kindly for me to stay away too long...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top