Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

If one of the programs is unconstitutional, then they all are. I don't care if you like one of them, but not the others.

I get that. But you accused me of changing my position in this instance. I haven't done so.

 

[Politician Spock]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

If one of the programs is unconstitutional, then they all are. I don't care if you like one of them, but not the others.

I get that. But you accused me of changing my position in this instance. I haven't done so.

Yes you have. Numerous times. The many times you've taken the stance that you are done posting here, yet come back once again, is just icing on the cake of your position changing arguing throughout the thread.

 

[timschochet]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

If one of the programs is unconstitutional, then they all are. I don't care if you like one of them, but not the others.

I get that. But you accused me of changing my position in this instance. I haven't done so.

Yes you have. Numerous times. The many times you've taken the stance that you are done posting here, yet come back once again, is just icing on the cake of your position changing arguing throughout the thread.

I change my position all the time. New fact always cause me to reconsider. But not in this instance, so far.

 

[RCon]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

 

[Slapdash]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

 

[Politician Spock]

There's no contradiction. What I wrote about Raub referred to the larger issue of innocent people wrongfully caught in government bureaucracy, which is always a risk everytime you increase national security. It's an awful thing, but it is anecdotal, and it usually doesn't make sense to eliminate programs designed to protect us because of these incidents. That has always been my position. But I'm not aware that Raub was persecuted as a result of THIS program (what Snowden has revealed about the NSA).

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any. In any case, the existence of such would not change my position.

If one of the programs is unconstitutional, then they all are. I don't care if you like one of them, but not the others.

I get that. But you accused me of changing my position in this instance. I haven't done so.

Yes you have. Numerous times. The many times you've taken the stance that you are done posting here, yet come back once again, is just icing on the cake of your position changing arguing throughout the thread.

I change my position all the time. New fact always cause me to reconsider. But not in this instance, so far.

Yet all the facts presented in this thread (some of which were presented in court, which then ruled based on those facts that what the goverment has done is unconstitutional) have not caused you to reconsider.

Fascinating.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

 

[timschochet]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.

But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

And again, you guys resort to this. I'm just going to be patient and ignore it. If you guys want to argue the known facts, then I'm ready to do that, anytime.

 

[Politician Spock]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!

This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

 

[Slapdash]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question. But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

Has to be trolling at this point. Time to give him the LHUCKS treatment.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

And again, you guys resort to this. I'm just going to be patient and ignore it. If you guys want to argue the known facts, then I'm ready to do that, anytime.

Ignore the facts that have been presented, and we can't argue them due to your ignorace of them.

 

[RCon]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.

But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.

But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

 

[timschochet]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.

But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.

But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.

And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question.But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

And again, you guys resort to this. I'm just going to be patient and ignore it. If you guys want to argue the known facts, then I'm ready to do that, anytime.

Ignore the facts that have been presented, and we can't argue them due to your ignorace of them.

I haven't ignored any of the facts that have been presented. I've simply pointed out that they don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.

 

[jonessed]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

There is much more than just abuses. The NSA has admitted to sliding prosecutors evidence that would be inadmissable if not covered up.There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

 

[timschochet]

Just anecdotal violations, I imagine.

Why do you keep writing this, as if to needle me? You know my argument about anecdotes was restricted to those situations in which innocent people are actually directly harassed as a result of what the NSA is doing. I predict a few of those incidents will be inevitable, but anecdotal. Up to this point, I'm not aware of any.

How many anecdotes before we graduate to systemic?

Well since there's not a single anecdote yet that I know of, it's a rather academic question. But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security. Give me reason to believe that this is happening, and then I will become concerned.

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

nobody is this dumb, this incapable of reading comprehension.

I prefer ignorant and stupid... but dumb works too.

Has to be trolling at this point. Time to give him the LHUCKS treatment.

I strongly believe in my opinion on this matter, and I am not out to antagonize you or anyone else. You can choose to believe me or not, as you choose.

 

[Politician Spock]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

Who defines the limits of what "National Security" is if their programs have to exceed the limits of the constitution in order to work?

 

[timschochet]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!

This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

I perfectly understand your position on this matter. My own position is that if the FISA court approves the obtaining of the information collected by the NSA, then that is due process.

 

[timschochet]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

Who defines the limits of what "National Security" is if their programs have to exceed the limits of the constitution in order to work?

They can't exceed the Constitution. On that point you and I agree. I don't believe they are currently exceeding the limits of the Constitution. But it's not up to me, or to you, to decide this point. I am in favor of having the courts resolve it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!

This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

I perfectly understand your position on this matter. My own position is that if the FISA court approves the obtaining of the information collected by the NSA, then that is due process.

A district court already ruled that it's not.

 

[Politician Spock]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

It's been shown over and over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore it. Did you not read about NSA staff spying on romantic partners? That's the most recent one I remember, and I don't believe the NSA disputes it at all.But even if we pretend there have been zero instances of abuse, I'll ask. Hypothetically, how many anecdotal abuses would be too many? Three? Seven? Eighty-four? Two hundred sixteen? Five thousand? Exactly how many incidents does it take for it to become a problem?

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

Who defines the limits of what "National Security" is if their programs have to exceed the limits of the constitution in order to work?

They can't exceed the Constitution. On that point you and I agree. I don't believe they are currently exceeding the limits of the Constitution. But it's not up to me, or to you, to decide this point. I am in favor of having the courts resolve it.

You are already losing in that realm.

 

[timschochet]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!

This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

I perfectly understand your position on this matter. My own position is that if the FISA court approves the obtaining of the information collected by the NSA, then that is due process.

A district court already ruled that it's not.

And if that decision holds up, then I'm wrong. I don't think it will hold up, however. But we'll see.

 

[Slapdash]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

 

[Politician Spock]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

####### awesomely !!!!!!!!

 

[jonessed]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

I perfectly understand your position on this matter. My own position is that if the FISA court approves the obtaining of the information collected by the NSA, then that is due process.

A district court already ruled that it's not.

How does someone even get due process from a secret court that doesn't have to publish its opinions and operates outside the legal system?

 

[Politician Spock]

Did you not read the thread? There have been thousands listed already, and we're barely learning the surface yet.

I have read the thread. Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that. Lots of speculation, no evidence.

I really don't know how else to explain it to you. I'm not going to go back through the thread and find every instance. There have been thousands of instances where the NSA did things that they were explicitly told not to do, collecting data they were not allowed to, and using data without warrants when they were not allowed. There have been many instances where NSA staff used the information for personal purposes. The director of the NSA stood in front of you and blatantly lied about what the NSA was doing.

I understand you perfectly. You're just not understanding me. All of your examples involve the collection of data. Your statements that "they were explicitly told not to do so," that they collected "data they were not allowed to" that they "used the information to personal purposes"- all of that is highly debatable, not proven, and refuted by the NSA.But even so, it all involves the collection of data! It doesn't involve using the data in order to prosecute innocent people, or to pursue some political agenda, etc. etc. So far as we know, everything is being done in the name of national security. If you have some information otherwise, then show it! So far, nobody has.

THEY CAN'T USE THE DATA TO PROSECUTE GUILTY PEOPLE EITHER TIM!!!!This perhaps is where you are failing to understand the issue. You don't want to lose the program because then we lose a tool the government uses to capture the guilty... but the consititution says the government can't do such things... even if it means they could capture the guilty with it.

The government can only capture the guilty through due process. It would be alot easier for them if they didn't have to. But they have to.

I perfectly understand your position on this matter. My own position is that if the FISA court approves the obtaining of the information collected by the NSA, then that is due process.

A district court already ruled that it's not.

How does someone even get due process from a secret court that doesn't have to publish its opinions and operates outside the legal system?

They don't. That's why the district court ruled

 

[RCon]

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

I see. So individuals within the NSA don't count, only "the NSA as a whole"? How does that work exactly? Are you saying the order needs to come from the POTUS himself? I get the feeling that anything short of that, you're going to argue that it was simply one rogue individual or department that took it upon themselves to break the rules. "Well, yes, the director of the NSA admitted that the NSA has been passing information to the DEA for years, but that was just one corrupt director. The program still makes sense if we just get rid of him."

How many instances would it take for "the NSA as a whole" for you to want to scrap the program?

 

[timschochet]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

 

[RCon]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

This is true, yes.

 

[RCon]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

There have been several articles showing that the NSA did plenty more than just collect information illegally, but in fact has used that information as well. You either missed them or you're ignoring them.

 

[timschochet]

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

I see. So individuals within the NSA don't count, only "the NSA as a whole"? How does that work exactly? Are you saying the order needs to come from the POTUS himself? I get the feeling that anything short of that, you're going to argue that it was simply one rogue individual or department that took it upon themselves to break the rules. "Well, yes, the director of the NSA admitted that the NSA has been passing information to the DEA for years, but that was just one corrupt director. The program still makes sense if we just get rid of him."

How many instances would it take for "the NSA as a whole" for you to want to scrap the program?

Pretty much one. But rather than scrap the program, I would probably go through the NSA, fire everyone who was involved in the corruption, and try it again. I am convinced that in the age of terrorism we need this sort of program to protect ourselves.

Regarding the DEA, I admit that story bothers me. But I'm not sure what information was passed exactly and I don't want to group different things together. Let me say this: IF it's proven that some of the mass data collected by the NSA in the FISA approved searches that Snowden has revealed was passed to the DEA, and if the DEA used that information to prosecute people, then I would have to reconsider my entire premise. But the NSA collects all kinds of information, much of it which doesn't fall under the "mass-search- email/phone calls" issue that Politician Spock regards as unconstitutional, and it may be perfectly OK to pass that stuff to the DEA under certain circumstances. So I don't want to conflate the two issues.

 

[timschochet]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

There have been several articles showing that the NSA did plenty more than just collect information illegally, but in fact has used that information as well. You either missed them or you're ignoring them.

Maybe so. It wasn't deliberate. Can you link some of them for me? I'll read them again, and try not to miss anything. I honestly will.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

There is nothing to debate absent Tim. Everyone else agrees on this particular issue, which is pretty impressive considering the number of people who have participated in this thread. And Tim is never going to change his stance. As with most things, he forms an (uninformed) opinion and sticks to it. He bends the facts to fit in to his opinion. I honestly don't know why anyone responds to him anymore, especially in this thread. It's why I tend to find myself mocking him more than anything else. Trying to hold an intelligent debate/conversation with him is pointless.

 

[RCon]

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

I see. So individuals within the NSA don't count, only "the NSA as a whole"? How does that work exactly? Are you saying the order needs to come from the POTUS himself? I get the feeling that anything short of that, you're going to argue that it was simply one rogue individual or department that took it upon themselves to break the rules. "Well, yes, the director of the NSA admitted that the NSA has been passing information to the DEA for years, but that was just one corrupt director. The program still makes sense if we just get rid of him."

How many instances would it take for "the NSA as a whole" for you to want to scrap the program?

Pretty much one. But rather than scrap the program, I would probably go through the NSA, fire everyone who was involved in the corruption, and try it again. I am convinced that in the age of terrorism we need this sort of program to protect ourselves.

Regarding the DEA, I admit that story bothers me. But I'm not sure what information was passed exactly and I don't want to group different things together. Let me say this: IF it's proven that some of the mass data collected by the NSA in the FISA approved searches that Snowden has revealed was passed to the DEA, and if the DEA used that information to prosecute people, then I would have to reconsider my entire premise. But the NSA collects all kinds of information, much of it which doesn't fall under the "mass-search- email/phone calls" issue that Politician Spock regards as unconstitutional, and it may be perfectly OK to pass that stuff to the DEA under certain circumstances. So I don't want to conflate the two issues.

Re: the bolded, you're basically saying there is no amount of abuse you wouldn't tolerate in order to keep the programs. Even if the order came from POTUS himself, you'd just impeach him and fire the program back up.

 

[Slapdash]

I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

You can write that all you want, but we all know it is bull####. You are the only one that buys your spin to pretend the linked abuses and overreach isn't real.

 

[timschochet]

Every incidence of abuse should be prosecuted. Even one is a problem. If you're asking me how many of them it takes to invalidate the program, the answer is that the NSA has to be deliberately involved in abuse. Otherwise it doesn't matter.And again, I'm not ignoring it. I have stated, again and again, what would be reasonable criteria IMO in which this program would be have to be scrapped. The NSA would have to partake in deliberate abuse- not just collection of information, but deliberate, planned abuse of that information directed by the government, for purposes other than national security.

I see. So individuals within the NSA don't count, only "the NSA as a whole"? How does that work exactly? Are you saying the order needs to come from the POTUS himself? I get the feeling that anything short of that, you're going to argue that it was simply one rogue individual or department that took it upon themselves to break the rules. "Well, yes, the director of the NSA admitted that the NSA has been passing information to the DEA for years, but that was just one corrupt director. The program still makes sense if we just get rid of him."

How many instances would it take for "the NSA as a whole" for you to want to scrap the program?

Pretty much one. But rather than scrap the program, I would probably go through the NSA, fire everyone who was involved in the corruption, and try it again. I am convinced that in the age of terrorism we need this sort of program to protect ourselves.

Regarding the DEA, I admit that story bothers me. But I'm not sure what information was passed exactly and I don't want to group different things together. Let me say this: IF it's proven that some of the mass data collected by the NSA in the FISA approved searches that Snowden has revealed was passed to the DEA, and if the DEA used that information to prosecute people, then I would have to reconsider my entire premise. But the NSA collects all kinds of information, much of it which doesn't fall under the "mass-search- email/phone calls" issue that Politician Spock regards as unconstitutional, and it may be perfectly OK to pass that stuff to the DEA under certain circumstances. So I don't want to conflate the two issues.

Re: the bolded, you're basically saying there is no amount of abuse you wouldn't tolerate in order to keep the programs. Even if the order came from POTUS himself, you'd just impeach him and fire the program back up.

No. I would hope you would realize I'm not so stubborn as that. If it continued no matter what I did, I would have to acknowledge that it doesn't work and scrap it.

And if the POTUS doesn't want this to happen, it doesn't happen. Why would I impeach him?

 

[timschochet]

I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

You can write that all you want, but we all know it is bull####. You are the only one that buys your spin to pretend the linked abuses and overreach isn't real.

Never said it wasn't real.

 

[timschochet]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

There is nothing to debate absent Tim. Everyone else agrees on this particular issue, which is pretty impressive considering the number of people who have participated in this thread. And Tim is never going to change his stance. As with most things, he forms an (uninformed) opinion and sticks to it. He bends the facts to fit in to his opinion. I honestly don't know why anyone responds to him anymore, especially in this thread. It's why I tend to find myself mocking him more than anything else. Trying to hold an intelligent debate/conversation with him is pointless.

This is hilarious coming from you, of all people. But think what you want.

 

[StrikeS2k]

No. I would hope you would realize I'm not so stubborn as that.

Can't imagine why anyone would consider you stubborn after reading this thread.

 

[RCon]

And if the POTUS doesn't want this to happen, it doesn't happen. Why would I impeach him?

So we're agreed then. The POTUS can put a stop to the abuses right now by canceling the program. Or he can deliberately allow the abuses to continue.

 

[Politician Spock]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

There have been several articles showing that the NSA did plenty more than just collect information illegally, but in fact has used that information as well. You either missed them or you're ignoring them.

Maybe so. It wasn't deliberate. Can you link some of them for me? I'll read them again, and try not to miss anything. I honestly will.

They are shuffled within your 570 posts in this thread.

 

[Slapdash]

I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

You can write that all you want, but we all know it is bull####. You are the only one that buys your spin to pretend the linked abuses and overreach isn't real.

Never said it wasn't real.

As I've written before, I'm fairly sure that there WILL be anecdotes of innocent people who suffer as a result of this program- it's inevitable. But so far I'm not aware of any.

But the answer is that when it becomes apparent that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security.

Do you have evidence that the NSA is using the information collected for some reason other than national security? I haven't seen that.

Call it what you will.

 

[RCon]

Here's a quick link on the DEA information.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/26/20202285-ag-holder-pressed-to-explain-dea-use-of-hidden-data-evidence?lite

Note these paragraphs:

The documents show that agents have been trained to conceal how such investigations truly begin - to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up the original source of the information, raising questions about whether exculpatory information might be withheld from defendants at trial.

The internal documents describe the process of recreating the evidence trail to omit any reference to the Special Operations Division as "parallel construction." For example, agents said in interviews, they act as if a drug investigation began with a traffic stop for speeding or a broken taillight, instead of a tip passed from the NSA. An IRS document describes a similar process for tax agency investigators.

 

[timschochet]

And if the POTUS doesn't want this to happen, it doesn't happen. Why would I impeach him?

So we're agreed then. The POTUS can put a stop to the abuses right now by canceling the program. Or he can deliberately allow the abuses to continue.

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.

But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

There have been several articles showing that the NSA did plenty more than just collect information illegally, but in fact has used that information as well. You either missed them or you're ignoring them.

Maybe so. It wasn't deliberate. Can you link some of them for me? I'll read them again, and try not to miss anything. I honestly will.

They are shuffled within your 570 posts in this thread.

Since you already consider me dumb and ignorant, would you mind linking a few of them again?

 

[RCon]

Actually, read this article:

http://americablog.com/2013/08/dea-using-nsa-data-then-lying-about-it.html

 

[RCon]

And if the POTUS doesn't want this to happen, it doesn't happen. Why would I impeach him?

So we're agreed then. The POTUS can put a stop to the abuses right now by canceling the program. Or he can deliberately allow the abuses to continue.

Yes.

So if the DEA article above is to be believed, and it's pretty damn convincing, you're arguing that Obama, and Bush before him, both deliberately allowed abuses of this information.

 

[Politician Spock]

There was several articles on the program linked earlier.

It would be nice if we could talk about/debate the material presented without Tim constantly making arguments that act as if it doesn't exist.

You can talk and debate about it. I never said nor acted like it doesn't exist. What I wrote is that it doesn't apply to MY arguments.But most of you (all of you?) don't agree with my arguments anyhow. For you guys, just the collection of the information is illegal, and unconstitutional. So discuss away! It's not my intent to either interrupt or interfere with your arguments. THAT would be the sort of #### LHUCKS did. I will respond to people who respond to me, unless somebody presents new facts of special interest to me.

There have been several articles showing that the NSA did plenty more than just collect information illegally, but in fact has used that information as well. You either missed them or you're ignoring them.

Maybe so. It wasn't deliberate. Can you link some of them for me? I'll read them again, and try not to miss anything. I honestly will.

They are shuffled within your 570 posts in this thread.

Since you already consider me dumb and ignorant, would you mind linking a few of them again?

Yes. I do mind. You need to read them all in order to realalize just how much you've ignored, and I don't have the days it would take me to provide you links to all of them.

 

[timschochet]

Here's a quick link on the DEA information.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/26/20202285-ag-holder-pressed-to-explain-dea-use-of-hidden-data-evidence?lite

Note these paragraphs:

The documents show that agents have been trained to conceal how such investigations truly begin - to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up the original source of the information, raising questions about whether exculpatory information might be withheld from defendants at trial. The internal documents describe the process of recreating the evidence trail to omit any reference to the Special Operations Division as "parallel construction." For example, agents said in interviews, they act as if a drug investigation began with a traffic stop for speeding or a broken taillight, instead of a tip passed from the NSA. An IRS document describes a similar process for tax agency investigators.

This is very troubling. If true (and at this point, there's no reason to assume that it isn't true) then there is a corrupt connection between the NSA, the DEA, and the CIA, and those involved need to be investigated and perhaps prosecuted, no matter how high up it goes. (If Obama and/or Holder were aware or approved of such goings on, they should be held accountable as well.)

There is no information in the article that it has bearing on the mass collection of data by the NSA which is the prime point of this discussion. Let me be clear: we need to have an NSA. I'm convinced that we need to have the mass collection of data in order to fight terrorism.