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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter PlasmaDogPlasma
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
godspeed Rich Conway godspeed
drummer
Footballguy
tom22406
Footballguy
Don't always agree with Napolitano but I think he is dead on here
A government admission of wrongdoing
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Last week, National Intelligence Director Gen. James R. Clapper sent a brief letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he admitted that agents of the National Security Agency (NSA) have been reading innocent Americans’ emails and text messages and listening to digital recordings of their telephone conversations that have been stored in NSA computers, without warrants obtained pursuant to the Constitution. That the NSA is doing this is not newsworthy -- Edward Snowden has told the world of this during the past 10 months. What is newsworthy is that the NSA has admitted this, and those admissions have far-reaching consequences.
Since the Snowden revelations first came to light last June, the NSA has steadfastly denied them. Clapper has denied them. The recently retired head of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander, has denied them. Even President Obama has stated repeatedly words to the effect that “no one is reading your emails or listening to your phone calls.”
The official NSA line on this has been that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court has issued general warrants for huge amounts of metadata only, but not content. Metadata consists of identifying markers on emails, text messages and telephone calls. These markers usually identify the computer from which an email or text was sent or received, and the time and date of the transmission, as well as the location of each computer. Telephone metadata is similar. It consists of the telephone numbers used by the callers, the time, date and duration of the call, and the location of each telephone used in the call.
American telecommunications and Internet service providers have given this information to the NSA pursuant to warrants issued by secret FISA court judges. These warrants are profoundly unconstitutional, as they constitute general warrants. General warrants are not obtained by presenting probable cause of crime to judges and identifying the person from whom data is to be seized, as the Constitution requires. Rather, general warrants authorize a government agent to obtain whatever he wants from whomever he wants it.
These general warrants came about through a circuitous route of presidential, congressional and judicial infidelity to the Constitution during the past 35 years. The standard that the government must meet to obtain a warrant from a FISA court judge repeatedly has been lessened from the constitutional requirement of probable cause of crime, to probable cause of being a foreign agent, to probable cause of being a foreign person, to probable cause of talking to a foreign person. From this last category, it was a short jump for NSA lawyers to persuade FISA court judges that they should sign general warrants for all communications of everyone in America because the NSA was not accessing the content of these communications; it was merely storing metadata and then using algorithms to determine who was talking to whom.
This was all done in secret -- so secret that the president would lie about it; so secret that Congress, which supposedly authorized it, was unaware of it; and so secret that the FISA court judges themselves do not have access to their own court records (only the NSA does).
It was to further this public façade that Clapper lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee last year when he replied to a question from Wyden about whether the NSA was collecting massive amounts of data on hundreds of millions of Americans by saying, “No” and then adding, “Not wittingly.” The stated caveat in the NSA façade was a claim that if its agents wanted to review the content of any data the NSA was storing, they identified that data and sought a warrant for it.
This second round of warrants is as unconstitutional as the first round because these warrants, too, are based on NSA whims, not probable cause of crime. Yet, it is this second round of warrants that Clapper’s letter revealed did not always exist.
Snowden, in an act of great personal sacrifice and historic moral courage, directly refuted Clapper by telling reporters that the NSA possessed not just metadata but also content -- meaning the actual emails, text messages and recordings of telephone calls. He later revealed that the NSA also has the content of the telephone bills, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of everyone in America.
In his letter to Wyden last week, Clapper not only implicitly acknowledged that Snowden was correct all along, but also that he, Clapper, lied to and materially misled the Senate Intelligence Committee, and that the NSA is in fact reading emails and listening to phone calls without obtaining the second warrant it has been claiming it obtains.
One wonders whether Obama was duped by Clapper when he denied all this, or whether he just lied to the American people as he has done in the past.
One also wonders how the government could do all this with a straight face. This is the same government that unsuccessfully prosecuted former New York Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens twice for lying to a congressional committee about the contents of his urine. Shouldn’t we expect that Clapper be prosecuted for lying to a congressional committee about the most massive government plot in U.S. history to violate the Fourth Amendment? Don’t hold your breath; the president will protect his man.
Yet, Congress could address this independent of a president who declines to prosecute his fellow liars. Congress could impeach Clapper, and the president would be powerless to prevent that. If Congress does that, it would be a great step forward for the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution. If Congress does nothing, we can safely conclude that it is complicit in these constitutional violations.
If Congress will not impeach an officer of the government when it itself is the victim of his crimes because it fears the political consequences, does it still believe in the Constitution?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/10/government-admission-wrongdoing/
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Hope Tim is ok 
timschochet
Footballguy
Three points:
1. In his letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. This means that he lied to Congress when, a month before Snowden's revelations, he told them he did not:
Wyden: "Yes or no - Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or
hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper: "No sir."
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly."
Obviously, this lie is problematic. As far as what to do about it- I'm not sure. Before rushing to impeach the guy, we should at least find out if he's got a justifiable explanation for lying to Congress. And I know I'm going to get reamed for saying this, but there CAN be a justifiable explanation, at times, for lying to Congress in the interests of security. General George Marshall lied to Congress several times prior to our entry to World War II regarding American collaboration with the British- and that's only one example of many.
2. Napolitano wrote:
In his letter to Wyden last week, Clapper not only implicitly acknowledged that Snowden was correct all along, but also that he, Clapper, lied to and materially misled the Senate Intelligence Committee, and that the NSA is in fact reading emails and listening to phone calls without obtaining the second warrant it has been claiming it obtains.
I'm not sure what he's referring to here. Here is the letter from Clapper: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=285dc9e7-195a-4467-b0fe-caa857fc4e0d&download=1 Clapper admits that the NSA collects bulk data- this has been admitted since the Snowden revelations. Clapper does not admit to reading individual data without a second warrant. At least I can't find it in there. Apparently Napolitano can. Clapper does not admit any wrongdoing at all, and in fact, if the letter is telling the truth I agree with him- there is no wrongdoing in terms of collecting bulk data with a bulk warrant IMO. The only wrongdoing I can see is, as pointed out, Clapper misled Congress.
3. In Clapper's actual letter to Wyden he responds to a request to identify any useful information, in order to fight terrorism, that the collection of bulk data has gained. Clapper replies that most of this is classified, but he does list two examples that are not: the attempt by Najibullah Zazi to bomb the New York Subway system, and the investigation of Baasaly Moalim. The Moalim story can be cited here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-cites-case-as-success-of-phone-data-collection-program/2013/08/08/fc915e5a-feda-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html
In addition, the NSA claims it has prevented over 54 terrorist acts. But I ask, doesn't even one (the NY Subway) make this worth it? I think it does. The bulk collection of data is an effective means to fight terrorism.
1. In his letter to Wyden, Clapper admitted to collecting bulk data. This means that he lied to Congress when, a month before Snowden's revelations, he told them he did not:
Wyden: "Yes or no - Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or
hundreds of millions of Americans?"
Clapper: "No sir."
Wyden: "It does not?"
Clapper: "Not wittingly."
Obviously, this lie is problematic. As far as what to do about it- I'm not sure. Before rushing to impeach the guy, we should at least find out if he's got a justifiable explanation for lying to Congress. And I know I'm going to get reamed for saying this, but there CAN be a justifiable explanation, at times, for lying to Congress in the interests of security. General George Marshall lied to Congress several times prior to our entry to World War II regarding American collaboration with the British- and that's only one example of many.
2. Napolitano wrote:
In his letter to Wyden last week, Clapper not only implicitly acknowledged that Snowden was correct all along, but also that he, Clapper, lied to and materially misled the Senate Intelligence Committee, and that the NSA is in fact reading emails and listening to phone calls without obtaining the second warrant it has been claiming it obtains.
I'm not sure what he's referring to here. Here is the letter from Clapper: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=285dc9e7-195a-4467-b0fe-caa857fc4e0d&download=1 Clapper admits that the NSA collects bulk data- this has been admitted since the Snowden revelations. Clapper does not admit to reading individual data without a second warrant. At least I can't find it in there. Apparently Napolitano can. Clapper does not admit any wrongdoing at all, and in fact, if the letter is telling the truth I agree with him- there is no wrongdoing in terms of collecting bulk data with a bulk warrant IMO. The only wrongdoing I can see is, as pointed out, Clapper misled Congress.
3. In Clapper's actual letter to Wyden he responds to a request to identify any useful information, in order to fight terrorism, that the collection of bulk data has gained. Clapper replies that most of this is classified, but he does list two examples that are not: the attempt by Najibullah Zazi to bomb the New York Subway system, and the investigation of Baasaly Moalim. The Moalim story can be cited here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-cites-case-as-success-of-phone-data-collection-program/2013/08/08/fc915e5a-feda-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html
In addition, the NSA claims it has prevented over 54 terrorist acts. But I ask, doesn't even one (the NY Subway) make this worth it? I think it does. The bulk collection of data is an effective means to fight terrorism.
The Commish
Footballguy
oh boyI'm not going to answer your other crap, and it is crap. But I will answer this. The answer is No.
They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
The NSA can "claim" whatever they want. 
Show me the cases where querying this db has stopped terrorism and it wouldn't have been stopped otherwise.
Show me the cases where querying this db has stopped terrorism and it wouldn't have been stopped otherwise.
The Commish
Footballguy
And the answer to your last question is an unequivical "no"
timschochet
Footballguy
Franklin is right. But we're not talking about an essential liberty here. Nor is the safety necessarily temporary.
timschochet
Footballguy
If the answer to my last question is an unequivocal "no" to you, then it doesn't matter how many cases are shown to you, does it? You'll never change your mind no matter how many lives are saved.The NSA can "claim" whatever they want.
Tim,
If the safety was permanent they wouldn't have to keep doing it, would they?
And clearly, you and I have a different definition of "essential liberty." And I'd bet more people would side with my definition than yours. Of course, you won't take my bet because you know the stakes.
The Commish
Footballguy
It matters to the integrity of the source which you like to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the end justifies the means. Now, if you could demonstrate that we are significantly safer because this database exists, I'd be open to the possibility that this could be an exception to the rule.If the answer to my last question is an unequivocal "no" to you, then it doesn't matter how many cases are shown to you, does it? You'll never change your mind no matter how many lives are saved.The NSA can "claim" whatever they want.
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I want to emphasize that I don't believe the ends justify the means either. My main difference with you is that I don't have a problem with this particular means. But because it bothers so many other people, the ends in this instance are important to me.It matters to the integrity of the source which you like to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the end justifies the means. Now, if you could demonstrate that we are significantly safer because this database exists, I'd be open to the possibility that this could be an exception to the rule.If the answer to my last question is an unequivocal "no" to you, then it doesn't matter how many cases are shown to you, does it? You'll never change your mind no matter how many lives are saved.The NSA can "claim" whatever they want.
I wish I could show you more examples too. I don't like that they're classified.
timschochet
Footballguy
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. The collection of bulk data is not a violation, IMO.What exactly is your definition of "essential liberty" then?
tom22406
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I won't take your bet because I'm confident you are correct- more people would side with your definition. So what?
Bogeys
Footballguy
Why would it matter if it is classified, you are okay with the NSA (and I guess by extension any arm of the administrative branch) lying to Congress when it is doing its Constitutional oversight duties. Well, as long as you agree with what the lie is about.I want to emphasize that I don't believe the ends justify the means either. My main difference with you is that I don't have a problem with this particular means. But because it bothers so many other people, the ends in this instance are important to me.It matters to the integrity of the source which you like to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the end justifies the means. Now, if you could demonstrate that we are significantly safer because this database exists, I'd be open to the possibility that this could be an exception to the rule.If the answer to my last question is an unequivocal "no" to you, then it doesn't matter how many cases are shown to you, does it? You'll never change your mind no matter how many lives are saved.The NSA can "claim" whatever they want.
I wish I could show you more examples too. I don't like that they're classified.
And it is absolutely the ends justifying the means.
The Commish
Footballguy
Do you find it bizarre that there are studies showing that the data in this database hasn't been integral in the stoppage of terrorism? Is it your belief the NSA is only declassifying information to show that the db is of no use?I want to emphasize that I don't believe the ends justify the means either. My main difference with you is that I don't have a problem with this particular means. But because it bothers so many other people, the ends in this instance are important to me.It matters to the integrity of the source which you like to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the end justifies the means. Now, if you could demonstrate that we are significantly safer because this database exists, I'd be open to the possibility that this could be an exception to the rule.If the answer to my last question is an unequivocal "no" to you, then it doesn't matter how many cases are shown to you, does it? You'll never change your mind no matter how many lives are saved.The NSA can "claim" whatever they want.
I wish I could show you more examples too. I don't like that they're classified.
The Commish
Footballguy
Are you kidding me with this bull####?? ETA: You have successfully found a position no one can discuss....congrats.To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. The collection of bulk data is not a violation, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
No. Much like child rape, there are some things that we should be unanimously against. You ARE against child rape, aren't you?99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
timschochet
Footballguy
Could be. Happens a lot. But you need to provide better reasons other than the fact that the majority agrees with you and not me.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes, of course. Are you seriously suggesting that the collection of bulk data by the NSA is an absolute moral wrong along the lines of rape?No. Much like child rape, there are some things that we should be unanimously against. You ARE against child rape, aren't you?99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
tom22406
Footballguy
Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
The Commish
Footballguy
The numerous studies isn't enough? Here's the first "report" from google....it's even from left wing hack site nbc.com
Link
The most "pro" article is one that says the data was used to help get an investigation going, but the terrorism still occurred.
Bogeys
Footballguy
And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
Yes.Yes, of course. Are you seriously suggesting that the collection of bulk data by the NSA is an absolute moral wrong along the lines of rape?No. Much like child rape, there are some things that we should be unanimously against. You ARE against child rape, aren't you?99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Actually, the one thing about Tim I'm most convinced of is that he's actually not fishing. That's what makes his stances in some threads so bizarre and idiotic.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not fishing. And frankly I don't want this to be about me. I wish there were more people that agreed me. There are, out there, just apparently not here in this forum. If President Obama, or Diane Feinstein, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton were here in this forum I'm sure all of them would take my side on this and argue much better than I can.And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
The Commish
Footballguy
of course they would....they have an interest in keeping things as they are. That doesn't actually "help" your position as much as you think it does.I'm not fishing. And frankly I don't want this to be about me. I wish there were more people that agreed me. There are, out there, just apparently not here in this forum. If President Obama, or Diane Feinstein, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton were here in this forum I'm sure all of them would take my side on this and argue much better than I can.And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
tom22406
Footballguy
As I said before I don't follow his work here as closely as most of you do here so I will say you could be right.Once he said this"But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?" it kinda makes me think he just wants to stir things up and doesn't really believe what he's writing but again I will defer to those that know him better.Actually, the one thing about Tim I'm most convinced of is that he's actually not fishing. That's what makes his stances in some threads so bizarre and idiotic.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
Bogeys
Footballguy
I think you have argued the point about as well as can be argued...it is just not a logically consistent point unless you are talking about strictly theory and not anything that would ever actually exist in the real world.I'm not fishing. And frankly I don't want this to be about me. I wish there were more people that agreed me. There are, out there, just apparently not here in this forum. If President Obama, or Diane Feinstein, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton were here in this forum I'm sure all of them would take my side on this and argue much better than I can.And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
And I would frankly trust you more than the people you have listed as I think politicians and used car salesmen are about on par when it comes to telling the truth or just not technically lying.
timschochet
Footballguy
It would help because they are better debaters than I am and their reasoning would probably be more sound. If I seem inconsistent at times it's because I'm not especially good at making an argument. I can't think of every proper response at the time I make it. I need help.of course they would....they have an interest in keeping things as they are. That doesn't actually "help" your position as much as you think it does.I'm not fishing. And frankly I don't want this to be about me. I wish there were more people that agreed me. There are, out there, just apparently not here in this forum. If President Obama, or Diane Feinstein, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton were here in this forum I'm sure all of them would take my side on this and argue much better than I can.And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
skol asylum
Footballguy
All your database are belong to us.
This is just like his "intuition" that bulk collecting GPS data isn't useful.Are you kidding me with this bull####?? ETA: You have successfully found a position no one can discuss....congrats.To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it. The collection of bulk data is not a violation, IMO.
tom22406
Footballguy
Ok let's give Tim a simple question and see where this goes.
He said that Clapper lying to Congress was "Problematic" and he was not sure what we should do about it.Given the scope of the lie he told I'm not sure "Problematic" would be my choice of words but whatever.
Knowing what you know right now should Clapper have charges brought up against him?
You are Eric Holder,Tim.What is your call?
He said that Clapper lying to Congress was "Problematic" and he was not sure what we should do about it.Given the scope of the lie he told I'm not sure "Problematic" would be my choice of words but whatever.
Knowing what you know right now should Clapper have charges brought up against him?
You are Eric Holder,Tim.What is your call?
timschochet
Footballguy
What I wrote is that i would ask Clapper about this seeming contradiction. I believe there may be a justification for it.
But- to answer your question precisely- knowing what I do right now, yes, Clapper should be held in Contempt of Congress for not telling Congress the truth. He can defend himself against the charge, but the charge should be made.
timschochet
Footballguy
You just automatically assume it's a lie because reporters found another possible source and because the NSA won't explain it's reasoning.
And isn't this irrelevant anyhow? If it were proved to your satisfaction that the NSA really did use the data collected to successfully stop terrorism, would it change your mind about whether or not the data should be collected without individual warrants?
drummer
Footballguy
I'm not fishing. And frankly I don't want this to be about me. I wish there were more people that agreed me. There are, out there, just apparently not here in this forum. If President Obama, or Diane Feinstein, or George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton were here in this forum I'm sure all of them would take my side on this and argue much better than I can.And to be fair to Tim he does move the conversation along about half of the time even if it is a tangent. The rest of the time it turns into being about him either from his posting or other posters who just don't like him.Not at all and for me this is good entertainment because I'm convinced you are fishing.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Basically this whole thread has put forth article after article,fact after fact and you somehow either never read them or ignore them and stick by the one little thread you have left to try and defend your position(and I'm not even sure what that is to be honest).
I see why you get your rep here.
He just put himself in the same conversation with Obama, Bush, Feinstein, and Clinton.
I don't find it dull. This is one of the most significant issues of our time. The government is constantly spying on all of us and lying to us as well as congressional leaders about it.99% of everyone posting here agrees with your perspective on this. Don't you find that a little dull? I'm not posting for the purpose of being adversarial; I honestly don't agree with most of you on this. But doesn't it make things more interesting that at least SOMEBODY is providing a different point of view?I should have known better,right?
Tim,
What people are saying to you, and you're too stupid to comprehend, is that there is ZERO evidence that this data has helped in even ONE terrorism investigation. Except the government telling us that it has. Given the government's track record of lieing about this it's reasonable to be suspicious of their claims. You choose not to be. But the normal person wants to see actual evidence that this data has actually helped. At all. Until we see that we're going to say they shouldn't be doing it. Once we've seen the evidence we may modify our viewpoint. You, on the other hand, just take their word for it and let them bend you over.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
drummer
Footballguy
Similar threads
