NSA keeping track of every phone call Americans make

[MobBoss]

How exactly would you find out if al-Qaeda is calling you (as the President likes to put it) if all you have are numbers? Without knowing what was in the call, then how does one tell if the person were calling Osama's best friend, or a relative in that country, or looking up cheap places to stay on a business trip?

How the heck do I know? I assume that such data mining gives them some sort of insight to terrorist phone patterns maybe?

So in addition to its possible violations of privacy and the FISA law, this would seem to be utterly useless as a defense tool anyway.

So if it is utterly useless why all the hubbub? Answer: Just because it doesnt make any sense to your (or me for that matter) doesnt mean its not useful to them in some manner. If it is such a minor thing then whats the harm in it?

 

[blackheart]

And a good majority of americans support it as well.

If polls show that a majority of americans support such actions are they all republicans? Nope. Get your head out of the sand - trying to figure out who and where the terrorists are is actually a good thing and something supported by most americans. Opposing each and every action the administration does simply because you dont like Bush isnt making any progress toward that.

A majority of Americans support "fighting" terrorism, but a minority supports eavesdropping on its own citizens. Get your facts straight.

And supporting each and every action the administration does simply because you're a Republican doesn't make any progress for democracy.

 

[blackheart]

So if it is utterly useless why all the hubbub? Answer: Just because it doesnt make any sense to your (or me for that matter) doesnt mean its not useful to them in some manner. If it is such a minor thing then whats the harm in it?

Then maybe they should explain to us why exactly they need to do this. We aren't as naive anymore to completely trust the government and what they're doing is "for our own good."

 

[MobBoss]

A majority of Americans support "fighting" terrorism, but a minority supports eavesdropping on its own citizens. Get your facts straight.

Ok, I do have my facts straight: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

63% seems like a majority to me. pwned.

And supporting each and every action the administration does simply because you're a Republican doesn't make any progress for democracy.

Once again, I am on record in NOT supporting each and every action the administration does. I dont like the spending and I dont like how immigration is being handled. A few other things as well. I support a lot of what he does, but not each and every thing.

Try to remember that prior to trying to label me.

 

[blackheart]

Ok, I do have my facts straight: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html

63% seems like a majority to me. pwned.

Really...
"A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error."

Waiting a week or two before doing such a survey would give a better reflection for when, you know, more facts surface about this?

Once again, I am on record in NOT supporting each and every action the administration does. I dont like the spending and I dont like how immigration is being handled. A few other things as well. I support a lot of what he does, but not each and every thing.

Try to remember that prior to trying to label me.

Then be careful when you label other people.

 

[downwithgravity]

What will this information gathered from ordinary, non-threatening citizens be used for? I can't think of anything specifically terrible that the government could do with this information, other than maybe pass it along to telemarketers But still, governmental observation without any warning to me makes me vaguely uncomfortable, even with nothing personally to hide. I'd like to know more about what will happen with this database of who's-calling-who.

 

[zulu9812]

In more news on this NSA business, it seems that Dick Cheney pushed the NSA into mass wiretapping on a domestic level. The NSA are only supposed to monitor conversations going across the border - i.e. someone in the States talking on the 'phone to someone in Yemen. But Cheney pushed the NSA into tapping domestic 'phonecalls - i.e. you telephone your neighbour and the NSA will be listening.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

PP, you do acknowledge that this current "hot issue" is simply about contact phone numbers and not the content/conversations of the actual phone calls involved?

I certainly do NOT acknowledge any such thing. Bush has lied his ass off about this whole issue. First we were only spying on calls to Saudi Arabia. Then it was only calls by terrorists. Then we find out he's keeping records on 25 million Americans for no reason.

The speech which he gave a couple days ago in which he listed four counterpoints to the story, I take to be only four more lies that he will eventually backpedal on.

Watch the news in the coming months and see if I'm wrong. Here are those four points -

First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy and we want to know their plans.

Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.

Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.

Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.

The more likely reality is that the NSA is engaged in roaming wiretaps on the calls of millions of ordinary Americans.

I have nothing to back that up. But if I'd told you the content of the USA Today story five days ago, you would have denied that it was possible. What's more, you probably would have said that it would have been illegal.

Of course, now that your President has been caught doing it, you defend it. That's really the character of all you diehard Republicans - you're willing to retroactively defend virtually anything Bush does, no matter how terrible.

Wow, that was quick. :utterlypwned:

May 12, 2006

Former NSA officer alleges illegal activities under Hayden

By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily
A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens.

Russell Tice, who worked on what are known as "special access programs," has wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December that he had secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order. In an interview late Thursday, Tice said the Senate Armed Services Committee finally asked him to meet next week in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

Tice was fired from the NSA last May. He said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden, who has been nominated to become director of the CIA. Tice said one of his co-workers personally informed Hayden that illegal and unconstitutional activity was occurring.

The Senate Intelligence Committee plans to hold Hayden's confirmation hearing next week. "I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It's pretty hard to believe," Tice said. "I hope that they'll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn't exist right now."

Tice originally asked to meet with the Senate and House Intelligence committees, but they did not respond to his request. The NSA did not reply to written questions seeking comment for this story.

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans.

"It's an angle that you haven't heard about yet," he said.

According to an unclassified resume, Tice was a specialist in space operations systems, command and control warfare, advanced technology and all-source collection analysis. During an 18-year career, he worked on some of the most secretive programs in the government.

Tice would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he "will not confirm or deny" if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

Hayden declined to comment on news reports about the NSA's database on private telephone calls, but spoke about the NSA's work in general terms, the Associated Press reported.

"Everything that the agency has done has been lawful. It's been briefed to the appropriate members of Congress," Hayden told reporters. "The only purpose of the agency's activities is to preserve the security and the liberty of the American people. And I think we've done that," he said.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "We're 100 percent behind Michael Hayden. ... There's no question about that, and [we are] confident that he is going to comport himself well and answer all the questions and concerns that members of the United States Senate may have in the process of confirmation."

 

[MobBoss]

Really...
"A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error."

Waiting a week or two before doing such a survey would give a better reflection for when, you know, more facts surface about this?

The NSA wiretap issue has been around a lot longer than a week or two. Your denial of the polls accuracy is simply another instance of "a poll isnt correct unless its bad news for the administration".

 

[MobBoss]

Wow, that was quick. :utterlypwned:

Erhm...you quote yourself and then say "utterlypwned"?

As for your news story...the term "disgruntled ex-employee" comes to mind.

Lets just see how the confirmation hearings go shall we?

Any of you other liberals want to deny the poll numbers in favor of the NSA stuff? Or are you too busy slobbering over Bushs 29% approval rate polls to bother?

 

[blackheart]

The NSA wiretap issue has been around a lot longer than a week or two. Your denial of the polls accuracy is simply another instance of "a poll isnt correct unless its bad news for the administration".

I'm not denying the poll doesn't reflect that 63% of those polled chose that option. I'm saying that the news is fresh and all the facts aren't known, so another poll in a week or two will be more accurate.

You mean to tell me USA Today wrote about this issue not on Thursday, but really a few months back?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

As for your news story...the term "disgruntled ex-employee" comes to mind.

Wow, I'm going to take back my previous comment. You really are making a fool of yourself.

What will you say when the story turns out to be true? That you supported it all along?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not denying the poll doesn't reflect that 63% of those polled chose that option. I'm saying that the news is fresh and all the facts aren't known, so another poll in a week or two will be more accurate.

Uh...how? The wiretap issue has been around for months.......this poll is only a few days old...how can it not be accurate "now"?

You mean to tell me USA Today wrote about this issue not on Thursday, but really a few months back?

Methinks you are confusing the wiretap issue with the recent data mining issue. People are on record (i.e. polls) that a majority indeed support such investigations as part of fighting terrorism. Indeed, the recent data mining of phone numbers is even less of a privacy issue than listening in on trans-national phone calls.....so I dont forsee much change in the numbers of support for it.

 

[MobBoss]

Wow, I'm going to take back my previous comment. You really are making a fool of yourself.

What will you say when the story turns out to be true? That you supported it all along?

Why do you automatically assume the story is true? I said lets wait and see what happens? You dont like that? Meh.

The guy was fired A YEAR AGO. And yet he chooses NOW to surface with his allegations. Please. Next thing you know we will hear he has a book coming out....

What will YOU say if the story turns out to be false? Knowing you, I bet you would just say "its a coverup" and remain in denial regardless.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Wow, you didn't even read the article.

He's been trying to talk to Congress in a secure (i.e. only security clearances present) situation ever since he was fired. If he was in it for the publicity, he would have just leaked everything to the press (coughrovecough).

Congress chose to hear him now, obviously, because his testimony is relevant after it's been repeatedly revealed how badly Bush is raping the Constitution.

 

[MobBoss]

Wow, you didn't even read the article.

He's been trying to talk to Congress in a secure (i.e. only security clearances present) situation ever since he was fired. If he was in it for the publicity, he would have just leaked everything to the press (coughrovecough).

Actually I did read the article. It says that "wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December " but it also mentions that he was fired a year ago in May.

So, what exactly was the guy doing from May 05 to Dec 05?

Me? I smell book deal.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

So, it's not true right? If it were true, would you be against it?

I just want you on the record, that's all

 

[MobBoss]

So, it's not true right? If it were true, would you be against it?

I just want you on the record, that's all

For the record: I dont know if its true or not. And since the man isnt going into any detail regarding his testimony, you also have no idea if its right or wrong.

Historically, such testimony from fired employees should always be seen as circumspect, unless some measure of additional physical/material evidence can be produced. Especially since there was a gap of time where this person did not take any action what-so-ever. The news story seemed to only verify that his testimony would be a basic "he said, she said" type of thing with no additional evidence to be proffered.

As I said, lets wait and see.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Exactly as I said in the last post: you're not taking a stand because you don't know whether you'll have to retroactively defend Bush or not.

It would be hilarious if it weren't pathetic.

Yes or no, if what the guy alleges so far as you can tell from the article is true, would you be for it or against it?

If you skirt the question again, I think I'll have to take that to mean "Yes, as long as Bush does it."

 

[MobBoss]

Exactly as I said in the last post: you're not taking a stand because you don't know whether you'll have to retroactively defend Bush or not.

Unlike you, I try to keep an open mind about an issue until all the facts are in.

It would be hilarious if it weren't pathetic.

Whats pathetic is your hated of the Bush and the administration has robbed you of any reason and logical thought. You automatically assume guilt irregardless of evidence or absence thereof. Innocent until proven guilty correct? Yet, you are unable to practice what you preach. Now, that is pathetic.

Yes or no, if what the guy alleges so far as you can tell from the article is true, would you be for it or against it?

Without knowing specifics, how do you know its legal or not? For all we know the guy could be referring to GoogleEarth. Once more, until I know more detail, I will reserve judgement pro or con.

If you skirt the question again, I think I'll have to take that to mean "Yes, as long as Bush does it."

Sorry if I wont join the ranks of fanatics of either side. Once again, I am not just another Bush "yes man". You are free to assume what you wish.....and how you do so is indeed......pathetic.