Bush: U.S. doesn't eavesdrop on phone calls of ordinary Americans

[Addendum]

The DMVs job is taking a simple thing (renewing your driver's license) that can be done in 15-20 minutes, and stretch it out to a 4-5 hour daykiller.

And in regard to the budget, well, no matter what it's going to be, it will always be unbalanced.

So, in the end, the government will always be innovative at wasting money.

 

[Darthphere]

The DMVs job is taking a simple thing (renewing your driver's license) that can be done in 15-20 minutes, and stretch it out to a 4-5 hour daykiller.

And in regard to the budget, well, no matter what it's going to be, it will always be unbalanced.

So, in the end, the government will always be innovative at wasting money.

I hate the DMV.

 

[PLAS]

I hate the DMV.

Ive been to hell. I spell it...i spell it dmv
Anyone thats been there knows precisely what I mean
Stood there and Ive waited and choked back the urge to scream
And if I had my druthers Id screw a chimpanzee-call it pointless

When I need relief I spell it thc
Perhpas you may know vaguely what I mean
I sit back and smoke away huge chunks of memory
As I slowly inflict upon myself a full lobotomy-call it pointless

Barbecues, tea kettles, gobs of axle grease
There comes a time for every man to sail the seas of cheese
Now, lifes a bowl of bagel dogs, but there are unpleasantries
Cold toilet seats, dentist chairs and trips to dmv-call it pointless

Ive been to hell. I spell it...i spell it dmv
Anyone thats been there knows precisely what I mean
Ive stood in line and waited near an hour and fifteen
And if I had my druthers Id screw that chimpanzee-call it pointless

 

[raybia]

Reader: Nothing makes me think every terrorist is going to be Arab.

What i DO know is that we are in a war against islamic extremists who want to see the fall of America and our way of life.

Is that bad?

You're very naive if you think that the only extremists who want to see America fall is Islamic ones.

 

[Admiral_N8]

I prefer uniqueness and competition, instead of conformity.

If I travel to Japan, I'd rather try one of their sodas instead of getting a can of Coca-Cola from Japan

But you think its wrong for them to be able to enjoy a coke like you and I can?? Why should you be able to take something away they obviously want?

 

[Admiral_N8]

Buit isnt this the pint at the heart of the whole matter: How does one decide if someone is a suspected terrorist, how do you know thats the only people being monitored on a regular basis, and who decides these things?

If i remember, Its always been legal to wire tap citizens with a special court order. But Mr Dubya signed a presidential order allowing the security services to effectively spy on US citizens without the court order. and, IMO, thats where the problem lies. If they had to go and present evidence to a court as to why they suspect person X, and its a compelling case, IMO there is no problem with continuing that surveillance. But the important thing is,without that nbeed for a court order, How do you know they are only looking at suspected terrorists? cos they say so??
well, they are hardly likely to say "we are only tapping suspected terrorists. and black people. and the ACLU. and registered democrats", are they, even if that is exactly what they are doing.

How do we know that with a court order they are terrorists? We will never know, no matter if they get a warrant or not. Courts are shown things to say "oh, okay they might be bad" and they are tapped.

Its not like the NSA taps people they dont think have anything to do with terrorism....because they have limited resources and that would take away from doing their job.

 

[Admiral_N8]

You're very naive if you think that the only extremists who want to see America fall is Islamic ones.

Youre very naive to think we arent at war against Islamic extremists.

 

[Darthphere]

How do we know that with a court order they are terrorists? We will never know, no matter if they get a warrant or not. Courts are shown things to say "oh, okay they might be bad" and they are tapped.

Its not like the NSA taps people they dont think have anything to do with terrorism....because they have limited resources and that would take away from doing their job.

If they are suspected in the first place, they should have to show evidence that points to their suspicion. Its not a lot to ask for.

 

[Admiral_N8]

If they are suspected in the first place, they should have to show evidence that points to their suspicion. Its not a lot to ask for.

Even when its the case that courts say "no" and are wrong?

 

[Darthphere]

Even when its the case that courts say "no" and are wrong?

The system isnt perfect and it will never be. But its a check and balance set in place. Just because the court MAY be wrong isnt a good enough reason. What if the court said yes and Bush was wrong? At least he had the backing of the court and legitimacy.

 

[Admiral_N8]

The system isnt perfect and it will never be. But its a check and balance set in place. Just because the court MAY be wrong isnt a good enough reason. What if the court said yes and Bush was wrong? At least he had the backing of the court and legitimacy.

IF Bush was wrong who cares? So some guys phone was listened to who we thought was a terrorist. Nothing bad happens to anyone, he doesnt even know it happened. But something TERRIBLE will happen if we dont tap his phone and he was a terrorist.

 

[Darthphere]

IF Bush was wrong who cares? So some guys phone was listened to who we thought was a terrorist. Nothing bad happens to anyone, he doesnt even know it happened. But something TERRIBLE will happen if we dont tap his phone and he was a terrorist.

Then show the evidence why you think hes a terrorist. Is that so hard. If hes so sure about it, he must have some idea that he might be a terrorist. Some documented evidence that leads him to believe this. Tap the guys phone then head to the FISA court for approval. Its not that hard. It can be done over the phone.

And people have found out in the past that there phones were tapped. Its not like its 100% fool proof.

 

[rdh007]

IF Bush was wrong who cares? So some guys phone was listened to who we thought was a terrorist. Nothing bad happens to anyone, he doesnt even know it happened. But something TERRIBLE will happen if we dont tap his phone and he was a terrorist.

It amazes me that liberals and the ACLU and their like get called wimps with thinking like this. As Chris Rock so brilliantly pointed out, "I'm not afraid of Al-Qaeda, I'm from Brooklyn."

 

[Admiral_N8]

Then show the evidence why you think hes a terrorist. Is that so hard. If hes so sure about it, he must have some idea that he might be a terrorist. Some documented evidence that leads him to believe this. Tap the guys phone then head to the FISA court for approval. Its not that hard. It can be done over the phone.

And people have found out in the past that there phones were tapped. Its not like its 100% fool proof.

But sometimes even though you know he is a terrorist you dont have enough proof that is admissable in court, enough to convince a judge. Plus, what if that judge is just in a bad mood, or a very far left judge?? You let one guy get in the way of stopping terrorists.

 

[Darthphere]

But sometimes even though you know he is a terrorist you dont have enough proof that is admissable in court, enough to convince a judge. Plus, what if that judge is just in a bad mood, or a very far left judge?? You let one guy get in the way of stopping terrorists.

Lots of what ifs. But answer this. If you know hes a terrorist, how do you know hes a terrorist?

 

[Admiral_N8]

Lots of what ifs. But answer this. If you know hes a terrorist, how do you know hes a terrorist?

Because agents have seen him, but not recorded, him meeting with other known terrorists....or you've seen him making bombs, or an agent has seen bomb making equipment with a big map of a subway system...etc.

 

[Darthphere]

Because agents have seen him, but not recorded, him meeting with other known terrorists....or you've seen him making bombs, or an agent has seen bomb making equipment with a big map of a subway system...etc.

Those agents would write up a report. That is evidence.

 

[Admiral_N8]

Those agents would write up a report. That is evidence.

And much of the time is not admitted and no warrant issued.

Happens with regular police officers all the time too.

 

[Darthphere]

And much of the time is not admitted and no warrant issued.

Happens with regular police officers all the time too.

Well theres probable cause for a reason. But in the example you presented no judge in is right mind would deny a warrant.

 

[Admiral_N8]

But in the example you presented no judge in is right mind would deny a warrant.

Thats whatd you'd think.

But so often in police cases there is overwhelming evidence and a judge WONT issue a warrant and someone gets hurt because of it. and thats wrong

 

[Darthphere]

Thats whatd you'd think.

But so often in police cases there is overwhelming evidence and a judge WONT issue a warrant and someone gets hurt because of it. and thats wrong

From what ive heard (since its so secretive) the FISA court is pretty lenient when it comes to issuing warrants.

 

[Admiral_N8]

From what ive heard (since its so secretive) the FISA court is pretty lenient when it comes to issuing warrants.

"The Court outlined seven constitutional requirements:
(1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed;
(2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted;
(3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time);
(4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date;
(5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized;
(6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and
(7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations. "


and the FISA doesnt regulate/monitor stuff outside America

 

[Darthphere]

"The Court outlined seven constitutional requirements:
(1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed;
(2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted;
(3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time);
(4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date;
(5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized;
(6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and
(7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations. "


and the FISA doesnt regulate/monitor stuff outside America

Like I said, lenient. There really isnt anything there thats out of the ordinary or extreme. If youre goint to tap someone these are things you should have.

 

[Admiral_N8]

Like I said, lenient. There really isnt anything there thats out of the ordinary or extreme. If youre goint to tap someone these are things you should have.

But most of the time you cant satisfy all these requirements, ALL of them, and you cant get it all in writing in time to tap them...because as I am sure you know they move around very quickly. Every time they do, you need a new warrant...and it starts all over again.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein, the EFF's key witness in the case agianst AT&T sings like a canary. Total recall chapter and verse with links to internal company document exerpts and a link to Internet monitoring.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html?tw=wn_index_2


Why Wired published the AT&T documents

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70947-0.html?tw=wn_index_3