Democratic Congress To Continue Wiretaps

[joblo7]

I love it! The same losers who gripe about the government listening in on suspect overseas communications are the very same idiots who scream the loudest on Monday morning that the government "failed to connect the dots!" ala 9/11. They also happen to be the same screwballs who support government/single payer health care and have no problem whatsoever with some future agent of the government sticking his gloved hand up their ass and recording his findings in a government database. Fucking idiots, all. The ultimate hypocrites.

 

YOU ARE CONNECTING TOO MANY DOTS!!!!

[JayB]

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

I'm always humored by these "by the numbers" people who don't have any flexibility in their thinking. We are under threat, and they seem intent on making this a discussion about our "civil liberties". I can't think of a single freedom of mine that has been taken away. Last time I checked, I could still do everything I was able to do before. It's not like they are putting a video camera in my home; it's just a microphone really, when you think about it. Plus, think about all the other criminal activity that they'll be able to put an end to.

 

And we certainly don't need a judge to see the "evidence", before allowing the eaves-dropping. How can a judge possibly check the evidence on millions of phone calls? He can't! Plus, what if he is one of these "civil liberties" types that wants a lot of evidence? You know you have a good lead, a feeling, you know? He's not going to listen to your feelings. He's going to want facts, and we don't have time for that. FISA put way too many burdens on intelligence collection, binding it to constitutional priciples and protections (as if we could have both; another example of the lefty idealism).

 

Isn't the actual legislation here a rather minor modification of FISA rules that pertain to the monitoring of either overseas communications and/or communications which originate with terror suspects overseas and terminate with US citizens?

 

Add me to the list of people who find it odd that the same folks who deign themselves latter-day Paul Reveres ("The Neocons are Coming! The Neocons are coming!") with respect to civil liberties and overarching government power, seem blithely indifferent to the potential implications of transferring control over much more sensitive, personal, and vital information about themselves - and the power to determine what actions to take in response to this information - to the same government that they have been sounding the metaphorical alarm bells about for the past eight years.

 

"I can't bear the thought of the government listening in on phone calls from terrorists that they place to associates in the US under modified FISA provisions, but I'm more than happy to hand the government all of my health care data, and put them in charge of approving or rejecting any treatment that I might need, and when and where I get it."

 

 

 

 

[kevbone]

Do you approve of it?

 

I approve of it

 

Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family?

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

 

you'll have the oportunity to give up more. were fucked either way, enjoy your family and freedom while it last.

 

come on, dude, we'll form militias and shit, with shotguns.

 

 

What good will your shotgun do against an AK 47? Or an M 16?

[kevbone]

I can’t believe there is even a remote chance ANYONE on this site even comes close to supporting wiretapping with no court order? Unbelievable…….ever heard of the 4th amendment? If any of you out there think “go ahead and listen, im not doing anything illegal”……this administration has you snowed. Please get your head out of the sand and pay attention to what is going on.

 

What is the difference with them listening in on your phone, and or email conversations or placing a FBI agent on your couch? Nothing…….

 

[MATT_B]

Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist but I have faith that the system will be and/or is being abused. There are already plenty of things being done it the name of the "war on terrorism" that have very little or nothing to do with it. Is it too much of a leap that if there is no review, oversight, checks or balances or control over the system that it's use will creep into other areas? In a system such as this that requires a very high degree of secrecy, must have some kind of mechanism behind it to keep things in check. Those mechanism's are quickly eroding.

[JayB]

How about some specifics:

 

-What mechanisms for review and oversight, and what checks and balances were in place in the FISA regulations that pertained to monitoring communications that either took place exclusively, or originated, overseas?

 

-What specific provisions of the new legislation undermine or negate them, and in what fashion?

 

-What specific consequences does this have for any law enforcement or surveillance activity the falls outside the purview of FISA?

 

 

[mattp]

Good questions there, JayB, and certainly this information would be informative here. However, what specific or general reason would ANYBODY believe that the Bushies can be trusted to put our national interest ahead of their own political or monetary agenda? For what specific or general reason would Congress suddenly do its' job in taking responsbility for overseeing what this Administration does by enacting appropriate legislation?

 

The general distrust expressed here is pretty well founded in light of recent history, wouldn't you say? Or do you subscribe to the theory that this benevolent administration has our best interest at heart and is fully loyal?

[underworld]

i still haven't heard people say why they trust the government enough to be in charge of healthcare?

 

if they are evil enough to listen in and lock us up for no reason...aren't they evil enough to give us an exam and...lock us up for no reason? WTF?

 

 

[No. 13 Baby]

I think you're confusing political bureaucrats and healthcare professionals.

[JayB]

If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of the new FISA legislation has been constructed in consultation with, or co-sponsored by Democrats, so the matter of whether or not one thinks highly of or trusts the Bush administration seems less relevant than the actual content of the legislation and its legal/institutional ramifications. These, rather than a ghoualsh of partisan emoto-subjectivities, should constitute the substance of the discussion.

 

One can judge whether or not Congress, in this particular case, is doing its job by evaluating the content of the legislation they pass. Again this, rather than whether on trusts Congress - whether that means the institution in general or the particular batch of legislators that inhabit the capitol at this point in time - should be the basis of the discussion.

 

Ditto for the "general distrust" and whether or not "the theory that this benevolent administration has our best interest at heart and is fully loyal."

 

Focus on the specific shortcomings of the particular piece of legislation and you have the basis of a rational discussion. Focus on emotional, highly-partisan nebulosities and you have the basis for an infinity of unconstructive paranoia.

[JayB]

I think you're confusing political bureaucrats and healthcare professionals.

 

In the case of nationalized health care, aren't the political bureaucrats in charge of the health care professionals?

[mattp]

Focus on the specific shortcomings of the particular piece of legislation and you have the basis of a rational discussion. Focus on emotional, highly-partisan nebulosities and you have the basis for an infinity of unconstructive paranoia.

 

I agree with that, Jay, but over and over again you have refused to discuss specific shortcomings of a particular policy or proposed piece of litigation without resort to broad brushed attacks against naive liberals who wear birkenstocks.

 

As I said: specific information would be useful here, but do you really think we should assume or even that we really have reason to hope that this Administration is acting in our national interest in how they conduct this "war on terror?" And Congress, too. The fact that something may have bipartisan support does not at all suggest that - in the case of overseeing intelligence gathering for example - a proposal is in anybody's interest except a bunch of Senators who want to tell the electorate that they are tough on terrorism. Airport security ring a bell?

[mattp]

As to healthcare, I'd much rather have "political bureaucrats" in charge of running a coordinated system of universal medical coverage than insurance company executives whose job is to derive maximum income (premiumns) while minimizing outlay (services).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As to healthcare, I'd much rather have "political bureaucrats" in charge of running a coordinated system of universal medical coverage than insurance company executives whose job is to derive maximum income (premiumns) while minimizing outlay (services).

 

Political bureaucrats at the top will be motivated not by providing the best, most-efficient service, but paying off their constituencies and lobbyists with goodies at the expense of good care. The low-level bureaucrat in this system will be like, well, a DMV employee: a 9-5 guy or gal with low education who doesn't care a wit about quality of service, and will represent the lowest common denominator of quality of customer service.

 

And costs will come into play big time.

[tvashtarkatena]

Do you approve of it?

 

I approve of it

 

Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family?

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

Spoken like a true worm.

 

This issues for the 'innocent of any wrongdoing' are as follows:

 

What happens if the government mistakenly catches you in their net (happens all the time... ask Khaled Al Masri)?

 

What happens when the government targets deliberately for political retribution because of your legitimate, legal beliefs and actions (happens all the time; consider the monitoring of legal anti war groups during Vietnam and today).

 

What happens when government officials, who have mistakenly caught you in their net, then lie to keep you there to cover their asses and improve their performance evaluations (happens ALL THE TIME)?

 

Now, I don't expect a worm such as yourself, lying safe and sound in your suburban bed, thinking about whether or not you should switch to a greener lawnfood, to think about these contingencies. If you want a police state, OK. It probably won't affect the quality of your local schools much. I don't consider that a very admirable stewardship of the American values of freedom we were born into, however.

[JayB]

As to healthcare, I'd much rather have "political bureaucrats" in charge of running a coordinated system of universal medical coverage than insurance company executives whose job is to derive maximum income (premiumns) while minimizing outlay (services).

 

You seem to be assuming that the bureaucrats will be operating under a different set of imperatives. The motive may be different, but what makes you think that the constraints imposed by the realities of the budget would liberate the bureaucrats from the necessity of rationing care?

[archenemy]

I love it! The same losers who gripe about the government listening in on suspect overseas communications are the very same idiots who scream the loudest on Monday morning that the government "failed to connect the dots!" ala 9/11. They also happen to be the same screwballs who support government/single payer health care and have no problem whatsoever with some future agent of the government sticking his gloved hand up their ass and recording his findings in a government database. Fucking idiots, all. The ultimate hypocrites.

 

the problem starts when there is no oversight. no judge, no warrant.

no glove

[JayB]

Focus on the specific shortcomings of the particular piece of legislation and you have the basis of a rational discussion. Focus on emotional, highly-partisan nebulosities and you have the basis for an infinity of unconstructive paranoia.

 

I agree with that, Jay, but over and over again you have refused to discuss specific shortcomings of a particular policy or proposed piece of litigation without resort to broad brushed attacks against naive liberals who wear birkenstocks.

 

As I said: specific information would be useful here, but do you really think we should assume or even that we really have reason to hope that this Administration is acting in our national interest in how they conduct this "war on terror?" And Congress, too. The fact that something may have bipartisan support does not at all suggest that - in the case of overseeing intelligence gathering for example - a proposal is in anybody's interest except a bunch of Senators who want to tell the electorate that they are tough on terrorism. Airport security ring a bell?

 

That's a strange charge to make, considering that the last time this came up I was one of the few participants to actually cite specific aspects of the legislation under consideration, who was sponsoring it, and what their implications would be.

 

As for the trust question - I answered it above, but will repeat it here. Whether you think that Bush is the Devil incarnate or the political equivalent of the messiah is irrelevant here. Ditto for Congress. Hell, the framers of the constitution were operating under the explicit assumption that people are imperfect and corrupt and that those who have power will seek to abuse it and designed the entire structure of government on that basis - but in the end it was the content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than their personal trustworthiness or the personal feelings of the long-dead citizens of that era towards them that persisted and defined the nature of the government from the point of ratification onwards.

 

To probe this question further, though, are you implying that if we feel as though the president, Congress, etc *do* have our best interests at heart that we could assume that the legislation that they pass will by definition be acting in our interest, or the national interest, and that no evaluation of the legislation on the basis of its actual content or merits is necessary?

 

This all seems like a rather silly diversion.

[ericb]

Do you approve of it?

 

I approve of it

 

Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family?

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

Spoken like a true worm.

 

This issues for the 'innocent of any wrongdoing' are as follows:

 

What happens if the government mistakenly catches you in their net (happens all the time... ask Khaled Al Masri)?

 

What happens when the government targets deliberately for political retribution because of your legitimate, legal beliefs and actions (happens all the time; consider the monitoring of legal anti war groups during Vietnam and today).

 

What happens when government officials, who have mistakenly caught you in their net, then lie to keep you there to cover their asses and improve their performance evaluations (happens ALL THE TIME)?

 

Now, I don't expect a worm such as yourself, lying safe and sound in your suburban bed, thinking about whether or not you should switch to a greener lawnfood, to think about these contingencies. If you want a police state, OK. It probably won't affect the quality of your local schools much. I don't consider that a very admirable stewardship of the American values of freedom we were born into, however.

 

If and when your doomsday scenario comes to pass for me personally, I'll recant to the readers here hat in hand. Until then, I will continue to be preoccupied with my lawn, and watch DVDs from the 3-row of my suburban.

[tvashtarkatena]

Do you approve of it?

 

I approve of it

 

Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family?

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

Spoken like a true worm.

 

This issues for the 'innocent of any wrongdoing' are as follows:

 

What happens if the government mistakenly catches you in their net (happens all the time... ask Khaled Al Masri)?

 

What happens when the government targets deliberately for political retribution because of your legitimate, legal beliefs and actions (happens all the time; consider the monitoring of legal anti war groups during Vietnam and today).

 

What happens when government officials, who have mistakenly caught you in their net, then lie to keep you there to cover their asses and improve their performance evaluations (happens ALL THE TIME)?

 

Now, I don't expect a worm such as yourself, lying safe and sound in your suburban bed, thinking about whether or not you should switch to a greener lawnfood, to think about these contingencies. If you want a police state, OK. It probably won't affect the quality of your local schools much. I don't consider that a very admirable stewardship of the American values of freedom we were born into, however.

 

If and when your doomsday scenario comes to pass for me personally, I'll recant to the readers here hat in hand. Until then, I will continue to be preoccupied with my lawn, and watch DVDs from the 3-row of my suburban.

 

Some of us care that my doomsday scenario has already happened for others.

[sexual_chocolate]

Isn't the actual legislation here a rather minor modification of FISA rules that pertain to the monitoring of either overseas communications and/or communications which originate with terror suspects overseas and terminate with US citizens?

 

 

No, it's actually a major modification. Prior to the current legislated changes, there was judiciary oversight, complete with probable cause requirements etc.; now, citing executive privelege, the current administration claims the right to surveil those it deems as risks (tell me how they might establish this?), without the need to report ANY case specifics to any oversight entity, EVER. Only a quarterly report outlining "procedures" is required.

 

(And to compare the un-monitered illegal unconstitutional collection of information on americans to the monitered collection of medical information within a format yet to be decided on seems, on the surface, to be nothing but a play on a rather naive and blithely dismissive reading of "left" and "right" political stereotyping).

 

 

[Fairweather]

Spoken like a true worm.

 

 

Speaking of worms, Tvrash, might I suggest a dose of Albendazole for that "gut" issue you seem unable to beat?

[ericb]

Do you approve of it?

 

I approve of it

 

Will you approve of it when is happens to you and your family?

 

If they want to listen to my conversations, they are welcome. Who gives a shit? To them, I'm some nameless faceless John Doe who's talkin dirty to his wife. So I'm (in the nameless/faceless i.e. "some dude from seattle" sense) the topic of some lunchroom conversation in a basement pentagon lunchroom - I could give a rat's ass. It's a "civil liberty" I'd happily give up for the greater good and for the safety of my family.

 

Spoken like a true worm.

 

This issues for the 'innocent of any wrongdoing' are as follows:

 

What happens if the government mistakenly catches you in their net (happens all the time... ask Khaled Al Masri)?

 

What happens when the government targets deliberately for political retribution because of your legitimate, legal beliefs and actions (happens all the time; consider the monitoring of legal anti war groups during Vietnam and today).

 

What happens when government officials, who have mistakenly caught you in their net, then lie to keep you there to cover their asses and improve their performance evaluations (happens ALL THE TIME)?

 

Now, I don't expect a worm such as yourself, lying safe and sound in your suburban bed, thinking about whether or not you should switch to a greener lawnfood, to think about these contingencies. If you want a police state, OK. It probably won't affect the quality of your local schools much. I don't consider that a very admirable stewardship of the American values of freedom we were born into, however.

 

If and when your doomsday scenario comes to pass for me personally, I'll recant to the readers here hat in hand. Until then, I will continue to be preoccupied with my lawn, and watch DVDs from the 3-row of my suburban.

 

Some of us care that my doomsday scenario has already happened for others.

 

Fair enough - and the fact that I choose to not be preoccupied/obsessed with this particular issue isn't because I'm a conservative yuppie - but feel free to continue with your stereotypes if it makes life more entertaining for you. From my personal standpoint I have a limited amount of emotional/intellectual bandwidth that I can spend as I like. If I wanted to get really wound up about big-brother, that would certainly consume a good bit of it. I personally don't believe that the potential civil rights abuses enabled by the program being discussed collectively rank that high in the grand scale of international human suffering. For example, my wife recently spent 2-weeks in Zambia working with AIDS orphans, and we are trying to figure out how we can do more to help from both a financial and advocacy standpoint now that a baby will keep us stateside for the immediate future.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Spoken like a true worm.

 

 

Speaking of worms, Tvrash, might I suggest a dose of Albendazole for that "gut" issue you seem unable to beat?

 

I've taken it already. It worked beautifully to get rid of the 'little friend' that hitched a ride back home with me after my last Himalayan climbing trip.

[tvashtarkatena]

Some of us care that my doomsday scenario has already happened for others.

 

Fair enough - and the fact that I choose to not be preoccupied/obsessed with this particular issue isn't because I'm a conservative yuppie - but feel free to continue with your stereotypes if it makes life more entertaining for you. From my personal standpoint I have a limited amount of emotional/intellectual bandwidth that I can spend as I like. If I wanted to get really wound up about big-brother, that would certainly consume a good bit of it. I personally don't believe that the potential civil rights abuses enabled by the program being discussed collectively rank that high in the grand scale of international human suffering. For example, my wife recently spent 2-weeks in Zambia working with AIDS orphans, and we are trying to figure out how we can do more to help from both a financial and advocacy standpoint now that a baby will keep us stateside for the immediate future.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't take much bandwidth to stop rooting for the wrong side.

Edited October 10, 2007 by tvashtarkatena