Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 130
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I think that the freedom to respond immediately to intel with limited time frame to it's importance. But then follow up with a warrant within 24 or 48 hours with an application for a warrant.

    For example if they had intel that an AQ had a conference call in 6 minutes, there is no time to get a warrant first. They should be able to wiretap that communication. Then file for warrant for accountability and tracking.

    The challenge is how do you product a diverse nationality population of hundreds of millions with possibly thousands of terrorists making plans in their mists without some form of surveillance?
    I guess what burns me, is that those who put these things in place, somehow make the exception list. I agree with you on most of what you posted. Wiretapping has been severly abused in the past. Laws were passed to fix those types of things. Unfortunately, the claim of wartime, and the Patriot Act have undone such a thing. And I don't see anything temporary about fighting terrorism. So we may be stuck with much of this behavior for a while. It's a tough example when the president says he doesn't email because he doesn't want anyone knowing his private business. Of course he wouldn't mind someone checking his stuff for security sake. However, I'd think he'd want to know why or if there was cause.
  2. #82  
    I wonder which is more dangerous... Al-Q talking to a member of their cell in the US about general attacks on the US... or individual members of a US Al-Q cell calling each other and planning the specifics of an actual attack.

    Strike that, I do not have to wonder which is more dangerous.

    I like the idea that they can tap first, get court orders later when they actually use the info for prosecution. Meanwhile, they can stop the attack.

    Yes, it is scary for the gov't to know so much... and it may be a problem to know who is policing the police. Don't cops have evidence thrown out if they don't go thru proper proceedures? But they don't go to jail, do they? The info can save lives, even if the court throws it out.

    I know the warnings about giving up freedom for safety... but a corolary nowadays could be that those who are not willing to give up "reasonable" freedom for security purposes will be killed, maimed, and destoyed when the Big One goes off, and lose both their freedom to live, and their security. I don't have to like it, but to survive... it may at times be neccesary.

    Again, if Al-q operatives are plotting to destroy your city: including your mom, wife, loved ones and you, yourself, and talking to each other entirely in the states to carry out their plot, what do you do? Do you personally let them kill millions to preserve the ideal. Or is the ideal worthless with nobody left to live it out?


    I would like to type about this some more, but I have to go take a "leak"...
    (Why is that Man in Black-type NSA guy following me into the men's room? Is he gonna peer over the stall?)
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    I like the idea that they can tap first, get court orders later when they actually use the info for prosecution. Meanwhile, they can stop the attack.
    Name a terrorist act that was stopped due to phone logging or tapping of a U.S. citizen to another U.S. citizen when neither was a suspected terrorist?

    I like your statement, I would just add to it that a court order must be gathered recardless of use for prosecution. Otherwise it's just fishing. Actually it would be considered snagging. If the government isn't held to showing justification, soon the reasons will be self serving.
  4.    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Name a terrorist act that was stopped due to phone logging or tapping of a U.S. citizen to another U.S. citizen when neither was a suspected terrorist?

    I like your statement, I would just add to it that a court order must be gathered recardless of use for prosecution. Otherwise it's just fishing. Actually it would be considered snagging. If the government isn't held to showing justification, soon the reasons will be self serving.

    Ditto that.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    I would like to type about this some more, but I have to go take a "leak"...
    (Why is that Man in Black-type NSA guy following me into the men's room? Is he gonna peer over the stall?)
    probably it's an AT&T worker looking to reach out and tap into your "stream"
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Name a terrorist act that was stopped due to phone logging or tapping of a U.S. citizen to another U.S. citizen when neither was a suspected terrorist?
    that's the beauty of how our government agencies work - you don't have to give specifics - all you have to say is that you stopped hundreds or thousands of potential terrorist attacks but decline to disclose details because they're "classified" and could tip off future terrorists. So convenient .....
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #87  
    Have they backed off of that whole, "All of our actions are working because we haven't been attacked since 911!" story? That had to be the dumbest argument I'd ever heard. Next, Bush will say, "May lightning strike me down if I'm lying!"

    Of course if any of use say that we can't disclose info for security reasons, we'll be vacationing in Guitmo!
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    I like the idea that they can tap first, get court orders later when they actually use the info for prosecution. Meanwhile, they can stop the attack.
    actually the FISA system was set up for precisly that - the NSA can tap first - and get court approvals later with proper justification (regardless of whether they use the info for prosection). However it seems that Gov't does not want to bother with complying with even this provision though it does not inhibit the agencies from acting in a timely fashion. One has to wonder why......

    Yes, it is scary for the gov't to know so much... and it may be a problem to know who is policing the police. Don't cops have evidence thrown out if they don't go thru proper proceedures? But they don't go to jail, do they? The info can save lives, even if the court throws it out.
    except when there is collusion between the agencies and the gov't for political gain - e.g. Watergate. Or the use of this information to intimidate and silence ordinary citizens voices - e.g. J Edgar Hoover tactics. Unfortunately our history (as with any country) is replete with examples of such abuses of power - and this kind of information control without accountability and oversight will invariably lead to such abuses.

    I know the warnings about giving up freedom for safety... but a corolary nowadays could be that those who are not willing to give up "reasonable" freedom for security purposes will be killed, maimed, and destoyed when the Big One goes off, and lose both their freedom to live, and their security. I don't have to like it, but to survive... it may at times be neccesary.
    taken to the extreme such arguments have been used before by totalitarian regimes to justify their existence (e.g. apartheid in South Africa, the Soviet regime and so on..). Before you dismiss this idea - consider this - if say, we had a wave of major attacks on our cities - then wouldn't most citizens then be frightened enough to give up more of "reasonable" freedoms in order to survive? Perhaps endure living in a state of emergency where the constitutional rights are suspended? Wouldn't it be convenient for the gov't to perpetuate this state of fear as long as possible because they will be able to do their "job" without interference? And once the gov't gets used to their new-found freedom to operate this way - why would they ever want to give that up?

    Even if the above scenario seems far-fetched my main worry is not so much about giving up "reasonable" freedom - but I'm more worried about the incompetence of our gov't and agencies and their total lack of accountability. We have seen some of the most incompetent planning and execution in this war on terror - ranging from our blunders in our intelligence agencies, to our disatrous war in Iraq, to our inability to deal with natural disasters such as Katrina. Why on earth would I now want to give those same agencies and the gov't more power and responsibility?
    Last edited by chillig35; 05/22/2006 at 03:00 PM.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Name a terrorist act that was stopped due to phone logging or tapping of a U.S. citizen to another U.S. citizen when neither was a suspected terrorist?
    I don't understand. Why do you believe they care about phone calls between two people who are not suspected terrorists?

    I like your statement, I would just add to it that a court order must be gathered recardless of use for prosecution. Otherwise it's just fishing. Actually it would be considered snagging. If the government isn't held to showing justification, soon the reasons will be self serving.
    The reason Zacarias Moussaoui, "the 20th hijacker," was not arrested and interrogated before 9/11 was that an FBI agent was not permitted to search his computer. Why not? Because the FBI didn't think a warrant would be approved, they didn't even try.
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...249500,00.html

    This isn't a matter of phone records, but I think it illustrates well how the warrant process has the potential to lead to bad results.

    There was another case documented by the 9/11 Commission where the "wall" between the FBI and CIA prevented the plot from being discovered. That wall was also designed to protect our freedoms.

    The point isn't that we should do away with proper procedures. It's that there's a real risk when you tie the hands of law enforcement and intelligence gathering. Some people seem to think that risk is zero.

    It's too bad that many people fear and distrust our government more than they fear or distrust terrorists. I hope those people don't get to determine our security decisions.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Originally Posted by gaffa
    Name a terrorist act that was stopped due to phone logging or tapping of a U.S. citizen to another U.S. citizen when neither was a suspected terrorist?
    that's the beauty of how our government agencies work - you don't have to give specifics - all you have to say is that you stopped hundreds or thousands of potential terrorist attacks but decline to disclose details because they're "classified" and could tip off future terrorists. So convenient .....
    The "beauty" of Internet message boards is that you don't have to have actual knowledge of counter-terrorist programs to dispute their claims.

    And the problem of working in counter-terrorism is that when anyone makes outrageous claims against you without any supporting facts, whether on the Internet or elsewhere, you're restricted in what you can say to defend yourself.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The "beauty" of Internet message boards is that you don't have to have actual knowledge of counter-terrorist programs to dispute their claims.

    And the problem of working in counter-terrorism is that when anyone makes outrageous claims against you without any supporting facts, whether on the Internet or elsewhere, you're restricted in what you can say to defend yourself.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I don't understand. Why do you believe they care about phone calls between two people who are not suspected terrorists?
    The request of phone logs was not only for phone logs of suspected terrorists. It was for all of the data.

    The reason Zacarias Moussaoui, "the 20th hijacker," was not arrested and interrogated before 9/11 was that an FBI agent was not permitted to search his computer. Why not? Because the FBI didn't think a warrant would be approved, they didn't even try.
    I used this excuse with my parents when I did something wrong and without permission in my younger days. When my parents would ask, "Why didn't you just ask us?" my reply was, "Because I didn't think you'd give me permission." Wow, I can't believe the FBI stole my line!

    I'm not sure what the FBI was thinking. Did they not have enough evidence? Were they just going on a gut feeling? Getting a court order is about ensuring that you have reasonable cause for your actions to persue evidence. If you don't have that, get some. Yes I know that's easier said than done. But you know what? We never care when it's someone we don't know. The courts have proven to be very lenient when pursuing terrorist. I personally have not seen any evidence to think that this behavior wouldn't continue.

    The Pentagon acknowledges that nearly 30% of the people held at Guantanamo are innocent. But yet there are no plans to release them? There's not even a process for release. This is why we need court orders, and trials. No one has to answer to the innocent that are caught in the sweep to catch the guilty.


    There was another case documented by the 9/11 Commission where the "wall" between the FBI and CIA prevented the plot from being discovered. That wall was also designed to protect our freedoms.

    The point isn't that we should do away with proper procedures. It's that there's a real risk when you tie the hands of law enforcement and intelligence gathering. Some people seem to think that risk is zero.

    It's too bad that many people fear and distrust our government more than they fear or distrust terrorists. I hope those people don't get to determine our security decisions.
    I've not seen any facts that show that without these walls, 9/11 would have been prevented. Read the whole report. The breakdowns and problems were (are) far greater than the issue we're discussing. Yes, the CIA does not have carte blanche with FBI data. But there is no reason the two can't cooperate. Check the ego at the door. Just say, "Hey, we're following this bad guy, do you know of any suspicious activity he's been involved in?" If the answer is no, then tell them he may be involved in terrorism and that they should watch him. There is no legal wall to prevent that.

    No one trusts terrorist more. Find me one U.S. citizen who believes that?
    It's fatalist perspectives like that, which keep us from finding better solutions.

    As hypocritical as it sounds, this country was founded for freedom. (We'll leave slavery and the annihilation of native americans to another thread.) People simply don't want to see us on a slippery slope where every year we loose a little. It's funny, many conservatives support the NRA and don't want more gun laws. They don't want to give up that freedom. It's not that they really want assalt weapons, but they feel that each year, they'll be asked to give up more and more. I wonder if they're okay with sacrificing the Fourth Amendment while holding tight to the Second Amendment?

    There is a history here of rejecting communism, socialism, and facist. On paper, some of those approaches might make sense, but they involve limiting some of your freedoms for the greater good, and most don't seem to want that. I think that still holds true, even when facing terrorism.

    The bottom line is that how many calls are made from my number to a chicago number has nothing to do with terrorism, and shouldn't be in any government db for any reason.
    Last edited by gaffa; 05/23/2006 at 08:03 AM.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The "beauty" of Internet message boards is that you don't have to have actual knowledge of counter-terrorist programs to dispute their claims.

    And the problem of working in counter-terrorism is that when anyone makes outrageous claims against you without any supporting facts, whether on the Internet or elsewhere, you're restricted in what you can say to defend yourself.
    internet message boards are not accountable - a democratically elected government is.

    And my heart bleeds for those poor defenseless counter-terrorist agencies who have to operate with huge multi-billion dollar budgets (which are never disclosed to the public) to eavesdrop on anyone they like, or that they can hold suspects without due process or render them to other countires so that they can be tortured. Life must be so hard for them - and shame on those who have the temerity to question them!
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    internet message boards are not accountable - a democratically elected government is.

    And my heart bleeds for those poor defenseless counter-terrorist agencies who have to operate with huge multi-billion dollar budgets (which are never disclosed to the public) to eavesdrop on anyone they like, or that they can hold suspects without due process or render them to other countires so that they can be tortured. Life must be so hard for them - and shame on those who have the temerity to question them!
    america hater
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The "beauty" of Internet message boards is that you don't have to have actual knowledge of counter-terrorist programs to dispute their claims.

    And the problem of working in counter-terrorism is that when anyone makes outrageous claims against you without any supporting facts, whether on the Internet or elsewhere, you're restricted in what you can say to defend yourself.
    So you believe everything you're told? Wow, Nixon would have loved more folks like you. And I'm sure you were against all of the investigative acts focused on Bill Clinton. Because there was no reason to question Bill.

    Look, if a terrorist act was stopped, don't you think the terrorists know it?
    What's the secret? When we catch other criminals, we can't wait to tell the world. Heck, I'll even settle for a bi-partisan committee of representatives being fully informed, and assuring me that everything is okay. But noooooo, it wasn't until it's time to confirm Gen Hayden that all of the sudden, the Bush administration has agreed to make sure that "everyone" on the intelligence committee is fully briefed. Obviously they want to trade informing (the people who are legally required to be informed), for getting a confirmation of a CIA Director. It's rather sad that this is how it has to work.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The request of phone logs was not only for phone logs of suspected terrorists. It was for all of the data.
    As I explained [speculated] in the other thread, since phone companies retain call records specifically for billing purposes, they wouldn't have all the incoming calls for a given landline phone number. (Since processing and storing data costs money, businesses don't keep data unless it serves a business purpose.)

    If the Feds want to find all the phone calls made to a known terrorist's landline, I believe they'd have to search all the phone records of all the phone companies. That is a relatively big undertaking, different from just retrieving the call records for one phone number. I could see phone companies pushing back and dragging their heels on requests like this.

    To me, this seems like a plausible explanation for why the NSA wants all the records - so it can do everything themselves.

    And if I were at the NSA, I would not want this type of explicit explanation to be discussed freely in the press. Terrorists can modify their behavior after knowing that the NSA has a harder time tracking calls to a terrorist's landline. Yeah, I'm aiding the terrorists now. :p
  17. #97  
    freedom hater
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I've not seen any facts that show that without these walls, 9/11 would have been prevented. Read the whole report. The breakdowns and problems were (are) far greater than the issue we're discussing. Yes, the CIA does not have carte blanche with FBI data. But there is no reason the two can't cooperate. Check the ego at the door. Just say, "Hey, we're following this bad guy, do you know of any suspicious activity he's been involved in?" If the answer is no, then tell them he may be involved in terrorism and that they should watch him. There is no legal wall to prevent that.
    Read the 9/11 Report. Chapter 8. Starting around January 2001. The wall, along with other errors prevented the FBI from learning about Mihdhar, one of the hijackers, until after he arrived in the country. He was known by the CIA.


    No one trusts terrorist more. Find me one U.S. citizen who believes that?
    It's fatalist perspectives like that, which keep us from finding better solutions.
    That's just so wrong. Wrong. So wrong.
    Have you heard of Bush, "the world's most dangerous terrorist"?
    Ask a few of your liberal friends who is a greater threat to this country, Bush or bin Laden.
  19. #99  
    Read the 9/11 Report. Chapter 8. Starting around January 2001. The wall, along with other errors prevented the FBI from learning about Mihdhar, one of the hijackers, until after he arrived in the country. He was known by the CIA.
    I believe the wall you are talking about was internal. I believe it separated criminal from intelligence agents. The information did get communicated from the CIA to the FBI. Your quote also says "along with other errors." Removing this wall would not have prevented this. What you want to do, is damn the rights of U.S. citizens when you don't know what the true cost is.

    That's just so wrong. Wrong. So wrong.
    Have you heard of Bush, "the world's most dangerous terrorist"?
    Ask a few of your liberal friends who is a greater threat to this country, Bush or bin Laden.
    You're changing the meaning. That is a different question, so of course you would get a different answer. I've tried very hard to stay away from Bush bashing on this board. So I won't do that now. But on the flip-side, you hear the same rhetoric from conservatives. And the way they attacked John Kerry's record was inexcusable. The hatred and mistrust is swinging both ways. I'm simply pointing out that you are fanning the fire.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    As I explained [speculated] in the other thread, since phone companies retain call records specifically for billing purposes, they wouldn't have all the incoming calls for a given landline phone number. (Since processing and storing data costs money, businesses don't keep data unless it serves a business purpose.)

    If the Feds want to find all the phone calls made to a known terrorist's landline, I believe they'd have to search all the phone records of all the phone companies. That is a relatively big undertaking, different from just retrieving the call records for one phone number. I could see phone companies pushing back and dragging their heels on requests like this.

    To me, this seems like a plausible explanation for why the NSA wants all the records - so it can do everything themselves.

    And if I were at the NSA, I would not want this type of explicit explanation to be discussed freely in the press. Terrorists can modify their behavior after knowing that the NSA has a harder time tracking calls to a terrorist's landline. Yeah, I'm aiding the terrorists now.
    It's good that you say "speculated." We don't know everything that's kept. I know that in the corporate environment that I'm in, all incoming and outgoing calls are logged. Because of storage requirements, these logs are rotated every 45 days. I don't think it unreasonable the the phone company would do the same. And I still don't care. Incoming, outgoing, it doesn't matter. If I've done nothing, you need nothing. The content doesn't matter. If it's not public, you don't have a right to it. Go to court. If the court is too slow, pass legislation to facilitate a faster process.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions