BuffettNews.com

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Are you comfortable with a government agency keeping a list of everyone you talk to on the phone? Are you a Stalinist or a Trotskyite?

I don't care if they keep a list of who *I* talk to....

I care deeply whether that same list of "who talks to whom" (if it exists... I read the article and noted that the existence of such a thing was neither confirmed nor denied...) results in analysis that stops a terrorist attack before it can be executed.

For all the outrage going on over this, who in their right mind wouldn't want to be able to find out about a phone call that put a terrorist attack into motion?

I agree SGH...if someone want to listen to me and my conversations about PMSing, my dog, or how boys are stupid... I really don't care.....I got other things in life to worry about...

flyboy55 wrote:

krusin1 wrote:

green1 wrote:This has been happening since the Carter Administration. And is in fact curtailed from the height of eavesdropping in the 1990's. Why all the uproar now?

Exactly.

Quite frankly, if there are folks in the USA talking to terrorists abroad, our spy people had D*** WELL BETTER be listening in. If they happen to catch a few discussions about Aunt May's arthritis along the way, so be it.

Point is, this ain't new, it IS necessary, and if a Clinton was in office, we wouldn't hear a word about it.

Did you bother to read the article?

It is new.

It isn't necessary.

Please rethink your position on this. Think about the future. Are you comfortable with a government agency keeping a list of everyone you talk to on the phone? Are you a Stalinist or a Trotskyite?

So how do you square your stance with the fact that this began during the 90's and the media was entirely silent although it was well known. Let us not forget that President Carter signed the FISA bill. Again why are you screaming about this now and not for the past 25 years?

flyboy55 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:You should know better. This issue goes beyond partisan politics. The surveillance tools being forged right now will be in the capable (and we hope benevolent) hands of any future administration, whether Republican or Democrat or Amerika First.

I DO "know better."
If any future administration DOES get the survellience tools they need, due to the fact that I have nothing to hide, I'm not the least bit worried about it.

Maybe something that you are legally doing with your spare time now will be considered subversive in the future. Then I imagine you'll become angry about things. (Oh I forgot - you're already angry about most things ). Of course by then you won't have to worry about your failure to preserve the freedoms that previous generations of Americans fought and died for. You'll be sitting in a prison cell killing cockroaches and eating them.

The NSA couldn't possibly be trying to KEEP that same freedom by protecting the country!

flyboy55 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:You should know better. This issue goes beyond partisan politics. The surveillance tools being forged right now will be in the capable (and we hope benevolent) hands of any future administration, whether Republican or Democrat or Amerika First.

I DO "know better."
If any future administration DOES get the survellience tools they need, due to the fact that I have nothing to hide, I'm not the least bit worried about it.

Maybe something that you are legally doing with your spare time now will be considered subversive in the future. Then I imagine you'll become angry about things. (Oh I forgot - you're already angry about most things ). Of course by then you won't have to worry about your failure to preserve the freedoms that previous generations of Americans fought and died for. You'll be sitting in a prison cell killing cockroaches and eating them.

that's such a reach I can't even believe I'm responding to it

Quiet and Shy wrote:Monitoring every phone call in the US to look for terrorist links is as efficient a use of resources as the Texas program of arresting people in bars for having a blood alcohol level above .08 ...because that person might be planning to drive....

Focus people, focus....

Actually, Alison, it can be very useful when you apply super-computing power to the analysis.....

LIPH wrote:If the existence of this program was leaked to the press, where is the special prosecuter investigating who leaked the information? Isn't revealing the existence of an NSA program at least as bad as revealing the name of a CIA employee who may or may not have been a covert operative?

IMHO, hell yes.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Monitoring every phone call in the US to look for terrorist links is as efficient a use of resources as the Texas program of arresting people in bars for having a blood alcohol level above .08 ...because that person might be planning to drive....

Focus people, focus....

Actually, Alison, it's not.... Not when you apply super-computing power to the analysis.....

Add to this, that it is not a person listening, but a computer searching for given words and word combinations

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

LIPH wrote:If the existence of this program was leaked to the press, where is the special prosecuter investigating who leaked the information? Isn't revealing the existence of an NSA program at least as bad as revealing the name of a CIA employee who may or may not have been a covert operative?

IMHO, hell yes.

Far more so than a washed up ex-field agent who hadn't been in the field in 6 years and had previously had her cover blown by her own husband.

green1 wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

LIPH wrote:If the existence of this program was leaked to the press, where is the special prosecuter investigating who leaked the information? Isn't revealing the existence of an NSA program at least as bad as revealing the name of a CIA employee who may or may not have been a covert operative?

IMHO, hell yes.

Far more so than a washed up ex-field agent who hadn't been in the field in 6 years and had previously had her cover blown by her own husband.

Just for the record, I think compromising an agent should also be prosecuted....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

green1 wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

LIPH wrote:If the existence of this program was leaked to the press, where is the special prosecuter investigating who leaked the information? Isn't revealing the existence of an NSA program at least as bad as revealing the name of a CIA employee who may or may not have been a covert operative?

IMHO, hell yes.

Far more so than a washed up ex-field agent who hadn't been in the field in 6 years and had previously had her cover blown by her own husband.

Just for the record, I think compromising an agent should also be prosecuted....

I agree completely. But Joe Wilson released his wife's name and job years before the current "scandal".

flyboy55 wrote:Maybe something that you are legally doing with your spare time now will be considered subversive in the future. Then I imagine you'll become angry about things. (Oh I forgot - you're already angry about most things ). Of course by then you won't have to worry about your failure to preserve the freedoms that previous generations of Americans fought and died for. You'll be sitting in a prison cell killing cockroaches and eating them.

Nice try, but I was one of the ones who fought (didn't die-much to the disappointment of some) for freedoms. (You know-one of those "baby-killers").

and WHAT in Heavens name ever gave you the idea I was angry?

green1 wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

green1 wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

LIPH wrote:If the existence of this program was leaked to the press, where is the special prosecuter investigating who leaked the information? Isn't revealing the existence of an NSA program at least as bad as revealing the name of a CIA employee who may or may not have been a covert operative?

IMHO, hell yes.

Far more so than a washed up ex-field agent who hadn't been in the field in 6 years and had previously had her cover blown by her own husband.

Just for the record, I think compromising an agent should also be prosecuted....

I agree completely. But Joe Wilson released his wife's name and job years before the current "scandal".

If so, that particular piece of information would be considered compromised already.... kinda hard to compromise what's already been compromised....

green1 wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Monitoring every phone call in the US to look for terrorist links is as efficient a use of resources as the Texas program of arresting people in bars for having a blood alcohol level above .08 ...because that person might be planning to drive....

Focus people, focus....

Actually, Alison, it's not.... Not when you apply super-computing power to the analysis.....

Add to this, that it is not a person listening, but a computer searching for given words and word combinations

The super computer can do the base analysis, and maybe some secondary stuff...but at some point there is human intervention to sort the "gardening stories" (as originally posted) from the true situations of concern...and that takes resources.

I just wish the justice department would wake up and get some balls, teeth, guts, or whatever, and start enforcing the laws...whether is leaking secret programs, spy names, prohibiting torture, etc.

green1 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

krusin1 wrote:

green1 wrote:This has been happening since the Carter Administration. And is in fact curtailed from the height of eavesdropping in the 1990's. Why all the uproar now?

Exactly.

Quite frankly, if there are folks in the USA talking to terrorists abroad, our spy people had D*** WELL BETTER be listening in. If they happen to catch a few discussions about Aunt May's arthritis along the way, so be it.

Point is, this ain't new, it IS necessary, and if a Clinton was in office, we wouldn't hear a word about it.

Did you bother to read the article?

It is new.

It isn't necessary.

Please rethink your position on this. Think about the future. Are you comfortable with a government agency keeping a list of everyone you talk to on the phone? Are you a Stalinist or a Trotskyite?

So how do you square your stance with the fact that this began during the 90's and the media was entirely silent although it was well known. Let us not forget that President Carter signed the FISA bill. Again why are you screaming about this now and not for the past 25 years?

Do you have any idea what FISA is all about? It was enacted to provide a mechanism for gathering intelligence on foreign threats while at the same time preserving Americans' liberties.

The present administration has done an end run around FISA (didn't get required warrants).

As for folks here saying this has always gone on let me make the following point:

Did any of you have a cellphone or personal computer in your possession 30 years ago? Of course not. Yet even with these wonderful tools available to you, they represent only a fraction of the technological capability that is available to the NSA and other government agencies.

But the real danger of what is happening right now is that certain elected and appointed government officials are building a new surveillance regime that will exist largely beyond the oversight control of the citizens who pay their salaries.

Sometimes protecting freedom and liberty doesn't involve firing off ordnance in some hot, dusty country half way around the world. Sometimes it means getting off your f** a** and holding the government accountable.

flyboy55 wrote:Do you have any idea what FISA is all about? It was enacted to provide a mechanism for gathering intelligence on foreign threats while at the same time preserving Americans' liberties.

The present administration has done an end run around FISA (didn't get required warrants).

As for folks here saying this has always gone on let me make the following point:

Did any of you have a cellphone or personal computer in your possession 30 years ago? Of course not. Yet even with these wonderful tools available to you, they represent only a fraction of the technological capability that is available to the NSA and other government agencies.

But the real danger of what is happening right now is that certain elected and appointed government officials are building a new surveillance regime that will exist largely beyond the oversight control of the citizens who pay their salaries.

Sometimes protecting freedom and liberty doesn't involve firing off ordnance in some hot, dusty country half way around the world. Sometimes it means getting off your f** a** and holding the government accountable.

And yet when Clinton ordered the recording of conversations without a FISA warrant, but technically under FISA it was OK? Again, you don't answer the question. WHy are you screaming about this now rather than when it was ramping up under the former administration. You can say that it is W's doing, all you want, but by doing so you are showing your prejudices.

So, what is your fat ass doing to hold the government accountable? Me, I served in the Army and while I do not agree with everything this administration is doing, or has done, I believe that their ends (eliminating terrorists in their own countries, rather than ours) is a better plan than simply ignoring them. Which, unfortunately, more often then not was the policy in practice, if not name of the 4 prior administrations.

flyboy55 wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:You should know better. This issue goes beyond partisan politics. The surveillance tools being forged right now will be in the capable (and we hope benevolent) hands of any future administration, whether Republican or Democrat or Amerika First.

I DO "know better."
If any future administration DOES get the survellience tools they need, due to the fact that I have nothing to hide, I'm not the least bit worried about it.

Maybe something that you are legally doing with your spare time now will be considered subversive in the future. Then I imagine you'll become angry about things. (Oh I forgot - you're already angry about most things ). Of course by then you won't have to worry about your failure to preserve the freedoms that previous generations of Americans fought and died for. You'll be sitting in a prison cell killing cockroaches and eating them.

Paranoid much?

Quiet and Shy wrote:The super computer can do the base analysis, and maybe some secondary stuff...but at some point there is human intervention to sort the "gardening stories" (as originally posted) from the true situations of concern...and that takes resources.

I just wish the justice department would wake up and get some balls, teeth, guts, or whatever, and start enforcing the laws...whether is leaking secret programs, spy names, prohibiting torture, etc.

The resources are already in place, trying to do the job with fewer tools....

Here's a question for those who are opposed to these programs.... Hypothetical, certainly, but....

If you *knew* that this analysis was going to stop a terrorist attack that was going to kill one or more of your loved ones, would you still be opposed to it?

Because the next terrorist attack is going to kill *someone's* loved ones.....

Analysts trying to identify terrorists don't give a sh*t about people's personal conversations.... they care about identifying and stopping terrorist attacks.....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Here's a question for those who are opposed to these programs.... Hypothetical, certainly, but....

If you *knew* that this analysis was going to stop a terrorist attack that was going to kill one or more of your loved ones, would you still be opposed to it?

Because the next terrorist attack is going to kill *someone's* loved ones.....

Analysts trying to identify terrorists don't give a sh*t about people's personal conversations.... they care about identifying and stopping terrorist attacks.....

Ultimately, it's all about risk management. There's never a 100% security guarantee. So, how and where can available resources be effectively "invested" to minimize the risk? Foreign policy, military actions, national security, etc. all include actions aimed at mitigating the terrorism risk. Assuming the current administration is following existing laws (which is in some doubt), are they doing a good job at minimizing the terrorist risk given the existing resources...?

Quiet and Shy wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Here's a question for those who are opposed to these programs.... Hypothetical, certainly, but....

If you *knew* that this analysis was going to stop a terrorist attack that was going to kill one or more of your loved ones, would you still be opposed to it?

Because the next terrorist attack is going to kill *someone's* loved ones.....

Analysts trying to identify terrorists don't give a sh*t about people's personal conversations.... they care about identifying and stopping terrorist attacks.....

Ultimately, it's all about risk management. There's never a 100% security guarantee. So, how and where can available resources be effectively "invested" to minimize the risk? Foreign policy, military actions, national security, etc. all include actions aimed at mitigating the terrorism risk. Assuming the current administration is following existing laws (which is in some doubt), are they doing a good job at minimizing the terrorist risk given the existing resources...?

But you didn't answer my (admittedly hypothetical) question...

And unfortunately, your question enters an area that I can't really comment on....