# NSA



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

For those worried about the NSA and the President listening in on suspected terrorist, maybe you have been worried about the wrong group. This is long but interesting.

"From the way they're carrying on in Washington, you'd think the National Security Agency is the only federal agency collecting data on people. In reality, the NSA wiretapping program that has caused such an uproar is one of the least intrusive data-mining enterprises the federal government currently has going.

If people had any idea what other federal agencies -- like the Department of Education, the US Mint and the Internal Revenue Service -- were up to or have planned, any brief concerns they might have had about NSA wiretapping would be all but forgotten. The NSA program is at least targeted at terrorists and potential terrorists. That can't be said of dozens of other government data-mining programs that truly do target innocent Americans.

Two years ago, some members of Congress began to wonder how many federal agencies were data-mining, or using computer-driven algorithms to search for patterns among the trails of data we leave behind when we use the Internet, credit or ATM cards, e-mail and our cell phones.

A survey of 128 federal departments by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of members of Congress found that 52 were using or planning 199 data-mining programs -- all of which was news to Congress.

It's a reality Columbia Law School Professor and privacy activist Tim Wu is trying to help Americans understand. When he lectures on the subject, he reminds people that every Internet search they've ever conducted is stored on a database somewhere. So is every automated financial transaction you've ever made. What the algorithms do is find the links among them -- what products you like, your interests, even your ambitions. This information is bought and sold in the private sector to help commercial interests better target customers. But it is also sold to the government, and when it's combined with the data the government already has on you, the information-gathering possibilities are virtually limitless.

Among the most common uses of data-mining listed by agencies in the report were fraud detection, analyzing intelligence, detecting terrorist activities and improving services and performance.

According to the GAO report, the Department of Education (DOE) reported the largest number of efforts aimed at detecting fraud, waste and abuse. It has no less than five data-mining programs that target those who apply for or take out grants, loans or other government-backed financial aid. At present, the DOE has a database of 13 million applications loaded with Americans' financial information. The programs comb the agency's records for information patterns on borrowers, but they don't stop there. Peoples' personal and private-sector records -- information they didn't give to the government -- are combed as well. The programs look for everything from fraud to terrorist activity, and one DOE program, called Project Strikeback, even compares the data the agency collects on applicants with data in FBI databases, some of which was collected by -- you guessed it -- FBI data-mining programs.

The IRS has long used internal data-mining programs to search for irregular patterns on tax filings. Now, four new data-mining programs the agency has planned will expand that practice outside government walls and allow it to monitor the financial patterns of taxpayers in the private sector.

Even the US Mint is getting into the game with its e-commerce fraud data-mining program, which uses personal, private sector and government data to search Internet fraud involving stolen credit cards.

The GAO report also identifies at least 15 programs that comb Americans' personal, private sector and Internet search records looking for terrorist or criminal activity. Among the agencies that use these programs are the Office of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy and the Information.

Meanwhile, as the Christian Science Monitor recently reported, the Office of Homeland Security is in the process of implementing ADVISE, a massive program that will collect and cross reference just about every electronic data trace people leave behind -- from news stories, e-mails, blog chatter and Internet searches to other financial and intelligence data -- in hopes of finding patterns that indicate terrorist planning.

But it doesn't stop there. The government is even mining its data-mining programs for data. The FBI and other surveillance agencies are taking data-mining to the next level by creating "data marts" or programs that collect data mined by other more targeted government data-mining programs and making it available to the "intelligence community."

Perhaps the most chilling part of this is that there is virtually no way to shelter your personal information from data collection. It's possible, of course, but few people would likely be willing to close their bank accounts, abandon their cell phones, make all their purchases in cash and only use the Internet from anonymous public library terminals.

In today's brave new technological world, it appears that increased convenience comes at the cost of one's personal privacy.

The GAO report, which every American should read, is available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d04548.pdf. But beware. At least six government agencies tracking Internet activity now have the capability to know you read it".

http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gy ... oid%3A7450


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

The people that put up the biggest stink about wiretapping programs are probally the ones with the most to hide, IMHO.
Because I don't really care if the gov't bugs my house, because I don't have anything that would interest the Gov't like unlawful activity.
So lets just see who's worried and how loud they squalk, that would be the ones to watch!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> The people that put up the biggest stink about wiretapping programs are probally the ones with the most to hide, IMHO.
> Because I don't really care if the gov't bugs my house, because I don't have anything that would interest the Gov't like unlawful activity.
> So lets just see who's worried and how loud they squalk, that would be the ones to watch!


When you let one freedom fall, you can be assured another is to come. Refusing to stand up for your Constitutional freedoms is the single most unAmerican thing you can do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ABBK, I agree. If old J. Reno wanted to see my guns I would have buried them. If Bush would like to search my house for a bomb or something send the FBI I will have coffee and cookies waiting.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

I agree with Plainsmen!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> ABBK, I agree. If old J. Reno wanted to see my guns I would have buried them. If Bush would like to search my house for a bomb or something send the FBI I will have coffee and cookies waiting.


So you will give up your rights, so long as it is your party doing the searching. It is ideas like this that worry me for the future of America.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I thank GOD every day the Dem's do not control the defense of this country, and I pray that the don't any time soon. MT proves on these every day why they can not be trusted with this task.



> Anti military
> Constant attack of our soldiers ie Abu Gharib (why keep bringing it up?)
> Defends Muslims
> Attacks Christians
> ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Racer I think God that people like you, who are so short sighted as to throw their personal rights away which our founders created for us, and American soldiers since the inception of this nation have died to defend do not run this country.



> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security


You sir, deserve neither.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT, I think you want to pull out of Iraq for temporary security. That is the liberal way, to negotiate until the enemy is strong enough to attack.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> MT, I think you want to pull out of Iraq for temporary security. That is the liberal way, to negotiate until the enemy is strong enough to attack.


I suppose the conservative way is to attack when they aren't a threat so that they can't become one, eh? I hear Canada is pretty unstable right about now, why don't we hit them next?

The security of this nation doesn't have a damn to do with Iraq. The security of this nation has to do with the Taliban and their terrorist partners. They went to Iraq when we went in, and they will follow us wherever we go. We cannot beat them in Iraq because they are not based in Iraq. We are killing and creating new insurgents who hate us for killing other insurgents. It is a vicious cycle. I want out of Iraq as soon as possible because there is little hope in establishing a long lasting democracy in that part of the world right now. I am tired of this senseless loss of life.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Plainsman, I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but I am going to strongly disagree with your and ABBK's here. 
Our Constitutional rights are very specifically given to protect us from government! First, second, and all the rest of the amendments are our defense against a tyranical gov! Surely you can see the damage done with precident set!
I wouldn't care how much I agreed with or approved of the policies of the person in the Oval Office, I'll be darned if I'm going to say to them, "Sure, listen in on my phone calls, move a couple of soliders into my house, edit what I write, and take the guns you think are inappropriate for me to own, you're my buddy, so it must be ok."
Man, Constitutionally, it's us against them! We know, we absolutely know that future administrations can and will use precident set by previous administrations to further their agenda.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> Plainsman, I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but I am going to strongly disagree with your and ABBK's here.
> Our Constitutional rights are very specifically given to protect us from government! First, second, and all the rest of the amendments are our defense against a tyranical gov! Surely you can see the damage done with precident set!
> I wouldn't care how much I agreed with or approved of the policies of the person in the Oval Office, I'll be darned if I'm going to say to them, "Sure, listen in on my phone calls, move a couple of soliders into my house, edit what I write, and take the guns you think are inappropriate for me to own, you're my buddy, so it must be ok."
> Man, Constitutionally, it's us against them! We know, we absolutely know that future administrations can and will use precident set by previous administrations to further their agenda.


Your Right!, my point I was trying to make was: If your not breaking the law you shouldn't worry about the gov't checking you out!
Like the TSA does inspecting bags for items possibally harmful to other people's liberties. Sorry for the confusion, I really wouldn't want my house bugged either but I don't have anything to hide.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Your Right!, my point I was trying to make was: If your not breaking the law you shouldn't worry about the gov't checking you out!


I believe you missed arctic plainsman's intent there. By far.



> Like the TSA does inspecting bags for items possibally harmful to other people's liberties. Sorry for the confusion, I really wouldn't want my house bugged either but I don't have anything to hide.


It seems to me that you are the type of person who in ten years would be saying "Sure, get rid of free speech, I don't say anything that a terrorist would say anyways." People like you are very dangerous to our liberties.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Like liberals wanting to dissarm the citizens?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Like liberals wanting to dissarm the citizens?


\

Yes, just like that. I am against both.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger
guest

Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2967
Location: Michigan
Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plainsman wrote: 
You often mention high capacity magazines. I guess you don't like them. As I have mentioned before I like single shot, bolt and lever action. The only semi auto's I have is a Ruger 10/22 and the Kimber I carry on duty. So you see it isn't the doodads I am concerned about. I am concerned that the possibility is there that we have no firearms at all. Or if the UN has their way, global restriction on personal small arms.



> I see, so we should sacrafice our foreign affairs as well as more important domestic problems so that we can ensure that our gun rights are not curtailed whatsoever, even though we could easily get them back? That just doesn't make logical sense to me.


Sounds like a double standard to me MT! :sniper:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You are referencing a post about high capacity magazines, and correlating it to a post about foreign affairs and why people vote for the Republicans. That doesn't match up very well.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT, Stop preaching to others about something you don't even believe in.


> People like you are very dangerous to our liberties.


 :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If there is one thing I believe in, it is the greatness of America due to the personal liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

There's the FLIP waiting for the FLOP :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> There's the FLIP waiting for the FLOP :lol:


So that makes it a.... statement?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> If there is one thing I believe in, it is the greatness of America due to the personal liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution.


And don't forget to thank the Men and Women of our Armed Forces for the Liberties you continue to enjoy. :beer:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I absolutely positively disagree with the idea of having nothing to hide so it's ok for the gov to be watching!
Since I am a Constitutionally protected American, since I don't have any kind of criminal record, I insist, I demand that the law enforcement community studiously ignore me or leave me alone!
Are we going to allow the gov to watch us and wait for us to "slip up"? No! I am innocent until proven guilty and expect to be treated as such. A free man is not truly free if they accept supervision, oversight, monitoring, (you get the idea,) from a strong government.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to give up liberty in order to insure security deserve neither."


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

arctic plainsman said:


> I absolutely positively disagree with the idea of having nothing to hide so it's ok for the gov to be watching!
> *Since I am a Constitutionally protected American, since I don't have any kind of criminal record, I insist, I demand that the law enforcement community studiously ignore me or leave me alone!*
> Are we going to allow the gov to watch us and wait for us to "slip up"? No! I am innocent until proven guilty and expect to be treated as such. A free man is not truly free if they accept supervision, oversight, monitoring, (you get the idea,) from a strong government.
> 
> As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to give up liberty in order to insure security deserve neither."


So what about TSA checking your bags at the Airport? 
They should just let you thru just because you don't have a criminal record?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Hey,

*NSA* *N*o *S*uch *A*gency. Don't worry about em! 

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So what about TSA checking your bags at the Airport?
> They should just let you thru just because you don't have a criminal record?


The difference being that you give your consent at an airport. For all we know we could be the ones who are being wiretapped.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> The NSA program is at least targeted at terrorists and potential terrorists.


Do you have anything to worry about?


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

To answer the TSA question, well, sort of.
I understand the reasoning behind a bag search, and have accepted it thus far, but I haven't done anything wrong, so what gives?!?!?! Leave my bags alone!
The terrorist McVeigh used an automobile as a bomb in Oklahoma, who here would support gov checkpoints and auto searches on any given highway? "Good morning Sir, we'll be strip searching you and your auto just to make sure you're not a terrorist! Have a nice day!"
I know this is stretching things, but how would we feel if we took our sweetie out to dinner, and on the way home we were stopped, interrogated and searched by the police because we'd been to a restaurant that served alcohol, and the police were "just making sure," that we weren't drunk? I'd be furious!
That's a slim parallel, but I think it's applicable. I am an American, I've done nothing wrong in the past to give anybody any reason to suspect, I'm not doing anything wrong now to give anybody any reason to suspect, so bug off!


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Oh sorry, I missed one.
NSA targeting potential terrorists? Who gets to decide that one?
Currently I own a HK 91, a mini 30, a AR-15 in 7.62x 39, and better than a thousand rounds for the three. Don't kid yourself, Senators Clinton, Finstein, Boxer, Shumer, and a few others think I am a potential terrorist. 
How many others here are in the same boat as me?

Now look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I just have a strong opinion on this subject, very sorry if I've raised anybody's hackles.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I see.....................


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Huntin 1,



> NSA No Such Agency. Don't worry about em!


Is that the same agency that owns your Black Helicoper. :lol:

I think you need to mount an offense again :sniper: :sniper:

I just love that thing


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

What Black Helicopter? :huh: dd:

huntin1


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

arctic plainsman, I can understand your concern about losing certain freedoms we have had in the past. But we are not living in the same world as Benjamin Franklin. Wireless communication in his day was yelling out the window at someone in the street. You never had to look up to see if things were falling out of the sky from flying metal objects and the major cause of death was probable being kicked by a mule. This whole thing came about from listening in on wireless communications, not land lines. If you really think no one is listening to your cell phone conversations or tracking you in the Internet right now then you need to take another look. We are no longer giving up a little privacy for security but privacy for survival. Old Ben never addressed that&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon said:


> arctic plainsman, I can understand your concern about losing certain freedoms we have had in the past. But we are not living in the same world as Benjamin Franklin. Wireless communication in his day was yelling out the window at someone in the street. You never had to look up to see if things were falling out of the sky from flying metal objects and the major cause of death was probable being kicked by a mule. This whole thing came about from listening in on wireless communications, not land lines. If you really think no one is listening to your cell phone conversations or tracking you in the Internet right now then you need to take another look. We are no longer giving up a little privacy for security but privacy for survival. Old Ben never addressed that&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..


No matter how you justify it, you are willingly handing over the very rights that make America what it is.

How would you feel if I told you that I need to take your guns, because in Franklin's day they were using muskets, and you can buy an AR 15 with a hundred round magazine? I don't think that would go over well.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Gohon, like Plainsman, I find it hard to argue with much that you say.
Maybe I could summarize my concern by saying that I am troubled by any restriction that is put on me "for my own good"
I still expect people to solve their own problems. If we are talking about airline safety, lets use Flight 93, and the fellow air travelers of the Shoe Bomber as examples. Sure I know that doesn't work all or even most of the time, but darn it!
Thanks for the debate!


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Far be it for me to lecture, so please don't take this as such, but remember, in Franklin's day, the enemy looked, and sounded exactly like everyone else. There was literally no difference in appearance between a loyalist and a rebel. 
Given this difficulty in identifying "sleeper cells," The Fathers still espoused individual liberties.
Just a thought there, I'm not saying I'm right.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

By Golly, I think they are watching me thru my computor..........

You try it. They be watching you.

http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> No matter how you justify it, you are willingly handing over the very rights that make America what it is.


How the hell would you know what makes American what it is. You're still sitting on your butt sponging off mama and papa. Besides, most of the people on this forum have earned the right to decide if adjustments are in order or not......you haven't.



> How would you feel if I told you that I need to take your guns, because in Franklin's day they were using muskets, and you can buy an AR 15 with a hundred round magazine? I don't think that would go over well.


In the first place if you personally told me that, I would tell you yes, please do come and get them. I would really take personal pleasure in that. Now, in case you were away from the computer to get something out of the refrigerator and missed it, a bunch of your hero's in Washington have been trying to take away my guns for years now. Fortunately people with total opposite views than yourself have been able to stop them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> How the hell would you know what makes American what it is. You're still sitting on your butt sponging off mama and papa. Besides, most of the people on this forum have earned the right to decide if adjustments are in order or not......you haven't.


Being an American citizen I have the right and the duty to stop those like you from handing over our personal liberties. Whether I have worked for a living yet doesn't change anything. It is enough that I live as an American.



> In the first place if you personally told me that, I would tell you yes, please do come and get them. I would really take personal pleasure in that.


I offer you the same proposition in trying to strip me of my right to privacy.

Gohon you are clouding your views with hatred. This issue is too important for that.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > How the hell would you know what makes American what it is. You're still sitting on your butt sponging off mama and papa. Besides, most of the people on this forum have earned the right to decide if adjustments are in order or not......you haven't.
> 
> 
> Being an American citizen I have the right and the duty to stop those like you from handing over our personal liberties. Whether I have worked for a living yet doesn't change anything. It is enough that I live as an American.
> ...


MT, be carefull about making statements to VETS about being patriotic! :******: 
I spent more years in the USAF defending your Consitution Rights then years you have been ALIVE!
So just because someone doesn't agree with you, shouldn't have anything to do with their Patriotism; more to the contrary the way I see it!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So just because someone doesn't agree with you, shouldn't have anything to do with their Patriotism; more to the contrary the way I see it!


Thank you for serving, but that doesn't make you immune from criticism. I see your views as being destructive to the American way of life.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> Thank you for serving, but that doesn't make you immune from criticism. I see your views as being destructive to the American way of life.


Disrespectful in deed!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

arctic plainsman, your a gentleman and could never offend me. I understand what your talking about, and my example was a hyperbole. In all reality when foreign phone calls come from known terrorists I hope they are being monitored, but not citizens of this nation, without probable cause. If I am right Bush is using probable cause, but not getting warrants within the three days. I think he is still legal under the war times act (or something like that, I don't remember the specific act). I don't think terrorists, or illegal aliens should have the same constitution rights as citizens of this nation. Now that may make some liberals wet their pants, but so be it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If I am right Bush is using probable cause, but not getting warrants within the three days.


Thus the issue, without the warrant there is no oversight whatsoever. Allowing this to take place is like having an executive branch with no legislative branch.



> I don't think terrorists, or illegal aliens should have the same constitution rights as citizens of this nation.


But this doesn't just involve someone like that, it involved a United States citizen on one end. Does speaking with a supposed terrorist (or without any oversight, possibly their grandmother) remove their rights?



> Now that may make some liberals wet their pants, but so be it.


This issue goes far deeper than cheap partisan rhetoric.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Plainsman, :bowdown:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> But this doesn't just involve someone like that, it involved a United States citizen on one end. Does speaking with a supposed terrorist (or without any oversight, possibly their grandmother) remove their rights?


Lets say you're at a party. You decide to chat it up with John Q. Dope-dealer. Now if Mr. Dopedealer is under survailance, by default you are now under surveilance as well. Does it make you guilty of anything? no.

But if you buy drugs from him, or supply drugs for him to sell, and this occurs while the surveilance is taking place, then you will be arrested.

Solution? Pick your friends wisely. If you happen to pick a rotten friend, you may get caught up in something, but if you have done nothing illegal you will have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Solution? Pick your friends wisely. If you happen to pick a rotten friend, you may get caught up in something, but if you have done nothing illegal you will have nothing to worry about.


What a notion. I suppose we don't need our civil liberties at all then. Who needs free speech as long as you don't say anything stupid? Who needs privacy if you don't do anything wrong? Who needs the right to religion when you follow the right religion? I'll tell you who, *Americans*.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

So your telling me that anyone one caught doing anything illegal while somebody else was under survelance should be let free?

Or are you saying that ALL survelance should stop because inevitably, someone who is not directly under survelance will be spied on while interacting with the suspect?

Sorry to say this MT, but my point stands and you know it. I'd be willing to bet almost everyone in here at one point has been under survelance. Be it buying a burger from the fast food joint thats funneling out more dope than food when you order a #99, being the guy at pizza hut when John Q Dope-Dealer, whos line is tapped, orders a pan crust pizza with everything, or simply parking your car next door to a suspected meth lab. Innocent, non-suspects will always end up being seen through binoculars, recorded on tape or followed by detectives. If you are doing nothing wrong, they will not harrass you. They may know a lil more about you than you would like, but it certainly wasnt intentional. But interact with the suspect under surveilance in anyway relating to the reason the suspect is being watched, and you're gonna be arrested too.

You dont have to like it, but thats how it works and its all legal, necessary, and part of whats being done to make sure this country is safe for you to grow up, have kids of your own, and hopefully gain enough real life experiences to realize the error of your ways.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

To begin with, your point has little relevence. I never argued that someone caught doing something illegal while being surveyed should be set free.



> If you are doing nothing wrong, they will not harrass you.


How do you know? How do you know that such power will not be abused in the future? How do you know that it is not being abused now?



> You dont have to like it, but thats how it works and its all *legal*, necessary, and part of whats being done to make sure this country is safe for you to grow up, have kids of your own, and hopefully gain enough real life experiences to realize the error of your ways.


To begin with how are you certain that it is legal? If it is indeed legal for the president to OK wiretapping without warrants, why were the warrants ever required? Why did the other presidents abide by this FISA act? Moreover, why did the president break the rules when the act supplied all of the necessary power for him to protect this country?

I cannot imagine why you are so willing to hand over your basic freedoms to the government. I hope that you will see the error of your ways before it is too late for this country.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Hey Gun Owner just leave him alone we all agree with you. Like SFC Rude said, leave it alone and it will go away.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/stor ... 95,00.html

If the word of the Bar Association was good enough for the president to use it as evidence why his Supreme Court candidates were good enough, it is good enough for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02158.html

The Congressional Research Service thinks so too.


> Unless the White House contends the program is a covert action, the memo said, "limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight . . . would appear to be inconsistent with the law."


Protect your rights as an American citizen. Don't allow warrantless wiretapping under any administration.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT it appears that the voices in your head must be getting louder.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/stor ... 95,00.html
> 
> If the word of the Bar Association was good enough for the president to use it as evidence why his Supreme Court candidates were good enough, it is good enough for me.


Sorry MT link is gone... must be a bogus source. Not convinced. Next.



Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802158.html
> 
> The Congressional Research Service thinks so too.
> 
> ...


Nope sorry MT ....old source. From January. Old. Stale. Don't believe it. Subsequent articles have been released addressing issue. Perfectly legal.

Next?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> To begin with, your point has little relevence. I never argued that someone caught doing something illegal while being surveyed should be set free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope you are wrong MT. How do YOU know it is being abused? Please show me where it is. This "power" has been in existence for many many years.

Pleast show me the abuses. Until you do, don't expect your question to be answered. You have the burden of proof.



> You dont have to like it, but thats how it works and its all *legal*, necessary, and part of whats being done to make sure this country is safe for you to grow up, have kids of your own, and hopefully gain enough real life experiences to realize the error of your ways.





Militant_Tiger said:


> To begin with how are you certain that it is legal? If it is indeed legal for the president to OK wiretapping without warrants, why were the warrants ever required? Why did the other presidents abide by this FISA act? Moreover, why did the president break the rules when the act supplied all of the necessary power for him to protect this country?
> 
> I cannot imagine why you are so willing to hand over your basic freedoms to the government. I hope that you will see the error of your ways before it is too late for this country.


Nope you are wrong. Already been covered and discussed. It is legal, and he did go to FISA when conditions warranted. Certain situations do not fall under FISA and you know that.

Next.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT I should point out my reason for my last post. 
Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. In this case you are repeating the same thing over and over expecting it to become true. Sorry, but that's just one of your political fantasies. Kind of like the one your having for 2008.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Solution? Pick your friends wisely. If you happen to pick a rotten friend, you may get caught up in something, but if you have done nothing illegal you will have nothing to worry about.
> 
> 
> What a notion. I suppose we don't need our civil liberties at all then. Who needs free speech as long as you don't say anything stupid? Who needs privacy if you don't do anything wrong? Who needs the right to religion when you follow the right religion? I'll tell you who, *Americans*.


Bad inference MT. I expect more from you than this. Don't muddy the issue. This is an radical extremist perspective trying to paint the entire issue of privacy as you define it. This is one of the worst "spins" I've seen you espouse recently.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Few subsequent articles have been released because hearings have yet to begin on said issue. The information in said articles is as current as anyone has at this point. They stand. The link for the guardian works fine for me.

The reason that I cannot provide evidence of the program's abuse is because the case has not come to court, and people who and are wiretapped don't know it. There is no less reason to pursue this than if the government was snooping around in people's homes when they were away without warrants.



> It is legal, and he did go to FISA when conditions warranted.


I see, so he only did the wiretaps legally when he knew he could get it passed through the court, and otherwise purposely broke the law. I suppose you wouldn't take offense if the president had people arrested wantonly, but went through the courts when evidence allowed him to do so?



> This is an radical extremist perspective trying to paint the entire issue of privacy as you define it.


It is radical to desire protection from the government under the basic liberties that our founding fathers set in place? If this is a radical perspective, where exactly are you?

Plainsman it is disturbing that you are completely willing to hand over one of the basic freedoms that we hold dear as Americans simply for partisan reasons.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman,
Be carefull or he'll start PM'ing you and tell you that your a


> disgrace to this country


 :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Few subsequent articles have been released because hearings have yet to begin on said issue. The information in said articles is as current as anyone has at this point. They stand. The link for the guardian works fine for me.


Nope they don't stand. You don't get to dicate the rules. Basically you have no proof but you made the statement. Prove it. Don't duck tail and say you are prevented from it because of lack of proof. You are constantly requiring proof from us. Now it's your turn. I need more proof then just one silly link from the guardian. Move on.



Militant_Tiger said:


> The reason that I cannot provide evidence of the program's abuse is because the case has not come to court, and people who and are wiretapped don't know it. There is no less reason to pursue this than if the government was snooping around in people's homes when they were away without warrants.


Nope you are wrong. You don't get to pass GO until you answer the question. I need evidence. Your word and accusations mean nothing to me without proof. You are jumping to a conclusion that because the ability exists to do it that it "just has to be" being abused by a government entity. That is just plain fear mongering or hysteria. No proof no right to make a claim. Conspiracy theorists need not apply. As Gun Owner said, you aren't mixed up with a terrorist you need not worry. Your life is too damn boring for anyone else. Next.



> It is legal, and he did go to FISA when conditions warranted.





Militant_Tiger said:


> I see, so he only did the wiretaps legally when he knew he could get it passed through the court, and otherwise purposely broke the law. I suppose you wouldn't take offense if the president had people arrested wantonly, but went through the courts when evidence allowed him to do so?


Already been discussed. Next.



> This is an radical extremist perspective trying to paint the entire issue of privacy as you define it.





Militant_Tiger said:


> It is radical to desire protection from the government under the basic liberties that our founding fathers set in place? If this is a radical perspective, where exactly are you?


We are at a dangerous crossroads with our liberties. That is why during times of war certain adjustments to laws are made with sunset provisions to take care of temporary issues. The ability to wiretap and sneak and peak snoop although a dangerous precedent, might be needed for a critical time in our nation's history in order to win this battle on an enemy that has been allowed to penetrate our porous borders.

I personally am scared about the eroding of our basic fundamental rights. However I'm MUCH more afraid of what is lurking behind some apparently "peaceful" muslim mosque that in reality is harboring and fermenting hatred for all that I hold dear. I'll gladly temporarily sacrifice some of my rights for the government to have the ability to infilitrate, monitor and hopefully prevent future domestic terrorist activities. Every American should realize what we are up against, and be tolerant if they unfortunately get hassled by the sweeping net of investigation. Hopefully they realize they might be inconvenienced temporarily for the greater good of America as a whole.

Ryan

.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Ben Elli said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > Few subsequent articles have been released because hearings have yet to begin on said issue. The information in said articles is as current as anyone has at this point. They stand. The link for the guardian works fine for me.
> ...


AMEN! :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> We are at a dangerous crossroads with our liberties. That is why during times of war certain adjustments to laws are made with sunset provisions to take care of temporary issues. The ability to wiretap and sneak and peak snoop although a dangerous precedent, might be needed for a critical time in our nation's history in order to win this battle on an enemy that has been allowed to penetrate our porous borders.


Certain laws are made in times of war to assist the country. This has not happened. Bush did not seek to change the law, he simply avoided it. There was no reason to do this. All the provisions were already in place to allow him to attain necessary information legally. The president simply bypassed the law because he lacked the proper information to get a warrant in a court of law. This should not be allowed to occur. What if the president had people thrown in jail, bypassing the courts simply because he didn't have enough information to warrant going through the proper legal process?



> I need more proof then just one silly link from the guardian. Move on.


Which is why I provided two links, one which talked about the ABA and one about the Congressional Research Association.



> Nope you are wrong. You don't get to pass GO until you answer the question. I need evidence. Your word and accusations mean nothing to me without proof. You are jumping to a conclusion that because the ability exists to do it that it "just has to be" being abused by a government entity. That is just plain fear mongering or hysteria. No proof no right to make a claim. Conspiracy theorists need not apply. As Gun Owner said, you aren't mixed up with a terrorist you need not worry. Your life is too damn boring for anyone else. Next.


So the president should be allowed to get away with anything so long as the evidence of an offense is not immediatly available? What a notion.



> However I'm MUCH more afraid of what is lurking behind some apparently "peaceful" muslim mosque that in reality is harboring and fermenting hatred for all that I hold dear.


He who would give up liberty for temporary security deserves neither - Ben Franklin

Why bother defending the United States if when the dust settles the very rights that make America what it is are gone?



> I'll gladly temporarily sacrifice some of my rights for the government to have the ability to infilitrate, monitor and hopefully prevent future domestic terrorist activities.


Yet, it already has this capability to do so. You are voluntarily handing over one of the most important rights we have for no reason at all. With that attitude, I suppose the terrorists have won.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

"But it doesn't stop there. The government is even mining its data-mining programs for data. The FBI and other surveillance agencies are taking data-mining to the next level by creating "data marts" or programs that collect data mined by other more targeted government data-mining programs and making it available to the "intelligence community." "

-If that statement is not laughable, I don't know what is.

"MT, I think you want to pull out of Iraq for temporary security. That is the liberal way, to negotiate until the enemy is strong enough to attack.
"

-We all know once we pull out, the Iraqi insurgents are going to hop into their modern war mach...wait, they don't have any. Nevermind.

"We are no longer giving up a little privacy for security but privacy for survival. Old Ben never addressed that&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.."

-So basically, making America a police state is O.K. since our entire nation is at stake.

"

No matter how you justify it, you are willingly handing over the very rights that make America what it is.

How the hell would you know what makes American what it is. You're still sitting on your butt sponging off mama and papa. Besides, most of the people on this forum have earned the right to decide if adjustments are in order or not......you haven't. "

-He knows what makes America America because he is an American.

i
"What a notion. I suppose we don't need our civil liberties at all then. Who needs free speech as long as you don't say anything stupid? Who needs privacy if you don't do anything wrong? Who needs the right to religion when you follow the right religion? I'll tell you who, Americans.

Bad inference MT. I expect more from you than this. Don't muddy the issue. This is an radical extremist perspective trying to paint the entire issue of privacy as you define it. This is one of the worst "spins" I've seen you espouse recently."

-So wanting to retain your freedoms is being extremist. Wow. Just wow.
[/b]


----------

