You're all being watched Pt Ni

[Hae-Yu]

Here's a lot more info and a roundup of articles (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060515-6837.html).

[Nebula]

hmmm

dont get me wrong, I dont want people getting in to my life when they dont need to be, but at the same time.. I dont have anything to hide...

[Hae-Yu]

The principle behind the American experience is simple: if the government has no reason to specifically fuck with you, it shouldn't. I don't believe sobriety checkpoints, dragnets, sweeps, or any other BS where enforcement grabs random samples of the population are remotely constitutional.

I know law enforcement appreciates it, but random sampling is flat out un-American. If you grab a large enough sample you will always find someone doing something wrong and enforcement points to these few successess in saying "see it worked." But they neglect to point out that for that one success, they just had 999 failures and 999 people had their rights violated.

In this instance, IF what they said was true I have no problem with the original public statements. Where they have software analyzing call records (who called who) looking for links. That's no problem. What creeps me out is having some jerk listening in while I argue or get goofy with a girl. Recording my conversations is creepy.

It's creepy for a reason: It's wrong.

I still don't understand why they can't provide a few judges with TS clearances and have them issue/ reject warrants for eavesdropping when specific intel is required. There are processes in place. Is it really so hard? If procedures need streamlining they should recommend it, instead of throwing out the checks and balances.

If we are at war with a group that is dead set on our destruction (which I belive we are), then people need to buckle down. The President needs to get the message out, not put in face time when his ratings drop. He needs to explain what we are doing and how we hope to accomplish it. He needs to do this weekly like Roosevelt did. Not sit on his ass like another Johnson or Nixon. It doesn't mean pandering to the idiotic press, but it does mean addressing the people.

Congress needs to define the parameters of this game specifically. Are we at war? Is this another Cold War? They keeping fucking around, afraid to commit. Then again, Baby Boomers are running this, so that goes without saying. What additional intelligence gathering powers does the administration have to combat this particular threat? For how long? The budget needs to reflect these prioties instead of porkin' it up.

I'm so frustrated.

[Jethro]

Not to get off topic. But the sobriety check point are put in news papers and broadcasted by local radio and news station. They have to when and where the check points are. So if some dumbass that is drunk, no OL/ suspended, or has drugs in the car drives on that road that night he or she is a fucking tard. On the average we catch 2-3 drunks in four hours. But we do get the other more often than not.

Now if the police tells everyone what we are doing and where is it a violation of privacy?

Ok on the issue. I dont have a problem with it, IF the feds use it to catch terrorists. Now if they use it out of that scope, I will have a problem with it.

[Sammie]

The principle behind the American experience is simple: if the government has no reason to specifically fuck with you, it shouldn't. I don't believe sobriety checkpoints, dragnets, sweeps, or any other BS where enforcement grabs random samples of the population are remotely constitutional.

I know law enforcement appreciates it, but random sampling is flat out un-American. If you grab a large enough sample you will always find someone doing something wrong and enforcement points to these few successess in saying "see it worked." But they neglect to point out that for that one success, they just had 999 failures and 999 people had their rights violated.

In this instance, IF what they said was true I have no problem with the original public statements. Where they have software analyzing call records (who called who) looking for links. That's no problem. What creeps me out is having some jerk listening in while I argue or get goofy with a girl. Recording my conversations is creepy.

It's creepy for a reason: It's wrong.

I still don't understand why they can't provide a few judges with TS clearances and have them issue/ reject warrants for eavesdropping when specific intel is required. There are processes in place. Is it really so hard? If procedures need streamlining they should recommend it, instead of throwing out the checks and balances.

If we are at war with a group that is dead set on our destruction (which I belive we are), then people need to buckle down. The President needs to get the message out, not put in face time when his ratings drop. He needs to explain what we are doing and how we hope to accomplish it. He needs to do this weekly like Roosevelt did. Not sit on his ass like another Johnson or Nixon. It doesn't mean pandering to the idiotic press, but it does mean addressing the people.

Congress needs to define the parameters of this game specifically. Are we at war? Is this another Cold War? They keeping fucking around, afraid to commit. Then again, Baby Boomers are running this, so that goes without saying. What additional intelligence gathering powers does the administration have to combat this particular threat? For how long? The budget needs to reflect these prioties instead of porkin' it up.

I'm so frustrated.

A very accurate perception. I heartfully agreed with everything you wrote down to the last detail...esp the ending "I'm so frustrated"
The only thing I have to add to this atm (not much time to post*) is how horrfying it is that we are so willing giving away our right on mass scale without really even fighting it.
I think most of us live in the world as if we are watching bad television.

[McTucket]

i basically agree with you.. Yu... heh... you freakin lovable conservative...


i can understand why the govt does it though. they dont want another 9-11 to happen.(i hope this is the main generic reason, although we all know that the President and co. do it for other ostentaneous reasons...)

its a fact that there are terrorist cells in the country as we speak... there are 20 known cells alone in the dc/northern virigina area.

they want to gather intel so perhaps we can stop another tragedy like 9-11 from happening. im not saying its right, which it isnt... but may it be a necessity during times like these?

[Hae-Yu]

I don't believe there are many nefarious people around listening in running the NSA or other agencies. I've worked in government 10 years and now that I know how things work, conspiracy theories are dead. Maybe a small group, but not an organization.

I think most have good motives in what they want to accomplish. "How do we accomplish x?" But they aren't really thinking of the implications so much as the ends.

That needs the Leg and Jud branches - accountability. The checks and balances of the American system need to be respected. During war the executive gains power - Hamilton clearly pointed this out in Federalist #8 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa08.htm). It's a natural progression that has existed as long as government has. We recognize this, but in our system, it shouldn't be permanent and without accountability.

We're at war; some rights necessarily have to be infringed. But I want a clear delineation of what, why, and for how long. I want to know where I stand. It doesn't mean giving away secrets or methods at all.