It's a long article, but click here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm?csp=34) to read it all.

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

So, let's all get on record on this one. I'll start.

If this story is true, I believe any politicians or political appointees who approved or were involved in this program need to:

- resign
- be removed from office (fired, impeached and convicted, or voted out)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If they were using the info to identify gang member, illegal invaders, etc. for deportation, then maybe there is some reasonable basis for the program.

I always feel that somebody's watchin' me
And I have no privacy
I always feel that somebody's watchin' me
Is it just a dream?

While they shouldn't be listening without warrants, this started because of terrorism.


-

"Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide,"

:p

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

:confused:

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists."

But not gang members, illegal invaders and other actual threats to Americans?

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Wow, a company that respects the US Consitution.

Remember how many Reps told us they were only spying on people making international phone calls to terrorists?

Well that sure was a bunch of Bullshot. They were wrong again!!

Bastards..

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.


:not: :not: :not: :not:

The less freedom and privacy you have, the safer you are

Welcome to Soviet America!!

So let's get on record.

Data mining has been going on for a long time.


Echelon

Remember how many Reps told us they were only spying on people making international phone calls to terrorists?

Well that sure was a bunch of Bullshot. They were wrong again!!
Lying is not the same as being wrong.
Data mining has been going on for a long time.
Doesn't make it right.

No one can listen to the calls. What they're doing is getting them on text and then a program goes through looking for certain phrases like "bomb" and so on. Nobody actually listens to the calls because the NSA only has a few employees.


-

Lying is not the same as being wrong.


Well yea..


Doesn't make it right.


How much trampling of rights and abuses will Americans tolerate?



"eat your Soylent Green, don't worry about where it comes from, it helps fight terrorism"

It's true though, they seem to be really pushing what they can do and then watching if the public gets mad or not.

Is there any reason the ACLU isn't on this? They certainly seem worried when Buford Smith in Arkansas forms a racist klan club.

-

No one can listen to the calls. What they're doing is getting them on text and then a program goes through looking for certain phrases like "bomb" and so on.
Having the records as text rather than speech would be worse in some ways (easier for every agency that gets a hold of them to mine for info totally unrelated to the original excuse for collecting it) but it doesn't appear that's the case here. From what I've seen so far, this program is only collecting the "envelope" information such as who and when and how long - not the actual contents of conversations. That doesn't mean NSA (or some other even more secretive agency) isn't eavesdropping on the contents through another program, but it doesn't seem to be part of this one.

Doesn't make it right.Doesn't make it illegal

Doesn't make it illegal
No, it's illegal on its own (lack of) merit. Echelon actually did set the precedent, and it was a precedent against this kind of program. Public outcry caused the program to be ended (or, perhaps, just hidden better). Past wrongs do not justify present wrongs.

I see nothing wrong with the analysis of phone traffic patterns.

Methinks this is a well timed political tactic to stonewall Hayden's nomination.

No, it's illegal on its own (lack of) merit. Echelon actually did set the precedent, and it was a precedent against this kind of program. Public outcry caused the program to be ended (or, perhaps, just hidden better). Past wrongs do not justify present wrongs.

Monitoring traffic patterns is illegal? You have any idea at all how absurd a notion that is?

Monitoring traffic patterns is illegal? You have any idea at all how absurd a notion that is?
A case could possibly be made for calls involving non-US citizens, but collecting phone records between US citizens has required a warrant just about since there were phones. FISA only reinforced that, and it's a common-sense interpretation of the fourth amendment anyway. Phones and phone lines are not part of a public commons; they are private property. As such, the government does not have a right to even the smallest-seeming piece of information about it unless they can show probable cause and get a warrant.

What's so difficult about the idea not spying on people without a reason? "Probable cause" can be interpreted very liberally, and has been by the FISA court. If there is any cause whatsoever for the surveillance, getting a warrant is trivial. If the government can't even meet that pathetic standard, then they should spend our tax dollars on something else. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and this is exactly the sort of thing that famous saying meant for us to be vigilant about.

I wonder how many of the people who are speculating that these phone calls were not gathered during legitimate law enforcement surveillance continue to use Google services. If you are worried about the Feds, you should be more afraid of GOOG. The database they are building makes the Gubmint look like rank amateurs.

A case could possibly be made for calls involving non-US citizens, but collecting phone records between US citizens has required a warrant just about since there were phones. FISA only reinforced that, and it's a common-sense interpretation of the fourth amendment anyway. Phones and phone lines are not part of a public commons; they are private property. As such, the government does not have a right to even the smallest-seeming piece of information about it unless they can show probable cause and get a warrant.

What's so difficult about the idea not spying on people without a reason? "Probable cause" can be interpreted very liberally, and has been by the FISA court. If there is any cause whatsoever for the surveillance, getting a warrant is trivial. If the government can't even meet that pathetic standard, then they should spend our tax dollars on something else. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and this is exactly the sort of thing that famous saying meant for us to be vigilant about.


The answer to my question is apparently 'no'.

I refuse to believe you are as appallingly ignorant as your post suggests, and can only conclude you are sacrificing truth, for the sake of partisan sniping. A few minutes of research on the web should provide all the information needed to verify whether this program is legal or not. I've already taken the trouble to do so, and it's legal. :shrug:

Instead of wasting energy tilting at windmills, you might focus your attentions on real scandal, for a change. I'd be happy to provide you some great ideas on this. Just lemme know.

A case could possibly be made for calls involving non-US citizens, but collecting phone records between US citizens has required a warrant just about since there were phones. FISA only reinforced that, and it's a common-sense interpretation of the fourth amendment anyway. Phones and phone lines are not part of a public commons; they are private property. As such, the government does not have a right to even the smallest-seeming piece of information about it unless they can show probable cause and get a warrant.

What's so difficult about the idea not spying on people without a reason? "Probable cause" can be interpreted very liberally, and has been by the FISA court. If there is any cause whatsoever for the surveillance, getting a warrant is trivial. If the government can't even meet that pathetic standard, then they should spend our tax dollars on something else. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and this is exactly the sort of thing that famous saying meant for us to be vigilant about.

The information gather by computers in 'data minng' activities is legal. FISA has nothing to do with it.

If this story is true, I believe any politicians or political appointees who approved or were involved in this program need to:

- resign
- be removed from office (fired, impeached and convicted, or voted out)
Agreed.
While they shouldn't be listening without warrants, this started because of terrorism.


-
Bullshit,terrorism is the reason [excuse is a better word] they give for this abuse of power,but I think they [meaning Bush and company] are lying out of their asses.


I wonder how many of the people who are speculating that these phone calls were not gathered during legitimate law enforcement surveillance continue to use Google services. If you are worried about the Feds, you should be more afraid of GOOG. The database they are building makes the Gubmint look like rank amateurs.

Well,the Feds asked Google to comply with them and they said "no",so that tells me Google has more integrity.

Well,the Feds asked Google to comply with them and they said "no",so that tells me Google has more integrity.

Tell that to the Chinese.

The ONLY reason that GOOG did not comply with the simple market analysis request of the Feds is that they do not want retail investors to know how much of their profits come from pr0n.

Monitoring traffic patterns is illegal? You have any idea at all how absurd a notion that is?

Knowing exactly who-called-who-when-and-where is just a tad more intrusive than "monitoring traffic patterns"

Knowing exactly who-called-who-when-and-where is just a tad more intrusive than "monitoring traffic patterns"

Evidently, there are those here who think the government shouldn't be restricted in any power, ever, and that it should be allowed to regulate and control everything the people do.

It's funny that the Republicans have them convinced they're "conservatives" when they're anything but.

Evidently, there are those here who think the government shouldn't be restricted in any power, ever, and that it should be allowed to regulate and control everything the people do.

It's funny that the Republicans have them convinced they're "conservatives" when they're anything but.

This is the "security blanket" idea of governance, which goes hand in hand with fear-mongering as a propaganda tool. No real conservative accepts the the government's palliative, "It's OK, it's for your own good."

Both strategies assume that the people are stupid gullible cowards, and if they are, they don't deserve democracy in the first place.

Both strategies assume that the people are stupid gullible cowards, and if they are, they don't deserve democracy in the first place.

Well thank you Ben Franklin, but I agree leftists don't deserve democracy.

There isn't a shred of anything remotely sinister about looking for trends in overseas phone calls.

Bush: "Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Reminds me of, Bush: "A wiretap requires a court order."

:rolleyes:

So "Millions" of Americans are "al Qaeda and their known affiliates"?

Bush: "Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Reminds me of, Bush: "A wiretap requires a court order."

:rolleyes:

So "Millions" of Americans are "al Qaeda and their known affiliates"?

Oh for godsakes you are a drama queen. :rolleyes:

Well thank you Ben Franklin, but I agree leftists don't deserve democracy.

There isn't a shred of anything remotely sinister about looking for trends in overseas phone calls.

We're talking about domestic phone calls, dude.

Well thank you Ben Franklin, but I agree leftists don't deserve democracy.

There isn't a shred of anything remotely sinister about looking for trends in overseas phone calls.

y'all need to re-read the article

"to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders

But there's nothing that could possibly go wrong when a small group of people in the government assign themselves the power to trace every single call you ever make, to find out everything you've been reading at the library, or buying at the bookstore, to build a data base of all your internet searches, and to tap your phones without a warrent.

NOthing could possibly be wrong with that. There's no way the government would ever abuse that kind of domestic spying power. We can ALWAYS trust the government to just do whatever it wants.

</sarcasm>

Reach out, Reach Out and Touch Someone.

A few minutes of research on the web should provide all the information needed to verify whether this program is legal or not. I've already taken the trouble to do so, and it's legal. :shrug:
If your "research" consists of frequenting wingnut blogs and forums, then of course that's the conclusion you'll reach. If, on the other hand, you actually find out what judges and lawyers have had to say on the issue - as I have done - you'll reach an entirely different conclusion. Go ahead, cite a source showing how FISA or 18 USC I:119 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html) does not apply or has been superseded. You won't be able to. The limitations and penalties specified there apply in this situation, and you have nothing but wishful thinking to the contrary.

It truly amazes me that so many who consider themselves libertarians, or at any rate not authoritarians, can defend these sorts of things. What ever happened to that general dislike and distrust of government? Where's all that respect for the principles upon which the US was founded? Where's the insistence that people shoud be allowed to do whatever they want on private property without Big Brother intruding? Do you remember this?
Big Brother is watching.
Let me repeat: watching. That's what Big Brother is most famous for. That's the core of how Big Brother kept people in a constant state of fear. Watching is the essence of Big Brotherism, but those who blather on and on about "freedom" and "liberty" seem to have zero interest in either. The very moment that a liberal points out something wrong, both the conservatives and libertarians reflexively take the other side regardless of how it conflicts with their so-called principles. If our president was caught raping a child on TV and a liberal criticized him for it, accusations of "you just hate Bush" and "you're aiding the terrorists" would surely be heard in his defense.

Reason is useless against such pathology. I've wasted enough time on such BS non-arguments already. It's a good thing there are still enough real patriots out there to secure our rights from the sociopaths who cast aside principle for partisanship every time.

We're talking about domestic phone calls, dude.

Sorry bro, my bad. :)

Knowing exactly who-called-who-when-and-where is just a tad more intrusive than "monitoring traffic patterns"
It also does not constitute a wire tap

Go ahead, cite a source showing how 18 USC I:119 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html) does not apply or has been superseded. You won't be able to. .

easy...your link (18 USC I:119) deals with communications being intercepted:


§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited


Release date: 2005-08-03

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;....

They are not monitoring communications

They are not monitoring communications
For legal purposes, they are. Do you know what a "pen register" is? Look it up. FISA has a lot to say about it, and it provides no more than the information we're talking about. The distinction between the "envelope" and contents of calls might seem pretty intuitive, but laws are often funny that way and the laws in this case don't make the distinction you conveniently assume they do.

The less freedom and privacy you have, the safer you are


Yep, we're losing more of our freedoms each day. Not all of us conservatives as well agree with this and I can only imagine our forefathers rolling in their graves. :eek3:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

************************************************** *
"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George W. Bush 5/21/99

Ignore your rights and they'll go away. :(

For legal purposes, they are. Do you know what a "pen register" is? Look it up. FISA has a lot to say about it, and it provides no more than the information we're talking about. The distinction between the "envelope" and contents of calls might seem pretty intuitive, but laws are often funny that way and the laws in this case don't make the distinction you conveniently assume they do.
Do you know what the Supreme Court is? Look it up. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that a pen register does not violate the 4th ammendment. The person dialing volunteers the information to the phone companies. FISA is funny that way...people assume it is "the word" even if it hasn't come under judicial review

SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735
SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.



The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&invol=735


Until someone can show me a more recent Supreme Court ruling, i'll stick with the idea that this is nothing new...more data mining similar to Echelon.

(I really am open to be turned on this subject)

Until someone can show me a more recent Supreme Court ruling, i'll stick with the idea that this is nothing new...more data mining similar to Echelon.

(I really am open to be turned on this subject)
I don't have time to read the full text of that decision and determine applicability right now, but I will ask why USA PATRIOT still referred to FISA restrictions on pen registers (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/) quite a few years later if they were truly unrelated.
Finally, the USA-PATRIOT Act removed the pre-existing statutory requirement that the government prove the surveillance target is "an agent of a foreign power" before obtaining a pen register/trap and trace order under the FISA. (A pen register collects the outgoing phone numbers placed from a specific telephone line, a trap and trace device captures the incoming numbers placed to a specific phone line. For example, a caller-id box is a trap and trace device.) The government can now obtain a pen register/trap and trace device "for any investigation to gather foreign intelligence information," without a showing that the device has, is or will be used by a foreign agent or by an individual engaged in international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This amendment significantly eviscerates the constitutional rationale for the relatively lax requirements that apply to foreign intelligence surveillance. That laxity is premised on the assumption that Congress and the courts should not unduly restrain the Executive Branch, in pursuit of its national security responsibilities to monitor the activities of foreign powers and their agents. The removal of the "foreign power" predicate for pen register/trap and trace surveillance upsets that delicate balance.
Maybe I'll have time to do more digging and draw all the necessary lines later.

I suggest that all you americans end phonecalls from now on with " **** teh gouv., you basterds!"

or mention the word bomb in every phonecall you make.

Is there any reason the ACLU isn't on this? They certainly seem worried when Buford Smith in Arkansas forms a racist klan club.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/index.html

They've been active on this since the story first broke.

Another New Low for the Surveillance States of America

Today, you need NOT be a suspect, a foreigner, have foreign ties, be connected to terrorists, or be anything ... just being an American is reason to be tracked, data-logged, monitored and recorded by Big Brother

for our "own protection" of course ... your Great Aunt Violet in Baltimore could be Al Qaeda :|

Another New Low for the Surveillance States of America
|


I agree, another leak about a classified operation. We need to root out all these anti-Patriots and try them for treason :|

Until someone can show me a more recent Supreme Court ruling, i'll stick with the idea that this is nothing new...more data mining similar to Echelon.
I don't need a more recent Supreme Court ruling, because subsequent statute also supersedes such a decision, and in this case the subsequent statute is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (http://www.cdt.org/publications/lawreview/1997albany.shtml) of 1986 which specifically addressed the issues in Smith.
in 1979, the Court in Smith v. Maryland ruled that the use of a pen register to collect the phone numbers dialed on a surveillanced line did not implicate Fourth Amendment interests.

ECPA responded to Smith by requiring a judicial order for pen registers and trap and trace devices. For transactional information relating to e-mail and other electronic communications, ECPA required a subpoena, a warrant or a court order. In 1994, Congress recognized that transactional data associated with e-mail and other computer communications was emerging as a hybrid form of data, somewhere between addressing information and content, and was becoming increasingly revealing of personal patterns of association. Therefore, Congress set a higher standard for access to transactional data regarding electronic communications and eliminated subpoena access.
As I expected, others more familiar than either of us with the relevant laws have weighed in by now regarding the legality of this program. Many of them reiterate the point I've already made that the law makes a different distinction than some think between the content and the "transactional data" regarding phone calls, and/or cite a plethora of other laws that might have been broken but haven't been mentioned here previously. Here's law professor Orin Kerr (http://volokh.com/posts/1147361955.shtml):
The legality of the program touches on at least five laws: the Fourth Amendment, the Pen Register statute, the Stored Communications Act, FISA, and the Communications Act.
...
federal surveillance law calls any means of surveilling non-content telephone or Internet information a "pen register" or "trap and trace device." Section 3121 then bans using such a device unless the government has a court order (either through the criminal investigative authorities or national security law authorities) or an exception to the statute applies. The exceptions in the statute don't seem applicable here: They mostly involve monitoring to provide better service for the telephone company.
Litigator Glenn Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.********.com/2006/05/legal-issues-governing-administrations.html):
In turn, Section 1801(n) defines the term "contents" as follows:

"Contents," when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

There is, at the very least, a strong argument to make that the type of information obtained by the administration here falls squarely within the scope of FISA and thus requires warrants before it can be obtained.
...

UPDATE: Both Anonymous Liberal and Marty Lederman suggest that the telecommunications companies perhaps violated Section 222 of the Communications Act, which "requires telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of customer proprietary information ("CPNI"), such as the telephone numbers called by customers and the length oftime of the calls. . . ." By e-mail, Georgia10 of Daily Kos argues that the companies seem clearly to have violated 18 U.S.C. section 2702, which also bans the disclosure of such information without a court order.
Center for National Security Studies Director Kate Martin (http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-2835-guest-blogger-nsa-again-violates-the-law.html):
It is illegal for the NSA to obtain records of phone numbers from the telephone companies unless the FISA court authorized it. The Stored Communications Act prohibits the telephone companies from disclosing such information to the government unless they receive a subpoena or a court order for the records. 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), 2703 (c).
...
It is important to note that the Patriot Act specifically provided that the FBI did not need a court order, but could use a National Security Letter " form of administrative subpoena" to obtain such records. The Congress specifically withheld such subpoena authority from the NSA.
It's also important to note that we know from the Qwest account that NSA declined not only declined to get a warrant but also declined to get an NSL. This is presumably also true with respect to the companies that did comply with NSA's request, and it seems fairly clear that they did not pursue such avenues because both the FISC and the DOJ would have deemed such a request illegal.

I strongly recommend that people read these explanations in full, and not just the excerpts I have provided. I think they make it quite clear that, at the very least, a view of this program as illegal is not "absurd" as had been claimed. Indeed, they come close to showing that any contrary belief is absurd. There are so many laws involved, so directly addressing the specific type of behavior in which NSA engaged, that it's hard to escape a conclusion that they not only broke the law but actively used subterfuge to avoid its application.

Your turn. Good luck.

I've given you a SC ruling concerning pen registers, the type that apparently is involved in this NSA program. You have given me an opinion concerning "transactional data" Which does not pertain to this subject and also is judged with a higher standard:

The Framework of the Electronic Surveillance Laws

There are three major laws setting privacy standards for government interception of communications and access to subscriber information:

The federal wiretap statute ("Title III"), 18 USC 2510 et seq., which requires a probable cause order from a judge for real-time interception of the content of voice and data communications. This legal standard is high.


The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 USC 2701 et seq., setting standards for access to stored email and other electronic communications and to transactional records (subscriber identifying information, logs, toll records). The standard for access to the contents of email is relatively high; the standards for access to transactional data are low.


The pen register and trap and trace statute, enacted as part of ECPA, 18 USC 3121 et seq., governing real-time interception of "the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached." The standard is that of a rubber stamp.
link (http://www.cdt.org/security/000404amending.shtml)

Notice the last line....the type of info we are discussing is rubber stamped.

Since you quoted Kerr it's important to note his conclusion:

To summarize, my very preliminary sense is that there are no Fourth Amendment issues here but a number of statutory problems under statutes such as FISA and the pen register statute. Of course, all of the statutory questions are subject to the possible argument that Article II trumps those statutes. Ultimately it boils down to one question...Did NSA violate the Constitution (Which all laws are subject to)?

I've given you a SC ruling concerning pen registers, the type that apparently is involved in this NSA program. You have given me an opinion concerning "transactional data" Which does not pertain to this subject
No, it is this subject. If you had actually read any of what I cited, you'd know that "transactional data" refers to precisely the information that a pen register (which you couldn't even spell until I mentioned it) collects, which is also the same as what the NSA has been collecting through slightly different means. You have also given no answer to the fact that a later statute (actually several) supersedes the SC ruling you cited. It's your information that's irrelevant, not mine.
Ultimately it boils down to one question...Did NSA violate the Constitution (Which all laws are subject to)?
Wrong. The constitution gives congress the authority (and responsibility) to pass statutes which are more specific than the constitution itself, so long as those laws do not infringe upon the freedoms guaranteed to the people (and the states). Since these laws place restrictions on the federal government there is no question of such a conflict. A law that is more protective of individual rights than the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Therefore, the question really is whether the NSA violated the statutes that have been mentioned.

You can claim to be open to persuasion on this topic, but your response shows that you are not. Another lie, I guess. Every time I get into one of these discussions I have to consider several factors, such as whether some unwary reader might be persuaded by a noxious POV, whether I can make an argument for a more reasonable POV that is both original and persuasive, and the level of general level of nastiness I can expect for defying regressive dogma. It no longer seems likely that any reasonable person would find your arguments persuasive, and the BS level is as high as I've come to expect. There is, therefore, no reason for me to respond further unless you bring something to the table that's far better than what you've presented so far.

Lets see phone taps, detentions without recourse to the courts, denial of access for the Red cross to prisoners, Abu Ghirab, pre-emptive wars. America has fallen from a country the protected and cherished its ideals to one that has abandoned them. Its gotten to the point where if the US said something was black most of the world would assume it was white and the US was lying.

So now it's phase I in the NSA warrantless wiretapping.

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051100539.html?sub=AR)

Bush has replaced the legal process with a computer program.

(which you couldn't even spell until I mentioned it You really can’t help coming off sounding like a prick can you?


You have also given no answer to the fact that a later statute (actually several) supersedes the SC ruling you cited. It's your information that's irrelevant, not mine.

Wrong. The constitution gives congress the authority (and responsibility) to pass statutes which are more specific than the constitution itself,

hmmmm…The SC interprets the Constitution and rules pen registers are not covered by the 4th Amendment, Congress passes another law which says a rubber stamp warrant is needed which somehow means they are because according to you Congress supersedes the Constitution

so long as those laws do not infringe upon the freedoms guaranteed to the people (and the states). Since these laws place restrictions on the federal government there is no question of such a conflict. A law that is more protective of individual rights than the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Therefore, the question really is whether the NSA violated the statutes that have been mentioned. That’s all nice and pretty deduction there platypuss but the question really isn’t about whether the newer statute is unconstitutional, it is whether the NSA program is violating the constitution. The Supreme Court seems to think otherwise.

Using your same logic: The Constitution grants powers to the President, if the Congress decides to limit his powers (place restrictions on the federal government) and these limitations do not conflict with my personal freedoms, then this cannot be unconstitutional. Sorry…I have to fly the BS flag :bs:

You can claim to be open to persuasion on this topic, but your response shows that you are not. Another lie, I guess.
Sure that’s it….degrade the discussion further

Every time I get into one of these discussions I have to consider several factors, such as whether some unwary reader might be persuaded by a noxious POV, …, and the level of general level of nastiness I can expect for defying regressive dogma. Some self examination is in order platyguy. You usually sling the mud first with your arrogant. Condescending attitude:

Do you know what a "pen register" is? Look it up.
.
.
.
which you couldn't even spell until I mentioned it


It no longer seems likely that any reasonable person would find your arguments persuasive, and the BS level is as high as I've come to expect. There is, therefore, no reason for me to respond further unless you bring something to the table that's far better than what you've presented so far.okie-dokie artichokie….In the meantime, keep searching for something to overturn the earlier Supreme Court ruling. Until then I’ll refrain from further discussion….I’m tired of stepping in the crap you spew.

You really can't help coming off sounding like a prick can you?
Wah wah wah. "Mommy, he hit me back!" Lacking a substantial argument, I guess complaints about tone are your only option. I've laid out my argument. I've cited multiple sources, which in turn cite dozens more, and you have failed to follow up on them before flinging more poo. You, by contrast, have provided only one source and that one irrelevant. If you want to slink away now (like all of your compatriots have already done) that's just fine with me, but spare us the childish attempts to make your retreat look like anything else with one last mal mot.

White House and Corrupt Two-Party System Destroy Balance between Security and Liberty

(Washington, D.C.) USA Today reported this week that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of innocent Americans, and compiling them into a federal database. This discovery was preceded by the recent leak of domestic spying abuses along with the abuses that have stemmed from powers granted by the Patriot Act.

"The fear of terrorism was used to create this database shortly after September 11th, just as it was used to pass the Patriot Act and ignore the rule of law with increased domestic spying," stated Michael Dixon, chairman of the Libertarian Party. "However, our history proves that these programs will be abused regardless of the intended purpose. We witnessed this with the Clinton administration and its use of FBI files for political purposes. More recently, the Patriot Act has been used against business owners in Nevada rather than al-Qaeda."

This database, it is assumed, will be used to analyze the calling patterns of Americans to determine possible terrorist suspects, even though its establishment comes at the expense of the privacy of millions of innocent American citizens.

It is clear that the NSA’s domestic spying program, a program that should not legally exist, is far larger than originally anticipated. USA Today reported that, in order to develop this program, the government agency used private phone records provided by three major companies, AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., and Bellsouth Corp.

Notably, one major carrier, Qwest Communications, did not provide the information demanded by the government, citing concerns over privacy. Despite repeated demands and harassment, Qwest remained loyal to its customers and America, failing to cave in to bureaucratic pressure.

“Under the Bush Administration, the federal government has demonstrated that it has no respect for the inherent rights of Americans, and neither Republican nor Democratic politicians have done a thing to stop this madness despite repeated abuses,” Dixon stated. “This country needs a change and the leaders within the Libertarian Party are working to make that happen.”

If you want to see a change in the leadership of this nation, help make it happen by supporting the Libertarian Party.


(this came to me in an email from the Libertarian Party)

I found this video on the NSA interesting and thought I'd post it here since so much disinformation and negative press has been put out about the NSA (This thread was an example)

http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/12/meet-the-nsa/