Obama supports Bush on Terrorist Surveillance Secrecy

[GenSeneca]

Yes, but FISA spells out pretty clearly that an act of Congress or a statute will supercede its authority.

All of that is laid out in the other sections of the FISA law found on that page.

 

[samsara15]

I am not happy with government surveillance of American citizens, no matter who does it or why they are doing it. We had the state government getting into it also, here in Maryland, and they were infiltrating some rather mainline and harmless organizations.

 

[PLC1]

Your consistant reactions to disagreements with fellow Libertarians is why the Libertarian Party has never gone anywhere: "You must believe as I do or I don't think you're really a libertarian..."

That may be so. Libertarians tend to be an independent lot.

Now, you said 'opinions are opinions and facts are facts'

Fact is, FISA and the NSA are legal bound to respect the rights of American citizens within the confines of the constitution.

My opinoin is that they probably do violate the rights of American citizens on occasion but I have no Facts to offer as proof of this being the rule rather than the exception, and thus far, neither do you.

Thus far, no, but the potential is there. Once we do find out, what will the public reaction be? Ho, hum, oh, I suppose it must be for the better. Wonder what's on American Idol.

George H W Bush and Clinton both routinely allowed the violation of American citizens rights through the ECHELON program but it was done totally in secret, so nobody in the public complained.



I prefer the FISA laws and Patriot Act, the evil I can see, to the ECHELON program, the evil I don't know exists. Its far less likely our rights are being violated under a program that is public knowledge with multiple levels of oversight than under a secret program uknown to the public and unaccountable to any level of oversight.

The ECHALON PROGRAM is a new one on me. It appears you're right, this one was done in secret.

I suppose you could say that the evil you know about is less threatening than the one you don't know about. Personally, I don't trust either one.

I know about the asset forfeiture laws, too, and find that quite evil and threatening, but no one seems to notice. If someone were to ask 100 people at random, I doubt one of them would even know what they were. What was that about constant vigilance?

Do I trust the Federal Government? Hell no... and I'm all about dismantling the statist machine so that we can get back to the kind of limited federal government envisioned by our founders and set forth in the constitution. Opening up previously secret government programs to public scrutiny and oversight is a step in the right direction... Its not where I want us to be, we have a lot farther to go, but its better than continuing the other direction without knowing we're being taken for a ride.

You have a good point. I was not aware of the previously secret government program, as it was kept, well, secret.

 

[GenSeneca]

That may be so. Libertarians tend to be an independent lot.

Yes we are, I think that's a good thing.

Thus far, no, but the potential is there. Once we do find out, what will the public reaction be? Ho, hum, oh, I suppose it must be for the better. Wonder what's on American Idol.

We will be busy carting wheel barrels of money to the store for a loaf of bread...

The ECHALON PROGRAM is a new one on me. It appears you're right, this one was done in secret.

You might have missed this one too:

The first mention of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) in the mainstream media came from New York Times reporter John Markoff on February 13, 2002. Initial reports contained few details about the program. In the following months, as more information emerged about the scope of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) project, civil libertarians became concerned over what they saw as the potential for the development of an Orwellian mass surveillance system.

On November 14, 2002 the New York Times published a column by William Safire in which he claimed "[TIA] has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans." Safire has been "credited" with triggering the anti-TIA movement.

People like to puff their chests about trading freedom for security when talking about physical security but are happily trading our freedoms for economic security and I find that troubling.

People got livid at the thought of Government having a list of the library books we check out but have become cheerleaders for the same government getting access to our bank records, our healthcare records, and any number of other records that government has no business controlling.

I suppose you could say that the evil you know about is less threatening than the one you don't know about. Personally, I don't trust either one.

Its hard to distrust programs you don't know exist.

 

[PLC1]

You might have missed this one too:

Yes, I did.

It seems it is no longer called the total information program, but the terrorism information program:

The IAO began funding research and development of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program in February 2003 but renamed the program the Terrorism Information Awareness Program in May that year after an adverse media reaction to the program's implications for public surveillance.

Hmmm.. people are catching on, so we'd better rename the program. Yes, that sounds about right.

On August 2, 2002, Dr. Poindexter gave a speech at DARPAtech 2002 entitled "Overview of the Information Awareness Office"[3] in which he described the TIA program.

In addition to the program itself, the involvement of Poindexter as director of the IAO also raised concerns among some, since he had been earlier convicted of lying to Congress and altering and destroying documents pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair, although those convictions were later overturned on the grounds that the testimony used against him was protected.

Yes, that sounds about right, too. A major player in a major scandal directing this thing.

Yes, we're screwed.

Its hard to distrust programs you don't know exist.

Yes, it is. It's kind of like the rattlesnake you see vs the one you don't. The one you see is not really dangerous if you have sense enough to leave it alone.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Not if I am on the phone with someone in Pakistan, for example.

what about a pakistani in the US?

and your right to privacy you feel is lost, anytime you communicate with someone overseas? So they can read your Email as well then I take it? open your mail ( snail) and all that without warrant you believe correct? so long as the address or person your sending it to is not in the US? Or maybe not a US resident?

Now of course if the target and warrant is on the guy in Pakistan, and you just happen to be the one calling when they listen into his calls, that's one thing...but if they are watching your calls, because you call someone in Pakistan...without warrant...

 

[BigRob]

what about a pakistani in the US?

and your right to privacy you feel is lost, anytime you communicate with someone overseas? So they can read your Email as well then I take it? open your mail ( snail) and all that without warrant you believe correct? so long as the address or person your sending it to is not in the US? Or maybe not a US resident?

Now of course if the target and warrant is on the guy in Pakistan, and you just happen to be the one calling when they listen into his calls, that's one thing...but if they are watching your calls, because you call someone in Pakistan...without warrant...

Well, there are court cases under which you can interpret the 4th amendment to mean just that. That is the central part of the debate over the whole issue I suppose.