« Good Job. Liar. | Main | Transparency is Bipartisan »
December 20, 2005
Echelon?
The NSA stuff, as you all well know, makes no sense. The Court is so malleable that even if Bush were issuing improper taps, they'd likely as not be approving them anyway. It's fine to impute bad motives to the president (and I've been doing a fair bit of it), but, according to the quotes Kevin collects, that's not necessarily the likeliest explanation.
What we may be seeing is a massive data mining operation, something of huge scale and uncertain legality. According to Bruce Schneier, this is a massive expansion and focusing of Echelon, the storied NSA electronic data program. Since the idea here would be blanket data collection, individual warrants would make no sense. Now, it's not clear to me how Echelon, which was already sorting and analyzing data, could be retargeted and narrowed to become a nimble espionage tool, but I admittedly don't know that much about it. Time, I guess, to start finding out.
December 20, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83459e81469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Echelon?:
» Defining "terrorism" down from Pandagon
There's a lot to be said about this article in the NY Times from yesterday about the FBI monitoring protest groups by using the excuse that they're terrorist-hunting. It's clear as a bell that the Bushies consider groups that work... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 21, 2005 12:04:50 AM
Comments
This all sounds reasonable enough and an explanation that many, if not most Americans could live with - all the more reason for Bush to have come clean about it with Congress. The technological means may complicate the manner in which the data is collected but it does nothing to take away from the LAW regarding such data mining. New protocols, new laws or at least some modifications to the already existing FICA law would have been enough to satisfy the legislative branch and not violate the constitution.
No. This is all just more of the same in Bush's obsessive drive to beccome America's first monarch.
Posted by: Rob | Dec 20, 2005 12:45:34 AM
Assuming, for the sake of generous argument, that this tool, whatever it is, is a really powerful and appropriate means for identifying high-danger-factor terrorists and acting preemptively to stop their planned actions. [I don't for a minute believe this, without HARD evidence, impartially judged].
Then, since the 'President's program' has been in operation since either right after 9/11, or even earlier under Bill Clinton - alleged by some on the right, we should have caught SOME bad guys and prevented SOME terrorist actions. Who are these guys and what did we prevent?
Surely four years of operation (and 30 authorizations by the President that are admitted to) should have some positive result that could be explained in a non-compromising explanation. Where is that explanation?
I don't buy this whole line of argument. They were are probably still are doing some surveilance that can't stand the light of day without a civil uproar.
Once again, national security is the drag queen clothing for something far more difficult to justify. Bu$hCo likely has done a sex change operation on our democratic republic into a devine-right empire, and they don't want to reveal the real nature of this transsexual body that used to belong to "We, the people".
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Dec 20, 2005 2:40:31 AM
I wish folks would stop talking about 'motives' in their talking points. Bush's 'motives' are irrelevant.
I don't care if he was out to save all the widows and orphans in the world-- if he violated the Constitution, then he must go.
Repeat after me: Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men.
Time to choose, kids. Which is it?
Posted by: the dreaming ape | Dec 20, 2005 8:55:21 AM
Senator Rockefeller's note to Darth Cheney mentioned Adm. Poindexter's TIA program. That was an intense data mining technique that was being developed by DARPA (Department of Defense research lab). Evidently, after 9/11, it was secretly revived. That would explain why FISA warrants couldn't be sought and why Bush couldn't ask congressional approval. Congress tried to kill TIA earlier.
Posted by: MarvyT | Dec 20, 2005 9:08:23 AM
Repeat after me: Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men.
I agree with you. Bush needs to explain and a determination needs to be made if, in fact, this was a lawful act or not. I am willing to champion the law above men.
Now, how 'bout the statutes and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage? This, too, is a matter of law as well as the lawful ban on known homosexuals in the military. How about the immigration laws that make those who enter the country outside the system criminals? Lawful executions of felons?
Since you are touting "Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men. Laws Not Men.", you shouldn't have any problem getting behind these lawful policies.......right?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 9:34:29 AM
You're talking to the wrong liberal, Mephisto.
IMO gay marriage is a matter for the states (which, one by one, are coming to the correct conclusion here in New England), illegal immigration is serious problem exacerbated by opportunistic employers in the US (who should be punished), and my issues with capital punishment have more to do with flaws in the process and selective application than with any particular compassion for actual, guilty murderers.
Care for some sauce to go with that red herring?
Posted by: the dreaming ape | Dec 20, 2005 10:07:11 AM
Is Fred Jones becoming for gay marriage what Ron Greiner was for Health Savings Accounts?
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 20, 2005 10:30:53 AM
IMO gay marriage is a matter for the states...
The only reason why the federal amendment is needed is the probability that the homosexual community will try to force it upon the whole country at the federal level. If I could be guaranteed that wouldn't happen, I would be happy to leave it to each state.
...illegal immigration is serious problem exacerbated by opportunistic employers in the US (who should be punished),...
Absoultely. Why can't we ask anyone to require a SS card and a state issued picture ID at the minimum? It is the standard in the real world. As well, invading without a green card is also *illegal* and shouldn't be ignored. All you have done is call it a "serious problem'. I am willing to go after the employers, are you willing to go after the illegals?
my issues with capital punishment have more to do with flaws in the process and selective application than with any particular compassion for actual, guilty murderers.
Then you should also have serious issues with any long jail term because of the same reasons. How many of those serving 30 and 40 years terms are innocent? What kind of a life do you have left after that?
Here's how the system works in Texas. First, one must be convicted of a crime with the possibility of death. First degree premeditated murder does not qualify. It must be a capital crime...a crime of multiple murders, murder of a child, murder of a peace officer, etc. Secondly, you must have been found guilty by a jury that understands there is the possibility of death. Thirdly, the jury themselves must *unanimously* recommend the death penalty. Remember, there are other penalties available to them.
Is Fred Jones becoming for gay marriage what Ron Greiner was for Health Savings Accounts?
He is "everyman" on this issue....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 11:09:22 AM
The only reason why the federal amendment is needed is the probability that the homosexual community will try to force it upon the whole country at the federal level.
And the straight community too, at least those elements w/out unexamined prejudices against same-sex love. What's your problem with two men or two women in love getting married anyhow?
I mean, so long as you're hijacking the thread, do us the common courtesy of explaining yourself.
Posted by: Karl the Idiot | Dec 20, 2005 11:59:54 AM
He is "everyman" on this issue....
Fred, I talk with a lot of "everymen," and, somehow, we can talk about other political issues without gay marriage working itself into it, constantly. You're not "everyman" you're "gay marriage man" the same way Ron Greiner is "Health Savings Account Man."
My advice? Start an "all gay marriage/all the time" blog and leave the rest of us to talk about serious stuff.
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 20, 2005 12:04:41 PM
My advice to you is to get a new picture on your little used blog, Dean (try to stay away from the profile).
This issue is *the* defining issue of the culture war, like it or not. Attempts to squelch the other side by suggesting that "...it's not that important so let's not talk about it." or that "...anyone who discusses it is somehow a queer himself." or any other of the useless tactics used to shut-up the opposition is simply a waste of time.
It's also *the* wedge issue that the Democrats can't even acknowledge that they even remotely support it. That, in itself, makes this discussion not only relevant, but essential, son.
Get used to it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 12:31:15 PM
Fred, since you're so interested in federal policy, I suggest you consult this federal manual, particularly this section. Look, Ron Greiner thought that HSAs were the most important issue of our times, and he was banned from this blog for bringing up his hobby horse on every single thread. If you think the issue is so important, start your own blog where you can talk about it until you're blue in the face.
And when I talk to someone about gun control, and they bring up gay marriage, and then when we're discussing health insurance, and they raise the issue of gay marriage, and then when we're discussing what's going on in Iraq, and the other guy I'm speaking with brings up gay marriage, and then when I'm discussing issues regarding zoning rules, and the person I'm talking to brings up gay marriage, you can bet that I'm going to start thinking that something is "up" with that person.
Glad to hear you're reading my blog, though. I promise more regular updates when my schedule stops being so crazy and I have more free time to do things that give me stuff to blog about.
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 20, 2005 1:06:17 PM
Its shame this thread ventured far off topic.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 20, 2005 1:12:41 PM
If you think the issue is so important, start your own blog...
Go fuck yourself, Jethro.....and the horse you rode in on. This isn't your board.
Glad to hear you're reading my blog...
I never said I read it. Why should I? No one else does. Besides, I couldn't get past the picture.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 3:23:41 PM
Fred: Why can't we ask anyone to require a SS card and a state issued picture ID at the minimum? It is the standard in the real world.
One wonders if Fred is employed. Since the mid-1980's, all employees have to prove their right to work by completing Federal Form I-9 (PDF), a form of the Dept. of Homeland Security (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). Form I-9 must be certified by the employer after examining and copying the offered documents of the employee. One document from List A on the form, or one document each from List B and List C must be provided. These include Driver's license and Social Security card.
The reasons illegal workers are employed is that some of the documents (like the Social Security Card) can be forged (less likely) or the employer does not do the I-9 check lawfully (more likely).
There is essentially no enforcement against employers, largely because business doesn't want enforcement and the Republicans in Congress and the Administration refuse to strengthen the enforcement against employers - thus providing incentive for workers to avoid the law.
Perhaps before hijacking a thread with misinformation, you might want to do your homework, Fred.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Dec 20, 2005 4:26:25 PM
One wonders if Fred is employed.
I am not employed. I have not been employed for over 5 years. You can't make any real money being an employee, Jimmy.
My income quadrupled when I started selling my skills to the highest bidder rather than by salary. I probably now make more in passive investment income than you earn at your job. Then there's the deals I turn that brings in the real cash. This truly is the land of opportunity. I would never go back to a "job" again.
...Republicans in Congress and the Administration refuse to strengthen the enforcement against employers...
Cite please? I have never seen this. I would truly be interested. I am for enforcement of these laws. *AND* I am for enforcement of the immigration laws.
Yes, I would like to see the law on both sides upheld. The law is the law. Laws above men.
How 'bout you? If I'm willing to support enforcing labor laws, can you get on board with enforcing immigration laws? Is that not in the DNC fax this week?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 5:21:49 PM
I am not employed. I have not been employed for over 5 years. You can't make any real money being an employee, Jimmy.
Translation: Fred is unemployed and now sells Amway.
Fred, you've not only revealed that you don't have a job, but you've let slip that your any home business you've had has never been successful enough that you've ever needed to hire an employee or subcontractor. No wonder you have so much time to stalk Ezra and rant about gay people all day. As I said, with so much time on your hands, you should start your own blog.
Posted by: Constantine | Dec 20, 2005 9:12:24 PM
Nice shot.
i have a bachelor of science degree and a few graduate hours.....nothing to crow about. I do admire people like you that are academically smart with technology and can advance our way of life. But in the same breath, I get the feeling that you couldn't give away bread in a famine. Those who can buy and sell will always earn more than you will.
Although my background is accounting and I hold a state license (CPA), I trade real estate for my own account.
So, what do you do for money?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 9:28:08 PM
Back to the rowl:
Fred Jones is willing to do as Li'l Jimmy Portland wishes and put the law above men. Not just in this spying controversy, but in all cases.
Li'l Jimmy Portland, however, is not willing to do the same. Although he asks me to put laws above men in this case, he recoils on other issues. For all of his wailing and caterwalling about the law, he is unwilling to say LAWS ABOVE MEN on issues that don't promote his situational values.... only when it comes to BUSH.
So what does one eat to become such a partisan hack?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 20, 2005 10:04:50 PM
Now, how 'bout the statutes and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage? This, too, is a matter of law as well as the lawful ban on known homosexuals in the military.
Unless, that is, you take discrimination to be unlawful and equal protection to be applicable.
Even if those laws are legitimate (is it possible for discriminatory laws to be "legitimate" simply because the lawmaking process was not tainted by technical error?), they're wrong, morally abhorrent, disgusting, unacceptable.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 21, 2005 1:18:41 AM
Even if those laws are legitimate (is it possible for discriminatory laws to be "legitimate" simply because the lawmaking process was not tainted by technical error?), they're wrong, morally abhorrent, disgusting, unacceptable.
Shorter Joe: I like the laws I agree with and if I don't agree with them, then fuck the law.
Well, Joe, laws are rules that we have agreed upon, as a society, in advance. Now you wish to re-think every law, throw out those you don't like, and promulgate new politically correct rules that have no democratic origin. Rule by mob.
There are plenty of laws that I don't agree with and will work to get them changed. What makes me a patriot is the simple fact that until they are changed, I regard them as the law and, like it or not, I accept them.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 21, 2005 8:46:15 AM
Okay Fred. If you would really act immorally simply because the law demands it, that's your problem I guess (not that I had mentioned civil disobedience, of course, you simply assumed that I don't obey laws I don't like). By the way, patriotism is bad.
There are plenty of laws that I don't agree with and will work to get them changed.
This is different than me saying some laws are bad and need to be changed... um... how, exactly?
Well, Joe, laws are rules that we have agreed upon, as a society, in advance. Now you wish to re-think every law, throw out those you don't like, and promulgate new politically correct rules that have no democratic origin. Rule by mob.
I'm glad to see that you at least recognise that you favor mob rule, although I'm perplexed as to how any sane and intelligent human being can favor the tyranny of the majority over, well, the absence of tyranny (go read some Locke, it might help you). The logical conclusion therefore seems to be that you are either insane, unintelligent, both, or dishonest.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 21, 2005 12:20:35 PM
The logical conclusion is that you want it *YOUR* way. *YOU*( decide what is moral and everyone else can simply kiss your ass. Their opinions don't count.
This is the elitism of the left in all its glory.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 22, 2005 10:21:25 AM
Here's thought for ya', Joe.
There are probably at least a hundred million people that believe the law allowing abortion as a right is immoral. Now, do they obey the law until it changes, or do they take your position and disobey it? Should the Pharmacists that believe wholeheartedly that certain drugs kill life be able to choose not to sell those drugs?
The problem with your philosophy is it is self-serving and doesn't respect others. They have opinions too.
If everyone followed your lead, there would be chaos.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 22, 2005 10:26:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
