Germans and Englishmen in the news

On 21 Dec 2005 22:29:31 -0800, "
wrote:


Scott Seidman wrote:
That's why this latest move of the Admin to bypass the Court might just be
their downfall. I think this is gonna get a whole lot worse for them, and I
doubt it will get better before these guys are out of office.

I doubt it, Scott: the right wing will convince the public that
no God-fearing law-abiding US citizen has anything to fear
from this and it is only the bad guys who are being monitored.

I worked for NSA (while in the navy) for 20 years. I was stationed at
Ft. Meade, MD for two of those years. NSA could tap into the phones
of just about anyone, but analyzing the "product" would take years.
It is just not feasible to monitor law abiding US citizens. And for
what reason? Intercepting product is not the problem; analyzing it
is. I doubt you can name me one law abiding citizen in the U.S. that
has been a target of the NSA. And, pray tell, why would they monitor
your communications, or mine ftm?

But, if they have a handful, say 30, of known/suspected el Qaeda
operatives receiving calls from overseas, they would be foolish NOT to
intercept them. Of course it is a mute subject now because of the NY
Times article.

Dave (who has forgotten more about intercept operations than you will
ever know)

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:32:55 GMT, rw
wrote:

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

That's why this latest move of the Admin to bypass the Court might just be
their downfall. I think this is gonna get a whole lot worse for them, and I
doubt it will get better before these guys are out of office.


I doubt it, Scott: the right wing will convince the public that
no God-fearing law-abiding US citizen has anything to fear
from this and it is only the bad guys who are being monitored.

That particular line of bull**** isn't working as well these days.

For non-thinking people, perhaps, but for anyone who has just a little
imagination it is a bunch of kaka to think that NSA would monitor
them. NSA has the facilities to monitor just about anything, but
gleaning any info from such intercepts would be impossible. And why,
pray tell, would NSA waste assets monitoring you, me, anyone on roff?

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

But, if they have a handful, say 30, of known/suspected el Qaeda
operatives receiving calls from overseas, they would be foolish NOT to
intercept them. Of course it is a mute subject now because of the NY
Times article.


They would be foolish not to intercept them, and they would be even more
foolish to intercept them without a FISA warrant, which they are entitled
to ask for up to THREE DAYS AFTER the tap. That particular court is said
to have turned down four requests out of thousands in recent history--but
Bush has fixed it so he can do it with zero paper trail. He's moving into
Nixon territory in some ways, and past Nixon territory in others.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Looking forward to the "I won't pardon Bush" platform in 2007

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:32:55 GMT, rw
wrote:

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

That's why this latest move of the Admin to bypass the Court might just
be
their downfall. I think this is gonna get a whole lot worse for them,
and I
doubt it will get better before these guys are out of office.


I doubt it, Scott: the right wing will convince the public that
no God-fearing law-abiding US citizen has anything to fear
from this and it is only the bad guys who are being monitored.

That particular line of bull**** isn't working as well these days.

For non-thinking people, perhaps, but for anyone who has just a little
imagination it is a bunch of kaka to think that NSA would monitor
them.

Insofar as twisted reasoning can be thought of as amusing (and it most
certainly is) this has to be the best post in the history of ROFF!


It would indeed take a healthy dollop of imagination for one to suppose that
being monitored by NSA is absurd.

NSA has the facilities to monitor just about anything, but
gleaning any info from such intercepts would be impossible.

As has been clearly demonstrated time and again, eh? I mean, there's that
Oklahoma City thingy.....and then there's two (or three.....dpends on how
you count them) little incidents at the World Trade Center, for starters.
Now, I have no idea what the NSA's budget looks like but it seems to me that
if it's impossible for them to glean any information from all of their
monitoring.....and it does kinda look like you're right about that.....then
the money could probably be better used elsewhere.

And why,
pray tell, would NSA waste assets monitoring you, me, anyone on roff?

Well, if they know exactly who they should be monitoring and who not, then
why haven't they already rounded up all the bad guys?

Wolfgang
who begins to see why it is that a bunch of castaways on a desert island a
couple of hundred yards from the mainland (who receive regular, if brief,
visits from intellectual giants like gorillas) can be marooned for several
years.

On 22 Dec 2005 13:33:20 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

He's moving into
Nixon territory in some ways, and past Nixon territory in others.

Scott, I don't wanna get into a ****ing contest on whether or not it
is legal. All I am saying is that it is improbable that NSA would
waste its assets on the likes of you and me, or John Q. Public. It
ain't gonna happen. Al Qaeda, yes. You, no.

Our country was founded on ideals like Liberty and Due Process.
In my opinion it's a slippery slope and it's about as far from true
conservative principles as it can get. I'm (normally) pretty
apolitical in public, but it kills me what kind of **** "conservative"
politicians are getting away with these days, not to mention our
current "conservative" fiscal policy! I remember years and years of
conservatives spraying the "tax and spend" label at anyone they didn't
agree with. Now the shoe's on the other foot and we're spending like
drunken sailors. 500 Billion in Iraq? Please.
Our strength is based upon transparency, due process, and
accountability, and we're losing that fast.
bruce h

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 22 Dec 2005 13:33:20 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

He's moving into
Nixon territory in some ways, and past Nixon territory in others.

Scott, I don't wanna get into a ****ing contest on whether or not it
is legal. All I am saying is that it is improbable that NSA would
waste its assets on the likes of you and me, or John Q. Public. It
ain't gonna happen. Al Qaeda, yes. You, no.





Makes absolutely no difference who Bush chooses to eavesdrop on. Every
American citizen enjoys the same rights I do (and the same rights you do)
to unreasonable search and seizure. If the government has any shred of
evidence of terrorist involvement, let them take it to the FISA court
(which is meeting in the near future over concerns that this secret
program was used to gather evidence to submit to this court) that was
formed specifically to address such concerns after the abuses of the
Nixon Administration, and get the warrant they need.

The President is not the Legislative Branch, and thus its not his
responsibility to determine just how many of our Civil Liberties need to
be stripped away in times of national emergency. That's Congress' job,
and they did just this with the Patriot Act. Of course, the Pres needs
to ban any debate to try to figure out just how many rights got signed
away in a moment of passion, or if they really need to be to the extent
that they were, or if some are abusing the Act.

Dave, you understand better than I do that good men have died to defend
these rights, and the Constitution that actually places real checks on
the Executive Branch. Bush is spitting on the graves of these men. He's
wiping his ass with our Constitution. Not one Republican Congressman has
risen to defend this, and long standing Republicans in leadership
positions are calling for hearings. Bush hasn't earned your defense on
his behalf.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2005 22:29:31 -0800, "
wrote:


Scott Seidman wrote:
That's why this latest move of the Admin to bypass the Court might just
be
their downfall. I think this is gonna get a whole lot worse for them,
and I
doubt it will get better before these guys are out of office.

I doubt it, Scott: the right wing will convince the public that
no God-fearing law-abiding US citizen has anything to fear
from this and it is only the bad guys who are being monitored.

I worked for NSA (while in the navy) for 20 years. I was stationed at
Ft. Meade, MD for two of those years.

Well then, God help us all.

NSA could tap into the phones
of just about anyone, but analyzing the "product" would take years.

Sorta makes justifying the whole process problematic, ainna? I mean, if
Sparky calls Bubba on Tuesday and says "let's blow up the Kwikee-Mart on
Thursday", NSA's uncanny ability to figure it out by sometime late in 2007,
while impressive as purely intellectual feat, isn't all that useful in the
near term.

It is just not feasible to monitor law abiding US citizens.

True enough. Hell, just FINDING one would be a pretty neat trick. And
then, as you say, it would take years to confirm it.

And for what reason?

Ah, this one I know! See, EVERYBODY is a law abiding citizen.....until he
or she is not. The trick is to anticipated that transition.

Intercepting product is not the problem; analyzing it is.

And we're starting to get a pretty good idea of why that is......aren't we?


I doubt you can name me one law abiding citizen in the U.S. that
has been a target of the NSA.

Um.....well.....they DO kinda work in secret. Tell ya what.....give us a
list of everybody they've monitored in the last 30 or 40 years. After we
analye it (this could take a while from what I've heard) we'll let you know
if we can come up with the name of one law abiding citizen in the U.S. who
has been their target.

Incidentally, this raises another interesting question. If EVERYBODY that
NSA monitors is guilty of a crime (leaving aside the question of how this
determined when it takes years to analyze each and every datum), then why
don't they simply put them all in prison? I mean, hell, if we already know
they are guilty, then we can dispense with the costly and time consuming
process of trial by jury (the purpose of which, after all, is simply to
determine guilt or innocence.....and that's already been done), and put them
away somewhere for a long time?

And, pray tell, why would they monitor
your communications, or mine ftm?

Um......because they've got all those high tech resources and, since they
already know who all the bad guys are, they've got a lot of free time on
their hands?

But, if they have a handful, say 30, of known/suspected el Qaeda
operatives receiving calls from overseas, they would be foolish NOT to
intercept them.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question (I'm no expert on this whole
double-naught business) but if there are known El Qaeda operatives receiving
calls from overseas, wouldn't it be more practical to simply go out and
round them up? Again, figuring out that they plan to blow up the
Kwikee-Mart two years after the event is a neat enough trick, but I doubt
that Apu (assuming the selfish ******* survives........and hey, what they
hell kind of name is Apu anyway?......don't sound law abiding Murrican to
me!) will appreciate the sheer beauty of it all.

Of course it is a mute subject now because of the NY
Times article.

Well, that's the thing about print media.....you can listen all day and
you'll never hear a damned thing.

Dave (who has forgotten more about intercept operations than you will
ever know)

Along with everybody else in the "intelligence" business, it would appear.

Wolfgang
20 years......TWENTY YEARS!......and he has not an inkling of a hint of a
clue what they do!

Howdy Dave. Been too long.

John Q. Public vs. al Queda is a straw man. No, of course the NSA has
no reason to spy on me; but that's not the relevent question. George
W. Bush/Karl Rove would indeed have nefarious reasons to intercept the
communications of Democratic Party or other opposition leaders. If the
president is free to direct the NSA in any way he sees fit without
judicial review, our democracy is at risk, whether or not John Q.
Public is the specific target of the spying. These actions of this
administration, IMHO, pose a real and serious threat to the freedom you
and so many others fought for.

Joe F.

On 22 Dec 2005 14:16:59 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Bush hasn't earned your defense on
his behalf.

Scott, I am not trying to defend *anyone*. I am saying that it is
impossible to monitor our phones/e-mails because of the vast amount of
information collected would inundate NSA and make the product useless.
I have no trouble with monitoring known terrorists/sympathizers. We
are at war, and yes, gentlemen *do* read other gentlemen's mail.