PDA

View Full Version : A Great Time To Be Paranoid


red states rule
08-18-2007, 11:05 PM
This op-ed sums up the lefts view of protecting America so well

For some strange reason, the left wants to protect the rights of terrorists



Great Time To Be Paranoid

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; Page A13

Several times a month, a woman calls my office in the middle of the night and leaves long voice-mail messages about how she's the target of a vast, sinister conspiracy. I won't give her name -- obviously, she suffers from a mental illness. The conspiracy she perceives involves the U.S. military, the CIA, interference with her brain waves and constant monitoring by the evil people who, for whatever reason, have decided that her thoughts somehow threaten their nefarious plans. Sometimes she disguises her voice and pretends to be a lieutenant in the heroic resistance against mind control.

She always seems upbeat and energized, and I think I understand why: This must be a great time to be a paranoid.

People with a tendency to imagine that they are constantly being watched now have evidence to support their delusions. This weekend, when Congress legalized the Bush administration's practice of eavesdropping on citizens' international phone calls and e-mail without first seeking court warrants, my occasional caller must have said to her imaginary lieutenant, "See, I told you so."

My purpose here is not to endorse paranoia, and I'm not even going to blast the White House for further eroding our traditional guarantees of privacy. Well, maybe I'll blast the White House and Congress just a little: I'm as anxious as the next guy to catch terrorists before they strike, but what's wrong with having at least a fig leaf of judicial oversight? Why is it so onerous to have the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court continue to rubber-stamp eavesdropping requests, even retroactively?

Still, I'm having trouble getting as worked up over the new anything-goes snooping law as I should, because fighting for privacy as we once knew it is a lost cause. Our lives are public now.

What's stunning about the National Security Agency's surveillance of phone calls and e-mail is not just that it can now be done without a warrant but that it can be done at all. If I were to pick up the phone and dial a terrorism suspect in, say, London, the call would have to be routed through some major telecommunications node. The NSA could somehow plug into that node and find my call amid the countless calls that happened to be passing through.

In the process, the NSA would be able to capture an enormous amount of data about all sorts of phone calls. Most of that data might never be examined, but it would still be there if anyone cared to browse.

Of course, we've known for a long time that phone records, as opposed to the conversations themselves, have the ability to live forever -- and to tell the world more than we would like it to know. Just ask Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), whose phone number showed up in the records of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

The interesting thing is that Palfrey herself had no idea that Vitter had been one of the clients of her escort service. All she had was a set of her records, listing only the phone numbers of her callers. She released them on the Internet, and legions of the curious dug in to match numbers with names. Vitter was there all along, buried in the data.

Phone calls are just a start. Everyone should know by now that e-mail is all but eternal. Even those messages that Karl Rove and the rest of the White House political staff sent and received through a parallel Republican National Committee e-mail system, and that now can't be found, must be out there somewhere in cyberspace. But I digress.

The text messages we send back and forth on our cellphones are similarly long-lived. And if your mobile phone communicates with the Global Positioning System, it sends information about precisely where you are. What was that again about having to work late at the office?

Who needs GPS anyway? Think of all the security cameras that record your movements every day. Use an automated teller machine, fill the gas tank, drop into a convenience store, visit the mall or walk into the lobby of an office building and chances are you've been caught on videotape.

What if someone had predicted 50 years ago that someday all this once-private information would be captured and stored? Psychiatrists would have issued a quick and definitive diagnosis: paranoia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601160.html

PatrickHenry
08-19-2007, 04:05 AM
For some strange reason, the fascist right in America wants to surveill everybody.

ECW
08-19-2007, 04:21 AM
and the republican party meekly follows along...

Pretty sad. They fail to realize that when you start taking rights away from people there is no end to it until no one has any more rights to offer.

Labrocca
08-19-2007, 07:38 AM
and the republican party meekly follows along...

Pretty sad. They fail to realize that when you start taking rights away from people there is no end to it until no one has any more rights to offer.



And the far left fails to realize that there are boundaries to rights and that society is not a free for all. Eventually the liberals of this world will allow any behavior in society no matter the consequences to our humanity.

Alonzo
08-19-2007, 07:45 AM
Funny Lab, I say similar things to Libertarians.

ECW
08-19-2007, 08:48 AM
and the republican party meekly follows along...

Pretty sad. They fail to realize that when you start taking rights away from people there is no end to it until no one has any more rights to offer.



And the far left fails to realize that there are boundaries to rights and that society is not a free for all. Eventually the liberals of this world will allow any behavior in society no matter the consequences to our humanity.


An exaggeration not supported by facts at hand. Sweden is one of the most liberal countries in the world yet there is plenty you cannot get away with there and many behaviors that are not allowed. Extrapolating a belief out to it's most extreme end will cause you to make such erroneous conclusions. Besides, you are now talking about anarchists, not Liberals.

Funny thing is, I hear this theory from you and the Nanny State theory from other neocons. Now which is it supposed to be: a free-for-all or a super-controlling nanny watching over all of us?

The nuts and the bolts of this are simple: putting terrorists behind bars with no trial and no legal recourse is akin to Chinese law where there are no protections for the innocent and the state dictates indictments AND verdicts. You may want a justice system like that but I don't. I prefer to have a system by which terrorists and their ilk and indicted, put on trial, and if found guilty, punished severely. The trouble is when you have an overtly partisan Atty General with partisan United States Attys that are appointed on political grounds as opposed to the best legal minds available, you have a rickety system of justice that isn't sure they can get a conviction even in the most favorable courtrooms with the most partisan judges. The alternative is to strip people of their rights so you don't have to go thru a sham trial before you lock them up.

The system wasn't always this unsure of itself. Only in the last six or so years has there been a push to rip away rights from people being charged with crimes of this nature. Once it starts, where do you stop? Why do you have so little confidence in the ability of your government's attorneys to gather enough evidence to convict any terrorist in any court of law that you would want to strip ther rights away to guarantee a conviction? Saddam operated this way and so does Kim in North Korea. Are these the examples we are following now?

Drocket
08-19-2007, 08:54 AM
I find so much of the right's position to be utterly insane. There's just no polite way to put it. They spend the 90's hyping to the high heavens all the terrible things the evil Clinton-controlled government was going to do. They're coming to take our guns! They're brainwashing our children in the schools! The black helicopters are coming in the night!

Here we are now, with a government that illegally wiretaps, runs a secret system of jails, holds citizens overseas for years at a time without council or charging them with crimes, tortures people, pays reporters to fabricate news stories, illegally uses government agencies for political purposes and holds political rallies on government properties - and those are just the things they ADMIT - and hey, no problem. Whatever.

Why is it that so many people get their shorts twisted in a knot about government power when a Democrat is in charge, even when the Democrat isn't actually DOING anything, but never, ever, EVER criticize a Republican, no matter how many outrageous things they admit to? The black helicopter crowd who hated Clinton so much never even DREAMED of the stuff we know Bush has done, yet they're entirely quiet.

red states rule
08-19-2007, 11:12 AM
It is amazing that so many people want to protect the rights of terrorists - and allow them to plan their attacks in privacy.

When the US is hit again - these same people will bitch how Pres Bush failed to do his job and protect America and Americans

Drocket
08-19-2007, 11:19 AM
He has failed to protect us. He failed to capture Bin Laden when he had the chance. He chose to lie to the nation to justify invading a country that wasn't a threat to us, destablizing a dangerous region and guaranteeing anger towards us for generations. He then fucked it up the war because he was too busy feeding Halliburton massive no-bid contracts to pay attention to what the generals were saying. He legalized torture and other immoral and unproductive actions, guaranteeing even MORE hatred towards us. And through it all, he avoided doing anything that might actually protect us (see: 9/11 committee report, which he had to be beaten with a stick to sorta, kinda half-ass implement.)

Bush has done nothing to protect us, and and has, in fact, made things a thousand times more dangerous for us. But keep on believing it's the Democrats fault - darn those Democrats and their belief that the government should obey the law...

Oedipus Rex
08-19-2007, 11:23 AM
Ohhhhh.... It wasn't until I started the second paragraph that I found out you were talking about Bush2 and not Clinton. Sorry.

Drocket
08-19-2007, 11:25 AM
My, how witty. Now did you actually have anything meaningful to add?

red states rule
08-19-2007, 11:25 AM
and Bills accomplishments. We were hit 5 times during his eight years and he treated the attacks like a crime and not an act of war

He passed up OBL several times, lied about it until a tape of one his speechs surfaced where he admitted he passed him up

Oedipus Rex
08-19-2007, 11:28 AM
My, how witty. Now did you actually have anything meaningful to add?





Nope. I just wanted you to know that there are some of us out here who won't buy in to your brand of partisan BS.[hr]
and Bills accomplishments. We were hit 5 times during his eight years and he treated the attacks like a crime and not an act of war

He passed up OBL several times, lied about it until a tape of one his speechs surfaced where he admitted he passed him up


Notice how the LEFT conveniently leaves that bit of info out?

red states rule
08-19-2007, 11:34 AM
I noticed, and they hate to have it pointed out. Truth and libs do not mix well

moses2792796
08-19-2007, 03:47 PM
If you are Islamic you should be very afraid. Otherwise you're in the clear. Personally I prefer to set up my drug deals in person so I don't need to worry about my phone calls being monitored.

Questerr
08-20-2007, 04:55 PM
I noticed, and they hate to have it pointed out. Truth and libs do not mix well


Actually, I love it when righties point those facts out. Gives me a great chance to point out what the wight was doing each time Clinton tried to do something against AQ, and it allows me to bring up every example in microcosm and give all of the circumstances surrounding them.

The situation was, obviously, more complex than alot of right-wing propaganda likes to describe it, and they hate it when you bring up the fact that each time Clinton tried to do something about OBL, the righties bitched at him about "trying to take attention away" from their witch hunts over Oval office BJ's and Chinese campaign financing.

To get on the topic of this board, I work in intelligence and I think that the President's move is unneccesary and dangerous to our own civil rights. The FISA courts were created for a reason AND THEY WORK. I have never, and I've never me anyone who has had a problem with the courts.

Truth_and_Power
08-20-2007, 05:33 PM
Ohhhhh.... It wasn't until I started the second paragraph that I found out you were talking about Bush2 and not Clinton. Sorry.


The "without even a fig leaf of oversight" should have made it clear. The only reason to avoid oversight is if you intend to misuse it. I have yet to hear any other single credible reason.

ECW
08-22-2007, 08:11 AM
My, how witty. Now did you actually have anything meaningful to add?


Nope. I just wanted you to know that there are some of us out here who won't buy in to your brand of partisan BS.[hr]
and Bills accomplishments. We were hit 5 times during his eight years and he treated the attacks like a crime and not an act of war

He passed up OBL several times, lied about it until a tape of one his speechs surfaced where he admitted he passed him up


Notice how the LEFT conveniently leaves that bit of info out?


Let's see the citation for that Clinton speech, if there is one. Even the 9/11 Report talks about how it was Bush that didn't think OBL was that important and even went on vacation after he was briefed by Condi Rice that OBL was planning attacks on the US. Clinton admitted to not being able to get him because of Sudan's refusal to pony him up when he was taking refuge there with the Islamic government. Go read the report. It's all there for you to see.

Come back when you have that citation.