A Snippet From Paul Phillips

[strategy 4]

You guys are wasting your time because Cope won't admit any of the links are factual since they don't line up with his beliefs. And Cope you can deny that all you want but I've seen you do it before.

the point is to make him look as ridiculous as possible in the process.

[copernicus 0]

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/...el-edmonds-case Accusations without any findings. what were the results?http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1 Guess what, you dont know the content of a call until you listen to it. This is not abuse, its what it was designed to do, listen to calls from overseas to the US. Again, if theyre embarassed, send em a copy of "lewd calls for dummies".http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20060530.shtml No examples that I saw in skimming this.Please, Cop, naivete does not look good on you. Leave that to Checky.

Keep trying.

[Avaron 0]

We disagree and jsut going around in circles at this point.

are you serious? are your really thinking that everyone who works in governement or governement institutions is uncorrupt, honest, trustable and responsible? come on...and some corrupt federal agent selling information and files would be just the small problem...what if the governement starts to use the information for its own interest? it could start with subtle influencing people to vote in a specific way. following a subtle control of information, leading to influence in the media... leading to control of the media... do i have to continue.and before you would ever realize it, we have another dictatorship. and that's not an exaggeration, because we had that in the past. and it worked almost exactly that way.

[hblask 1]

OMG, naivete FTW!

[Nimue1995 1]

Keep trying.

Told you guys so. Cope can't stand to be wrong about anything.

[copernicus 0]

are you serious? are your really thinking that everyone who works in governement or governement institutions is uncorrupt, honest, trustable and responsible? come on... There goes the "everyone" word again. there is no group in the world where "everyone" is blah blah blah. That doesnt make the risk of abuse to you or meaningful. and some corrupt federal agent selling information and files would be just the small problem...what if the governement starts to use the information for its own interest? it could start with subtle influencing people to vote in a specific way. following a subtle control of information, leading to influence in the media... leading to control of the media... do i have to continue. what if what if what if. If youre going to live in that world become a ****ing hermit, because you face it every day of your life with or without FISA.and before you would ever realize it, we have another dictatorship. and that's not an exaggeration, because we had that in the past. and it worked almost exactly that way. ORLY.

[Nimue1995 1]

I don't know why you guys waste your time debating with Cope. He'll never admit he's wrong about anything. It's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

[Avaron 0]

You seem to believe that you can file lawsuits against federal officials and have a chance of winning. Maybe naivete is an issue here. Its been done.

you would never get to know it. these guys aren't called spys for nothing...

[LadyGrey 6]

Again, I dont believe it is or will be used to listen to domestic calls. And if it is, I dont care, and I dont trust people who would care.

I can't believe that anyone would find it acceptable for the government to listen to anyone's phone calls. Tapping citizens phonelines is a feature of a totalitarian regime, not a democracy. It's something we saw in East Germany and in the Soviet Union, not something we expect in "the free world" where privacy is considered a human right. I can understand that you consider national security and defence to be the priority, but the threat level is nowhere near high enough to justify such a breach of the right to privacy. The US has enough Intelligence to fight terrorism without going to the extent of tapping phone calls. It is not necessary, and it reflects very poorly on the United States even if it isn't abused.

[strategy 4]

if anyone is actually interested, this is what the whistleblower had to support his case:http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908more on 641A:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641Aaaand a general overview of it with an interview from the guy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2tKBtUpVg

[LadyGrey 6]

I don't know why you guys waste your time debating with Cope. He'll never admit he's wrong about anything. It's a ridiculous waste of time and energy.

the point is to make him look as ridiculous as possible in the process.

[copernicus 0]

You look ridiculous in every post you make. You might start by not quoting Nimue, widely acknowledged to have the logic capabilities of a newt.

[copernicus 0]

I can't believe that anyone would find it acceptable for the government to listen to anyone's phone calls. Then youre in the minority of the country. Tapping citizens phonelines is a feature of a totalitarian regime, not a democracy. a ridculous and hyperbolic claim. Its been a law enforcement technique converted to use against terrorism. It's something we saw in East Germany and in the Soviet Union, not something we expect in "the free world" where privacy is considered a human right. I can understand that you consider national security and defence to be the priority, but the threat level is nowhere near high enough to justify such a breach of the right to privacy. Is your head in the sand or just up your ass. The US has enough Intelligence to fight terrorism without going to the extent of tapping phone calls. Sure it does. Didnt work so well for 9/11 and NSA has done a helluva a lot since 9/11. But lets not let facts get in the way of your constant bullshit.It is not necessary, and it reflects very poorly on the United States even if it isn't abused.

[copernicus 0]

you would never get to know it. these guys aren't called spys for nothing...

Why do you restrict it to spying? There are numerous successful lawsuits against the government, especially the IRS, and may predicated on the misuse or abuse of power.Heres a recent one that involved intelligence agencies:Wen Ho Lee wins $1.64 millionYou libs love the ACLU. They would love to get their hands on an actual case of abuse of NSA/FISA and it would be all over the media. Hasnt happened that Ive seen except the one hblask link, which Ive already pointed out isnt even close to being abusive.

[Avaron 0]

are you just trying to get over 10k posts?

[hblask 1]

Please learn to use quote.

Didnt work so well for 9/11 and NSA has done a helluva a lot since 9/11. But lets not let facts get in the way of your constant bullshit.

The reason we didn't prevent 9/11 was not for lack of information. It was due to drowning in information. Local agents called attention to information they had indicating something big was in the wind, the people at the top told them to stuff it, they had other leads to follow, not some crazy "crash planes into buildings" plot.Finding a needle in a haystack is easier than finding a needle in a hayfield. More false leads is not the answer, since chasing too many false leads is what caused us to miss preventing 9/11.

[strategy 4]

ok, so since I know we don't like to watch clips and read boring technical articles:mark klein was tasked with maintaining splitters in an AT&T building to copy every bit of data to a room which only the NSA could access. the nature of these splitters allowed for no filtering. AT&T was providing access to EVERYTHING, not just international communications.again, you can hear all of this from the man himself in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2tKBtUpVg

They would love to get their hands on an actual case of abuse of NSA/FISA and it would be all over the media.

we actually did have our hands on a case of NSA/FISA abuse, and it was all over the media, and congress shut it down. that's what we're discussing right now, believe it or not...

[hblask 1]

Hasnt happened that Ive seen except the one hblask link, which Ive already pointed out isnt even close to being abusive.

So now we've gone from "it doesn't happen" to "ok, it happens, but govt officials are good." It's progress, but still naive. I guess it's only abusive if it happens to *you* or *your family*.

[copernicus 0]

More false leads is not the answer, since chasing too many false leads is what caused us to miss preventing 9/11.

No Janet Reno and Bill Clinton were what "caused" us to miss preventing 9/11. The wall she built between intellgence agencies was the single greatest obstacle to not connecting the dots.

[copernicus 0]

So now we've gone from "it doesn't happen" to "ok, it happens, but govt officials are good."

That isnt what I said, and if you intentionally misstate what ive said again youre gone. I said its not abuse. Period.

[strategy 4]

funny thought, after I hit college age, I used to get those mass recruiting mailers from the NSA offering internships and whatnot. I guess those days are over after my google activity today, eh?

[copernicus 0]

funny thought, after I hit college age, I used to get those mass recruiting mailers from the NSA offering internships and whatnot. I guess those days are over after my google activity today, eh?

that was over when they spied on your avatar.

[LadyGrey 6]

Copernicus, I love how all your 'retorts' are just insults, most of which aren't even specific to what you are rebuking.I can't believe that anyone would find it acceptable for the government to listen to anyone's phone calls. Then youre in the minority of the country. I am 99.9% sure that you haven't seen the statistics on this, and your statement was just conjecture. Based on this poll at Gallup it appears that the majority sides with me. Most support tapping international phone calls made by or to a suspected terrorist, but when it comes to everyday citizens, it is seen as a violation of privacy. Tapping citizens phonelines is a feature of a totalitarian regime, not a democracy. a ridculous and hyperbolic claim. Its been a law enforcement technique converted to use against terrorism. Not a claim, a fact. Totalitarian regimes such as the ones I named used phone tapping. It can be used against terrorism, certainly, but use on general citizens who have not been raised as a suspect of terrorism is a violation of privacy and as such is not acceptable in a democracy.I can understand that you consider national security and defence to be the priority, but the threat level is nowhere near high enough to justify such a breach of the right to privacy. Is your head in the sand or just up your ass. My head is busy living in the real world where the most recent terrorist attack on the US was over 7 years ago. It's really not that big of a threat right now.The US has enough Intelligence to fight terrorism without going to the extent of tapping phone calls. Sure it does. Didnt work so well for 9/11 and NSA has done a helluva a lot since 9/11. But lets not let facts get in the way of your constant bullshit. The UK has prevented several terrorist attacks in the last few years without resorting to tapping everyone's phone lines (examples here). If we can manage, then you guys should be able to.

[vbnautilus 48]

Tapping citizens phonelines is a feature of a totalitarian regime, not a democracy. a ridculous and hyperbolic claim. Its been a law enforcement technique converted to use against terrorism. Not a claim, a fact. Totalitarian regimes such as the ones I named used phone tapping. It can be used against terrorism, certainly, but use on general citizens who have not been raised as a suspect of terrorism is a violation of privacy and as such is not acceptable in a democracy.

The key is not just tapping phones. What makes this totalitarian is that no warrant is required; the executive branch does not need to prove to the judicial that is has good cause for doing what it is doing. It's an entirely unchecked power which goes against our very philosophy of government.

[LadyGrey 6]

The key is not just tapping phones. What makes this totalitarian is that no warrant is required; the executive branch does not need to prove to the judicial that is has good cause for doing what it is doing. It's an entirely unchecked power which goes against our very philosophy of government.

Sure, I didn't go into that in my posts but I was taking it for a given that I was using wire-tapping in the context of being unwarranted and thus not monitored. I agree with what you're saying here.