[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We typically use only the very center of it, with "leftist" Democrats being only slightly to the left of center (comparatively speaking).

Do you think this holds true once Obama is done with this country ?

I'm afraid we're gonna make France look conservative compared to where he wants to go.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You and me and all the rest of our fellow Americans are already "dead" the minute we give up our right to privacy and pursuit of personal freedoms.

Does that include the 2nd amendment and all, not just parts, of the 1st and 5th amendments?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You don't get it. You, as a citizen, willingly allowing the government to do wholesale spying on US citizens or conducting torture on POW has already ruined this country.

And what is your PROVEN METHOD of getting information from the bad guys? "Something Else" as 0bama the Fascist has stated? I'm glad you would rather have us dead than protected. It proves a mindset.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It's a big step backward. Martial law or internment camps imprison the body, your willing to give up your right to privacy is imprisoning your mind and you don't even know it.

So, what do you think about a president who cares so little about the rights of private industry, private companies and their owners and the Mind Police he has, monitoring all those radical right wing groups...like veterans? No mention of those left wing cop killers like Ayres and his close associates.........like 0bama.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You and me and all the rest of our fellow Americans are already "dead" the minute we give up our right to privacy and pursuit of personal freedoms.

So should we also go after the Democrats who were informed and approved the CIA actions? Pelosi comes to mind almost instantly.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You don't get it. You, as a citizen, willingly allowing the government to do wholesale spying on US citizens or conducting torture on POW has already ruined this country.

A. There is no "wholesale" spying. They are listening to INTERNATIONAL chatter using computers designed to pick out conversations having to do with engaging in illegal activity. I would bet you a year's salary that not a single conversation I've ever had has been listened to by NSA staff. I've given up no freedoms, and anything I choose to do here in the United States with my fellow Americans is just as protected as it was post 9/11. I don't expect to have the same "international" rights I have here in all other parts of the world or those residing elsewhere.

B. I don't consider anything done to the terrorists in question as "torture". The lawyers in charge back when the decisions where made pretty much hit the nail on the head, IMO. They allowed the minimal amount of friction to be applied that would be effective, without causing any long-term harm. Essentially extreme "hazing".

I'd LOVE to serve in a military where the worse my enemy might do is to waterboard me like they did the terrorists in question. OUR soldiers have to worry about little things like beheadings, aputations and starvation. I can sleep good at night knowing that the past administration took the time to think of those who wanted to murder us, so that we did no long term harm to them in return. I don't think we need a stricter standard than that when we are defining "torture".

Again, you and your grandmother are NOT FREE the minute you decide to abandon the idea that right to privacy is of paramount importance.

The right for me and grandma to be able to talk about making bombs from her home in Pakistan, without the government intruding is not of paramount importance to me. You are correct. I feel just as free to talk to her about making cookies though. I'm fairly confident no one is taking the time to listen to our international calls regarding that.

Umm, they already do that, Search the news for articles on the AT&T switching center spying operation in San Francisco. That operation was catching ALL data traffic moving through the switching center, both data traffic being routed overseas and data traffic being routed domestically.

I oppose domestic intrusion. If there's evidence it was done, and on purpose, throw the book at them.

You and me and all the rest of our fellow Americans are already "dead" the minute we give up our right to privacy and pursuit of personal freedoms.

I'm not giving up the right to do anything in my country, with my fellow Americans. I'm pretty sure that if the technology existed back during the time of our founding fathers, and they were able to discover traitors acting in league with the British by the methods in question, they wouldn't be so squeamish about doing so. They discovered Benedict Arnold's plot with the British by intercepting international "carrying papers" that revealed the plot, for instance.

Really, I think your being over dramatic. Again, when they spy on what we do with fellow Americans when they have no compelling reason for warrant, get back to me. I'm with you.

If they are intercepting INTERNATIONAL communications that will be most likely to contain information about plots to murder me, don't bother.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that include the 2nd amendment and all, not just parts, of the 1st and 5th amendments?

Correct.

By the word choices in your question I take it you think parts of the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments have been abridged in some way. If that is a correct assumption on my part, in what ways do you think those amendments are being restricted by the government?


Of course, the debate around the 2nd Amendment usually concerns what constitutes "infringement" on the right to bear arms. Some people say infringement occurs only in the context of an outright ban on possession (like what had been done in Washington, DC) while others say the act of registering the sale of a gun constitutes an act of infringement. What do you think constitutes infringement of the 2nd Amendment?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. There is no "wholesale" spying. They are listening to INTERNATIONAL chatter using computers designed to pick out conversations having to do with engaging in illegal activity. I would bet you a year's salary that not a single conversation I've ever had has been listened to by NSA staff. I've given up no freedoms, and anything I choose to do here in the United States with my fellow Americans is just as protected as it was post 9/11. I don't expect to have the same "international" rights I have here in all other parts of the world or those residing elsewhere.

Listening to all calls from the United States to certain countries and then sifting the data for keywords to allow for further investigation *is* wholesale spying. It is not specific spying targeting specific individuals in the United States.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

B. I don't consider anything done to the terrorists in question as "torture". The lawyers in charge back when the decisions where made pretty much hit the nail on the head, IMO. They allowed the minimal amount of friction to be applied that would be effective, without causing any long-term harm. Essentially extreme "hazing".

While you don't others do. Including members of the military that did the "hazing" and officials at the CIA who ordered the "hazing".

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd LOVE to serve in a military where the worse my enemy might do is to waterboard me like they did the terrorists in question. OUR soldiers have to worry about little things like beheadings, amputations and starvation. I can sleep good at night knowing that the past administration took the time to think of those who wanted to murder us, so that we did no long term harm to them in return. I don't think we need a stricter standard than that when we are defining "torture".

Because we do less wrong than our enemies does not make the wrongs we commit acceptable.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The right for me and grandma to be able to talk about making bombs from her home in Pakistan, without the government intruding is not of paramount importance to me. You are correct. I feel just as free to talk to her about making cookies though. I'm fairly confident no one is taking the time to listen to our international calls regarding that.

Just wait until one of your conversations is considered important enough to listen in on. The thing is, with wholesale spying like this there is no oversight over those who decide who and what are worth listening to. With no oversight, someday your conversations will be worth listening to by somebody for some reason.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I oppose domestic intrusion. If there's evidence it was done, and on purpose, throw the book at them.

Except the procedures for providing oversight of domestic intelligence-gathering have been thrown out with the wholesale spying being done by the NSA. If there are no rules now to be followed for domestic intelligence-gathering there can be no one found committing wrong-doing and thus no one "to throw the book at" for punishment.

Also, how do you think they follow-up on a "hot" domestic suspect discovered on one of the international calls? They then begin spying on that person exclusively and intercept ALL of their communications, both foreign and domestic. So, now you are in the situation where domestic calls are being intercepted among a suspect in the United States and every other person that suspect comes in contact with. Should every other person that suspect comes in contact with then have their communications intercepted as well because they might be a potential suspect? This process never ends.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Really, I think your being over dramatic. Again, when they spy on what we do with fellow Americans when they have no compelling reason for warrant, get back to me. I'm with you.

Umm, see my point above. If they detect one domestic suspect in their wholesale international spying they have to automatically start surveilling all other domestic persons with whom the suspect comes into contact. Do you really want the minimum requirement for conducting domestic surveillance on US citizens to be that somebody has made a phone call to another person who is a suspect?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, if the worse intrusion I have to face to avoid my murder...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I didn't express myself as clearly as I should have.

The issue isn't the intrusion, it's the lack of judicial oversight and the lack of penalty for misuse.

FISA has both of these. I've gone on the record that despite the problems I have with it, I support, and am even willing to expand FISA.

The most important aspect with regards to the NSA program is that FISA has a protocol to destroy irrelevant information. Though cookies aren't mentioned explicitly, FISA fully assumes you are going to get cookie discussions along the way. If you don't throw them out, you go to prison.

To be clear, there are enough back doors in FISA that no one would ever go down for "the cookie incident". They'd really have to **** things up. That's all I'm asking for.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Domestic". I don't consider talking to a guy in Iran about bomb making "domestic communication".

From that terrorist sympathizer rag, the WSJ:

Current and former intelligence officials say telecom companies' concern comes chiefly because they are giving the government unlimited access to a copy of the flow of communications, through a network of switches at U.S. telecommunications hubs that duplicate all the data running through it...

An intelligence official described more of a rapid-response effect: If a person suspected of terrorist connections is believed to be in a U.S. city -- for instance, Detroit, a community with a high concentration of Muslim Americans -- the government's spy systems may be directed to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of the city...

Current and former intelligence officials confirmed a domestic network of hubs, but didn't know the number.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All the reports I've read show they aren't just randomly listening anyways, but instead are using sophisticated computer programming to search for people plotting crimes in other countries using keyword/phrase searches. They may have access to all international calls, but they aren't willy nilly listening in. If there's evidence they are sitting back and listening to private international phone sex or something like that, you're free to present your evidence.

Well, I've already cleared up for you that it's only targeted at other countries. You see, this is the problem with no oversight and no penalties, what you think they are doing and what I think they are doing is conjecture.

As far as I can tell, your conjecture is based on what is told to you by the people who claimed it should be secret in the first place. You know... because they didn't want to give away their playbook. Why are you so special that they're willing to give you the playbook?

My conjecture is based on a few pretty safe assumptions:

1) Despite that people might want you to believe terrorists only come from enemy countries, terrorists often find their jobs easier if they base themselves out of countries which are sympathetic to their cause but are our allies. Like Saudi Arabia. Or countries which are sympathetic to their cause, are our allies and are (relatively speaking) free. Like Pakistan, to whom I believe the quote was "we will bomb you back into the stone age" if they didn't make an effort to knock it off.

2) The NSA is going to be interested in flurries of activity going to countries where terrorists do their deal, which means flurries of activity to our ME allies, as well as places like Iran.

3) 99% of the time, these flurries of activity are going to be caused by what normally causes a flurry of activity, legitimate business transactions or an important moment in an extended family. A birthday, a death, someone getting sick or an awesome cookie recipe.

I'm going to stress this again. The problem isn't the intrusion, the problem is the lack of a direct order from Congress to get rid of it once it's determined to be useless, penalties associated with a failure to comply, and judicial oversight to make sure things stay that way.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And what is your PROVEN METHOD of getting information from the bad guys? "Something Else" as 0bama the Fascist has stated?

Hmm, why don't you ask the guys who spent years doing interrogations of high-value prisoners from the Nazis after WWII. They were pretty successful and never had to resort to any kind of torture.
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII - washingtonpost.com

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'm glad you would rather have us dead than protected. It proves a mindset.

Yes. That I value personal freedoms above almost all else and that I don't believe the US government, or any government, is capable of protecting me, or any citizen, from ALL potential harm. I believe that such a notion is willfully naive. There is an inverse relationship between the amount of personal freedoms a citizen has and the ability of that citizen's government to protect the citizen from harm. The more a government tries to protect a citizen from harm the more the citizen loses its personal freedoms.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, what do you think about a president who cares so little about the rights of private industry, private companies and their owners . . .

I think the corporate rights of "private industry, private companies and their owners" are far less important than the personal rights of individual citizens. I think the government's job is to maximise protection of individual rights EVEN IF doing so infringes on the corporate rights of "private industry, private companies and their owners".

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

. . . the Mind Police he has, monitoring all those radical right wing groups...like veterans? No mention of those left wing cop killers like Ayres and his close associates.........like 0bama.

The "Mind Police" under the Obama Administration monitoring radical right-wing groups are the same "Mind Police" that were monitoring radical left-wing groups under the Bush Administration. The only difference now is that under the Obama Administration they are monitoring ALL types of groups that could be prone to extremism. Which I think is a good thing. Extremist groups are bad for the country whether they are on the left or the right of the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So should we also go after the Democrats who were informed and approved the CIA actions? Pelosi comes to mind almost instantly.

Just a point of clarification: No one in Congress had approval authority over the CIA interrogation tactics. And those in Congress that did know about the CIA interrogation tactics (the Gang of Eight) and did nothing to stop them should be held accountable for knowing the government was engaging in torture and not speaking out against it. Whether that accountability comes in the form of Congressional censure or being voted out of office by their constituents is another subject altogether.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that include the 2nd amendment and all, not just parts, of the 1st and 5th amendments?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Correct.

By the word choices in your question I take it you think parts of the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments have been abridged in some way. If that is a correct assumption on my part, in what ways do you think those amendments are being restricted by the government?


Of course, the debate around the 2nd Amendment usually concerns what constitutes "infringement" on the right to bear arms. Some people say infringement occurs only in the context of an outright ban on possession (like what had been done in Washington, DC) while others say the act of registering the sale of a gun constitutes an act of infringement. What do you think constitutes infringement of the 2nd Amendment?

This for one: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS
If ratified, it will supersede the 2nd amendment.
1st
McCain-Feingold, LBJ IRS clause

5th
Kelo v. City of New London

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This for one: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS
If ratified, it will supersede the 2nd amendment.
1st
McCain-Feingold, LBJ IRS clause

5th
Kelo v. City of New London

1st
How does McCain-Feingold abridge the 1st Amendment? Nothing in that legislation limits a persons rights to advocate for a political candidate of their choice in words ("right to free speech") or deeds ("right to peaceful assembly" to advocate for a political candidate)? If you want to argue the spending money=political speech angle I would hope you would argue something more substantial like for-profit publications choosing to restrict advertisements from groups with whom they disagree. It happens all the time and yet you rarely, if ever, hear anyone complain about it on the grounds of limiting an individuals right to free speech. To me, that is a much more fundamental abridgment of the "right to free speech" than how much money a person can give to a political candidate.

2ns
How does the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS supersede the 2nd Amendment. (I didn't read the full text of the treaty so I am curious as to what you found in the treaty that will render obsolete our Second Amendment.) Be aware that even in the US there are restrictions on the manufacture and sale of firearms, all deemed Constitutionally acceptable. So, what is it specifically about this treaty that you think will cause it to supersede the 2nd Amendment?


5th
Agree completely. Someday Constitutional scholars will look back on Kelo v. City of New London and wonder what the f*ck the SCOTUS was thinking when they handed down that decision.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This for one: INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS
If ratified, it will supersede the 2nd amendment.

Wrong. No treaty supersedes any part of the Constitution. It can't. Period. Altering the Constitution requires an amendment, and that's a rather lengthy and arduous process; nothing other than an amendment can alter the Constitution, including the existing amendments.

And you should read the treaty-no part of the treaty is problematic for Americans. It explicitly respects INTERNAL affairs of signatories, and most of what it calls for signatories to do is already part of U.S. law. We already require manufacturers of weapons to mark them appropriately (maker's name and city, and a unique serial number), and we already have laws against exporting munitions and weapons without explicit permission from the State Department.

'Course this treaty would have been ratified back when Bill Clinton signed it if Congress members had read it too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I would hope you would argue something more substantial like for-profit publications choosing to restrict advertisements from groups with whom they disagree.

Maybe I'm misreading you but how does a private entity refusing to take someone's money compare to making it illegal to spend money on something?

As an aside, McCain-Feingold is enough of a fringe case that I couldn't tell you if I think it's a 1st Amendment violation without doing more research. In addition, there's a very poorly worded statement about the 1st Amendment implications made by McCain himself. I'll see if I can track it down. If vmarks is reading, I know he has that quote on speed-dial.

Edit: Here's the quote:

Originally Posted by John McCain

I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

He said it on Imus.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe I'm misreading you but how does a private entity refusing to take someone's money compare to making it illegal to spend money on something?

Someone wanting to spend money on an ad in a newspaper promoting their preferred political candidate or political cause is not allowed to do so by the owners of said newspaper.The private press is determining what level of speech a person has by controlling access to their publications based on political ideas.

As for "spending money on something", there is NO protections in the 1st Amendment for the "right to spend money". As far as I know there are NO protections in the Constitution at all in regards to how people spend money. In fact, there are all sorts of Constitutionally acceptable legal restrictions on how one can spend their money. Do you think you can spend your money on drugs or prostitutes? No. That is a legal restriction on how one can spend their money. It is never legal to spend money to buy cocaine or hire a hooker (except in specific places in Nevada). Are you going to argue that the inability to spend money on drugs and hookers is a violation of a person's 1st Amendment free speech rights as well?

But again, this argument is only valid (in re the 1st Amendment) if you consider giving money to a political candidate a form of speech. I have never understood that argument as someone has plenty of ways to practice their right to free speech and free assembly in advocating for a political candidate without giving money to said candidate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The private press is determining what level of speech a person has by controlling access to their publications based on political ideas.

Which is a right guaranteed to them by the 1st Amendment, no? FWIW, I think equal time is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for "spending money on something", there is NO protections in the 1st Amendment for the "right to spend money".

Absolutely. As I said, I consider this to be a fringe case, and really can't come down on either side without more research. It just didn't strike me as a valid comparison.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

It is never legal to spend money to buy cocaine or hire a hooker (except in specific places in Nevada).

PM me with the coordinates where I can legally buy blow in Nevada.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I have never understood that argument as someone has plenty of ways to practice their right to free speech and free assembly in advocating for a political candidate without giving money to said candidate.

Oh gawd. You really want me to do that research, don't you?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Someone wanting to spend money on an ad in a newspaper promoting their preferred political candidate or political cause is not allowed to do so by the owners of said newspaper.The private press is determining what level of speech a person has by controlling access to their publications based on political ideas.

As for "spending money on something", there is NO protections in the 1st Amendment for the "right to spend money". As far as I know there are NO protections in the Constitution at all in regards to how people spend money. In fact, there are all sorts of Constitutionally acceptable legal restrictions on how one can spend their money. Do you think you can spend your money on drugs or prostitutes? No. That is a legal restriction on how one can spend their money. It is never legal to spend money to buy cocaine or hire a hooker (except in specific places in Nevada). Are you going to argue that the inability to spend money on drugs and hookers is a violation of a person's 1st Amendment free speech rights as well?

But again, this argument is only valid (in re the 1st Amendment) if you consider giving money to a political candidate a form of speech. I have never understood that argument as someone has plenty of ways to practice their right to free speech and free assembly in advocating for a political candidate without giving money to said candidate.

Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But again, this argument is only valid (in re the 1st Amendment) if you consider giving money to a political candidate a form of speech. I have never understood that argument as someone has plenty of ways to practice their right to free speech and free assembly in advocating for a political candidate without giving money to said candidate.

Originally Posted by subego 

Oh gawd. You really want me to do that research, don't you?

Actually yes. I would be very curious to see if there is any Constitutional law scholarship that argues spending money=speech act. I have a hard time believing that the issue of spending money=speech act only became a concern in the last few years. As I have pointed out already, there are many ways in which the government restricts how a person can spend their money so I don't really understand the logic behind the argument that states "restrictions on political donations (i.e.: restrictions on how a person can spend their money)=abridgment of free speech rights" is an unacceptable form of government restriction on spending money.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Buckley v. Valeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. I did not know about this case.


But even though the court "ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech" it also "sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme". So, while the SCOTUS decided "spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech" it did not invalidate the ability to legislatively put some restrictions on the spending of said monies. In other words, it decided outright banning of political contributions is a restriction of free speech rights but limiting political contributions is not a restriction of free speech rights.

So, the question then becomes: how much of a legislative limit on political contributions is acceptable before the limit is deemed to be infringing and thus un-Constitutional?

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As I have pointed out already, there are many ways in which the government restricts how a person can spend their money so I don't really understand the logic behind the argument that states "restrictions on political donations (i.e.: restrictions on how a person can spend their money)=abridgment of free speech rights" is an unacceptable form of government restriction on spending money.

Okay. I got things a little conflated here. The part of the bill I remembered being hinky (where you can't use corporate or union money on ads which mention a federal candidate) was already struck down by the SCOTUS.

That's why I said "spend money on something" I was thinking in terms of spending money on actual speech.

I'll look into the donation angle, to which Chongo and the Cato Institute seem to think Buckley v. Valeo is relevant.


TWO CAN PLAY AT THAT GAME!

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, the question then becomes: how much of a legislative limit on political contributions is acceptable before the limit is deemed to be infringing and thus un-Constitutional?

The more I look at it, wow... this is one fuxxored decision.

My philosophical gut instinct would be for the court to have just killed the bill, but even letting it stand whole seems preferable to this halfway crap.

Firstly, it creates exactly the question you raise above, and leaves the answer up to the court. Now that's some judicial activism.

Secondly, the thought process behind the decision (at least the way it's summed-up on Wiki) makes no sense at all. The compelling government interest in expenditures was based in the part of the bill you let stand.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Listening to all calls from the United States to certain countries and then sifting the data for keywords to allow for further investigation *is* wholesale spying. It is not specific spying targeting specific individuals in the United States.

They are not "targeting specific individuals," nor are they gathering, collecting or storing information from anyone who isn't engaging in conversations with people overseas concerning plans to kill us. In order for anyone from a government agency to actually listen to a conversation someone in the United States is having, that person has to be talking to someone from an unfriendly country about stuff that could lead to our murder. I don't call that "wholesale" in that there ARE specific limits and the average American doesn't have to worry about anyone every hearing a conversation they are having unless they are doing it with someone who isn't an American and talking about pretty bad things. I believe that those are reasonable standards which will protect my rights to engage with my fellow Americans without fear of the Government knowing my every move.

While you don't others do. Including members of the military that did the "hazing" and officials at the CIA who ordered the "hazing".

..while others who did the "hazing" and other officials at the CIA who ordered it didn't. Lot's of smart, reasonable people where informed and made the right decision at the time. People like the head of the CIA and Nancy Pelosi. Only now, when it's politically viable vehicle for partisan attack is it being made an issue.

Just wait until one of your conversations is considered important enough to listen in on.

I fully realize that if I'm talking to someone in an unfriendly country about matters which could be seen as part of a plot against the United States that my call could be monitored. I've already stated that I'm okay with that.

The thing is, with wholesale spying like this there is no oversight over those who decide who and what are worth listening to. With no oversight, someday your conversations will be worth listening to by somebody for some reason.

At some point, people could just jump out of their black helicopters and abduct me for no reason as well. I'll worry about either when there's ample evidence that these sorts of concerns are actually credible. Even with "oversight", there's little to stop these clandestine agencies from doing what they want. One of the things that keeps all this in check is that they really do have a job to do, and it's not to steal cookie recipes. As long as their interests are with calls ending or beginning in countries known to harbor people planning my murder, I think that's a reasonable limit.

Also, how do you think they follow-up on a "hot" domestic suspect discovered on one of the international calls? They then begin spying on that person exclusively and intercept ALL of their communications, both foreign and domestic.

You mean once the authorities have evidence that an American is colluding with a foreign entity to likely due harm to his fellow Americans, they actually follow up on it due to that evidence? SHOCKING!!!!! I really don't see it any different that the government being able to search me at will at our borders. If I try to come back from Canada with a trunk full of cocaine, and the border agent in his stop finds something that makes him suspect my intentions - I just might be followed into the United States by federal agents and eventually arrested. All without a warrant!!! Searched without a warrant, investigated without a warrant and arrested without a warrant. Ahh!!! My freedom!!?!!

When we choose to leave the country either physically, or in the case of new technology - digitally, we can't reasonably expect to have the same rights with what we bring into the United States from other countries. This is nothing new. We've been using this same standard since pretty much forever.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

nor are they gathering, collecting or storing information from anyone who isn't engaging in conversations with people overseas concerning plans to kill us.

Yes they are. Quoted and sourced. Scroll up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes they are. Quoted and sourced. Scroll up.

"Gathering" I'll grant you. If the overseas information that is "gathered" and monitored by the computers is not triggered by keywords or phrases, then the information isn't kept and collected nor is it further monitored by any government entity. For the most part, no one who isn't engaging in conversations with people overseas concerning plans to kill us really has anything to worry about having another American invade their privacy by personally listening to their private conversations.

Not really much different from the standard we use when importing/exporting anything physically into this country, or the physical standards used at our borders where government agents can search whatever they want, whenever they want without a warrant. Don't expect to either physically leave or enter the country without possibly having your privacy violated by intrusive searches if the government suspects you could be doing something harmful to your fellow Americans. The government does not have that right for citizens traveling from place to place inside our borders. Context is key.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Gathering" I'll grant you.

I'm glad you grant me the gathering.

I felt the "domestic" and "lack of penalty or oversight" are equally, if not more important.


Edit: I apologize if that came off as snide. I'm stuck in the hospital being pumped full of drugs that make me really aggressive and cranky.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm glad you grant me the gathering.

I felt the "domestic" and "lack of penalty or oversight" are equally, if not more important.


Edit: I apologize if that came off as snide. I'm stuck in the hospital being pumped full of drugs that make me really aggressive and cranky.

How can you tell?

::RIMSHOT::

[subego]

I'm actually trying to get banned.

I really suck at it though.