[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Did I say something about definitions?

I was merely pointing out that this administration is using a tool that was passed into law by Bill Clampett and a Democrat congress. Now Bush is getting the flack for it.

No he isn't.

He's not getting flack for the tool he's getting flack for unlawfully using the tool.

CALEA provides the means to do what the administration is doing, it doesn't provide the authorization.

How can you argue that people are being hypocritical in not taking Clinton to task for providing the means, when the issue that's being argued over is clearly one of authorization?

Originally Posted by smacintush

Where was the huge front page story about ECHELON?

Where were the hearings and investigations? Oh wait…The Bill Christ did it so that's OK. The hypocrisy is astounding.

You get no argument from me about ECHELON. The media was asleep at the wheel for that one. Hell, I found out about it on usenet.

You will also get no argument from me that the Clinton administration constantly tried to nerf our privacy. Clipper chip anyone?

I voted for Dole the second time round specifically because of this crap.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Speaking of typical, why do certain people always desperately try to change the subject to things Clinton did a decade ago when we're discussing current events? Like, if you want to start a Clinton thread, be my guest. Don't try to hijack threads anytime somebody isn't surgically attached to the President's crotch.
.

They bring it up to show the true nature of such whining.

The Dems now bitch about things they praised Clinton for. So it's VERY relevant.

It shows this is nothing more than political SHILLING.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It shows this is nothing more than political SHILLING.

I see your shilling and raise you ten pence.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

They bring it up to show the true nature of such whining.

The Dems now bitch about things they praised Clinton for. So it's VERY relevant.

It shows this is nothing more than political SHILLING.

Yes, and Republicans defend Bush when they wouldn't defend Clinton. It's not exactly headline news that people tend to be more critical of the other party than they are of their own.

But I'd like to note again that this is not just Democrats questioning Bush's actions here, so again, bringing up Clinton is not really relevant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yes, and Republicans defend Bush when they wouldn't defend Clinton. It's not exactly headline news that people tend to be more critical of the other party than they are of their own.

Um show me where the right made such a big deal about said thing when it was in Clinton's term?

Show me where the right called Clinton a liar when he talked about Iraqi WMD or Iraq having nuke capabilities.

They did not. Either did the Democrats.

But things changed during election 2004.

The hypocrisy was deep.

But I'd like to note again that this is not just Democrats questioning Bush's actions here, so again, bringing up Clinton is not really relevant.

Regardless of what you think, it's relevant. Don't like it? Too bad.

Your insistent whining wont make it "untrue"

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

Here's an odd story:

Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping

The same laws exist then as now but the interpretation is changed because of the attitudes of the nation.

Face it, Cheney is old school in the best sense of the term and the country has become pussified in the worst sense of the term.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um show me where the right made such a big deal about said thing when it was in Clinton's term?

Show me where the right called Clinton a liar when he talked about Iraqi WMD or Iraq having nuke capabilities.

They did not. Either did the Democrats.

But things changed during election 2004.

The hypocrisy was deep.

Regardless of what you think, it's relevant. Don't like it? Too bad.

Your insistent whining wont make it "untrue"

Right. They seem to believe that if they all join forces and agree on the same lie or the same thing that goes against the law that they can make that lie or that thing become a manufactured truth.

In essence, mob rule.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um show me where the right made such a big deal about said thing when it was in Clinton's term?

Show me where the right called Clinton a liar when he talked about Iraqi WMD or Iraq having nuke capabilities.

They did not. Either did the Democrats.

But things changed during election 2004.

The hypocrisy was deep.

Would you like me to show you where the right made a big deal out of Clinton getting a blowjob? I think that's a bit more petty than criticizing Bush for spying on Americans without legal authority.

If you want to know the truth, if Clinton had started a bloody war on the basis of those accusations and had failed to be borne out as Bush has been, dollars to doughnuts Republicans would have been on him like white on rice. That's how politics is.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Regardless of what you think, it's relevant. Don't like it? Too bad.

Your insistent whining wont make it "untrue"

Would you care to explain how bringing up Clinton is supposed to invalidate what Republicans are saying?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Would you like me to show you where the right made a big deal out of Clinton getting a blowjob? I think that's a bit more petty than criticizing Bush for spying on Americans without legal authority.

If you want to know the truth, if Clinton had started a bloody war on the basis of those accusations and had failed to be borne out as Bush has been, dollars to doughnuts Republicans would have been on him like white on rice. That's how politics is.


Would you care to explain how bringing up Clinton is supposed to invalidate what Republicans are saying?

Not speaking for Kevin, but IMHO it seems like he's trying to get you guys to respond either RATIONALLY or HONORABLY.

Rationally, by realizing that since Clinton did the same thing(s) and maybe worse, that you guys would realize how hypocritical you are being and just stop looking for excuses to criticize the President.

Honorably, by trying to shame you into realizing that what Clinton did was just disgusting and brought great shame and dishonor to the office and to our nation.

(And we aren't EVEN mentioning the acts of omission or commission that served to undermine our national security.)

The problem with you guys, however when it comes to trying to appeal to your senses of reason or honor is that you are generally, as a group, lacking in both areas.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by subego

FWIW I haven't come to a conclusion about the legality of this program, I only wanted to state that, AFAICT, CALEA doesn't provide authorization.

What I don't understand is why people on the short end of that opinion poll are assuming either/or that the constitution doesn't allow this and that no statute enacted by Congess permits it. People seem to be jumping to those conclusions on the basis of absolutely no research or knowledge about what the law is, just an opinion about what the law ought to be, and a large dose of partisanship.

I think also people are being lead by sloppy (or maybe deliberately overhyped) journalism. The reports should have said from the outset that this is not considered wiretapping and that it is settled constitutional law that this is not considered a search, and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply and that no warrant is required by the Constitiution. Any lawyer or law student could have told the journalists that if they had bothered to ask and it was negligent of the reporters to report this story without that background. The statutory part of the issue is a lot more complicated, but the constitutionsl part of the analysis is elementary and that is exactly where most of the articles have mislead people by talking about searches and warrants. By not bothering to set that background out and make sure people understand that these are not searches for Fourth Amendment purposes, the journalists basically mislead people.

Of course, it may be that the journalists themselves simply don't understand the issues they write about. A recent example of how that is probably the case popped up in a press conference with the general who has been nominated to lead the CIA. A journalist got into a pissing contest with the general over the Fourth Amendment. The journalist made it quite clear that he had no understanding of the Fourth Amendment, and the general's remarks on the subject were quite correct and he was vilified for his correct description of the law. A friend of mine wrote a little article about this telling exchange here. I think this kind of thing is responsible for a large part of the public's confusion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by abe

Not speaking for Kevin, but IMHO it seems like he's trying to get you guys to respond either RATIONALLY or HONORABLY.

Rationally, by realizing that since Clinton did the same thing(s) and maybe worse, that you guys would realize how hypocritical you are being and just stop looking for excuses to criticize the President.

Honorably, by trying to shame you into realizing that what Clinton did was just disgusting and brought great shame and dishonor to the office and to our nation.

(And we aren't EVEN mentioning the acts of omission or commission that served to undermine our national security.)

The problem with you guys, however when it comes to trying to appeal to your senses of reason or honor is that you are generally, as a group, lacking in both areas.

We're pretty worked up over calling patterns in this thread. After all, I'd rather my President was getting a BJ than dealing with the media over this nonsense. If he does opt for BJ, I just hope he doesn't lie about it to a Federal grand jury, point crooked fingers at the American people and say he never had relations with that woman, and sick his wife out on the public claiming some vast left-wing conspiracy. I'd also hate to wonder whether or not this WOT is just a cover for his "non-sexual" relations. The BJ is not so bad. It's all the other pesky stuff surrounding it that made it such a sordid affair. Because really, in the scheme of things this does not really rank up there with fire-bombing a religious kook's compound does it???

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by subego

No he isn't.

He's not getting flack for the tool he's getting flack for unlawfully using the tool.

CALEA provides the means to do what the administration is doing, it doesn't provide the authorization.

How can you argue that people are being hypocritical in not taking Clinton to task for providing the means, when the issue that's being argued over is clearly one of authorization?

I have yet to see any evidence that phone record data is private and falls under any protection. All I see are people with political opposition to this administration saying it is illegal because they say so. I have seen evidence that says it is NOT private and does not require a warrant.

For example.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Speaking of typical, why do certain people always desperately try to change the subject to things Clinton did a decade ago when we're discussing current events? Like, if you want to start a Clinton thread, be my guest. Don't try to hijack threads anytime somebody isn't surgically attached to the President's crotch.

I'm not an anti-anything zealot, really, but I don't think illegal spying is OK, regardless of what Clinton or Nixon or Jackson did.

In case you didn't notice, the Clinton administration was the one that came directly before this one. It is perfectly relevant to bring up the previous administration. The left brings up the Clinton economy™ ALL THE TIME. That's OK too.

In THIS case, there is a direct correlation to this story in that the program Bush is using is one implemented by the Clinton administration under a democrat house and senate.

I brought up ECHELON because it is evidence of the vast left-wing hypocrisy over domestic surveillance. I could very well mention FDR too (and I think I did), he was opening people's mail for Christ sakes…and he is a liberal hero.

Whenever a righty brings up Clinton someone on the left ALWAYS complains. Yet, the lefties have NO PROBLEM bringing up Reagan, or Nixon in other discussions.

[abe]

Just to remind you liberals (and maybe prevent your going into a mole hole only to pop up elsewhere and say the same crap after having it dispelled here...) here is Bill Clinton's Attorney General saying what Bush's Attorney General is saying.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=17825
Cyber-cop Reno targets e-privacy
Report calls for changes to law protecting journalists' sources
Posted: March 10, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Freedom of the press and privacy rights are hampering investigations into cyber crimes, says a White House committee report released yesterday that recommends such laws be re-evaluated in order to better protect citizens.

"The Internet has provided our world with unparalleled opportunities," said Attorney General Janet Reno. "At the same time, the Internet is providing criminals a vast, inexpensive and potentially anonymous way to commit crime."

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Whenever a righty brings up Clinton someone on the left ALWAYS complains. Yet, the lefties have NO PROBLEM bringing up Reagan, or Nixon in other discussions.

I think the difference is that righties bring up Clinton in every thread, and have so no sense of proportion in their comparison. E.g., lying about that woman is equivalent to lying to start a war. It's an argument that has been made dozens of times in this forum, and like most of these comparisons it is completely ridiculous.

But back on topic:

There are hundreds of things I can think of we can do to win the war on terror which would be more effective than this program, and which we are not doing.
- Secure our borders, including our ports
- Get access to Khan, figure out who else he sold nuclear information/materials to (Bush is unwilling to pressure Pakistan, so we still don't know)
- Give a carrot to Libya to set a positive example
- Secure Russian nuclear materials
- Promote energy independence, so we can pressure Saudi Arabia (home base of terrorism) instead of the other way around
...

Now what has Bush done?
- Attacked the wrong country. Iran has a nuclear program. Iraq did not have a WMD program. Oops, $2 trillion wasted, terrorism boosted.
- Destroyed FEMA by his political appointments, including putting a horse judge at its head. How ready are we to respond to a disaster now? See Katrina.
- Put political animals like Goss and now Hayden at the head of the CIA, instead of competent intelligence professionals. Bush is trying to turn the CIA into FEMA.
- Allowed Representative Harold Rogers to hold up the creation of a tamperproof identification card for airport, rail and maritime workers for four years, as he milked it for campaign donations, six trips to Hawaii, golfing trips to Ireland, government contracts for his son, etc.
...
- Now, he's breaking American laws and violating the Constitution.

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

- Now, he's breaking American laws and violating the Constitution.

If you all succeed in making this lie float you will rue the day. I promise you.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Freedom
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Freedom
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Freedom
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
Freedom
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

Your judgment is discredited. This is just further proof of how much it is flawed.

You do not have a clue as to what you are saying. It's like you are vogue-ing, Donning the clothing of the freedom fighter and standing defiantly in the town square striking a dramatic pose while people walk by on their way to their picnic or the library. The policeman walks his beat and casts an eye your way and then moves along. And little children ask their mommy what the strange man is doing.

You think freedom is the right for everybody to do everything they want all the time and with no responsibilities or maintenance needed or prices to be paid.

That's like a person living in a house for free and when the homeowner wants to have the place strengthened to protect against earthquake, or have the exterminator come in to inspect or spray you get all bent out of shape.

You are silly and fuzzy brained.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

If you all succeed in making this lie float you will rue the day. I promise you.

If it turns out that it wasn't a lie, and that Bush's concept of the Unitary Executive (which seems to be the basis behind many of his more objectionable actions, or at least the ones that didn't lead us directly into Iraq) ends up being challenged at some point and judged to be unconstitutional, what will that do to your world view?

Oh, I forgot, you're always right. Never mind, then.

[Dork.]

As far as the original topic goes (the NSA thing), I think that what really bothers me about it is the scope of it. I can buy that calling records are not really private, and the Government could always get access to them without a warrant through certain channels. Isn't there a difference between asking for the records on a specific person or group of people and asking for the records on effectively everyone, without being specfic at all?

At least if they ask about specific people, there's a focus to their investigation. Asking for information on everyone just sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

As far as the original topic goes (the NSA thing), I think that what really bothers me about it is the scope of it. I can buy that calling records are not really private, and the Government could always get access to them without a warrant through certain channels. Isn't there a difference between asking for the records on a specific person or group of people and asking for the records on effectively everyone, without being specfic at all?

At least if they ask about specific people, there's a focus to their investigation. Asking for information on everyone just sounds like a fishing expedition to me.

It depends on how the information is used. I have no specific knowledge of the details but if I were blessed with that kind of information I'd be doing a number of things with it all at the same time. Using different teams. At least one team would be looking for patterns of known suspects and with that knowledge I'd look for similar patterns among those who might be suspects.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.

If it turns out that it wasn't a lie, and that Bush's concept of the Unitary Executive (which seems to be the basis behind many of his more objectionable actions, or at least the ones that didn't lead us directly into Iraq) ends up being challenged at some point and judged to be unconstitutional, what will that do to your world view?

Oh, I forgot, you're always right. Never mind, then.

C'mon, you know that's just a put-on for fun.

As to your question of what that might do to my world? Well, I could do like your side does and make up my own truth and use passion and ignorance (real or intentional) to challenge the issue.

Or, do as conservatives usually do; assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

Or, do as conservatives usually do; assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it.

*insert sarcastic comment about anthropocentric climate change here*

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

*insert sarcastic comment about anthropocentric climate change here*

the idea that humans are the most important beings in the universe.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

I'm having a tough time figuring out what you mean here unless it's more like...

*insert sarcastic comment about ABEpocentric climate change here*

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I have yet to see any evidence that phone record data is private and falls under any protection. All I see are people with political opposition to this administration saying it is illegal because they say so. I have seen evidence that says it is NOT private and does not require a warrant.

For example.

Which, unless Bill Clinton spent time as a Supreme Court Justice, means he had nothing to do with it.

I haven't been arguing for or against it's legality, but that's what the general debate has been about.

You've brought up plenty of stuff you can pin on the Dems for being hypocritical. I'm saying CALEA isn't one of them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A friend of mine wrote a little article about this telling exchange here. I think this kind of thing is responsible for a large part of the public's confusion.

Good article.

I had previously misinterpreted that exchange myself. I appreciate the clarification.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

The reports should have said from the outset that this is not considered wiretapping and that it is settled constitutional law that this is not considered a search, and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply and that no warrant is required by the Constitiution. Any lawyer or law student could have told the journalists that if they had bothered to ask and it was negligent of the reporters to report this story without that background.

I disagree. I think it's sufficiently invasive of privacy, particularly as it is being conducted en masse, without any probable cause or reason to suspect most of the subjects, that it demands that we reconsider the 4th Amendment. Let's remember J. Brandeis' dissent in Olmstead: just because new technologies have fallen into the hands of the government which permit them to do things that the framers could not have imagined, that doesn't mean that the government has a free hand in exercising its new capabilities. I don't think that this is a lawful program, and to the extent that this might conflict with prior decisions -- decisions that didn't consider a program of this nature -- then I think that it is the prior decisions, and the government, that are in the wrong. And the law is hardly settled. Thing changed quite a lot as wiretapping hit the scene, and I don't see why we should not expect changes to come about as a result of this new scheme.

Re: the article, he failed to address whether or not a search lacking probable cause is ever reasonable. Personally, I don't think that there are, and I find the Vernonia dissent very persuasive, not just with regard to that, but the more general issue of mass invasions of privacy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

I'm having a tough time figuring out what you mean here unless it's more like...

Sorry, that should've been anthropogenic climate change...I was in a hurry. As in, the strong conservative tendency not to "assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it" when it comes to that matter.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

Or, do as conservatives usually do; assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it.

Which, unforutnately, includes changing the definition of the words "fact," "theory," and "science" to make it fit the reality they want to create.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Sorry, that should've been anthropogenic climate change...I was in a hurry. As in, the strong conservative tendency not to "assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it" when it comes to that matter.

greg

Noted.

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Which, unforutnately, includes changing the definition of the words "fact," "theory," and "science" to make it fit the reality they want to create.

I reject your assertion.

[maxx9photo]

Is this include the 1-800 - sex - 4 - fun? they will get headache by the time the conversation finish.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by abe

I reject your assertion.

Doesn't change that Intelligent Design proponents are trying to change the definitions of those words so they can claim it's a "science" and a "theory."

[tie]

Originally Posted by tie

- Give a carrot to Libya to set a positive example

U.S. Restores Diplomatic Ties to Libya

Good.

Which, unforutnately, includes changing the definition of the words "fact," "theory," and "science" to make it fit the reality they want to create.

And now, Simey and Bush are trying to change the definition of "legal." Good luck. This corrupt administration lied to us about WMDs, brought us the Katrina disaster, and underestimated the cost of the Iraq war by a factor of 40 ($50 billion claimed versus $2 trillion actual).

assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it.

Perhaps you should say POLITICS? Or DREAMS? I'm not sure otherwise what you could possibly mean.

[abe]

Originally Posted by maxx9photo

Is this include the 1-800 - sex - 4 - fun? they will get headache by the time the conversation finish.

(NOTE: This is either an example of someone PRETENDING not to know the facts of the matter or someone who only listens to what many others are saying and assumes it's correct or if he knows it's a faulty notion he'll at least be in 'good' company by joining in the chorus of nay-sayers.)

For the record. The info the govt. got from the phone co.'s isn't illegal. And the gov't. did not listen to those conversations. They just got a list of the numbers that were called.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dork.
If it turns out that it wasn't a lie, and that Bush's concept of the Unitary Executive (which seems to be the basis behind many of his more objectionable actions, or at least the ones that didn't lead us directly into Iraq) ends up being challenged at some point and judged to be unconstitutional, what will that do to your world view?

Oh, I forgot, you're always right. Never mind, then.

Originally Posted by abe

C'mon, you know that's just a put-on for fun.

As to your question of what that might do to my world? Well, I could do like your side does and make up my own truth and use passion and ignorance (real or intentional) to challenge the issue.

Or, do as conservatives usually do; assess the situation based on the FACTS at hand, accept the reality and make the best of it.

Originally Posted by tie

Perhaps you should say POLITICS? Or DREAMS? I'm not sure otherwise what you could possibly mean.

That's an indication of the difference between our respective sides. Conservatives are in touch with reality and understand the difference between reality, spin and dreams.

Conservatives deal with reality and sometimes resort to spin as a political tool.

Liberals are often so out of touch with reality that they make use of spin as though it were building material. Once this spin of theirs has gone through enough hands or mouths it gains substance and heft and becomes (to them) real and tangible.

And then when I call them on it, it's almost seen as my being rude to them.

THAT is political correctness gone berserk.

[Rumor]

Clicky

[abe]

Originally Posted by Rumor

Clicky

You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace. ~ Michael Franti

I included your sig so that I might comment on it.

How was WWII ended and peace between the warring parties established?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by abe

Your judgment is discredited. This is just further proof of how much it is flawed.

You do not have a clue as to what you are saying. It's like you are vogue-ing, Donning the clothing of the freedom fighter and standing defiantly in the town square striking a dramatic pose while people walk by on their way to their picnic or the library. The policeman walks his beat and casts an eye your way and then moves along. And little children ask their mommy what the strange man is doing.

You think freedom is the right for everybody to do everything they want all the time and with no responsibilities or maintenance needed or prices to be paid.

That's like a person living in a house for free and when the homeowner wants to have the place strengthened to protect against earthquake, or have the exterminator come in to inspect or spray you get all bent out of shape.

You are silly and fuzzy brained.

Lotsa words to say you disagree.

The freedom of one stops where the freedom of others begin. I am quite familiar with the concept, thank you.

Have you heard of the "foot-in-the-door" technique? It is a trick used by salesmen to get some attention. So they put the foot in the door and make you believe (or break your patience) until you start to lessen the pressure on the door (and the foot).

Then, the other foot comes in, and 5 minutes later, you are signing a contract which will make you the owner of something you never thought you'd want 10 minutes before.

The next day, you look at yourself in the mirror, and put your head in your hands, wondering how come you got so f***ed by that salesman.

But in a freemarket economy, even ethics and principles are sold cheap.

Next time, I'll explain the "Big Demand" technique. That one is also quite fascinating...

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Lotsa words to say you disagree.

The freedom of one stops where the freedom of others begin. I am quite familiar with the concept, thank you.

Have you heard of the "foot-in-the-door" technique? It is a trick used by salesmen to get some attention. So they put the foot in the door and make you believe (or break your patience) until you start to lessen the pressure on the door (and the foot).

Then, the other foot comes in, and 5 minutes later, you are signing a contract which will make you the owner of something you never thought you'd want 10 minutes before.

The next day, you look at yourself in the mirror, and put your head in your hands, wondering how come you got so f***ed by that salesman.

But in a freemarket economy, even ethics and principles are sold cheap.

Next time, I'll explain the "Big Demand" technique. That one is also quite fascinating...

I can't wait.

Meanwhile, I'm still loving the cheese!

[FeLiZeCaT]

The "Big Demand" technique is based on the assumption that if you are asked to make a big sacrifice, one that is unrealistic to your means, but that the demand comes from someone who is very convincing (he really needs your help and you believe him), then, accepting you can't give in the big one, you are asked for a smaller sacrifice, and will agree to that one.

Say, you have this guy coming to you, and ask for a $10 000 loan. He needs it because his family suffers (put the melodrama of your choice here). He pleads, cries and all that. You believe the guy to be honest, but you can't spare that much money. So you show him some sympathy and say how sorry you are for not being able to help. So the guy then thanks you, and asks for a hundred, so he can take the bus, and get work in another town or something.

Easier to give a hundred versus the 10 000.

Of course it is a nice con. Some people don't buy in, but many will, and some guys are pretty clever at doing it.

Say, you have a president who makes that big demand: "Security at all costs!" Our livelyhood depends on it! Bin Laden is the Big Satan and every americans will have to fight! But you can't afford that demand, so he retracts himself and says, "well, OK, we'll listen to your phone calls instead".

Yes, this is a very simplistic example. But as cons go...

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

The "Big Demand" technique is based on the assumption that if you are asked to make a big sacrifice, one that is unrealistic to your means, but that the demand comes from someone who is very convincing (he really needs your help and you believe him), then, accepting you can't give in the big one, you are asked for a smaller sacrifice, and will agree to that one.

Say, you have this guy coming to you, and ask for a $10 000 loan. He needs it because his family suffers (put the melodrama of your choice here). He pleads, cries and all that. You believe the guy to be honest, but you can't spare that much money. So you show him some sympathy and say how sorry you are for not being able to help. So the guy then thanks you, and asks for a hundred, so he can take the bus, and get work in another town or something.

Easier to give a hundred versus the 10 000.

Of course it is a nice con. Some people don't buy in, but many will, and some guys are pretty clever at doing it.

Say, you have a president who makes that big demand: "Security at all costs!" Our livelyhood depends on it! Bin Laden is the Big Satan and every americans will have to fight! But you can't afford that demand, so he retracts himself and says, "well, OK, we'll listen to your phone calls instead".

Yes, this is a very simplistic example. But as cons go...

Have you ever done a "Ben Franklin" analysis of this proposition?

On one side of a piece of paper list all the plusses of believing the President. On the other half of the page list all the reasons you shouldn't believe the President. Then add up the reasons on each side and total them. You'll also have to establish a value for each reason to make things even. After you've done all that, compare the results of both sides.

After completing that exercise if you haven't decided, however reluctantly, to support the President then you aren't listing all the plusses and minuses or you aren't valuing them correctly.

[FeLiZeCaT]

As I said, some cons are just more complicated. One of them is called "election campaign".

[tie]

What do you know? It turns out these calling records are not being used just to look for Al Qaeda operatives after all. Whoda thunk it? No oversight, and the records are being abused for political reasons already.

ABC News blog

If Bush were smart, he'd be tracking the phone calls of all Democrat party leaders. Perhaps he is.

[abe]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

As I said, some cons are just more complicated. One of them is called "election campaign".

Well, it appears you have it aaaaaallllll figured out!

[abe]

Originally Posted by tie

What do you know? It turns out these calling records are not being used just to look for Al Qaeda operatives after all. Whoda thunk it? No oversight, and the records are being abused for political reasons already.

ABC News blog

If Bush were smart, he'd be tracking the phone calls of all Democrat party leaders. Perhaps he is.

Yes, in your dreams. It's called a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

[cpt kangarooski]

abe--

Have you ever done a "Ben Franklin" analysis of this proposition?

While he is known for doing this, it's more common to just call this technique weighing the pros and cons.

After completing that exercise if you haven't decided, however reluctantly, to support the President then you aren't listing all the plusses and minuses or you aren't valuing them correctly.

You're doing it wrong.

When you do this, it's important to not prejudce the outcome. The way you're suggesting doing it defeats the point, because you've already made up your mind without engaging in any rational thought about the issue, and you just want to make yourself feel good about the decision you made.

The proper way to do it is to really weigh the pros and cons. Maybe you'll surprise yourself, and find that there is more to one side or the other than you would have imagined if you hadn't carefully tallied them up. But either way, it's key to not fudge the outcome as you suggest. Maybe you'll discard the result in the end, but it's stupid to lie to yourself, which is what you're saying to do.

Of course, it's no surprise to me that you of all people could take an analytical technique and completely screw it up, discarding rationality, in order to keep yourself feeling good. Given your recent blabbering, one might think it ironic, but it's not.

Basically you're adding 2+2, but getting 5 because you want to get 5, even if it really works out to be 4. It's sad.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

SimeyTheLimey--


I disagree. I think it's sufficiently invasive of privacy, particularly as it is being conducted en masse, without any probable cause or reason to suspect most of the subjects, that it demands that we reconsider the 4th Amendment. Let's remember J. Brandeis' dissent in Olmstead: just because new technologies have fallen into the hands of the government which permit them to do things that the framers could not have imagined, that doesn't mean that the government has a free hand in exercising its new capabilities. I don't think that this is a lawful program, and to the extent that this might conflict with prior decisions -- decisions that didn't consider a program of this nature -- then I think that it is the prior decisions, and the government, that are in the wrong. And the law is hardly settled. Thing changed quite a lot as wiretapping hit the scene, and I don't see why we should not expect changes to come about as a result of this new scheme.

Re: the article, he failed to address whether or not a search lacking probable cause is ever reasonable. Personally, I don't think that there are, and I find the Vernonia dissent very persuasive, not just with regard to that, but the more general issue of mass invasions of privacy.

When you become a Supreme Court justice, this might matter. And equally, I might be able to change current precedent on affirmative action, abortion, and the Second Amendment, Kelo, and all the other holdings that I happen to disagree with. In the mean time, whether you disagree with the current state of the law or not doesn't change the fact that the law is what the law is. There is a holding on point. This is constitutional.

Oh, and by the way, I am shocked that you - an attorney - would say "without any probable cause." Take a look again at the 4th Amendment. Warrants issue under probable cause, If you don't need a warrant, then you don't need probable cause. That is why cases like Terry only require reasonable suspicion, and other cases (like this one) that are not searches at all don't require any particular level. E.g. plain view requires no particular level, and perhaps more relevantly, neither do other business record exceptions, such as bank records.

The operative legal standard, if any, is Katz' reasonable expectation of privacy, which the Supremes ruled back in 1979 you do not have in the envelope information around a telephone call. It is certainly not probable cause. Using that term in this context where no warrant is reqiired is just sloppy.

[cpt kangarooski]

Simey--

When you become a Supreme Court justice, this might matter.

Why wait? By which I mean why fail to campaign for this now? Certainly the previously mentioned J. Brandeis was writing about privacy long before he was appointed to the Court. If you have a position on something, I say there's no time like the present to push it.

(Incidentally, I'd want to go after copyright, patent, and trademark law, which are basically my areas of interest anyway. And current 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendment jurisprudence could be strengthened. Kelo, meh, I don't have a problem with it, and as my dad is a fairly big eminent domain specialist, I know way too much about that body of law already. So long as the compensation is fair, whatever.)

In the mean time, whether you disagree with the current state of the law or not doesn't change the fact that the law is what the law is. There is a holding on point. This is constitutional.

The Court has been wrong before. Not just changing their minds from one correct interpretation to another, they have been flat-out wrong before. It's no big secret; they tend to own up eventually. See Lawrence v. Texas for a good example, repudiating Bowers as "not correct when it was decided, and ... not correct today."

I think that, to the extent that prior caselaw supports this, it's probably wrong, or at the very least unwise and should be reconsidered. And that's what I said. I can't imagine why you'd want to criticize me for this.

Oh, and by the way, I am shocked that you - an attorney - would say "without any probable cause." Take a look again at the 4th Amendment. Warrants issue under probable cause, If you don't need a warrant, then you don't need probable cause.

I am not a big fan of warrantless searches. I would at most go as far as to say that I can accept Terry stops in the ideal sense, where there is an immediate danger, but they are really abused, and something needs to be done to prevent that. Other than that sort of situation, where lives may be in danger, I think that the police should damn meet the standard for getting warrants, and generally get them.

If I were talking about the current standards applied, then maybe my posts would be sloppy. But I'm talking about what I think the standards ought to be, in which case we may disagree, but you can't really fault my precision.

(Besides, I don't know what you're doing, but I haven't had to worry about criminal law since the bar. Mine is a civil practice, as criminal copyright and trademark suits are not very common.)

[abe]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

abe--


While he is known for doing this, it's more common to just call this technique weighing the pros and cons.



You're doing it wrong.

When you do this, it's important to not prejudce the outcome. The way you're suggesting doing it defeats the point, because you've already made up your mind without engaging in any rational thought about the issue, and you just want to make yourself feel good about the decision you made.

The proper way to do it is to really weigh the pros and cons. Maybe you'll surprise yourself, and find that there is more to one side or the other than you would have imagined if you hadn't carefully tallied them up. But either way, it's key to not fudge the outcome as you suggest. Maybe you'll discard the result in the end, but it's stupid to lie to yourself, which is what you're saying to do.

Of course, it's no surprise to me that you of all people could take an analytical technique and completely screw it up, discarding rationality, in order to keep yourself feeling good. Given your recent blabbering, one might think it ironic, but it's not.

Basically you're adding 2+2, but getting 5 because you want to get 5, even if it really works out to be 4. It's sad.