Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
Thomas Sowell on the NSA ’scandal’ controversy
As usual, he is spot on:
Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many — or most — of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?
Terrorists and terrorist governments are giving us almost daily evidence of their fanatical hatred and violent sadism, as the clock ticks away toward their gaining possession of nuclear weapons. They not only hold a harmless young woman hostage in Iraq, they parade her in tears on television, just as they have paraded not only the terrorizing, but even the beheading, of others on television.
Moreover, there is a large and gleeful audience in the Arab world for these gross brutalities, just as there was glee and cheering among the Palestinians when the televised destruction of the World Trade center was broadcast in the Middle East.
Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about? Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.
That question has been sanitized in the mainstream media by asking whether the government should be engaged in “domestic wiretapping,” just as the terrorists themselves have been sanitized into “militants” or “insurgents.”
Read the whole thing. Doesn’t get any better than TS!
Related Toldjah So posts:
- NSA ’scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out
- Intelligence officials: NSA leak has undermined ability to fight terrorism
- On politicizing the Patriot Act and the NSA ’scandal’
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
90 Responses to “Thomas Sowell on the NSA ’scandal’ controversy”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Baklava: “I’m sorry mr niceguy. I don’t see where what you are saying matches with Bang’s comments”
Bang said:
“I will write my state representatives in Congress and work to get all of you Liberals permenent draft deferments, so even if we have to protect the country in the future you won’t be called on. A permenent “get out of draft” card…”
I believe the implication is fairly obvious. Your apology is accepted.
I found it funny.
Quite humorous.
Conservatives have had to deal with much worse.. and for years…
Dave: “Bush’s service in the TANG was no cakewalk. The fact that you still think that means you are either a) an incurable nutjob, not interested in rational, informed debate, or…”
1. Strings were pulled to get Bush into the ANG
2. More strings were pulled to get him transferred to AL
3. Bush was also allowed to leave early to go to Harvard Business School.
4. Serious questions still remain about whether he completed his duty (missing year in Alabama).
5. Seems to have been “a whole lot of redactin’ goin’ on” on his service records.
I don’t dispute that ANG service in general was no cakewalk, but Bush’s ANG service certainly seems to have been.
I’m curious Dave, where did you stand on the whole Swiftie vs. Kerry thing?
Jeez, all the same tired old talking points about Bush and the Natl Guard that have been REPEATEDLY discredited and proven false. But then, as Goebbels said, keep repeating that big lie and the idiots will believe it, which apparently they have.
The Swifties were dead on right about Kerry. But once again, it’s the hypocrisy of the left, you can’t say anything bad about OUR war hero, but we (and our lap dogs the press) will attack your war hero and that’s alright.
BTW, I hear there is a major Hollywood movie coming out about Clinton’s Vietnam years. It’s going to be titled “Full Dinner Jacket.”
“I found it funny…Quite humorous.”
Well, at least you didn’t try to explain away Bang’s statement to avoid the obviousness of that foot in your mouth.
I give you credit for that, even as I resist the urge to point out the irony in your “reading comprehension” statement.
Baklava: “Conservatives have had to deal with much worse.. and for years…”
I know you feel that way, and unfortunately, this feeling of persecution seems to motivate many conservatives beyond any sense of reason. Whole lot of chips on a whole lot of shoulders, which leads to a whole lot of knees jerking.
And the party plays on this persecution theme almost to perfection. In so doing, they’re able to get their base to turn a blind-eye to or rationalize just about anything.
Severian: “BTW, I hear there is a major Hollywood movie coming out about Clinton’s Vietnam years. It’s going to be titled “Full Dinner Jacket.”"
My point was that conservatives don’t have a monopoly on “serving their country”.
Your point acknowledges that conservatives don’t have a lock on “avoidng service to their country”.
Thanks for supplying something of a corollary and helping to make my point.
thatniceguy proves not so nice with his accusations stating, “Bush’s ANG service certainly seems to have been
Reading too much liberal talking points again I see.
Read this
Not that it’ll stop you from making reckless irresponsible charges… but I did my due diligence. You’ll continue with your pattern of attacks (no need for you to stop and we don’t want you to because it’ll help us win voters)
thatniceguy continues by saying, “get their base to turn a blind-eye to or rationalize just about anything.
This isn’t a reflection on your willingness to make irresponsible charges during a time of war? The way we see it is this is not about Bush. This is an essential program that we want continued because it isn’t guaranteed in the constitution that you should be able to speak to the enemy during a time of war on a secure line….
Or do you think it should be? If so just state that instead of making irresponsible reckless charges during a time of war….
Baklava: “…but I did my due diligence”
You’re serious? You know that’s the National Review right? And you’re accusing me of employing talking points?
I mean did you actually read it? Doesn’t exactly make your case. They go so far as to make Bush’s transfer sound “routine”, when Bush himself has acknowledged that he received special permission.
Then they “prove” he was there with this statement, “..his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit…”. But later they try to explain away his absence by saying there was nothing for him to do (esp. flying). But wait, I thought he was there. So was he stealing too by accepting payment when he wasn’t there?
Oh, but hold the show, no he wasn’t there after all, because they then flip right back to saying he made up his absence by working harder later. Which is it? It’s all just so confusing.
That’s not even the half. The whole thing is riddled with muddled contradictions born out of an intense need to rationalize. At best, the article shows a pattern of special treatment and irresponsibility. At best.
I can’t believe they published it. Then again, the fact that you cited it as “due diligence” makes me understand why they did.
“no need for you to stop and we don’t want you to because it’ll help us win voters”
Actually, on this issue, slandering Kerry helped you to win voters. But you appear to have no problem letting that stand.
TNG wrote, “You’re serious? You know that’s the National Review right? And you’re accusing me of employing talking points?
Yes. I dealt with your substance with a quip and with substance. Are you going to deal with the substance? Or just avert your eyes?
As to you talking about not being there, I’m not sure where you are coming from…. Were you there? I’ve seen plenty of people disciplined for not meeting requirements and/or being AWOL. Bush was NOT disciplined and the only thing Democrats have is speculation from people who think he should’ve done something he didn’t. Speculation and attacks is what it seems you guys only have.
We’ve gone off topic enough for my taste. Your charge of slandering Kerry is without merit (people have a right to speak and their points were interesting -that debate is LONG over thank the lord).
Seems like you are a liberal talking point machine.
But back to the subject at hand.
I’ll post these two paragraphs again:
This isn’t a reflection on your willingness to make irresponsible charges during a time of war? The way we see it is this is not about Bush. This is an essential program that we want continued because it isn’t guaranteed in the constitution that you should be able to speak to the enemy during a time of war on a secure line….
Or do you think it should be? If so just state that instead of making irresponsible reckless charges during a time of war….
“The way we see it is this is not about Bush. This is an essential program that we want continued..”
I hope you’re being honest with yourself there. I’d love to see it tested if Hillary came into office.
“…it isn’t guaranteed in the constitution that you should be able to speak to the enemy…”
That’s the problem Baklava. We have no way of knowing if those “speaking to the enemy” were the only ones tapped. That’s because the check and balance (aka, the law) put into place to help ensure this was circumvented. Reagan said it best, “Trust, but verify”. You just want to trust, perhaps because it’s Bush. Again, I’d love to see how much you’d trust Hillary.
“Or do you think it should be? If so just state that instead of making irresponsible reckless charges during a time of war….”
Good grief…there’s that old worn-out “used-to-be-trump-card”. “You’re hurting the troops. You’re aiding the enemy. You’re being irresponsible in a time of war. etc., etc., etc.”
Sorry, that doesn’t work on me, because I realize it’s even more important to be vigilant regarding the protection of our ideals. And I understand that the truth is our most powerful weapon. What is this logic that we should suppress the truth because “we’re at war?”
I heard Hannity go off on some Dem yesterday, repeatedly screaming “You’re calling our president a liar in a time of war!” What?
THE TRUTH IS WHAT WE OWE TO OUR TROOPS. In fact, if the truth were known, they wouldn’t even be in Iraq.
TNG wrote, “I hope you’re being honest with yourself there. I’d love to see it tested if Hillary came into office.
I’m always honest – don’t need the assertion that I may not be (but I take it in stride), but YES – I, Baklava, will love it if Hillary Clinton would due her duty during a time of war and surveille/monitor what people in Al Qaida (the enemy) are talking about so that we can stop the murder of thousands of innocent Americans even if they are talking to people (sleeper cells maybe) in America during an “international” (as it’s labeled on the phone bill) phone call.
TNG wrote, “regarding the protection of our ideals
You mean the protection to talk to the enemy (Al Qaida) during a time of war?
TNG wrote, “THE TRUTH IS WHAT WE OWE TO OUR TROOPS.
So give it to ‘em. I’m not stopping you..
Baklava, your blatant once-sidedness here is absolutely awful.
Charges against Bush are reckless and without merit, and those against Kerry simply involve the right of people to “speak their minds”. Staggering, willful sense of distorted justice.
You say complaints against Bush are unfounded when the record shows his absence and attempts to explain it are weak. However, people are “entitled to opinions” when it comes to Kerry, even when the source of doubt there is hearsay from an obviously partisan group.
Baklava: “Bush was NOT disciplined…”
What does that prove? That he got away with it? After all, one of the complaints is that he received special treatment.
This is related to the NSA domestic wiretapping scandal b/c it shows your willingness to give Bush a pass on anything, but attack everything that even appears “left”.
Like I said, whole lotta’ knee-jerkin’ goin’ on.
“Bush’s service in the TANG was no cakewalk”
More like snow.
Baklava,
The phrase “hope you’re being honest with yourself” was a figure of speech. I’ve seen no reason to question your honesty, so I apologize if you took it that way.”
Your sanity on the other hand….
Seriously…
Baklava continued…”You mean the protection to talk to the enemy (Al Qaida) during a time of war…”
“monitor what people in Al Qaida (the enemy) are talking about so that we can stop…”
Again the point is that Bush sidestepped the mechanism/law designed to reasonably ensure that’s who he was tapping.
And the evidence is to the contrary. Most who are tapped are cleared. i.e., there are more false alarms than not.
So, mathematically, it would be more accurate to say he was “tapping innocent Americans” than those “with terrorist ties”.
Incidentally, if this were NOT the case, then FISA would have sufficed.
Quite a difference. I wasn’t the leveling the charges about Kerry. You were the one leveling the charges about Bush.
TNG wrote, “What does that prove?
It proves that the charges are incorrect. Again. When I was in the Navy for 6 years there were plenty of people that were disciplined for just tardiness let alone being AWOL. You guys are going full bore with no evidence to back up your claims other than speculation.
Yep. A whole lot of knee jerkin’. You are afraid of your rights to speak to Al Qaida during a time of war (original point to this thread) and bring up so many other topics (as usual)…. You have a bunch of chips on your shoulder but the only one that matters in this post is that you think terrorists should have a secure line to sleeper cells in this country during a time of war.
“I wasn’t the leveling the charges about Kerry…”
Right, you just gave tacit support to those who did, while giving Bush a pass.
“It proves the charges are incorrect…”
Huh? ‘fraid not. That’s actually part of the question. It could actually prove that he got special treatment (when taken with the record).
But you’re right…I’ve established your sense of not-so-blind justice, so I have no more use for this old news.
Baklava: “Afraid of rights to speak to Al Qaida…”
“…you think terrorists should have a secure line to sleeper cells in this country during a time of war…”
Yet again, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that’s NOT who Bush was listening to.
So, no matter how much you repeat it, it’s mathematically untrue. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of those tapped were found innocent.
If you want to appear reasoned and logical, I hate to tell you that you can’t just keep ignoring that fact. You have to either:
a.) Dispute it
b.) Acknowledge it and say Bush was wrong.
c.) Acknowledge it and concede that you’re ok with Bush spying on thousands of innocent Americans if it enables him to catch one terrorist.
Sorry, those are the only rational choices I see. Do you have another?
TNG wrote, “Right, you just gave tacit support to those who did
No tacit support about it. They have a right to say their piece and you can criticize them. It wasn’t me leveling the charges as you are leveling charges against Bush and I’m criticizing YOU !
TNG with no responsibility writes the following charge, “Yet again, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that’s NOT who Bush was listening to
REALLY. Can you point to the evidence for this statement?
Why would I have to:
a) Dispute your reckless charges?
b) Acknowledge your reckless charge by saying Bush was wrong?
c) Acknwoldege your reckless irresponsible charge and concede I’m ok with a premise that you state that is incorrect?
Why do you cheat on your wife TNG?
Hehe, you should say ‘why do you cheat on your wife’ every time someone says Bush is listening to terrorists illegally. It would make for a very messy debate, but would be hilarious
Baklava: “REALLY. Can you point to the evidence for this statement?”
So, looks like you’ve chosen option “a”. Thanks for playing.
In that case, I take it you haven’t seen this widely reported tidbit, also known as “my evidence”.
Here’s a slice:
The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush’s circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program’s lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged “reasonable” if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable…
That just leaves options “b” and “c”. Care to choose another?
“Why do you cheat on your wife TNG?”
Actually, I like to whisper sweet nothings in her ear throughout the day, and tell her how much I love her. Special words and memories that we like to share just between us. You know what I mean, right?
Then use your pent up frustration to attack others on a blog.
Hey it’s ok. I can take your attacks. They are just attacks with incorrect premises and we’ll be here to point that out to ya.
I’m outa here for a bit.
BTW, You did notice the MSNBC article laced opinion and speculation in with their “news” didn’t you. Using phrases like “circumvention of the courts. And putting opinions such as “a search cannot be judged “reasonable” if it is based on evidence… blah blah blah.
Same ole silly dominant media… I took Critical Thinking in College. It don’t wash here.
I’d say MSNBC’s cheating on their wife also…..
Then quit cheating on her!
Heh, seriously though, are you expecting relatively random surveillance of international calls to result in a terrorist find every time? The number of international calls is very large, but the number of terrorist ones is probably not. Some surveillance will lead to exoneration, or removal from suspicion.
Many thousands of people fall under the ’suspected terrorist’ category as they should. They are not ‘guaranteed terrorists’. Just suspected. The number of actual terrorists is much lower, probably in the ‘hundreds’ or ‘tens’ area. But to find those people, they have to listen to thousands. It’s the nature of surveillance.
I am aware of two instances where I said ‘bomb’ and ‘FBI’ in overseas conversations (though I was anti-bomb and pro-FBI). So my conversations were probably heard by others. Oh well. It’s a small price that most of us are willing to pay for our freedom.
It’s also important to note that although phone monitoring or any other type of spying is egregious, it does not inhibit your freedoms.
- We’re in the middle of a clash of civilizations and the Liberals trolling this site want to argue about the minutae of the Presidents service, after a couple of people in the leftwing media got caught trying to peddle fake documents that the perp had been shopping around for years. Or the obvious Presidential quality of a dumb ass opportunist that shot himself in the ass twice with gernade launchers, dreamed he was in Cambodia, enraged by the actions of a president that hadn’t been elected yet, gave himself medals for his self inflicted wounds, and then filmed it to be sure everyone would know he was a war hero. But then he does stack his own word up against 235 other honorable men who served with him, and they are obviously liers. Yeh that works. Now about that form 180……
- And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously.
- Bang
I think you guys missed my point with the wife thing…just saying that you don’t have to be subversive to want privacy….but I can take a joke…no worries on that part.
Actually…”Then quit cheating on her!” was a good comeback. Gotta’ give it up for that one.
Anywhoo…
blogagog: “are you expecting relatively random surveillance of international calls to result in a terrorist find every time?”
No. I (and others) are saying there’s a problem when the vast majority of cases don’t turn up a hit. There’s something wrong with the process when too many innocent folks are tapped. Calls in to question the words “reasonable” and “probable”, flying a afoul of the 4th.
blogagog: “Some surveillance will lead to exoneration, or removal from suspicion”
True and that might justify Bush’s assertions about the limited nature of the program. If it were true. Again, problem is it’s overwhelmingly most cases that turn up nothing.
Ironically, all this is incidental anyway, as it was illegal. And the reason it was illegal is being illustrated by what we’re finding out about the program. I’m just pointing out that the idea that this impacts terrorists more than citizens is untrue.
But, I give you a HUGE hats off for just calling it like you see it, even if I don’t agree with you. Sounds like you chose option “c” from my list above. Of course, that would mean you couldn’t run around saying ridiculous things (like Baklava), such as those who oppose the program want to protect the rights of terrorists and those who talk to Al Qaida”. Based on the math, we’re obviously interested in protecting the overwhelming number of innocent folks.
Finally, blogagog said:
“It’s also important to note that although phone monitoring or any other type of spying is egregious, it does not inhibit your freedoms.”
Well it does if you consider that we’re to have freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. But, even if you don’t, you have to agree that it does infringe upon our privacy, which is another right.
Again, hats off for at least acknowledging the egregious nature of it.
By the way, why do you think Bush blatantly lied by telling us that “when you hear us talking about wiretapping, we’re talking about getting a warrant…”?
Baklava: “they are just attacks with incorrect premises and we’ll be here to point that out to ya.”
But, what premises have you pointed out as incorrect? I backed up my assertions with that article and you attempted to cast aspersions on it. But are you disputing it? Are you saying it’s propaganda with no merit?
“I’m outa here for a bit.”
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like you’re easing out the backdoor when faced with diminishing options to defend your outlandish, divisive memes like: “liberals want to protect peoples rights to talk to al qaida”.
If you ever return to this thread, I’d be interested in hearing whether you’d chosen “b” or “c” above as your second choice.
Thatguy – You’ve found nothing out about the program. Trust me. Its actually doubtful you ever will. Last time I checked “need to know” was still enforced. I said this once. I’ll say it again. Just because the left is overwhelmed with paranoia, I’m pretty sure thats not a reason to open up the war time secrets for all to see. We are after all, still at war, whether you and your group accept that or not is immaterial.
- Bang
TNG wrote another incorrect baseless charge without evidence (as his usual pattern), “Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like you’re easing out the backdoor when faced with diminishing options to defend your outlandish, divisive memes
Nope, just had to go wash the car before the sun was completely gone.
I choose to tell the accuser that their charge was baseless and without evidence during a time of war even (which makes it worse for ya)
And as for your last question. You have a reading comprehension problem. I’ll correct your premise of that question also. He was referring to “domestic” calls and referring to th Patriot Act in a question.
I totally missed your wife joke. But now that you ’splained it I have to say bravo! Jokes are always funnier if it takes a minute to get them (still working on ‘why’, but it’s very true). Point taken: privacy is important.
Unfortunately, I now have to invoke the /friendliness qualifier. You seem like a very nice person, but remaining free is paramouunt to me, and I about this I will brook no discussion.
You hit the nail on the head when you said, “I (and others) are saying there’s a problem when the vast majority of cases don’t turn up a hit.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases never turn up a hit when surveiling. Ask a random policeman if you doubt this. It’s the nature of the beast. You have to either be ok with that, or come out and say that surveillance is always bad. It’s very black and white.
If you are saying that surveillance with a low hit-rate is a failure or is illegal, then all surveillance must necessarily be ended. Even surveillance of drug dealers and gangs. To me, surveillance does not seem like an abrogation of my rights. It seems to even be a good thing in some places. Heck, England is canvassed with cameras. What freedoms have they lost, even in wartime?
I won’t speak for Baklava since he’s got a powerful voice, but for my part I will choose option c: “I acknowledge your reckless irresponsible charge” and follow that with an “I forgive you”.
When you say “Ironically, all this is incidental anyway, as it was illegal” I have to wonder, was it as illegal as you cheating on your wife? (see, I can make up stuff too! It’s important not to make rulings, at least until you are a judge. It’s a law. Actually, a bunch of them.)
But we digress. This page is dedicated to the greatness of Thomas Sowell. I think the New York Times summed it up best when they reported the results of their poll:
HOW GREAT IS THOMAS SOWELL?
a) pretty great
b) really great
c) the greatest man who ever lived
d) the second greatest man who ever lived
e) brilliant
The results were close, but the answer was “The second greatest man who ever lived”.
God bless the gipper.
Baklava,
First of all, I’m referencing a video. So, I guess it would be a viewing compreshension problem. But, didn’t the “reading compreshension” quip already backfire on you once on this thread? Care to go for a hat trick? LOL.
Anyway..I found this quote from the video:
Bush: “Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
He mentioned roving wiretaps, then paused to add, “By the way, any time…”
So does your comprehension tell you that “any time” means “only roving wire taps”? Because to me, that says he was pausing to address any concerns raised by the prospect of “roving” wiretaps, by upping the ante to say that not-only do roving wiretaps require warrants, but any wiretap requires a warrant.
He went out of context, then went back in.
He even said they get court orders before chasing down terrorists, whereas they are now saying they only go warrantless for chasing down terrorists. Good grief. He blatantly lied no matter how you spin it. Reading comprehension indeed.
Oh, and nice try with the diversion, but I’m still waiting for you to choose “b” or “c”.
It’s also transcripted. But yes, if you didn’t understand the context of the video or the words you heard that’s what’d be I suppose (a viewing comprehension problem)…
Again. He was answering a question about the Patriot act and referring to “domestic” calls.
And why would he reference a secret program (give away troop movements – I wonder if Hugh Hewitt has his transcript up where the lawyer talked about that and the New York Times breaking the law) during a time of war that some Congress folks have been breifed on? And is being carried out on “international” calls.
Why would I have to choose B or C with someone who keeps making reckless irresponsible charges that are untrue during a time of war even (which makes it 10 times worse for ya – during a time of war).
“Again. He was answering a question about the Patriot act and referring to “domestic” calls.”
Oh. You saw the gonzales thing too!
blogagog: “…remaining free is paramouunt to me”
That’s ironic. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
blogagog: “Unfortunately, the vast majority of cases never turn up a hit when surveiling.”
and:
“You have to either be ok with that, or come out and say that surveillance is always bad…”
False choice. I’d rather we do as much as possible to protect our rights, by applying a common sense definition for establishing probable cause/reasonable suspicion.
i.e if the means for establishing probable cause for performing surveillance in the cases you cite proved unreliable, then they wouldn’t pass the common sense test for the phrase “probable cause” (or in Bush’s case “reasonable suspicion” and would be rendered unconstitutional.
Extending your criminal analogy, let’s say a law enforcement agency continuously used an informant’s claims to establish cause for surveillance. Let’s say that 99 out of 100 times, that informant’s information was false and resulted in home searches that led to nothing. It could no longer be argued that the informant’s testimony established probable cause.
In that case, continuing to use it would be a violation of the 4th amendment.
Otherwise, if we let that pass, then why even have a 4th amendment? I mean, what this really seems to come down to is your willingness to give up your 4th amendment rights, and my unwillingness to do so.
Especially when it’s not necessary.
I also diasagree strongly with your assertion that I’m a nice guy…oh wait, got carried away. We agree on that one.
BTW, I’m getting the sense that you’re a fan of Thomas Sowell. Am I reading that right?
Baklava: “Why would I have to choose B or C with someone who keeps making reckless irresponsible charges that are untrue…”
You’ve yet to show me what’s untrue in the MSNBC link I provided. Except for some passing implication about the article’s impartiality, you’ve just changed the subject and continued to pretend that my assertions are without merit.
You either have to:
a.) Dispute the content of the story.
b.) Stop saying my charges are irresponsible.
Of course, this is only if you want to appear reasonable and logical.
Passing? I pointed out clearly for those who took Critical thinking or journalism or English 101 classes that those were stated opinions in the article. Opinion passed off as news isn’t something to be rebutted kind sir. Seriously. It is my opinion you cheated on your wife – this is a serious point I’m making here. I’m not being glib.
It’d be up to you to be reasonable and logical. I read the opinon piece and responded already giving it more time than it deserved.
So you’ve discounted the whole article based on this notion that some opinions were interjected?
It’s arguable as to whether what you cited are opinions vs. logical conclusions and observations. For example, you claimed the phrase “circumvention of the courts” was an opinion. Who argues that Bush did not circumvent the courts? That’s just fact.
But let’s assume opinions were interjected. If you seriously think that discounts the substance of the article in its entirety, then I see the breakdown here. You may want to consider getting a refund for the portions of your critical thinking class that you missed.
To wit: Is the following an opinion?
“Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.”
Or is that an estimate based on observation?
How about this?
“But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, “wash out” most of the leads within days or weeks.”
I could go on, but there’s no sense re-posting the bulk of that article, which is inarguably not opinion.
What a willful rejection of reality. At least blogagog acknowledges facts and has a reasoned approach to supporting the program, even if I believe it flies in the face of the 4th and disagree. It’s coherent and acknowledges basic facts.
Now that I’ve backed you against choices a, b, and c, you’re clinging desparately to “a” (disputing the “evidence”) against all reason. You know that once you release that, everything else you assert crumbles. But in holding on, you’re just digging yourself deeper and looking less-and-less reasonable.
How on earth can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Some?
It’s premise is based on opinion and there is no fact or evidence to back them up….
And yes. That does make the article not news…
The 5,000 number is accurately quoted. That would mean that GUESS WHAT? 5,000 people (sleeper cells?) have been communicating with the enemy !!! I’m for the surveillance of enemy communications during a time of war and believe the NSA (with a general leading the effort) has the power to legally do it.
It’s a willful rejection of reality for you to claim that you know better than the constitutional experts that I agree with. Recognize TNG that there is a debate. Don’t act condescending towards us and act like Bush is evil and doing things illegal. Recognize that that is the accusation made by folks that you seem to eat up.
I’ll argue my way and you argue your way. I have no need to choose the options you give me in your control freakish attitude. Thanks for asking again though. Nothing I’ve asserted crumbles. Gonzales’ testimony (did you read it?) talks about all sorts of evidence that shows they are on good standing. Have you addressed his testimony? NO. I haven’t seen you do it except to dismiss him.
How on earth can you debate like you do and take yourself seriously..
Back to Dancing with the Stars.
I know this is a “johnny-come-lately” post, but andrew is way off base. There is NOTHING illegal about the President wire-tapping phone calls where one of the participants is outside the U.S. You may have a reasonable expectation of privacy during the call, but the foreigner DOES NOT! The 4th Amendment does NOT apply to foreign nationals! It only applies to U.S citizens in CRIMINAL matters. Since the foreigner is not a U.S. citizen and this is a matter of national security, it is NOT “spying on U.S. citizens.” It IS protecting the country from Islamofascists. Get over yourself!