The Post’s snapshot tally looks more and more like a push poll.
The majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed intelligence efforts directed at the general public.
The survey of 809 adults taken Friday and Saturday shows a nation that continues to wrestle with the balance between fighting terrorism and maintaining civil liberties.
By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation’s four largest telecommunication companies since soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Apparently, you didn’t read the results of the poll as the third question results don’t justify the first question:
Apparently, you didn’t read the results of the poll as the first question doesn’t lend much weight to the results of the third question the USA Today chose to highlight:
1. Do you think the Bush administration has gone too far, has been about right, or has not gone far enough in restricting people s civil liberties in order to fight terrorism]?
53% say Bush has it “about right” or has gone “not far enough” on the civil liberties front.
In addition, 32% of those polled said they haven’t been following the story closely or not at all, but only 6% don’t have an opinion on the program?
So there are some fascists who hate freedom and would give it up for “security.” If they think Bush is too soft on terrorism, fine. But they don’t exactly count as people happy with Bush’s approach to terrorism. Either way, a majority disapprove of the program. Does that mean the fascist element believes the program is too soft? Who knows? That’s quite a bit different from the results in the WaPo poll.
How about the view from someone who was actually polled?
32% of those polled said they haven t been following the story closely or not at all
Yep, as usual the only hope for the repubs is that not many people are really paying attention.
Elrod, can you explain in a coherent way exactly how your freedom is being jeopardized by that NSA program?
You said anybody who supports the program is a fascist and hates freedom. So I want to know how your freedom is at risk.
I don’t even understand why we’re polling on this at all. Since when has “is it OK or not to break law X” a matter subject to public opinion?
can you explain in a coherent way exactly how your freedom is being jeopardized by that NSA program?
It’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Any violation of the Constitution jeopardizes individual freedom, at least until the right wingers decided that the Constitution was SO 1787. QED.
Just because I cannot identify what specific sort of information the government might obtain by sifting through my file cabinets, it does not follow that I want them doing it without a warrant and a good reason, and toe Fourth Amendment concurs. I suspect that’s the reason file cabinets come with a lock and a key.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Can someone explain to me how collecting data on information traveling over private lines not owned by the individuals in question violates the fourth amendment against searching “persons, houses,papers and effects”?
It cannot be a Constitutional violation because of SMITH v. MARYLAND. However, there is discussion that it may be a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
Reinhard, I find it hard to shed a tear that “reporters” will no longer be allowed to be accomplises in lawbreaking. Cry me a river.
Only if you promise not to get all huffy and say “Why didn’t anyone connect the dots”?
pedro (and everyone else)…
I think you may wish to have a look at this.
Now this I can see as a realistic application of the gathering of these mountains of data. The gov has just discovered a wonderful new way to determine who you’re talking to without any warrant or judicial oversight. If you don’t think that this kind of thing is going to chill speech, I don’t think there’s much hope for you.
My question after reading that article then becomes, how would one proceed with arrest/prosecution/legal harrassment of reporters and governement sources based on this info? Since (at least for the time being) warrants for seizure of persons and physical property still require some kind of judicial approval, how would gov prosecutors get a judge to sign off on seizure of a govt informer with this evidence? “Your honor we have secret evidence indicating that person X spoke to reporter Y which we can’t show you”? We used to have consititutional protections against the use of secret evidence.
A secret government agency which now claims total autonomy from the oversight of either Congress or the DOJ is collecting and keeping data on the calling habits of millions of Americans in violation of multiple statutes. If you’re cool with that, fine. Just don’t get all huffy when someone calls you a facist.
RealPoll;
Do you trust the government will take necessary measures to protect
the privacy of it’s citizens?
How about … the public itself? Witness the blogosphere. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Press mentioned as a 4th Branch of Government.
Besides, when was the last election we held that put the NYT, WaPo, and Wall Street Journal in charge of National Security, much less news?
Your continual labeling of those who disagree with you as “facist” only shows your continued ignorance of the English Language. If this truly were facism come alive, why hasn’t your hard drive been crushed by a jackboot? Hmmm… maybe if the NSA spyed on you some more…
The funny thing about Farris and all the other fascists is that the people he is cheering on would be more than happy to throw him into the camps too.
Yeah, somehow I predicted Farris’ response (I figured it would come from Jay_C though…)
The only thing which allows the public insight into the operation of government is a free press. The completely flippant disregard toward the public’s ability to be informed about what our government is up to is quite telling.
And yes, Farris, you are a fascist.
rheinhart
I have not seen any great “chilling” of free speech lately, have you?
We have illegal aliens marching in the street demanding rights
We have blogs and any manner of internet sites absolutely railing against a sitting president and government…not only are they not arrested, but hell, they even advertise and make money from them!
Storing data that passes over public lines is not an invasion of privacy. When you can show me an instance when it is used illegally, I will be more interested. But to simply whine about the POTENTIAL for illegal use….hell, the IRS has more potential for illegal use (and in fact in the clinton white house, more than just potential…) than any data mining as described in this instance.
Do you have some basis for declaring that members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees have not been briefed on this NSA program? I’ve been reading that they were briefed.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/14/specter-oversight/
Arlen Specter:
“When Mr. Hadley says that the intelligence committees have been informed, that s only partially so. When the program was put into effect, the so-called gang of eight was informed – that s the leadership of both the house and senate and chairman and ranking on the intelligence committees. Now Bob, the statute requires that the committees, all of them, be informed. And they still haven t been informed.
After we put pressure on with our hearings and legislation which we proposed, the administration started to brief a subcommittee of intelligence and part of the house committee, 11 members, but they still haven t complied with the act to inform the full intelligence committees as required by law. And there really has to be in our system of law and government, checks and balance, separation of powers, congressional oversight and bob, there has been no meaningful congressional oversight on these programs.”
Of course, briefings, even if they had occured within the law, still have nothing to do with “oversight”. There is no Congressional ability to direct or redirect these efforts. Therefore, there is no oversight.
Why is it the conservatives who post here, the ones who want to reduce the size of government, are the same ones defending the NSA programs that are largely unknown and without oversight? And with inane comments like “I have not seen any great chilling of free speech lately, have you” they are tools for this administration to go ahead and take further steps to erode individual rights. The rationale is ‘It doesn’t really erode my own rights, at least so far as I know right now, from what the gummint has told me.’ This is a progressive thing — with each revelation more people realize it is more invasive, more pervasive and more open to abuse than previously thought. The fucking pollyannas who saw Iraq as this slam-dunk win-win certainty are once again behaving like they were born yesterday.
“Only if you promise not to get all huffy and say Why didn t anyone connect the dots ?”
And no doubt you’ll do the same when I ask you why Bush did nothing after reading a PDB title “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” You guys seem to forget that the 9-11 plot could have been stopped without any of this domestic spying. No one needed the phone records of millions of Americans to put the pieces together that various government agencies already had about the 9-11 hijackers.
Farris and the right-wing blogosphere in general proves the rule that a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand hours will eventually come up with a defense for any Bush policy and that another thousand monkeys will buy it no matter how absurd.
And briefing select members of the Intelligence committee does not constitute oversight. The Bush administration went to select representatives and senators and said here’s what were doing, now you can’t say or do anything to reveal the existence of this program. At the same time, the president is claiming the right to carry out this program in violation of the laws that Congress already passed. In what scenario does that constitute anything even close to legitimate oversight?
Journalists have no legal rights to “confidential sources”. That does not mean that the government should be allowed to use information illegally (for example, the NSA database — if it’s determined to be illegal), but using legimate means to determine a journalist’s sources is not unethical or illegal. Do you have a problem if the government uses legal means to determine “confidential” sources?
Simply put, I don’t want to wait until the last minute to suspect the government.
Even if I might not be in a death camp now, that doesn’t mean the risk of losing my freedoms is non existant.
Here is one example of the abuse of surveillance; although it isn’t using the same methods as have been revealed recently, it does show that the government is abusing power.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/opinion/main1228569.shtml
Odd how conservatives claimed to be against big governement. But when
they get a chance to harass Quakers, I guess all bets are off…
Good analogy, duros. Can you just hear them now?
“No, the water is just a little warm. This is nothing like boiling, and it will never be boiling. You are hurting America by suggesting that it could get warmer”.
“It’s a little hot, but I heard about somewhere where it is REAL hot, so I can’t get worked up about this heat”.
“Why do the traitorous reporters keep telling America that the pot is hot? According to the Bush administration, the temperature of the water is 72 degrees. Who asked the NY Times for their opinion anyway”.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that some people don’t deserve the freedoms that America is known for- certainly they wish to give them away for nothing but a fake sense of security.
“When you can show me an instance when it is used illegally, I will be more interested.”
The idiot speaks. The IRS is fully accountable to all three branches of government. Here’s a list of all the federal agencies and others that conduct oversight of the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=137824,00.html
The NSA is claiming, through exexcutive priviledge, that it is accountable to no other branch of government or argency, not Congress or the courts.
Second, you say that if someone could give you evidence of abuse you may reconsider. But how, exactly, are you or the American public ever going to get this evidence when it appears that the government is ALREADY using this program to chill government whistleblowers? It’s a little disingenous of you to assert that you’ll need evidence of abuse and then turn around and brand anyone who might provide that evidence, given the classified nature of the program, a traitor.
Combine the POTENTIAL for abuse with a total lack of oversight and you have a dangerous mix that could undermine our civil liberties.
How is telling the entire committee going to “give more authority” than telling only some Democrats? If a congessmember has authority, it is not because the President authorizes it…it is inherent in his/her position. Evidently Rep. Harman, the House Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman, is incapable of standing up for civil liberties, at least until the press puts a microphone in front of her three years and multiple briefings later.
Now we learn that the government can use this database to track down the confidential sources of journalists. How does this restrict my freedoms? It helps the government limit the freedom of the press, it may stop whistleblowers on government misdeeds, it can be misused to give big donor corporations inside information on buyouts and mergers, it can be misused by government officials for gaining inside information for securities trading, it can be used by the government to improperly monitor its citizens particularly those who espouse limiting government power or oppose causes the government favors groups such as PETA, the anti-trade people, gun rights advocates, quakers, anti-war protestors, anti-tax advocates, criminal defense attorneys. It can be misused for political purposes monitoring political opponents. Enough said.
The full intelligence committees have not been briefed, but the ranking members of both parties in those committees were some of the ones briefed. How many Democrats does it take before we have oversight? Obviously, the ranking Democrats who were aware of the programs and details are incapable of protecting the rights of American citizens.
I think Josh Marshall puts it far more eloquently than I ever could.
If ferreting out reporters who get leaked stories is OK, what’s to stop the Administration from spying on its political opponents? After all, they’re the ones most likely to get the leaks, right? And considering the rhetoric used by this Administration, and doubly so by many right-wing pundits and bloggers (the Democratic Party and the left is entirely composed off fifth-columnists, terror sympathizers, appeasers, etc.) can you seriously doubt that no one would blur that line?
“How many Democrats does it take before we have oversight?”
Stop playing dumb, JWG. The President can tell every single member of the house and senate about this program but until he recognizes the laws that Congress actually passes it ain’t oversight. Congress has already passed laws governing the operation of the NSA and the President has ignored them claiming executive priviledge. Simply telling someone what you’re doing but giving them no authority to do anything about it is not oversight.
This is a progressive thing with each revelation more people realize it is more invasive, more pervasive and more open to abuse than previously thought.
Like frogs in a pot, folks in the 29% (Farris, pedro, et al) won’t notice until the water’s boiling.
JWG, why don’t you ask Arlen Specter?
“After we put pressure on with our hearings and legislation which we proposed, the administration started to brief a subcommittee of intelligence and part of the house committee, 11 members, but they still haven t complied with the act to inform the full intelligence committees as required by law. “
You’re an even bigger fool than you seem if you imagine that you or I or Oliver, with a little blog, has any serious capacity to investigate anything realistically. The press is dedicated to finding things out as their primary day job. I have a day job and in have neither time nor the necessary contacts within government or business to find out details of things that the government or those businesses might not want me to know. Or perhaps you feel that the only things that the public has a right to know are those things government and business leaders feel like telling them?
99% of what the blogosphere does is point out news stories already generated by the free press and bring them to greater attention, so that they can’t be drowned out by the latest missing white girl or whatever other sensationalist item is all the rage. About the only thing the blogosphere is capable of really investigating are things which are the province of the Internet, such as the plagiarism evident on the online writings of Washington Post online conservablogger Ben Domenench. There is no way that I could see that someone like Oliver could find out about secret renditions, NSA wiretaps, or even our government making troops in Iraq pay for their own body armor on their own.
And I submit that it is you who does not understand fascism. Yes, the classic end point of fascism is the “jackboot” kicking in the door to haul you off the Konzentrationslager. But the definition of fascism is “government control wedded to corporate power”. Since you clearly feel the public has no right to know anything other than what governments or businesses say about themselves, and that there is no legitimacy in independent groups trying to find out the truth, you have taken the very important first step toward that end point. If we sit around and wait to be concerned until the end point arrives, then it is quite too late.
Farris and the right-wing blogosphere in general proves the rule that a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand hours will eventually come up with a defense for any Bush policy and that another thousand monkeys will buy it no matter how absurd.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The fact of the matter is, the Anti-Bush Brigades knees all jerk back violently whenever something like this comes up. Because it is Bush, you won’t even entertain the possibility that it is legal.
Thoughtful legal experts on both sides are taking a cautious approach, not coming to any conclusion as to whether or not this was legal or illegal. But the ABB have already reached it’s conclusion: It’s illegal and to suggest otherwise means you’re a fascist.
It’s just kind of hypocritical and all because you just know that if the tables were turned, and it was a Democrat that was doing this sort of thing – the Republicans would be screaming at the top of their lungs about how this is such a blatant violation of privacy.
It’s just funny to watch people like Sean Hannity and the rest of the Republicans try to defend this.
Well, first off the reporters getting leaked stories are helping to commit a crime (leaking outside of the legal whistleblowing process). Is it now the default Democratic position that crimes should not be investigated?
“Evidently Rep. Harman, the House Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman, is incapable of standing up for civil liberties, at least until the press puts a microphone in front of her three years and multiple briefings later … Journalists have no legal rights to confidential sources .”
It would all be just too funny if it weren’t so dangerously insane. On the one hand, the press are traitors for revealing the existence of potentially illegal classified programs and on the other representatives are cowards for not coming forward to regulate those very same classified programs.
You guys are advocating for a totally unchecked executive with the power to spy on American citizens. That is why this is so troubling, not because Bush happens to be the executive, Jay, but because it sets a seriously dangerous precedent for every executive to follow. It’s a fundamental perversion of the checks and balances that make this country what it is.
It’s only a fearful,mushbrained cultist could defend this kind of shit.
Factcheck says “I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that some people don t deserve the freedoms that America is known for- certainly they wish to give them away for nothing but a fake sense of security.”
Me, Frank and Dugger to name just three all served in the armed forces helping to earn our freedom…how about you?
An another note, Oliver who the hell does your site hosting? Their SQL server uptime is a joke.
“Me, Frank and Dugger to name just three all served in the armed forces helping to earn our freedom& how about you?”
And now you all support torture, secret prisons, domestic spying, holding prisoners without charge or trial, attacks on the press and unlimited executive power. Fantastic. Thanks for nothing.
That certainly seems to be the Republican position. After all, we’ve been hearing repeatedly over the last several weeks that the greatest threat posed to the nation if the Democrats gain the upper hand in Congress in November is that they will hold…gasp!… investigations!!
Now, for the less snarky answer… you are taking the same simplistic tack as Rove does with the outcry over NSA domestic wiretaps… people like you claim that the hostility to the program shows that Democrats “just don’t want to wiretap terrorists”. No, wiretapping terrorists and US citizens in the US communicating with them is fine…as long as there is some means of judicial oversight of how it is done. If the current FISA law is too restrictive for some reason, let us change the law, not just IGNORE IT.
Same thing here… if lawbreaking took place, it can be investigated by obtaining proper warrants and developing evidence the normal way. I would point out that in another non-Plame related case, the very same Patrick Fitzgerald now prosecuting poor little Scooter Libby was denied the phone records of some reporters because of the judge’s view of the reporters’ qualified constitutional source privilege. The current revelations demonstrate just one more Bush admin. attempt to assert imperial presidential power and dance around the evidentiary laws that the rest of the country has to abide by.
lets address the point eh rheinhard?
I don’t deserve my freedom?
I have never, nor have I heard a right winger suggest, that Kerry, Murtha et al don’t deserve their freedom.
My point remains that when a list is written of americans “deserving” their freedom is written (god forbid), people that held up their hands and swore to protect this country will be at the top of the list, and those mewling about the losses of the freedoms who didn’t lift a finger to protect them will not be.
“… when a list is written of americans deserving their freedom is written (god forbid), people that held up their hands and swore to protect this country will be at the top of the list, and those mewling about the losses of the freedoms who didn t lift a finger to protect them will not be.”
Oh, and I should add this is one of the most patently facistic things you’ve ever written pedro. Way to go.
Ah the last refuge of the obtuse… “You can’t disagree with me! I was in the Army!”
I’m glad that same rationale applies to Max Cleland. And John Kerry. And Jack Murtha. And Paul Hackett.
Oh wait, it doesn’t! They’re Democrats! Silly me.
“The traitor, Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, agrees 100% with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi …”
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/newman/2005/newman111705.htm
“I have never, nor have I heard a right winger suggest, that Kerry, Murtha et al don t deserve their freedom.”
Ya, okay:
“That’s why I say it is time to stop playing rhetorical games with respect to Kerry.
There is only one word in the English language that adequately describes what he was in 1971 and what he remains today for capitalizing on the evil he perpetrated back then. That word is “traitor.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41169
“In the Traitor-To-His-Country department, Kerry is beginning to make Clinton look patriotic.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091943/posts
Ann Coulter concluding a column about Murtha:
“They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.”
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2005/11/24/176727.html
If the NSA programs are illegal, why are no Democrats calling for them to cease existing immediately?
You guys can’t answer a simple question. Try doing that instead of digging up articles by Ann Coulter.
“If the NSA programs are illegal, why are no Democrats calling for them to cease existing immediately?”
The programs are a violation of a statute and which Democrats are you talking about, Jay?
http://www.feingold.senate.gov/statements/06/03/2006313.html
“You guys can t answer a simple question. Try doing that instead of digging up articles by Ann Coulter.”
I love it how you guys are so mushbrained stupid you rely on the left to do your most basic research for you. Here you go idiot:
http://www.acsblog.org/bill-of-rights-2835-guest-blogger-nsa-again-violates-the-law.html
Frame, you’re resorting to a tactic known as an “appeal to authority.” Somebody with a fancy title says the program is illegal, so therefore it must be illegal. Try thinking on your own.
As for the Democrats, where is the leadership? Pelosi, Reid, Screamin Dean, etc.
“As for the Democrats, where is the leadership? Pelosi, Reid, Screamin Dean, etc.”
And talk about playing rhetorical games, Jay. The NSA program is legal because the Democratic leadership hasn’t demanded it be stopped? WTF kind of asinine reasoning is that? You may as well argue that Bush would never do anything illegal so anything Bush does is legal. Ya, makes sense. You’ll go far with that if you can find a kindergarten in need of a debate coach.
Nice Jay. The post linked doesn’t simply say, “I’m an authority so I’m right.” It lays out point by point the statutes in question and how this program violates them:
“Congress required the government to obtain a court order for pen registers and trap and trace devices, 18 USC 3121 et seq., and a court order or subpoena for records of past telephone calls …
If the NSA used a pen register or trap and trace device in real time, it was required to obtain an order from the FISA court, either under the specific pen register provisions, 50 USC 1841 et seq. or under the provisions for electronic surveillance generally, 50 USC 1801 et seq …
If the NSA obtained stored records, rather using a real time pen register, it would have to obtain an order from the FISA court under section 215 of the Patriot Act. That section contained an even lower standard for obtaining information …”
See those numbers in there Jay? Those refer to actual laws governing what the NSA can and cannot do. Read the post and try not being such a fucking idiot.
I am constantly amazed at how much sh*t you right-wingers are willing to eat, as long as it’s coming out of Bush’s an*s.
Wilbur: Well put… Will you be saving that for your “scat” book?
“And I could care less what that person wrote because I ve seen others write the opposite.”
And your links to those arguments are where? And I certainly like your conception of “thinking for oneself”: finding someone you agree with and then refusing to even read/consider any conflicting evidence. Nice Jay. You are a living example of the Right-Wing Monkey Paradigm I described above.
As to the Democratic leadership, if they aren’t calling for the programs to end then they’re as culpable as Bush in his illegal grab for executive power. You want to tell me why the Republican leadership isn’t calling for these illegal programs to end? You want to tell me why a Republican dominated Congress has refused to excercise its legitimate oversight role over Bush’s abuse of executive power? Where are the Republicans on this Jay?
Truly, you are a total jackass.
The post linked doesn t simply say, I m an authority so I m right. It lays out point by point the statutes in question and how this program violates them:
No, YOU’RE appealing to authority. YOU’RE saying, “So and so says it is illegal, therefore it must be illegal.” And I could care less what that person wrote because I’ve seen others write the opposite. The fact is, it has not been established that the program is illegal. If legal statutes were as plain as you make them out to be, we wouldn’t need lawyers and judges.
The NSA program is legal because the Democratic leadership hasn t demanded it be stopped?
Learn to read for content. I am not saying the program must be legal because idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren’t demanding the programs cease. The question I am asking is WHY? Why don’t they call for these programs to end if they are illegal?
“No, YOU RE appealing to authority. YOU RE saying, So and so says it is illegal, therefore it must be illegal.
Oh and Bzzzt. Wrong again Jay my boy. If you read the post you will find that it it’s author is Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies:
“Kate Martin has been Director of the Center for National Security Studies since 1992, where she has litigated and written about national security and civil liberties issues, including government secrecy, intelligence, terrorism, and enemy combatant detentions. Ms. Martin has taught Strategic Intelligence and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law School and also served as general counsel to the National Security Archive, a research library located at George Washington University.”
Tell me Martin isn’t a legitimate authority. Tell me that she’s not qualified to make reliable claims on the issue.
God you’re a fucking idiot.
And your links to those arguments are where? And I certainly like your conception of thinking for oneself : finding someone you agree with and then refusing to even read/consider any conflicting evidence. Nice Jay. You are a living example of the Right-Wing Monkey Paradigm I described above.
No. The thing is, I haven’t come to a conclusion either way. I’ve read both sides of the issue. You’re the one who reached a conclusion and then looked for evidence to support it that conclusion and you found what you wanted. It’s evidence of a closed mind. You want a differing opinion? Go read what Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has to say about it (oh and before you resort to the fallacy of dismissing an argument based on the source, note that Pilon differs from several of his colleagues at Cato on the issue).
As to the Democratic leadership, if they aren t calling for the programs to end then they re as culpable as Bush in his illegal grab for executive power.
But if the Democrats take back power in the Congress, I am guessing you’ll be cheering from the rooftops when Nancy Pelosi is made Speaker of The House and when Harry Reid becomes Senate Majority Leader.
You want to tell me why the Republican leadership isn t calling for these illegal programs to end?
Maybe they don’t think they’re illegal.
You want to tell me why a Republican dominated Congress has refused to excercise its legitimate oversight role over Bush s abuse of executive power?
I have no idea. You keep trying to pin on me the label of some GOP apologist and it’s an exercise in futility. You assume because I am asking you to defend your position that I have the the totally opposite viewpoint.
Tell me Martin isn t a legitimate authority. Tell me that she s not qualified to make reliable claims on the issue.
God you re a fucking idiot.
Amazing how you call me a “fucking idiot” yet I call you on resorting to a logiccal fallacy in the face of this discussion and then you proudly resort to the same fallacy.
Here is the fallacy Frame. I am only going to write this once, so pay attention:
1. You make claim A (NSA spying program is illegal)
2. Kate Martin also makes claim A. Martin is an authority on the subject
3. Therefore, claim A must be true.
Your argument rests on the notion that because Kate Martin says the spying program is illegal, then it must be illegal, hence your appeal to authority in arguing your viewpoint. While offering up Martin as an authority is better than offering up Nancy Pelosi, it’s still a fallacy because authorities can be wrong. Therefore, referencing an authority does not automatically imply truth.
Forget it Frame. It’s obvious that you are more comfortable in an echo chamber. Why? Because you reached a conclusion and you wanted to find something that supports your conclusion. You did. You won’t even consider the possibility that Martin is mistaken. And that is evidence of somebody with a closed mind.
If you ever decide to open it up and consider a viewpoint outside of your comfort zone (HATE BUSH!!), you can go here. But I doubt you will. Shit, you’ve already dismissed Pilon out of hand. You’re convinced he is wrong. After all, Kate Martin told you so.
Jay you idiot. Martin is an authority in the field of civil liberties and national security. She is not simply making a claim without any other evidence beyond her stated authority. She lays out a thorough, point-by-point case for why the NSA program is illegal. She presents evidence, she weighs objections, she makes arguments. Other people with authority to speak reliably on this issue agree with her assessment. There is no fallacy occurring here. It is perfectly legitimate to defer to Marin’s argument, not her authority, as to why this is illegal. Of course if you bothered to read the fucking post you would know all this.
Give me a link to Roger Pilon’s carefully laid out argument that the President has the right to break the law. Because that’s all Pilon has been arguing since the get go of the NSA scandal, that Bush, as commander-in-chief is above the law when it comes to national security. Are you buying that based on Pilon’s argument or just because he said so?
The rest of your response is typical conservatoid bullshit.
“You won t even consider the possibility that Martin is mistaken.”
Jesus Christ, Jay. Not once in this entire thread have you even bothered to make an actual argument for why this program is legal. You never cited any experts, you never linkedto any arguments, you haven’t even bothered to paraphrase Pilon in your own words. All you did was cite a poll, attack the democratic leadership and make general claims such as: “Thoughtful legal experts on both sides are taking a cautious approach, not coming to any conclusion as to whether or not this was legal or illegal.”
Really? The only person you’ve named — and finally linked to — is Pilon. And can I point out to you that the debate you linked to is about the NSA eavesdropping program and NOT the date mining program that Martin, and the rest of us expcepting you apparently, have been discussing. Here’s a summary of Pilon’s position on that program:
“The president not only has a right, but the duty to conduct the [National Security Agency] program,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. “Foreign affairs is an executive issue,” he added.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200605/NAT20060508a.html
That position has been eviscerated numerous times by numerous legal scholars and lawyers since the eavesdropping program was made public.
Regarding the NSA data-mining and various eavesdropping-without-warrants-or-oversight policies of the Cheney Administration, I wonder if there is any recourse customers have, to file claims against telecoms that shared info with the NSA without providing written notice of changes in their privacy policy. Aren’t the corporations required by law to do this? I don’t think they did.
Hey Jay, I listened to the debate. You think Pilon came out on top? You have got be kidding. Seriously? Point out for me what you think Pilon’s strongest argument is. I’d be interested to know … was it the suggestion that a person suffers no real loss when the government eavesdrop on his or her private conversations? Was it the argument that because foreign government don’t limit their intelligence agencies there’s no reason why we should expect the NSA to respect the fourth amendment? Was it his dalliance with Locke and Montesquieu? Or was it his wholesale attack on the New Deal, disco and leisure suits? Jesus Christ man can’t you tell when someone is trying to dazzle you with bullshit?
So come on. Tell me what you think was Pilon’s strongest point …