Previously, the Agency had shown itself to be scrupulous about avoiding this sort of activity. But according to numerous un-named sources paraphrased in the Times, the President signed a secret order authorizing him to intercept phone calls and emails from US persons in communication with persons outside the US, and all without the slightest bit of judicial oversight.

The White House claims that a September, 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing the so-called war on terror gives the President authority to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant, even though it is forbidden by federal law. Interestingly, the Times says that the spy program was curtailed when it became clear to the Administration that the story was about to come out, which implies something a bit shy of full confidence that the order really was legal.

The US Senate on Friday declined to re-authorize the 16 sunset provisions of the so-called "Patriot" Act

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/echelon_in_your_backyard/)

How incredibly stupid. If a terrorist was trying to communicate with a person in America, don't you think they'd use something other than the phone or e-mail?

How incredibly stupid. If a terrorist was trying to communicate with a person in America, don't you think they'd use something other than the phone or e-mail?
African swallow with coconuts?

Anyone "up to no good", generally, communicates with direct, encrypted lines. So... unless the FBI has things set up to bypass that, it's all rather futile.

ECHELON and the PATRIOT ACT have nothing to do with the War on Terrorism, that's one thing I'm rather sure of. Heck, the PATRIOT ACT existed long before 9/11, for crying out loud!

really?

Yes it did. It wasn't formally ratified until shortly after 9/11, but the extremely short time interval between 9/11 and the presentation of the PATRIOT act compared with the amount of legislature it entailed makes it clear that the footwork had been done in advance. Or to put it more bluntly: Cheney and Co. had it in a drawer and 9/11 just happened to produce a pretext.

Anyone "up to no good", generally, communicates with direct, encrypted lines. So... unless the FBI has things set up to bypass that, it's all rather futile.

The CIA (or is it the NSA?) has a long history of demanding that all encryption keys used in transmissions to and/or from persons within the US borders be handed over to them. This has caused considerable friction with the EU, since this provision has in the past been used to systematically carry out industrial espionage (which - interestingly enough - means that either the American government authorised it, or someone with fairly badass security clearances was on the take... I'd be starting a mole hunt if I were the NSA - corruption ranks fairly high on the List of Nasty Security Risks).

Yes it did. It wasn't formally ratified until shortly after 9/11, but the extremely short time interval between 9/11 and the presentation of the PATRIOT act compared with the amount of legislature it entailed makes it clear that the footwork had been done in advance.

Or it could have been rushed through very quickly... (and be very baldly worded and thought out as a result)?

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

"Our second story of holiday cheer takes place in Washington D.C. where the ever vigilant staff at Dulles Airport stopped a 9-month-old boy from boarding a flight with his mom.

The toddler in question couldn't board the plane because his name is on the "no-fly" list of suspected terrorists.

"We pointed down to the stroller, and he sat there and gurgled," mom Sarah Zapolsky told Reuters. "The desk agent started laughing. ... She couldn't print us out a boarding pass because he's on the no-fly list."

Of course, babies aren't the only ones to end up on the no-fly list. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Mass, Republican Representative Don Young of Alaska and Democratic Representative John Lewis of Georgia are part of the not so exclusive club too."

oh so much fun to be had at the expense of common sense and civil liberties. Makes it all worth while.

The CIA (or is it the NSA?) has a long history of demanding that all encryption keys used in transmissions to and/or from persons within the US borders be handed over to them
Indeed, but chances of "the bad guys" handing over their encryption details is about slim to none. So like I said, seems rather futile if the only people you're going to hear are random people talking about how it's true that they need an outlet converter.

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html?nav=rss_email/components)

As far as ECHELON goes, Carter (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) and Clinton (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) used the same program, and no one complained about it then. Personally, I don't see any problem with it now: in light of 9/11, I think it's even more necessary now than it was then.

From what I've heard about ECHELON, all it does is monitor certain phone numbers that are known to be used by terrorists or suspected terrorists, and records what numbers call or are called by that number. The idea that the NSA is using ECHELON to monitor you or I is absurd (unless you happen to be a terrorist). There is no way they could monitor everyone, and even if they did, it's not like they could use that vast amount of information for anything useful (much less have anywhere that they could store it effectively).



I think the filibuster of the Patriot Act is a disgrace. For one thing, it originally passed unanimously, showing that the only reason the Dems voted for it in the first place had everything to do with political image, and absolutely nothing to do with our national security. Now that it's politically expedient (they think it is, anyway) to let the Patriot Act die, they're more than willing to do so. This shows that the Democrats (and the Republicans who have joined them) are not fit to run this nation: they are blind to the fact that you cannot secure freedom without giving up certain freedom. This is abundantly clear throughout our history, as presidents have had to restrict people's liberties in order to ensure victory:

FDR interned Japanese Americans (who were American citizens) to prevent sabotauge and spying.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively ending slavery in the Confederacy (at least, as the Union gained more territory in the South). At the time, this was both an immense Executive Branch power-grab and a gross violation of private property rights.

Nothing like this has happened in the War on Terror. We have these Democratic senators whining and complaining about Civil Liberties violations, yet all of the examples I have seen have been people complaining because their actions got them red-flagged by the FBI or DHS, who came to check up on them...yet these people were not arrested. They weren't dragged down to GTMO and interrogated. They weren't dragged out of their homes in the dead of night by the secret police, and then tortured and execute. They were paid a visit by DHS agents to make sure they weren't a threat.

The thing that really gets me about all of this is the blindness of Civil Libertarians. Yeah, we can kill the Patriot Act in the name of protecting civil liberties. But I'd better not hear you complain when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies aren't able to prevent the next terrorist attack because they didn't have the tools to get the job done. Civil liberties don't matter a whit if you get blown up by a terrorist suicide bomber or a 110 story building collapses around you. Like the President said the other day, after 9/11, there were complaints upon complaints because the President and the Justice Department didn't connect the dots and prevent the terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act is the tool that has allowed our intelligence agencies to connect the dots for the last four years and keep another major attack from happening.

If the worst 'violations' of civil liberties that have occurred under the Patriot Act are that someone was inconvenienced by not being allowed to fly, or got a visit from DHS agents, instead of whining and complaining, I would be thanking God that I live in America, where we have advanced so very far.

they are blind to the fact that you cannot secure freedom without giving up certain freedom.
I'd love to buy some drugs from you.

How the **** do you secure freedoms by giving them away? Isn't that self-defeating? Doing that means the terrorists won. Anyone thinking it's a good idea to give away personal freedom is a ****ing moron and should be shot for evolutionary and nationalistic reasons.

But I'd better not hear you complain when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies aren't able to prevent the next terrorist attack because they didn't have the tools to get the job done.
You won't, because anyone worrying over this crap is a moron. You have a greater chance of dying from being raped by a crazed badger than in a terrorist attack.

As far as ECHELON goes, Carter and Clinton used the same program, and no one complained about it then.

You aren't serious. MANY people complained about it then. It was all the rage to complain about echelon among the geeks in the early 90s at the beginnings of the internet age. USENet had people posting random messages with keywords in an attempt to overload the NSA computers and keep ECHELON busy with wild-goose chases just out of spite for the violation of privacy.

http://cryptome.org/echelon-dc.htm)

Personally, I've no beef with ECHELON or CARNIVORE. PGP (which I use on occasion) effectively thwarts both. So the effort is largely a waste of time, but people who do bad things are usually stupid and might get caught at it through their emails and telephone calls.

But I just wanted to point out that, while I wasn't one of them, many people DID complain about ECHELON and CARNIVORE back in the day. Many people. But that's all part of the false dichotomey that get propagated on right-wing blogs these days: whenever the "liberals" complain about something, make some reference to Clinton and Carter. Its called a strawman argument.

@Insane: That's a little harsh, don't you think? (the part about 'being shot')

Yeah, we can kill the Patriot Act in the name of protecting civil liberties. But I'd better not hear you complain when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies aren't able to prevent the next terrorist attack because they didn't have the tools to get the job done.If there is another terrorist attack in the United States on the 9/11 or even the Murrah Bldg. scale, then the fault will be solely with this Republican administration/congress/senate. They've failed to appropriately fund Homeland Security. Its a joke. The name looks good on paper: Homeland Security. But it doesn't mean squat when there are so many unsecured weak points with city water supplies, ports of entry & cargo containers, nuclear power plants, etc., etc.

@Insane: That's a little harsh, don't you think? (the part about 'being shot')
Not at all, I'm surrounded by people like that nearly all day. Listening to them try to make a self-defeating concept make sense. These people lack rational thought and all they do is destroy progress. If it weren't for people like that, we'd be well beyond the crapfest we're stuck in right now. And I don't just mean the war or any of that, I mean the entire climate the country is in. Everything is pretty much shot to **** because these people can't think.

Paint me with the Hitler thing if you (general) must, but in all honesty, progress needs to be made and I can't see anything happening with Bush's admin and it's supporters in positions of any form of power. Their entire ideology goes completely against what the country stands for and the way I see it, they're traitors. I find it ironic that I get called a traitor yet I'm the only one that is thinking about actually helping the nation, rather than reducing it to some political suck-n-**** of image.


Actually, it's really a problem with all our current politicians. If they aren't arguing "Democrat!" "Republican!", then they're just collectively jerking eachother off over how they've screwed us over. No one has intent on what's best for the nation, only what's going to help their personal agenda. And I'm tired of it, more tired of the fools that defend this crap and then threaten me, my life, my friends, my family just because they can't understand the futility.

Aah, rccar is back. I asked you some questions (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=1960359&postcount=37) in another thread (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=155735). You didn't answer them there, so I'll repeat them here for your convenience:

How does this graph (http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9876/operationiraqiscrewup2mx.jpg) show "clear and measureable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq"?

What are the clear and measureably signs of progress in the Iraqi economy?

How are a stable security situation in Iraq and an improving economy not essential to establishing a stable democracy in Iraq?

What makes you think that "additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces" can be achieved without the kind of force levels that would be obtainable only under a draft?

Why do you doubt that the US military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost in excess of $227 billion?

Why is it a lie to say that Operation Iraqi Screwup has so far managed to get 2079 American soldiers killed, when in fact the number is even higher (2158 today, and we're still counting)?

Why is it a lie to claim that the US occupation force in Iraq has become the target of the present and ongoing insurgence?

And now for something completely different:

As far as ECHELON goes, Carter (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm) and Clinton (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm) used the same program,

I suggest you reread those two documents. Notice, in particular, the use of the word foreign.

and no one complained about it then.

... On your side of the Pond. EDIT: And even that isn't correct...

Personally, I don't see any problem with it now: in light of 9/11, I think it's even more necessary now than it was then.

Necessary to spy on your own citizens? Without a warrent? Even though W has established secret courts to provide warrents behind closed doors? Shouldn't it make you worry just a little bit that even W's rubberstamp courts wouldn't touch these cases.

The idea that the NSA is using ECHELON to monitor you or I is absurd (unless you happen to be a terrorist).

Or an environmental activist. Or a civil liberties activist. Or an anti-creationist.

For one thing, it originally passed unanimously, showing that the only reason the Dems voted for it in the first place had everything to do with political image, and absolutely nothing to do with our national security.

I agree wholeheartedly. Passing a 100+ page piece of legislature that had obviously been drafted long before 9/11 without reading it was a disgraceful example of political expediency trumphing public interest and genuine national security concerns.

This shows that the Democrats (and the Republicans who have joined them) are not fit to run this nation: they are blind to the fact that you cannot secure freedom without giving up certain freedom.

Bull****. The PATRIOT act was an abomination to begin with. Passing such a thing was a gross mistake - and one that these people are now in the process of correcting.

FDR interned Japanese Americans (who were American citizens) to prevent sabotauge and spying.

There is a major difference between wartime measures with clear limitations in time, scope, and strategic objectives, instated against people with whose country you are currently at war and issuing a carte blanche to secret police forces to spy on their own citizens anywhere and for any reason for the indefinite future.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively ending slavery in the Confederacy (at least, as the Union gained more territory in the South). At the time, this was both an immense Executive Branch power-grab and a gross violation of private property rights.

Again you fail to acknowledge the difference between acts that have a clear strategic objective, a limited timeframe, a limited scale, and whose benefits are immediate and directly observable, and acts that lack a well-defined objective, are unlimited in time and space and lack observable benefits.

Nothing like this has happened in the War on Terror.

Guantanamo Bay
Abu Ghraib
'Black' CIA fligts to Egypt, Yemen, and Syria
'Black' arrests in Afghanistan
Phosphor bombings in Iraq

We have these Democratic senators whining and complaining about Civil Liberties violations, yet all of the examples I have seen have been people complaining because their actions got them red-flagged by the FBI or DHS, who came to check up on them...

Damn straight they're complaining. How would you like it if you were 'red flagged' for wholly legitimate activities which cannot possibly be concieved as having even the most remote possible connection with terrorism (unless you want to postulate that GreenPeace are dangerous lunatics with bombs tucked under their beds).

yet these people were not arrested. They weren't dragged down to GTMO and interrogated. They weren't dragged out of their homes in the dead of night by the secret police, and then tortured and execute. They were paid a visit by DHS agents to make sure they weren't a threat.

And it isn't threatening at all to be paid a visit by the secret police because of legitimate political campaigning and voter registration. Nope, siree, not at all. And most definitely not when the current head of the Executive has repeatedly stated his willingness to condone torture and imprisonment without trial or time limits. And certainly the fact that the current head of the Executive is supported by the American version of the Taliban should serve to calm down distressed spirits.

But I'd better not hear you complain when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies aren't able to prevent the next terrorist attack because they didn't have the tools to get the job done.

Even without the PATRIOT act they have the tools. The main problem pre-9/11 was that every single service screwed up by the numbers. Killing the turf wars and empire building within the CIA, FBI, and NSA and getting rid of the cover-your-ass mentality inherent in so much American burocracy would be a better bet than sacrificing civil liberties if you genuinely wanted to prevent terrorism.

The Patriot Act is the tool that has allowed our intelligence agencies to connect the dots for the last four years and keep another major attack from happening.

Because your psychic powers have told you that without the PATRIOT act, there would have been a major attack on American assets?

If the worst 'violations' of civil liberties that have occurred under the Patriot Act are that someone was inconvenienced by not being allowed to fly, or got a visit from DHS agents,

That's not the worst violations of civil liberties. Not by a long shot. The worst violation of civil liberties is the unsanctioned, unnecessary, and illegitimate surveylence of people whose behavior and contacts in no way at all indicated that they were a threat to anyone or anything - exept the profit margin of a few multinational corporations and a traitor's term in office.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Good ol' Ben Franklin

And this is so not just being used on suspected terrorists. If they want to spy on suspected terrorists then they can get a warrant no problem. However, it's not so easy to get warrants on PETA members and anti-war protesters that the government would rather spy on.

You have a greater chance of dying from being raped by a crazed badger than in a terrorist attack.
True. Very true.

Yeah, we can kill the Patriot Act in the name of protecting civil liberties. But I'd better not hear you complain when our intelligence and law enforcement agencies aren't able to prevent the next terrorist attack because they didn't have the tools to get the job done.
The PATRIOT ACT does not give them those tools. The "tools to get the job done", in my opinion, are things like money (which Bush took away with his tax cut), policemen patrolling borders (the government is underfunding everything called law enforcements), and a government that does its job (which no one in National Security did during the thirteen years it took the Taliban to plan and execute 9/11).

This shows that the Democrats (and the Republicans who have joined them) are not fit to run this nation: they are blind to the fact that you cannot secure freedom without giving up certain freedom.
That's not the problem here. The issue is that those "certain freedoms" aren't the only ones being given up.

And what about firearm control? Why have regulations on fire-arms been loosened at a time when terrorists in this country need guns? OK, so I can buy myself 20 newly-legalized AK-47 rifles, nothing suspicious there, but if I take the Little Red Book out of the library, suddenly I'm a suspicious character?

And what's up with searching medical records without a warrant? Great, what do we need the Oath of Confidentiality for anyways:rolleyes:?

If the worst 'violations' of civil liberties that have occurred under the Patriot Act are that someone was inconvenienced by not being allowed to fly, or got a visit from DHS agents,
I suggest that as a first step, you read the damned ACT and catch up on the events following its activation.

(...) yet these people were not arrested. They weren't dragged down to GTMO and interrogated.
Many people were arrested without a warrant, held without trial, and prohibited from seeing a lawyer. The State, even when ordered to do so by the Courts, refused to do as much as publicise their names.

And the States don't need a Secret Police, what with the FBI being allowed to do whatever they want.

How the **** do you secure freedoms by giving them away?

How do you have freedoms to secure if you're dead? Sometimes you have to give some things a higher priority, and in this case, if you aren't protecting citizens' lives, their civil liberties won't matter anyway.

Besides that, the Patriot Act doesn't include any truly serious restrictions on civil liberties (or, at least, nothing law-abiding citizens should be worried about). It does contain enough restrictions that I wouldn't want it to be permanent, but personally, I'd like it to be around at least long enough to allow us to keep terrorists out of America to allow us to get rid of them elsewhere.

And yes, the Carter and Clinton EO's included the word foriegn...from what I've heard about the current use of ECHELON, it has only been used to monitor domestic numbers when those numbers were contacted by or used to contact monitored foreign numbers. I have nothing wrong with that.

How do you have freedoms to secure if you're dead? Sometimes you have to give some things a higher priority, and in this case, if you aren't protecting citizens' lives, their civil liberties won't matter anyway.

You know, the people who fought for this country would be ashamed.

What the **** ever happened to dying for what you believe in? I sure as hell believe in my personal rights and liberties and I won't sacrifice them for some bull**** false security.

Besides that, the Patriot Act doesn't include any truly serious restrictions on civil liberties (or, at least, nothing law-abiding citizens should be worried about).
I have it on good authority that is bull****.

you cannot secure freedom without giving up certain freedom. This is abundantly clear throughout our history, as presidents have had to restrict people's liberties in order to ensure victory:

I...what? I'm sorry. I thought you just said we have to GIVE UP freedom to keep it. Now, granted, I'm not a big politico nor do i pretend to know much, but that would seem to be a self-defeating attitude. How can you secure what you have freely given away?

FDR interned Japanese Americans (who were American citizens) to prevent sabotauge and spying.

How DARE you use this to support your case. You come here, you sit and you speak with my two neighbors. You listen to the utter hell they went through in those ****holes and THEN you can talk about how "it helped prevent sabotauge and spying". This was just a panic tactic meant to calm the bleating masses and FDR doing that was even worse than what Hitler did. At least Hitler made no bones about the fact he thought anyone non-ariyan was less than an animal and should be treated as such.

By the way, one of my great aunts oldest and dearest friends was one of the people who helped crack the Japanese Code during the war.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively ending slavery in the Confederacy (at least, as the Union gained more territory in the South). At the time, this was both an immense Executive Branch power-grab and a gross violation of private property rights.

They also still beleived leeches could cure everything at that time.

Yes, I can see some similarities, namely because the EP was made as a sidenote to gaining POWER and MONEY and CONTROL, but you just can not compare the situations equally. Somehow, stopping human beings from being treated worse than animals doesn't quite equate with what is going on now.

Nothing like this has happened in the War on Terror. We have these Democratic senators whining and complaining about Civil Liberties violations, yet all of the examples I have seen have been people complaining because their actions got them red-flagged by the FBI or DHS, who came to check up on them...yet these people were not arrested. They weren't dragged down to GTMO and interrogated. They weren't dragged out of their homes in the dead of night by the secret police, and then tortured and execute. They were paid a visit by DHS agents to make sure they weren't a threat.

Well thank whatever Pantheon you worship it hasn't gotten to that point because it very, very VERY easily could. If you give a little, more will be wanted. And since it's still just a little more, you figure sure, why not. It starts a vicious cycle and pretty soon people either wake up, realize what's happening and stop it, which could result in another Civil War, or we become little better than a dictatorship. (on the plus side, we could start trading with cuba again)

If the worst 'violations' of civil liberties that have occurred under the Patriot Act are that someone was inconvenienced by not being allowed to fly, or got a visit from DHS agents, instead of whining and complaining, I would be thanking God that I live in America, where we have advanced so very far.

With the kind of thinking going on with those in power, how long until we stop advancing? Look at the comparitively trivial issues of gay marriage and stem cel research. WHY is so much time, money and energy wasted on opposing them? Love is love, let them marry. Who REALLY cares as long as they don't harm anyone. Stem cells, heck man, there is both great good and great evil that can be done with them, but good or bad they ARE the future and they WILL help us advance.

Freely giving our liberites, all to "secure" them against "terrorist attacks" is a futile effort driven by fear and ignorance. No matter the level of security we have, another attack could happen and most likely will. All one needs to do is look at iraq. They have no civil liberties, yet look at all the suicide bombers and terrorists THEY have.

Maybe not in the near future, but when your nation is one of the biggest fishes in a big pond, the other big boys are gonna try to take you out. Tighten security a bit, have checkpoints at airports and major transport terminals. Massively up security at power plants and test the waters. It takes more effort, but we can do all those those without sacrificing our freedom and liberties.

Now I remember why I stopped coming here...there's so much BS flying around that it just becomes overwhelming. There's no way I can reply to all of this...but I would like to address this:
How DARE you use this to support your case. You come here, you sit and you speak with my two neighbors. You listen to the utter hell they went through in those ****holes and THEN you can talk about how "it helped prevent sabotauge and spying". This was just a panic tactic meant to calm the bleating masses and FDR doing that was even worse than what Hitler did. At least Hitler made no bones about the fact he thought anyone non-ariyan was less than an animal and should be treated as such.

By the way, one of my great aunts oldest and dearest friends was one of the people who helped crack the Japanese Code during the war.

Okay...for starters, I wasn't trying to justify the Japanese internment, or claim that it was right. What I was pointing out was that throughout history, certain liberties have been curtailed in the name of defeating an enemy. The FDR administration interned Japanese Americans in the name of preventing sabotauge and spying...that was their reasoning, not mine. I was definitely not condoning the internment...I was pointing out that no measure that has been taken during the War on Terror measures up to what has been done during times of war in our history.

Although I must disagree with you when you say that what FDR did was worse than what Hitler did...after all, FDR didn't institute a program to exterminate all Japanese Americans. Sit and speak with someone who survived the Holocaust, and listen to the utter hell they went through in Nazi concentration camps, and how they lost friends and relatives in the gas chambers and crematoriums, and then you can talk about how "FDR doing that was even worse than what Hitler did."



And you're exactly right that we shouldn't blindly give away our rights in the name of securing our freedom...which is why the Patriot Act has an expiration clause. The argument isn't over whether to make the Patriot Act permanent, the argument is over renewing it, so that our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies can continue using more drastic means to prevent terrorist attacks while we are at war. When the war is over, by all means, let the Patriot Act expire. But the war is not over yet, and our law enforcement and intelligence agencies need the Patriot Act to help fight the the domestic side of this war (that is, preventing terrorist attacks in the US). Yes, there are greater chances of being killed in other ways than a terror attack...but your average murderer or rapist or gang member doesn't try to take out the most people he possibly can at one time. Dealing with them is the job of local law enforcement. Nearly 3,000 people died on 9/11, and Al-Qaida leaders have made it abundantly clear that they want to commit an attack on an equal or even greater scale. The Patriot Act is designed to allow our intelligence organizations what they need to keep that from happening.

The argument isn't over whether to make the Patriot Act permanent, the argument is over renewing it, so that our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies can continue using more drastic means to prevent terrorist attacks while we are at war.

With who? You're the one who's busy claiming the war in Iraq is over...

Yes, there are greater chances of being killed in other ways than a terror attack...

Good to hear you finally acknowledge that.

but your average murderer or rapist or gang member doesn't try to take out the most people he possibly can at one time.

That doesn't really enter into the question. The brutally simple equation is that you get more saved lives for every dollar by spending it on better health care, carpool incentives, better schools, etc. And you also get a higher quality of life, a more equal society, and you get to keep all of your civil liberties.

BTW, you still haven't answered my questions.

*ahem*

How does this graph (http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9876/operationiraqiscrewup2mx.jpg) show "clear and measureable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq"?

What are the clear and measureably signs of progress in the Iraqi economy?

How are a stable security situation in Iraq and an improving economy not essential to establishing a stable democracy in Iraq?

What makes you think that "additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces" can be achieved without the kind of force levels that would be obtainable only under a draft?

Why do you doubt that the US military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost in excess of $227 billion?

Why is it a lie to say that Operation Iraqi Screwup has so far managed to get 2079 American soldiers killed, when in fact the number is even higher (2158 today, and we're still counting)?

Why is it a lie to claim that the US occupation force in Iraq has become the target of the present and ongoing insurgence?

How do you know that the PATRIOT act has prevented even a single terrorist attack?

*sound of crickets chirping* (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/chirping_cricket.gif)

Although I must disagree with you when you say that what FDR did was worse than what Hitler did...after all, FDR didn't institute a program to exterminate all Japanese Americans. Sit and speak with someone who survived the Holocaust, and listen to the utter hell they went through in Nazi concentration camps, and how they lost friends and relatives in the gas chambers and crematoriums, and then you can talk about how "FDR doing that was even worse than what Hitler did.

I have talked to Holocaust survivors. I didn't mean to imply the Japanese here had it worse. I know they didn't. What I meant was we fought to help free the people from the Death Camps, while here, where we always stood for human rights, our Goverment completely steamrolled the rights of those people, saying it was for their own good and the good of this country.

Now I remember why I stopped coming here...there's so much BS flying around that it just becomes overwhelming.
And maybe the fact that you're just about the only Bush-supporter here, against about a dozen liberals? I don't see how you do it, but regardless of your opinions, you deserve major respect and credit for it.

FDR interned Japanese Americans (who were American citizens) to prevent sabotauge and spying.
You do realize that he interned not only every Japanese person (and that includes everything from half-senile elders to little toddlers), but also everyone of Japanese descent? So if you were a US-born citizen who had lived in the USA all your life, you still went to that camp just because your great-grandfather happened to be Japanese.

Tell me, please, how does putting a 67-year old in a prison camp prevent sabotage? How does putting a 4-year old buy in a camp prevent spying?

The internment was an act of unrational, generalizing racism, if you ask me.

This was just a panic tactic meant to calm the bleating masses and FDR doing that was even worse than what Hitler did.
I guess Farewell to Manzanar (which was a mandatory read in my 10th Grade English class and should remain that way) must have missed the part about the camps slaughtering more than six million Japanese people, then:rolleyes:.

That doesn't really enter into the question. The brutally simple equation is that you get more saved lives for every dollar by spending it on better health care, carpool incentives, better schools, etc. And you also get a higher quality of life, a more equal society, and you get to keep all of your civil liberties.
A good deal of saved lives, actually. (www.costofwar.com)
Google search for sources. (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=cost+of+operation+iraqi+freedom&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=)

But your average murderer or rapist or gang member doesn't try to take out the most people he possibly can at one time.
Nope. Over time, however, a rapist will just keep on raping until (s)he gets caught. Likewise, if you've gone down the path of robbery and burglary (is that a word?), then chances are you'll keep on it unless a miracle happens. That's the brutal and cruel psychology of it.

And you're exactly right that we shouldn't blindly give away our rights in the name of securing our freedom...which is why the Patriot Act has an expiration clause.
Which means nothing if they just keep renewing it. Keep that in mind. "Indefinetly" and "forever" can be the same thing. I mean, North Korea and South Korea are in a state of cease-fire for an "indefine period of time", but I don't think they'll go back to fighting each others.

The argument isn't over whether to make the Patriot Act permanent, the argument is over renewing it, so that our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies can continue using more drastic means to prevent terrorist attacks while we are at war. When the war is over, by all means, let the Patriot Act expire.
But the problem is that the US has been at war on and off pretty much the whole last century. And if you're arguing that the ACT should remain until the "War on terrorism" is ended, then it's going to be permanent, as there's probably always going to be terrorism in the world, sadly.

What I meant was we fought to help free the people from the Death Camps, while here, where we always stood for human rights, our Goverment completely steamrolled the rights of those people, saying it was for their own good and the good of this country.
Oh, so when George Washington expressed his anger at the Quakers who helped slaves escape, he did it out of a concern for human rights? What about the people in government who were against universal suffrage? Or the end to slavery? And so on.

With who? You're the one who's busy claiming the war in Iraq is over...
Maybe you should re-read what I said (cause you obviously didn't get it). I challenge you to show me where I have ever claimed that the war is over. I have never said such a thing. What I have said is that our troops have been and are being successful in Iraq.

And since you insist so vehemently, here are the answers to your questions:

1. Your graph shows nothing (nothing usefull, anyway). Our success in the war in Iraq cannot be measured in terms of fatalities...but if you're going to go that route, according to this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59040-2005Mar23.html), approximately 1,100 insurgents were killed only in the incidents described (>1,000 in Fallujah in November '04, 85 NW of Baghdad on Tuesday, March 22, '05, and 26 on Sunday, March 20 '05). That's more than half of the number of US soldiers who have died. Lowball estimates on the number of Iraqi insurgents killed are around 5,000. However, it is extremely difficult to know the total number of insurgents killed by US forces, as the US military, unlike US liberals and the MSM, isn't getting into the death toll game.

2. According to a poll taken of Iraqi citizens, conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, the Japanese television network NHK and the German magazine Der Spiegel, a majority of Iraqis say that their living conditions are good, their lives are going well, and that they are optimistic about the future. Average monthly income for people in Iraq has increased 63 percent. In 2004, 6 percent of Iraqis reported having a cell phone. Now it’s 62 percent. In 2004, 43 percent had a car. Now it’s 55 percent. In 2004, 44 percent had an air conditioner. Now it’s 58 percent. In 2003 (in another poll), 32 percent had a satellite dish. Now it’s 86 percent. Source (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20612)

3. I don’t ever remember saying that stable security and an improving economy weren’t essential for establishing democracy in Iraq. What I said is that coalition forces have been and are being successful in stabilizing Iraq’s security and in helping their economy to improve.

4. Because it’s happening right now. Besides that, saturating Iraq with US soldiers won’t accomplish anything. First of all, US forces are getting the job done with the troops that are there now. Second, if we blanket all of Iraq with a massive military presence, all we will accomplish is to turn Iraqis away. The poll I referenced in #2 shows conclusively that the Iraqi people are seeing positive change due to the invasion and subsequent reconstruction. As Iraqi military and police forces are increasingly able to deal with the insurgency, we should be decreasing our presence there, not increasing it. When we reach the point where troop withdraws are practical, we will begin withdrawing troops...it's that simple.

5. I didn’t know that I had (and I read over my posts just to make sure that I hadn’t, especially in light of the fact that I know we’ve spent tons of money on the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns). No one (myself included), that I know of, has ever denied that this is going to be a long and expensive war. Frankly, I don’t know where this question is coming from (besides left field), because I never said any such thing.

6. It isn’t a lie to say that 2,158 of our soldiers have died in Iraq. The lie is that that number is somehow indicative of a failure…but I already covered this in #1.

7. US forces have been targeted by the insurgents/terrorists from the beginning of this war. However, one of the things that has lent itself to our ongoing success is the fact that as Iraqi forces take more control, insurgents are more and more often attacking Iraqis are turning in the insurgents (as indicated by this article (http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2005/12/19/iraq1.html), which also includes other positive news, as told by troops who served in Iraq, and this AFIS article (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2005/20051129_3478.html), which also includes further good news about the situation in Iraq). The fact that the insurgents are increasingly targeting Iraqis is also evidenced in the fact that there has been violence against Iraqis who were voting in the past elections (and success is demonstrated by the fact that even after some attacks in the first election, even more Iraqis showed up for the parliamentary elections last week, to the point that some polling stations even ran out of ballots).

8. I know you don’t like NewsMax, but before you dismiss this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/81913.shtml) out of hand, know that their source was an October report by CNN, which listed the following six attacks, which were prevented through the use of the Patriot Act:

a. The West Coast Hijack Plot:
In mid-2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use hijacked airplanes to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States. The plotters included at least one major operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks.

b. The East Coast Hijack Plot:
In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.

c. The Jose Padilla Plot:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."

d. The British Urban Bombing Plot:
In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.

e. The Heathrow Airport Hijack Plot:
In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the 9/11 attacks.

f. Another British Bombing Terror Plot:
In the spring of 2004 the United States used intelligence gathered under the Patriot Act to disrupt a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.

However, it is extremely difficult to know the total number of insurgents killed by US forces, as the US military, unlike US liberals and the MSM, isn't getting into the death toll game.
Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because the "death toll game" is one they're losing?

f. Another British Bombing Terror Plot:
In the spring of 2004 the United States used intelligence gathered under the Patriot Act to disrupt a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.
How, exactly, did they use the PATRIOT ACT, if I may ask?

Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because the "death toll game" is one they're losing?
I highly doubt that, considering that, according to the report I cited, US forces killed about 1100 terrorists over a period of one month and two days (the campaign in Fallujah last November, and two other, separate incidents), and our forces have been in-country for 1 year and about 9 months. That number is over half of the number of US military fatalities, in a fraction of the time our military forces have been in Iraq - even if US forces didn't take out the insurgents at the same rate for the remaining time, it wouldn't take long at all for the insurgent body count to far outnumber the amount of US military fatalaties...
But all number 'games' aside (and I'm not going to argue this point any more...it just strikes me as morbid to argue over the number of dead people), the goal of the US military in Iraq isn't to kill every last insurgent. The goal is to take out the insurgents until such time as the Iraqi military and police forces have advanced to the point where they can handle it themselves.


How, exactly, did they use the PATRIOT ACT, if I may ask?
That wasn't made clear...probably because they don't want terrorists to learn how to adapt to their tactics...
But, just for the fun of it, here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/06/whitehouse.plots/index.html) is the original CNN report.

Oh, and one more thing, about the ECHELON program: according to this (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm) report out today in the Washington Times,
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.

Sorry to just hop in here with a thought, but one thing never mentioned, in reply to the "what do law-abiding/non-terrorist citizens have to fear from government survelliance"? BLACK MAIL.

Have you ever done anything you're not proud of? Something that would be damaging to your reputation with family, friends, the public? Something that would embarrass you in some way? I'm sure most people have such "dirt" or skeletons in their closets.

Through unchecked secret survelliance, such "dirt" can be more easily dug up in order to shame or scare dissenters, whistle-blowers, critics, or opponents into silence. Anybody remember J. Edgar Hoover?

Anyway, interesting topic as always, happy holidays! Santa's not the only one who's watching... ;P

AFAIK, Bush has used his surveillance legally. Technically. The Patriot Act provisions *only* apply to foreign intelligence (calls, etc. going into or out of the country - apparently this was already covered with previous laws anyway, so it doesn't even really matter). So far he has supposedly used them only for that, and that is fine with me. Why Bush did not get warrants from his confidential courts when he could have easily done so I have no idea. I want to know, and he'd better pull out some proof too. I don't make it a habit to trust politicians.

Maybe you should re-read what I said (cause you obviously didn't get it). I challenge you to show me where I have ever claimed that the war is over. I have never said such a thing.

I will concede that I fell a little in love with my own rethoric and got carried away. Obviously, you never claimed that the war was actually over.

And since you insist so vehemently, here are the answers to your questions:

The reason I insisted so vehemently is that I wanted to know whether you were just another hit-and-run troll. You aren't. I acknowledge that now. I'll reply to your response in the thread of origin (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=1973218#post1973218).

You do, however, adress the one question that I brought up earlier in this thread, so I'll keep the answer here.

8. I know you don’t like NewsMax, but before you dismiss this article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/81913.shtml) out of hand, know that their source was an October report by CNN, which listed the following six attacks, which were prevented through the use of the Patriot Act:

I don't doubt that the listed attacks were attempted. I don't doubt that US intelligence and counterintelligence operatives foiled them. But what I don't see is a scrap of evidence that the attacks would have succeeded - or even had a marginally greater chance of success if the PATRIOT act hadn't been in force. 'CNN says so' just doesn't cut it as far as evidence goes. Now, if it had been the BBC, the DR, or some other reliable source or if there'd been a scrap of actual evidence - or even compelling reasoning - I might have bought it. So far, though, all I've seen is unsupported assertions (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/unsupported_assertion.jpg).

Pic, as usual, courtesy of WinAce (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/).

You're right, I don't like NewsMax. Actually, I'd never seen it before now, but these two lines are rather revealing in my not so humble opinion:

Now that the Patriot Act has been gutted by the Senate, however, plots like those cited above will presumably proceed to their successful completion.

That is not an analysis. It's not even an argument. It's simple, bare-faced propaganda, and, frankly, it insults my intelligence.

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

I'll be damned. Looks like I owe you an apology. Seems that Mr. Clinton was more of a son-of-a-bitch than I'd thought. Remind me never to place any expensive bets on the integrity of politicians.

That wasn't made clear [how counterintelligence used the PATRIOT act]...probably because they don't want terrorists to learn how to adapt to their tactics...

Or because they didn't. All we've got saying they did is dubya himself, and he seems to me to have - ah - vested interests, shall we say, in having people think so.

Seems that Mr. Clinton was more of a son-of-a-bitch than I'd thought.
You don't know the half of it.

By the way, has anyone read Digital Fortress (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312995423/qid=1136084013/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2962839-3553405?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) by Dan Brown? Granted, he might allegedly have messed up history with The Da Vinci Code, but this book is a worthwhile read.