Is the Hitler analogy outdated?

[Amianthus]

What happened with that?

It's been gone for about 40 years.

[hnumpah]

Here's the thing I don't like about the government looking into my private affairs.

Many years ago, when I went into the Army, I needed a Top Secret Crypto clearance to be able to do my job. In order to get that, I had to have a background investigation. Before that happened, I had to acknowledge that I knew that was a condition of my being able to get the clearance and be trained in the specialty I had chosen, and sign off on paperwork giving my consent for the BI.

Some months later, while I was home on leave, I had people I had known for years - schoolteachers, classmates, even relatives - ask me what kind of trouble I was in. When I asked what they were talking about, they mentioned visits by men with FBI badges, asking questions about me. When asked why they were asking about me, they wouldn't say why, which led folks to believe I might be in some sort of trouble.

Flash forward to now. I have a job in the transportation industry, where I have to have access to government facilities from time to time; specifically, to the local Marine Terminal, where military equipment and weapons are gathered, stored and shipped overseas. It is none of the government's business what overseas calls I make, or what web sites I visit, or what books I buy or check out at the library, or what my interests run to aside from my job. But what do you think my boss would do if some FBI agent showed up at my job, asking questions about me and refusing to say why, based on information the government gathered illegally about my phone contacts, reading habits, and web browsing habits?

That's why they are supposed to get a warrant. They are supposed to have to go to a judge and show just cause why they should be able to invade my privacy and gather that information. They are supposed to have a compelling reason why that should be allowed, some proof that there is some sort of activity going on that they need to investigate - not just some guy who has friends overseas, in the Middle East, from his travels there over the years; not just some guy who has always had an interest in the subjects I mentioned earlier, and checks out books in the library or buys books or visits web sites to pursue his interest in those subjects.

[Plane]

http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/Hitler.html


Dr. Suess does Hitler.

They are all good.

[sirs]

It does get a tad irritating to frequently see distotrions being made as it relates to the the NSA program, the monitoring of FOREIGN terrorists phone calls, and Datamining.  All this bogus implication of widestpread domestic recording.  A) what monitoring that's going on has been going on for many an administration.  b) what listening that's occuring is that of FOREIGN terrorists' calls coming into the U.S. vs the egregious claims of widespread domestic wiretapping

Now, unless anyone wants to demonstrate (WITH FACTS/EVIDENCE) to supposed widespread wiretapping of domestic calls, you can consider your claims of such completely uncredible, but loaded with AMBE

Of course, then you have Tee's upside down alternate reality confirmation tactic, that the lack of any such evidence, proves the allegations   

[Plane]

[Plane]

[hnumpah]

Poor Sirs.

I guess he hasn't read any reports of librarians, book sellers, phone companies, etc being asked to turn over customers records. Hardly anyone has. Why? Because those folks are then served with papers prohibiting them from disclosing to anyone, even the customer involved, that the government has been checking up on them. I've seen a couple such reports make the news over the last few months, usually when the person who was forced to turn over the records refused or went to an attorney to sue over the government's methods, which then of course put them in violation of the law because they told someone what had happened.

Haven't seen anywhere yet where only incoming calls are monitored. I would imagine, though, it is possible someone I know in, say, Lebanon is on some sort of watch list, and their calls to me could be monitored, which would then theoretically give the government snoops cause to monitor my outgoing calls to see who else I associate with. Or flash an FBI badge to my boss and start asking questions about me, with no explanation why, which could cost me my job.

Go to a judge, show cause, and get a warrant. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy and an unlawful search.

[sirs]

The point that the FBI is able to check up on anomolous book records was pretty much conceded when it was brought up in my earlier post.  Reading for comprehension isn't a problem, on your end, is it?   Now, back to my query.  Care to show us any EVIDENCE/FACTS of these widespread domestic wiretapping??  Last time I checked it was quite specific, and your cynicism of Bush and the government isn't going to cut it as providing validity to such allegations

[hnumpah]

...widespread domestic wiretapping...

Who has the reading comprehension problem?

Where did I say it was widespread?

It may only be calls to and from overseas locations, in this case specifically the Middle East. My point is the government has no business monitoring them at all. CIA is prohibited by its charter from operating domestically, and NSA is prohibited by its charter from monitoring domestic phone calls. Those prohibitions were written into the charters of those organizations when they were founded to prevent exactly what Bush is doing now. That is why there was such a big stink a few years ago when NSA tried to get around it by making agreements with Britain and Canada to monitor our domestic calls, then turn the results over to NSA.

The FISA panel is there to provide warrants for such wiretaps, if cause can be shown why such warrants need to be issued. By bypassing them and usurping their power to himself, Bush is operating illegally.

[_JS]

If the wiretapping program is on the level, then why use the NSA and not the FBI? It is ostensibly within the FBI's purview.

Also, what about the ability to send people to prison without any legal representation or pressing charges for over four years. Surely that violates constitutional rights.

[sirs]

H: Who has the reading comprehension problem?  Where did I say it was widespread?

Well, since hat's what I was asking, and nothing about the FBI being able to access red flagged library records, and then you reply about the apparent widespread access to book records, one can make the logical assumption you were trying to connect the 2.

H:  It may only be calls to and from overseas locations, in this case specifically the Middle East. My point is the government has no business monitoring them at all

Well, there in lies our biggest disagreement, since I see them as having every bit of business monitoring them, considering the Fed's chief function is to protect this country from enemies both foreign & domestic, if they indeed believe they're comming from a suspected terrorist(s) overseas

JS: If the wiretapping program is on the level, then why use the NSA and not the FBI? It is ostensibly within the FBI's purview.

Why is it not within the purview of the NSA?  Are these not overseas calls?  Is not the NSA focused on data gathering & intel regarding foreign threats?  I do believe the FBI's primary jurisdiction is within the USA.  You actually reinforce the case that this is wiretapping of FOREIGN terrorists, and their calls coming into the U.S.  But hey, why not we get both agencies, working on it?

[sirs]

what about the ability to send people to prison without any legal representation or pressing charges for over four years. Surely that violates constitutional rights.

Enemy combatants, especially captured on non U.S. soil don't qualify for U.S. Constitutional rights, as far as I'm aware of.  And without them donning uniforms, nor do they actually qualify for Geneva convention rights, though I concede that's currently being determined by the courts.  Were prisoners taken during WWII, Vietnam, Korea, even the prior Gulf wars given some Constitutional protections & immediate legal representation?  One more time for those slow on the grasping chain, THIS IS A WAR, NOT SOME LEGAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUE

[BT]

Well, take the little blue pill, Mr. President. Leave us alone

Don't think FDR can take the pill, being dead and all.
And the mechanism in which people are tracked is by their social security number. And guess who gave us that.

[Plane]

  Here is an entirely hypothetical idea.

   Suppose that the FBI discovered that most assassins kept three gallons of milk in their fridges?

     It would certainly still be true that most milk was sold to careing mothers and old ladies concerned with their calcium.

     But if by some quirk it was discovered that assissians generally bought a lot of milk should the FBI be able to inquire about big milk purchaces from grocers? Would that be an imposition on all the legitamate milk buyers?


        If this is too hypothetical for you , substitute Ammonium Nitrate or concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide in the place of milk in the above question.

[sirs]

Another excellent hypothetical, Plane.  As you've already referenced earlier, having the ability to look into red flagged acts is a far cry from some logistically impossible 24/7 monitoring of any and everyone.  The "Path to 911" demonstrated in abundance how far too often red flagged acts & memos "got shelved", and as a result, we "got shelled"