From the Liberal Media: Ben Franklin rolls over in grave.

[Ramo]

But according to the undisclosed Federal officer that was his recommendation hence even more evidence that the ohhh sooo scary datamining wasn't employed.

Typo: I meant an individual's records.

I know this is complicated, but switching phone numbers is an easier way to escape gov't monitoring in the datamining case than if the gov't were focusing on an individual's phone records.

[Ramo]

I'm curious as to when the last time the gov't was able to acquire a major press organ's news bureau's phone records in a leak investigation. I guess that I'm so idiotic, that I can't recall an example of such a presumably innocuous event. Maybe Ogie, who apparantly has so thoroughly pwned me, can elucidate the situation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Inept because the use of phone records in that particular instance is warranted to aid in classsified information leak investigations.

An entire news bureau's phone records? I'd like to see the judge who would agree with that insane interpretation of the law.

Even the article didn't reference an entire news bureau merely suspected investigators in this instance Brian Ross and Richard Esposito. Ohhh no doubt it laid that little seed of doubt regarding NSA datamining out there for gullible fools like yourself to swallow. But never anywhere did it claim entire news bureau's subject to this kind of probing.

Next argument....

You keep setting them up and they keep going over the fence.

[Ramo]

My mistake, misread the article initially.

[Ramo]

The point remains that a fishing expedition into reporters' records in the NSA database could be effective in rooting out whistleblowers. And it's not like the Bush Admin is above that.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pwned...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Your right and its equally likely that black hooded thugs in the employ of secret clandestine services pay 'visits' to the reporters and their sources. Its not like the Bush Admin is above that after all.

[Ramo]

No, that isn't equally likely. Abusing a NSA database for political reasons would be a lot tamer than plenty of things that the Admin has done. That most Admins have done, for that matter.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Note

[Ramo]

Are you saying that using the NSA database in ferreting out leakers is beyond the pale of what this gov't would do, or not?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No I'm saying you are delusional.

[Ramo]

Yep, it's not like this Admin has denied unknown numbers of people due process, created secret prisons in Eatern Europe, authorized extremely harsh interrogation practices, used the practice of "extraordinary rendition" to send suspects to places like Egypt and Syria to be tortured, engaged in a secretive domestic spying program, claimed near unlimited powers under Article II etc., etc. Rather, the Admin has the utmost respect for due process and the 4th Amendment. And it certainly hasn't been trying to eliminate "liberal Democrats and soft leakers" from the CIA under Porter Goss' stewardship. So it certainly would not engage in something like using an NSA database to help track down said leakers (which apparantly would be far more extreme than any of the aforementioned acts).

Right. And I'm delusional.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Attorney General's statist opinion is worth jack **** in terms of determining legality.

And Congress certainly didn't approve. That's a bald assertion. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking minority member of the Senate Intel Cmte. said this about the first NSA domestic spying program that was leaked,

?For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts.

?The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.

?At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.

?These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

?Now that this issue has been brought out into the open, I strongly urge the Senate Intelligence Committee to immediately undertake a full investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the program, including the lack of sufficient congressional oversight.?

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2005/pr121905a.html

No doubt a similar situation existed with the recently outed NSA program.

1) Until a court rules, the only thing the President can rely on is the AG's opinion. If the Congress disagrees with his interpretation, they can attempt to pass a new law or impeach the pres.

Of course, people who have been spied upon, like Osama bin Laden, can sue and have the courts rule.

2) As to Rocky the Fool, his own collegues have said that he approved of the program only two weeks before he changed his story. So what you have is a manifest liar in Rocky the Fool.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
even though the tool is under scrutiny by Congress

Telling particular Congressional leaders is not the same as Congressional scrutiny. In fact, we cannot know whether or not any of the Congressional leaders objected, since they cannot talk about what they were briefed upon . . . not even to members of the appropriate oversight committees. It was a calucalted move to disengage Congress from the equation and while appearing to give themselves legal cover if caught.

[Ned]

Che, absolute BS. The Admin followed the rules on briefing Congress on Top Secret projects.