There are 85 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Reckless Endangerment Inactive
    Reckless Endangerment
    @RecklessEndangerment

    As this example shows us once again, legislative history cannot replace principled reasoning as the grounds of jurisprudence. When trying to understand the validity of any of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, it would be absurd to ask “Hmmm….how many of the Founders in Congress read (William) Blackstone?” and even if we could ascertain that, how could that have any bearing whatsoever? You let the principles stand on their own (do they have an internal coherence that comments the assent of the mind, as Hamilton noted in Federalist 31?), but if the full force of applying the principles becomes difficult or imprudent to bear, the legislature or better yet civil society will provide enough space to make prudential accommodations for limited circumstances (i.e. we have laws against racial discrimination, but last time I checked it was still alright to post a dating profile saying “S/W/F seeking S/W/M.”)

    • #1
  2. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    In the same week that two men attempted a Charlie Hebdo-like attack in Texas” we had this program and … it didn’t stop them.  Actually, it was traditional security that stopped them.  The government, and its Panopticon, utterly failed. 

    If you want to explain how many domestic terrorist attacks the bulk collection of metadata has actually, you know, stopped, I’m willing to listen.

    In the meantime, I’ll hold onto my “libertarian fantasies of a Big Brother state.”

    A nation where every phone call I make is duly noted and recorded by a g-man in Virginia isn’t a fantasy of Big Brother, it is Big Brother.

    • #2
  3. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Fred Cole:“

    If you want to explain how many domestic terrorist attacks the bulk collection of metadata has actually, you know, stopped, I’m willing to listen.

    In the meantime, I’ll hold onto my “l

    A nation where every phone call I make is duly noted and recorded by a g-man in Virginia isn’t a fantasy of Big Brother, it is Big Brother.

    Yep!

    • #3
  4. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    “In the same week that two men attempted a Charlie Hebdo-like attack in Texas” we had this program and … it didn’t stop them. Actually, it was traditional security that stopped them. The government, and its Panopticon, utterly failed.

    If you want to explain how many domestic terrorist attacks the bulk collection of metadata has actually, you know, stopped, I’m willing to listen.

    Fred, are we to understand you do not believe who the two assailants communicated with in the recent past is of any legitimate concern?

    In the meantime, I’ll hold onto my “libertarian fantasies of a Big Brother state.”

    A nation where every phone call I make is duly noted and recorded by a g-man in Virginia isn’t a fantasy of Big Brother, it is Big Brother.

    As long as you are clear it is a fantasy.

    You know, I have been looking at phone bills for many years now and never once did they strike me as Big Brotherish.

    • #4
  5. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Klaatu:Fred, are we to understand you do not believe who the two assailants communicated with in the recent past is of any legitimate concern?

    You need to collect data about when I call my wife to know about two attempted spree-shooters in Texas?

    That’s sensical to you?  The one guy had a conviction for lying to the feds.  They needed to collect records about who I call and when to be able to keep tabs on him?

    • #5
  6. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Klaatu:You know, I have been looking at phone bills for many years now and never once did they strike me as Big Brotherish.

    Perhaps because you weren’t looking at everyone’s phonebills.

    • #6
  7. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    You need to collect data about when I call my wife to know about two attempted spree-shooters in Texas?

    That’s sensical to you? The one guy had a conviction for lying to the feds. They needed to collect records about who I call and when to be able to keep tabs on him?

    Unless you have a time machine, yes you do.

    The other shooter was not on the radar at all, was he?

    • #7
  8. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Perhaps because you weren’t looking at everyone’s phonebills.

    No one is looking at everyone’s phone bills. You are able to distinguish between ‘collecting’ and ‘looking,’ no?

    • #8
  9. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Klaatu:You need to collect data about when I call my wife to know about two attempted spree-shooters in Texas?

    That’s sensical to you?The one guy had a conviction for lying to the feds.They needed to collect records about who I call and when to be able to keep tabs on him?

    Unless you have a time machine, yes you do.

    The other shooter was not on the radar at all, was he?

    Nope.

    How odd that this metadata collection didn’t stop him…

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    I’m reminded of Janet Napolitano proclaming that “the system worked” with regard to foiling the underwear bomber on Flight 253.

    If “the system” means “passengers subdued him when he set fire to his underoos,” then yes, I guess the system did work. But I’m not sure if it’s the best system to have in place.

    • #10
  11. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    Nope.

    How odd that this metadata collection didn’t stop him…

    I’m not sure you understand how this information is used.

    • #11
  12. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Klaatu:Nope.

    How odd that this metadata collection didn’t stop him…

    I’m not sure you understand how this information is used.

    I do.

    I’m just waiting for the fantastical claims of the program’s proponents to yield something other than massive violations of the rights of free citizens.

    • #12
  13. civil westman Inactive
    civil westman
    @user_646399

    Only in post-modern, post-Constitutional America can lawyers (here by Prof. Yoo, in 12 paragraphs) undo the specific meaning of these words:

    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 the rest of us, creation of a secret court, FISA, which issues such general warrants (just like King George III), I guess this is merely a “fantasy of Big Brother.” If that is so, I wish Prof. Yoo would explain to us the fraud being regularly perpetrated upon the courts by law enforcement by the mechanism of “parallel construction.” This is where information obtained for so-called “national security” by the NSA is used surreptitiously to prosecute ordinary criminals. Through “parallel construction” courts and defendants never learn that this is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” i.e. was obtained illegally. This is no fantasy, especially when just about anyone in America can be prosecuted for something. All that is required is that you come to the attention of authorities, especially if you have expressed views which are not progressive.

    • #13
  14. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    I do.

    I’m just waiting for the fantastical claims of the program’s proponents to yield something other than massive violations of the rights of free citizens.

    If you are shocked the program did not identify the second shooter, you clearly don’t.

    Maybe you can explain how you claim your privacy is violated by the collection of data that does not in any way belong to you?

    • #14
  15. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    This is where information obtained for so-called “national security” by the NSA is used surreptitiously to prosecute ordinary criminals. Through “parallel construction” courts and defendants never learn that this is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” i.e. was obtained illegally. This is no fantasy, especially when just about anyone in America can be prosecuted for something. All that is required is that you come to the attention of authorities, especially if you have expressed views which are not progressive.

    Examples?

    • #15
  16. user_280840 Inactive
    user_280840
    @FredCole

    Klaatu:I do.

    I’m just waiting for the fantastical claims of the program’s proponents to yield something other than massive violations of the rights of free citizens.

    If you are shocked the program did not identify the second shooter, you clearly don’t.

    Maybe you can explain how you claim your privacy is violated by the collection of data that does not in any way belong to you?

    Maybe you can explain the point of this program if it doesn’t stop a damn thing.  You’re the one in favor of eviscerating the 4th Amendment, the burden is on you.

    • #16
  17. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    ?Why is the argument from the “collectors” always an all-or-nothing deal. I have no issue when someone presents a credible threat to a court to have a warrant to observe them. Until then, I expect good police work.

    This is akin to the TSA, who has wasted billions of dollars for the last 12 + years – and never caught a terrorist. Not once. Even when they were warned of one.

    • #17
  18. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    I have no issue when someone presents a credible threat to a court to have a warrant to observe them.

    The idea is to collect information on who the person was in contact with before he became a credible threat. The only way to do that is by collecting it beforehand.

    Until then, I expect good police work.

    This war not a crime.

    • #18
  19. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:I have no issue when someone presents a credible threat to a court to have a warrant to observe them.

    The idea is to collect information on who the person was in contact with before he became a credible threat.The only way to do that is by collecting it beforehand.

    Until then, I expect good police work.

    This war not a crime.

    That’s pretty much what the Brits said in 1776

    • #19
  20. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:I have no issue when someone presents a credible threat to a court to have a warrant to observe them.

    The idea is to collect information on who the person was in contact with before he became a credible threat.The only way to do that is by collecting it beforehand.

    Until then, I expect good police work.

    This war not a crime.

    ?Well then, why not have the police or HSA or whoever just walk into your house before they know you’re a bad guy and search your stuff. If they find something, well then!

    Our republic is messy. We demand certain rights and just because it’s “war” doesn’t excuse the government from protecting our rights. Every time we have done otherwise, it has gone badly. Look at the interment of the Nissan. ?You think that was a good idea because it was “war”.

    • #20
  21. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    That’s pretty much what the Brits said in 1776

    It was war.

    • #21
  22. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    ?Well then, why not have the police or HSA or whoever just walk into your house before they know you’re a bad guy and search your stuff. If they find something, well then!

    Our republic is messy. We demand certain rights and just because it’s “war” doesn’t excuse the government from protecting our rights. Every time we have done otherwise, it has gone badly. Look at the interment of the Nissan. ?You think that was a good idea because it was “war”.

    You do understand this is not a search, right? It is collection, no one sorts the data to look at who called whom until they go to a court and get a warrant for that specific person for the specific reason.

    Since Fred has not seen fit to answer perhaps you will, how do you claim a right over data that in no way belongs to you?

    • #22
  23. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:That’s pretty much what the Brits said in 1776

    It was war.

    They lost – for good reason.

    • #23
  24. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:You do understand this is not a search, right?It is collection, no one sorts the data to look at who called whom until they go to a court and get a warrant for that specific person for the specific reason.

    Since Fred has not seen fit to answer perhaps you will, how do you claim a right over data that in no way belongs to you?

    It doesn’t belong to the government either. And as many things concerning privacy, there is an expectation that when the government does something, it does so within the law AND the constitution.

    This collection of data by the government – for no clear cut reason than they can – is unseemly. It would be much like collecting data on where everyone went all the time. It simply isn’t their business. It is USSR-like.

    • #24
  25. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    It doesn’t belong to the government either. And as many things concerning privacy, there is an expectation that when the government does something, it does so within the law AND the constitution.

    This collection of data by the government – for no clear cut reason than they can – is unseemly. It would be much like collecting data on where everyone went all the time. It simply isn’t their business. It is USSR-like.

    No one is arguing it does, that is why the government goes to a court and the court approves the request and issues an order for it just like courts do around the nation everyday.

    There is reason for it. In case you missed it, there are people who have tried and succeeded in killing thousands of us.

    Do you honestly believe the nature of the communications of the two men who tried to commit mass murder in TX is of no national security concern?

    • #25
  26. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:No one is arguing it does, that is why the government goes to a court and the court approves the request and issues an order for it just like courts do around the nation everyday.

    There is reason for it.In case you missed it, there are people who have tried and succeeded in killing thousands of us.

    Do you honestly believe the nature of the communications of the two men who tried to commit mass murder in TX is of no national security concern?

    But the two who tried in TX had no benefit from the collection of the billions and billions of calls that the NSA has. STILL they missed these clowns! And a cop armed and on guard, because someone felt there might be a problem, “solved” that issue.

    Same thing in the case of the Times Square bomber. The TSA missed him, despite being told! It took old fashioned police work to actually catch him. And it seems that is the thing with all these yo-yo’s.

    • #26
  27. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    And even when the feds do have the goods on someone — like the Tsarnevs, about whom we were warned repeatedly by the Russians — they’re still allowed to kill people.

    So you can argue that we need the information, but what good is having information if you don’t use it?

    • #27
  28. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    But the two who tried in TX had no benefit from the collection of the billions and billions of calls that the NSA has. STILL they missed these clowns! And a cop armed and on guard, because someone felt there might be a problem, “solved” that issue.

    Same thing in the case of the Times Square bomber. The TSA missed him, despite being told! It took old fashioned police work to actually catch him. And it seems that is the thing with all these yo-yo’s.

    I notice you have yet to answer the questions I pose.

    You, like Fred seem to have no concept how this information is used.

    • #28
  29. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    Klaatu:But the two who tried in TX had no benefit from the collection of the billions and billions of calls that the NSA has. STILL they missed these clowns! And a cop armed and on guard, because someone felt there might be a problem, “solved” that issue.

    Same thing in the case of the Times Square bomber. The TSA missed him, despite being told! It took old fashioned police work to actually catch him. And it seems that is the thing with all these yo-yo’s.

    I notice you have yet to answer the questions I pose.

    You, like Fred seem to have no concept how this information is used.

    No, I understand both how it is claimed to be collected and how it is used. I simply don’t agree that this kind of data culling has any benefit and is simply wrong. Find me someone who IS a verifiable suspect and THEN collect HIS data.

    • #29
  30. Klaatu Inactive
    Klaatu
    @Klaatu

    No, I understand both how it is claimed to be collected and how it is used. I simply don’t agree that this kind of data culling has any benefit and is simply wrong. Find me someone who IS a verifiable suspect and THEN collect HIS data.

    This statement is evidence you do not understand how it is used, as does your indignation that no one found the second shooter or the Times Square bomber.

    I ask again, do you honestly believe the nature of the communications of the two men who tried to commit mass murder in TX is of no national security concern?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.