According to an AFP wire story Friday evening, "The US administration defiantly insisted it was doing nothing illegal amid mounting Congress questions over a secret program to track the phone records of millions of Americans."
That defiance, however, was not matched by support by powerful Republican Members of Congress, fearful of losing control of Congress in November. Maine Senator Susan Collins said, "The administration must be more forthright with Congress about these programs so we can exercise our oversight responsibilities. These surveillance programs should also be subject to the confines of law to ensure oversight and judicial review."
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee has already said that he will summon telephone company brass to determine if the Constitution has been violated. And, after meeting with Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the nominee to head the CIA, Senator Chuck Hagel, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said "I think this issue needs to be clearly aired," following a meeting with Hayden.
Late Friday afternoon, Slate Magazine wrote that the current program "goes well beyond the scope of the NSA domestic-surveillance program revealed last year." They noted that President Bush at the time said that one end of the communication must be outside the United States. Slate commented, "That assurance turns out to have been highly deceptive, if not an outright lie."
One of the concerns raised by the article was that the project violates the concept of checks and balances that is built into the very structure of the U.S. government. The magazine said that the executive branch simply cannot be trusted to have sole access to this amount of private information on American citizens.
"This has nothing to do with who the president is," Slate noted. "It has everything to do with the nature of power. To dispute this fact is to dispute the need for checks and balances; it's to dismiss the constitutional premise of the U.S. government."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
That survey was only a day after the revelation, which while it was all over the news, may or may not have been fully digested by the public. Still, I'm concerned also that people just don't care about their liberties. To me it's the principle, moreso even than whether I personally am affected.
2 - chantal stone
Great article...I think the problem is that too many Americans have become complacent and lazy. They may think "damn this sucks", but are too lazy to do anything about it.
3 - gonzo marx
oh Mark me boyo...ya raise some good points, but neglect ta lift the pints needed ta be figgerin' out what's happenin'
the poll you cite was only 500 people less than a day after the story broke....
give it a week , and then look at bigger sampling polls, then we will see
what bloggles my Mind is that the REAL conservatives and libertarians amongst the GOP faithful haven't fired up their own Revolt yet
think about it, ya wanna distance yerself from the historically low polls for the Congress and yer Party...put some distance there....show yer against deficit spending on pork, and that ya stand WITH the Rule of Law and the Constitution and against the low poll President on the whole wiretap/database thing
then ya might have a chance at keeping yer seat
but if they stick with the neocon ideology, and keep going with what they are doing....their own base gets pissed....add in the still burgeoning scandals of
Abramhoff, Libby, Duke Cunningham and now Foggo
and the GOP is gonna wind up radioactive by November
not that that's a bad thing...
but i digress
Excelsior?
4 - mschannon
There was a good article in the Wash Post today about how easily Americans are allowing both gov't and businesses to dig into our personal lives. It's a dangerous trend & no one seems to care.
and Gonzo, old pup, I can't lift the pints--at least fer a while 'cause, believe it er not, I gave up the demon drink, including me beloved Jameson! (Hence, if you've noticed, I no longer my world-famous tag line, In Jameson Veritas.)
But...ne'er the less, 500 is a large enough sample size, particularly given the results, to be confident that Americans are sheep in wolves clothing. True, it was only a day after, and we'll see what happens later...but it's the trend, lad, that's disturbin', the fuckin' trend.
In something veritas
5 - Silas Kain
I haven't given up on privacy. I want Uncle Sam out of my bedroom, off my phone line and unconnected to my email. Period.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Great article, Mark.
Americans are not as beaten down as Israelis but it looks as if your government lies just as much as ours does. I don't see folks in your country doing anything important about this at all, even though it is a blatant violation of the law in your country.
Gonzo, I'm afraid that JP and Chantal accurately read the pulse of your nation.
How the mighty are falling - and how quickly they fall...
7 - Jet in Columbus
If I inadvertantly dial a wrong number, or one of them mistakenly dials me, I don't want to be branded a terrorist sympathiser. On top of that known terrorists could be randomly dialing numbers all over the U.S. just to throw the NSA off their tracks with a bunch of blind alleys.
This sound to me like it has the potential to become the McCarthy era "Are you now or have you ever been a comunist?" hearings of the 50s and it's flat out wrong.
Who did they poll? The US congress and all of their secretaries and drivers?
8 - Dave Nalle
Is it POSSIBLE, just barely possible, that Americans can tell the difference between actual invasion of privacy and routine electronic data collection?
Dave
9 - Jet in Columbus
As I understand it Dave, no actual listening is done, HOWEVER once a known suspect is identified, his calls are tracked AND LISTENED TO as are the peoples' that he's called. One misdial on his part or mine brands me a terrorist sympathizer.
Right?
10 - Dave Nalle
I think it would take more than one misdial. And it would be a hell of a misdial if it went to the 15 digit number that just happens to reach Osama bin Laden's cell phone.
When dealing with legal situations that involve new technology it helps to find an equivalent in more familiar situations. Think of the tracking of phonecalls as the same as staking out a crack house. The cops watching the crack house follow the people who stop there and stop and search them - having seen them at the crack house gives them just cause for the search without requiring a warrant. What we're talking about here is the electronic equivalent.
Dave
11 - Jet in Columbus
As reported by ABC news last night we're talking records of not billions, but trillions of domestically made calls within the US to other US phone numbers. That's 10 digit numbers there Dave.
One wrong number either by me or to me, means they have grounds to monitor/listen to my calls even if some suspect called another suspect who called me by mistake.
Like someone going to a drug house, then coming to my apartment building and ringing my doorbell by mistake, which is hooked into a system that calls my phone. That means detectives following that suspect of a suspect has record of not only him ringing my door, but a separate agency has records of him calling my phone.
It's beyond comprehension that that volume of information can be sifted without mistakes-the odds are against it, and that means innocent people wrongly accused and investigated, no matter how it's sugar-coated ro politically spun.
12 - mschannon
Dave,
This issue is goes beyond collection of data to stop terrorism to the usurpation of power by the executive branch.
To quote myself: "This has nothing to do with who the president is," Slate noted. "It has everything to do with the nature of power. To dispute this fact is to dispute the need for checks and balances; it's to dismiss the constitutional premise of the U.S. government."
If a select number of the Senate Intelligence Committee whatever that judicial forum is were consulted and agreed, and if the NSA proved that they were only getting phone numbers and not tracking conversations, I think there would be a lot less outrage.
Wait a minute, there's not very much outrage at all. Let me restate that...I think those of us who are concerned about checks and balances and the Constitution would be less concerned.
As a conservative, you of all people should be objective to unwarranted intrustion into your personal life--especially consider your personal life. (I have videos, by the way.)
And Ruvy, you've got it all wrong. Our government doen't lie. You have to have some vague notion of what "truth" means before you can lie, LOL.
In Decaf Coffee Veritas--sigh, it's not the same thing.
13 - Arch Conservative
I'd just like to pose a hypothetical to everyone railing against this phone monitoring program.
Let's just say that somehow this program managed to identify a terrorist group that was planning an attack on American civilians and the attack was foiled.
Let's say 1000 Americans civilians lives were saved because of this.
Was the program worth it? Was it justifiable?
Let's say the information saved your child's life.
Was the program worth it? Was it justifiable?
I hear so many saying that the worst thing about this program is not the invasion of privacy but the fact that it violates the law. These people say that the strict rule of law must be adhered to regardless of the means or ends, benefit or detriment or any other considerations that are not subject to the "rule of law." The funny thing is that I didn't hear these people screaming about the "rule of law" when Clinton lied to congress under oath. I mean it shouldn't have mattered what the lie was about given the current appreciation for the "rule of law" to these people. Yet they weren't quite as vociferous at that time. Seems like partisan hypocrisy to me.
To me the ends justify the means in this case. If this program saves the lives of innocent Americans while minorly inconvencing other AMericans than I believe it to be just. I'd galdly let the government listen in on my phone calls if it saves a class full of kindergartners in some building that terrorists are planning to attack. I have nothing to hide anyway.
14 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I'm certianly concerned about genuine invasion of the privacy of the average citizen. I'm not so concerned about basic investigative data processing to identify criminal activity.
You folks are looking at this issue entirely backwards. Things like analyzing phonecall patterns are NOT a way of invading your privacy. They're away of protecting it. Every method they can use to eliminate the need to generally investigate or control the population and narrow the field down is beneficial to the general public.
Having programs like this that identify a small group of people to investigate makes it unnecessary for the government to resort to far more draconian measures of security and population control. The alternative to a program like this would be something much worse and more invasive.
Which would you rather have, the NSA tracking phonecalls to figure out who's communicating with terrorists or the government just resorting to a blanket solution like requiring a security check before allowing you to make international calls?
Dave
15 - mschannon
Arch, sorry, but your conservative card is being rescinded by the CCMA (Conservative Card Monitors of America.) Again, it's not the monitoring...read my post to Dave (#12), it's the process. And your analogy to Clinton resembles, "well some people cheat on their taxes, so it's o.k. for me."
Somebody great (other than me) once said, "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned." Or something like that. That philosophy and the inherent risks are the heart of conservatism, the basis for the Bill of Rights, the wings beneath my feet.
An appealing to emotionalism (what if it were your daughter) doesn't work on two levels. First I don't have a daughter. But our legal and governmental system is designed exactly to prevent emotionalism from interferring with rational policy setting.
I'm a screaming, left-wing, weak-kneed, 60s liberal and I want the government out of my life! You're an arch conservative and you're inviting them in. There's something very odd here.
And Dave, I think you missed my point. It's absuse of power, failure to adhere to the checks and balances, and not obeying the law that bothers me. Just as Bush seems incapable of working constructively in the foreign policy realm, he seems just as incompetent in working with his own government. Get the intelligence subcommittee and that judicial group to agree & I'm not happy, but I'll go along with it.
In Decaf Veritas (Jesus, that just doesn't have the same ring as In Jameson Veritas...sigh.)
16 - rusty
I guess this is the smaller less intrusive form of government that conservatives always wanted. Amazed that W has ANY credibility anymore
17 - Arch Conservative
Liberals yanking my conservative membership card...
Is there anything these smug, sob's don't feel their entitled to do?
How many people have actually been wrongly imprisoned because of this program mcmoonbat?
We can't make policy decisions based on emotional sentiment? Someone had better tell that to all the anti
18 - mschannon
Oh Arch, you're losing your sense of humor. I'm neither smug nor a sob...just superior. (Hey, you forget that just yesterday, I entered a comment where I agreed with you?)
And you'll need to help me with mcmoonbat--what in the world is that.
Finally, I think you got so angry, you forgot to finish your post.
19 - Arch Conservative
iberals yanking my conservative membership card...
Is there anything these smug, sob's don't feel their entitled to do?
How many people have actually been wrongly imprisoned because of this program mcmoonbat?
We can't make policy decisions based on emotional sentiment? Someone had better tell that to all the anti-war protestors then. I mean it's not as if they play on people's emotiong to gain support in the politcal arena for theri point iof view is it.
I'm not inviting the governemnt in. I am merely saying that what they are doing monitoring calls and where they're to and from is not a great invasion of privacy in my eyes. They're looking for terrorists ok...they're not listening to you talk to your burnt out useless hippy friends about the really great acid you socred the last time you were at a phish concert.
"Just as Bush seems incapable of working constructively in the foreign policy realm"
what you consider working constructively in the foreign policy realm i would most likely deem pacifist do nothing UN/europe ass kissing that will only lead to more terrorist attacks
what you leftist moonbats don't understand about conservatives and how we view the threat posed by islamic terrorism is that we realize it will be necessary to do things like this program in order to save our very lives. and this prgram as of yet hasn't changed what america is...... the last time i checked most americans were still able to coem and go as they please where and when they wanted...call whom they wanted and talk about what they wanted........ our lifestyles and freedoms have not been affected by this program in any significant way.....it's just that you moonbats hate bush so you're dreaming up all kinds of ways that this program is going to lead a 1984 type america.......
ok so we stop the program and have another terrorist attack...who is to balme then? Bush? all you people attacking this program sure haven't offered any ideas as to how to safeguard us from terrorism.......
america isn't even remotely close to anything resembling the orwellian prison being pushed by you moonbats and it won't be beacuse of this program either so maybe you should all shut your stinking pieholes and let those in the know protect us..........
because the bottom line when you get right down to it.........when you stop talking this rule of law bullshit.......is that the most basic human instinct is self preservation....when someone has a gun to your head you don't stop and consider the rule of law...........all bets are off....this is something even a deadbeat, burnt out, pacifist, 60's relic like mcmoonbat can understand
lofty ideals are worth shit to a dead man
above all else...........self preservation
20 - gonzo marx
Bing the ArchFascist sez...
*above all else...........self preservation*
hey now..here's one fer ya....ya fucking coward...
*give me Liberty, or give me Death*
heard that one before?
as a Citizen as well as a veteran, i thinkm you weak kneed cowardly hypocritcal bullshit is exactly what's wrong around here...
you scream about Slick Willie and his perjury....yet when the Shrub LIES about "this program only deals with calls going outside out country"...you are ok with it...
to paraphrase troll..."take your double standard police state loving bullshit off my bridge"
you can sit next to Stalin
Excelsior?
21 - gonzo marx
on a side note, dragging this back to the Original Topic...here's a link to an MSNBC article containing a Newsweek poll taken since the new revelations about the whole NSA bit has seeped into the american Consciousness....and the numbers have shifted...
57% against saying the Administration and NSA have gone "too far" versus 38% who think it's appropriate
and it's only been a few days
looks like folks are realizing the dangers to our Liberty from a single Party government
let's hope "checks and balances" are restored come september...
Excelsior?
22 - chantal stone
That's a good article, gonzo.....
the problem is will people remember how they feel NOW when elections come around again??
I'm afraid that most Americans have short attention spans .
23 - Jet in Columbus
Arch, if Bush has stopped terrorists from attacking us since 911, what prevented them from attacking us during the Clinton presidency, and why did they have to wait until Bush took office?
Because they believed he'd give a less effective response... which he did.
Where's Osama? The real culprit behind 911? Bush doesn't know, or probably care, as long as he has an excuse to run his police state here.
You're just cranky because Bushy fell below 30 percent approval ratings and more then 70 out of 1100 people disagree with your rightwing platitudes.
24 - Jet in Columbus
whoops typing error 70 out of 100
25 - mschannon
Arch, Arch, Arch, I fear Sir Gonzo is right. You're not a conservative, you are a fascist & a pretty angry one at that.
when you stop talking this rule of law bullshit
Rule of law bullshit!!!??? Despite my reputation as Curmudgeon at Large, I try to be polite and jovial on these posts, but, I gotta tell you, you are one sick mother. It's clear that where education and knowledge should reside, all you have is emotional hysteria.
Your hysteria distorts everything you see around you; your out-of-control anger causes you to hallucinate and create demons out of people who happen not to agree with your fascist view of America.
Have you read anything about the foundation of America, the issues that were debated and resolved, the threats to freedom the Founding Fathers sought to protect us from? Have you even read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Do you even know what "checks and balances are" and why they're integrated into the foundation of our nation?
This is serious question and an honest one: Why are you so angry and on the attack?
In Decaf Veritas