# Hurray for Google!



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

This administration claims that domestic spying is necessary to â€œdefend America.â€ It justifies these actions by claiming to monitor international calls between people in the U.S. and foreign terrorists. Recent events reveal just how disingenuous this rationale is. My question is, â€œCan this administration tell a lie so blatant that conservatives will not believe it?â€


quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Of course not.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

A: Um, the administration is not particularly conservative* (see: prescription drug coverage).

What does this have to do with Google? As I recall, the Google subpoena has to do with pornography and not with the NSA wiretapping thing. 

Now, kudos to Google for both their stance on the subpoena and on Bell South's announcement on content charges. But those have nothing nto do with wiretapping or foreign terrorists.

CT

* Yeah, compared to the Clintons, Bush is a conservative. But he's not particularly conservative by any other measure (low taxes, small federal government/federalism, etc).


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> * Yeah, compared to the Clintons, Bush is a conservative. But he's not particularly conservative by any other measure (low taxes, small federal government/federalism, etc).


Socially conservative, fiscally - not on our national debt.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I guess I just have a problem with socially conservative people using economically liberal means to achieve their goals. Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of their goals, but the means to get there seem antithetical to the stated purpose.

Nonetheless, the Google thing still doesn't have anything to do with terrorism.

CT


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

"What does this have to do with Google? As I recall, the Google subpoena has to do with pornography and not with the NSA wiretapping thing." - CT

It has nothing to do with Google only if you believe the NSA is only wiretapping terrorist. In the context of domestic spying (wiretapping was only the most visible example) the database supoenas reveal how little regard this administration has towards precepts fundemental to this country. As I recall the ability to try to determine how terrorists are using the net was one of the stated justifications for the supoenas but that detail is ultimately irrelevant to greater harm being perpetrated.

A wise man once told me the secret to lying is to make it believable, the wiretapping tapping story doesn't come close to meeting the criterion.

As an aside conservatism reminds me a lot of communism in that the practice turns out to be a far cry from the theory.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Have I missed something in the Google flap? I thought that the request for data contained no personal user data of any type, and that the data was being used more for counts, to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

This is not "Big Brother". This is just another example of data gathering, much the same as the Census Bureau, or Bureau of Labor Statistics does. I don't believe anyone has been prosecuted (or persecuted for that matter) if they've dropped off the unemployment report.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> This is not "Big Brother". This is just another example of data gathering, much the same as the Census Bureau, or Bureau of Labor Statistics does.


Yes, it is.

It is Big Bully saying "you're a private company, and you have spent your own money to collect data and store it, now give us the data!"

The govt shouldn't be allowed to rely on force to steal information from the private sector to do it's "research."

---------------------

Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> "What does this have to do with Google? As I recall, the Google subpoena has to do with pornography and not with the NSA wiretapping thing." - CT
> 
> ...


Um, OK. First of all, I aplaud Google's decision to fight the subpoena. But there is no obvious overlap between the Justice Dept looking for data on kiddie porn and the NSA engaging in wiretaps. The DoJ has not asked for anything that would identify individual performing the searches. They only asked for search terms and the websites indexed by the search engine. While they may not have the right to compel this information from Google, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the info independant of private industry.

On the NSA side, I think that the big thing often overlooked by the media is that, regardless of the legality of these wiretaps, they would be inadmissable in court, as would any information deriving from said wiretaps. Not commenting on whether the gov't _should_ be engaging in this behavior, it could not arrest or charge anyone for anything based on the information gained from it because the wiretaps were not approved in advance by the courts.

CT

Fabricati diem, pvnc. (loose translation, To Serve and Protect) -- Sign above the door of the City Watch House, Ankh-Morpork.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> This is just another example of data gathering, much the same as the Census Bureau, or Bureau of Labor Statistics does.


The data was requested through a subpoena, which is odd, as it's related to a supreme court decision that struck down a law that's supposed to prevent child porn on the internet. Like most technology related legislation, it was garbage, and should have been struck down. Now the 'fed is trying to revive it, and to do so they are going on fishing expeditions to see how many people look for porn on search engines.

There is no crime being prosecuted here. There is no life-or-death need for the information. The DOJ wants some lousy legislation passed, and are trying to strongarm data out of private institutions to do it. If it's not related directly to a criminal or civil case, I don't see why Google has to give up anything.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> This administration claims that domestic spying is necessary to â€œdefend America.â€ It justifies these actions by claiming to monitor international calls between people in the U.S. and foreign terrorists. Recent events reveal just how disingenuous this rationale is. My question is, â€œCan this administration tell a lie so blatant that conservatives will not believe it?â€
> 
> ...


There is ample precedent for the President, through the NSA or other agencies, to monitor communications from foreign sources without the necessity of a warrant. The State Department, and Department of War, during World War II, monitored conversations internally to identify foreign threats of sabotage and movement of foreign agents.

Conversations are not being monitored in the same sense as listening to a phone call. Voice recognition programs are looking for key words and language patterns.
No one is listening to complete conversations.
One of the conversants is a non-citizen of the United States.
Those non-citizens have been previously identified as foreign threats.
The United States is at war with an enemy not identified by uniforms, geographical boundaries, and government structure.
The President has briefed Congress on numerous occasions.
George W. Bush is not a conservative.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Um, OK. First of all, I aplaud Google's decision to fight the subpoena. But there is no obvious overlap between the Justice Dept looking for data on kiddie porn and the NSA engaging in wiretaps. The DoJ has not asked for anything that would identify individual performing the searches. They only asked for search terms and the websites indexed by the search engine. While they may not have the right to compel this information from Google, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the info independant of private industry.


CT, on the kiddie porn example, since possessing/purchasing kiddie porn is illegal, but not searching for it, if a law is enacted to make searching for such material online illegal, wouldn't the government have a case for obtaining a general warrant to cover data surrounding such searches?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:
> Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.





> quote:
> To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisons on guidance provided by Chinese government officials.
> 
> Although China has loosened some of its controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects.
> ...


Hyprocrisy in action, from your friends at Google. Where asking for the hitlists to child porn sites is taking with scorn but taking directives from the Chinese censure office is par the course!

___________

"My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income." 
~Errol Flynn


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

"On the NSA side, I think that the big thing often overlooked by the media is that, regardless of the legality of these wiretaps, they would be inadmissable in court, as would any information deriving from said wiretaps. Not commenting on whether the gov't should be engaging in this behavior, it could not arrest or charge anyone for anything based on the information gained from it because the wiretaps were not approved in advance by the courts." - CT

CT, while I may succeed I'm not trying to be pejorative. I find this view to be incredibly naive. The lawyers in this case have recently moved for dismissal on these very grounds. Currently, Yasin M. Aref is in jail based upon "classified" info (wiretappings were specifically mentioned).

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

No offense taken. 

Legally obtained information from an authorized wiretap can still be classified, AFAIK. In any case, I didn't see a reference to dismissal on the grounds of illegaly obtained evidence in that link, though I may have just missed it. My point is not that all wiretapping is illegal or that all classified information is inadmissable, but that a wiretap which is executed without proper judicial authorization is not admissable in court. It would seem that the NSA wiretaps in question fall into this catagory. 

As to that link though, I think that the defense has a good point. How can they expect one part of the DoJ to moniter discussions between client and counsel and not discuss that information with another part of the DoJ. Seems like a bad setup to me. 

Finally, on Google. I am disgusted, but not surprized, that Google has let the Red Chinesse dictate what can be searched for on the net. Grrr.

CT


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

CT,

No you didn't miss the dismissal. I looked long an hard on the web for that information and did not find it; it happened on the 24th so maybe it hasn't been posted yet (although I find that hard to believe and yes we do disagree on media bias). The government has yet to "confirm or deny" he was the target of NSA wiretapping. I see this as one of the "hidden" problems with secret courts and domestic spying. A man is in jail and the feds will not disclose the nature of their warrants? If the warrant's legit why not say so?

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:If the warrant's legit why not say so?


That we agree on. I understand that some things must be kept semi-secret to protect ongoing investigations or national security, but it should be a very high bar to cross to keep things from the public. And even then, everything should be released as soon as it is possible.

CT


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> This administration claims that domestic spying is necessary to â€œdefend America.â€ It justifies these actions by claiming to monitor international calls between people in the U.S. and foreign terrorists. Recent events reveal just how disingenuous this rationale is. My question is, â€œCan this administration tell a lie so blatant that conservatives will not believe it?â€
> 
> ...


You mean like "I did not sleep with that woman"?

Or "Gee, I don't know where those 500 FBI files came from?"

Remember Echelon?

There are some lies that every administration tells because they have to. There are some lies every (and I mean every) person with certain clearances/jobs tell because they have to.

I know a (very) little bit about this spying case, and quite frankly if someone calling from the number of a known terrorist outside the US is making an inbound phone call, I'm really cool with the government listening in to see you actually takes that call.

Matter of fact, if they did have the technology to do that and HADN'T been I'd be wanting some demotions and firings.

I realize people like you want to go back to seeing the world the way it was on 10 September 2001, but there's a whole bunch of people who'd rather live in the real world, a world

Yeah, Hurray for Google, they turn down a FBI request for data that would not, and functionally COULD NOT be traced back to specific users, but DID agree to censor searches for the government of China.

HUZZA!

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by clothesboy_
> 
> "What does this have to do with Google? As I recall, the Google subpoena has to do with pornography and not with the NSA wiretapping thing." - CT
> 
> It has nothing to do with Google only if you believe the NSA is only wiretapping terrorist.


You really have no idea about which you speak.

If the NSA wanted those searches, they'd have done what they did (and tried to make legal) during the Clinton Years--taken the searches right off the wire.



> quote:
> In the context of domestic spying (wiretapping was only the most visible example) the database supoenas reveal how little regard this administration has towards precepts fundemental to this country.


You really have no idea what you are taling about, do you?

This wasn't a "database suponea", it was:

"""
Q: What is the Justice Department demanding from search engines?
A: Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines.
"""

I know Declan, and I know which side of this he'd be likely to be on. Heck, I don't think the FBI should be asking for this kind of thing. Even fundamentalists I know are opposed to the government tracking what individuals are looking for.

That doesn't mean that this request violates any sort of "fundamental precepts of this country".



> quote:
> As I recall the ability to try to determine how terrorists are using the net was one of the stated justifications for the supoenas but that detail is ultimately irrelevant to greater harm being perpetrated.


You must be talking about something else entirely. These suponeas are a (misguided) attempt by federal bureacrats to attempt to find people violating pornography laws. Laws that most people publically approve of, and privately violate like stinking crazy.

This had nothing to do with terrorism.



> quote:
> A wise man once told me the secret to lying is to make it believable, the wiretapping tapping story doesn't come close to meeting the criterion.


What?

There is a LOT of lying-by-ommission going on about the wiretapping case, mostly becuase the're not tapping wires. They're intercepting mostly cellphone calls, and if they're half as bright as I think they are, they're doing it in a way that FISA simply doesn't apply to. FISA is a narrowly tailord law writting to cold war techonology, cold war methodology, and cold war mindsets. The technology has changed, the pace has changed (does you no good to even try to get a warrant when you can only intercept for 3 days and it takes up to 2 weeks to process the warrant, meaning for 11 days you CANNOT listen) and the nature of hte enemy has changed.

The NSA didn't have to violate FISA to do this. Not the way the telecom infrastructure is set up today. Now, one can argue all day long whether what Bush ordered done violated the SPIRIT of FISA, but again, if one of Bin Laden's buddies is calling someone in the territorial borders of the US, I'm ok with it, and so are most people.



> quote:
> As an aside conservatism reminds me a lot of communism in that the practice turns out to be a far cry from the theory.


That's because you don't know what conservatism is.

Conservatism is not a philosophy, it's a perspective. A way of looking at the world.

A coservative places tradition above impulse. 
A conservative values heirarchies, but distrusts their power. 
A conservative...
Oh, here, go educate yourself:

And understand that most conservatives don't abide by all of those all the time.

Bush is not, and has never been a conservative. He's at best a moderate, or a religious liberal. He has no problem making radical changes (a liberal tendency) and he's a profligate spender on a wide variety of programs that no conservative would approve of (No Child Left Unfunded, Expanded medicare entitlements etc.). He signed the McCain-Feingold incombant protection racket.

Hell, the Department of Education still exists. THAT is an affront to the founding principles of this country.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> On the NSA side, I think that the big thing often overlooked by the media is that, regardless of the legality of these wiretaps, they would be inadmissable in court, as would any information deriving from said wiretaps. Not commenting on whether the gov't _should_ be engaging in this behavior, it could not arrest or charge anyone for anything based on the information gained from it because the wiretaps were not approved in advance by the courts.


COURT?

See, this is what a lot of us on the right have been complaining about. You people just don't get it.

This is not about court.

This is not about "Fruit of the poisoned tree" and all that nonsense.

This is about a predator missle blowing your stone and thatch hut into pebbles and ashes.

This is about some very, very serious young men kicking your door in and hauling you out to where several other serious men will be asking you some questions, over and over and over until they are satisfied with the answers.

This is NOT about crime and justice. This is about the prosecution of a war, and under those conditions the President has (he claims) the constitutional authority to order this. He's also got the moral responsibility to make sure it happens.

FISA was written because of (fairly real) fears that Nixon The Paranoid would use wiretaps on his political enemies, much like Kennedy spied on King, the Clintons used FBI files (raw FBI files, not the vetted and verified stuff) and used the IRS to harass their enemies.

The worst that Bush has done in this case is to listen in to people he had a REALLY good reason to believe were THIS NATIONS enemies.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> The data was requested through a subpoena, which is odd, as it's related to a supreme court decision that struck down a law that's supposed to prevent child porn on the internet. Like most technology related legislation, it was garbage, and should have been struck down. Now the 'fed is trying to revive it, and to do so they are going on fishing expeditions to see how many people look for porn on search engines.


That's not quite accurate.

The SCOTUS did not strike down the law:
"""
Q: Who cares about filtering software's effectiveness, anyway?
The Bush administration, for one. It's trying to defend a 1998 law called the Child Online Protection Act before a Philadelphia judge in a trial expected to begin in October.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the COPA case in June 2004, the majority voted to send it back down to the lower court for a full trial. That would, the majority said, "allow the parties to update and supplement the factual record to reflect current technological realities."

That's what the Justice Department aims to do--by arguing in court that filtering software is not a realistic alternative to a federal criminal law because the concept of filtering is flawed and unworkable in practice. 
"""



> quote:
> There is no crime being prosecuted here. There is no life-or-death need for the information. The DOJ wants some lousy legislation passed, and are trying to strongarm data out of private institutions to do it. If it's not related directly to a criminal or civil case, I don't see why Google has to give up anything.


They're not trying to get legislation passed, they're trying to DEFEND legislation passed by a Republican House, a (barely) Republican Senate, and signed by a Democratic President. That's about as bipartisan as it gets, right?

"""

 Q: What does the Justice Department plan to do with this data, anyway?
A declaration (click here for PDF) by Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley, sheds some light on this.

Stark says he has been "involved in conversations" with attorneys and engineers at the companies targeted by the Justice Department to find "practical approaches to sampling their databases of URLs and user queries."

The point of the exercise, Stark said, is to evaluate "how often Web users" encounter pornographic material online, and "to measure the effectiveness of filters in screening those materials." 
"""

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> There is ample precedent for the President, through the NSA or other agencies, to monitor communications from foreign sources without the necessity of a warrant. The State Department, and Department of War, during World War II, monitored conversations internally to identify foreign threats of sabotage and movement of foreign agents.
> 
> ...


The first couple bullet points are referencing "Echelon", which is a different program from this.

I've read everything I've been able to find about this particular case on the technical and operational end, and I suspect strongly that the NSA and the Adminstration are--for REALLY GOOD reasons--letting a lot of people believe one thing is happening when in fact something else ls.

And the terrorists know it, hence the attempted purchase of 60 pre-paid cellphones in Texas, and the attempt to purchase 150 in SoCal.

Near as I can tell, we catch a bad guy, get his cell phone, extract his recently called list, line a few other bits of intel up, and start listening in on those PHONE NUMBERS. And we HAVE to do it RIGHT AWAY and for as long as possible. These two things--the fact that we're looking at a NUMBER and not a PERSON, and the speed at which we do it are the reasons that the administration stopped playing along with the FISA courty.

There are other things that the NSA can do legally, like "reading envelopes", since what is on the outside of hte letter has no reasonable expectation of privacy, any agency can start tracking who you get mail from (e or regular) and who you call and who calls you. This lets them build a "social network". And like your mother told you, you get judged by the company you keep. If you have 20 people you talk to regularly, and 15 are family, and 10 are part of a terror network, what do you WANT The government to do?

This isn't some absract game on either side. Previous administrations *have* abused this power and trust by using it to spy domestically on political enemies. This isn't the case here.

There is absolutely do doubt in my mind that the President should have the ability to order this--at least when foreign nationals are involved--and there is also no doubt in my mind that there should be some sort of oversight that doesn't involve going to a judge in supplicantion playing "mother my I do my duty".

Edited for formatting


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> CT, on the kiddie porn example, since possessing/purchasing kiddie porn is illegal, but not searching for it, if a law is enacted to make searching for such material online illegal, wouldn't the government have a case for obtaining a general warrant to cover data surrounding such searches?


THis is not what this case is about, but:

A search for child pornography is tatamount to a request for child pornography, as by looking at this type of stuff on the screen you've downloaded it to your computer.

Whether you asked for it or not, if you get a picture of a under-aged person on your webbrowser, and that image can be rationally construed as pornography (note, the underaged adult need not be naked for this to be true), then you are guilty of a felony.

Heck, anyone posting to this forum could turn us all into felons with a simple URL, and do it in such a way as most of us would never know it.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Petro:

In no particular order save I will take my pettest peeve first:

"I realize people like you want to go back to seeing the world the 
way it was on 10 September 2001, but there's a whole bunch of people who'd rather live in the real world, a world"

If conservatives did not sacrifice everything upon the altar of expediency they would not have needed to change their worldview on September 11. Liberty, equality, justice, right, wrong, these are enduring principles that you do not abandon because they now stand in the way of an objective. If they ever knew it, and I admit I have seen no evidence that they did, on September 11 conservatives forgot that principles are needed most when they can be afforded least.

"Yeah, Hurray for Google, they turn down a FBI request for data that would not, and functionally COULD NOT be traced back to specific users, but DID agree to censor searches for the government of China." 

You honestly don't see the difference between what a private company does and the actions of our government sworn to uphold the constitution? I don't believe it.

"Matter of fact, if they did have the technology to do that and HADN'T been I'd be wanting some demotions and firings."

I don't know you but there is no evidence that this administration holds itself accountable for anything it does and the conservative outcry has been deafening in its silence.

"You mean like "I did not sleep with that woman"?"

What is it with conservatives and sex? You are comparing oral sex and domestic spying? Your bias is showing.

"This wasn't a "database suponea", it was:

"""
Q: What is the Justice Department demanding from search engines?
A: Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines."

??? The info requested was on a database I don't see the point you're trying to make.

"That doesn't mean that this request violates any sort of "fundamental precepts of this country"."

Calling a legal document "a request" is spin and not debate. Yes, the 4th and the rest of the Bill of Rights are fundemental to this country. If the Bill of Rights had not been passed there would be no U.S. It doesn't get any more fundemental than that.

"The NSA didn't have to violate FISA to do this. Not the way the telecom infrastructure is set up today. Now, one can argue all day long whether what Bush ordered done violated the SPIRIT of FISA, but again, if one of Bin Laden's buddies is calling someone in the territorial borders of the US, I'm ok with it, and so are most people."

That is one huge if and the whole reason for judicial review. FISA warrants can be obtained after the fact so the whole there wasn't time argument doesn't wash. Also, secret courts are incredibly friendly to administrations so the fact that no one bothered with warrants should be throwing up a lot of red flags. 

"A coservative places tradition above impulse. 
A conservative values heirarchies, but distrusts their power."

You're arguing that an administration should be allowed to greatly expand search powers beyond the traditionsl limits. This is impulse and trust not tradition and distrust.

Elective war, torture, indefinite imprisonment, no due process ... if it walks like a duck. These are not consistent with the link you provided so I stand by my communism comparison.

"Bush is not, and has never been a conservative. He's at best a moderate, or a religious liberal. He has no problem making radical changes (a liberal tendency) and he's a profligate spender on a wide variety of programs that no conservative would approve of (No Child Left Unfunded, Expanded medicare entitlements etc.). He signed the McCain-Feingold incombant protection racket. "

Conservatives suported W as reflecting their values. Now, granted conservatives could claim surprise in 2000 but by 2004 what the man stood for and what he intended to do were no surprise. Now he's not a conservative. Grow up. You can't have it both ways. 

"COURT? 

See, this is what a lot of us on the right have been complaining about. You people just don't get it.

This is not about court. 

This is not about "Fruit of the poisoned tree" and all that nonsense.

This is about a predator missle blowing your stone and thatch hut into pebbles and ashes. 

This is about some very, very serious young men kicking your door in and hauling you out to where several other serious men will be asking you some questions, over and over and over until they are satisfied with the answers. 

This is NOT about crime and justice. This is about the prosecution of a war, and under those conditions the President has (he claims) the constitutional authority to order this. He's also got the moral responsibility to make sure it happens."

The blatant immorality here is what appalls me. Spying on American citizens is about law. It bears repeating, civil liberties are fundemental to the United States of America. As antithecal as civil liberties and the rule of law are to conservatives these are fundametally American ideals while the "values" espouse by conservatives have more in common with South American juntas.

EDIT: format

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Michael


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am directing my disdain at this administration. I am not directing it at conservative philosophy. Everything being done with complete disregard for our constitution and laws will be de facto practise long after the man from Crawford crawls away. Will somebody whisper the H word? ---------------Hilary[xx(]


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dennis,
Thanks for that, saved me the trouble. Ceratinly key congressional figures were consulted, but too wide a consultation could have, I hate to say it, security concerns.

As far as Google, and I dont claim to be a legal expert, but what is so corageous about resisting subpeonas from the DOJ involving child porn while agreeing with communist governments to censor political content while in pursuit of a buck in new markets. Werent these the same guys who resented the culture of and fees charged by the guys who took them public. Maybe they would prefer to be a state owned venture?

Cheers


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone who thinks our assorted spooks will confine this domestic spying to islamic terrorists need only look at recent history. Anyone involved in civil disobediance or political action on ANY issue will be spyed on. It was called COINTELPRO.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Literide_
> 
> As far as Google, and I dont claim to be a legal expert, but what is so corageous about resisting subpeonas from the DOJ involving child porn while agreeing with communist governments to censor political content while in pursuit of a buck in new markets. Werent these the same guys who resented the culture of and fees charged by the guys who took them public. Maybe they would prefer to be a state owned venture?
> 
> Cheers


I emphatically agree. Google could affect a "heroic" stance in US precisely because there won't be any real harm done to them, with the exception of a possible legal proceeding on which they have enough money to squander at the court. Had they been a Chinese company in mainland China, Larry and Sergey might have been arrested on corruption charges. Brave men.

Vietnam protesters could burn US flags precisely because this is a relatively free country. The flag burners were NOT heroes. They were the mob.

The Gentle Cheetah


----------

