Letters to the Editor
NotOrbitBoy
Published Letters: 499 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@Tigerr
[Read the article: "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good to hear you like to read opposing views, that's required if you seek an open mind. Some of the salonistas here claim to be open minded, followed by a suggestion that "trolls" leave.
I am going to try and boil down my argument against the myth makers (Ret.Mil.Patriot and others) who claim that Cheney is motivated by greed and/or selfish goals.
1. Cheney made millions of dollars working for Haliburton.
2. Cheney gave away millions (stock options), and walked away from earning additional millions, when he accepted the job as VP.
Those actions refute the notion that Cheney wanted to go to war with Iraq in order to satisfy his greed. Those actions refute the notion that Cheney is getting rich off of the war.
Actions speak louder than words.
I can't make it any simpler than that.
As it relates to his actions since assuming the VP job, the Cheney-Haliburton conspiracy is a myth.
If you are reading this Glenn, please take note that this particular myth is promoted by the left, not by Republicans.
-
Full Text of Q&A Session?
[Read the article: Why doesn't the 9/11 Commission know about Mukasey's 9/11 story?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does anyone have a link to the full and complete text of the Q&A session where Mukasey made his remarks?
All I have found are snippets, followed by a journalists' interpetation of what it all means.
Glenn Greenwald: "Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a "safe house in Afghanistan" into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call"
Mukasey: "we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
I don't know what Glenn is implying with his comment "failed to eavesdrop on that call". Failed for what reason? We didn't try? We lacked the technical capability?
It could be, as Glenn suggests, that Mukasey is trying to lay blame on FISA reform.
Or maybe it was a technical / procedural problem, that we have since solved.
Why didn't we know where the call went?
Because we lacked help from the telco's?
I'd love to read the full Q&A exchange.
-
You're Assuming Too Much, Glenn
[Read the article: The DOJ comments on the Mukasey controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"allowing the intelligence community to suck up whatever they want about Americans in some sort of blunderbuss vacuum cleaner effect, without safeguards, is far less likely to lead to the detection of actual threats than is focused, narrow, and managed intelligence-gathering activities. More safeguards and restrictions lead to better surveillance."
There are a bunch of computer scientists and data analysts who would disagree with that conclusion.
Data-mining, drift-netting, using computers to analyze tons of data (more than a human can), can effectively spot patterns, trends, and I suspect, potential terrorists.
To the extent that techniques like that violate our personal liberties I am unclear. It is the extent that I am unclear about. I am sure that my privacy is sacrificied, somewhat.
I don't know how the technology is being deployed. Without an understanding of how the technology is being used, it is harder to determine legality. For the government to discuss how it is being used in public, would lessen its effectiveness. We're in the dark here.
That is not a right wing talking point, it is common sense.
Both sides can use the scare tactic ("a terrorist is going to kill you" or "the government is going to know everything about you". . . the second one scares some people more than others).
So if you want to argue that the constitution is being dismantled, and that we need to make sure that Telcos can be sued, go ahead.
Why not own up to the fact that we are dealing with a double-edged sword. More high-tech surveillance techniques = reduced terrorist risk = less civil liberties.
To focus solely on legal definitions is getting tedious. It reminds of the kind of person who would take pride monitoring the school hallways.
You want civil liberties at all cost? Fine. Prepare to live with less protection.
-
@You All
[Read the article: The DOJ comments on the Mukasey controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Joshua Norton - Yes we are a nation of laws, and no I do not want to live on a short leash. Generally speaking, the less government the better, which usually equates to "no way would I vote for a democrat". Add Cuba to your list.
@Aycharaych - To overcome data mining, you need to forgo electronic communications. If terrorists understand that, and respond accordingly, we will have hampered their ability to communicate and do harm. Is that what you had in mind? . . . even if communication is encrypted, monitoring traffic (to<=>from), frequency, and timing all provide clues. I think the NSA is far more sophisticated than you realize.
@Baldie - If your blog discussed your secret life it would be a lot more popular than your political thoughts.
@Silash - You would be correct, if I had an appendix. Anyway, that argument can get stupid. What's the annual death rate due to car accidents? . . . therefore let's pull out of cars?
@Baldie - again - totallyblase's got you beat with perversions of my "name". He called me loworbitboy. That's funnier.
@Arne - bucky1 already nailed you. I'll pile on next time.
@Armagednoutahere - straw man argument. You assign extreme beliefs to me that I do not hold. We give up freedoms in all sorts of ways. Taxes, vaccinations (for kids in school, else they can't go). This is a matter of balancing freedom vs. protection. I don't want to live in a police state. I don't want to live in a nanny state either.