Letters to the Editor
bystander
Published Letters: 1627
-
Oh, brother
[Read the article: CNN's John Roberts helps out Mike McConnell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If only those prying, nosey lawyers could get to the bottom of the president's secrets. I just hope they have hazmat suits available when they do.
-
re: telecom lawsuits
[Read the article: FISA 101]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Boy Howdy! If I was curious about what the ACLU and EFF lawsuits might reveal, I'm practically drooling to know now. Bush's sheer intransigence on this issue has moved me from idle curiosity to serious interest.
-
?!?!?!?!?!?
[Read the article: FISA 101]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Update: House to Recess, PAA to Sunset
February 14th, 2008
Earlier today I’d posted that it seemed likely that the Protect America Act would be allowed to sunset this weekend, based on a combination of Republican obstructionism on getting an extension and that the PAA expiring will not impact our intelligence community’s ability to monitor suspected terrorists. It now seems certain that the PAA will sunset, as the House is going to go into recess without trying to pass another extension.
Jason Rosenbaum at The Seminal has the details of what’s happened:(continues)
http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/14/update-house-to-recess-paa-to-sunset/
-
inside a politician's head (what a frightening thought)
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've wondered about the calculus of fear, too.
I am not confused. The odds are there will be other terrorist attempts, and sooner or later, one of them will succeed. The solution, I think, is to make the explicit case for surveillance methods which have a high probability of catching the attempt before it is successful.
For me to be convinced of the need for government intrusion into my telecommunications, and subsequent loss of privacy, I need to have it explained in some detail the strengths and weaknesses of an intrusive method. I'd want to see the method defended on the merits. I no longer recall who directed me to Schneier on Security (Mike Shultz?), but, as a result, I no longer believe the NSA's approach to Hoovering up every bit of data they can get their hands on is a good approach to gleaning terrorist plans, or terrorist intent. Further, someone (pow wow?) cited evidence that this Hoover Plan actually put Americans at greater security risk in terms of identity theft, and other issues. IMHO, the case for surveillance has to be made on the merits. It's the only approach that makes any sense.
The adult approach to this issue seems to me to be a genuine risk analysis (cost/benefit) by the numbers, coupled with the narrative of the countries who have had to weave this lunacy into their lives. The case has to be made in terms the average person can understand (comparisons to death by auto accident, stroke and the narratives from, say, Europe) coupled within a clear framework of 'numerical' analysis.
Once that framework is agreed to, the adult approach is to recognize that no preventative method is foolproof. Our politicians tend to skate on selling the public that they can indeed have their cake and eat it too. Then, they hope to be far enough away from the reality of no cake left because it was all eaten, so that no one can attach the but you said to them. We as a populace, as well as our politicians, have to mature. I see little hope for dealing with the world's realities if we don't grow up.
-
cestmoi123
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of Glenn's regular commenters put together a wiki which may answer some, if not all, of your questions.
http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments
h/t karrsic
-
cestmoi123
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]addendum: I sent you to the Telecom Arguments tab, the FISA Debate Detail tab may be a better place for you to look.
http://fisa.wikispot.org/FISA_Debate_Detail
-
wiretapping pre 9/11
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/13/warrantless-wiretapping-in-place-before-911/
Warrantless wiretapping in place before 9/11.
Today, the Washington Post publishes additional details about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping, noting that the National Security Agency approached Qwest “more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” But the Body Politik’s Igor Volsky points out that President Bush has claimed that the program was put in place in response to 9/11:
After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. [5/11/06]
Kagro X adds, “If Qwest’s competitors were already abetting this bloodless(?) coup before 9/11, then the ‘administration’s’ domestic spying not only has little if anything to do with response to terrorism, but it also objectively failed to prevent 9/11.” October 13, 2007 6:46 pm
[embedded lin above takes you here...]
http://tinyurl.com/2teqll
Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm
Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says
By Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A01
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. (continues)
-
Sorry, EJ
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did I misstep? I was trying to offer an answer, and some evidence, to Boca Bill's question, Was this warrant less eavesdropping program in place before 9/11?.
Or, were you making a separate point?
The ACLU and EFF lawsuits are all regarding post 9/11 instances, aren't they? Or, am I too confused to hope get untangled in this century? :-/
-
Arne
[Read the article: Jihadis throw a wild bash over the Protect America Act]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had pegged someone else as likely, but I suspect you're correct. The syntax for the individual I tagged, just wasn't a good fit, although the style of argument was similar.