Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2123 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Prunes:
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn is, right now, in this post and thread, articulating THE conservative viewpoint.
What "conservative" viewpoint do you think he is avoiding here?
So funny, isn't it. Here I am, arguing: (a) for restraints on federal power, (b) against data compiling on American citizens by the Government, (c) against a National ID card, and (d) against encroachments by the federal government into areas tradionally (and constitutionally) preserved for the states.
And yet he comes and says I'm petrified of "conservative" views and I want to conceal them.
As I've said many times before - and that comment illustrates it perfectly - they don't even know what the word "conservative" means anymore . . . other than "supporting anything and everything the Leader wants." Literally - that's what it means to them.
-
biggerbox
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The ABC wording is fairly vague. Is it clear that the officials were talking about anything other than the records they have already compiled on Cho himself?<
I'm certainly (sadly) willing to believe that the Feds would have no compunction about abusing their access to a system of drug databases that I find reprehensible and scary, but I don't find ABC a trustworthy source, for reasons Glenn has articulated
At least if one assumes the ABC report is accurate, it is rather clear, I think, that they are not merely talking about whatever files they happened to gather in the course of an investigation, but rather, from their searches of drug prescription data bases:
Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.
That's pretty clear. They are explaining why they think their search is "reasonably complete" and why it's unlikely that they would have missed any prescriptions. And they specifically refer to "the federal database."
-
JAO:
[Read the article: Our benevolent surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also wonder how anyone can assume that the database funded by the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005, to which Glenn links, even includes antidepressants. Did anyone say it does?
I am no expert, and I could be wrong, but I don't think antidepressants are among the drugs listed on the schedules of "controlled substances" covered by that act.
Clearly, the ABC report suggests that such antidepressants would be in the federal data base. I don't know whether they would be or not (and it would not surprise me at all if the ABC report was wrong on several levels), but there is a comment posted by a BoingBoing writer which suggests that you are right
(http://www.boingboing.net/2007/04/17/va_tech_shootings_wi.html):
BB reader Paul Pellerito writes in...
The "federal drugs database" mentioned in your recent post about the VA tech shootings seems to be somewhat flawed; the funding is for states to adopt registries reporting schedules II-V controlled substances (spam-email things like ritalin, valium, xanax, adderall, vicodin, and oxycontin) but the most commonly prescribed antidepressants like prozac, lexapro, zoloft, effexor, etc are schedule six and thus not considered controlled substances.
My day job is working in a pharmacy in Michigan, and we do not report schedule VI to any state or federal database. Chances are if Cho was on an antidepressant the record would not be in a national database. His pharmacy and his prescription insurance company will know, however.
That's odd because substances like valium and xanax are no more serious (and probably less so) than prozac, lexapro and that whole family, but perhaps there is more abuse of the former than the latter.
Either way, there is no good reason for the federal government to be keeping data bases of who is taking how much xanyx and vicodin as opposed to antidepressants.
And while I have you, I assume from your comment that you looked at the statute - do you agree that it would be prohibited and a violation of the statute for federal agents to have accessed the data bases under these circumstances (assuming the facts as we know them)?