Comments on: The Public Supports Bush! http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: History Records Criminal http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-443059 History Records Criminal Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:10:47 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-443059 <strong>Florida Records Criminal And Civil...</strong> Arrest Records Online: You could conduct a full background check on friends and family search birth and adoption records find lost loved ones research your family history and find unlisted home and cell phone numbers.... Florida Records Criminal And Civil…

Arrest Records Online: You could conduct a full background check on friends and family search birth and adoption records find lost loved ones research your family history and find unlisted home and cell phone numbers….

]]> By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » The Danger Of Policy By Polls… http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24189 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » The Danger Of Policy By Polls… Sun, 14 May 2006 15:25:28 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24189 [...] …is that polls change frequently, and give often contradictory information depending on how the questions are phrased. As an example, a lot of the President’s supporters (including me) did a little crowing (and a lot of his political opponents cried foul) when an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed a 2/3 majority approving of the NSA’s phone database. A Newsweek poll released the very next day, however, shows the following: 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism. [...] [...] …is that polls change frequently, and give often contradictory information depending on how the questions are phrased. As an example, a lot of the President’s supporters (including me) did a little crowing (and a lot of his political opponents cried foul) when an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed a 2/3 majority approving of the NSA’s phone database. A Newsweek poll released the very next day, however, shows the following: 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism. [...]

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24145 Mark Sat, 13 May 2006 21:22:13 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24145 Well, peter and Jacques, I guess I'll move from the comments to a post - I've been promising to take a stand on this for a couple of days, so I'm going to work on that post and put it up shortly. You may or may not be surprised to find that we do have some common ground on this issue, as well as our differences... Well, peter and Jacques, I guess I’ll move from the comments to a post – I’ve been promising to take a stand on this for a couple of days, so I’m going to work on that post and put it up shortly. You may or may not be surprised to find that we do have some common ground on this issue, as well as our differences…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24144 peter Sat, 13 May 2006 20:31:45 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24144 I would support it if a case could be made that analysis of telephone records is shown to be an effective tool in finding and combating terrorists. I would want some assurance that it is not a wild goose chase which compiles data for the sake of compiling data. I would want to know that the analysis is strictly limited to fighting terror, and I would want to know what safeguards are in place to prevent its abuse or its disclosure to third parties. I would want to know how secure the data are from hacking. I would insist on some type of judicial supervision. I would want to know how long the data are kept and who destroys them. These are reasonable things to insist on, and debating them is part of the democratic process. It is not tipping our hand to terrorists -- unless you think Al Qaeda is the modern day equivalent of F Troop, they already know that their phones are tapped. If the administration wants to present its case, then fine. However, hiding behind a mantle of "trust me, I know what I'm doing" doesn't pass the smell test. I would support it if a case could be made that analysis of telephone records is shown to be an effective tool in finding and combating terrorists. I would want some assurance that it is not a wild goose chase which compiles data for the sake of compiling data. I would want to know that the analysis is strictly limited to fighting terror, and I would want to know what safeguards are in place to prevent its abuse or its disclosure to third parties. I would want to know how secure the data are from hacking. I would insist on some type of judicial supervision. I would want to know how long the data are kept and who destroys them.

These are reasonable things to insist on, and debating them is part of the democratic process. It is not tipping our hand to terrorists — unless you think Al Qaeda is the modern day equivalent of F Troop, they already know that their phones are tapped. If the administration wants to present its case, then fine. However, hiding behind a mantle of “trust me, I know what I’m doing” doesn’t pass the smell test.

]]> By: Jacques Distler http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24142 Jacques Distler Sat, 13 May 2006 20:27:34 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24142 <blockquote>do you support the analysis of telephone records, containing numbers only and not the content of conversations ...</blockquote> Why not the content, too? Is there <strong>any</strong> justification (legal, moral, or practical) for drawing that distinction? <blockquote>...as a valid anti-terrorism tool?</blockquote> It (the legal term is a "pen register") is a valid tool for combatting all kinds of bad things: terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking, ... You have asked the wrong question. The question isn't whether it's a valid tool. The question is whether it should be wielded with no judicial oversight, or — in fact — without <em>any</em> restraint on how it is used. To do so is <em>an open invitation</em> to abuse. Let me turn the question around. Do you think that the reporters who broke the NSA spying stories have had their phone records examined under this program? If not, why not?

do you support the analysis of telephone records, containing numbers only and not the content of conversations …

Why not the content, too? Is there any justification (legal, moral, or practical) for drawing that distinction?

…as a valid anti-terrorism tool?

It (the legal term is a “pen register”) is a valid tool for combatting all kinds of bad things: terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking, …

You have asked the wrong question.

The question isn’t whether it’s a valid tool. The question is whether it should be wielded with no judicial oversight, or — in fact — without any restraint on how it is used.

To do so is an open invitation to abuse.

Let me turn the question around.

Do you think that the reporters who broke the NSA spying stories have had their phone records examined under this program? If not, why not?

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24137 Mark Sat, 13 May 2006 18:08:24 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24137 Jacques, peter, your argument is the slippery slope - and the slippery slope is a well-known rhetorical device to shut off debate. Instead of engaging in hypotheticals, why not address the issue at hand - do you support the analysis of telephone records, containing numbers only and not the content of conversations, as a valid anti-terrorism tool? I'm pretty sure your answer is no (correct me if I'm wrong), but it appears a 2/3 majority has no problem with that... More on this issue (much more) later today, I hope, including an explanation for why I don't like the slippery slope... Jacques, peter, your argument is the slippery slope – and the slippery slope is a well-known rhetorical device to shut off debate. Instead of engaging in hypotheticals, why not address the issue at hand – do you support the analysis of telephone records, containing numbers only and not the content of conversations, as a valid anti-terrorism tool?

I’m pretty sure your answer is no (correct me if I’m wrong), but it appears a 2/3 majority has no problem with that…

More on this issue (much more) later today, I hope, including an explanation for why I don’t like the slippery slope…

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24136 peter Sat, 13 May 2006 17:37:28 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24136 My question is whether this issue will cause a schism in conservative ranks between those who favor government-off-our-backs libertarianism and those who favor an imperial executive branch unencumbered by constitutional niceties. If you approve of the data-mining program to fight terrorism, would you also approve of the government keeping tabs on where you go at night? It seems to me that the government could combine restaurant credit card receipts, EZ Pass toll records, and Fandango transactions to compile another huge database. Perhaps patterns of suspicious activities would emerge which would identify terrorists. How about mandating a GPS device on your car so the government can track your movements? The government could see who visits mosques and learn a lot more about potential terrorist acts. It would have the added benefit of being able to automatically generate a speeding ticket every time you drive five miles over the limit. These are ridiculous examples, but the point remains: the reason there are checks and balances (and why the Constitution specifically gives Congress certain responsibilities in the conduct of war) is so that there is some degree of oversight over the executive branch. This administration has never acknowledged any limits on its powers: everything is justified provided the administration in its sole judgment declares that it is related to national security. It conceals what it is doing and then prosecutes those who reveal it. The saddest thing is that we have had a flaccid and timid Congress which is unable to do anything except roll over when asked to do so. Future historians will undoubtedly look at the period of Republican control starting in 2001 as one of the lowest points in our history, with the wild goose chases of our day rivalling the McCarthy period or the internment of Japanese in World War II. My question is whether this issue will cause a schism in conservative ranks between those who favor government-off-our-backs libertarianism and those who favor an imperial executive branch unencumbered by constitutional niceties.

If you approve of the data-mining program to fight terrorism, would you also approve of the government keeping tabs on where you go at night? It seems to me that the government could combine restaurant credit card receipts, EZ Pass toll records, and Fandango transactions to compile another huge database. Perhaps patterns of suspicious activities would emerge which would identify terrorists. How about mandating a GPS device on your car so the government can track your movements? The government could see who visits mosques and learn a lot more about potential terrorist acts. It would have the added benefit of being able to automatically generate a speeding ticket every time you drive five miles over the limit.

These are ridiculous examples, but the point remains: the reason there are checks and balances (and why the Constitution specifically gives Congress certain responsibilities in the conduct of war) is so that there is some degree of oversight over the executive branch. This administration has never acknowledged any limits on its powers: everything is justified provided the administration in its sole judgment declares that it is related to national security. It conceals what it is doing and then prosecutes those who reveal it. The saddest thing is that we have had a flaccid and timid Congress which is unable to do anything except roll over when asked to do so. Future historians will undoubtedly look at the period of Republican control starting in 2001 as one of the lowest points in our history, with the wild goose chases of our day rivalling the McCarthy period or the internment of Japanese in World War II.

]]> By: Jacques Distler http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24135 Jacques Distler Sat, 13 May 2006 17:10:34 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24135 Seems to me that a comprehensive database of the nation's phone records is a ideal tool for going after a variety of malefactors, from child pornographers to tax cheats to anti-war protesters to ... Even granting the dubious assumption that its use has, heretofore, been restricted to tracking the phone calls of al Qaeda suspects, is there <strong>any</strong> reason to believe that it will not be put to other uses in the future? Seems to me that a comprehensive database of the nation’s phone records is a ideal tool for going after a variety of malefactors, from child pornographers to tax cheats to anti-war protesters to …

Even granting the dubious assumption that its use has, heretofore, been restricted to tracking the phone calls of al Qaeda suspects, is there any reason to believe that it will not be put to other uses in the future?

]]> By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24133 peter Sat, 13 May 2006 16:37:24 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24133 One would hope so -- although the administration's history of ignoring the FISA courts when it was convenient to do so doesn't suggest much confidence that the administration would be following the law here either -- One would hope so — although the administration’s history of ignoring the FISA courts when it was convenient to do so doesn’t suggest much confidence that the administration would be following the law here either –

]]> By: too many steves http://informedspeculation.com/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/comment-page-1/#comment-24132 too many steves Sat, 13 May 2006 16:07:06 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/05/12/the-public-supports-bush/#comment-24132 True enough. Presumably identified patterns of calls to or from suspect numbers is used as probable cause to solicit a surveillance warrant? True enough. Presumably identified patterns of calls to or from suspect numbers is used as probable cause to solicit a surveillance warrant?

]]>