DISQUS

markeichenlaub · 1 year ago

Spencer,
The guy tries to listen in on their calls and you guys says its breaching civil liberties and then you complain that he's not doing enough to stop the attacks.

You really can't have it both ways.

By the way, are you proposing an invasion of Pakistan?

disconsolate_chimera · 1 year ago

markeichenlaub: It is not necessary to obtain a warrant to listen in on a call from outside the US, an hasn't been since before 911. FISA, passed in the 70's provides for that quite clearly.

Nor is it necessary to obtain a warrant to listen in on a call from inside the US to outside the US, if neither of the parties is a US citizen. So, for example, what Attorney General Mukasey cited -- the case of a call from Afganistan to the US between 911 conspirators -- was, shall we say, a fairy tale. And even if it had happened, the FBI (or whichever alpha-soup) could have listened in and simply obtained their warrant withing 72 hours, something they do all the time and have only been denied a number of times in the single digits per year. I believe there are some kind of provisions for one caller being a citizen and the other not, but I'm not completely sure.

The point is, though, that all this fearmongering of OMG! we can't listen to the terrarists plotting to kill us!!!1!!eleven!! is just that -- fearmongering.

spencer_ackerman · 1 year ago

Mark, is it really necessary to invent a position for me and then say I'm inconsistent or hypocritical for holding this imaginary position? Really now. Also, are you aware how you've conceived my position as existing at its extreme? If I were to do that to you, would you consider that fair or sensible?

mrgreen · 1 year ago

Mark: I fail to see how listening in on every phone call between American citizens in the US is going to help the government get together a plan to fight al Quada in Pakistan. Perhaps the government expects random American citizens to come up with brilliant foreign policy, and then call up their friends and tell them about it, but not pass their ideas on to anyone with power?

ajm8127 · 1 year ago

I don't think that the problem with the first report was that it went unread, or that the warning went unheeded, it was probably something more like Bush couldn't understand it. The title was a bit confusing, after all.You know that saying in Tennessee, "You fool me once, shame on you. You fool me twice, shame on me." Well I guess Texas has a similar saying to the effect of "Fool me once...shame on...shame on you. Fool me; can't get fooled again."