NSA: Democrats and Aljazeera United
Monday, May 15, 2006 at 11:56AM The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
That's not exactly right. Fox News' Brit Hume gave this report:
Not until page five, however, does the paper report the following: “Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program.”
Pres. Bush said on May 1, 2006:
- "Our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans."
- "The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval."
- "The intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat."
- "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."
- "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."
These are facts. A warrantless search is only used on calls from suspected terrorists from outside the USA into the US; a warrant must be granted to tap calls from US citizens within the US. No one's name, addresses or personal information is being used as a part of this program. What essentially occurs is an evaluation of phone call patterns. Period. The phone calls rather serve as in indication as to phone activity in the United States from foreign sources.
DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM COLLECTS INFORMATION ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MISLED AMERICA ON DOMESTIC SPYING
THE PRESIDENT WAS UNTRUTHFUL...
72 House Democrats Filed A Motion To Stop The Terrorist Surveillance Program
Is Mr. U.S. President listening to your phone call?
What a disgrace and embarrassment the U.S. suffers. Maybe now dear Americans you’ll wake up to see that the true enemy lies within you. The longer you people support failure Bush, the sooner you will see the destruction of your own nation.
AND
"The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We are not 'mining' or 'trolling' through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to Al Qaeda and their known affiliates," claimed the U.S. President, in an effort to deter the nation wide criticism, sparked by recent revelations concerning the National Security Agency's program collecting the phone calls of tens of millions of Americans, the latest of U.S. scandals, which came as a new slap in the face of the Bush administration, now facing all- time low approval ratings.
What reasoning can justify violating a nation’s freedoms and privacy?
The NSA program, aimed at building a database of every call made within the country, reaching to thousands of homes and businesses across the U.S. states, is being justified by President Bush, who claims that the campaign is aimed at protecting the nation, by monitoring phone calls of the American people, most of whom aren't suspected of any crime, arguing that the NSA doesn’t listen or record conversations, and that it’s just using the data to analyze calling patterns to detect terrorist.
What could be more tarnishing to the U.S. image than spying on its own people, while it interferes in other nations, mainly Arab regimes, claiming it’s ensuring that the public is receiving the needed protection of its right from its government.
The U.S. needs to look at its own problems, and busy itself solving them, instead of interfering in other nations’ affairs, brining despair and destruction to our already troubled world.
It’s a shame that U.S. “liberators” deny Americans the right of privacy
Sheikha Sajida
(sidebar: al-Jazeera has the option for reader comments at the bottom of articles. Then readers can rate each other's comments [EXCELLENT, GOOD, STANDARD, BAD and VERY BAD] Under the NSA commentary, readers were supportive but Aljazeera rated "VERY BAD (ban this person)". Democrats comments would earn them an "EXCELLENT [award this person]" rating!
Yes, Democrats and Aljazeera agree!
If you still have a problem with US evaluations of American phone call patterns by terrorists, you'll have a problem with:
- Google (During each visit to Google or any other Internet site, a visitor’s computer reveals a numerical address assigned by the user’s Internet provider. The site can store that information, along with the date and time of the visit. This information can be used by researchers, marketers, or investigators to trace the visitor’s identity.
- Google storing personal information of its users.
- Credit reports
- Internet tracking of sexual predators on-line
The President said, "Every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy." If another terrorist attack occurs on American soil, we know just who to blame. The entire Democratic Party should be impeached.
ADDITIONAL READING:
- Michelle Malkin took a trip to the Natl Cryptologic Museum and provides historical background to the NSA. Please watch.
- NSA Nonsense: (neither 4th Amendment nor FISA is being violated)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/489325
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (75)
I won't even comment on Sheikha Sajida. Talk to the hand.
Regards...
I'm glad someone finally said it. As the commenter in the Al-Jazeera article said, there's no possible way the NSA can monitor each individual person's phone call, e-mail, chat or blog post. There are simply too many people in America for that! The "domestic spying" scandal is a sham. The fact is I've got questions for anybody who's phone number is listed in an Al-Qaeda agent's cell phone memory.
"Why does Osama bin-Laden have your phone number?"
I've been trying to show for months that terrorists are adopting Democratic talking points. They are identical.
Wouldn't you have sympathy and resonate with the rhetoric of Hussein's political opponents, if they'd been free to make rhetoric before he was dethroned? It's fairly natural. I don't know how anybody could openly oppose Bush and his war without being echoed by insurgents.
If Saddam Hussein were a good man NOT lying and NOT eavesdropping and NOT getting oil for blood I wouldn't oppose him to begin with. Why would anyone fighting terrorism and supporting freedom be my enemy?
You may have heard about the NJ Democrat saying on the campaign trail that the Jewish halocaust never happened. He aligns himself ideologically with the Iranian President. How can you not see the thread of brotherhood and where it leads in both of them? They are friends more than they are both enemies of the same foe.
And Amy, the "NJ Democrat" is really an Alabama racist running as a democrat in Alabama --he has no backing from the party. I know you really can't stand democrats and all but do I have to bring up David Duke in order to show you how faulty this line of reasoning is? He ran as a republican and won the nomination despite the party's disapproval. I'm also positive he denies the holocaust.
Aljazeera has been speaking to the Muslim world for years. The all Arab translation of the web site is much more blunt. The similarities between Demcratic rhetoric and al-Qaeda, Aljazeear and so on is uncanny. I have documented many times in this blog such quotes, like Osama blasting the Patriot Act by name, Iran President reciting ver batum Democratic talking points about Iraq, and al-Zarqawi doing the same. Osama sounds just like the Dems on 9/11, the 2000 Presidential elections, "big oil" and so on. Here's a link:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/4/28/whos-saying-what-about-bush.html
1. How do you KNOW exactly what the NSA is doing or not doing and If you believe there IS oversight of NSA activities, could you please list for me WHO that is, because leaders of the House and Senate claim ignorance?
2. Are you aware of surveilance laws and US Citizens?
>>>"U) In the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333, Congress and the Executive have codified this balancing. Both documents reflect a deference to U.S. persons' rights by closely regulating the conduct of electronic surveillance that either targets U.S. persons or may result in the acquisition of information to, from, or about U.S. persons. For example, in order to conduct electronic surveillance against a U.S. person located within the United States, FISA requires the intelligence agency to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If the United States person is abroad, the Executive Order requires that the Attorney General approve such surveillance. In both instances, generally speaking there must be probable cause 5 that the target is an agent of a foreign power. 6 In addition, the information sought by the surveillance must be foreign intelligence that cannot be obtained by other less intrusive collection techniques. Furthermore, even if a U.S. person is not the target, all foreign intelligence electronic surveillance must be conducted in a manner that minimizes the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information about unconsenting U.S. persons.7 Information about a U.S. person who is not an approved target, if lawfully acquired incidental to the authorized collection, may be retained and disseminated if it amounts to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence; otherwise, it may not be retained or disseminated."
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/standards.html
And allow me a third question to all the other posters...
Exactly how is this activity supposed to stop terrorists? The 9-11 hijackers were being tracked ANYWAY. That's how you had almost instantly names and photographs of all the hijackers before the towers collapsed.
--Cobra
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, other than there are some widely agreed upon failings of the Bush administration. I know it's hard to hear, but he does have a 29% approval rating. As a liberal, I'm baffled by the misconception that right-wingers have that we somehow love Islam. Personally, I find radical muslims just as repugnant as radical Christians and I consider both a threat to our democracy.
Calling Aljazeera and the people that post on its web site terrorists is really not an accurate characterization --at most, they're people you disagree with-- like me. I'm not terrorist, which is why I really dislike having my phone numbers tracked in a database.
I also have to disagree with your analogy to IP addresses. Google gets my IP address because I visit their site, much like you would have my phone number on your caller ID if I called you. If I don't want google to have my IP address all I have to do is not visit google. If I don't want the government to have the list of people I called I guess we'll have to elect someone who values privacy and understands the fourth amendment. I don't really see this as a partisan issue either, if Clinton did it, I'd be just as vitriolic. Instead, I see it as more of a democratic vs. authoritarian issue, and it's pretty clear where you and your posters stand. Scarily one said "I want America safe and if that's what it takes then they need to do it." *shudder* Hopefully, with some thought, you'll fall more on the side of privacy and freedom.
I'm really hoping you do.
Did you not think it funny at all that any reader comment defending the US position to intercept terrorist communication into the US was rated: "VERY BAD" [ban this person]?? That's hilarious!
I wrote this:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/4/28/whos-saying-what-about-bush.html
*******************************
Guess who made these comments on:
Halliburton and Big Oil:
Anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is … you."
"Bush’s hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business."
9/11:
"Even after September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes."
"It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. "
Iraq:
"Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
"This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq’s oil and other outrages."
"The policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results."
"More dangerous and bitter for America is that recently Bush was forced to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan."
"So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future."
"How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision."
Patriot Act, 2000 Florida election9/11:
"He (Bush Sr.) took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn’t forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region’s presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty."
Vote for John Kerry 2004:
"And know that: ‘It is better to return to the truth than persist in error.’ And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House. "
*************************
The point being, scohen, you may not think the Democrats have a negative agenda, but certainly you can agree that Osaka Bin Laden does. And look at what he's saying.
While I don't agree with everything the President does, I'm not agreeing to any "widely agreed upon failings of the Bush administration." I think he's weak on immigration and flunked with Harriet Miers, but he has not with the terrorist surveillance program. He's right on the money. No laws or Constitutional rights are being broken.
29% is low, but this is a President who has dealt with most major issues from border security, ILLEGAL immigration, abortion, terrorism, social security, the economy, foreign affairs.... its only normal that every citizen would have some disagreement with one or more of policies. Hence, the 29%.
And even if that were not true, who cares? He's still President and the surveillance program is totally legal, whether Aljazeera and Democrats like it or not. Most war time Presidents end their terms with very low approval ratings. This is nothing new.
I didn't call Aljazeera a terrorist network, nor posters/readers terrorists. They do however sympathize with terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and the like. I have many citations from Aljazeera on this blog that prove this.
Your phone number is NOT being tracked, my friend. The Democratic fear mongering has gotten to you. This is about tracking PATTERNS. It's rather like looking at a satellite view of the US and tracking weather patterns. See that hurricane coming and do something to prevent its destruction. It's that simple.
Besides, what are you talking about on the phone that you don't' want to be tracked, hum??
I'm right about Google. Sure, don't visit Google, but this was a secret practice Google partook/partakes in since BEFORE they were outed back in Jan. '06. Until then, people had no idea that Google was storing user info. Check out this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001799.html
The government doesn't have a "list of people I called". They have a list of all the people al-Qaeda called. And as for the 4th Amendment, you might want to read this article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZjMDllOTRlYmFlMmQ3ZGEzNDJjNzExYjZiNGMxZWM=
scohen, the 4th Amendment is:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Calls from US citizens require a warrant. Period. The President/government uses "warrantless wiretaps" on foreign calls INTO the US.
The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.
The right to privacy of the individual should be protected against fraud, duress or injury. The surveillance is being conducted against the enemy; some Americans are being investigated or watched because of their ties to, communication with or support of TERRORIST GROUPS. That is NOT a protected right to privacy. The 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee a RIGHT TO PRIVACY, but a right against unreasonable search and seizure. It is not unreasonable to survey a group or individual that is sympathetic to or talking with our ENEMY in a time of war.
Unless one supposes communication with the enemy during a time of war to be a protected "right", you cannot win this argument. It isn't. Nor is it a right to privacy.
Um, IF Clinton did it? He did. He used the same type of surveillance program.
Exactly what rights are being violated by monitoring terrorist contact to the US? What American civilian has had his right to privacy violated? Oddly enough, the only Americans I've heard claim their rights were violated by the President's program are the 3 terrorists/naturalized citizens who plotted with al-Qaeda to assassinate the President and US military. I wrote about that here:
***************************
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/2/21/nabbing-terrorists-and-opening-the-ports.html
Three Ohio men trained by al-Qaida with links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were indicted today on terrorism charges of planning attacks overseas to try to kill U.S. and coalition soldiers in Iraq and other countries, as well as for planning to assassinate Pres. Bush. The three men all lived in Toledo within the last year. The recruitment of the men took place overseas and not in the U.S. All three also were charged with conspiring to give materials and support for carrying out the killing of U.S. nationals.
The 3 men are: Mohammad Zaki Amawi, a citizen of Jordan and the U.S. Marwan Othman El-Hindi, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan; Wassim I. Mazloum, who came to the U.S. from Lebanon in 2000.
US officials said the detection of these treasonists are credited to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the President’s Surveillance program. This coupled with the successful thwarting of terrorist attacks in 2002 planned on Los Angeles, CA and other American cities buttresses not only the success of, but the need for such surveillance programs.
*************************
I'm really tired of the bipolar Democrat/Republican political system here. I'm not a democrat and I'm certainly not a Republican. What I am is a social liberal and fiscal conservative living in a wonderfully progressive and beautiful area that just wants the government to not be so repressive. I don't automatically agree with what a Democrat says, and if someone that I loathe says something that I agree with, it doesn't mean that I believe what they do. To believe differently is childish. The Pope might speak out against the death penalty, but I certainly don't agree with many of his other beliefs.
You really have no idea what you're talking about with respect to Google. Every time you visit a web site that site has access to your IP address. It HAS to in order to reply to your query. This is common knowledge, and it's too bad that you don't defer to someone (me) that has much more knowledge in this area than you do. Do you work in the computer industry? Do you develop software? Know what TCP/IP is? Do you know any googlers? Ever eat in the cafeteria? My answers are yes,yes,yes,yes, and yes --on tuesday. Google tracks search history, there's nothing wrong with that, but you were talking about IP addresses. You specifically said:
"If you still have a problem with US evaluations of American phone call patterns by terrorists, you’ll have a problem with: Google (During each visit to Google or any other Internet site, a visitor’s computer reveals a numerical address assigned by the user’s Internet provider. The site can store that information, along with the date and time of the visit. This information can be used by researchers, marketers, or investigators to trace the visitor’s identity."
Those numerical address(es) you talked about are IP addresses, and they're not used to tie your search results to a computer. If you want to learn more about how this is actually done, I can explain it to you, but it's not very pertinent now, and it's fairly technical. Needless to say, IP addresses aren't very useful for identifying a person on the Internet. They change often, are easily faked, and are often shared by thousands of people. Even in my own home, my IP address is shared by anyone that's on my network, which can be any number of computers (usually around 6). Imagine the chaos that would ensue if my search results were mixed with my girlfriend's.
The article that I saw was telling me how Google refused to hand over search results to the government (good for them), not that they don't track search data any more. It's a minor point, but I think it's illustrative of how you deal with things. I've read several of your points on radar's blog where you claim authority on subjects that you know very little about. Remember your comment regarding Judaism and creationism? Remember how far off you were on that one?
"Besides, what are you talking about on the phone that you don't' want to be tracked, hum??"
Well, that would be none of your business. I don't want ANY of my calls tracked, because I value my privacy. I'm an American, and I believe if the government is to monitor my call history, they need probable cause to do so. Your disagreement here is the authoritarian in you talking. I want to be free to call whom I want without government snooping. You seem content with a data collection program peering over your shoulder. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out which position is more in line with the bill of rights.
You should read a book on data mining techniques and see for yourself how much information can be gleaned from phone call records. Back in the old days, it used to take some level of suspicion to see these records (commonly called LUDs), but now the NSA just asks for it and the phone companies roll over.
To the best of my knowledge, Clinton never used warrantless anything. He used FISA, which before this whole issue got my dander up, but now seems so much more reasonable than either the warrantless wiretap program, or the logging of every call made in the US. If I'm mistaken in this, then Clinton was wrong too and I deplore those actions. See? It's not a partisan issue.
As I was proof reading my comment, I saw this quote from you:
"If you still have a problem with US evaluations of American phone call patterns by terrorists..."
This is incorrect, the analysis of phone call patterns were for a large percentage of American citizens (in the hundreds of millions IIRC). That's the whole problem here. We can't possibly have that many suspected terrorists. Also, the standard right wing line here (at least what I've been reading) is twofold:
1. We're only monitoring terrorists.
2. The program can't have oversight because it must remain secret in order to be effective.
So I ask, how do you know that they're just monitoring terrorists, and why are FISA warrants such a huge hurdle when they can be obtained after the fact?
I'd like to refute a couple more of your points, but it's a little late, and I've written enough. I'll leave off with your assertion that wartime presidents have low poll numbers when they leave office:
Roosevelt: 66%
Truman (after the war) 54%
Truman (after his last term, not after the war) 24%
Eisenhower (korea, 1955) 75%
Kennedy (vietnam) 58%
Johnson (vietnam) 46%
Nixon (vietnam) 50%
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-26-approval-ratings_x.htm
Only Truman is in Bush territory, while some of the numbers are low, it doesn't really indicate a convincing trend one way or the other.
P.S. You really should allow some formatting options here, the site looks a little odd because the links go past the content area. I'd allow <a> <blockquote> and <strong> tags at the least.
The Presidential poll you cited gives the "poll numbers" for presidents the YEAR BEFORE AN ELECTION YEAR in the 1st term, not almost halfway through the second term. That is a huge difference. President Bush's numbers were high until Katrina. Lame duck Presidents/2nd term Presidents have very low ratings. Hell, it got Abraham Lincoln assassinated.
"Truman (after his last term, not after the war) 24%"... see what I mean?
And Kennedy at 58%... the Vietnam war wasn't what it was by the end of the 60's (to the public), the press protected him (rather like with Clinton only better, that you cannot deny) and he didn't exactly enter a second term.
Pres. Bush is a 2nd term Pres. "Numbers" into the 2nd term of war presidents are abysmal.
2) It's not about the number of terrorists (equating the number of phone calls patterned), it's about noting over the sea of calls which way the waves are breaking. You may think 10 million Americans are alot, but how many Americans use the phone? Maybe 200,000,000 or pretty close to it? 10,000,000 doesn't look quite so outrageous, particularly when you're talking about tracking TERRORISTS.
The biggest fax paux is that President Bush et al are listening into to American phone conversations, overhearing phone sex calls, tapping into granny's lines to hear what she keeps in her underwear drawer, etc., etc., etc. You say you are neither Dem or Republican, but you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the liberal explanation of this program (which frankly no one should be discussing in this great of detail... we know Osama reads Time and watches CNN, by his own admission)
Wow, you religiously defend Google, but not the terrorist surveillence program. My time is limited so I might delve into this later, but Google caused an uproar for the reasons cited in the article I gave. No one knew the detail kept on its users until they wouldn't cooperate when the government wanted to track porn users.
Have no fear, your calls are not being tracked. Keeping that in mind, it seems reckless to be willing to give terrorists a leg up at the expense of your non-existence rights that are "being violated."
"So I ask, how do you know that they're just monitoring terrorists, and why are FISA warrants such a huge hurdle when they can be obtained after the fact?"
Briefly, because every intelligible and expert I have heard talk about this, from CIA to NSA officials and top gov. officials, have painstakingly explained this. Dems are demagoguing. I have written probably 4 essays about the NSA program to date. I discuss it in detail. The warrants are bypassed for foreigners because the US government has an obligation to use a warrant on US citizens' calls, and the US doesn't protect foreign calls entering the US. To wait for a warrant could mean losing a lead. Its' that simple.
Gotta run.
>>>"Have no fear, your calls are not being tracked."
How do you know this? If the members of Congress,(including REPUBLICANS like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snow) who came out yesterday and said that they were only "partially briefed" on these programs, and were told they could NOT even discuss the programs with their OWN STAFF, as little as they knew of it...
How on EARTH can you make ANY statement of fact about what the NSA is doing? You can't POSSIBLY have full knowlege, because if you did, revealing the parameters of the program would be a violation.
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
--Cobra
If you don't want to believe the poll numbers, that's fine they're the best I could find by googling for a couple of minnutes. To refute my argument you need to post better poll numbers. That you have not done so just indicates that you concede this issue. If you want to argue this point, don't just sit there and fold your arms and say "It is so" --point me to some actual numbers.
It's really too bad that you buy into the democrat/republican dichotomy as it shows an elementary understanding of politics (that's probably why you think liberals love Islam). If you want to see conservative opposition why don't you look at some of the libertarian reactions to this plan? Are they liberals? Hardly. As I keep telling you, this is a liberty vs. authoritarian issue. The fact that the libertarians are so against this should tell you something about how this chips away at individual liberty.
I'm also surprised that in the text of one comment reply, you assure me that I'm not being tracked and admit that ten MILLION americans are being tracked. How can you possibly know this? I'm not going to accept your patronizing pat on the head assurance that I'm not being tracked, you simply do not know. This plan is something I would expect of Soviet Russia or China, not America.
My whole point with Google (which you seem to have completely missed) is that an IP address is not the same as a phone number and Google is not the same as the government --Google can't throw me in jail for being a terrorist. If I don't want google to collect information about me, I can opt out of their search history results or not visit their site. How can I opt out of the government's call tracking program? My point here was not to defend Google (though search history is a pretty nice feature) but to prove that your analogy of equating one company keeping track of IP addresses and the government keeping track of call logs is inherently flawed. A secondary point that I was trying to make is that you claim to speak with authority on this issue, but don't understand the technical underpinings that make your points rather silly. Sort of how you blindly defend the call tracking program.
I'm glad you're irritated, that must mean that I'm making you question some of your ideas. I can't say your posts irritate me, they just make me a little sad.
No, it's really not that simple they don't have to wait. Warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after surveillance has started. Why don't you understand this?
That is a good point, Cobra, that I cannot speak with full certainty about the NSA. I do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Neither can you. I have spent hours listening to interviews, sessions of Congress and the Senate and reading periodicals about this subject and my conclusion is not that Bush is doing something illegal, to the contrary, but that Dems are demagoguing at best.
The difference between us is that I trust Bush. You don't. I don't on every issue; his immigration proposal sucks in my opinion and doesn't pass the common sense and historicaly success test. I'm not interested in standing by a man, President, clergy or anyone else who is wrong. That's why I take the positions I do.
Can Dems say the same? When is the last time you've seen a Dem break ranks? This issue is a no-brainer. It's been too fully explained (to our enemies) as it is.
I believe you're mistaken about warrants, scohen. I'm not fully briefed on all the facts about the 72 hour thing, but you're welcomed to post some facts on it. I did watch a decent interview with Michael Hayden on the subject in which he explained that warrants must be issued in order to wiretap US citizens but that US law does not necessitate a warrant for incoming foreign calls.
More later.....
I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism.
Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures.
In Congress and in much of the media, the immediate reaction to news that the National Security Agency was intercepting international terrorist communications was not to say, "Good work -- and how can we help?" Rather, it was to scream about a "domestic spying" scandal ...
And the reaction has been much the same to USA Today's story last week that the NSA "has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans" ...
Similarly, Newsweek's cover this week blares "Spying On Your Calls" -- no question mark used -- and implies that the Bush White House could be tapping everyone's telephones.
In fact, what seems to be happening, though the details are secret, is that most long-distance phone companies have given the NSA their billing records identifying what numbers are calling what other numbers, when and for how long. Names are not included. And the NSA -- not for the heck of it but to protect us from attack -- is using the records to track terrorist networks and calling patterns. If a known terrorist in Pakistan calls a number in Los Angeles, I want the government to know what numbers that person calls. Don't you? ...
continued...
http://www.gop.com/media/PDFs/51806icymi.pdf
Sixty-Six Percent Of Americans Would Not Be Bothered If NSA Collected Personal Call Records. "A slightly larger majority - 66 percent - said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found." (Richard Morin, "Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts," The Washington Post, 5/12/05)
*
Most Americans Approve Of President Bush's Handling Of Privacy Matters. "Half - 51 percent - approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters." (Richard Morin, "Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts," The Washington Post, 5/12/05)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN): "I think it's very clear - and the president said it earlier today - our terrorist surveillance program today is legal. It's lawful. It's directed at Al Qaeda." (Fox News' "Your World," 5/11/06)
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "Some people seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that the President needs good intelligence data at his disposal to root out al Qaeda cells. The President has made it clear that the NSA is acting within the law and is doing what needs to be done to protect America from future attacks." (Sen. Mitch McConnell, Press Release, 5/11/06)
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS): "The bipartisan members of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Terrorist Surveillance Program have been fully informed of all aspects of the NSA's activities. We have received several briefings and conducted three hearings with more to follow." (Sen. Roberts, "Chairman Roberts Issues Statement On The Terrorist Surveillance Program," Press Release, 5/11/06)
*
Sen. Roberts: "I remain convinced that the Program authorized by the President is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks." (Sen. Roberts, "Chairman Roberts Issues Statement On The Terrorist Surveillance Program," Press Release, 5/11/06)
*
Sen. Roberts: "Thank goodness we had this program... If we did not have the program, America would be 'less safe." (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 5/11/06)
Chairman Of The House Intelligence Committee Peter Hoekstra (R-MI): "[The American people] understand that this is the first war in the information age, and the most effective tool in this war are the x's and o's, the ones and zeros in cyberspace, and this is an area where America can win, where we can take the battle to Al Qaeda each and every day. They expect us to legally exploit cyberspace to fight Al Qaeda and beat them." (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 5/12/06)
*
Chairman Hoekstra: "We are using every legal means, every creative way to fight this war in the information age. We did a public hearing a week and a half ago that showed how Al Qaeda is using the Internet. How they are using the web to try to win the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East. We are using the same kind of tactics in cyberspace to get the information, to target Al Qaeda. We're not targeting the American people, we are targeting Al Qaeda. And we want this war to be fought outside of the homeland. And we're doing everything that we can to protect the homeland and not allow them to establish a foothold in this country again." (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 5/12/06)
*
Chairman Hoekstra: "When you take a look at court rulings, Supreme Court rulings, the information that NSA has access to, clearly it is legal for the government to have that access, and the only time that that data is accessed is when we have targeted a specific Al Qaeda number or an affiliate. So the only time we go into that data is when we have reasonable, probable cause that it is Al Qaeda. We don't, like I said, we don't have the resources or the interest in targeting the American people. This is a specific tool that was developed to go after Al Qaeda." (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 5/12/06)
*
Chairman Hoekstra: "Absolutely. I mean this program was first briefed in 2001 to the Republican-Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives. They bought into the program because they knew that it was necessary to keep America safe. They knew that it was legal, and they knew that it was an extraordinary weapon to discover Al Qaeda, and they recognized that it made a difference." (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 5/12/06)
*
Chairman Hoekstra: FOX NEWS' DAVID ASMAN: "Now any indication that we have, again you don't want to give out information that would reveal anything to the terrorists, but that some terrorist was caught because of this program or that some terrorist incident was prevented?" CHAIRMAN HOEKSTRA: "I think that's one of the things again that you get out of the briefings that we've had. You know that you want to do everything to protect American civil liberties. You only want to use those tools that are effective. Again because we have limited resources. Time and time again this program has proven to be effective in identifying threats and identifying individuals that we should know about." (Fox News' "Your World With Neil Cavuto," 5/12/06)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): "This again was another tool being used by the intelligence community to do everything necessary to protect Americans. ... No information or phone calls were ever utilized except in cases where known al-Qaeda agents were on one end of the phone." (Rebecca Carr And Tara Copp, "Call Tracking Causes Furor," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/12/06)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "We are in a war with terrorism. There are people out there who want to kill us, and I don't think this action is nearly as troublesome as is being made out here. ... Because they are not tapping our phones and getting our conversations. They are merely maintaining these numbers from which they have some system, apparently, to utilize those to match up with international phone calls connected to al Qaeda." (Edward Epstein And Zachary Coile, "U.S. Phone-Call Database Ignites Privacy Uproar," The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/12/06)
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "I think we ought to lower our language and our rhetoric a little bit and be conscious of what is at stake - and what is at stake is the safety and security of the American people." (Rebecca Carr And Tara Copp, "Call Tracking Causes Furor," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 5/12/06)
*
Sen. Cornyn: "[T]he NSA in this case has briefed the gang of eight - the bipartisan leadership of the intelligence oversight committees in the House and Senate." (CNN's "Situation Room," 5/11/06)
*
Sen. Cornyn: "The fact is the Constitution confers authority on the President of the United States." (CNN's "Situation Room," 5/11/06)
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL): ''There has been great harm done to the security of our country by the continuing leaks of essential elements of the programs that protect and keep terrorists from hurting Americans. ... America is at war with terrorists who want to harm our citizens, and we must do all we can consistent with our Constitution and our values to protect America.'' (Ron Hutcheson And James Kuhnhenn, "U.S. Phone Spying Stirs Firestorm," The Miami Herald, 5/12/06)
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ): "[A]s the President said, it hurts when people leak information about how we're trying to collect intelligence against the enemy. Why give the enemy our game plan? In the war against the terrorists, intelligence is our biggest asset." (Fox News' "Your World," 5/11/06)
*
Sen. Kyl: "This is nuts. ... We are in a war, and we've got to collect intelligence on the enemy, and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you are going to do it.'' (Edward Epstein And Zachary Coile, "U.S. Phone-Call Database Ignites Privacy Uproar," The San Francisco Chronicle, 5/12/06)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO): "I'm a member of the subcommittee of the Intelligence Committee that's been fairly briefed on this program and other programs. And the first point I would make is every time we have a leak of classified information like this, it makes us significantly less safe." (PBS' "Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 5/11/06)
Investor's Business Daily: "This story is much ado about nothing... A president, as commander in chief in wartime, has the inherent authority and responsibility to gather 'battlefield' information on an enemy who has killed thousands and threatens to do so again." (Editorial, "A Phone(y) Issue," Investor's Business Daily, 5/12/06)
The Wall Street Journal: "Nobody has suggested one single call has been listened to as part of the program reported this week by USA Today. Rather, the datamining appears to keep track, after the fact, of most calls placed to and from a great many phone numbers in the U.S. In other words, the scary government database contains the same information you see on your monthly phone bill -- slightly less, in fact, since names aren't attached to numbers and never will be unless government computers detect activity suspicious enough to warrant some being singled out of billions of others." (Editorial, "The Datamining Scare," The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/06)
*
The Wall Street Journal: "And what might the government do with these records? Well, it might use them to break up a suspected terror plot -- presumably after requesting a surveillance warrant for any future domestic calls it actually wants to listen to (nobody has suggested otherwise). As important, the database will enable us to respond much more effectively to the next terrorist attack. Once the ringleader or leaders are identified, this information will make it much easier to track down any remaining comrades and prevent them from committing future crimes." (Editorial, "The Datamining Scare," The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/06)
*
The Wall Street Journal: "In short, the database is utterly non-invasive in itself and merely provides information for law enforcement to use, with warrants whenever necessary. By using this technology to find terrorists in haystacks before they can strike, the government can afford not to resort to the much more heavy-handed inspection and inconvenience practiced by necessity in, say, Israel. Liberals who object to datamining should wait until they see the 'massive intrusion on personal privacy' that Americans will demand if the U.S. homeland gets hit again." (Editorial, "The Datamining Scare," The Wall Street Journal, 5/13/06)
Brooking's Institute Fellow Former Deputy Homeland Security Adviser Richard A. Falkenrath: "The potential value of such anonymized domestic telephone records is best understood through a hypothetical example. Suppose a telephone associated with Mohamed Atta had called a domestic telephone number A. And then suppose that A had called domestic telephone number B. And then suppose that B had called C. And then suppose that domestic telephone number C had called a telephone number associated with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The most effective way to recognize such patterns is the computerized analysis of billions of phone records. The large-scale analysis of anonymized data can pinpoint individuals -- at home or abroad -- who warrant more intrusive investigative or intelligence techniques, subject to all safeguards normally associated with those techniques." (Richard Falkenrath, Op-Ed, "The Right Call On Phone Records," The Washington Post, 5/13/06)
*
Falkenrath: "Clearly, there is a compelling national interest in understanding and penetrating such terrorist networks. If the people associated with domestic telephone numbers A, B and C are inside the United States and had facilitated the Sept. 11 attacks, perhaps they are facilitating a terrorist plot now. The American people rightly expect their government to detect and prevent such plots." (Richard Falkenrath, Op-Ed, "The Right Call On Phone Records," The Washington Post, 5/13/06)
*
Falkenrath: "Some legislators and observers have questioned the legality of the alleged NSA domestic telephone records collection program. If the facts of the program are as reported in USA Today, there is every reason to believe that the program is perfectly legal." (Richard Falkenrath, Op-Ed, "The Right Call On Phone Records," The Washington Post, 5/13/06)
NBC's "Nightly News" Notes What Information Intelligence Analysts Can Gain From NSA Program. NBC's Brian Williams: "Pete, what does the government do as a practical matter with all these tens of millions of records?" NBC's Pete Williams: "[T]he experts we've talked to say intelligence analysts are looking to do two main things. The first is called link analysis. They identify a suspected terrorists and see who that person is calling. That leads to more phone numbers, so they check to see what numbers those phones are calling, and that leads to a broadening web of calls and then they look for patterns among those strands. And they say these traces can't be done unless the government has access to a huge database to follow the calls wherever they lead. The second use is looking for things like a sudden spike , say, in calls to Pakistan or a very quick sequence of short calls from overseas to a number in the US. They say those could all be warning signs." (NBC's "Nightly News," 5/12/06)
Fox News' Brit Hume: "We know why these records are being gathered. We know that it's because if you intercept an al Qaeda or capture an al Qaeda cell phone or you know what an al Qaeda connected terrorist's telephone that they're using is, you run that number against this massive database to see who might be telephoned in the United States and who, in turn, or what, in turn, calls were made from that number. I don't know of a better way to do that." (FOX's "Fox News Sunday," 5/14/06)
*
Hume: "I must say to you ... if the NSA wants to scan my telephone calls to see if anybody called me from al Qaeda, that's perfectly all right with me and I suspect it would be with almost every American. This is a -- probably a very good idea." (FOX's "Fox News Sunday," 5/14/06)
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6315
You don't have to post all of those right winged quotes. I know EXACTLY what they would be if a DEMOCRAT was President, which would be the opposite. The key line in all of this your own:
>>>"The difference between us is that I trust Bush. You don't."
I don't trust ANYBODY in office. What I do trust is the what the Bill of Rights says. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights says:
>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's what I PUT MY TRUST in, because this document protects YOU and I. Men are flawed, imperfect beings.
--Cobra
Exactly my sentiments.
Furthermore Amy, it's irrelevant what polls say about these matters; we have a constitution. If 66% of people think freedom of speech should be supressed, what does that mean? It means nothing at all unless we pass a constitutional amendment repealing the first. As long as we have the fourth amendment, polls are irrelevant. If you're so sure about the constitutionality of this program, let's let the courts decide.
Do you honestly thing getting our hair mussed is worth the infringement on our freedoms? Arent our rights what make being an American great? Are you so scared of a couple of weakling terrorists that you'll just run and hide behind an authoritarian state, just to keep you safe?
It sounds like you are. I'm not, I'm an American, and I'd gladly lay down my life if I knew that it would guarantee future generations the freedoms I once enjoyed. This isn't about Bush. This isn't about hatred. This is about protecting the values that make this country great. It's about playing by our rules, even if that gives the bad guys an advantage. That's why it's so hard to be a good guy.
By the way, my eyes glaze over after about the fifth right wing republican quote, so next time, just include four or less, ok? I understand that republicans think everything is going swimmingly, but some of us live in the real world and have real questions that require real answers. I'm more interested in seeing you respond to my queries than to see what Saxby Chambliss (great senator name, btw) has to say.
P.S. Thanks for not bringing up google again, hopefully now you understand the difference between their search results program and the phone monitoring program --and you didn't make me explain TCP/IP and cookies.
P.P.S. What the heck is a Catholic doing with an Answers in Genesis link on their site? The church has long held that theistic evolution is the way to go. You're not one of those smorgasboard Catholics, are you?
Anyway, here it is...
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act defines the Justice Department's authority to conduct physical and electronic surveillance for "foreign intelligence information". FISA provides two mechanisms to perform searches. First, FISA authorizes the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) up to 72 hours after the beginning of the eavesdropping."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Legality_of_warrantless_surveillance
You can also read the text of FISA, if you really want to be authoratative, but I had to give it to my lawyer friend in order to make most of it out.
Interesting note: The 72 hour applies only to US citizens, otherwise it's ONE YEAR. Don't take my word for it though, read the link.
The 4th Amendment is NOT being infringed upon! Unlawful searches and seizures is not the same by any means as intercepting suspected terrorist calls. US CITIZENS ARE NOT HAVING THEIR CALLS LISTENED TO. This is a total fabrication. Explain how NOT listening to US calls is a violation. If it were, if Pres. Bush and the government are violating the Constitution or breaking the law,they should be held accountable, period. Unfortunately for you guys, this is not the case.
I didn't bring up Google again because you don't seem to get my point, not because you, great teacher, set me straight.
The most important part of the quote from the Wikipedia link is this:
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act defines the Justice Department's authority to conduct physical and electronic surveillance for "FOREIGN intelligence information".
[html does not work in Squarespace, although I've been trying for months to persuade them... they need a better comment section]
Did you catch that? FOREIGN intelligence information.
Forgive me, Cobra, I doubt your sincere fondness for the Constitution.
cohen, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Catholics and evolution. I have sitting in front of me a book by Pope Benedict called 'IN THE BEGINNING...a Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall' and the Pope denoucnes evolution and modern relativeism that has crept into the Church. I don't deny that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution, but 1) they're wrong and 2) it does not support the beliefs of Christ laid out in the Gospels. I think we've had this discussion at length in other threads....
Pius XII wrote in his encyclical identifying the tie between rationalism, modernism and communism, the form of human government founded on atheistic evolution:
“Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.”
An encyclical is a reiteration based on necessity of Catholic teaching and belief. This is why Pope John Paul II, who believed in theistic evolution, never wrote an encyclical supporting theistic evolution. He COULDN'T. It is not supported by the Church, even if it is supported by many Catholics.
And, a Godly belief in evolution requires a huge disconnect from Holy Scripture and the Jewish religion. The earliest recorded history comes from the Israelites. The Jewish calendar says it is the year AM 5766. These are the people closest to creation, or certainly to man's recorded history. What most if not all theistic evolutionists do is reject Jewish and Scriptural accounts of Genesis saying, "They were primitive", "Error in translation", "We know more now than they did". Oh, really? Without the cloudiness of sin and confusion that we have today, they knew less then? They may not have been as technologically advanced, perhaps, but how would one explain the Tower of Babel or the Egyptian pyramids if man was so inferior and limited?
Theistic evolutionists butcher the Scriptures and Judaism to sustain their beliefs. I know, I have been discussing this issue with peers and clergy a like. They must dispute things like a literal Adam, literal creation, inspiration of the Scripture, genealogies, history and miracles. I asked my priest last week, who is a theistic evolutionist, when he said, "There is never be a conflict between science and Christianity": "Clearly there is, and why do you insist as a Christian clergy on giving the benefit to the doubt to theoretic science rather than the teachings of the Church?" The Church's teachings are very clear on Scripture:
102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64
You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.66
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God".67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
Theistic evolutionists, such as my priest, deny the inspiration of Scripture EXCEPT for in circumstances that they wish (like John 6, which is where the Church derives her doctrine of the Holy Eucharist being literal with the real presence of Jesus in the wine and bread). Again, this is hypocritical and a big problem. WHAT OTHER RELIGIONS IN THE WORLD DISHONOR THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF SCIENCE WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT?
Evolution is different than gravity or electricity in implication because it involves issues of life, origins of humanity, the human soul, the human being and God. True science can never contradict truth, yet there is undoubtedly a movement (the majority of scientists combined are secularists, atheists or agnostics, I understand)
The Catechism says this about Creation:
*********************************
I. CATECHESIS ON CREATION
282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."121
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122 even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123
287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator,124 God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".125
288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love.126 And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.127
289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the "beginning": creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
*************************************
and
*************************************
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely "out of nothing":145
297 Scripture bears witness to faith in creation "out of nothing" as a truth full of promise and hope.
301 With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:
For you love all things that exist, and detest none of the things that you have made; for you would not have made anything if you had hated it. How would anything have endured, if you had not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved? You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.160
317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.
318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing")
*************************************
I know this is a stray from the topic, so let the evolution issue end here. I copied and pasted my above reply from another thread. The point being that evolution and Christianity are opposed.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/22/the-eugenics-of-communism.html#comments
Not a valid question. Obviously we don't know everything the NSA is doing. (Although as the son of a former employee I have a good idea) Does that mean we presume they are doing something illegal, simply because the party you might align yourself with says so?
"I'm not terrorist, which is why I really dislike having my phone numbers tracked in a database."
Tracking your number in a database is not against the law.
"If I don't want the government to have the list of people I called I guess we'll have to elect someone who values privacy and understands the fourth amendment."
It doesn't violate the fourth amemdment, and you have no sacred right to privacy.
"Scarily one said "I want America safe and if that's what it takes then they need to do it." *shudder* Hopefully, with some thought, you'll fall more on the side of privacy and freedom."
You can't have freedom if you're not willing to protect it. I *shudder* at the fact you feel that to have your phone number not tracked in a data base is more important than your family being blown to bits.
"I don't want ANY of my calls tracked, because I value my privacy. I'm an American, and I believe if the government is to monitor my call history, they need probable cause to do so."
Prove that your calls have been tracked, and that will be a valid point.
"So I ask, how do you know that they're just monitoring terrorists, and why are FISA warrants such a huge hurdle when they can be obtained after the fact?"
How do you know they are not only monitoring terrorists?
"If the members of Congress,(including REPUBLICANS like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snow) who came out yesterday and said that they were only "partially briefed" on these programs, and were told they could NOT even discuss the programs with their OWN STAFF, as little as they knew of it..."
If you're going to use Republicans to validate your point, try not to use blatant left wingers like Spectre. That is my state, and I can tell you he is only slightly less liberal than Ted Kennedy.
"look at some of the libertarian reactions to this plan?"
Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians also believe that prostitution and drugs are all protected under the Constitution. Not a great endorsement of your point.
"I'm glad you're irritated, that must mean that I'm making you question some of your ideas. I can't say your posts irritate me, they just make me a little sad."
Or it could mean that baseless opposition to something so vital to our security irritates her. Your posts by the way, make me want to laugh.
"That's what I PUT MY TRUST in, because this document protects YOU and I. Men are flawed, imperfect beings."
Men wrote the fourth amendment you love so dearly. Men also repeatedly misinterpret it, as you are doing now. But that is classic liberal garbage. So lets set it straight: There is no sacred right to privacy, at least as you define it, there is no right to have abortions, there is not right to sell your body, and freedom of speech only goes so far. Got it? This is what the NSA is paid to do, and has always been paid to do.
"If you're so sure about the constitutionality of this program, let's let the courts decide."
Reverse that, and repeat it to yourself a couple of times. If you want to let the courts decide, let them decide before you ASSUME your rights are being violated.
"I understand that republicans think everything is going swimmingly, but some of us live in the real world and have real questions that require real answers."
In the real world the economy is going swimmingly, terrorists are being killed thousands of miles away, and in America all are innocent until proven guilty, and we need actual EVIDENCE that something illegal is transpiring.
"The church has long held that theistic evolution is the way to go. You're not one of those smorgasboard Catholics, are you?"
Mainstream Christianity believes in a young earth. I'd love to see what you are basing your assertion on. The Catholic Church is not THE church, merely a part.
To all who oppose the NSA program: If you have evidence that something illegal has transpired, I suggest you give it to Congress, because you obviously have information that they don't. Also, you all have yet to prove your rights have been infringed upon. You are drawing assumptions based on political rhetoric. The Constitution clearly outlines the government's primary responsibility: protect us and provide law and order. That is what the NSA is doing, until I hear evidence to the contrary, which you have yet to provide. Follow your own advice, and let the courts decide. If Republicans are just as outraged as you claim to be, than you have no cause to worry about an in-house investigation do you?
Are you really that childish? I expected more from you.
I've read three sentences on your first post and I have found three errors.
"Quickly, ah, the hypocricy! Polls only matter if it's 29% approval for the President."
That's not hypocritical at all, we don't elect amendments, we do elect presidents, so for them, polls matter. Well, I suppose they don't matter for bush any more.
First off, american citizens can act as foreign intelligence agents. It was about three sentences below the quote I posted. Terrorists obviously qualify in this regard. Foreign intelligence agents in this country are subject to the one year provision I mentioned above. Please read the text, and try not to stop at something that you think proves your point. Later in the article, there are some clarifications. When I was reading it, I was about to capitulate, but I kept reading and it all made sense later.
As for the Jewish evolution thing, I'm going to show my cards. I'm Jewish, always have been always will be. I know of only one Jew who believes in Creationism. He belongs to a small ultra-orthodox sect that has virtually no representation to the larger jewish community. As a group, we don't believe in the literal word of the bible, so the tower of babel is irrelevant. You don't know what you're talking about here, yet you go on. Pointing to Jews to defend your creationist beliefs is laughable. I re-read some of my sources for the Catholic position, and it appears that the catholic church allows both beliefs. The human body could have evolved, but the soul was specially created. It's a shame you take the literal view, but it appears it is allowed. I'm sorry you felt the need to put up all those quote, as I glaze over after five.
Again, Please read the entire article I sent you, it's long, but I think you'll get a whole picture of the FISA issue. That said, I do believe I was correct with the 72 hour limit.
Why, because you know of only one who believes in Creationism? Oh, well that proves everything. I know a bunch of Jews who believe in Creationism who I meet with once a week, so I guess in the he said/she said numbers game I win.
"It's a shame you take the literal view, but it appears it is allowed."
So you, being Jewish, would assert that God is short-sighted, and didn't allow ahead of time for the English translation of His world. So "day", doesn't mean a "day" in the Bible. What God meant to have been written was actually millions of years. So He is short-sighted and those of us who are born into an English speaking world are just SOL. Got it.
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=day
I'm extremely busy and simply don't have the time to have this discourse in this much detail. We have had them in other threads:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/3/29/can-you-hear-me-now.html#comments
I'll comment when I can. Busy weekend.
The discussion for creationism and defense of the Bible is under the DaVinci thread:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/5/17/the-davinci-code-stinks.html
I'm glad you're a Jew, but I suspect you're not a practicing one, nor a very good one. Orthodox Judaism backs me up.
Well Tim, Amy is a Catholic, and I was talking to her. As for your statement, I can only laugh a little inside at what mainstream Christianity believes. Whatever floats your boat I guess, but I pity the state of this country in 50 years if we actually teach that malarkey as fact. But go for it, and don't let physics, biology, astronomy, geology, cosmology, genetics and anthropology stand in your way! You go girl!
As for the call tracking, as I posted above, your position on this makes it immune from attack:
1. My calls aren't being tracked unless I can prove otherwise
2. The program must remain secret or it won't work.
So how can I possibly know what the program is about? As it stands now, I'm just going to assume that as with most secret governmental programs, it will grow to step out of constitutionality. You remember all that illegal FBI spying in the 60's, don't you?
"Libertarians are not conservatives. Libertarians also believe that prostitution and drugs are all protected under the Constitution. Not a great endorsement of your point."
My point, if you actually read the post, was that libertarians aren't liberal either. Amy framed this debate as a libera/conservative debate, and I question that framing. I framed it as a liberty/authoritarian debate, and I have yet to see anyone challenge that. In fact, the tenor of your and Amy's posts, they only confirm my suspicion. As for prostitution and drugs, I haven't found an amendment banning them. Perhaps you can point me to them? Maybe it's in the 32nd amendment banning growing certain types of evil plants? It was always my understanding that we have more rights than the constitution gives us --it sure sounds like you disagree.
"Your posts by the way, make me want to laugh."
Tim, you are a mature and thoughful individual. Now my posts make me want to laugh too.
Amy: That's a shame about squarespace, you should switch to wordpress, its a great blogging platform, and allows formatting in the comments.
I’d also like to throw this into the mix...
Friday... on Sean Hannity’s radio program... Sean brought up a few never before reported facts. Now this was some real good stuff and I can’t find a read on it anywhere.
Sean was reading off a list of all the Dems who are today raising heck on these surveillance programs and hammering Bush and the Party in Power when in fact they are flip-flopping on the votes they made back in 2001 after 9/11... Their votes allowed such things as these surveillance programs to be OK for the President and this government to go forward with and it was understood to be within the law... if I understood Sean’s talking points correctly...
I caught this part of his show... somewhere into it... so I don’t have all the details. Maybe one of your readers can inform us on this a little better than I.
AubreyJ.........
I really don't care if you don't want to be listened to, because you will not be monitored unless you are talking with a terrorist. If you are doing so, it is in the best interests of my safety that you are monitored very carefully indeed. There is nothing "unreasonable" about it.
People like John Murtha and Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller and other Democrats that are trying to make political gain at the expense of our security make me sick. There is nothing patriotic about leaking secret information, it is crass politics and nothing more. It is fear-mongering. The attempt is to make the American people believe that the administration wants to spy on them and build a police state and conquer the world militarily. Meanwhile, the administration is trying to kill off Al-Quaeda and related organizations while saving our butts.
It amazes me how incredibly stupid liberals in this country have become! God help us if they get in power while Islamofascism is such a threat to us!
Amy, I will be back to this thread to read more of the links and so on. Wonderful content concerning evolution, by the way!
Now you can show me where I stated that I thought Creationism should be taught in school, otherwise you are dishonest. However, all that science you posted is as open to interpretation as Scripture and history. Nice try, thanks for coming out.
"As for the call tracking, as I posted above, your position on this makes it immune from attack:
1. My calls aren't being tracked unless I can prove otherwise
2. The program must remain secret or it won't work."
Exactly.
"So how can I possibly know what the program is about? As it stands now, I'm just going to assume that as with most secret governmental programs, it will grow to step out of constitutionality. You remember all that illegal FBI spying in the 60's, don't you?"
A good assumption, based on zero facts, but a good assumption. At least your honest about convicting people before they have been tried. Brings to mind some Constiutional principles doesn't it? As for the 60's, well hey, if it happened then, I guess its happening now. Awesome logic.
"As for prostitution and drugs, I haven't found an amendment banning them. Perhaps you can point me to them?"
There isn't an amendment that says I can't have a bazooka either.
Second-- Now, thankfully, since the departure of the Clinton administration, Gorelick's wall, the CIA, FBI and DoD can share the information gathered. Read My FBI. Unless you are a hardened communist or liberal, you should be open to education.
This challenge has already been judged by the Courts.
I know to leave Top Secret information alone. Those who disclose same face federal prosecution. The NYTs should be first on the list. If you are in the lease bit serious, comment here:
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/monitoring_09.html
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/good-and-evil-personified-united-93.html
http://www.sidley.com/cyberlaw/features/patriot.asp
Scroll down until you find the following item. Please NOTE the second sentence where it says these things can be done "WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW"...
5. Administrative Subpoena
Law enforcement agencies now have expanded authority to subpoena business records. Agencies may, without judicial review, issue subpoenas to electronic and service providers requesting detailed information about customers in order to ascertain information about the identity of individuals and use patterns. Subpoenas may request: names, addresses, local and long distance telephone connection records or records of session times and durations, lengths of service (including start dates) and types of service utilized, telephone or instrument numbers or other subscriber numbers or identities, including any temporarily assigned network address, and importantly, means and source of payment for services (including credit card and bank account numbers). Prior law only permitted the government to subpoena a small class of records, such as the customer’s name, address, and length of service, and related primarily to telephone communications. (§ 210, amending 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2)).
Amen, and good night Mrs. Kalabash... wherever you are!
Regards...
Yes, I heard Sean Hannity too. I'm sure that he was talking about the USA Patriot Act because he said the vote in the Senate was 98 to 1, and that only Russ Feingold of Wisconsin voted against it. That would correspond with the USA Patriot Act which was approved by the Senate on October 25, 2001 as per the Senate's website here...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
I have one word for you, who are sooo very out gunned here:
Echelon
Who was in office in 1998? Can someone answer me that question? And, for you Progressive/Liberals, go to your hollowed publication, Wired, for the news, here:
WIRED NEWS (Oct. 5, 1998) ("According to scores of reports online and in newspapers, Echelon can intercept, record, and translate any electronic communication-telephone, data, cellular, fax, email, telex-sent anywhere in the world.")
I found this teensy tidbit, of which there are scores and scads of tidbits, in one Duke Law paper published in 2001. You can find it here:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj50p1467.htm
And, the best place to find out information on Top Secret projects is from a Liberal/Progressive/Democrat. The reason is because they will never understand need to know - of for that matter come to understand that they have been spied upon for decades ...
Wow. For such a learned bunch, we've got some readin' ta do here, eh? I think between what The Chief has posted, my two leads, and a quick google - you boys are gonna be a tad bit busy.
Oh, and before you impeach my background, I HAVE BEEN on the inside. This is not a boast. And, I am VERY mindful of OpSec, and shall leave it at that. You can prattle on about me having no proof, but, I do have some background here.
And, Amy, we cannot tell our families anything. Period. One small bit of information can be put together with another - loose lips sink ships. I told my family nothing. They do know what I "did", per se. Those that know the bases where I was stationed can put two and two together (and yes, you new math twits, it is FOUR!).
Amy, we should just end this thread. The unarmed here haven't the time to truly realize that their golden boys (ah yes, even your favorite, JFK) were in this deeper. In fact, Captain Tears on Command was listening to everything ... really ... the equipment was (and is) quite impressive.
Oh, and Amy, don't let a web-ee talk down to you about IPs, TCP/IP, netstat, traceroute, and browser histroies and cookies. Google is most certainly gaining information on your habits, paths, and can even tell where you are by your IP. Hiding behind a router STILL means that there is an IP tied to one location. The "Black Helicopters" just need a 5 square mile radius to find anyone they want to find.
So, everyone, get off the internet, never pick up your phone, don't use your credit cards or pay online, and be sure to talk near soft walls that cannot reflect sounds or signals. That's the only way you are able to be successful at dropping off the grid. Walk up to your friend and start the conversation ... sheesh ... doesn't anyone KNOW ANYTHING about HUMINT? One to one is your only protection against being listened in on illegaly.
Oh, shoot, that's right - your friend COULD be a spy. We still do employ the use of HUMINT ...
OK, so, do alllll that stuff I suggested, as well as stay in your house and never leave.
I'll be the guy taking my kids to ride bikes, buying shoes online, and talking to my family on my landline or cell ... I hope they are listening to me. They'd be bored OUT OF THEIR TREE! ;)
Take care, Amy, God Bless!
The National Security Agency (NSA) was established to serve as the primary COMINT organization in the United States by President Truman. Memorandum from President Harry S. Truman to Secretaries of State and Defense (Oct. 24, 1952) (entitled "Communications Intelligence Activities"),
Found in the bibliography of my above post ... "lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my".
Ooooh! That's right, I forgot about all the specific SAT-based intel and IR/Photo intel from the U-2 (it's still flying, so beware!). Oh, and stop using those discount cards at your local pet store or liquor store. They've got ya there too ...
Dang, that'll stop all those people from getting their dogs drunk. Whew!
Yep, salary really means everything when it comes to knowledge. I'll talk to all my Google friends that made $30k for these past 10 years. I'll put myself up against your brother any day with respect to technical knowledge, I'm very good at what I do, and I take my craft seriously.
"There isn't an amendment that says I can't have a bazooka either."
You're right, and as I pointed out, prostitution and drugs aren't unconstitutional, they're just illegal. There's a big difference.
I'm sorry you people don't see my points, I really am. I'm trying to protect your rights too. It seems you don't want 'em. Meanwhile, you pat yourselves on the back for your 'mature' discussion which seems to consist of one line snarky replies and absolutely no concessions. Bravo all.
Hey Radar, I did something even better than seeing flight 93 the movie. I saw the actual site where flight 93 crashed --shortly after 9/11. When I was kayaking on the stoneycreek river in Somerset PA, my friends and I went over to see the area. It was very moving, and I will never forget the bravery of the people on the flight. The terrorists didn't expect that from them, and I bet they were amazed at American resolve. I'm just not ready to give up rights in order to make this not happen again. We have a disagreement here, and all I'm getting from the other side is condescention and vitriol.
Have I ever called you people stupid as radar did? Have I ever said you are idiots? Have I decried all conservatives? Why has the tenor of this discussion delved into the kindergarten arena?
You people need to realize that there is a large group of people who have honest disagreements with the way things are being conducted. It is more constructive to listen to the concerns and work with them rather than dismiss them or call the other side un-american. I'm surprised that you trust the government so much when you didn't six years ago. Pointing out that a democrat founded the NSA or that clinton eroded civil liberties is not news to me. I was a vocal opponent of the DMCA that was passed under Clinton's watch (with broad support) that limited my ability to conduct certain types of research. I don't care who takes my rights away, I just care that they're gone.
Go for it. Let me know when it happens so I can point and laugh at you. Try to grow while you're at it. You sound like you are in high school.
"Hey Radar, I did something even better than seeing flight 93 the movie. I saw the actual site where flight 93 crashed --shortly after 9/11."
Hey schoen, so did I, I live not two hours from the site, and knew a few of the deceased. We are not impressed or shocked into agreeing with you all of a sudden.
"You people need to realize that there is a large group of people who have honest disagreements with the way things are being conducted."
You are not having an honest disagreement. You are assuming, without a shred of evidence, that something illegal is transpiring, and you yourself admit it is an assumption. That is not an honest disagreement. You're only argument is that we don't know what the NSA is doing, therefore it has to be illegal. Wrong. We use words like un-American because in America you need proof. You have none.
I'm disappointed that you had nothing to say about my comments. I guess you completely agree with them then.
Regards...
As it was pointed out, an act cannot override an amendment, so again, we'll have to wait for the courts to decide on this one. Congress passes unconstitutional laws all the time. One FISA judge already quit in disgust over the administrative subpoena and the warrantless wiretap program. I'd have to say personally, I'm against the expanded power that they provide. There need to be checks and balances in every system, and I don't see how there are any here. That's why Judicial Watch and the CATO institute have come out against the Patriot act with the ever hated (at least in these parts) ACLU. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Tim,
You are saying I'm from high school? That's pretty neat from a guy who posits an altered "my brother can beat you up" argument. Your whole line of reasoning seems to be attacking me and not my ideas (unless you count one line replies), and as such leaves a lot to be desired. Hiding from google is easy, you should ask your brother about it --if he's worth his salt, he'd show you how it's done.
I was much more impressed by the posters who brought up echelon, as it made me think about the erosion of our privacy. How well did it protect us on 9/11? Maybe you're growing comfortable with the increasing pressure of that boot on your neck. Maybe you trust the government (or in Echelon's case other governments that spy on us in a reciprocal agreement). I don't. That's the difference, and that's the point that I've been trying to make, so I'll say it again.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a liberty vs. authoritarian issue.
The main reason that people give for agreeing with these new provisions is that there is no evidence of a crime. Well, if it's secret, how can you ever know one way or the other? You put your trust in the government while I put my trust in the constitution.
I should have realized it sooner, but you're highboy on Radar's blog. Now I can consider the source of the high school accusation and somehow, I don't feel so bad.