|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 1 user and 24 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by security_six on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 8:26pm.
So much for privacy... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance It's for our own safety you know... Maybe they should make available a list of every person who makes telephone calls overseas... It's a public health issue right?
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
what a bunch of frog faces.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 9:11pm.Another View of this Issue
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:27pm.Let's say that in 1942, a US citizen was making overseas telephone calls or conducting radio communication with someone in Japan or Germany. Would you consider the government to have been justified in identifying and monitoring those communications?
Jeff Brigham
Jeff
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:34pm.Why are you so concerned with protesters infringing on the rights of their fellow citizens to drive around Olympia but here you're just down to have the government infringe on its citizen's rights?
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
Where are you getting that???
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 11:09pm.Enpen,
You say "here you're just down to have the government infringe on its citizen's rights?" Where are you getting that? Please read my comment again. Notice that it is a question! Please read it again.
Thanks,
Jeff Brigham
the question
Submitted by enpen on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 7:35am.Hey Jeff. I took the question as a rhetorical one wherein you already had a "correct" answer in mind. If that isn't the case and you do not support legal immunity for the telecoms, then I apologize. If it was rhetorical, then CIAGuy did the dirty work and provided a succinct and, I think, excellent response.
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
I did not intend my question
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:19am.I did not intend my question specifically as a rhetorical one. I did it more to give people a little different way of looking at this issue and also to provide a reference to another wartime period in our history when we would have listened in on such communications. I think that we have too many people thinking that this is so the government can listen in on their conversations with Grandma in England for some nefarious purpose. That is not the case.
Looking at it again, my response to you was a little harsh. My apologies.
Jeff Brigham
bs
Submitted by enpen on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 12:44pm.I've received phone calls from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Every single one of those calls has been intercepted by the NSA due to these laws. It did not matter what the content was.
Edit (add): And are you saying you asked that question without your first believing the correct answer to be that the companies should be exonerated and the law put into permanent effect?
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
Why would that be any different?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:34pm.Nope.
Submitted by security_six on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:36pm.That's why there are carefull constitutional protections on searches. Follow those to the freaking letter. And only that. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those damned no knock warrants.
Ya know, I think the progressive/liberal community and the gun rights folks have a lot of fundamental issues in common. If the two could just get along imagine the political powerhouse.
The story so far: In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea. -The Restaurant at the end of the Universe
yes
Submitted by enpen on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 10:44pm.Ya know, I think the progressive/liberal community and the gun rights folks have a lot of fundamental issues in common. If the two could just get along imagine the political powerhouse.
An old friend of mine went so far to the right and I so far to the left that we ended up agreeing on everything. We argued a lot on the way, but f'n hilarious once we got there.
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
As a progressive/liberal...
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 7:53am.I support the right of people to own guns. I don't support the right of people to own guns without some form of sanity and restriction and I can't find anything in the Second Amendment to tell me I'm wrong in my thinking.
Be reasonable and responsible about gun ownership and show that you have the maturity to have such responsibility, and I support it 100%.
On a different subject (sort of) Six....what do you do about "open carry" when you enter a bank? I was waiting for my bank to open yesterday and noticed the sign of "no guns". Does the private property overrule the open carry law?
My bank
Submitted by security_six on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 10:17am.Has a stated policy of adhering to state gun laws in the various states it operates in. Also they don't care about glasses/hats. I get direct deposit, and do nearly everything through ATMs so I don't go to banks often. In fact I haven't had the opportunity to OC in a bank. Others have, and with no issues. Consider robbers don't usually come in with their faces not hidden, and OCing
The story so far: In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people mad and been widely regarded as a bad idea. -The Restaurant at the end of the Universe
If the content of the calls or communication
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 7:48am.was to order Japanese or German pornography, should we have been concerned in 1942?
Is there a difference between World War II and what happened on 9/11/01 with 19 people, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia?
Should we monitor the calls between George Bush and the Saudi Royal Family?
So many questions.
If the content of the calls
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:10am.If the content of the calls or communication was to order Japanese or German pornography, should we have been concerned in 1942? Not especially. But we would have listened first to insure that the communication was not about ship sailings, attack planning, or troop movements. That is the whole point of these provisions. We need to listen in first and we need to do it quickly. If the content is not involved in terrorist activities, then no action is needed. But we have to listen first.
Is there a difference between World War II and what happened on 9/11/01 with 19 people, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia? No. Keep in mind the numbers of dead in both the 9/11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack were roughly the same. Whether you like it or not, we are at war. A different type of war, but war none the less.
Should we monitor the calls between George Bush and the Saudi Royal Family? Obviously not a serious remark and not worthy of a response.Jeff Brigham
Not serious?
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:18am.I'm sorry, but Bush's ties to the Saud family gives him much stronger, closer ties to terrorism than I'll ever have, no matter how many calls I ever choose to make outside the country.
But you're right, Bush will never be spied on. You've got to be a grandmother baking cookies for the peace movement to earn that priveledge. (Anyone remember that? Was it Fahrenheit 9/11 or another documentary?)
The Canaanite's Call
Thanks Phil
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:31am.Jeff wants to avoid the real tough questions by saying they aren't serious. In Jeff's world, no one could seriously consider Bush's relationship with the Saudi Royals or the Bin Laden Family to be a threat to our security.
Jeff - pay attention to the law. The government has ALWAYS had the right to wiretap, they were just required to apply for a court order....even AFTER said wiretap. As usual, your concerns are misapplied.
A classic!
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:39am."Is there a difference between World War II and what happened on 9/11/01 with 19 people, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia? No. Keep in mind the numbers of dead in both the 9/11 attacks and the Pearl Harbor attack were roughly the same. Whether you like it or not, we are at war. A different type of war, but war none the less. "
And if the number of people in Hurricane Katrina was the same as the number of people killed on 9/11 would we be at war with Mother Nature???? My gawd.....
Yeah...we are at war. Unfortunately, we avoided war with the country that supplied the most people on the 9/11/01 attack. I wonder why we avoided attacking Saudi Arabia? Could it be that we have a security problem with our President and his friends?
Permanent war?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:20am.Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.! --John Maynard Keynes
Get a warrant.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 8:20am.Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.! --John Maynard Keynes
It's the 4th Amendment, stupid.
Submitted by CIAGuy on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 6:38am.Because the bill contains retroactive immunity. they knew what occurred with the wiretapping was wrong, a violation of the 4th amendment, and now they need a pass.
From No Comment: http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment
'Here’s the leading argument that the White House offers up in favor of the legislation: “Companies should not be held responsible for verifying the government’s determination that requested assistance was necessary and lawful — and such an impossible requirement would hurt our ability to keep the Nation safe.”
But as Dan Froomkin notes at the Washington Post, “Isn’t that the very definition of a police state: that companies should do whatever the government asks, even if they know it’s illegal?” Indeed it is.
As to your question Jeff, "Would you consider the government to have been justified in identifying and monitoring those communications?" Yes if they went to a judge and got a warrant. As a conservative I thought you were against government of this type. You seem not to trust them with your money (taxes) why trust them with your safety and privacy?
nice
Submitted by enpen on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 7:32am.Thanks for spelling it out, CIAGuy.
"In principle, I am an anarchist. Kurt Vonnegut once said he was an agnostic who respects Jesus Christ. I am an anarchist who loves democracy." - Kenzaburo Oe
I'll let Rick handle your
Submitted by Jeff Brigham on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:41am.I'll let Rick handle your inappropriate "stupid" call. I'm certain that Rick will be commenting to you on that very soon.
I want the Federal government to be able to listen in on overseas communications for the same reason that I am glad they did it during WW2. In time of war, our Federal government needs to be able to quickly intercept and read such communicatons to determine first if said communication is a security concern. This is within the realm of the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal government.
The SCOTUS will undoubtedly end up ruling on the constitutionality of this law. That is where that decision (constitutionality) should be made.
Jeff Brigham
the "stupid" wasn't directed at you.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 11:00am.It's become an idiom.
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 11:31am."It's the ________, stupid."
But, folks should be careful when using it.
> It's OK to be nice. <
enpen's social contract
I think the Olympia Police need to wiretap someone that claims
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:41am.Eyeroll....
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 11:36am.So much for that freedom of speech stuff, huh?
It's a great cause to trumpet until someone's freedom of speech offends YOU
Great clarification, Rick. Thanks
Jeff, I'm sorry
Submitted by CIAGuy on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 4:51pm.on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 9:19am. Jeff wrote "I did not intend my question specifically as a rhetorical one" My question of 02/13/2008 - 6:38am has the same intent, can you please answer it?
You seem to have great respect for the "will of the people" and currently the "will of the people" as expressed in the FISA law says you have to go to a judge before or soon after the wiretap. Not do it for years and then ask for a "Get Out of Jail Free Card."
Also using 1942 is disingenuous on your part as the Adminstration's argument is that it is all these new-fangled forms of communication (the internet, cell and satellite phones) that make the skirting of FISA and trashing of the Constituion necessary.