Comments on: Clarification on Spying http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html Progressive commentary & Wisconsin politics by Dan Cody of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:22:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: JB Baby http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-3026 JB Baby Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:23:31 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-3026 Remember when we were talking about this? Well, he finally decided to cross the final line. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html Seriously, opening the mail! WTF! What the hell is he thinking? I mean seriously. You know what, F$*# it, I'm outta here. Remember when we were talking about this? Well, he finally decided to cross the final line.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html

Seriously, opening the mail! WTF! What the hell is he thinking? I mean seriously. You know what, F$*# it, I’m outta here.

]]> By: mwarden http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-2300 mwarden Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:58:14 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-2300 Interesting related thread on slashdot: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171761&cid=14304217" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171761&cid=14304217" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171761&cid=14304217</a></a> Interesting related thread on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171761&cid=14304217

]]> By: JB Baby http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-2299 JB Baby Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:14:32 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-2299 No! You can't not argue. The discourse between the two of you is what will turn this blog into a nationally syndicated talk show. If you go, then we all have to go. You should save these remarks for Festivus and The List of Grievances :) No! You can’t not argue. The discourse between the two of you is what will turn this blog into a nationally syndicated talk show. If you go, then we all have to go.
You should save these remarks for Festivus and The List of Grievances :)

]]> By: Yeah Boy http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-2298 Yeah Boy Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:54:14 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-2298 I give up ... I'm never going to try to articulate the other side of an argument on this blog again. I give up … I’m never going to try to articulate the other side of an argument on this blog again.

]]> By: Dan http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-2297 Dan Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:08:25 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-2297 First off, James Robbins isn't a lawyer although he tries in that article to defend the administration wiretaps in a schollarly legal manner. His major point of the article seems to be: <blockquote>...that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies.</blockquote> I think that argument, and the entire "We're helping the terrorists by talking about this.." line of reasoning is completly illogical. Let me explain why.. The 'terrorists' and other bad guys are well aware of the laws on the books which permit the use of wiretaps against them in the United States and abroad. It's also well accepted that the warrants that have been needed to get those wiretaps are very easy to get, and can be issued days after the wiretap has been started, making speed a non-factor really. If the government wants to spy on you as a bad guy, they're going to spy on you. I really don't think the bad guys are walking around having conversations on open lines saying to themselves, "Man, I sure feel safe because I know that the government can start spying on me right now if they want and bother with the warrant to justify it on Friday." We've had a very public policy about spying. I don't think it hurts national security or helps the bad guys to let them know we can spy on them without a warrant even though we've always been able to spy on them without a warrant for days. Like I said above, the issue here isn't spying, it's spying without justification and valid oversight. Regarding the theory of 'well the lefty NYT is only publishing this to boost circulation and HURT the President'; yeah, thats totally the issue. In fact, I think newspapers and other journalists should just vette every disparaging story to the administration through the administration first. Especially in election years. Oops. First off, James Robbins isn’t a lawyer although he tries in that article to defend the administration wiretaps in a schollarly legal manner. His major point of the article seems to be:

…that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies.

I think that argument, and the entire “We’re helping the terrorists by talking about this..” line of reasoning is completly illogical. Let me explain why..

The ‘terrorists’ and other bad guys are well aware of the laws on the books which permit the use of wiretaps against them in the United States and abroad. It’s also well accepted that the warrants that have been needed to get those wiretaps are very easy to get, and can be issued days after the wiretap has been started, making speed a non-factor really. If the government wants to spy on you as a bad guy, they’re going to spy on you. I really don’t think the bad guys are walking around having conversations on open lines saying to themselves, “Man, I sure feel safe because I know that the government can start spying on me right now if they want and bother with the warrant to justify it on Friday.”

We’ve had a very public policy about spying. I don’t think it hurts national security or helps the bad guys to let them know we can spy on them without a warrant even though we’ve always been able to spy on them without a warrant for days.

Like I said above, the issue here isn’t spying, it’s spying without justification and valid oversight.

Regarding the theory of ‘well the lefty NYT is only publishing this to boost circulation and HURT the President’; yeah, thats totally the issue. In fact, I think newspapers and other journalists should just vette every disparaging story to the administration through the administration first. Especially in election years.

Oops.

]]> By: Yeah Boy http://dancody.org/archives/clarification-on-spying.html#comment-2296 Yeah Boy Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:38:14 +0000 http://dancody.org/wordpress/?p=796#comment-2296 Electronic Surveillance: <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/toc.html" rel="nofollow">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/toc.html</a> Here is a good article explaining the law: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp</a> From the second link: <i>So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?</i> Sadly, the American people. :( Electronic Surveillance:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/toc.html

Here is a good article explaining the law:
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp

From the second link:
So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?

Sadly, the American people. :(

]]>