From the article, “My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base.” — NY Times Editor Byron Calame

I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if tomorrow it was revealed that there was, in fact, surveillance of conversations. Although I would also not be surprised if this never hit the papers, given how quickly and cleanly they erased the original story from the media; within 48 hours of the USA Today report the NSA program was page 6 news.

This program was only the latest in a sequence of illegal administration activities followed by flat-out lies, and later by intimidation of the media outlets and government employees who reported on the crimes and lies. There have been six years worth of this pattern of behavior already. The Bush administration has done little to make me believe that it can be trusted.

I guess I missed the article (seriously). :) Can you tell me how much farther the program goes?

sifting through the records of thousands, if not millions, innocent people to get some information on one guilty guy (maybe) is the equivalent of burning down a house to kill a flea.

Well, the problem is that by catching that “one” guy, you end up saving hundreds and even thousands of lives. So, it’s not really burning down the house to kill a flea.

As for the NY times, ask Jefferson: “…and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”

Our founders were so eloquent. For the record, I agree with that statement 100%.

This is also a huge concern of mine.

It’s funny because I always thought you (yeah boy) were more of a liberatarian who valued privacy and personal freedom/responsiblity above most things, and I come to find out that you not only don’t have a problem with the government searching your personal records, but you’re against people like me who are for the protection of personal and privacy rights. Odd.

No, you’re dead on - I am (for the most part) a Libertarian (by definition). Here’s why I still fall in line with libertarians - a libertarian believes when a person infringes on the freedom of others, penalties are necessary and the person violating other’s freedom(s) gives up certain rights for the protection of the rights of the masses. Here’s where you are right - life, liberty and property are the three foundations of libertarianism. If any of those three are compromised, the other two will automatically be compromised. I am, as you understand it, compromising “my” liberty by supporting this program. Right?

As I understand it, Bush’s program is limited to an international bank and the people the program tracks is based on previous information about contact with known “enemies”. Am I violating a cardinal rule and am being too trusting of our government?

We’re going to ‘fight the war on terror’ in perpetuity simply because there is no single enemy or enemy state with which to fight against and defeat, nor is there any way to measure any sort of victory in the ‘war’ which would bring about it’s end. Even when we finally catch bin Laden, there will still be hundreds of thousands of terrorists out there and we’re just not going to be able to kill them all.

I say all that because I think the more and more illegal actions are justified in the name of ‘the war on terror’, the ability to shed the powers taken in the name of ‘war’ becomes more difficult. In which case we’re left with a society without freedom or liberty and under complete government control/surviellence all in the name of freedom and liberty.

So to answer your question, I don’t know. I’m sure we’re doing another five illegal things in the name of ‘the war on terror’ that are helping catch terrorists just as much as trolling through innocent civilians bank, internet, and telephone records. The people who we’re at war with aren’t stupid, and they know that we’re monitoring everything, which is why bin Laden doesn’t use banks that the US has control over or cell phones. He knows that we’re watching those lines of communication so he avoids them.

It’s funny because I always thought you (yeah boy) were more of a liberatarian who valued privacy and personal freedom/responsiblity above most things, and I come to find out that you not only don’t have a problem with the government searching your personal records, but you’re against people like me who are for the protection of personal and privacy rights. Odd.

The other problem here is that, sure, it may help to catch a terrorist (it supposedly has, at least once), but sifting through the records of thousands, if not millions, innocent people to get some information on one guilty guy (maybe) is the equivalent of burning down a house to kill a flea. Seriously, where does it stop? Why not put breathalyzers on every car to prevent drunk driving, or make every Monday national urinalysis day?

As for the NY times, ask Jefferson: “…and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”

From the same article …
The [MY Times] article states: “The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.”

So, which of our Constitutional rights were violated!?

Sure, access to everyone’s phone and financial data definitely makes us more effective when combating terrorists. But undermining privacy and liberty is never acceptable, and anyone who claims that liberty must be curtailed to enhance security should not be trusted in any position of authority.