WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for the eavesdropping program, which did not seek court warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but ultimately deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program, which focused on the international communications of some Americans and others in the United States, as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program looked very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html


If we were ACTUALLY safer because of ACTUAL results, that would be one thing. A defendable and supportable thing.
But if the Bush administration is just spinning its wheels, doing a massive amount of work in spying on Americans with NO significant results, then that is quite another.

If we are giving up "freedom" for the return of NO REAL SAFETY, shouldn't that concern us as Americans?

I'm sure of it that they are not wire-tapping my phone calls that make to people in the U.S. If I called someone over in Afghanistan or Iraq, well that's a different story...

Would you agree that Wire-tapping is fine if calls are made to or from Iraq and/or Afghanistan?? Would you agree that Wire-tapping is not fine if calls are made between people in the U.S.?

That's how I feel.

For some, it is easier to give up a right to privacy for something that you weren't even utilizing in the first place.
For some, it's easier to set up a law which will result in SOMEBODY ELSE'S privacy being invaded and not your own...

I don't think your view (RidinHighSpeeds) of the issue has any real importance towards the fact that it doesn't really impinge upon you. I suspect that if you ACTUALLY WERE regularly making calls to Afghanistan or Iraq, you would still be okay with them being tapped.
I'm just pointing out that for others who are more comfortable with this because it is somebody else and not them, that I don't see that as having any validity.


Japanese internment camps anyone?
<end sarcasm>

Yes. It IS Apples and oranges. There are SIGNIFICANT differences between the two. I admit that.
(And if you want to blast me for bringing up the pseudo-comparison, I think you'll be within your rights for the most part. I am in no way trying to suggest you support Japanese internment camps.)
But a point can still be found...

Japanese internment camps were about denying freedom based on race. A really crappy basis based on crappy assumptions.
Here we are talking about denying the right to privacy based on an incredibly loose association. Again, I feel it is a crappy assumption.

The differences?
The right to freedom is perceived as more significant and important than the right to privacy. The heritage of somebody (which is an immutable characteristic) can be seen as less significant than the physical location of a person that we would choose to call on the phone.

If we were still in WW II, do you think that it would be suitable to bug any phone calls involving phones located in Japan? Regardless if it's probably just a conversation inbetween family members?

There is a point here about "profiling" based on incredibly limited information. The vast majority of the possible receiving phones in Iraq and Afghanistan are not owned by terrorists or people with terroristic ideals.

If you had family in Iraq, would you think that people listening in on your phone calls should just be unilaterally allowed? Or would it just be a matter of you not caring about giving up that right?

I've seen TV stories about families in the U.S. who have to daily put little flags on their clothing and hang signs in their shop that explicitly say that are "pro-America". Just because somebody might see their Middle Eastern look and question their patriotism without reason.
Here, we are invading the privacy of people who are calling their friends or family or similar phone calls. The government is questioning their patriotism because of the heritage/location of people that they talk to.

To me, this IS STILL America. We STILL need a good reason before our civil rights are violated. It shouldn't matter if part of that violation is for the privacy of a person in another country.
We should not just grant our government the capability to violate our civil rights because of a generic issue involving a foreign country.
We shouldn't grant the government blanket capabilities by legislation for things which should require a warrant that they could not obtain on spotty speculation if we actually forced them to get a warrant.

If the targetted phone location in Iraq or Afghanistan was actually a phone identified as being a base for terroristic activities, I would agree.
If it's just targetted ONLY because of the country it happens to be in, and that's it? I disagree.


And on another level, I think we need to be HONEST about all this. First and foremost:
"President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program, which focused on the international communications of some Americans and others in the United States, as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives." "

The evidence shows otherwise, so WHY do they continue to lie with these statements?
These aren't the only issues that they repeatedly misrepresent either. It's amazing how many times President Bush keeps claiming (current) that the our presence in Iraq has a motivation because of an interest of protecting the U.S. and for fighting terrorism.

Gawd!

I meant for that poll question to read: "Have we as Americans given up too much in our rights for privacy and freedom in exchange for too little safety?

(change underlined)
Hopefully that doesn't screw up people's responses...

fixed

Absolutely. However, I think that we as Americans haven't given up our essential liberties, but rather our Administration has decided themselves to take away certain rights of the American people. Some would argue that the American people gave him the permission when they elected him. But Bush wasn't running on a campaign warning them that their personal liberties will be breached if you vote for Bush (something that makes Bush differ from Hitler). He only ran on rhetoric, telling people what they wanted to hear, rather than the truth. But I voted "yes" in your poll because although what I just described to you happened, we as Americans (as a consensus) have not dissented and thrown Bush and his cronies out of office for doing so.

Its quite an interesting time in history, and esspecially in American History. While the German people were easily subdued by German nationalism and jobs in the SA, and easily distracted by fake foreign invasions such as the Himmler Operation or a constant bombardment of Nazi propaganda while their freedoms are being taken and facism on the rise; the American people are easily distracted by material toys from the country's free-market fundamentalism while their own freedoms and essential liberties are being taken and facist theocracy on the rise.

You don't have to go far to look for proof. During the Civil Rights movement you could ask just about any African-American and they could tell you about the blatent racism in America, and probably even what they're doing about it. However today you ask anyone if they're aware their giving up their essential liberties for little temporary safety and they look at you like you're from a different planet. Not because they dissagree politically from what you said, but rather they don't give a shit about politics even if it directly effects them. All they care about are their material toys and whether or not their appearance is following the changing picture dictated by corporations. How quickly we have moved from a "Let Freedom Ring" country to a "Bling Bling" country.

The President of this country has to go by the laws. The patriot act does not provide for domestic spying. Bush has been caught spying on groups that are considered his political enemies here in our own country. Many in Congress, some Republicans included, think Bush has broken the law, repeatedly!!!! None of this has to do with terrorism. Is there really any question that with out some type of checks and balances in place this Bill should not be made law?

Well the way I see it is Nixon resigned for spying on the Democratic Party, why can't Bush resign for spying on the American people? Jeeze, at least Nixon had a guilty conscious. Sure Nixon was a crook, but at least he was a true conservative and not a neo-conservative and some would say fascist as Bush is. You see Bush on television, struting his stuff up to the podium, throwing a quick smirk and hand wave here and there; a total lack of guilt. He feels no compasion for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians lost, thousands of American lives lost, and tens of thousands of Americans wounded in a war that was 'justified' on false pretenses. He's more than perfectly aware he lied directly to Congress and the American people to get his war in Iraq, and now that he has it he feels little remorse for the quagmire it has become. As he smiles and squeezes in the occasional cheezey joke, he feels no remorse for violating countless international treaties including committing war crimes as described in the Geneva Conventions, as well as violating the United States Constitution and the American foundations of Democracy, Human Rights, Equality, and the General Welfare.

That's what makes him worse than Nixon (many times over), and subsequently one of the worst if not the worst president in American history (but that's another debate). However we as Americans are part to blame in this horrible episode in American history. When Bush squeezes in his cheezey joke we promptly laugh as to please or 'dear leader'. When Bush smiles at his "base" they promotly smile back and give an applause, even though that very "base" is supposed to stick by their ideals of small government, conservative rather than massive spending, free market, and a government in check with the United States Constitution. When Bush pushes illegal legislation we sit back and turn on the television and sink into that bag of potato chips. When Bush lies we passively shrug it off suggesting 'all politicians lie'. When Bush cripples the economy and throws the country into record breaking deficits we shrug it off as it gives us temporary gain all the while ignorant to the fact the children of today will have to pay it off. When Bush goes on his "freedom crusades", of coarse the American people don't care just as long as gay people hundreds of miles from them aren't getting married.

Sorry, I guess I went off on a rant there.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What gets me is people who say "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry if the government is spying on you". Excuse me, but I'm not about to let Bush or his minions take away my rights just because I'm not using them for a minute. (Of course, if they want to spy on me they're going to be bored out of their little minds, which is exactly what they deserve.)

I don't remember exactly who said "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither", but I want to stress this: THESE ARE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY!! And once they are gone, there will be no getting them back.......you can be sure Bush will see to that.

That was Benjamin Franklin that said that.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And it is one of my favorite quotes. And what you said is very true; that once they're gone, there will be no getting them back. Because one thing that is particularly frightening about this administration is unlike other "war time presidents", Bush is passing this legislation and making it permanent law in our country. You here about other Presidents passing legislation that violates our constitutional rights, like Lincoln, whom was essentially a dictator in the North, or Wilson, whom urged the passing of the Espionage and Sedition Act of 1917 which made it illegal to speak out against the government, military and the US' role in WWI.

However, these Presidents were faced with much more serious conflicts. The civil war ingulfed the entire nation, WWI ingulfed the entire world. Like what a history professor I saw on the History Channel one night put it, the "War on Terror" is like a war on dandruff, its nothing compared to the Civil War. The War on Terror was mostly fabricated or at least highly exagerated to instill fear on the people and attempt to justify unconstitutional legislation. Plus, those previous presidents passed legislation that was temporary; law that was only used for during the war.

If this government really was after winning a war against these terrorist organizations, then they wouldn't do things that not only anger muslims more, but significantly create more terrrorists and subsequently make the world a much more dangerous place a result (and I'm not pulling this stuff out of my butt, our own government quietly admits these things, you just have to look at the documents to find them, because obviously our press wont cover it).