Gravitymaster 0 #1 December 19, 2005 From 60 Minutes. http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm What is Eschelon, you may ask? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon Discuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #2 December 19, 2005 The whole thing's been going on forever, nothing new. Just some people like to believe in their little fantasy world that Bush is the first and only president to authorize the NSA to look in on people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #3 December 19, 2005 QuoteThe whole thing's been going on forever, nothing new. Just some people like to believe in their little fantasy world that Bush is the first and only president to authorize the NSA to look in on people. Maybe so. But there are also some people who believe that it is wrong, being Clinton, Bush, or any other president. Putting up with it because the other guys did it as well is a recipe for disaster. The forefathers drafted an amazing document, where the individual has great means to protect him/herself from abuses from his/her government. It is up to us to let it slide, as it is up to us not to tolerate it. Regardless of the political affiliation of the abusing party. IMHO. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 December 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe whole thing's been going on forever, nothing new. Just some people like to believe in their little fantasy world that Bush is the first and only president to authorize the NSA to look in on people. Maybe so. But there are also some people who believe that it is wrong, being Clinton, Bush, or any other president. Putting up with it because the other guys did it as well is a recipe for disaster. The forefathers drafted an amazing document, where the individual has great means to protect him/herself from abuses from his/her government. It is up to us to let it slide, as it is up to us not to tolerate it. Regardless of the political affiliation of the abusing party. IMHO. Gee...I've been told on this forum that the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be updated to reflect societal changes? Are you saying you disagree with those people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 December 19, 2005 QuoteGee...I've been told on this forum that the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be updated to reflect societal changes? Are you saying you disagree with those people? The only problem is your side of the aisle wants to just toss it out completely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #6 December 19, 2005 QuoteGee...I've been told on this forum that the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be updated to reflect societal changes? Are you saying you disagree with those people? It has been updated throughout history to reflect societal changes. And I also believe that people need to be always striving for improvement, being on the political, personal, or any other fronts. However, at its core, the US constitution is the most amazing political document establishing the repartition of powers ever written IMO. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 December 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteGee...I've been told on this forum that the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be updated to reflect societal changes? Are you saying you disagree with those people? It has been updated throughout history to reflect societal changes. And I also believe that people need to be always striving for improvement, being on the political, personal, or any other fronts. However, at its core, the US constitution is the most amazing political document establishing the repartition of powers ever written IMO. Oh, I agree. It's just that if you listen to people on this site, you would actually start to believe the govt. is kidnapping thousands of innocent American Citizens in the middle of the night and beating them with a rubber hose. The rules are different in times of national crisis than they are during times of peace. Once we are furthur down the path of securing this country against terrorist threat, I would be the first one to agree the Patriot Act and some of the other security measures we have put in place since 9/11 be recinded. I have no doubt they will be because more people will demand it. I guess I have more faith in the democratic process than others. If people want it changed, politicians will change it if for no other reason than the demands of the people. In the mean time I can only be amazed at the hipocrisy of those who accuse Bush of instituting surveilance of citizens when the truth is it's been going on for a long time and is actually more justifiable today than it was during the 1990's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #8 December 19, 2005 Echelon has been news forever. I'm not sure what the point of posting the Clinton thing was about - 'anything Bush can do Bill can do better?' - I think I know a song about that. Echelon has always been about gathering intel. There are others on the forum who are far better educated on the topic than I could ever be - hopefully they'll provide a little context, and whether or not the two (Bill and Bush) are in the same ballpark. But yes, everyone is spied on in the Us, they even admitted it on 9/12 at around 2am in the morning - a senator (who's name I dont remember) outright admitted the existence of Echelon and it's reach (something that hadn't occurred in the public eye previously to my knowledge). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #9 December 19, 2005 Im gonna put this here rather than the other Bush thread cos there's way too much noise. I recall that one of the stickiest provisions in the Patriot act was pretty much the waiver of any requirements to get a warrant for eavesdropping. It pretty much created a situation where anyone could say 'he's a bad man, but i can't say more' and get a warrant. How freaking lazy do you have to be? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 December 19, 2005 Parity. As I said, I don't want the govt. spying on anyone unless absolutely necessary. OTOH there are times when the need to obtain information on a terror suspect doesn't lend itself well to the time involved in getting a warrant. The only alternative I can come up with is to have some kind of 24 hr. a day Federal Judge available to immediately issue warrants, but even that would have it's problems. Imagine a suspect in an Al Qaeda cell makes a phone call to someone who was previously unknown to the FBI/CIA. That person hangs up and immeiately calls someone else, also previously unknown to be AQ. Should the FBI/CIA be required to take the time to get a wiretap warrant before listening in and learning something valuable about a possible financial transaction or plan to attack innocent people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #11 December 19, 2005 well thats the thing. the PA created exactly that kind of judge. They dropped the evidence requirements to make it pretty much a rubber stamp type deal. Thats why doing it without a warrant seems like a rather silly thing to do. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #12 December 19, 2005 QuoteParity. As I said, I don't want the govt. spying on anyone unless absolutely necessary. OTOH there are times when the need to obtain information on a terror suspect doesn't lend itself well to the time involved in getting a warrant. As I understand THE LAW, the govt. can spy on its citizens for 72 hours before a warrant is necessary. I fail to see why it needs to go outside this law. Can you suggest a reason? BTW, nice invocation of the CDIF defense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 December 19, 2005 Quote BTW, nice invocation of the CDIF defense. Only someone living in a world that began when GWB was elected would see it that way. Instead of making non-sensical statements like this, why don't you wake up to the reality that it's been done for a long time and quit trying to use it as a partisan way to bash GWB. Sure it's been stepped up since 9/11, but with all the criticism about the Intel. Community not being able to "connect the dots" before that, what do you expect? Can't have it both ways. Think for just a second, John. The Clinton Administration thru the effort of Jaime Gorelick and Torrecelli, put up a wall that prevented Intel agencies from sharing information. The PA knocked that wall down. Should the PA be recinded, that wall goes back up. Do you honestly think thats a good thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #14 December 19, 2005 Actually GM, I've read the entire act and its an odious piece of shit that was pretty much unnecessary. All law enforcement and intelligence agencies had access to the legal tools that were needed. As far as connecting the dots, that had nothing to do with intelligence gathering and everything to do with intelligence processing and modelling - same as any beurocracy it's crippled by politics and total bollocks. The patriot acts was cobbled together from various laws that had been rejected in the past for being too intrusive on the average american citizen - which is why it was compiled so bloody quickly and pushed through in such a short space of time. In very real terms there was little to gain other than the removal of some controls that protected the average man in the street from intrusion into their private lives. I dont think culling booklists from libraries and book sellers and forbidding anyone from talking about it is very american. I think that the argument that it allows for threat assessment and accurate datamodelling is inaccurate (although I would really like to hear from someone with some hands on). The PA was a shit sandwich with very little truly useful or positive content and a great deal hair triggers for very oppressive and outright unamerican clauses. It was a lot of sound and fury to appease the public and in their need to be calmed the public gave up a great deal of its freedoms. THATS why the sunset provisions. THATS why they didnt get refreshed, because even in the height of hysteria there were enough politicians on both sides of the house that understood the very dangerous nature of some of the legislation. God, can you imagine passing a bill thats 500+ pages long, unread, that challenges the foundations of what the US is based on without any controls for when things have settled down? Perhaps part of the intel failure was more the insistence by those who had become complacent in their positions of power that the only reasonable threat model was a two front war against the US? (yes, thats a little loose with the reality, but still applies here I think). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 December 19, 2005 I think connecting the dots had very much to do with intel sharing between agencies. Have you investigated why Gorelick and Torecelli thought it was a good idea to have the wall? I don't disagree that a thorough review of the PA is probably a good idea and that will be done over the next 90 days. But, this is being used as a way to scare people into thinking the govt. is out to get them The more feeble minded among us are being mislead as to the true intent of the PA. Now they are resorting to quoting fictional books, written many years ago. There has to be some impetus on intel. If not, where do you begin to identify potential threats? From there programs such as Able Danger have proven somewhat effective. I haven't re-read the PA for a while, so I'll with hold furthur comment on the specifics until I do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #16 December 19, 2005 Other than the sunsetted provisions (which are generally the really nasty ones) there's a great deal of loose language in the act itself, which is where a lot of people start (rightly or wrongly - and i truly believe there are some in both camps) getting nervous. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gravityizsexy 0 #18 December 19, 2005 QuoteQuote BTW, nice invocation of the CDIF defense. Only someone living in a world that began when GWB was elected would see it that way. Instead of making non-sensical statements like this, why don't you wake up to the reality that it's been done for a long time and quit trying to use it as a partisan way to bash GWB. Sure it's been stepped up since 9/11, but with all the criticism about the Intel. Community not being able to "connect the dots" before that, what do you expect? Can't have it both ways. Think for just a second, John. The Clinton Administration thru the effort of Jaime Gorelick and Torrecelli, put up a wall that prevented Intel agencies from sharing information. The PA knocked that wall down. Should the PA be recinded, that wall goes back up. Do you honestly think thats a good thing? You do realize there are spies amongst spies... do you not? yes, even in the great United States of America. Ever thought what might be the reason "sharing" intel might have presented such a problem in the past....??? "'Someday is not a day in my week'" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #19 December 19, 2005 QuoteEver thought what might be the reason "sharing" intel might have presented such a problem in the past....??? That was never even a consideration in the separation... It has always been an effort to avoid the appearance of being Big Brother... the wall was never meant to be so ridged that you throw the info in the garbage because you weren't supposed to collect it... there was always supposed to be a conduit to get the info to the right agency...All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #20 December 19, 2005 QuoteI think connecting the dots had very much to do with intel sharing between agencies. Have you investigated why Gorelick and Torecelli thought it was a good idea to have the wall? I don't disagree that a thorough review of the PA is probably a good idea and that will be done over the next 90 days. But, this is being used as a way to scare people into thinking the govt. is out to get them The more feeble minded among us are being mislead as to the true intent of the PA. Now they are resorting to quoting fictional books, written many years ago. There has to be some impetus on intel. If not, where do you begin to identify potential threats? From there programs such as Able Danger have proven somewhat effective. I haven't re-read the PA for a while, so I'll with hold furthur comment on the specifics until I do. What do you think of the wisdom of putting Poindexter (a convicted felon who had his conviction overturned on a technicality) in charge of the TIA program?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 December 20, 2005 Quote*sigh* That's the exact same noise my GF makes when she can't get her way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 December 20, 2005 What's that got to do with this discussion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #23 December 20, 2005 QuoteWhat's that got to do with this discussion? A lot, but apparently you can't make the connection.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #24 December 20, 2005 Actually that is pretty odd. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #25 December 20, 2005 QuoteActually that is pretty odd. He's just warming up to a "Bush Lied" rant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
