Considering that Bush wants to put a military man in charge of the CIA as well, we will certainly see more of this. (The NSA has always had military leadership.) As we move to a paperless & cashless society, this kind of information gathering will only increase.
NSA has database of domestic US phone calls: report
It said the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies — AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. — but that the program “does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.”
Do you believe them that they are not listening to domestic phone calls? Do you believe that Bush’s other domestic surveillance program only listened to overseas phone calls to terrorists? Do you think making a military man head of the CIA will make us safer?
I say no to all of these. Can someone please give Bush a BJ so we can impeach him?
So, was Jimmy Carter wrong to appoint Admiral Stansfield Turner as head of the CIA because he was a military man? I don’t remember that argument coming up back in the 70s. If it was OK then and not now, what changed?
Just to sort the history, the difference — back then — was that Turner had already voluntarily retired from the military and was functioning in the civilian political community.
Remember … it wasn’t the BJ that got Clinton impeahed.
It was lying about it to a federal grand jury, and then trying to get someone else to lie about it to a federal grand jury.
Why do you want Cheney to become President, John? 😉
So much for the “chickenhawk” meme.
*sigh*
Please look at a list of Former CIA directors. A huge percentage of them were ex-military. Most of them had close connections to the military when they got the job. Many of them were still on active duty or reserve duty.
This “military man” meme is just another smokescreen and attempt to create a scandal where none exists. This is why no one can effectively combat ANYTHING the Bush Administration is doing…people keep playing stupid games like this one, complaining about a military head of the CIA.
Meanwhile the gub’mint just took in a record amount of money and spent a record amount of money, and not nearly enough of it was on any useful national security measures, added law enforcement, better education or a goddamned (physical, electronic or human) fence across the Mexican border.
Smartalix, why aren’t you talking in detail about Hayden’s career? Shouldn’t you have real, actual information to which you can point and say “This is a danger?”
What do you actually know about him, or are you just parroting back what you read at D.U. or Daily Kos?
C’mon… You can come up with better propaganda than this.
No matter who the players are, it seems the real issue continues to be the power of the government to operate in secrecy to delve into our private lives without sufficient congressional or judicial oversight. This administration has already proven that it is untrustworthy with secrecy, having already exposed the classified identity of a covert CIA operative in an effort to advance its own political agenda. Lewis Libby is already under indictment for lying to a grand jury to cover up his actions, and Karl Rove may suffer the same fate if the prosecutor can prove that Rove’s previous lies to the grand jury were not merely honest “misrecollections.” The paragons of integrity that employed these people already have the ability to perform nearly any kind of electronic surveillance on us, and our only reassurance that this isn’t happening without just cause comes from them.
As the firstborn of six children, George W. Bush has come to relish the role of Big Brother. Welcome to his family!
“The NSA and CIA are supposed to spy on our enemies, not us.”
So how would you propose they do that when the enemy lives among us, as the Sept 11th attackers did, and still maintain our rights? Or should we just re-erect the wall that kept all the intel agancies blind to the Sept. 11 attacks ?
Smartalix, the OSS was not civilian by any means. The charter that came from that to form the CIA was not meant to be solely civilian either. The best person for the job should be just that…the best person for the job. Isn’t the inverse of that the basis of affirmative action or some sort of blatant discrimination? (Notice it’s not racial discrimination, but discrimination in general.)
Ask yourself, are you going to like anyone President Bush nominates if they aren’t labeled a democrat?
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not drawn up to guide our nation into becoming a land run by hypocrites and liars. Nor was there any serious attempt to define our legal system as “the end justifies the means”.
Neither cul de sac requires cynicism, especially, nor fatalism. Just cowardice and an inclination to cooperate with authority — regardless of cost.
“I wouldn’t trust anyone Bush nominates because I don’t trust Bush.” …and there you go.
Another privilege of being an old fart — is that I actually had a couple of friends who were OSS agents — including one brave Jewish girl who parachuted into Nazi Germany.
The original OSS wasn’t especially civilian. One of the reasons Truman ordered it terminated. Another being his fear that General Donovan’s proposed “peacetime” intelligence establishment might one day be used against Americans.
And it has come to pass.
But, then, Harry never had to muster the rank and file of his political party to defend actions for which he didn’t take responsibility.
Think the British subway bombing might have been stopped if they had this program? They knew of contacts with a Pakistani guy, but weren’t listening in on the calls. We need site admin to jump in and evaluate the technical problem of actually listening in on all these calls.
Why weren’t liberals calling for impeachment of the President when they found out about the Echelon program? That is more intrusive than looking at call records which police can do without a warrant. For that matter businesses are required to hand over all sorts of private financial data to the government all the time. Why isn’t this lack of privacy a federal case?
AB CD: In fact Echelon, if it exists, is legal to the letter if not the spirit of the law and has been in operation since World War II.
You know you and people like you instantly give yourselves away when you say liberal(s). It’s your new racial slur.
I don’t see anything wrong in Hayden taking over at the CIA….we aren’t breaking new ground here. The former and active military types that have run the agency in the past did on average a better job than the pure civilians that ran it.
To complain about spy agencies being secretive is kind of silly when you think about it. I just can’t see how they can do what they are supposed to do by not being secretive.
The CIA was mandated to do it’s thing outside the U.S. and not do domestic spying(that was a gift to J. Edgar), but the world today isn’t so easily put into tidy little boxes. Our spy agencies have never been very cooperative with one another and all these new changes haven’t apparently changed that. But the kinds of activities that we want intel on are a mixed bag of domestic and international, so maybe congress needs to change the CIA’s mandate and set strict guidelines as to what they can and can’t do domestically.
I had visions of a super agency, taking intel from Defense, the state department and the FBI and combining it with the CIA…..then the super agency having divisions for each of the old groups to provide them with what they need on a daily basis, but all intel coming from one single agency. Homeland Security was NOT what I had in mind, that is just a large boondoogle.
Maybe an NSA type agency, that combines it all, but nothing more than just intel gathering.
Yes Paul I have been checked and I fare well.
“Please look at a list of Former CIA directors. A huge percentage of them were ex-military. ”
None of them were present-military.
Paul — that just means that YOU are perfectly confident EVERYONE in government knows you will never step out of line.
¡ Military man, shcmilitary man !
January 26, 2006, National Press Club –
Gen. Hayden: “The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure.”
Landay: “But does it not say ‘probable cause’?”
Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: “No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.”
Folks, here is what the 4th Amendment to the Constitution says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
General Hayden is either ignorant or lying, no matter whether anyone says ‘he is doing a ‘ heck of a job ‘ or not.
Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®
Cripes! Take this to the Cage Match!
Hayden may be a nice guy. Unfortunately for him, he ran the NSA and defended its actions for what is quite likely illegal activities ordered by his boss. He didn’t speak up, resign, stop it, or anything else. It will be because of that that he will most likely lose the nomination.
Secondly, he truly fumbled the ball when he missed the Fourth Amendment. That goes more to his being Bush’s man then anything else though.
Here is one implication to consider. Because of this program, every child growing up today will have their entire lifetime calling history recorded in a secret government database. When I refer to it as “secret,” the existence of it is now known, but the extent of its use, both now and in the future, are unknown to us and possibly more profound than we can imagine. These are not just the records for suspected terrorists, but they are the records for all of us. Statistical analysis is a powerful tool — so powerful, in fact, that you may not even realize what a threat you are until statistical analysis of your calling patterns reveals your hidden sympathies.
RE: #35, How about you put this back on top. With Bush’s numbers down to 29% and recent developments, there could still be some life in this story.
Paul: The reporter isn’t misstating anything.
“the fourth amendment does not codify any means by which one may violate the right to unreasonable search and seizure.”
Paul there is no right to unreasonable search and seizure.
“i know, it’s rilly hard to deal with words and stuff.”
Obviously… Paul.
And the reporter isn’t misstating anything.
#43 Milo, Paul will probably keep beating you over the head with this, because that’s his way, so let me make this a little less painful. “Probable cause” transforms what would otherwise be an unreasonable search into a reasonable one. A citizen’s right to be secure against unreasonable search is therefore never violated where there is probable cause. Cheers.