In regard to this so-called domestic spying...Follow

Sigh...

From the San Diego State University General Catalogue

Click on the "Computer Science" link to read the pdf.

Relevant sections:




Fortunately for me, since I've taken these classes, I know which one is which:




Get it? Ethics class. Required for getting a BS in Computer Science. Not sure about other universities, but when I asked about it I was told that it's pretty standard to require one for CS degrees...

Lol. Which is why we were hearing quotes from Rove's testimony literally the next day after he gave it? And statements from lawyers. And statements from reporters. Fitzgerald's investigation may have been relatively tight, but that didn't stop the media circus anyway.

It's not about how much direct information comes out of an investigation Joph. You know that. It's about merely *having* an investigation in the first place. There's media weight merely in having someone called to testify. There's media pressure for statements from him and his attorney and his neighbors and his dog if they could get him to talk.


It's a win-win for the opposition (liberals in this case). If something incriminating is found, they can pounce on it. Heck. If something comes up that *sounds* incriminating, whether it is or isn't, it'll be pounced upon. I heard one Liberal pundint saying that this spying this would almost certainly lead to impeachment of the president (as silly as that is given the actual circumstances). I've heard several saying that Congress should censure the president over the issue (almost as silly). The masses don't know the difference. They just listen to what is shoveled in front of them and assume it all has weight.


The other side of the win is that if the investigation finds no fault or wrongdoing, they'll just tack that onto the "list" of dodges from the "evil Republicans" in power. You'll see articles written and commentaries spoken about how many investigations there have been and how suspicious it is how few of them go anywhere (I heard that one for about the hundredth time last week). Lack of conviction apparently just means that the evil republicans control the courts and congress and everything else and are able to avoid the "justice of the people" or some such nonsense.


That's kinda my issue with this. It's frankly amazing to me the sheer volume of this sort of thing going on right now. And the hype to which it's presented in the media. As though today was the first day anyone realized that the government runs secret programs. As though somehow our process of government should require that the masses decide if things should be done rather then those they elected. There's a reason we have a representative democracy instead of a true democracy. True democracy leads to mob rule. Which is exactly the methods being used by the left right now. Appeal to the mob when the legal methods of governing don't do what you want. IMO, that's far more dangerous then any spying by the NSA.

Huh? Not following you here Joph. The point is that in investigations, there are always leaks. Always. And those leaks are always designed for maximum media impact (no one leaks a crappy story to the press, right?). So in an environment where we've got one side of our political spectrum essentially doing *nothing* but media manipulation, this is a significant factor.

There were news stories for a week after quotes from Rove's testimony were leaked to the press Joph. This isn't an imaginary factor. It's very real.



It's a "win" in the context that they can manipulate public opinion readily. But a large part of that is *because* they are not in power in any branch of the government right now. That means that they can freely attack all aspects of government and point the finger at the Republicans for everything. The problem though is that most of the things they're digging up aren't illegal or even unusual. But they can be made to look questionable in the public eye (just like this one) so they'll use it to attack.

The danger here though is that in the process of attacking the Republicans, they're also attacking some pretty basic processes we use in our government on a day to day basis. This one's particularly nasty. They're basically taking the position that congressional committee oversight and authorization for executive programs is "wrong" (or at least isn't the right way to determine if something should be done). But what's the alternative? Open all these things up to an open debate on the Senate floor? That's clearly the direction they're going, right? Even you, who I assume is a bit less gullible then the average citizen is supporting some sort of investigation. You've completely bought the argument that what we had before wasn't oversight, but somehow what we're going to have with an investigation will.


What effect does this have down the line? Does every committee now have to worry that if someone leaks something about a program they have approved that they'll suddenly have to defend classified decisions on national defense in an open forum? How do you do that anyway? You can't talk about the details of the programs and projects openly, so without totally wrecking the system, the best you can do is have *another* small group of people in congress do oversight on the oversight committee. Isn't that silly? And it's no more guarantee that "bad things" wont be done by your government.


And how do we determine which programs we single out for this process? I would assume we have hundreds of classified programs that are managed in various committees and bound via some form of classification. Are you saying it's ok for us to just pick the ones that make our political enemies look the worst and leak infomation about them? How else do you think this got out in the first place?


It's exactly about using a process that must work the way it does, and can only work the way it does, and implying that the secret nature of such things automatically means that the government is doing horrible things and must be stopped or something. Of course, that works great fine for Dems when it's the Republicans in charge of the white house and both houses of congress. But the processes they are attacking are needed and are run by *both* sides all the time. The short term goal is to make a cheap attack on the Right. But the only long term effect this can possibly have is to mangle our management of such programs in the future.

I think the vast right wing conspiracy could beat up the liberal conspiracy. In a fair fight anyway, like on pay per view at Caesars Palace or something.

I mean, the right wing conspiracy is vast, I've never heard the liberal conspiracy described that way. I bet the liberal conspiracy would fight like Tyson, and bite the V.R.W.C.'s ear clean off. ******* LC. In the end though, the LC would go down in an early round...maybe the fourth or so, much like Tyson would do.

Unfortunately for the VRWC, the LC has a tag team partner...L.M. (Liberal Media). So soon after the fight ended, half the country would be convinced that the VRWC was knocked out in the first round by a glorious three punch combination, culminating in a chin shattering uppercut. Man...what a punch, kinda brings a tear to my eye.

What the hell was the point of this again? Ahh **** it.

Good point. No one was worried about GPS tracking or electronic surveillance or tapping commercial computer databases in 1905 so anyone stressing about it is obviously a wacko!

'Cause it makes him qualified to lecture us on wiretapping laws.

My point is this: Any rights you may have lost with the implementation of the Patriot Act will be restored to you when the crisis has passed and the threat is eliminated


Right.

When no one in the world any longer has any hatred of the US, you'll get them all back.

See the worry now?

There's no end to the "War on Terror". It's designed to concolidate power forever. It's transparent and not confusing at all.

Eurasia is the enemy Eurasia has allways been the enemy.



Edited, Wed Dec 21 18:04:01 2005 by Smasharoo

Or else he learned how to use a search engine.

The 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report (pdf) reveals that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted 1724 applications for secret surveillance last year, more than in any previous year. The report shows that 2003 was the first year ever that more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which are issued only under a more stringent legal standard. The PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the government's authority to make use of secret surveillance, including in circumstances where part of the investigation is unrelated to an intelligence investigation. The report also reveals that a small number of applications for secret surveillance were denied in 2003 for the first time ever. (Emphasis added)

OMG Yossarian had to use Google! LOLOLOLOOLLLOL!!!

Edited, Wed Dec 21 18:43:37 2005 by Jophiel

We do, however, know that in matters where speed is of the utmost importance, one may wiretap and then apply for the warrant with the FISA court retroactively within 72 hours. A path the administration declined to take.

And you didn't want to "just see", you were trying to call Yoss out as a liar (or accusing him of spilling classified information). Though now that you've been proven wrong, you'll no doubt say "Heh. No that's not it at all. You need to read what I was saying." So on and so forth. Like every other time.

How do you know the Bush administration has never used the retroactive warrant method, huh? So, you're either making that up, or your violating some kind of national security law... Oh wait!



Actually, I was pretty much just giving him a hard time. And if it got someone to link something about the FISA numbers, that's just a bonus after the fact. I basically made all the points I felt I needed to on this topic last page. Just kinda tossing out responses and making other people work to support their statements since then.