Skip to main content

View Diary: Press, polls wrongly conflate Bush and Obama NSA surveillance (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What a crock of shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    if they wanted to subpoena just those call records to or from terrorism suspects, they could.  Even after the fact.  

    What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

    by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:50:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  They could, after the fact, (0+ / 0-)

      which would take time. So the question is so much less important than the screaming ideologues on both sides make out: Does the minor, marginal benefit of quicker access to vital information outweigh the minor, marginal privacy violation of having impersonal metadata logged for ready access?

      •  what about the severe, inevitable violations (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Argyrios

        of having such a database at the next J. Edgar Hoover's fingertips, ready to become non-impersonal at the touch of a button?

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then that person would be a criminal (0+ / 0-)

          and I would be quite upset with that person, let's call him Jay, for violating the law. However, I don't think Jay would be much inconvenienced by a lack of precedent. If Jay is a lawbreaker, then he doesn't respect the boundaries imposed by law, and so he certainly won't care what boundaries were established by precedent and discretion. Let's be clear: The data exists.  It could be misused, and if anyone, in the future, misuses it, then you will find in me a strident ally. As far as I can tell, nobody is alleging that the Obama administration misused the data. Instead, the argument seems to be that the data should not exist. Which is to say, they wish for that which is, not to be. Which strikes me as an "old man yelling at clouds" type of mentality.

          •  Jay would be inconvenienced (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dream weaver, divineorder, mkor7

            by the fact that the dataBASE wouldn't exist, he wouldn't be able to access it with a few keystrokes, and he would in fact have to either swear a false affidavit, or falsify a court order, to get his hands on the information.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:39:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The database certainly will exist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              divineorder

              on the servers of the telecoms. And the Obama administration has just conclusively proved that no falsified court order is needed; a real one is readily obtainable.

              But of course a tyrant wouldn't need a court order. Bush asserted he didn't, and people went along for a while.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site