Clear as Mud
Now BellSouth and Verizon are claiming that the NSA did not request, nor did they provide domestic phone records of their clients to the NSA. Report HERE:
So that leaves the question of just where and how the NSA is getting this list? And just who did the telecommunications corporations provide the information too? They were very careful to say that they didn't supply it directly to the NSA. Especially since Steven J. Hadley confirms that they are, in fact, compiling a list. Story HERE:
Wouldn't the truth be a refreshing change, instead of having to wade through a ton of bullshit in order to discover a half-truth? Yeah, I know...I know, that's just crazy talk!
NEW YORK - Verizon Communications Inc. on Tuesday joined fellow phone company BellSouth in denying key points of a USA Today story that said the companies had provided records of millions of phone calls to the government. Verizon has not provided customer call data to the National Security Agency, nor had it been asked to do so, the company said in an e-mailed statement. The statement came a day after Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. made a similar denial.
So that leaves the question of just where and how the NSA is getting this list? And just who did the telecommunications corporations provide the information too? They were very careful to say that they didn't supply it directly to the NSA. Especially since Steven J. Hadley confirms that they are, in fact, compiling a list. Story HERE:
The NSA and the White House have refused to discuss the specifics of that report, but President Bush's national security advisor, Stephen J. Hadley, appeared to confirm the broad outlines of such an NSA database.(all bold emphasis mine)
He told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the USA Today report "does not claim that the government was listening to domestic phone calls. It does not claim that names were passed, that addresses were passed, that content was passed. It's really about calling records … who was called when, and how long did they talk?"
Hadley said appropriate members of Congress had been fully briefed, and he described such programs as lawful and necessary to protect the United States from terrorism. He repeatedly refused to discuss details of NSA actions.
Wouldn't the truth be a refreshing change, instead of having to wade through a ton of bullshit in order to discover a half-truth? Yeah, I know...I know, that's just crazy talk!
posted by Tootsie Farklepants at 8:26 AM
10 Comments:
Nothing to worry about if your not doing anything wrong.
Nothing to worry about? Nah. Unless it matters that the Constitution is in tatters ... or that one branch of government is taking charge of all three branches of government ... or that, in an attempt to "better connect the dots," a la pre-911, they have created tens of thousands of more dots ... you know ... to make it easier to connect them? ... apparently in an effort to make one BIG dot (that must be it). Or unless it matters that a democracy is being turned into something that decidedly is not. Even Alfred E. Neuman should be worried. Except he's probably working in the White House. Or at FEMA.
Tootsie, thanks for the kudos from just an average Jane blogging away in N.C.
Constitution or no constitution, something has to be done to keep people safe. Even if it means giving up some rights. Also, this has been going on for some time and no one knew about it. It wasn't an issue then. Why is it now.
Constitution or no constitution? That is the whole basis of our democracy. The constitution IS the United States.
Here's an analogy for you on the secret phone record keeping thingy...let's say your spouse has been sleeping with your best friend for the last 3 years, unbeknownst to you, and you just found out about it. What's the big deal? It wasn's an issue then. Why is it now? All your spouse has done is betray your trust, right?
Sleep on it.
To Just Wondering~ Thanks for the thanks! And thank you for reading me...it's nice to know I'm not blogging into the abyss, unnoticed.
And besides which, Anonymous, what they're doing is illegal. If they claim they didn't go to the FISA court because they were afraid they wouldn't agree with them, what does that tell ya? And if they feel the need to compile a call list of every citizen of the US, that just confirms that they do not have any kind of grip on "the war on terror". They're just as clueless today as they were on 9-10-01. Apparently, we're all suspect.
If something horrible were to happen again to the United States and nothing was done about it because the people of the United States cried so much about rights and freedom and Constitution, how would you feel then. How would you feel if everything was stripped out from underneath you? I do understand what you people are saying but someting has to be done to try and help protect this Nation. So instead of complaning about this violation and that violation, try putting some of that hot air into some ideas that help.
As MANY have been suggesting is a change to our foreign policy. Just as one example; arming groups and/or nations when it suits us at the time, only to have it bite us in the ass years or decades later. Iraq (Saddam) and the Mujahadeen come to mind from the 80's. Now Bush wants to sell our Nuclear secretes to India WITHOUT signing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Think outside the box...have some foresight about what consequences our current actions may create.
But nevermind what ideas I may have about our protection. I'm just a tax paying citizen. We elect officials and pay them with tax payers money to come up with solutions (LEGAL solutions) to thwart threats. BFD if I come up with a solution. I'm not in any position to emplement any idea I might have.
GWB swore to uphold the Constitution and if he isn't capable of doing his job without leaving the boundaries of the law, then perhaps someone who is capable should take the wheel.
Good point but sometimes situations arise and the consequence of those situations go far behond what is normal or just. According to (people like just wondering) we sit back with a copy of the constitution in one hand and wave a finger with the other.
As I don't presume to speak for anyone else, I would prefer not having people speaking for me, anonymous. And if you want a suggestion from me, then my suggestion would be to wiretap the hell out of suspected terrorists within the confines of FISA (THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT) which provides the only legal mechanism for the kind of surveillance we're looking at. If, however, the prez didn't think FISA did what he needed it to do, then the legal and constitutional thing for him to do would have been to approach Congress about changing the law. To imply that "people like me" want nothing done is just false. I want plenty done and I want it done legally. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before.
Anonymous~
If current law prohibits this administration from doing what it feels is necessary to protect the country from terrorism, then they need to have congress expand the law. It really is as simple as that. Acting outside of the law, in the guise of national security is a farce and sets a dangerous precident. In this country one branch of government does not act independently of the other...they work together in a series of checks and balances so that powers are not abused. THAT is a fundemental function of our Constitution. If it is okay with you that one branch holds all of the power while keeping the other branches at bay, then I'm sorry that you don't understand the basic principles of our democracy. Perhaps a refresher course in Government 101 would prove helpful.
Post a Comment
<< Home