BF2S Forums On "A Potential for Abuse"

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

I personally prefer the government to get the fuck out of my life and let me be. What goes on privately should stay private.

That's just me though.

But what if it affects my life?

Then its public

Turquoise wrote:

eh....  Well, don't be surprised if video cameras at every street corner are the next step.  London already made that one.  Las Vegas has become rather spy-happy as well.

On the other hand, I actually feel safe in this country.

For that matter, monitoring calls when the word "jihad" or "bomb" is said is just plain stupid. I doubt that the terrorists, who have already shown that they are more than capable, would speak without codes - even before the monitoring due to the patriot act began. I doubt that they speak on phones that can be monitored.

Same way I doubt that profiling Arab people as terrorists will help much.

-konfusion

FEOS wrote:

There have been many of late lambasting the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about other areas that have potential for abuse, but with much more severe consequences.

1. Police officers. They have loaded guns wherever they go. There is the potential that they can unload those guns into innocent people walking down the street! Where's the outcry?

2. The military. They have multi-million dollar weapon systems that can put several hundred pounds of heat, blast, and fragmentation on a gnat's ass. There is the potential that they could loose this power on the general public. Where's the outcry?

3. Truck drivers. They drive tens of tons of metal down the road at 60+ mph. There is the potential that they could just tear through neighborhoods, killing unsuspecting people in their homes! Where's the outcry?

Continue the list ad nauseum.

The answer to these questions is simple: There are checks and balances to ensure the potential abuse doesn't occur--just as with the Patriot Act and any other government programs. A potential for abuse does not equate to abuse actually occurring. If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.

There should be an outcry for 1 and 2! And one really wonders what kind of sheep we've become to allow demonstrations to be policed by people armed to the teeth as if demonstrators were an enemy army.

Other than that, I really can't see the logic in what you're saying. Clearly there's a difference between tapping phones, limiting civil liberties etc and truck drivers. Your example seems unfit.

FEOS wrote:

There have been many of late lambasting the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists. Yet I don't see anyone concerned about other areas that have potential for abuse, but with much more severe consequences.

1. Police officers. They have loaded guns wherever they go. There is the potential that they can unload those guns into innocent people walking down the street! Where's the outcry?

Its about checks and balances.  Theoretically, that officer is trained not to draw his weapon unless there is a credible threat to life or limb.  Rules are also in place to that effect.  If an officer with a weapon acts innappropriately, at the very least he is subject to internal discipline, at most public legal scrutiny and loss of a job.  Yes, the potential for abuse is there, but the abuse is ILLEGAL, or at the very least, outside of sanctioned rules.

Now, if the government gave every police officer full discretion on shoot-to-kill with no oversight other than "do it if you feel like you need to", and no penalties for violating this, then we would have issues.  Nevertheless, police have killed one heck of a lot of people (could only find stats by city, no national rollup).

2. The military. They have multi-million dollar weapon systems that can put several hundred pounds of heat, blast, and fragmentation on a gnat's ass. There is the potential that they could loose this power on the general public. Where's the outcry?

Again, we had rules that state this is illegal, and the military rules of engagement for a given scenario are very clear.  Violating these rules has penalties, and very strong ones, if caught.

If the government said the rules of engagement are "do whatever the hell you feel like to anyone at any time", we'd have some major issues.  Nevertheless, the military has killed an estimated 20,000 to 120,000 civilian non-combatants/year in the last 10 years.

3. Truck drivers. They drive tens of tons of metal down the road at 60+ mph. There is the potential that they could just tear through neighborhoods, killing unsuspecting people in their homes! Where's the outcry?

Again, checks and balances are in play.  Theoretically, that truck driver is qualified and registered to be on the road.  His shipping weight and time spent driving are (theoretically) carefully monitored to mitigate him becoming a hazard to others and reducing strain on the highway system.  He must follow all basic traffic safety rules, and in some cases is prevented entirely from joining local neighborhood traffic (no shortcuts through suburbia).  To top it off, he and his company are insured for any liablity, so that when an accident happens, they will be monetarily (and possibly criminally) accountable, and that truck driver is subject to any other substance abuse rules as any other driver.

Now, if the government says "drive what and how you want, we don't even care if you've never seen a truck before...just get behind the wheel anyways," then we would have some issues.  Nevertheless, truck drivers have killed around 4900 people/year in the US on average in the last 20 years or so.

Continue the list ad nauseum.

The answer to these questions is simple: There are checks and balances to ensure the potential abuse doesn't occur--just as with the Patriot Act and any other government programs. A potential for abuse does not equate to abuse actually occurring. If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.

Good, have a cookie on the checks and balances thing.  Unfortunately, you're completely wrong and misinformed.  The whole reasoning for the outcry among the post 9/11 power grab was not that it increased the things the government can do to keep people safe.  Its all the same things they've been doing for years.  Its that they re-wrote the rules to do the following:

By-pass various judicial or congressional review procedures.
Allowed them to keep and store information not pertinent to any criminal case.
Co-opted private citizens/companies into selling non-pertinent private information.
Intimidated private citizens/companies into handing over non-pertinent private information.
Disseminating private information on non-suspect citizens to third parties for commercial purposes.
Provide immunity for private citizens that illegally sell information or cooperate in violating the constitutional law.

This isn't debateable...they have already DONE these things.  It is a fact...and all for what?  Terrorists have killed roughly 175 US citizens/year in the last 20 years (and only about half are attributable to radical Muslims, the remaining are radical Christians or pro-fascists).  McDonald's fast food alone can be held personally accountable for 5x that figure.  There's your perspective.

Now if a disease had the potential to kill about 175 people a year, it would be ignored.  If a product caused cancer in 175 people/year, it might be considered "risky" and sold to 18+ year olds, but if a band of radical brown people kill 90 Americans/year, then lets spend $175,000,000 tax dollars every day to fight them, and another $29,000,000/day to listen to Grandma call little Billy studying at the Sorbonne.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-02-19 07:53:59)

Dilbert_X wrote:

The basic misconception you have is that every person in the US is being monitored at all times (surveillance). That is simply not the case...

I'm aware of that too, however Bush is effectively seeking the right to do so by removing the requirement of a warrant before surveillance can take place.
You either trust the govt. - based on its track record I don't trust the US govt, or you put in place stringent checks and balances - something Bush is seeking to remove.

The right to do so and the ability to do so are completely different things.

I don't trust the government, per se. I do, however, trust the checks and balances in place within the signals intelligence world (regardless of the government in place) to minimize the chances for abuse. The bottomline is that abuse of the type everyone is worried about is ILLEGAL and punishable by prison time. Since there aren't people being prosecuted and thrown in prison for these feared abuses, it is somewhat safe to assume that the abuses everyone seems to be scared of aren't occurring.

Since there aren't people being prosecuted and thrown in prison for these feared abuses, it is somewhat safe to assume that the abuses everyone seems to be scared of aren't occurring.

Thats completely bogus logic - you've really lost the plot.

The right to do so and the ability to do so are completely different things.

I don't get you, Bush is saying he has the moral right and is seeking the ability.

Actually, it is ENTIRELY debatable until you can provide credible sources showing that those things have been occurring with the explicit approval and participation of the government.

You never provide a source - you just expect us to take your word for it.
Even when we do every source we put up you ignore, ridicule, try to discredit.

But there are no checks, according to the experts on here.

If you're not interested in debating and only you are the sole expert here why did you bother with the OP?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Since there aren't people being prosecuted and thrown in prison for these feared abuses, it is somewhat safe to assume that the abuses everyone seems to be scared of aren't occurring.

Thats completely bogus logic - you've really lost the plot.

No more bogus than the logic being employed by others here...

Dilbert_X wrote:

The right to do so and the ability to do so are completely different things.

I don't get you, Bush is saying he has the moral right and is seeking the ability.

No, he's not. He's saying it's his responsibility as President to protect Americans from all threats, foreign and domestic. That is not a "moral right" as you put it...it is a responsibility.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Actually, it is ENTIRELY debatable until you can provide credible sources showing that those things have been occurring with the explicit approval and participation of the government.

You never provide a source - you just expect us to take your word for it.
Even when we do every source we put up you ignore, ridicule, try to discredit.

Hmmm...US Code isn't a source? Since when?
Ignore, ridicule, discredit? Really? Since no source has been provided (specific to Gorilla's argument), your conclusion is invalid. One can't ignore, ridicule, or discredit something that hasn't been provided.
As to the source regarding the former NSA employee...two were provided and one was obviously biased (worse than your favorite, Fox News). The other, less biased source, didn't forward claims of abuse occurring, but spoke to the former employee's concern about potential for abuse. Didn't ignore, ridicule, or discredit that source, now did I?

Dilbert_X wrote:

But there are no checks, according to the experts on here.

If you're not interested in debating and only you are the sole expert here why did you bother with the OP?

What have I been doing this whole time?
It's called debate and serious talk....or is that only the case if people agree with your position?
Please don't start beating this tired old drum again, Dilbert.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Did Ceaucescu study 1984? That sounds very familiar.

Funny thing was, Orwell even got the ratio correct for those complicit and the "proles", exactly 15% of every Romanian citizen became a paid informant for the Securitate, and another 3% were favored party idealogues.  These records were kept and they're still being dredged up now and again as a political weapon.  Nobody's hands were completely clean by the end of 50 years.  The Securitate and the informants were just trying to keep the country safe and secure though, it was their patriotic duty

FEOS wrote:

sources?

Because you fail at using the Google.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks2007/06/jud … -records-0
Judge orders FBI to release stats on the 30,000 to 55,000 NSL/year scandal.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c … 003757.php
Gonzo lying about it, with his own reports right there in front of him...and his assistant quoting a Michelle Malkin rant in front of Congress...clever.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalse … index.html
One stop shopping center on this subject.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 … abuse.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 53_pf.html
Good statistical breakdown and showing the complete lack of oversight.   

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200704/042607a.html
Damning letter from Senator Leahy to FBI Director Mueller about "Where the fuck are my reports?  Get your ass on the carpet, I got a few questions for you."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18681432/
So unconstitutional even Ashcroft wouldn't sign off on it.  Comey's testimony before Congress.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172855/
Why did Gonzo resign?  I pick #2.  If that idiot had stayed on and gotten another brow-beating before Congress, he would have blown it for the rest of them.

http://newsinitiative.org/story/2006/07 … telligence
One of the biggest issues I have with the Bush ideology since I got out.  For-profit intelligence generation.  Intel Analysts/Interceptors should NEVER be paid by how much crap they can invent on the paper or how well it sounds to their political masters.  It makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it.  People die - good soldiers/marines and innocent civilians alike - because of this crap, and some pack of retards run by a high-placed buddy of the administration is laughing all the way to the bank.  I had the opportunity to join them when I got out, making about 3x what I make now running a game studio.  Fuck no.  If I'm going to invent shit, I'll at least put Tom Clancy's name in the title so everyone can at least think its fiction.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=24935
Money quote: These liberties are not abstract or optional.  Freedom from government spying on our private lives is at the core of what it means to be an American – the kind of personal liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0720/final.pdf
DOJ Audit report on the fact that *gasp* the FBI lies in 80% of its reports generated related to terrorist arrests and investigations.
"We found that most of the inaccurate statistics occurred because the USAOs coded the statistical data as terrorism or anti-terrorism related but did not support that a case showed any reasonable link to terrorist activity."

So, with up to 400,000+ NSL's since 2002, of which 80% do not begin with or relate to terrorism investigations, and each NSL could cover anywhere from 1 to many people (we'll say 1.5 on average), we have about 500,000 Americans who have had their privacy directly violated for basically no good reason.  I'd call that big, and instead of winding down, this program is set to be bloated even bigger.

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-02-20 03:07:07)

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sources?

Because you fail at using the Google.

Not so much. Thanks for providing sources as requested. The burden is not on ME to find substantiation of YOUR argument.

Only one of those links mentioned anything in depth about the wiretapping issue (going back to the subject of the OP)--the MSNBC Comey story. I understand and share your concerns about NSLs, but that's not the topic.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-02-20 03:21:14)

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, he's not. He's saying it's his responsibility as President to protect Americans from all threats, foreign and domestic. That is not a "moral right" as you put it...it is a responsibility.

You were the one who used the words 'right' and 'ability', not me. Maybe you can explain what you meant by it instead of going off at a tangent.

For crying out loud...go back and read the post where I mentioned "right" and "ability". I merely said there was a distinct difference between having the "right" to do something (your word, BTW) and having the "ability" to do that thing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hmmm...US Code isn't a source? Since when?

Give us the source then. You challenge everyone else to do so but never do yourself.

Just what the fuck do you think US Code is? It's called a source. Specifically, Title 50 of US code. Chapter 36 is about FIS.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The abuse of such a system can happen, and it has happened.  Repeatedly.  On a large scale.  Mostly in complete secrecy.  In the USA.

I suggest you read up on:
The FBI under J Edgar Hoover
The US under McCarthy
The early history of the CIA

How many times do we have to say that those have nothing to do with the provisions for wiretaps under the Patriot Act? So many checks and balances have been put into place since those event occurred as to make it like comparing apples and oranges.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I challenge you to back that claim up. Don't talk about Hoover or McCarthy. Give multiple examples (since it has happened repeatedly and on a large scale in secrecy in the USA) of such abuse since 2001.

Why should we not be allowed to talk about Hoover and McCarthy?
How are examples since post 2001 the only ones which are valid?
Since when were you the supreme moderator of D&ST? Dictating what we can and can't talk about and which arguments are valid and which aren't?

See above. If you want to keep spouting off information irrelevant to the OP, then go ahead. I was specifically looking for sources regarding actual abuse since the Patriot Act was enacted...which would be long after those events.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If you want post 2001 how about:

The 'signing statements' of George Bush overriding the US Congress and the US constitution
Manipulation of govt agencies and lies to the UN to justify the invasion of Iraq http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/ … 7749.shtml
The govt policy of human rights abuses at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib etc in violation of international law
The treatment of Valerie Plame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game: … hite_House

And you accuse ME of going off on a tangent?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the OP is about potential for abuse, presumably in the future, then history pre-2001 is relevant.
If something happened in the past its a good indication it could happen again in the future.
If your Congress passes something today then you need to be concerned about what any future President could do with it. What the current Presiduhnt is doing is bad enough - why he needs more freedom to perpetrate his agenda is very concerning.

How's this:

I wrote:

There have been many of late lambasting the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration. The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists.

Go back and read the OP.

Abuse specific to warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration under the Patriot Act. Do I need to clarify further?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I didn't realize those were also provisions of the Patriot Act. I'll have to go re-read the thing. Must've missed that part.

More ridicule, why don't you just grow up? - These are the POTENTIALs for ABUSE - the title of your OP - duh.
Its a long slippery slope to Soviet era Romania - weakening the wiretap laws is the first step.

Ridicule? Please. Go back and read the OP. You must be against police, military, and truck drivers as well, based on the POTENTIAL for abuse. This is not Romania. You can cite endless lists of governments abusing their power...that does not mean all governments have or will abuse the power they have. It only means THOSE governments cited have done so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The arguments seem to focus around the potential for abuse that exists.

I was specifically looking for sources regarding actual abuse since the Patriot Act was enacted...which would be long after those events

Potential for abuse and actual abuse which is proven to have already happened are two totally different things.
To prove there is potential for abuse you don't need to prove its already happened. Lack of prosecutions proves nothing one way or the other.
All my arguments relate to potential abuse - if thats not what you meant then maybe you shouldn't have made it the title of the OP?

Did you even read the OP?

I wrote:

A potential for abuse does not equate to abuse actually occurring. If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just what the fuck do you think US Code is? It's called a source. Specifically, Title 50 of US code. Chapter 36 is about FIS.

Hey I don't know, I'm not American, I'm not familiar with the inner workings of your so-called 'democracy' Thanks for the link, why do you have to be so offensive though?

I get tired of repeating myself. And it sounds like someone's inner child needs to start working out.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not really, given the abuses of the democratic process perpetrated by Bush.
Signing statements - the US President can do whatever Cheney tells him to - Where are the checks and balances? Don't you have a congress or something?
Conducting an illegal war contrary to the UN charter - Where are the checks and balances?
Torturing and killing prisoners of war contrary to international law and conventions the US has signed- Where are the checks and balances?
Ruining a public employee because her husband dared point out the Bush administration was dishonest - Where are the checks and balances?

Please point out where these...we'll call them your personal conclusions...have anything at all to do with wiretapping?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Given the above do you really think the admin would be bothered about violating a few lines in some obscure code?
Given Duhbya is busy attempting to dismantle the 'checks and balances' carefully put in place don't you think you should be a little concerened?

There's nothing obscure about US Code. It is the basis of all the other laws in this country and enacts all laws passed by Congress. Read the link I provided...all those checks and balances are still there, so your "dismantle" argument is moot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You must be against police, military, and truck drivers as well, based on the POTENTIAL for abuse.

No, I explained already, secrecy and unaccountability are the important issues.

The key issue is accountability, not secrecy. There is plenty of accountability.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You can cite endless lists of governments abusing their power...that does not mean all governments have or will abuse the power they have. It only means THOSE governments cited have done so.

True, it does mean all governments have the POTENTIAL to do so unless there are checks and balances in place.
If a government is busily dismantling the checks and balances then the POTENTIAL likelihood of them abusing their power is increased.

There isn't any government "busily dismantling the checks and balances". Even though they took away the requirement in some cases for a warrant, the checks and balances preventing abuse by the intelligence agency are still there. The data can be collected, but it cannot be kept for longer than 72 hrs without a warrant.

And again...the point of the OP was contrasting the potential for abuse that exists everywhere, but nobody saying dammit about other cases. Why no outcry? Because any abuses that may occur are dealt with rapidly and severely. It is the same with the wiretapping, but people seem to think because it's not out in the general public that it's being abused right and left. Just because it's secret doesn't mean it's sinister.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please point out where these...we'll call them your personal conclusions...have anything at all to do with wiretapping?

As I said, these are abuses of the democratic and legal processes already proven to have been perpetrated by Bush.
Based on these its reasonable to hazard a guess the wellbeing of Joe Schmuck is not at the top of his priority list.

"Proven" is certainly debatable. But here's a news flash: The President doesn't actually perform the wiretapping or maintain the data collected. So the President wouldn't be "perpetrating" any abuses of the wiretapping laws.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If everyone is going to lose their damn minds about one policy or law that has a potential for abuse, without taking into account the checks that keep that abuse from occurring, then they must either suspend their logic in all cases that have the potential for abuse or admit they are...just maybe...taking things to a bit of an extreme.

Thats fairly confused logic. If your examples occurred in secret, were prosecuted in secret and punished in secret maybe your argument would float.
The general population is unaware of the checks and balances supposedly in place, if they are administered in secret there is no way to know they are working. Given the recent abuses of the Bush govt. and past abuses of other US admins people have a right to be concerned.

Just because the illegal activity happened in secret doesn't mean the prosecution of that activity will occur in secret. In fact, it occurs in the open as an example to others. My point is that prosecution of abuses of surveillance laws occur in the open...and no prosecutions have happened.

The statutes are not secret...they are there for anyone and everyone to see. And just because the general population is unaware, that does not mean the checks and balances don't exist. They do.

People being concerned certainly makes sense...right up until someone shows them (or they educate themselves on) the statutes that show that concern to be unfounded.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And again...the point of the OP was contrasting the potential for abuse that exists everywhere, but nobody saying dammit about other cases. Why no outcry? Because any abuses that may occur are dealt with rapidly and severely.

Exactly, the examples you listed would be dealt with rapidly, severely and most importantly in public.
Any abuses of wiretapping would be secret, any oversight would be secret, any sanctions would be secret.

See above. It simply doesn't work that way. Your assumption is flawed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just because it's secret doesn't mean it's sinister.

Maybe not, but its a reasonable assumption it could be.
Remember Bush has the lowest approval rating of any American President in history. Less than one fifth of the population think he is doing a good job.
Its reasonable to make assumptions about his intentions based on judgments about his past actions.
Given his past actions who is going to believe his intentions are good here?

Depends on which poll you reference. In doing some digging for comparisons to IRONCHEF's "19%" thread, I found multiple polls that showed a ~30% approval rating...which was still double-digits higher than the Democrat-controlled Congress (which has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in history). Your leap in logic that dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy and the Iraq war somehow leads to a comparable percentage of the American people believing he has nefarious intentions is flawed. Those actions are unrelated to the OP.

Bottomline: While there is (and has ALWAYS been) a potential for abuse--just as with the other scenarios in the OP--no cases of actual abuse of wiretapping authorities has been substantiated. The sky is not falling, no matter how bad you want it to be.

Dilbert_X wrote:

no cases of actual abuse of wiretapping authorities has been substantiated

How would they be substantiated?

By the oversight mechanism doing its job.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the police are policing themselves are they going to prosecute themselves? It doesn't happen too often.

Police "police" themselves all the time. It's called "Internal Affairs" in most departments here in the US. And before you even go there, it's not a "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" thing. The IA folks (and their counterparts in the intelligence community here) take their jobs very seriously and are generally not viewed with fondness by the people they have to investigate.

And it happens all the time. It's just that most violations are not serious enough to warrant prosecution...most punishments are administrative in nature, rather than criminal (due to the nature of the violation, not favoritism).

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not aware of a President who has impeached himself for example.

No, Presidents don't impeach themselves...but the government they run can investigate them and submit findings which can then lead to impeachment. It's not the people doing the collection that investigate themselves...it is a separate mechanism that reviews everything that is done and then busts them if they have violated the law.