More info on bush's domestic spying

[BBond]

More on the nuts and bolts of how America became a dictatorship from Democracy Now!

US Firm Gave FBI, CIA Consumers? Financial Data
On the domestic front, Suskind?s book also discloses that a major US financial company provided the FBI and CIA information on the financial transactions and wire transfers of consumers world-wide. The company, First Data Corporation, is the parent firm of Western Union. First Data becomes the latest major US corporation to be linked with US government spying. Last month, USA Today revealed the National Security Agency has secretly collected the phone call records of millions of Americans with the help of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.

Gov. Hired Data Brokers To Bypass Subpoenas, Warrants
In other domestic spy news, the Associated Press is reporting law enforcement agencies have employed private-sector brokers to collect the personal telephone records of scores of Americans. Officials interviewed by the AP said the brokers were employed because they could bypass civil liberties safeguards such as subpoenas and warrants. The brokers? methods included hacking into customers? online accounts and even impersonating them to get phone companies to reveal their private information. The government spent at least $30 million dollars last year on the brokers? activities. Some agencies stopped using the brokers after coming under congressional scrutiny. A lawyer representing four data brokers defended his clients by comparing their work to the spying activities of the National Security Agency. The lawyer, James Bearden, said: "The government is doing exactly what these people are accused of doing? These are people who are partners with law enforcement on a regular basis."

Headlines for June 21, 2006

 

[amish]

link?

edit: ok the link is up. the crap that you have brought up is from the same guy that wrote this:

Author: US Deliberately Bombed Al Jazeera in Afghanistan
A controversial new book is claiming the US bombing of the Kabul offices of the Arabic television network Al Jazeera was deliberate. In ?The One Percent Doctrine?, investigative journalist Ron Suskind writes: "On November 13 [2001], a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera." In an interview with CNN, Suskind said government sources had told him there was ?great anger? within the Bush administration over Al Jazeera?s coverage of the invasion of Afghanistan. He added: ?I'll tell you emphatically it was a deliberate act by the U.S.?

Suskind?s disclosure is the latest development to bolster speculation the US has deliberately targeted Al Jazeera. On April 8th 2003 ? just weeks into the invasion of Iraq -- the US bombed Al Jazeera?s Baghdad bureau, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Last November, the Daily Mirror of London reported President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair of his desire to bomb Al Jazeera?s headquarters in Qatar. The Mirror cited a secret memo leaked from the British government. According to the New York Times, Suskind?s book appears to have been written with wide access to former CIA Director George Tenet and a host of other government officials.

while suskind is a pulitzer winner he has had credibility issues in the past. yes, i know that it's a crappy blog, but that's what i could find. so, i see suskind as a drudge. one claim to fame, but nothing to believe unconditionally.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: amish
link?

It's there now. Or click on Democracy Now! link in my sig and look for headlines from June 21.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: amish
link?

edit: ok the link is up. the crap that you have brought up is from the same guy that wrote this:

Author: US Deliberately Bombed Al Jazeera in Afghanistan
A controversial new book is claiming the US bombing of the Kabul offices of the Arabic television network Al Jazeera was deliberate. In ?The One Percent Doctrine?, investigative journalist Ron Suskind writes: "On November 13 [2001], a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera." In an interview with CNN, Suskind said government sources had told him there was ?great anger? within the Bush administration over Al Jazeera?s coverage of the invasion of Afghanistan. He added: ?I'll tell you emphatically it was a deliberate act by the U.S.?

Suskind?s disclosure is the latest development to bolster speculation the US has deliberately targeted Al Jazeera. On April 8th 2003 ? just weeks into the invasion of Iraq -- the US bombed Al Jazeera?s Baghdad bureau, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Last November, the Daily Mirror of London reported President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair of his desire to bomb Al Jazeera?s headquarters in Qatar. The Mirror cited a secret memo leaked from the British government. According to the New York Times, Suskind?s book appears to have been written with wide access to former CIA Director George Tenet and a host of other government officials.

while suskind is a pulitzer winner he has had credibility issues in the past. yes, i know that it's a crappy blog, but that's what i could find. so, i see suskind as a drudge. one claim to fame, but nothing to believe unconditionally.

You are a known loon so I will ignore your post.

 

[conjur]

U.S. Mining Bank Transfer Data in Anti-Terror Effort (watching bank transfers without public's knowledge or even banks' knowledge!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,6482687.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government, without the knowledge of many banks and their customers, has engaged for years in a secret effort to track terrorist financing by reviewing confidential information on transfers of money between banks worldwide.

The program, run by the Treasury Department, is considered a potent weapon in the war on terrorism because of its ability to clandestinely monitor financial transactions and map terrorist webs.

Current and former officials at multiple U.S. agencies acknowledged the program's existence, but spoke on condition of anonymity, citing its sensitive nature. "We're very, very protective of it," said a senior U.S. official familiar with the program. "It is extremely valuable."

The program is part of an arsenal of aggressive measures the government has adopted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that yield new intelligence, but also circumvent traditional safeguards against abuse and raise concerns about intrusions on privacy.

The program extracts information about bank transfers from the world's largest financial communication network, which is run by a consortium of financial institutions called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT.

The SWIFT network carries up to 12.7 million messages a day containing instructions on many of the international transfers of money between banks. The messages typically include the names and account numbers of bank customers - from U.S. citizens to major corporations - who are sending or receiving funds.

The program gives U.S. intelligence analysts extraordinary access into what is essentially the central nervous system of international banking.

The Treasury Department uses a little-known power - administrative subpoenas - to routinely seek data from the SWIFT network, which has operations in the U.S., including a main computer hub in Manassas, Va. The subpoenas are secret and not reviewed by judges or grand juries, as are most criminal subpoenas.

SWIFT acknowledged Thursday in response to questions from the Los Angeles Times that it has provided data under subpoena since shortly after Sept. 11, a striking leap in cooperation from international bankers who long resisted such law enforcement intrusions into the confidentiality of their communications. But SWIFT said in a statement that it has worked with U.S. officials to restrict the use of the data to terrorism investigations.

The program is part of the Bush administration's dramatic expansion of intelligence-gathering capabilities, which includes warrantless eavesdropping on the international phone calls of some U.S. citizens. Critics complain that these efforts are not subject to independent governmental reviews designed to prevent abuse and charge that they collide with privacy and consumer protection laws in the United States.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the SWIFT program raises similar issues. "It boils down to a question of oversight, both internal and external. And in the current circumstances, it is hard to have confidence in the efficacy of their oversight," he said. "Their policy is, 'Trust us,' and that may not be good enough anymore."

A former senior Treasury official expressed concern that the SWIFT program allows access to vast quantities of sensitive data that could be abused without safeguards. The official, who said he did not have independent knowledge of the program, questioned what becomes of the data, some of it presumably on innocent banking customers.

"How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?" the former official said. "And what do you do with the chaff?"

The effort also runs counter to the expectations of privacy and security that are sacrosanct in the worldwide banking community. SWIFT promotes its services largely by touting the network's security, and most of its customers are likely unaware that the U.S. government is regularly using subpoenas to review the private financial information.

U.S. officials, some of whom expressed surprise the program had not previously been revealed by critics, acknowledged it would be controversial in the financial community. "It is certainly not going to sit well in the world marketplace," said the former counterterrorism official. "It could very likely undermine the integrity of SWIFT."

Bush administration officials asked the Los Angeles Times not to publish information about the program, contending that disclosure could damage its effectiveness and that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the public.

Dean Baquet, the editor of the Times, said, "We weighed the government's arguments carefully, but in the end we determined that it was in the public interest to publish information about the extraordinary reach of this program. It is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by the government."

Officials familiar with the program offer conflicting descriptions of whether it allows access only to financial data relating to individual terrorist suspects, or to a much broader range of data that would sweep up innocent people as well.

The senior U.S. official said U.S. authorities subpoena SWIFT data only when they have specific intelligence that connects an individual or company to suspected terrorist activity. "This program is legal, it is properly run, it's got oversight," he said. "It's exactly what you want your government to be doing."

But a former U.S. official, who is also familiar with the program, characterized it as more comprehensive than individual searches. "I think it's more than targeted. I don't know that it's the whole network, but it's very broad."


CONTINUED
1 2 3 next >>

"Trust us" is the Bush Doctrine?


:roll:

 

[db]

In the WSJ too.
"...Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative...."

"...all the programs grew out of the Bush administration's desire to exploit technological tools to prevent another terrorist strike, and all reflect attempts to break down longstanding legal or institutional barriers to the government's access to private information about Americans and others inside the United States.

Officials described the Swift program as the biggest and most far-reaching of several secret efforts to trace terrorist financing. Much more limited agreements with other companies have provided access to A.T.M. transactions, credit card purchases and Western Union wire payments, the officials said.

"...what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization


"Swift is a crucial gatekeeper, providing electronic instructions on how to transfer money among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. The cooperative is owned by more than 2,200 organizations, and virtually every major commercial bank, as well as brokerage houses, fund managers and stock exchanges, uses its services. "

"Treasury officials said Swift was exempt from American laws restricting government access to private financial records because the cooperative was considered a messaging service, not a bank or financial institution.

"For many years, law enforcement officials have relied on grand-jury subpoenas or court-approved warrants for such financial data. Since 9/11, the F.B.I. has turned more frequently to an administrative subpoena, known as a national security letter, to demand such records.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

 

[db]

It does affect the comman man. Swift is only one of many sources providing information on virtually every kind of financial transaction.

 

[randym431]

More info on bush's domestic spying

more? Man we dont even know the half of it....yet.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

Because we're smarter than you...we realize that living in a country where the police have too much power doesn't make you any safer from the bad guys you're scared of, and makes you a lot LESS safe from the bad guys you never even thought about.

 

[db]

Right. When there is potential for abuse, there *will* be abuse. Anybody who hasn't seen this just hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: db
Right. When there is potential for abuse, there *will* be abuse. Anybody who hasn't seen this just hasn't been paying attention.

I think you're wrong, I think it's more than not paying attention. People know perfectly well what a police state looks like, and they WANT it like that. It's not a matter of people not understanding that a lot of this means a federal agent hiding in their closet, they want him in there to protect him from the terrorist hiding under their bed.

The fact that this won't keep them safe is another matter, but I don't think it's that people don't realize they are trading their freedom for security...I think they WANT to make that trade.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

Because we're smarter than you...we realize that living in a country where the police have too much power doesn't make you any safer from the bad guys you're scared of, and makes you a lot LESS safe from the bad guys you never even thought about.

Your just mad because you got made fun of in the other thread because you think spanish speaking only people in America probably are really legal. riiiiight... 😉

I'm not breaking laws. I'm not worried. You're more worried about protecting terrorist's rights. What has this "BIG BROTHER" done that is worse than blowing up 3 airplanes and killing 3,000 people?

My stinking state farm auto policy came with some new language in it that I think is Very alarming. My auto is not covered from any and all nuclear radiation or damage caused in a nuclear attack. The Largest Auto Insurance company is gearing up not to pay claims on cars that are totaled due to rouge nations and terrorist attacks.

Why are you worried about your CC bill at the cleaners when insurance companies are gearing up for near armageddon? What EXACTLY are you worried the government is going to do? Buy strippers with your CC? impersonate you and pay off national debt with your CC?

Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

It is as if you all want to sit on your hands and take it up the talepipe just so you can live "free." Freedom aint free.

I'm not saying I'm giving up all my privacy at all. Far from it but there are for worse things you throw away in your garbage can every day that would hurt you more in the long run than a few bank records or even phone records that the supreme court said are not private (yet most nedia doesn't give you that fact.)

 

[Moonbeam]

Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

Yup and that's what makes you a worthless unAmerican. Give me liberty or give me death is what the genuine article is all about. Your other names are coward and sell out.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

Yup and that's what makes you a worthless unAmerican. Give me liberty or give me death is what the genuine article is all about. Your other names are coward and sell out.

Sticks and stones Moonie! 😛 Only if it serves you do you libs love liberty. I don't see libs screaming where San Fransisco wanted to trash our 2nd amendment rights by eliminating guns in the city? hypocrite. Liberty I've seen people accuse you of being a closet socialist on some issues. 😉 If it is unAmerican to defend our borders, Actively seek out and destroy them before they get us again and not just sit on my hands waiting for your perfect utopia where we are free and no one wants to wipe us off the map where we are free to buy the world a coke, smoke weed and sing "Kum-by-ya" then by all means label me...

 

[LunarRay]

We can't, it seems to me, have both liberty and security in the fullest sense. Liberty will at times be worth fighting to preserve and security will at times be worth fighting against to preserve the former. The balance between Liberty and Security must go towards the Liberty side or we will be so secure we'll not have the liberty to fight against the security. Those who'd seek to harm us and our way of life have found the means to that end and it is us and our fear of the very people who'd conjur this major blow against us. Ironic that they win and we become them and they us....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

Yup and that's what makes you a worthless unAmerican. Give me liberty or give me death is what the genuine article is all about. Your other names are coward and sell out.

Sticks and stones Moonie! 😛 Only if it serves you do you libs love liberty.

I don't see libs screaming where San Fransisco wanted to trash our 2nd amendment rights by eliminating guns in the city?

hypocrite.

Excuse me, I had a dedicated thread on the SF gun issue and I don't recall Dems on here siding with the SF wusses.

Fortunately more sane Judges with some balls overruled the wusses and tossed the gun ban.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: EXman
Only if it serves you do you libs love liberty.

Seems you right wingers do much the same.

You're willing to give up some freedoms to prevent another 9/11 and 3,000 deaths?
Well, handguns are responsible for, since 9/11, over 100,000 American deaths.
You willing to sacrifice your gun ownership freedoms to save some of those lives?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

You tell me.

The bank holds my paycheck for 9 days now.

Of course money is taken out immediately causing bouncing. :|

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

Because we're smarter than you...we realize that living in a country where the police have too much power doesn't make you any safer from the bad guys you're scared of, and makes you a lot LESS safe from the bad guys you never even thought about.

Your just mad because you got made fun of in the other thread because you think spanish speaking only people in America probably are really legal. riiiiight... 😉

Actually I think I posted this before that...and I'm certainly not mad in any case, getting made fun of by you is almost a compliment. In fact, I see you STILL missed my point in that thread...but anyways.

I'm not breaking laws. I'm not worried. You're more worried about protecting terrorist's rights. What has this "BIG BROTHER" done that is worse than blowing up 3 airplanes and killing 3,000 people?

My stinking state farm auto policy came with some new language in it that I think is Very alarming. My auto is not covered from any and all nuclear radiation or damage caused in a nuclear attack. The Largest Auto Insurance company is gearing up not to pay claims on cars that are totaled due to rouge nations and terrorist attacks.

Why are you worried about your CC bill at the cleaners when insurance companies are gearing up for near armageddon? What EXACTLY are you worried the government is going to do? Buy strippers with your CC? impersonate you and pay off national debt with your CC?

Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

It is as if you all want to sit on your hands and take it up the talepipe just so you can live "free." Freedom aint free.

I'm not saying I'm giving up all my privacy at all. Far from it but there are for worse things you throw away in your garbage can every day that would hurt you more in the long run than a few bank records or even phone records that the supreme court said are not private (yet most nedia doesn't give you that fact.)

I'm not worried about protecting terrorists' rights, I'm worried about protecting the rights of law abiding Americans. And it's really too bad that we all can't have our own individual rights, but that's not quite how things work. Every single case of government abuse of police power in history started with the idea that it would only be applied to bad guys...but freedom is funny that way, if some people the government designates as "special" don't have it, nobody does.

Also, "freedom ain't free", you're right. But you are not supporting a fight for freedom, you are supporting a fight for safety. Those of us concerned about freedom are perfectly willing to give up some of our feeling of safety in order to stay free. I find it ironic that you go around spouting off that freedom ain't free when you are among the first to abandon the idea of freedom when it proves to be too scary for you. I think you sort of missed the concept of your catch phrase.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

Yup and that's what makes you a worthless unAmerican. Give me liberty or give me death is what the genuine article is all about. Your other names are coward and sell out.

Sticks and stones Moonie! 😛 Only if it serves you do you libs love liberty. I don't see libs screaming where San Fransisco wanted to trash our 2nd amendment rights by eliminating guns in the city? hypocrite. Liberty I've seen people accuse you of being a closet socialist on some issues. 😉 If it is unAmerican to defend our borders, Actively seek out and destroy them before they get us again and not just sit on my hands waiting for your perfect utopia where we are free and no one wants to wipe us off the map where we are free to buy the world a coke, smoke weed and sing "Kum-by-ya" then by all means label me...

No, you're unAmerican because when it comes to balancing liberty and fighting terrorism, you don't even give liberty a second glance. Anyone who thinks "if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about" is a good point isn't exactly what I'd call a textbook definition of a freedom loving American.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We can't, it seems to me, have both liberty and security in the fullest sense. Liberty will at times be worth fighting to preserve and security will at times be worth fighting against to preserve the former. The balance between Liberty and Security must go towards the Liberty side or we will be so secure we'll not have the liberty to fight against the security. Those who'd seek to harm us and our way of life have found the means to that end and it is us and our fear of the very people who'd conjur this major blow against us. Ironic that they win and we become them and they us....

I think the tradeoff between liberty and security is a false one, trading liberty for security may be the quick and dirty way to do things...but I think it's very possible to increase security without throwing liberty out the door.

 

[murban135]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We can't, it seems to me, have both liberty and security in the fullest sense. Liberty will at times be worth fighting to preserve and security will at times be worth fighting against to preserve the former. The balance between Liberty and Security must go towards the Liberty side or we will be so secure we'll not have the liberty to fight against the security. Those who'd seek to harm us and our way of life have found the means to that end and it is us and our fear of the very people who'd conjur this major blow against us. Ironic that they win and we become them and they us....

I think the tradeoff between liberty and security is a false one, trading liberty for security may be the quick and dirty way to do things...but I think it's very possible to increase security without throwing liberty out the door.

How to balance freedoms and security is not always an easy call, but just because the pendulum is now swinging more towards security does not mean it is unreasonable or permanent. In WWII letters were censored, after the war it ended. Most people think that the monitoring of overseas phone calls that might have connections to terrorism is warranted. Given the nature of the terrorists, it is not unreasonable to accept more governmental monitoring of suspicious activities in order to avert more terrorist attacks. Does anyone think that it is purely by accident that terrorist cells get busted up and terrorist attacks are averted? Our government needs some tools in order to do their work of defeating an enemy that would use our freedoms in order to kill us.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: db
In the WSJ too.

The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

how does this effect the common man? It does not. Sounds good to me. why do you all feel the need to scream and yell about this sorta thing?

Because we're smarter than you...we realize that living in a country where the police have too much power doesn't make you any safer from the bad guys you're scared of, and makes you a lot LESS safe from the bad guys you never even thought about.

Your just mad because you got made fun of in the other thread because you think spanish speaking only people in America probably are really legal. riiiiight... 😉

I'm not breaking laws. I'm not worried. You're more worried about protecting terrorist's rights. What has this "BIG BROTHER" done that is worse than blowing up 3 airplanes and killing 3,000 people?

My stinking state farm auto policy came with some new language in it that I think is Very alarming. My auto is not covered from any and all nuclear radiation or damage caused in a nuclear attack. The Largest Auto Insurance company is gearing up not to pay claims on cars that are totaled due to rouge nations and terrorist attacks.

Why are you worried about your CC bill at the cleaners when insurance companies are gearing up for near armageddon? What EXACTLY are you worried the government is going to do? Buy strippers with your CC? impersonate you and pay off national debt with your CC?

Would you trade a little privacy for no more 9/11's? I'm prepared to make that sacrafice. This isn't Orson Wells 1984.

It is as if you all want to sit on your hands and take it up the talepipe just so you can live "free." Freedom aint free.

I'm not saying I'm giving up all my privacy at all. Far from it but there are for worse things you throw away in your garbage can every day that would hurt you more in the long run than a few bank records or even phone records that the supreme court said are not private (yet most nedia doesn't give you that fact.)

You are Unamerican. That is the most unamerican rant I have seen.

You want to win the war against terror? here is a start >> STOP being scared.
As for the thread..Alot of us here have been saying that the real way to get information is to track the money...not telephone calls. If there is a program out there where our government is tracking transactions in the "WoT" it shouldnt be a surprise.

Just business as usual, and dumb people don't mind it one d@mn bit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: murban135

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We can't, it seems to me, have both liberty and security in the fullest sense. Liberty will at times be worth fighting to preserve and security will at times be worth fighting against to preserve the former. The balance between Liberty and Security must go towards the Liberty side or we will be so secure we'll not have the liberty to fight against the security. Those who'd seek to harm us and our way of life have found the means to that end and it is us and our fear of the very people who'd conjur this major blow against us. Ironic that they win and we become them and they us....

I think the tradeoff between liberty and security is a false one, trading liberty for security may be the quick and dirty way to do things...but I think it's very possible to increase security without throwing liberty out the door.

How to balance freedoms and security is not always an easy call, but just because the pendulum is now swinging more towards security does not mean it is unreasonable or permanent. In WWII letters were censored, after the war it ended. Most people think that the monitoring of overseas phone calls that might have connections to terrorism is warranted. Given the nature of the terrorists, it is not unreasonable to accept more governmental monitoring of suspicious activities in order to avert more terrorist attacks. Does anyone think that it is purely by accident that terrorist cells get busted up and terrorist attacks are averted? Our government needs some tools in order to do their work of defeating an enemy that would use our freedoms in order to kill us.

Of course the ruining of thousands and thousands of Japanese US citizens was proper too since they were all 100% loyal to the Emperor, right? You cowards will always trade somebody else's freedoms for your security because you will never figure out that the monsters you fear are within you. It will always be somebody else's freedoms you trade right up to the day they come for you. Then will come your big wake-up moment, too late for freedom. You will create the America you deserve.