Bush lawyer argues that Americans have consented to monitoring

Now obviously if there is only one call that was only five seconds long and upon looking they can see that it's only one digit off from the phone number of the person's mother, they can probably rule out that person being involved. But if there are 20 calls all at least five minutes long AND the person just put $50,000 cash into their bank account, well maybe they should look a little closer at that person. It still might turn out to be nothing, but needs to at least be looked at.

*snip* People should be far more frightened *snip*

Arguing for state oppression and denial of human rights because it has been written into law is the first step on the road to justifying a holocaust.
Im sure many a german in the 1930s justified the segregation and persecution of the jews and others becuse it was within the bounds of state legislation.

I wonder if they hear people having phone sex? Then they themselves might be frightened enough to stop.

Human rights are being denied? Holocaust? You are laughable.

Human rights are being denied? Holocaust? You are laughable.

Candidate: Holocaust didn't happen

By Jay Reeves
The Associated Press


BIRMINGHAM -- A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred and said Friday he will speak this weekend to a "pro-white" organization that is widely viewed as being racist.

Larry Darby concedes his views are radical, but he said they should help him win wide support among Alabama voters as he tries to "reawaken white racial awareness" with his campaign against Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson.

The state Democratic chairman, Joe Turnham, said the party became aware of some of Darby's views only days ago and was considering what to do about his candidacy.

"Any type of hatred toward groups of people, especially for political gain, is completely unacceptable in the Alabama Democratic Party," said Turnham.

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to ty phus.

Historians say about 6 mil lion Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."

"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

Darby said he will speak today near Newark, N.J., at a meeting of National Vanguard, which bills itself as an advocate for the white race. Some of his campaign materials are posted on the group's Internet site.

"It's time to stop pushing down the white man. We've been discriminated against too long," Darby said in the interview.

A poll published last month indicated the Democratic race for attorney general was up for grabs. The survey showed 21 percent favored Tyson to 12 percent for Darby, but 68 percent of respondents were undecided.

Darby, founder of the Atheist Law Center and a longtime supporter of separation of church and state, said he has no money for campaign advertising and has made only a few campaign speeches.

Tyson said aside from his views on race and the Holocaust, Darby also has publicly advocated legalizing drugs and shooting all illegal immigrants.

"I am astonished as anyone has ever been that anyone is running for public office in Alabama on that platform," said Tyson. "I do not take him as a serious candidate."

Turnham said the party began an investigation last week after hearing about some of Darby's comments in a television interview. While the party supports the free-speech rights of any candidate, Turnham said some of Darby's views appear to be in "a realm of thought that is unacceptable."

"We have Holocaust survivors and families of Holocaust survivors here in Alabama, and many of them are members of the Democratic Party," said Turnham.

The winner of the Democratic primary June 6 will face either Republican Attorney General Troy King or Mark Montiel, who is opposing King in the GOP primary.

How so? Don't you think the Germans also said "But it cant happen here"?

I think you missed the point of the post. Granted, the level of hyperbole may have made it difficult for those who are just looking at the surface. The government needs to be watched carefully and laws need to be examined to make sure they are both just and are being used justly.

I didn't miss the point, I see exactly what Lucifer is saying..just like I read his "corporate facist state" remark in another thread.

As far as watching government:
Isn't that happening now? Are we not examining the laws and making sure they are being used justly? Isn't that exactly what we are discussing: The Constitutionality and legality of the NSA programs?

WASHINGTON -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax Wednesday to Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York saying it was closing its inquiry because without clearance it could not examine department lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

NO Were not - and that is because the government has said we cannot. Go figure.

Well, we are discussing it and there is open dialog in the media and between friends and families all across the country.

I guess you are likely to believe that civil & human rights injustices are becoming INSTITUTIONALIZED by NSA programs, etc. I imagine the excuse that these are top secret intelligence programs targeting the enemy with which we are at war would be insufficient for you and others.

That's the difference. I guess in your eyes that makes me an idiot who will be responsible for the facist state that such programs will inevitably lead to.

I'll stay out of the rest of the discussion. There is no point in both of us beating each other on the head with our different points of view.

Open dialog is Congress discussing it with real information given to them from the justice department. How can any of us actually discuss it without knowing what they are really doing?

Are they just cross referencing phone numbers? Are they listening? Are they cross referencing bank account and financial information? Are they cross referencing medical information? Are they tracking people? Are they tracking our internet? email? snail mail? Are they using TIA? Can we even wipe our butts in peace anymore?

You can have a great deal of real security without complete intrusion into peoples lives. It just would not be as politically visible (or useful).

I imagine the excuse that these are top secret intelligence programs targeting the enemy with which we are at war would be insufficient for you and others.

It shouldn't be sufficient for you either, or for any other rational person. Building a database of every call ever made by every person in the United States is hardly what I'd call "targeting the enemy." By that same logic, if they raided every residence in the US and caught a bunch of drug users, that would be targeting the drug users? That's crazy, and it's exactly the kind of thing the 4th Amendment is designed to prevent. I can't believe how casually people will throw their rights away in the name of preventing something that's about ten thousand times less likely to take your life than falling down in your own bathtub*.

*genuine made up statistic, but you get what I'm saying.

If you don't trust your Congressman to provide proper oversight, that's what your vote is for.

the NSA has been under Congressional oversight since its inception, so I'm not sure what the furor is over.

No, it hasn't.

The Republican controlled congress has been grossly negligent and has turned a blind eye while the administration breaks law after law.

"Telephone customers' names, addresses and other personal information have not be handed over to NSA as part of this program"

We DO need to know. These people work for us, we are not their property to do with whatever they please. We can't stand idly by trusting a corrupt Congress to do its job while the government continues to ride roughshod over our civil rights, and fails to give Congress the information it needs when it tries to do its job. I really don't give a rats ass if that means I have to live with increased risk. A slim chance that something bad might happen is far better than a complete certainty that my constitutional rights are being violated.

One of these days, once we've all agreed to Champie's notion that crawling through our phone records (and listening in on our conversations) (and watching our every move) is not only legal, but necessary to protect us from the terrorists, I'm going to start a code word system for when I talk on the phone.

For instance, if I'm talking to my friend Bill, I'll say, "Hey, Akmed, want to blow up the airport on Tuesday?" That'll mean "Hey Bill, want to hang out at the pub?"

"I'm going to assassinate the President" should mean "I need to mow my lawn today."

"The car bombs are in place for tonight" could be "Don't forget to pick up our friends tonight"

And so on. This will really confuse the NSA when they listen in, and they can spend millions of dollars to arrest me, ship me to Gitmo to "get me to talk", torture me, and then feed me gruel!

Then, once they figure out I'm just a smartass, law-abiding citizen, they'll put me in prison for 30 years on illegal mp3 downloading charges via secret military tribunal. I can then sit in my solitary confinment, content in the knowledge that I'm "sticking it to the man". Without any fingernails.

I can't wait, really.

The NSA is a scary fucking bunch of ninjas, lemme tell you that. God knows what they're really doing.

Secret gov't source tells ABC News: 'Get new cellphones'

Posted by Frank James at 12:10 pm CDT

ABC News has a very disturbing report today, at least for reporters and anyone else who believe that whistleblowers serve an important role in safeguarding American democracy.

On its blog, The Blotter, ABC News reports that a senior government source has told its reporters that the reporters’ phone calls with sources are being tracked by the U.S. government “to root out confidential sources.”

I hasten to say I don't have independent confirmation of the ABC News report. But I thought it was something readers of The Swamp would find interesting. The item follows.

Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling
May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

Being a confidential source who disagrees with a presidential administration then decides to oppose it by becoming a whistleblower can take courage when discovery means loss of a job and possible legal consequences.

It’s just that kind of courage that this revelation is likely to chill. That could be the administration’s intent here, to make would-be confidential sources think twice before talking with reporters.

It’s no small irony that the only reason we now know about this is because a ABC News’ confidential source told them about it.

The Blotter posting raises the question of whether ABC News’ phone calls were swept up as part of the vast National Security Agency database consisting of the phone-call records of millions of Americans which USA Today reported on last week.

It’s impossible for anyone outside of a few inside the government to say. But the fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA’s domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become.