The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In response to the report in USA Today that the government has been collecting entire databases of phone call data

Not to respond to the comment, but to the story.

Very deep in the USA today article, it is noted that no names or content of the calls - in other words, this database includes no recording of the conversation - are kept.

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

And now, the White House is trying to block civil liberty cases from even reaching the courts under the guise of "national security" and "confidential information". What a GREAT way to erode civil liberties...just do it and then say imply that anyone who questions it is a traitor. I mean, it's not like the judicial system was set up as a part of a system of checks and balances or anything.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

Yeah, it was reported. Probably the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.

I just think that the vast majority of news readers read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph. When I see the headlline "NSA keeping a huge database of phone calls", I don't think just the number, I think the entire conversation.

[Alex]

I need to know why the NSA wanted the information and how they use(d) it before I decide if I'm upset that they have it (though my assumption is that I'm not going to like it).

I am, however, upset that AT&T, Verizon, and the other one would just hand it over without forcing a subpoena or warrant.

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

[Gemini Cricket]

The 'war on' slogans bug.

'The War on Terrorism'
'The War on Drugs'
'The War on Christmas'
'The War on Illiteracy'

Bleh. These are labels for events without end.

But to say we are at war with terrorism and then call it rational sounds funny.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To call for rationality, and the immediately play the "fear" card is...well...irrational.

[innerSpaceman]

The reason this is going to be an even bigger problem for Bush than the warrentlesss wiretapping is that Joe America never made a phone call to al Queda, but he does make phone calls.

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights - on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."






And with five years since the last foreign terrorist attack on American soil, 8 years before that, and um, never before that ... this is looking to most Americans - I daresay - less lilke a "war" and more like the individual criminal acts they truly are.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."

You may consider this to be probelmatic, and I don't care much about polls, really, but I don't think there will be much of a problem, as a very recent poll based on this story showed 65% of people don't care.

I don't. Really. Because phone records are up for sale. You can go to any number of websites and buy cell phone logs. It's legal. Phone call data is far from private.

[scaeagles]

I think that's a distinction without a difference, though. Will every terrorist organization go away? No. When one dies, another will rise in its place. Because as you rightly point out, terror is a method. There will always be organizations that employ that method.

So I see it as open ended no matter how it is named. Calling it a "war on terror" by default means that we do not accept terror as a method from anyone and will act to defeat organizations and/or countries that employ such methods.

[Alex]

But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion.

There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism."

As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism.

If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror.


It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.