NSA Spying isn't "Domestic Abuse"

Townhall.com ^ | 2/7/2006 | David Limbaugh

[dson7_ck1249]

I hereby expressly consent to the NSA eavesdropping on any telephonic, Internet or other electronic forms of communications I may have -- whether I initiate or am on the receiving end of the communication -- with any person or persons the government has reasonable basis to conclude is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

[MamaSwami]

Inquest: "But you also need to take into account the fact that in security agencies like the NSA, there's very often a culture of conformity, of "the-nail-that-sticks-up-is-hammered-down", of "ours-is-not-to-reason-why"."

... which apparently doesn't work in the NSA. Remember WHY we're even talking about this; because a "whistleblower" had a novel to push.

[LurkingSince'98]

that is illogical.

you are saying then that there are no conflicts between what is written in the constitution re the Presidents duties and what is made law by the Congress and which attempts to regulate the Executive branch.

you have got to be kidding.

Lurking'

[inquest]

Did you read the rest of my post?

For every hardy brave soul who tries to blow the whistle there are many others who consider it more advantageous to look the other way. The whistleblowers get a lot of coverage, at least when they're successful, and that may lead to the idea that it's a commonplace attitude, but I think that's a very misleading impression.

[inquest]

If you're claiming that congressional regulation of the executive branch is unconstitutional, then that would invalidate a hell of a lot more than just FISA. Say goodbye to the Posse Comitatus Act, among others.

[MamaSwami]

Inquest: "For every hardy brave soul who tries to blow the whistle there are many others who consider it more advantageous to look the other way. The whistleblowers get a lot of coverage, at least when they're successful, and that may lead to the idea that it's a commonplace attitude, but I think that's a very misleading impression."

In other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no reason to believe that the NSA should be trusted to carry out an illegal act. Therefore, it would be safer to hire a hacker.

[inquest]

In other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no reason to believe that the NSA should be trusted to carry out an illegal act.

I'm saying the exact opposite. The vast majority of them can be all too well "trusted" to look the other way.

[HankReardon]

Does anyone have the NYT's traitorous story breaking this tactic used against the enemy? I have not read it yet.