General Discussion

alc

(1,151 posts)

5. they could

Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:37 PM

Jun 2013

The NSA may identify some dirt on GOP candidates (e.g. calls to a mistress or abortion clinics) or tea party leaders that could help in the 2014 or 2016 elections. Of course it could go the other way if a different party is in charge. I'm sure the people in charge are all non-partisan but a "lowly worker" may decide to do things without their supervisor's knowledge and use it to attack Dem candidates even in 2014.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does anyone think that these phone record grabs keep us safer? [View all] cali Jun 2013 OP

Lindsey Graham does. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2013 #1

yeah, I had the same thought. cali Jun 2013 #3

just think about hope and change markiv Jun 2013 #2

Ah...The Priests of the Temple of Poindexter. Nice. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #9

i wondered if anyone would catch that nt markiv Jun 2013 #15

Any terrorist would use a prepaid phone and change numbers frequently BlueStreak Jun 2013 #4

That's what I think too.. LeftInTX Jun 2013 #49

yep. they're called burners. frylock Jun 2013 #66

Want to place any bets which will come first? BlueStreak Jun 2013 #68

they could alc Jun 2013 #5

Regardless of party ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #30

We don't know, so anything any of says would be a guess. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #6

just like torture? the ends justify the means alc Jun 2013 #11

Torture is much worse than this==it's a per se evil that doesn't work. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #19

you need to mention "doesn't work"? alc Jun 2013 #25

it makes the analysis much easier. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #26

You mean it makes the "trains run on time." Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #32

no,virtually every government policy aimed at stopping terorist attacks geek tragedy Jun 2013 #36

You're neglecting future costs. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #39

not really. those all get weighed. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #41

Really? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #43

there are long term consequences to allowing torture too. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #44

I'm not defending torture. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #46

What are we disagreeing over? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #47

You defend this policy. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #48

not really defending it. I don't get the outburst of outrage, though. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #50

Never be resigned when your rights are on the line. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #51

eh, the real privacy threat is non-governmental geek tragedy Jun 2013 #57

In this case, I make no distinction between the state and private entities. Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #65

Torture has benefits Fumesucker Jun 2013 #67

This has the potential to be much worse ... Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #31

NO. I'd much prefer they follow a trail and subpoena individual phone records as needed. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #7

Is this maybe more about keeping the secret machinations of the national security state indepat Jun 2013 #8

Nope, it's just power for powers sake. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #10

Didn't there used to be something called the Fourth Amendment? Comrade Grumpy Jun 2013 #12

only people with something to hide need the 4th amendment markiv Jun 2013 #13

Silly person LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #16

you're not allowed to say that markiv Jun 2013 #20

Uh oh LadyHawkAZ Jun 2013 #22

Pleeeeeeeez Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #34

Yep. 2A. You don't regularly hear people calling the first amendment 1A or, say, the the fourth Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2013 #37

The problem is the bastards claim it doesn't apply to "virtual space owned by others".... cascadiance Jun 2013 #28

The Fourth Amendment does not apply in this situation. It is settled law from 1979 hack89 Jun 2013 #58

Nope and I never have thought so. Solly Mack Jun 2013 #14

It's not even close to fascism. randome Jun 2013 #17

'and not monitoring of voice communications.' markiv Jun 2013 #21

Of course they wouldn't. randome Jun 2013 #23

Reading some of the brief on cases challenging it treestar Jun 2013 #71

I'm not seeing the fascism part hootinholler Jun 2013 #18

"The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same." Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #24

No, not one bit...nt joeybee12 Jun 2013 #27

Will a categorical "FUCK NO!" do, Cali? Fantastic Anarchist Jun 2013 #29

Not me... davekriss Jun 2013 #33

No. I'm not convinced that's the purpose. n/t whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #35

Fifty years from now, discussions of government overreach will go like this... backscatter712 Jun 2013 #38

How can it hurt? yends21012 Jun 2013 #40

Your new masters will reward you well for your loyalty. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2013 #52

Think drone signature strikes. They friggin' blew people up who, based on what they could see from GoneFishin Jun 2013 #55

I honestly think they're testing us to see LuvNewcastle Jun 2013 #42

No... WillyT Jun 2013 #45

I have absolutely no idea!!!!!!!!!!!! LeftInTX Jun 2013 #53

I think it was on a Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann show fasttense Jun 2013 #54

The GOP is already playing that trump. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #60

Better question warrprayer Jun 2013 #56

About as safe as interning Japanese-Americans did in WWII. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #59

I'm not convinced that this is being used primarily to fight "terrorists". Marr Jun 2013 #61

I don't know and I don't think most people know. Skidmore Jun 2013 #62

No they don't make us safer. It is pure fascism and I hate this shit. MadrasT Jun 2013 #63

No, and I don't think that's the point. JoeyT Jun 2013 #64

Nope... Don't think these phone record grabs keep us safer? midnight Jun 2013 #69

We don't know. treestar Jun 2013 #70