What are they trying to hide?
Recently it has been reported that Bush has authorized the NSA to tap into phone calls on 32 occasions and congress was very quick to jump up and object to this. This makes my wonder if the lawmakers know the current laws and if they are hiding something.
Firstly it's not illegal. The White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of all 32 occasions. You do not need a court order to spy on international calls, not to mention with all of the calls we knew they had connections with terrorism organizations. Read it again. Not one part of this program was illegal. The only thing that was illegal was when someone leaked the existence of this program.
Second, they aren't spying on you. The people at the NSA do not sit in a chair tuning in to phone calls to hear your gossip, no. They find calls that are suspicous. Like for instance if someone calls up Iran from a phone booth. Now I don't know why these congressmen are paranoid about this. Unless they plan on blowing someone up they don't have anything to worry about. If these people are illegally downloading movies, buying prostitutes, and viewing kiddy porn, they have every right to be paranoid if they think the NSA makes detailed scans over every person and what they have done. But the fact is, is that they aren't. The NSA has priorities. They would rather stop a terrorist than a pervert.
Still don't believe me? Lets look at what the NSA is. It's the National Security Agency and their job is to give the nation security, who would have guessed! Now places like the NSA and the CIA do something called spying. They obtain information used to protect the country. They don't however obtain information to find out about how many prostitutes you bought last week. Lets put this in terms any moron can understand. Remember Halle Berry in Die Another Day? She was an NSA agent who snuck into a party in an ice castle not to find out about the personal lives of as many people as possible but to find out about the satellite that could shoot laser beams from space. Now if you missed that because you were too busy drooling over Halle Berry, all I can say is that you have really bad taste, but that's beside the point.
The point is that your perversion does not threaten the security of this nation like a dirty bomb does, and the NSA knows that.
Third, over four years this has only happened 32 times! This means that they don't check calls willy-nilly. They check calls that talk about plans to harm the U.S.!
So what's the congress so worked up about? Could it be that some of them are doing something illegal? Accepting bribes anyone? Of course if they knew the facts they would have nothing to worry about, but then this is congress we're talking about. Of course some congressmen don't break the law but they probably think all of their calls are listened to and all of their e-mails are read, and again if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
So with this case and with the Patriot act they are basically choosing between not getting caught doing something suspicious (which wouldn't happen anyways) or having a chance of a terrorist attack. But what a surprise, they make the selfish decision rather than helping to protect Americans.
Firstly it's not illegal. The White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of all 32 occasions. You do not need a court order to spy on international calls, not to mention with all of the calls we knew they had connections with terrorism organizations. Read it again. Not one part of this program was illegal. The only thing that was illegal was when someone leaked the existence of this program.
Second, they aren't spying on you. The people at the NSA do not sit in a chair tuning in to phone calls to hear your gossip, no. They find calls that are suspicous. Like for instance if someone calls up Iran from a phone booth. Now I don't know why these congressmen are paranoid about this. Unless they plan on blowing someone up they don't have anything to worry about. If these people are illegally downloading movies, buying prostitutes, and viewing kiddy porn, they have every right to be paranoid if they think the NSA makes detailed scans over every person and what they have done. But the fact is, is that they aren't. The NSA has priorities. They would rather stop a terrorist than a pervert.
Still don't believe me? Lets look at what the NSA is. It's the National Security Agency and their job is to give the nation security, who would have guessed! Now places like the NSA and the CIA do something called spying. They obtain information used to protect the country. They don't however obtain information to find out about how many prostitutes you bought last week. Lets put this in terms any moron can understand. Remember Halle Berry in Die Another Day? She was an NSA agent who snuck into a party in an ice castle not to find out about the personal lives of as many people as possible but to find out about the satellite that could shoot laser beams from space. Now if you missed that because you were too busy drooling over Halle Berry, all I can say is that you have really bad taste, but that's beside the point.
The point is that your perversion does not threaten the security of this nation like a dirty bomb does, and the NSA knows that.
Third, over four years this has only happened 32 times! This means that they don't check calls willy-nilly. They check calls that talk about plans to harm the U.S.!
So what's the congress so worked up about? Could it be that some of them are doing something illegal? Accepting bribes anyone? Of course if they knew the facts they would have nothing to worry about, but then this is congress we're talking about. Of course some congressmen don't break the law but they probably think all of their calls are listened to and all of their e-mails are read, and again if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
So with this case and with the Patriot act they are basically choosing between not getting caught doing something suspicious (which wouldn't happen anyways) or having a chance of a terrorist attack. But what a surprise, they make the selfish decision rather than helping to protect Americans.
posted by Cody O'Connor @ 8:02 PM
15 Comments:
At 18/12/05 12:27 AM,
Gayle said…
You did a great job on this Cody. Yeah, I don't get these people either. I think they have something to hide, and whoever leaked the info. should be tried for treason.
Good to see you posting again. I know school has kept you pretty busy but you have been missed.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
At 18/12/05 12:38 AM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
First of all, let us examine this sentence: "Voting at Iraq went good."
There are SO many things wrong with just the formation of that sentence that make it very difficult to concentrate on the other things you said. But I'm doing my best. (That was from the last entry, by the way)
I think the main concern, when looking at it from a fairly moderate standpoint, is that the average American citizen is led to believe that there are no extreme measures being taken that they are not informed about, when in fact a terribly invasive procedure has been authorized more than 30 times. I am not saying that this is illegal, but it definitely raises concern to be told one thing when something very opposite is going on. I don't have a strong opinion about it at this time, as I am still doing my research, but that seems to be the case.
At 18/12/05 12:40 AM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
If nothing suspicious was taking place, there wouldn't be "leaks," would there? Seems like it's turning out to be a pretty strong pattern...
At 18/12/05 8:45 AM,
Anonymous said…
Allisoni Balloni said... There are SO many things wrong with just the formation of that sentence
Well she IS right Cody. The word is WELL. I feel the main point of the sentance is correct though. I would say it, "uh Cody, its well not good." I suppose being condesceding and arrogant works too though if that's how she wants to say it.
At 18/12/05 12:57 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Well of course when you can't give a good opposing argument you have to attack my grammar, it's nothing new here.
I just did a little research and you do NOT need a court order to spy on international calls. And all of the calls were international calls made by people we knew had terrorism connections.
At 18/12/05 1:16 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
You did a great job on this Cody. Yeah, I don't get these people either. I think they have something to hide, and whoever leaked the info should be tried for treason.
Yeah. It seems whenever something is going on the wrong person ALWAYS gets blamed. This time it's Bush's fault even though it's legal. But the person who leaked the info and gave our enemies an upperhand gets no blame.
Good to see you posting again. I know school has kept you pretty busy but you have been missed.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
I plan on getting back to posting every other day by Christmas break. I plan on doing a mixture of humorous posts with hard-core political ones. I think this one is a mixture of the two. Merry Christmas to you and all of the blogosphere as well! I'm glad my readers are still loyal, I'll really be posting more soon.
And if you don't know already, at some point (possibly next summer) I'll be starting an online radio show too!
At 18/12/05 1:19 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Oh yeah, I just added a paragraph to this post (as well as adding to another) and I fixed the
"problems" with the next one down.
At 18/12/05 7:09 PM,
Gayle said…
Cody, you asked on Blog America "where is Phantom Driver when you need him?" That was in reference to Count Blogula leaving a link as proof that shills were being paid to infiltrate conservative blogs. I said DFKZ was right because the link proved nothing.
"Count Blogula" is Phantom Driver! They are one and the same. I promise. Phantom had my e-mail address and notified me when he changed his blog and his identity.
At 18/12/05 7:29 PM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
I said right in my comment that I didn't really have a strong opinion on the situation, so it makes little sense to talk about how I have no argument and only critcize your grammer. It's extremely important to articulate your opinions properly--it's not very effective to state them at all if you don't. That's the only reason I pointed it out.
At 19/12/05 3:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
See? Extrodanarily arrogent^. If you don't have an opinion DON'T COMMENT SIMPLY TO TELL PEOPLE HOW MUCH BETTER AT GRAMATICS YOU THINK YOU ARE!!!
Thank you.
At 23/12/05 5:27 PM,
The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…
"Gramatics"??
At 24/12/05 8:50 AM,
Anonymous said…
Yes, gramatics. What's your problem now? Are you so stupid you don't know that the word grammatics exists?
At 26/12/05 9:15 AM,
The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said…
There is no entry for "grammatics" (spelled with one "M" or two) at Dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster Online. There are also no entries for "arrogent" or "Extrodanarily".
I found it very amusing that you defended Cody's improper grammar with a post in which almost every other word is misspelled!
At 30/12/05 4:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
Spelling and grammer are comletally different dipshit.
At 30/12/05 5:05 PM,
Cody O'Connor said…
No need to be a smartass dkfz, I know nobody is as perfect as you but you're going to have to live with it.
Besides, I thought I banned you from here.
Post a Comment
<< Home