Tipping off terrorists that we’re listening in, causing them all to ditch their current communications systems for new sat phones, freshly-cloned SIM cards, etc., or telling the world that a woman who drove in the front gate of CIA headquarters every day works for the CIA?

This argument has been debunked so many times. The CIA could already listen in, all they needed is a warrant to do so, and even that could be retrospective.

What has possibly changed from a terrorist’s point of view apart from knowing that a judge does not need to sign a piece of paper to listean to him anymore. How is that piece of information going to change his actions in any way? How, thus, does reporting it make anyone any less safe?

Are you high?  The actual, physical numbers will now all be ditched because someone leaked the existence of this program.  THE FUCKING NUMBERS THAT WE ALREADY HAD.

Jesus Christ Padders, I swear sometimes that it’s not intellectual dishonesty, it’s just you being fucking dumb.

The World According to Liberals:

Valerie Plame ordeal: A “leak”
NSA wiretaps: A brave “whistleblower” who came forth.

Ah, politics… While Valerie wasn’t jack-shit and didn’t amount to shit in a war against those who hate us, a big deal is still made about her. However, in a situation where we’ve been knocked back in time by not being able to listen to terrorists and what they’re doing, that brave soul is considered a “whistleblower” in the same way that the accountant at a corrupt energy firm would be.

You know, Jim, I’m not sure if that’s what you were going for, but every time I read the subject, I think, “Karl Rove, suuuuperrrrr geeeenius!”

Are you high?  The actual, physical numbers will now all be ditched because someone leaked the existence of this program.  THE FUCKING NUMBERS THAT WE ALREADY HAD.

Jim, let me put this into kiddie points for you.

1. The government could already do wire tapping
2. All they had to do was get a piece of paper signed
3. Terrorists did not get told if a piece of paper was signed
4. Terrorists thus assume that they could be wire tapped at any point and would not be told about it if they where
5. The fact that the piece of paper was not being signed really makes no differnece.

Seriously, you think terrorists give a flying shit about whether the government has to get a piece of paper signed to listean to their conversations? You think terrorists think the government istn’t tapping their phone calls?

Terrorists who fly planes into buildings but don’t think the government is listeaning to their phone calls. Um, yeah - likely.

Valerie Plame ordeal: A “leak”
NSA wiretaps: A brave “whistleblower” who came forth.

I agree with you her, the left are being rediculous in how they respond to this. I don’t think the problem with the Plame thing was so much that it endangered national security (I don’t think anyone is claiming that it did, if they are they are muppets), the point seems to be more some supposodly disclosed something classified for political gain / revenge. That the thing being classified was perhaps not that important is perhaps not as important as the motive, which if true is pretty sickening.

I don’t think the current leak has made the US any less safe either, but clearly it is a leak and the person responsible should be punished. If you are trusted with that information its not your choice what to do with it.

You know, I wish we could shoot puddles into the head for 100% surety that he’d never pass on his genes, but couldn’t we do the next best thing and ban him? He’s not really doing anything for the discussion other than pointing out what we already know, that his side is stupid.

You are willfully ignoring my point or you’re an idiot, padders.  There is no other explanation for your stupid rambling.

Had this program not been leaked, there would be no practical, real-world way for the terrorists under surveillance to know their lines were being tapped. They were in fact using phones that we could listen to...the proof is that we did it.  It’s so fucking obvious that I’m right about this a child could see it.  We were listening.  Ergo, the terrorists didn’t try to ditch the phones yet. Now, ALL OF THEM have likely replaced all mobile phones, thereby negating all the intel about what numbers to monitor we had in our hands before the leak.

That, to me, is FAR MORE DAMAGING THAT LEAKING PLAME’S NAME.  And yet only one of these leaks is getting attention from the left.  That was, is and continues to be my fucking point, that the practical nature of this intelligence has been destroyed until we can capture more terrorists with phones and paperwork and build up a list of names and numbers again. 

THAT.  HAS.  MADE.  US.  LESS.  SAFE.  It’s tantamount to fucking treason in MY opinion.  And it was done not only with the blessing of the Democrats, but of the entire left in general and the complict media.  It’s a fucking travesty, and Rove isn’t going to let it go...and for once I agree with his taking an issue to the mattresses.

Had this program not been leaked, there would be no practical, real-world way for the terrorists under surveillance to know their lines were being tapped. They were in fact using phones that we could listen to...the proof is that we did it.  It’s so fucking obvious that I’m right about this a child could see it.  We were listening.  Ergo, the terrorists didn’t try to ditch the phones yet. Now, ALL OF THEM have likely replaced all mobile phones, thereby negating all the intel about what numbers to monitor we had in our hands before the leak.

Let’s try again.

Lee, where we listening to some terrorists legally, ie with warrants? E.g. the ones we where listening to prior to September 11, like these.

See? Terrorists know we are listening to them so they are careful already.

So what has actually changed? Terrorists now know that to listean to them the people that do the listening don’t have to get a piece of paper signed any more.

How does that new knowledge make *any* difference to their security arrangements.

Imagine you have something you want to hide and you need to tell someone. You know the government may be trying to catch you telling someone so you know they may get a warrant and tap your phone. You are thus careful.

Now imagine you hear that actually the government dosen’t even need to get a warrant, they can just listean to you without getting that piece of paper signed.

How would that piece of information in any way change your actions? To a terrorist was possible difference does requiring the warrant make?

Perhaps there really is some terrorist out there so stupid to think that the government does not try and tap their phones and listen to them and this is the first time they have heard of the idea of the government tapping terrorist phones. If there is a terrorist quite that stupid, then sure, maybe the release of this has impacted national security - but really any terrorist not to think that their phone calls to the US may be being listened to (with a warrant or not) must be so stupid the threat they pose is probably more to themselves in forgetting to breath once every minute rather than to us.

Ergo, the terrorists didn’t try to ditch the phones yet. Now, ALL OF THEM have likely replaced all mobile phones, thereby negating all the intel about what numbers to monitor we had in our hands before the leak.

What utter rubbish. Why does any single terrorist now think he is being monitored now when he didn’t last week? What has changed? They knew monitoring happens, they don’t know how extensive it was before and don’t know how extensive it is now. What has changed apart from the signing the paper aspect? Ie, under what possible reason does a terrorist think that the probability of him being monitored has rissen?

You are trying to make the point that terrorists didn’t think they where being monitored before hand and offer the proof that they used phones. Em no. They know the government is trying to monitor them and they know that now. They have no further information as to whether they have their number now nor then. To repeat it again, the need for the warrant makes absolutly no difference.

The only thing I can imagine is that you think terrorists don’t believe monitoring was happening legally before it happened without warrants. That’s the only way I can make sense of your argument.

Jim, he’s just too stupid. He’s never going to understand because he’s being willfully ignorant.

One more thing, the argument that they didn’t know we where listening because we where able to make absolutly no sense. The terrorist being listened to might know they are trying but dosen’t know they actally have got their number.

Say spying. I would imagine (and hope) the CIA has agents in Iran spying. I imagine that Iran knows the CIA has agents in Iran spying. On your logic they can’t possibly know there are agents spying in Iran because if they where they would remove them. The problem is they don’t know who the agents are, in the same way the terrorists don’t know which phones are tapped. That *some* are being tapped with or without a warrant makes no difference to whether terrorist A thinks his phone is tapped.

That, to me, is FAR MORE DAMAGING THAT LEAKING PLAME’S NAME.  And yet only one of these leaks is getting attention from the left.  That was, is and continues to be my fucking point, that the practical nature of this intelligence has been destroyed until we can capture more terrorists with phones and paperwork and build up a list of names and numbers again. 

Well personally I don’t think either of these leaks in any way damages national security but I certainly agree with you about the hypocrtical stance that some on the left have taken on this. Personally I think who ever leaked both of these things should be punished approprialty for doing so.

THAT.  HAS.  MADE.  US.  LESS.  SAFE.  It’s tantamount to fucking treason in MY opinion.  And it was done not only with the blessing of the Democrats, but of the entire left in general and the complict media.  It’s a fucking travesty, and Rove isn’t going to let it go...and for once I agree with his taking an issue to the mattresses.

You have a right to your opinion but I don’t think the Democrats are that worried. One of their new arguments at the moment is King George and this is one of those things that seems to fit into that argument. I think the Democrats are pretty happy talking about this issue - I guess voters will decide which way they see it, thus is the joy of democracy :)

Out of interest, have any Republicans in close races in 2006 defended the spying without warrants policy?

Out of interst, has anyone answered this:

The normal procedure is for the government to get a warrant from a special intelligence court. Even though that court rarely says no, records show that out of 4,713 other surveillance requests to the judge assigned, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, from 2002-2004, she denied only four and modified 96.

Critics ask, “Why was the president so determined to avoid court supervision?”

Jim, he’s just too stupid. He’s never going to understand because he’s being willfully ignorant.

Make up your mind, am I stupid or am I on purpose trying to not understand what Jim rights.

You and Jim clearly disagree with me, perhaps you can point to a specific part of what I said that you don’t agree with. As an example on how to do this, Jim says:

Had this program not been leaked, there would be no practical, real-world way for the terrorists under surveillance to know their lines were being tapped.

Which is false. Evidence a) Records showing number of authorized wire taps b) Pre 911 leaked reports on actual conversations. c) Common sense

Em ... I just had a thought where I may be wrong. Are you saying that the actual *numbers* of the people being spied upon was released? Ie, the actual Americans? If that is the case, then you are definitely right. I am not aware of that being the case but if it is - then yes I completly see your point and you are right.

Holy shit.  padders, you;re a fucking *joke* to me intellectually now.  You;ve gone so far out fo your way to avoid the simple, basic argument I put forth, you’re a fucking pretzel.

I’m done discussing this with you, and to be honest...you’re not going to get much of a positive discussion from me ever again.  You’re just being a willfully ignorant asshole soley for the sake of arguing and I’m tired of it.  Go play in traffic.

Jim, I am sorry but I really don’t understand you at all on this point. I can’t for a minute understand why having a piece of paper or not makes a difference to a terrorist and have yet to see anyone make the argument and not have it debunked.

Its quite possible I am being stupid about this, I have certainly been wrong in the past - but I really can’t see it at the moment. I have been trying to work out what you can possibly mean and the release of the actual phone numbers / people being tapped is the only thing I could come up with.

And Jim, I quoted and commented on every element of your argument, yet you say I am going out of my way to avoid your argument, yet you havn’t directly responded to a single thing I have said. Pot, Kettle, Black?

Here is a random blog that shows my point (not the bit about Plame, i really don’t care about that). Read the comments debunking your point.

If you are intellectually honest, answer these questons:

a) Did terrorists know that the US was listening to them for the last 10 years. Answer = Yes.

b) Has the fact that the US is now listening without warrants as opposed to with warrants made any difference to the fact that terrorists know the US tries to listen to them. Answer = No.

c) Has the leak shown that the US is listening to terrorists a *lot* more than was otherwise thought. Answer = No (many, many more legal wire taps than ones without warrants).

Thus, what difference has been made from the point of view of a terrorist?

It’s pretty clear that the government could already listen to terrorists, there is only one reason why the government wouldn’t want a court to view the evidence for a tap (even retrospectivly) and that is because that evidence could not be presented. Ie evidence taken with the use of torture either directly or indirectly (by other countries).

There is no other reason to defend these taps without warrants than defending the use of torture and keeping that use out of civilian courts. But hey, you must trust the government more than I do :) and here I was thinking you where a libertarian.

Padders do you remember back several years ago, before 9/11 when bin laden was out being a happy mobile terrorist, making phone calls to whoever he liked.

Of course the US intelligence had discovered the phones he was using and were monitoring them.  Do you know what happened?  Some newspaper or magazine went and announced to the world that we were doing this to bin laden, and guess what?  He stopped using those phones.

So don’t go saying terrorists knew that we were listening in.  These guys think they are smart and have us beat and we aren’t listening in on them, until its announced to the world that we are.  Or else they are a lot dumber than you’re giving them credit for.

Either way you’re wrong.

Buzzion, thanks for replying.

Of course the US intelligence had discovered the phones he was using and were monitoring them.  Do you know what happened?  Some newspaper or magazine went and announced to the world that we were doing this to bin laden, and guess what?  He stopped using those phones.

If they announced that the govt where monitoring a specific person then you are completly right that would be a terrible breach of national security. I said this above as I thought that this was Jim perhaps meant. As far as I know this istn’t what was leaked, ie specific people. If it was then as I said above Jim is 100% correct it is a major breach of security. (this is me being intellectually honest Jim - I can understand the situations where my argument is wrong).

Also, I can agree with you that if at that (first leak you mention something I have no knowledge of though) point terrorists did not know any monitoring was going on, and it was announced that monitoring was actually happening, then that again would be a major breach of security. That would be relevant new information that would change the actions of the terrorists.

But jump to the actual current day situation. Terrorists know that monitoring is going on, they simply didn’t know it was going on without warrants. What difference does that make?

So don’t go saying terrorists knew that we were listening in.

Arn’t you contradicting yourself. You said above they know we try to listen in (the first leak you mention) but now they think we stopped trying?

Of course they know we where trying. All they know now is that we are still trying but we don’t need to bother gettting warrants in that process. Again I ask, if they know we are trying to listen what difference does the requirement of having a piece of paper signed make?

No I am not contradicting myself.  And you are showing why you are wrong.  Its very simple see if you can follow this.  Although I kind of doubt you will since you haven’t been able to yet.

1. We are monitoring Bin Laden, he does not know we are monitoring him.

2.  Some idiotic journalists discover this and report it.

3.  Bin Laden stops using that phone due to the report that we are monitoring it, something he didn’t do before the report.

4.  Terrorists are using certain phone numbers, they know that the US wants to listen in but they believe they are a step ahead of them and that they are safe in using those number.

5. US Intelligence discovers what those numbers are without the terrorists knowing they are being monitored.

5.  Journalists again report on this fact, so as many terrorists as possibly can are going to stop using those phone numbers and acquire new numbers to use.

You see, just because they know that we want to listen in doesn’t mean that they believe we are listening in.  And if they stop using those numbers that means that they didn’t know we were monitoring them.

Do you get it yet or do I have to find a 3 year old to explain it to in my free time so I can figure out the best way to get the point acrossed to you

1. We are monitoring Bin Laden, he does not know we are monitoring him.

2.  Some idiotic journalists discover this and report it.

3.  Bin Laden stops using that phone due to the report that we are monitoring it, something he didn’t do before the report.

I have now said it 3 times, but to repeat again, if a reporter announced we where monitoring a specific person then I completly agree that would be a major security leak. As far as I know, that has not happened in this leak.

4.  Terrorists are using certain phone numbers, they know that the US wants to listen in but they believe they are a step ahead of them and that they are safe in using those number.

5. US Intelligence discovers what those numbers are without the terrorists knowing they are being monitored.

5.  Journalists again report on this fact, so as many terrorists as possibly can are going to stop using those phone numbers and acquire new numbers to use.

Journalists report on what fact? The only fact that has been reported, AFAIK, is that some terrorists are being monitored without warrants. What else has changed here? The department already releases information about the number of wire taps approved with warrants - terrorist already know we try and tap them. Why else has changed apart from the lack of requirement for a signed piece of paper?

You see, just because they know that we want to listen in doesn’t mean that they believe we are listening in.  And if they stop using those numbers that means that they didn’t know we were monitoring them.

What a great little circular argument - I already debunked this above with my Iran example.

Answer the simple question. A terrorist who beforehand didn’t think his phone was being tapped (for whatever reason). He now hears that, not only is the US government trying to tap terrorists phones, but God forbid, they don’t need to get a warrant now. Why would this new information in any way change his opinion about whether his phone has been tapped or not?

I mean, come on, say you are hiding drugs in your house. You are worried that the government may get a warrant to come and do a search so you hide them pretty damn well. Then one day you hear on the news that the government dosen’t need a warrant to look for drugs any more - then can just enter your house. Is that going to make you change how you hide your drugs?

Do you get it yet or do I have to find a 3 year old to explain it to in my free time so I can figure out the best way to get the point acrossed to you

I don’t get your argument at all. I have tried to show both you and Jim why it is wrong and I really can’t fathom why neither of you get’s it. It’s hardly a novel argument it is repeated a thousand told times all across the net and is really pretty simple to understand.

The point isn’t about warrants or no warrants.  Its the fact that this report states that we ARE monitoring terrorists and know that they are calling numbers inside the US.  They now KNOW that we’re doing it.  Before this they may have only believed we were trying to.

To use your drugs example, it would be like the paper announcing that the police have been all over your city and located illegal drugs, next week they are going to be coming back with warrants to search houses and find the drugs so that people can be arrested.  What don’t you think that everyone who has drugs is going to rehide, move, or get rid of those drugs?

If you’re going to say that’s not possible then tough because it was your example, and a shitty one for comparison, and it again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding.

Its not about the warrants.  Its about announcing that we have been doing this a lot when the terrorists probably didn’t know we were doing it.  Get that through your thick idiotic skull.

The point isn’t about warrants or no warrants.  Its the fact that this report states that we ARE monitoring terrorists and know that they are calling numbers inside the US.  They now KNOW that we’re doing it.  Before this they may have only believed we were trying to.

This is where you are simply wrong. Look it up, there are numerous reports of this happening, including in the Septermber 11 comission. Some actual phone conversations from September 10th are in the public domain (basically saying tomorrow was the day). It is well known that the US monitors these conversations, it has been known for the 10 years plus. Look it up.

The rest of your example makes no sense because of this above point. Terrorists already know we where both trying and succeeding in listening to them - and this is already common knowledge. I would think they would assume it even if they didn’t actually know.

Crap, we even had a conversation about this very issue on this blog a while back regarding using VOIP on phones and how the FEDs would want to be able to monitor the phone calls. There has been numerous amounts of news articles about how to tap new VOIP services.

Its absolutly laughable to support that terrorists don’t know we are tapping them. Clearly any individual terrorist being tapped dosen’t realise they are but they know we are trying, and in some cases succeeding.

There is only one reason why this tapping wastn’t done by coutrt order, and that is the numbers to be monitored where obtained through torture. What other possible reason is there for ignoring retrospective judical oversight?

He’s just ignoring the point here, people...forget it.

He’s just ignoring the point here, people...forget it.

He seems to hold an overly large opinion of the intelligence and capabilities of terrorists. Almost an… admiration. Perhaps his problem is simply an inability to believe that the US could be a step ahead of his heroes.

Ain’t that the truth jimk.  He just can’t figure out what the difference is in terrorists thinking we might be monitoring them and having the media confirm that its going on.

I feel like I am being ganged up on, but anyway. Buzzion, I asked you to look it up online, perhaps you didn’t have the time so here is a link for you:

From 2002: CNN

The September 10 intercepts, details of which were provided to CNN on Wednesday, came from conversations in Arabic between individuals in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia that U.S. officials believe were connected to al Qaeda. The intercepts, however, were not analyzed until September 12, the day after terrorist attacks on New York and Washington killed more than 3,000 people.

Terrorists already *KNOW* we tap them. There are numerous other examples of this. Its already been confirmed, and has for years. Lots of other stuff out there that shows this.

Out of interest this also shows how the current laws on intercepts where doing their job nicely, just the stuff wastn’t getting translated. The only reason for the current situation is so people can be tortured into giving up numbers.

The knots <a href="http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/NEWS/60126008"> the Bush admin tie themself into at times are hysterical. I can’t imagine how much shit would hit the fan is this shit happened under a Democratic President. Man the democrats are a rubbish opposition party.