Freepers are mixed on ABC/NYT/WashPo Fourth-Estate-Gate story:

[originalpckelly]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632480/posts

I think they are finally starting to understand.

There are a lot of Republicans who are openly questioning this on FreepRepublic:
"If they were buiilding profiles on the traitorous MSM, I'd be happy as a clam, as long as it were followed by prosecutions for treason.

Fast forward four years:

Since we're building profiles on the traitorous Freepers, I'm happy as a clam...

President Hillary Clinton."


"How many times does it have to be said that Smith v. Maryland does NOT answer the question of this program's legality?

You'll have to keep saying it because people will keep repeating that talking point."


"And if Hillary Clinton gets in power, she'll be doing this to FNC, and she WILL use it to make leakers disappear into the night. Scary."

"Right. As if any of this would have any bearing on what laws she would break. She already thinks the law doesn't apply to her.

The point is, she would come into office with the precedent that she can get whatever data she wants from the private sector and do whatever she wants to with it.

Not a good thing."


"so what? are you telling us you will only be happy when the government is hobbled in its use of technology, below the level of telemarketer boiler-room capability?

No. And I can come up with ways with some level of evidentary process that gets the government access to calling data.

However, do you really think this will stop with terrorism? Next, it will be tracking drug deals. And then, tracking political opponents and whistleblowers.

what you are essentially telling us is that we have to accept the Dems model for domestic anti-terror -

No, I am not. I am OK with the NSA warrantless monitoring program, because there is some level of probable cause tied to it. There is none with this database. And that is where the danger lies."


"Oh, is it now? I have been here for as long as you have. I have been nothing but a staunch conservative, but there are some lines that the government shouldn't cross IMO."


"There is no "avenue" for someone with a security clearance to alert the public as to what is going on behind the scenes. We are better off when the government fears the people than when people fear government."


"Yeah, and we all know that terrorists keep the same phone number for years and years! :::sarcasm off:::

Yeah, it's like gun control laws - they only impact the law-abiding."


"Nope, something being constitutional does not make it legal. There are numerous federal statutes that may bar what is being done here. Try again."


"We are better off when the government fears the people than when people fear government.

Amen!!!"


"I'm just not comfortable with killing an avenue for government watchdogs to come forward. I think more often than not, we as a people are better off when government is transparent."


"Thank you. It's beyond me how so many of us can delight in a program that puts the capital B in Big Government and erodes our traditional rights at the expense of traditional values. You're a patriot."


"Then I pick transparent. Because I know they can be transparent in places and still be functional. But if you want to boil it down to black and white, I say err on the side of freedom."


"Those companies could sell that data if they choose to do so.

Direct marketers don't have powers of arrest, last I checked. That is the key difference."


"However, there are still limits on how that power may be executed.

Yes, and when they started passing seat belt laws, they said no one would ever be pulled over just for a seat belt infraction.

Now, it's gotten so bad that the Maryland State Police have night-vision googles to see if people going by at night don't have their seat belt on.

Since I know what I could do with this data (I work with marketing databases for a living), maybe I am more concerned than the average bear as to the government having it. Especially when they ain't all that great at data mining in the first place - what if a glitch makes them think that YOU are linked to al Qaeda?

And that is assuming that they are using the data in a limited and controlled manner."


"But couldn't they sell the data to those who DO have the power of arrest?

I would rather governments be limited in how they use that kind of data, precisely because they do have power of arrest and we saw during the Clinton years how government agencies could be abused."


"People forget that Reagan used whistleblowers to find out what the yes-men weren't telling him. Reagan knew that the fed workers on the operational level would never use the traditional whistleblower channels, for fear of reprisal, so he would take leaks to the media as a sign that there was something he should be paying attention to."


"I think the "cause" is the WOT, and connecting the dots from suspected terrorist is why they need data in advance.

Well, that means until terrorism ends, the government can have whatever data it wants and can use it in any manner that it wants?

Sorry, that is not cause. Like I said, the government had the info it needed to solve 9-11 before it happened - but was unable to pull all the pieces together in time. And the answer to that is not to get more data, but use the data you have more effectively."


"If it is Constitutional, it is legal. Constitutional only means that the government CAN do something. It doesn't mean that it should. In this case, a smart legislature was afraid of the big government/big brother effect, and only gave the executive permission to conduct a certain set of activities. Government is created in the positive, not the negative; It is not assumed that government has power that laws restrict, it is assumed that government has no power unless expressly granted (think strict constitutionalism, but against all three branches)."


"I don't fear it as long as I can beat it back when it overreaches.

*IF* the government is doing what it says it is doing with the information it is getting, I don't have a problem with that...but the kicker is how do I know that they are doing what they say they are doing? If it is truly a national security issue that causes them to do a bit of snooping, in as minimal a way as possible, then that is okay...but when you start in on looking at non-national security issues...no thanks. I'm not interested in the NSA hunting for drug dealers using such a broad authority."



Wow! Republicans with a mind, something must have been in their water.

[Broken_Hero]

1. I read

this thread last week, i believe..it was sparked by allegations of nsa spying on their "precious" minute men...the thread was insightful, and there were a good handful of people, who were very upset over the nsa spying. I didn't buy the "if you are against the nsa database, you must be a DU troll theme"....I believe, most of the dissenters' in that thread were infact, conservatives...