From: "Mark" 

No, I don't consider you (or your positions) on the level of the
"left-wing nutters" but the paragraph you just typed seems to me
to be supportive of Bush's proper use of that surveillance, whereas past
presidents were not as judicious in the scope nor the targets of same
monitoring...

I guess in a nutshell, what I'm saying is my (and other Americans) right to
live, as in stay alive, trumps your asserted right not to have the NSA flag
your conversation with an Aunt living in Beirut about how her recipe
*bombed* at your New Year's Eve party in Georgetown...  

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b36168$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Mark - I'm not arguing against monitoring of terrorists or even
> monitoring. I don't think anyone reasonable is doing that ( please don't
> provide any links to left wing nutters as I did say reasonable ). As the
> Church Committee found monitoring has been subject to abuse by Presidents
> and government officials in the past. Terrorists aren't supposed to be
> defined as political opponents or peaceful activists. There has been a
> history of abuse and placing the monitoring power back solely in the hands
> of the Executive Office raises alarms bells all over the place. We will
> still be as safe and secure with reasonable safeguards in place
>
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43b35f97$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> But why do you "reckon those rules are out the window
now," has it been
>> set in stone that Bush (and Carter and Reagan and Clinton in various
>> iterations) having the NSA listen to terrorist collaborators here in the
>> US talking with terrorists in foreign countries violated any law? I don't
>> think it has, nor do I think it will.
>>
>> You do remember that the terrorists that killed a lot of people in NYC,
>> DC, and in the countryside of PA, were communicating with their fellow
>> whack jobs in Afghanistan and other countries from our mainland, don't
>> you? Don't you further think if we'd been monitoring those calls (or
>> hadn't had "the wall") that perhaps a lot of Americans
would still be
>> alive today? 
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:43b35bbc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> After the 1976 Church committee's investigation of NSA activities in
>>> spying on Americans ( SHAMROCK etc ) , the NSA adopted stringent rules
>>> to avoid any repitions.  I reckon those rules are out the window now
>>>
>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/contents.htm
>>>
>>> The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
>>> Respect to Intelligence Activities, known as the "Church
Committee"
>>> after its chairman Frank Church, conducted a wide-ranging investigation
>>> of the intelligence agencies in the post-Watergate period.
>>>
>>> The Church Committee took public and private testimony from hundreds of
>>> people, collected huge volumes of files from the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, and
>>> many other federal agencies, and issued 14 reports in 1975 and 1976.
>>> Since the passage of the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act in
>>> 1992, over 50,000 pages of Church Committee records have been
>>> declassified and made available to the public. These files contain
>>> testimony and information on U.S. attempts to assassinate foreign
>>> leaders, on the Church Committee's investigation of the intelligence
>>> agencies' response to the JFK assassination, and related topics.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:43b3564b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> And the previous examples are?
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:43b354db$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Uh - Why make laws and rules then?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are supposed to be a Nation of Law. When did that change?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it's not a bigeee as surveillance goes but it's yet another
>>>>> example of NSA's uncaring attitude to our privacy laws
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:43b3523a{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> Wait Rich, now we're supposed to get our panties
in a bunch and wet
>>>>>> ourselves because a Web site set cookies? We've
all got cookies
>>>>>> coming out of our ying yang and for far more
nefarious purposes than
>>>>>> protecting the USA. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:43b34634{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>I reckon the NSA is so used to violating
Federal Law they probably
>>>>>>>figured what's one more time and after all they
only wanted to track
>>>>>>>web activity to 2035 when Bush's war on terror
may finally subside
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Spy_Agency_Privacy.html
>>>>>>> NEW YORK -- The National Security Agency's
Internet site has been
>>>>>>> placing files on visitors' computers that can
track their Web
>>>>>>> surfing activity despite strict federal rules
banning most of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These files, known as "cookies,"
disappeared after a privacy
>>>>>>> activist complained and The Associated Press
made inquiries this
>>>>>>> week, and agency officials acknowledged
Wednesday they had made a
>>>>>>> mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises
questions about privacy at a
>>>>>>> spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive
>>>>>>> eavesdropping program in the United States.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Considering the surveillance power the
NSA has, cookies are not
>>>>>>> exactly a major concern," said Ari
Schwartz, associate director at
>>>>>>> the Center for Democracy and Technology, a
privacy advocacy group in
>>>>>>> Washington, D.C. "But it does show a
general lack of understanding
>>>>>>> about privacy rules when they are not even following the
>>>>>>> government's very basic rules for Web privacy."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie
files that do not
>>>>>>> expire until 2035 - likely beyond the life of
any computer in use
>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a
statement Wednesday that the
>>>>>>> cookie use resulted from a recent software
upgrade. Normally, the
>>>>>>> site uses temporary, permissible cookies that
are automatically
>>>>>>> deleted when users close their Web browsers,
he said, but the
>>>>>>> software in use shipped with persistent
cookies already on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10629515/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NEW YORK - The National Security Agency's
Internet site has been
>>>>>>> placing files on visitors' computers that can
track their Web
>>>>>>> surfing activity despite strict federal rules
banning most of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These files, known as "cookies,"
disappeared after a privacy
>>>>>>> activist complained and The Associated Press
made inquiries this
>>>>>>> week, and agency officials acknowledged
Wednesday they had made a
>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about
privacy at a spy
>>>>>>> agency already on the defensive amid reports
of a secretive
>>>>>>> eavesdropping program in the United States
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5