With that kind of ability to read minds...(insert Chuck Tucson abuse here)...That is why you love this blog.
Wow. I am a frustrated clown with the intellectual capacity of a shit for brains goat who craves attention as much as a masturbating monkey.
That's amazing. That's literally the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.01.2009 @ 20:08
There's a cycle here. It's part of the reason I love this blog so much. It usually goes like this: Rick Moran posts something a bit critical of Bush. He gets jumped and abused without mercy in the comments and called a RINO with BDS.
This hurts him deeply and he retreats to his hidden lair where he recuperates. Later, he posts something like the current essay in order to reaffirm his roots, and show the earlier detractors that he's not actually a RINO with BDS, but, in fact, he is one of them.
If he's particularly upset with them he'll say he's not a Republican, he's a Conservative, and kindly suggest that they are idiots who don't know the difference. I'm convinced though that being called a RINO by his people hurts him deeply, and causes him to lash out.
Cycle of awesomeness repeats.
With that kind of ability to read minds, you should be in a circus. And not just because you have the intellectual capacity of a goat with the need of a masturbating monkey for attention. Obviously, you are a frustrated clown.
Try again, Pal. I write what I write because I want to write about it. I could care less what I've written the previous day or week or month. I don't defend Bush or castigate him. I write what I believe and what I see. I will take on conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, religious nuts, anti-science boobs, and people named Chuck who have shit for brains. And I will do it when I want, and for whatever reason strikes me as sound at the time.
That is why you love this blog.
ed.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.01.2009 @ 17:56
"So don’t pretend that your side was rational. You swallowed the whole act, hook, line and sinker."
Speaking of act. He's dropping the brush clearing cowboy act and moving to the suburbs of Dallas for retirement, instead of the Crawford Ranch. Sigh. I had totally bought into the cowboy thing too.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.01.2009 @ 16:06
Initiating controversial programs to spy on overseas terrorists and their American contacts, interdicting and tracking the flow of money to terrorists, and tearing down artificial walls between domestic and foreign intelligence is not “shredding the constitution.”
Nope, not shredding the constitution, just illegal. But the framing you've built around the issue makes it seem air tight. Patriotic even. Well done.
The only thing gained by this program that is different from existing law is that they ignored the whole "warrant" thing. Judicial review is a minor issue, right? We should just trust that it's only being used against the terrorists.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.01.2009 @ 14:16
I have a suspicion that the NSA computers work about as well as most voice recognition programs. So I’m guessing for every “Jihad!” they intercept they get half a million “Gee, Dads!”
Voice communication is infinitely more complicated to analyze than regular internet traffic, and far more prone to false positives for the systems that do, (sort of) work.
Phone communication is a more precise type of monitoring. You pretty much have to know what number(s) you're going to monitor and build a phone tree off of those. You can use voice analysis software to match voices to other known voices, but it's very very difficult for software to actually do speech/text conversion. I mean, even on the best conditions that's difficult, but over cell phones where audio quality is minimal it's almost impossible. Throw in accents, and it gets even worse. Often these calls have to be monitored in real time by humans, or recorded and analyzed later by humans.
I know you all think I'm a paranoid lefty nutjob, but if anyone here has any concerns about email security, you can have a look at PGP encryption, or one of the greatest pieces of open source encryption software available right now called TrueCrypt, which can be found at http://www.truecrypt.org/.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.01.2009 @ 18:33
You don’t know that your communications are “intercepted, analyzed, and cataloged.” You have no idea if that is true because NO ONE KNOWS THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS!
I know from the details that have been leaked, and because I have written simmilar software to perform simmilar functions.
Even the NY Times said it is likely that your communications wouldn’t be “analyzed” or even “catalogued” – they are intercepted by a big fat dumb brute of a computer that looks for keywords and other factors and, if none are present (if you are not communicating with a terrorist or suspect person overseas) your phonecon, email, or other communication is spit out back into the ether never to be seen or heard again.
Realtime analysis of data on that volume would slow communications and would be noticed. Data is split at the trunk nodes and housed for the slower analysis process. Never to be seen or heard again is joke. It's there until a scheduled purge takes place, which could be years later depending on the schedule, if it even happens at all.
ANALYZED? Where in God’s name could you possibly have gotten that idea?
Because I have written simmilar software and it is far more trivial than you think. The data in question is granularized and depending on the parameters can be brought to the attention of actual human beings depending on the sift constraints.
You think there are a million little NSA workers sitting around analyzing people’s calls?
Nope. A million lines of code, maybe, but not a million little NSA workers. NSA workers analyze what bubbles to the surface.
And the way you made it sound, that’s exactly the kind of hysterical nonsense the left has been putting out for years – the kind of civil liberties absolutism bullshit (where anything the government does to protect us is “shredding the constitution) that either marks you as a paranoid fool or partisan hack.
Meh. Call me whatever you want. I'll never understand why being worried about the loss of civil liberties gets you classified as being from the left. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not happening. I simply find it harder to trust the government than you do.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.01.2009 @ 16:42
I asked you for one example of your lost of civil rights and you quote the Constitution. How is that an answer except in your damaged brain?
Because that was a liberty lost, which is what you asked for.
Let’s see if I can make it so clear that even you can understand it:
I really appreciate your condescending high minded approach. If you're trying to tell my how smart you are, I believe you. I get it. You're very intelligent.
what civil rights have you PERSONALLY lost under Bush? Name one. Are you not secure in your home and papers?
No, in fact, I am not. After a technical reading of the details of the at&t federal warentless wiretapping process, it is clear to me that communications sent by me, and others who unknowingly used the CMP endpoints on the DCSNet to friends and colleagues were intercepted, analyzed, and cataloged. Thus, constituting a violation of the civil liberties of myself and everyone else who used that network, possibly you, as well. What more do you need to know? Google it. It's all there. I'm not making this stuff up. There was a congressional investigation. It was illegal.
Any American citizen should be pissed off and up in arms that their rights were violated, and many are. What I don't understand is the belittlement and ridicule of people who are rightfully pissed off that their privacy has been illegally violated. Doesn't this upset you at all?
Have the police entered your home without a warrent and searched it? When the ACLU was busting it’s balls trying to prove that American citizens had their civil/Constitutional rights violated, why were they not able to come up with even one person?
No. Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the concept of the National Security Letter though. Something that was recently determined to be illegal and unconstitutional.
You offer me only the standard “hate Bush” left wing fare. Sorry, I don’t eat B/S. Nor do I chose to deal with those who try to serve it up.
I don't understand why being pissed off at loss of liberty classifies me as left wing to you. The constitution is designed to protect the people from the government.
You don’t answer questions, you offer spin. No instance of where your civil rights have been violated and you refuse to answer the “rule of law” question when it comes to illegals in our midst.
Your illegals question was absurd and a distraction from the topic. I have no real opinion on illegal immigration. I do understand that a great deal of American business is based on it, and that's why it's treated with kid gloves. I'm not afraid of illegal immigrants, and as to whether or not they should be blanket deported? I really don't care. I do know that it would destroy certain areas of commerce, rip families apart, and negatively impact American business, as can be seen by the meatpackers in Iowa.
And then, to affirm how lame your logic is, you determine that because being waterboarded by a fellow peace protester was voluntary, it was not a crime.
Of course it was not a crime. Nobody was held against their will. The torture could be stopped at any moment. It was a demonstration. It's not even clear if it was done correctly.
By that stardard, if you volunteer to have me shoot you in the head, creating your death, I am not guilty of murder because you volunteered to be shot.
Wow. You are truly a master of logical fallacy. I don't even know how to respond to that. What you've described would be murder. That's pretty clear cut.
Thanks, you continue to show just how dimwitted you really are.
Right. You've made it abundantly clear how intelligent you are already. I get it.
Take your crap to you next CPA meeting. We now have a PEBO that says tough times requires tough methods. Seems you accept that from him but not President Bush.
"Tough methods" doesn't mean illegal methods.
I am sure you will be more than happy with the socialist government that Obama is going to give you.
I'm a capitalist. Obama will not turn the country socialist.
Oh, and while you are on the Geneva Convention rant, please, do you care to tell me when Al Qaeda signed the Geneva Convention or post the clause in the Geneva Convention that deals with terrorists who hide behind civilians?
It's interesting to see how you randomly inject stuff like this into the discussion. It's like you honestly think that because torture is illegal and wrong, someone who is against torture actually gives a shit about terrorists. You didn't read what I wrote before.
If you're going to go this route, then all I can say is that it's also U.S. Law that torture is illegal.
You don’t accept the Constitution for what it says; you accept the Constitution for what you want it to say.
Actually, the Constitution is quite clear on some very basic points. I very much accept and agree with what it says.
You are bane on American socieity.
Well then, if my getting upset about constitutional civil rights issues is that bad for American society, then I humbly, and sincerely apologize.
"After a technical reading of the details of the at&t federal warentless wiretapping process, it is clear to me that communications sent by me, and others who unknowingly used the CMP endpoints on the DCSNet to friends and colleagues were intercepted, analyzed, and cataloged."
You don't know that your communications are "intercepted, analyzed, and cataloged." You have no idea if that is true because NO ONE KNOWS THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS!
Even the NY Times said it is likely that your communications wouldn't be "analyzed" or even "catalogued" - they are intercepted by a big fat dumb brute of a computer that looks for keywords and other factors and, if none are present (if you are not communicating with a terrorist or suspect person overseas) your phonecon, email, or other communication is spit out back into the ether never to be seen or heard again.
ANALYZED? Where in God's name could you possibly have gotten that idea? You think there are a million little NSA workers sitting around analyzing people's calls? And the way you made it sound, that's exactly the kind of hysterical nonsense the left has been putting out for years - the kind of civil liberties absolutism bullshit (where anything the government does to protect us is "shredding the constitution) that either marks you as a paranoid fool or partisan hack.
ed.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.01.2009 @ 15:04
So while you cry over what you perceive to be the lost civil rights of non-American citizens being subjected to nothing more than an intensive fraternity hazing, and demand the rule of law be upheld, I will worry about more Americans lying under millions of tons of rubble.
I like how you make it sound like only pussies care about the rule of law. Without the rule of law, nothing else matters. The constitution was a waste of time and paper. Fraternity hazing... Your logical fallacies about the nature of torture are revealing of your nature.
While you cry over the loss of your civil rights, I would ask you to name ONE civil right you have lost.
From the U.S. Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Or perhaps you resent the fact that if you get a call from a terrorist nation, you call is going to be monitored?
I do not resent this, if it is done within the boundaries of existing law. It is perfectly reasonable.
Complain to me about your civil rights when you are no longer allowed to travel from one state to another unfettered.
NO. And you know what retire05, I'm going to complain about it RIGHT NOW. Right now is when it matters. Right now, BEFORE I am no longer allowed to travel from one state to another unfettered. Now is the time. When you see the abuse happening. Not later. Right now, when my president and vice president have literally admitted on camera that they approved torture. Right now when my president and vice president approved warrantless wiretapping. RIGHT NOW.
Since you are so fixated on the “rule of law” in order to exercise your BDS, then can it be assumed that under that “rule of law” you are willing to see ICE locate, and deport, every illegal immigrant in this nation who have violated the “rule of law”? Or is it just certain “rules of law” that you want to pick and choose to suit your BDS agenda?
BDS. Another logical fallacy. I had high hopes for the guy when I voted for him the first time around. Not so much now. What ICE does to uphold immigration laws is outside the scope of the current discussion. They do what they can with the budget they have.
Those who violated American standards at Abu Ghraib have been prosecuted, sentenced and are not serving prison terms without possiblity of parole.
You mean the scapegoated underlings? Good. What about their superiors, and their superiors? Not so much.
Those who cut the head off Daniel Pearle are still very much alive.
That's too bad. They should be dead.
Those who captured three American soldiers, an mutilated their bodies beyond recognition, requiring DNA to identify them, are still very much alive.
That's too bad. They should also be dead.
Those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11 were willing to die for Allah and the glory of jihad. They are willing to strap bombs on themselves, or on young boys and dimwitted women, and blow innocents to hell. Yet, when it comes time for them to endure water flowing up their nasal passages, giving them what they perceive to be a chance to follow through on their beliefs of “death for Allah”, they suddenly want to live and are willing to share their secrets in order to secure that life.
This is the crux of your flawed logic right here. You're equating torturing for revenge with torturing suspects for information. I understand the thrill of revenge. I get that. Hell, it gives me a gigantic American hardon to think about getting those guys back. I'm not constrained by any holy notion of turning the other cheek. Do you honestly think I care what happens to terrorists who have killed my fellow Americans? Do you honestly think anyone really cares?
You're equivocating revenge punishment with interrogation and investigation. It's such a massively flawed nightmare of assumption that in the end the result is questionable intelligence, bad leads, wasted time, wasted money and potentially lost American lives. The CIA, FBI, and U.S. Military all say this. There is a reason that the U.S. officially does not torture. Despite how badass it is to give these suspected terrorists what we think they might deserve if, in fact, we've got the right guy... It's because it's wrong and usually doesn't work. There are better, more reliable ways to get what we need.
I noticed that you are guilty of “picking and choosing” the parts of my post that suit you but I would ask you again; do you think the peace protesters who waterboarded each other on the streets of Washington, D. C. should be located and prosecuted for crimes against humanity?
Of course not. It was a voluntary demonstration that could be stopped at any time.
Or do you only apply your standards to an administration that, inspite of all the odds and all the opinions of the pundits who said that another attack on American soil would surely follow in short time, did what it took to prevent the deaths of more Americans on American soil?
No, I apply constitutional standards, as well as the standards of the Geneva Conventions to my country and its government.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 15.01.2009 @ 12:52
What went on in the White House for the last 8 years? Are you that blind in your BDS that you don’t know? How about doing whatever it takes to prevent another 3,000 Americans from being murdered by terrorist thugs who don’t share you philosophy of the higher “moral” ground.
I'm not blind to anything. I understand the United States and its motivations quite well. It's not complicated. Despite what you might think, it is possible to maintain a strong moral footing while preventing terrorism. Terrorist thugs are terrorist thugs, and they can burn for what I care. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that 9/11 was 99% preventable. The 9/11 commission, as flawed and kneecapped as it was cited example after example of ways 9/11 could have been avoided.
And you know what retire05!? It had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH TORTURE. It was simple f'ing police work. That's all it would have taken. The list is long of people who warned, people who saw, people who suspected. Warnings were ignored, ideas dismissed, and it all added up to 9/11. It was preventable, and casting off the morals and the values that were the ideal to everyone in and outside of this country was completely unnecessary.
And you say any means necessary to justify torture. That's bullshit. It's a lie people use to make themselves feel better about the loss of the moral high ground. The loss of the feeling that this country truly is better than everywhere else. Your logic is a farce, and it's wrong on so many levels. But it's great that you feel good about it. You feel proud. You sleep better at night.
Perhaps time would be better served by investigating who leaked sensitive national secrets to the New York Times instead of worrying if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had some water run up his nose. But that would be too easy.
Perhaps some time would be better served by logical fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, scoffing at lost personal liberty, and gross disregard for the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. But hey, if we've got nothing to hide, why should we be concerned?
Then there is the whole matter of those who consider sleep deprivation and loud music as torture (although if I had to listen to Madonna I would considered myself tortured). Since Janet Reno, with the permission of President William Clinton, did the same thing to American citizens in a compound in Waco, Texas, do we indict Clinton along with Bush?
Torture is torture no matter the political party. Perhaps we do indict Clinton along with Bush. You make the false assumption that those of us who wish to see torture prosecuted to the fullest extent possible of the law are Democrats or liberals, or some derogatory term you spit out in disgust when describing your political opposites. It is a wrong and foolish assumption.
We had a 9-11 Commission where those who sat on the Commission itself, should have been sitting in front of it testifying why they created rules that prevented the sharing of intelligence that may have (notice I say “may”) prevented 9-11.
There is no may. 9-11 could have been prevented. Flawed as the Commission was it spells that much out. Not only that but many of its recommendations regarding the sharing and evaluation of legally obtained information are the very reason further attacks have been prevented. Regular, boots on the ground police and detective work, NOT torture.
On January 20, 2009, we will become a weaker nation. You can lay money on that. And the very ones whose ideals caused 9-11 will also take note.
Implying that we haven't been attacked because we're so strong and that we torture people is one the most illogical things I've read yet. Our intelligence agencies might be flawed, but more often than not their warnings have been simply ignored to our own detriment to appease whatever political winds seem to be blowing at the time. Then they get blamed and scapegoated later.
For God’s sake, you have been pounding on President Bush since November 5, 1999. Isn’t it time to let it go?
No. It is absolutely not time to let it go. It is time to investigate. It is time for fact finding. It is time figure out what the hell just happened so it doesn't happen again. Saying let it go is a disservice to our country and everyone who cares about it.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.01.2009 @ 22:49
However, I do question whether his supporters are sophisticated enough to accept this.
Yeah? And what of the people who don't support him, and don't accept this? Outside of every other moral, ethical, logistical, and judicial point made about this that utterly and completely destroys your "sophisticated" logic, it has a negative effect on commerce. Stand down, and truly put some thought into what you're saying.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.01.2009 @ 17:14