home

The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program

NBC reported in December that the Pentagon had a program for domestic surveillance of dissidents, after reviewing a secret 400 page Defense Department document.

....the Pentagon now collects domestic intelligence that goes beyond legitimate concerns about terrorism or protecting U.S. military installations, say critics.....The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff has more on the program today, and says the Pentagon's spying on Americans is more widespread than previously believed.

Newly obtained documents show CIFA is tracking Americans by accessing a variety of information sources:

An internal CIFA PowerPoint slide presentation recently obtained by William Arkin, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who writes widely about military affairs, gives some idea how the group operated. The presentation, which Arkin provided to NEWSWEEK, shows that CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity) analysts had access to law-enforcement reports and sensitive military and U.S. intelligence documents.....But the organization also gleaned data from "open source Internet monitoring." In other words, they surfed the Web.

The Pentagon recently acknowledged that CIFA had violated some regulations, particularly those with respect to storing information on individuals:

....an internal Pentagon review has found that CIFA's database contained some information that may have violated regulations.

The department is not allowed to retain information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days—unless they are "reasonably believed" to have some link to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing or foreign intelligence. There was information that was "improperly stored," says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). "It was an oversight." In a memo last week, obtained by NEWSWEEK, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered CIFA to purge such information from its files—and directed that all Defense Department intelligence personnel receive "refresher training" on department policies.

Democrats are seeking an inquiry into the Pentagon program.

[Graphic created exlcusively for TalkLeft by CL.)

< Move Over, Sex Offenders | The Deborah Howell Controversy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:08:25 AM EST
    Every time I see that graphic of bush peering through a crack in the roof I want to reach out and stick my finger in his eye.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    Nothing new here! its been done before and people have been done by the system, sad world watch out for the coming political bull.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    The pentagon has no right to spy on Americans. We need to put a stop to this.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    perhaps it is time for TL to offer a fourth ammendment door mat in addition to the tote bag.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#5)
    by Johnny on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    The pentagon has no right to spy on Americans. We need to put a stop to this.
    But Kdog, if we do not allow this admin to spy on dissidents, that means the turrists win! Sometimes I wish I was a wrong winger-the world is definately a much easier place to understand for them.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Just as the distinctions between the different branches of US gov seem to be disappearing so are the distinctions between various Republican scandals. A sort of one stop shopping. Laura Rozen tells us that the new Homeland Security deputy director Spymaster (a newly created position by Bush) is a partner in a Philly based government lobbying firm. He left the firm Jan 9 to join Homeland Security. Domestic Intellegence and Lobbyist ....what is the common link? Somehow I do not think he will be big on fourth ammendment rights.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 04:43:24 PM EST
    Where are the righties?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Heretik on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    Hey, it was "inadvertent" that this info was found in the databases. It was purged, you paranoid types. Or inadvertent that somebody found it there so it had to get purged. Or something. More on what is being done For Your Own Good. Oy.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    Gosh, maybe they have to requisition some more money to hire staff whose full time job would be deleting info collected on innocent Americans after 90 days. They will need quite a lot of people to get the job done right. At this point the DOD is only spending $1.8 billion dollars a day. What do you think? Round it off to $2 billion/day...that should do the trick. link via robot wisdom

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    kdog, the only way people can stop this outrage is by going to washington and doing the right thing,its called, a tree a rope and a political person at the end of that rope!, and no one will do that so get into line the camp system is next.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:40:14 AM EST
    et al - This is much ado about nothing.
    If the Defense Department ever starts shooting or arresting (DoD has no such power, of course) participants in anti-military demonstrations, Newsweek will have a genuine civil liberties scandal to report on. But that hasn't happened and isn't going to happen. No matter how the magazine tries to color the facts, there simply isn't anything wrong with writing reports on demonstrations.


    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:14:57 AM EST
    Quoting an extreme rw opinion, not even facts, is hardly conducive to debate. It is illegal for the army to spy on domestic groups. But as long as it isn't a bj, I guess rethugs will put up with any violation of law.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:28:34 AM EST
    Sailor, quoting assrocket here is just bait.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:34:09 AM EST
    Jim, This is okay as long as no one is arrested? You must be joking. Your use of powerline as your sole basis of belief makes me doubt your claim that you are not an extremely rabid Repub. Breaking the law is okay as long as there is no arrest? Does that mean that I can buy some crack and a hooker?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:00:15 AM EST
    Where are the Rethugs who during Clinton's administartion insisted that the rule of law was the foundation of the country and lying even about sex was important? Dont worry its a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. The neo-fascists like ppj are willing to excuse any action no matter how illegal or how immoral as long as they stay in power, since after all thats all that matters to them. of course they are mistaken in their belief that they will some day reap the rewards for supporting their masters.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:32:30 AM EST
    Soccerdad, I wonder if you realize what an "ass" you sound like when you call PPJ a fascist. Especially considering that the Dems and Libs have proven so many times recently that they will stop at nothing to regain their power. You really need to take a break, pal, I am beginning to feel embarrassed for you.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:51:54 AM EST
    edger - Your response is that since you don't agree, let's not discuss. Very open minded, eh? Roger writes:
    Breaking the law is okay as long as there is no arrest? Does that mean that I can buy some crack and a hooker?
    To each his on as far as I am concerned. The question is, are your actions legal in your part of Florida? SD - Calling someone a neo-fascist is fighting words and certainly not condusive to a civilized debate. I await your apology. et al - If you attend a PUBLIC demonstration, what expectation of privacy do you have? If the newspaper takes your picture, or if the 5 o'clock news shows your lovely image, is that illegal? And what makes it illegal for the DOD? I mean they may have their own regulations that someone has violated, but show me, please, the expectation of privacy for PUBLIC acts. Now, if you demonstrate in private, then that's a different matter. But you know that. This isn't "rocket" science, eh edger?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:02:41 AM EST
    Jim, Buying crack and a hooker is illegal where I live. Wiretaps without warrants, and pentagon spying on americans are (legally) much more serious offenses.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    PPJ you are what you are. You are defined by the positions you take. Its that simple. Pro-torture, pro-spying, etc. You try to cover it up by claiming it doesn't exist or doesn't matter etc, allevidence to the contrary. In doing so you are showing what you believe in. You never debate, you ignore everyone's else comments except when you can belittle them, you never acknowledge anything contrary to your own beliefs and when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary you simpley repeat and repeat and repeat the same old tired disproven nonsence. Vladimir would be proud. As far as an apology, thats the biggest funny yet. This request from someone who has yet to apologize for anything. Just keep keep on. You're a inspiration to all propagandists everywhere and to your neocon brethern.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    Roger.. Breaking the law is okay as long as there is no arrest? No...certainly not... so the next time you do 56MPH in a 55MPH zone, we expect you to turn yourself in, like the good law abiding American you are!

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    BB: we expect you to turn yourself in, like the good law abiding American you are! That, of course, applies to bush, the NSA, the DOD, the Pentagon, and a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). Right? Right... Of course. How silly of me...

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#22)
    by roger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    BB, Do you understand the difference between a felony and an infraction?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    DA, No need to... keep on with the way things are going and soon it will be a felony to demand or ask for your constitutional rights, or even to stand up for someone elses, such as the ones who see no problem with giving them up.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    Jim: edger - Your response is that since you don't agree, let's not discuss. Two things: 1) That was not my response. Just your usual: an attribution of something not said. 2) You want to "discuss" the "merits" of eroding your rights? Try blogging over at assrocket. They'll be happy to accomodate you.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    Roger... Do you understand the difference between a felony and an infraction? You said nothing about the severity of the law...just breaking 'the' law. So... as far as your concerned ... it's ok to break certain laws (the ones you don't agree with) but not others? Makes perfect sense to me... Maybe that's how GW feels too? Dark A.. Spying on Americans who are asserting their constitutional rights is like driving 56 in a 55 zone? I never said or even alluded to that. I was simply commenting on 'breaking' the law and cited an example. Besides, I hate to break this to you... but you don't have the 'right' to cavort with the enemy. I know the libs keep preaching that ... but it isn't anywhere in the constitution. In fact, they can shoot you for that!

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    ppj: Other things youve excused: Iran/Contra, the C.I.A's sabotaging and attempted undermining of democratically elected govs, carefully orchestrated smear campaigns, saturation bombing.. I'd say neo-fascist is pretty close.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    Btw, Nobody here is really suprised by this are they? This has been the rights m.o going back as far as I can remember. Besides, these folks, like vampires whither when exposed to the sunlight of open honest debate involving an educated, informed electorate(something they fear more than anything: keep em thinking about Natalee,The Rapture,and The War on Christmas). The only way the right has a chance is through fear-mongering, dumb down and distract etc.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#29)
    by roger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    BB, "Cavorting"? What are you on today? LMFAO! You have brought the level of intellectual discourse to a new low.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    jondee - If you want to start a name calling contest, be my guest. edger - Don't be obtuse. It was my link. Parsing doesn't become you. BTW - Tell me why you have the right to not have people see and record what you are doing in public. SD - Pro spying? Tell me. How is people watching something done in public spying???? Come on SD, let's see it. Pro spying? If the "spying" is done on people communicating with known terrorists.... You betch'um Red Rider. jondee wrote:
    Besides, these folks, like vampires whither when exposed to the sunlight of open honest debate
    Hmmmmm. Let me see. I merely asked why someone should have the right to not have their public actions recorded, and I get about half a dozen responses, two of which include name calling and none of which debate anything, and you say the above. One more time. Tell me why viewing and recording PUBLIC actions spying? What do you do? "Okay, everyone. I am gonna demonstrate. Close your eyes... Hey, you in the checkered shirt. Turn that recorder off.." That's funny, Jondee. Truly funny. Do you think that no one else notices? Thanks for again making points for me.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    Its certainly harrassment and intimidation and you know it. But, I forgot; youre on the absolutely-anything-to-win, my rightwing junta right or wrong side anyway. Besides, this is a bit of pet issue with you anyway Jim; we all know that your knickers have been in a crusty bunch since the 60's anti-war demonstrations. My advice is get over it.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#32)
    by roger on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    BB, You got me. Next time I do 56 in a 55, I'll turn myself in and pay a fine. W can report to jail. Well worth the trade

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 04:48:22 PM EST
    but you don't have the 'right' to cavort with the enemy. Hm, I didn't know that asserting my Constitutional rights was equivalent to cavorting with the enemy. Dissent is the essence of patriotism. Better send the moonbat behind those sentiments to Gitmo, eh? I know the libs keep preaching that ... Yeah, the old "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact". That's so 2002. Oh, can you find where the libs preach that the Constitution protects those who 'cavort' with the enemy? Or is there a mambo exception to this rule as well? If you attend a PUBLIC demonstration, what expectation of privacy do you have? If the newspaper takes your picture, or if the 5 o'clock news shows your lovely image, is that illegal? Funny you should say that PPJ, as a friend told me that I was caught on an intro to a CNN report about the 1992 California Democratic Party convention for 30 seconds or so handing out flyers for a political cause. I wouldn't have any problem with my image being disseminated or my views being made known. If the "spying" is done on people communicating with known terrorists They can listen in and record the converstation as long as they obtain a warrant from the FISA Court in 72 hours, as required by the present law on the books, and I'm sure that SD, Che, kdog, squeaky, edger, etc, would agree with me here. My objection, aside from the law-breaking involved(law-breaking is such an elitist concept, isn't it, comrade?) is simple: If a rich nut wants to monitor protests, rallies, etc., fine. But it should be the business of the government ensure that activities that are peaceful and are enshrined in the 1st Amendment not entirely by coincidence should be protected, not to waste taxpayer dollars to compile dossiers on folks who haven't broken the law or otherwise posed a potential threat to themselves or their fellow citizens. You have yet to show the positive value of monitoring demonstrations, protests, ralleys, etc. Why is that? While PPJ is correct that people in public have no right of privacy, that still doesn't excuse activities that have no place in a democratic republic, that are a waste of taxpayer resources that could be better diverted into something perhaps a little more popular like, I don't know FINDING OSAMA-F*****-BIN-LADEN "at a time and place of our choosing" Parsing doesn't become you. Just as jealousy doesn't become you.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - I am glad to see that you are such a strong believer of our national defense that you are willing to turn it over to the whims of an unelected judge who is appointed for life. I would prefer that an elected President run it. And why should I be expected to justify what is two obvious rights? You right to demonstrate in public does not over power my right to observe and make notes. As for costs, would you let cost justification become a requirement for the protection of our rights? And tell me why watching and recording a public demonstration have no place in a democracy? It is either a legal act, or it is not. And we "all" know it is legal. jondee writes:
    Its certainly harrassment and intimidation
    What? To have some one watch and record what you are doing in public? Surely you are not ashamed are you? I mean your cause is just and you are fighting for the rights of all us, right?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:39:38 PM EST
    Posted by edger January 23, 2006 08:28 AM Sailor, quoting a$srocket here is just bait.
    Yep, I see what you mean;-)

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    unelected judge who is appointed for life. This is a new red herring, even for you PPJ. It's funny how you try to spin to side issues when you can't respond to my post except for quibbles about the differences between a 'unelected judge' and an 'elected President' Howbout some Congressional oversight of this program by some other 'elected officials'? Not that the Repubs in the Legislative branch have shown much interest in doing so except for Arlen Specter, who I guess is another RINO and clearly only interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists. I would prefer that an elected President run it. I would prefer that any President follow the law, which is the point you keep dancing around and refusing to address squarely in the face. And why should I be expected to justify what is two obvious rights? You right to demonstrate in public does not over power my right to observe and make notes. And why should a representative of the government be 'observing and making notes' in the first place? As for costs, would you let cost justification become a requirement for the protection of our rights? I don't see any value in such survellience, and have challenged you twice now to explain the value of such operations and how they protect our rights, and the silence has been notable, to say the least. But if you think money for this program is better spent on it than capturing THE S****** WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11, please feel free to give us the facts and reasoning used in formulating your belief. And tell me why watching and recording a public demonstration have no place in a democracy? It is either a legal act, or it is not. And we "all" know it is legal. Well, some people say that people who use the word 'we' should probably concentrate on reading for comprehension, especially the part where I begin "If a rich nut....". SSDD folks.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:04:43 AM EST
    "The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk." "Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights." Attorney General Alberto "Where's Your F**king Neck?" Gonzales appeared on Larry King's Zombie Live last night, where Larry King's zombie asked Gonzales about [Gore's] speech. Gonzales took out the Bill of Rights and said, "Amendments? We don't need no stinkin' amendments" before setting the document on fire with his cigarillo. King's zombie then asked Gonzales if it was that big a f**kin' deal to get a judge to "sign off on a warrant." Gonzales replied, "Larry, whenever you involve another branch of government in an activity regarding electronic surveillance, inherently it's going to result in some cases in delay." Then he distracted King by offering the zombie host the fresh brains of Sunni children, which King's zombie gratefully engorged. His work there done, Gonzales slunk off, hunched over like a beaten bellringer, to give Sean Hannity's manly jaw a stiff workout. Haven't things come to a strange pass when to be "radical" is to merely ask that the government of the nation respect its own laws? The Rude Pundit


    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:58:12 AM EST
    edger - A bunch of straw men, but show me where it is illegal to observe and record a public demonstration. That's is the issue. Dark Avenger - And you are now claiming that Federal Judges are not appointed for life? Who knew? And there was oversight. The oversight just didn't say anything until 12/16 and then they decided to try and score some points with the Left wing of the Demo party. No dancing. He has followed the law. You just don't like it. You write:
    And why should a representative of the government be 'observing and making notes' in the first place?
    If you don't like it, change the constitution.
    I don't see any value in such survellience,
    I understand that you don't see. So? And it is not necessary to explain why someone is using their rights. i.e. Observing and recording public demonstrations. Why do you think it is required? Is it because you don't approve these rights? And you fail to understand that I speak for myself and the millions like me, not to mention the mouse in my pocket. ;-) But I digress. Your coments are now following Goodwin's law. e.g.
    Well, some people say that people who use the word 'we' should probably concentrate on reading for comprehension, especially the part where I begin "If a rich nut....". SSDD folks.
    Sailor - When you can't beat'em, insult'em, eh?

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:34:58 AM EST
    edger - A bunch of straw men, but show me where it is illegal to observe and record a public demonstration... That's is the issue. No, that is not the issue. One of the issues is improper retention and storage of information on US citizens. The main issue here is Constitution rights. You remember those? They are what allows you to spew your BS.
    The department is not allowed to retain information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days--unless they are "reasonably believed" to have some link to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing or foreign intelligence. There was information that was "improperly stored," says a Pentagon spokesman
    Dark Avenger - And you are now claiming that Federal Judges are not appointed for life? Who knew? FISA judges are appointed for a maximum term of seven (7) years, and are not eligible for redesignation. --Cornell Law School - US Code Collection Strawmen, indeed. Do your homework. Or at least read the post so you know what issues the thread is about. Or go home. Or go to your echo chamber at assrocket.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    edger - The retention law is probably unconstitutional should DOD decide to press it, and has nothing to do with the fourth amendment. Thanks for the info re the FISA judges. I do learn things. So let me rephrase. Do we want our national security ran by a federal judge who is appointed to a court for seven years, or by an elected president who is required by the constitution to protect the US. I believe you understand the difference between needing intelligence right now and waiting seven years. And we will leave aside the fact that the appointed judge may have totally and completely incorrect views on the defense strategy of the US. I am sure that is obvious to all of us. You write:
    Do your homework. Or at least read the post so you know what issues the thread is about. Or go home. Or go to your echo chamber at assrocket.
    As in Dark Avenger's case, your comments are starting to demonstrate the accuracy of Goodwin's Law. The issues, edger, are simple. The right of the people by themselves, their news organizations or through their government, to observe and record public demonstrations. Your complaint is that they have done it. My comment is that it is legal. If you don't like it, change the constitution. Dark Avenger - If our elected officials are so chicken that they can't disobey the executive when they feel that the constitution is being violated, then we need a whole new group of Congressmen. It is indeed time to throw the rascals out. Truth be known, they recognized the legality of the program from day one, and only complained when they felt they had to protect themselves from the ire of their left wing base. And again, it is not necessary for me to explain anything. Observing and recording public acts is a constitutional right. I am amazed that you seem to think I must explain why I note that right. Constitutional right is as constitutional right is, eh? I think my comment re Goodwin's Law was quite accurate:
    Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet discussions gravitate downhill. He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi". The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.


    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    deleted, commenter warned.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    Do we want our national security ran by a federal judge who is appointed to a court for seven years, or by an elected president who is required by the constitution to protect the US.
    Jim, The answer to your question is simple. National security should be run by an elected president but subject to judicial review when involving a citizen of the US. In other words, if the president, or any agency that reports to the executive branch of the federal government, wants to put a US citizen under surveillance, they should always have to obtain a warrant. No exceptions. Unchecked power in any branch of government is a threat to civil liberties.

    Re: The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program (none / 0) (#43)
    by roger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Point one: I want a legal expert deciding what the law is, not a politician Point two : Godwin's "law" is made up by Godwin. It is a stupid idea