Little-Acorn
Gold Member
On one of the Sunday shows this last weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace had a conversation with Gen. Michael Hayden, former Director of both the CIA and NSA. Hayden oversaw much of the phone-survellance programs on law-abiding American citizens in the war against against terrorists.
Basically Hayden said that Yes, the govt does have this huge database of phone records (the calling phone number, receiving phone number, time and length of call etc.). And to use it, they ask the database something like, "We have discovered a certain phone number that definitely belongs to a terrorist. Has anyone in the country ever called this particular number, or been called by it?"
Wallace pointed out the huge potential for abuse of such a database. Gen. Hayden's reply was basically, "Well, we've never actually abused it, so you can trust your government not to abuse it in the future."
In light of the clear abuse committed by the IRS against Obama's political opponents for years, Gen. Hayden's promise seems a little thin to me. No doubt the man himself was honest and sincere. But perhaps he'll forgive me if I don't trust that the people in government NOT under his military command, and the others who will follow them soon, don't all have his sterling character and integrity.
Suppose some government weenie started a program where they obtained a copy of the key to my house, possibly without my knowledge. And keys to all my neighbors' houses. And every other private house, apartment, condo etc. in the country. And when caught, the weenie gave as his reason, "Well, this is only for events like what happened in Boston, when someone commits a horrific crime and then goes and hides in someone's house or backyard. Having these keys would greatly help us go in, find, and arrest that criminal. If we don't have good reason to think the criminal is in YOUR house, then we will never touch your house, never use your particular key. You can trust us. But you must turn over your key to us, and we might just go and get it without even telling you."
Maybe that govt weenie is sincere. But how do I know that, when he gets promoted or retires, the next weenie who takes over that job, will be as sincere? And won't be an IRS-type person who says, "Well, Obama himself, and Pelosi and Schumer and Reid and Grayson and all these other high officials have flatly said it's a good idea to crack down on people like Acorn, those conservatives. And I've already seen zillions of examples where Black Panthers intimidate voters and don't get prosecuted, campaign staff call Romney a felon and get away with it, somebody leaves a consulate in a hostile land undefended and an Ambassador gets MURDERED and Obama etc. cover for them, etc. And many of those high officials keep publicly calling people like Acorn evil, destructive to our way of life, unAmerican, and even Nazis. So I think I know something I can do to make my bosses happy and crack down on these evil, unAmerican Nazi conservatives. Clearly the high officials won't call the cops on me, they ARE the cops. Now, I'll just quietly open this big database we have handy and...."
---------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from Chris Wallace's conversation with Gen. Michael Hayden follow.
See
Government surveillance unconstitutional? Reaction from Sens. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Gen. Michael Hayden | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News
for the full transcript.
HAYDEN: ...Now, with regard to what the senator said -- if I believed NSA was doing some of the things the senator fears they're doing, I would have been backstopping him during your first segment. He said we're trolling through millions of records. That's just simply not true.
The government acquires records as business records from the telecom providers, but then doesn't go into that database without an arguable reason connected to terrorism to ask that database a question. If you don't have any link to that original predicate, terrorism, your phone records are never touched.
(snip)
You ask the database a question, but the question has to be related to terrorism. I'll give you a concrete example so this is very clear. So, you roll up something in Waziristan. You get a cell phone. It's the first time you've ever had that cell phone number. You know it's related to terrorism because of the pocket litter you've gotten in that operation.
Here's how it works: you simply ask that database, hey, any of you phone numbers in there ever talked to this phone number in Waziristan? I mean, you're already going into the database with the predicate, with a probable cause, with an arguable reason why you're asking for the data.
(snip)
WALLACE: One, what do you do with all the records, the billions of records that you have on all of us law-abiding citizens and what's the potential for abuse with the fact that you have all of that stored in computers somewhere?
HAYDEN: First, to answer your question, what do we do with all of the other records? Nothing. All right?
WALLACE: You keep it, though.
HAYDEN: Of course, because -- I mean, you get the cell phone with that number six months from now you want to know the history of that number. When does the value of that information begin to age off?
So, you do retain the information so that you can ask questions of it in the future. With regard to abuse, there are no records of abuse under President Bush, under President Obama.
Now, I was criticized because I theoretically didn't have enough oversight mechanisms, but no one accused us of abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------
Hayden's defense seems to consist of, "Well, we haven't abused the records YET." And that may well be true.
But, come to think of it, didn't the head of the IRS say a month or two ago, that no one had abused any Americans there, either?
Basically Hayden said that Yes, the govt does have this huge database of phone records (the calling phone number, receiving phone number, time and length of call etc.). And to use it, they ask the database something like, "We have discovered a certain phone number that definitely belongs to a terrorist. Has anyone in the country ever called this particular number, or been called by it?"
Wallace pointed out the huge potential for abuse of such a database. Gen. Hayden's reply was basically, "Well, we've never actually abused it, so you can trust your government not to abuse it in the future."
In light of the clear abuse committed by the IRS against Obama's political opponents for years, Gen. Hayden's promise seems a little thin to me. No doubt the man himself was honest and sincere. But perhaps he'll forgive me if I don't trust that the people in government NOT under his military command, and the others who will follow them soon, don't all have his sterling character and integrity.
Suppose some government weenie started a program where they obtained a copy of the key to my house, possibly without my knowledge. And keys to all my neighbors' houses. And every other private house, apartment, condo etc. in the country. And when caught, the weenie gave as his reason, "Well, this is only for events like what happened in Boston, when someone commits a horrific crime and then goes and hides in someone's house or backyard. Having these keys would greatly help us go in, find, and arrest that criminal. If we don't have good reason to think the criminal is in YOUR house, then we will never touch your house, never use your particular key. You can trust us. But you must turn over your key to us, and we might just go and get it without even telling you."
Maybe that govt weenie is sincere. But how do I know that, when he gets promoted or retires, the next weenie who takes over that job, will be as sincere? And won't be an IRS-type person who says, "Well, Obama himself, and Pelosi and Schumer and Reid and Grayson and all these other high officials have flatly said it's a good idea to crack down on people like Acorn, those conservatives. And I've already seen zillions of examples where Black Panthers intimidate voters and don't get prosecuted, campaign staff call Romney a felon and get away with it, somebody leaves a consulate in a hostile land undefended and an Ambassador gets MURDERED and Obama etc. cover for them, etc. And many of those high officials keep publicly calling people like Acorn evil, destructive to our way of life, unAmerican, and even Nazis. So I think I know something I can do to make my bosses happy and crack down on these evil, unAmerican Nazi conservatives. Clearly the high officials won't call the cops on me, they ARE the cops. Now, I'll just quietly open this big database we have handy and...."
---------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from Chris Wallace's conversation with Gen. Michael Hayden follow.
See
Government surveillance unconstitutional? Reaction from Sens. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Gen. Michael Hayden | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News
for the full transcript.
HAYDEN: ...Now, with regard to what the senator said -- if I believed NSA was doing some of the things the senator fears they're doing, I would have been backstopping him during your first segment. He said we're trolling through millions of records. That's just simply not true.
The government acquires records as business records from the telecom providers, but then doesn't go into that database without an arguable reason connected to terrorism to ask that database a question. If you don't have any link to that original predicate, terrorism, your phone records are never touched.
(snip)
You ask the database a question, but the question has to be related to terrorism. I'll give you a concrete example so this is very clear. So, you roll up something in Waziristan. You get a cell phone. It's the first time you've ever had that cell phone number. You know it's related to terrorism because of the pocket litter you've gotten in that operation.
Here's how it works: you simply ask that database, hey, any of you phone numbers in there ever talked to this phone number in Waziristan? I mean, you're already going into the database with the predicate, with a probable cause, with an arguable reason why you're asking for the data.
(snip)
WALLACE: One, what do you do with all the records, the billions of records that you have on all of us law-abiding citizens and what's the potential for abuse with the fact that you have all of that stored in computers somewhere?
HAYDEN: First, to answer your question, what do we do with all of the other records? Nothing. All right?
WALLACE: You keep it, though.
HAYDEN: Of course, because -- I mean, you get the cell phone with that number six months from now you want to know the history of that number. When does the value of that information begin to age off?
So, you do retain the information so that you can ask questions of it in the future. With regard to abuse, there are no records of abuse under President Bush, under President Obama.
Now, I was criticized because I theoretically didn't have enough oversight mechanisms, but no one accused us of abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------
Hayden's defense seems to consist of, "Well, we haven't abused the records YET." And that may well be true.
But, come to think of it, didn't the head of the IRS say a month or two ago, that no one had abused any Americans there, either?
