Nick Gillespie Talks IRS, NSA, Obama Scandals on Sun News

On Friday, I appeared on Anthony Furey's Byline program on Canada's Sun News to discuss the recent spate of scandals and revelations surrounding the Obama administration.

Watch by clicking above or go here to see the show in its natural habitat.

Follow Furey on Twitter. Read his columns in the Ottawa Sun here.

Comments

[free2booze]

No one is listening to your phone calls... but they do have your phones location data, call records, emails, web history, financial transactions, and soon all of your medical information. In light of the current supreme court ruling allowing DNA to be treated like finger prints, I'm sure it won't be long until HHS issues new rules requiring doctors to collect DNA too.

I would probably feel better is all the government was doing was listening to my phone calls.

[Mike M.]

Yep, welcome to Orwell's 1984, it's now here in full force.

[RBS]

I know that someone sends every member of congress a copy of 1984 several times a year. I guess they started reading it and figured it sounded like a great idea.

[Rrabbit]

I think they *are* recording phone conversations and e-mail bodies. They just whitewash it with some unconstitutional crap such as "Oh, we only record the phone calls for later, we do not listen."

[Palin's Buttplug]

Nothing new. It is why drug dealers have been buying prepaid disposable phones for years.

[Live Free or Diet]

If you've had someone poisoning you for years, do you just say, "Nothing new"?

[Ken Shultz]

"Nothing new. It is why drug dealers have been buying prepaid disposable phones for years."

That's just stupid.

Drug dealers do it because it makes it hard for law enforcement agencies who get a warrant to wiretap them personally.

One person, one warrant.

What we're talking about here isn't anything like that. The NSA didn't submit 300 million individual warrants WITH probable cause.

They got a blanket authorization supposedly covering every American who uses a phone. Where's the warrant with my name on it? What probable cause did they offer to support the issuance of that warrant?

That's not new? You think this is like your local police department getting a warrant to tap the phone of a drug dealer?

That's stupid. It's not the same at all.

[Ken Shultz]

Incidentally, my understanding is that gang membership is insufficient probable cause to justify a warrant for a wiretap.

"No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just because you're in a gang doesn't mean you've committed any particular crime. If you've got some evidence to suggest that I sell dope on the corner of 12th and Imperial every Friday night, and you want to tap my phone to get to my supplier? That's one thing.

But knowing that I'm associated with a gang--by itself--is insufficient to justify a wiretap warrant.

So, Obama's program is going way beyond that. He's looking to PREVENT criminal acts by using law enforcement to go after people who talk to/associate with the wrong people. He's not even looking to see if they're gang members Al Qaeda before he sics the feds on them. Apparently, he's going after people specifically because of whom they associate with--and if he's trying to prevent crimes, he's going after them before they've done anything wrong.

[Jordan]

Fuck off, bootlicker.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...but they do have your phones location data, call records, emails, web history, financial transactions, and soon all of your medical information.

Also, they're listening to your phone calls. I guarandamntee you that key words are being flagged and recording are being reviewed based on it.

[RBS]

Yeah, does anyone actually believe they aren'y listening to phone calls?

[Suthenboy]

Of course they arent. I am sure of it because Obama assured me that they are not.

[Mike M.]

"Nobody is listening to your phone calls. Unless we really want to and Judge Vinson says it's OK, which he does 100% of the time."

[Ken Shultz]

"...but they do have your phones location data, call records, emails, web history, financial transactions, and soon all of your medical information."

If they're tracking who people are talking to and for how long, then they're siccing law enforcement on people based on who they talk to and for how long.

If they aren't acting on that information, then why are they using it at all?

They must think we're stupid. I certainly think people who are going around saying that it's okay that the feds have this information so long as they aren't using it are stupid, stupid people.

[Ken Shultz]

"If they aren't acting on that information, then why are they using it at all?"

And, like I said, Obama says he's preventing things from happening, so that must mean he's going after people--based on whom they talk to and for how long rather than anything they've done.

There are obviously a lot more than just Fourth Amendment questions about this.

If they're zeroing in a on Muslims, there's a freedom of religion issue, and there's a freedom of association issue.

If they're investigating people because of whom they talk to (in the absence of a crime, before a crime has happened), there's a free speech issue...

If Obama wants to argue that there are some things, like fraud and conspiracy to commit acts of terrorist, that I'm not free to say, then I'm okay with that. But whatever I am free to say, I'm free to say to whomever--without being subjected to a federal investigation just because of my speech.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Also, Canucks are allowed to air "goddamn" on their television? Where's the Canadian Human Rights Commission when you need them?

[Old Johnnie Goggabie]

Just for shits and grins, Max Boot on the NSA...

[AlmightyJB]

Is that Jack Boot's dad?

[AlmightyJB]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin ~1775

"You can't have 100% security and also have 100% privacy" - Obama 2013

You can't have 100% security. Setting that as the standard for accumulation of power is tyrannical. If 100% security is the goal, then let's ban cars, bikes, pools, planes, open beaches,anything that can't be ingested safely, you could go on all day. Congress is as much to blame if not more to blame than anyone on this. Law enforcement will always ask for more tools and power. It's those responsible for saying no who are not doing their job.

[Ken Shultz]

They could strap us all down in padded cells. They might even put us all on a dopamine drip to keep us happy.

Somebody would have to keep us fed, though. And somebody would have to make the food...

So, you're right. 100% security is impossible. So long as anyone out there is free to make their own choices, we will never be 100% secure in the way Obama means.

[free2booze]

Or put us in the Matrix

[Jerryskids]

Or they could just put a bullet in your head. You won't have to worry about being targeted by terrorists, the government won't have to worry about you being a terrorist. It's a win-win situation!

[WomSom]

Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with the punches!

http://www.AnonStuff.tk

[Greg]

I usually read Anthony Furey when he has something in the Sun. He's a pretty good read, I hope he starts doing more.