
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yglesias on NSA Spying</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/</link>
	<description>Keeping politicians&#039; hands off the Net &#38; everything else related to technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: tramadol</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/comment-page-1/#comment-33505</link>
		<dc:creator>tramadol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/#comment-33505</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;81e31de21f46 My homepage     http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>81e31de21f46 My homepage     <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav</a> tramadol</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tramadol</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/comment-page-1/#comment-52648</link>
		<dc:creator>tramadol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:50:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/#comment-52648</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;81e31de21f46 My homepage     &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav&quot;&gt;http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav&lt;/a&gt; tramadol&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>81e31de21f46 My homepage     <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav">http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav</a> tramadol</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Moore</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/comment-page-1/#comment-52647</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 22:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/#comment-52647</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This is what has always confused me.  Every one of these information tapping plans has always seemed pretty inferior to the normal method of handling terrorists -- finding out about a potential suspect and then using warrants to backtrack along his path to find things out.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So we&#039;re left with Matt&#039;s question: &quot;why do you want this, except to abuse it?&quot;  The only explanation outside of that is the &quot;just do something&quot; rationale.  Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like &quot;if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that&#039;s fine by us!&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It&#039;s this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making.  We all know there&#039;s no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there?  They can either &quot;take action&quot; or risk being slammed for inaction -- a cardinal sin in modern politics.  The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing -- a la Katrina.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what has always confused me.  Every one of these information tapping plans has always seemed pretty inferior to the normal method of handling terrorists &#8212; finding out about a potential suspect and then using warrants to backtrack along his path to find things out.<br /><br />So we&#8217;re left with Matt&#8217;s question: &#8220;why do you want this, except to abuse it?&#8221;  The only explanation outside of that is the &#8220;just do something&#8221; rationale.  Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like &#8220;if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that&#8217;s fine by us!&#8221;<br /><br />It&#8217;s this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making.  We all know there&#8217;s no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there?  They can either &#8220;take action&#8221; or risk being slammed for inaction &#8212; a cardinal sin in modern politics.  The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing &#8212; a la Katrina.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Moore</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/comment-page-1/#comment-33504</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 21:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/2006/05/17/yglesias-on-nsa-spying/#comment-33504</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This is what has always confused me.  Every one of these information tapping plans has always seemed pretty inferior to the normal method of handling terrorists -- finding out about a potential suspect and then using warrants to backtrack along his path to find things out.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So we&#039;re left with Matt&#039;s question: &quot;why do you want this, except to abuse it?&quot;  The only explanation outside of that is the &quot;just do something&quot; rationale.  Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like &quot;if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that&#039;s fine by us!&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making.  We all know there&#039;s no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there?  They can either &quot;take action&quot; or risk being slammed for inaction -- a cardinal sin in modern politics.  The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing -- a la Katrina.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what has always confused me.  Every one of these information tapping plans has always seemed pretty inferior to the normal method of handling terrorists &#8212; finding out about a potential suspect and then using warrants to backtrack along his path to find things out.</p>

<p>So we&#8217;re left with Matt&#8217;s question: &#8220;why do you want this, except to abuse it?&#8221;  The only explanation outside of that is the &#8220;just do something&#8221; rationale.  Every time I look at conservative pundits, they welcome the conflict over wiretapping, saying things like &#8220;if the Democrats want to accuse us of doing too much to protect Americans, then that&#8217;s fine by us!&#8221;</p>

<p>It&#8217;s this motivation which seems to drive a lot of this kind of political decision making.  We all know there&#8217;s no real long term punishments for civil rights abuses during wartime, so what risk is there?  They can either &#8220;take action&#8221; or risk being slammed for inaction &#8212; a cardinal sin in modern politics.  The relative risk of getting called on breaking the rules in minimal compared to the charge of doing nothing &#8212; a la Katrina.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

