Judge orders domestic surveillance docs public.
Judge orders domestic surveillance docs public.
“Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.”
The April request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the FBI to turn over documents related to its misuse of National Security Letters, self-issued subpoenas that don’t need a judge’s approval and which can get financial, phone and internet records. Recipients of the letters are forbidden by law from ever telling anyone other than their lawyer that they received the request. Though initially warned initially to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be “relevant” to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
278 Responses to “Judge orders domestic surveillance docs public.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Though initially warned initially to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be “relevant†to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity.
So much for the "conservative" ideal of smaller, less intrusive government, eh?
"Conservatism" always was just a brand name, masking a rapacious, authoritarian cult.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:09 pmFourth Amendment reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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. "
So, they got no warrants (one violation) and they took way more than what they were seeking (two violations). And exactly how is this program constitutional again? I'm confused, because the Congress cannot override the constitution with merre legislation, nor can the president do it with mere Executive Orders. And will anyone face justice for these crimes? Not if the Bush Administration has anything to say about it, I'm sure.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pmExcellent point, barfly.
They always espoused smaller gvt.
Hypocrites.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pmWayne,
Excellent point as well.
(I'm TP's cheerleader for the night! Rah Rah!)
June 16th, 2007 at 9:21 pmI happen to be one of those subjects in which the FBI overeached. Imagine for a moment one fall day, say 2006, the FBI shows up at your door and asks for your computer, voluntary of course, as they suspect I have used it to attack a companies corporate office in Washington state.
I refused stating they would need a warrant but if they wanted to look at it I have nothing to hide. They did look and saw my system had been hacked and used as a clone and reportedly passed. I would not turn over my hardrive as they wouldn't get much material from my blogs and porn. I filed a summary report using F.O.I. and I received a dcline citing National Security.
Contacting my provider, Verizon, I wanted to stop my system from further being hacked. in telling them about the situation the operater stated he was aware of the FBI, it was Verizon who handed over my information.
I am seeking legal counsel so I can get a summary report. So far the ACLU has not responded. Any ideas?
June 16th, 2007 at 9:22 pmI hope they put the list online. I'd like to know if I was the target of one of those letters.
I wonder what the Vegas line is on Cindy Sheehan being targeted?
Democratic candidates?
John Stewart?
Stephen Colbert?
June 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pmYour Conscience,
Really? They really showed up at your door?
OMG! That's scary. Hopefully BnF can give you some ideas.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pmBnF,
I'm betting that quite a few of us here @ TP have info collected routinely.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pmIt was damn sacary and intimidating but it made me more mad than anything. I want some answers! Whats with these letters and why did Verizon acknowledged they handed over my information without a warrant.
My inquiries to my pathetic Congressman Gallegey (R) have been wasted and Senator Feinstein have equally been rebuffed. i suppose Sentor Feinstein has a legitimate excuse being too busy counting her millions from war profits garnished from her husband.
UUUUUUUuuuuuuughhhhhhhh! What Country is this?
June 16th, 2007 at 9:35 pmI hope there are Democrat members of Congress on that list. That might stir the hornets nest....
June 16th, 2007 at 9:45 pmI’m betting that quite a few of us here @ TP have info collected routinely.
Comment by trueblue
I literally found someone in my home and apparently he was not interested in money lying on the table or any high end cameras. Back in Spring of 2003, I was a poster on another message board where our IP's were posted next to our name as the trolls were so bad.... to avoid ID impersonations . One morning I heard someone going through one of the bedrooms and when this person heard me... figured out that I was home, he tore out so fast I could not get a good look. What if I went for a gun, killed him and he was from the government - then what? This whole thing has me creeped out.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:00 pmWhat if I went for a gun, killed him and he was from the government - then what? This whole thing has me creeped out.
Comment by had enough — June 16, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
To be candid, you and I might have a difference of opinion on your moral right to do it, but if you did, you would have been perfectly within your legal rights.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pmWayne A. Schneider
June 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pmActually I do not own a gun, but I couldn't help but wonder after this happened what happens to these government people, or how is this reported to the public if these people are killed? Surly some are shot at if caught snooping in the home.
How do we know for certain that it hasn't already happened? Would we ever find out? I suspect that the government would lean on the person who killed the government burglar (it would stillviolate the constitution) and threaten to press charges of murder of they tell anyone what happened. I sincerely would not put it past them to do that, so I suspect that something similar might have actually happened. (Just a suspicion, no proof it has.)
June 16th, 2007 at 10:21 pmThat is freaking SCARY, had enough.
Wow.
I think I might start reusing my steel bars that fit underneath the doorknobs.
Just in case.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18447/1/CC-LilBush2-Iraq.wmv/
June 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pmLet's roll!
June 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm" (Bush's) FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans."
and guess who they targeted? Every Liberal blogger, every Democratic public official, and yes, even Republicans who didn't vote Bush's neo-con agenda.
Bushco's poisonous Jihad against Freedom and Democracy is alive and well.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmThis is not the America that I love.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pmI agree that it's very likely I have an FBI dossier, and I'm sure it goes back to the anti war marches in March of 1970. I was filmed by several plainclothes suits on State Street in Santa Barbara on a fine Sunday morning, along with about 4,000 of my close friends.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pmComment by trueblue — It hasn't been for some time. Your just being made aware of it.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pmtrueblue
June 16th, 2007 at 10:36 pmThe guy appeared to be more afraid than I, so this was not a fear thing with me. I am pissed. The worst part is not knowing why he was in my home - a real creepy feeling. If he was there to steal that is a different thing.
My understanding is the FBI has changed the rules. A request for a Natl.Sec Letter before this came out was in writing.Now,only a phone call request is needed.Thus no paper trail .No pesky audits.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pm"Actually I do not own a gun, but I couldn’t help but wonder after this happened what happens to these government people, or how is this reported to the public if these people are killed? Surly some are shot at if caught snooping in the home."
These Republican policies are going to get more than a few law enforcement types killed. You would have been within your rights in most states to kill the intruder. And just look at the no-knock warrants the Rethugs keep pushing through. They push this no-knock BS while at the same time they push the NRA bills where it is your legal right to kill any intruder in your home. It is a recipe for dead innocents.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:41 pmThere has never been anything conservative about the crime family. They say socially conservative things like abortion and gay marriage while they are radical extremist fascist thugs in their actions. Only morons would support the destruction of the constitution...what say you ignorant trolls?
June 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pmRUCerious, I live outside Santa Barbara. Nice town but planning on getting out of CA.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pmWhat's it got to do with the Bush administration though ?
Or belief that the government shouldn't violate the constitution for that matter.
It's a rather shallow arguement to make that 9/11 changed everything. However it's even lamer to pretend that it had no significance.
Every example of warrantless surveillence of US citizens that has been employed post-9/11 for anti-terrorism programs was going on before 9/11 and before Bush.
Yet we saw nobody but fringe privacy groups asking why the need to capture every electronic communication when there was no such widespread support for tackling domestic terrorism. Even when these were expanded from targetting criminals to targetting everyone.
It's one thing to say that the government shouldn't violate the constitution like this, period. It's another to only raise this concern when they have an actual reason for doing it.
Your arguement is on the basis, although obviously never acknowledging this, that after 9/11 the government should be conducting less surveillence of it's citizens for counterterrorism purposes than it was before 9/11. Also that it should cease any new "Bush" programs in this regard but the blanket surveillence you had before Bush took office are apparently fine as nobody has yet called for them to be ceased.
Basically you don't want shit. The only problem you have with violation of the constitution in this regard is a convenient theoretical arguement when it can be applied to a Republican administration.
The next administration won't be a Republican one, won't be ceasing blanket surveillence of US citizens just like they didn't the last time they were in office, and you won't have a problem with this.
Once Bush retires all will be well with the world once again. As though a man who couldn't understand the stationary the NSA and DARPA uses somehow had something to do with any of this.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pmComment by RUCerious — This is a whole different breed these days. In the 70's people still had ciivl rights.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:46 pmMy understanding is the FBI has changed the rules. A request for a Natl.Sec Letter before this came out was in writing.Now,only a phone call request is needed.Thus no paper trail .No pesky audits.
Comment by rasta — June 16, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Well, they still have to record their phone calls in a log of some sort, don't they? I mean, it is taxpayer money being spent, and they are supposed to account for every pennny of it.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pm"Every example of warrantless surveillence of US citizens that has been employed post-9/11 for anti-terrorism programs was going on before 9/11 and before Bush"
What?
June 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pmJTitor,
I have just finally said out loud what I've been thinking for some time.
It's truly sad. I remember being so jealous that my parents could vote and I couldn't. I was 10. I rejoiced along with the rest of America when Nixon left office. I believe I was 8.
Sad what America has become.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:50 pmDon't get me started on the 9-11 (inside) job...
June 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm#26 Your Conscience
It's gotten to be the rich and the everyone else, there. My ex and eldest daughter still live there.
JTitor ~
June 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmYeah, you can be under surveillance using technology today that makes the 70s look like caveman drawings.
Apologies to the geico guys.
Another 2.2 pounds of bullshit just dropped onto the site.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pmI hope TP also stands for something else, cleanup on thread #7!
Can anyone else here spell FISA for me?
June 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pmRUC,
Do you know that the Geico guys are getting their own TV show?
Honest! Can you believe it?
-- How are you? :)
June 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pmRUC,
June 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pmI hope you didn't mean post #7, because it's mine and I was serious.........
Hey tru!
June 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pmI'm doin fine, and doesn't surprise me that the cavemen are hot market. Talking lizards and cavemen, that insurance company has a damn fine ad agency. Not that I'd actually buy any of their products, but a damn fine ad service.
Tru ~! how much does 2.2 lbs weigh, in metrics?
June 16th, 2007 at 10:59 pmummmm, it's been almost 10 years since I had to do the metric conversion.....
June 16th, 2007 at 11:02 pmI don't know,... about a pound?
I think it is about 5 kg but that is just an educated guess.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pma Kilo, man
June 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pmI meant... oops, I did it the other way!
June 16th, 2007 at 11:04 pmDuh!!
Kilo means a thousand
June 16th, 2007 at 11:06 pmso almost a kilo.....
June 16th, 2007 at 11:07 pmI think you were thinking mili Bluey :)
June 16th, 2007 at 11:07 pmYou are right, Bluey, 2.2 pounds is exactly 1 kg. I actually looked it up :) I was very wrong.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pmI listened to this today:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061107B.shtml
It is an interview by Olbermann and it is concerning the Writ of Habeus Corpus, and basically Jonathan Turley (sp?) explains why none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights mean much without the Writ of HC.
I sure hope they get on restoring this soon and seriously go after all the abuses by this Administration.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pmThe Republican Party hates government...so why do we elect people who hate our government to run it? They have never done anything positive for the citizens of the United States. They are crooks, liars, and cowards...and this bunch is the worst we have ever had.
http://www.co.miami.oh.us/A55969/spbx.nsf/8178b1c14b1e9b6b8525624f0062fe9f/ff5c762f704346bc86257098005c34bc!OpenDocument
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
June 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pmComment by trueblue — There are a lot of people working to change it. People are slowly being made aware of the effects of this and past administrations moves to take away our civil liberties. Here is my question to the group. Why is the government taking away our civil liberties?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pmTru ~ so I hope it is now clear whence the 2.2 steaming pounds of dung came from...
June 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pmheyzeus beat me to it.
Yay heyzeus!
:)
June 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pmJTitor ~
Because they need to stifle dissent. It's part of the fabric of their makeup.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pmI had a run in with a neighbor the other day, and the first thing he did, instead of addressing the issue, was attack my right to say anything about the issue. It's in their blood, probably a result of deep seated cowardice.
Tru ~ so I hope it is now clear whence the 2.2 steaming pounds of dung came from…
Comment by RUCerious
Whew! Not me! (not yet, anyway! ;) )
June 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pmheh
(that was a nice bit of troll skewering, RUCerious...................:)
June 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pmGracias heyzeus!
June 16th, 2007 at 11:16 pmNot one thing in its post made a lick of damn sense. Start off with a false premise and babble for half a page about it. Too friggin easy with these lower than average spring crop trolls.
Bring on the summer!
Comment by JG — June 16, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
I love it when Keith has Jonathan Turley on, and his explanation about habeas corpus being the underlying principle on which all the other rights are based was so lucid that even a child could grasp it. I urge everyone here, trolls and all, to go to the link that JG provided at #48. For anyone who might be fuzzy on the subject, Jonathan Turley makes it unforgetably clear.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pmThanks for validating what I wrote so quickly.
In terms of violating the constitution by conducting blanket warrantless surveillence of all US citizens communications, only those redundant programs with "Bush" attached to them will need to be ceased when he leaves office for everyone to be satisfied believing something has changed in regard to this occurring.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm"The Republican Party hates government…so why do we elect people who hate our government to run it?"
Great point. We are electing people who don't believe governance is a good thing to govern. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pmComment by Kilo — June 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
What’s it got to do with the Bush administration though ?
“Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times..."
The FBI is part of the Bush Administration. That's your connection.
Or belief that the government shouldn’t violate the constitution for that matter.
Excuse me? Do you understand anything about the purpose of the constitution?
It’s a rather shallow arguement to make that 9/11 changed everything. However it’s even lamer to pretend that it had no significance.
I totally agree that the argument that "9/11 changed everything" is shallow. It is also moronic and inaccurate. And I never claimed that 9/11 had no significance. I don't know how you're geting that from my post.
Every example of warrantless surveillence of US citizens that has been employed post-9/11 for anti-terrorism programs was going on before 9/11 and before Bush.
Again, excuse me? Wrongo! The Bush admin has invented some new ones, and he feels that he has to tell no one else about them if he chooses not to, including the Judicial Branch. Since the establishment of the FISA courts, ANY warrantless wiretaps that went on before the Bush administration were eventually authorized by a warrant obtained through the FISA courts. Bush is the first one since the FISA courts were established to completely ignore doing this.
Yet we saw nobody but fringe privacy groups asking why the need to capture every electronic communication when there was no such widespread support for tackling domestic terrorism. Even when these were expanded from targetting criminals to targetting everyone.
And thank goodness we had those watchdogs out there or we may never have learned that our rights were being violated so often. And you didn't hear much complaining because the Bush administration was trying to do as much of this in secret, and without proper documentation, as possible. They didn't even want anyone to know that they were doing this at all, nevermind on the scale with which they were doing it.
It’s one thing to say that the government shouldn’t violate the constitution like this, period. It’s another to only raise this concern when they have an actual reason for doing it.
You are right in that the government shouldn't violate the constitution like this. I don't understand the second part. Too ambiguous. Who is "they", and what is "it"?
Your arguement is on the basis, although obviously never acknowledging this, that after 9/11 the government should be conducting less surveillence of it’s citizens for counterterrorism purposes than it was before 9/11. Also that it should cease any new “Bush†programs in this regard but the blanket surveillence you had before Bush took office are apparently fine as nobody has yet called for them to be ceased.
Not only are you way off base here, you're in another stadium entirely. I never acknowledged what you said because it was never true. You made that up in your own mind. Would you like me to speculate on why you did that? I won't. I have never, ever said that "the government should be conducting less surveillance of it's(sic) citizens." My complaint is that they are doing it illegally and unconstitutionally. Because the surveilance and collection of records were a form of search, they are supposed to get them approved by a FISA court. The Congress has no authority to legislatively bypass the Fourth Amendment. As for the blanket surveillance going on before Bush, that was all okayed by the FISA courts and, therefore, was not unconstitutional.
Basically you don’t want shit. The only problem you have with violation of the constitution in this regard is a convenient theoretical arguement when it can be applied to a Republican administration.
I do so want shit. I want it to be legal and constitutional shit. And it is no theory, my friend. The Bush administration has been violating the constitution.
The next administration won’t be a Republican one, won’t be ceasing blanket surveillence of US citizens just like they didn’t the last time they were in office, and you won’t have a problem with this.
Lies. Most of it, anyway. What makes you think that a Democratic administration would violate the constitution the same way that Bush has? Do you have some evidence of the assertion that the Clinton administration did the same thing, or are you simply trotting out the troll argument that "Clinton did it, too."? And no matter who is in office in 2009, I won't tolerate them violating the constitution like this, either. You obviously don;t know or understand me very well.
Once Bush retires all will be well with the world once again.
No, all will NOT be well with the world once Bush retires. He has done, and continues to do, a great deal of damage to world peace that could take decades to undo.
As though a man who couldn’t understand the stationary the NSA and DARPA uses somehow had something to do with any of this.
Comment by Kilo — June 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
June 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pmAnd I have no idea what you're referring to in that last sentence. It simply makes no sense out of context like that.
Comment by RUCerious — This is a whole different breed these days. In the 70’s people still had ciivl rights.
Comment by JTitor
Uh, tell that one to the Black Panthers. They were not only surveilled, they were executed. They weren't the only ones, either. The FBI and local police compiled files on thousands of anti-war activists and did their best to deny them their civil rights on a regular basis.
Big difference today is that the Bush administration doesn't bother to conceal their activity very well.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pmThis is going on your permanent record...
June 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pmg difference today is that the Bush administration doesn’t bother to conceal their activity very well.
Comment by gummitch
That could lead one to the conclusion they feel they don't have to.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pmExcellent post.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:23 pm"Thanks for validating what I wrote so quickly"
What was validated?? You claim that surveillance of US citizens is no worse now than ever before despite the fact that the Bush administration is pushing for more and more free reign for the intelligence groups to spy on American citizens. Well, sh!t, if you are pushing for spying I am guessing you actually want to spy. Or are you saying Clinton (ya, I know that is who you are alluding to) illegally spied? If so, provide some links.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pmWow, Wayne just dropped a 1-ton weight on that 2.2-pound sack or shit!
June 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pmThanks for validating what I wrote so quickly
Comment by Kilo
Yeah, well drop back to the Ganges River thread, couple of us annointed you with a little instant karma................
June 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pmComment by RUCerious — Dissent is part of it. But why would this president sign a directive on May 7th basically giving himself Dictitorial Powers? Additionally, I would ask why the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, under section 1076 changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States? Look at the natural progression here. Again ask yourself why?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:26 pmThank you, smafdy. I'm glad someone understood my point.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pmJTitor
June 16th, 2007 at 11:31 pmIt would appear that a false flag attack is prepared, planned for and ready to be implemented.
But if the gummint thinks the sheeple won't fight back, they're dead ass wrong.
You know, like Iraq candy and flowers wrong.
I don't own a rifle at this time, but I still have my expert badges for the M-16, M-14. My Dad still has his 30-06, with a super powerful scope sighted in.
Gracias Wayne for shining some light into that dark hole that is 2.2 lbs of crap.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pmComment by gummitch — My point is not the evil that government did then, verses now. Thats a given.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:35 pmJTitor wrote:
"But why would this president sign a directive on May 7th basically giving himself Dictitorial Powers?"
I happen to think the timing of this has to do with the impending expanding of this war to the bombing of Iran. Once that happens, all hell breaks loose and he will put that directive into action. I wouldn't be the least surprised if he cancelled the next elections as well, because they haven't completed their goals to transform the entire Middle East yet..
I found this map the other day and all the air went out of me..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4347
(scroll down to the bottom)
The timing of this also somehow has to do with the fact that Tony Blair is leaving as PM of GB. The next guy is not going to give Bush a free pass. Bush and Chneny and all their neocon friends (and all the oil/energy corporation friends) will be all alone in this push to keep going with this insane plan.
I just finished a REALLY good book for anyone who hasn't read it yet.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm"Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chanrasekaran.
Every book I read just brings more and more into perspective and makes it oh so clear how nuts and incompetent the people at the top are.
JG ~ great link.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:41 pmHere's my favorite line...
Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.
I didn't spell the guy's name right, sorry.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pmIt is Rajiv Chandrasekaran. He is an assistant managing editor of the Washington Post where he has worked since 1994. He previously served the Post as a bureau chief in Baghdad, Cairo, and Southeast Asai, and as a correspondent covering the war in Afghanistan.
He was in Baghdad in the Green Zone and the story covers from about early 2003 to late 2004. I found myself shaking my head and saying "Oh sh#t" about every other page..
JG,
So we should have passports at the ready?
Or once that happens, will it be too late?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:46 pmComment by RUCerious — It would seem that an event would be from a foriegn provocateur, not domestic. So if there was a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack then society would fall apart and a police state would need to be implement? If we were in such dire consequences, would we be passing an amnesty bill? Building a Nafta super highway that will allow 1000's of trucks from South America through with virtually no security in mind? Does anyone see this duplicity?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pmsmadfly,
S-NAP!
:)
June 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pmhey, what happened to smadfly's latest post, ripping kilo's arguement apart?
June 16th, 2007 at 11:52 pmIt was right above mine.
Well, I for one and writing almost DAILY to my congress people demanding them to make this Administration accountable and also demanding they do something to stop this before it happens.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:53 pmAn action like this (and this entire insane plan) does NOT reflect the will or the wants or needs of this country. I am sure they hate me by now.. I am also quite sure I am on some form of watch list.
I care VERY much that this country gets back on track, and the Constitution and our laws are protected. That is the only way this country survives or continues as it was intended. This Congress cannot just sit by and let it happen. It is already going to take SO much work and sacrifice to put all the pieces back together again.
Glad to do it, RUCerious. It seemed more like 4.4 pounds to me, and since it was directed at me, I thought I should explain why I thought he was wrong.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pmComment by JG — Were getting closer here. I would suggest that you Google "Tony Blair EU president". It's a shocker.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pmWow, you're right - it's gone. Was it 'cuz I called him a tool? Hmmm.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pmtrue, he didn't say AIPAC or Jew did he? I think TP has a problem with those words.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBy the way Wayne & Jane, your hugs were delivered to Sharon today, in person. Amber and I had a good time fishing at her resort.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pmI casted, Amber reeled in, and as soon as we left the bite came on!
It's back! Weird.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am"if we were in such dire consequences, would we be passing an amnesty bill? Building a Nafta super highway that will allow 1000’s of trucks from South America through with virtually no security in mind? Does anyone see this duplicity?"
I don't visit this site, but followed a link one day from someone else:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017
I have to wonder if this has anything to do with it.. I read that the "Amero" would compete with the "Euro". I don't really get this "New World Order" concept and who the heck is behind it, and frankly with the goal would be. Are they trying to shake things out and even things up? This also seems quite insane to me.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:00 amComment by JPark — "AIPAC or Jew" TP has a big problem with those words.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:00 amThanks, RUCerious. It would be nice to be able to do it oursleves some day. Maybe we'll all meet up at some gathering some place. It would probably have to be an extremely important one to drag all of us together from around the country. But if all of you are there, it will be worth the effort.
Except you, kilo. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:02 amAnd, I wonder if all the saber-rattling with Iran has to do with the fact that Iran is getting ready to switch their oil-dollars from US dollars to Euros. Saddam had just switched from US dollars to Euros when we attacked Iraq. (Yes, I realize the story was we were in imminent threat from WMD..)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:03 amLOL, Wayne, we could all go to a Brewer-Met game!!!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:03 amI know it's off-topic, but hey, I switched and 2 weeks after I paid my first premium, a tree branch broke off and hit my parked car. They got 1 month's premium and had to pay $5k for the damage to my car.
I was pleased with their claims service.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:05 amI talk too much. Sorry..
June 17th, 2007 at 12:06 amWayne and Jane,
Hi! Good job skewering Kilo and his already-proven-false talking points!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:06 amJG, that is a good point. We went to "war" with Iraq right before they planned on switching to the Euro. Now, when Iran starts talking about it we are suddenly "worried" about their nuclear capabilities. Oh, be the way, any right wing losers, can you tell me why you think Iran with nukes would be so horrible? Really, they would have a MAD situation with Israel. So they would never actually use those weapons (unless you don't believe Saint Reagan).
June 17th, 2007 at 12:07 amComment by JPark — “AIPAC or Jew†TP has a big problem with those words.
Comment by JTitor — June 17, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Yet, they let the following post stay up on the thread about 'Calls for Bombing Iran'
"HEY PRIMUS INTER PARES, are you denying that the leading voices for bombing Iran are Jewish? Unless I am mistaken, Podhoretz, Kristol, Lieberman, Perle, Kagan and Bolton ARE ALL JEWS. Some of us GENTILES don’t think bombing Iran is MORAL. But the Jews apparently don’t have that same moral compass.
You are exhibitng your Z*onism or your ignorance or both.
Comment by Shirley — June 16, 2007 @ 3:27 pm"
June 17th, 2007 at 12:07 amThis is a very serious charge against the FBI and if true then the Director of the agency could be charged with a felony.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:08 amThis also seems quite insane to me.
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 12:00 am
That's because it's HumanEvents magazine. Have you ever seen Terry Jeffrey on one of the politcal shows (usually MSNBC)? He's in charge of it. They have some of the strangest viewpoints I have ever heard, and I'm being polite using the word "strangest". It's beyond harcore conservative.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:09 amI talk too much. Sorry..
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Never! :D
June 17th, 2007 at 12:12 amI forgot about the Z word, Jane. I am sorry but Z'ism is not some crazy conspiracy theory. I don't think most Jews think about it and most of them are good people. Neocons on the other hand are mostly dominionist Christians that love Jews for their own crazy Left Behind reasons or crazy Jews that just like violence. It is really unbelievable how many fricking crazies we have in this country. Just read anything by Daryll.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:12 amJG - scary map
they are also in a hurry in collaboration with the hedge fund's to get this done before the massive debt and currency house of cards falls in on itself.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:13 amIt is really unbelievable how many fricking crazies we have in this country. Just read anything by Daryll.
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 12:12 am
(Shudder) I have. Man, my parents were EXTREMELY Catholic, but he's just nuts!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:15 amIs my ZIONIZM showing again?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:18 amNot yet Primus. Bring on the crazy Mike Seaver sh!t.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:20 amJane, St. Daryll's cult is positively the most whacked out anti-female anti-gay, anti-humanity bunch of nut cases I've ever read about. And the bizarre part is that they're completely sincere, completely convinced of their calling.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:20 amI'd give just about anything to be present in spirit when one of them passes away and.....nothing...no god, no jesus, no heaven, no hell, just effing nothing.
How many people in the Middle East already have nuclear weapons? How many of those weapons were developed by the USA? Why are we okay with all of those countries having nuclear weapons (Israel being one of them)? Would we, or would Israel, EVER let anyone tell the US what we could or could not do to defend ourselves??? Of course not!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:21 amI myself would prefer that NOBODY had these kinds of weapons, but I am confused as to why what the US says about what other sovereign nations has any relevance? There is simply WAY too much testosterone out there. Why do we (the US) get to determine what others can and cannot do? Where is the consistency in who can and who can't do what they deem necessary to defend their own country or compete with surrounding countries? And, where is the hypocrisy in all of this?
This reminds me an awful lot of all the weapons buildup during the 60's and the 70's (my time that I was aware of it) during the nuclear arms race.
Who made George Bush ruler of the world?
Bring on the crazy Mike Seaver sh!t.
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Are you comparing my unique brand of witticism to a sitcom?
OVTRAGEOVS!!!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:22 amI’d give just about anything to be present in spirit when one of them passes away and…..nothing…no god, no jesus, no heaven, no hell, just effing nothing.
Comment by RUCerious
That's not very christian of you, RUC.
:-D
June 17th, 2007 at 12:23 amJG ~ uh, Cheney?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:23 amHey Mistress Z!~
June 17th, 2007 at 12:25 amNot an Xian, of course, just a Bhuddist wannabe.
Shit, can't even spell Buddhist correctly, what kind of a wanna be is that!?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:26 amWho made George Bush ruler of the world?
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 12:21 am
The Supreme Court.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:26 amLOL, Primus, I love you as only a hetero man can love another hetero man. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:27 am"The Supreme Court.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am"
Good one. You are right.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:27 amOne of the angriest moments of my life!
LOL, Primus, I love you as only a hetero man can love another hetero man. :)
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am
That still makes me uncomfortable... let's not talk about this.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:30 amHey Mistress Z!~
Not an Xian, of course, just a Bhuddist wannabe.
Comment by RUCerious — June 17, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Shit, can’t even spell Buddhist correctly, what kind of a wanna be is that!?
Comment by RUCerious — June 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Good enough for me. :-)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:33 amComment by JG — Ding...ding..ding. We have a winner! Globalization or NWO is a way for countries to form alliances under one currency, and law. The US and Britain's move to take over the oil rich countries of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are to assure that the US has leverage on the world market. China and Iran have stated that due to the amount of dept that America has, they may dump US currency as the exchamge currency.
"In mid-2003 Iran broke from tradition and began accepting eurodollars as payment for its oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales (Censored 2004 #19). However, Iraq's plan to open an international oil exchange market for trading oil in the euro currency is a much larger threat to U.S. dollar supremacy than Iraq's switch to euros."
Must read article: http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/2006/2006-story9-PC.htm
June 17th, 2007 at 12:34 amJPark & Mr P need to be alone.....
June 17th, 2007 at 12:34 am"That still makes me uncomfortable… let’s not talk about this."
LOL, I like my sex with women. Don't worry.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:35 am"JPark & Mr P need to be alone….."
I am hurt :(
June 17th, 2007 at 12:36 amI am hurt :(
Comment by JPark
Why? Mr P doesn't want alone time with you....? :P
June 17th, 2007 at 12:37 amI’d give just about anything to be present in spirit when one of them passes away and…..nothing…no god, no jesus, no heaven, no hell, just effing nothing.
Comment by RUCerious — June 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am
no....there is no pleasure in revenge, only emptiness. I know the void of which you speak, and have sailed the black sea into nothingness. Part of me is there still.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:37 am#117:
Yay!! What do I win??
June 17th, 2007 at 12:38 amComment by Zooey — June 17, 2007 @ 12:34 am
Zooey, remember, my new name is
GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR OCTAVIANVS AVGVSTVS
But some call me PIP for short...
I've also seen PIPpy, but that was from Ghost
June 17th, 2007 at 12:39 amComment by trueblue #3:
Thanks, trueblue.
Sorry to take so long, but domestic duties called.
This document dump will detail how many times this program was used for prostitution and drug smuggling cases. If successful in these other types of cases, the strategy also would make the connection to illegal immigration (which is integral to these other illegal endeavors) and so show to the base that the Bushies really were doing something about illegal immigration - behind the scenes. Sorta Iran/Contra -ish: meaning, outside the law.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:39 am"Why? Mr P doesn’t want alone time with you….? :P"
Eh, I don't really want alone time with those I don't want to have sex with. Call me crazy.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:40 amZooey, remember, my new name is
GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR OCTAVIANVS AVGVSTVS
But some call me PIP for short…
I’ve also seen PIPpy, but that was from Ghost
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Right, Mr P.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:40 amEh, I don’t really want alone time with those I don’t want to have sex with. Call me crazy.
Comment by JPark
Your love is the truest and most pure. I understand.
Crazy. :D
June 17th, 2007 at 12:42 amLOL, Zooey, you make it sound so pure.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:43 amWhy does TP keep erasing my name/e-mail info fields
This is not a real post.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:44 amLOL, Zooey, you make it sound so pure.
Comment by JPark
Sounds as if you prefer it that way, JPark. :D
June 17th, 2007 at 12:44 amYour love is the truest and most pure. I understand.
Crazy. :D
Comment by Zooey — June 17, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Whoa! Hey!
I thought we had dropped this subject!!!!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:46 amno….there is no pleasure in revenge, only emptiness
June 17th, 2007 at 12:47 amBNF, I don't see that exercise as revenge, just the amusement of watching the astonishment of a lifetime spent in fear of going to hades set in...
So that Bush character, what a bastard, right guys... heh... heh?
right?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:47 am"Sounds as if you prefer it that way, JPark. :D"
Despite my arrogant, confrontational ways on TP, I am really a romantic at heart. Primus doesn't do it for me. He is a bit too masculine for me. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:47 amIs my ZIONIZM showing again?
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES — June 17, 2007 @ 12:18 am
Yes, better zip up! ;-)
Sorry, I didn't quote that comment just because it was directed at you, just using it as an example.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:47 amPart of the last administration too. The one this article tells you had the same NSLs which were only expanded in terms of usage with the practically unanimous approval of congress.
I'm asking how is Bush the significant factor in whether this occurs or not ?
There's a reason the FISA laws were enacted in the 1970s and it wasn't because some tarot card readers predicted Bush would become president.
I understand violating it in the exact same ways cited as problems here were standard operating proceedure on 9/11 the same as they were the day Bush took office. I also understand this isn't going to change when Bush leaves office.
I primarily know this because even in 2007 I can come here and find nobody that will acknowledge that this was the case, which ensures it will remain so.
I didn't get anything from your post other than a quote which suggested you were taking issue with the constitution being violated by the government by blanket, warrantless surveillence of its citizens.
That's either still the same problem it was for you a couple of hours ago or it isn't. So which is it ?
Yes he has invented some new ones. These are irrelevant though in terms of your complaints when they were installed after every electronic communication of US civilians is already surveilled.
This is like complaining about Bush raising taxes as unconstitutional. If you increase something which already effects every citizen you don't violate anything new in terms of the constitution. It's just more of the same. Business as usual.
No. See the topic of this thread.
FBI had 1000 breaches when you knew about 1000. The previous number was 200 when you knew about 200. In reality they were issuing more than 20000 of these a year and these audits look at a fraction of them in less than a year.
The FISA court exists on a single level of a single building. The NSA offices are the size of a small town and use the resources of a small city.
All US communications are surveilled. You can either figure out the size of the in-tray required in order for all of those to be under warrant or you can't.
Either way, don't bother repeating talking points as though they're facts.
Well okay. That's having no bearing on your complaints though.
Unless of course your complaints about whether or not the US govt should violate the US constitution in terms of spying on it's citizens is limited to whether or not they did it via a loophole or not.
You working with those kind of principles here ?
WTF ? Thank goodness they told you this so you could then turn around and argue that no such thing ever happened ?
I was talking about blanket surveillence being expanded from targetting criminals to targetting everyone, for no apparent need or purpose, under Clinton.
You are talking about Bush here FFS. In response to one of 10 billion blog entries about one of 10000 media articles on the topic.
You have so far claimed that this didn't occur prior to Bush.
When I say that you heard no complaints about one of these situations which one do you think I am referring to. Seriously.
Yeah you get a lot of that with secret programs run by secret agencies.
That would be the party and it's actions as specified in your first sentence. Don't be evasive.
You just acknowledged it again and cited the reasons I said this would be the case.
This isn't rocket science.
If you could bring yourself to acknowledge that there is instituional racism in US govt departments then you could probably figure out that repealing the Don't Hire Darkies Act of 2008 isn't going to change much in terms of the government hiring minorities.
But this would require you to (a) acknowledge that minorities were under represented before Bush took office, (b) didn't commence with any Act or program that started after the practice did, and (c) isn't a partisan issue.
If you cannot even acknowledge the existance of such an issue why expect it to stop when some token change was reversed ?
Look at you. You are pretending I made this stuff up.
You apparently believe that the NSA somehow managed to get a program for surveilling all of the trillions of communications of all of it's hundreds of millions of citizens up and running withing 24 hours of Bush saying they could without needing to build any of the complicated facilities and programs to achieve this.
That didn't ring any bells for you as to why they had this capability in place and operational before 9/11 ?
As I said, here's the reason nothing's going to change when the Presiency does.
No shit. We just spent quite a bit of text trying to clue you in on the fact that this distinction doesn't exist. But please do constrain yourself to it nonetheless.
You could call yourself a theoretical constitutionalist.
Yeah and how's that work out ? Happy with the Patriot Act are we ?
LMAO. Of course it was.
And all Bush's environmental policies have been sound because the EPA exists.
FFS could you be any less concerned with the issues you are pretending to take issue with.
I guess this shouldn't be a suprise. Why not have token changes to warrentless surveillence if you only need to satisfy token demands for it to cease.
No you don't, as you just explained at length.
Yeah sure.
Oh BTW, lets remember to "thank goodness" for those privacy groups (like the one cited in this very article) that have led the way on exposing all these surveillence programs.
Certainly a big turn around for them having spent the previous 8 years lying their arses off about the blanket surveillence programs operating independant of the presidency eh ?
How about we nominate them for some kind of "most improved award" you gullible idiot.
When even blogs about cute cat pics have links marked "archives" what do you think the odds are that the EFF has some you could search through ?
You mean by retaining the same programs and national security assets that existed under the previous Democratic presidency ?
Gee I dunno, maybe for the same reason that they will also keep napalm, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, mines, rendition to torture-friendly countries and CIA disappearance of citizens.
Is the fact that changes in presidency don't effect these things and that there is nothing to suggest they will stop not reason enough ?
That's like saying do I have any evidence that Clinton had a navy or a tax policy too.
The existance of the tax policy under clinton is well documented, as are the examples of it's use on US citizens on US soil.
But the real question you are asking me is can I prove that all the tens of thousands of people, complex technology, huge facilities, 24/7 operations and information channels that existed for decades prior to 9/11 (not to mention being used) weren't sitting around unused until 9/11 when Bush finally decided to take the bubble wrap off and start it up for the first time ever.
Why would I bother ? If you can ignore every single reference in the media to this in the existance for the best part of two decades (including admissions by the head of the NSA on the History Channel) then some text posted anonymously in the comments of a blog is going to count for something is it ?
Get the fk outta here. Either give enough of a shit to get a clue on your own or you don't.
Yeah you will. For the reasons predicted by me and confirmed repeatedly by you here.
You've said you think this is fictional. Why would you continue having a problem with something you don't believe exists ?
Sure, but in terms of the US govt surveilling US citizens without warrants that'll all be sorted right ?
Well yeah, that appears to be a large part of the problem here.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:47 amI thought we had dropped this subject!!!!
Comment by PRIMVS INTER PARES
Whaddaya mean WE, white man?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:48 amPrimus, yeah, he kinda sucks. Babs could tell you, I imagine.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:48 amTONIGHT'S THREAD: Man-love and Existentialism
June 17th, 2007 at 12:48 amRU, I kinda like getting revenge. It is very underrated :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:49 am#140
and Kilo
June 17th, 2007 at 12:49 amJeez, Kilo, that is the longest pointless post I have ever read.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:49 amDespite my arrogant, confrontational ways on TP, I am really a romantic at heart. Primus doesn’t do it for me. He is a bit too masculine for me. :)
Comment by JPark
JPark,
You're making this way too easy for me.
But I feel merciful this evening. :-)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:52 amSorry, I didn’t quote that comment just because it was directed at you, just using it as an example.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 17, 2007 @ 12:47 am
No problem. I for one think that it makes Shirley sound like a raving lunatic.
Besides, like Bob Marley, I'm gonna be Iron like a Lion in Z*on.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:54 am#137 - Drivel
June 17th, 2007 at 12:54 amLessee if I can sum up 2.2 lbs of crap in one sentence.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:54 amWe've been under constant and complete surveillance since the aliens landed at Rosewell in 47, so why is anyone complaining about Bush?
Err, Roswell, or was it RoseRed?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:55 amLOL, Zooey, now that I read that I sound like I like feminine men!! I am ok with that. I really like feminine women but I am not too concerned with my image :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:55 amI said that such blanket warrantless surveillence programs wouldn't cease when Bush left office as nobody can even bring themselves to acknowlege they existed pre-Bush, let along complain about them.
You responded by saying this was bullshit.
What links are there to prove Bush spied ?
If you've got some of those handy have a read through them and identify what means and programs are employed. Go look these up and see when they started.
This is like that retard asking me to prove the CIA rendition program established pre-Bush was ever used by the president before Bush.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:55 amThere's just the one program. You either believe it exists or it doesn't. Pick one.
Bob Marley was high, Primus. What is your excuse? :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:56 amKilo, you use a lot of words and you still say nothing. Are you going to add something to any conversation any time soon?
June 17th, 2007 at 12:57 amBob Marley was high, Primus. What is your excuse? :)
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 12:56 am
It's a good jam.
I think the word had a different connotation for him.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:58 amComment by Kilo — June 17, 2007 @ 12:47 am
June 17th, 2007 at 12:59 amwaaaaaaaayyyyy too much to read. That's a freekin' tome.
You are probably right, Primus. He didn't strike me as a Z'ist.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:00 amThere is no post from you on this page longer than 1 sentence.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:00 amPost it again champ.
smafdy, don't bother reading it. It is a bunch of crap he stole directly from his god, Rush. It is like listening to your 9 year old childs best friend. Lots of words that don't mean sh!t.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:01 amAfter that last post I think Kilo is down to a milligram.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am#137 - Drivel
Comment by Zooey
as always.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:01 amNot the last post, actually, I meant post #137
June 17th, 2007 at 1:02 amKilo, the number of words really don't matter. You are prodigious in your output. You are kinda retarded though.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:02 amPrimus, lithium levels vary from person to person.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:03 amYou mean by retaining the same programs and national security assets that existed under the previous Democratic presidency ? Kilo
Was Clinton using Curveball, or Chalabi? I don't remember seeing that anywhere.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:04 amHa!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:05 amI really like feminine women but I am not too concerned with my image :)
Comment by JPark
Secure men are the most fun to tease. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:06 amEFF holds get togethers. Why don't you both tag along to one of them and ask some questions.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:06 amIt looks to me as though Kilo's been snorting himself.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:06 am#159 - Hi, Juan!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am"Secure men are the most fun to tease. :)"
I imagine that is true. I would guess teasing is not so fun when you have no clue if the guy is going to take it wrong.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amComment by Kilo — June 17, 2007 @ 1:06 am
NAMBLA holds get-togethers, too. Why don't you scurry off to one of them?
June 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amKilo, you realize nobody wants to meet you, right?
June 17th, 2007 at 1:09 amZooey, did you get to Portland? THe weather wasn't so great after all..
June 17th, 2007 at 1:10 amI think Kilo is a 20 something philosophy student. I have come across a lot of physicists trying to sound as complicated as possible in order to sound like they have a clue.
Gibbs already said: The principal object of research in mathematics is to find the point from which the subject appears in its greatest simplicity.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:10 amHi, Juan!
Comment by Zooey
Hello, friend. ;)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:11 amI imagine that is true. I would guess teasing is not so fun when you have no clue if the guy is going to take it wrong.
Comment by JPark
Not so with you, my dear. Hence your reprieve. :D
June 17th, 2007 at 1:12 amJuan, you are being very generous with the 20 something comment. I am guessing mommy is still cooking dinner.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:12 amGreat post's all, Wayne and RuCerious get the prize for biggest and best come back's...Great dump's...
A little lite reading this thread is not, all the better...
One poster made mention again about how stupid the reich winged administration is, given all they have done...I say that some one in their bunch or perhap's many are very bright indeed.....Looking at this entire madness and how it is unfolding it has taken some extremely evil mind's....The kind of mind's like evil dictator's of the past, massive genocide, total distruction of our safety net the constitution, draining our treasury and dismanteling our country to the brink of distruction from with in....This is not stupid it is the worst kind of evil and done with intent and almost completion....
We are now at a point where we must say what do we need to do to stop it.? If that can't be accomplished we must then search for way's for each of us to survive....Plane and simple.....I have been mad as hell over all of this for some time and worked to prepair my tiny world as best possible, food, water, ammo..May I suggest every one do the same...Screaming and letter writing may help the blood pressure, massive marching maybe....We are in a very diffrent game than we were during Nam...Now we are faced with pure evil like none of us has seen before, ever, compounded by representatives that now appear to be more afraid of these evil basterd's than most of us are...
Thank's again for the great hug's..Time to shuffle off for tonight.....Blessings to you all...Think on it, while we all can....Remember there are to basic thought processes...Fear and Love..I choose love and have no fear....
June 17th, 2007 at 1:12 amJuan, I think that goes the same for writing music.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:12 amLOL, Zoo. I am one lucky guy. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:13 amHey, Zoo, my mail just told me your hotmail address is no longer available. Can you write me in order to send you a request, lady?
June 17th, 2007 at 1:13 amZooey, did you get to Portland? THe weather wasn’t so great after all..
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 1:10 am
She did and she knows :D -- I think she's blaming gummitch for the bad weather.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:14 amLOL, I thought it was always rainy in Portland.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:15 amJuan, I think that goes the same for writing music.
Comment by JG
Exactly. Gibbs should have stated that for all fields of knowledge.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:15 am"LOL, I thought it was always rainy in Portland.
Comment by JPark "
Almost..
June 17th, 2007 at 1:15 amBlessings back at ya Sharon, see you again soon.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:15 amI choose love and have no fear….
Comment by Sharon
Best post tonight.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:16 amZooey, did you get to Portland? THe weather wasn’t so great after all..
Comment by JG
I'm here in Portland! My son and I went to Saturday Market -- hippy fest! -- and Powells Books. We rode the train, which was totally fun. The rain held until we were almost home.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:16 amPowell's Books is my favorite thing to do when we come up.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:17 amWell if we're now talking about assets and programs used to justify illegal miliary actions -- for no apparent reason-- then no. That was Bush.
Clinton was the guy bombing Iraqi targets in the unrecognised "no-fly zones" in violation of international and US law, while unquestioned by the MSM on the legality and justification for such actions.
Once again, let's not pretend the principles matter instead of than the names involved.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:18 amGotta go to bed. Happy Father's Day to all you dads out there.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:18 amJG, that is a good thing. I love the pacific northwest. If I didn't live in the best state I would go to Wash or Oregon.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:19 amHey, Zoo, my mail just told me your hotmail address is no longer available. Can you write me in order to send you a request, lady?
Comment by Juan C
Will do, my dear. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:19 amKilo, what are you talking about. You seem to be against Clinton making strikes against "terrorism" but now you are ok with it. You speak of principles. Do you even know what they are?
June 17th, 2007 at 1:21 amWill do, my dear. :)
Comment by Zooey
***all fuzzy inside***
June 17th, 2007 at 1:21 amLMAO. Most history is also "proven false" on the same premise that you've never bothered to pay attention to any of it nor will do unless force-fed information by others.
Last time I checked you thought it was proven false that Iraqis were involved in Iraqi oil smuggling on the basis you'd never read a single article about it.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:22 amThat one still debunked is it ? LOL
Once again, let’s not pretend the principles matter instead of than the names involved.
Comment by Kilo
Maybe you are in the wrong site. There has been a strong rejection towards Executive and Congress policies about foreign policy in this site. Scroll back.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:23 amMore proof that TP's troll-protection filter is at work. Funny how TP filters out posts that bring truth to talking points.
Kilo, your argument that other administrations did the same thing is false. There are distinctions which you manage to ignore.
Your assignment: find the distinctions. Find out why they're relevent.
Are you skilled enough to refute the very points you present? If not, you are not as capable as some of the 8th graders I taught last year.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:23 amJuan,
I'm having a problem accessing my home email. I'll send you a message on facebook. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:24 amGotta go to bed. Happy Father’s Day to all you dads out there.
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Okay, how many Mets fans here remember when Ralph Kiner, during a game played on Father's Day many years ago, happily announced, " and to all you dads out there, Happy Birthday!"
June 17th, 2007 at 1:25 amI’m having a problem accessing my home email. I’ll send you a message on facebook. :)
Comment by Zooey
Duh!! I havent thought about facebook. I will use it. :P
June 17th, 2007 at 1:27 am"LMAO. Most history is also “proven false†on the same premise that you’ve never bothered to pay attention to any of it nor will do unless force-fed information by others"
Yeah, I think I will pass on your right wing faux history. No, Hitler was not good.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:27 amThanks Jane, my son is a special little guy. That is all that matters. I am hoping the Brewers can keep up the pace now. I like the Mets lineup (the pitching...not so much).
June 17th, 2007 at 1:29 amGotta go to bed. Happy Father’s Day to all you dads out there.
Comment by JG — June 17, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Goodnight, JG.
Happy Father's Day to all the dads!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:29 amThanks Zoo. Night JG.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:32 amWOW!
I mean, WOW!
Kilo, you clearly did not understand what I was saying one single bit, because you pre-supposed my meaning and then tried to shoot down something I never implied. That's call the proverbial "strawman argument".
Let me try once last time before I dismiss you to the rings around Mutara's Nebula to explain what my problem is with Bush and his illegal activities.
YES, THE EQUIPMENT TO DO THIS SURVEILLENCE HAS BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS. And yes, it has been used in the past. The difference here is that when previous administrations wanted to do it, they went to a secret court and had a judge give them permission to go ahead with it. The exception to this was when an emergency situation arose and timely approval from a FISA court was impossible. In those, AND ONLY THOSE, situations, the law permitted the government to get the warrant within a certain period after the fact. (I believe it was 15 days, but that may be wrong.) The POINT is that they still had to go to a judge (you know, the guys and gals who are supposed to be impartial?) and get approval. If they failed to do that, nothing they obtained from the illegal surveillence would be admissable in court. And they didn't do it on the massive scale that Bush did (and did unconstitutionally.)
I never claimed that Clinton never used these NSLs, but as far as anybody has been able to determine, he always got the warrants required by law. Bush, on the other hand, felt that a judge's permission was unnecessary to conduct a "sneak and peek" operation, or a mass data collection, and he failed to get the permission required, even after the fact. That was unconstitutional.
The Patriot Act (all versions) is unconstitutional, but the reason it hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet is because no one has been able to bring it to the Supreme Court yet. And that's because it has been so difficult for most people (a few exceptions exist) to find out their rights were violated, so few people have ever had the chance to bring a lawsuit which might wend its way up to the Supremes. Hence, it still has not been formally declared unconstitutional. But rest assured it is.
I'm not going to go through your entire post paragraph by paragraph again because you were all over the place, winding your way through like a Mobius strip. Very incoherent. So I'll pick and choose a few more sentences to mention.
"some text posted anonymously in the comments of a blog is going to count for something is it "
Just because someone omitted a name does not mean that it wasn't someone from TP who posted it. Are YOU able to post entire articles like that without them knowing it? Of course not, so it must have been one of the handful of people at TP who did it. I don't regard it as anonymous. If you really need to know who put it up there, why not e-mail them and ask?
What makes you think that a Democratic administration would violate the constitution the same way that Bush has?
You mean by retaining the same programs and national security assets that existed under the previous Democratic presidency ?
Another classic strawman. I never claimed the equipment didn't exist. You formulated that interpretation in your own mind. What I am saying that the equipment was used before within the law and the constitution. (The Supremes have already said FISA was constitutional.) It wasn't after the ill-named Patriot Act. (A stupid acronym.)
Sure, but in terms of the US govt surveilling US citizens without warrants that’ll all be sorted right ?
You've been implying all along that previous administrations were illegally using NSLs and not going to the judges. Got proof of that? Yes, I believe that when the Democrats win next year and a new president is in place, the illegal use of the NSLs will cease.
“â€As though a man who couldn’t understand the stationary the NSA and DARPA uses somehow had something to do with any of this.â€"
And I have no idea what you’re referring to in that last sentence. It simply makes no sense out of context like that.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 16, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
Well yeah, that appears to be a large part of the problem here.
And yet you still didn't explain what the hell you were trying to say with this abstract nonsense. I'm telling you, man, that is a thoroughly incoherent statement. Stationery? You're being vague, but in a very senseless way. Not in a clever intelligent way.
Actually, after giving this careful thought, and far too much of my time, I have decided that you simply don't know what the hell you or anyone else is talking about. Try to get some reading comprehension lessons from a nearby Adult Learning Center. And while you're at it, learn how to write coherently. I'm done with you. Good night.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:38 amWayne, that was one hell of a post but Kilo is not worth it. He is a neo-con supporter but he says he is not a US citizen so he is not responsible. He is a total tool.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:40 amComment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Wayne and I decided before we got married that we were NOT parent material, so, no kids, just cats...and cats...and cats. But we love our niece and nephew, who are as close to our own progeny as we can get, being that they have BOTH of our genes. I give all the credit in the world to anyone who takes on the enormous responsibility of parenthood. All Dads and Moms deserve at LEAST one special day!
'Night, JG!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:40 amJane, I get that totally, my son was not planned. From your attitudes I think you two would be great parents!!! I hope you change your minds. We need more progressive kids :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:42 amWayne, that was one hell of a post but Kilo is not worth it. He is a neo-con supporter but he says he is not a US citizen so he is not responsible. He is a total tool.
Comment by JPark
I agree. Wow, great posts Wayne, but slamming your foot in the door might be more productive.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:44 amComment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 1:42 am
It's a tad late for that: when we decided that we didn't want kids, I went ahead and had my tubes tied. (And, man, did the doctors NOT want to do it--they insisted that I might change my mind, and it took a LOT of arguing with them before they would go ahead with it.)
Not to mention that I'm 51! But thanks for the compliment!
June 17th, 2007 at 1:51 amAch, Jane, darnit!!! You guys need to have kids!! LOL, I am happy you guys are happy the way it is. I still hate the Mets though :)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:53 amNot to mention that I’m 51! But thanks for the compliment!
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Thank goodness, Jane. We can't have a little bundle of "joy" keeping you away from TP. :P
June 17th, 2007 at 1:53 amComment by Zooey — June 17, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Still out visiting your son? How's it going? Are the cat scratches healing? ;-)
June 17th, 2007 at 1:57 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — June 17, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Wayne, no fair helping Kilo out on his homework! I posted this earlier:
And you went ahead and gave him some of the answers! If he never looks it up for himself, he's never gonna learn nuthin!
G'night all.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:00 amComment by Jane E. Schneider — June 17, 2007 @ 1:57 am
Yup, still in Portland. I'll probably leave Tuesday.
Cat scratches are almost gone, thank goodness. They were itchy.
Stupid cat. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 2:00 amI still hate the Mets though :)
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 1:53 am
Out of curiosity, why? Hell, I don't even 'hate' the damned Yankees, even though when I see Joe Torre it gives me flashbacks to the days when he was the Mets' player/manager (shudder.) I respect most of the Yankee players because, hell, they're GOOD.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:01 amG’night all.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Goodnight, Briseadh na Faire. Happy Father's Day tomorrow. :-)
June 17th, 2007 at 2:02 amBNF, it doesn't matter, Kilo is not into facts. He is waiting for his new Rush marching orders.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:02 amGoodnight, Bris!
June 17th, 2007 at 2:03 amJane the reason I hate the Mets is the same reason I hate the Yankees and Red Sox and also the reason I love the A's and Twins. My Brewers have a small window of opportunity because the Yanks, Mets and Sox have a buttload of money. My Brewers have this year to win (and maybe the next) before the rich steal Fielder, Hardy and Hall.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:06 amGoodnight, y'all.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:07 amComment by Briseadh na Faire — June 17, 2007 @ 2:00 am
Sorry, Teach, I didn't see your assignment to him. In my defense, I was busy writing all of that when your post came up, so I never saw it. And by the time I decided to stop, I just wanted to post it and be done with him.
I promise to write in a Word file "I will not do the trolls homework" 1000 times. And I promise not to copy and paste it all. :)
June 17th, 2007 at 2:09 am'Night, Zookeeper!
June 17th, 2007 at 2:09 amGood night, Bris. Good night, Zooey.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:11 amNight Zoo.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:12 amComment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 2:06 am
I understand your point. (It's one I've made against the Yankees for years.) Of course, the Mets have thrown away big money on little talent many times in the past. But they've always been the 'other' NY team, the 'losers' (as opposed to the Yankee winning machine), so I suppose I never put them in the same category.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:27 amI don't think many people here really appreciate you. You truely an exceptional idiot.
Let's take a look at your second setence here and see how much idiocy you have managed to fit into it.
1. I didn't say that I was okay with Clinton's actions, in fact sensible people realised since I posted reference to them being illegal that I was not okay with them.
2. I haven't said I was against Clinton striking terrorists. In fact the topic isn't being discussed by anyone here.
3. I didn't consider Iraq a terrorist regime prior to the 2003 invasion but apparently you did. As a liberal. On a liberal blog. In 2007.
Packed that all into a single sentence that, presumably, you intended to make me and not yourself look retarded.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:29 amSimply exceptional. You should be winning awards for this stuff.
Kilo, you make no sense. You support actions you say you don't support...unless it is done by Bush and not Clinton. I don't know how many people here "support" or even like me. I am guessing they don't like lying scum like you, though.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:34 amWhat are you a goldfish ?
You've already stated you know that I don't live in America where Rush Limbaugh exists. What is it too hard to think up a new label to apply or have you just forgotten something you learned only hours ago ?
Quick, now talk about how I'll vote Republican again at the next election like it makes me look stupid rather than you.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:34 amI understand Jane, money is no guarantee. In the NL Central the Cubs have spent a ton but they are a joke while the Crew are going to win the Division. But unless you have a stud like Billy Beane or a scout like Jack whatever his name is (the Brewers head scout. It is an eastern Euro name that is impossible to remember) you are not going to compete. They need a salary cap.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:38 amKilo, you will always vote Republican because you are stupid. Anyway...
June 17th, 2007 at 2:38 amI don’t know how many people here “support†or even like me.
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 2:34 am
WE DO!!!
June 17th, 2007 at 2:41 amThey need a salary cap.
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 2:38 am
I agree 100%.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:43 amExcept you're the only one here lying.
Where have I expressed support for Bush ?
A smarter person might figure out that if I am complaining about bad policies regardless of who is president then that may indicate my opinions aren't influenced by who is president.
Especially If I fkn post about 50 paragraphs attacking someone else for doing precisely that you brainless nimrod.
A smarter person might figure out that when I write about programs that privacy groups have been fighting for decades that I might know about such things. That when I take the time to point out that they won't be stopped if you won't even acknowledge they exist that there is no Bush-serving premise to such a position. That there is no partisan position at all other than I am against these programs in principle and that doesn't change when the Presidency does.
Unlike you.
So when you talk about "supporting Bush" as though supporting a particular party is somehow is linked to the government being able to do this shit you are actually describing yourself. Because that's how programs and policies that aren't effected by changes in presidency are allowed to continue. Because you want to portray them as partisan issues.
How long do you think issues like the minimum wage, race hate laws, abortion, gay rights, etc would survive as unresolved issues if legislators didn't have to merely wait out 2 years between presidential and congressional election cycles until we see if all branches of govt line up on one partisan side before they get fixed ?
And even when this happens, on this issue, nothing will change. Because as you've said repeatedly, myself and the EFF cited by TP in this story are lying about it occurring.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:51 amYeah, that makes all kinds of sense that does.
As predicted, you've got the memory retention of a goldfish.
Even when warned against how retarded posting such a statement would make you look, there you are, jumping right on it.
Sheesh. What is 'credibility' a dirty word around here ? You seem to go out of your way at every opportunity to avoid it.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:55 am"WE DO!!"
Thanks guys :). Baseball at least needs to adopt an NBA cap, a cap that taxes the hell out of the very rich. This year we had Cleveland and San Antonio. That is so much better for me than New York and New York or New York and LA. Maybe not for CBS but for the league in the long run. 5 years ago a Sacramento-Milwaukee would have been the most interesting finals ever with one team being an incredible running team (Sac) and the other being the best halfcourt team in 20 years (Mil). Right now Fielder is the most interesting story in sports. If they keep the current system he will be a Yankee in a few years.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:56 amYeah, Kilo, you are credible. Der.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:56 amKilo = Seixon
June 17th, 2007 at 3:18 amI don't know...I don't remember Seixon being quite as obtuse.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:19 amNah, Seixon was not nearly as stupid.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:29 amIn other words I just said what Jane did...just not so politely :)
June 17th, 2007 at 3:30 amBy the way, any lib or progressive that votes for Ron Paul needs psychological help.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:46 amBy the way, any lib or progressive that votes for Ron Paul needs psychological help.
Comment by JPark — June 17, 2007 @ 3:46 am
While my political compass tells me I'm a Liberal Libertarian, I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he's a conservative libertarian. And he and I would likely strongly disagree on which things we would want our government spending our money on. Though we would agree on how little we want our government intruding in our lives.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:51 amYou hit it on the head Wayne. Ron Paul may be attractive for his current foreign policy he would be a nightmare domestically. And honestly I am not a fan of pure isolationism.
June 17th, 2007 at 3:55 amSeixon bloviated just like this Kilo incarnation. He's changed his style a bit so as not to be detected. Seixon = Kilo.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:03 amYou would appear to by lying, given that you've gone straight on to refer exclusively to topics that I did address.
Says who ? What equipment ?
The only equipment I am aware of it the shit that surveils every communication on the planet regardless of it's source 24/7, including those of US citizens.
If you know of something different, tell the NYT, because that would actually be something that hasn't been revealed to date.
You're either talking about the same equipment or you're not. The problem, which I think everyone appreciates, is that you want to refer to this being illegal only in the case where FISA warrants for it weren't obtained, which you and everyone else knows is physical impossibility.
I'm giving you an easy way out of that. If you don't want to take it then you need to take the hard road. Explaining how before 9/11 a FISA court operating out of a single floor on a single building was able to approve intercepts for every electronic communication of every citizen in the US every 90 days as you say they did. Go for it.
You are suggesting that the US government has had FISA warrants for conducting each piece of surveillence on each US citizen pre-Bush.
You are suggesting that when every piece of email sent in the US in the 90s was captured (Bush was't the first to come up with the idea of installing switches in telcos BTW) during every hour of every day of every week of each 90 day period that the US government had a FISA warrant for every single one of them.
You are suggesting that when the NSA intercepted every phone call and fax sent by every person in the US on every day of every 90 day period that the US government had a FISA warrant for every one of them.
How ?
You can theoretically count every grain of sand on every beach on the planet except for the little problem that there aren't enough hours in the day or days in your lifespan to allow you to do such a thing.
Same problem here. Solve one, solve them both. So what's the answer ?
You aren't going to explain this because just like everyone else here you don't believe this occurred. You know this was always impossible and always will be. You just want to pretend it didn't happen until some magical change on 12th September 2001, so you don't have to consider a larger problem than the one you are brave enough to fein outrage at.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:12 amSeixon bloviated just like this Kilo incarnation. He’s changed his style a bit so as not to be detected. Seixon = Kilo.
Comment by troll alert — June 17, 2007 @ 4:03 am
It's been a while since I read any of Seixon's posts, you could be right.
Regardless...Goodnight! I'm off to bed!
June 17th, 2007 at 4:12 amNo they never had to go to a judge.
Why would you go to a judge and have them decide whether you can have the taps you want if you could just ask yourself ?
Standard practice prior to 9/11 was that US taps were handled by the Canadian offices of the NSA. This was "another country" in the same way that NSA personnel, equipment, programs and resources being run out of another country legitimately are.
Those measures, FISA and the rest of it only exist because there are laws against US intelligence spying on US citizens.
Either you think that Canada surveills every communication of every US citizen 24/7 for the past few decades using NSA equipment personnel and resources of it's own accord or you don't.
Either you're brave enough to state you do think this or you've stated you're just pretending about everything else.
LMAO. Is that it ? It wouldn't be admissable in court ?
Yeah that's everyone's concern with warrantless surveillence.
Then good for him and bad for Bush.
This has no bearing on blanket surveillence of US citizens occurring 24/7 though.
Can you understand this or not ?
I mean I thought I was being quite clear when I referred you to the fact that the FISA court exists on a single floor of a single building and asked you to compare this to the number of people in the US and how big that building would need to be if all those intercepts were authorised by FISA.
Did you not understand this ?
Most (not all) adult (not all) citizens will get their licence renewed every few years (not every day of the week every year) and this requires infrastructure and staff to accommodate such paperwork. Even just for the people that live in your own area, just that one single building, dwarfs the FISA court. But you think that FISA approves the 24/7 interception of every phone call, email, fax, etc of every US resident around the clock every second of every day of every year from that one floor do you ?
Use your head and quit being so gullible.
Ooooh let me guess, none of them will acknowledge what I've taken issue with, nor dispute what I've written.
For reference, this is what you skipped over answering. Let's all wonder why:
But the real question you are asking me is can I prove that all the tens of thousands of people, complex technology, huge facilities, 24/7 operations and information channels that existed for decades prior to 9/11 (not to mention being used) weren’t sitting around unused until 9/11 when Bush finally decided to take the bubble wrap off and start it up for the first time ever.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:16 amKilo, are you still going with too many words to describe yourself as a moron?
June 17th, 2007 at 4:17 amYou are explaining the provisions of the law to me as though this somehow relates to what has occurred.
The discussion is about how this law has never been followed as it doesn't need to be because there is a loophole which allows it to be circumvented.
You may as well be explaining EPA guidelines to me as a way to suggest there was no such thing as pollution before Bush took office. Seriously.
Well yeah, cause it was me.
I was referring to you asking me for proof that the NSA didn't start doing what it has always done and always will on the 12th of September 2001. If you are willing to ignore every article written about the NSA before this date and many of them since why would we pretend that you won't ignore what I tell you about the same.
Clearly I was right as per your response.
No, I just read you repeatedly stating that it has never been used in that manner before now, despite knowing that this is the only manner it operates in.
So either you're disputing it's existance or you belive nobody switched it on till now. One is no more ridiculous than the other so I don't know why you are objecting to this as a "strawman".
If you had said that police hadn't used their firearms before 9/11, would it also be a strawman for me to try to come up with an equally ridiculous scenario (like the guns being rubber) to try to figure out WTF you are trying to suggest was going on ?
Yeah. In the same way that TODAY the supreme court can say that renditions of prisoners to egypt for torture is legal and constitutional as long as you get a note from Egypt saying they won't be tortured.
I certainly know that the Bush administration has been getting these assurances in regard to renditions as per the statements to this effect. Can't recall any assurances that the Clinton administration did.
In this instance would it be important to find out if Clinton did, so that he could be as law abiding and constitution-protecting as Bush in regard to renditions, or is discussing shit like this on the basis of whether loopholes are a valid defense against illegal behaviour just a fkn cop out eh ?
No, I haven't implied once that NSLs matter.
And if you mention that here, or on a cell phone, or an email that will be intercepted by the NSA just as it is today and just as it was on election night 2000.
Happy with that ?
Better yet, any closer to even acknowledging the reality of that ?
Well figure it out for yourself.
Do you know what "Bush" is ? Do you know what the "NSA" does ?
Okay, now knowing both of these things what do you think Bush has ever understood about what the NSA does ?
Do you think that matters for the existance, mission and operations of an agency that operates regardless of who is in office or what the do or don't want ?
Or put it another way, when (say) Edwards is elected the next US president on a platform which includes a position that he will not attack or invade Iran, do you think the military will stop drawing up plans to invade Iran ?
Sure. Hence the lengthy posts repeatly trying to get you to acknowledge one simple, fundamental problem in regard to what you (supposedly) want stopped.
LMAO at comprehension.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:17 amTake a look at how much writing you've expended here trying to pretend you DON'T understand reality.
Kilo, you try so hard...congratulations. You are still not the brightest person in the world but you have such energy!!
June 17th, 2007 at 4:19 amSeixon bloviated just like this Kilo incarnation. He’s changed his style a bit so as not to be detected. Seixon = Kilo.
Comment by troll alert — June 17, 2007 @ 4:03 am
Actually no, Kilo hasn't changed his style at all since Seixon was posting here, as clearly illustrated by a brief look at these posts.
Somebody might get the idea that when you keep saying I used to be someone else but only I am willing to point out examples of that, that you're the only one who's credibility this hurts.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:23 amI said, "Good night, sir!"
June 17th, 2007 at 4:23 amYou wanted a response from me, here it is: GIVE IT A F*CKING REST, ASSH*LE!
June 17th, 2007 at 4:25 amHmm, I can't top you guys. Kilo, I am sure there is a double entendre regarding subs. You know what it is.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:28 amHehe, Kilo and credibility. I am sure that is the only time those two words have been in the same sentence.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:31 amBy the way, Kilo...class usually follows your name. Damn shame you don't have any.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:35 amAh. Taking the "pussied the fk out" option I see there bitch.
Who'd of thought I could find the first ever 9/11 truther who thought the NSA was up to no wrong ? LMAO.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:46 amDoes anybody think that if you shoot an FBI agent in your house, you will get away with it?
If they are gonna break into your house to plant a root kit on your computer, they will have drugs to plant if something goes wrong!
June 17th, 2007 at 4:53 amHere's a little something for all you hysterics that have been declaring domestic surveillence under Bush has been "worse than Russia" for the past few years.
Russia has in fact always been playing catch-up.
These are Russian human rights organisations being outraged at what an unthinkable step this was for Russia to implement such a program in regard to it's citizen's privacy.
Except SORM isn't all that similar to the first US program mentioned there which bypasses FISA courts. Instead it's practically identical to this second US program mentioned below which bypasses the courts.
This involved the forced installation of switch boxes in all telecom carriers so that all emails could be copied for law enforcement without warrant and without anyone being informed.
Hang on a minute, that sounds a lot like the current case with AT&T under Bush doesn't it ? My, how times don't change.
What do they mean "controversial" ? Pffft. There's nothing controversial about such domestic spying programs once you equate them with dragons and pretend they never existed.
And what happens when you play dumb about such programs existing and therefor there is no need for them to stop...
1999 - Barr, a former CIA analyst, said no one in Congress has asked the NSA hard questions about electronic surveillance since 1975, when a committee ... revealed that the government had improperly intercepted Americans' telegrams for 30 years and had unlawfully eavesdropped on domestic dissidents in the 1960s.
Of course when these talk about capturing the world's internet communications during the 1990s this would have involved about 7 people who weren't US citizens.
And just for fun, here's some similar FBI mistakes from 2000 while using this never-existed program on on CT case...
2000
Well maybe not that similar. Here in 2007 it tells you the majority of these breaches involve telcos supplying too much info in response to FBI requests. Back then it was a case of the FBI scooping up everyone's communications for use in a OBL case.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:55 amHere's a little something for those of you who have been complaining for the past few years that the Bush administration instituted domestic surveillence programs that are worse worse than those in Russia.
In fact Russia has always been playing catch-up.
These are Russian human rights organisations being outraged at what an unthinkable step this was for Russia to implement such a program in regard to it's citizen's privacy.
Except SORM isn't all that similar to the first US program mentioned there which bypasses FISA courts. Instead it's practically identical to this second US program mentioned below which also bypasses the courts.
This involved the forced installation of switch boxes in all telecom carriers so that all emails could be copied for law enforcement without warrant and without anyone being informed.
Hang on a minute, that sounds a lot like the current case with AT&T under Bush doesn't it ? My, how times don't change.
What do they mean "controversial" ? Pffft. There's nothing controversial about such domestic spying programs once you equate them with dragons and pretend they never existed.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:36 amAnd what happens when you play dumb about such programs existing and therefor there is no need for them to stop...
1999 - Barr, a former CIA analyst, said no one in Congress has asked the NSA hard questions about electronic surveillance since 1975, when a committee ... revealed that the government had improperly intercepted Americans' telegrams for 30 years and had unlawfully eavesdropped on domestic dissidents in the 1960s.
Of course when these talk about capturing the world's internet communications during the 1990s this would have involved about 7 people who weren't US citizens.
And here's the redundant revalation that FISA is nothing but a rubber-stamp, non-oversight review even when it is used, that when asked by congress about even having guidelines for not surveilling US citizens under Clinton they claimed attorney client priveledge. And most importantly, that when nobody calls for oversight that's exactly how much oversight you get.
And just for fun, here's some similar FBI mistakes from 2000 while using this never-existed program on on CT case...
2000
Well maybe not that similar. Here in 2007 it tells you the majority of these breaches involve telcos supplying too much info in response to FBI requests. Back then it was a case of the FBI scooping up everyone's communications for use in a OBL case.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:36 amAnd here's what happens when you play dumb about such programs existing and therefor there is no need for them to stop...
1999 - Barr, a former CIA analyst, said no one in Congress has asked the NSA hard questions about electronic surveillance since 1975, when a committee ... revealed that the government had improperly intercepted Americans' telegrams for 30 years and had unlawfully eavesdropped on domestic dissidents in the 1960s.
Of course when these talk about capturing the world's internet communications during the 1990s this would have involved about 7 people who weren't US citizens.
And here's the redundant revalation that FISA is nothing but a rubber-stamp, non-oversight review even when it is used, that when asked by congress about even having guidelines for not surveilling US citizens under Clinton they claimed attorney client priveledge. And most importantly, that when nobody calls for oversight that's exactly how much oversight you get.
And just for fun, here's some similar FBI mistakes from 2000 while using this never-existed program on on CT case...
2000
Well maybe not that similar. Here in 2007 it tells you the majority of these breaches involve telcos supplying too much info in response to FBI requests. Back then it was a case of the FBI scooping up everyone's communications for use in an OBL case.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:41 amWhen is this sh*t going to end?
June 17th, 2007 at 7:44 amWhen is Congress going to wake up?
When are people going to realize that 9/11 was an inside job to create a phony 'war on terror' and then take away our rights and dismantle the Constitution -- all in the name of fighting an "enemy"
Amen, Kay! I wish that Kilo would understand one very simple concept and that is: "The shortest distance between two points has NEVER been reached via conversation (or the written word)". Following that, what the hell was that ridiculous diatribe which went on ad nauseum while the rest of us slept? Good grief! Talk about ADD - give me a break! I'm surprised Kilo didn't hyperventilate himself (if it's all possible via thoughts and typing) - for cripe's sake!
What a game of mental masturbation! The bottom line, as I read these doubletalk posts this morning is: Who gives a $hit about any of it?
June 17th, 2007 at 7:55 amAnd, Amen, on everything you said, Kay!
June 17th, 2007 at 7:56 amSo in summary:
1. Good work Kay on proposing congress take action on info they have not yet acknowledged acknowledged.
2. Bad work Kilo on providing info nobody has yet acknowledged and proposing that this is the first step to taking action against it.
Great work.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:01 amDear Kilo,
Maybe some day you'll wake up.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:43 amKilo: Just wondering if your moniker has something to with the size of your brain (grams)?? Pea brain syndrome, loud and clear. Besides, the pseudo-information you provide isn't of much interest to anyone. The wind is blowing today - go fly a kite!
June 17th, 2007 at 9:58 amIt's clear that you make up the information as you go.....are probably a Repuke paid troll who throws around inane information as though it were fact. Better day to take a hike than fly a kite.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:59 amBesides, who gives a rat's ass what Russia did with the SORM?
Last time I checked, this was not Russia.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:01 amKilo: Presumably you failed to even comprehend the adage overall - ...the shortest distance between two points....makes perfect sense since droning on with inane, inarticulate, and totally irrelevant data seems to be your MO. Nice attempt at hijacking the thread about how outraged americans are that Team Bush has been breaking the law and trampling the constitution; in fact, it is not said that he uses it to wipe his derriere on!
June 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am"providing work which no one has yet acknowledged" - when that data is irrelevant to the dialogue going on within this country, it's clear that no one gives a crap about it. What Russia does or doesn't do is of no consequence to us. It's their problem.
This is clearly OUR PROBLEM and the people will do what needs to be done, once again, in 08 to solve that problem. OUT WITH EVERY REPUBLICAN THUG IN OFFICE! That's how.
Kilo: I hate to rub this one in but....your use of the term "stationary"....ahem.....well, it's clear that you failed 4th grade English, bro! A good way to remember it is that the "paper" has an "e"....as I've said - your posts are inarticulate and imbecilic.
English 101 might be a good place for you to begin your remedial education, Kilo.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:07 amHappy Father's Day to all the Dad's.....
Great post's by all but the troll....Glad I slept through it and can now scroll past "it"....Blessings All
June 17th, 2007 at 10:41 amIt also must be noted that not only did the FBI obtain this information illegally, they now refuse to give it back or destroy it. It's time for Congress to get involved in this scandal too. It's too bad that we don't have some kind of an independent watchdog agency that can investigate these kind of things rather than having to rely on Congress to do it. The problem with Congress investigating scandals like this is 1) it becomes partisan and 2) it takes them away from what they are supposed to be doing, passing legislation.
If we don't clean this mess up soon, we may be forever damaged.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:18 amKilo appeared to be up through the night. Meth can do that.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pmThanks for the Happy Father's Day Sharon!
June 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pmNo it's not. As the articles tell you this is the US which already had the same program with a different name.
Way to not read.
Sure. And I bet there's a reason why that's still the case when they copy their problem from yours.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm