I really shouldn't give this story any justice but I should at least point it out:
1
We are everywhere and we are nowhere.
Posted by: Agent Smith at November 27, 2005 06:41 AM (cKU7u)
2
It's about time; I just hope the DIA and MI aren't plagued by the same problems as the FBI and CIA, who couldn't catch a cold.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 08:56 AM (0yYS2)
3
The CIA has no domestic charter.
Posted by: dave at November 27, 2005 10:05 AM (CcXvt)
4
this violates the terrorists civil liberties.
Posted by: dcb at November 27, 2005 10:09 AM (8e/V4)
5
ernie, insert comments about "gannon" and "cock" here.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 10:28 AM (8e/V4)
6
So they want a privacy act exemption? Sounds like a bad idea.
Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 11:13 AM (mZYql)
7
Yeah rectus, it's a horrible idea; they might actually catch a few terrorists and set back the dhimmicrats' plans for the next campaign. Fuck you liberal traitor scum.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 12:59 PM (0yYS2)
8
I don't think you can accuse me of being a liberal, nor a Democrat but I do not think this is a good thing.
For whatever reason, this Administration is either unable, or unwilling to fix the CIA, in order to stop damaging national security material from ending up in the Washington Times.
The United States already has a whole multitude of Intelligence agencies:
DIA/MIA/CIA/NIC/CIC/CSE/NRO/CTC/NSA/NGA/INR/DOE(IN)
(you'll find this is just the tip of the iceburg)
there are just agencies that are publically known!
Terrorism is not a free pass to create intelligence gathering agencies on the fly, especially when you do not mothball, or disable the ineffective ones. There are already enough intelligence agencies, either fix the old ones, or hire new people but adding more and more new ones with little congressional oversight, or monitoring is a _very_ bad idea.
The FBI already said they've caught more low level criminals than Terrorists with the patriot act, criminals are a law enforcement issue, and giving more and more powers to agencies that already do not answer to anyone is going to be a problem down the road. (Much like the current CIA)
Posted by: dave at November 27, 2005 01:58 PM (CcXvt)
9
"Yeah rectus, it's a horrible idea; they might actually catch a few terrorists and set back the dhimmicrats' plans for the next campaign."
I wouldn't be happy with democrats making list and checking them twice either. That's why I like the privacy act.
Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 06:05 PM (Zi15r)
10
Liberals weren't so concerned about "lists" and "privacy" when they were busy violating Jeff Ganon's privacy. It's only terrorists they try to protect.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 06:18 PM (8e/V4)
11
"Liberals weren't so concerned about "lists" and "privacy" when they were busy violating Jeff Ganon's privacy."
The privacy of advertisements he PUT ON THE INTERNET.
Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 06:33 PM (Zi15r)
12
Actus,
You know you neo-libs would have been screaming like a herd of stuck hogs had conservatives been doing the same thing to a homo with a lib bent.
Be a man for once and admit the truth.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 27, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)
13
"You know you neo-libs would have been screaming like a herd of stuck hogs had conservatives been doing the same thing to a homo with a lib bent. "
To an internet prostitute? I'd be surprised. Plus with the wingnuts you'd miss out on having a gay prostitute be working for conservative causes.
Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 08:23 PM (Zi15r)
14
Crap, Actus, is the truth not in you? Any attack on a neo-lib homo would send you into shivers.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 27, 2005 10:06 PM (rUyw4)
15
"neo-lib "
What does this mean? Like the clinton treasury department free trade neoliberals? Whats a 'neo-lib'?
"Any attack on a neo-lib homo would send you into shivers."
Attacks on people for being homosexuals would be bad. Pointing out that a person in the republican white house press corps due to sketchy connections to GOP press operations is a gay male prostitute is pretty different.
Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 11:35 PM (Zi15r)
16
Actus,
You missed the point. I implied that if Jeff Gannon had been a person in the press corp of Bill Clinton due to sketchy connections to the DNC, and had he been attacked in exactly the same manner, you and your ilk would have been outraged. I hate to have to keep explaining everything to you, Actus. Surely you are smarter than this.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 10:20 AM (rUyw4)
17
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both
-- Benjamin Franklin
Opposing additional government powers doesn't make you a liberal guys... Just think about who's going to be in charge 4-8-12 years from now.
Posted by: Timbo at November 28, 2005 11:02 AM (ojRL3)
18
"I implied that if Jeff Gannon had been a person in the press corp of Bill Clinton due to sketchy connections to the DNC, and had he been attacked in exactly the same manner, you and your ilk would have been outraged"
exactly. how stupid could the DNC be to hire a whore?
Posted by: actus at November 28, 2005 05:34 PM (CqheE)
19
Yeah, right, Actus, just like you were outraged when Clinton and his whore were cavorting in the Oval Office! I doubt whether Gannon being a whore bothered you at all.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 09:00 PM (rUyw4)
Posted by: bob der baumeister at February 10, 2006 01:32 PM (8CCVw)
Posted by: tft flachbildschirme at February 10, 2006 01:33 PM (8CCVw)
Posted by: tropical furniture at February 10, 2006 01:35 PM (8CCVw)
Posted by: shock absorbers at February 11, 2006 03:29 AM (8CCVw)
Posted by: nc properties wilmington at February 11, 2006 11:15 AM (8CCVw)
Posted by: panax ginseng at February 12, 2006 06:37 PM (8CCVw)
Posted by: motorhome hire uk at February 13, 2006 11:29 AM (8CCVw)
Posted by: pvd at February 19, 2006 05:46 AM (8CCVw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
