December 16, 2005
Secrets And Lies
So, what's the other bury the Iraq election big news of the day.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Supposedly, the President secretly ordered the NSA to spy on American citizens.
Well, there are far too many places debunking this utter garbage to link them all. Besides, I know you are well informed (trolls excepted), and have already read the vast deconstructing going on.
But let's just say that this really is the big revelation the New York Times says it is.
Would you be shocked? Horrified? Aghast?
If you are any of these above, then answer me these:
Do you have cameras atop your stoplights?
Have you ever taken money from an ATM?
Ever gone inside a convenience store? A bank?
Have you ever applied for credit? How about a job? Particularly one that requires a "background check?"
How about filing your tax return?
Have you ever passed a law enforcement officer holding a radar gun?
Oh, here's a good one; Have you ever purchased a firearm?
Ladies and gentlemen, your government, at all levels, has been spying on you since your parents filled out the birth certificate and put your cute footieprints on the card.
I don't like it. I hate it. But that's the way it is. Sadly, not enough of our population hates it, and most just accept the next erosion of liberty as the cost of living in a free country.
What a sad state of affairs it is when the New York Times puts the nation at risk by publishing leaks of classified information used to gather information on potential terrorists, while ignoring the real crimp on our liberty that goes on every day in full view of an uncaring public.
Posted by: Vinnie at
10:57 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The defeatocrats will do ANYTHING, including jeopardize the security of us all, if it will help them regain power. If they can hurt George Bush, they'll do ANYTHING to accomplish that. They're actually willing to gamble with the lives of the American people if it will cause political damage to the President. It's disgusting and seditious and somebody's got to do something about it. I just hope to god that the vast majority of voters out there are taking this all in and will make these bottom-feeders pay big come election time.
Posted by: Richard at December 16, 2005 11:21 PM (W8EsU)
2
Read the Times story very carefully - there may well be a very good chance this may blow up in their faces. We know the release is a promo for a book, and we know how much they hate Bush -
- at the same time, they minced their words very very carefully on some extremely critical points. More to follow ...
Posted by: hondo at December 16, 2005 11:46 PM (3aakz)
3
If your serious about following this in detail without the hype or hysteria, I recommend The Captain's Quarters Blog - no offense Rusty.
Posted by: hondo at December 16, 2005 11:54 PM (3aakz)
4
Interesting...even the Washington Post is jumping on the Times over this.
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story.
In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book....
Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said it was conceivable the Times waited to publish its NSA story as the Senate took up renewal of the Patriot Act....
The Times admitted last year that much of its reporting on Iraq's weapons programs before the war was flawed. The principal author of those stories, Judith Miller, later spent 85 days in jail to protect the identity of an administration source in the CIA leak case....
The Times announced last week that it was replacing its deputy bureau chief in Washington, which outsiders read as a sign of the paper's dissatisfaction with its Washington coverage.
Posted by: IO ERROR at December 16, 2005 11:58 PM (FVbj6)
5
Agent Jones says The Architect is very angry his cat was let out of the bag. Now you podlings just stay where you are and pretend you're in control of your oblivious lives.
Posted by: Agent Smith at December 17, 2005 01:56 AM (oC6D4)
6
"Ladies and gentlemen, your government, at all levels, has been spying on you since your parents filled out the birth certificate and put your cute footieprints on the card."
There are things that are tracked in public and things that are not tracked in public. Sure there is often confusion between the two, but the latest revelations are not of tracking of public info, but of private stuff. Ie, stuff which requires a warrant by law or the constitution.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 12:31 PM (YViDI)
7
This "news" was released the day after the Iraqi election. Hmmm, I wonder why???
Unemployment is down, consumer prices, down, inflation down, productivity up, and of course the wildly successful Iraq election.
So what does the NYTimes report? yesterday's news:
CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 12:51 PM (8e/V4)
8
"CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES"
so? what about the rest of us plebes? We also would like to know if teh president is secretly acting illegally.a
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 01:09 PM (YViDI)
9
rectus,
two things. First, if Congress knows, then it's not "secret". Second, if it were "secret" doesn't make it illegal.
So please tell me how this is either of those-- keeping in mind that the War on Terror is not about law enforcement with courtroom rules on admissibility of evidence, but WAR. Also keeping in mind that the info being intercepted are incoming INTERNATIONAL phone calls by known or suspected AQ operatives that cannot wait on the warrant process.
Please justify your argument in light of those facts, as well as 9/11.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 01:28 PM (8e/V4)
10
an ps.,
Bush said his order was constitutional, was reviewed by legal authorities and that leaders in Congress were aware of it. He criticized the disclosure of the directive as improper.
What is illegal here is revealing classified information not open to the plebes.
Bush should call for an independend prosecutor to find the leaker and put him behind bars, starting with the NYTimes.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 01:33 PM (8e/V4)
11
"First, if Congress knows, then it's not "secret"."
If its not secret then there's no problem publishing it either.
"So please tell me how this is either of those-- keeping in mind that the War on Terror is not about law enforcement with courtroom rules on admissibility of evidence, but WAR."
Why keep this in mind? the law is clear about how surveillance is to be done.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 02:13 PM (YViDI)
12
You know all this drama could have been avoided if the U.S Government did what it normally does when spying on the United States citizens.
Have Echelon in one of our allies countries intercept the phone calls, microwaves, cell phones and data, then hand it to us.
I'm wearing my Greg strength tinfoil hat today!
Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 02:34 PM (CcXvt)
13
actus
The surveilliance is directed at possible AQ links, fundamentalist islamic extremists and the like. Broader than that would not only be illegal (yes I agree), but also FUCKING STUPID!
If this is narrowly focused (as is even indicated by the NYT) then what the hell is your problem?
Please! don't come back with a "what if - expansionist - angels dancing on a head of a pin argument!
If you perceive a danger here personally to you then spell it out. I don't - many here don't either feel threatened by it.
Unless you can convince the majority of this country that their in danger of having their links to AQ exposed - you ain't going nowhere with this. (see the inherent problem)
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 02:47 PM (3aakz)
14
Only someone who is more interested in helping the terrorists or destroying the US would object to what the President did. Don't worry, Dave, the same one complaining about this had no problem with Clinton spying on domestic groups without authorization. What a hypocrit.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 17, 2005 02:48 PM (rUyw4)
15
Bravo, Vinnie, Bravo! Give Vinnie a "harumph."
Cameras at malls, in WalMart, Target, shopping center parking lots, post office, airports, heck, there was major security for the NHL draft in raleigh the other year.
The leftards need to clue in to the reality of modern technology.
Posted by: William Teach at December 17, 2005 02:53 PM (AkiXU)
16
"If this is narrowly focused (as is even indicated by the NYT) then what the hell is your problem?"
The oversight system that we have to keep these things narrowly focused was what was thwarted. A system built because of executive branch activity that went beyond narrow focuses.
"Only someone who is more interested in helping the terrorists or destroying the US would object to what the President did."
Baby jesus said so himself.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 02:58 PM (YViDI)
17
rectus,
obviously you THINK the law is clear on how surveillance should be done, because this has been in flux since 9/11. But here in fact, no law has been broken. It just looks bad. But looking bad isn't illegal.
And it only looks bad for people who refuse to understand the fundamental difference between gathering information to PREVENT an attack, vs gathering information to investigate a crime that has already been committed.
Traditional law enforcement operates under the latter premise (i.e., investigating AFTER the fact), while counter-terrorism operates under the former (i.e., trying to PREVENT an attack). See the diff?
9/11 happenned precisely because Liberals don't get it. Take for example the case Khalid Almidhar who in 2001 had entered the U.S. and would later help commandeer the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon. His lawyers argued that information about Almidhar's ties to AQ obtained through intelligence channels could not be used to launch a criminal investigation. The FBI warned that "someday someone will die" because of that decision. And they were right-- Americans DIED. Also do a word search on "able danger" for examples of how Liberals are getting Americans people killed.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)
18
actus
There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this wasn't narrowly focused on AQ links.
I'm being specific - your still dancing around this point.
You and anyone else is not going to get anywhere on this if you continue to avoid the AQ topic connection and attempt to shift the focus to an abstract argument.
And your smart enough to know that - so this is just the Bushbash issue of the day. in a coupla days it will be something else.
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 03:14 PM (3aakz)
19
"Traditional law enforcement operates under the latter premise (i.e., investigating AFTER the fact), while counter-terrorism operates under the former (i.e., trying to PREVENT an attack)."
Which one of these is FISA supposed to handle?
"There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this wasn't narrowly focused on AQ links."
But there is indication that it wasn't done according to the FISA act.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 03:18 PM (YViDI)
20
actus
Domestic traffic according to FISA - A BIG YES - even according to NYT
International - out going and in-coming - selectively a BIG NO with very important qualifiers ...
Was FISA notified - appears so and told NOT their perview
(a point you can argue)
Was congressional oversight notified - appears so (get ready for the Jackie Gleeson routine from select democrats - hummmmmer hummmmer)
Total number in the hundreds apparent (NYT plays a game with vague "possibly thousands' add-on)
BIG POINT!!!! NYT states ".. Americans and others..". This is phasing that has a name in statistical analysis (I hated the subject and forgot it - any help Rusty)
It "implies" Americans being the primary and majority targets but provides no basis leaving the reader to assume anything from 51/49 percent to 99/1 percent.
Technically it states no such thing and could easily be the reverse 49/51 to 1/99. Its a common trick in advertising and it is legalese speak - its goal is to push or direct people to make a certain assumption or mental association without providing actual factual basis.
Again, the AQ links - if you can't dis-associate your argument from that point - then you won't get away with this.
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 03:45 PM (3aakz)
21
"It "implies" Americans being the primary and majority targets but provides no basis leaving the reader to assume anything from 51/49 percent to 99/1 percent."
So what? what do the numbers matter?
"Again, the AQ links - if you can't dis-associate your argument from that point - then you won't get away with this."
I think we can believe the administration when they claim that people are linked with al-qaeda.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 04:04 PM (YViDI)
22
The numbers DO matter - pure and simple public relations -
If the targets are foreign students, resident aliens, tourists or even naturalised citizens - all in context with AQ/radical islam etc .........
Then the PUBLIC is not going to give a damn! Simple.
Believe the administration on the connection? That's Easy!
But therein lies your problem - you have to convince others that there is no connection.
See your problem now?
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 04:20 PM (3aakz)
23
"The numbers DO matter - pure and simple public relations -"
Oh. I'm worried about the law rather than how moronic the admin looks when it breaks it.
"Believe the administration on the connection? That's Easy!"
I know. their record on intel? very clear.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 04:40 PM (YViDI)
24
actus
Nobody even slightly believes you are worried about the law - this is just another bushbash with tiny legs no less.
Record on intel?
Interesting - If you want to make an argument that they are NOT conducting surveillance and targeting AQ links - but everyone else instead for all other kinds of reasons -
then make it.
If you can't or don't - then this whole "controversy" goes abosolutely nowhere.
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 05:00 PM (3aakz)
25
The NSAÂ’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSAÂ’s top legal officials, including NSAÂ’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
The NYTimes endangers national security and the lives of the American people in order to boost books sales:
NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/12/16/20051216_220600_flash9nyt.htm
The Democrats endanger national security and the lives of the American people in order to gain political advantage:
CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 07:06 PM (8e/V4)
26
"CONGRESS MEMBERS WERE BRIEFED ON EAVESDROPPING -- A DOZEN TIMES"
So? Does that make it ok?
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 09:16 PM (YViDI)
27
Actus,
yes, it does. Because it means this has political oversight, and has had it all along. The NYTimes is just trying to make some cash, and the Libs are just grandstanding.
Now settle down, plebe. Let the patricians handle the running of this war.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 09:26 PM (8e/V4)
28
yes actus
This dog don't hunt - sorry.
And if it plays out as I suspect - in time some will be blaming Karl Rove for setting up Risen & the NYT.
Key is the timeline - if this is old intel from immediately after 9/11 and the vast bulk in in the first couple of years - then the admin may be looking for a backdoor way "to leak" success stories.
Intel's value is only when its fresh - if this is old material - and the communication lines no longer active - then hey ...
There has always been aces in the back pocket of this admin - 4+ years on no further domestic attacks - why? they haven't forgotten about us or given up have they?
Nothing drives them polls or preps for some very important mid-term elections than some "details" on the success on the war on terror at home. Brought to you "forcibly and regretably" (ha ha) by the NYT.
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 09:53 PM (3aakz)
29
actus
Oddly enough - even if I was the sort to agree with you -
I would be telling you the same exact thing (only in a more cynical fashion).
Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 09:56 PM (3aakz)
30
"yes, it does. Because it means this has political oversight, and has had it all along. "
Political oversight? so if congress disagrees with this, they can just pass a law? Of course they would tell their constituents why this law was needed. The whole point of FISA is to have judicial, not political oversight.
Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 10:12 PM (YViDI)
31
>>>"Political oversight? so if congress disagrees with this, they can just pass a law?
ah, yeah, actually. That sounds about right to me. If Congress doesn't like it, they pass a law.
But this isn't about legality, this is about Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 11:07 PM (8e/V4)
32
"ah, yeah, actually. That sounds about right to me. If Congress doesn't like it, they pass a law."
How do they do that while keeping this secret?
Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 01:01 AM (YViDI)
33
actus,
that's the whole point. If Congress doesn't like it, then it's not a secret worth keeping and they can make it illegal. doi!
I guess it's moot now though. Cat's out of the bag. Gee, thanks Libs. You've been a great help so far!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 01:09 AM (8e/V4)
34
"If Congress doesn't like it, then it's not a secret worth keeping and they can make it illegal"
So Congress can leak this information if it doesn't like it?
Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 11:26 AM (YViDI)
35
Ya know this is gonna backfire actus - come on now - admit it!
Posted by: hondo at December 18, 2005 11:31 AM (3aakz)
36
actus,
could you really be that dumb? I doubt it.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 11:39 AM (8e/V4)
37
I just wanted to pop in here and thank all of you for staying on topic.
Wow, those Jedi mind tricks really do work!
Posted by: Vinnie at December 18, 2005 12:26 PM (Kr6/f)
38
You guys are missing the point entirely; rectus wants the terrorists to have every advantage possible so that they can pull off another 9/11 before Bush leaves office, so as to hurt the chances of the GOP in '08. He can whine, snivel, and protest all he wants, but we know that's the truth.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 10:46 AM (0yYS2)
39kb generated in CPU 0.0154, elapsed 0.1343 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1256 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1256 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
