Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 130
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    are you saying that it would be alright with you if one of purposes for which they are using this massive collection of information on us, would be to investigate leaks to the media ??

    Wasn't this only supposed to be used to protect us from the next Bin Laden terrorist attack ??

    Would it next be ok for them to use this database to determine my secret location, to track me down ?? (rhetorical question -- no need to answer it...)
    Back to the blog entry that was posted please. This blog simply states that the individual was told they were being monitored. If there is a court approved monitoring of the individuals phone transaction do you think the gov't should send them an e-mail informing them they are under surveilance?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Way to go dat, cite a blog and ignore the most important statement in it!

    "The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

    You betcha. Cause it's oh so difficult to click on a link and read the article.

  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    After the Valarie Plain / Joe Wilson debacle, it's obvious that whistle blowing laws don't
    help. Years after the outing of Valarie, no one has been punished except for her and Joe. I would think, you'd be in mega-trouble with this because they would just say that by coming forward, you jeopardized national security. Then they'd find all types of trivial laws to find you in violation of.
    You do realize Fitzgerald is still investigating this?
  4. #44  
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ??? People in US calling Al-Q is domestic to domestic, when did we annex the Afghan provinces or Syria or Pakistan?
    This story has nothing to do with that.
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If there is a court approved monitoring of the individuals phone transaction do you think the gov't should send them an e-mail informing them they are under surveilance?
    EXACTLY! Given this administration's (it's Poindexter) statements that they do not need to go through courts, what makes you think anyone did in this instance?

    Edited to add, (from the CSM article provided by aprasad) ""ABC News explained that a National Security Letter (NSL) is "a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Do you think that someone would put up on their blog that they were being placed under court ordered surveilance? This information is on a blog, the indiviudals want to look like victims not possible criminals.
    Why did you add "court ordered?" I didn't see that in the blog.
    My apologies if I missed it. One of my points has been that I haven't seen court approval for any surveilance or personal information collection.

    It's a news story from ABC, what difference does the outlet make?
    Was Lewis Libby's information less credulous when he leaked it rather than it being stated in a standard press briefing?
  8. #48  
    The sheeple are angry because the media told them to be, liberals tend to have a pre-dispostion to being able to be programmed by the media. Tracking calls made makes sense, issue is, it's likely Al-Queda and the other terrorist whores may be using encrypted VOIP or other means of communication.

    I'm all for it, and if it happens to anger a few liberal/communist reporters who inaccurately escalate the issue, well, that just puts a smile on my face.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You do realize Fitzgerald is still investigating this?
    I'm hopefull that some prosecutions come out of this. Not because I'm hateful of the administration, but because there seems to be a legacy of truth-manipulation, and illegal activity. People are dying, careers are being impacted, and the public believes in their government less and less.

    However I am not optimistic about charges coming up as part of the goal of the investigation. That is to say, that it looks like the white house leaked Valarie's name, and they can de-classify information. Therefore, there was no crime. At least that's the impression that my humble mind has currently.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I'm hopefull that some prosecutions come out of this. Not because I'm hateful of the administration, but because there seems to be a legacy of truth-manipulation, and illegal activity. People are dying, careers are being impacted, and the public believes in their government less and less.

    However I am not optimistic about charges coming up as part of the goal of the investigation. That is to say, that it looks like the white house leaked Valarie's name, and they can de-classify information. Therefore, there was no crime. At least that's the impression that my humble mind has currently.
    However, the identity of an operative cannot be "de-classified" by the admin as it would endanger prior contacts. Just because it's not in the news does not mean it's not still being investigated. Although it was in the news Fri regarding Cheney's hand written notes in the margin of the actual Wilson editorial.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by cesium1024
    The sheeple are angry because the media told them to be, liberals tend to have a pre-dispostion to being able to be programmed by the media. Tracking calls made makes sense, issue is, it's likely Al-Queda and the other terrorist whores may be using encrypted VOIP or other means of communication.

    I'm all for it, and if it happens to anger a few liberal/communist reporters who inaccurately escalate the issue, well, that just puts a smile on my face.
    Did you even read the article? Do you know what you're commenting on?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by cesium1024
    The sheeple are angry because the media told them to be, liberals tend to have a pre-dispostion to being able to be programmed by the media. Tracking calls made makes sense, issue is, it's likely Al-Queda and the other terrorist whores may be using encrypted VOIP or other means of communication.

    I'm all for it, and if it happens to anger a few liberal/communist reporters who inaccurately escalate the issue, well, that just puts a smile on my face.
    Yeah, it's funny how no one thought that labeling people as communist without evidence was bad until Edward R. Murrow came along. And everyone thought the Clinton/Lewinski thing was okay until Matt Drudge showed them the light. Heck, until Walter Conkrite said it, everyone was for Viet Nam! Right? Yes, thank goodness the media tells us what to be upset over.

    I'm still waiting to hear a logical argument as to why there can't be court orders for all of this intelligence gathering on U.S. citizens? No one is arguing that calls to terrorists shouldn't be tracked. With your perspective, it sounds like you think it was right for the FBI to run a file on Martin Luther King?
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Although it was in the news Fri regarding Cheney's hand written notes in the margin of the actual Wilson editorial.
    Yeah, I saw that. Very reminiscent of Nixon.
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    This story has nothing to do with that.
    I know, that is why I put those ??? in front of my reply. One poster asked how to track someone call Al-Q and another replied that it was domestic to domestic.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Why did you add "court ordered?" I didn't see that in the blog.
    My apologies if I missed it. One of my points has been that I haven't seen court approval for any surveilance or personal information collection.

    It's a news story from ABC, what difference does the outlet make?
    Was Lewis Libby's information less credulous when he leaked it rather than it being stated in a standard press briefing?
    My point was that an individual would not put in any information in their blog about them being under approved court ordered surveilance if they were trying to look like a victim.

    It is not a news story from ABC. It is a BLOG entry on the ABC website. You have made my point for me. You have now credited this blog entry as a news story from ABC.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    My point was that an individual would not put in any information in their blog about them being under approved court ordered surveilance if they were trying to look like a victim.

    It is not a news story from ABC. It is a BLOG entry on the ABC website. You have made my point for me. You have now credited this blog entry as a news story from ABC.
    Following the definition of news, how is it not? Since coming out, I've heard it on television and radio news. So is it still not news? The items on the front of ABC's website are in a portal. So are portals legit containers and blogs are not?

    I see your point, I will just add to it that however we learn of this information doesn't detract from the information stated in the post. My thoughts are that your point is a distraction to the story, rhetoric, or whatever you choose to call it. The point would be, that a source shared this information with a reporter. For what purpose this information was shared is non sequitur. Most information we receive has a slant. Some serve purposes that we don't even think about. My interest in the story concern's the government gathering private information on citizens without a warrant. Care to take a crack at what the harm in obtaining a warrant is?
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Following the definition of news, how is it not? Since coming out, I've heard it on television and radio news. So is it still not news? The items on the front of ABC's website are in a portal. So are portals legit containers and blogs are not?

    I see your point, I will just add to it that however we learn of this information doesn't detract from the information stated in the post. My thoughts are that your point is a distraction to the story, rhetoric, or whatever you choose to call it. The point would be, that a source shared this information with a reporter. For what purpose this information was shared is non sequitur. Most information we receive has a slant. Some serve purposes that we don't even think about. My interest in the story concern's the government gathering private information on citizens without a warrant. Care to take a crack at what the harm in obtaining a warrant is?
    Why would a reporter put this big story in a blog? Every major media has on-line editions for real news articles, there was an avenue to use if it was legit. I still think an individual wanted some attention, nothing has been proven, verified or confirmed of his original blog.
    Has anyone made a claim that if they are being monitored it is without a warrent? If that was the case I am pretty confident it would have been included in the blog.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why would a reporter put this big story in a blog? Every major media has on-line editions for real news articles, there was an avenue to use if it was legit. I still think an individual wanted some attention, nothing has been proven, verified or confirmed of his original blog.
    Has anyone made a claim that if they are being monitored it is without a warrent? If that was the case I am pretty confident it would have been included in the blog.
    I doubt the lead investigative reporter for a national news outlet would post that "just for some attention". Which BTW makes no sense. What do you mean by an "individual wanted some attention"?
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why would a reporter put this big story in a blog? Every major media has on-line editions for real news articles, there was an avenue to use if it was legit. I still think an individual wanted some attention, nothing has been proven, verified or confirmed of his original blog.
    Has anyone made a claim that if they are being monitored it is without a warrent? If that was the case I am pretty confident it would have been included in the blog.
    At this point I'm going to believe that you can't think of a reason not to get a warrant to gather private data on a U.S. citizen.


    I don't know why it's in a blog. Neither do you. But it is published on a moderated form of ABC media. I generally draw conclusions by the information before me. I have no information that lends me to believe that this story is a fabrication. Yes I could speculate about the motivation, but that doesn't detract from the point of citizens being monitored.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I doubt the lead investigative reporter for a national news outlet would post that "just for some attention". Which BTW makes no sense. What do you mean by an "individual wanted some attention"?
    Just trying to figure out why this investigative reporter had to rely on a blog to get this information out to the world? Makes absolutely no sense to me as to why he used a blog if the story was credible. I am not saying someone did not tell him this, but maybe the person who told him was also trying to sell National Guard paperwork to them.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions