Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 130
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    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.
    I have no reason not to get a warrent. If this did happen, was it done without a warrent?

    I think you hit the nail on the head. It is published in a blog affiliated with a major news outlet. The majority of the people reading will do just as you have done and accept it as a confirmed, factual news article. It has not been verified that anyone is being monitored, someone told someone that they are being monitored and someone put in a blog. Could someone be telling a little white lie? We as the public must do a better job at discerning facts from opinons and assumptions.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #62  
    Same cite as orignial story.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/..._responds.html

    "The impression left by the ABC News report is misleading. In specific cases, after receiving a referral from the Department of Justice, 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. In such cases, investigators may examine the telephone records of government agencies. In any case where the records of a private person are sought, they may only be obtained through established legal process."
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I have no reason not to get a warrent. If this did happen, was it done without a warrent?

    I think you hit the nail on the head. It is published in a blog affiliated with a major news outlet. The majority of the people reading will do just as you have done and accept it as a confirmed, factual news article. It has not been verified that anyone is being monitored, someone told someone that they are being monitored and someone put in a blog. Could someone be telling a little white lie? We as the public must do a better job at discerning facts from opinons and assumptions.
    The fourth amendment says you need a warrant.
    Now tell me again why you don't need one?

    No warrants have been used......"The NSA’s domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA’s efforts to create a national call database."-USA Today May 11, 2006

    You keep making stuff up. In a previous post you talked about 'court ordered' when there was no court order. Now you're saying that nothing has been verified. How do you know this? Stop making stuff up. You are not discerning the facts. You are trying to make things fit into your perspective. It's been my experience that 'discerning' implies analytical perception. You have to look at what you have. What's before you. You seem to be adding your own facts with no probable cause. You know the outcome you want, and you only see things that support it. Or even worse, you add things to make the case.

    http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm
  4.    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    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.
    It was HIS blog.
  5. #65  
    I am not attacking....but, I did find it a little interesting that Da has pointed out to me several times over that a cite I linked to is from a blog, or in spite the facts listed in an article, that it is from the Opinion section of a recognized Newspaper (like NYT) and dismisses it as such. Then when he posted from a Blog in an original post for a new thread, that he did not mention this fact as a frame of reference.

    Generally speaking, I personally think that information from Blogs are interesting and can be often enlightening. They can also be very informative and extremely factual and often times very worthy to link and cite. It also must be taken into account that it very well may not be substantiated and will generally need supporting cites or additional information to bring it fully into perspective....which is often a healthy approach.

    As for my opinion of the subject: I keyed in right away that this was an investigation for potential criminal charges. I would think that this could and probably would be a normal practice in an investigation. There is no mention either way of warrants. I personally think judging by the attitude by the author that if there were not warrants issued, it would have been a HUGE point in his favor and would blasted that point across.

    Is there any evidence at all that the normal and lawful procedures were not followed during this criminal investigation?

    I also find it a little concerning that there was a leak about an investigation about a leak to those who are being investigated about the original leak.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    As for my opinion of the subject: I keyed in right away that this was an investigation for potential criminal charges. I would think that this could and probably would be a normal practice in an investigation. There is no mention either way of warrants. I personally think judging by the attitude by the author that if there were not warrants issued, it would have been a HUGE point in his favor and would blasted that point across.

    Is there any evidence at all that the normal and lawful procedures were not followed during this criminal investigation?

    I also find it a little concerning that there was a leak about an investigation about a leak to those who are being investigated about the original leak.
    Forgive my ignorance, but if the phone company receives a warrant for my records, is anyone obligated to inform me? If they aren't, then you've no information to report either way. And to acknowledge the Blog part, this was not a full investigation report. I got the impression that he found out, and just posted as soon as he found out. He wasn't doing a big story, he was just sharing what he knew.

    One of my point is, that without a warrant, you don't know if anything is being done lawfully. The attorney general has not confirmed that everything is legit here. He has said that "I wouldn't rule it out" as far as everything being legal, but either way, to my knowledge no investigation or ruling has taken place.

    I think we're seeing a lot of leaks because people either don't like what they're doing, or how they're doing it. I'm just guessing.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The fourth amendment says you need a warrant.
    Now tell me again why you don't need one?

    No warrants have been used......"The NSA’s domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA’s efforts to create a national call database."-USA Today May 11, 2006

    You keep making stuff up. In a previous post you talked about 'court ordered' when there was no court order. Now you're saying that nothing has been verified. How do you know this? Stop making stuff up. You are not discerning the facts. You are trying to make things fit into your perspective. It's been my experience that 'discerning' implies analytical perception. You have to look at what you have. What's before you. You seem to be adding your own facts with no probable cause. You know the outcome you want, and you only see things that support it. Or even worse, you add things to make the case.

    http://www.systems-thinking.org/loi/loi.htm
    No, you are trying to turn my question to you into a way out of answering the question. I never said there was a court order, I have asked if there was a court order would a person admit to it in the blog. Here is my quote.

    "Do you think that someone would put up on their blog that they were being placed under court ordered surveilance? "

    Now, you have stated as a fact that no warrents have been used, maybe you have inside information, but my guess is that you are making an assumption. you are correct in saying I do not know "nothing has been verified", but do you not agree that if someone had verification that an illegal activity was conducted it would be on all the major news outlets, not just in one blog.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    No, you are trying to turn my question to you into a way out of answering the question. I never said there was a court order, I have asked if there was a court order would a person admit to it in the blog. Here is my quote.

    "Do you think that someone would put up on their blog that they were being placed under court ordered surveilance? "

    Now, you have stated as a fact that no warrents have been used, maybe you have inside information, but my guess is that you are making an assumption. you are correct in saying I do not know "nothing has been verified", but do you not agree that if someone had verification that an illegal activity was conducted it would be on all the major news outlets, not just in one blog.
    I didn't mean to move your statement out of context. If it's 'court ordered surveilance' you wouldn't know about it would you? Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of surveilance.

    The lack of warrants is a quote from the whitehouse, verified by the attorney general, and posted in USA Today.

    Right now, you can't verify this as illegal activity because the white house has stated that it isn't. Because everything is 'top secret,' you can't present any evidence, you only have suspicion. Unless a whistleblower is willing to testify. If you can't prove that they have your data, you can't sue them to find out if they have your data. IMHO
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    If it's 'court ordered surveilance' you wouldn't know about it would you? Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of surveilance.
    Isn't that what the leak about the leak investigation did?
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I didn't mean to move your statement out of context. If it's 'court ordered surveilance' you wouldn't know about it would you? Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of surveilance.

    The lack of warrants is a quote from the whitehouse, verified by the attorney general, and posted in USA Today.

    Right now, you can't verify this as illegal activity because the white house has stated that it isn't. Because everything is 'top secret,' you can't present any evidence, you only have suspicion. Unless a whistleblower is willing to testify. If you can't prove that they have your data, you can't sue them to find out if they have your data. IMHO
    OK, I understand where you are coming from, however as big of a deal as everyone makes the international surveilance issue (domestic surveilance in the news) I assume that if the reporter felt that this was truly being done without court approval it would be mentioned. This particular incident might be domestic, if so it appears proper channels may have been followed (lack of accusations), or it may be international (no FISA court required). Again, this may very well be somone trying to get a little attention so they make up parts of a stroy to give to a reporter, the reporter knows the credibility is lacking so instead of doing a report for the news he puts the information on a blog.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11.    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am not attacking....but, I did find it a little interesting that Da has pointed out to me several times over that a cite I linked to is from a blog, or in spite the facts listed in an article, that it is from the Opinion section of a recognized Newspaper (like NYT) and dismisses it as such. Then when he posted from a Blog in an original post for a new thread, that he did not mention this fact as a frame of reference.

    Generally speaking, I personally think that information from Blogs are interesting and can be often enlightening. They can also be very informative and extremely factual and often times very worthy to link and cite. It also must be taken into account that it very well may not be substantiated and will generally need supporting cites or additional information to bring it fully into perspective....which is often a healthy approach.

    As for my opinion of the subject: I keyed in right away that this was an investigation for potential criminal charges. I would think that this could and probably would be a normal practice in an investigation. There is no mention either way of warrants. I personally think judging by the attitude by the author that if there were not warrants issued, it would have been a HUGE point in his favor and would blasted that point across.

    Is there any evidence at all that the normal and lawful procedures were not followed during this criminal investigation?

    I also find it a little concerning that there was a leak about an investigation about a leak to those who are being investigated about the original leak.
    If you have read this thread then you will see my statements on the fact that this is from a blog.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    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.
    I answered "It seems to be domestic to domestic", because he was stating that this program was being used to track Al Q, or otherwise overseas. Read his post below

    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    Well the problem is that a lot of people want the Govt. to track and stop terrorism.
    They don't want their family and friends pulverized by another 9-11. That means they don't care if the Govt. gets a court order to tap phones with foreign terrorists. In fact, they expect it. If the feds didn't... we'd hear more cries of "you could have stopped it and didn't- you incompetant ***". Of course, how is the Govt to know that someone in this country is in a terrorist cell and calling al-Q and the like to even get the court order? Well, if NSa or the CIA track who is calling who, not recording what is said, just what number is calling what number, then they can begin to see patterns of foreign calling, and perhaps get the order so they can legally tap the actual conversation.

    I assume these reporters called people overseas... that could be a red flag to at least give their calls attention. It is not that they are reporters, it is that they are anyone calling outside the US. They could be terrorists... how is the fed to know?

    By the way- Al-Jazerra is considered "journalists" and even had a skybox at the Republican Convention, yet their ties to terorism is scary. Could they have snuck a rifle into their studio equipment and snipered the prez? As someone who went in and out of the press area at Madison Square Garden... there was tight security, but I am not convinced a well-crafted plot couldn't have been hatched. Protestors got in with Press ID's.

    The problem with all the alarms going off about privacy is that few give other workable alternatives. If you don't track what numbers are calling what numbers, something even a private company has access to, how do you determine who to track/monitor/whatever? If there was a better way to do it, the Gov't could save lots of manpower, computer power, money, bad publicity, and aggrivation. Any suggestions?
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #73  
    More info from their blog

    FBI Secret Probes: 3,501 Targets in the U.S.

    The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.

    The records were obtained with the use of what are known as National Security Letters, which can be signed by an FBI agent and are only for use in terrorism cases.

    The letters require telephone companies to keep secret even the existence of the request for records.

    Assistant Attorney General William Moschella told Congress last month that 9,254 National Security Letters were issued in 2005 involving 3,501 people.

    Federal law enforcement sources say the National Security Letters are being used to obtain phone records of reporters at ABC News and elsewhere in an attempt to learn confidential sources who may have provided classified information in violation of the law.

    The FBI says its request for reporters' phone records are made in compliance with the law.
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...mericans_.html
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If you have read this thread then you will see my statements on the fact that this is from a blog.
    I did. It was just an observation of the initial post setting the tone for the thread. Nothing more.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    OK, I understand where you are coming from, however as big of a deal as everyone makes the international surveilance issue (domestic surveilance in the news) I assume that if the reporter felt that this was truly being done without court approval it would be mentioned. This particular incident might be domestic, if so it appears proper channels may have been followed (lack of accusations), or it may be international (no FISA court required). Again, this may very well be somone trying to get a little attention so they make up parts of a stroy to give to a reporter, the reporter knows the credibility is lacking so instead of doing a report for the news he puts the information on a blog.
    The story has been posted as a full news story.
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=127548

    I can't subscribe to the "attention" theory. Brian Ross has been around for quite some time. He has 9 Emmys, and 4 Peabody awards. I don't see any facts to support your theory.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    More info from their blog

    FBI Secret Probes: 3,501 Targets in the U.S.

    The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight.
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...mericans_.html
    Counting the days until a lawsuit challenges the Patriot act as unconstitutional.
    I was never for the Patriot Act, I'm sure most citizens have no idea of what was given up when that was passed. I'm all for getting the data that's needed. I just want approval from folks focused on preserving the constitution.

    Also, did they want the ABC guy's phone records to catch terrorist as the Patriot Act intended?
  17. #77  
    I have seen several posts about what you think we should not do, so what new or other ways do you have in mind that will provide the same results?
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I have seen several posts about what you think we should not do, so what new or other ways do you have in mind that will provide the same results?
    First I would ask, what results are you getting?
    Gotta know what I'm shooting for! :-)
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The story has been posted as a full news story.
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=127548

    I can't subscribe to the "attention" theory. Brian Ross has been around for quite some time. He has 9 Emmys, and 4 Peabody awards. I don't see any facts to support your theory.
    Sorry, I reread my earlier post, should have been a little more clear. I was pointing to the person who told Brian that you are being watched, better buy a new phone as the person who wanted attention.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    First I would ask, what results are you getting?
    Gotta know what I'm shooting for! :-)
    I am at work and do not have time to cite, but there are numerous terrorist attacks on our home soil that have been foiled. What let me to look for the 700 AQ story in England (that I posted on the other wiretapping thread) is that I heard yesterday on Satellite Radio....on MSNBC maybe?....that the Brits detected the 700 very active AQ members in their country by wiretapping.

    I am personally for wiretapping. I am also for having an effective procedure to allow for immediate wiretapping with accountability. For example (from what I have pulled from what I have read) I do believe that Bush is probably right, legally, when he said he did not need a warrant when conducting the international survalience.....but because it may have been legal doesn't mean it was the best choice. I think that the freedom to respond immediately to intel with limited time frame to it's importance. But then follow up with a warrant within 24 or 48 hours with an application for a warrant.

    For example if they had intel that an AQ had a conference call in 6 minutes, there is no time to get a warrant first. They should be able to wiretap that communication. Then file for warrant for accountability and tracking.

    The challenge is how do you protect a diverse nationality population of hundreds of millions with possibly thousands of terrorists making plans in their mists without some form of surveillance?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/17/2006 at 12:49 PM.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions