|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2005 : 13:39:37
|
Here's an add they are putting out:
Any way you cut it, '06 is going to be a rackety year. I look forward to it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 12/30/2005 : 14:35:45 [Permalink]
|
When do we get a reporter to ask the real question here...Who was it being surveilled that couldn't be revealed to a FISA judge?
The Bush admin has claimed they needed to hurry, that was debunked given they had 3 days after the spying to get a warrant.
The admin then claimed the people being spied on changed phones so fast it was too much work to keep up with the warrant requests. Say what? And no reporter called them on this obvious BS?
Pisses me off we aren't demanding the answers here. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 14:36:19 [Permalink]
|
Hey thanks, filthy.
I saw a little blurb about the ACLU on FAUXNews within the past couple days. I don't normally watch that propaganda mudpot, but it's between some other channels I do look at, so I see flashes of their sputum when clicking around. Anyway, I don't recall the details, but the gist of the mention of the ACLU was this: Some ex-employee or ex-affiliate of the ACLU, a lawyer I think it was, is badmouthing that organization for some reason or other. I wasn't paying much attention, and clicked past it in pretty short order, so I didn't catch the details.
I actually couldn't quite figure out why FAUXNews felt a need to drag the ACLU's name into the manure pile (other than the general approach of the ACLU towards preserving freedom, intelligence, and sanity in this land of ours, vs. the FAUXNews's continuous effort to destroy those characteristics). Now that you mention this well assembled ad, it all starts to come together. I bet that's what it was all about.quote:
Originally posted by filthy...
Any way you cut it, '06 is going to be a rackety year. I look forward to it.
You're so right. There's bound to be some good fun and good racketiness(?) in the months ahead.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 16:13:46 [Permalink]
|
Well, the Bush administration has already responded to the accusations of domestic spying by launching an investigation into who leaked the story.
quote:
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and Bush was informed of it Friday.
"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays
quote:
"It's pretty stunning that, rather than focus on whether the president broke his oath of office and broke federal law, they are going after the whistleblowers," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/30/2005 16:15:51 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 16:15:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal...
When do we get a reporter to ask the real question here...Who was it being surveilled that couldn't be revealed to a FISA judge?
[...]
Pisses me off we aren't demanding the answers here.
Pisses me off, too. And it should piss us all off that the media consider it more important to report on the fact that there was a leak rather than on the contents of the leak. Who let out this information that George W. Bush was committing these crimes? Excuse me. It was some hero, a patriot to the highest degree. His/her identity should be of no particular concern. After all, I can call my local "Crimestoppers" organization to anonymously report a crime. That makes me one of the good-guys, not the subject of an investigation.
You'll notice in the Reuters article linked below, the investigation into the disclosure was announced by "a Justice Department official [...] on condition of anonymity". Ball-less government officials abound. I'm pretty much of the opinion that public announcements made by unnamed government officials should be simply disregarded by the public.quote:
US Probes Eavesdropping Leak...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is investigating who disclosed a secret domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, officials said on Friday.
"We are opening an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials related to the NSA," a Justice Department official said on condition of anonymity.
Earlier this month, Bush acknowledged the program and called its disclosure to The New York Times "a shameful act." He said he presumed the Justice Department would investigate who leaked the National Security Agency eavesdropping operation to the newspaper.
Edited to add the following -
Here's a sort of legal analysis and commentary on the situation written by John W. Dean, possibly best known as Richard Nixon's lawyer during the Watergate scandal. He probably has as good a handle on the ins and outs of wiretapping and impeachment as anyone in the business.quote:
George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably...
Given the national security implications of the story, the [New York] Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.
Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.
|
| Edited by - GeeMack on 12/30/2005 17:59:17 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2005 : 18:45:18 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and just in case you thought maybe you weren't one of the victims of George W. Bush's criminal domestic spying activities, you might want to double check some of the cookies picked up by your computer while you browse the web. Yes, if you go to certain US Government websites, they'll drop a cookie in your computer, in direct violation of a ban instituted in 2000. And the cookies don't expire until 2035. The NSA has recently been busted, again, neglecting the ban. And their response? "Oh, we're so sorry."quote:
US Intelligence Service Bugged Website Visitors Despite Ban...
The intelligence service at the centre of the row over eavesdropping tracked visitors to its website, despite US government regulations. Monitoring files, known as "cookies", were discovered by a privacy activist at a time when the White House is on the defensive about its use of the National Security Agency to monitor the communications of US citizens.
Although the cookies were dismantled this week and the NSA issued an apology on Wednesday, the episode will add to pressure on the White House to engage in a national debate about its use of the agency, and its interpretation of the constitutional limits on George Bush's presidential powers.
[...]
While the use of cookies is seen as a convenience at commercial websites, allowing a visitor access without laboriously retyping passwords, their utility for government websites - which do not typically have repeat visits - is uncertain.
US government agencies have been barred from using persistent cookies since 2000 because of privacy concerns. The regulations were imposed after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had been using cookies to monitor visitors to its anti-drug advertisements.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2005 : 15:59:38 [Permalink]
|
So do you suppose the illegal wiretaps were of reporter's communications? Member's of Congress?
Who in Bush's propaganda machine would be the likely targets?
We know they've added politically damaging leaks to the list of reasons to investigate. That's a no brainer. I think the likely candidates are the reporters who have been getting politically damaging news tips like torture by the CIA in Poland. Bush already said he wanted to find that leaker. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2006 : 16:36:21 [Permalink]
|
"the media," members of the corperate down-sized news gathering organizations, that is those not completely cowed by the threat of losing their jobs, and incomes, did ask the commander-in-chief, King Shrub, if he actually had the legal authority to conduct such "wiretaps" without a court ordered warrent. He answered, "Absolutely!" Sure clears that up, don't it..? Thank god almighty, we live in a nation of laws..!  |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
