Slashdot Mirror
Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks
jackbird writes "Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks. Apparently reporters for the New York Times, ABC News, and the Washington Post are being scrutinized. The fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become."
Send all these freedom-hating reporters who seek the so-called "truth" to Gitmo!
Trolling is a art,
Yes, because punishing whistleblowers that uncover massive corruption in the government is good for all of us.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.
Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
[searing sarcasm]
If leakers are allowed to reveal to reporters how incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest our leaders are, the terrorists have won.
[/searing sarcasm]
So you'd rather that Watergate never happened because Deep Throat was thrown in jail?
Trolling is a art,
Looks like the commies are going to get owned.
Every time the New York Times or the Washington Post leaks about some secret program that is used in the war on terror, therefor invalidating it, I wonder to myself if they will take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.
God Forbid the terrorists be blamed for the attacks. Much better to use the fear of terrorism to fight against whatever political beliefs you disagree with, right?
Man, they've sure taught you well haven't they...
Looks like the commies are going to get owned.
Yeah, because media that's critical of the government is a cornerstone of communist regimes.
Lives aren't at stake. The reporters aren't giving out troop movement and defence plans. They're reporting about things like highly illegal wire tapping and domestic surveilance. THis is a heavy handed attempt by the administration to scare whistle blowers out of telling the American people things they need to know. We have laws to protect these people for a reason, the US goverment is flaunting them.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
That was the first line of the first college lecture I ever had. Although the absolute veracity of the statement is likely untrue, the blunt assertion was given to make one point: Give up your rights, have more "security".
The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening.
The United States is truly starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in so many ways. The Soviets had official state media; we have totally co-opted media outlets. The Soviets had strong controls on copy machines; we have DRM'd/watermarked copy machines (and output devices). The Soviets had one party rule; we have outright one party rule right now, which stemmed from effective one-party rule of the past (seems that the Democratic-Republican party has split, and one side came out on top). The Soviets had no expectation of privacy... and soon, neither will we.
The big difference is that the Soviets used an iron fist, as opposed to the USA's velvet glove, to smother freedom. The net result is the same.
There is not reply to this other than 'we don't think the president would do this'
Well... "conservatives"... this wasn't the point of founding this country What about the next president, or the one after that... still trust them?
The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.
If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.
Exactly.. when you have a warrant or subpoena. Neither of which they have now.
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records. Nothing new or sensational to see here, move along.
Subpeona? Search warrant? Crime or no crime, this article makes no mention of those. Have you been reading the news lately?
It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.
Somehow, I doubt the administration bothered with technicalities like "warrants".
I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list?
The primary issue with all of this news regarding government snooping is oversight. Don't give me this "we're at war," "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" crap. We should have a goverment of checks and balances, which were designed to limit the (almost invariably corrupting) concentration of political power. What happens when the Administration alone gets to decide what constitutes what is "wrong?"
I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:
The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering.
I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.
Makes you wonder, eh?That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents
If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good
If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal
Boy, I never saw this one coming. The government using their phone number records to investigate things that aren't related to terrorists. I sure thought they were going to stick to protecting us from terrorists with this data.
I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is about as good as tapping phones. Anyone who sees it differently has WAY too much trust of the U.S. government.
And I know that they'll argue that these leaks somehow put us in danger of a terrorist attack. I mean, if the subject had been something as mundane as outting a CIA operative, then of course, they'd be sure to overlook it, particularly if the leak came out of the offices of the President and Vice President.
It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
We can blame Bush and his administration, but when it comes down to it, they're not to blame. Because we know what they're doing and we're not kicking their asses out on the street.
I mean, he only spied on ONE HOTEL ROOM.
How awfully nice to have the technology to spy on everyone in the country at once, and sufficiently rabid supporters to shout down anyone who questions the practice.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
You are right, because the government will be completely trustworthy and will only abuse the power to tap reporter's phones when it's a matter of National Security. And we can use all those other cases where the government didn't lie to us as evidence of how trustworthy and wonderful they really and truly are.
Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Can you not understand that well-paid, highly-cleared NSA employees do not scuttle their careers without good reason? The people doing the leaking are being asked to do something really evil, and they are not happy about it.
They're also taking a good-sized risk of winding up in an unmarked jail cell, or grave.
They're good people, they are saying "this is out of control and the citizenry must not take it any more".
Sorry, but when neither is doing their job and people are being tortured and possibly killed without fair trial, it's time to start leaking to the press. That's the bottom line, and you don't get to hide behind "classified information" when you do something that unethical. Period.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Selective enforcement of the law is one of the hallmarks of corruption.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Oh yeah. Lots of lives at stake... Let's review the biggest intelligence "leaks" of the last few years:
* The CIA running secret prisons in East Europe
* The NSA's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens without oversight
* The CIA secretly extraditing terror suspects (even from non-US nations) to countries which often use torture, such as Egypt and Afghanistan
I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks. In fact, they seem like perfectly normal whistle-blowing on a Govenment which is grossly overstepping the bounds of the power granted to it, and avoiding the Congressional checks and balances which exist.
But there's one more leak:
* The exposure of Valerie Plame and an entire CIA front company. Now there we have a leak which actually had the potential to endanger lives. But wait.. who was behind that leak? The White House themselves. - And for what? Petty revenge on a critic.
So we've got an administration here who themselves leak classified intel when convenient to them, who harshly persue those whistleblowers who leak anything which might be damaging to the Administration. An administration who misconstrued, misrepresented, and outright lied about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.
And now you expect me to believe that this same Administration, in their quest to find out who's talking to who, is not interested in finding whistleblowers and critics, but rather acting purely out of an interest of protecting national security and saving lives?
Bullshit.
No administration has ever used the intelligence community for partisan poltical gain to the extent that the current one has. None. There are people in the intelligence community, be they Democrats, people critical of these wiretaps, or simply professionals who are pissed off of having their agency's work misused for partisan political goals, and then being the scapegoat once things turn sour. What this bullshit is about is nothing less than an attempt by the administration to purge the agencies of these critics.
It is not about national security. It's not about saving lives. People working in intelligence don't look kindly on that kind of leaks. It is their lives which are at stake. But leaking the fact that they're secretly running prisons - knowledge of that is NOT a threat to national security or lives in the intelligence community.
The only thing that knowledge threatens is the political goals of the Bush administration. If that's what they're going to use the CIA for, then I fully support any CIA employee who does the moral thing and tells the American people what the heck their government is up to behind their backs. Those people are not leakers and traitors. They are heroes and patriots.
The reason we have journalistst and freedom of the press is because we can't trust the government.
Well said, and to the grandparent, I would go a step further.
Even if/when you can trust the gov't, it is your duty as a US Citizen to not trust the government. Try reading the Declaration of Independance sometime. It makes it pretty clear that your obligation as a citizen of this great nation is to defend it against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. Defend the nation, not the government. It is not necessary now (IMO), but may someday become necessary to defend this nation against the government, just as was done in 1776. The media is the fourth estate that guarantees that it is possible for us to know when we must fulfill that duty.
To make it more explicit, while I do not know nor automatically believe that such is the case here, any attempt to prevent the media from fulfilling their role as the fourth estate is every bit as treasonous as trying to short-circuit one of the three branches of government.
If you don't feel you can live up to this obligation, you are not required to stay in this country. Our Founding Fathers had some very big and difficult goals. It is times like these that test our resolve to live up to their ideals.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It amazes me how many of the comments on the ABC News blog say, "the government should put leakers away for life!" and "treasonous journalists should be shot!"
Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.
I get so tired of people running out the old saw about putting people's lives in danger...I'm one of those people...and I signed on to protect and defend the constitution. You either have to be a right-wing nutcase or have your head in the sand not to realize that the current administration is vastly expanding its role in relationship to the other branches.
Bottom line: if guaranteeing the 1st and 4th amendments (free press and unreasonable searches, for those of you who slept through Civics class) means we lose a few good guys, then that's the cost of doing business. Cold, but true.
And, for all the chickenhawks out there who use soldiers as shields for illegal acts-- to quote my favorite actor, "Pick up a rifle and stand a post."
It's about time we recognize who the phone-tappers, surveillance-freaks, torture-defenders, and black-box voting stooges really are:
They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.
They are a national security threat.
So are their defenders.
I'm really not comfortable with simply letting the administration decide which internal leaks are whistleblowers, and which are national security risks. The fact is that anything that threatens the authority of the administration is considered to be a national security risk by that administration.
I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could. No administration is happy to have their corruption or other illegal activities released to the media, but if we allowed the government to do whatever they think is necessary, then we are pretty much guaranteeing that they will do things which are not authorized under the Constitution.
Look, I am a Republican myself, and am very politically active. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, both parties are capable of horrendus corruption when they don't have the media actively trying to keep the public informed. I won't hesitate when stating that I am not comfortable with the activities that Bush has gotten involved in lately, but I am confident that if we allow the public to know as much as is possible about what is going on, it will serve as a check upon his powers. This will also encourage him to think twice before he does something really raw...
Allowing the administration to hide behind the cover of "national security" is very dangerous.
Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the Bush Administration going through phone records to identify who leaked the stories which exposed their program of going through people's phone records?
Slashdot, where you get modded down as redundant for stating an opposing viewpoint... Independent thought anyone?
Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:
But what happened to this rule-follower?
Certainly she didn't just give up did she?
So, following the rules, a translator reports the fact that her supervisor is inept, that there might be compromised agents in the FBI and that some of the materials involved in 9/11 were translated improperly and what happens? She gets fired. She follows the legal option and the Bush administration uses the State Secres Privelage to have her case dismissed entirely.
Seriously, if you were riding on a bus and the driver were drunk, wouldn't you want someone to say something? Or would you rather they wait and call headquarters at the next stop?
Source article [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res200
The part I find incredibly frightening is that it seems so many citizens of this country do see a problem with this. Sure, they are coming for the communists first, but then what? I am afraid of the hysterical masses that are willing to hand over MY rights to the government. I grew up thinking that the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect me and others like me from the wacko majority?
You know, we spend a lot of time teaching our children about the men that founded this country, however flawed personally they were, and the ideals they believed in. Maybe it's time we actually stood by those words.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Quotes from ABC News Blog by members of the public:
"Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!"
"'Bout time you guys are roped in."
"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."
"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know""
"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."
"Well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."
"You didn't inconvenience someone, you broke the law. It's called a criminal investigation!!!!"
"I believe that it is a great idea to maintain telephone surveilance over news organizations who disclose classified and sensitive secret information. Lets nail the government employees who knowingly break their oath to not divulge classified information."
"GOOD! I hope they find out who is reporting all of these leaks. And I hope you are tried and perhaps spend some time in jail for it. KEEP CALLING and I hope they track your every word!"
Ahem.
The article you cite says "De Vries [the CIA-abuse denier] came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture".
Asserting that the EU investigated and found no proof of CIA kidnapping may have a comforting feel of "truthiness" for you, but I'm afraid that reality once again is showing a liberal bias.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Did you even read what you just wrote? Read it again. Here, I'll point out the problem:
My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing
Which was followed by:
If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide?
Why in the hell would someone openly try to be punished for doing the right thing from those who are doing wrong or evil? Have you ever heard of the Witness Protection Program? Why do you think they hide witnesses?
Guess people shouldn't expect someone with a sig of "666" to understand right from wrong or complex subjects like morality.
"Who decides what is a damaging secret, for that matter?"
There's a standing rule in the military that you don't carry out illegal orders from your commanding officer. No Western military tribunal will accept the excuse "I was just following orders." This is because morality can't be put down in a book as a list of numbered, sanctioned rules - we would always miss at least one (and more likely miss thousands).
Soldiers are not expected to be machines, contrary to popular belief; they have to morally evaluate the orders they are given, because it is their responsibility to stand up and say "NO!" if they are given an illegal order (like "Ok, let's take some embarassing pictures of some of our prisoners over there. Say cheese!").
Every American citizen has the same responsibility, ESPECIALLY those with security clearances. It is often only they that will ever be aware of abuses being carried out by our government. There are no hard and fast rules for recognizing unethical or immoral behavior; it is up to us, as moral, thinking beings, to figure it out.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.
I agree with part of your statement: It's high time this administration be brought to justice.
Which of the following leaks have put exposed field agents and put them at potential risk?
1) Secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe
2) Warrantless taps on calls going into and out of the US by the NSA
3) Database of American call records assembled by the NSA
4) Monitoring of reporters phone calls by as yet unnamed federal agency
5) Identifying CIA case officer to scare a whistle blower
So far, Novak is the only "journalist" who has put anyone in potential danger, and we know the leak came out of the Vice President's office.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I will tell you what their line will be: Our domestic programs are to protect us against terrorism, and any compromising of that program exposes us to and increased terror risk. Therefore, any leak inside the government is a threat to the anti-terror efforts.
IMNSHO, this is one of the scariest things that has happened in the US in my lifetime.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
You first.
Here's a fantasy: There was a substantive threat to the United States in Iraq.
Here's another: There was anybody in Iraq that had anything to do with your craters, either directly or indirectly.
Here's yet another: Iraq's WMD program was far enough advanced to represent a clear and present danger to the United States, either from Iraq itself or from nuclear-weapon-wielding terrorists.
Here's a new one: Iran's nuclear ambitions represent enough of a substantive threat to the United States to necessitate military action.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
Even better, some say Bush may simply carry fowards into a "permanent second term".
The fact is that when Gonzales told us that the NSA only listens to international calls he didn't take an oath, and that he later rescinded or re-qualified much of his testimony, in particular making the point that although one particlar intelligence program involved listening to international calls, a certain gigantic multi-billion dollar signals-intelligence agency might actually be running more than one signals-gathering program. (Like, whoa, seriously?)
To attach the name "fact" to information obtained under such circumstances is, I think, very, very optimistic, in a sense.
The fact is that Bush has told us bald-faced lies about domestic spying activities, and at this point it would require a hearty steaming ladle-full of naivete to imagine that the general public now knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The fact is that the Bush administration has aptly demonstrated that it simply cannot be trusted, and the sorry fact is that we can be certain of precious little beyond that.
The fact is, recognizing these facts does not constitute "fanaticism." I believe there's a saying down in Texas: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
This latest thing just goddamned fucking SCARES me. The government tracing the phone calls of journalists to track down their sources, sources of stories that reveal questionable and possibly illegal government actions... damn. Just fucking DAMN. In America. Not some tin pot south american dictatorship, not in the USSR, but right here in the US.
It's proper to be enraged when others are being made the targets unfairly... but now WE'RE the targets.
I feel like hanging black crepe - I'm in mourning for my country.
This space available.
I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.
At the same time, don't assume that I have no experience with this - I lived three blocks north of the WTC that day. I've had relatives die in the towers. I was evacuated. I'll probably suffer from some exotic respiratory illness in the future, thanks to the EPA's lies. I think that I can safely say that I've had my life touched by terrorism. I only mention it because you infer that somehow being a victim makes your arguement more relevant. It doesn't.
That being said: We live in a country where roughly 20,000 citizens are murdered, mostly by their fellow citizens, yearly. I'm sure that I can come up with many other salient figures, but let's stay with good old murder. So, 20k died in 2001, and every year since then. 100k dead because of the murderers.
Imagine if Bush had declared a War on Murder. We're going to do the following:
* Spend a trillion dollars, to rebuild lots and lots of stuff in major cities.
* Monitor the phones of all Americans. Without warrants.
* Have forced, unpaid overtime for all law-enforcement officials. Oh, and they cannot retire, either.
* Have private security forces, on the government payroll, also doing stuff. Except that they're unaccountable to anyone, so they do a lot of bad stuff.
* Put "known murderer associates" in prison, no trial, no representation.
* Torture said "known murderer associates" for information regarding the murderers.
This is a pretty direct analogy.
But, remember - we're going to end murder, right? We're going to Win the War on Murder! Mission Accomplished!
Yeah. Americans would never, ever allow this. It'd never happen. *You* probably wouldn't want it to happen.
Of course, the average American is much more likely to be murdered "normally" than as a result of terrorism. Hell, they're much more likely to be killed by their husband, wife, parent, friend, lover, neighbor - really, anyone BESIDES a "terrorist". So, what rights should we give up to stop these killers?
Please don't tell me about substantive threats. There are many threats to the safety and security of American citizens, but terrorism doesn't merit the supposed cure that this administration wants to foist on the people.
jh
Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.
There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.
Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).
For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.
I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.
How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?
I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da
Obliteracy: Words with explosions