Similar to the Lodi case, where some poor schmuck was railroaded by the FBI. If he had been left alone, he'd never have done anything, but the FBI informant basically cajoled and incited him.
A Lodi, Calif., man convicted of supporting terrorism for attending an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan three years ago. His father pleaded guilty to charges of lying to customs agents about smuggling money to finance the terrorist training.
Right. And most of their "plans" were at the instigation of the FBI informer.
The FBI learned of the plot from someone the defendants tried to recruit, authorities said. The FBI then arranged for an informant of Arabic descent to pass himself off as an al-Qaida operative.
Batiste met several times in December with the informant and asked for supplies and $50,000 to help him build an "Islamic Army," the indictment said.
Officials described the group as a distinct threat to national security and, at the same time, as something akin to the gang that couldn't think straight.
For the most part, authorities framed the case as one against a "homegrown cell" of terrorists and said the seven could have inflicted great harm.
According to the indictment, Batiste, 32, called his men "soldiers" in an "Islamic Army" that would wage a "full ground war."
He said he wanted to "kill all the devils that we can," officials said, and that he wanted most of his group to attend al-Qaida training.
Their intent was clear, even if they were incompetent.
All they are uncovering are gullible people that can be convinced to do or say stupid things by a paid informant.
Nonsense. There are more than enough volunteerjihadis in the US. You've basically got it all wrong.
SWAT: You are surrounded. Do not attempt to make fun of the president or you will be shot! Middle Eastern Guy: WTF? *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
I'll break it to you gently... people make fun of President Bush every day, it's not a crime in the United States. It won't get you arrested or shot unless you pair it with some other blindingly stupid activity (run at the police waving a handgun while telling anti-Bush knock knock jokes) or make a statement that could be considered an actual threat against the President. In that case, you might have a visit and a chat with someone, but you won't be executed. Now, if you don't believe that telling jokes about the President is fine, just take a look at the TV. President Bush is constantly used as the butt of jokes, but Leno/Letterman/Stewart/etc. aren't broadcasting from undisclosed or hidden locations, are they? Making a joke about the President doesn't make you a hero, victim, or target. (BTW - You do realize the Muslims can be any race, from any place on the globe, right?) Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
What will get you into trouble is plotting to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens. In that case, telling jokes is irrelevant, the problem is the plot or attempt to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens.
If this had been a real incident the gun powerder residue on the suspect would have revealed it as a very close range shooting. That would have raised all sorts of questions, like "So, why did the two of you shoot him from three feet instead of tackling him, using a baton, or pepper spray? Or were you running after him shoulder to shoulder and shooting on the run?" I think there are other problems with it as well, at least as despicted.
It is a big, wide world out there and just about anything can happen, but I doubt this one unless there is more to it than you (or your friend?) are telling.
The Clipper Chip was proposed by the Clinton administration.
The key word being proposed, not mandated.
They really want to listen in.
Not quite. It is more accurate to say that some parts of the government (law enforcement, intelligence) want to be able to obtain the means to listen, if necessary, for law enforcement or national security reasons. My recollect was that it was not a unanimous view in government.
At the end of the day, though, that proposal never went anywhere, which is the key issue. Other means of encryption existed and were used then and now.
That said, the NSA has never been that legal, from a constitutional view, but noone is willing to challenge their existance...
You're confused about both the NSA and the Constitution. The NSA's primary purpose is signals intelligence of foreign governments and their agents (some of whom may be US citizens). Foreign governments aren't entitled to the rights of a US citizen. Spying on foreign spies is fine too, even if they are US citizens.
But now we just let them spy on us, arrest us without warrants, ship American citizens off to foreign prisons to be tortured for years without any formal charges, and turn the Constitution into confetti for their personal profit.
No, we let them spy on the likes of Al Qaeda members and their supporters.
The Constitution is quite whole, you just apparently don't really understand it. Or maybe you simply don't approve of the powers of the various branches of government, especially the Executive branch in time of war.
...and other tricks used by those who wish America to live in Fear.
I think it is quite revealing that you seem to believe that it is the government that wants to repress Americans and cause them to live in fear, and not the ones actually plotting to kill 4,000,000 Americans, namely Al Qaeda. Fear the sheriff, not the rattlesnake, eh?
There are procedures for genuine whistle blowers to follow, like going to Inspector Generals or Congress. That isn't what has been happening. What has been happening is politically motivated leaks of classified information in an attempt to damage the administration.
Not really, no. The US government has generally been OK with encryption, more or less. Historically they just wouldn't allow you to export strong encryption to most places, or any at all to a few special nations (North Korea, Cuba, etc.). That is by no means necessarily the case in other countries, including European ones.
AP) Police in seven European countries struck Tuesday at a sophisticated child abuse and pornography ring dubbed "Shadowz Brotherhood," arresting 50 people and seizing computer equipment, CD-ROMs and videos, authorities said.
Police described the images created and distributed by the group as some of the most shocking they had ever seen. Members of the ring allegedly broadcast live pictures of abuse on the Internet and posted images of children, including babies, being sexually abused and tortured.
"In terms of the kind of material they are posting and allowing access to, it's the worst group I have ever encountered," said Detective Chief Supt. Len Hynds of Britain's National High-tech Crime Unit, which coordinated a yearlong investigation with the European police organization Europol.
I wouldn't suggest you go looking for it.
This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children.
If you really believe that, your values put you in a very tiny minority, and near some very unsavory people.
Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world.
This guy had hundreds of pictures, which means hundreds of victims:
TALLAHASSEE - Attorney General Charlie Crist today announced the arrest of a Clay County convicted sex offender for violating his probation. Authorities arrested Robert Reed, a registered sex offender since 1999, after receiving a tip that he had child pornography on his computer and was distributing it over the internet. The case will be prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office of Statewide Prosecution.
A joint investigation by the Attorney General's CyberCrime Unit, the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force and the Florida Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Services revealed that Reed, 26, placed pornographic videos on the internet and made them available to others online. A search of Reed's computer was conducted, unearthing hundreds of images of child pornography. Reed was arrested by officers with Probation and Parole Services.
Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will
If you are worried about dying....stop eating fat burgers and leave MY freedom alone.
Oddly enough, it in no way surprises me that you seem to think that the only reason somebody might oppose terrorism in general is that they are afraid of personally dying. (Terrorism, it's not bad... unless it effects me, eh?) By the way,...exactly which freedoms that our Constitution guarantees do you think are being threatened?
As to terrorism vs heart attacks et.al., most people recognize the difference between the natural course of life, or the consequences of life style choices, and deliberate attacks by others. Individual Americans are free to live as they choose, and to take all manner of effective precautions against accidents or disease by themselves. That isn't really true about terrorist attacks. The only reason that there aren't more deaths and economic disruption from terrorism is that the US government actually takes steps to prevent it. Absent that, there would have been plenty more.
Just so we could get past the vague, liar thing, could you be more specific? Exactly what actual liberties do you think people are trying to take from you? Voting? Free speech? Free association? Freedom of religion? Any suggestion of quartering troops in your house?
As to the terrorism thing, the news there seems to be rather concrete, even if not well known, and at times disturbing. There is nothing vague about this at all.
The omission of those key qualifiers--"essential" and "little"-- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.
These pseudo "civil libertarians" love to quote the venerable Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday we celebrate this year) who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But they quote him entirely out of context.
First, his statement appears in his "Historical Review of Pennsylvania," published in 1759 (not available on line), a decade and a half before the Revolutionary War broke out. He was warning that state's legislature against putting too much trust in royal governors during the French and Indian War. True, it was often quoted later, but the purpose was to criticize those who sought safety from occupying British armies, not those who cooperated with Patriot measures to secure everyone's liberties by winning the war!
The Continental Congress regularly received quantities of intercepted British and Tory mail. On November 20, 1775, it received some intercepted letters from Cork, Ireland, and appointed a committee made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Johnson, Robert Livingston, Edward Rutledge, James Wilson and George Wythe "to select such parts of them as may be proper to publish." The Congress later ordered a thousand copies of the portions selected by the Committee to be printed and distributed. A month later, when another batch of intercepted mail was received, a second committee was appointed to examine it. Based on its report, the Congress resolved that "the contents of the intercepted letters this day read, and the steps which Congress may take in consequence of said intelligence thereby given, be kept secret until further orders."...
Before we go too far, it's worth noting that Franklin was talking about liberty, not privacy. There is a relationship between the two, but I find it strange that no one bothers to quote Franklin when we're talking about the liberty to choose how your children are taught or smoke cigarettes in public. Instead, he's used to protect us from the government trying to find out whether or not we're terrorists.
The truth is, the government must strike a balance between privacy and security. Reduced privacy leads to a certain number of innocent private lives disrupted and reduced security leads to a certain number of successful terror attacks. The NSA data mining effort did not take place in a vacuum: it actually stopped real terror plots.
You didn't really capture the gist of the report, so I'll excerpt:
The report credited Radio Sawa with attracting a large audience in key Middle East countries but said the station, which has an annual budget of $22 million, has been so preoccupied with building an audience through its music that it has failed to adequately measure whether it is influencing minds.
Two independent panels of Arab-language experts hired by the inspector general's office gave the programming a mixed review, saying it did not match al-Jazeera in terms of quality and that parents would prefer that their teenagers not listen to Radio Sawa because its broadcasts contained such poor Arabic grammar. "Radio Sawa failed to present America to its audience," one panel concluded.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors has vehemently protested the report, questioning its methodology and assumptions in a 49-page pre-publication rebuttal.
Stopping the terrorists means the military can stand down, just like it did after WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War. The Army alone is about 30% smaller today than it was in the 80s even after the small boost it was given for this conflict. Why should this conflict be any different from the previous ones? Your theory about the whole purpose of the war against the terrorists being a fabricated excuse to spy on Americans in different political parties is nonesense. (Do you also believe that it was the US government that attacked the World Trade Center (both times)? How about the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Faked the moon landings?) If you really believe that, why was Al Qaeda attacking during Clinton's term, and planning for more attacks, like 9/11? Do you think this is all a plot to keep the Libertarians down?
By the way, under the term "domestic political "enemies"", do you include Hezbollah, recently inconvenienced in Michigan? They do seem to love being in this country. I wonder what Al Qaeda is up to? Wouldn't it be great if someone was looking into this? I wonder who would be best...who could do it?
For that matter, the administration might find it interesting to datamine another certain social network you may have heard about, the Democratic Party. Oh how sweet it is to blow the lid off your opponent's marital infidelity or his brother's shady business dealings a couple weeks before an election.
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten.
That is by no means certain.
It could simply mean that they are committed to their own cause, which could be anything from A-F below:
A. Truth, Justice, and the American Way B. I don't like what's going on, and leaking is easier than filing a complaint through proper channels C. Embarrassing Bush will help Hillary win, and I probably won't get caught D. Bring down Bush, no matter the cost. E. Bring down America, no matter the cost. F. Other
There is some very interesting information about Mary McCarthy, let go for leaking at NSA. I'm holding out for B, C, or D. Probably a mix. A map of associations Some defenders Is there a bigger pattern?
Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps.
This isn't unusual.
Highly classified information is often only revealed to select members of Congressional committees. It helps meet the dual goal of keeping Congress informed (the select members represent Congress, and have to use their judgment) while helping to keep classified information secret. That is difficult in a large, diverse body of people that make up Congress. That is especially so when some of them don't honor their responsibility to keep classified information secret, like SenatorLeahy.
You should reread the article. The Justice Department wasn't reviewing the NSA program, an office in the Justice Department wanted to review the role of the Justice Department's own lawyers who were advising the NSA. This looks like it may have been politically motivated at the request of Rep. Maurice Hinchey.
A key sentence in the article is this:
In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of their own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.
To put is simply, this was never their turf to begin with. They overstepped their authority and were denied. Nothing to see.
With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.
The public has no right to know the details of the most highly classified intelligence programs the country has. How do you think that 300,000,000 people are going to keep the secret from the bad guys? Oversight is the role of Congress and the rest of the Executive branch. Congress was notified, as is customary, and the Court was briefed about this program.
A significant part of your fear seems to be based on misunderstanding.
You start off by telling us that you won't tell us what the real purpose of the program is (1), but you tell us that it isn't about national security (2). You tell us, wrongly, that Al Qaeda has nothing to fear from the actual program (3)+(A), not what you describe, which is the Total Information Awareness project. Apparently just on the edge of self-restraint, you let on that the program would be a powerful tool to blackmail members of Congress (4) but don't quite cross the line and tell us directly that political blackmail is the purpose. You finish off with comparisons to secret police, evil regimes, and the Nazi SS (5).
So, basically, you want people to believe that this is all part of a secret plan to subjugate the American people and political system to a new crypto-fascist regime (sorry), and not an actual intelligence program to protect the country.
Remarkably, you want people to believe that a Republican president with only three years left in office, ever, would convince a Republican led Senate and House, still containing members of an opposition party, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an infrastructure to blackmail themselves instead of developing an intelligence capability that would actually be useful to protect them. (I guess you think 9/11 and the anthrax attacks made no impression on them, right?)
What is even more remarkable is that you want us to believe that this is all unrelated to any attempt to stop the on-going efforts by Al Qaeda and its allies to plan and execute more terrorist attacks in the US, the infiltration of the US by hundreds of terrorist group members (who we occasionally catch) and the stated goal of Al Qaeda to kill 4,000,000 Americans. I expect that you also believe it would not help contain the intelligence agents in 3,000 front companies kept by just one foreign government spying on the US, let the lone the (tens of?)thousands more from the other countries on the planet.
You are about up in the league of having a pathological fear of firemen because they carry axes, but being unable to stop yourself from going into burning buildings because they are "warm & cheery" and have good light for reading. What is even more disturbing is that you convinced enough people to get your 5 mod. Ye gods!
1: That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on. 2: I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security. 3: It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system. 4: The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?) 5: The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days. A: If Al Qaeda is hand delivering their messages all around the world, they won't be saying much.
The real threat isn't coming from the tens of thousands Islamist extremist terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda, in Saddam's Iraq, and their associates (minus the captured ones). No!
The 9/11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the shoe bomb attempt, the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia, the bombing in Jordan, the attacks in the Philippines, the Beslan attack, the dirty bomb plan, the plan to attack the soccer stadium in the UK, the plan to attack Heathrow, the 19 person ring just broken in Michigan, the hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the US, including the recent Hezbollah Mexican border smuggling ring broken, and the rest all show its not the terrorists that are the problem!!
The real threat is that *cough* fantasy *cough* cabal in the White House which the "insiders" on Slashnut know are secretly planning to ignore the next election with mass destraction. (How this will actually work, nobody explains. The Constitution limits the term in office and provides for succession.) Meanwhile, outside Mom's basement (or with more meds), the rest of us see them trying to detect and stop the next terrorist attack, prefereably before they can use a salvaged anthrax or chemical weapon from Saddam's discards, or maybe even start a nuclear Jihad with a little help, or simply send a suicide bomber to a crowded mall.
Lets reach over into one of the Evolution v. Creation debates and grab Occam's Razor. Which way do you think it cuts here?
I think I understand the impulse behind William F. Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. It seems to require a certain degree of sophistication to engage in certain forms of idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
This case?
Right. And most of their "plans" were at the instigation of the FBI informer.
No, they reached out to Al Qaeda.
Their intent was clear, even if they were incompetent.
All they are uncovering are gullible people that can be convinced to do or say stupid things by a paid informant.
Nonsense. There are more than enough volunteer jihadis in the US. You've basically got it all wrong.
SWAT: You are surrounded. Do not attempt to make fun of the president or you will be shot!
Middle Eastern Guy: WTF?
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
I'll break it to you gently... people make fun of President Bush every day, it's not a crime in the United States. It won't get you arrested or shot unless you pair it with some other blindingly stupid activity (run at the police waving a handgun while telling anti-Bush knock knock jokes) or make a statement that could be considered an actual threat against the President. In that case, you might have a visit and a chat with someone, but you won't be executed. Now, if you don't believe that telling jokes about the President is fine, just take a look at the TV. President Bush is constantly used as the butt of jokes, but Leno/Letterman/Stewart/etc. aren't broadcasting from undisclosed or hidden locations, are they? Making a joke about the President doesn't make you a hero, victim, or target. (BTW - You do realize the Muslims can be any race, from any place on the globe, right?) Voting for President Bush's political opponents, lobbying against his policies, peaceful/lawful demonstrations are all fine.
What will get you into trouble is plotting to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens. In that case, telling jokes is irrelevant, the problem is the plot or attempt to irradiate, poison, shoot, stab, run over, or blow up American citizens.
In short, humor=OK, bombing=no way!
Most Americans get this.
My friend was, of course, joking.
I think the whole story is a joke.
If this had been a real incident the gun powerder residue on the suspect would have revealed it as a very close range shooting. That would have raised all sorts of questions, like "So, why did the two of you shoot him from three feet instead of tackling him, using a baton, or pepper spray? Or were you running after him shoulder to shoulder and shooting on the run?" I think there are other problems with it as well, at least as despicted.
It is a big, wide world out there and just about anything can happen, but I doubt this one unless there is more to it than you (or your friend?) are telling.
the 9/11 hijackers used knives...
to get the planes that they turned into missiles.
The Clipper Chip was proposed by the Clinton administration.
The key word being proposed, not mandated.
They really want to listen in.
Not quite. It is more accurate to say that some parts of the government (law enforcement, intelligence) want to be able to obtain the means to listen, if necessary, for law enforcement or national security reasons. My recollect was that it was not a unanimous view in government.
At the end of the day, though, that proposal never went anywhere, which is the key issue. Other means of encryption existed and were used then and now.
Yeah, thanks for backing up your claim that these leaks are politically motivated ...
Here you go, maybe you will find this a little less distracting?
And, a little more that is helpful.
That said, the NSA has never been that legal, from a constitutional view, but noone is willing to challenge their existance...
...and other tricks used by those who wish America to live in Fear.
You're confused about both the NSA and the Constitution. The NSA's primary purpose is signals intelligence of foreign governments and their agents (some of whom may be US citizens). Foreign governments aren't entitled to the rights of a US citizen. Spying on foreign spies is fine too, even if they are US citizens.
But now we just let them spy on us, arrest us without warrants, ship American citizens off to foreign prisons to be tortured for years without any formal charges, and turn the Constitution into confetti for their personal profit.
No, we let them spy on the likes of Al Qaeda members and their supporters.
The Constitution is quite whole, you just apparently don't really understand it. Or maybe you simply don't approve of the powers of the various branches of government, especially the Executive branch in time of war.
I think it is quite revealing that you seem to believe that it is the government that wants to repress Americans and cause them to live in fear, and not the ones actually plotting to kill 4,000,000 Americans, namely Al Qaeda. Fear the sheriff, not the rattlesnake, eh?
There are procedures for genuine whistle blowers to follow, like going to Inspector Generals or Congress. That isn't what has been happening. What has been happening is politically motivated leaks of classified information in an attempt to damage the administration.
Not really, no. The US government has generally been OK with encryption, more or less. Historically they just wouldn't allow you to export strong encryption to most places, or any at all to a few special nations (North Korea, Cuba, etc.). That is by no means necessarily the case in other countries, including European ones.
Excuse me, *Kennedy*. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. Read up on FISA and specifically what year it was enacted.
Remind us again what the F I in FISA stands for, and how the Rev. MLK fits into that?
Seems like if they didn't do anything illegal they have nothing to fear.
Likely true. But that still doesn't mean that you are either entitled to know what they were up to, or that you will find out.
No, it exists, hence the arrests:
I wouldn't suggest you go looking for it.
This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children.
If you really believe that, your values put you in a very tiny minority, and near some very unsavory people.
Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world.
This guy had hundreds of pictures, which means hundreds of victims:
Children for sale documents an enormous problem.
The FBI documents an enormous problem:
History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will
If you are worried about dying....stop eating fat burgers and leave MY freedom alone.
...exactly which freedoms that our Constitution guarantees do you think are being threatened?
Oddly enough, it in no way surprises me that you seem to think that the only reason somebody might oppose terrorism in general is that they are afraid of personally dying. (Terrorism, it's not bad... unless it effects me, eh?) By the way,
As to terrorism vs heart attacks et.al., most people recognize the difference between the natural course of life, or the consequences of life style choices, and deliberate attacks by others. Individual Americans are free to live as they choose, and to take all manner of effective precautions against accidents or disease by themselves. That isn't really true about terrorist attacks. The only reason that there aren't more deaths and economic disruption from terrorism is that the US government actually takes steps to prevent it. Absent that, there would have been plenty more.
Just so we could get past the vague, liar thing, could you be more specific? Exactly what actual liberties do you think people are trying to take from you? Voting? Free speech? Free association? Freedom of religion? Any suggestion of quartering troops in your house?
As to the terrorism thing, the news there seems to be rather concrete, even if not well known, and at times disturbing. There is nothing vague about this at all.
Michelle Malkin
Claremont Institute
Intercepting Communications
Ferdinand, the conservative cat
Of course, there is more.
Stopping the terrorists means the military can stand down, just like it did after WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War. The Army alone is about 30% smaller today than it was in the 80s even after the small boost it was given for this conflict. Why should this conflict be any different from the previous ones? Your theory about the whole purpose of the war against the terrorists being a fabricated excuse to spy on Americans in different political parties is nonesense. (Do you also believe that it was the US government that attacked the World Trade Center (both times)? How about the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Faked the moon landings?) If you really believe that, why was Al Qaeda attacking during Clinton's term, and planning for more attacks, like 9/11? Do you think this is all a plot to keep the Libertarians down?
By the way, under the term "domestic political "enemies"", do you include Hezbollah, recently inconvenienced in Michigan? They do seem to love being in this country. I wonder what Al Qaeda is up to? Wouldn't it be great if someone was looking into this? I wonder who would be best...who could do it?
The timing of the tape release couldn't be more perfect, as a reminder to the populace for the reason why their civil liberties are being curtailed.
Or, more likely, its in recognition of the fact that United 93 is out which contains images of the rest of the attacks.
Hopefully this will re-scare enough people to get Bush's approval rating moving in the other direction.
Kind of like you are trying to scare people into opposing him with the occasion "tweak" to the facts?
For that matter, the administration might find it interesting to datamine another certain social network you may have heard about, the Democratic Party. Oh how sweet it is to blow the lid off your opponent's marital infidelity or his brother's shady business dealings a couple weeks before an election.
So, are you saying that is what this was about?
I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten.
That is by no means certain.
It could simply mean that they are committed to their own cause, which could be anything from A-F below:
A. Truth, Justice, and the American Way
B. I don't like what's going on, and leaking is easier than filing a complaint through proper channels
C. Embarrassing Bush will help Hillary win, and I probably won't get caught
D. Bring down Bush, no matter the cost.
E. Bring down America, no matter the cost.
F. Other
There is some very interesting information about Mary McCarthy, let go for leaking at NSA. I'm holding out for B, C, or D. Probably a mix.
A map of associations
Some defenders
Is there a bigger pattern?
Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps.
This isn't unusual.
Highly classified information is often only revealed to select members of Congressional committees. It helps meet the dual goal of keeping Congress informed (the select members represent Congress, and have to use their judgment) while helping to keep classified information secret. That is difficult in a large, diverse body of people that make up Congress. That is especially so when some of them don't honor their responsibility to keep classified information secret, like Senator Leahy.
There is nothing sinister in that
A key sentence in the article is this:
To put is simply, this was never their turf to begin with. They overstepped their authority and were denied. Nothing to see.
With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.
The public has no right to know the details of the most highly classified intelligence programs the country has. How do you think that 300,000,000 people are going to keep the secret from the bad guys? Oversight is the role of Congress and the rest of the Executive branch. Congress was notified, as is customary, and the Court was briefed about this program.
A significant part of your fear seems to be based on misunderstanding.
So, let me get this straight...
You start off by telling us that you won't tell us what the real purpose of the program is (1), but you tell us that it isn't about national security (2). You tell us, wrongly, that Al Qaeda has nothing to fear from the actual program (3)+(A), not what you describe, which is the Total Information Awareness project. Apparently just on the edge of self-restraint, you let on that the program would be a powerful tool to blackmail members of Congress (4) but don't quite cross the line and tell us directly that political blackmail is the purpose. You finish off with comparisons to secret police, evil regimes, and the Nazi SS (5).
So, basically, you want people to believe that this is all part of a secret plan to subjugate the American people and political system to a new crypto-fascist regime (sorry), and not an actual intelligence program to protect the country.
Remarkably, you want people to believe that a Republican president with only three years left in office, ever, would convince a Republican led Senate and House, still containing members of an opposition party, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an infrastructure to blackmail themselves instead of developing an intelligence capability that would actually be useful to protect them. (I guess you think 9/11 and the anthrax attacks made no impression on them, right?)
What is even more remarkable is that you want us to believe that this is all unrelated to any attempt to stop the on-going efforts by Al Qaeda and its allies to plan and execute more terrorist attacks in the US, the infiltration of the US by hundreds of terrorist group members (who we occasionally catch) and the stated goal of Al Qaeda to kill 4,000,000 Americans. I expect that you also believe it would not help contain the intelligence agents in 3,000 front companies kept by just one foreign government spying on the US, let the lone the (tens of?)thousands more from the other countries on the planet.
You are about up in the league of having a pathological fear of firemen because they carry axes, but being unable to stop yourself from going into burning buildings because they are "warm & cheery" and have good light for reading. What is even more disturbing is that you convinced enough people to get your 5 mod. Ye gods!
1: That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on.
2: I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security.
3: It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system.
4: The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)
5: The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days.
A: If Al Qaeda is hand delivering their messages all around the world, they won't be saying much.
And so you shall. And again. And lets throw in some damage they did.
That's it!
The real threat isn't coming from the tens of thousands Islamist extremist terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda, in Saddam's Iraq, and their associates (minus the captured ones). No!
The 9/11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the shoe bomb attempt, the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia, the bombing in Jordan, the attacks in the Philippines, the Beslan attack, the dirty bomb plan, the plan to attack the soccer stadium in the UK, the plan to attack Heathrow, the 19 person ring just broken in Michigan, the hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the US, including the recent Hezbollah Mexican border smuggling ring broken, and the rest all show its not the terrorists that are the problem!!
The real threat is that *cough* fantasy *cough* cabal in the White House which the "insiders" on Slashnut know are secretly planning to ignore the next election with mass destraction. (How this will actually work, nobody explains. The Constitution limits the term in office and provides for succession.) Meanwhile, outside Mom's basement (or with more meds), the rest of us see them trying to detect and stop the next terrorist attack, prefereably before they can use a salvaged anthrax or chemical weapon from Saddam's discards, or maybe even start a nuclear Jihad with a little help, or simply send a suicide bomber to a crowded mall.
Lets reach over into one of the Evolution v. Creation debates and grab Occam's Razor. Which way do you think it cuts here?
I think I understand the impulse behind William F. Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. It seems to require a certain degree of sophistication to engage in certain forms of idiocy.