Assange is a fugitive from justice in self-selected luxury confinement rather than face extradiction to Sweden to face a Swedish court over charges of sexual assault.
Are there any other accused rapists you cheer for fleeing justice?
A case could probably be made against Assange for aiding and abetting in the theft and compromise of Australian and Commonwealth defence secrets due to the assistance he provivded Snowden.
From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1
I thought the Generalissimo was dead? Or are we back to him "valiently holding on in his fight to remain dead"?
Obama indistinguishable from GWB? Not on this planet.
I will agree with you about the silence of the Democrats (and the anti-war movement). They've demonstrated much of their opposition was purely political and not based on principle.
Why would any Republican be afraid of HRC? She is one in all but name. Iraq War cheerleader, surveillor, wall street's best friend. Seriously, what is there for the GOP to hate policy wise? Yeah, we know they hater her personally, but from a policy perspective, she's the dream GOP candidate.
The answer to understanding your view is in your email address:
obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org
You are well into the fringe Left if you Obama is a neocon, and that Hillary Clinton is "the dream GOP candidate" even when she is downplaying her more extreme Progressive views. It simply isn't true.
You may recall that the US asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and the Taliban refused? The US only attacked and invaded Afghanistan after it had been repeated attacked by al Qaida, which was embedded in the Taliban government, and the Taliban rejected the US ultimatum? Many Afghans were happy to be rid of Taliban.
Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms
Widespread legal ownership of firearms isn't a problem. The problem come from illegal possession and misuse of firearms.
The spread of concealed carry laws shows that law abiding citizens aren't the issue. Incidents among citizens licensed for concealed carry of firearms are rare, contradicting the predictions of doom from some.
In your version of the social contract the strong can be predators while the old or infirm are defenseless. No thanks.
What makes him dangerous is filling his head with dangerous thoughts.
What makes him danerous is that his head was filled with dangerous thoughts BEFORE the FBI ever spoke to him. He had stated his interest in Jihad, killing, and dying for the cause. He demonstrated his willingness to carry through his stated intent and actually attempt an attack. Youve got this wrong.
The vast majority, if not all, of the people whom the FBI have entrapped in the past are some of the more vulnerable members of society: people without a strong social support structure, part of a marginalised community, often poor, often unemployed, and so on.
That's a fine assertion. Do you have any proof? There have been at least hundreds of arrests and convictions for offenses related to terrorism. If what you claim is true there should be some proof.
Do the poor, unemployed, or marginalized have a right to engage in terrorism? Is there some reason they shouldn't be stopped from killing people? Aren't the rights of other people in society to not be attacked equally important?
It's a fundamental axiom of modern policing that the best way to stop crime is to stop people from becoming criminals in the first place. If someone is at risk of becoming a criminal, the best thing you can do is divert them away from that as early as possible.
If you bother to look into this, including the story I linked to, you'll see the FBI tried to divert him. They got him to a Muslim cleric to try to talk him out of it. He persisted.
For the FBI to turn a non-criminal into a criminal is not just a failure, it's sociopathic.
You are fabricating things out of whole cloth. Is there a DSMV label for that?
I doubt there would have been any attack unless he was "radicalized" by the FBI.
The first of many holes in your theory is that the accused indicated his interest in dying in attacks before any contact with the FBI.
.... came to the attention of federal investigators after posting a Facebook message on March 19, 2014, that read: "Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush! I am so nervous. NOT because I'm scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord,"
-----
He could have not had his enlistment in the US military canceled because of a Facebook post, and could have been taken in and counseled and put through boot camp instead of being manipulated like a foreign asset for months until he committed the crime that was orchestrated for him.
Basic training provides instruction on basic military skills, including weapons. To provide that training he would be given weapons and ammunition. I can't believe you think that is a good idea. You know about the Fort Hood attack, don't you? There have been other attacks as well.
The purpose of the military means it is best to keep people like him out.
Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA...
I am amused to inform you that you aren't quoting from TFA. If you follow the link in the story summary it brings you to a story that doesn't contain the paragraph you quote, or even a number of the key words. You are quoting from a different story at the same source. Since you didn't provide a link, allow me:
So, it turns out that I comprehended the story, and you didn't. What you did do was bring in new facts in a different story from a reputable source, and helpful ones for the discussion.
So yes, it appears he may be mentally ill. That doesn't make him less dangerous.
Imam Omar Hazim of the Islamic Center of Topeka told The Associated Press that two FBI agents brought Booker to him early in 2014 for counseling, hoping to turn the young man away from radical beliefs. Hazim said the agents told him that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder, characterized by unusual mood swings that can affect functioning.
Hazim said he expressed concerns to the FBI about allowing him to move freely in the community after their first encounter.
If he is in fact mentally ill that potentially raises new difficultes involved with involuntary commitment or possible criminal defenses. In either case the state's position is much stronger since he attempted an attack rather than simply writing about it. There isn't much room for doubt that he is a danger to himself (suicide bomber) and the community.
But there is more to it than that. It appears that there are more people involved in this plot. I doubt they will all be mentally ill. What will you have to say if it turns out to be 2 sane guys with different values and 1 mentally ill guy with different values? Even if this one individual is mentally ill, that doesn't necessarily mean that this plot wouldn't have been of interest to him if he wasn't.
They knew the guy was dangerous. He already committed a crime by making threats like that. Instead of stopping it then and there, they set up a sting operation where his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack. The FBI provided proof of this themselves. Colluding with a dangerous nutjob would be "egging him on," and I don't care how much a shill like you wants to cry otherwise.
Yove got a couple of things wrong there. To start with, he had already indicated his intrest in suicide attacks. Why are you claiming that "his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack." Are you trying to claim that he didn't mean what he had stated repeatedly about conducting an attack, a suicide attack at that, despite the fact that he attempted to go through with it? Do you have any basis for this?
A sting doesn't constitute "egging him on." He clearly wanted to conduct of his own free will, and you are in denial about that.
Shill? I have little regard for the opinions of nitwits. If you can't engage with facts you would do better to bow out gracefully and keep the insults to yourself.
This just goes to show how much you like to distort reality. If someone openly stated they want to become a martyr and hurt or kill a lot of people, they are mentally ill, whether they intend to carry it out or not. That's not open to debate.
Although it may be possible they are mentally ill, it is also possible that they are sane but have different values from you, that they are part of a different culture. Your' declaration "that's not open to debate" doesn't actually settle the matter no matter how much you wish it to. Do you have any familiarity with foreign or ancient cultures? I would have to assume not. Many cultures have had very different values from what you are accustomed to. That doesn't make them insane. Should we skip over the question of evil?
But hey, lets recap: you're saying you are totally fine with ignoring crazy people and supporting their fake terror attacks (which only benefit the government). It would be too hard to simply put these people in a mental hospital instead of leaving them out on the street and encouraging them to plot against innocent civilians, right?
Do you remember what you just wrote? Allow me to quote you:
That was entirely your own assertion, and I don't much appreciate you putting words in my mouth and then hounding me for things I never even alluded to.
Amazingly you are both pot and kettle in this debate. Should I give you some time to argue it out with yourself to decide which way you want to roll?
The worst thing is, when (not if) one of these sing operations go wrong, the FBI is going to pretend they had no involvement in it, and since they are with the government, you'll never be able to prove otherwise.
I think there is remarkably little chance of the FBI pretending anything like that.
You're making an unsupported claim: "My posts propose that the FBI gets help for these people instead of propping them up and egging them on."
Where is the proof of that? Propping them up? Egging them on? This guy made his intent clear before the FBI ever came into contact with him. Why do you believe that wasn't his actual intent? Why do you believe that he didn't intent to kill people? What is your evidence that he is mentally ill instead of willing to engage in attacks that are consistent with his values and like those that occur around the world on a daily basis? Why do you think that America can't have ordinary ideologically inspired terrorists like other parts of the world?
The FBI cares about people's safety which is why they investigate people that announce their desire to commit violent jihad. That isn't "trying to draw attention to themselves," that is investigating the crimes people announce they intend to commit.
You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?
Here, they found someone that was exhibiting some obvious mental problems. Instead of getting him the help he clearly needed, they decided to make a show out of it for their own propaganda machine.
What is your evidence that he had mental problems? He certainly had different values, but that isn't the same as being mentally ill. If anything your claim of "obvious mental problems" and that they "decided to make of show out of it for their own propaganda machine" indicates you probably don't understand what was happening. How is it jihadis conduct suicide bombing all over the world (without FBI contact) but you think they can't happen here?
That is, they want to "prove" that everyone is a terrorist and they need more money and approval to stomp all over our rights, and you shouldn't complain about it.
No, they are trying to prove that guy culpable for his actions in a court of law. That has nothing to do with your fatuous claim which is clearly nonsense.
So once again some anonymous poster that is incompetent in dealing with a set of facts manages to get it wrong. This would-be jihadi made his intent clear, and tried to act on it. Did you not read the story?
Booker was recruited to join the Army in February 2014, but came to the attention of federal investigators after posting a Facebook message on March 19, 2014, that read: "Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush! I am so nervous. NOT because I'm scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord."
A 20-year-old man was arrested Friday while trying to arm what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb near a Kansas military base as part of a plot to support the Islamic State group, federal prosecutors said.
John T. Booker Jr. is accused of planning a suicide attack at Fort Riley.... Prosecutors allege he told an FBI informant he wanted to kill Americans and engage in violent jihad on behalf of the terrorist group, and said he believed such an attack was justified because the Quran "says to kill your enemies wherever they are," according to a criminal complaint.
"It was alleged that he planned to pull the trigger of the explosives himself so that he would die in the explosion," U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said Friday morning. "He told an individual that detonating a suicide bomb was his No. 1 aspiration because he couldn't be captured and all the evidence would be destroyed and he would be guaranteed to hit his target."
If you want to try to "blame" that guy's attempted attack on the FBI then you don't understand what is going on. Could you spare us any more of those comments?
Rs own the policies they enact or retain just as Ds own the policies they enact or retain. I assign responsibility on that basis. What gets amusing is the continual attempts at blame shifting by Ds for the policies they enact or retain. It is never the Ds fault that they have the policies they have, is it?. You only credit them with having a "rubber spine" instead of acknowledging their responsibility for their action or inaction. Do you truly believe that the administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama weren't responsible for the policies they governed by, or that they were never first movers in government policy? That's not what the history books say, and neither does common sense.
One other thing... would you like me to start digging up the "started by a D continued by an R" programs? I can take a wild guess about your reaction to that too.
That appears to be false. If you read the article and the Wikipedia entry it seems pretty clear that those are different streams of government effort with diferent goals (intelligence vs law enforcement), scope, and methodologies. Then there is this gem from the artilce linked in the summary:
Agents said that when the data collection began, they sought to limit its use mainly to drug investigations and turned away requests for access from the FBI and the NSA.
As far as presidents "whose hands are clean," I think that depends on some points of clarification. The Church Committee was addressing actual abusive conduct or misuse of law enforcement or intelligence. What is abusive in one context or set of facts may be perfectly legitimate in another. As a practical matter, for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to be useful they have to have the ability to do things that would be abusive if misused. One of the difficulties comes in drawing the lines. The US has at times gotten it wrong at times by drawing poorly chosen lines. Signs of 9/11 were missed because of that.
Colombian cartels have spent billions of dollars to build one of the world's most sophisticated IT infrastructures. It's helping them smuggle more dope than ever before.
Just as everything that happened between 2000 (when Clinton left office) and now is Obama's fault.
That can't be true since everything has been Bush's fault well into the Obama administration. The Obama administration and its allies in the media keep reminding us of that.
... 1992 is squarely in the Clinton years and everything bad that happened during it is 100% his fault.
If they approved, implemented, or reimplemented a policy they own it. Remember this part of the summary?
The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.
This is yet another started by an R, continued by a D.
Could you remind me again what party affiliation the two officials mentioned in the summary had?
The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.
There is an old rule in stores: you break it, you bought it.
In politics: you implment it, you own it.
The policy was owned by the Clinton administration when they approved it and either continued or reimplemented it.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange is a fugitive from justice in self-selected luxury confinement rather than face extradiction to Sweden to face a Swedish court over charges of sexual assault.
Are there any other accused rapists you cheer for fleeing justice?
"sigh"??? Really? Sigh?
A case could probably be made against Assange for aiding and abetting in the theft and compromise of Australian and Commonwealth defence secrets due to the assistance he provivded Snowden.
Agreed, a safe deposit box. But just about any medium will do: cd, dvd, tape, memory stick, hard disk, .....
A copy in the fire safe in addtion to the safe deposit box is even better. (I've see backup media eaten.)
From the article: "Late last year the Spanish government passed a law that set extreme fines for protesters convening outside of government buildings. In response to the controversial Citizen Safety Law, which will take effect on July 1
I thought the Generalissimo was dead? Or are we back to him "valiently holding on in his fight to remain dead"?
Obama indistinguishable from GWB? Not on this planet.
I will agree with you about the silence of the Democrats (and the anti-war movement). They've demonstrated much of their opposition was purely political and not based on principle.
Why would any Republican be afraid of HRC? She is one in all but name. Iraq War cheerleader, surveillor, wall street's best friend. Seriously, what is there for the GOP to hate policy wise? Yeah, we know they hater her personally, but from a policy perspective, she's the dream GOP candidate.
The answer to understanding your view is in your email address:
obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org
You are well into the fringe Left if you Obama is a neocon, and that Hillary Clinton is "the dream GOP candidate" even when she is downplaying her more extreme Progressive views. It simply isn't true.
You may recall that the US asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and the Taliban refused? The US only attacked and invaded Afghanistan after it had been repeated attacked by al Qaida, which was embedded in the Taliban government, and the Taliban rejected the US ultimatum? Many Afghans were happy to be rid of Taliban.
Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms
Widespread legal ownership of firearms isn't a problem. The problem come from illegal possession and misuse of firearms.
The spread of concealed carry laws shows that law abiding citizens aren't the issue. Incidents among citizens licensed for concealed carry of firearms are rare, contradicting the predictions of doom from some.
In your version of the social contract the strong can be predators while the old or infirm are defenseless. No thanks.
What makes him dangerous is filling his head with dangerous thoughts.
What makes him danerous is that his head was filled with dangerous thoughts BEFORE the FBI ever spoke to him. He had stated his interest in Jihad, killing, and dying for the cause. He demonstrated his willingness to carry through his stated intent and actually attempt an attack. Youve got this wrong.
The vast majority, if not all, of the people whom the FBI have entrapped in the past are some of the more vulnerable members of society: people without a strong social support structure, part of a marginalised community, often poor, often unemployed, and so on.
That's a fine assertion. Do you have any proof? There have been at least hundreds of arrests and convictions for offenses related to terrorism. If what you claim is true there should be some proof.
Do the poor, unemployed, or marginalized have a right to engage in terrorism? Is there some reason they shouldn't be stopped from killing people? Aren't the rights of other people in society to not be attacked equally important?
It's a fundamental axiom of modern policing that the best way to stop crime is to stop people from becoming criminals in the first place. If someone is at risk of becoming a criminal, the best thing you can do is divert them away from that as early as possible.
If you bother to look into this, including the story I linked to, you'll see the FBI tried to divert him. They got him to a Muslim cleric to try to talk him out of it. He persisted.
For the FBI to turn a non-criminal into a criminal is not just a failure, it's sociopathic.
You are fabricating things out of whole cloth. Is there a DSMV label for that?
I doubt there would have been any attack unless he was "radicalized" by the FBI.
The first of many holes in your theory is that the accused indicated his interest in dying in attacks before any contact with the FBI.
.... came to the attention of federal investigators after posting a Facebook message on March 19, 2014, that read: "Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush! I am so nervous. NOT because I'm scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord,"
-----
He could have not had his enlistment in the US military canceled because of a Facebook post, and could have been taken in and counseled and put through boot camp instead of being manipulated like a foreign asset for months until he committed the crime that was orchestrated for him.
Basic training provides instruction on basic military skills, including weapons. To provide that training he would be given weapons and ammunition. I can't believe you think that is a good idea. You know about the Fort Hood attack, don't you? There have been other attacks as well.
The purpose of the military means it is best to keep people like him out.
Apparently you didn't comprehend the story either. According the TFA ...
I am amused to inform you that you aren't quoting from TFA. If you follow the link in the story summary it brings you to a story that doesn't contain the paragraph you quote, or even a number of the key words. You are quoting from a different story at the same source. Since you didn't provide a link, allow me:
Man charged with plotting bombing at Kansas military base
So, it turns out that I comprehended the story, and you didn't. What you did do was bring in new facts in a different story from a reputable source, and helpful ones for the discussion.
So yes, it appears he may be mentally ill. That doesn't make him less dangerous.
Imam Omar Hazim of the Islamic Center of Topeka told The Associated Press that two FBI agents brought Booker to him early in 2014 for counseling, hoping to turn the young man away from radical beliefs. Hazim said the agents told him that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder, characterized by unusual mood swings that can affect functioning.
Hazim said he expressed concerns to the FBI about allowing him to move freely in the community after their first encounter.
If he is in fact mentally ill that potentially raises new difficultes involved with involuntary commitment or possible criminal defenses. In either case the state's position is much stronger since he attempted an attack rather than simply writing about it. There isn't much room for doubt that he is a danger to himself (suicide bomber) and the community.
But there is more to it than that. It appears that there are more people involved in this plot. I doubt they will all be mentally ill. What will you have to say if it turns out to be 2 sane guys with different values and 1 mentally ill guy with different values? Even if this one individual is mentally ill, that doesn't necessarily mean that this plot wouldn't have been of interest to him if he wasn't.
They knew the guy was dangerous. He already committed a crime by making threats like that. Instead of stopping it then and there, they set up a sting operation where his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack. The FBI provided proof of this themselves. Colluding with a dangerous nutjob would be "egging him on," and I don't care how much a shill like you wants to cry otherwise.
Yove got a couple of things wrong there. To start with, he had already indicated his intrest in suicide attacks. Why are you claiming that "his handlers would convince him to carry through with a (fake) attack." Are you trying to claim that he didn't mean what he had stated repeatedly about conducting an attack, a suicide attack at that, despite the fact that he attempted to go through with it? Do you have any basis for this?
A sting doesn't constitute "egging him on." He clearly wanted to conduct of his own free will, and you are in denial about that.
Shill? I have little regard for the opinions of nitwits. If you can't engage with facts you would do better to bow out gracefully and keep the insults to yourself.
This just goes to show how much you like to distort reality. If someone openly stated they want to become a martyr and hurt or kill a lot of people, they are mentally ill, whether they intend to carry it out or not. That's not open to debate.
Although it may be possible they are mentally ill, it is also possible that they are sane but have different values from you, that they are part of a different culture. Your' declaration "that's not open to debate" doesn't actually settle the matter no matter how much you wish it to. Do you have any familiarity with foreign or ancient cultures? I would have to assume not. Many cultures have had very different values from what you are accustomed to. That doesn't make them insane. Should we skip over the question of evil?
But hey, lets recap: you're saying you are totally fine with ignoring crazy people and supporting their fake terror attacks (which only benefit the government). It would be too hard to simply put these people in a mental hospital instead of leaving them out on the street and encouraging them to plot against innocent civilians, right?
Do you remember what you just wrote? Allow me to quote you:
That was entirely your own assertion, and I don't much appreciate you putting words in my mouth and then hounding me for things I never even alluded to.
Amazingly you are both pot and kettle in this debate. Should I give you some time to argue it out with yourself to decide which way you want to roll?
The worst thing is, when (not if) one of these sing operations go wrong, the FBI is going to pretend they had no involvement in it, and since they are with the government, you'll never be able to prove otherwise.
I think there is remarkably little chance of the FBI pretending anything like that.
You're making an unsupported claim: "My posts propose that the FBI gets help for these people instead of propping them up and egging them on."
Where is the proof of that? Propping them up? Egging them on? This guy made his intent clear before the FBI ever came into contact with him. Why do you believe that wasn't his actual intent? Why do you believe that he didn't intent to kill people? What is your evidence that he is mentally ill instead of willing to engage in attacks that are consistent with his values and like those that occur around the world on a daily basis? Why do you think that America can't have ordinary ideologically inspired terrorists like other parts of the world?
The FBI cares about people's safety which is why they investigate people that announce their desire to commit violent jihad. That isn't "trying to draw attention to themselves," that is investigating the crimes people announce they intend to commit.
You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?
Here, they found someone that was exhibiting some obvious mental problems. Instead of getting him the help he clearly needed, they decided to make a show out of it for their own propaganda machine.
What is your evidence that he had mental problems? He certainly had different values, but that isn't the same as being mentally ill. If anything your claim of "obvious mental problems" and that they "decided to make of show out of it for their own propaganda machine" indicates you probably don't understand what was happening. How is it jihadis conduct suicide bombing all over the world (without FBI contact) but you think they can't happen here?
That is, they want to "prove" that everyone is a terrorist and they need more money and approval to stomp all over our rights, and you shouldn't complain about it.
No, they are trying to prove that guy culpable for his actions in a court of law. That has nothing to do with your fatuous claim which is clearly nonsense.
So once again some anonymous poster that is incompetent in dealing with a set of facts manages to get it wrong. This would-be jihadi made his intent clear, and tried to act on it. Did you not read the story?
FTA
Booker was recruited to join the Army in February 2014, but came to the attention of federal investigators after posting a Facebook message on March 19, 2014, that read: "Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush! I am so nervous. NOT because I'm scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord."
A 20-year-old man was arrested Friday while trying to arm what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb near a Kansas military base as part of a plot to support the Islamic State group, federal prosecutors said.
John T. Booker Jr. is accused of planning a suicide attack at Fort Riley .... Prosecutors allege he told an FBI informant he wanted to kill Americans and engage in violent jihad on behalf of the terrorist group, and said he believed such an attack was justified because the Quran "says to kill your enemies wherever they are," according to a criminal complaint.
"It was alleged that he planned to pull the trigger of the explosives himself so that he would die in the explosion," U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said Friday morning. "He told an individual that detonating a suicide bomb was his No. 1 aspiration because he couldn't be captured and all the evidence would be destroyed and he would be guaranteed to hit his target."
If you want to try to "blame" that guy's attempted attack on the FBI then you don't understand what is going on. Could you spare us any more of those comments?
Remind me again who said this: "Your butthurt is showing."
I'd offer you a carton of milk and cookie but I'm all out. Check back with me next week.
Rs own the policies they enact or retain just as Ds own the policies they enact or retain. I assign responsibility on that basis. What gets amusing is the continual attempts at blame shifting by Ds for the policies they enact or retain. It is never the Ds fault that they have the policies they have, is it?. You only credit them with having a "rubber spine" instead of acknowledging their responsibility for their action or inaction. Do you truly believe that the administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama weren't responsible for the policies they governed by, or that they were never first movers in government policy? That's not what the history books say, and neither does common sense.
Your embrace of silly notions diminishes you.
Then we agree that the facts are against you. Thanks
That says the "D"s owned their policy, and the "R"s owned theirs.
The difference is that I'm honest enough to say that.
So your view is that honesty is a form of self abuse? Figures.
One other thing ... would you like me to start digging up the "started by a D continued by an R" programs? I can take a wild guess about your reaction to that too.
Like I said, you break it you bought it. I can take a wild guess which part your find embarassing.
That may be true, but for some reason the moderation doesn't seem to be even handed on that point.
And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..., that part of it dates back to Reagan.
That appears to be false. If you read the article and the Wikipedia entry it seems pretty clear that those are different streams of government effort with diferent goals (intelligence vs law enforcement), scope, and methodologies. Then there is this gem from the artilce linked in the summary:
Agents said that when the data collection began, they sought to limit its use mainly to drug investigations and turned away requests for access from the FBI and the NSA.
As far as presidents "whose hands are clean," I think that depends on some points of clarification. The Church Committee was addressing actual abusive conduct or misuse of law enforcement or intelligence. What is abusive in one context or set of facts may be perfectly legitimate in another. As a practical matter, for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to be useful they have to have the ability to do things that would be abusive if misused. One of the difficulties comes in drawing the lines. The US has at times gotten it wrong at times by drawing poorly chosen lines. Signs of 9/11 were missed because of that.
And lets not forget there is a flip side to this:
The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.
Colombian cartels have spent billions of dollars to build one of the world's most sophisticated IT infrastructures. It's helping them smuggle more dope than ever before.
Just as everything that happened between 2000 (when Clinton left office) and now is Obama's fault.
That can't be true since everything has been Bush's fault well into the Obama administration. The Obama administration and its allies in the media keep reminding us of that.
... 1992 is squarely in the Clinton years and everything bad that happened during it is 100% his fault.
If they approved, implemented, or reimplemented a policy they own it. Remember this part of the summary?
The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.
Do you have a reason why they aren't responsible?
Clinton took office in January of 1993
This is yet another started by an R, continued by a D.
Could you remind me again what party affiliation the two officials mentioned in the summary had?
The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.
There is an old rule in stores: you break it, you bought it.
In politics: you implment it, you own it.
The policy was owned by the Clinton administration when they approved it and either continued or reimplemented it.