America... Spying on Americans

How come the left wing stories always check out and the right stories are always a bunch of crap??????

Good afternoon. I have a few comments:
1) Johnboy has a certain admiration for Ticomaya (and for the other conservative, McGentrix). A2K seems to be populated by people leaning to the left; and it is tough to oppose that tide. Keep it up and, I would hope, yall can keep it civil.
2) Johnboy admits to being a liberal: civil rights, abortion rights, gay rights, anti-death penalty. Domestic issues that we all agree to disagree on.
3) But where Johnboy has trouble is with our attitude towards the rest of the world. He has lived in several different countries and travelled through many others. We are regarded (beginning before the administration of Mr Bush, but certainly accelerating recently) as arrogant and manipulative. Everything (trade, environment, politics or whatever) has to go our way. Or else. The "or else" will come back to haunt us.
4) It is no secret that I don't approve of Mr Bush's performance as President. Since 9/11 he has used the mantra "We are at war" to justify
taking away rights that many of us consider vital. And we don't even know what is going on until some press reporter finds out about it and his/her editor decides to print it.

So am I a left wing wacko? I don't think so, but I am worried about the direction in which we are headed. Thank you for taking the time to read this. -johnboy-

Ticomaya wrote:

But again, there was no relationship between the CIA and bin Laden except in the fertile minds of Ameria-hating leftists such as yourself.

Sometimes you guys make this too easy. YES, there was an established, proven connection between the CIA and Osama Bin Laden.

Here's one place you can get started:

Quote:

BEFORE YOU CLICK on my face and call me naive, let me concede some points. Yes, the West needed Josef Stalin to defeat Hitler. Yes, there were times during the Cold War when supporting one villain (Cambodia's Lon Nol, for instance) would have been better than the alternative (Pol Pot). So yes, there are times when any nation must hold its nose and shake hands with the devil for the long-term good of the planet.
But just as surely, there are times when the United States, faced with such moral dilemmas, should have resisted the temptation to act. Arming a multi-national coalition of Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the 1980s - well after the destruction of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 - was one of those times.

BIN LADEN'S BEGINNINGS

As anyone who has bothered to read this far certainly knows by now, bin Laden is the heir to Saudi construction fortune who, at least since the early 1990s, has used that money to finance countless attacks on U.S. interests and those of its Arab allies around the world.
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation.
By no means was Osama bin Laden the leader of Afghanistan's mujahedeen. His money gave him undue prominence in the Afghan struggle, but the vast majority of those who fought and died for Afghanistan's freedom - like the Taliban regime that now holds sway over most of that tortured nation - were Afghan nationals.
Yet the CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan made famous by Rudyard Kipling, found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to "read" than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the "reliable" partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow....

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING

There are plenty more news articles and the like that speak of the connection, but I figured this is fine for now. NOW, the big question is, will YOU read the article to educate yourself?

I don't think so. Considering how pridefully you called people who know about this Osama/CIA connection "America hating Leftists," you'll pretty much look like an ignorant tool if you concede that the (known) Osama/CIA connection was truth. You'll either ignore my post and hope other people don't call you on it like I did, you'll challenge the sources credibility (even though it is a major news outlet and the point of contention that's involved is one of fact, not opinion), or you'll just make a snide and pointless comment. Considering how quickly you call people "America hating leftists," my money is on the last one.

Although, a simple "Thanks for the info, looks like I was wrong" from you would really be the best, most mature option. Considering this is an online political forum though, I think I have a better chance of seeing a unicorn jump out of my sock drawer.

So am I a left wing wacko? I don't think so, but I am worried about the direction in which we are headed. Thank you for taking the time to read this. -johnboy-

The claim that the CIA had a "reliable partner" in OBL is certainly refutable. I have already provided sources that directly contradict that notion.

But if you are going to insist there was a connection between OBL and the CIA, tenuous as it was, you certainly must acknowledge there was a connection between OBL and Saddam.

What I find most interesting about the America-hating leftists who insist on emphasizing that OBL was aligned in interest with the US in Afghanistan in the 80's, is the spin you put on it to try and blame the US for al Qaeda. OBL had his own goals and objectives in Afghanistan and beyond, so whether you want to claim there was a connection, direct or indirect with the CIA in Afghanistan or not, you cannot conjugate that into "the US created al Qaeda," no matter how much you would like for it to be the case.

Isn't this about the time you leftists haul out the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and claim we created him as well?

McGentrix wrote:

They are the same young people that become brainwashed by the cause. different clothes, different country, same idiocy.

I am sure you understood what I meant.

The only idiots that I can see are those who advocate that the United States become a police state in order to protect our country from the other idiots who live in police states.

Isn't this about the time you leftists haul out the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and claim we created him as well?

Ticomaya wrote:

Isn't this about the time you leftists haul out the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and claim we created him as well?

It's too hard for you to accept one factual situation, let alone try to expand it!! I knew you would whine and cry though this whole thing, that's why I didn't really want to put much time in it. You'll just have to go through life with your head shoved up your butt, it's not going to affect anyone else that you do!

Stevepax wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Isn't this about the time you leftists haul out the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, and claim we created him as well?

It's too hard for you to accept one factual situation, let alone try to expand it!! I knew you would whine and cry though this whole thing, that's why I didn't really want to put much time in it. You'll just have to go through life with your head shoved up your butt, it's not going to affect anyone else that you do!

I've seen Tico post nothing but answers to refute your claims, calmly and effectively. I think that it is YOU that finds it too hard to accept one factual situation and turn to your typical spewing of crap to try to keep face.

Loss of Privacy to Government and Private organizations. A lot of people profess to be shocked by the notion that government, especially the Federal government, has extensive files on private American citizens. Whenever a person earns money, the IRS has a record. Apply for a wide range of jobs, and the government will check your fingerprints, credit and criminal history. Your driving records are available through the DMV records in every State. Use any satellite-based communications technology and your exchange may be picked up in the general collection of such data. Technology is useful to us, but it has a price and that is the loss of some of our privacy. Our privacy may be compromised more by private industry than by any government program. Banks, credit card companies, product researchers and marketing specialists keep a close watch on what sells and who buys. If they didn't, they argue, they could not remain competitive with others who do use sophisticated prying into the private choices of citizens. At the beginning of the 21st century, the trend of increasing intrusion into the privacy of ordinary citizens looks irreversible because so many are willing to sacrifice privacy for convenience. We complain about loss of privacy, but we really love being constantly in touch 24/7 with people all around the world. We like the convenience of shopping on the Internet and paying with a bit of plastic.

Limitations on usefulness of intelligence. The size of the information collected every hour is so large that it is a practical impossibility to make any sense of it, much less keep close tabs on any sizable number of subjects. Your telephone call, or Email, bouncing off of a satellite is only one in trillions of such messages that are transmitted everyday. Which of those communications contain information important to the security of the United States? Hidden in all the "noise" of legitimate and innocent communications there are a relative few that contain information that might prevent another mass attack on an American city. Those who have such secrets, go to a lot of trouble to make their communications hard to discover and track. Short messages are harder to crack than long ones, and codes are sometimes virtually impossible to decipher. Cipher systems can be broken, but sometimes it takes days or even weeks to crack the message and the information is no longer timely. Officials in foreign governments who are in a position to know things that might bring insight into international policies may be watched. The transfer of money and other resources useful to the nation's enemies have to be tracked. There are computer systems that help separate the wheat from the chaff by technical means that are, and should remain, secret to anyone outside the intelligence services.

Collection of information by agents on the ground is expensive and accounts for a very small part of the U.S. intelligence effort. The number of paid agents is frightfully small especially in places like the DPRK and Iran. Information collected is often accompanied by the opinions as to its value by the collecting agent/agency, but those opinions are as often wrong as they are correct. After all it is rare for a single source of intelligence to be so reliable and privy to a big enough picture that it can stand by itself. Most often intelligence has to be confirmed by multiple sources, and evaluated against existing information thought to be accurate. All of these factors are expensive, especially in time. Often the significance of a bit of intelligence will only become evident after an event.

Lack of resources and capabilities limits the number of subjects that can be closely monitored. Individuals whose past behavior and networks can linked to individuals/groups believed to be involved to some extent with active terrorists get the highest priority for surveillance. "Facts", or what are believed to be facts, from many sources (some open and others classified) have to be fit into an immensely complicated jigsaw puzzle where there are few clues as to what the over all picture might be.

Are government dossiers on private citizens and organizations a new thing? Are our civil rights endangered by the trend toward building gigantic databases on virtually every individual in the country? Damn right they are. We should be concerned and vigilant, but understand that we can probably never go back to a legendary time when individual privacy was respected and fully protected. There never was such a time. From the very beginning of our Nation, the government kept an eye on private citizens. One of the most sought-after posts in our early history was that of Post Master General. The U.S. Postal Service routinely read the letters of political opponents, and lost those that might embarrass the Administration. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans had their own communications network to avoid giving power to the Federalists. One elected, Jefferson used the Postal Service for his own "spying" and political manipulations. During every election the various Parties did their best to dig up dirt on the opposition, and if they couldn't find anything to excite attention they would invent stories. Congress and the Executive to retain, or extend, their political control often used the powers of government with their grasp. During the Civil War the Federal government had spies in every part of the country keeping track of potential problem citizens. A number of Copper Heads were arrested, secretly held, and tried by military tribunals and some were even executed. During Reconstruction, many Southerners were kept under close surveillance, and old rebels were often the vengeance targets of federal officials.

In the20th century the Federal government spied on private citizens, labor organizations, and those with unpopular political beliefs. Wilson authorized violation of as many civil rights as Lincoln had done during the Civil War. The Post Office was still a source of gathering intelligence on political rivals and the business of private citizens. During the period between WWI and WWII there was a national effort to infiltrate and destroy Communist and socialist political groups. During the Great Depression/Dust Bowl period, State authorities regularly violated the civil rights of people driven from their homes by natural or economic disaster. Many people believed that the American government was a failure, and that we should adopt a totalitarian government like that in the Soviet Union, or in Italy, or in Nazi Germany. Those groups were all infiltrated and reported on. The most extensive spying on citizens wasn't in the U.S., but in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany where Secret Police encouraged children to inform on their parents. In Germany millions of people disappeared forever in the middle of the night. The totalitarian regimes after WWII improved on the Nazi filing systems, and computers made it far easier to track individuals behavior.

Is "temporary" government oversight of citizens and organizations justified? The United States has been under attack by a dedicated enemy, whose ultimate goal is our destruction, since the end of the Cold War. Deadly attacks have been made against our military and citizens since the early 1990s by radical Islamic Terrorists. They have bombed our military barracks, tried to sink ships in our navy, highjacked and murdered American citizens traveling by airline and ocean liner. They have kidnapped and held Americans for ransom. They have spread lies about the United States throughout the Islamic world and recruited young people for suicidal attacks against the United States and its allies. They have actively undermined legitimate governments who have shown any willingness to peacefully work with the Western world. These enemy organizations have rejected any constraints on how they operate. They do not recognize any Treaties regarding the humane treatment of prisoners, or the duty to protect innocent civilians. They have no compunction about beheading individuals on television to discourage efforts to improve the lives of other Muslims. Long before the failed attack on the World Trade Towers, and the successful attacks of 9/11, Islamic Terrorists were actively trying to kill Americans. The United States did nothing to provoke the enmity from the fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups, and nothing will reduce their hatred of us now.

Even if we were to surrender all of our interests, and agreed to comply with all the demands of these fanatics, they would still hate and despise us as infidels and cowards. They will continue their Holy War until the whole world converts to their brand and interpretation of Islam. Humanistic values have no place in their vision of the world. The Western world has no choice but to fight these murderous bastards until either they have all gone to Paradise, or learn to live peacefully with the rest of the world. The propaganda of the Islamic radicals and appeals designed to enflame more moderate Muslims has been pretty successful, and many of our own citizens have come to believe the lies of these despicable scum. Unfortunately, it appears that a significant minority of Americans hates the Republican Party and the President more than the radical terrorist organizations sworn to murder and destroy all representatives of liberty and self-determination.

Funny how the outing of the super secret NSA snooping on Americans was terribly "irresponsible" and may have endangered lives...

But the outing of Plame and Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan was just politically expedient.

Yeah, I see the difference.