9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2006 06:45 am
pachelbel wrote:
Agreed. When one is bent on seeing only one viewpoint, it is tedious and senseless to debate.

However, when you're presented with overwhelming proof that contradicts your previously held views, then you must concede. If you're intelligent enough.

I would think he would have the decency to admit defeat at the hands of Joe Nation.

Isn't that what debate is all about?


Why debate when you can simply disappear to another thread where you continue to make snide comments, regurgitate propaganda and engage in personal attack.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jan, 2006 08:27 am
Palace Revolt
They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it. A NEWSWEEK investigation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 07:15 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html

Quote:
Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps
Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A07



Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:40 pm
Actually, this might happen (and happens) everywhere else, too:

Quote:
US ARMY: COLLECTING INFORMATION ON U.S. PERSONS

Military regulations offer wide latitude in the gathering of
domestic intelligence information.

"Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military]
intelligence components collecting U.S. person information," according
to a 2001 Army intelligence memo.

What's more, military intelligence agencies can provisionally
"receive" domestic intelligence information that they may not be
legally permitted to "collect."

"MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone,
anytime."

That point was stressed in the November 5, 2001 memo issued by Lt. Gen.
Robert W. Noonan, Jr., the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

DoD and Army regulations "allow collection about U.S. persons
reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in
International terrorist activities."

"Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute
'collection' under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails
receiving 'for use'," Gen. Noonan wrote.

"Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to
determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected,
retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy."

The distinction between "receiving" information (always permitted)
and "collecting" it (permitted only in certain circumstances)
appears to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance
activities under the existing legal framework.

This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic
surveillance program departed from previous practice.

"It seems to me that there is enough ambiguity in the language that
with a bit of creativity in managing the US persons files there
would have been not too much trouble" applying existing rules to the
NSA program, said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, who pointed
Secrecy News to the 2001 Army memo.

See "Collecting Information on U.S. Persons," Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Intelligence, November 5, 2001:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/uspersons.html

Army Regulation 381-10, "U.S. Army Intelligence Activities," was
reissued on November 22, 2005, but up to now it has not been
publicly disclosed.

The previous edition of AR 381-10, dated July 1, 1984 (and in effect
until December 22, 2005), is available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r381_10.pdf


source: via fas.org
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 12:48 pm
Gonzales Is Challenged on Wiretaps
Feingold Says Attorney General Misled Senators in Hearings

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; A07



Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort. Gonzales is scheduled to testify Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program's legal rationale.

"It now appears that the Attorney General was not being straight with the Judiciary Committee and he has some explaining to do," Feingold said in a statement yesterday.

A Justice Department spokesman said yesterday the department had not yet reviewed the Feingold letter and could not comment.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 02:26 pm
Tommorrow, I believe, the hearings on the NSA spying begin.

I expect things to heat up pretty quickly, as we all know the Bush admin is between a rock and a hard place on this one; whether or not what they are doing is technically illegal, spying and lying about spying don't go over well in middle America...

Cheers and here's to an interesting year.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 05:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Tommorrow, I believe, the hearings on the NSA spying begin.

I expect things to heat up pretty quickly, as we all know the Bush admin is between a rock and a hard place on this one; whether or not what they are doing is technically illegal, spying and lying about spying don't go over well in middle America...

Cheers and here's to an interesting year.

Cycloptichorn


They will lie and skate their way past this one as they always have before! Nothings gonna happen!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 06:51 pm
How many LIES are we willing allow our government officials to slide by us? When is the lying no longer acceptable?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 08:08 pm
Coretta Scott King's passing causes me to recollect Robert Kennedy, Democrat of course, wiretapped (spied) on Martin Luther King, hoping to get some dirt on him. Truly domestic spying on American citizens in that case. Just a little historical perspective here to try to put things into perspective.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200207/garrow

Carry on.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 08:44 pm
wrong then and wrong now...


That is the only possible perspective.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 09:00 pm
okie wrote:
Coretta Scott King's passing causes me to recollect Robert Kennedy, Democrat of course, wiretapped (spied) on Martin Luther King, hoping to get some dirt on him. Truly domestic spying on American citizens in that case. Just a little historical perspective here to try to put things into perspective.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200207/garrow

Carry on.


Now if we could only count on Bush getting the same punishment as Robert Kennedy then!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:48 pm
So now we know.
Anon actively hopes for (and possibly works toward) the murder of the President.

That speaks volumes about him.
Are we supposed to take anything he says seriously now?

Anybody that publicly hopes for the death of the president or anyone else is so deranged that they are to be pitied,not respected.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2006 11:57 pm
Wishing for and working towards are two very different things. Plus, to really accomplish any good, it would have to be a twofer! You are right though, I would shed no tears. That isn't against the law ... yet!

Anon
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 12:07 am
Threats can bring a knock on your door. Perhaps intended only as a cute comment, but if that was the intent, it was not only not cute, but pretty ugly. Anon voter, you are no friend of mine, and you deserve no respect whatsoever. If you intend your political opinion to mean anything, forget it.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 12:17 am
okie wrote:
Threats can bring a knock on your door. Perhaps intended only as a cute comment, but if that was the intent, it was not only not cute, but pretty ugly. Anon voter, you are no friend of mine, and you deserve no respect whatsoever. If you intend your political opinion to mean anything, forget it.


Please highlight any perceived THREAT! Send the statement to Homeland Security and hope for the best!

As if I give a **** what YOU think!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 08:51 am
Anon
Watch out or the thought police will get you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 09:47 am
You have to remember the mentality that you are dealing with, here; these guys are scared all the time. That's why they support Bush; gives 'em a feeling of security.

Threaten to take away their security blanket, they get crabby.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 11:08 am
au1929 wrote:
Anon
Watch out or the thought police will get you.


The American Dream Laughing

Anon
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 05:55 pm
Halliburton Detention Camps For Political Subversives
by Paul Joseph Watson
In another shining example of modern day corporate fascism, it was announced recently that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root had been awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."

Discussions of federal concentration camps is no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, it is mainstream news.

Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in an internment facility forever without trial. Jose Padilla, an American citizen, has spent over four years in a Navy brig and is only just now getting a trial.

In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public three years ago with his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the camps.

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

The move towards the database state in the US and the UK, where every offence is arrestable and DNA records of every suspect, even if later proven innocent, are permanently kept on record, is the only tool necessary to create a master list of 'subversives' that would be subject to internment in a manufactured time of national emergency.

The national ID card is also intended to be used for this purpose, just as the Nazis used early IBM computer punch card technology to catalogue lists of homosexuals, gypsies and Jews before the round-ups began.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act in Britain enables police to obtain name and address details of anyone they choose, whether they are acting suspiciously or not. Those details remain on a database forever. To date, 119,000 names of political activists have been taken and this is a figure that will skyrocket once the post 7/7 figures are taken into account. At the height of the Iraq war protests, around a million people marched across the country. However, most of these people were taking part in a political protest for the first time and as a one off. Even if we take a figure of half, 500,000 people being politically active in Britain, that means that the government has already registered around a quarter of political activists in the UK.

In truth the number is probably above half because we are not factoring in those already on MI5 'subversive' lists and those listed after the 7/7 bombings, when the powers were used even more broadly.

Concurrently in the US, a new provision in the extended Patriot Act bill would allow Secret Service agents to arrest and jail protesters accused of breaching any security perimeter, even if the President or any other protected official isn't present. The definition of 'free speech zones' can be shifted around loosely and this would open the floodgates for protesters to be grabbed and hauled away in any circumstance at the whim of the Secret Service.

During the 2004 RNC protests, thousands of New Yorkers were arrested en masse in indiscriminate round-ups and taken to Pier 57 (pictured), a condemned, asbestos poisoned old bus depot, where they were imprisoned without charge for up to 24 hours or more.

The existence and development of internment camps are solely intended to be used to round up en masse and imprison 'political dissidents' (anyone who isn't prepared to lick government boots) after a simulated tactical nuke or biological attack on a major US or European city.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/010206detentioncamps.htm
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Feb, 2006 06:26 pm
I can't wait untill all those subversives are put away. Perhaps then we can find a nice cup of coffee without standing in line.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 03:53:29