Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
What do you think?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
The real crime here isn't that our government is appropriating data from Verizon et all to spy on us. Although that's bad enough.
The real crime is that we let them make it legal to do this to us. It's disgusting. It doesn't matter to me which administration started this. The CURRENT one promised to be open and transparent.
My fucking eye they are. The whole thing makes me want to vomit. It's beyond disgusting.
The real crime is that we let them make it legal to do this to us. It's disgusting. It doesn't matter to me which administration started this. The CURRENT one promised to be open and transparent.
My fucking eye they are. The whole thing makes me want to vomit. It's beyond disgusting.
Pat
Supporter
But it may be a crime. In July 2012, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassified two statements. They lead to the following:
* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
* The government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
These are rulings from the FISA court which oversees the surveillance programs run by the government and authorized requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. The obvious conclusion: a secret FISA court opinion ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law.
* On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
* The government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.
These are rulings from the FISA court which oversees the surveillance programs run by the government and authorized requests for various surveillance activities related to national security, and it does this behind a thick cloak of secrecy. The obvious conclusion: a secret FISA court opinion ruled that one surveillance program was unconstitutional and violated the spirit of the law.
Hey, the regime won't let this stand!
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration is likely to open a criminal investigation into the leaking of highly classified documents that revealed the secret surveillance of Americans' telephone and email traffic, U.S. officials said on Friday.
Government likely to open criminal probe into NSA leaks: officials | Reuters
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration is likely to open a criminal investigation into the leaking of highly classified documents that revealed the secret surveillance of Americans' telephone and email traffic, U.S. officials said on Friday.
Government likely to open criminal probe into NSA leaks: officials | Reuters
How did we get into the position where unelected, unaccountable, unknown, very powerful people gained so much control over us?
The IRS is certainly a formidable enemy to have.
The IRS is certainly a formidable enemy to have.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I guess the only two alternatives wherein you are in real control of your own destiny are either to be so poor no one gives a shit about you, or to be so wealthy no one can afford to cross you.
Sadly, like most of us here, I am between those two poles, so right in the crosshairs. When they start rounding up late middle-aged, fat, bald Jewish guys, thinking we are Arab extremist, I'll be the first one they come looking for.
Sadly, like most of us here, I am between those two poles, so right in the crosshairs. When they start rounding up late middle-aged, fat, bald Jewish guys, thinking we are Arab extremist, I'll be the first one they come looking for.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Here's the guy who leaked. My thanks to him, his motives and I hope he comes out of this ok.
NSA leaker comes forward, warns of agency's 'existential threat' - CNN.com
NSA leaker comes forward, warns of agency's 'existential threat' - CNN.com
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
And for those of you who continue to claim this is an "Obama" problem or a "Bush" problem or a Democrat problem or a Republican one, you are wrong. The answer is all of them.
Quoted from some research a friend of mine did:
It's illuminating to look at the voting for the 2012 FISA amendments. In the House, it passed 3 to 1, with only a tiny number of Republicans voting against it:
H.R. 5949 (112th): FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us
It passed by a similar ratio (bigger, actually) in the senate, with only 4 of the 23 "nay" votes *not* being Democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...vote=00236#top
In both houses, it had pretty good bilateral support among those who voted for the bill. That doesn't happen when an issue is broadly opposed by the US population as a whole. NY's lefty senators both voted yes.
It will be interesting to see how many of those who supported reauthorization (1) did NOT know about the practices recently revealed, and (2) will be willing to actually work to fix the problem. I think it will be a short list.
Again, this isn't "Obama's problem." It's OUR problem, enacted and enabled by our representatives
Quoted from some research a friend of mine did:
It's illuminating to look at the voting for the 2012 FISA amendments. In the House, it passed 3 to 1, with only a tiny number of Republicans voting against it:
H.R. 5949 (112th): FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us
It passed by a similar ratio (bigger, actually) in the senate, with only 4 of the 23 "nay" votes *not* being Democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...vote=00236#top
In both houses, it had pretty good bilateral support among those who voted for the bill. That doesn't happen when an issue is broadly opposed by the US population as a whole. NY's lefty senators both voted yes.
It will be interesting to see how many of those who supported reauthorization (1) did NOT know about the practices recently revealed, and (2) will be willing to actually work to fix the problem. I think it will be a short list.
Again, this isn't "Obama's problem." It's OUR problem, enacted and enabled by our representatives
My point exactly, Veek
leased:IMHO, if Romney had done all those things, we would never have heard about it. Notice I did not say that I don't think Romney would do those things, I agree with the almost universal belief here that "they" all do....I just think Romney would have refused to release the information or would have quashed any source which wanted to.
I am reminded of a statement by one of the most corrupt Presidents we Americans have ever had to endure, Richard M. Nixon, when he was asked by David Frost about breaking the laws....he said something to the effect of "When the President of the United States does it, it's not against the law."
I believe in my heart Romney would have absolutely the same attitude about exactly the same kinds of transgressions we are talking about here...and, given that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, that he would do everything within his considerable power to keep the facts from us American citizens.
We may not like what the current administration is doing, but we are hearing about it....come hell or high water, we're hearing about it, whether we want to or not.
Cheers!
Doug
Doug,
What aspect of Romney's past lead's you to believe he would "refuse to release the information of would have quashed any source which wanted to."
Also, your last paragraph implies that the current administration is the reason we're hearing about it. That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, our current administration has reacted exactly (or more aggressively) than you imply Romney would.
What aspect of Romney's past lead's you to believe he would "refuse to release the information of would have quashed any source which wanted to."
Also, your last paragraph implies that the current administration is the reason we're hearing about it. That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, our current administration has reacted exactly (or more aggressively) than you imply Romney would.
You mean whether THEY want us to hear about it or not, don't you? After all, that IS what's actually happening, is it not? They were doing all this under a "top secret" (or whatever classification it had) blanket, were they/ are they not? They obviously didn't want us to know SQUAT. The ONLY reason we're "hearing about it" now is because someone LEAKED the info - and for NO OTHER reason.
"The most transparent admin in history" my EYE.
Puhleeeeeze...
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yes it was leaked see post #47.
His refusal to release his income records in the manner which has become customary with presidential candidates...he released only two years, whereas the practice has been to release at least the past ten years.
When pressed about the issue, his answer (and his wife's) was simply "There will be no more information forthcoming".
...and there was not.
Something to hide? Sure sounds like it....:idea:
...and that is the manner in which he would have dealt with any unfortunate (for his administration) information or occurances. His disdain for the public's right to be informed was obvious to those of us who were politically sentient enough to look at the situation objectively...of course, those who preferred Romney for whatever reason, including that they simply disliked his oponent, might have a different opinion, but that is questionable "objectivity". It is evident to me that any administration under Romney would have been much less "transparent" than the current administration, about which you are complaining so vociferously.
Cheers!
Doug
"Something to hide? Sure sounds like it..."
Remember when Prince Harry Reid C-L-A-I-M-E-D (no proof - he just claimed publicly) - that Romney hadn't paid income taxes for the past 10 years? How did that "claim" turn out? What's the fundamental diff between what HE did then and what YOU'RE doing now?
"..of course, those who preferred Romney for whatever reason, including that they simply disliked his opponent (you forgot to include '...because he's black...'), might have a different opinion, but THAT is questionable "objectivity"." Oh, of COURSE it is, sir! YOU are the only one who's actually "objective" - THEY obviously are not! Please...
Enough of this. Wifey and I are off to catch a plane to 'VEGAS! 'Cab will be here in about 30 mins. 'Will check back here next weekend to see who's left standing...if I remember to do so. :argue:
'Til then, have fun, y'all. I know WE will!
Remember when Prince Harry Reid C-L-A-I-M-E-D (no proof - he just claimed publicly) - that Romney hadn't paid income taxes for the past 10 years? How did that "claim" turn out? What's the fundamental diff between what HE did then and what YOU'RE doing now?
"..of course, those who preferred Romney for whatever reason, including that they simply disliked his opponent (you forgot to include '...because he's black...'), might have a different opinion, but THAT is questionable "objectivity"." Oh, of COURSE it is, sir! YOU are the only one who's actually "objective" - THEY obviously are not! Please...
Enough of this. Wifey and I are off to catch a plane to 'VEGAS! 'Cab will be here in about 30 mins. 'Will check back here next weekend to see who's left standing...if I remember to do so. :argue:
'Til then, have fun, y'all. I know WE will!
Last edited:
Don't wast your time on a fella who proudly put a bumper sticker on his guitar case saying, " My momma says I'm smart."
Ron Earp
Admin
He was being interviewed on NPR today (probably rebroadcast of another agency's interview) when I was stuck in traffic on 40. Seems same and logical. But shortly after they interviewed Snowden the reporter spoke with a lawmaker and that fellow wants his ass to fry. I can't remember who the fellow was, but he stated that whatever the longest punishment was he would be voting for that since he claims "Snowden has chosen to ally himself with the enemy" - the enemy here being terrorists and China. So much for a fair shake huh?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Mr Fechter should avoid making judgments about people's intelligence, after all, he believes that:
The Founding Fathers ended slavery.
That Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9-11
That Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot.
That Fox News is a reliable source of information.
That Alan West was the new leader of the Republican Party
That Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.
That Republicans would take back the Senate..........
Last edited:
Wow, that's quite a stretch to make the conclusion that Romney witholding his income tax statements (which was legally his right to do and which ultimately demonstrated he did nothing inappropriate) would therefore translate in his willingness to circumvent the bill of rights!
Of course, when he said he'd run the most transparent administration ever you could infer he set the bar really high and, had his administration been involved in such egregious acts, he could be defined as a lying two-faced SOB who's in a neck and neck race with Nixon for all-time President Slimebucket status (and Nixon was never self-righteous enough to claim moral high ground). Oh wait, Romney never made that claim......:stunned:
