Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/24/2005 12:43:21 AM EDT
Liberals won't be happy until we all kneel down in defeat before these thugs. Liberals blind, strange and obsessive, "GET BUSH", When in doubt ,bash the Troops, America must lose this war on terror at all cost, Bullshit agenda, is putting the american people at great risk..................

.......but will John Q. Public wake up and rightly scorn these traitorious Libtards.......Do these fools actually think if we just leave Al Qer's alone they'll just join us by a campfire and sing "Give Peace a chance" while spooning lovingly until the break of dawn han
Dec 24, 2:29 AM (ET)

NEW YORK (AP) - The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls - without court orders - than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.



Link Posted: 12/24/2005 1:50:28 AM EDT
What traitors at NYT have maliciously omitted:

"The Telecommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994" is a law that passed both houses of congress & signed by the president. Please note that date. This law was enacted after the FIRST World Trade Center attack.

The article purposefully maliciously misleads you to believe GWB was illegally wire tapping individual US citizens without court approval.

Additionally, communications are harvested & filtered through powerful computers. "They" aren't spying on individual citizens per se' "they" are piecing together a big ass puzzle. Key word search is part of the process. I'd bet two small rifle primers that Aunt Martha's stuffing receipe isn't going to fit the search requirements.


Sleep well knowing big brother is watching. Also know that cat has been out of the bag for over a decade & if you are a subversive it's too late "they" already know about you
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 2:27:18 AM EDT
The New York Times -100 % Rateing
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 2:37:40 AM EDT
I think that the number of people that actually buy the garbage that the NYT spews gets smaller with every dagger they throw. At least I hope so. There are some that will never get it though.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 3:11:13 AM EDT
Shades of Blair Underwood.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 3:26:43 AM EDT
So who thinks that the NSA, or more likely that whole 'carnivore' thing filters the information on this board?

Moral of the story - dont pretend to be something you arent on the Internet.
Being a poser costs.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 3:36:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By InTheArmyNow:
But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.


NO SHIT!!!!! YOU DON'T SAY!!????!!!!

That is what they do, morons. Once a pattern appears, then the actually content is closely scrutinized.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 10:14:39 AM EDT
Oh, there's a law, that must mean it's ok. Because no law has ever made it to the Supreme Court and been struck down as unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 10:56:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2005 10:58:11 AM EDT by TacticalMan]

Originally Posted By TheSneak:
Oh, there's a law, that must mean it's ok. Because no law has ever made it to the Supreme Court and been struck down as unconstitutional.



You don't think they should be monitoring communications involving people in known terrorist-harboring countries?

Were you against the monitoring of communications with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany during WWII?

Do you believe that the Gov't has a responsibility to prevent further events like the deaths of 3,000 people in the World Trade Center? If you do, what methods are "OK" with you? Stern lectures? Spankings? What exactly?

If you think the WTC was OK, I guess you think we should have ignored Pearl Harbor too. After all, fewer people died there than in the WTC.

Link Posted: 12/24/2005 12:18:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

Originally Posted By TheSneak:
Oh, there's a law, that must mean it's ok. Because no law has ever made it to the Supreme Court and been struck down as unconstitutional.



You don't think they should be monitoring communications involving people in known terrorist-harboring countries?

Were you against the monitoring of communications with Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany during WWII?

Do you believe that the Gov't has a responsibility to prevent further events like the deaths of 3,000 people in the World Trade Center? If you do, what methods are "OK" with you? Stern lectures? Spankings? What exactly?

If you think the WTC was OK, I guess you think we should have ignored Pearl Harbor too. After all, fewer people died there than in the WTC.




There's a procedure for doing things the right way, with judicial oversight. They chose to ignore the procedure.

The systems we have are designed to prevent abuse of the powers that our government is given.

Shall we start rounding up all the gun owners? After all, if we confiscated all those pesky guns people wouldn't shoot each other.

You have to be VERY careful giving your government more power, and if the cost of freedom is the occasional dead civilian, so be it.

Link Posted: 12/24/2005 12:20:48 PM EDT
NYT= CRAP

Link Posted: 12/24/2005 12:33:24 PM EDT


Behold the Fifth Column.


Top Top