Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/25/2005 6:02:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 6:04:18 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
BENIDICT ARNOLDS?

AJ Strata was one of the first to speculate that so-called "protest" resignation of Judge Robertson from the FISA court may have really been because he was one of the leakers of the classified NSA program. He and others are now wondering if Jay Rockefeller's atypical silence may not also be suggestive:


We will know for sure if Robertson starts missing days on the bench on the DC circuit court - a position he has not resigned yet. But one he cannot retain while under investigation.
Mac Ranger believes this fits his scenario where an all of sudden very quiet Senator Rockefeller is also under investigation for leaking the NSA program. The NY Times story that leaked and damaged the surveillance program mentioned the good Senator by name. Guess he forgot to go on background.
Now Rush Limbaugh has joined the dance in looking at Judge Robertson as a possible modern day Benedict Arnold.



This is serious talk, folks. As Jack Kelly points out, after the extreme reaction we all witnessed to the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame; the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the critical nature of our intelligence capability and the seriousness of its compromise; we now have a situation where:


A grave crime was exposed Dec. 16th when New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau published a story revealing President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to listen in on conversations between al Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States without first obtaining a warrant.

"We're seeing clearly now that (President) Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. But the scandal was not the program Risen and Lichtblau wrote about. The scandal is that they wrote about it.



The Left has made a mountain out of Plame --a relative molehill in the great scheme of things--and now they are hoist on their own petard (how's that for mixing metaphors?). Not that I think that the disclosure of classified information in both cases should not be taken as a serious offense; but there was every reason in the Plame affair to believe that the person who actually compromised her was her own husband; while with the NSA dustup, we are dealing with a matter with consequences several orders of magnitude more serious for our national security.

The angry hysterics of the Left can reason it out--if they are capable of even the most rudimentary reasoning skills anymore. Whatever the statutory or constitutional precedent or legality of President Bush's actions--and I happen to think the legal evidence is decidedly in the President's favor--his actions follow a tradition of jockeying for power between the executive and legislative branches that has embroiled most administrations and most congresses since our nation was founded. It would be the President's inaction and lack of attention to these issues in after 9/11 that would be more worrisome.

OTOH, there can be no doubt that the release of information regarding a highly classified and active national security program that is tracking the enemy during a war is definitely illegal; not to mention irresponsible and treasonous. That such an action could possibly be justified as taken "for the good of the nation" is laughable. That the Left sees this as an indication of imminent "fascism" is hilarious, given that it is not different significantly from what previous presidents have done (and most of them did not even do it in a time of active war with military operations ongoing ).

There may be some cynical creatures out there (myself included) who have wondered if Valerie Plame was ever in any real danger because the supposed "secret" of her CIA involvement was made public several years after her covert status was ended. But even the most cynical person in our midst cannot help but conclude that in the NSA leak, we are talking about exposing possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives to the risk of terrorist attacks that might have been prevented by this very program.

If Valerie Plame's position at the CIA was classified; and if was deliberately leaked for political purposes then whoever did it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The act of deliberatly and maliciously exposing a highly classified program (there is no "if" in this case) and the leaking of of highly classified information (again, no "if") during a time of war so that it aids and abets the enemy and puts American lives at risk--is usually referred to as "treason". Whoever conspired to do it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

In 1780 Benedict Arnold formed a plot to surrender the fort at West Point, New York to the British. His name has gone down in American history as synonymous with the word "traitor".

Whoever leaked the NSA program (and I am certain that the person or persons will eventually be identified--and it may or may not be Rockefeller or Robertson-- and whoever willingly published that information in the media, is playing the same lethal game betrayal that Arnold engaged in; and I sincerely and earnestly hope they suffer the same historical consequences.

- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 8:10 AM Comments (9) | Trackback (0)
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 6:11:51 AM EDT
Leakers Robertson and Rockefeller

We were one of the first to see that the resignation of Judge Robertson from FISA was more likely the act of someone under investigation for leaking and damaging the NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda communications with people in the US. For a protest resignation, both Robertson and the Bush administration were way too quiet. For an investigation of leaking classified material, the behavior was all too recognizable as Robertson lawyers up and the Feds go silent with their investigation.

We will know for sure if Robertson starts missing days on the bench on the DC circuit court - a position he has not resigned yet. But one he cannot retain while under investigation.

Mac Ranger believes this fits his scenario where an all of sudden very quiet Senator Rockefeller is also under investigation for leaking the NSA program. The NY Times story that leaked and damaged the surveillance program mentioned the good Senator by name. Guess he forgot to go on background.

Now Rush Limbaugh has joined the dance in looking at Judge Robertson as a possible modern day Benedict Arnold.


Here’s the dirty little secret: Rockefeller may in fact be the leaker to the New York Times, and you know what else is now being speculated?

“According to those officials and others, reservations have been expressed by Senator Rockefeller and a judge presiding over a secret court that overseas intelligence matters.” Now, we overlooked that last Friday.

But now that Judge Robertson has in a puff of conscience resigned from the FISA court, there is speculation out there that Robertson and Rockefeller are leakers and Robertson resigned because he was going to be forced out as having leaked and instead he forces himself out.




Mac Ranger is correct in wondering about the timing of all this with the Alito nomination and breaking news Alito supported more agile wiretapping.


Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps for national security when he worked at the Reagan Justice Department, an echo of President Bush’s rationale for spying on U.S. residents in the war on terror.


This looks like a huge plus for Alito in my book. Anyone screaming it is wrong to monitor who known terrorists overseas contact here in the US is simply sitting on the wrong side of this debate. 80% of the people are for catching the terrorists by these kinds of means if necessary. Only the 20% of liberal mad with Bush Derangement Syndrome are backing the terrorists’ right to communicate, coordinate and execute their plans without bothersome wiretaps.

Well Roberston is still on the US District Court it appears:


Federal Judge Calls Gitmo Detentions “Unlawful”
This news on Guantanamo Bay: the Washington Post is reporting a federal judge has ruled the detention of two ethnic Uighurs at the U.S. prison is “unlawful”, but says he does not have the authority to release them. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said the government has taken too long to release Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim — who have been jailed for four years. The two have been cleared for release, but not returned to China where they would likely face torture or execution.



I found confirmation of this in the Washington Post, but it is not the administration’s fault. Seems no country wants to touch these ‘innocent’ people.


U.S. District Judge James Robertson criticized the government’s detention of Abu Bakker Qassim and Adel Abdu Hakim, who have been jailed at Guantanamo for four years; they have been cleared for release because the government has determined they are not enemy combatants and are not a threat to the United States. But Robertson said his court has “no relief to offer” because the government has not found a country to accept the men and because he does not have authority to let them enter the United States.


The judge seems to be frustrated with the reality and is calling it a crime these people can find no one who will take them in


“The detention of these petitioners has by now become indefinite,” Robertson wrote in a 12-page opinion. “This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful.”


Judge, they are not imprisoned if they simple have no place to go. Even he backed away from taking responsibility for these poor ‘innocent’ victims:


In a hearing last week, Robertson called the cases of the Uighurs (pronounced wee-gurs) a “classic dilemma” and proposed allowing them restricted asylum in the United States. He rejected that concept yesterday, deciding that the executive branch has control over immigration and that such a move “would have national security and diplomatic implications beyond the competence or the authority of this Court.”


Is he clearing his docket of cases so he can go on a hiatus? We will know soon enough. Judge Roberts is due to be assigned emergency cases at the US District Court January 1-2, 20o6. We shall see if that status remains for the time being. Robertson is also assigned Motions Court for February.

If Robertson is under investigation, it should be ‘leaked’ fairly quickly.

Posted by AJStrata on Friday, December 23rd, 2005 at 6:25 pm.

3 Responses to “Leakers Robertson and Rockefeller
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 6:14:43 AM EDT
Duh. Rockefeller wrote a freaking memo about how to start a political jihad against Bush over intelligence supporting the war, the war Rockefeller voted for and was on the intelligence committee. Everything in that memo came to pass.

Now this utter bullshit were supposed to be outraged over, Bush doing what he can to fight terrorism, and ANOTHER Rockefeer document springs up, of him saying basically he's too dumb to understand the issues and legalities going on (but he'll cover his ass none the less and leak this document nonetheless).
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 6:15:44 AM EDT
Rocke-Treason-Gate II

Usually when someone resigns they write a letter explaining the reasons for their resignation.

Except when you are Judge James Robertson:

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation."

Now according to the WAPO, two "sources" say:

"Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday."


To which the WAPO makes the jump that he must have resigned in protest. To which I say, "Bull Crap!"

Folks, the WAPO, and the rest of the MSM would like to think that we are all morons that hang on their every word of "explaination" and "insight". But not I, you're Mac Ranger, who says, "Who in the hell are you jiving with this kosmik debri?"

If Judge Robertson was so 'passionate' about his beliefs, he could have so stated his reasons himself. He wouldn't need the Washington Post to explain them to us through two 'anonymous sources'.

Judge Robertson resigned for one reason. He leaked the story to the NY Times along with Senator Jay Rockefeller. He resigned (fell on the sword) to divert the obvious questions about elsewhere. They won't.

How's that for a "jump"?

Proof? Well, we could start with the letter he wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts, I believe it falls under the FOIA. Perhaps someone could get a copy?

In anycase, the call remains, that in light of these unanswered questions that Senator Jay Rockefeller possibly, and on several occassions has been suspected of leaking, and/or conspiracy with our enemies should at least, in light of the accusations, step down from the Senate Intelligence Committee in the interest of National Security until a full investigation into his activities from 2002-present are completed.

More at Powerline
Link Posted: 12/25/2005 6:21:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:23:09 PM EDT
Apparently the members of this board are also not going to spend more than 10% of their attention on this topic either...
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:25:16 PM EDT
the double standard is stunning and not surprising
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:35:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
the double standard is stunning and not surprising



Yea…

The Attorney General needs to appoint a Special Prosecutor. I suggest…

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft that should cause a complete meltdown on the left.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:39:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
The media will not be covering this with 10% of their effort on covering Scott Peterson's murder of his wife, that missing Chick in Aruba, or how the federal government failed to have a plan for New Orleans. There is zero interest in finding justice when there's a (D) following the name of the potential trator.


Yeah. What he said.

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:12:24 PM EDT
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:25:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??



They are monitoring a set of numbers, outside of this country, that are known to be associated with terrorists. They tap calls from this country to those numbers, and from those numbers. Since the US side of these calls can be ANYWHERE, it is simply not practical to try to obtain a warrant, doing so would be impossible.

We had folks looking at mail going to overseas addresses during WWII. We found some letters that had troop movements and other things that would be of interest to the enemy. I guess back then there weren't so many sissies as there are today.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:26:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 10:27:18 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower.

Then he should just come forward and say so.

UNLESS.... he knows (or at best is not sure) it's illegal and so is just covering his ass at the same time he betrays our country.

If he thinks it's illegal - he should report it OPENLY or shut the hell up.

Face it. Whoever leaked this is more interested in trying to embarass the Bush Administration at the moment Iraq is beginning to take control of it's own destiny and form it's own free government.

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:36:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??



I pretty much agree with the principals here.
I'm not even going to pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of U.S. politics, however, I do find disturbing sveral of the comments here that suggest that fighting the terrorists is more important than upholding the law. If, for the sake of argument, Bush broke the law with regard to these wiretaps, how is that more ok than any of you breaking the law? Now I don't know if he did or not, and I doubt many (if any) of you do either. What I do know is that if the head of state is above the law, then you may as well start chanting "sig heil" and carrying pictures of Saddam, because thats pretty much where you are at if this is the case. As I understand it, the president is as much bound by the constitution and the laws of the land as anyone else. If he has a problem with that, then he should work to change the laws legitimatly, not ignore them.

BTW- I am not a Bush hater.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:39:50 PM EDT
OK – so how did Robertson know about the eavesdropping to begin with? I thought the whole idea behind it was to bypass the courts.

Still, I’d truly love to see an aggressive Valerie Plume type investigation going after the source.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:42:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??



I just assume ANYTHING sent via the www/internet is public. I'm sure that at least some of this is being conducted via coded phrases or with some form of PGP keys. Only a dumbass would email Achmed and say we are hitting the Starbucks at 1400, unless of course that is a distraction or means something else. Do you really think your personal freedom is "eroded" if your mail is scanned by some machine in the sky, maybe flagged and then read by a human? If only my life were that interesting, or I was too dumb to conduct criminal activity in such a way as to invite scrutiny.

Anthrax, botulism, yellowcake, trituim. Boom-shanker, flag on the moon, eat at joes. I like pie, stuff it in Hillary, post pics. Tora tora tora. Allah's Snackbar!
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 12:45:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??



I just assume ANYTHING sent via the www/internet is public. I'm sure that at least some of this is being conducted via coded phrases or with some form of PGP keys. Only a dumbass would email Achmed and say we are hitting the Starbucks at 1400, unless of course that is a distraction or means something else. Do you really think your personal freedom is "eroded" if your mail is scanned by some machine in the sky, maybe flagged and then read by a human? If only my life were that interesting, or I was too dumb to conduct criminal activity in such a way as to invite scrutiny.

Anthrax, botulism, yellowcake, trituim. Boom-shanker, flag on the moon, eat at joes. I like pie, stuff it in Hillary, post pics. Tora tora tora. Allah's Snackbar!


UH, yes! What i write in my emails is personal and private. It aint the gubbmints business what it says. UNLESS they have probable cause!!!! This is a right, NOT A PRIVELDGE. TO me it would be no different than "random house checks" after all, why should i object to that?? I dont have anything to HIDE do i? Maybe i should inform on myself behind my back! If you cant understand basic rights principles i guess you never will. This is the reason why i used the "snail mail" analogy to e-mail. Snail mail exsisted in the days of the FF and they and court decisions made it clear that they were PRIVATE and not for goverment eyes without warrant. But as usual E-mail is "different" because the FF are long dead and the New people in charge could give a shit about the "sprit" in which the constitution was founded, this is a new era! their attitude is, "well there is no mention of the literal word "e-mail" in the constitution and no real decisions or presidents as to what e-mail is so we'll just take the typical control freak tyrannical gov't line and declare it totally searchable anytime, anywhere, who's gonna stop us ? The Founding fathers?
The only thing they are good for is worm's meat!
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:20:55 AM EDT
I wondered the same thing. Why was Rockefellers name mentioned if it was a national security issue? He has had way to many shady dealings lately.

I hope the tall bastard gets knocked down off of his dumocrat horse. Fucker never does anything for WV but be a dumbass. This is a state where probably 95% of the people own guns and Rockefeller and Byrd consistantly vote against guns.

One things for sure in thier delirious pursuit to bring the Bush admin down they have once again sold out the safety of America same as they do frequently to our Troops. You can bet that Al-Queda has changed tactics thanks to this bullshit. The democratic party is the best friend our enemy ever had.

It seems to be common knowledge that the Government has computers monitioring for key words such as bomb. Or at least folklore. [Focker] You can't say bomb on a plane......BOMB BOMB BOMB....BOMBBOMBBABOMB. [/Focker]

As far as the whole process being illegal. I don't care. I don't do anything illegal and if this hadn't been leaked all I would ever know is that we haven't been attacked again. [FLAME ON
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 1:23:48 AM EDT
So lets treat them as traitors and give them the needle. i am only saying that because of the D at the end of their name.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:54:02 AM EDT
The kommiekrats view aiding ANY enemy America is at war with as "freedom Fighting." The geekokrats have no concept of personal honor because there is no mention of it in the Communist Manifesto thus furthering the agenda of the "Revolutionary Communist Party" aka the dimokratik Parti, is not considered "treason" ....if it betrays America,it's people or way of life............"it is being a "freedom Fighter in support of what is best for the masses."

The dimokratik party in America has become an "Enemy of the State." Clearly MOST members of the dimokratik arbiter parti Leadership including their Congressional members should be tried and executed as soon as possible ..............Today is still young. Having members of the revolutionary communist parti in ANY sensitive Government position is clearly a mistake as the fagokrats clearly have some "issues" with the concept of National Security and aiding the enemy.

Not much of a surprise there as the krats worship traitors and despise patriots. A krat hanging from every lightpole would be a good start.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:01:53 AM EDT

The dimokratik party in America has become an "Enemy of the State."


and there are plenty who believe the Republicans have become the Enemy of the People.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:11:58 AM EDT
Hey NY.....There is precedent for the taps....and it isn't illegal.......as for your emails getting scanned.....everything you write on the internet get scanned for key words.


I was told by certain people in the Treasury Department that me screen name probably gives people fits.

Bomber

I'll be gone a few days so don't think I ran off.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:14:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

The dimokratik party in America has become an "Enemy of the State."


and there are plenty who believe the Republicans have become the Enemy of the People.





Those "people" (aka usefull fools) only "know" and "think" what CNN and the NYT tells them too. I would hope to think that the pod people, you speak of, know that "WE AMERICANS" are their enemy and hopefully one day will see them all hung for their treason.

Server at DUmp down again?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:17:43 AM EDT
t-stox Wrote:
What i write in my emails is personal and private.

You need to check out federal and state laws. Email is anything but private. If you send and email from work it is perfectly legal for your employer to read that email. It is also perfectly legal for your email to be monitored from a public computer. Also the person you send the email to can forward it to any one they like. There have been several cases in the courts were email obtained with out a search warrant has been used. Bill Gates had email problems in the Microsoft case in the 90’s; several divorce cases have used email. If you think email is personnel and private you are living in a dreamland my friend. The email you wrote today will be around for years and can legally be used against you in a court of law. All of the email you have ever sent, received, or deleted is back up some were and can be retrieved. I’m not saying I like this, but it is a fact and has been for several years.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:00:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HarrySacz:
So lets treat them as traitors and give them the needle. i am only saying that because of the D at the end of their name.



Nothing will ever happen to them. Because they are:

1) Democrats. There will be NO media condemnation. Look at the slap on the wrist Sandy Burglar got for stealing/covering up secret documents.

2)Rich, Powerful. Like Bill Oreilly says, The rich and powerful cover and protect each other.

Outrageous. It's just they way it is.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:06:45 AM EDT
Get a rope?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:12:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 199:
OK – so how did Robertson know about the eavesdropping to begin with? I thought the whole idea behind it was to bypass the courts.



Cheney on behalf of the White House apparently informed Congress through the Senate Intelligence committee. It wasn't discussed publicly for obvious reasons that have been shitcanned in the name of damaging Bush and raising the question of presidential abuse of power. For going after effing terrorists. These people



Still, I’d truly love to see an aggressive Valerie Plume type investigation going after the source.



Hahahah, not likely unless the leakers leaked in order to defend Bush and his policies. Since the leaks were done to damage him, there will be no such interest like there was to persecute Bob Novak's source.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:28:33 AM EDT
I don't like where this is heading. There is no doubt that Rockafeller's involvement was 100% politically motivated and I have no trouble believing that he leaked this information to the press. However, when the President illegally orders an intelligence agency to spy on American's (by listening to their phone calls without a warrant), and then uses law enforcement to investigate his political enemies for leaking information regarding the President's illegal activities...it just sounds too much like something that would have taken place in Stalinist Russia.

This nation is changing and it is not for the better.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:31:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't like where this is heading. There is no doubt that Rockafeller's involvement was 100% politically motivated and I have no trouble believing that he leaked this information to the press. However, when the President illegally orders an intelligence agency to spy on American's (by listening to their phone calls without a warrant), and then uses law enforcement to investigate his political enemies for leaking information regarding the President's illegal activities...it just sounds too much like something that would have taken place in Stalinist Russia.



Damn skippy. But what president did that?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:43:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 7:58:05 AM EDT by op_rod]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower. Second, how is spying on everyperson who sends a communication overseas going to stop terrorism again??? What is some guy is gonna write in an e-mail to his friend in Pakistan "hey dude, we're planning on blowing up so-and-so place at so and so time"??????? Is there any case where an attack was prevented by "drag-net" spying? Even the 9-11 assholes e-mail was intercepted along with a billion other peoples and only AFTER the attack did they isolate it and sort it out. It does nothing to stop terrorism but does erode personal freedom. Imagine if every paper letter you sent was read and opened without warrant by the Gov't! But somehow electronic info is different??



They are monitoring a set of numbers, outside of this country, that are known to be associated with terrorists. They tap calls from this country to those numbers, and from those numbers. Since the US side of these calls can be ANYWHERE, it is simply not practical to try to obtain a warrant, doing so would be impossible.

We had folks looking at mail going to overseas addresses during WWII. We found some letters that had troop movements and other things that would be of interest to the enemy. I guess back then there weren't so many sissies as there are today.



Not at all -- the issues were identical then and now. The difference is that in a time of declared war where the nation is in imminent danger the SC has pretty regularly agreed that the standards for things like search and seizure, due process, and so on can be relaxed AS LONG AS THERE IS A STATE OF WAR. The problem with using that argument right now is that the Bush administration has used it when convenient and changed their stance on a dime (which really pisses off Federal judges, most recently Luttig on the Padilla case, and Luttig is hardly a liberal, and is unsupportable before the Supreme Court, as we are probably about to see with the Padilla case). Do I think we are at war? Sure. Does the Bush administration act like it? When convenient. Is there a formal declaration of any kind? The Bush administration has not asked for it (making it easy on the Democrats, as Bush does over and over again, by not putting them on the spot). If we had formally declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be in this position.

Part of what annoys me is that we aren't having this problem because we are so "free and open" a society. We are having this problem because we have had damned close to no standards for how much immigrants and visa holders can benefit the US as opposed to how much the US citizenship or visa can benefit the immigrants and visa holders for 40 years ('cause diversity is strength and WASP culture is evil and things like honor killing of female children are just an equally valid expression of love, right? Sure! Just ask GW!). And we have no border security. And we have no idea who is in the US because of no border security. And our current administration is doing almost nothing about this. If Crazy Abdul the Mad Bomber were sitting in a cafe in Beirut chain smoking and raging about the US, it would not be too much of a security risk. But we have no idea if we have let in every member of his family except Crazy Abdul and he is now sleeping on the sofa in Newark dreaming about killing women and children, we have no idea if we have issued him a student visa, and we have no idea if he paid a coyote to walk him over the New Mexico border. All of these problems (all of which can be fixed) REQUIRE us to increase domestic spying well beyond what we are doing now in order to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. But the people doing the spying are paid for results, there is always mission creep, and pretty soon they are doing domestic spying for President Hillary Clinton. And all of this could be fixed if GW wasn't so all fired up about being the bext president Mexico ever had.

Have I mentioned how much I miss Reagan?

EDIT:

Most people have no idea how much the liberal reaction to Watergate allowed a huge amount of incredibly bad legislation to go through. The FBI was close to neutered with regard to domestic surveilance, expecially of religious groups (which the current "Religion of Peace" -- thanks, GW! -- folks are well aware of and use to their advantage). There is actually far, far, far less domestic spying than we need. And sooner or later the terrorists will get lucky because of it.

We can fix this by attacking the basic Warren Court decisions that made so little sense, but Bush has to date not really done anything like that (to the puzzlement of lots of conservatives) and is still letting liberal decisions and legislation run the domestic spying agenda while trying to get around it (in ways that really to appear to be illegal). So, we are pretty much left with deportation, but Bush isn't doing that either.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:47:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't like where this is heading. There is no doubt that Rockafeller's involvement was 100% politically motivated and I have no trouble believing that he leaked this information to the press. However, when the President illegally orders an intelligence agency to spy on American's (by listening to their phone calls without a warrant), and then uses law enforcement to investigate his political enemies for leaking information regarding the President's illegal activities...it just sounds too much like something that would have taken place in Stalinist Russia.



Damn skippy. But what president did that?



Who is investigating Rockafeller and Robertson?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:56:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
If what Bush did was Illegal then he is not a traitor but a whistleblower.



And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 7:57:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markmars:
t-stox Wrote:
What i write in my emails is personal and private.

You need to check out federal and state laws. Email is anything but private. If you send and email from work it is perfectly legal for your employer to read that email. It is also perfectly legal for your email to be monitored from a public computer. Also the person you send the email to can forward it to any one they like. There have been several cases in the courts were email obtained with out a search warrant has been used. Bill Gates had email problems in the Microsoft case in the 90’s; several divorce cases have used email. If you think email is personnel and private you are living in a dreamland my friend. The email you wrote today will be around for years and can legally be used against you in a court of law. All of the email you have ever sent, received, or deleted is back up some were and can be retrieved. I’m not saying I like this, but it is a fact and has been for several years.



Read my post again, THAT WAS MY POINT! It seems to me all "rights" were established according to 1789 technology levels because it was the founding fathers who ensured it happened. But once they were gone all bets were OFF! Gov't went back to it's usual tyrannical intrusive bent, using the idea of "this is something new" to take advantage of the situation. And when i mean "the Gov't" i mean the whole apparatus including judges, Politicians, DC appointees, etc. Just because some pin headed slime lawyer in black jammy jams (judges) says e-mail is NOT the same as paper mail so what? judges can arbitrarily say whatever they want! Or have'nt you heard? All there is left in the US is personal opinion!! the Constitution means shit! You thing the so-called "constitution" protects the right to own guns? Think again. The state can do whatever it wants and only the past traditions and practices of the FF interferes with that! For example the only reason why guns are still quasi-legal is because pols fear a backlash at election time, it has nothing to do with the "2nd amendment". If tomorrow 60% of the populace wanted guns banned ( peoples personal opinion), guess what? bye bye. The judges will just back them up with some legalese mumbo-jumbo bullshit and use "the monopoly of force" allocated to the state to enforce their "will". They seem to forget that the constitution was also there to protect minorities against a tyrannical majority. IMHO abortion also falls in this catagory! stop being political hacks who will blindly defend someone with an R next to their name and get an ounce of integrity for christs sake.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:04:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't like where this is heading. There is no doubt that Rockafeller's involvement was 100% politically motivated and I have no trouble believing that he leaked this information to the press. However, when the President illegally orders an intelligence agency to spy on American's (by listening to their phone calls without a warrant), and then uses law enforcement to investigate his political enemies for leaking information regarding the President's illegal activities...it just sounds too much like something that would have taken place in Stalinist Russia.



Damn skippy. But what president did that?



Who is investigating Rockafeller and Robertson?



Are you talking about the old Nixon Administration folks (Cheney, Rumsfeld)?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:24:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 3:26:24 PM EDT by jkstexas2001]

Originally Posted By op_rod:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't like where this is heading. There is no doubt that Rockafeller's involvement was 100% politically motivated and I have no trouble believing that he leaked this information to the press. However, when the President illegally orders an intelligence agency to spy on American's (by listening to their phone calls without a warrant), and then uses law enforcement to investigate his political enemies for leaking information regarding the President's illegal activities...it just sounds too much like something that would have taken place in Stalinist Russia.



Damn skippy. But what president did that?



Who is investigating Rockafeller and Robertson?



Are you talking about the old Nixon Administration folks (Cheney, Rumsfeld)?



Op_rod, folks like you are the best friends Al Qaeda ever had. In reference to another of your posts, we cannot declare war since Al Qaeda is not a country?
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:58:29 PM EDT
That makes alot more sense to me. Now I understand why the Bush Admin. didn't want to go to the courts, they suspected a leak.I wish they would have realised Congress was rife also.

The libs on this board can say what they were doing was illegal till your blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. As others smarter than myself have said, our constitution isn't a death pact. We can't completly handcuff the .GOV. to investigate.
Even if you think it is immoral, what the Bush Admin. did, you can't honestly argue that it is illegal because of FISA.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By postpostban:
That makes alot more sense to me. Now I understand why the Bush Admin. didn't want to go to the courts, they suspected a leak.I wish they would have realised Congress was rife also.

The libs on this board can say what they were doing was illegal till your blue in the face. It doesn't make it so. As others smarter than myself have said, our constitution isn't a death pact. We can't completly handcuff the .GOV. to investigate.
Even if you think it is immoral, what the Bush Admin. did, you can't honestly argue that it is illegal because of FISA.



Its not really the true lefties here that are denouncing this on this board- we dont have any such people here- its the Li(e)bertarians.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 4:15:56 PM EDT
Not surprising but the double standard is firmly in place..amazing that these liberals could care less if it's a national security issue or not. They'll do anything to attack the President. The party of hate strikes again.

Good read Armdlbl.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 3:49:05 PM EDT
Well, Leaky Leahy decided to talk to the press about a classified matter, and one of our intelligence sources was killed. All he got was a slap on the hand. I don't expect much will happen should Rockefeller be found to be the leaker.
Top Top