Look Everybody We're East Berlin, Pre-Wall Topple! - Page 2

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-15-2006, 02:55 AM

And probable cause is determined by what process? The process boils down most of the time to "taking a look." And taking a look is not prohibited by law. That's what I see here. Read Michelle Malkin on the subject of the datamining for something from a cooler head. Read the most recent Larry Elder, too.

Resorting to the tactics of the Taliban... hmm. Have you locked up your sister in her home? Are you in the morality police, mostly bastinadoing women for walking abroad while female? Dynamited any figural religious art such as a crucifix, on the grounds that you yourself aren't a Catholic?

Yeah, sure, this kind of thing is positively thick on the ground in the US, these days, isn't it? Can't take a walk without checking out the latest public execution, hey?

Tactics of the Taliban, quotha!

I'll tell you what I see in your thinking, rzen: you don't want to admit that some damn body started a war with us -- and on their fifth try, over a period spanning eighteen years from 1983 in Lebanon to 2001 in NYC. Our foes have diligently sown the wind -- should they somehow not reap the whirlwind? We should not be a target for every fucking idiot with a bomb and a grudge, nor should we be a target for their national sponsors.

Happy Monkey · 05-15-2006, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And probable cause is determined by what process?

A court order.

glatt · 05-15-2006, 12:57 PM

And ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them and other news organizations in an effort to find anonymous confidential government sources. Phone numbers called by these news organizations are being recorded, and the feds are looking for patterns in these lists of calls to identify the leakers.

How many amendments to the Constitution does this violate? Freedom of the press is supposed to be sacred in this country. How can the government be allowed to see who the press is calling?

Spexxvet · 05-15-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's worthwhile to look at this number-sifting as a way to clear just about everybody of any hint of chatting with terrorists, and with thee and me out of the way, the intel boys concentrate their finite resources actually upon the stuff we'd like to listen to.

It's not a big leap from this type of behavior to "vee vant to zee your paperz". I hope yours are in order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The leakmongers can be indicted for their deliberately trying to screw up our effort to win the war. What can such bozos be thinking?

Revenge on Joe Wilson for dissenting with the administration?

Spexxvet · 05-15-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

And ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them and other news organizations in an effort to find anonymous confidential government sources. Phone numbers called by these news organizations are being recorded, and the feds are looking for patterns in these lists of calls to identify the leakers.

How many amendments to the Constitution does this violate? Freedom of the press is supposed to be sacred in this country. How can the government be allowed to see who the press is calling?

Not that the administration will do anything. They'll just turn their back when they find the number everyone is calling is (800) KARL-ROVE

05-15-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And probable cause is determined by what process? The process boils down most of the time to "taking a look." And taking a look is not prohibited by law. That's what I see here. Read Michelle Malkin on the subject of the datamining for something from a cooler head. Read the most recent Larry Elder, too.

Resorting to the tactics of the Taliban... hmm. Have you locked up your sister in her home? Are you in the morality police, mostly bastinadoing women for walking abroad while female? Dynamited any figural religious art such as a crucifix, on the grounds that you yourself aren't a Catholic?

Yeah, sure, this kind of thing is positively thick on the ground in the US, these days, isn't it? Can't take a walk without checking out the latest public execution, hey?

Tactics of the Taliban, quotha!

I'll tell you what I see in your thinking, rzen: you don't want to admit that some damn body started a war with us -- and on their fifth try, over a period spanning eighteen years from 1983 in Lebanon to 2001 in NYC. Our foes have diligently sown the wind -- should they somehow not reap the whirlwind? We should not be a target for every fucking idiot with a bomb and a grudge, nor should we be a target for their national sponsors.

Were they so bad when the US was funding them? They and Iraq... no, they were not.

The fact remains... you don't listen without a warrant in a free nation, a specific warrant for a specific time period that spells-out how and when you listen. That would be in a free nation that cares about freedom... not a police state. But that is not what this nation wants to be now, Dubya and his ilk want to be Pre-reformation Berlin.

Undertoad · 05-15-2006, 01:38 PM

So this is a leak about a federal investigation into leaks?

I can't remember, are we for or against leaks this week?

mrnoodle · 05-15-2006, 01:55 PM

Get your terminology right -- it's "whistleblowing" when a liberal does it.

glatt · 05-15-2006, 03:16 PM

Nothing wrong with investigating the source of a leak. What's wrong is where they are looking. How can a press be free when the government is logging all their phone calls?

Happy Monkey · 05-15-2006, 03:22 PM

It's very charitable of you to say that only liberals are conscientious enough to whistleblow, but I'm sure that there's a counterexample at some point in history.

Undertoad · 05-15-2006, 03:43 PM

If there's a leak reported at 3rd and Market I would check it out at 3rd and Market. If there's a leak reported to the press, where should they check it out, the Dep't of Agriculture? I don't think the press feels too threatened... if they print a story from an anonymous senior law enforcement official, with no corroborating evidence, and then a sort of "push speculation":

Quote:

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Parse this paragraph. There are no facts in it. ABC News "does not know", but connected the events casually so that the reader could draw their own conclusion.

And you did. Your own reading was "ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them..." But that wasn't what they said, but - for some reason - they phrased it to strongly suggest that link.

If they are being investigated, is it legal or not legal? If they had facts on that, would they be reported? Did they contact anyone from the investigating agency to get an official statement on the matter? That would be Good Journalism so when they don't do it, why not?

Quote:

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Parse parse parse. They claim the government is watching what numbers they call. Then they say CIA is mad at ABC News. Is this related - did they mean to claim that CIA was watching their phone calls? When they were suggesting two paragraphs earlier that it might be NSA?

No, they just threw out a load of speculation and left the dots for you to connect.

Happy Monkey · 05-15-2006, 04:01 PM

I think you're missing the point. It's not that they are investigating leaks. It is that they are investigating leaks by using warrantless searches of a database of every phone call made through the majority of the phone companies in the US. These phone calls are not a) international or b) involving a known terrorist, so this is the first example to surface of the use of this NSA program for warrantless domestic surveilance outside of a terrorism investigation.

Undertoad · 05-15-2006, 04:16 PM

The story offers a lot of truthiness towards that conclusion. It sure feels like our rights are being violated, so they probably are.

glatt · 05-15-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Parse this paragraph. There are no facts in it. ABC News "does not know", but connected the events casually so that the reader could draw their own conclusion.

And you did. Your own reading was "ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them..." But that wasn't what they said, but - for some reason - they phrased it to strongly suggest that link.

Fair enough. I assumed "NSA" when they said "government." Maybe it was NSA. Maybe not. It's certainly in the NSA's field of expertise. I think it's a little irrelevant what part of the executive branch is doing this.

Here's what they said: "A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources."

I admit it's an article that's pretty sparse on facts, and is poorly written, but you are wrong when you say there are no facts in it. There is one new fact: the government is logging the calls of ABC News. Isn't one fact enough to be reported?

Undertoad · 05-15-2006, 04:51 PM

The fact reported is not "The government is logging the calls of ABC News."

The fact reported is "A senior federal law enforcement official says that some government entity is tracking the calls of Brian Ross and Richard Esposito."

What entity? They don't say. They don't ask anyone. They merely suggest.

Is the investigation without a warrant? They don't say. They don't ask anyone. They merely suggest.

05-15-2006, 02:55 AM	#16
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	And probable cause is determined by what process? The process boils down most of the time to "taking a look." And taking a look is not prohibited by law. That's what I see here. Read Michelle Malkin on the subject of the datamining for something from a cooler head. Read the most recent Larry Elder, too. Resorting to the tactics of the Taliban... hmm. Have you locked up your sister in her home? Are you in the morality police, mostly bastinadoing women for walking abroad while female? Dynamited any figural religious art such as a crucifix, on the grounds that you yourself aren't a Catholic? Yeah, sure, this kind of thing is positively thick on the ground in the US, these days, isn't it? Can't take a walk without checking out the latest public execution, hey? Tactics of the Taliban, quotha! I'll tell you what I see in your thinking, rzen: you don't want to admit that some damn body started a war with us -- and on their fifth try, over a period spanning eighteen years from 1983 in Lebanon to 2001 in NYC. Our foes have diligently sown the wind -- should they somehow not reap the whirlwind? We should not be a target for every fucking idiot with a bomb and a grudge, nor should we be a target for their national sponsors. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-15-2006, 01:55 PM	#23
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Get your terminology right -- it's "whistleblowing" when a liberal does it. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

05-15-2006, 03:22 PM	#25
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	It's very charitable of you to say that only liberals are conscientious enough to whistleblow, but I'm sure that there's a counterexample at some point in history. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-15-2006, 04:01 PM	#27
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	I think you're missing the point. It's not that they are investigating leaks. It is that they are investigating leaks by using warrantless searches of a database of every phone call made through the majority of the phone companies in the US. These phone calls are not a) international or b) involving a known terrorist, so this is the first example to surface of the use of this NSA program for warrantless domestic surveilance outside of a terrorism investigation. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-15-2006, 12:57 PM	#18
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	And ABC News is reporting that the NSA is targeting them and other news organizations in an effort to find anonymous confidential government sources. Phone numbers called by these news organizations are being recorded, and the feds are looking for patterns in these lists of calls to identify the leakers. How many amendments to the Constitution does this violate? Freedom of the press is supposed to be sacred in this country. How can the government be allowed to see who the press is calling?

05-15-2006, 01:38 PM	#22
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	So this is a leak about a federal investigation into leaks? I can't remember, are we for or against leaks this week?

05-15-2006, 03:16 PM	#24
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	Nothing wrong with investigating the source of a leak. What's wrong is where they are looking. How can a press be free when the government is logging all their phone calls?

05-15-2006, 04:16 PM	#28
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The story offers a lot of truthiness towards that conclusion. It sure feels like our rights are being violated, so they probably are.

05-15-2006, 04:51 PM	#30
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The fact reported is not "The government is logging the calls of ABC News." The fact reported is "A senior federal law enforcement official says that some government entity is tracking the calls of Brian Ross and Richard Esposito." What entity? They don't say. They don't ask anyone. They merely suggest. Is the investigation without a warrant? They don't say. They don't ask anyone. They merely suggest.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)