|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
=stevo my point wasn't to be some kind of stand alone hero, but to let you know that if I would be willing to inform authorities, that I'm sure millions and millions of others would be as well.
|
Again....dontcha <b>Get it????</b> They already know !!! They know who you call...how often....and how long your conversations are! Can't you see the implications? They did this illegal "data mining" and ANALYSIS during the last presidential election campaign, stevo.
We didn't have reports of NSA warrantless domestic wiretapping until the NY Times broke the story last December, after they sat on the report for a year, at the request of the Bush administration.
We didn't have this linking of the December reporting, until yesterday:
...and we didn't have this looming....
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1002157186
.......Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified.
<b>"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,"</b> said Martin, a civil liberties advocate...........
|
What we did have is one party rule. There is no authority for anyone but republicans in DC to call hearings, launch congressional investigations, subpoena anyone, and....only republicans control the DOJ policy and oversight, and they also enjoy a SCOTUS majority. No need to "drop a dime" stevo! Welcome to the police state that you voted for, and openly advocate.
Here are some hints:
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/01/08...08rich.html?hp
or..... http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/48/16802
The Wiretappers That Couldn't Shoot Straight
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 08 January 2006
....... Given that the reporters on the Times story, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, wrote that nearly a dozen current and former officials had served as their sources, there may be more leaks to come, and not just to The Times. Sooner or later we'll find out what the White House is really so defensive about.
Perhaps it's the obvious: the errant spying ensnared Americans talking to Americans, not just Americans talking to jihadists in Afghanistan. In a raw interview transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site last week - and quickly seized on by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog - <b>the NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Risen if he knew whether the CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour might have been wiretapped. (Mr. Risen said, "I hadn't heard that.") Surely a pro like Ms. Mitchell wasn't speculating idly.</b> NBC News, which did not broadcast this exchange and later edited it out of the Web transcript, said Friday it was still pursuing the story.
<b>If the Bush administration did indeed eavesdrop on American journalists and political opponents (Ms. Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, was a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), it's déjà Watergate all over again.</b> But even now we can see that there's another, simpler - and distinctly Bushian - motive at play here, hiding in plain sight.
That motive is not, as many liberals would have it, a simple ideological crusade to gut the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives, after all, are opposed to Big Brother; even the staunch Bush ally Grover Norquist has criticized the N.S.A.'s overreaching. <b>The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs.</b> With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures............
|
Quote:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...ll_disclosure/
Group demands intelligence papers released
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | May 26, 2005
........Democrats have demanded more information about whether Bolton tried to exaggerate the threat of Syria, as well as information about secret intercepts of conversations between US and foreign officials that Bolton requested from the National Security Agency.
During yesterday's debate, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, the ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence committee, said he was convinced that Bolton did nothing improper in asking for the identities of US officials quoted in the intercepts. But Rockefeller said Bolton may have violated the security agency's restrictions by sharing the information with another State Department official when he sought out the official to congratulate him, apparently for comments he made during the intercept.
Rockefeller said he was concerned that the incident could indicate a ''cavalier attitude" by Bolton and a ''blatant disregard for the intelligence process.".............
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8359252/...eek/from/RL.3/
July 4 issue - The Senate deadlock over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations centers on requests by Democrats for secret info relating to Bolton's State Department tenure. But three congressional sources (who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material) say the intel community was willing to give Dems access to key info at the center of the dispute: details of requests Bolton made for the names of Americans inadvertently monitored by the National Security Agency's worldwide electronic eavesdropping network. NSA normally blacks out American names when it forwards intel reports to other agencies. But the agency will unmask names if requesting officials certify in writing they need them to "understand the intelligence." <b>Bolton sent NSA 10 such requests, and 19 U.S. names were disclosed to him, according to congressional correspondence.</b>
Two of the congressional aides familiar with details of negotiations between the administration and Capitol Hill said that when Senate staffers first asked about Bolton's requests, NSA indicated it was willing to help out. "NSA told us they'd provide the [Senate intelligence] committee with the names," one of the officials told NEWSWEEK. But NSA said this would first have to be approved by the office of the new national intel czar, John Negroponte. The three congressional sources said that former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, Negroponte's deputy, was willing to compromise with Dems by turning over the names. <b>In the end, Hayden briefed GOP Senate intel chair Pat Roberts and Democratic vice chairman Jay Rockefeller, but declined to turn over the names, leading to the current impasse.</b> Bob Callahan, a spokesman for the intel czar's office, insisted: "At no time did General Hayden offer to provide Congress with the names."
|
<b>stevo...</b> when the preceding reports about Bolton and his failure to get confirmed by the senate as U.S. ambassador to the UN came out nearly a year ago, the NY Times and USA Today had not disclosed the warrantless wire tapping and data mining that we now know they are conducting. Did'nt you think it was odd that Bolton could not get confirmed by the republican senate majority? Apparently even a few republicans were "creeped out" enough by what they learned about Bolton's requests for "names" from the NSA, to withdraw support for his confirmation....
Quote:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12974.htm
Video :Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club.
At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, <b>"No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?"</b> Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
(video ) http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demn...sp&start=21:46
(audio ) http://www.archive.org/download/dn20...124-1_64kb.mp3
|
Last edited by host; 05-12-2006 at 10:39 AM..
|