Hmmmmm The Pentagon now spying on us - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 10:03 AM

Found this nice article while searching for the Halliburton Contaminated Water story..... seems this story has been buried as I really haven't heard anything about it until now...... So much for that liberal press.

Guess this is just a DEM conspiracy also.

Quote:

The Other Big Brother

The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed "war profiteering." The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. "It was tongue-in-street political theater," Parkin says.

But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. Created three years ago by the Defense Department, CIFA's role is "force protection"—tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy Defense secretary, authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON—short for Threat and Local Observation Notice—that would collect "raw information" about "suspicious incidents." The data would be fed to CIFA to help the Pentagon's "terrorism threat warning process," according to an internal Pentagon memo.

A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention—although organizer Parkin had previously been arrested while demonstrating at ExxonMobil headquarters (the charges were dropped). But there are now questions about whether CIFA exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.

CIFA's activities are the latest in a series of disclosures about secret government programs that spy on Americans in the name of national security. In December, the ACLU obtained documents showing the FBI had investigated several activist groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, supposedly in an effort to discover possible ecoterror connections. At the same time, the White House has spent weeks in damage-control mode, defending the controversial program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of U.S. persons suspected of terror links, without obtaining warrants.

Last Thursday, Cheney called the program "vital" to the country's defense against Al Qaeda. "Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not," he said in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. But as the new information about CIFA shows, the scope of the U.S. government's spying on Americans may be far more extensive than the public realizes.

It isn't clear how many groups and individuals were snagged by CIFA's dragnet. Details about the program, including its size and budget, are classified. In December, NBC News obtained a 400-page compilation of reports that detailed a portion of TALON's surveillance efforts. It showed the unit had collected information on nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including one at a Quaker meetinghouse in Lake Worth, Fla., and a Students Against War demonstration at a military recruiting fair at the University of California, Santa Cruz. A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection. But in the past, Defense Department officials have said that the "force protection" mission includes military contractors since soldiers and Defense employees work closely with them and therefore could be in danger.

CIFA researchers apparently cast a wide net and had a number of surveillance methods—both secretive and mundane—at their disposal. An internal CIFA PowerPoint slide presentation recently obtained by William Arkin, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who writes widely about military affairs, gives some idea how the group operated. The presentation, which Arkin provided to NEWSWEEK, shows that CIFA analysts had access to law-enforcement reports and sensitive military and U.S. intelligence documents. (The group's motto appears at the bottom of each PowerPoint slide: "Counterintelligence 'to the Edge'.") But the organization also gleaned data from "open source Internet monitoring." In other words, they surfed the Web.

That may have been how the Pentagon came to be so interested in a small gathering outside Halliburton. On June 23, 2004, a few days before the Halliburton protest, an ad for the event appeared on houston.indymedia.org, a Web site for lefty Texas activists. "Stop the war profiteers," read the posting. "Bring out the kids, relatives, Dick Cheney, and your favorite corporate pigs at the trough as we will provide food for free."

Four months later, on Oct. 25, the TALON team reported another possible threat to national security. The source: a Miami antiwar Web page. "Website advertises protest planned at local military recruitment facility," the internal report warns. The database entry refers to plans by a south Florida group called the Broward Anti-War Coalition to protest outside a strip-mall recruiting office in Lauderhill, Fla. The TALON entry lists the upcoming protest as a "credible" threat. As it turned out, the entire event consisted of 15 to 20 activists waving a giant BUSH LIED sign. No one was arrested. "It's very interesting that the U.S. military sees a domestic peace group as a threat," says Paul Lefrak, a librarian who organized the protest.

Arkin says a close reading of internal CIFA documents suggests the agency may be expanding its Internet monitoring, and wants to be as surreptitious as possible. CIFA has contracted to buy "identity masking" software that would allow the agency to create phony Web identities and let them appear to be located in foreign countries, according to a copy of the contract with Computer Sciences Corp. (The firm declined to comment.)

Pentagon officials have broadly defended CIFA as a legitimate response to the domestic terror threat. But at the same time, they acknowledge that an internal Pentagon review has found that CIFA's database contained some information that may have violated regulations. The department is not allowed to retain information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days—unless they are "reasonably believed" to have some link to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing or foreign intelligence. There was information that was "improperly stored," says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). "It was an oversight." In a memo last week, obtained by NEWSWEEK, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered CIFA to purge such information from its files—and directed that all Defense Department intelligence personnel receive "refresher training" on department policies.

That's not likely to stop the questions. Last week Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee pushed for an inquiry into CIFA's activities and who it's watching. "This is a significant Pandora's box [Pentagon officials] don't want opened," says Arkin. "What we're looking at is hints of what they're doing." As far as the Pentagon is concerned, that means we've already seen too much.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509...week/from/RSS/

samcol · 01-23-2006, 11:18 AM

But... but.. but.. bin laden might be on the other line. Suprise suprise that these things are being used to protect the corporate intrests and pro-war politics of haliburton and exxonmobil in the name of national security.

This is what's so troubling about the new war on terrorism. It's turning protestors into terrorists. Instead of going to jail for assault or battery if things get heated at an anti-war protest, you get labeled a terrorist or enemey combant. Suddenly, you have no rights to trial or even habeas corpus. You simply get thrown in jail indefinetly or receive a much stiffer federal terrorism sentence instead of a standard assault charge. Not to mention you might be tortured since it is now considered acceptable.

Now that terrorism has been redefined by the patriot act, we need to be very careful who we consider a terrorist because the term may include yourself someday. Remember terrorism is any act that violates crimminal law and indangers human life and attempts to persuade the population. This legislation isn't intended for bin ladin. It's intended for you if you get out of line.

This is why spying on domestic protest groups is so disturbing. It's being used to facilitate the change from political dissidence into terrorism.

Brewmaniac · 01-23-2006, 12:11 PM

This is some seriously scary shit! Makes wonder who's monitoring the TFP!

Ustwo · 01-23-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaniac

This is some seriously scary shit! Makes wonder who's monitoring the TFP!

Me

trickyy · 01-23-2006, 12:22 PM

maybe i'm just cynical, but i doubt any of this has actually helped thwart a terrorist plot. in the end, it's about as useful as those bulletproof vests for dogs (unless you happen to be deemed a person of interest...then it kinda sucks for you).

admitted i could be wrong. but i am very skeptical. dick cheney has said that the NSA program helped save lives but didn't go into detail. i guess it's just another one of those things we can't be trusted to know about, but it's certainly "debatable" how integral these programs have been to keeping casper, wyoming and akron, ohio (and the rest of the country) safe from those terrorists.

i still think it's possible to do a good job on national security without sifting through 500 TB of questionably attained phone logs or monitoring wacky political orgainizations (why give them more reason to be paranoid?). i have not seen evidence to the contrary...if these programs were vital, you'd think there would be some moderate successes by now?

many gov't agencies were aware of a threat before 9/11 without the use of these programs. they just didn't take the warning signs seriously enough; terrorism was not the priority it is today. i do see the need to adapt, but i can't say these adaptations have been particularly useful.

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 02:06 PM

We are only as free a society as we allow ourselves to be.

If we keep allowing these things to happen, then we get what we deserve. Nothing more nothing less.

It is up to all of us, to watch the government and to question why and to demand proof of need.

WE ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND FOR OUR BELIEFS THEY ARE ANSWERABLE TO US!!!!!!

We need to make sure we do not forget that.

If this were a Dem. administration the Right would be jumping and screaming at the intrusions and legalities, instead they sit idly by make excuses and allow our freedoms to be taken and spying on innocent citizens to take place without question.

Locobot · 01-23-2006, 02:43 PM

Seems like we might need to gather around the pentagon and levitate the building with our collective psychic energy, again .

Willravel · 01-23-2006, 03:14 PM

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. In our collective lathargy, we've lost our power. Until we wake up, the CIA and any other collection of thugs can do what they want.

*Ustwo, sticks his hand in my chest...suddenly there are two Ustwos..*

Time to pull out the tinfoil hats.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2006, 03:37 PM

From the point of view of big governemt, do you want to know what is worse than the Pentagon spying, here are a few:

Undercover sting operations police.
Random IRS audits.
Speed traps.
DUI "Check points".
Gun registration.
Supena of GOOGLE search records.
Red light Photo Tickets.
Etc, Etc, Etc.

Our liberties are being erroded everyday. Why do we not care about these government intrusions into our privacy? Government is getting to big.

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

From the point of view of big governemt, do you want to know what is worse than the Pentagon spying, here are a few:

Undercover sting operations police.
Random IRS audits.
Speed traps.
DUI "Check points".
Gun registration.
Supena of GOOGLE search records.
Red light Photo Tickets.
Etc, Etc, Etc.

Our liberties are being erroded everyday. Why do we not care about these government intrusions into our privacy? Government is getting to big.

I agree on all of the above, except gun registration*. We are allowing government to be too big, but it seems we do so for partisan reasons and not because the true need is there.

* With gun registration, I believe some form of limitation to owning should be made. I mean I don't think Felons or people with a history of violence should get guns. So while you may not need registrations I definately believe in background checks.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

* With gun registration, I believe some form of limitation to owning should be made. I mean I don't think Felons or people with a history of violence should get guns. So while you may not need registrations I definately believe in background checks.

But its o.k. for felons or people with a history of violence (or, terrorist) to access information on making nuclear bombs at our public libraries unchecked? It is a rhetorical question. But, I guess you help me realize everyone has their issue, and therfore our liberty will always be at risk.

I say check those library records, but leave my guns alone. You say the opposite. Its a crazy world, we live in.

pan6467 · 01-23-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

But its o.k. for felons or people with a history of violence (or, terrorist) to access information on making nuclear bombs at our public libraries unchecked? It is a rhetorical question. But, I guess you help me realize everyone has their issue, and therfore our liberty will always be at risk.

I say check those library records, but leave my guns alone. You say the opposite. Its a crazy world, we live in.

To me there is a huge difference between some psycho with a past of violence getting online and owning a gun.

Being online he may dream, he may even get as far as trying to make one, and hurting some people...... but allow him to have a gun and chances are greater he will hurt someone.

I really do not see what the concern over a background check is. You get one to buy a house, buy a car, most jobs, etc.

But you are right, we all have our issues.

roachboy · 01-24-2006, 07:31 AM

nice try, ace:
your posts aim at dissolving this spying thing into a banal list of other types of intrusive action on the part of an unspecified (in your post) "state"--i am not sure what collapsing local, state and federal levels into each other gets you, really, but anyway if you view domestic spying at the federal level in this (arbitrary) context, then i guess it is not a probem to run the charge to ground and simply argue "government is getting too big"

except:
-domestic spying on this order appears to be illegal. here is a space in which the present hyper-partisan climate really has bad effects: if the administration were democrat, you would be howling in the night to protest these same policies---it would be lilke the right's response to the new deal all over again--but since it is a far right administration, no problem....

-domestic spying programs unfold in the context of an administration that uses the "war on terror" to legitimate an unparalleled extension of executive power
which i would imagine you support, given your sophsiticated "big vs. little" evaluative criteria, an authoritarian executive branch that acts without regard for law--not to mention trivialities like civil liberties--because such actions as these **do** effectively shrink government----they cut out the pesky legislative and their irritating oversights implemented in the name of the people--and because these policies occur and are implemented in secret, they attempt to bypass enforcement of law as well, and so effectively cut out the judiciary.

--maybe that is why you seem to have no trouble with it----i am and remain baffled by the importance of this size queen approch to thinking about politics that you see surfacing from that curious little crossover area that links liberatarians tempermentally to the extreme right...

---i do not know your position on the iraq debacle, but it would not seem to me to follow that you would oppose it enough to act publically on the matter, so perhaps you do not imagine this kind of domestic spying program could be directed at you--rather it entails surveillance of Bad People like those who attend anti-war demonstrations or meetings linked to opposition to the war....so perhaps you see nothing problematic in domestic spy programs originating with the pentagon because you think it will only affect Them..

---among the few feature that have so far seperated the american domestic politics from the types of authoritarian politics the americans have supported and trained and armed and financed around the world is the seperation of the military from involvement in politics. i dont know about you, ace, but i think that seperation is a Good Thing. i would imagine that you would oppose such a blurring of lines on big vs little grounds--but perhaps not--what exactly is you position on this?

aceventura3 · 01-24-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nice try, ace:
your posts aim at dissolving this spying thing into a banal list of other types of intrusive action on the part of an unspecified (in your post) "state"--i am not sure what collapsing local, state and federal levels into each other gets you, really, but anyway if you view domestic spying at the federal level in this (arbitrary) context, then i guess it is not a probem to run the charge to ground and simply argue "government is getting too big"

I think there are many threats to liberty. It is interesting that one of the worst examples occurred during FDR's administration, the internment of American citizens. The Bush administration using wire taps to listen to known terrorist is nothing in comparison.

It is more likely that our lives can be ruined by one of those items I listed than by something the Bush administration is doing. Yet most of us don't care. I simply don't understand ignoring real threats while chasing imaginary ones.

Quote:

except:
-domestic spying on this order appears to be illegal. here is a space in which the present hyper-partisan climate really has bad effects: if the administration were democrat, you would be howling in the night to protest these same policies---it would be lilke the right's response to the new deal all over again--but since it is a far right administration, no problem....

I howl against the Bush administration subpena of GOOGLE search records. I think it is wrong. I think it is a far bigger issue than wire taps, or even the government searching public library records. GOOGLE is a private company and I am a private citizen, the government has no business in my transactions with GOOGLE unless there is a just cause.

Quote:

-domestic spying programs unfold in the context of an administration that uses the "war on terror" to legitimate an unparalleled extension of executive power
which i would imagine you support, given your sophsiticated "big vs. little" evaluative criteria, an authoritarian executive branch that acts without regard for law--not to mention trivialities like civil liberties--because such actions as these **do** effectively shrink government----they cut out the pesky legislative and their irritating oversights implemented in the name of the people--and because these policies occur and are implemented in secret, they attempt to bypass enforcement of law as well, and so effectively cut out the judiciary.

You call the acts taken by the Bush administration illegal. If those acts are illegal congress has work to do. Noone in congress has taken any action, why? What are they waiting for? Who is the victim?

Quote:

--maybe that is why you seem to have no trouble with it----i am and remain baffled by the importance of this size queen approch to thinking about politics that you see surfacing from that curious little crossover area that links liberatarians tempermentally to the extreme right...

Our enemy is sophisticated. They use our freedoms against us. I truly believe we face a ruthless enemy, an enemy who will not follow any of the rules and traditions of warfare. Given that we have to respond accordingly.

Quote:

---i do not know your position on the iraq debacle, but it would not seem to me to follow that you would oppose it enough to act publically on the matter, so perhaps you do not imagine this kind of domestic spying program could be directed at you--rather it entails surveillance of Bad People like those who attend anti-war demonstrations or meetings linked to opposition to the war....so perhaps you see nothing problematic in domestic spy programs originating with the pentagon because you think it will only affect Them..

Every time I fly since 9/11 my privacy is being invaded, directed at me. I know the consequences, I know the risks of giving the government the authority to spy. I think the benefits outweigh the cost. I trust Bush won't abuse his power the way FDR did. I think we learned the lesson

roachboy · 01-24-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

The Bush administration using wire taps to listen to known terrorist is nothing in comparison.

this is not what they are doing--it is the line floated since yesterday by the administration in defense of its actions--that's all.
and no-one is saying that "lives will be ruined" by these surveillance measures: rather it is an aspect of a larger process teh legitimacy of which is a function of your particular sense of being-threatened--the maintenance of which is the center of republican campaign strategy so you have what amounts to the orchestration of conservative paranoia as justification for the violation of the seperation of powers---on that basis, you might see law as something to be overriden with relative impunity because you see the ends justifying the means. i dont agree with this. too many bad bad bad examples of this type of thinking from the past...you know the list, i am sure. but if you dont, i could provide it.

Quote:

I howl against the Bush administration subpena of GOOGLE search records. I think it is wrong. I think it is a far bigger issue than wire taps, or even the government searching public library records. GOOGLE is a private company and I am a private citizen, the government has no business in my transactions with GOOGLE unless there is a just cause.

interesting: i would not have suspected this. i dont gree with your reasoning, however (public vs. private) and wonder if the results of this orchestration of conservative paranoia as a campaign feature would incline you to suppress your qualms about this split if you were directed to do so...it seems that the same logic would apply.

and that these records would be requested should make your narrow reading of the administration's actions shake a bit, dont you think?

Quote:

You call the acts taken by the Bush administration illegal. If those acts are illegal congress has work to do. Noone in congress has taken any action, why? What are they waiting for? Who is the victim?

can you say: republican control of congress?
there are at least 3 investigations that i know of that are being launched within congress over this: from the congressional viewpoint, it seems that the issue is the violation of the seperation of powers, which goes to the heart of checks and balances, such as they are, in the american system.

the conflict is still playing out: dnot act as though it is not, and do not pretend that you or anyone else has a handle on the story as a whole yet.

side note: it would seem here obvious to reference the wave of Militant Respect for the Law that the right was all about during the clinton period, and juxtapose it to the cavalier apporach you see the bushpeople and their supporters taking now.
two weights, two measures....

Quote:

Our enemy is sophisticated. They use our freedoms against us. I truly believe we face a ruthless enemy, an enemy who will not follow any of the rules and traditions of warfare. Given that we have to respond accordingly.

see above on the orchestration of conservative paranoia: if you beleive the ambient claims floated by the right, then even this dickcheney line could make sense.

empicially, these claims as to the character of organizations like al-qeada follow more from the requirements of the administration to create a rationale for its policies than from anything anyone could actually know about merely from looking at reality. this could branch into a seperate conversation, which i am not sure about doing here, simply because of the threadjack potential... your call on whether to pursue this here.

Quote:

I trust Bush won't abuse his power the way FDR did. I think we learned the lesson

there are so many problems with this that the argument collapses into being funny.
i'll defer responding until i have a bit more time and can do something other than laugh.
__________________

samcol · 01-24-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I trust Bush won't abuse his power the way FDR did. I think we learned the lesson

Right there's the whole problem with your argument. Your check on government power involes "trusting" the administration, instead of in the past where you didn't have to trust them because the constitution, laws and balances of power prevented the abuse while allowing the executive branch to do it job.

I don't understand how you can dislike FDR's internment of American citizens when Bush is preparing to do the same thing. Under the Bush adminstration all that has to happen is for you to meet the loose definition of a terrorist or enemy combantant and the door has been opened for your internment. Take off your political party blinders and stop "trusting".

pan6467 · 01-24-2006, 09:39 AM

Ace you confuse me.....

Here you say this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I howl against the Bush administration subpena of GOOGLE search records. I think it is wrong. I think it is a far bigger issue than wire taps, or even the government searching public library records. GOOGLE is a private company and I am a private citizen, the government has no business in my transactions with GOOGLE unless there is a just cause.

But earlier you stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I say check those library records, but leave my guns alone. You say the opposite. Its a crazy world, we live in.

So which is it? Because searching Google and the library records are pretty much one and the same.

Google maybe a private company BUT they perform a very public service and those records should be allowed the same privacy.

So if you argue it is wrong for them to search Google it is the same argument for libraries. Doesn't matter if one is private (actually it isn't it is a publicly held and traded company now) and one is public..... because the services are identical.

You do not pay for Google much the same as you do not pay the library for their services.

pan6467 · 01-24-2006, 09:53 AM

Back on topic, when private companies can use our government to spy on and label protesters against it as "terrorists"..... then we have truly lost sight of what the tru terroristic enemy is.

Now we are defining terrorists to be anyone who wants to change the system and is willing to demonstrate legally the need for such change.

That's not a partisan issue, it's an issue of freedom and our liberties.

Once we lose sight of who we truly are fighting we become as bad as those we are fighting.... worse because we have sold ourselves out.

You claim FDR was wrong.... ok. But then you say that the Pentagon spying on legal demonstrators is ok?????

You claim FDR abused his power by having internment camps...... yet the vocal people in your party claim McCarthy's Red Witch Hunts were ok.

And now you are saying it is ok to label people as terrorists because they demonstrate and speak out..... not against government even but private companies?????

Yet all is right in the Bush world, this is acceptable and not abuse of power or selling the people's rights and freedoms away??????

Wow.

aceventura3 · 01-24-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ace you confuse me.....

Here you say this:

But earlier you stated:

So which is it? Because searching Google and the library records are pretty much one and the same.

Google maybe a private company BUT they perform a very public service and those records should be allowed the same privacy.

So if you argue it is wrong for them to search Google it is the same argument for libraries. Doesn't matter if one is private (actually it isn't it is a publicly held and traded company now) and one is public..... because the services are identical.

You do not pay for Google much the same as you do not pay the library for their services.

A public library is public in my opinion. In a public space or in a public transaction I have no expectation of privacy. When public libraries are subsidized by taxpayers, I think the information gathered by those libraries is public information.

aceventura3 · 01-24-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Back on topic, when private companies can use our government to spy on and label protesters against it as "terrorists"..... then we have truly lost sight of what the tru terroristic enemy is.

My definition is narrow. I do not consider protesters terrorist. Suicide bombers are.

Quote:

Now we are defining terrorists to be anyone who wants to change the system and is willing to demonstrate legally the need for such change.

Others may, I don't. I have no problem with people willing to fight for what they believe in. Example, I have no problem with people from Mexico willing to risk their lives and their freedom for the betterment of their lives and the lives of their loved ones. I do have a problem with people who want me and my loved ones dead. Dead for no other reason than who I am. That is a big, difference. I have respect for one and would fight the other.

Quote:

That's not a partisan issue, it's an issue of freedom and our liberties.

Agreed. Freedom and our liberties are at risk. I just think there are risks greater than those involving "domestic spying". I am saddened that people don't focus on the real risks. Think about it - we live in a country were a responsible adult can't smoke weed in his own home. Even if doctor ordered - this person risks going to prison, and loosing everything to the government, but we focus on the pentegon listening to phone call of known terrorists. Perhaps I have fallen throught the looking glass, or have entered the twilight zone.

Quote:

Once we lose sight of who we truly are fighting we become as bad as those we are fighting.... worse because we have sold ourselves out.

Yes it is sad. I am conservative and liberals fight me. They think I am stupid, blind, brain-washed, etc, etc. Yes I will defend Bush and the GOP, but I also call them when they are wrong.

I know who our enemy is, do you? When terrorists say they want us dead, and they act on it, that makes them my enemy. If they leave us alone we will leave them alone. If they attack us, we attack them. Screw holding hands, singing songs, and UN initiatives, I have no tollerence for real threats against my life and my family.

Quote:

You claim FDR was wrong.... ok. But then you say that the Pentagon spying on legal demonstrators is ok?????

Almost everyone agrees that what happend with the internment camps went too far.

If people are going to "demonstrate" they should expect someone to pay attention. If you carry a sign saying you want to kill Bush, how could you possibly expect that the CIA, FBI, pentegon not to spy on you? Give me some kind of reality check, perhaps I am screwed up.

Tell me the truth. I you had a neighbor who was telling people he was goning to kill you and your family, you wouldn't do some 'domestic spying' if you could? You wouldn't take preemptive action if you thought the threat credible? You wouldn't act even if law enforcement wouldn't? You would wait until after the fact before responding aggressively?

Quote:

You claim FDR abused his power by having internment camps...... yet the vocal people in your party claim McCarthy's Red Witch Hunts were ok.

I don't say McCarthy's witch hunts were o.k. I don't know anyone who does. Today most people agree it was wrong. Abuse of power is a real concern. Bush has done nothing that I am aware of, that comes anywhere close to what some others have done in the past. Including democrats, like Kennedy, Bay of Pigs; Johnson, Vietnam.

Quote:

And now you are saying it is ok to label people as terrorists because they demonstrate and speak out..... not against government even but private companies?????

Don't think I ever said anything even close to that. I am not a good typist but if you read somthing I wrote that remotely sounds like that, show me. It must of been a typo. Either that, or you feel responding to what I actually write is not good enough and you have to make stuff up.

Quote:

Yet all is right in the Bush world, this is acceptable and not abuse of power or selling the people's rights and freedoms away??????Wow.

Over the past few weeks I have pointed out real threats to liberty, real problems with the GOP and Bush's administration, but you still say that. Sounds like you are having difficulties following what I write. I guess I have a problem with communicating, I 'll work on that.

samcol · 01-25-2006, 06:28 AM

Quote:

My definition is narrow. I do not consider protesters terrorist. Suicide bombers are.

That's a nice tidbit of totally useless information. Who YOU consider a terrorist means absolutely nothing. The definition of terrorism that matters is the one that the people who legislate, enforce, and interpret the law use. Do you not understand that all you have to is commit ANY crime that can be considered to endanger human life and sway public opinion and you could be tried as a terrorist? This could be as simple as having an "un-permitted" protest .

And that's all if you're lucky enough to go through the legal system. If the attorney general or homeland security secretary considers you a terrorist or enemy combatant, that's it you're finished. The executive branch becomes judge, jury and executioner and you're detained indefinetly and possibly subjected to all the things we hear about that is totally acceptable for terrorists like no habeas corpus, torture etc. Remember what happened at the RNC? Masses of protestors were just swept up in orange netting and thrown in old abestos and oil filled bus depots for days even after a judge said it was illegal. That could become the norm rather than the exception if we continue down this path.

Quote:

If people are going to "demonstrate" they should expect someone to pay attention. If you carry a sign saying you want to kill Bush, how could you possibly expect that the CIA, FBI, pentegon not to spy on you? Give me some kind of reality check, perhaps I am screwed up.

Tell me the truth. I you had a neighbor who was telling people he was goning to kill you and your family, you wouldn't do some 'domestic spying' if you could? You wouldn't take preemptive action if you thought the threat credible? You wouldn't act even if law enforcement wouldn't? You would wait until after the fact before responding aggressively?

I'm pretty sure there are already laws against such things. If someone had a sign that made legitimate threats on someones life then they don't need to be wiretapped, they need to be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and would be even pre-9/11. We don't need any more anti-terror legislation or pentagon watch groups that target political oppositon rather than actual terrorists.

aceventura3 · 01-25-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

That's a nice tidbit of totally useless information. Who YOU consider a terrorist means absolutely nothing. The definition of terrorism that matters is the one that the people who legislate, enforce, and interpret the law use. Do you not understand that all you have to is commit ANY crime that can be considered to endanger human life and sway public opinion and you could be tried as a terrorist? This could be as simple as having an "un-permitted" protest .

And that's all if you're lucky enough to go through the legal system. If the attorney general or homeland security secretary considers you a terrorist or enemy combatant, that's it you're finished. The executive branch becomes judge, jury and executioner and you're detained indefinetly and possibly subjected to all the things we hear about that is totally acceptable for terrorists like no habeas corpus, torture etc. Remember what happened at the RNC? Masses of protestors were just swept up in orange netting and thrown in old abestos and oil filled bus depots for days even after a judge said it was illegal. That could become the norm rather than the exception if we continue down this path.

I'm pretty sure there are already laws against such things. If someone had a sign that made legitimate threats on someones life then they don't need to be wiretapped, they need to be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and would be even pre-9/11. We don't need any more anti-terror legislation or pentagon watch groups that target political oppositon rather than actual terrorists.

There are checks and balances in our system of government. What I think matters. What you think matters. Most people agree with me, and my definition of terrorist.

01-23-2006, 12:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	This is some seriously scary shit! Makes wonder who's monitoring the TFP! __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son" Last edited by Brewmaniac; 01-23-2006 at 12:14 PM..

01-23-2006, 02:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We are only as free a society as we allow ourselves to be. If we keep allowing these things to happen, then we get what we deserve. Nothing more nothing less. It is up to all of us, to watch the government and to question why and to demand proof of need. WE ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR OUR FREEDOMS AND FOR OUR BELIEFS THEY ARE ANSWERABLE TO US!!!!!! We need to make sure we do not forget that. If this were a Dem. administration the Right would be jumping and screaming at the intrusions and legalities, instead they sit idly by make excuses and allow our freedoms to be taken and spying on innocent citizens to take place without question. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-23-2006, 03:37 PM	#9 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	From the point of view of big governemt, do you want to know what is worse than the Pentagon spying, here are a few: Undercover sting operations police. Random IRS audits. Speed traps. DUI "Check points". Gun registration. Supena of GOOGLE search records. Red light Photo Tickets. Etc, Etc, Etc. Our liberties are being erroded everyday. Why do we not care about these government intrusions into our privacy? Government is getting to big. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-24-2006, 07:31 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice try, ace: your posts aim at dissolving this spying thing into a banal list of other types of intrusive action on the part of an unspecified (in your post) "state"--i am not sure what collapsing local, state and federal levels into each other gets you, really, but anyway if you view domestic spying at the federal level in this (arbitrary) context, then i guess it is not a probem to run the charge to ground and simply argue "government is getting too big" except: -domestic spying on this order appears to be illegal. here is a space in which the present hyper-partisan climate really has bad effects: if the administration were democrat, you would be howling in the night to protest these same policies---it would be lilke the right's response to the new deal all over again--but since it is a far right administration, no problem.... -domestic spying programs unfold in the context of an administration that uses the "war on terror" to legitimate an unparalleled extension of executive power which i would imagine you support, given your sophsiticated "big vs. little" evaluative criteria, an authoritarian executive branch that acts without regard for law--not to mention trivialities like civil liberties--because such actions as these do effectively shrink government----they cut out the pesky legislative and their irritating oversights implemented in the name of the people--and because these policies occur and are implemented in secret, they attempt to bypass enforcement of law as well, and so effectively cut out the judiciary. --maybe that is why you seem to have no trouble with it----i am and remain baffled by the importance of this size queen approch to thinking about politics that you see surfacing from that curious little crossover area that links liberatarians tempermentally to the extreme right... ---i do not know your position on the iraq debacle, but it would not seem to me to follow that you would oppose it enough to act publically on the matter, so perhaps you do not imagine this kind of domestic spying program could be directed at you--rather it entails surveillance of Bad People like those who attend anti-war demonstrations or meetings linked to opposition to the war....so perhaps you see nothing problematic in domestic spy programs originating with the pentagon because you think it will only affect Them.. ---among the few feature that have so far seperated the american domestic politics from the types of authoritarian politics the americans have supported and trained and armed and financed around the world is the seperation of the military from involvement in politics. i dont know about you, ace, but i think that seperation is a Good Thing. i would imagine that you would oppose such a blurring of lines on big vs little grounds--but perhaps not--what exactly is you position on this? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-24-2006 at 07:35 AM..

01-24-2006, 09:53 AM	#18 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Back on topic, when private companies can use our government to spy on and label protesters against it as "terrorists"..... then we have truly lost sight of what the tru terroristic enemy is. Now we are defining terrorists to be anyone who wants to change the system and is willing to demonstrate legally the need for such change. That's not a partisan issue, it's an issue of freedom and our liberties. Once we lose sight of who we truly are fighting we become as bad as those we are fighting.... worse because we have sold ourselves out. You claim FDR was wrong.... ok. But then you say that the Pentagon spying on legal demonstrators is ok????? You claim FDR abused his power by having internment camps...... yet the vocal people in your party claim McCarthy's Red Witch Hunts were ok. And now you are saying it is ok to label people as terrorists because they demonstrate and speak out..... not against government even but private companies????? Yet all is right in the Bush world, this is acceptable and not abuse of power or selling the people's rights and freedoms away?????? Wow. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-23-2006, 11:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	But... but.. but.. bin laden might be on the other line. Suprise suprise that these things are being used to protect the corporate intrests and pro-war politics of haliburton and exxonmobil in the name of national security. This is what's so troubling about the new war on terrorism. It's turning protestors into terrorists. Instead of going to jail for assault or battery if things get heated at an anti-war protest, you get labeled a terrorist or enemey combant. Suddenly, you have no rights to trial or even habeas corpus. You simply get thrown in jail indefinetly or receive a much stiffer federal terrorism sentence instead of a standard assault charge. Not to mention you might be tortured since it is now considered acceptable. Now that terrorism has been redefined by the patriot act, we need to be very careful who we consider a terrorist because the term may include yourself someday. Remember terrorism is any act that violates crimminal law and indangers human life and attempts to persuade the population. This legislation isn't intended for bin ladin. It's intended for you if you get out of line. This is why spying on domestic protest groups is so disturbing. It's being used to facilitate the change from political dissidence into terrorism.

01-23-2006, 12:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
trickyy ►	maybe i'm just cynical, but i doubt any of this has actually helped thwart a terrorist plot. in the end, it's about as useful as those bulletproof vests for dogs (unless you happen to be deemed a person of interest...then it kinda sucks for you). admitted i could be wrong. but i am very skeptical. dick cheney has said that the NSA program helped save lives but didn't go into detail. i guess it's just another one of those things we can't be trusted to know about, but it's certainly "debatable" how integral these programs have been to keeping casper, wyoming and akron, ohio (and the rest of the country) safe from those terrorists. i still think it's possible to do a good job on national security without sifting through 500 TB of questionably attained phone logs or monitoring wacky political orgainizations (why give them more reason to be paranoid?). i have not seen evidence to the contrary...if these programs were vital, you'd think there would be some moderate successes by now? many gov't agencies were aware of a threat before 9/11 without the use of these programs. they just didn't take the warning signs seriously enough; terrorism was not the priority it is today. i do see the need to adapt, but i can't say these adaptations have been particularly useful.

01-23-2006, 02:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Seems like we might need to gather around the pentagon and levitate the building with our collective psychic energy, again .

01-23-2006, 03:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. In our collective lathargy, we've lost our power. Until we wake up, the CIA and any other collection of thugs can do what they want. Ustwo, sticks his hand in my chest...suddenly there are two Ustwos.. Time to pull out the tinfoil hats.