View Full Version : That's How to Stop an Investigation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12727867/
The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.
Sorry you don't have the need to know whether we broke the law or not. Beautiful.
LordOpie
05-10-2006, 10:42 PM
awesome! :rofl:
bjanga
05-10-2006, 10:42 PM
yikes
Changleen
05-11-2006, 01:39 AM
Time to revolt.
BWAHAHAHA!
Checks and balances are broken.
DaveW
05-11-2006, 01:57 AM
It's as big a joke as the $50mil spent investigating presidential blowjobs Vs the $5mil cap bush&co put on the 9/11 investigation. :nopity:
The US political/legal system just looks like a huge joke these days.
kinghami3
05-11-2006, 02:03 AM
Fvck.:banghead: There goes our last remnant of hope... wasn't this what the 2nd amendment was for? Too bad us Americans are too pansy too actually start a revolution :rolleyes:
fluff
05-11-2006, 03:39 AM
Fvck.:banghead: There goes our last remnant of hope... wasn't this what the 2nd amendment was for? Too bad us Americans are too pansy too actually start a revolution :rolleyes:
If only your citizens were armed...
DaveW
05-11-2006, 04:18 AM
If only your citizens were armed...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Beautiful finesse sir. :thumb:
Well I guess you don't need to get security clearance to find stuff out..... maybe the DOJ should just hire USA Today to do the investigation. Or I wonder if the DOJ will investigate USA Today about how it got access to this stuff.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/from/RS.1/
The agency in charge of a domestic spying program has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, including calls made within the United States, USA Today reported on Thursday.
It said the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies -- AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. -- but that the program “does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.”
That the bolded line is "comforting".
Among major U.S. telecommunications companies, only Qwest Communications International Inc. has refused to help the NSA program, the paper said.
Qwest, with 14 million customers in the Western United States, was “uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants,” USA Today said.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and was nominated by Bush on Monday as director of the CIA, would have overseen the call-tracking program, the paper said.
narlus
05-11-2006, 08:39 AM
where's N8 and The Amish to defend our beleaguered administration on this one?
BurlyShirley
05-11-2006, 08:57 AM
Haaaaahahahha!
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and was nominated by Bush on Monday as director of the CIA, would have overseen the call-tracking program, the paper said.
Seriously, can there be any question that Bush/Cheney directly authorized this program? Hayden just got handed his reward.
Too bad any talk to revolution lands you in gitmo as a suspected terrorist, no trial and no due process. This country seriously needs a new system of government but the current one has so much power it could never happen.
fluff
05-11-2006, 10:11 AM
Too bad any talk to revolution lands you in gitmo as a suspected terrorist, no trial and no due process. This country seriously needs a new system of government but the current one has so much power it could never happen.
Yeah, you have one amendment that ensures you should be armed in order to rise up against any oppressive government yet if you even talk about it you get hounded/jailed. Isn't there another amendment about free speech?
kinghami3
05-11-2006, 10:17 AM
Isn't there another amendment about free speech?
Shhh... you're not supposed to know about that one....
Too bad any talk to revolution lands you in gitmo as a suspected terrorist, no trial and no due process. This country seriously needs a new system of government but the current one has so much power it could never happen.
Who got tossed in gitmo for talking about revolution?
LordOpie
05-11-2006, 10:25 AM
Who got tossed in gitmo for talking about revolution?
didn't some monkey's grandfather get taken in for a few days questioning and was so shaken up by it that it wrecked his mental health? And that was just a few days at a local branch... nothing like Gitmo.
didn't some monkey's grandfather get taken in for a few days questioning and was so shaken up by it that it wrecked his mental health? And that was just a few days at a local branch... nothing like Gitmo.
Supposedly 3D's uncle did but I'm still skeptical about it.
fluff
05-11-2006, 11:15 AM
Supposedly 3D's uncle did but I'm still skeptical about it.
I've just seen your sig (I turn them on occasionally to see if I'm missing anything, usually I'm not); why do you not like 'arse'? Good old English word, much better than 'ass'.
Who got tossed in gitmo for talking about revolution?
Do you know who's there and why?
I've just seen your sig (I turn them on occasionally to see if I'm missing anything, usually I'm not); why do you not like 'arse'? Good old English word, much better than 'ass'.
It is in fact a good English word, when used by the English but when Americans say it, it annoys the ever livin' sh!t out of me. I don't have a rational reason other than that.
Do you know who's there and why?
Other than the 400 or so the DOD says they have there from Afghanistan and points around there, no.
Do you?
fluff
05-11-2006, 11:30 AM
It is in fact a good English word, when used by the English but when Americans say it, it annoys the ever livin' sh!t out of me. I don't have a rational reason other than that.
That is much more understandable; bloody yanks, useless with proper English.
Other than the 400 or so the DOD says they have there from Afghanistan and points around there, no.
Do you?
Nope. All I know is I keep hearing about secret prisons in other countries, nobody knows who's in there or why, but my guess is that it's because the Bush administration felt they were a threat to something. Based on the Bush administration's definition of what's a threat to national security and what's an appropriate way to deal with it...
LordOpie
05-11-2006, 11:36 AM
It is in fact a good English word, when used by the English but when Americans say it, it annoys the ever livin' sh!t out of me. I don't have a rational reason other than that.
:stupid:
Other than the 400 or so the DOD says they have there from Afghanistan and points around there, no.
Do you?
no. But isn't that the point? Checks and balances, due process, and all that?
:stupid:
no. But isn't that the point? Checks and balances, due process, and all that?
Certainly and that's why I posted the article. I was challenging the assertion that folks here are getting locked up for speaking against the war, the government and for revolution.
Those sorts of unsubstaniated claims make it harder to call attention to the abuses that are ACTUALLY taking place.
A perfect example of this is when folks get all worked up about gouging in gasoline pricing. While it happens at the local level from time to time, there is no systematic efforts to gouge the US public. So when the gas companies get accused of it, they know nothing will come of it. They actually welcome it because it keeps people off asking harder questions about fuel economy, alternate fuels and government subsidies, you know the important stuff.
Certainly and that's why I posted the article. I was challenging the assertion that folks here are getting locked up for speaking against the war, the government and for revolution.
Those sorts of unsubstaniated claims make it harder to call attention to the abuses that are ACTUALLY taking place.
A perfect example of this is when folks get all worked up about gouging in gasoline pricing. While it happens at the local level from time to time, there is no systematic efforts to gouge the US public. So when the gas companies get accused of it, they know nothing will come of it. They actually welcome it because it keeps people off asking harder questions about fuel economy, alternate fuels and government subsidies, you know the important stuff.
Good point. My point is more that I don't know who's in those CIA prisons, or whether or not some of them are in there for things like looking into the possibility of removing this government (or radically changing it), and I'm not going to risk sticking my nose in situations that could land me in a secret prison with no chance of a trial. It's not so much that I think it would happen, I'm just not willing to risk it to find out.
I have a feeling that the gov't actually likes the fact that people know about these secret prisons, and they like the fact that people know they really don't have any civil liberties. It keeps people scared and prevents them from rising up against the corrupt institution. It worked for Hitler for a while, it worked for Saddam for a while, and it's working for Bush right now... but history has shown that corrupt tyrannical governments eventually get removed from power.
LordOpie
05-11-2006, 12:29 PM
...and I'm not going to risk sticking my nose in situations that could land me in a secret prison with no chance of a trial.
There's really no point in trying to find out... either everyone there deserves to be there -or- if they don't, then you'll disappear :(
...but history has shown that corrupt tyrannical governments eventually get removed from power.
fortunately, we can still vote in a new gov't periodically. If Bush tried to keep the office in 2008, then it'd be time to revolt.
fortunately, we can still vote in a new gov't periodically. If Bush tried to keep the office in 2008, then it'd be time to revolt.
The Republican party has been carefully gerrymandering and gaining more and more control of the voting process. If they win the next presidential election, the new pres will be just as corrupt as Bush. But Bush is really just the manifestation of a much bigger problem. The whole system of government in this country is a clusterf*ck, and voting in a new president isn't going to fix it.
There's really no point in trying to find out... either everyone there deserves to be there -or- if they don't, then you'll disappear :(
Okay who disappeared because they were trying to find out info about the people in Gitmo, secret prisons or otherwise? I see articles about it all the time, lawyers filing suit about it, whole TV programs about it and organizations whose sole purpose seems to be about Gitmo. I posted an article a few weeks ago about folks convicted and imprisioned for sedition during WWI because they spoke out against the war for a variety of reasons. Show me where that's happening today?
You can say well we don't know about them disappearing. Well if someone I knew disappeared and they were an anti-war activitist (which I know more than a few) I would start asking a lot of questions and if I disappeared my wife, family and friends would start asking questions. And if no was around to ask questions (which basically means that no one gives a rat's ass about you), the government isn't going to be all that scared of you for making a ruckus or asking a bunch of questions.
Starting threatening to kill the president or bomb government buildings well that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Again, its all a matter of focus.
Toshi
05-11-2006, 01:01 PM
The Republican party has been carefully gerrymandering and gaining more and more control of the voting process. If they win the next presidential election, the new pres will be just as corrupt as Bush. But Bush is really just the manifestation of a much bigger problem. The whole system of government in this country is a clusterf*ck, and voting in a new president isn't going to fix it.
and i have no faith that the democrats would stand up any more to the sorts of abuses we're seeing now with the wiretapping, prisons, etc.
<-- seriously planning to emigrate after doing residency here
DaveW
05-11-2006, 05:59 PM
Come to NZ Toshi. ;) :thumb:
Transcend
05-11-2006, 06:02 PM
Yeah, you have one amendment that ensures you should be armed in order to rise up against any oppressive government yet if you even talk about it you get hounded/jailed. Isn't there another amendment about free speech?
You can talk about it
"The gubm't aint never gonna takw away ma guns!" The proceed to go shoot up a car in the forest for fun with your ar15.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.