Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Who needs investigating?

June 10, 2013

Just read the short letter in the June 1s....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(113)

CHayes

Jun-12-13 12:19 PM

And yes, I agree with King to the point that I think Glenn Greenwald who I think is a great reporter, should not only be surveilled because of the information he published, which was incredibly irresponsible, but he also should be brought in and questioned, and possibly even charged.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-12-13 12:17 PM

And they are in fact free to do that. And they'll lose that suit. It almost certainly won't make it to court.

I'm wondering if you like to address the questions I asked at 9:36? The ones about the specific purpose of information this guy leaked, or said he had access to.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-12-13 10:54 AM

"One that has survived legal challenges, and was court sanctioned, court supervised, and legal." - CHayes

Don't look now, but the ACLU has already filed a lawsuit.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-12-13 9:48 AM

Get out the history books, I agree with Peter King:

"Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on CNN's "AC 360" Tuesday night that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing stories with leaked classified information.

After King explained why he believes the recent NSA leaks pose a grave threat to national security, host Anderson Cooper asked him if he thinks the reporters who break stories off of leaked information should be punished in some way.

"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King said."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-12-13 9:42 AM

"Snowden's leaks were targeted & served a clear purpose"

Targeted? He leaked the details of what appears to be the largest electronic intelligence gathering tool the US has. One that has survived legal challenges, and was court sanctioned, court supervised, and legal.

For someone to say they support what this guy did, they have to also be willing to say that the US government has no right to have classified information of any type.

Snowden exposed an entire classified system. Manning exposed illegal abuses within a known system. The two things are not remotely comparable.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-12-13 9:36 AM

"Snowden's leaks were targeted & served a clear purpose, they regarded broad policy."

So when he says (in a posh Chinese hotel room) that he had access to the names and locations of every covert US intelligence asset, and the location of every CIA station in the world, what is the purpose of that? The only purpose I could assign to that is to cause absolute chaos in the US intelligence community. You know, pulling in every covert asset we have, and moving most CIA stations to someplace else.

What was the purpose in leaking a heat map that shows the volume of communications intercepted by the NSA in every country on Earth? Was the purpose to provide a roadmap to people trying to evade detection (al Qaeda, international criminals)?

I'm counting the minutes till this guy is in custody awaiting trial, and being locked away in a dark place for the rest of his life providing he's found guilty at trial, and he will be.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-12-13 5:38 AM

Key differences between Snowden & Manning:

Snowden's leaks were targeted & served a clear purpose, they regarded broad policy.

Mannings leaks were specific operations and names.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-11-13 11:26 PM

"The "eavesdropping" that Bush did without court approval had to have at least one number outside the US."

Actually Gavin, I think that's a subtly misleading way to state what President Bush was doing. He wanted access to communication content without a court order when at least one party was in the US.

The program that was leaked did not do that.

The problem was that President Bush wanted access to content of communications that involved communications on US soil without a warrant, even an expedited warrant from the FISA court.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-11-13 9:28 PM

Interesting Pew research poll in that the views of both Democrats and Republicans have reversed in nearly identical numbers in favor and against from 2006 to today, proving it's more about my team vs your team than it is about being what's right.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-11-13 9:25 PM

"Also the Bush administration got into trouble not for surveillance under the Patriot Act but for doing it illegally and without court approval." - CMReeder

Bush sought court approval for numbers that had both numbers within the US, just as the NSA has done now under Obama. The "eavesdropping" that Bush did without court approval had to have at least one number outside the US.

A bit of parsing, but the 2 instances are not an apples to apples comparison.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-11-13 8:36 PM

The problem Relene is that the Patriot Act did not give an inch, it in fact did give the mile.

People who claimed to be true Americans and very patriotic find nothing wrong with it.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-11-13 2:08 PM

"Relene, weren't you one who said back during the Patriot Act days that it was no big deal because you didn't have anything to hide?"

Gav, and to those who apparently think if you give an inch, it's O.K. to take a mile...

Let's be reasonable with this discussion. Never, have I ever denied the legality of the Constitution. (That would include Roe. V. Wade even if I disdain the legality of it) As with anything, moderation is a key factor. Both left, right and in the middle agree that surveillance done without "legitimate" probable cause should be at question based on our guaranteed right to privacy under the US Const. When the Patriot Act was put forth, I assumed, a did many Americans, it was for our protection. Anything can be corrupted and it seems this is no exception. It amazes me the memories some of you have...I'm jealous. :)

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-11-13 12:48 PM

People complained not long ago that there was enough surveillance on the Boston Marathon bombers now it is too much. You all should make up your minds about this.

Also the Bush administration got into trouble not for surveillance under the Patriot Act but for doing it illegally and without court approval. That Act was renew without much fuss and the court did approve of the surveillance that the Obama administration is accused of over stepping.

Do you really think Congress is going to expose themselves and their involvement in all this secrecy.?

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jun-11-13 12:40 PM

"As long as the air coming from the whistle blower isn't blowing back at Obama's face."

It is more likely that the GOP is turning the whistleblower to blow air in Obama's face.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-11-13 12:20 PM

Hey Relene, Gavin asked you a question a little before 8 this morning, and I couldn't help but notice you still haven't answered it. Why?

Here Relene, I'll save you from having to look for it:

"Relene, weren't you one who said back during the Patriot Act days that it was no big deal because you didn't have anything to hide?"

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-11-13 12:13 PM

"those who hold grudges and hated Bush constantly brought up eaves droping, drone strikes, military deaths, Gov over reach, but now many of those same people find reasons to justify what their party railed against during the election. Imagine the outrage if Bush was preciding over Bengazi, IRS, Fast and Furious?" - idiottwo

*

That's primarily due to the body-counts he generated.

*

See:

Bush Administration's First Memo On al-Qaeda Declassified

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-11-13 11:57 AM

Phil,

"It is becoming obvious that the history and culture of the Middle Eastern countries aren’t conducive to long term freedom and Democracy."

I respectfully disagree. Some, not all things have changed for Iraqi women, and perhaps you would like to ask the Iraqis who voted in their last election, if they believe some part of Democracy is working.

I agree in not extending the lives of our men and women for a no means to an end, if you will. But, many of our soldiers came would rather the ground combat be fought on their turf, than on ours and there are plenty of soldiers who stand ready and willing to defend our country abroad, rather than see her citizens die here...which incidentally is happening as a result of islam.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-11-13 11:56 AM

"See:

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran"

I would suggest you return to American Literature. There might be less bias than your suggested reading.

*

Ah, yes....I'm "only" referencing our National Security Archives.

Try finding some (neighborhood) Elementary-school kid to show you how to copy-and-paste.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-11-13 11:51 AM

John,

"See:

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran"

I would suggest you return to American Literature. There might be less bias than your suggested reading.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-11-13 11:42 AM

"Instead of the partisan bickering, why don’t we discuss whether we should be fighting ground wars and engaging in nation building in the first place. Our enemies are radical Islamist forces that have declared war on us. We can engage them without ground wars. It is becoming obvious that the history and culture of the Middle Eastern countries aren’t conducive to long term freedom and Democracy." - philunderwood

*

Yeah...sure...WE'VE been so "helpful"!!!!

*

See:

Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Jun-11-13 11:29 AM

Hi premier.. I think, frankly, it is yourself that has the closed mind. But, don't take my word for it.. read the book Hubris and the the intelligence communities own words. Easier still, Google Hubris interviews and watch and listen to the CIA agents who investigated the tubes for WMDs and knew the Bush administration's assertions were lies. Listen and watch the CIA agents who investigated Curveball and knew he was not a reliable source. Listen and watch the CIA agents who investigated the yellow cake from Nigeria and knew that gw and co. were completely falsifying the intelligence. Try opening your own mind, premier and listen to the people who were there.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jun-11-13 11:08 AM

Bradley Manning released a WHOLE lot more than that Chris.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jun-11-13 11:06 AM

" Whistleblowers expose illegality, waste, and fraud. Traitors expose wholesale state secrets."

Then, by your definition, this administration would qualify for the former part of your statement.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jun-11-13 10:34 AM

OK, I'll bite. How does leaking video of a massacre in Iraq that the military mischaracterized, and information about the systemic mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, damage our overall security infrastructure going forward?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jun-11-13 10:32 AM

"The bill of goods the world was sold is that Iraq directly supported the 9/11 terrorists..." - Buff

That's not true. It was not sold as Iraq directly supported the 9/11 terrorists." - gavinf56

*

'Tis TRUE!! Lil' Dumbya was a MUCH-better liar, than that. He "merely" ALLUDED to Saddam Hussein being responsible!!!!

*

See:

WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP (YouTube)

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 113 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web