I'm not expecting any reaction from false liberals until Obama tells them what to think, but it seems newsworthy to me to know this has been going on.

Liberals-Sohei?
It was bushitter that instigated this-and I'm sure Pres Obama is ending this as we speak.

IF he doesn't-I'll be screaming about it as loud as anyone.

IF he doesn't-I'll be screaming about it as loud as anyone.

#2 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-01-25 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag

Where were you on Obama promising to filibuster the new FISA immunity, and then turning around and voting for it? Considering Obama's history of action on warrantless wiretapping, I'm not expecting a whole lot.

Where were you on Obama promising to filibuster the new FISA

I'd remained tentative until that point and that was the end of the ObamaRama. Missouri is now a Red State.

IF he doesn't-I'll be screaming about it as loud as anyone.

You must have been out of the country for that whole FISA and Patriot Act thing, huh?

"I'm sure Pres Obama is ending this as we speak."
FF!

Top NSA Scribe Takes Us Inside The Shadow Factory
By Noah Shachtman October 14, 2008 | 4:37:00 PMCategories: Cloak and Dagger, DR Book Club

No outsider has spent more time tracking the labyrinthine ways of the National Security Agency than James Bamford. But even he gets lost in the maze. Despite countless articles and three books on the U.S. government's super-secret, signals-intelligence service the latest of which, The Shadow Factory, is out today Bamford tells Danger Room that he was caught off guard by revelations that the NSA was eavesdropping on Americans. He remains confused about how the country's telecommunications firms were co-opted into the warrantless spying project. And he's still only guessing, he admits, at the breadth and depth of those domestic surveillance efforts. In this exclusive interview, Bamford talks about how hard it is, after all these years, to fit together the pieces at the NSA's "Puzzle Palace" headquarters.

DANGER ROOM: When did you learn that the NSA was listening in on American citizens?

JAMES BAMFORD: After 2001, when people would ask, I'd say, "I don't think the NSA is breaking the law. As far as I'm concerned, the NSA doesn't do that. They don't eavesdrop illegally on Americans anymore." So on December 16, 2005 [when The New York Times broke the story of the NSA's domestic surveillance], I was shocked to learn the NSA for years had been doing warrantless eavesdropping exactly contrary to what I insisted they were doing, what I thought [agency director Lt. Gen. Michael] Hayden wouldn't do.

DR: The new book really centers around Hayden. You two were close, right?

JB: I never had a personal relationship with Hayden I knew him well enough to interview him numerous times, had dinner at his house, all that kind of stuff. Looking back later on, I was disappointed in his lack of ability to stand up against powerful forces like Cheney and Bush. He should know the law better than anybody and he never said no, to anything.

they have simply monitored everything everyone is doing. Without a warrant, and specifically targeting reporters. Everything has been recorded

Surprise Surprise!

Time to indict Bush and Cheney.

Now while we argue over wire tapping they are robbing the banks.
By this time next year you may not have a wire to tap.

McCain Team Sells Second Hand, Unwiped Blackberrys
By: malterwitty
one of the striki
In one of the striking instance of negligence, members of John McCain's now-inoperative presidential campaign have been found selling off technical assets, including laptops and mobile handsets, used during the campaign without wiping out the content stored on the devices.

A Fox 5 News reporter had managed to purchase two Blackberry handsets in a "gone out of business sale" for as low as $20 per piece, with the devices reportedly contained some crucial contact details of key donors, lobbyists, and major advisors related with the campaign.

Not surprising given the advances in communications technology, as well as how cheap data storage has become along with our willingness to look the other way after 9/11.

Although, I would bet it was going on before 9/11 too.

Love the idea that it somehow started after 9/11. Bwahahahaha

Yeah right.

Govt has been monitoring our communications for years.

NSA doesn't have a big budget for nothing.

Obama needs to step up on this one. Though I do remember the righty's telling us lefties, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about from Bush & Cheney, I think for their protection this needs to be made right.

NSA 'Monitored All Communications'

ALL communications?!

Damn. I'm f'ed.

R - O - C - K IN THE U - S - S - A!
R - O - C - K IN THE U - S - S - A!
R - O - C - K IN THE U - S - S - A!

ROCKING IN THE U - S - S - A!

Let's see........ 300 million people in the us. About 200 million making phone calls every day. Wow, theye are listening to me.

& they can with you cell phone. but if you take the battery out, you are okay.

so where did you bury the bodies?

I am supposing "all" included the Kerry campaign.

"Let's see........ 300 million people in the us. About 200 million making phone calls every day. Wow, theye are listening to me"

It may have said this in the article but I would guess that no one is actually listening at first but instead some sort of program that follows a formula scans through what you said. If it fits a profile then its looked into further. Or maybe its all just stored in case you ever do cause some problems, at which point they can go back and figure out what you've been up to and who you've been talking to.

This program is probaly so massive that I doubt Obama could stop it even if he wanted to.

Ahhh America, the land of the "free" and the home of the constantly monitored.

Another parting shot at Bush from a soon to be obsolete Olbermann? As usual ignoring the reality of the warrantless wiretapping. Such as it being in place prior to Bush. Such as the fact both sides of the political aisle voted in favor. Such as a court throwing out the lawuit filed by journalists being targeted. This book reveals some truth about the programs expansion over the years.

I'm not expecting any reaction from false liberals until Obama tells them what to think, but it seems newsworthy to me to know this has been going on.

#1 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-01-25 10:51 PM | Reply |

Good point. Only false liberals would do that.

"I'm not expecting any reaction from false liberals until Obama tells them what to think"

Yeah, cuz all of Obama's supporters developed their political ideas after his nomination. We never had a political viewpoint at all until "The One" told us what to think. It amazes me that so many are so willing to repeat right wing talking points over and over without any thought whatever.

What the hell is a "false liberal" anyway???

Dumbest thing I've read in a while.

Danni,

Yeah, cuz all of Obama's supporters developed their political ideas after his nomination.

Understood, and is a fair rebuttal on its face.

Having said that, I don't believe that you are a 'rabid' Obama supporter - I remember the primaries.

During the primaries, you pointed out some Obama positives, but also acknowledged recognizing a personality cult that exaulted the guy to almost stratrospheric levels when his record-of-accomplishment was rather scant.

Seems to me this approach only works in a Batman movie. Like torture, monitoring EVERYTHING is bad because it DOESN'T WORK. I thought spies were smart.

What the hell is a "false liberal" anyway???

Come on, Danni. You know what he means.... i.e. when you call yourself a liberal just because you are to the left of Joe Lieberman.

"Come on, Danni. You know what he means.... i.e. when you call yourself a liberal just because you are to the left of Joe Lieberman."

Or, a L.I.M.O.:

Liberal in meme only.

Hans

"because it DOESN'T WORK"

I'm not a spy or military guy or anything of that sort, but I have to question people saying these things don't work, because they've been going on for years spanning administrations of Democrats and Republicans. If they honestly and truely didn't work, and were just a waste of time why would they continue? I think that on some level the fact that they've existed for years and years has to be evidence that they must provide some value to those in charge of security right?

I'm no expert just a guy with an opinion and certainly open to hearing another reason for it. Just seems to me that its long term existence must be because it yields some sort of result.

Obama this and Obama that???

He isn't as yet really involved-yet. But a serious violation of privacy certainly is and because of this there could possibly be many other violations from the top down. The stupid bastard that ordered this needs to be held accountable but never will be.

By the time someone finds that the law was broken and follows this with a lengthy determination of just who is culpable, we will all be dead and buried. In this respect that of correctly streamlining the judicial process, we are in dire need of change. It will not come in our life time because it will take generations to figure out how. Welcome to Politics 101, the fucking of the entire American public. Take a seat but don't hurry, it will be a while.

Take a seat but don't hurry, it will be a while.

#30 | Posted by keith204

like never?

If they honestly and truely didn't work, and were just a waste of time why would they continue? - Posted by GreenDad

You could say the same thing about torture; even though expert interrogators say that you don't gain any valuable data by torturing, the Bush Administration kept doing it. It gives them a false sense that they're doing something when they don't know what else to do.

It gives them a false sense that they're doing something when they don't know what else to do.

Posted by rjgonzalez

or really? how about deliberate so the public is fooled into believing what you just wrote?:>)

If true, people need to go to jail. Jail...

Where is all of the Conservative outrage about this?

Whatever happened to small government?

Find out who did it.
Make them squeel on who ordered it.
Prosecute them.
If Obama won't do anything about it, make it an issue for the midterm elections, then vote Obama out.

These things only happen when citizens let them happen.

Ben,
I'm a conservative, and I'm outraged. I've never favored looking back and trying to do stuff to the previous admin for illegal activities. However, if this is true, people should go to jail per my last post.

Ben,
I'm a conservative, and I'm outraged. I've never favored looking back and trying to do stuff to the previous admin for illegal activities. However, if this is true, people should go to jail per my last post.

You need to go back a couple of administrations, a couple of previous Houses of Congress...

This guy needed his "reward" for performing the act of a traitor, in order to assist the Democrat machine to defame a Republican administration. He should be tried for espionage, along with the NY Times.

1. Democrats established the rules and procedures used by the NSA as concerns FISA and they haven't changed those rules and procedures, and the court has just confirmed that the Bush administration acted within those rules and procedures.

2. Consequently, this article is bullsheis in bushels!

3. All, let me repeat !ALL!, transmissions of communications must be recorded, so that word and pattern recognition software can be used to highlight suspect communications. This procedure is authorized by Congress, and specifically a Democrat controlled Congress.

4. That standard procedure is used to defame the Bush administration by preying on the public's depthless ignorance and purposeful stupidity, by misrepresenting the recorded monitoring to mean that all Americans have been wiretapped.

5. Liberals, for the most part, are the goosestepping koolaid drinker's who believe the lies and innuendo directed at their moronic adherence to yellow-dog Democrat politics ...

What a pack of dupe-antipatriotic creeps your party of liars and thieves make out of your collectively blind idiocy!

"This guy needed his "reward" for performing the act of a traitor, in order to assist the Democrat machine to defame a Republican administration. He should be tried for espionage, along with the NY Times."

FF

Bani gets concise, "FF"

Here is an example of the "depthless ignorance" in action!

lol

now Clinton should be tared & feathered for bashing 911 truthers for sure ~ the nwo shill:>)

More brevity from a dupe of the Left, "lol"

Now you are trying for the level of "collectively blind idiocy"

Just my opinion, but I think you are already there, and even on the periphery of the category labeled moronic drooling ...

Go for it, Lefty!

Or, if you aren't a "Lefty", then get with it and start explaining your opinions, instead of acting like a typicle Leftist, yellow-dog, one-liner expert ...

NSA Training Its Spy Satellites on U.S.?

Clues To How the NSA Spies on Americans and Possible Immunity for Telecoms for Helping Gov Spy

Yeah, cuz all of Obama's supporters developed their political ideas after his nomination. We never had a political viewpoint at all until "The One" told us what to think. It amazes me that so many are so willing to repeat right wing talking points over and over without any thought whatever.

As if you really need clarification, but here you go...

False liberal before Obama's FISA vote:

"He's so principled! Finally a real American who will stand up for our rights! I knew I loved this guy for a reason..."

After FISA vote:

"That Obama, he's a real pragmatist. He knows which battles to fight, and which ones to give in on. Besides, he won't use his dictatorial powers, because, you know, he said he wouldn't."

False liberal before cabinet appointments:

"Finally we can get rid of this Bush cabinet and focus on getting all this crap fixed! Change has come!"

False liberal after keeping status quo in Defense department:

"I've always liked Gates and I think he is doing a great job. This really shows that Obama isn't blinded by partisanship. Anyway, Obama is going to do what his heart tells him, regardless of what his cabinet tells him."

False liberal before Raytheon lobbyist appointment:

"No more politics as usual! Enough cronyism! Change has come, yes we can!"

False liberal after Raytheon lobbyist appointment:

"This guy isn't your typical lobbyist, everybody thinks he's qualified, AND he meets Obama's high standards! Besides, everyone knows that when you're a lobbyist coming to work for the government, your private sector company gets MORE scrutiny, not less...so this is actually a good thing!"

Repeat ad nauseam...

Who is this Russell Tice canary, some Democrat plant with an agenda? How valid is his complaint or is it without any basis in fact. Anybody know or is the media running with it like they do everything that bashes the Bushies? Jeeze, anybody care to check this guy out. Where are you NY Times, Washington Pravda, er, Post, MSNBC,....anybody....I thought not.

"All, let me repeat !ALL!, transmissions of communications must be recorded, ..." + "... misrepresenting the recorded monitoring to mean that all Americans have been wiretapped." - Tad

If all Americans aren't wiretapped, how are _all_ transmissions of communications going to be recorded? Either they have one unbelievable AI system, or someone is wacky.

Tadowe- ... It is illegal to record the communication of Americans without their consent or without legal authorization under FISA. The penalty for violating this law is $10,000 per occurrence or five years or both.

Have you even read FISA? FISA does not allow for wholesale vacuuming of American Comms only retail.

Ailtd asks, "If all Americans aren't wiretapped, how are _all_ transmissions of communications going to be recorded?"

No individual listens to all broadcast transmissions which are necessarily recorded. It is necessary that the transmissions be recorded in order to use word/phrase recognition software which Democrats determined were necessary for the continued security of the USA.

The "confusion" stems from blatant ignorance (blind and purposeful) concerning the creation and evolution of this effort to secure the security of the USA (as posted previously this thread: Carnivore and ECHELON created by Kennedy and Clinton with congressional agreement since then!

Broadcast transmissions are NOT protected by the Constitution! Are you all daft, or too dense to understand that ANYONE can intercept broadcast communications? The Russians monitor ALL your converstaions, and it is blind stupidity which considers otherwise!

Ailtd continues the blindness, "Either they have one unbelievable AI system, or someone is wacky."

See? Who hasn't heard of the Cray and the parallel computational capacity of these linked systems? Of COURSE they have the AI and system capability!

Bonnerboy continues with the lies, "... It is illegal to record the communication of Americans without their consent or without legal authorization under FISA. ..."

BS! As mentioned, this rule does NOT apply to BROADCAST communications; internet or overseas (to-from). That determination is one approved by DEMOCRATS (see links of PROOF, above)

Donnerboy tries for obfuscation, "Have you even read FISA? FISA does not allow for wholesale vacuuming of American Comms only retail."

FISA does NOT disallow recording and software recognition programs to determine if the communication is suspect -- GOT THAT?

When the national security is endangered (during a time of national emergency) and the software recognition program alerts real people, then those individuals examine the recording(s) to determine if just cause for further investigation is necessary. If the real-people find that there is cause to actually WIRETAP the individual's conversations, then FISA Exceptions are given the court to present reasoning why wiretap is necessary.

As mentioned, all of the Bush adminstration's FISA Exceptions have been confirmed by the court as justified, so far. Too bad we weren't checking during the Clinton exceptions, quite a few of them during a time that national security was being ignored, in the main.

Donner continues to misdirect, "Carnivore is outdated and they use commercial off the shelf software now (as do all system admins use IDS) to monitor under the guise of cyber security. Easily defeated by encrypting your emails."

What an obvious lie!!! Present support for your idiotic claim!!!

Donner drools, "Echelon was intended for surveillance of foriegn communications not American citizens."

And ... included all broadcast communications in and out of the USA. How do you think the Johnson administration was able to prove that the "Friends" religious organization was in contact with communist agents (overseas and at home) to derail Johnson's war in SEA?

Donner leaks for mutliple orifices, " Bush broke the law be allowing Homeland Security to bypass FISA rules."

BS! AGAIN! The court just got through saying that the FISA rules were NOT broken ...

You leftist liars are becoming oh-so obvious in your stupid efforts to goosestep Democrats into one party rule of the USA ...

... a bunch of communist wannabes ...

"What a pack of dupe-antipatriotic creeps your party of liars and thieves make out of your collectively blind idiocy!"

-Who gives a shit about Party. If this is true it should stop and those responsible should be prosecuted including those who gave the orders.

Huh huh huh...Tadowe said "goosestep"...huh huh huh.

"False liberal after keeping status quo in Defense department:"
-Iraqi-

Funny, are you faulting liberals for still supporting the President when he appoints Republicans?

I don't consider myself a liberal, but I like Obama. Am I supposed to renounce him when he does anything that I don't completely agree with?

Yes, I liked him keeping Gates.
No, I didn't like his explanation about the lobbyist.
Yes, I still support his presidency.

It must be hard for you to accept this guy as your President. Like Rush, i'm sure you want his administration to fail at the expense of the country. Party over country every time.

Tadowe,

If it is proved to you that they were spying on the NYT like this guy claims, how will you spin it? Will it be a conspiracy of the courts?

Ben whines, "Who gives a shit about Party. If this is true it should stop and those responsible should be prosecuted including those who gave the orders."

Here is a brilliance expounded. So, genius, how do you secure your broadcast communications? If you can't answer that, then propose a justification why the USA should recognize that all foreign nations can record and monitor our (USA) broadcasts, but sniveling cowards of the USA can deny that ability to the USA?

The recording(s) by our NSA (not some evil "spying") is approved by Congress since the inception by Truman of the NSA in 1958!

Your blind ignorance of the facts allows Leftist creeps and antipatriots to defame the USA for votes for some of the nation ... not all of the nation's security ...

Read the links and a little bit about this subject before using it to defame Republicans, while at the same time you handicap our nation's intelligence and security. Otherwise, you are the scum of the Earth in your stupid politcal efforts to endanger all US to gain votes for some of YOU!

Betel the nut says, "Huh huh huh...Tadowe said "goosestep"...huh huh huh."

Wipe your chin, and then explain why Democrats can defame a president during wartime for 8 years, but line-up in agreement with Obama's equal efforts, now? And ... demanding bipartisan cooperation, or else we are antipatriotic creeps?

You're an authoritarian, Tad. You just happen to be a right-wing authoritarian.

I see Tadley has graced us with his tired old schtick yet again. One would think there might be a limit on his vitriolic rants, but noooooo!

Wow Tadowe, you have some issues don't you. Calm down, take your medicine and try to fight the voices.

You are the one jumping to conclusions. Notice I use the words "If" when talking about this guy's accusations. "If" what he is saying is true about spying directly on media organizations and making that data available than it is a crime, period. Can you deny that?

Ben misdirects, "If it is proved to you that they were spying on the NYT like this guy claims, how will you spin it? Will it be a conspiracy of the courts?"

If pigs had wings, you could make silk purses from their ears ...

The NY Times opened itself to investigation by revealing classified information during a time of war. Or, are you too self-blinded to understand that that was how the "Frieds" organization allowed Johnson to investigate them ...???

Why don't you actually address the fact the DEMOCRATS are, in the main, responsible for the NSA/FBI/CIA's actions in regard to this .... not Republicans when they are in office ...?

... never ... that's when ... and since Democrats are in-charge ... not Republicans ...

Inveterate liars of the Left UNITE under Obama and the Democrat Welfare State. Victory for Welfare (or Sieg Heil in German.)

Read my links, above, and try to address our nation's security considerations, instead of your selfish yellow-dogism for votes ...

Corky makes me the subject, "I see Tadley has graced us with his tired old schtick yet again. One would think there might be a limit on his vitriolic rants, but noooooo!"

The final refuge from reality, when it comes to addressing what I say, and not ad hominem.

You creeps will never understand how this effort justifies all I say!

Silly Taddy,

See my 4:55 post. I don't give a shit about party unless they overstep their bounds (like the Rethugs), then they must pay (like they did with my help).

It must hurt so bad to see your heroes fall. I know it is hard to admit you were wrong the last 8 years. The voices are getting louder and louder aren't they? Pop your pills, take a deep breath and start to think about what you are saying.

Do you want Obama to have the power to spy on your precious Rethugs for the next 8 years?

"No individual listens to all broadcast transmissions which are necessarily recorded." - Tad

And no one said that. The issue was, how do you get "all" of the transmissions without wiretapping "all" Americans?

"Who hasn't heard of the Cray and the parallel computational capacity of these linked systems?" - Tad

The AI question was to point out that if not "all" Americans are wiretapped, some AI must do lots of extrapolating. I haven't heard of the NSA having such. You do understand that there is a difference between computational power and effective AI programs - or is that beyond the scope of your argument?

Tadowe peppers his rants with insult and name-calling and thinks no one notices; that they will not will respond.

A wink is as good as a nod to blind asshole.

Ben misdirects, "Wow Tadowe, you have some issues don't you. Calm down, take your medicine and try to fight the voices."

See? Another give-up "expert". My reasoning too difficult for you to address? You need to mock me in some personal way to avoid doing so?

"... Notice I use the words "If" when talking about this guy's accusations. "If" what he is saying is true about spying directly on media organizations and making that data available than it is a crime, period. Can you deny that?"

Can you affirm it? I've provide reason to understand the NY Times actions which would subject them to such surveillance!

How about you, personally? Should you and your contacts go uninvestigated, if you revealed Top Secret information which was used to defame Obama and a Democrat administration, at war?

Are you in any way intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the facts and reasoning I've presented?

I seriously doubt that any of you Obama Orange koolaid drinkers have that kind of courage ... if any sort ...

Ailt conflates, "And no one said that. The issue was, how do you get "all" of the transmissions without wiretapping "all" Americans?"

Your comparison ignores that the term "wiretap" has to do with hard wired telephone transmissions, not broadcast communications. Indeed, you ignore that recording all transmissions isn't the same as listening to all conversations by one individual (or a group) to gain legal or intelligence information.

"The AI question was to point out that if not "all" Americans are wiretapped, some AI must do lots of extrapolating."

Duh!

"I haven't heard of the NSA having such."

Well, of course, to a Democrat this means that it doesn't exist and you can ignorantly defame who you choose in order to play at undermining US security in order to gain votes for your party of anti-patriots (but only when a Republican is president, and not when a Democrat is president and orders the same policy and procedures used by the hated scum rightwingers) ...

"You do understand that there is a difference between computational power and effective AI programs - or is that beyond the scope of your argument?"

You obviously don't!

"Your comparison ignores that the term "wiretap" has to do ..."

Doesn't matter. I was trying to reconcile (or see how you did) your two statements. You still have not done so.

"You obviously don't!"

So you claim the two are the same? Or are you just acting stupid?

Corky fizzes over, "Tadowe peppers his rants with insult and name-calling and thinks no one notices; that they will not will respond."

I generalize my comments, ad hominem. Indeed, my insulting conclusions are based on my support of my opinion. That 'opinion' remains un-contradicted! So, losers like you must turn the discussion into a personal attack (not based on generality but directly.)

"A wink is as good as a nod to blind asshole."

IF (for Ben) you're not the negative example you say, then address the facts I've linked and, or any conclusion I've made, directly.

Ailtd continues, "Doesn't matter. I was trying to reconcile (or see how you did) your two statements. You still have not done so."

Recording of All broadcast communications is not "wiretapping", because not one individual US citizens is selected for investigation. Only those individuals who alert the AI word/phrase recognition software are looked at to determine whether the commo has national security issues. This procedure has been the same since the early 1960's (ECHELON link, above).

It is political dupes and stooges who try and equate "recording" with "wiretapping" individuals.

"So you claim the two are the same? Or are you just acting stupid?"

Unreal! You are the one making them equivalent!

Listen, you aren't the swiftest representative of the nattering Left on this subject. I suggest you withdraw before you are totally embarrassed.

"Recording of All broadcast communications is not "wiretapping""

And murdering everyone is not "killing".

"Only those individuals who alert the AI word/phrase recognition software are looked at "

What flavor is the koolaide today?

"What flavor is the koolaide today?"

A rabid authoritarian red.

"Recording of All broadcast communications is not "wiretapping", ..." - Tad

Nor did I say it was. Read _your_ two statements again, the ones I highlighted, then come back to the point I am making.

"Unreal! You are the one making them equivalent!"

Nope. I mentioned AI. You mentioned Crays in reply to that. That means _you_ equated them. Focus - try to focus.

"Listen, you aren't the swiftest representative of the nattering Left on this subject. I suggest you withdraw before you are totally embarrassed."

Listen, you can't even win an argument with yourself. I think you have already embarrassed yourself too much.

By the way, I would not claim to represent the "left". I'm that speciment called "independent". Not a concept which exists in your world. But then that's another issue you need to deal with, not my concern.

"What flavor is the koolaide today?"

A rabid authoritarian red.

Tasting red, are we... Brain tumor? LSD?

Fuck Tad...a 'real' conservative would be outraged by this policy, no matter which party is responsible for it being used. But old Tad apparently is a member of the new 'big government' conservatives. All his guns and Bibles don't provide him enough protection...so it's Big Brother to poor little Tad's rescue.

And when one dies they are also property of the state!

Mrs Oul62 flirts, "Fuck Tad..."

Okay then, if you go for the over 68 crowd.

"... a 'real' conservative would be outraged by this policy, no matter which party is responsible for it being used."

BS comment, again from the Left! Explain how your broadcast communications are secure from foreign intelligence?

The NSA does not monitor any specific American citizen when they use the internet or satellite communications. However, ALL foreign nations (Australia, Canada and GB specifically) monitor ALL broadcast communications. So, how can you deny the USA the ability to look for words or phrases used in overseas communication when everyone in the world (or out of it) can record ALL broadcast communications and gain intelligence from it???

You are a slavish leftist who thinks that by defaming US intelligence, that you are gaining votes and support for your party ... not all of the nation.

You, yourself, are in NO WAY, a conservative ... you're too ignorant and fooled by political claims, while you denigrate the real "experts", the NSA and its direct supervision by congress.

"But old Tad apparently is a member of the new 'big government' conservatives. All his guns and Bibles don't provide him enough protection...so it's Big Brother to poor little Tad's rescue."

I served with the NSA at Misawa AFB, Misawa, Japan (and mentioned in my ECHELON link, above), and so I'm aware of the information that you pathetic anti-patriots ignore in order to defame some Americans, while you creeps endanger us all with your stupidity in trying to gain votes in undermining our national intelligence effort.

The "effort" designed by Truman, increase by Kennedy and Johnson, then expanded by Clinton ...

I'm aware of the history and process, while you are trying to play partisan propaganda with our safety from terrorists ...

Var der harget, shmucks ...

It must be hard for you to accept this guy as your President. Like Rush, i'm sure you want his administration to fail at the expense of the country. Party over country every time.

I'll send you 20 dollars if you can find one pro-Bush post that I have ever made.

I'll make it 100 if you can find a post where I have ever chosen party over country.

"BS comment, again from the Left!"-Tad

You are wrong once again. I'm don't have a team...I'm an issues guy. But since partisan hacks such as yourself(and those on the left...I've been called a Rtard and Rethuglican for some of my views)need a label for anyone who dares to disagree with you...you can call me a Goldwater-Libertarian.

I bet the only time you consider it,'defaming someone's name'...is when that 'someone' is a republican.

I thought I might have been slightly out of line when I said, "Fuck Tad", and I was going to apologize...but you are a rude mudderfugger yourself, so I'll let it stand.

"I served with the NSA
At Miswa AFB...(Missawa, Japan)
And mentioned it in
My ECHELON link above"-Tad

Oh yeah??

Well....
"I rode a tank
Held a generals rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank"

"PLEASED TO MEET YOU....."

Still spamming that urban dictionary post, tadowe?

"PLEASED TO MEET YOU....."

Hey, do you want to jam sometime? I hear you play a mean fiddle, and you taught Jimmy Page to play guitar pretty damn well too.

Tadowe:

You are far too involved in what people say on this blog. This coming from a guy who will type in ALL CAPS A LOT AND CALL PEOPLE FASCISTS and IS ANNOYED AT THE FALSE FUCKING LIBERALS WHO HAVE ONE VIEWPOINT AND THEN CHANGE IT BECAUSE THEIR HOLY OBAMA DOES SOMETHING CONTRARY TO SAID VIEWPOINT.

You need to switch to decaf or go on a vacation or something.

"Hey, do you want to jam sometime?"

The crossroads, at midnight...I'll be there.

"IS ANNOYED AT THE FALSE FUCKING LIBERALS "-Soheifox

I'm curious, does your annoyance extend to false conservatives as well?

I personally, find them both, equally annoying.

I'm curious, does your annoyance extend to false conservatives as well?

I personally, find them both, equally annoying.

#88 | Posted by mrsoul62 at 2009-01-26 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag

Not in the slightest. I _expect_ "conservatives" to by hypocrites and dumbasses. It only anger me when liberals do it as well, because I expect better.

LOL...fair enough, Soheifox.

I'd prefer if both parties would stop fucking babysitting me. I don't need my government spying on all it's citizens, to feel safe. I don't the government telling business owners how to run their business, to feel safe. I don't the government telling me when to wear my seat-belt, to feel safe. I don't need Jesus, to feel safe...

"I don't need the government telling business owners how to run their business"

This is mostly in regards to smoking, trans fats,....

I do favor some sensible controls for reining-in pollution and corporate greed....

Eh. I'm not with you there. I DO like the government telling businesses how to run their businesses. Otherwise, do you really think McDonald's would even serve the Grade B beef they currently do? Or do you think we'd get the sluice gate detritus? When _everyone_ is serving the sluice gate crap to us and saving the slightly better stuff for the wealthy, do you really think the "free market" is going to fix that?

If there weren't minimum auto safety standards, do you think any of the lower-end cars would even have the ability to survive a 5 MPH crash without making blood frapp of everyone inside?

Hell, let's even take a silly scifi thing. Seen Robocop? Yeah, that's what happens when businesses run without checks and regulations. They bankrupt the government and take it over. It's a cute action flick but if you look under the surface you have quite a dystopian future there.

Unchecked capitalism is just as stupid as unchecked Socialism. Neither can work, because of human greed.

reining=reigning

I don't need the government telling business owners how to run their business"

This is mostly in regards to smoking, trans fats,....

I do favor some sensible controls for reining-in pollution and corporate greed....

#92 | Posted by mrsoul62 at 2009-01-26 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag

Ahh, I see you aren't as insane as that firs tpost seemed. Heh. thanks for clarification.

Yeah..I can see where you might think I was a bit of a loon without the clarification. :)

All of this was approved by Confress --the FISA Act and Patriot Act--all voted YES by Obama..

If I were a betting person--

I would bet on Raytheon and CitiGroup...

Congress--

Retroactive immunity from prosecution. One set of rules for you, another for the Oligarchy. They are above the law.

Wall Street buys 'em and tells them what to do. Clinton & Obama met Rockefeller & Kissinger at the Bilderberg Globalist Confab. They went to some trouble to hide their whereabouts during this time. Attendees at the Bilderberg conference included Condoleezza Rice, Tom Daschle and Ben Bernanke. Discussions are secret, keeping with the Oligarchy's distain for true Democracy and contempt for ordinary people.

Fake Democracy is a management tool. More effective than police force. Rush ever talk about this? Why is he paid $40 million per year?

They will do and say anything to maintain an image of legitimacy. That's the secret bipartisan agreement whih maintains the duopoly by never broaching certain subjects. Party money comes with strings.

Mrswhatever says, "You are wrong once again. I'm don't have a team...I'm an issues guy."

Unfortunately for your claim, you have not addressed this issue, but simply (in all that word's pejorative sense) attacked me as your "issue". For example:

"But since partisan hacks such as yourself(and those on the left...I've been called a Rtard and Rethuglican for some of my views)need a label for anyone who dares to disagree with you...you can call me a Goldwater-Libertarian."

Another BS label you attempt to otherwise denigrate as being beneath you! You really don't pay much attention to what you write, correct?

"I bet the only time you consider it,'defaming someone's name'...is when that 'someone' is a republican."

Again, you make it an ad hominem comment, rather than actually address what I had to say in reference to the term "defammation". You even managage the typical effort leftist propagandists use in spinning and misrepresenting what is said, in order that they can avoid responding, on point. So, whatever 'politics' you might claim, you act-out as a ducklike jackass (Democrat).

"I thought I might have been slightly out of line when I said, "Fuck Tad", and I was going to apologize...but you are a rude mudderfugger yourself, so I'll let it stand."

I don't require your crocadillian 'apology'. It was sufficient that you demonstrated your true colors at the beginning of this pretense at debate you are trying to act-out, and poorly ...

The courts have upheld the right of the president to present FISA requests, and has placed the blame squarely on the political bureaucracy which isn't adequate to process the requests; including the courts. Indeed, the failure (planned action of Democrats) to appoint judges to the various courts drastically delayed request processing procedure, and which Democrats used to their propagandistic advantage in reviling the very process they created!

For that matter, Clinton had delayed FISA requests, so the 'infrastructure' was inadequate even before Republicans gained the administration!

Never mind, though. You aren't interested in anything else but your ignorant agenda ... which seems to be to acquire the most ignorant national intelligence in the whole world ... you and the antipatriotic Democrats who continue to defame out of their purposeful stupidity ...

Come on back and tell me what an evil entity I happen to be ... you and the fellow traveler Democrats who do, routinely and as you can't fail to notice. Join them like a tovarish, squawking duck ...

Alex wonders, "Still spamming that urban dictionary post, tadowe?"

Isn't that what you called me on your very first post in reply to a subject I commented on? That I was a spamming 'troller'?

Now you ask a pretend 'question', you already have observed the answer to?

What do you have to say about the court finding the Bush administration FISA actions correct and by-the-law? Any comment on why this person is now coming out-of-the-espionage-closet? To save himself, and the NY Times from the possibility of charges - charges which absolutely Must have been investigated, formally?

I suspect both. They will pay-him-off for his faithless crime of revealing classified information and allow sniveling leftists and Democrats the chance to make him into the pretense of a 'hero'; some kind of 'patriot'.

I know the truth, though. I know that Truman created the NSA, and Congress has regulated it ever since. No 'new' laws from congress have made any restriction on the process they have managed since 1958. Indeed, the efforts have increased, as I know and mentioned, in that president Clinton ordered Janet Reno to have the FBI monitor ALL internet broadcasts (all of the internet is broadcast)! How about talking about that, rather than the pertinent comment I had about your stupid effort to argue/debate/discuss with me as your obsessive target for personal attack?

Really Alex, have you learned your lesson, yet?

Foxy says, "You are far too involved in what people say on this blog."

Here is another of the blithely unaware crowd (mostly consisting of Democrats) who attempts to make me the subject for defammation while informing me that I'm the proximate 'Cause'. Of course, this idiot has to ignore that my comments have been about the actual subject of this thread, and that it is his fellow ad hominem 'experts' who have "involved" myself, and not me. I should be able to answer if made the subject, what? How do you think you can make me feel insulted by stating this sort of stupid (I hesitate to say 'logic')?

"This coming from a guy who will type in ALL CAPS A LOT AND CALL PEOPLE FASCISTS and IS ANNOYED AT THE FALSE FUCKING LIBERALS WHO HAVE ONE VIEWPOINT AND THEN CHANGE IT BECAUSE THEIR HOLY OBAMA DOES SOMETHING CONTRARY TO SAID VIEWPOINT."

You are actually incoherent!

"You need to switch to decaf or go on a vacation or something."

You see, Alex? This is the same obsession you stupidly produced (and I benefit thereby) in posting this comment, oh-so publically:

#102 | Posted by tadowe at 2009-01-27 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag

...dude, you seem to seriously have some issues with this place.

Thanks for showing me that Urban Dictionary post. Now I know you have a long history OF being considered a douchebag here.

Here's a headsup for you: If someone you have never seen before and who wasn;t aware of your history wiht this place notices that you are WAY too involved in this place and seem to be taking things too seriously, you might wanna consider that Urban Dictionary might actually be correct.

You DO need to get laid.

And you're a worthless dumbass. Like Doc Sarvis, Buffalo Bob, and Nullifdian, you are not intelligent enough to converse with. Have fun talking to the wall, because _I_ am sure done with you.

And feel free to post about how you don't care. Nobody's going to believe you. In a record short time, you've already amply demonstrated to me that the single most important thing in your life is what the folks on this blog think of you.

Get a life.

"Have fun talking to the wall, because _I_ am sure done with you."

He's probably grateful for that, dumbshit.

Why does everyone keep kicking my ass in every debate I'm in?

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-01-27 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag

Probably because, left or right, you're one of the stupidest people alive.

I mean really. I mention someone and not 10 minutes later, they're in and crying like a little girl. Get a life, loser. You must be canvassing every thread 24/7 to be able to respond with such efficeincy.

If you go out and touch a breast sometime, you'll find your reputation on the Drudge to be not so crucial.

"#105 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-01-27 02:33 PM | Reply |"

Posted by a moron who forges posts. Why don't you stick to boring people with your wedding photos, dipshit?

I'm still not sure how you keep managing to paint me with your big broad 'sniveling, anti-patriotic, liberals' brush Tadnoweenie?

Have I blamed Bush and the Republicans SOLELY for this policy? NO

Did the conservative party once believe in a smaller and less powerful federal government? YES

Are there still many conservatives, who would consider this policy of spying on all Americans, to be wrong and even unAmerican? YES

Is it unpatriotic to question a policy that threatens the personal freedoms and liberties of American citizens? Absolutely NOT.

And I would think, as someone who supposedly fought for those liberties and freedoms, you wouldn't be so angrily opposed to anyone with a dares to question your extremeist views.

I'm sure Pres Obama is ending this as we speak.

#2 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-01-25 11:39 PM

Tadowe says Donner leaks for mutliple orifices, " Bush broke the law be allowing Homeland Security to bypass FISA rules."

BS! AGAIN! The court just got through saying that the FISA rules were NOT broken ...

you are the one distorting the truth.

The ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with the central question at the heart of the NSA controversy: namely, whether Bush committed felonies by ordering warrantless eavesdropping in the face of a Congressional statute that explicitly made such eavesdropping a felony.

...the court's ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Bush acted legally or properly when he ordered warrantless eavesdropping on Americans from 2001-2006, when warrantless eavesdropping was a felony under FISA.

If you are referring to the Aug 22nd ruling:

The Aug. 22 appeals court decision upheld a secret ruling issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act, which gave the executive branch broad power to eavesdrop on international communications.

Donner makes the exception, "The ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with the central question at the heart of the NSA controversy: namely, whether Bush committed felonies by ordering warrantless eavesdropping in the face of a Congressional statute that explicitly made such eavesdropping a felony."

You're ignoring (go figure) that so far, there are NO warrantless wiretaps without having a FISA declaration in process! If there were, then your Democrat attack politicians would have 'leaked' them! However, perhaps you can cite some examples of these claimed 'felonies'?

"...the court's ruling had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Bush acted legally or properly when he ordered warrantless eavesdropping on Americans from 2001-2006, when warrantless eavesdropping was a felony under FISA."

You haven't made any attempt to justify, even to reason, any examples of 'felonies', and the law, itself, does allow exceptions to allow for the immediacy of intelligence needs. Go fool a fellow Democrat, and since you all believe the same unproven claims (like good soldiers marching in unison; goosestepping as high as directed.

"The Aug. 22 appeals court decision upheld a secret ruling issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority in August 2007 when it passed a hotly debated law known as the Protect America Act, which gave the executive branch broad power to eavesdrop on international communications."

You aren't saying anything pertinent to the 'felonies' you claim without any support, none ...

"But the ruling, handed down in August 2008 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and made public Thursday, did not directly address whether President Bush was within his constitutional powers in ordering domestic wiretapping without warrants, without first getting Congressional approval, after the terrorist attacks of 2001."

This says nothing, except continues the effort to get Bush in trouble for 'warrantless' wiretaps that no one can cite or provide examples of, and where FISA exceptions were not in the process.

As mentioned, if there had been any 'warrantless' wiretaps without a FISA request in the process ... then Democrats (who supervise this procedure) would have announced it, and the Congress would be starting impeachment ...

"care to comment Tadowe or just froth at the mouth?"

You have ignored what I did say, in order to make the same unsupported claims that have already proven to be baseless. But, that's the way koolaid drinkers always respond ... just repeating the already contradicted party propaganda ...

"But, that's the way koolaid drinkers always respond ... just repeating the already contradicted party propaganda ..." - Tad

Tad, if he is doing so, cut him a break. He's merely trying to emulate his hero - you.

Ailtd says, "Tad, if he is doing so, cut him a break. He's merely trying to emulate his hero - you."

Why insult him by claiming such an absurd insult against him???

That's the trouble with you idiots, you never think about what your words mean ... you can only think of yourselves as brilliant in debate, like the total fools you appear to be to those who actually reason and debate; whatever their politics.

Indeed, my noticing that apparently no one here has the actually intellectual courage to debate doesn't mean that everyone is the idiot attack leftist which seemingly dominate Democrat politics; at least on this slavishly indoctrinated site ...

However, I enjoy throwing a few points at yellow-dog-democrats and to observe them jumping around and whining in their repetitive, yapping way ...

Your ilk haven't the smarts to do anything else, and you make it obvious to the casual reader who might venture in here.

"Why insult him by claiming such an absurd insult against him???"

My apologies to him. Thank you for acknowledging that emulating you is an insult.

This says nothing, except continues the effort to get Bush in trouble for 'warrantless' wiretaps that no one can cite or provide examples of, and where FISA exceptions were not in the process.

Perhaps I misunderstood the article...

The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications," he said. "Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications. ... They monitored all communications."

sounds to me like there is evidence... of course, with the NSA it will be very hard to produce it. If they made recordings without a warrant then they broke the law under Bush's leadership and directions.

Donnerboy says, "My apologies to him. Thank you for acknowledging that emulating you is an insult."

See? You are acting too stupid to understand that I'm not insulted by your efforts to take my comments out-of-context. I enjoy the tacit acknowledgement that my opinion is correct.

"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications," he said. 'Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications. ... They monitored all communications.'"

The effort made with this comment is to infer that some sort of crime is applicable to the fact that NSA 'monitoring' takes place with broadcast communications.

How about my 'monitoring' of broadcast communications using my scanner and hi-speed multiplexer? Am I committing a 'crime'? Of course not! Anyone can 'monitor' broadcast communications; Russians, Chinese, Martians ... anyone ...

The propaganda attempts to conflate 'monitoring' with 'individual wiretapping', and it just isn't so ... without a FISA request in the process.

"sounds to me like there is evidence... of course, with the NSA it will be very hard to produce it. If they made recordings without a warrant then they broke the law under Bush's leadership and directions."

If recordings are missing, then it is with the culpability of Congressional oversite ... and with Democrats in-charge of the administration and Congress (2 years for Reid and Pelosi to actually show a crime was committred) ... only you BIG LIE repeaters are trying to blame Bush for what Obama (et al) are now allowing.

As I mentioned, if there was a crime committed, then Democrats would have announced it two years ago ... with actual proof instead of the dupes and stooges of the Left slavish claims.

I'm actually surprised that Rogers allows his editorial staff to keep crap like this alive, and since it will/is becoming an obvious Democrat Big Lie ...

But, there is really no understanding those who vote unthinkingly and for party over facts and truth ... yellow-dog-democrats seemingly must demonstrate their slavish partisanship at every turn, no exceptions ...

Please stop talking about real life and breasts! I have a three inch penis and an odor that can be detected at 30 feet.

My reputation on the Drudge is all I HAVE!!

#107 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-01-27 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag

Sorry I couldn't get back to you as fast as you can always get back to me. I have this thing called a "real life" and therefore the Drudge isn't as important to me as it is to you.

Sorry about your penis. Perhaps if you develop a personality that isn't repugnant and begin to understand how logic actually works, you might be able to make up for that.

"#117 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-01-27 06:40 PM"

Oh great, my stalker is back. Look, asshole, I don't know why you have a hard-on for me, and don't care. I don't swing that way.