The Whiskey Priest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:16 AM
Original message |
Someone Needs to Review the List of Names Involved in the Intercepts. |
|
Edited on Wed Dec-21-05 11:16 AM by The Whiskey Priest
FISA provided the Republicans with a 72 hour opportunity to go to the FISA court after-the-fact. So, the defense that they had to act quickly does not hold water. The only thing that would make sense for doing the intercepts in secrecy would be that there are people who are in no way connected with terrorist that were subjected to illegal intercepts.
I would wager that what we have is Nixon’s enemies list again and not some over-zealousness to protect the American people from harm. This would be much in line with the Republicans philosophy of using the government against the people and not for the people.
|
goodhue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:17 AM
Response to Original message |
yellowcanine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Of course there is a list. But it isn't subject to the FOIA. So don't |
|
hold your breath. Not if you value living, anyway.
|
goodhue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. detection versus monitoring |
|
The whole detection versus monitoring thing had left me with the impression that NSA was doing blanket interceptions (e.g., all calls to Pakistan), not necessarily confining themselves to a particular list.
|
yellowcanine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Not confining themselves to a list, no - but do they keep records of the |
|
intercepts? You bet they do.
|
PRETZEL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I believe that was tried during the Bolton nomination hearings |
|
and the WH blocked the release of some of them. Granted it wasn't all of them but seems to me that there were a hint of speculation the the Dem's had an idea as to who some of those intercepts involved. Now's a real good time to revisit that issue.
|
insane_cratic_gal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. I assumed Bolton was connected to plame |
|
that is why they held blocked requests for information.
So what if they tapped Wilson/Plame as one of the names on the list.
Wilson called over seas did he not?
If they can out a CIA agent and say they didn't "mean" to do it, but then piss and moan when someone leaks intell on them. That's Karma baby, heres to hoping it keeps on giving.
|
PRETZEL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Not as concerned about Ambassador Wilson, |
|
I've been firmly convinced from the discussions here that the true target of this whole scandal was actually Valerie Plame herself and her role with Brewster-Jennings. She was the WMD expert who potentially causes the most problems for this administration.
And yes I absolutely firmly believe John Bolton is up to eyeballs in this.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-21-05 12:03 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I'd wager that 2004 Presidential candidates and their staffs |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 02:33 AM
Response to Original message |