Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Illegal Spying: It's not what they're saying, it's what they're NOT saying

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 10:02 AM
Original message
Illegal Spying: It's not what they're saying, it's what they're NOT saying
What they're saying:
"This is targeted, it's limited, it's only about Al Qaeda, it's only about communications with suspected terrorist operatives overseas."

What they won't say:
Gonzales would NOT say that the spying isn't wider, or that it doesn't go further -- for example, he refused to say they aren't intercepting mail between US citizens.

Hayden, in a conference being re-broadcast right now on C-Span, would NOT say that they aren't spying on BushCo political opponents.

WHY won't they give a simple "no" to these questions, if indeed what they're saying is the whole truth, when they described the "program" as limited to suspected terrorist ops abroad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
European Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liam_laddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
2. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. Rec # 5. Excellent post. Very succinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbrother05 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. If targeted and limited, why not use FISA?
They want no limits or records of their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ding ding ding ding ding - you hit the bullseye
You win the cupie doll!:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. Exactly.
And those who report the truth (or ask pointed questions) are guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's because they don't want to say that
There's more than one program! Gonzo-torture-boy let that slip in a hearing and nobody followed up on it. Everything is referenced in terms of 'this policy' or 'that program'.

So the terrorist monitoring program is different than the presidential enemies monitoring program is different than the Greenpeace monitoring program is different than the Breasts Not Bombs monitoring program...

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I once read that AT&T switches US calls to Canada ...so they can
then listen because it's now coming from a foreign country. That's how they get around the law and can say they don't listen to domestic calls within the US. I wish someone would/could ask Gonzales to explain.

Any one else hear this? Is it true? Can someone else explain exactly how it works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. like randi says
the truth takes 2 seconds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-08-06 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. On 9/11 there were about 9 names on the terrorist
watch list(s), today over 300,000, its anything and everything, from those who are for peace or those that can see the Pnac agenda, or who left trash at there camp site in the national forest, some terrorist indeed, all the wile leaving the borders unprotected and the ports as well.
Well,I think its these domestic terrorist we should be watching, that the weak republican party has let take over their party is of concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-09-06 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
11. But will they put
hayden under oath and actually demand answers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC