Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 sorry fairweather, you are right. forgien nationals who do not hold the values of america dear to their hears cannot, by nature, engage in treason....treason is committed by american citizens against the country, and in turn we, the people, and i will continue to attest that the actions of the bush administration are far more treasonable actions than hijacking planes or giving blowjobs in niger.... which is what a wife of a diplomat that is information gathering in a country like niger for the CIA would be doing at cocktail parties and society mixers, if she was a GOOD female inteligence operative... she would be the gladhandler, coaxing info out of drunken and compromised heads of state and influential individuals.... and forgien agents are abandoned by the CIA.... it is extremely rare that an agent will provide enough info the CIA will value their lifes highly enough to save them and spirit them out of a country to safety elsewhere. The CIA just drops em, raids the front organizations bank accounts, gets the americans out lickety split, and doesn't event leave the forgien agent an exit strategy... sometimes the CIA even sets them up to appear to be a handler instead of an agent... life is rough, boys... fuck em, fuck em all is a common CIA directive, FEFEA Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck, the CIA agents know the risks going in. Didn't you watch Mission Impossible for Chrissake? "Jim, the information you are about to receive......" Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I'm not talking about the world of movies, trask... the americans are attempted to be saved at all costs, none of the typical movie bullshit about 'abandonded military special ops', that's not how it works. I'm talking about guys who live in niger, or uganda, or poland, or cheznya, that the CIA develops as spys, sources or passers, people who simply provide classified documents to CIA... these people are already considered floor shavings and designed to be expendible... if the agency can pin some of their ops on a patsy, so much the better FEFEA Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck, I don't know where you get this intel, but you're off base. I have a good friend that is a year or so from retirement with the CIA. I'm not totally sure if he's a "spy" or what, but he's been on "assignment" throughout the world for near 30 years. He's never married because he always felt his time could be up at any moment, and a lot of his time also involves embassy work in hot zones. I've tried to pry the details of his job from him and usually strike out, but he has said in no uncertain terms, that if the shit hits the fan, he doesn't expect Uncle to bail his ass out. I think you've been reading too much Gresham. hehehe Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 trask, you are correct in that... but when it comes to abandoning CIA non military combatants in hot zones, NOT. they didn't even leave that jessica chick, and she was only a cook... somebody in the far greasier world of intelligence gathering, actually, the CIA will still try to pull if its possible without a stinkbomb, but its the non us interests that are far more expendible. and my longtime (20+ years) friend Pryscilla is overseas right now, doing exactly that... she's been involved in "nuclear disposal" since the eighties, she is somewhere acting as a commercial businesswoman with legitimate interests at stake, but largely doing more nefarious things... don't tell me i'm pulling this stuff out of a book... Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 beck, I take back the book comment...peace. I don't have the answers, so I'll get out of this thread. Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 thats okay trask, i've learned not to take your posts personally... but the current administration is so reprehensible, when this time period is viewed historically, america is going to be the loser in this scenario... but Haliburton is going to get rich, regardless! when my buddy bob and i deconstructed the post WWII efforts, we came up with some good names... dupont, goodyear rubber, boeing, standard oil... Quote
Bug Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck said: thats okay trask, i've learned not to take your posts personally... but the current administration is so reprehensible, when this time period is viewed historically, america is going to be the loser in this scenario... but Haliburton is going to get rich, regardless! when my buddy bob and i deconstructed the post WWII efforts, we came up with some good names... dupont, goodyear rubber, boeing, standard oil... I'm sorry but now I have to lecture the liberals. If I've said it once, I 've said it a thousand times, Anyone who has made it to the White House doesn't have a moral bone in their egomaniacial body. ITS ABOUT ME STUPID!!! That's all there is to it. Sure they jump thru the hoops for one special interest or another but it's for sound bites. Anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified. That would have left us with only our first three presidents. After that, it was the constitution that held us together. Now we are letting that slip through slight of hand in the mass media. Hang on to your hats boys. They want blow jobs from all of us. The only way to stop them is with knowledge. Quote
Fairweather Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck said: thats okay trask, i've learned not to take your posts personally... but the current administration is so reprehensible, when this time period is viewed historically, america is going to be the loser in this scenario... but Haliburton is going to get rich, regardless! when my buddy bob and i deconstructed the post WWII efforts, we came up with some good names... dupont, goodyear rubber, boeing, standard oil... ...Don't forget Toyota, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Leica, BMW, Zeiss.... Hey, Beck! Maybe WWII was just a big corporate conspiracy. You liberals still don't get it. We all are the corporation. Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 fairweather, and the diferences between WWII and nowadays is a world apart... the administration is so much more blatant nowadays about how they are going to screw the public... im still disgusted by our current leaders... Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 and, sorry, bug, that you don't understand american political division of state or representation... hmm, a seperation of powers, and checks and balances, were always extremely important in american politics since the 1780's... the post patriot act era is distinctively NOT so... Quote
Fairweather Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck, Maybe you could tell me when Kenneth Leigh's (Enron) misdeeds took place? Did Enron begin its pillaging only after Jan 23, 2001? No, I suspect "energy policy" and accounting practices were discussed with the Clintons on the very night Mr Leigh bedded down in The Lincoln Bedroom. What was it going for back then? $10,000 a night? Where was your outrage when the previous administration was gettin' cozy with corporate America and making policy based on $$$? Face it Beck, you're a partisan wonk and your recent wining/dining with the Olympia crowd has probably blinded you to the fact that your Dem buddies are just as "dirty" as you perceive Republicans to be. Quote
cj001f Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Fairweather said: We all are the corporation. Aye. Down to the last corporate veal pen. Quote
JayB Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Could someone define the precise manner in which the Patriot Act is undermining our freedoms? I have heard the hyperbole, but haven't seen much evidence to back it up. If it is in fact degrading the freedoms outlined in the Constitution then it is by definition unconstitutional and will be overturned in the courts eventually if it is not taken out with legislative action first. This is not without precedent, as there are a number of laws enacted in WWI and WWII (and earlier, e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts) that gave the government power to stifle dissent that Congress ultimately revoked or allowed to expire. I'm not for complacency in these matters - but is the target here really the threats represented by this legislation or the Bush administration? Quote
Bug Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Beck said: and, sorry, bug, that you don't understand american political division of state or representation... hmm, a seperation of powers, and checks and balances, were always extremely important in american politics since the 1780's... the post patriot act era is distinctively NOT so... Put your beer down. I am totally against the patriot act and do totally believe that Bush and his cronies are a bunch of fascists. Just don't try to tell me any modern president wasn't just as self serving and crooked. We are being brainwashed by mass media. Somebody like Walter Cronkite would be labeled "Lunatic fringe" right now. The mass media "new" is entertainment. It is not journalism. It is through brilliant manipulation of the mass media that we are being bilked out of our constitutional rights. A cop does not need a reason to stop you and search your car. People are being prosecuted for crimes using evidence obtained under the patriot act even though they have nothing to do with terrorism. If you call your buddy AlpineK and plot a crime together, say buying a pound of good bud. Under the patriot act, your phone can be tapped and you can go to jail based solely on your own phone conversation. That is the errosion I am talking about. If you think electing someone "with a good heart" to the Whitehouse is going to fix things, fine. Explain how that person is going to get any party's nomination. Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 the patriot act is unconstituentally broad and being used to prosecute and investigate scores of americans that have nothing to do with terrorism, jay...it was reported in the sunday newspaper, or in the last couple of weeks, anyway. it was a national AP stringer column that ran top left anchor above the fold on page one of the seattle times- top left above the fold is a spot reserved for real news. the article went on to expose the many ways and many times the federales have been using changes in LEO activity due to the patriot act.. and bug, and fairweather, you are both correct on many points. the government is filled with corrupt individuals on both sides of the aisle, and everyone sucks big corporate horsek. there is difficulty distinguishing between donkeys and elephants, however. A friend of mine calls them "demopublicans" i will continue to assert the current administration is selling the american people the biggest teapot dome they could dream up, and are commiting treasonable actions against the US that need to be spoken out against- repeal the clean air act? dismantle the EPA? run a war for personal profit? Bankrupt america's pension funds? run the energy grid and make america bleed? refuse to cooperate with government investigations into energy policy? haliburton=7 billion and counting from the war in uncompetitive contracts and thumbing our nose at the UN, then grovel back 6 months later... we are the inept, sophmoric laughingstocks of global diplomacy, What is wrong here in america? it is the white house administration commiting treasonable actions against the american people everyday. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 "I read it in the newspaper so it's gospel. Are you questioning my propaganda sources?" Quote
slothrop Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 (edited) JayB said: Could someone define the precise manner in which the Patriot Act is undermining our freedoms? I have heard the hyperbole, but haven't seen much evidence to back it up. If it is in fact degrading the freedoms outlined in the Constitution then it is by definition unconstitutional and will be overturned in the courts eventually if it is not taken out with legislative action first. This is not without precedent, as there are a number of laws enacted in WWI and WWII (and earlier, e.g. the Alien and Sedition Acts) that gave the government power to stifle dissent that Congress ultimately revoked or allowed to expire. I'm not for complacency in these matters - but is the target here really the threats represented by this legislation or the Bush administration? The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to monitor your communications (phone, email, fax, web, library records, credit card records) and even allows wiretaps of those "proximate" to you, all without a court order (violates Amendment IV, illegal search and seizure). Furthermore, such searches and seizures may be conducted without your knowledge, in advance or after the fact. The act also relaxed restrictions on the ability of the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies to spy on Americans. All of these powers are, as Beck mentioned, not restricted to the vaguely-defined crimes of terrorism. Some of the erosion of liberties is not directly a result of the Patriot Act, but part of the overall changes in Justice Dept. policy under Ashcroft and Bush. For example, if you're suspected of "terrorism", you can be shipped to Cuba (where no one can hear you scream), police do not have to release any information about you or your arrest to the public record, can hold you indefinitely without charges, can cause your lawyer (whenever they get around to letting you have one, maybe after interrogation) to be under a permanent gag order for "national security" purposes. All of those things have already happened to people, US citizens included. The Patriot II Act hopes to enable the government to strip you of your citizenship at their discretion (among other things)! I think it's pretty weak to sit there and hope that someday the courts will wake up and realize that this law has brought us closer to becoming a police state like East Germany, where everyone had a file with the State Security Service. Edited October 1, 2003 by slothrop Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 I suspected as much...Dr. Flash Unamazing was shipped to Cuba. Can't say as I didn't warn him. Quote
mattp Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Along with questioning the erosion of our civil rights that is being brought about in the name of national security, I think we need to wonder if any of it is actually going to make us more secure. Do you really think that if they can tap your phones without a court order, as opposed to having to first telephone a federal magistrate and explain why they are suspicious about a certain individual, we are really going to be much safer? What I hear them saying is that we need more personnel and equipment to monitor and sort out all the information available to us already and they really haven't tried to explain how they actually need more wiretapping authority or why they don't have time to call a judge who is on call 24 hours a day. Neither am I aware that they have cited very many, if any, examples of where they were turned down for not having "an articulable suspicion" and in retrospect they think this denied them important information. (Think about this - an "articulable suspicion" is not a demanding standard, but just means that they have some kind of valid reason, even if it is only a suspicion based upon no evidence whatever.) I'm sure it has happened that they've missed out on the info, but just how much of an issue is it - and is it worth it in terms of the cost to our liberty? Does GregW want to have his phone tapped simply because he signed up for GunNuts magazine and there is no reason whatever to think he is in any way connected with any dangerous activity? Do any of you think that the metal detectors and being forced to take your shoes off at the airport are actually making it safer to fly? I think the Patriot Acts are partly a cynical attempt on the part of law enforcement agencies to take advantage of public hysteria (they'd rather be able to operate with less oversight), and they are also partly just a con job to make us think that the new Homeland Security department is going to make us safe. Quote
allthumbs Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 mattp said: Do any of you think that the metal detectors and being forced to take your shoes off at the airport are actually making it safer to fly? It can't hurt. Believe me guys, unless you're one bad-ass dude, the government could give a flying fuck what you're up to in your personal life. Bush this time around, another choad next time, goofy laws come and go. Get real. Quote
slothrop Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 Homeland security is being paid little more than lip service. The agency itself is still "getting their act together" (source: GAO) and has relaxed civil service rules that arguably make it the least desirable federal agency to work for. Not to mention the fact that state and local security programs are utterly underfunded and undersupported by the federal government. Even New York has some pretty laughable security problems and it's definitely underfunded (firehouses closing, etc.). Quote
Beck Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 no, trask, i disagree. the government has all sorts of compelling reasons to want to know ALL about you, even the least consequential among us. they keep track of EVERYONE already and they have for years. they want to know: how old you are, how much money you make, how much you pay in taxes, how many kids you have, what your real estate and automobile is worth. they want to know if you have a boat or a car, and if you own any guns. they certainely like to know what political affiliation you are, and who you associate with in church or social dealings that involve financial transactions or gifts to charity. they keep track of what your criminal history is and if you have up to date vechicle licenses and any tickets you might still need to pay on. they like to keep track of if you are wanted or suspected of any criminal activities.... and this is where the recent revisions to federal judicial policy regarding the actions of law enforcement, there is part of the failings of the patriot act... EVERYONE here legally is in NCIC computers and IRS databases and the now that the Homeland Security Agency is running the National Parks, boy can I feel more secure from terrorists when I'm out climbing in the North Cascades! Whew, big relief... Geordie is up there fending off terrorists up on Sahale Arm almost daily, i hear... Quote
incubus Posted October 1, 2003 Posted October 1, 2003 beck, that's general knowledge that the government has been using for years. trask is talking about criminal type behavior. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.