It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackThought
PYRO at that time America was not America. In fact it was a rebellious set of colonies of the English that was covertly and overtly funded by the French. They were terrorist or freedom fighters or guerillas or whatever. By today’s standards if Bush had his way they would not be bound by the Geneva Conventions and probably flown to a third country to be tortured and killed. Without a trial or notifying the next of kin.
Is this what america is suppose to stand for? Do as i say not as i do? I think not!
Originally posted by junglejake
So why does it seem that no one's too concerned that someone or multiple people released classified information for political gain?
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by junglejake
So why does it seem that no one's too concerned that someone or multiple people released classified information for political gain?
Where's the evidence of this claim? Isn't it just as feasible that people within this effort became concerned about what was happening and released it to get media coverage?
The articles themselves state that officials and agents within the involved agencies voiced concern over what was happening.
Originally posted by junglejake
Yes, it's feasible, and because they were concerned over something they agreed to, the broke federal law possibly compromising investigations and agent's lives? It is also feasible that they did it purely for political purposes.
As to the claim of a leak of classified information, if that's what you're getting at, how else would the NYT get classified information except by a leak?
Originally posted by Valhall
I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that whomever within the NSA that leaked this did it for political or nefarious reasons. Why do we have to go with the negative? What if they downright disagree with violations against the constitution? That's good enough for me.
Originally posted by Valhall
I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that whomever within the NSA that leaked this did it for political or nefarious reasons. Why do we have to go with the negative? What if they downright disagree with violations against the constitution? That's good enough for me.
[edit on 12-19-2005 by Valhall]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Gonzales said that when Congress passed a resolution shortly after September 11, 2001 giving the president the authority to use force to fight terrorism, this included the domestic spying program. Gonzales also insisted the domestic spying was part of the president's 'inherent powers' as commander-in-chief.
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Originally posted by junglejake
So why does it seem that no one's too concerned that someone or multiple people released classified information for political gain?
The same people wo complain about the NSA spying on them are undoubtedly the same people who fault the intelligence community for not preventing 9/11, or for not sharing pre-war intelligence with law enforcement agencies. You cannot have it both ways. Intelligence is not a precise science, where you select the single point of weakness and gather only that tidbit of data that you need. Intelligence is a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking up all information so that it can be processed, categorized, sorted, and analyzed. In order to harvest the kernel of wheat, you must separate alot of chaff.
Now, if you want to critized the government for misusing the data collected during intelligence operations - thats fine. But, so far, I have yet to hear of anybody claiming that they were unfairly prosecuted for non-terrorist activities because the NSA was tapping their overseas phone calls.
You have voted Pyros for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.
Originally posted by Valhall
I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that whomever within the NSA that leaked this did it for political or nefarious reasons.
Why do we have to go with the negative?
What if they downright disagree with violations against the constitution? That's good enough for me.