Is this enough for impeachment? - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-20-2005, 02:30 PM   #121
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:32 PM
The Pentagon also was spying on Gay Right Groups becasue of their opposition to "don't ask, don't tell"

From the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a great organization that was created ten years ago to help overturn the military's anti-gay Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.
According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. The story, first reported by Lisa Myers and NBC News last week, noted that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to April protests at the State University of New York at Albany and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's LGBT advocacy group OUTlaw, which was classified as "possibly violent" by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) condemned the Pentagon surveillance and monitoring. "The Pentagon is supposed to defend the Constitution, not turn it upside down," said SLDN executive director C. Dixon Osburn. "Students have a first amendment right to protest and Americans have a right to expect that their government will respect our constitutional right to privacy. To suggest that a gay kiss-in is a 'credible threat' is absurd, homophobic and irrational. To suggest the Constitution does not apply to groups with views differing with Pentagon policy is chilling."

In January, the Department of Defense confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a chemical weapon in 1994 that would turn enemies gay. The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic). One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior." SLDN also condemned that report, and the Pentagon later said it never intended to develop the program.

"The Pentagon seems to constantly find new and more offensive ways to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Osburn. "First, we were deemed unfit to serve our country, despite winning wars, medals and the praise of fellow service members. Then, our sexual orientation was suggested as a means to destabilize the enemy. Now, our public displays of affection are equated with al Qaeda terrorist activity. It is time for new Pentagon policy consistent with the views of 21st century America."

SLDN announced it plans to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to learn if it or other LGBT organizations have also been monitored by the Pentagon. To date, only a small portion of DoD's total database of information has been made public.
Sources that show the Pentagon keeping tabs on gay groups include this news report:
A secret Pentagon document obtained by NBC News reveals that the military has been spying on what they call "suspicious" civilian meetings - including many "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protests.

Only eight pages from the four-hundred page document have been released so far. But on those eight pages, Sirius OutQ News discovered that the Defense Department has been keeping tabs NOT just on anti-war protests, but also on seemingly non-threatening protests against the military's ban on gay servicemembers. According to those first eight pages, Pentagon investigators kept tabs on April protests at UC-Santa Cruz, State University of New York at Albany, and William Patterson College in New Jersey. A February protest at NYU was also listed, along with the law school's gay advocacy group "OUTlaw," and was classified as "possibly violent."

All of these protests were against the military's policy excluding gay personnel, and against the presence of military recruiters on campus. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network says the Pentagon needs to explain why "don't ask, don't tell" protesters are considered a threat.

Thanks BVS. I've seen so many on TV the last two days saying it doesn't matter if he broke the law "9/11 9/11:. When did Americans become such F'in wimps. Where's John Wayne when you need him.
__________________

__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:32 PM   #122
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
The Pentagon also was spying on Gay Right Groups becasue of their opposition to "don't ask, don't tell"

Well you've got to destroy the gay agenda, I mean let's remember God let 9/11 happen because we're letting the agenda get out of hand.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:35 PM   #123
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
A common re-writing of history, but the impeachment process dealt with lying under oath.
So, you're fine with the president lying all he wants, as long as it's not under oath?

Just asking.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:36 PM   #124
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by japes4


Who forced Clinton to lie under oath?
Yeah, you missed the point by a mile.

I'm not arguing Clinton's lying. I'm arguing the method to which his opponents got him there.

But continue diverting your vision if you must.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:42 PM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

So, you're fine with the president lying all he wants, as long as it's not under oath?

Just asking.
Believe it or not....in come cases I am.

The job itself calls for it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:47 PM   #126
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Believe it or not....in come cases I am.

The job itself calls for it.
Ok, I can see the point in that, of course. I wouldn't want military secrets being revealed or anything like that.

But I was leaning toward the lies that don't seem to have any point. Sometimes they seem to lie when the truth would suit them better.

I do wonder though, if Bush will get a free pass on anything he says, as long as he refuses to go under oath. I also wonder what an uproar there would have been had Clinton refused to answer Monica questions under oath.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:56 PM   #127
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But there has already been many who've displayed acceptance of these actions no matter what the end results. Those that have already accepted that breaking the law is something he had to do to protect this country.

I believe this is what Scarletwine was referring to.
I think that is part of the problem here. A failure to criticize is often read as blind support in favor.

A few may have openly accepted the selective wiretaps - perhaps it would be best if they fleshed out their arguments. Is it a matter of the end justifying the means? Is it a different standard during time of armed conflict (we don't declare war anymore)?

But I agree with your opeing statement - let an investigation spell this out in detail before conclusions are drawn.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:57 PM   #128
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yeah, you missed the point by a mile.

I'm not arguing Clinton's lying. I'm arguing the method to which his opponents got him there.

But continue diverting your vision if you must.
Actually, your missing my point.

Don't you see an interesting parallel between the way Republicans went after Clinton and the way Democrats have gone after Bush?

With Clinton it started with Gennifer Flowers. With Bush - the 2000 election. Neither side ever got beyond it. The only difference is the fact that it has not been proven that Bush broke any laws (yet). I suspect we will be talking about impeachment around this time in 2014, regardless of who is in office.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 02:58 PM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
nah. i think it's very easy to create the case that questioning someone about their sex life constitutes a perjury trap.
It was done in the context of a sexual harrassment case. Surely a president is not above sexual harrassment laws.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 03:00 PM   #130
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So I see PETA's the new terrorist cell.

Investigate all you want, keep it within the law, and don't blurr it with 9/11.
Some of the actions of the Animal Liberation Front are classic examples of terrorism. Violent acts designed to intimidate.

Is PETA headed down the same path?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 03:04 PM   #131
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Some of the actions of the Animal Liberation Front are classic examples of terrorism. Violent acts designed to intimidate.

I agree. I believe every movement has their extremist be it pro-life groups or animal rights groups. But none warrant any kind of action that's being alleged here.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-20-2005, 03:07 PM   #132
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:32 PM
This is an interesting theory on why they couldn't go to FISA. It makes sense to me.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._12/007812.php

WHAT IS THE NSA UP TO?....So what's the nature of the secret NSA bugging program? Why did the Bush administration feel like they couldn't continue to seek warrants via the usual FISA procedures? Take a look at the following quotes and you can see a single thread that starts to emerge:


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, telling reporters why Bush didn't simply ask Congress to pass a law making the program clearly legal: "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program."


President Bush, answering questions at Monday's press conference: "We use FISA still....But FISA is for long-term monitoring....There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two....We used the [FISA] process to monitor. But also....we've got to be able to detect and prevent."


Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a letter to Dick Cheney after being briefed on the program in 2003: "As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance."


New York Times editor Bill Keller, explaining why the Times finally published its story last week after holding it back for over a year: "In the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program — withholding a number of technical details — in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."


None of these quotes makes sense if the NSA program involved nothing more than an expansion of ordinary taps of specific individuals. After all, the FISA court would have approved taps of domestic-to-international calls as quickly and easily as they do with normal domestic wiretaps. What's more, Congress wouldn't have had any objection to supporting a routine program expansion; George Bush wouldn't have explained it with gobbledegook about the difference between monitoring and detecting; Jay Rockefeller wouldn't have been reminded of TIA; and the Times wouldn't have had any issues over divulging sensitive technology.

It seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Lots of people have suggested that the NSA program has something to do with Echelon, a massive project that vacuums up communications of all kinds from all over the globe. The problem is that Echelon has been around for a long time and no one has ever complained about it before — so whatever this new program is, it's something more than vanilla Echelon. What's more, it's something disturbing enough that a few weeks after 9/11 the administration apparently felt that even Republicans in Congress wouldn't approve of it. What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?

—Kevin Drum 11:28 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (225)
A couple ideas are:

"Probably a reverse data mine, actually. They probably took some real AQ detainee's laptop, looked at the protocol (email addresses, common words used, Web Sites visited, etc.) and then searched every computer in America to see if they could find another user with the same protocol. When they did, they probably sought a warrant to investigate further. Of course, this is just a slightly higher-tech version of wiretapping every Arab American in the United States and listening for certain code words."

And some basis for this idea:
"A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

"One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment."

So they fish and then ask for wiretaps for anything they think they found. That would entail netting many innocent unaware citizens.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 06:50 PM   #133
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:32 PM
OK...as I am learning more about this.....this may not fall under the Patriot Act.

That said....they do not need court permission to invade our privacy....

Where they went wrong was not checking in with the courts "EVER" which is a requirement.

SO...

Who were they spying on that they did not check in with the court?

Does this have something to do with the election?

Were they spying on Valerie Plame?

SOMETHING really stinks here....

There has to be a reason they did not chekc in witht he courts....and it has nothing to do with PERMISSIOn.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 07:10 PM   #134
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:32 PM
All good questions, Dread. Let's hope there's an investigation to find all the answers.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 07:25 PM   #135
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Yeah Dread...this seems like it's only the surface, there are a lot of unanswered questions.
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com