I can assure you that anything involving the NSA and information gathering methods is classified.
Great post, Sam. I, too, expect wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from Democrats this November. In fact, I was asking myself this morning where the next round of “vote fraud” was going to come from.
Getting back to the subject of my OP, I’m curious how long the Times reporters will stay in jail this time before they give up their source.
Florida’s always a safe bet.
Isn’t this section about encrypted data and the means of transmitting such data? I.E. Enigma
I thought it’s been well established that the NSA is expressly forbidden from engaging in domestic surveillance.
Well, I was thinking the NSA domestic surveillance might be argued to come under subparagraph (3) – “concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
United States or any foreign government.” But it is a close call.
I think sections 1 and 2 explain what sections 3 and 4 are referring to (communication intelligence activities/processes of communication intelligence).
So when you wrote in the OP “Lastly, I’m sure those who called for an exhaustive investigation of the Plame leak to be just as zealous to find the source of these two. Intellectual consistency and all that. Right?” you weren’t refering to the Plame leak even though you mentioned it by name?
Because I figured this was another attempt at trying to say there were different standards applied to Democrat and Republican scandals. But not a very well executed one because both the Plame leak and the NSA/CIA scandals involve a Republican administration. Which is pretty much what I meant when I wrote, “They appear to be reduced to distracting attention away from one administration scandal by directing it towards a different administration scandal.”
On a seperate issue, there certainly is the possibility that this leak was politically motivated by partisan opponents of the Bush administration. (Although that doesn’t excuse anything - if you told my wife that I had an affair because you’re mad at me for letting my dog poop on your lawn, my adultery isn’t excusable because you acted from petty motives.) But to answer your question “What other purpose could have been served by the leak?” it is possible that somebody with no political agenda felt that it’s wrong for the government to break the law and exposed these secret programs for that reason.
Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he knows that he can claim anything, “up is left, black is east” and there are people who will believe him as long as he sticks to his story. Bush has long passed the point where he can say “trust me” and have it mean anything. As for the power of majorities to prove anything, I could produce plenty of poll results “proving” anything, going all the way back to November 2000 when more people thought Al Gore should be President than thought George Bush should. Polls are a waste of time for determining facts.
And for the record, I’m not a partisan, a liberal, or a Democrat.
This is almost too easy.
Could you provide a few cites on how the Plame leak “damaged” the United States?
Regards,
Shodan
Oops, wrong forum. Strike that last word, please.
Anyway, that’s only the direct damage, based only on what hasn’t been redacted from public records. The indirect damage includes CIA operatives no longer being sure that they won’t have their own covers blown, and their lives endangered, because of providing intelligence that doesn’t fit the administration’s preconceptions. Maybe you don’t count that. In addition, operatives’ contacts can only be more reticent about providing information, especially the most sensitive and useful type, to people whose identities as operatives can be revealed - that would endanger their own lives.
Care to explain why you don’t think it matters, if it’s “almost too easy”?
I do not recall saying the Plame leak had “damaged the United States.” The damage was of a different order. See post #22. There is the possibility that the leak caused at least one death, besides compromising the front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Actual_damage_caused.
Quiz time: Who said this at a CIA ceremony:
The answer is just one click away, if you dare.
Now really, Jesus! Come on. One-trick ponies at least take time to sleep and eat in between. I mean, could you let one thread go without this illogical, unfounded, and at this point crazy-desperate appeal to “how bad this is going to go for the Democrats” thing? It is just so fucking tired. We get that you think this. Fine. It is your emotional response to any political discussion. Fine. DEMOCRATSWILLLOSE! DEMOCRATSWILLLOSE! Sam Stone is in the hizzouse.
The answer is simple: Let justice be done though the heavens fall. If the majority of people want to support a party so rife with corruption, deception and criminality, at least they will do so knowingly. It’s not just a losing proposition for the Democrats, but for the country.
Now, spare us this admonition for one fucking thread, please.
I think there is a lot of value in analyzing the political as well as the legal angle of these types of issues. We are talking about politicians, after all. And, I think you’ll find that **Sam **will point out losing propositions for Republicans as well. It’s just that, recently, the Democrats have been losing a lot more than Republicans, in case you hadn’t noticed.
You really need to watch your Forum headings a bit more carefully.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Maybe you did not notice because the right wing media minimized what happened recently?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4417560.stm
Yep, it is not going to be easy, but it will be hard for Republicans of conscience to continue tolerating a Republican party with no control whatsoever, there is need for balance in our government.
One can hardly call it an analysis when it is offered in every thread on any political issue. And I would be surprised if you could find an even discussion of losing Republican positions from Sam.
Absolutely. Here in Canada we have seen when one party marginalizes itself and gives the other one de-facto single-party control over the country. Scandal after scandal ensues. Politics is a corrupting business, and the only thing that keeps politicians on the straight and narrow is the fear of losing power. If they lose that fear, look out.
That’s why it’s dismaying to see the Democrats working so hard to marginalize themselves. You really need to bitch-slap the Republicans a bit. They deserve it. But the NSA issue is a loser for Democrats, as I said. If Americans see Bush as working hard to protect them, then engaging in some argument over executive vs Legislative power or whether Bush crossed the right ‘t’s just isn’t going to have traction, and it actually plays into Bush’s strengths and Democrats’ weaknesses.
But since you think I’m always talking about what’s bad for Democrats, let me switch gears and give you a winning strategy: Pay close attention to the Abramoff scandal. You guys can not win on national security. Certainly not by characterizing everything Bush does to protect the country as a crime and a scandal. Most Americans just don’t see it that way, and it only reinforces your party’s stereotype as weak on defense.
But corruption is another matter. The Democrats have some positive stereotypes going for them as well, and one of them is that they are idealistic and honest, whereas Republicans are seen as tools of big business and more likely to be corrupted. So hammer them. Put the ‘Duke-Stir’ front and center as the image of the current Republican party. Put Abramoff’s smug face in your ads. Campaign on 'taking back government from the lobbyists and cleaning up Washington".
But before doing that, you need to make sure that no prominent Democrats get caught up in this particular scandal or any others.
Americans as a group probably won’t worry too much about this, true. Most people don’t think about their civil liberties much (except when it comes to guns). That is not the problem Republicans have, though. Members of Congress are upset about the lack of cooperation the White House is showing them. Their job is oversight, and the Administration is not allowing them to provide that. Add to that the fact that everything Bush touches lately turns to crap (Katrina, Iraq, Terry Shaivo, etc.) and it won’t be long before Republicans in congress turn against Bush.
Just wait until Americans realize that the free and democratic elections in Iraq freely and democratically elected a Muslim theocracy aligned with Iran.