Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Actually if you research it a little more Rich, the military is the one being prtected. Seems they were spying on US citizens both here and abroad which is a major no-no for the military. Lot's of mid-level and senior level brass will have their ass handed to them when all is said and done. As far as Billy boy and his in action on the knowledge, it was determined legally since the data was illegally gotten that they could not act. I don't agree with the decision, but understand it. 410963[/snapback] There's actually a gray area here. I've heard posse commitatus mentioned, but PC prohibits "a direct role" in domestic law enforcement. Is the gathering and passing of intelligence info related to "National Security" issues, under a Defense venue a direct role? Guess the lawyers couldn't figure it out either. Then, well after the fact and after the horse is out of the barn, we get the Patriot Act that so many seem to loathe. (MY GOD! They can find out my library books! I have no freedom!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There's actually a gray area here. I've heard posse commitatus mentioned, but PC prohibits "a direct role" in domestic law enforcement. Is the gathering and passing of intelligence info related to "National Security" issues, under a Defense venue a direct role? Guess the lawyers couldn't figure it out either. Then, well after the fact and after the horse is out of the barn, we get the Patriot Act that so many seem to loathe. (MY GOD! They can find out my library books! I have no freedom!) 410974[/snapback] That gray area still existed even after 9/11. I remember suggestions of military recon assets being used to catch the DC snipers, and the potential violation of posse comitatus being brought up then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Rich is right. He asked a legitimate question and wanted to see what the left's answers were. All you did was make fun of him. More "tolerance" by the left. 410925[/snapback] Re-read his initial post, especially the first line where he declares that the 911 Comm. clearly white-washed this and the only question is why? So you see, he already declared a conspiracy and the "legitimate question" he was asking was to invite speculation as to the motivation. He has already determined that a "crime" was committed now he just wants to hunt up some suspects. Surprise, it's all Bill Clinton's fault. That was about as legitimate a question as me asking him, "So Richio, how long has your mother been a whore and why do you keep denying it? You simply declare a fact that is not a fact and then use it justify your "inquiry". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 That gray area still existed even after 9/11. I remember suggestions of military recon assets being used to catch the DC snipers, and the potential violation of posse comitatus being brought up then. 411082[/snapback] That IS a direct law enforcement role, as there was no evidence to support a terrorist organization with an agenda (depending on what you mean by "recon assets"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 That IS a direct law enforcement role, as there was no evidence to support a terrorist organization with an agenda (depending on what you mean by "recon assets"). 411088[/snapback] "Overhead imagery". I want to say "U-2", but I don't really recall exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Here's my opinion. Jamie Gerelich (sp?) who was on the 9/11 comission was protecting her own butt. She was the one who put the wall between the intelligence orgs and the FBI. That is a big reason we didn't get Atta and other terrorists during Clinton's term. She was put on the committee to cover the Clinton's and her own incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Well, hopefully we won't have these kinds of problems again. I really wish they would have kept their mouths shut instead starting more controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted August 18, 2005 Author Share Posted August 18, 2005 I claim neither to be on the left nor tolerant of Rich's nonsense. He asked a bull sh-- question: "who's being protected?" Implicit in which is that someone IS being protected, which has not been demonstrated. Ergo, he's not asking a simple legitimate question, he's asking a leading one designed to promote his insane partisanship. And that deserves serious consideration? Sure, whatever... 410947[/snapback] So just because you claim to be nuetral you somehow get to pass judgement on others. Kiss my ass. It was a question, and jokers would rather have your little fun then simply engage in disucssion. That is always the way it has been here, and I guess it always will be. I asked the question the way i did because it appears that there is something being glossed over there. What the hell is so wrong with that? Friggin grow up and if you don't want to respond like a normal person then just shut the F#@k up. Your kind of ignorance and better then everyone else attitude is what is totally wrong with this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 It was a question, and jokers would rather have your little fun then simply engage in disucssion. . 411274[/snapback] No it wasn't, here are your exact words: "It clearly looks like this was white washed by the 9-11 commission. The question is why. Who or what were they protecting?" You first declared the commission to be guilty and only then did you ask a question looking for villains. You weren't looking to "simply engage in discussion" you were just launching another one of your patented partisan attacks at the first sign of an opening from some news story you read somewhere. You didn't even bother to research the story enough to see the ample evidence that in fact, it was the Pentagon in 2000 and 2001 (gee, who was Prez in 2001?) that really has some trouble here. The story is far too undeveloped to be throwing around declarations that "clearly" anybody did anything. If you want a "simple discussion", then why don't you leave out the kangaroo trial and verdict you conducted in your head declaring the 911 Comm. guilty of a cover-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There are no gray areas in using US Military Signals Intelligence collection assets to target US citizens. None. Data mining open source information on people who are not US citizens is quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 There are no gray areas in using US Military Signals Intelligence collection assets to target US citizens. None. Data mining open source information on people who are not US citizens is quite different. 411563[/snapback] And a discerning viewer might be able to glean info as to methods, from this latest 15 minutes of fame. Emphasis both on 15 minutes and discerning viewers. It may not be a SPECAT program now, but I bet it was then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 And a discerning viewer might be able to glean info as to methods, from this latest 15 minutes of fame. Emphasis both on 15 minutes and discerning viewers. It may not be a SPECAT program now, but I bet it was then. I can neither confirm nor deny anything else on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 I can neither confirm nor deny anything else on the topic. 411604[/snapback] You might not have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts