Mickey Posted January 6, 2006 Author Posted January 6, 2006 No.Yeah, that's likely. Neither of us knows much about her but you can pretend she's above board because it fits your political agenda. Is this an example of your cross examination techniques? Plausible. Does that mean that anyone who is politically connected but also travels regularly in the Middle East is off limits? Again, based upon your vast intelligence community experience and your devout knowledge of the person in question? Right, because all journalism is performed in front of a camera. Ms. Amanpour does no research or backstory, just waits around until somebody gives her the "be ready in five" sign, smoking cigarettes and getting her nails polished. I never said it was OK to bug just anyone, nor did I infer it - despite your ridiculous attempt to portray it as such. 557177[/snapback] You are certainly supporting bugging Amanpour without giving any reason at all beyond an empty reference to the "sketchy circles" she supposedly is close to. The question isn't whether or not she should or should not be bugged. The plain fact is that they can bug her if they want to whether it is justifed, as you seem to think, or, as I think, it is not justified. The question is, how do you go about tapping people like that, within the very, very broad limits of FISA, or do you violate the law by opting to proceed outside the limits of FISA? FISA is not a statute designed to protect civil rights. It is designed to legitimize violating civil rights whenever national security is even remotely an issue. Taking your position, that bugging Amanpour is a wonderful idea and anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant fool lacking your mastery of the issues, explain to me why that bugging had to have occurred outside of the almost limitless, bug anyone you want, paramaters of FISA?
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 The plain fact is that they can bug her if they want to whether it is justifed, as you seem to think, or, as I think, it is not justified. 557209[/snapback] Your reasoning is based solely on your politics. I guess that should be expected because you have zero clue about intelligence or sourcing. Once again, your ideology trumps reality. Try and find Carl Bernstein's Rolling Stone article from the late '70s about the CIA using the media. It's opens the door a crack. The next logical step is to look hard at journalists of regional decent who spend alot of time in the theater reporting - because they may very well get access to sources that will aid us in killing bad people. Ding! Amanpour fits that description. As far as why it happened outside FISA, I can't answer. I'm not a brilliant legal mind and have little interest in it. I'm also not surprised when big government takes more power than its granted. You, on the other hand, pretend that that kind of thing is OK because "our government does more good than harm." I guess that only applies when we're talking about big social programs vice national security?
Mickey Posted January 6, 2006 Author Posted January 6, 2006 Your reasoning is based solely on your politics. I guess that should be expected because you have zero clue about intelligence or sourcing. Once again, your ideology trumps reality. Try and find Carl Bernstein's Rolling Stone article from the late '70s about the CIA using the media. It's opens the door a crack. The next logical step is to look hard at journalists of regional decent who spend alot of time in the theater reporting - because they may very well get access to sources that will aid us in killing bad people. Ding! Amanpour fits that description. As far as why it happened outside FISA, I can't answer. I'm not a brilliant legal mind and have little interest in it. I'm also not surprised when big government takes more power than its granted. You, on the other hand, pretend that that kind of thing is OK because "our government does more good than harm." I guess that only applies when we're talking about big social programs vice national security? 557241[/snapback] So you don't care if people are getting bugged illegally (outside of FISA) and for no reason (could just as easily have been done within FISA)? I'm not surprised. How much more interesting to speculate on whether or not there is any reason at all to bug Christiane Amanpour? I'm still waiting for a concrete reason to do so beyond, "hey, she might get a call from AQ." That "logic" would justify bugging half the country including every immigration lawyer, muslim, and anyone with a third cousin named Muhammed. If that is what passes for knowledge of intel practices, it must be an easy field to get into. It might also explain why 9-11 happened, the Niger yellowcake dipshitathon and the "slam dunk" on Iraqi WMD's. Maybe we need smarter spies, not ones who think following around a network news diva is a worthwhile way to spend intelligence resources. Seriously, based on your logic, foreign journalists=knowledge and contacts with bad guys, shouldn't we be bugging every foreign correspondent of every news organization? If not, tell me which journalists should be bugged and which shouldn't and explain what the criteria is, please. You see, I don't have your obvious expertise on these hard to understand intelligence issues so please, open my eyes. The real issue remains, when we decide to bug the Amanpours of the world, how do we do it, within the law or outside of it? I know you don't care whether the government operates within or without the law here but us mere mortals must wrestle with these mundane questions that are so beneath you. Trying to figure out where to draw the line between civil rights and national security may not be an issue that interests you but for many of us, its an important discussion to have. You know, what with our lives and liberties hanging the balance and all, it just seems, I don't know, important.
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 So you don't care if people are getting bugged illegally (outside of FISA) and for no reason (could just as easily have been done within FISA)? I'm not surprised. Oh, I care. I just know that there's nothing that'll be done about it as long as Republicans and Democrats are in charge. Each will continue to ballwash their constituants at the expense of the Constitution. How much more interesting to speculate on whether or not there is any reason at all to bug Christiane Amanpour? Not very. I like how hung up you are on the name, as if trailing journalists is new to the world's intelligence community. I'm still waiting for a concrete reason to do so beyond, "hey, she might get a call from AQ." That "logic" would justify bugging half the country including every immigration lawyer, muslim, and anyone with a third cousin named Muhammed. If that is what passes for knowledge of intel practices, it must be an easy field to get into. It might also explain why 9-11 happened, the Niger yellowcake dipshitathon and the "slam dunk" on Iraqi WMD's. Maybe we need smarter spies, not ones who think following around a network news diva is a worthwhile way to spend intelligence resources. "Based on your wealth of expertise in the sourcing of intelligence." Let me know when you've written your first point paper on anything involving the subject without using CNN or DNC talking points as as your sole guides. Seriously, based on your logic, foreign journalists=knowledge and contacts with bad guys, shouldn't we be bugging every foreign correspondent of every news organization? If not, tell me which journalists should be bugged and which shouldn't and explain what the criteria is, please. You see, I don't have your obvious expertise on these hard to understand intelligence issues so please, open my eyes. Nah. I'll just turn it around and say: Let's not spend anytime on journalists, they're of no value whatsoever. Real effective argument there, counselor. The real issue remains, when we decide to bug the Amanpours of the world, how do we do it, within the law or outside of it? I know you don't care whether the government operates within or without the law here but us mere mortals must wrestle with these mundane questions that are so beneath you. Trying to figure out where to draw the line between civil rights and national security may not be an issue that interests you but for many of us, its an important discussion to have. You know, what with our lives and liberties hanging the balance and all, it just seems, I don't know, important. 557371[/snapback] Actually, between the two of us it's likely that I care more about whether the government operates within the law. It's funny when an avowed liberal who belongs to a party that has regularly raped the Constitution and campaigns on platforms that are anti-liberty tries to make such a stand.
Mickey Posted January 6, 2006 Author Posted January 6, 2006 Oh, I care. I just know that there's nothing that'll be done about it as long as Republicans and Democrats are in charge. Each will continue to ballwash their constituants at the expense of the Constitution. Maybe so but until the blessed day when that changes we have to make do with the tools we have. I'd be happy with FISA compliance or at least an openly debated and agreed upon change to FISA to address whatever legit problems it might have posed in gathering needed intel. "Based on your wealth of expertise in the sourcing of intelligence." Let me know when you've written your first point paper on anything involving the subject without using CNN or DNC talking points as as your sole guides. I never claimed to be an expert in intel but I don't have to be a dairy farmer to know when the milk is spoiled. Besides, as Americans we get to vote based on issues ranging from those we know in detail to those we don't. It is clear, for example, that your lack of legal expertise and training in critical thinking makes many of your proclamations on the law, especially Constitutional Law, laughably off the mark. Yet when we disagree on such issues, I engage you on the merits rather than point out that you have never written a brief to the SCOTUS so your opinions mean nothing. Nah. I'll just turn it around and say: Let's not spend anytime on journalists, they're of no value whatsoever. Real effective argument there, counselor. I have no problem with bugging journalists if it makes sense to, ie, if there are grounds for doing so, and in fact, FISA allows just that provided its provisions are met. That is why I have asked you for grounds as to why we should be bugging Amanpour specifically. You see, if you have good ones, I'd be all for it myself. But you just keep coming back with a general, one size fits all justification about journalists having contacts worth watching. I think you were just speculating about her with no particular reason at all to suggest that she should be bugged and if so, fine, be honest about it. If you have something specific that justifies bugging her, Amanpour, out with it then. Which is it, do you think there are grounds for bugging her specifically (if so, state them) or are you relying on the general proposition that foreign correspondents occasionally have contacts worth watching thus we are justified in bugging them all, including Amanpour? Actually, between the two of us it's likely that I care more about whether the government operates within the law. It's funny when an avowed liberal who belongs to a party that has regularly raped the Constitution and campaigns on platforms that are anti-liberty tries to make such a stand. If you care so much more than me, I don't know why you are so blithe about this wire tapping outside of FISA. "Regulary raped the Constitution" I see you have your "Overheated Rhetoric" buttons set at maximum. This is a whole other issue. If you want to start a new thread off listing all these instances of constitutional rape by the democrats, I'll take a look and join your upset where I agree and explain where I disagree. 557453[/snapback]
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2006 Posted January 6, 2006 Maybe so but until the blessed day when that changes we have to make do with the tools we have. I'd be happy with FISA compliance or at least an openly debated and agreed upon change to FISA to address whatever legit problems it might have posed in gathering needed intel. I suppose. I never claimed to be an expert in intel but I don't have to be a dairy farmer to know when the milk is spoiled. Besides, as Americans we get to vote based on issues ranging from those we know in detail to those we don't. It is clear, for example, that your lack of legal expertise and training in critical thinking makes many of your proclamations on the law, especially Constitutional Law, laughably off the mark. You feel free to point them out whenever and however you wish. Just because the precedent of something has been set doesn't mean it passes the smell test. Yet when we disagree on such issues, I engage you on the merits rather than point out that you have never written a brief to the SCOTUS so your opinions mean nothing. Right. I have no problem with bugging journalists if it makes sense to, ie, if there are grounds for doing so, and in fact, FISA allows just that provided its provisions are met. That is why I have asked you for grounds as to why we should be bugging Amanpour specifically. You see, if you have good ones, I'd be all for it myself. But you just keep coming back with a general, one size fits all justification about journalists having contacts worth watching. I think you were just speculating about her with no particular reason at all to suggest that she should be bugged and if so, fine, be honest about it. If you have something specific that justifies bugging her, Amanpour, out with it then. If you have something specific that doesn't, then out with it. That argument is ridiculous because neither of us knows anything about her that we don't see on television. Not unlike the majority of people who are eventually caught spying or whatever crime you want to pick out. Ridiculous argument, as usual. Which is it, do you think there are grounds for bugging her specifically (if so, state them) or are you relying on the general proposition that foreign correspondents occasionally have contacts worth watching thus we are justified in bugging them all, including Amanpour? There are no absolutes in either direction. If you care so much more than me, I don't know why you are so blithe about this wire tapping outside of FISA. Sometimes you break a few eggs to make an omlet. I'm only speaking from experience. "Regulary raped the Constitution" I see you have your "Overheated Rhetoric" buttons set at maximum. This is a whole other issue. If you want to start a new thread off listing all these instances of constitutional rape by the democrats, I'll take a look and join your upset where I agree and explain where I disagree. Nah, you'll simply spin forever and a day because you can't take off your blinders. I may waste the time someday, if only to see how closely I can prepredict your responses.
Mickey Posted January 6, 2006 Author Posted January 6, 2006 You feel free to point them out whenever and however you wish. Just because the precedent of something has been set doesn't mean it passes the smell test. Certainly, but that isn't what I'm talking about. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is limited, even rudimentary. Light years ahead of, say, Richio, but not exactly highly developed. I don't think though that it follows that your opinion on such matters should be dismissed outright based on your lack of expertise. I don't think I have disagreed with you on a constitutional issue by dismissing them as the product of your ignorance on the subject as you so often do when it comes to military or intelligence issues upon which I dare to express an opinion. If you have something specific that doesn't, then out with it. That argument is ridiculous because neither of us knows anything about her that we don't see on television. Not unlike the majority of people who are eventually caught spying or whatever crime you want to pick out. Ridiculous argument, as usual. Well, I guess we differ there. I start with the assumption that you can't or at least shouldn't bug someone unless you have a decent reason for doing so. If someone is going to excuse it or whatever you were doing by citing her "sketchy" contacts, then I think you should have a reason for it. Further, I would also start with the presumption that it is wrong, unless proven otherwise, to bug the phone of a chief policy advisor of a rival political candidate (Amanpour's husband) in a presidential election. In fact, I think that was tried once, wasn't it, Mr. Nixon? It might help if you read my post in response to KRC who pointed out that maybe there was a good reason to bug her: "Maybe so, and without knowing any details or even if it is so, we can only speculate." I then went on to say that whatever the reason, if this is what they did, they are going to be in a lot of hot water because of all the other info they would have recieved from her calls apart from anything legitimately useful. That is when you helpfully pointed out that I was an idiot and that bugging Amanpour would be great. I asked for the basis for that belief and now at long last, you are where I have been from the start, we don't know and can only speculate. Nah, you'll simply spin forever and a day because you can't take off your blinders. I may waste the time someday, if only to see how closely I can prepredict your responses. As usual, make a general, over the top accusation and when asked for specifics, run off undercover of a well crafted insult. 557590[/snapback]
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Certainly, but that isn't what I'm talking about. Your knowledge of Constitutional Law is limited, even rudimentary. Light years ahead of, say, Richio, but not exactly highly developed. I don't think though that it follows that your opinion on such matters should be dismissed outright based on your lack of expertise. I don't think I have disagreed with you on a constitutional issue by dismissing them as the product of your ignorance on the subject as you so often do when it comes to military or intelligence issues upon which I dare to express an opinion. You're correct that it's rudimentary. I'm not a lawyer and have little interest in the evolution of how we've gotten where we are today. I simply disagree with where it's ended up. You'll just have to forgive me for not wanting to waste the time explaining common sense things to someone who bears so little of it. You can call it an insult if you want, I'll live. Well, I guess we differ there. I start with the assumption that you can't or at least shouldn't bug someone unless you have a decent reason for doing so. You mean without a decent reason that somehow gets past your politics, right? If someone is going to excuse it or whatever you were doing by citing her "sketchy" contacts, then I think you should have a reason for it. Further, I would also start with the presumption that it is wrong, unless proven otherwise, to bug the phone of a chief policy advisor of a rival political candidate (Amanpour's husband) in a presidential election. In fact, I think that was tried once, wasn't it, Mr. Nixon? I wasn't excusing it, I was simply giving a possible reason on why. I even gave you a pretty goddamn good source to get you started, which I'm quite sure you ignored. But let's keep playing up the political angle because it fits your ridiculous politics. It might help if you read my post in response to KRC who pointed out that maybe there was a good reason to bug her: "Maybe so, and without knowing any details or even if it is so, we can only speculate." I then went on to say that whatever the reason, if this is what they did, they are going to be in a lot of hot water because of all the other info they would have recieved from her calls apart from anything legitimately useful. If...if...if... Typical sympathizer, always looking for what the other side is doing while ignoring the same transgressions of your side. Whoopie. I'd call it the same thing it always is, either: 1. Politics as usual, sanctioned by partisans such as yourself. 2. A possible way to find some very bad people who are killing Americans. You'll pardon me for expecting, based on my experience, that #2 is the actual reason. That is when you helpfully pointed out that I was an idiot and that bugging Amanpour would be great. I asked for the basis for that belief and now at long last, you are where I have been from the start, we don't know and can only speculate. I fail to see how making the "devil's advocate" argument is any different than how you regularly strut around here. As far as bugging Amanpour being "great", I never said that. But we can pretend because it will help you feel whole, or something. Plus if you say it twice more, that makes it true.*** As usual, make a general, over the top accusation and when asked for specifics, run off undercover of a well crafted insult. Some people play golf. I returned the exact same questions rephrased and you ignored them. You're just so much better than me. ***Liberal tard handbook, Pg 2, para 3.
Chilly Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I saw him on the Daily Show last night, and he mentioned that the reason why the administration didn't want to go ahead with FISA, is that they felt the courts wouldn't be able to keep up with them on the hundreds of warrants at one time that they needed.
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I saw him on the Daily Show last night, and he mentioned that the reason why the administration didn't want to go ahead with FISA, is that they felt the courts wouldn't be able to keep up with them on the hundreds of warrants at one time that they needed. 561430[/snapback] So government paperwork is too much? Guess I'll stop filing my taxes, too. Especially in years that I'm not due a refund.
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Try and find Carl Bernstein's Rolling Stone article from the late '70s about the CIA using the media. It's opens the door a crack. The next logical step is to look hard at journalists of regional decent who spend alot of time in the theater reporting - because they may very well get access to sources that will aid us in killing bad people. Ding! Amanpour fits that description. 557241[/snapback] Hear me out here, but doesn't bugging her and having it inevitably come out to the public compromise both her, her sources, and future ability to gain new sources?
Alaska Darin Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Hear me out here, but doesn't bugging her and having it inevitably come out to the public compromise both her, her sources, and future ability to gain new sources? 561809[/snapback] Sure. You run the same risk with everyone you do that with.
Scraps Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Hear me out here, but doesn't bugging her and having it inevitably come out to the public compromise both her, her sources, and future ability to gain new sources? 561809[/snapback] Since the government did not recruit her as an agent, I doubt they'd be to concerned about compromising her. He sources in terrorism probably aren't boy scouts, so I doubt they'd be concerned if something happened to them.
Chilly Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 You get your news from the Daily Show?! 561611[/snapback] No, but I do watch the Daily Show, and it just so happened that he was interviewed by Jon Stewart that night. He mentioned something relevant to the thread, so I figured I'd share it. So government paperwork is too much? Guess I'll stop filing my taxes, too. Especially in years that I'm not due a refund. 561622[/snapback] Sounds good to me!
Mickey Posted January 11, 2006 Author Posted January 11, 2006 You're correct that it's rudimentary. I'm not a lawyer and have little interest in the evolution of how we've gotten where we are today. I simply disagree with where it's ended up. You'll just have to forgive me for not wanting to waste the time explaining common sense things to someone who bears so little of it. You can call it an insult if you want, I'll live. You mean without a decent reason that somehow gets past your politics, right? I wasn't excusing it, I was simply giving a possible reason on why. I even gave you a pretty goddamn good source to get you started, which I'm quite sure you ignored. But let's keep playing up the political angle because it fits your ridiculous politics. If...if...if... Typical sympathizer, always looking for what the other side is doing while ignoring the same transgressions of your side. Whoopie. I'd call it the same thing it always is, either: 1. Politics as usual, sanctioned by partisans such as yourself. 2. A possible way to find some very bad people who are killing Americans. You'll pardon me for expecting, based on my experience, that #2 is the actual reason. I fail to see how making the "devil's advocate" argument is any different than how you regularly strut around here. As far as bugging Amanpour being "great", I never said that. But we can pretend because it will help you feel whole, or something. Plus if you say it twice more, that makes it true.*** Some people play golf. I returned the exact same questions rephrased and you ignored them. You're just so much better than me. ***Liberal tard handbook, Pg 2, para 3. 561424[/snapback] No, you weren't excusing it, you were just attacking me for calling it into question. Big difference. I read the source you cited, how old was it? How relevant was it? What did it have to do with Amanpour? To save you any embarassment, I didn't bother bringing it up. Oh well, at least I got to enjoy another round of your infantile, 12-year-old-in-a-locker room, insults. Always good to be reassured of what level you are operating on.
Alaska Darin Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 No, you weren't excusing it, you were just attacking me for calling it into question. Big difference. I read the source you cited, how old was it? How relevant was it? What did it have to do with Amanpour? To save you any embarassment, I didn't bother bringing it up. Translation: Mickey's knowledge of the subject matter and cognitive reasoning skills are so rudementary that he can't figure out what the CIA recruiting media members to spy has to do with trailing other media members. But I'm the one who should be embarrassed. Oh well, at least I got to enjoy another round of your infantile, 12-year-old-in-a-locker room, insults. Always good to be reassured of what level you are operating on. 562323[/snapback] Yep, you're just so !@#$ing superior.
Recommended Posts