Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Thank you, o Oracle. 747337[/snapback] You can't say I'm biased. You aren't entirely accurate, though. While "moles" are desirable, sigint has it's place - and a very notable one at that. It's certainly the most reliable of intelligence in the military sphere, and I'd wager most of the successes in the GWOT have derived from signals intercept, even when the content of the signals isn't know (last week's fun was apparently spurred by a message traffic pattern that indicated the terrorist operation was imminent, not just being planned.) Plus...last time the administration acted on human intelligence (i.e. "moles"), we invaded Iraq. Humint is notoriously unreliable...because people are notoriously self-serving, dishonest, and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Papperwerk is harb wif all them big werds whut need ter be spelled aftur all y'all.... 747335[/snapback] This is your best post ever. As Paul would say " Are you wearing your stillitos, tonight? BTW, you still are an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 You can't say I'm biased. You aren't entirely accurate, though. While "moles" are desirable, sigint has it's place - and a very notable one at that. It's certainly the most reliable of intelligence in the military sphere, and I'd wager most of the successes in the GWOT have derived from signals intercept, even when the content of the signals isn't know (last week's fun was apparently spurred by a message traffic pattern that indicated the terrorist operation was imminent, not just being planned.) Plus...last time the administration acted on human intelligence (i.e. "moles"), we invaded Iraq. Humint is notoriously unreliable...because people are notoriously self-serving, dishonest, and stupid. 747489[/snapback] Of COURSE it has its place but these plots typically take more than 24 hours to conceive, plot and execute. So just because it may be "inconvenient" to wait up to 24 hours, in the grand scheme of things unless the agencies have been snoozing for months, getting the tap (or installing it and then going for the warrantm which is allowed in "emergency" situations) should not be a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 This is your best post ever. As Paul would say " Are you wearing your stillitos, tonight? BTW, you still are an ass. 747579[/snapback] Paul would say that. In fact my inbox is still full of those queries. I just bought two new pairs of stilettos in Paul's memory as a matter of fact. O my achin feet. Being called at ass by you is a supreme compliment, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 You can't say I'm biased. 747489[/snapback] You're not, but looky what some conservative cooks found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 You're not, but looky what some conservative cooks found. 749920[/snapback] Sorry, that's pretty much a non-starter for me. A judge who ruled on the unconstitutionality of warrantless wire-tapping happens to be a trustee of an organization that supports another organization that believes in the unconstitutionality of wire-tapping? That's news? If the money was flowing the other way (from the ACLU to the organization to the judge), that would be a story. As it is, it just demonstrates that the judge consistently supports a given interpretation of the constitution. It's no different from a hypothetical situation where a judge who donates money to pro-life charities hears an abortion case and rules against Roe v. Wade - something Judicial Watch would no doubt support wholeheartedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Sorry, that's pretty much a non-starter for me. A judge who ruled on the unconstitutionality of warrantless wire-tapping happens to be a trustee of an organization that supports another organization that believes in the unconstitutionality of wire-tapping? That's news? If the money was flowing the other way (from the ACLU to the organization to the judge), that would be a story. As it is, it just demonstrates that the judge consistently supports a given interpretation of the constitution. It's no different from a hypothetical situation where a judge who donates money to pro-life charities hears an abortion case and rules against Roe v. Wade - something Judicial Watch would no doubt support wholeheartedly. 749992[/snapback] The main point is not that the ruling may have been tainted, but that the relationship wasn't disclosed giving the appearance of taint. It also supports the view that ACLU venue shopped this trial to get the best outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 The main point is not that the ruling may have been tainted, but that the relationship wasn't disclosed giving the appearance of taint. It also supports the view that ACLU venue shopped this trial to get the best outcome. 750041[/snapback] I guess thats what appeals are for eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 The main point is not that the ruling may have been tainted, but that the relationship wasn't disclosed giving the appearance of taint. It also supports the view that ACLU venue shopped this trial to get the best outcome. 750041[/snapback] Of course they venue shopped. Everyone venue shops. The only reason it would appear tainted is because your average person is too !@#$ing naive to know how this stuff actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) Upon further review carry on, nothing to see here. [fixed?] Edited October 5, 2006 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Upon further review... carry on, nothing to see here. 796384[/snapback] Link didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Link didn't work. 796386[/snapback] Here is the title of the story... Wiretap program OK'd to continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 You're not, but looky what some conservative cooks found. 749920[/snapback] conservative cooks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2006 Share Posted October 6, 2006 Here's the buried story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Share Posted October 6, 2006 Not really much news, eh? Just confirmation that they went judge shopping. I'm interested to hear what the next court which rules on this has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts