If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   While the Petraeus investigation hasn't revealed a crime, it has shown the extent of the FBI's electronic surveillance capabilities. "You ask them for e-mails relevant to the investigation, but they let you look at everything"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, CIA Director David H. Petraeus, FBI, investigation, u.s. wars, Rebecca Jarvis, J. Edgar Hoover, capability management, e-mails  
•       •       •

6887 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 9:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-18 08:27:40 AM
What the bureau didn't have - and apparently still doesn't - is evidence of a crime.

Not that I'm particularly down on Petraeus, but I understand his affair violated the UCMJ. There was some question about a security breach as well, which the FBI has to take seriously.
 
2012-11-18 09:00:19 AM
Thing: Damned near anything can be stated in such a way that it appears to violate the vague but all-encompassing UCMJ.

Thing: Who the f*** is so slow they don't assume that the FBI can intercept anything - anything - that goes over the Internet both in history and in real time? The FBI can easily penetrate the military, however slightly.

Thing: I'll bet you an internet Gen. Petraeus did not knowingly violate any laws and is guilty, if at all, of bad judgement in his personal life. So shut up unless he gets convicted of something, will ya.
 
2012-11-18 09:03:38 AM
The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.
 
2012-11-18 09:09:38 AM
[isbenghaziascandalyet.jpg]
 
2012-11-18 09:13:23 AM
It's awesome to see the state surveillance apparatus directed up its own ass, isn't it?
 
2012-11-18 09:14:19 AM

sammyk: The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.


(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
 
2012-11-18 09:14:40 AM
Well, a Democrat is in the White House, so that means it's open season on Congressional Investigations of everything Executive. We'll be back into "Executive Power should not be subject to the whims of Congress" season as soon as we have another Republican president.
 
2012-11-18 09:17:54 AM
When you have to train entire departments of alleged civil servants to be autocratic, hypocritical, disingenuous and out and out clinical paranoia level sneaky, what do suppose you're going to end up with? Xanadu? Utopia? Try 1984. Every behavior, a possible indictment. Welcome to gossip fence America. Don't mind the stink.
 
2012-11-18 09:18:48 AM

frankmanhog: Well, a Democrat is in the White House, so that means it's open season on Congressional Investigations of everything Executive. We'll be back into "Executive Power should not be subject to the whims of Congress" season as soon as we have another Republican president.


My prediction is that we won't have a two-term democrat with a republican house majority who is not impeached during his second term during my lifetime (1987- ).
 
2012-11-18 09:19:20 AM

frankmanhog: We'll be back into "Executive Power should not be subject to the whims of Congress" season as soon as we have another Republican president.


Really, why's that?
 
2012-11-18 09:19:37 AM

incendi: (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.


Can you cite a single case in the last 20 years of a retired officer on a pension being brought up on charges under the the UCMJ?
 
2012-11-18 09:20:44 AM
While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.

I am all for law and order, and having good state security- but we have gone too far. The rules of search and protection from state-sponsored snooping have not caught up with the ability of gather and analyze electronic communications.

I don't consider myself especially paranoid, but I suspect that most of my phone calls and emails are monitored somewhere along the line by some giant computer. I just hope we don't destroy our liberty and freedom in trying to protect our liberty and freedom.
 
2012-11-18 09:20:52 AM
So, essentially, the job of POTUS is to say who's allowed to talk sh* about whom while businesses actually tun the country?
 
2012-11-18 09:22:17 AM

incendi: sammyk: The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.


He's not being paid by the military. CIA is not a military organization.

That said, affairs like this can kill your security clearance.
 
2012-11-18 09:22:42 AM
That does it! Next international terrorist/criminal/kinky/tasteless scheme I run, it will be conducted using snail mail, sealed with wax, embossed by my signet.....

/that, or quantum crypto
 
2012-11-18 09:24:08 AM

mark12A: That does it! Next international terrorist/criminal/kinky/tasteless scheme I run, it will be conducted using snail mail, sealed with wax, embossed by my signet.....

/that, or quantum crypto


Me, too. I man, if he business of humanity isn't an endless escalation of better bullets and better armor, what is?
 
2012-11-18 09:25:01 AM

XveryYpettyZ: Can you cite a single case in the last 20 years of a retired officer on a pension being brought up on charges under the the UCMJ?


Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't. 

/It'd be a silly waste of resources to try and prosecute retirees for bullshiat all the time.
 
2012-11-18 09:25:36 AM

LazarusLong42: He's not being paid by the military. CIA is not a military organization.


He's a military retiree.
 
2012-11-18 09:26:02 AM

mark12A: That does it! Next international terrorist/criminal/kinky/tasteless scheme I run, it will be conducted using snail mail, sealed with wax, embossed by my signet.....

/that, or quantum crypto


Or you could go for maximum privacy and publish the updates in Newsweek.
 
2012-11-18 09:28:26 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: It's awesome to see the state surveillance apparatus directed up its own ass, isn't it?


This. They're probably actually wondering, "what group of post-9/11 pants wetting knuckleheads" gave them THIS kind of surveillance capability?

Some federal prosecutors have sought to establish a "wall" whereby one set of agents conducts a first review of material, disclosing to the investigating agents only what is relevant.

Blow me, Feds. You asked for indiscriminate, unaccountable surveillance, now deal with it.
 
2012-11-18 09:30:10 AM
 
2012-11-18 09:30:33 AM

incendi: XveryYpettyZ: Can you cite a single case in the last 20 years of a retired officer on a pension being brought up on charges under the the UCMJ?

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't. 

/It'd be a silly waste of resources to try and prosecute retirees for bullshiat all the time.


The fact that they don't ever prosecute retirees, and won't in this case, is a pretty firm indicator that the UCMJ is completely irrelevant to the Patraeus issue.
 
2012-11-18 09:31:39 AM
... yes, work e-mail servers generally keeping indexable backups is definitely evidence of a sinister FBI doom conspiracy and not industry standard for the last two decades for literally every industry in existence.
 
2012-11-18 09:31:54 AM
And she's scrambling around, trying to get her files back on, but it's too late. I've seen everything.
 
2012-11-18 09:32:44 AM
The Republic of gotcha smells of despair and boot leather.
 
2012-11-18 09:33:52 AM

XveryYpettyZ: The fact that they don't ever prosecute retirees, and won't in this case, is a pretty firm indicator that the UCMJ is completely irrelevant to the Patraeus issue.


For all practical purposes, yes. But this is Fark. Where would we be if there wasn't one dickbag picking nits in every thread?

/happier? maybe.
 
2012-11-18 09:37:43 AM
No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?
 
2012-11-18 09:39:33 AM

incendi: XveryYpettyZ: The fact that they don't ever prosecute retirees, and won't in this case, is a pretty firm indicator that the UCMJ is completely irrelevant to the Patraeus issue.

For all practical purposes, yes. But this is Fark. Where would we be if there wasn't one dickbag picking nits in every thread?

/happier? maybe.


"You ask them for e-mails relevant to the investigation, but they let you look at everything"

"You start talking about things that actually matter, and some arse starts talking about the impact of astrology or power-stones on the investigation."
 
2012-11-18 09:39:43 AM

LazarusLong42: He's not being paid by the military. CIA is not a military organization.

That said, affairs like this can kill your security clearance.


Serious question. Does the pension he receives from the military subject him to the UCMJ?

He did the right thing by resigning. There is good reason it should kill his security clearance.
 
2012-11-18 09:40:12 AM
Petraeus doesn't have to worry as much about prosecution (there's not a lot of 'there' there other than bad judgment), than he does about future employment / income. He's screwed himself with the CIA and any other Federal post, a lot of civilian employers won't touch him (although some company will likely hire him as a 'consultant')...

.....his wife, however, can get half of his military pension, half of his social security, probably half of any property / investments. THAT'S what he's got to worry about.
 
2012-11-18 09:40:55 AM

Mean Daddy: The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt.


Blatant violation of the terms of one's probation on the international stage is not a first amendment issue.
 
2012-11-18 09:43:00 AM

sammyk: Serious question. Does the pension he receives from the military subject him to the UCMJ?


Technically yes, but as we've noted, it would be EXTREMELY unusual for them to actually do anything about it.
 
2012-11-18 09:43:03 AM

NutWrench: HotIgneous Intruder: It's awesome to see the state surveillance apparatus directed up its own ass, isn't it?

This. They're probably actually wondering, "what group of post-9/11 pants wetting knuckleheads" gave them THIS kind of surveillance capability?

Some federal prosecutors have sought to establish a "wall" whereby one set of agents conducts a first review of material, disclosing to the investigating agents only what is relevant.

Blow me, Feds. You asked for indiscriminate, unaccountable surveillance, now deal with it.


If you read the article, there was no "surveillance" going on at all. They call up your email provider with a warrant and ask for your emails. The same process they have been using to look at your phone records, bank statements, etc
 
2012-11-18 09:44:08 AM

kokomo61: .....his wife, however, can get half of his military pension, half of his social security, probably half of any property / investments. THAT'S what he's got to worry about.


So he'd have to live out the rest of his life on a pauper's measly $110,000/yr. The horror!
 
2012-11-18 09:45:20 AM
In the wake of Benghazi, there's no way this wasn't going to turn into a huge investigation. You can blame whichever political party you like, but that's reality. The only valid discussion is the proper extent of the FBI's access to evidence.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 09:45:33 AM
We got the Video Privacy Protection Act after somebody important had his video rental records published. Maybe we'll get the Google Mail Protection Act out of this.

Probably not.
 
2012-11-18 09:48:32 AM

Mean Daddy: not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt.



Larry Flynt is more of a hypocrisy hater and I don't remember Petraeus building a career on fake family values.
 
2012-11-18 09:48:37 AM
I think you can technically be in violation of UCMJ unless you officially resign your commission. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I'm pretty sure we had this discussion regarding some officers during the Iraq war or something (maybe torture? There were some retired military people involved in that)... T'was years ago, and I can't recall the specific case.

I don't really care, either way... But, if they really want to prosecute under UCMJ, I think they could. Although, in this instance, I'm sure the FBI will focus more on the handling, storage, and dissemination of classified material.
 
2012-11-18 09:49:53 AM

LazarusLong42: incendi: sammyk: The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within ...



Petraeus was on active duty when he started boinking Ms. Broadwell. IN THEORY, he could be recalled to active duty and be court-martialed for adultery, but it's damned unlikely - the number of people liable to UCMJ action under that line of reasoning could reach into the tens of thousands.
 
2012-11-18 09:56:58 AM

AtlanticCoast63: Petraeus was on active duty when he started boinking Ms. Broadwell. IN THEORY, he could be recalled to active duty and be court-martialed for adultery, but it's damned unlikely - the number of people liable to UCMJ action under that line of reasoning could reach into the tens of thousands.


I don't think Petraeus has the level of political enemies required to make that come to fruition. Then again, the GOP have almost completely turned on him.
 
2012-11-18 09:57:24 AM

incendi: LazarusLong42: He's not being paid by the military

For more detail, here's just how much he's still getting paid by the military, and will continue to get paid until he dies.


Gosh, this guy, LazarusLong42 is either a troll or lacks basic literacy skills.
 
2012-11-18 10:00:40 AM
"You ask them for e-mails relevant to the investigation, but they let you look at everything"

i345.photobucket.com

"I've seen everything. I've seen it all."
 
2012-11-18 10:07:51 AM
Adultery is not only a crime under the UCMJ, it is a crime in the Commonwealth of Virginia
 
2012-11-18 10:17:14 AM

incendi: sammyk: The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:


(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.


ll they can do is take away his pay, and I think we can all agree that is a waste of resources for the FBI.

However as head spy chief, I got no problem with them researching him for security reasons and him losing his job over that.


mr_a: While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.


Blackmail over infidelity. I don't put too much stock in classified material coming from him to the chick he was banging, but I don't think we should risk it (rational for shiat canning him, not saying he committed a crime).
 
2012-11-18 10:21:41 AM

Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?


You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.
 
2012-11-18 10:22:45 AM

incendi: frankmanhog: Well, a Democrat is in the White House, so that means it's open season on Congressional Investigations of everything Executive. We'll be back into "Executive Power should not be subject to the whims of Congress" season as soon as we have another Republican president.

My prediction is that we won't have a two-term democrat with a republican house majority who is not impeached during his second term during my lifetime (1987- ).



LOL that's probably true. Filibuster...Republican for 'waaahhh!'. Impeachment...Republican for 'WAAAHHH!'
 
2012-11-18 10:22:51 AM
Both Sides Are Equally Bad, so let Democrats edit CIA talking points to blame a terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans including an Ambassador on the First Amendment while forcing out the head of the CIA immediately after a close election but before he is supposed to testify!

/The Pilgrims abused free speech to criticize another religion - it's too bad they didn't get killed by terrorists
 
2012-11-18 10:23:25 AM

jso2897: Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?

You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.


What about ACORN? I'm sure they're right in the thick of this.
 
2012-11-18 10:25:01 AM

St_Francis_P: jso2897: Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?

You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.

What about ACORN? I'm sure they're right in the thick of this.


Look, f**ker - it's 7:25 AM in California, and I have had exactly one half of one cup of coffee - a little slack here, if you don't mind?
 
2012-11-18 10:29:10 AM

beta_plus: Both Sides Are Equally Bad, so let Democrats edit CIA talking points to blame a terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans including an Ambassador on the First Amendment while forcing out the head of the CIA immediately after a close election but before he is supposed to testify!

/The Pilgrims abused free speech to criticize another religion - it's too bad they didn't get killed by terrorists


i18.photobucket.com
 
Boe
2012-11-18 10:32:17 AM

incendi: sammyk: The Director of the CIA is a civilian position. UCMJ does not apply.

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement t which the United States is or may be a party to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area ...


I think they still had to have committed the alleged violation while they were on active duty, though. After retirement doesn't count.
 
2012-11-18 10:33:14 AM

jso2897: St_Francis_P: jso2897: Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?

You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.

What about ACORN? I'm sure they're right in the thick of this.

Look, f**ker - it's 7:25 AM in California, and I have had exactly one half of one cup of coffee - a little slack here, if you don't mind?


I'm hungover and fully caffeinated. This made me laugh.
 
2012-11-18 10:41:45 AM

St_Francis_P: jso2897: Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?

You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.

What about ACORN? I'm sure they're right in the thick of this.


I assumed it would be the Elders of Zion. They staged 9/11 in the first place, right? (ACORN is just a stooge front for the Elders.) They know Obama is a sikrit mooslim. They knew he'd try to destroy Israel as soon as he won reelection so they staged Benghazi to knock him out and kick-start another Mideast war to wipe out the Mooslim Brotherhood.. Wheels-within-wheels, sheeple, wheels-within-wheels.
 
2012-11-18 10:46:42 AM
Firing him doesn't mean he won't have to testify.
 
2012-11-18 10:51:58 AM

NewportBarGuy: I think you can technically be in violation of UCMJ unless you officially resign your commission. I'm not 100% certain of this, but I'm pretty sure we had this discussion regarding some officers during the Iraq war or something (maybe torture? There were some retired military people involved in that)... T'was years ago, and I can't recall the specific case.

I don't really care, either way... But, if they really want to prosecute under UCMJ, I think they could. Although, in this instance, I'm sure the FBI will focus more on the handling, storage, and dissemination of classified material.


The prosecutorial guidance we received back in the day was that acceptance of *any* "retirement" retainer pay would make you subject to recall to active duty and subject to the UCMJ. The only "out" would be not cashing that sweet first check, and who wouldn't want to do that?
 
2012-11-18 10:57:11 AM

mr_a: While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.

I am all for law and order, and having good state security- but we have gone too far. The rules of search and protection from state-sponsored snooping have not caught up with the ability of gather and analyze electronic communications.

I don't consider myself especially paranoid, but I suspect that most of my phone calls and emails are monitored somewhere along the line by some giant computer. I just hope we don't destroy our liberty and freedom in trying to protect our liberty and freedom.


While I agree with you about the overly paranoid version of America we seem to be living in if you are a part of the security apparatus of the country you have agreed to their terms and conditions so if you want to break their rules then you get what you agreed to when you joined up. I feel for the guy, he just wanted a little bit of strange and his carreer has been ruined but no one forced him to join the CIA he wanted it.
 
2012-11-18 10:59:27 AM
Damn that George Bush and his spying! We really need to get rid of this guy....
 
2012-11-18 11:18:39 AM

This About That: Thing: Who the f*** is so slow they don't assume that the FBI can intercept anything - anything - that goes over the Internet both in history and in real time? The FBI can easily penetrate the military, however slightly.


It used to be illegal, to just trawl everything all the time, and do with it whatever you like. Does this mean it wasn't done before? No. But it was illegal.

All Hail Our Modern Police State
 
2012-11-18 11:19:17 AM

mr_a: While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.

I am all for law and order, and having good state security- but we have gone too far. The rules of search and protection from state-sponsored snooping have not caught up with the ability of gather and analyze electronic communications.

I don't consider myself especially paranoid, but I suspect that most of my phone calls and emails are monitored somewhere along the line by some giant computer. I just hope we don't destroy our liberty and freedom in trying to protect our liberty and freedom.


Simple answer: the person who runs an organization as powerful as the CIA must be held to an incredibly high standard of judgement. It simply isn't conscionable to allow someone so powerful to get away with making long-term errors in judgement like that.
 
2012-11-18 11:21:38 AM

BravadoGT: Damn that George Bush and his spying! We really need to get rid of this guy....


lolwut
 
2012-11-18 11:22:10 AM

BravadoGT: Damn that George Bush and his spying! We really need to get rid of this guy....


Well, having clones of him run for president and lose isn't a real good way of doing that.
 
2012-11-18 11:42:06 AM

Kibbler: This About That: Thing: Who the f*** is so slow they don't assume that the FBI can intercept anything - anything - that goes over the Internet both in history and in real time? The FBI can easily penetrate the military, however slightly.


It used to be illegal, to just trawl everything all the time, and do with it whatever you like. Does this mean it wasn't done before? No. But it was illegal.

All Hail Our Modern Police State


The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

Thanks, Obama.
 
2012-11-18 11:50:19 AM

Kibbler: It used to be illegal, to just trawl everything all the time, and do with it whatever you like. Does this mean it wasn't done before? No. But it was illegal.


I believe the public discovery of the practice and subsequent shenanigans involved a name change from Omnivore to Carnivore. At least that's the part we know about. There is no doubt in my mind that the FBI, maybe the NSA, maybe Homeboy Security, probably other alphabet soup monitors everything.
 
2012-11-18 11:57:27 AM

BullBearMS: Thanks, Obama.


For one rare instance I have to side with the "goddamnit Obama" crowd. This capitulation to overreaching police and governmental spying on US citizens, together with Obama's abject refusal to help defuse the prison overcrowding issue (which includes enormous profits to the prison industry and a literal recruiting ground and highly effective continuing education program for a career in criminality) are two big disappointments with the current administration. Not that I would have voted for the other side, but really, what is up with that?
 
2012-11-18 12:00:00 PM

BullBearMS: Kibbler: This About That: Thing: Who the f*** is so slow they don't assume that the FBI can intercept anything - anything - that goes over the Internet both in history and in real time? The FBI can easily penetrate the military, however slightly.


It used to be illegal, to just trawl everything all the time, and do with it whatever you like. Does this mean it wasn't done before? No. But it was illegal.

All Hail Our Modern Police State

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

Thanks, Obama.


That's not a good idea. I can understand the reluctance to deny the intelligence community what it wants in the midst of the kind of conflict we are in, but I have to part company with the Administration on this. It's just not the direction we want to be moving in. I'm off to fire off an email to the WH, and my congresscritter.
 
2012-11-18 12:02:30 PM

This About That: BullBearMS: Thanks, Obama.

For one rare instance I have to side with the "goddamnit Obama" crowd. This capitulation to overreaching police and governmental spying on US citizens, together with Obama's abject refusal to help defuse the prison overcrowding issue (which includes enormous profits to the prison industry and a literal recruiting ground and highly effective continuing education program for a career in criminality) are two big disappointments with the current administration. Not that I would have voted for the other side, but really, what is up with that?


Exactly - I'm glad I voted for Obama, and I'll support him vigorously - but when he is wrong, I'm going to raise my voice in protest.
 
2012-11-18 12:06:43 PM
the FBI was able to break into and intercept the head of the CIA's various forms of communications


I am conflicted.

On one hand, you want to be able to hold people accountable. The idea that anyone can be investigated in the interests of national security.

On the other, that is some scary ass power to wield. I wonder what kind of oversight is in place
 
2012-11-18 12:21:24 PM

jso2897: This About That: BullBearMS: Thanks, Obama.

For one rare instance I have to side with the "goddamnit Obama" crowd. This capitulation to overreaching police and governmental spying on US citizens, together with Obama's abject refusal to help defuse the prison overcrowding issue (which includes enormous profits to the prison industry and a literal recruiting ground and highly effective continuing education program for a career in criminality) are two big disappointments with the current administration. Not that I would have voted for the other side, but really, what is up with that?

Exactly - I'm glad I voted for Obama, and I'll support him vigorously - but when he is wrong, I'm going to raise my voice in protest.


That's at least comforting. In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama. I guess it's a bit more realistic after this election. Maybe they learned that smearing everyone who doesn't agree with every one of your policies just turns people off who could have been allies on one or two issues. . . dunno. At least we got rid of that cult of personality thing, that was beginning to look a bit frightening.
 
2012-11-18 12:24:10 PM

gobstopping: In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama.


Stupid, invalid strawman. I award you no points.
 
2012-11-18 12:26:27 PM

LasersHurt: gobstopping: In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama.

Stupid, invalid strawman. I award you no points.


Americans have such short memories.
 
2012-11-18 12:26:54 PM

gobstopping: At least we got rid of that cult of personality thing, that was beginning to look a bit frightening.


To me that seemed more of a media creation, which was in turn trumpeted as What Liberals Really Think by the right-wing sorts.
 
2012-11-18 12:28:04 PM

gobstopping: LasersHurt: gobstopping: In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama.

Stupid, invalid strawman. I award you no points.

Americans have such short memories.


No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.
 
2012-11-18 12:35:17 PM

LasersHurt: gobstopping: LasersHurt: gobstopping: In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama.

Stupid, invalid strawman. I award you no points.

Americans have such short memories.

No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.


I also have a fine memory and I've personally been attacked on Fark plenty of times for pointing out Obama's miserable civil liberties positions. This was after the head of the ACLU had publicly announced he was disgusted with the positions Obama had taken on civil liberties.

Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay and publish my personal information on Fark because I dared criticize Obama.
 
2012-11-18 12:39:47 PM

BullBearMS: No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.

I also have a fine memory and I've personally been attacked on Fark plenty of times for pointing out Obama's miserable civil liberties positions. This was after the head of the ACLU had publicly announced he was disgusted with the positions Obama had taken on civil liberties.

Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay and publish my personal information on Fark because I dared criticize Obama.


Now here's a guy who doesn't know the difference between himself and "ALL" others. Neat.
 
2012-11-18 12:49:26 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: It's awesome to see the state surveillance apparatus directed up its own ass, isn't it?


Yes, this is the real story, isn't it? And it's even the topic of this thread! Imagine!

Nobody is paying any attention. Nothing will happen or change.
 
2012-11-18 12:50:12 PM

LasersHurt: BullBearMS: No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.

I also have a fine memory and I've personally been attacked on Fark plenty of times for pointing out Obama's miserable civil liberties positions. This was after the head of the ACLU had publicly announced he was disgusted with the positions Obama had taken on civil liberties.

Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay and publish my personal information on Fark because I dared criticize Obama.

Now here's a guy who doesn't know the difference between himself and "ALL" others. Neat.


When Obama supporters are psychotic enough to attack people for being gay, there are definitely some farked up cult of personality things going on. I'm a liberal, so I'm going to attack you for being gay because you spoke out against warrantless spying?

On the issue of the state spying on it's citizens without a warrant, President Obama has an absolutely miserable record.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and particularly relevant given the Petraeus incident:

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order
 
2012-11-18 12:51:47 PM

mark12A: That does it! Next international terrorist/criminal/kinky/tasteless scheme I run, it will be conducted using snail mail, sealed with wax, embossed by my signet.....

/that, or quantum crypto


Well, you can send messages that aren't stored in a server at the ISP. I usually prefer hand-written messages by fax. They® can read faxes you print out with machine generated text, but sloppily handwritten text is a different issue, or so the rumor has it.
 
2012-11-18 12:57:03 PM
BullBearMS:

I sincerely, deeply do not care about anything you've said. He said "ALL" civil libertarians were shiat on. That is dumb and wrong. I called him on it. It is irrelevant if you, as ONE of them, had some troubles.
 
2012-11-18 01:00:09 PM

gobstopping: jso2897: This About That: BullBearMS: Thanks, Obama.

For one rare instance I have to side with the "goddamnit Obama" crowd. This capitulation to overreaching police and governmental spying on US citizens, together with Obama's abject refusal to help defuse the prison overcrowding issue (which includes enormous profits to the prison industry and a literal recruiting ground and highly effective continuing education program for a career in criminality) are two big disappointments with the current administration. Not that I would have voted for the other side, but really, what is up with that?

Exactly - I'm glad I voted for Obama, and I'll support him vigorously - but when he is wrong, I'm going to raise my voice in protest.

That's at least comforting. In 2008, all the civil liberties people were thrown under the bus and called racists if they didn't bow down and worship Obama. I guess it's a bit more realistic after this election. Maybe they learned that smearing everyone who doesn't agree with every one of your policies just turns people off who could have been allies on one or two issues. . . dunno. At least we got rid of that cult of personality thing, that was beginning to look a bit frightening.


Part of the problem is that I have become so accustomed to every criticism of Obama that I hear being a bizarre, fantastic fabrication that I have gone into a sort of "cry wolf" mode. Trying to find anything legitimate in the avalanche of lying slander that the right has unleashed is like looking for pearls in piles of shiat.
 
2012-11-18 01:00:28 PM

The Only Sane Man In Florida: mr_a: While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.

I am all for law and order, and having good state security- but we have gone too far. The rules of search and protection from state-sponsored snooping have not caught up with the ability of gather and analyze electronic communications.

I don't consider myself especially paranoid, but I suspect that most of my phone calls and emails are monitored somewhere along the line by some giant computer. I just hope we don't destroy our liberty and freedom in trying to protect our liberty and freedom.

Simple answer: the person who runs an organization as powerful as the CIA must be held to an incredibly high standard of judgement. It simply isn't conscionable to allow someone so powerful to get away with making long-term errors in judgement like that.


Well, then, too, there's the issue where your lover pumps you for info. You tend to confide things you technically ought not.

How many Farkers with clearance, I know most of you...raise your hands...yeah you too...ok - tell me that your wife doesn't have a pretty good idea what you're doing. Maybe not details, maybe not the CURRENT project or operation. But man up - unless you've got a really dysfunctional family or she's so stupid she BELIEVES you work for the USDA, you finally broke down about year two of your marriage and started giving her the broad brushstrokes. Right? You know you did.

As demonstrated by this bimbo having classified material in her possession and access to areas she ought not have - chiefly MacDill - through Petraeus' influence.
 
2012-11-18 01:01:28 PM
LasersHurt: I sincerely, deeply do not care about anything you've said.

Ahhh... So you're just another one of the cult of personality assholes?

You don't care that Obama has taken the Bush warrantless spying he swore to end and dialed the knob up to eleven.

Just don't criticize Obama.
 
2012-11-18 01:06:15 PM

mr_a: While I wouldn't want the guy as a brother-in-law, why exactly does infidelity make a man unfit to run the CIA? And I don't really buy the "classified material" line, unless someone can point to actual documents of value. Hell, the weather forecast is probably classified top-secret.

I am all for law and order, and having good state security- but we have gone too far. The rules of search and protection from state-sponsored snooping have not caught up with the ability of gather and analyze electronic communications.

I don't consider myself especially paranoid, but I suspect that most of my phone calls and emails are monitored somewhere along the line by some giant computer. I just hope we don't destroy our liberty and freedom in trying to protect our liberty and freedom.


See also: CALEA. Hell, prior to CALEA we could tap your phone calls in real time through the verification system. CALEA just organized that and added in ISP level monitoring. If you send emails using a typical email server, then that server will retain copies of emails for some time, including ones you think are deleted. They can get copies there, and that's what TFA is describing.

That said, long ago, maybe 2002, I was shown a stack of old emails I had sent from various places as part of a demo of a net monitoring system. I was told 'we can't get all of them, but we can get a nice sampling'. I would not have been as surprised had it all been traffic from work or a military base but some of it was personal from home. Go figure.
 
2012-11-18 01:06:42 PM
Isn't adultery a crime in the UCMJ?
 
2012-11-18 01:09:43 PM

BullBearMS: Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay


I don't know how to tell you this, but I suspect that most Farkers already caught onto that.
 
2012-11-18 01:11:30 PM

BullBearMS: LasersHurt: I sincerely, deeply do not care about anything you've said.

Ahhh... So you're just another one of the cult of personality assholes?

You don't care that Obama has taken the Bush warrantless spying he swore to end and dialed the knob up to eleven.

Just don't criticize Obama.


I will criticize him - I am extremely critical of his failure to scuttle the excessive legacy of "security" measures he inherited from the Bush administration, as well as his failure to fire all the crazy RW fundies Bush had planted throughout the federal government.
These criticisms, however, were never a reason to vote for opponents who are a thousand times worse, or not to support him the 98% of the time when he's dead right.
Also - don't nurse grudges about things idiots have said to you on Fark. It's not healthy, and leads you to paint others who disagree with you with the same brush.
 
2012-11-18 01:12:47 PM

erewhon: BullBearMS: Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay

I don't know how to tell you this, but I suspect that most Farkers already caught onto that.


Could it have something to do with me deciding that there was no point in not discussing it? Hell, there was some discussion of who needed to be hit like the angry fist of god in the American Chopper thread last night.

/Team Vinnie
 
2012-11-18 01:17:25 PM

LasersHurt: BullBearMS: No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.

I also have a fine memory and I've personally been attacked on Fark plenty of times for pointing out Obama's miserable civil liberties positions. This was after the head of the ACLU had publicly announced he was disgusted with the positions Obama had taken on civil liberties.

Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay and publish my personal information on Fark because I dared criticize Obama.

Now here's a guy who doesn't know the difference between himself and "ALL" others. Neat.


So, are people like this paid party shills or something? I see that accusation bandied about periodically. Claiming that civil libertarians are not attacked, insulted and ignored on Fark is simply gaslighting. It's bizarre.
 
2012-11-18 01:17:56 PM

BullBearMS:
Could it have something to do with me deciding that there was no point in not discussing it?
/Team Vinnie


I'd say your Fark handle was a giveaway.
 
2012-11-18 01:18:00 PM

beta_plus: Both Sides Are Equally Bad, so let Democrats edit CIA talking points to blame a terrorist attack that killed 4 Americans including an Ambassador on the First Amendment while forcing out the head of the CIA immediately after a close election but before he is supposed to testify!

/The Pilgrims abused free speech to criticize another religion - it's too bad they didn't get killed by terrorists


As you are known to be dishonest, your claims are not credible.
 
2012-11-18 01:19:12 PM

jso2897: I am extremely critical of his failure to scuttle the excessive legacy of "security" measures he inherited from the Bush administration


Obama hasn't merely failed to end the Bush excesses. He has expanded them at every turn.

He's currently fighting to reinstate the power to throw Americans into military prisons without a trial after a federal judge found the NDAA to be unconstitutional.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

There is no excuse whatsoever for his action.
 
2012-11-18 01:22:19 PM

MartinaMcSorley: LasersHurt: BullBearMS: No, I have a fine memory, and I know that saying "All civil liberties people were called racists" is stupid and grossly inaccurate.

I also have a fine memory and I've personally been attacked on Fark plenty of times for pointing out Obama's miserable civil liberties positions. This was after the head of the ACLU had publicly announced he was disgusted with the positions Obama had taken on civil liberties.

Hell, one asshole on here decided to out me as gay and publish my personal information on Fark because I dared criticize Obama.

Now here's a guy who doesn't know the difference between himself and "ALL" others. Neat.

So, are people like this paid party shills or something? I see that accusation bandied about periodically. Claiming that civil libertarians are not attacked, insulted and ignored on Fark is simply gaslighting. It's bizarre.


Somebody pissed in his cornflakes this morning. He's being a dick in several threads.

erewhon: BullBearMS:
Could it have something to do with me deciding that there was no point in not discussing it?
/Team Vinnie

I'd say your Fark handle was a giveaway.


dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-11-18 01:24:30 PM

jso2897:
Part of the problem is that I have become so accustomed to every criticism of Obama that I hear being a bizarre, fantastic fabrication that I have gone into a sort of "cry wolf" mode. Trying to find anything legitimate in the avalanche of lying slander that the right has unleashed is like looking for pearls in piles of shiat.


"Also - don't nurse grudges about things idiots have said to you on Fark. It's not healthy, and leads you to paint others who disagree with you with the same brush."
 
2012-11-18 01:31:15 PM
Heh. We've got a nationally known Linux guy that contracts with us for driver work sometimes.

Mark is VERY twinkie, and to my wife and co-workers' amusement, he really REALLY likes me.

One day he had this dramatic coming out announcement at lunch, I guess he was afraid that we'd care a lot, since it's
a predominantly ex-military place. One of the guys
said "Jeez, Mark, we knew about 30 seconds after you showed up. Now you want to talk about it, quit mooning
around after Tom"
 
2012-11-18 01:38:11 PM

erewhon: Heh. We've got a nationally known Linux guy that contracts with us for driver work sometimes.

Mark is VERY twinkie, and to my wife and co-workers' amusement, he really REALLY likes me.

One day he had this dramatic coming out announcement at lunch, I guess he was afraid that we'd care a lot, since it's
a predominantly ex-military place. One of the guys
said "Jeez, Mark, we knew about 30 seconds after you showed up. Now you want to talk about it, quit mooning
around after Tom"


The Onion has that one covered too.

Area Homosexual Thinks He's Still In The Closet
 
2012-11-18 01:38:34 PM

BullBearMS: jso2897: I am extremely critical of his failure to scuttle the excessive legacy of "security" measures he inherited from the Bush administration

Obama hasn't merely failed to end the Bush excesses. He has expanded them at every turn.

He's currently fighting to reinstate the power to throw Americans into military prisons without a trial after a federal judge found the NDAA to be unconstitutional.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.

There is no excuse whatsoever for his action.


You keep pushing this, even though I have agreed with you several times. Besides protesting it through my elected representatives, what are you suggesting I do about it? Vote for some GOP asshole who is a million times worse, and who would destroy my life? Support transparent witch hunts like Benghazi? Stop backing the President in those instances when he is right (which is most of the time, by a wide margin)?

What, precisely, do you want of me? Is there anything I could do that you would find satisfactory?
At some point, I'd like to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
 
2012-11-18 01:51:15 PM

jso2897: What, precisely, do you want of me? Is there anything I could do that you would find satisfactory?
At some point, I'd like to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.


What. You mean simply voting third party is not constructive criticism?

/sarcasm
 
2012-11-18 01:52:09 PM

jso2897: At some point, I'd like to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.


Really?

jso2897: I am extremely critical of his failure to scuttle the excessive legacy of "security" measures he inherited from the Bush administration, as well as his failure to fire all the crazy RW fundies Bush had planted throughout the federal government.


You aren't criticizing Obama's actions. You're trying to blame Bush for Obama's actions.

Obama has continued and expanded upon damn near every single lawless Bush action.

He takes the blame for that. Not Bush.

This didn't stop mattering when Obama took office.
 
2012-11-18 01:56:59 PM

BullBearMS: You aren't criticizing Obama's actions. You're trying to blame Bush for Obama's actions.

Obama has continued and expanded upon damn near every single lawless Bush action.

He takes the blame for that. Not Bush.

This didn't stop mattering when Obama took office.


True, this is very shameful.

How is having the Republicans in charge again going to make that any better?
 
2012-11-18 02:05:32 PM

Mrtraveler01: How is having the Republicans in charge again going to make that any better?


How is rewarding the politician who promised to end something and then did the exact opposite going to make things any better?

Citing the Obama administration's evocation of the state secrets privilege, a divided federal appeals court agreed Wednesday to toss a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary accused of helping the CIA transport detainees to secret foreign prisons where they allegedly were tortured.
 
2012-11-18 02:09:51 PM

BullBearMS: jso2897: At some point, I'd like to hear some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

Really?

jso2897: I am extremely critical of his failure to scuttle the excessive legacy of "security" measures he inherited from the Bush administration, as well as his failure to fire all the crazy RW fundies Bush had planted throughout the federal government.

You aren't criticizing Obama's actions. You're trying to blame Bush for Obama's actions.

Obama has continued and expanded upon damn near every single lawless Bush action.

He takes the blame for that. Not Bush.

This didn't stop mattering when Obama took office.


I kind of thought you were just whining. Thanks for confirming it. I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.
 
2012-11-18 02:13:43 PM

jso2897: I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.


Why don't you try not defending the actions of a lying ass politician?
 
2012-11-18 02:15:31 PM

BullBearMS: jso2897: I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.

Why don't you try not defending the actions of a lying ass politician?


Sitting on your ass whining about it on Fark isn't going to do anything.

Go out there and do something about it.
 
2012-11-18 02:21:20 PM
Fascism in America, live it and love it, it is NEVER going away.
 
2012-11-18 02:21:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: Sitting on your ass whining about it on Fark isn't going to do anything.


If you want to whine about people criticizing your favorite politician, go back to the politics tab.
 
2012-11-18 02:24:33 PM

BullBearMS: jso2897: I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.

Why don't you try not defending the actions of a lying ass politician?


So what positive, constructive course of action do you propose? (for the umpteenth time)

P.S. I know I'm not going to get a straight answer.
 
2012-11-18 02:38:06 PM

jso2897: BullBearMS: jso2897: I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.

Why don't you try not defending the actions of a lying ass politician?

So what positive, constructive course of action do you propose? (for the umpteenth time)

P.S. I know I'm not going to get a straight answer.


My constructive course of action is to tell you two idiots to go back to the politics tab if you're just going to whine about people criticizing your favorite politician.

There's a whole retarded section of Fark just for that purpose.

For some of us, ragging on Bush for his civil liberties record wasn't just one big long concern troll.

Something tells me you weren't the least bit concerned that people criticized Bush for his bullshiat, though.
 
2012-11-18 02:58:51 PM

BullBearMS: jso2897: BullBearMS: jso2897: I really didn't think you had anything constructive to offer.

Why don't you try not defending the actions of a lying ass politician?

So what positive, constructive course of action do you propose? (for the umpteenth time)

P.S. I know I'm not going to get a straight answer.

My constructive course of action is to tell you two idiots to go back to the politics tab if you're just going to whine about people criticizing your favorite politician.

There's a whole retarded section of Fark just for that purpose.

For some of us, ragging on Bush for his civil liberties record wasn't just one big long concern troll.

Something tells me you weren't the least bit concerned that people criticized Bush for his bullshiat, though.


You are mistaken - but it's obvious that you are unable or unwilling to accept that your assessment of other people's positions could possibly be incorrect. But this thread is on this tab - and if it is inappropriate for me to post my observations on the matter here, it is for you as well. Ordering other people to shut up over the Internet is kind of pointless - this isn't free Republic, where you can silence those who dare to question your views.
It's pretty obvious that you just want to rant at me and others for not hating on Obama quite enough to suit you - you don't have anything of any real substance to contribute to the discussion, and you are a good example of why this "scandal" is getting laughed out of the public debate.
And, of course, as I have pointed out - you have no useful or constructive course of action to propose to me other than that I shut up, go away, and stop confronting you with the fact that you have no clear or focused or useful ideas to contribute.
 
2012-11-18 03:30:32 PM
Ignoring the whiny farkers, Obama has consistently tried to expand the surveillance state at every turn.

He has consistently tried to shut down every court case against the lawless Bush excesses:

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

Then he has even created his own secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that allows him to act in ways that some in the Senate have been warning of for some time.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

One of the members of the NSA has resigned in protest and has turned whistle blower.

In his first television interview since he resigned from the National Security Agency over its domestic surveillance program, William Binney discusses the NSA's massive power to spy on Americans and why the FBI raided his home after he became a whistleblower. Binney was a key source for investigative journalist James Bamford's recent exposé in Wired Magazine about how the NSA is quietly building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah. The Utah spy center will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency, including private emails, cellphone calls, Google searches and other personal data.

Binney served in the NSA for over 30 years, including a time as technical director of the NSA's World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Since retiring from the NSA in 2001, he has warned that the NSA's data-mining program has become so vast that it could "create an Orwellian state."
 

It's lovely indeed to see the security state start eating itself.

If the head of the CIA's private life isn't safe, yours certainly isn't either.
 
2012-11-18 04:19:35 PM

BullBearMS: Ignoring the whiny farkers, Obama has consistently tried to expand the surveillance state at every turn.

He has consistently tried to shut down every court case against the lawless Bush excesses:

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

Then he has even created his own secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that allows him to act in ways that some in the Senate have been warning of for some time.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

One of the members of the NSA has resigned in protest and has turned whistle blower.

In his first television interview since he resigned from the National Security Agency over its domestic surveillance program, William Binney discusses the NSA's massive power to spy on Americans and why the FBI raided his home after he became a whistleblower. Binney was a key source for investigative journalist James Bamford's recent exposé in Wired Magazine about how the NSA is quietly building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah. The Utah spy center will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency, including private emails, cellphone calls, Google searches and other personal data.

Binney served in the NSA for over 30 years, including a time as technical director of the NSA's World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Since retiring from the NSA in 2001, he has warned that the NSA's data-mining program has become so vast that it could "create an Orwellian state."  

It's lovely indeed to see the security state start eating itself.

If the head of the CIA's private life ...


So what do you propose that we, as citizens, do about it? Vote for somebody twice as bad?
What's your plan, Stan?
 
2012-11-18 04:56:43 PM
Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.


However, this is a bit off. While Obama did refuse to hold anyone who ordered, or carried out torture under Bush responsible for their actions, one person has been put into prison.

The CIA agent who blew the whistle on America's illegal use of torture.
 
2012-11-18 05:18:27 PM
Account created: 2009-08-13 15:21:49
Ok. So you have never actually gone after Bush about this here - or, probably anywhere. Just another RW Obama basher, butthurt that the white boy lost, and mounting fake-assed, insincere attacks on the President for no actual purpose but to relieve his butthurt.
He has no plan of action to propose, beyond the implication that we should have responded to these issues by electing somebody a thousand times worse.
What a phoney. I wonder how many other lies you told in the course of this rant.
 
2012-11-18 05:47:06 PM

jso2897: Account created: 2009-08-13 15:21:49


That's very interesting.
 
2012-11-18 05:53:48 PM
Also, it's worth mentioning that the Obama administration not only prevented the British victims of American rendition from having their day in court in the US (by invoking the State Secrets doctrine he claimed to find offensive when used by Bush, naturally).

He also worked to prevent victims from having their day in a British court by threatening to withhold intelligence information from our British allies, if the British government refused to conceal evidence.

This is frankly despicable behavior. We're not just talking about waterboarding here.

Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said.
 
2012-11-18 06:05:22 PM

St_Francis_P: jso2897: Account created: 2009-08-13 15:21:49

That's very interesting.


Isn't it, though?
 
2012-11-18 06:08:54 PM
 
2012-11-18 06:57:49 PM

BullBearMS: If the head of the CIA's private life isn't safe, yours certainly isn't either.


Way to ruin what could have otherwise been a good point.

People with enormous control over classified info that are irresponsible enough to put them in a black-mailable position are too irresponsible for that position.
 
2012-11-18 07:58:07 PM

jso2897: St_Francis_P: jso2897: Mean Daddy: No crime yet. The president and his accomplices in the media tell a story 180 degrees contrary to the general. The media laps it up, a film maker goes to jail and not a peep out of the liberal first amendment lover Larry Flynt. Does that about cover it?

You forgot Reverend Wright and the Lizard people. And the squirrels - don't forget the squirrels.

What about ACORN? I'm sure they're right in the thick of this.

Look, f**ker - it's 7:25 AM in California, and I have had exactly one half of one cup of coffee - a little slack here, if you don't mind?


I think I internet love you.
 
2012-11-18 10:56:23 PM

XveryYpettyZ: incendi: XveryYpettyZ: Can you cite a single case in the last 20 years of a retired officer on a pension being brought up on charges under the the UCMJ?

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't. 

/It'd be a silly waste of resources to try and prosecute retirees for bullshiat all the time.

The fact that they don't ever prosecute retirees, and won't in this case, is a pretty firm indicator that the UCMJ is completely irrelevant to the Patraeus issue.


From TFA:

In this case, Schiff said, the probe may have caused more harm than it uncovered. "It's very possible that the most significant damage done to national security was the loss of General Petraeus himself," Schiff said.


Ah, the delicious taste of schadenfreude.
 
2012-11-19 12:04:40 AM

liam76: BullBearMS: If the head of the CIA's private life isn't safe, yours certainly isn't either.

Way to ruin what could have otherwise been a good point.

People with enormous control over classified info that are irresponsible enough to put them in a black-mailable position are too irresponsible for that position.


He isn't willing to discuss anything - he just wants to bash Obama. And it's too bad, really, because he started out making a good point. We have been allowing our civil liberties to be eroded in time of war since before any of us were born. From the Alien and Sedition act right up through today. It's happened under our worst Presidents, and our best. It doesn't seem to make any difference. And it would be useful to discuss what we might do about it. But his interest in the issue seems to begin and end with yelling at Obama. Who can't even hear him. Oh well.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:05 AM
newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks. That has raised the hackles of many who saw Obama as somehow more sophisticated on terrorism issues than his predecessor, George W Bush. But Guiora does not view it that way. He sees Obama as the same as Bush, just much more enthusiastic when it comes to waging drone war. "If Bush did what Obama has been doing, then journalists would have been all over it," he said.

But the "kill list" and rapidly expanded drone programme are just two of many aspects of Obama's national security policy that seem at odds with the expectations of many supporters in 2008. Having come to office on a powerful message of breaking with Bush, Obama has in fact built on his predecessor's national security tactics.

Obama has presided over a massive expansion of secret surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has launched a ferocious and unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. He has made more government documents classified than any previous president. He has broken his promise to close down the controversial Guantánamo Bay prison and pressed on with prosecutions via secretive military tribunals, rather than civilian courts. He has preserved CIA renditions. He has tried to grab broad new powers on what defines a terrorist or a terrorist supporter and what can be done with them, often without recourse to legal process.

Aaron David Miller, a long-term Middle East policy adviser to both Republican and Democratic administrations, delivered a damning verdict in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine. He wrote bluntly: "Barack Obama has become George W Bush on steroids."

Many disillusioned supporters would agree. Jesselyn Radack was a justice department ethics adviser under Bush who became a whistleblower over violations of the legal rights of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. Now Radack works for the Government Accountability Project, defending fellow whistleblowers. She campaigned for Obama, donated money and voted for him. Now she has watched his administration - which promised transparency and whistleblower protection - crack down on national security whistleblowers.

It has used the Espionage Act - an obscure first world war anti-spy law - six times. That is more such uses in three years than all previous presidents combined.

Cases include John Kiriakou, a CIA agent who leaked details of waterboarding, and Thomas Drake, who revealed the inflated costs of an NSA data collection project that had been contracted out. "We did not see this coming. Obama has led the most brutal crackdown on whistleblowers ever," Radack said.

"We are seeing the reversal of the proper flow of information between the government and the governed. It is probably the fundamental civil liberties issue of our time," said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Centre for Justice. "The national security establishment is getting bigger and bigger."

One astonishing example of this lies high in the mountain deserts of Utah. This is the innocuously named Utah Data Centre being built for the NSA near a tiny town called Bluffdale. When completed next year, the heavily fortified $2bn building, which is self-sufficient with its own power plant, will be five times the size of the US Capitol in Washington DC. It will house gigantic servers that will store vast amounts of data from ordinary Americans that will be sifted and mined for intelligence clues. It will cover everything from phone calls to emails to credit card receipts.


Obama's record on Civil Liberties is much, much worse than that of Bush. It's a shame any of the politics tab tards would even be willing to try to make excuses for this.
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report