NSA Spied on UN Security Council

[Mickey]

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Valerie Plame doing overseas?

544687[/snapback]

She wasn't at diplomat and believe it or not, not every CIA target is a diplomat.

 

Are you on some sort of quest to find a good excuse for Scooter and Karl?

[Mickey]

Those people are funny! They make little sense, but funnier than MTV

544717[/snapback]

They are funny to you and I but there are legions of people who take them seriously. That isn't so funny.

[bobblehead]

Privacy hypocrisy

 

By Michelle Malkin

Allow me to sum up the homeland security strategy of America's do-nothing brigade, led by the armchair generals at the New York Times and ACLU headquarters:

First, bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure "diversity" in public college admissions, contracting, and police and fire department hiring.)

Second, institute the "Eenie-meenie-minie-moe" random search program at all subways, railways, and bus stations.

Third, open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts, and scream "Racist" at any law-abiding American who protests.

Fourth, sue. Sue. Sue.

Fifth, yell "Connect the dots!" while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and other key government agencies.

Sixth, hang the white flag and declare victory.

Seventh, sit back and wait to blame the President for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.

Repeat.

The hindsight hypocrisy of the civil liberties absolutists never ceases to amaze. And their selective outrage over privacy violations never ceases to aggravate. Last Friday, the New York Times splashed classified information about the National Security Agency's surveillance of international communications between suspected al Qaeda operatives and their contacts all over the front page in a naked attempt to sabotage the Patriot Act. This Tuesday, the newspaper continued to stir fears of "spying on all innocent Americans" by recycling old ACLU complaints about FBI monitoring of radical environmental groups, anti-war activists, and some Muslim leaders and groups.

Alarmists in the Beltway want investigations (though not of the leakers who fed the Times its story). The civil liberties sky is falling, they say, and never have Americans been subjected to such invasive snooping.

Funny enough, another story about unprecedented domestic spying measures broke a week before the Times's stunt. But neither the Times, nor the ACLU, nor the Democrat Party leadership had a peep to say about the reported infringements on Americans' civil liberties. Sen. Charles Schumer (by the way, Chuck, how's that apology to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele over his stolen credit report coming along?) did not rush to the cameras to call the alleged privacy breach "shocking." Sen. Robert Byrd did not awake from his slumber to decry the adoption of "the thuggish practices of our enemies." The indignant New York Times editorial board did not call for heads to roll.

That's because the targets of the spy scandal that didn't make the front-page headlines were politically incorrect right-wing extremists.

According to the McCurtain Daily Gazette, in the days after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. The paper obtained a Secret Service log showing that on May 2, 1995, two weeks after the April 19 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building that killed 168 people, the FBI was trying to locate suspects for questioning.

Investigators zeroed in on the compound in nearby Elohim City. "Satellite assets have been tasked to provide intelligence concerning the compound," the document said, according to the Gazette and Associate Press. The Gazette noted that "America's spy-satellite program is jointly under the control of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). Targeting decisions are classified; however, persons familiar with the project say any domestic use of these satellites is barred by agreements between the CIA and DoD." Photo-reconnaissance satellites that gather intelligence from space usually target hostile governments and foreign terrorists. "The domestic use of a military satellite for domestic spying is a violation of DoD and CIA regulations regarding the proper use of top-secret national security satellites," the Gazette reported.

But with the exception of a brief Associated Press recap, the story received absolutely no mainstream media attention. No civil liberties circus. No White House press corps pandemonium.

The Left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free.

544428[/snapback]

 

This woman sounds like a !@#$ing retard. I bet she still plays with blocks.

 

If you ask me, the spying itself is not the problem. The fact that someone leaked it is the problem. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be rock solid?

[RI Bills Fan]

What, because YOU say so?

 

I'm sorry, I'll take GG's word over yours.

544839[/snapback]

 

And I still want to see the link to anything that says she ever traveled as a diplomat.

 

But of corse you'll ignore that part, again...

 

Cuz we all know the rhetoric doesn't need to be true, just repeated often and loudly...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And I still want to see the link to anything that says she ever traveled as a diplomat.

 

But of corse you'll ignore that part, again...

 

Cuz we all know the rhetoric doesn't need to be true, just repeated often and loudly...

544853[/snapback]

 

How in the hell did we get to arguing whether Plame was a diplomat or not? We went from spying on diplomats to diplomats spying to Valerie !@#$ing Plame???

 

Bunch of friggin' brain surgeons, the whole lot of you...

[RI Bills Fan]

How in the hell did we get to arguing whether Plame was a diplomat or not?  We went from spying on diplomats to diplomats spying to Valerie !@#$ing Plame???

 

Bunch of friggin' brain surgeons, the whole lot of you... 

544857[/snapback]

 

Just because you asked so nicely...

 

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Valerie Plame doing overseas?

544687[/snapback]

 

 

Next time read the thread before you start yelling at people...

 

As usual these threads start to wander because someone like GG wants to start playing the "shift the blame" game...

[Mickey]

Treaties are only valid if approved by Congress.  Secondly, how do you know if they are terrorists if you don't check up on them occassionally? 

 

And before you start, show me the treaty and ratification by Congress?

544655[/snapback]

I guess they should bug everyone on the planet then becuase, hey, who knows for sure if anyone is or is not a terrorist without bugging them?

 

Among others, the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement between the UN and the Unites States which states (Public Law 80-357): The headquarters district shall be inviolable.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Just because you asked so nicely...

Next time read the thread before you start yelling at people... 

 

As usual these threads start to wander because someone like GG wants to start playing the "shift the blame" game... 

544893[/snapback]

 

Actually, I was yelling at you AND GG. Frankly, you're all morons.

[Adam]

I guess they should bug everyone on the planet then becuase, hey, who knows for sure if anyone is or is not a terrorist without bugging them?

 

Among others, the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement between the UN and the Unites States which states (Public Law 80-357):  The headquarters district shall be inviolable.

544902[/snapback]

Any law that involves the UN is worthless, just like the UN itself, IMHO

[Adam]

They are funny to you and I but there are legions of people who take them seriously.  That isn't so funny.

544848[/snapback]

ANyone who thinks all democrats are liberals, and all republicans are conservative....those people should NEVER be taken seriously!

[GG]

Sheesh, go away for lunch and all hell breaks loose.

 

Make one tongue in cheek remark about Plame, and the link police are all over the place. The point is not whether Plame was using diplomatic cover to be a spy, but that it happens all the time. If the goal is to expose my ruse that Plame was a NOC, then what does a OC designation mean?

 

From Wikipedia:

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

 

 

Fine, I'll restate my post

 

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Gary Anderson (to pick a random name) doing overseas?

 

Does that give you warmer fuzzies?

[VABills]

Sheesh, go away for lunch and all hell breaks loose.

 

Make one tongue in cheek remark about Plame, and the link police are all over the place.  The point is not whether Plame was using diplomatic cover to be a spy, but that it happens all the time.  If the goal is to expose my ruse that Plame was a NOC, then what does a OC designation mean? 

 

From Wikipedia:

Fine, I'll restate my post

 

So if we have a treaty of making sure diplomats aren't spies, what the hell was Gary Anderson (to pick a random name) doing overseas?

 

Does that give you warmer fuzzies?

545027[/snapback]

Problem with Plame was she was unique in that she had "official" cover since she was an ambassadors wife working in the country. So her role as a CIA op was "secret" she had a get out of jail free card with her red passport that most NOCs do not get.

[IowaBill]

From Wikipedia:............

545027[/snapback]

I would hesitate to use an open source online "encyclopedia" such as Wikipedia as a resource. Little,if any of the information that makes its way into Wikipedia is vetted for accuracy.

[GG]

I would hesitate to use an open source online "encyclopedia" such as Wikipedia as a resource.  Little,if any of the information that makes its way into Wikipedia is vetted for accuracy.

545041[/snapback]

 

 

I think you should check your sources on that. Recently, Wikipedia was found to have a lesser error rate than Brittanica, because it's a living document that has thousands of idiots like us discussing minutae points ad nauseum.

 

Wiki accuracy

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This woman sounds like a !@#$ing retard. I bet she still plays with blocks.

 

If you ask me, the spying itself is not the problem.  The fact that someone leaked it is the problem. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be rock solid?

544849[/snapback]

 

She has a valid point. If you hunt down Arab terrorists by any means necessary you're a racist. If you hunt down white extremists by any means necessary, you're a patriot. Well, at least in today's limp-wristed America.

[IowaBill]

I think you should check your sources on that.  Recently, Wikipedia was found to have a lesser error rate than Brittanica, because it's a living document that has thousands of idiots like us discussing minutae points ad nauseum.

 

Wiki accuracy

545071[/snapback]

I am sure you realized that you linked a wikipedia article regarding how it deals with reported inaccuracies. The idea that "thousands of idiots like us" check it for accuracy only makes it much likely it will be inaccurate.

 

I have gone to a number of Wikipedia entries and seen inaccuracies. They aren't worth going into because the topics they addressed were pretty trivial and the inaccuracies weren't all that importnat as a result, but they are ther. As a quick example, go the Wikipedia entry for Van Miller. In the entry it references a game Van called against the Dolphins when Jim Kelly ran in for a touchdown on the last play of the game (Iam sure we all remember the game). The entry goes on say, however, that the game broke the twenty game regular season losing streak against the 'Phins. That is just plain wrong as that streak was broken when Joe Ferguson was the QB and Dan Marino was a rookie.

 

My point is, if the above entry is indicative of Wikipedia's accuracy, it shouldn't be cited as a valid source for anything if you want to make a strong point. Again, the fact that "thousands of idiots like us" are responsible for noting and correcting mistakes only makes it that much more likely it will be wrong.

[GG]

.... As a quick example, go the Wikipedia entry for Van Miller.  In the entry it references a game Van called against the Dolphins when Jim Kelly ran in for a touchdown on the last play of the game (Iam sure we all remember the game).  The entry goes on say, however, that the game broke the twenty game regular season losing streak against the 'Phins. 

 

it does?

 

My point is, if the above entry is indicative of Wikipedia's accuracy, it shouldn't be cited as a valid source for anything if you want to make a strong point.  Again, the fact that "thousands of idiots like us" are responsible for noting and correcting mistakes only makes it that much more likely it will be wrong.

545109[/snapback]

 

But if over the years it's grown in accuracy to surpass Brittanica, there's no reason NOt to use it. The point of linking Wiki's accuracy page is to show the collaborative discussion that goes on to vet the truth. Just like in this forum, facts usually rise to the top, while opinions get regurgitated and expelled.

[Adam]

it does?

But if over the years it's grown in accuracy to surpass Brittanica, there's no reason NOt to use it.  The point of linking Wiki's accuracy page is to show the collaborative discussion that goes on to vet the truth.  Just like in this forum, facts usually rise to the top, while opinions get regurgitated and expelled.

545132[/snapback]

Doesn't the name infer that magic is involved?

[IowaBill]

it does?........

 

It did. I see where the entry was last edited in October, 2005, which was afetr I read it last. That does give credence to your earlier statemenst about Wikipedia. I still think there are better resources available to strengthen your arguments. I also think using a Wikipedia entry to tell me how accurate Wikipedia is, at a time when Wikipedia s accuracy has been caled into question on a number of forums is similar to people using a bible passgae to "prove" how accuarte the bible is. neither method is very independent, and they assume validity in proving that same validity. Sorry if that doesn't make much sennse, it's early in the morning.