Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006 11:34 a.m. EST
NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton
Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.
To date, *al Qaeda* cells that have been discovered by anyone have fallen into three groups. Group one is Mossad cover operations (this is the largest group, well over half), the second is the *dreaming groups* where a group is targeted as *al Quaida* but has no signifigant relationship to anything (i.e the Buffalo NY group, which was a bunch of teenagers who went to a training camp, appearently just for the adventure, since they never showed the slightest intention of doing anything). The last (and smallest group) are various insurgent groups, some Islamic militants, others just nasty people, who are tied to *al Qaeda* simply because American's relate to the term. They show varying levels of attachment to Islamic insurgency, but none have ever been proven to be tied to Bin Laden in any but the broadest terms.
No authentic al Qaeda cell has ever been discovered. Bin Laden himself never used the term al Qaeda until it was explained to him that this is what Americans called him.
Meanwhile the Neo-Cons have used this same unconstitutional invasion of privacy to monitor US citizens who disapprove of the Administration, it's policies, or its agenda. It has used this program to monitor UN officials, foreign diplomats with no connection to Islam, or the Islamic agenda, and who knows how many completely innocent people who are simply caught in the system.
However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.
Hmm. I have never heard this. Where were the brave Republicans then? They made much ado about Bill's sexual preferences, but in all the time he was under impeachment threrat no one ever brought this up. While I don't doubt it, he was never caught while in office, never accused by anyone, and no charges ever brought against him, officialy or unofficially, so, as we say in the US, *no harm, no foul* If he had done this, and been caught, the Noe-Cons so adament about impeaching him would have seriously been on it like a pit-bull. Give me a fricking break. I was actually alive during the Clinton Administration, Bucksnot.
In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.
The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.
So what these desparate fools are saying is that a Congress who was attempting to impeach a sitting Prez over a hummer had evidence he violated explicit laws, they chose not to press the issue. Why is that, Bucksnot? WHY? Use your fucking head, you damn loser. This is like saying I found you in bed with my wife but beat you up for kicking my dog, and gave you a condom to boot. It simply goes beyond the pale to believe this tripe. If the Congress had known, or had even reasonable suspicion that Clinton was engaged in such behavior they woulda chewed him into hamburger.
"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.
Another dipshit statement. The code-kiddies had Echelon cracked and folded before it was ever active, and it was useless the day it was turned on. We never hear about it because it is so ineffective. Software like Waste, and even the newest versions of Eudora encrypt far beyond a neccesary margin of safety. For heaven's sake, even such easy to apply software as MIrc encrypts now, and someone who really is using the web as a communication device for sensitive data will encrypt far beyond a 12 year old chatting about homework. Which is something you obviously didn't do here.
The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”
These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.
In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."
Opps, you even admit Echelon is useless.
So what are you saying here Bucksnot? That Clinton was *as bad as, if not worse than, Mr Bush*? Ok, Bucksnot, lets say your right. If the Neo-Cons had all this tidy and very illegal evidence about Clinton why did they try and impeach him over lying about a blowjob?
Clearly, to anyone who gives it a moments thought, something is missing here, Buchsnot. There is a REASON that the Neo-Cons chose not to pursue an impeachment proceding based on very obvious abuse of power, and violations of the first degree, and chose instead to dig up Whitewater (which was completely legal, when it all came out) and a hummer in the Oval Office.
Not even a *nice try* on this one. You are very foolish. Why do you even bother? You constantly get ripped to shreds when you bring this garbage here, and yet you persist in putting this swill on an obviously anti-Bush board. Are you really that stupid? I don't go over to Bush-is-up-my-ass-and-I-love-it.com and post shit, because I know I would just get abused, no matter how true the information I posted was. And yet, you are stupid enough to bring OBVIOUS swill, with a relation to reality that only a psychotic could recognise, and post it on a board where it will instantly be ripped to shreds by umm *facts* (you know, those points of reality that are commonly agreed to be true).