[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I give up.

Didn't get your talking points this morning?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How exactly is detailing someone's political philosophical differences going to help profile and/or identify them as a potential danger SpaceMonkey?

You're starting to sound ridiculous. Our military and intelligence apparatus is now spending a lot of time trying to profile the political philosophical differences of a number of Muslim and Islamic National sects in different parts Central Asia and Southeast Asia, for example. I hope that isn't a waste of time.

ebuddy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm flummoxed you're actually trying to defend this report.

I'm defending that it was written. If someone tells you to write a report, you write a report. It's the conclusions that matter...

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Bingo. I think "we really didn't find anything of substance to report Mr. President" is what you're looking for. Don't take my word for it, read the report.

...which is exactly why I don't understand your strong reaction to the report. The report all but says "we didn't find anything of substance to report" (in terms of specific threats) but goes on to predict what political views recruiters might try to exploit. Saying that immigration policy might be a rallying point for extremists (by the way, not exactly a news flash) doesn't mean that the government should keep an eye on everyone who disagrees with certain immigration policies. You are making a leap that the report doesn't make. Regardless of your statement that you "think it's a good idea to request a report on right-wing extremism," it seems like you are just upset that the report was written at all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The short answer is NO.

I for one, do not want our government using simple political ideologies and associations/former military status as an excuse to "keep an eye" (wink wink) on US citizens in order to prevent extremely rare occurrences of "domestic terrorism".

But they were doing similar activities under President Bush*, and continue to do so under President Obama. Why all the uproar now when President Obama is doing it. I don't recall any outrage from you when it was done by President Bush. What's the difference now?

As for me, I opposed these types of activities under President Bush and continue to oppose them under President Obama.


*You know, things like spying on anti-war/peace groups for possible militant activities.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've already explained why I'm upset by it. I'm not alone. It focuses primarily on ideological differences leaving one with no other means of profiling. It's hostile.


We'd likely disagree on our definition of "desperate". There's a reason why Napolitano has been apologizing for it since its release and the Obama Administration keeping as far away from it as possible.


Scared is not as appropriate as "concerned for the direction of this country". I know it's hard to separate any critique of an Administration from a direct personal attack on you or Obama, but since perception is reality; the only ones who don't see a problem here are likely those with the "preferred, peaceful, and productive ideology".

The real question is; is this Administration so scared of dissenting views that they must identify anyone with them as potential terrorist recruiters and the related issues as recruiting tools? After all, the guilt implied in the report is the ideology, no specific group or action.

Everything you just described was done also by the Bush Administration. Heck, the Bush Administration used the fear of terrorism as a basis for numerous political policies. Why were you not expressing such great "concern for the direction of this country" when domestic spying on anti-war groups (who espoused views in dissent on the Bush Administration's pro-war/anti-terror agenda) was taking place? What's the difference now? Why are you so "concerned for the direction of this country" now when you never expressed similar concern when the same activities were being performed under President Bush?

As for me, I opposed these types of activities under President Bush--Remember that legendary argument I had with SimeytheLimey on domestic surveillance and the FISA court/statutes--and continue to do so under President Obama.

[dcmacdaddy]

Of course, I think the creation of the Department of Homeland security was a clusterf*ck of gigantic proportions. None of the efficiencies of mission were achieved and ridiculous amounts of money have been spent on militarising* our domestic law enforcement agencies.

*Driving from DC to upstate New York this week I passed a police station in rural northern PA. You could see their vehicle lot from the interstate and they had an armored SWAT vehicle in the lot that looked like a smallish military-grade APC. Do you think it is necessary to alter the policing approach of small towns and cities all over the country so they function more like military organisations? I do not. I do not think this approach to law enforcement increases a municipality's ability to detect and/or prevent crime and/or domestic terrorism. But much of this militarisation of our law enforcement is a direct result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the funds they disbursed to local and state governments in the name of fighting terror.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Everything you just described was done also by the Bush Administration.

Show me a communique from the Bush Administration or the DHS under his watch that implicated ideology as the source of the suspicion. You'll no doubt source all kinds of material that indicate connections between named groups and specific criminal activities to be watchful for not unlike the DHS report on left-wing extremism, but IMO you'll be hard-pressed to find anything with regard to political dissent in and of itself. I'd be curious what you come up with.

Heck, the Bush Administration used the fear of terrorism as a basis for numerous political policies. Why were you not expressing such great "concern for the direction of this country" when domestic spying on anti-war groups (who espoused views in dissent on the Bush Administration's pro-war/anti-terror agenda) was taking place?

Name the groups implicated and I'll tell you exactly why. It had nothing to do with a general contrarian view on our actions in Iraq or differing political philosophy and everything to do with specific groups of known terrorist origin and specific activity. WIth regard to using fear in selling numerous political policies, show me your outrage at our current reaction to a market correction.

What's the difference now? Why are you so "concerned for the direction of this country" now when you never expressed similar concern when the same activities were being performed under President Bush?

I expressed numerous concerns with the Bush Administration including corruption in the Justice Dept, lacking transparency, how the action in Iraq was conducted less like a war declared and more like the failed police actions of the past, spending in general including stimulus checks to all, lax immigration policy, and the numerous proposed bailouts many here were likewise quick to agreement at that time, slow to their opinion now. What I didn't do was echo the "no blood for oil", "Haliburton", "Bushie stole the election" tripe common among the hand cymbal-clapping monkeys here so I can see where you might have viewed my rhetoric as somehow defensive of his Administration.

As for me, I opposed these types of activities under President Bush--Remember that legendary argument I had with SimeytheLimey on domestic surveillance and the FISA court/statutes--and continue to do so under President Obama.

There was nothing unprecedented about FISA court/statutes and warrantless wiretaps as they've been conducted as far back as Carter when the issue was first brought to the courts. It became a popular political football during the Bush Administration because of the severely lacking political panache of his Administration. I appreciate the integrity of your consistency from one Administration to the next on this issue dc and had I for one moment truly believed ideology/dissent in and of itself would define "dangerous" and had the domestic implications been as evident as they are now, I might have been as passionate as you at the time.

I might be slower to the take than you'd like, but I'm a little surprised at how unwelcoming you appear none the less.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You're starting to sound ridiculous. Our military and intelligence apparatus is now spending a lot of time trying to profile the political philosophical differences of a number of Muslim and Islamic National sects in different parts Central Asia and Southeast Asia, for example. I hope that isn't a waste of time.

The feelings are mutual as you continue to spin your wheels connecting elements of foreign threats, specific groups, and well-documented criminal activity to issues of mere disagreement on domestic political policy. I might add disagreements on Constitutional principles like the Second Amendment and opposition to the rampant violations of immigration law.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The feelings are mutual as you continue to spin your wheels connecting elements of foreign threats, specific groups, and well-documented criminal activity to issues of mere disagreement on domestic political policy.

I wasn't trying to connect them at all. I was providing a specific example of how, in your words, "detailing someone's political philosophical differences [is] going to help profile and/or identify them as a potential danger." Incidentally, the majority of the foreign-based groups that I'm talking about that the United States is looking at are not violent. The military/intelligence community is interested in learning more about them precisely because better understanding their "political philosophical differences" helps them figure out the likely conduits/patterns of recruitment for the groups that are violent. This is more or less, as I understand it, the kind of thing that the "right-wing" DHS report is talking about. I think you are assuming some kind of Orwellian surveillance program where I am not.

To be honest, ebuddy, I've always considered you one of the least reactionary people on this forum, and so it's a little bit disturbing to see you react in this way to any suggestion that DHS might pay attention to right-wing groups to figure out how more extremist groups might recruit other members. Most people don't go to bed a well-adjusted person, wake up one day and suddenly become terrorists. It's a gradual process of alienation. To say that DHS should ignore that process seems reckless. I would say exactly the same for left-wing groups.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There was nothing unprecedented about FISA court/statutes and warrantless wiretaps as they've been conducted as far back as Carter when the issue was first brought to the courts. It became a popular political football during the Bush Administration because of the severely lacking political panache of his Administration. I appreciate the integrity of your consistency from one Administration to the next on this issue dc and had I for one moment truly believed ideology/dissent in and of itself would define "dangerous" and had the domestic implications been as evident as they are now, I might have been as passionate as you at the time.

I will get to your other points in a later post but I need to address these points immediately.

You are completely wrong on this matter. Everything about how the Bush administration conducted warrantless wiretapping WAS unprecedented. You are correct that the FISA courts were setup under President Carter but the FISA court mechanism did not allow for warrantless wiretapping (i.e.: government spying within the United States WITHOUT getting approval from the FISA court). The whole point of the FISA court system was to allow the US intelligence apparatus to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations subject to REVIEW and APPROVAL by the FISA court. There was never a mechanism to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations without some form of oversight and that is what the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping initiatives did. President Bush signed an executive order allowing for domestic intelligence-gathering operations (in particular by the NSA) without requiring approval of the FISA court. Yes, the policy was subject to a regular reauthorisation every 45 days but that is not the same thing as having the FISA court review every single request for conducting domestic intelligence-gathering operations as is required by the FISA statute. There was no submission and review process--as required by the laws establishing the FISA court system--for each and every domestic intelligence-gathering operation.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

But they were doing similar activities under President Bush*, and continue to do so under President Obama. Why all the uproar now when President Obama is doing it. I don't recall any outrage from you when it was done by President Bush. What's the difference now?

As for me, I opposed these types of activities under President Bush and continue to oppose them under President Obama.


*You know, things like spying on anti-war/peace groups for possible militant activities.

I answered that earlier in the thread.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

...was not a "right-wing extremist."

It's also important to note that McVeigh was not a "right-wing extremist". He was an agnostic and a libertarian. If he was "right wing" at all it was only a little.

So let's tally up:

Oswald: Former marine, did not serve in a war and was not a right-winger. Motive not positively determined.

Muhammed: Former US Army, did not serve in a war and was not a right-winger. Motive apparently "jihad".

Rudolph: Former US Army, did not serve in a war. Right-wing nut with right-wing nut motives.

McVeigh: Former US Army, gulf war vet. Not a true right-winger. Anti-government motive.

The only guy that fits what this report's saying is Rudolph. That's still one.

Are you upset with profiling right-wing extremist or veterans who are having problems integrating back to society?


Veterans who are having problems integrating back to society are very dangerous because of the military training they have received. The government knows that. You don't want extremist operating military jets and tanks.

Shawn Timothy Nelson fits the profile of a veteran with problems integrating back into society.

Shawn Timothy Nelson (1960 – May 17, 1995) was a U.S. Army veteran and unemployed plumber who, at the age of 35 and under the influence of methamphetamine, stole an M60 Patton tank from a United States National Guard Armory in San Diego, California and went on a rampage on May 17, 1995, destroying cars, fire hydrants, and an RV before being shot dead by police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Are you upset with profiling right-wing extremist or veterans who are having problems integrating back to society?


Veterans who are having problems integrating back to society are very dangerous because of the military training they have received. The government knows that. You don't want extremist operating military jets and tanks.

Shawn Timothy Nelson fits the profile of a veteran with problems integrating back into society.

Shawn Timothy Nelson (1960 – May 17, 1995) was a U.S. Army veteran and unemployed plumber who, at the age of 35 and under the influence of methamphetamine, stole an M60 Patton tank from a United States National Guard Armory in San Diego, California and went on a rampage on May 17, 1995, destroying cars, fire hydrants, and an RV before being shot dead by police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vESIVemfG8

No, Nelson fits the profile of a person with a drug dependency. He spent a lot of time using meth and wound up going ballistic. He didn't "have difficulty reintegrating into society," but rather being part of society at all. This has nothing to do with his military training, but rather the way his life disintegrated, starting with his motorcycle accident in '90, his divorce in '91, losing both parents to cancer, and then abusing drugs starting in '93.

Figuring out how to drive an M60 may not be trivial, but I'll bet someone with experience with construction or earthmoving equipment could manage.

Nelson isn't an example of someone being susceptible to being recruited by extremists. He just fell apart in a big way.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

No, Nelson fits the profile of a person with a drug dependency. He spent a lot of time using meth and wound up going ballistic. He didn't "have difficulty reintegrating into society," but rather being part of society at all. This has nothing to do with his military training, but rather the way his life disintegrated, starting with his motorcycle accident in '90, his divorce in '91, losing both parents to cancer, and then abusing drugs starting in '93.

Figuring out how to drive an M60 may not be trivial, but I'll bet someone with experience with construction or earthmoving equipment could manage.

Nelson isn't an example of someone being susceptible to being recruited by extremists. He just fell apart in a big way.

Of course he was having problems reintegrating back into society.

Many people turn to drugs because they are having a hard time dealing with things that happened in their lives. It wasn't just a drug induce rampage.

He had suicidal thoughts and said "Oklahoma was good stuff" referring to the Oklahoma bombing.

Is this Veteran:
Suicidal? Yes.
Thinks domestic terrorism is good stuff? Yes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson

According to San Diego police, the week before his tank rampage Nelson told a friend that he was thinking of committing suicide, and the following weekend, told a friend that "Oklahoma was good stuff," in apparent reference to the Oklahoma City bombing. Whether Nelson condoned the attack or simply meant that he enjoyed the drama is not clear. Police did not believe Nelson had any connection with the bombing or with a terrorist group.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

"[R]eturning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence."

Are you saying it's impossible for returning military veterans to be susceptible to extremist recruiters or to engage in lone acts of violence?

[ort888]

What about Rambo.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying it's impossible for returning military veterans to be susceptible to extremist recruiters or to engage in lone acts of violence?

No, it's just not acceptable for liberals to talk about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You are completely wrong on this matter. Everything about how the Bush administration conducted warrantless wiretapping WAS unprecedented.

IMO, you're completely naive on this matter. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." He went on to say the President (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. Interestingly enough, even when foreign entities aren't involved -In 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority raided tenant's apartments without warrant following an incident of gang violence and the Clinton Administration challenged the District Judge's claim that the searches were unconstitutional. Clinton's response? Pass legislation less than a month later requiring that tenants sign a provision in the lease allowing for warrantless searches. Every President in office since the FISA mandate has felt that he maintains the authority to subvert it when necessary. This includes warrantless drug testing on public school students and roving wiretaps. Of course, there's also the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act passed in October of 1994 forcing every US telephone company to comply with mandatory retrofitting of its network infrastructure allowing for greater accessibility to law enforcement. This "unprecedented nonsense" was only available as an argument against the Bush Administration because it was the Bush Administration. Period. Your suggestion that anything Bush did was unprecedented is woefully naive.

You are correct that the FISA courts were setup under President Carter but the FISA court mechanism did not allow for warrantless wiretapping (i.e.: government spying within the United States WITHOUT getting approval from the FISA court). The whole point of the FISA court system was to allow the US intelligence apparatus to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations subject to REVIEW and APPROVAL by the FISA court. There was never a mechanism to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations without some form of oversight and that is what the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping initiatives did.

See Chicago Public Housing matter cited above. Again, the only reason this became such a political football during the Bush Administration is because of their inability to keep a friggin' secret. If it's acceptable to say "but Bush", then I'm guessing it's okay to say "but Clinton" which of course would have to include the unprecedented firebombing of a compound of US citizens. Again, the only thing different between President Bush and the prior Presidents was the notion that we shouldn't mince words about it any more, use fear to pass an executive order in response to 9/11.

The report in question here lacks so much specificity as to be completely irresponsible. It's really as simple as this. Everyone knows it. They're apologizing for it. They're distancing themselves from it, and this isn't the last you're going to hear of it. Mark my words, this report will be entirely rescinded within the next three months.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying it's impossible for returning military veterans to be susceptible to extremist recruiters or to engage in lone acts of violence?

No. I'm saying it's likewise possible that ex-IBM employees would be susceptible to extremist recruiters as well as ex-football players, boxers, soccer players, those who pay their taxes late, any and all disgruntled government employees, politicians, farmers...

It's an irresponsible report. Period.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

According to San Diego police, the week before his tank rampage Nelson told a friend that he was thinking of committing suicide, and the following weekend, told a friend that "Oklahoma was good stuff," in apparent reference to the Oklahoma City bombing. Whether Nelson condoned the attack or simply meant that he enjoyed the drama is not clear. Police did not believe Nelson had any connection with the bombing or with a terrorist group.

This was not an indication he was having problems "reintegrating;" his service was so short that he reintegrated pretty much within a month after discharge. The above is a reflection of his mental problems-which as I pointed out had to do with his world disintegrating around him, NOT his military service.

There is no indication that Nelson actually saw any combat in his Army career either, though if you have something about that, I'd appreciate seeing it. The point about current soldiers reintegrating into society is focused on COMBAT veterans, not just people who wore the uniform. My father-in-law was in the 82nd Airborne in WWII and in spite of a very welcoming public at his homecoming, he noted problems with dealing with the emotional impact of combat. He helped a lot of Vietnam vets work through their issues because he remembered how difficult it was for him. Note that in WWII, soldiers were in combat for a LONG time, while ever since Korea, our soldiers have been in combat for relatively limited periods-until now. Today, with our operations tempo and fairly limited pool of soldiers, people are in combat for a year at a time, come home for a while, then go back into combat. This is the major problem; the "yo-yo" deployment issue causes repeated emotional trauma.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying it's likewise possible that ex-IBM employees would be susceptible to extremist recruiters as well as ex-football players, boxers, soccer players, those who pay their taxes late, any and all disgruntled government employees, politicians, farmers...

It's an irresponsible report. Period.

So, the experience of working at IBM is comparable to combat?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I wasn't trying to connect them at all. I was providing a specific example of how, in your words, "detailing someone's political philosophical differences [is] going to help profile and/or identify them as a potential danger." Incidentally, the majority of the foreign-based groups that I'm talking about that the United States is looking at are not violent.

Give me some names. Give me the names of the "non-violent" entities SpaceMonkey.

The military/intelligence community is interested in learning more about them precisely because better understanding their "political philosophical differences" helps them figure out the likely conduits/patterns of recruitment for the groups that are violent.

Of the aspects useful for profiling, someone's view on gun control, abortion, economic downturns, and illegal immigration would be among the least. This is why they'll generally name the groups of focus. Something they failed to do in this report.

To be honest, ebuddy, I've always considered you one of the least reactionary people on this forum, and so it's a little bit disturbing to see you react in this way to any suggestion that DHS might pay attention to right-wing groups to figure out how more extremist groups might recruit other members. Most people don't go to bed a well-adjusted person, wake up one day and suddenly become terrorists. It's a gradual process of alienation. To say that DHS should ignore that process seems reckless. I would say exactly the same for left-wing groups.

- As of 2009, some 65% of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws per Gallup.
- 52% of Americans favor the building of a 700 mile long fence along the Mexican border per CNN poll.
- As of last week, 53% of Americans oppose the government giving money to banks and financial institutions as a way of trying to fix the nation's economy per AOL money and finance poll.
- 40% of Americans believe abortion should be mostly or completely illegal per Pew Research poll.

I appreciate your mention of a non-reactionary history of posting here SpaceMonkey I really do, but I don't think I'm overreacting to a Federal Department of Homeland Security report that essentially makes half of America and their political views a part of an element worthy of some particular focus of concern nor can I possibly fathom how such a sweeping implication would be useful for profiling anything at all. It is a worthless report and worse, further indication of how this Administration views dissenting opinion. The report is patently irresponsible and they know it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, the experience of working at IBM is comparable to combat?

For cyber crime which is of particular note in this age? You bet ya. Unless you've not been paying attention to the threat assessments on China on a host of American infrastructures reliant upon computer technologies in the news recently.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, you're completely naive on this matter. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." He went on to say the President (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. Interestingly enough, even when foreign entities aren't involved -In 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority raided tenant's apartments without warrant following an incident of gang violence and the Clinton Administration challenged the District Judge's claim that the searches were unconstitutional. Clinton's response? Pass legislation less than a month later requiring that tenants sign a provision in the lease allowing for warrantless searches. Every President in office since the FISA mandate has felt that he maintains the authority to subvert it when necessary. This includes warrantless drug testing on public school students and roving wiretaps. Of course, there's also the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act passed in October of 1994 forcing every US telephone company to comply with mandatory retrofitting of its network infrastructure allowing for greater accessibility to law enforcement. This "unprecedented nonsense" was only available as an argument against the Bush Administration because it was the Bush Administration. Period. Your suggestion that anything Bush did was unprecedented is woefully naive.


See Chicago Public Housing matter cited above. Again, the only reason this became such a political football during the Bush Administration is because of their inability to keep a friggin' secret. If it's acceptable to say "but Bush", then I'm guessing it's okay to say "but Clinton" which of course would have to include the unprecedented firebombing of a compound of US citizens. Again, the only thing different between President Bush and the prior Presidents was the notion that we shouldn't mince words about it any more, use fear to pass an executive order in response to 9/11.

Umm, ebuddy, who is being naive here?

You are confusing domestic law enforcement procedures with domestic intelligence-gathering activities. You are conflating two different sets of activities (criminal investigation and intelligence gathering). My argument has not been about domestic law enforcement but rather about domestic intelligence gathering and you know that. I have only talked about this matter of warrantless wiretapping in the context of the FISA court system. And, unless I am mistaken, the FISA court does NOT have oversight over a municipal law-enforcement agency like the Chicago Pubic Housing Authority. Does it? No, it has oversight over the national intelligence-gathering agencies like the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. So, your arguments are not only invalid but completely irrelevant to counter my claims.

If you can provide examples of other Presidents who allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court I will gladly admit my error/naivete and confess to my ignorance on this matter.

--Can you tell us if any other Presidents allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--If your answer is yes, what other Presidents allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Carter allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Reagan allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Bush (41) allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Clinton allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?



(Oh, two other points that need to be made. Jamie Gorelick is a woman and just because she asserts the President has certain powers does not mean the President does. The President's powers are circumscribed by legislation and judicial review. So, the mere assertion of power does not mean necessarily the validity of the power asserted. I think the endless debates about the "unitary executive" or "signing statements" under President Bush can put to rest any notion that the mere assertion of Presidential power comports with the validity or legitimacy of the power asserted.)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Give me some names. Give me the names of the "non-violent" entities SpaceMonkey.

In Indonesia, the Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama. Also, in a broad sense, the Islamic Party of Malaysia, because of the network of schools they run in the region.

Also various European societies (Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland, Union of Islamic Communities in Spain, etc.) who have some points of intersection with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Of the aspects useful for profiling, someone's view on gun control, abortion, economic downturns, and illegal immigration would be among the least. This is why they'll generally name the groups of focus. Something they failed to do in this report.

- As of 2009, some 65% of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws per Gallup.
- 52% of Americans favor the building of a 700 mile long fence along the Mexican border per CNN poll.
- As of last week, 53% of Americans oppose the government giving money to banks and financial institutions as a way of trying to fix the nation's economy per AOL money and finance poll.
- 40% of Americans believe abortion should be mostly or completely illegal per Pew Research poll.

I appreciate your mention of a non-reactionary history of posting here SpaceMonkey I really do, but I don't think I'm overreacting to a Federal Department of Homeland Security report that essentially makes half of America and their political views a part of an element worthy of some particular focus of concern nor can I possibly fathom how such a sweeping implication would be useful for profiling anything at all. It is a worthless report and worse, further indication of how this Administration views dissenting opinion. The report is patently irresponsible and they know it.

I still think you are misreading the report. It does not at all say, for example, that the 40% of Americans believe who believe abortion should be mostly or completely illegal are an element "worthy of suspicion." To the extent that radical individuals may recruit partners who belong to single-issue groups (such as more militant anti-abortion activists), that is an element worthy of suspicion. It was an element of concern when conservative Republicans were in power, as well.

[subego]

I wish this thread was named "Wacky Races Lesbian Veteran". I always knew Penelope Pitstop was bumping donuts.

Carry on.

[subego]

I keep on reading attempts to show equivalency between this and the hue and cry over warrantless wiretapping.

As lame as this report seems, I'm missing the part where there's something in it that's potentially unconstitutional. Without that, I don't see the comparison.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, ebuddy, who is being naive here?

This is classic, followed by the next statement;

You are confusing domestic law enforcement procedures with domestic intelligence-gathering activities.

What the hell dc? Seriously. How could one confuse the very blurred line between domestic law enforcement procedures with domestic intelligence-gathering? [/sarcasm] Especially considering that one is now defined by the other. Don't take my word for it.
Dept of Justice

You are conflating two different sets of activities (criminal investigation and intelligence gathering). My argument has not been about domestic law enforcement but rather about domestic intelligence gathering and you know that. I have only talked about this matter of warrantless wiretapping in the context of the FISA court system. And, unless I am mistaken, the FISA court does NOT have oversight over a municipal law-enforcement agency like the Chicago Pubic Housing Authority. Does it? No, it has oversight over the national intelligence-gathering agencies like the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. So, your arguments are not only invalid but completely irrelevant to counter my claims.

I'm not conflating anything. Shortly after 9/11 a bipartisan commission maintained that a major contributing problem was the disconnect specifically between federal and municipal resources. This led to the creation of the FBI Office of Law Enforcement Coordination connecting the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc... to the FBI in an attempt to "build bridges to national, state, municipal, county, tribal, and local partners" including multi-agency fusion centers such as the MIAC mentioned earlier which in fact connects domestic law enforcement with domestic intelligence gathering allowing oversight into all facets of law enforcement both national and regional. Prior to this, these connections had been used at whim. The Bush Administration did nothing more than formalize a relationship that already existed and had been abused prior.

What had once been created under the auspice of protecting US citizens from both violation of privacy and protection from foreign hostile elements is being redefined. Now you have a perfect storm of an entity created under one Administration with focus on foreign elements, to another Administration with an apparent focus (albeit very broad) on domestic elements through an irresponsible DHS report on right-wing extremism. This is what I find objectionable.

If you can provide examples of other Presidents who allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court I will gladly admit my error/naivete and confess to my ignorance on this matter.

Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage
In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence. Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.

I'd certainly give this tale as much credence as the one you're likely referring to under the Bush Administration as so told by Russell Tice who had his security clearance revoked by the NSA for "serious mental concerns" a year before he was compelled to "blow the whistle".

Of course, there's other ways to abuse legislation;
just expand the scope of FISA of course

--Can you tell us if any other Presidents allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--If your answer is yes, what other Presidents allowed domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Carter allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Reagan allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?
--Did President Bush (41) allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?

I'll look into it, but don't color me shocked to find FISA abuses under every one.

--Did President Clinton allow domestic intelligence-gathering operations by the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc. to take place WITHOUT those operations being reviewed and approved by the FISA court?

Yes he did. Now... do you want to tell me what this long FISA-abusing Presidential query has to do with the DHS under the Obama Administration releasing the most irresponsible report in its short history on what it deems "right-wing extremism" and the broad Constitutional and social principles it deems necessary for recruiting tools or are you just trying to avoid the real issue of this thread?

(Oh, two other points that need to be made. Jamie Gorelick is a woman and just because she asserts the President has certain powers does not mean the President does. The President's powers are circumscribed by legislation and judicial review. So, the mere assertion of power does not mean necessarily the validity of the power asserted. I think the endless debates about the "unitary executive" or "signing statements" under President Bush can put to rest any notion that the mere assertion of Presidential power comports with the validity or legitimacy of the power asserted.)

1) Sorry I said "he" instead of "she". 2) No. It is indicative of the general mindset of a President and his willingness to circumvent the powers granted by legislation and judicial review as evidenced by the practices of the Administrations in question.

There's laws against speeding too.

[dcmacdaddy]

OK. Let me know when you find examples of former Presidents authorising US intelligence agencies to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations within the United States without oversight of the FISA court.


PS: If you actually read ALL the available information on Clinton's economic espionage activities--not just the thoroughly "un-biased" sources at NewsMax--you would find that Clinton didn't authorise US intelligence agencies to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering activities. He authorised them to perform such activities overseas. (Even Clinton, with his utter lack of scruples, didn't go so far as to authorise US intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens within the United States without FISA oversight.) It was only through the Echelon intelligence-sharing program--where foreign intelligence agencies spied on US citizens within the US--that any economic espionage was done on US citizens. A minor difference to be sure--US citizens were spied on for purposes of economic espionage--but even Clinton wasn't criminal enough to allow direct spying on US citizens within the US by US intelligence-gathering agencies without oversight of the FISA court. And that's the difference, President Bush did. He authorised direct spying on US citizens within the US by US intelligence-gathering agencies without requiring those intelligence agencies to go through the normal approval and oversight procedures within the FISA court system. If you are OK with those actions by President Bush, just say so. I am not, never have been, and never will be. I will never think it is acceptable for a President to authorise US intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on US citizens without that spying approved and overseen by an independent body charged with determining the validity of such a spying effort.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now... do you want to tell me what this long FISA-abusing Presidential query has to do with the DHS under the Obama Administration releasing the most irresponsible report in its short history on what it deems "right-wing extremism" and the broad Constitutional and social principles it deems necessary for recruiting tools or are you just trying to avoid the real issue of this thread?

FISA has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I simply mentioned a previous thread where I expressed outrage at what was done by a President and compared that to my outrage at what was done by the current President.* And then you sought to defend some of those actions by making an incorrect assertion about the FISA system. I wanted to correct your mistaken assertions about which Presidents did and did not circumvent the FISA court and here we are now off on this tangent. You are free to ignore the tangent whenever you want.


*My point, which I stated explicitly several times, was to show my consistent, apolitical outrage at Presidential abuses of power through the Department of Homeland Security. I contrasted this consistent stance of mine with some of the posters in here who showed sudden outrage at abuses of power committed by DHS under President Obama but did not express similar outrage when abuses of power by DHS were committed under President Bush.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

OK. Let me know when you find examples of former Presidents authorising US intelligence agencies to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations within the United States without oversight of the FISA court.

Echelon is a global surveillance network and operates also under the NSA. Why didn't you just say you wouldn't accept any NSA related spying (even though you included the NSA in your list) or the notion that another President used domestic resources to spy directly on domestic operations? I mean, even Bush maintains that one party of the conversation was foreign.

PS: If you actually read ALL the available information on Clinton's economic espionage activities--not just the thoroughly "un-biased" sources at NewsMax--you would find that Clinton didn't authorise US intelligence agencies to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering activities. He authorised them to perform such activities overseas. (Even Clinton, with his utter lack of scruples, didn't go so far as to authorise US intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens within the United States without FISA oversight.) It was only through the Echelon intelligence-sharing program--where foreign intelligence agencies spied on US citizens within the US--that any economic espionage was done on US citizens. A minor difference to be sure--US citizens were spied on for purposes of economic espionage--but even Clinton wasn't criminal enough to allow direct spying on US citizens within the US by US intelligence-gathering agencies without oversight of the FISA court. And that's the difference, President Bush did. He authorised direct spying on US citizens within the US by US intelligence-gathering agencies without requiring those intelligence agencies to go through the normal approval and oversight procedures within the FISA court system. If you are OK with those actions by President Bush, just say so. I am not, never have been, and never will be. I will never think it is acceptable for a President to authorise US intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on US citizens without that spying approved and overseen by an independent body charged with determining the validity of such a spying effort.

This is weak dc. Seriously. Give me your unbiased sources of news that detail Bush's violation of FISA. Bush didn't use an AMERICAN to illegally spy on an AMERICAN. So much for being "apolitical". Spare me. It's only meaningful if you can find it in a Bush apparently.

Regardless of what Clinton did, Bush did, and Obama is doing; the crux of the issue here is an irresponsible DHS report that may as well include former IBM employees, ex-football players, and someone's favorite college baseball teams as potential means of recruiting right-wing terrorists. When you're ready to talk about that instead of the predictable "But Bush did it too" let me know.

[ebuddy]

One more item of note as mentioned by another poster earlier, Bush was no cult of personality. He was no media darling. The sources of criticism for Bush's activities under the NSA and subsequent FISA violations had been so buried in the quagmire of "Bush lied about WMD", "Bush hates black people", and "Bush eats puppy dogs" that it was often more difficult to sift the BS from the truth and any criticism appeared just another hit-piece against a man loathed from day one. Remember, this is the same shameless media that would fabricate from thin air, signatures and stories whenever it deemed fit.

Obama is not regarded in a similar fashion by the media and I'm afraid trying to compare the two are going to fall on deaf ears. Many of those who were critical of Bush had the resources of almost every major news outlet at their disposal; a very loud voice. This is not the case with Obama. If people like me and the other "evil conservatives" of this forum don't say anything, it will likely not be spoken of. Issues such as Obama's complete 180 on warrantless wiretapping. That's the simple fact of the matter. If Kerrigan hadn't brought this DHS report up, it wouldn't have been brought up. If I hadn't brought up Obama's 180 on warrantless wiretapping, it wouldn't have been brought up. Some of you can act outraged all you want, you're not showing it here. That's the point. Your President of change is Bush to the tenth power and I see precious few of you Bush-haters, hating for any of the same reasons.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Regardless of what Clinton did, Bush did, and Obama is doing; the crux of the issue here is an irresponsible DHS report that may as well include former IBM employees, ex-football players, and someone's favorite college baseball teams as potential means of recruiting right-wing terrorists. When you're ready to talk about that instead of the predictable "But Bush did it too" let me know.

That's why I started a separate thread. If you wish to continue debating warrantless wiretapping I'll see you in the other thread. If you wish to have me condemn the DHS report, I will do that.

I think the intent of the document was appropriate--identify possible means by which US citizens could be recruited to domestic terrorist organisations--but their explanation in the document of the reasoning why they specified certain groups was sorely lacking in clarity and offensive to many of the groups they identified as possible targets.

And yes, I think "former IBM employees, ex-football players, and someone's favorite college baseball teams [are] potential means of recruiting [domestic] terrorists". Why wouldn't any of these identifications be a means for recruiting domestic terrorists?


Just out of curiosity, why do you refer to them as right-wing terrorists? If you are not concerned about the political persuasion of those who conduct terrorist activities why do you constantly refer to them as right-wing terrorists? They are terrorists, plain and simple. Perhaps you might refer to them as domestic terrorists instead of foreign terrorists but they are terrorists nonetheless. So, why the constant reference to their supposed political status if you are not concerned about the politics of the terrorists?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's why I started a separate thread. If you wish to continue debating warrantless wiretapping I'll see you in the other thread. If you wish to have me condemn the DHS report, I will do that.

I would not ask anyone to condemn anything they weren't compelled to. I'll visit the other thread because it's an interesting topic.

I think the intent of the document was appropriate--identify possible means by which US citizens could be recruited to domestic terrorist organisations--but their explanation in the document of the reasoning why they specified certain groups was sorely lacking in clarity and offensive to many of the groups they identified as possible targets.

We certainly agree here. I've not taken issue with the request of the report itself. As someone else brought up (maybe you) earlier, left-wing report requests had been made and completed. I thought it really provided an excellent stare and compare on what exactly was so offensive about the right-wing version.

And yes, I think "former IBM employees, ex-football players, and someone's favorite college baseball teams [are] potential means of recruiting [domestic] terrorists". Why wouldn't any of these identifications be a means for recruiting domestic terrorists?

Oh certainly any and all of the above could be used for recruiting, but then... we wouldn't need any expensive expertise. Still, if you want your information to be actionable it'd behoove you to narrow it down.

Just out of curiosity, why do you refer to them as right-wing terrorists? If you are not concerned about the political persuasion of those who conduct terrorist activities why do you constantly refer to them as right-wing terrorists? They are terrorists, plain and simple. Perhaps you might refer to them as domestic terrorists instead of foreign terrorists but they are terrorists nonetheless. So, why the constant reference to their supposed political status if you are not concerned about the politics of the terrorists?

This is something akin to asking why I'd refer to canine excrement as "dogshxt" in a thread entitled "Dogshxt". The DHS report, the subject of this thread is; Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

[Kerrigan]

Now this wacky lady is blaming Canada for the entry of the 9/11 hijackers into the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/0...canada021.html

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 perpetrators, Napolitano answered: "Not just those but others as well."

It seems like Obama is actually managing to find people even less intelligent than himself to appoint to important positions.


Picture for your amusement/edification

[besson3c]

So, have we figured out how her being a lesbian is relevant?

[Kerrigan]

I'm shocked that she has such a poor understanding of how terrorists come into this country. Isn't that her job? To prevent dangerous foreign elements from entering the country? And instead she has the facts completely wrong on major events such as 9/11. Laughable.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, have we figured out how her being a lesbian is relevant?

Excellent question...

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'm shocked that she has such a poor understanding of how terrorists come into this country. Isn't that her job? To prevent dangerous foreign elements from entering the country? And instead she has the facts completely wrong on major events such as 9/11. Laughable.

Um...the CEO of a company that makes soup doesn't need to know how the canning machine works. The Chancellor of a University doesn't need to know how to teach "bonehead English" (in spite of the fact that it's a very commonly taught course). The commander of an Infantry battalion does not need to know how the commo repair guy does his job either. In short, the Secretary of DHS does not need to know "how terrorists come into the country." And if she does, she should probably keep it to herself, since that relates to intelligence information and methods-pretty highly classified stuff. She DOES need to know how to manage a bureaucracy of this size, and she does need to be able to ensure the American people that her department is doing its job.

On the other hand, speaking out about how America in general has let our veterans down by not ensuring that they were properly cared for, helped to find jobs, and generally fit back in after discharge, IS HER JOB. Because there ARE disaffected veterans in our population, and ignoring them is the real threat.

Of course the Army could stop worrying about how much money it costs, and do a decent brain injury exam on every Soldier as he or she gets back to his/her home station. (The Marines are at least working on this.) And the Pentagon, in particular the JCS, should stop thinking "we can do this with our currently limited manpower pool" and start pushing for a lager end strength number for each service so that the same people don't wind up getting four and five combat tours. (But that's just my opinion on this...)

[Kerrigan]

The CEO doesn't need to know how need to know how the canning machine works... yes, this is true.

Napolitano doesn't need to know how or why 9/11 terrorist (and others since then) made it into the country?

In your soup company scenario, I think the more appropriate analogy would be that the CEO didn't understand how or why the company fell into bankruptcy 8 years ago. Would you want that person running a company?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Excellent question...

It would be, were she actually a lesbian.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, have we figured out how her being a lesbian is relevant?

I think he's already addressed this what... twice in this thread?

An excellent question would be; why do we keep asking someone why they referred to Napolitano as a lesbian when it has already been explained by the OP?

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, I am interested in discussing the lesbian angle further. Let's ride this thread all the way to its tragic end!

[besson3c]

Sorry, I haven't read every message in this thread, and I know how annoying it is to have the same questions asked (this has happened in my threads too). I apologize.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The CEO doesn't need to know how need to know how the canning machine works... yes, this is true.

Napolitano doesn't need to know how or why 9/11 terrorist (and others since then) made it into the country?

In your soup company scenario, I think the more appropriate analogy would be that the CEO didn't understand how or why the company fell into bankruptcy 8 years ago. Would you want that person running a company?

Actually, how the 9/11 terrorists, or others since then, came into the country is irrelevant to the point made in the original post. The Secretary was talking about how there is a subgroup of Americans that are potentially susceptible to being recruited for anti-American activities. It was my impression that this was the focus of this thread, not how terrorists entered the country almost 8 years ago, or for that matter, how a terrorist might enter the country today. Thus the "canning machine" analogy.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think he's already addressed this what... twice in this thread?

An excellent question would be; why do we keep asking someone why they referred to Napolitano as a lesbian when it has already been explained by the OP?

In part because the "explanations" have been as ambiguous as possible, and have simply pointed out that Kerrigan used "the most sensational" title he could think of. In other words, he's sort of, in a sideways manner, and fully hedged, said he violated the thread naming rules of the forums. My particular post on this subject was just as ambiguous-and it gave at least a few people (including you) reason to think about the issue...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Now this wacky lady is blaming Canada for the entry of the 9/11 hijackers into the US.



It seems like Obama is actually managing to find people even less intelligent than himself to appoint to important positions.


Picture for your amusement/edification

One must take into consideration that on the morning of 09/11/2001(When Napalitano was Az AG), she told everyone to stop watching TV and get back to work.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One must take into consideration...

Do we?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One must take into consideration that on the morning of 09/11/2001(When Napalitano was Az AG), she told everyone to stop watching TV and get back to work.

Encouraging hard work? This woman is a conservative in liberal's clothing! Cast out the heathen!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Encouraging hard work? This woman is a conservative in liberal's clothing! Cast out the heathen!

Well... for what it's worth, she's an extremely incompetent conservative and in way over her head at this point. Apparently.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One must take into consideration that on the morning of 09/11/2001(When Napalitano was Az AG), she told everyone to stop watching TV and get back to work.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Encouraging hard work? This woman is a conservative in liberal's clothing! Cast out the heathen!

They were watching news coverage from Ground Zero. Many companies let their employees go home early, including mine (Motorola/Freescale), to watch the news coverage.