Report: NSA collecting phone records of Verizon customers
Are you suggesting that is repugnant (which it is), or that it is a scandal (which it isn't -- or at least it wasn't for all the years Bush did it).
iirc, they started that they were members of Al Qaida several years ago.First article I get when I google search "signature strikes."
First two paragraphs:
---
Toward the end of a May 27 article in The Times about President Obama’s speech in which, among other things, he mentioned setting new standards for ordering drone strikes against non-Americans, there was this rather disturbing paragraph:
“Even as he set new standards, a debate broke out about what they actually meant and what would actually change. For now, officials said, ‘signature strikes’ targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.”
---
Emphasis added.
I can't claim to read every article that's ever been printed, but I'm pretty sure that the government has never presented any evidence against Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. According to Paul Craig Roberts (maverick ex-Reagan Treasury Undersecretary or something), Glenn Greenwald (expatriate columnist for the Manchester Guardian), and Jeremy Scahill (writes for The Nation, I think), the government has never presented any evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki, claiming, IIRC, that national security would fall apart if due process in the al-Awlaki case were followed. (Slight exaggeration on my part, IIRC, but not by much.) Jeremy Scahill further goes on to claim that Samir Khan was tried by some kind of grand jury in the States and that the charges were dismissed.
I'm just one goblin who follows the news. I don't claim to know everything. Can you find an article that lays out the government's case against either of the al-Awlakis?
You are wrong, there is no record whatsoever of Abuldrahman claiming to be a member of AQ. I couldn't find any evidence for Kahn anywhere.
Report: NSA collecting phone records of Verizon customersAre you suggesting that is repugnant (which it is), or that it is a scandal (which it isn't -- or at least it wasn't for all the years Bush did it).
Whether it is a scandal or not is irrelevant. It is wrong and should stop.
Whether it is a scandal or not is irrelevant. It is wrong and should stop.
Perhaps you didn't notice the thread title.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the scandal is the anti-Bush folks that were foaming at the mouth when he was doing it for calls made from inside the US to numbers outside the US, who are now silent or up in arms defending Obama for continuing to do it and including calls inside to the US to inside the US.
Maybe the scandal is the anti-Bush folks that were foaming at the mouth when he was doing it for calls made from inside the US to numbers outside the US, who are now silent or up in arms defending Obama for continuing to do it and including calls inside to the US to inside the US.
Maybe. I think it's b!*$!~!& whomever is doing it, but I've not done more in either case than say so. Which probably makes me part of the problem...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps you didn't notice the thread title.
Whether it is a scandal or not is irrelevant. It is wrong and should stop.
Zing! Busted =-O
You are wrong, there is no record whatsoever of Abuldrahman claiming to be a member of AQ. I couldn't find any evidence for Kahn anywhere.iirc, they started that they were members of Al Qaida several years ago.First article I get when I google search "signature strikes."
First two paragraphs:
---
Toward the end of a May 27 article in The Times about President Obama’s speech in which, among other things, he mentioned setting new standards for ordering drone strikes against non-Americans, there was this rather disturbing paragraph:
“Even as he set new standards, a debate broke out about what they actually meant and what would actually change. For now, officials said, ‘signature strikes’ targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.”
---
Emphasis added.
I can't claim to read every article that's ever been printed, but I'm pretty sure that the government has never presented any evidence against Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. According to Paul Craig Roberts (maverick ex-Reagan Treasury Undersecretary or something), Glenn Greenwald (expatriate columnist for the Manchester Guardian), and Jeremy Scahill (writes for The Nation, I think), the government has never presented any evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki, claiming, IIRC, that national security would fall apart if due process in the al-Awlaki case were followed. (Slight exaggeration on my part, IIRC, but not by much.) Jeremy Scahill further goes on to claim that Samir Khan was tried by some kind of grand jury in the States and that the charges were dismissed.
I'm just one goblin who follows the news. I don't claim to know everything. Can you find an article that lays out the government's case against either of the al-Awlakis?
I'm wrong because you couldn't find something? Interesting....
]I'm wrong because you couldn't find something?...Interesting...
Concerning Abdulrahman, you are 100% wrong because no evidence has been made public and he certainly never declared himself as a member of AQ publicly. Actually, no government person claimed he was a terrorist. Apparently, he was just a 16-year old boy who was unlucky to be the son of a person of interest. That's what I said above.
As for Kahn, i cannot say you're wrong, only that I found no evidence. Do you have any?
Maybe the scandal is the anti-Bush folks that were foaming at the mouth when he was doing it for calls made from inside the US to numbers outside the US, who are now silent or up in arms defending Obama for continuing to do it and including calls inside to the US to inside the US.
I know of no one in this hypothetical category. All liberals are incensed. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher have both been slamming this stuff. I just read a statement on the topic by Russ Feingold. It was top story on huffpo.
Abdulraman was an unfortunate casualty but ultimately just one kid. I find that preferable to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But that's just me.
Of course, the war on terror is b$*#!$%+ anyway, just comparing evils.
These civil liberties guys are a really paranoid bunch
BTW, Welcome to Oceania, Airstrip 1! \o/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting bit of history, which becomes much more revealing given the last news, is the misleading answer Obama gave to Jon Stewart last year concerning wiretapping and surveillance:
" STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.
OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.
"
Yeah, you have "modified" them alright. One can only imagine what safeguards are those that allow such sweeping collection of data.
This line from McBeth sums up my feelings on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP wiretaps.
'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." It may be meaningless to you; but not to the american diplomats who were killed in Benghazi without this administration either doing anything meaningful to protect them despite the diplomats prior requests for increased security, or to even make any rescue attempt during the seven hour attack. This only proves that, when the call comes at three o'clock in the morning, both Obama and Clinton are inept and incapable of protecting this nation.
No one that you are trying to make believe this actually believes it. The scandal campaign is not gaining traction. Sorry. Find a new manufactured crisis to use against Democrats. This one's getting kind of dull, and it's sad to watch conservatives pretend it's exciting.
Report: NSA collecting phone records of Verizon customersAre you suggesting that is repugnant (which it is), or that it is a scandal (which it isn't -- or at least it wasn't for all the years Bush did it).
I'm suggesting it was one of the top three stories on MSNBC yesterday morning when I got on the internet. In the past 24 hours they changed the headline, though...
Abdulraman was an unfortunate casualty but ultimately just one kid. I find that preferable to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But that's just me.
Of course, the war on terror is b&~##$&# anyway, just comparing evils.
Abdulrahman, of course, was ultimately just one kid out of the hundreds that have been killed with drones, just one kid out of the even more hundreds of civilians killed with drones, and just one kid out of the millions that US foreign policy has killed in the Middle East.
I'm not really sure why it's necessary to separate him from all of the other casualties of racist American imperialism.
]I'm wrong because you couldn't find something?...Interesting...Concerning Abdulrahman, you are 100% wrong because no evidence has been made public and he certainly never declared himself as a member of AQ publicly. Actually, no government person claimed he was a terrorist. Apparently, he was just a 16-year old boy who was unlucky to be the son of a person of interest. That's what I said above.
As for Kahn, i cannot say you're wrong, only that I found no evidence. Do you have any?
More internet searches:
According to ABC News as of the day they killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the gov't never presented any evidence against him.
I have no idea who this Empty Wheel blogger is, but:
Government Finally Releases Narrative of Anwar al-Awlaki’s Role in UndieBombing Plot
which isn't quite the same as evidence
Why Has the Government Story about Who Ordered the UndieBomber to Attack the US Changed?
and, jumping a year
They Knew the Evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki Was Weak When They Killed Him
]I'm wrong because you couldn't find something?...Interesting...Concerning Abdulrahman, you are 100% wrong because no evidence has been made public and he certainly never declared himself as a member of AQ publicly. Actually, no government person claimed he was a terrorist. Apparently, he was just a 16-year old boy who was unlucky to be the son of a person of interest. That's what I said above.
As for Kahn, i cannot say you're wrong, only that I found no evidence. Do you have any?
More internet searches:
According to ABC News as of the day they killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the gov't never presented any evidence against him.
I have no idea who this Empty Wheel blogger is, but:
Government Finally Releases Narrative of Anwar al-Awlaki’s Role in UndieBombing Plot
which isn't quite the same as evidence
Why Has the Government Story about Who Ordered the UndieBomber to Attack the US Changed?
and, jumping a year
They Knew the Evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki Was Weak When They Killed Him
none of this is making him sound innocent, however.
wrote:
I, of course, am a revolutionary internationalist to the core, but I thought these comments by Jeremy Scahill above were worth considering:"So, I mean, I really think that Congress needs to step it up and ask how these Americans were killed. But I also think that, on both a moral level and, my understanding, also on a legal level, it really is irrelevant whether they’re Americans or not Americans. Why I think it’s important to focus on these cases is because how a society will treat its own citizens is a good indicator of how it’s going to treat noncitizens around the world. And if the basic standards of due process are not being afforded to American citizens, then they certainly are not going to be afforded to non-American citizens. So I see this as a very high-stakes issue that we’re facing right now, and we have a Congress that largely is failing to ask the right questions."
Also, I would like to point out that the question isn't really about killing those engaged in terrorism. It's about killing those the Obama administration accuses of being engaged in terrorism. Like the victims of "signature strikes" where all militarily-aged men are considered terrorists, and when they're killed, they're counted as terrorists. Like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had an irresponsible father, who the government has never presented any evidence against except for youtube videos of him preaching against the West. Etc., etc.
As for the secrets that all world powers must keep and Obama's transparent administration,...
Sorry Anklebiter, this is a rather weak statement. If there was no evidence in this case, this would be a lot stronger. But there was real evidence here, on almost every terrorist kill claimed. That said, the loss of civilian life is stomach churning, and makes me wonder whether or not we are making enemies just as readily as we are killing them.
I don't believe I ever claimed that he was "innocent"--he was quite obviously an al-Qaeda propagandist.
What I did claim--and what I took it you were objecting to--was that the US government never presented any evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki before they killed him. It doesn't look like they've presented much since after they killed him, either.
wrote:
I, of course, am a revolutionary internationalist to the core, but I thought these comments by Jeremy Scahill above were worth considering:"So, I mean, I really think that Congress needs to step it up and ask how these Americans were killed. But I also think that, on both a moral level and, my understanding, also on a legal level, it really is irrelevant whether they’re Americans or not Americans. Why I think it’s important to focus on these cases is because how a society will treat its own citizens is a good indicator of how it’s going to treat noncitizens around the world. And if the basic standards of due process are not being afforded to American citizens, then they certainly are not going to be afforded to non-American citizens. So I see this as a very high-stakes issue that we’re facing right now, and we have a Congress that largely is failing to ask the right questions."
Also, I would like to point out that the question isn't really about killing those engaged in terrorism. It's about killing those the Obama administration accuses of being engaged in terrorism. Like the victims of "signature strikes" where all militarily-aged men are considered terrorists, and when they're killed, they're counted as terrorists. Like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had an irresponsible father, who the government has never presented any evidence against except for youtube videos of him preaching against the West. Etc., etc.
As for the secrets that all world powers must keep and Obama's transparent administration,...
Sorry Anklebiter, this is a rather weak statement. If there was no evidence in this case, this would be a lot stronger. But there was real evidence here, on almost every terrorist kill claimed. That said, the loss of civilian life is stomach churning, and makes me wonder whether or not we are making enemies just as readily as we are killing them.I don't believe I ever claimed that he was "innocent"--he was quite obviously...
it sucks but it looks like we are just going to disagree here. The us is currently at war with this organization, and is he is a willing, conscious part of it, then he is going to be attacked and maybe killed when he is discovered by us forces.
We're at war with them, except, apparently, when they are doing our bidding in Libya and Syria.
We're at war with them, except, apparently, when they are doing our bidding in Libya and Syria.
hm. Disturbing and interesting thought.
Yeah, "doing our bidding" might be strong. I have a well-known tendency towards hyperbole.
However, re: Syria.
We now know that the CIA was directing weapons traffic through Turkey from Qatar and Saudi Arabia since, IIRC, Jan 2012. Even though we only copped to it in the last couple of months.
In December 2012, the US finally added that al-Qaeda-connected Syrian organization (al-Nusra?) to their terrorist list, after THEY SENT THEM WEAPONS FOR A WHOLE YEAR!!! That business out of the way, they then recognized the Syrian Rebel Blahblahblah as the legitimate government of Syria--even though most int'l sources claimed that al-Nusra WAS 75% OF THE SYRIAN REBEL BLAHBLAHBLAH!!!
I suspect one of the main reasons we haven't intervened more directly in Syria is due to a good chunk of rest of the world looking in amazement at the imperialist rape of Libya, and protesting like hell that it won't happen again.
(Done from memory--make me go look up sources, I dare you!)
In the months before the Benghazi killings, security at the embassy was reduced. Do not try to blame "Republicans" for this grave error. There always seems to be money around for the things that are most wanted. This is as true for government as it is for individuals. An addict may spend money on drugs before he buys a coat or food. The State Department could have transferred money from other parts of its budget in order to maintain the security of this american embassy. Or, if it was felt that security was impossible to be maintained, the embassy could have been withdrawn altogether. I would like to make one final point before I leave this "off-topic discussion", To Comrade, Scott, Black Moria, Krensky et al: I highly doubt that we will ever be able to convince each other of the rightness of our differing opinions, but thank God we live in a country in which we are still able to express them. Far too many places in the world do not have this right, and their residents instead are persecuted, jailed, or killed because they express politically incorrect ideas.
I haven't been following the Benghazi scandal closely, Citizen Kauffman, but I was under the impression that security around the consulate-CIA annex, had been reduced due to the secrecy requirements of running an illegal operation shipping Qaddafi's guns to al-Qaeda-connected freedom fighters in Syria at the same time that the Obama administration was claiming we weren't doing that.
In the months before the Benghazi killings, security at the embassy was reduced. Do not try to blame "Republicans" for this grave error. There always seems to be money around for the things that are most wanted. This is as true for government as it is for individuals. An addict may spend money on drugs before he buys a coat or food. The State Department could have transferred money from other parts of its budget in order to maintain the security of this american embassy. Or, if it was felt that security was impossible to be maintained, the embassy could have been withdrawn altogether. I would like to make one final point before I leave this "off-topic discussion", To Comrade, Scott, Black Moria, Krensky et al: I highly doubt that we will ever be able to convince each other of the rightness of our differing opinions, but thank God we live in a country in which we are still able to express them. Far too many places in the world do not have this right, and their residents instead are persecuted, jailed, or killed because they express politically incorrect ideas.I haven't been following the Benghazi scandal closely, Citizen Kauffman, but I was under the impression that security around the consulate-CIA annex, had been reduced due to the secrecy requirements of running an illegal operation shipping Qaddafi's guns to al-Qaeda-connected freedom fighters in Syria at the same time that the Obama administration was claiming we weren't doing that.
that sounds silly.
none of this is making him sound innocent, however.]I'm wrong because you couldn't find something?...Interesting...Concerning Abdulrahman, you are 100% wrong because no evidence has been made public and he certainly never declared himself as a member of AQ publicly. Actually, no government person claimed he was a terrorist. Apparently, he was just a 16-year old boy who was unlucky to be the son of a person of interest. That's what I said above.
As for Kahn, i cannot say you're wrong, only that I found no evidence. Do you have any?
More internet searches:
According to ABC News as of the day they killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the gov't never presented any evidence against him.
I have no idea who this Empty Wheel blogger is, but:
Government Finally Releases Narrative of Anwar al-Awlaki’s Role in UndieBombing Plot
which isn't quite the same as evidence
Why Has the Government Story about Who Ordered the UndieBomber to Attack the US Changed?
and, jumping a year
They Knew the Evidence against Anwar al-Awlaki Was Weak When They Killed Him
I'm not talking about Anwar, I'm talking about his 16 year son, who was murdered by a remote-control robot in another strike.
that sounds silly.In the months before the Benghazi killings, security at the embassy was reduced. Do not try to blame "Republicans" for this grave error. There always seems to be money around for the things that are most wanted. This is as true for government as it is for individuals. An addict may spend money on drugs before he buys a coat or food. The State Department could have transferred money from other parts of its budget in order to maintain the security of this american embassy. Or, if it was felt that security was impossible to be maintained, the embassy could have been withdrawn altogether. I would like to make one final point before I leave this "off-topic discussion", To Comrade, Scott, Black Moria, Krensky et al: I highly doubt that we will ever be able to convince each other of the rightness of our differing opinions, but thank God we live in a country in which we are still able to express them. Far too many places in the world do not have this right, and their residents instead are persecuted, jailed, or killed because they express politically incorrect ideas.I haven't been following the Benghazi scandal closely, Citizen Kauffman, but I was under the impression that security around the consulate-CIA annex, had been reduced due to the secrecy requirements of running an illegal operation shipping Qaddafi's guns to al-Qaeda-connected freedom fighters in Syria at the same time that the Obama administration was claiming we weren't doing that.
I admit, though, I haven't been following it closely.
I'm not talking about Anwar, I'm talking about his 16 year son, who was murdered by a remote-control robot in another strike.
Yes, I know. I was piggy-backing on your post to revive an exchange earlier in the thread.
Five hours after the attack on the consulate there was another attack on the CIA annex in another part of the city where two americans working as mercenaries for the CIA were killed repulsing the attack.
I was curious about this and went hunting. According to wikipedia the CIA annex and the consulate were a mere 1.2 miles apart.
Five hours after the attack on the consulate there was another attack on the CIA annex in another part of the city where two americans working as mercenaries for the CIA were killed repulsing the attack.I was curious about this and went hunting. According to wikipedia the CIA annex and the consulate were a mere 1.2 miles apart.
1.2 miles is annother part of the city.
Then the time line I read was misleading. Or wrong, I don't recall specifically what it said.
It was pretty clear that the attack on the consulate was over within two hours and that the attack on the annex happened several hours later.
Yes, I believe it said 5 hours later.
All D&D dorks appreciate maps.
Report: NSA collecting phone records of Verizon customersAre you suggesting that is repugnant (which it is), or that it is a scandal (which it isn't -- or at least it wasn't for all the years Bush did it).
NEW YORK TIMES: The Obama Administration 'Has Now Lost All Credibility'
Can I call it a scandal now?
Whatever Happened to the CIA? Dirty Wars and the Cinema of Self-Indulgence by DOUGLAS VALENTINE
Which has got a lot of interesting stuff and an attack on Jeremy Scahill's new movie.
One of my comrade's is reading his book and we got to talking about Anwar al-Awlaki and I was like "Yeah, he was an al-Qaeda propagandist, but I still don't see how exercising your free speech on behalf of a terrorist organization is justification for a drone strike" and he was like, "Yeah, well, from reading this book I don't even know if he was an AQ propagandist, Scahill seems to be claiming that he was an independent radical Muslim cleric."
But unfortunately, he had left the book at his workplace. I'll have to get it out of the library.
Report: NSA collecting phone records of Verizon customersAre you suggesting that is repugnant (which it is), or that it is a scandal (which it isn't -- or at least it wasn't for all the years Bush did it).NEW YORK TIMES: The Obama Administration 'Has Now Lost All Credibility'
Can I call it a scandal now?
nope.
Whatever Happened to the CIA? Dirty Wars and the Cinema of Self-Indulgence by DOUGLAS VALENTINE
Which has got a lot of interesting stuff and an attack on Jeremy Scahill's new movie.
One of my comrade's is reading his book and we got to talking about Anwar al-Awlaki and I was like "Yeah, he was an al-Qaeda propagandist, but I still don't see how exercising your free speech on behalf of a terrorist organization is justification for a drone strike" and he was like, "Yeah, well, from reading this book I don't even know if he was an AQ propagandist, Scahill seems to be claiming that he was an independent radical Muslim cleric."
But unfortunately, he had left the book at his workplace. I'll have to get it out of the library.
I think the aid and comfort towards an enemy organization or force thing curtails his first amendment rights in this case. I could be wrong though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I call it a scandal now?
You can call it whatever you want.
For all the cowards who nodded their bobbleheads when the Patriot Act was passed, I call it hypocrisy.
Well, it is probably wicked apparent by now that I don't get my news from the regular sources, but this article seems to suggest that, with the exception of a couple of Senators who weren't in office until recently, the Republicans have mostly supported the secret order to seize phone records (complete with a gag order on Verizon--where's the transparency?!?), so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is.
Well, it is probably wicked apparent by now that I don't get my news from the regular sources, but this article seems to suggest that, with the exception of a couple of Senators who weren't in office until recently, the Republicans have mostly supported the secret order to seize phone records (complete with a gag order on Verizon--where's the transparency?!?), so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is.
Simple: As you just pointed out, the vast majority of people trying to turn this into a scandal were complicit in authorizing it in the first place. I've had about all the feigned indignation I can stomach.
What feigned indignation? According to the article, except for Rand Paul (who I can't stand, but has, as far as I know, a consistent track record of opposing this kind of stuff) and Dean Heller (have no idea who he is) none of the Repubs are trying to turn this into a scandal.
What feigned indignation? According to the article, except for Rand Paul (who I can't stand, but has, as far as I know, a consistent track record of opposing this kind of stuff) and Dean Heller (have no idea who he is) none of the Repubs are trying to turn this into a scandal.
I'm confused. You say its a scandal, then you link an article that says it isn't (except in the mind of some newly-elected Republicans)? If it is a scandal, who exactly is making it one? Is it a spontaneous scandal?
What are you trying to say?
I linked the article to demonstrate that an Obama apologist can't weasel out of this one by pointing at the Republicans and saying "They did it, too!" because, apparently, the Republicans already know that and aren't making much of a fuss about it.
Who's trying to make it a scandal? Apparently, Glenn Greenwald, the two Repubs listed above and the usual suspects among the radical liberals.
Personally, I think it's scandalous, or repugnant, or whatever, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I don't watch television, and I rarely read the mainstream newspapers, so I have no idea whether it's a scandal like, say, the Tiger Woods scandal, or the Lindsay Lohan scandal. Usually, when the New York Times is editorializing that a presidency has lost all of its credibility, that's indicative of a scandal. They swallow a lot of shiznit over at the NYT. Maybe that's not indicative of anything these days.
But, like I said, I don't watch television or read the papers unless the word "Revolutionary," "Socialist" or "Worker" is in the title.