Colonel suspended for bad-mouthing Bush

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

SpenceH, just cuz I think Dubya is a moron doesn't mean I think his staff is. The people he has working for him are exceedingly smart. Which is not to say that I believe that there's a conspiracy on the part of the Administration, at least not yet. It remains to be seen what the Administration knew and when they knew it.

If, on the wild chance, they knew something was gonna happen, they may well have trusted in their ability to keep it secret, as the Bush Administration has been doing everything it can to limit any information since the week Bush took office. And they've done a pretty good job of it, defying court orders to turn over documents and the like. Even now they are defying a Congressional subpeona. Which is not to say that they knew something was up.

So what you're infering is that the entire upper level of government are traitors. Are you really so paranoid so as to believe that ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The new guidelines say that FBI agents now have the authority to enter public places and forums (ie internet sites, libraries, etc.) to observe, develop leads and investigate. Religious institutions aren't even mentioned in the change.

I wonder if that's real. I remember during the Reagan administration that the FBI tried to get libraries to keep an eye on what books and magazines Soviets were reading in our libraries. The libraries refused and that was the end of that. Still, it seems as though the Feds were investigating a public place.

I'm thinking this is smoke and mirrors for the real violations of our rights to privacy.

[Roland]

"The problem with a "tacit understanding not to do anything" is how many people will know about it this understanding."

"Any failure has to lie with the coordination between the many many intel orgs"

The second statement can go against the first. In the hierarchies of such agencies, information is passed upwards in the predetermined way (what's english for "Dienstweg"?). In their turf war tradition the agencies or even their subdivisions are barely connected. It takes just one level in the hierarchy to block information. To overcome that you need a whistle blower to bypass the structure.

So "cabinet" in part (I doubt anyone tells anything to their court jester, O'Neill). "national security advisor and senior staff", some "higher ups in the intel world and FBI". The "operatives who collected the original information or those analysed it" - not at all.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So what you're infering is that the entire upper level of government are traitors. Are you really so paranoid so as to believe that ?

No, as I said, there's little or no evidence to support that theory, yet. Maybe there will be, maybe there won't be. It wouldn't be the first time, however, there were traitors in the highest offices. Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan, and others in his Administration come to mind. We're not gonna know unless this is investigated seriously, which means the Republicans not standing in the way of the investigation and the Democrats not using this to try and score points. I don't see much chance of that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm thinking this is smoke and mirrors for the real violations of our rights to privacy.

That was going on before 9/11. Have you forgotten about Carnivore already? However, I don't see how being given the authority to investigate in public places is a violation of privacy.

[Roland]

" So what you're infering is that the entire upper level of government are traitors. Are you really so paranoid so as to believe that ?"

I have to agree with Che - after Nixon/Watergate corrupted the entire upper level of government, after the way Hoover ran "his" FBI, I have to ask: Are you really so naive to give that low to no probability ?

[Ned]

Roland, Rather than speculate on what might have happened, what do you actually believe happened at the highest levels based on the evidence as we know it today. Remember, that two presidents were involved.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It wouldn't be the first time, however, there were traitors in the highest offices. Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan, and others in his Administration come to mind.

Please explain how these men were traitors!

We're not gonna know unless this is investigated seriously, which means the Republicans not standing in the way of the investigation and the Democrats not using this to try and score points. I don't see much chance of that.

I agree with you there. It would be the only way to force the re-organisation of the intel community (and hopefully improve efficiency).

[Roland]

"what do you actually believe happened"

At the moment: A mix of incompetence, complacency and bureaucratic turf wars.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That was going on before 9/11. Have you forgotten about Carnivore already?

Nope. One thing I say in the news was that a tech who was working for the Feds trashed some data because he discovered that Carnivore was bringing in more data than was allowed by the warrant.

However, I don't see how being given the authority to investigate in public places is a violation of privacy.

What I pointed out was, it seems that they already had that authority to begin with. Now with great pomp and aplomb they are saying, Now the FBI will be allowed to investigate criminals,"
as if they weren't doing that already.

What it seems to me they are doing is trying to focus attention on one thing "look over here," which wasn't real, while trying to downplay the taking off the limits on how the FBI deals with internal dissent.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It wouldn't be the first time, however, there were traitors in the highest offices. Nixon, Kissinger ... and others in his Administration come to mind.

Can you explain Nixon and Kissinger? The ususal charge I see from people of of your ideaological ilk is that they are genocidal war criminals.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Roland
" So what you're infering is that the entire upper level of government are traitors. Are you really so paranoid so as to believe that ?"

I have to agree with Che - after Nixon/Watergate corrupted the entire upper level of government, after the way Hoover ran "his" FBI, I have to ask: Are you really so naive to give that low to no probability ?

First Nixon did not corrupt the entire upper level of government. Secondly, Nixons actions in covering up the break-in were perhaps criminal, but they weren't treason. Allowing 3000 americans to be killed by refusing to act is treason, nothing less. I wouldnt even accuse Clinton of that, although allowing the sale of missle technology to the Chinese is heading that way.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Please explain how these men were traitors!

Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris peace talks between Johnson and the Vietnamese (North and South). Part of the reason behind the Watergate burglery was so that the Pres could find out how much the Democrats knew about this (and they did know, see Johnson's private comments).

As for Reagan and his staff, leaving aside the question of the October Surprise, the President and his staff were trading with the enemy of the United States in order to illegally raise money to use in a war that had been outlawed by Congress. I would even include Bush I in that, since it was people who directly reported to him who were in charge of the Nicaraguan end of that deal.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What I pointed out was, it seems that they already had that authority to begin with.

That's interesting. Do you have any evidence that they already had this authority to begin with? It might make for a good news story if I gave it to a paper.

[chequita guevara]

The library scenario I mentioned earlier.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The library scenario I mentioned earlier.

That ended up with them not being able to investigate libraries according to you.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris peace talks between Johnson and the Vietnamese (North and South). Part of the reason behind the Watergate burglery was so that the Pres could find out how much the Democrats knew about this (and they did know, see Johnson's private comments).

So Nixon conspired to send in operatives to the democratic headquarters 4 years after their supposed sabotage of the Paris peace talks? It doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

As for Reagan and his staff, leaving aside the question of the October Surprise, the President and his staff were trading with the enemy of the United States in order to illegally raise money to use in a war that had been outlawed by Congress. I would even include Bush I in that, since it was people who directly reported to him who were in charge of the Nicaraguan end of that deal.

While I disagree with the Iran-contra affair, it hardly rises to the level of treason, nor was it illegal, nor was it ever proven that Reagen or Bush clearly knew about it (which was probably plausible deniability). The fall guy was Casey, and IMO he probably the driving force behind the operation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That ended up with them not being able to investigate libraries according to you.

It wasn't that they weren't able to investigate the libraries, it's that the libraries refused to cooperate. The FBI still tried to do something it supposedly wasn't able to do, which is investigate in a public place. . . . Although, given the Reagan Admins penchanet for disinformation, it might simply have been a planted story to keep Soviet spies out of our libraries.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Although, given the Reagan Admins penchanet for disinformation, it might simply have been a planted story to keep Soviet spies out of our libraries.

This is starting to me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So Nixon conspired to send in operatives to the democratic headquarters 4 years after their supposed sabotage of the Paris peace talks? It doesnt make a lot of sense to me.

Four years after the sabotaged round of the Paris peace talks was a new election. Nixon needed to know if the Democrats were going to come after him with this info.

While I disagree with the Iran-contra affair, it hardly rises to the level of treason, nor was it illegal, nor was it ever proven that Reagen or Bush clearly knew about it (which was probably plausible deniability). The fall guy was Casey, and IMO he probably the driving force behind the operation.

He gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, i.e., Iran. Furthermore, while not defined by the Constitution as treason, he tried to subvert our republic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is starting to me.

Sorry. Basically what I'm saying is, the story that the Feds were asking libraries to do this may not have actually been a true story, but rather a story planted by the FBI to scare Soviet spies, who were alleged to be using our libraries to read technical douments. By creating the impression that the FBI was looking into this, said Soviet spies might then be less likely to use the libraries.

Or it might have been disinfo for American consumption, to get us worried about those dastardly Soviets who are infiltrating our country.

Or the FBI might actually have tried to get the public librarians to keep track of Soviet nationals using our libraries.

If the first two are true, the the FBI may not have actually had the authority it claimed to have then and claims not to have had recently. If the later is true, then the FBI was doing what it says it wasn't allowed to do.

[DinoDoc]

MANILA, Philippines (CNN) -- The confidential documents tell of a chillingly familiar plan: Recruit Islamic extremists; send them to aviation schools in the United States to prepare to hijack commercial planes and crash them into buildings such as the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

In 1995, how much weight would you have given a report such as this considering where it came from?

[SpencerH]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Four years after the sabotaged round of the Paris peace talks was a new election. Nixon needed to know if the Democrats were going to come after him with this info.

Johnson was an embittered broken man, his diaries are proof of nothing. If any evidence that Nixon had deliberately sabotaged the peace talks existed and the democrats had it, why would they wait 4 years to use it?

He gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, i.e., Iran. Furthermore, while not defined by the Constitution as treason, he tried to subvert our republic.

Except that theres no proof that he knew. Since the executive branch has the power to conduct foreign relations it could be argued that congress was trying to subvert the power of the executive by blocking funds.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In 1995, how much weight would you have given a report such as this considering where it came from?

A lot. Yousef was the man behind the first bombing of the WTC. He got caught trying to blow up four cross-Pacific airliners. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the Clinton Admin took the danger seriously enough either, but then, very few us did. I certainly didn't. The Clinton Admin treated the Saudis with kids gloves, when they should have been pressing them hard. The Bush Admin, on the other hand, didn't investigate the Saudis at all. There's plenty of blame to go around.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If any evidence that Nixon had deliberately sabotaged the peace talks existed and the democrats had it, why would they wait 4 years to use it?

Because it would have reflected poorly on Johnson's ability to run the affairs of state, and thus made Humphry look bad. So they sat on it.

Except that theres no proof that he knew. Since the executive branch has the power to conduct foreign relations it could be argued that congress was trying to subvert the power of the executive by blocking funds.

Well, it's true there's no proof that he knew. And he was already losing his brain to Alzheimer's by that point. But I refuse to believe that he didn't know.

Congress holds the purse strings, and it is their prerogative whether or not to fund anything the US government does. The executive can ask for money to be appropriated, but it cannot demand it.