Why did the Washington Post write this story without getting the opinion (on or off the record) of a single member of Congress? Why don’t we know what the Intelligence Committee chairs (Sen. Diane Feinstein and Rep. Silvestre Reyes) think about it? Can’t they do better than getting a single spokesperson from the Justice Department to go on the record? Couldn’t they get a reaction for a single Republican office holder?
I think it’s crap reporting. I’m glad to know that the administration is trying to expand the breadth of electronic communications they can obtain without a warrant, but I’d like to know what Congress thinks about it. I know that the ACLU and other civil liberties groups are going to oppose this, as they should. I’d like to know if I have single ally anywhere on Capitol Hill. And the Washington Post can’t even give me a single reaction from anyone.
As far as I am concerned, the government should not be able to see any of my electronic communications or telephone records unless a judge signs off on it. To change my mind, you’d have to demonstrate to me how these National Security Letters actually work to prevent mass casualty events. I think they are an abuse of my rights, and they entice federal agents to abuse other’s rights. It used to be that there were people on the Right who agreed with me. Where are they now?
It used to be that there were people on the Right who agreed with me. Where are they now?
MIA, of course. The ones on the right that would usually be the most PO’ed(or should be) are the CATO types. As someone said recently, they don’t care about that anymore because that’s not what their funders care about. Theie funders care about turning us into the USA of the 1890’s(or Somalia), so that’s all they talk about.
are you kidding? Dianne feinstein, who supported the FISA Amendments Act of 2008? And who supported immunity for telecom companies that broke the law?
Sylvestre reyes? the guy you described as “not the brightest crayon in the box”, and who wanted to “keep Bush’s directors of National and Central Intelligence in place, and that “he also recommended to Obama’s transition team that some parts of the CIA’s controversial alternative interrogation program should be allowed to continue.”
i think we can already assume what their position is on this.
looks like you’re blaming the messenger.
So, let them defend it. I don’t disagree with you, but what kind of shit reporting in that?
On tuesday you were complaining, “See, this is embarrassing. Someone leaks something to the New York Times and suddenly everyone starts pretending to be commander-in-chief.”
Today you want all the prima donnas to start “pretending to be commander-in-chief.”
So if the congress weighs in, they’re pretending to be commander in chief. if they don’t weigh in, it’s shit reporting.
It’s because it doesn’t matter what Congress thinks. They don’t have a say. The administration (any administration) will do what it wants and not suffer consequences for it.
That’s just how it is now.
On Tuesday, I mistakenly believed that the House had just passed a resolution compelling the president to remove all American troops from the country of Pakistan in reaction to low-level intelligence of questionable veracity that said the ISI is working with the Taliban. How is that even tangentially related to Congress setting intelligence gathering laws and regulations? Because they both deal with intelligence in some way?
I don’t blame Congress for not weighing in; I blame the WP reporter for not calling up the people in Congress responsible for setting policy in this area and asking them if they intend to give the administration what it wants, and if so, why.
How do you know the reporter did not? Perhaps none of the answers were susbtantial, or the reporter never heard back. believe me, that’s common enough.
For that matter, comment may have been edited out for space. That happens all the time too.
I say this as someone who loathes the post. maybe you should email the reporter and find out before accusing her of shoddy reporting.
.
Tin foil hat … I just knew there was a link between this blog and the intelligence community. 😀
Most of the available information on Pond operations during World War II comes from Grombach’s writings many years later, particularly his book, The Great Liquidator, published in 1980. The book recounts the story of Marcel Petiot, a Parisian doctor who was a Pond source–and also a serial killer, who was tried, convicted, and guillotined in 1946. Petiot passed on gossip obtained from his patients and contacts in Paris, who included German Abwehr officers posted in Paris and refugees from the east.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."It is interesting that the biggest source is a Bush DHS lawyer. I’m skeptical, and I see the fingerprints of Poppy Bush’s rolodex. (to mix a metaphor)
Apparently this is not going to be brought up until October just before the election. Think about the politics of this.