US DoD spying on non-violent domestic political groups

[GhostOfJAS]

I keep hearing big-government neocons telling us that American's rights aren't being violated because eavesdropping on specific phone conversations and reading of specific e-mails only takes place when one or more parties are either international or on a terrorist watch list.

Now we have solid proof this is bunk. The DoD has been caught --once again-- intercepting and reading e-mails between members of domestic, peaceful political groups. And they've also been caught --again-- using spies on the ground to gather information on these groups.

Here's the report earlier this year exposing the existence and mission of TALON and CIFA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek

After many months of fighting the freedom of information act requests from one of the political groups involved, we finally have learned today the DoD was intercepting and reading e-mails between domestic citizens regarding plans for a peaceful, lawful political protest and there is strong circumstantial evidence they were also using spies on the ground to gather information on these groups. Note in the raw reports they consider these actions a "specific threat":
http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=3028
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/3028.pdf

Since the groups in question are no friends of conservatives, I'm sure it's politically expedient to write all this off and spin up some apology for more big brother government intrusion and this obvious disregard for Constitutional rights. To those people I'd say: If "libruls" were to take over government in the next few years and starts spying on NRA or anti-abortion groups and labeling them as "threats" to national security, don't come whining to me.

Vote the power hungry ****ers out.

[yermom]

if your going to make an omelet, you are going to have to break a few eggs

[XingTheRubicon]

how many's a few;)

[Vaevictis]

Didn't you get the memo?

You're not supposed to criticize or question the President. It's unpatriotic, and it hurts the troops.

[Jerk]

I keep hearing big-government neocons telling us that American's rights aren't being violated because eavesdropping on specific phone conversations and reading of specific e-mails only takes place when one or more parties are either international or on a terrorist watch list.

Now we have solid proof this is bunk. The DoD has been caught --once again-- intercepting and reading e-mails between members of domestic, peaceful political groups. And they've also been caught --again-- using spies on the ground to gather information on these groups.

Here's the report earlier this year exposing the existence and mission of TALON and CIFA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965509/site/newsweek

After many months of fighting the freedom of information act requests from one of the political groups involved, we finally have learned today the DoD was intercepting and reading e-mails between domestic citizens regarding plans for a peaceful, lawful political protest and there is strong circumstantial evidence they were also using spies on the ground to gather information on these groups. Note in the raw reports they consider these actions a "specific threat":
http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?record=3028
http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/3028.pdf

Since the groups in question are no friends of conservatives, I'm sure it's politically expedient to write all this off and spin up some apology for more big brother government intrusion and this obvious disregard for Constitutional rights. To those people I'd say: If "libruls" were to take over government in the next few years and starts spying on NRA or anti-abortion groups and labeling them as "threats" to national security, don't come whining to me.

Vote the power hungry ****ers out.

Liberals did it differenltly back in the 1990's. Clinton just had the IRS audit his enemies, which were many conservative groups and organizations. Btw- it's not 'librul' it's 'libtard.' Thank you.

Oh, and speaking about power hungry politicians...how about those on the left that are hoping we lose this war so it will hurt Bush and get dems back in power?

Some of the anti-war organizations, like ANSWER, are communist-front groups and should be looked at.

[Vaevictis]

Oh, and speaking about power hungry politicians...how about those on the left that are hoping we lose this war so it will hurt Bush and get dems back in power?

They're wrong too.

[Jerk]

They're wrong too.


Yes, and they do exist. If you want to go read a bunch of certifiable nuts at Democrat Underground, you'll find them.

Personally, I'd rather j@ck off with a handfull of barbed wire.

[C&CDean]

I just don't wanna hear a single one of you fockturds ever criticize Tuba again for digging through the muck, and posting a bunch of self-serving trivial tripe. Ever. I will bane your *** on the spot.

TIA.

[Widescreen]

Really interesting stuff snipped...
Thanks for that.

[Vaevictis]

Yes, and they do exist. If you want to go read a bunch of certifiable nuts at Democrat Underground, you'll find them.

Nah, I'm just about as likely to go dig up the same kind of people on the right. ;)


Personally, I'd rather j@ck off with a handfull of barbed wire.

That sounds like a personal problem. :)

[GhostOfJAS]

Liberals did it differenltly back in the 1990's. Clinton just had the IRS audit his enemies, which were many conservative groups and organizations.

This bipartisan tactic goes all the way back to Nixon (and maybe before) and has also been done by the current administration (ask All Saint's Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA). It's wrong too, but establishing a secret police for undercover spying on peaceful domestic political groups under the guise of protecting us from terrorism strikes me as so much more sinister, unconstitutional, and facist.


Oh, and speaking about power hungry politicians...how about those on the left that are hoping we lose this war so it will hurt Bush and get dems back in power?

Yes, of corse anyone who dares question the Bush administration's handling of Iraq wants the US to lose for personal political gain. That old horse has been so beaten to death no one buys it any more.


Some of the anti-war organizations, like ANSWER, are communist-front groups and should be looked at.

Ah, the old tired "red menance" argument (who said the 50s are out of style?). So if a few folks at one of the groups has ties to communist ideology it gives the military carte blanche to spy on all similar peaceful domestic groups? I don't think so.

[Widescreen]

It's wrong too, but establishing a secret police for undercover spying on peaceful domestic political groups under the guise of protecting us from terrorism strikes me as so much more sinister, unconstitutional, and facist.
Of course it does. You're a raging leftist.


Yes, of corse anyone who dares question the Bush administration's handling of Iraq wants the US to lose for personal political gain. That old horse has been so beaten to death no one buys it any more.
Yes they do. Because it's true.


Ah, the old tired "red menance" argument (who said the 50s are out of style?). So if a few folks at one of the groups has ties to communist ideology it gives the military carte blanche to spy on all similar peaceful domestic groups? I don't think so.
OK, this is your most ridiculous statement yet. ANSWER is absolutely communist. It's not just "a few folks" - it's who they are. I'm surprised that even you could deny that.

[GhostOfJAS]

I just don't wanna hear a single one of you fockturds ever criticize Tuba again for digging through the muck, and posting a bunch of self-serving trivial tripe. Ever. I will bane your *** on the spot.

Yeah, because posting nut job editorials from Newsmax and WorldNutDaily is SO exactly like news articles on unconstitutional military activities documented by Newsweek and documents directly from the DoD. No response to the substance, just shooting the messenger.

[Jerk]

This bipartisan tactic goes all the way back to Nixon (and maybe before) and has also been done by the current administration (ask All Saint's Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA). It's wrong too, but establishing a secret police for undercover spying on peaceful domestic political groups under the guise of protecting us from terrorism strikes me as so much more sinister, unconstitutional, and facist.



Yes, of corse anyone who dares question the Bush administration's handling of Iraq wants the US to lose for personal political gain. That old horse has been so beaten to death no one buys it any more.



Ah, the old tired "red menance" argument (who said the 50s are out of style?). So if a few folks at one of the groups has ties to communist ideology it gives the military carte blanche to spy on all similar peaceful domestic groups? I don't think so.

I didn't say that the entire left wanted the US to lose, but I implied that there are some, which is a fact.

As for the red menace, any person with a communist ideology is the same kind of human ilk and oxygen waster as a the Nazis were, and don't deserve to live in my book. They advocate a system which has led to the deaths of millions. And yes, they are still around. And I also drink Vodka, not water. It is a documented fact that many of these communist front groups organise the anti-war protests, and also they were instrumental in putting together the pro-illegal immigrant rallies held this May. Tuba probably has the pictures stored; there are many peace signs intermingled with hammer and sickes.

[Vaevictis]

Yes, of corse anyone who dares question the Bush administration's handling of Iraq wants the US to lose for personal political gain.

Truthfully, I've seen some here and there who have come out and said that they want the US to lose specifically so that Bush and the Republicans take a political hit. IMO, that's a pretty crappy attitude.

OTOH, there are also some who equate criticism of the President with hoping that we lose, or some kind of disloyalty, which is also a pretty crappy attitude, IMO.

People have just gotten too damned wrapped up in rooting for their party, and forget that even if we disagree on policy, strategy and tactics, most of us really are on the same team.

(which is not to say I'm not guilty of that from time to time; I am. Doesn't make it any less true though)

[GhostOfJAS]

Of course it does. You're a raging leftist.

Okie dokie, let's get you on the record: Do you think it's okay for the US military to intercept and read e-mails between domestic citizens without warrant and where no illegal activity is suspected? C'mon, own it and tell us why it's okay. I, for one, don't think it is. If that makes me a "raging leftist", then guilty as charged...and I suspect there are A LOT more "raging leftists" out there than you realize.


Yes they do. Because it's true.

Okay, you're on the record for that one too. Any one who dares question Herr Bush hates American and wants the terrists to win! How utterly pathetic.



OK, this is your most ridiculous statement yet. ANSWER is absolutely communist. It's not just "a few folks" - it's who they are. I'm surprised that even you could deny that.

So, let's be clear...since ANSWER is communist, how does it follow the military can spy on SLDN (non-communist) or individual college students not associated with ANSWER setting up a peaceful, legal protest? Talk about missing the point dude.

[jk the sooner fan]

military intelligence took on a new role after 9/11.......its called "force protection"....and if a military nexus can be established (i.e. some type of threat or intelligence of a threat exists, then they can be targeted for intelligence)

i know of a handful of those groups that have targeted military installations in one way or another

the only way you can evaluate intelligence is to gather it first.......

thats all i can say on the matter.......

[C&CDean]

Yeah, because posting nut job editorials from Newsmax and WorldNutDaily is SO exactly like news articles on unconstitutional military activities documented by Newsweek and documents directly from the DoD. No response to the substance, just shooting the messenger.

Strike 1 Tuba Jr.

[jk the sooner fan]

i swear this "ghostofJAS" reminds me of LAS...

[GhostOfJAS]

i know of a handful of those groups that have targeted military installations in one way or another

the only way you can evaluate intelligence is to gather it first

True, and we have a system for that. It's called court-issued warrants. And note that the SLDN (the ones who were spied upon and filed and finally won the FOIA request) have never been associated with any threatening activity, and neither were many of the individual student groups spied on in the cases of the college protests.

[jk the sooner fan]

military intelligence works under the same rules as the NSA

i think its cute that you're suddenly a self made expert on intelligence matters

how much hands on experience do you have?

[GhostOfJAS]

i swear this "ghostofJAS" reminds me of LAS...

Hun, I was around way back on the soonertimes board pre-political-meltdown. Crawfish and Froz were there and remember good ole JustAnotherSooner.

[jk the sooner fan]

please dont call me hun, i know you like men....but really, "dude" is just fine

[C&CDean]

And when he says "hun" you'd better believe it.

[GhostOfJAS]

i think its cute that you're suddenly a self made expert on intelligence matters

You call me cute, I call you hun. And I've got as much experience as the experts on fair use law in the RIAA thread or the experts in global climate dynamics giving their opinions in the global warming thread. Oddly enough, I have actually studied my rights as a US citizen (hmm, imagine that)

So, tell us professor, how is this activity not a naked violation of the 4th amendment?

[OklahomaTuba]

Wow.

So, the government is watching "anarchist" groups (domestic terrorists) trying to start crap with military recruiters???

HOLY SHIAT, CALL OUT THE IMPEACHMENT SQUAD!!!

Use some common sense JASS.

[Vaevictis]

Well, I'm not certain any 4th Amendment Rights are being violated here.

According to the document, there is a "source" that is forwarding these emails to what I presume is some kind of handler; there's no search or seizure going on here as far as I can tell.

[Stanley1]

i swear this "ghostofJAS" reminds me of LAS...

'Cept LAS isn't a self-proclaimed gay.....oh.....wait.....

[OklahomaTuba]

I wonder if JASS thinks the military shouldn't be able to recruit like the halfwits he claims are being "spied" on?

[GhostOfJAS]

Well, I'm not certain any 4th Amendment Rights are being violated here.

According to the document, there is a "source" that is forwarding these emails to what I presume is some kind of handler; there's no search or seizure going on here as far as I can tell.

It didn't say who it was "forwarded" from, it said "received from (redacted)". Leaving it completely ambiguous whether the source was a government agent, acting on behalf of the government, or just a private citizen (other than "reliable source"). Definitely would require further investigation, but it's unlikely we'll ever see what's behind the black marks. In any event, since it was clear no illegal activity was taking place, the information should not have been acted upon, but it's clear the DoD sent monitors to the gatherings and group meetings in response.

[Scott D]

I blame Tuba....for everything....damn ringleader of the those dirty libz

[OklahomaTuba]

My favorite quote in the PDF:


Caution:
THIS TALON REPORT IS NOT FULLY EVAULATED INFORMATION. THE INFORMATION IN THIS TALON REPORT IS NOT TO BE USED IN ANY FINISHED PRODUCT WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF COMMAND HQ. THIS INFORMATION IS BEING PROVIDED ONLY TO ALERT COMMANDERS AND STAFF TO POTENTIAL TERRORIST ACTIVITY OR APPRISE THEM OF OTHER FORCE PROTECTION ISSUES.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/minnesota.jpg

http://mattfitt.com/gallery2/d/22034-2/OnTheMove.jpg

[jk the sooner fan]

since it was clear no illegal activity was taking place


how would we know this unless its been investigated?

if i receive information from a "raw source" of a potential threat to US service members or US military installations, the right exists to investigate that "potential threat" until its either been eliminated as a threat or identified and confirmed as one.

the old saying goes "trust no one and verify everything"

if a group is "probed" and found to not be a threat, everything collected will be redacted to protect the privacy of those involved

i'm not sure where you get your 4th amendment violations from...but whatever

special operating rules have been given to the NSA - its my strong guess that those rules extend (to a degree) to military intelligence

[Vaevictis]

It didn't say who it was "forwarded" from, it said "received from (redacted)". Leaving it completely ambiguous whether the source was a government agent, acting on behalf of the government, or just a private citizen (other than "reliable source").

AFAIK, it doesn't matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment. To my knowledge, government agents are free to covertly join groups in order to gather intelligence, so long as the intelligence they gather is freely given to them.

In this case, my expectation is that somebody joined the group -- which, with this group, I expect is as easy as signing up -- and got on their event mailing list, and forwarded relevant emails on to interested parties in the government.

That's hardly a violation of the 4th Amendment.

OTOH, if the "source" had broken into the server, gone through mailing list archives, and copied them and passed them on, that might be an infringement of Constitutional rights, but I'm just not seeing anything that indicates that that (or something like it) is what happened.



In any event, since it was clear no illegal activity was taking place, the information should not have been acted upon, but it's clear the DoD sent monitors to the gatherings and group meetings in response.

Well, I'm not sure this group deserved the attention it was getting (I'm not sure it didn't either), but sending monitors to public meetings hardly seems nefarious to me. There is no expectation of privacy at a public meeting.

[Okla-homey]

Us NRA types have nothing to fear from our government. We're armed, and we vote.;)

[GhostOfJAS]

Finally, some real discussion without the nut jobs making noise. I can see it might be legally okay for a government agent to sign up for an e-mail list, or to attend meetings, of a group with potentially nefarious intent to monitor. Why, in this case, did DoD think there was a nefarious/terrorist intent even at the first whisper? And why did they see the need to continue to monitor these groups of students at different schools over many months when it was clear this was a coordinated series of peaceful political protests? Wouldn't these resources have been better spent on actual threats when it was clear after the first protest these kids are not terrorists (even if it should have been obviously benign from the start)? Are our military leaders that stupid?

[jk the sooner fan]

Finally, some real discussion without the nut jobs making noise. I can see it might be legally okay for a government agent to sign up for an e-mail list, or to attend meetings, of a group with potentially nefarious intent to monitor. Why, in this case, did DoD think there was a nefarious/terrorist intent even at the first whisper? And why did they see the need to continue to monitor these groups of students at different schools over many months when it was clear this was a coordinated series of peaceful political protests? Wouldn't these resources have been better spent on actual threats when it was clear after the first protest these kids are not terrorists (even if it should have been obviously benign from the start)? Are our military leaders that stupid?

since you obviously dont have ALL the facts.....i'll ask your very own question

are our gay posters really that stupid?

you're making alot of assumptions......neither of us know ALL the facts....perhaps just perhaps, they acted because they felt they had reason too

you dont stop an intelligence gathering mission when the first person you talk to says "yep we're clean and we mean no harm"........you check it out, you verify....its called "thoroughness".......it can save lives

[Vaevictis]

Us NRA types have nothing to fear from our government. We're armed, and we vote.;)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4748/imagedn103041919194zi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Meh?

[Okla-homey]

Finally, some real discussion without the nut jobs making noise. I can see it might be legally okay for a government agent to sign up for an e-mail list, or to attend meetings, of a group with potentially nefarious intent to monitor. Why, in this case, did DoD think there was a nefarious/terrorist intent even at the first whisper? And why did they see the need to continue to monitor these groups of students at different schools over many months when it was clear this was a coordinated series of peaceful political protests? Wouldn't these resources have been better spent on actual threats when it was clear after the first protest these kids are not terrorists (even if it should have been obviously benign from the start)? Are our military leaders that stupid?

Here's why. Historically, youth have a long and storied record of being easily duped by behind the scenes organizers with sinister objectives. Heck, that's how a lot of revolutions have begun. Remember all those "college students" who overran the US Embassy in Tehran in '79? Do you think that caper was their idea? Hitler's "beer hall putsch" was conducted by mostly young people too. I don't know the facts about what specific instances of government monitoring you've cited, and I doubt the reporters do either. That said, sometimes, kids warrant government watching for their own good and the good of civilized society.

[Okla-homey]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4748/imagedn103041919194zi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Meh?

We're legally armed and we're voters. That deluded and pathetic bunch in Waco were neither. The tragedy there were the inocent children who were lost.

[slickdawg]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4748/imagedn103041919194zi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Meh?

And the Bush administration uses extremes?

[GhostOfJAS]

you dont stop an intelligence gathering mission when the first person you talk to says "yep we're clean and we mean no harm"........you check it out, you verify....its called "thoroughness".......it can save lives

Okay, I'll give you that some dense dude in DC may not have been able to Google that SLDN, who was calling for the protests, had never been associated with any threatening activity. Perhaps he thought those 30 or 40 kids were actually a sinister terrorist threat to 'merca between yoga lessons or whatever.

But when they're still doing it months later for the same exact protest e-mail at different universities ...then they're just plain stupid...and it certainly doesn't make it any mystery why the same folks botched WMD and so many other intelligence efforts. Spin away. Sheesh...some people just can't stop living episodes of "24".

[jk the sooner fan]

i spent the last 5 years of my military career working in force protection......so i have just a wee bit of experience to bring to the discussion

[Vaevictis]

Why, in this case, did DoD think there was a nefarious/terrorist intent even at the first whisper?

In at least one of the cases in the document, there were protestors who physically interfered with recruiters attempting to do their job. I think it's reasonable for them to be concerned that such incidents might escalate.


And why did they see the need to continue to monitor these groups of students at different schools over many months when it was clear this was a coordinated series of peaceful political protests?

Same reason as above. Any time someone is willing to physically interfere with someone else (especially *groups* of people), there's the potential for escalation. I'd be worried. Mob mentality is a scary thing. If I were the military, I'd also be concerned that one of my recruiters might lose his or her temper and escalate the situation.

IMO, It's just prudent for them to keep an eye on them, from a military POV.


Wouldn't these resources have been better spent on actual threats when it was clear after the first protest these kids are not terrorists (even if it should have been obviously benign from the start)?

See above.


Are our military leaders that stupid?

See above.

That aside, there are a couple things to remember:
1. It's the politicians that set policy in a broad sense; it's the military's job to implement it. If the military (in a broad sense) is doing something, it can usually be traced back to some policy directive from the White House or Congress. If the politicians really had a problem with this, it would stop, or would never have started in the first place.
2. It's the military's job to be paranoid. If someone looks at them funny, they need to explore the possibility that that person is going to be trouble later. In the military, people get killed when people get lax.

[GhostOfJAS]

And the Bush administration uses extremes?

Exactly my point. Suppose the next president comes along is a raving liberal. He thinks anyone with a gun is a terrorist threat and needs to be monitored "for their own good and for the good of a civilized society" (as someone said back in, I think it was 1984). So he asks citizens to spy and join the NRA e-mail lists and forward information for the database. And maybe sends and undercover ATF agent to your next NRA meeting so he can report on your protest of the imminent vote to repeal the 2nd amendment. After all, Koresh loved guns and he killed some agents so ALL these groups need to be investigated. Of course a few protests come and go with no major incidents threatening to America, but that doesn't stop the efforts. All of this, of course, taken away from efforts to monitor Al Qaeda and actual threats.

Again, don't come bitching to me.

[jk the sooner fan]

i doubt anybody will run wanting to bitch to you

listen to your liberal friend Vaevictus.....he's actually making sense

[GhostOfJAS]

In at least one of the cases in the document, there were protestors who physically interfered with recruiters attempting to do their job. I think it's reasonable for them to be concerned that such incidents might escalate.

So, now the military infrastructure needs to be used to gather intelligence for civilian policing? That's THE definition of a police state. Perhaps after the first information was gathered it should have been made SOP to ask for campus/local police protection at recruitment events and then just drop it? Instead of tying up resources with a body joining these student groups at meetings to spy on them? For one, I think the military intelligence infrastructure should be used for actual TERRORIST THREATS, you know people who want to blow up buildings, and not on a potential standoff with a few dozen kids at a student union. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion though.



That aside, there are a couple things to remember:
1. It's the politicians that set policy in a broad sense; it's the military's job to implement it. If the military (in a broad sense) is doing something, it can usually be traced back to some policy directive from the White House or Congress. If the politicians really had a problem with this, it would stop, or would never have started in the first place.

This level of domestic monitoring is just coming to light, and we know Leahy and Specter are on the record as asking for some accounting of what was going on.


2. It's the military's job to be paranoid. If someone looks at them funny, they need to explore the possibility that that person is going to be trouble later. In the military, people get killed when people get lax.

Vigilance is fine. Paranoia is a psychosis. Use a little intelligence (in the vernacular) when the guy looks at you funny. If he has a live bomb strapped to his waist and the trigger in his hand you might want to have a different response than if he's a 90 year old frail man and barely awake.

[Hatfield]

widescreen keep me out of your non humorous pseudo sophomoric attempts at humor/attempted point making.

tia

[jk the sooner fan]

ghost - the military can get involved in intelligence gathering and criminal investigation where there is a military nexus....the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply.....if they can establish a connection, they can operate

[usmc-sooner]

damn and I thought he was only sexually confused.

and Vae makes some really good points

[NormanPride]

I think the US is just getting used to this whole "where are the bad guys?" thing. If we keep putting the pressure on them to keep our liberties and at the same time do their job just as effectively, I bet they'll develop better SOPs to handle new threats.

But that's the optimistic side of me talking.

[Vaevictis]

We're legally armed and we're voters. That deluded and pathetic bunch in Waco were neither. The tragedy there were the inocent children who were lost.

Well, my point is that being armed really doesn't make much of a difference. These days, if the government can find you, they can bring enough force to bear that whether you're armed or not matters very little.

[GhostOfJAS]

ghost - the military can get involved in intelligence gathering and criminal investigation where there is a military nexus....the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply.....if they can establish a connection, they can operate

In John Yoo's opinion, which is under legal attack for obvious reasons. What is the oversight to establish a military nexus exists, anyway? "We say so?" Legal arguments aside, why isn't this something that couldn't be handled by local police? Why do domestic terror intelligence agents need to be tied up in things like this especially after it's been clearly established this movement is nonviolent and not associated with terrorist activities?

[jk the sooner fan]

not a day of military training and somebody has all the answers and how to do it "better"

[GhostOfJAS]

not a day of military training and somebody has all the answers and how to do it "better"

Yes, because the neo-cons in charge the last 5 years have done such an AWESOME job of intelligence gathering and analysis, and it's so clear after months these college students are a huge threat to national security that personnel need to be tied up spying on them.

Hey, dude, lighten up. This is a BBS and we're here to hash these things out, and it certainly hasn't stopped a lot of people with no HS education from spouting pseudoscience on countless global warming and evolution threads.

[jk the sooner fan]

because the local police dont give a rats *** about the neighboring military installation.....they've got their own resource/money issues, they've got their own jurisdiction to worry about

there is PLENTY of oversight in the military.......trust me......the nutroll i used to have to go thru to get an authorization for a consentual wire was overkill

the military will never rely on some local entity to protect the assets that defend america

the military is ALL about Combat Readiness........if our troops and equipment cant fight or deploy to fight, then they're of no use......you want your military to put that in the hands of the country sheriff?

no thanks

[GhostOfJAS]

because the local police dont give a rats *** about the neighboring military installation.....they've got their own resource/money issues, they've got their own jurisdiction to worry about

there is PLENTY of oversight in the military.......trust me......the nutroll i used to have to go thru to get an authorization for a consentual wire was overkill

the military will never rely on some local entity to protect the assets that defend america

the military is ALL about Combat Readiness........if our troops and equipment cant fight or deploy to fight, then they're of no use......you want your military to put that in the hands of the country sheriff?

no thanks

Dude, this is 30 or 40 kids at freakin COLLEGE STUDENT UNIONS. I have a sneaking suspicion Al Qaeda isn't going to win if campus police have to bring a few people in on OT to make sure nothing gets out of hand...as opposed to military personnel being used to spend months spying.

Sheesh.

[jk the sooner fan]

if only AQ was the only group targeting US interests.........if........only

me thinks you're not as read into all the intelligence that you think you are...my best guess is that there's a mountain of information not de-classified and not in the papers.....again, i realize its a BBS and everyone has their own opinion

but yours is formed on total ignorance

[Vaevictis]

So, now the military infrastructure needs to be used to gather intelligence for civilian policing?

The thing is, in the specific case I cited above, the military had a direct potential threat on its hands. There were groups of civilians physically interfering with a recruiter doing his/her job. The potential to escalate was there; the military was simply monitoring it.

It's the military's job to monitor threats to its own, and develop contingency plans for them. They're not going to cede that responsibility to anyone else, nor should they have to.


For one, I think the military intelligence infrastructure should be used for actual TERRORIST THREATS, you know people who want to blow up buildings, and not on a potential standoff with a few dozen kids at a student union. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion though.

What you're not getting is that the military's job is not to monitor for just terrorist threats. In fact, according to our own laws as I understand it, it's not even the military's job to monitor for terrorist threats. The military's job, as I understand it, is (among other things) to monitor for threats to its people, facilities and equipment, to prepare for those threats, and to respond to them if called to.

Like I said, there were groups of people physically interfering with military personel's lawful behavior. That's going to be taken as a potential threat, and I find it perfectly reasonable that it is.



This level of domestic monitoring is just coming to light, and we know Leahy and Specter are on the record as asking for some accounting of what was going on.

And that is as it should be. You obviously can't let any branch of the government run amok without oversight of some kind.

As far as I see it, the question isn't whether or not the behavior was legal -- AFAIK, it was -- the question is, is it something we want the military to be doing? Like I said, that's a policy decision that needs to be addressed by the White House and by Congress.

(FWIW, I personally think it's reasonable. As I've said before, when you have groups of people physically interfering with lawful military activities, it should be regarded as a threat and responded to as such.)




Vigilance is fine. Paranoia is a psychosis.

Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.


Use a little intelligence (in the vernacular) when the guy looks at you funny. If he has a live bomb strapped to his waist and the trigger in his hand you might want to have a different response than if he's a 90 year old frail man and barely awake.

Well, they did use a little intelligence. They had personell being physically interfered with by an organized group. They investigated the organized group in order to ensure that if the group planned to escalate things, they would know about it.

If the group had been running around with bombs strapped to their waists, you can be sure that the response would have been more severe than mere monitoring of what amounted to public communications.

[GhostOfJAS]

Like I said, there were groups of people physically interfering with military personel's lawful behavior. That's going to be taken as a potential threat, and I find it perfectly reasonable that it is.

That's where I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think it was perfectly clear, especially after the first few events, that there was no physical threat to any military personnel, data or equipment. Surrounding a table to prevent recruitment is not equivalent to a physical threat, to me. There's no evidence either side ever made any threat to any of those things where these protests did occur...and the fact the military persisted in infiltrative spying suggests to me unhealthy paranoia and lack of focus, at best. They do show some concern over an incident where a counter-protestor did engage in a shouting match with the protestors, but that's certainly a civilian police matter.




As far as I see it, the question isn't whether or not the behavior was legal -- AFAIK, it was -- the question is, is it something we want the military to be doing?

Obviously, I think it's not, and AFAIK, since the info is redacted and we can't tell how they intercepted e-mail text, we just can't know if the information was gathered legally.

[Widescreen]

widescreen keep me out of your non humorous pseudo sophomoric attempts at humor/attempted point making.

tia
Gotcha.




Come on, it was a little humorous...

[Vaevictis]

That's where I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.


Surrounding a table to prevent recruitment is not equivalent to a physical threat, to me.

Well, you've either got nerves of steel, or a total lack of empathy. I'd feel threatened if I were those recruiters; you've got a crowd of people physically interfering with your work, and in order to do your work, you have to clear them out.

Like I said, mob mentality is a scary thing. You get groups of people shouting slogans and stupid sh*t can happen; it can only take one person to call for blood for the mob menality to take a nasty turn.

On top of that, when you get military people around groups of people shouting slogans, you have the potential that the military people will misinterpret what the crowd is doing as a physical threat, and respond to it with physical force.

All in all, IMO, it's a threat, both from the point of view that it might escalate and endanger military personel and from the point of view that it might escalate and endanger the civilians. But, if you still can't see where I'm coming from on this, then yeah, l'll just say "agree to disagree."


Obviously, I think it's not, and AFAIK, since the info is redacted and we can't tell how they intercepted e-mail text, we just can't know if the information was gathered legally.

Well, let's be fair: People in intel aren't going to release information on their sources if they can help it. It makes their job harder, if not impossible.

[JohnnyMack]

posting a bunch of self-serving trivial tripe. Ever. I will bane your *** on the spot.

Umm, hey Cleetus, if we don't post self-serving trivial tripe this place will get boring around here real quick.

[GhostOfJAS]

I'd respond Vaev but that "other" thread kinda sapped my energy for the night and I think you know where I'm coming from anyway. Thanks for a enlightening discussion though. :)

[Scott D]

http://sargman.freehomepage.com/images/fishing2.gif

[usmc-sooner]

so JAS if groups of people showed up and interfered with a gay person's work you wouldn't have a problem with that?

yeah right

[Jerk]

Exactly my point. Suppose the next president comes along is a raving liberal. He thinks anyone with a gun is a terrorist threat and needs to be monitored "for their own good and for the good of a civilized society" (as someone said back in, I think it was 1984). So he asks citizens to spy and join the NRA e-mail lists and forward information for the database. And maybe sends and undercover ATF agent to your next NRA meeting so he can report on your protest of the imminent vote to repeal the 2nd amendment. After all, Koresh loved guns and he killed some agents so ALL these groups need to be investigated. Of course a few protests come and go with no major incidents threatening to America, but that doesn't stop the efforts. All of this, of course, taken away from efforts to monitor Al Qaeda and actual threats.

Again, don't come bitching to me.

Reading this made me go load my guns and do function checks.


I kid!!! I kid!!!! I'm a peaceful guy!

[Sooner in Tampa]

so JAS if groups of people showed up and interfered with a gay person's work you wouldn't have a problem with that?

yeah rightIt would give JAS/LAS :eek: (eerily similar) something else to biotch about. He is most certainly...at least...an LAS wannabe. Same cut and past whinning, left wing, gayloving, complain about EVERY single decison the government makes.
I just love the way he can throw out these little tidbits of information and come up with quick fixes. Dude...spend some time in law enforcement or the Intelligence Community AND then get back to us. Some of actually have/do work and breath in these areas and we know just a TAD bit more than you THINK you know or could probably ever know
You remind of those FREAKS that post on Democratic Underground...why don't you just trot over there, they will welcome your kind with open arms...literally. Because that is what your entire agenda is...just to complain about the government and stir up trouble on our board.

Don't let the door hit you in ***.

[OklahomaTuba]

Dude, this is 30 or 40 kids at freakin COLLEGE STUDENT UNIONS.
Yeah, thats all it is.

Peace loving non-violent masked red-loving college students.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/11/smoke_4-11-06.jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/11/circlea_4-11-06.jpg


Four military recruiters hastily fled a job fair Tuesday morning at UC Santa Cruz after a raucous crowd of student protesters blocked an entrance to the building where the Army and National Guard had set up information tables.

Members of Students Against War, who organized the counter-recruiting protest, loudly chanted "Don't come back. Don't come back" as the recruiters left the hilltop campus, escorted by several university police officers.

"The situation had degraded to the point where there was a possibility of injury to either a student or law enforcement officer. We certainly didn't want that to happen,'' said Capt. Will Griffin, one of the Army recruiters.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/12/BAG3KI7INT1.DTL

With such fine and upstanding people as these, why even worry about AQ?

[jk the sooner fan]

a TON of information was provided to JAS, by people with actual experience in this field, and by somebody from his own side being level headed in thought.....and he still refused to listen. i'm of the opinion that there was no rational argument or piece of information you could offer him, he was dead set on being how/who he was on this issue

[OklahomaTuba]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/05/15/armed_forces_career_center.jpg

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/minnesota.jpg

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/minnesota002.jpg

[OklahomaTuba]

i'm of the opinion that there was no rational argument or piece of information you could offer him, he was dead set on being how/who he was on this issue

Well, glad to know he values our military so much.

[Hatfield]

Gotcha.




Come on, it was a little humorous...


ok maybe just a little.

[crawfish]

Hun, I was around way back on the soonertimes board pre-political-meltdown. Crawfish and Froz were there and remember good ole JustAnotherSooner.

I swear, it was purely platonic. :D

I'd blocked out most of those days, but I remember now.