Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Safire: J. Edgar Mueller
The New York Times ^ | 6/3/02 | William Safire

Posted on 06/03/2002 7:06:33 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
Comments?
1 posted on 06/03/2002 7:06:33 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
Memo to Safire:

We're at WAR!

2 posted on 06/03/2002 7:16:40 AM PDT by bigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
Comments? Duh ... Safire.
3 posted on 06/03/2002 7:18:39 AM PDT by Quicksilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdog
Yeah, and the war is AGAINST THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!
4 posted on 06/03/2002 7:41:27 AM PDT by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Area51
Safire has been too long in love with Norma Loquendi.
5 posted on 06/03/2002 8:09:39 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber; philman_36; rdavis84; Betty Jo; boston_liberty; thinden
They had the power to collect the intelligence, but lacked the intellect to analyze the data the agencies collected.

Safire gets it.

6 posted on 06/03/2002 8:20:16 AM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdog
We're at WAR!

You know you're right. I feel much better now about having some unknown, under-educated bureaucrat in Washington rifling through my email and other personal effects (without my knowledge) whenever he/she/it gets a hair up thier ass. The fun will begin when (not if, when) we get another Klintonseque administration.

Ashcroft is a lying, anti-constitutional freak when he says this only allows agents to "surf the internet" or "attend public events". Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that lie is an idiot.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess he interprets "secure" to mean some nimrod geek agent looking at the naked scans of your wife with their cute little techno-toys.

I'll be happy when this phoney freak chokes on a chicken bone and dies.

7 posted on 06/03/2002 8:28:33 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Area51
Please, exactly, what is unconstitutional about these new guidelines?
8 posted on 06/03/2002 8:39:29 AM PDT by bigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you!
9 posted on 06/03/2002 8:42:35 AM PDT by bigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
I'm not sure I "get" exactly what Safire is complaining about...my understanding is that the things they can now look at are in the public domain anyway - am I wrong?
10 posted on 06/03/2002 8:50:35 AM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdog
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you!

LOL.

Good one old timer.

However, read the Patriot Act and these new guidelines. They basically can look at whatever they want whenever they want. They're now calling email messages "public domain". I suppose it's "public domain" just because they say so.

Maybe it doesn't bother you, but my finances and electronic communications are none of their f***ing business unless I violate someone else's right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Until then they should be chasing illegal 20 something Islmamists who are here illegally and be happy they're getting a paycheck for deriliction of duty.

Now that this crew has shown itself to be in complete contempt of the 1st and 4th amendments, I wonder which of the remaining amendments they'll decide to paint with whiteout.

11 posted on 06/03/2002 8:57:40 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Maybe it doesn't bother you, but my finances and electronic communications are none of their f***ing business....

Some suggestions:

1. Firewall

2. Encription

3. Removable drives (CDRW)

Sounds to me like you should be more concerned about the run of the mill hacker than the FBI.

Stay safe.

BD

12 posted on 06/03/2002 9:09:42 AM PDT by bigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
William Safire is dead-nuts accurate.

The FBI does not need more power -- power that will eventually be misused by the likes of Hillary Clinton, should she get into office. The FBI needs better analysis of the information they did have. Also, The FBI needs to talk more to the CIA and local and state law enforcement.

13 posted on 06/03/2002 9:13:03 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
AAA...

Most of these partisans would be howling at the top of their lungs had Clinton even tried this.

14 posted on 06/03/2002 9:13:51 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Thus we see the seizure of new powers of surveillance is a smokescreen to hide failure to use the old power.

That's what he is complaining about. It's how the government takes over the life of a free country.

15 posted on 06/03/2002 9:20:35 AM PDT by Francohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Safire gets it.
Does he ever. That statement is a mouthful.
16 posted on 06/03/2002 9:23:54 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigdog
We're at WAR!
No moreso than we were from 1945 to 1991.

One thing's for sure. If "we're at war" is an excuse to expect the American people to lay down like sheep at the feet of anyone in the bureaucracy, the JBTs and JBT-wannabes are certain to maintain a state of "war", real or artificial.

-Eric

17 posted on 06/03/2002 9:33:26 AM PDT by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
The problem here is one of balance of powers and socialist hypocrisy. Take note that we are all now considered sinners deserving of surveillance. However, try for one bit to criticize the FBI to Ashcroft and you will get denial, and do not even count for the freedom of information act to work. So they are sinless, we are sinners. I agree that the FBI must gain powers, but so should we gain powers in of identifying and dealing with abject FBI behaviors as well as getting rid of moles within the FBI.

But, at war, we would think this is ok, to take orders, to give up consumption so that the government can consume us for purposes of preserving the nation from some threat that confines our day to day business. However, consuming a soldier for war does not mean one can use his property as a means of blackmail to force him to do those things, rather the behavior of the soldier towards a mission or with respect to a mission should be observed, and that is it.

However, the problem here is that the threat of confinement against our business is not addressed directly here, the threat that is addressed is a vague and global bunch of people whose profiling is, well, a PC secret of some sort that certainly includes private property but not private experts.

In fact the FBI is not on a treck to balance powers against terror organisations. It is not waging a war on terror. And that is the finer point. The origin of the confinement is not addressed nor sought to be destroyed. Just something to uncover plots. There is a big difference between fishing for plots and going after targets to destroy actively the origins of the terrorist confinement. We do not go after the central nervous system of these threats, we just go after the endings.

18 posted on 06/03/2002 9:38:13 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigdog
We're at WAR!

We're at "Authorization for Use of Military Force"!
We're at "Police Action"!
"WAR!" hasn't been declared.

Even the CFR "gets it". Can't you?
The Aftermath of Terror: Domestic and International Law and U.S. Foreign Policy October 3, 2001
One issue confronting U.S. policymakers is how to define the struggle and implications. At times, the administration has appeared to adopt a classical use-of-force paradigm, rooted in state-to-state relations, governed by the rules of war. At others, it has evoked a kind of police action, more focused on individual responsibility and governed by international criminal law. In fact, the enterprise is a hybrid, with aspects that belong both to the use-of-force (attacking states that harbor terrorism; targeting terrorist infrastructure in foreign countries) and the police-work (investigation and establishment of culpability; rendition/extradition of suspects; national efforts to freeze assets and round up suspects, etc) paradigms.

But no "WAR!".

19 posted on 06/03/2002 9:45:11 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: everyone
Please, exactly, what is unconstitutional about these new guidelines?

Thanks in advance.

BD

20 posted on 06/03/2002 9:51:22 AM PDT by bigdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson