1 posted on
05/15/2006 8:33:13 AM PDT by
jmc1969
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: jmc1969
Messers Ross and Esposito sound a little paranoid to me. Leakers and irresponsible reporters are just as much a threat to our national security as those islamo-freaks. I have no sympathy for any of them.
40 posted on
05/15/2006 8:51:12 AM PDT by
Darlin'
("You said would I apologize for that?" Bush told him. "The answer is absolutely not.")
To: jmc1969
41 posted on
05/15/2006 8:52:17 AM PDT by
mewzilla
(Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
To: jmc1969
45 posted on
05/15/2006 8:54:28 AM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: jmc1969
I'm not ok with this. What if a dem wins next? I WANT whistleblowers calling the news networks on that administration. And so will you. Have a little foresight.
52 posted on
05/15/2006 8:56:59 AM PDT by
mysterio
To: jmc1969
"A senior federal law enforcement official tells us the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources."
Surely the L/MSM will turn this around to make it look like the government is targeting the free press. And lots on the Hill and elsewhere will scream to the high heavens how unjust this administration is.
But perhaps the Intel Agencies and the L/MSM now realize leaks will be investigated. The freepress has a duty. And it obviously in so many cases has overstepped it's boundaries in issues of national defense.
At the same time I can see where it is a very competitive business. And the press would not get news if Intel/military did not leak stuff.
Who leaked, say to ABC, the news regarding CIA predator operations. Should they not also be investigated. This all is a two way street.
Quite complicated in many respects.
53 posted on
05/15/2006 8:58:26 AM PDT by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: jmc1969
I am sooooo far from being a computer maven but.....
With DIGITAL technology, the suspected phone numbers logs can be transcribed with a few clicks.
I'm glad the government has the means to track down treasonous b*stards....as long as it purely used in the War on Terror and not by just any police agency.
59 posted on
05/15/2006 8:59:43 AM PDT by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: jmc1969
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
I think their source is a cell-phone salesman. :)
69 posted on
05/15/2006 9:04:44 AM PDT by
P-40
To: jmc1969
Wow. So they are listening to me talking to Grandma. Gosh, I wonder if they are enjoying the weather talk, the aches and pains talks, the family gossip. Wow I am so nervous...lol.
To: jmc1969
Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're CallingWHOM dammit!
81 posted on
05/15/2006 9:11:38 AM PDT by
Mad Dawg
(If you find yourself in a fair fight, you did not prepare properly.)
To: jmc1969
Memo to ABC NEWS....Just because you are paranoid DOES NOT mean the feds aren't out to git ya'!! Write when you get your assigned cell number.
119 posted on
05/15/2006 10:16:42 AM PDT by
geezerwheezer
(get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
To: jmc1969
Gee, I guess they're really going to have to change future scripts for future police TV shows such as Law and Order where they constantly get the record of numbers dialed by a suspect from the phone company. Without a warrant.
To: jmc1969
157 posted on
05/15/2006 11:41:05 AM PDT by
finnman69
(cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
To: jmc1969
182 posted on
05/15/2006 12:42:43 PM PDT by
ADemocratNoMore
(Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
To: jmc1969
Hello, Everyone:
I'm chiming in here very late and haven't read the entire line of traffic, so apologies if I'm stepping on someone else's earlier observation . . .
Why should we take this post from Brian Ross at ABC News seriously? It's entirely possible that someone in the Fed is pulling his chain just for fun or to make Mr. Ross think that he is more important than he really is. Why aren't we hearing about these kind of mysterious warnings to other crack media investigative reporters at CBS, NBC, the New York Times, in other words the usual gang of suspects? Come on, now. If I was a nervous Fed with inside information, why would I try to protect only Brian Ross?
192 posted on
05/15/2006 5:02:31 PM PDT by
drsbb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson