The Art of Ignoring the 800lb Gorilla

Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, Really...because had you read the article carefully, you would have noted this:

Inside the U.S., the N.S.A. is legally prohibited from deliberately retaining the e-mails of U.S. citizens who are in contact with non U.S. citizens unless a special FISA warrant has been issued. However, there are exceptions, some of them still classified, to this rule.......Legally, the NSA can retain and disseminate information about someone who isn't an approved target if it "amounts to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence."



In other words, NSA surveillance of a known hostile/hostile sympathizer revealed communication with an American citizen. There was NO indication that they picked up Hasan on a RANDOM search of American citizens, which would have been a direct violation of FISA.
Click to expand...

Well except they did.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, Really...because had you read the article carefully, you would have noted this:

Inside the U.S., the N.S.A. is legally prohibited from deliberately retaining the e-mails of U.S. citizens who are in contact with non U.S. citizens unless a special FISA warrant has been issued. However, there are exceptions, some of them still classified, to this rule.......Legally, the NSA can retain and disseminate information about someone who isn't an approved target if it "amounts to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence."



In other words, NSA surveillance of a known hostile/hostile sympathizer revealed communication with an American citizen. There was NO indication that they picked up Hasan on a RANDOM search of American citizens, which would have been a direct violation of FISA.
Click to expand...

Annie said:
Well except they did.
Click to expand...

Prove it beyond your desperate need to believe it so. If you can't, then you'll have to settle for the available FACTS.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Prove it beyond your desperate need to believe it so. If you can't, then you'll have to settle for the available FACTS.
Click to expand...

I believe Rachel Maddow manages to come to the same conclusion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/rachel-maddow-takes-on-pe_n_353706.html

Rachel Maddow Takes On Pete Hoekstra's 'Epic Grandstanding'

First Posted: 11-11-09 10:35 AM * Updated: 11-11-09 12:25 PM


On last night's edition of the Rachel Maddow Show, the host dug into the curious case of Representative Pete Hoekstra, who's been courting cameras lately in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, telling tales out of school. Chief among them are his account of the email habits of alleged Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan to a Yemen-based "radical cleric." Maddow asks the obvious question:

MADDOW: Why is it Pete Hoekstra who's taking it upon himself to tell the press that this radical cleric is having his email read by U.S. intelligence agencies? The FBI had not said publicly that this cleric had been emailing Hasan. The CIA, the NSA, the White House... nobody else had reported this cleric was e-mailing Hasan. This is just Pete Hoekstra letting us know -- and letting the radical cleric that is under surveillance know -- that he's under surveillance....
Click to expand...
As noted, the intelligence agencies aren't talking.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Prove it beyond your desperate need to believe it so. If you can't, then you'll have to settle for the available FACTS.
Click to expand...

Annie said:
I believe Rachel Maddow manages to come to the same conclusion:

Rachel Maddow Takes On Pete Hoekstra's 'Epic Grandstanding'

First Posted: 11-11-09 10:35 AM * Updated: 11-11-09 12:25 PM


On last night's edition of the Rachel Maddow Show, the host dug into the curious case of Representative Pete Hoekstra, who's been courting cameras lately in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre, telling tales out of school. Chief among them are his account of the email habits of alleged Fort Hood murderer Nidal Hasan to a Yemen-based "radical cleric." Maddow asks the obvious question:

MADDOW: Why is it Pete Hoekstra who's taking it upon himself to tell the press that this radical cleric is having his email read by U.S. intelligence agencies? The FBI had not said publicly that this cleric had been emailing Hasan. The CIA, the NSA, the White House... nobody else had reported this cleric was e-mailing Hasan. This is just Pete Hoekstra letting us know -- and letting the radical cleric that is under surveillance know -- that he's under surveillance....
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/rachel-maddow-takes-on-pe_n_353706.html


As noted, the intelligence agencies aren't talking.
Click to expand...

Well, when done by the book, intelligence agencies can initiate surveillance of an individual or groups for 72 hours before they have to justify the action before the Senate oversight committee. Note that in the link you give we are talking about a radical muslim cleric mouthing sympathies, etc., to the Al Qaeda and/or Taliban mindset. Hoekstra is NOT saying that Hasan was under surveillance as a result of a random search that violated FISA, as you suggest. Surveillance of suspicious foreign nationals who are communicating with US citizens is not out of the ordinary or automatically illegal. Hoekstra shooting his mouth off on information that was already being reported on the news is one thing...and intelligence agencies are not going to blow their cases unless necessary. Who knows, but the evidence does point to that if all involved had merely touched base and done their jobs, Hasan wouldn't have been in a position to do what he did.

So back to square one, until evidence comes forth to solidify your claim, I'd have to say you're just speculating at best.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well, when done by the book, intelligence agencies can initiate surveillance of an individual or groups for 72 hours before they have to justify the action before the Senate oversight committee. Note that in the link you give we are talking about a radical muslim cleric mouthing sympathies, etc., to the Al Qaeda and/or Taliban mindset. Hoekstra is NOT saying that Hasan was under surveillance as a result of a random search that violated FISA, as you suggest. Surveillance of suspicious foreign nationals who are communicating with US citizens is not out of the ordinary or automatically illegal. Hoekstra shooting his mouth off on information that was already being reported on the news is one thing...and intelligence agencies are not going to blow their cases unless necessary. Who knows, but the evidence does point to that if all involved had merely touched base and done their jobs, Hasan wouldn't have been in a position to do what he did.

So back to square one, until evidence comes forth to solidify your claim, I'd have to say you're just speculating at best.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that would be speculating in all likelihood.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, when done by the book, intelligence agencies can initiate surveillance of an individual or groups for 72 hours before they have to justify the action before the Senate oversight committee. Note that in the link you give we are talking about a radical muslim cleric mouthing sympathies, etc., to the Al Qaeda and/or Taliban mindset. Hoekstra is NOT saying that Hasan was under surveillance as a result of a random search that violated FISA, as you suggest. Surveillance of suspicious foreign nationals who are communicating with US citizens is not out of the ordinary or automatically illegal. Hoekstra shooting his mouth off on information that was already being reported on the news is one thing...and intelligence agencies are not going to blow their cases unless necessary. Who knows, but the evidence does point to that if all involved had merely touched base and done their jobs, Hasan wouldn't have been in a position to do what he did.

So back to square one, until evidence comes forth to solidify your claim, I'd have to say you're just speculating at best.
Click to expand...

Annie said:
Actually, I think that would be speculating in all likelihood.
Click to expand...

Which is still just speculation, when all is said and done, and NOT a matter of fact, as you were alluding to earlier.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Which is still just speculation, when all is said and done, and NOT a matter of fact, as you were alluding to earlier.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to 'allude' to anything. Stated what I'd found, where do you think they would have 'intercepted' anything? :pke:
 
Annie said:
I wasn't trying to 'allude' to anything. Stated what I'd found, where do you think they would have 'intercepted' anything? :pke:
Click to expand...

Sorry Annie, you can't back track and bullshit now...the recorded post is your undoing. You made a declarative statement, and by examining the evidence I proved that you are merely speculating at best...trying to pass your supposition and conjecture off as fact at worst.

If you had paid attention to my responses, you would have noted that the NSA can run surveillance on foreign transmissions to America by "persons of interest" regarding advocates supporting groups like Al Qaeda. Again, since there has been NO evidence that our intelligence agency was surveilling Hasan with no probable cause UNTIL the foreigner under surveillance began receiving e-mails from him, your implying otherwise is pretty much unsubstantiated.

Let's get real, trying to say that under Obama's watch is doing here EXACTLY what the Shrub & company did would hold more water if you had PROOF beyond speculation, as we did with the Shrub & company. Until that type of proof surfaces, you can allude to, insinuate, speculate, accuse all you want. PROVING it is another issue entirely. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry Annie, you can't back track and bullshit now...the recorded post is your undoing. You made a declarative statement, and by examining the evidence I proved that you are merely speculating at best...trying to pass your supposition and conjecture off as fact at worst.

If you had paid attention to my responses, you would have noted that the NSA can run surveillance on foreign transmissions to America by "persons of interest" regarding advocates supporting groups like Al Qaeda. Again, since there has been NO evidence that our intelligence agency was surveilling Hasan with no probable cause UNTIL the foreigner under surveillance began receiving e-mails from him, your implying otherwise is pretty much unsubstantiated.

Let's get real, trying to say that under Obama's watch is doing here EXACTLY what the Shrub & company did would hold more water if you had PROOF beyond speculation, as we did with the Shrub & company. Until that type of proof surfaces, you can allude to, insinuate, speculate, accuse all you want. PROVING it is another issue entirely. Carry on.
Click to expand...

The emails came to light 'last summer'...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/fort-hood-hasan-imam-aulaqi

US army killer talked to extremist imam about cash transfers
Muslim army doctor accused of shooting dead 13 people in Texas exchanged coded emails with radical cleric
Paul Harris in New York
The Observer, Sunday 22 November 2009
larger * smaller
The Muslim army doctor accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at the Fort Hood army base in Texas had discussed secret financial transfers with extremist imam Anwar Al Aulaqi, it has been revealed.

Contacts between Major Nidal Malik Hasan and the cleric have been the focus of speculation over whether Hasan was a lone shooter cracking under pressure, or mounted his attack because he had been "radicalised". The issue has become a political firestorm, with congressional hearings being held into the incident.

Now the Washington Post has revealed that the FBI obtained emails between the two in which Hasan had apparently used coded language to talk about financial transactions. "It became very clear toward the end of those emails he was interested in taking action," a source told the Post.

The new developments pose tough questions as to why Hasan was left in his job, despite numerous red flags over the previous few years that he might have become a threat. The emails seen by the Post were obtained by the FBI in San Diego last summer. Some were sent to Washington's FBI field for a national threat assessment, but they were not forwarded to the military.

Aulaqi, a Yemeni-American cleric, is an open supporter of al-Qaida and his internet sermons are popular with young radicals. After the Fort Hood shootings, Aulaqi praised Hasan's actions and called him a "hero". Hasan survived being shot by police and is awake but paralysed in hospital.
Click to expand...
 
Taichiliberal said:
All you're doing is rehashing information that is already known...and does NOTHING to support or confirm your earlier declarations. My previous assessment stands....you can believe what you will, but the evidence, when properly examined does NOT support your contentions, as I pointed out earlier.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. No matter how loud you shout it.
 
Annie said:
No it doesn't. No matter how loud you shout it.
Click to expand...


Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. No one disputes the connection, but YOU cannot conclusively prove that folks got wise to Hasan because of a search without probable cause by the NSA on Hasan. To date, the information given points to his discovery based on surveillance of shady FOREIGN characters already on intel watch list. Until you have PROOF or INFORMATION otherwise, your contention is nothing more than speculation borderlining faith.

Now you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but you can't refute the logic or the facts. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. No one disputes the connection, but YOU cannot conclusively prove that folks got wise to Hasan because of a search without probable cause by the NSA on Hasan. To date, the information given points to his discovery based on surveillance of shady FOREIGN characters already on intel watch list. Until you have PROOF or INFORMATION otherwise, your contention is nothing more than speculation borderlining faith.

Now you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but you can't refute the logic or the facts. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...

I'd say that you are talking to yourself in the mirror.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. No one disputes the connection, but YOU cannot conclusively prove that folks got wise to Hasan because of a search without probable cause by the NSA on Hasan. To date, the information given points to his discovery based on surveillance of shady FOREIGN characters already on intel watch list. Until you have PROOF or INFORMATION otherwise, your contention is nothing more than speculation borderlining faith.

Now you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but you can't refute the logic or the facts. So unless you've got something new to add, I'd say we're done here.
Click to expand...

Annie said:
I'd say that you are talking to yourself in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought...you've got nothing. You may have the last, repetitive and pointless word. Adios for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top