Speakeasy forum

General discussion

How the media spreads and continues lies

by duckman / April 11, 2006 6:30 AM PDT
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_us/muzzle_awards

"Bush led the list, compiled by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, for authorizing the National Security Agency to tap the phones of U.S. citizens who make calls overseas. The wiretaps were conducted without authorization from a federal court. The White House defended the warrantless wiretapping program as necessary to fight terrorism."

Please note that they left out the part about a terrorist connection is need to prompt the surveillance. Minor detail
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: How the media spreads and continues lies
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: How the media spreads and continues lies
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Of course you meant....
by Josh K / April 11, 2006 6:47 AM PDT

...an alleged terrorist connection.

If the evidence is so convincing, why the big problem with getting a warrant?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) They are GATHERING evidence Josh
by Evie / April 11, 2006 11:45 AM PDT
Collapse -
If you can't get warrantless wiretaps for John Gotti, then
by Ziks511 / April 11, 2006 1:33 PM PDT

why should they get them for a fishing expedition into the telephone activities of any Middle Eastern looking, or sounding, or who has a similar name? Gathering evidence is still supposed to involve due process.

That is precisely what the Revolutionary War was about. Warrantless searches and seizures of suspected contraband in contravention of the Stamp Tax. Warrantless should automatically mean illegal, and it may end up that way if this goes to a half way intelligent Supreme Court.

What is it about the obvious applicability of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, is it that you don't get when applied to a tiny group of foreigners, but which you would otherwise grant to the large number of Mobsters out there.

Rob

Collapse -
Sad how you are so willfully misinformed
by Evie / April 11, 2006 2:41 PM PDT

Think REALLY hard what's different about someone outside the country calling someone in the US that was found in the phone logs for a cell phone in the possession of an al Quaeda terrorist and John Gotti's domestic calls being monitored. Think REALLY, REALLY hard. MAYBE you'll get it. I can still hold out a shred of hope.

Collapse -
Evie, you don't really expect to get an objective, ...
by Jack Ammann / April 11, 2006 3:10 PM PDT

...intelligent, responsive, cohesive reply, do you?

Collapse -
Good, I hope they do
by Josh K / April 11, 2006 11:06 PM PDT

Any reason why they can't gather it with warrants?

And they're still "alleged" collaborators until convicted. It's that little thing called "Innocent till Proven Guilty" that we liberals supposedly can't seem to remember.

Collapse -
Question, Josh...
by J. Vega / April 12, 2006 1:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Good, I hope they do

Question, Josh. In the past we monitored the traffic into and out of the Soviet embassy. Did that monitoring require a warrant?

Collapse -
That was espionage....
by Josh K / April 12, 2006 1:47 AM PDT
In reply to: Question, Josh...

...and I'm sure we're still doing it, as are they. It did not involve suspicion of criminal activity by the people working at the embassies; it was about spying.

Not even remotely the same thing.

Collapse -
So then...
by J. Vega / April 12, 2006 3:36 AM PDT
In reply to: That was espionage....

So does that mean that 9/11 was not the actions of an organization whose actions ware to damage the U.S., but merely a criminal act?
If they inrercepted a telco call from me to sombody in Iran saying that I would hand off information that I had to someone at a particular time and place, would they be free to grab me and examime my briefcase when I showed up at that meeting? Would my handing that information over be espionage, or just a common "criminal act"?

Collapse -
No, it does not mean that
by Josh K / April 12, 2006 3:47 AM PDT
In reply to: So then...

If we'd discovered the 9/11 plot via wiretaps in the Saudi embassy, I'd have no problem with the legality of it.

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be wiretaps. This is only about warrantless wiretaps.

Collapse -
Exactly the same thing ...
by Evie / April 12, 2006 9:04 AM PDT
In reply to: That was espionage....

... these aren't calls to and from Mom in Paris.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Then get warrants
by Josh K / April 12, 2006 11:05 PM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) There is no need for them
by Evie / April 14, 2006 4:17 AM PDT
In reply to: (NT) Then get warrants
Collapse -
Read this
by Evie / April 12, 2006 9:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Good, I hope they do
Collapse -
Wiretaps ?
by Mac McMullen / April 11, 2006 7:55 AM PDT

As the name implies, wires tapped onto other wires on a circuit board, or "bugs" placed in a phone handset. Like we see in movies.

No wiretapping involved. These were electronic intercepts of calls made to or received from suspected or known terrorist phones.

Just like the "Sale" of US Ports, rather than management of a few terminals along one or two piers within the ports.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Still fits legal definition of "wiretapping"
by duckman / April 11, 2006 8:03 AM PDT
In reply to: Wiretaps ?
Collapse -
It remains to be seen whether clear connections are present:
by Ziks511 / April 11, 2006 1:40 PM PDT

in each case. "Please note that they left out the part about a terrorist connection is need[ed] to prompt the surveillance." We won't know if that burden of connection has been met until there's an appeal. Its certainly not how the Administration portrayed it initially, they made no such loud and clear statements. They seemed to be urging a trawl of all possible sources without a warrant, which is a prima facia breach of the Fourth Amendment. Thanks George Mason, and James Madison.

Rob

Collapse -
Misdirection and vague references
by grimgraphix / April 12, 2006 1:51 AM PDT

Your absolutely correct in your assertions DM although I wouldn't characterize it with the word "lies" because it resembles the average Scott McLellan press conference too much.

In other words incomplete and only designed to inflame emotions and sway opinion. Sad

Collapse -
Response
by duckman / April 12, 2006 10:21 AM PDT

If one knowingly leaves out facts in an argument to substantially and intentionally change the argument, that is a lie and that is what the ?news bit? here did.

Collapse -
Like I said
by grimgraphix / April 12, 2006 1:08 PM PDT
In reply to: Response

a Scott McClellan press conference. That's mean of me to say that though since he isn't "knowingly" leaving out facts. He can only repeat what he has been told. Sad

You are correct that the article sited is a bit misleading but thats modern spin now aint it?

Collapse -
one other thing
by grimgraphix / April 12, 2006 1:25 PM PDT
In reply to: Like I said

It is not a completely one sided article... at the bottom of the page the group also condemns students who shouted down ann Coulter.

"Hecklers at the University of Connecticut earned a Muzzle for drowning out Coulter's speech in December. People have a right to express their disagreement with a speaker, the free-expression center said, but preventing fellow audience members from hearing the message is contrary to the First Amendment's spirit."

It's normal for the party in charge to get more heat. Just happens to be the republicans who are in that position now.

Collapse -
Comments like that,
by duckman / April 12, 2006 9:04 PM PDT
In reply to: Like I said

make many of us sure that you did not tell the truth when you said you voted for Bush

Collapse -
And I should care why?
by grimgraphix / April 13, 2006 9:59 AM PDT
In reply to: Comments like that,

One hopefully votes for the best candidate at the time of the election. Kerry turned out to be a pedantic, pompous, panderer more worried about securing the pecking order in the democratic party than the needs of the nation.

Thankfully, because of term limits, if the presidential candidate turns out to be less than ethical in the way they get the job done you just wait 4 years and viola a new election presents itself.

The guy I voted for last election has had a lot of questionable conduct come to light. He certainly does not live up to the conservative platform of the past. Big government, big spending, kowtowing to special interests and mismanaging a war so he can stay true to a vision of a high tech military ideology developed by Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and the rest of the neocon war hawks. Then there is the issue of quoting the constitution when it suits his purpose and forgetting it when it doesn't. I realize he had some unexpected things thrust on him but it doesn't justify the behind the scenes conduct he and his party have pursued.

If you order a pizza and it disappoints... do you keep your mouth shut? Do you hire an employe and give them carte blanche? Do you let the phone company charge you for calls you didn't make? If your this kind of person I've got a car in the back yard to sell you... 2 things I truly believe... I think it incredibly unpatriotic to not hold your president responsible for his mistakes as well as his triumphs... and I think it makes the rest of the world jealous to see american citizens complain about the government without being taken out and shot in the middle of the night.

And Scott McClellan? He has become a bigger flip flopper than Kerry ever was.

If it helps you make more sense of the world I did vote for Nader back in 2000 but then again I voted for Anderson back in 80 as well. Wink

Why didn't you comment about the Coulter item?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Just curious, do you like Chris Matthews' "Hardball"?
by Dragon / April 13, 2006 10:33 AM PDT
In reply to: And I should care why?
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Lou Dobbs is the man!
by grimgraphix / April 13, 2006 4:46 PM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Bleh!
by EdH / April 18, 2006 9:28 PM PDT
Collapse -
comment about the Coulter item?
by duckman / April 13, 2006 11:22 AM PDT
In reply to: And I should care why?

even blind squirrels find nuts

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) LOL
by grimgraphix / April 13, 2006 4:47 PM PDT
Collapse -
Doesn't live up to conservative platform
by Evie / April 14, 2006 4:18 AM PDT
In reply to: And I should care why?

Yeah, THAT'S why you voted for him I'm sure! LOL

Collapse -
He hasn't this past year since re-election
by grimgraphix / April 14, 2006 6:16 AM PDT

By the way, your rebuttal as written makes no sense. "Doesn't live up to conservative platform...Yeah, THAT'S why you voted for him I'm sure!" I didn't imply I voted for him because he was conservative. I voted for him mainly because of the ongoing war and Kerry's failure to present a viable alternative other than "I voted against it after I voted for it". Pandering in its purest form wouldn't you say? As for Bush being a conservative... he's about as conservative as Clinton was faithful to his Hillary.

Anyway, I know what my voting record is so I'm done responding to this particular point.

I find it amusing that is the only fault you could find with my comment.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.