« Andrew, Puh-leeese! | Main | Halt, or I'll Scream Like a Thirteen Year Old Girl »

June 24, 2006

Comments

MissBirdlegs in AL

LOL!! I think it's way past time that these folks were brought up on charges of treason, but if I find out anything about their personal lives, I'll send it on. The public has a right to know :)

WW

If you have any information on any of these guys that you think any terrorists might like to know, send it to me. Home addresses, bank accounts, preferred travel routes and vehicles, license plate numbers, daily schedules, security precautions at their home or work, codes for getting into the NYT's building or perhaps badge descriptions....anything at all.

You can be sure that this poster will report your threat to the FBI. Nice move, genius.

Publius

But WW, I thought this administration (which includes, of course, the Justice Department of which the FBI is a part), was only interested in "death and torture?" How odd that you would suddenly turn to them for help in your pathetic attempt to stop another American from excercising his right to free speech.

Publius

Diggs

"You can be sure that this poster will report your threat to the FBI."
Geez, I hope so. Will you really do the honor? When they call, we can all have a good laugh.

Diggs

Oh, by the way, there's an FBI rep at the embassy in the IZ. Here is the contact info:

Embassy of the United States
APO AE 09316
Baghdad, Iraq
Embassy business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Sunday through Thursday.
Consular Section
Location: C-135, the Chancery
Telephone: 00-1-240-553-0584 Ext. 5340 or 5635
Iraqna cell phones: 07901-732-134, 07901-168-167, 07901-168-383
Email: usconsulbaghdad@state.gov

Publius

"Hello, FBI? Hi, this is WW. I was engaging in an argument of this blog today, and this guy asked people to send in personal information about these New York Times reporters, editors and publishers."

"No, he didn't make any threats, or anything, but, uh, isn't that, you know, illegal or something?

"It's not?" "Are you sure?" "I mean the guy is really conservative and stuff."

"Well, he COULD do something bad with the information, I guess."

"No, he's actually not in New York, or even the Northeast US."

Well, I think he's in Iraq right now."

"Hello?" "Hello?"

Dick Cheney's Cancerous Prostate

Congratulations, 4 Mile Fascist -- smart money says you and your loved ones are likely to get a whole lotta unwanted attention thanks to your petty, proto-Julius-Streicher post.

Hey, if you're fine with hating the press for outing illegal mass spying on Americans, you should be pretty understanding about others doing a little spying on you.

Publius

Smart money? I seriously doubt if that's the kind that's in your pocket. And Dude, reading an internet blog doesn't qualify as "spying."

Publius

meh

Apparently you believe that monitoring bank accounts and telephone calls which are illegal, should not be reported. You dont believe in the rule of law, instead believe that there should be no end to the amount of executive power the government has. The rule of law is universal and if someone publicizes the governements secret breaks of the law, then more power too them. If they want to this kind of stuff, pass some laws and make it legal. Then whistleblowing wont be needed.

tblubrd

meh
It is legal, bozo. What rock have you been living under? Secret doesn't mean illegal. It means we have a leg up on their operations. Or at least we used to.
BTW spineless, diggs is not the only one who is less safe because of the NYT treason. So are you. And me. I'll give diggs all the info I can. Since I don't expect you will.

Schroeder

I think that threatening to disseminate someone's intimate personal info to terrorists IS life-threatening.
Pretty dumb on your part, anyway. People will take these threats seriously and come after you . . . and they should. I would if I were one of the journalists you are threatening.

Don't you fascists have any game outside of fear-mongering and threatening the life of people you disagree with? It appears that you do not. For your sake, I suggest that you quit with the neanderthal tactics and go back to wacking off to pictures of Ann Coulter before you get in too deep and find yourself in a jail cell being some inmate's bitch.

And thanks for bringing American political discourse to a new low! You should try arguing a point on substance . . . then we might actually get somewhere as a country.

No Blood for Hubris

I thought active duty soldiers weren't allowed to express political opinions.

Jeff Barea

It simply surprises me every once in a while how little "self-proclaimed" liberals understand about the first amendment. Or about government in general. Everything they hate is "illegal" because someone told them somewhere that some universal human right was violated.

They sound like drunk College Greens being rousted by the campus police for peeing in public. "Hey officer, that's illegal for you to sneak up on me, the Constitution says you're supposed to announce yourself from at least 100 feet away."

Um, in case someone forgot, President Bush has - based on the evidence publicly available - followed the laws Congress has passed. All the relevant laws provide special exemptions and secrecy rules. In fact, Congress has passed resolutions specifically authorizing the President to do whatever he thinks is necessary to combat terrorism. Very open ended and expansive by design.

Fraid of that? Blame Congress, then. The Executive Branch is just doing what it was authorized to do by Hillary Clinton herself.

RE: Schroeder's comment, "thanks for bringing American political discourse to a new low! You should try arguing a point on substance..." Are you the least bit cognitive that you wrote that right after suggesting he jack off?

For the rest of the comments about legal vs illegal, It is NOT illegal for the government to monitor bank records. They do it already for money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, etc. reasons. Why do you think $9,999.00 is such a freaking magic number? It is NOT illegal.

Publius

What we have here, my friends, is the Leftist on a brightly lit stage, displayed in all his glory. Diggs has merely to suggest that people who know personal information about the NYT's reporters, editor and publisher send it to him. His point was, just as the NYT felt no compunction about disseminating private and classified information that could easily endanger him and his fellow soldiers, turnabout should be fair play. Instantly, the liberal whining and gnashing of teeth commenced. How dare anyone suggest that there might be serious repurcussions in the REAL WORLD for one's actions. If American soldiers get kllled due to a NYT story, well, too bad, but they're just a bunch of hillbilly fascist redneck baby-killers anyway. They don't really count because in the liberal universe, if you're not one of them, you are subhuman. But turn it around and suggest that a NYT reporter might pay some price for his actions and, well, that's different because he's one of US!! When the NYT publishes a story like they did, it is not just part of an academic disussion, it can actually lead to death and destruction. It's not just another in an endless pokes in the eye to the Bush administration, it will actually cause some financial arm of Al Queda to change they way they operate. And that change can easily mean that rather than terrorists being denied funding, the funding comes through for bombings such as those you see in Bahgdad, and those you saw in London, Madrid, and yes, New York City. So it's not just a matter of life and death for Diggs, it's a matter of life and death for us ALL.

And, by the way, WW, Schroeder, Meh, et al., do you think Diggs actually has a friend in Al Queda that he can call up and talk to about the personal info of the editor of the NYT? Are you that stupid? DO you ever actually think for yourselves, rather than just instinctively reacting like a knee tapped by a doctor's hammer?

Finally, please understand this. The classified program the NYT outed is LEGAL. Don't believe me? Go back and read the story carefully. Do they say it is illegal? Do they cite a single case in which a single court has found it illegal? Do they quote a single legal expert who will say it is illegal (and no, it doesn't count when they say things like, it "causes concerns for legal experts," or when they quote an ACLU lawyer who says he is "troubled."). Now, think for a minute, if it was illegal, don't you think they would have written that? Would they have possibly left that out of the story unless they had no choice?

You people are beyond parody.

Publius

Diggs

"I thought active duty soldiers weren't allowed to express political opinions."
You'd like that, I'll bet. Sorry, but I'm an American citizen too.
Moron.

Diggs

"People will take these threats seriously and come after you . . . and they should. I would if I were one of the journalists you are threatening."
Schroeder, you do realize you are making my exact point, don't you? I take threats to my family's safety seriously. I'm coming after the reporters and their bosses, who are threatening my family's safety.
Moron.
Is every single Lefty who reads my blog incapable of making a serious effort at debate without contradicting him/herself by the second (in this case, third) sentence?

tblubird

Diggs,
To answer your last question -

Is every single Lefty who reads my blog incapable of making a serious effort at debate without contradicting him/herself by the second (in this case, third) sentence?

Yes. They are completely incapable. They're morons.

And by the way, the letter from Geller is worth reading. It shows how completely surrounded he is with his own arrogance. I thought Paul at Wizbang has the best summary.

Dear Reader:
1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

Ironside

Odd. With all the devestating logic of the last eight entries, the only one that managed to rattle the cage of the foaming-at-the-mouth BDS- sufferers was this one. Diggs, you're on to something, wonder what it is? Just classic displacement.

wolverine06

As for your legal argument it is illegal. It is called the Fourth Amendment and FISA. I suggest you bucketheads read this article thoroughly to understand. The Constitution is written on a fifth grade reading level. Stop listening to talking points and do your own research. There is no inherent authority as claimed by this administration. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress original powers "To make all Laws...for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution...in any Department or Officer thereof." This includes the whole executive department.

The statute governing domestic wiretaps for foreign intelligence is FISA. The President has went around FISA and continues to go around FISA. This is breaking the law of the land. Duh.

Senator Specter has admitted himself that it is illegal in his letter to Vice President Cheney. In writing his letter he also asserts this illusion of executive inherent power.

If you think you are helping protect us from Al-Qaeda, think again. Russ Feingold, who is a True Patriot, has demonstrated that administration has all but ignored other nations, including Afghanistan and Samolai, where Al-Qaeda is getting stronger.

wolverine06

Stop listening to talking points and read the Goddamn Constitution. Read what James Madison a true "America-hater" and "liberal" said when he wrote the Constitution. He is screaming from his grave DAT’s and Grunts. "Wake up!" You are the last in the world to do so.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~James Madison

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. ~James Madison

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. ~James Madison

wolverine06

Isn't this what the "War on terror truly represents." A continual state of war. Check the odds, how lucky do you think you will be before you make twenty?

wolverine06

BTW, I think it is only fair to notify you that others have noticed your call for information.

I am doing this out of courtesy, because like you, I am an O4 and I am following our creed of honesty.

Diggs

Wow, that's a big posting on little ol' me.
Unfortunately, he's got quite a few of the details wrong, as Lefties often do.
I sure hope the New York legislature takes up my case. And I'm being compared to Vice President Burr by the Lefties! This is pretty cool.

Diggs

Once again, I'm being taught the Constitution of the United States by someone who has never sworn to defend it, never given a class on it to foreigners, and doesn't understand the powers granted under it. Thanks for the lesson Wolverine.

wolverine06

Like I have said over and over again and your own answer proves my point, most rightwing nuts do not read and comprehend. You said,
"Once again, I'm being taught the Constitution of the United States by someone who has never sworn to defend it, never given a class on it to foreigners, and doesn't understand the powers granted under it. Thanks for the lesson Wolverine."

Whereas I obviously stated above, before your lame comment, that I too have taken an oath to defend this US Constitution. It is you who does not understand where the vested power of this country lies.

I am doing this out of courtesy, because like you, I am an O4 and I am following our creed of honesty.

Do you not get it? You have called for the targeting of two American citizens by terrorists. President Bush has stated this makes you a terrorist.

"Those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States..."

You made a voluntary obligation to 5 USC 3331, the oath of office. In doing so, you do not have a right to target American citizens, or citizens of any other country for that matter, no matter what their viewpoint is. In doing so, you advocate violations of the Geneva Convention and the laws of war.

The comments to this entry are closed.