# "Report reveals number of secret FBI subpoenas"



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If its people making calls ect to middle east and other known Al quaida ect harboring countries its fine with me.

Hopefully there will be somone that can review the list of people and determine that without passing it on the the whole country.

Some stuff needs to be secret.

The secret program is already seriously compromised and when we get the next terroist hit in the US the same folks that are supposedly worried about our rights will be demanding to know why the govt didn't catch it in time.

Seems to me our govt can't win if we expect them to fight the terrorists with rules that the terroists are not following.

If you and I are playing basket ball and the rules only aplly to you I will win.

How many more innocent American people will have to die because of our inability to look at things realistically instead of idealistically??


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I don't mind these things if they are truly done for security reasons. Problem is to many times things are abused,lets not forget Watergate.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Seems like this is a common but quite good debate between the "police state" folks and the "John Birch" types.

To what extent is the Necessary Evil necessary? We've talked before about how much we all want to be seen as rugged individualists, yet rely so heavily on the gov for out daily existence. This topic is a good case in point. If we do not like the secret supoenas, (did I spell that right?) are we as citizens willing to make up for this reduction in intelligence with our own vigilance?
In my town of 2200, almost nobody is willing to practice vigilance. Last summer I was working on a roof, watched a drug deal go down, called the cops from my cell phone, and to the police, that was a real unusual occurence!

I'm certainly not advocating for warrantless wiretaps, secret supoenas, or anything of the type, but the question stands, will the citizenry take up the slack if we force a reduction in law enforcement/ intelligence?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree there are concerns but I question the motives of some, not all, of the people asking the questions.

I bet theres a lot of stuff we never know about that goes on in the real world of espionage. You just can't limit yourself to rules the other side doesn't abide by even though your argument that our standards are good is a excellent argument.

Even though I'm pretty hard on govt officials and have much skepticism. I hope they do the right thing on this issue.

I'm not saying your wrong just saying it a real grey area because of the stakes of the situation. I don't want our economy destroyed and our people killed by those SOB radical islamists, and thats their goal make no mistake about it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

T3

I understand your concern and share it, however like Bob I want the terrorists stopped before we see more people killed. It is one of those catch 22 situations isn't it.

You bet I remember watergate, and Bill and Hillary having, what was it 3000, FBI reports on their political enemies. I think that is what scares us, you don't trust Bush, and I don't trust the Clintons. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is don't trust any of them. Come to think of it that's about how I feel.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

You bet I remember watergate, and Bill and Hillary having, what was it 3000, FBI reports on their political enemies. I think that is what scares us, you don't trust Bush, and I don't trust the Clintons.

I couldn't agree with you more, I worry about abuse and the innocent people no matter which party is in charge.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Reasons for the files play a big part too. One for politcal gain by the Democrats or the other for the security of this nation and it's people.
Seems to me much less fuss was created over politcal gain by the Democrats than the other for the security of this nation and it's people.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you knew what the actual story was then you would understand that they only have been looking at people that are conversing with Arab and other terroist supporting nations not the general public. That point has been verified by opposing party Senators on the secret commitee and is the reason it has pretty much became a non-issue politically.

There is oversight, its just not open to the public for obvious reasons.

T3 XXXXX asked



> How can one even believe that statement when you are one for the espionage of American citizens?


Because I am not naive enough to think there are not Islamic Jihadist sympathizeing American citizens that would be happy to help our enemy. Just like there were Soviet spies in our midst during the cold war.

The people that did 9-11 were here for years and if this program was running then maybe 3000 innocent Americans would still be alive. I want the next bunch caught before they do their mayhem.

I also recognize Religious fanaticism is not limited to the middle east.

Our world has changed forever, we can't afford to pay by pre 9-11 rules.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Are you really MT? :roll:



> From where you stand, it appears that just calling the middle east is a crime, the outcome of which is to be decided by their (NSA) analyzation of the information sent.


If I want something to "APPEAR" a certain way I will say it plain and directly you wont have to surmise.

Quit your distortions show me where I said calling the middle east is a crime and none of the non-suspicious calls were followed up on. But so far all terrorists 100% of them that attacked us were middle eastern so profiling them is common sense.

If mexicans start blowing up buildings, I will advocate listening to them also its not specific to some race it just simple common sense.



> And since I assume you work for the NSA, can you describe to us these "obvious reasons?" I believe dictators have no oversight for "obvious reasons."


Once again you distort what both the facts and what I said

There IS OVERSIGHT a panel of handpicked senators from both parties.
Obviously to anyone looking at the objectively secrecy is necessary.

Are you middle eastern or of middle eastern descent???



> ...or to Islam...


Islam is a religion of violence that if it was sincere about being a "religion of peace" it would of cleaned its own house by now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Islam is a religion of violence that if it was sincere about being a "religion of peace" it would of cleaned its own house by now.


Bingo

MT said they were afraid to talk because of reprisal. They don't all live in countries like that. How about the ones in the United States. Surely they could condemn terrorism. It would be nice if they gave us some indication that they valued this nation and freedom as we do. Is that to much to ask?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'll answer your questions in order

1) yes, I support profiling of middle easterners both in airports and on the phone to countries supporting or known to be inhabitied by large numbers of terroists

2) We should run every illegal meixcan out of this country and permanently deny any chance of citizenship to them if they are found here after thirty days of the date warning to leave. Furthermore if any recent legal immigrant is involved in a felony the should have their citizenship revoked and be deported.

The DEA does listen in by the way the difference is that the so called "war on drugs" is such a political hot potato that politicians on both sides of the aisle don't dare challenge such survellience. And courts readily give permission. They are not comparable apples to apples issues anyway.

We could feed them and give them transportation to the border at no charge. I would be OK with that.

3)our system does not allow for dictators so I'm not going to play that nonsense with you, its stupid.

4)Are your insecure or what???? how would me asking you if you're middle eastern be interpreted as a threat????????
I was simply trying to get some insight into where you're coming from idealogically.

5) what the heck does that fact that Islam is a violent religion have to do with religious fanatics elsewhere???? There is absolutely no relationship between the two.

Why are so many people in this county incapable of simple linear logic :eyeroll:

Big Daddy please come back I want to talk to a liberal with a brain :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 5) what the heck does that fact that Islam is a violent religion have to do with religious fanatics elsewhere???? There is absolutely no relationship between the two.


I think it is a prelude to an attack on Christians. I could be wrong. Do you remember every time we would talk about violent Muslims MT would say; how about Christians. How about the Crusades? Then we would have to say of course there has been, and now are some violent Christians. Does that make Islam any less violent, or does it justify their behavior? Then we would have to say that Christians didn't start the Crusade, Muslims killed all the Christians at the time they burned the Church of the Holy Sepalcur, and Christians gathered to protect Europe from invasion. The Muslims were stopped in Spain.

So I too ask what is the point of the religious fanatics other places? We all know that, are we not talking about a particular religion here?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nice try MT, goodbye.


----------

