Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:03:31 -0600
From: Chris <r0ck@...ramail.com>
To: "Paul Schmehl" <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>,
	"full-disclosure" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Schmehl" <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>
> To: "full-disclosure" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 -0600
> 
> 
> --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris <r0ck@...ramail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside  several U.S. telecom carriers.  You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
> 
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right?  You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?

The pictures were good enough.

> > Yes, the NSA might target non-citizens, however, without oversight, who
> > is to know?  Don't mention FISA judges either. They have become a rubber
> > stamp for wiretap requests with an approval rate of well over 99.99%.
> >
> 
> Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those
> federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal
> rights.

What do you say to the 99.99% approval rate?  Are the FBI and other enforcement agencies just that good or is there a rubber stamp at work here?
 
> When you forget that the people who work in government are just like you,
> trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to
> depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil
> turds.  Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain.

What an idealistic view.  How quant.  I suppose you believe in truth, justice, and the American way as well.  This is 2009.  Wake up, Paul.  The government is about one thing -- staying in existence.  Given your stance on other topics, I'm surprised you don't realize this.
 
> > The same applies to the NSLs issued by the FBI.  Not only are targets
> > not permitted to talk about such NSLs, but they can't even acknowledge
> > the existance of such NSLs.
> >
> > And yet, here you are asking for the very proof that cannot be provided.
> >
> 
> That's hilarious.  The surveillance program didn't even survive for four
> years after 9/11 before someone inside the NSA "blew the whistle" on the
> program.  (snip off-topic ranting)

We aren't talking about the NSA.  Try to keep up.  The NSLs are issued by the FBI.

> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.

No question they dropped the ball.  Am only surprised that you didn't expect as much.

(snip more off-topic diversionary BS)

> Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied.
> That should be obvious to any rational person, right?

Nobody mentioned George W Bush.  Oh wait...you did.  Why is that?

> But we'll never know for sure if the "whistleblowers" were motivated by
> something other than altruism, because you're so deeply concerned about
> your personal privacy and freedom that it would never even occur to you to
> question the motives of anyone who agrees with your view of the world.

This isn't about me, Paul.  Despite your attempt to divert the discussion.

> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> between.  

Wow.  How did you pull that fact out of your ass?  Nobody mentioned violating their oaths of office...except you.  more diversionary bullshit.

> > The only question I have for you is...
> >
> > Which government agency is paying your mortgage?
> 
> The same one that is proposing to pay for your healthcare and control
> every other aspect of your life because you're too blind to see the forest
> for the trees.  

I, along with my employer, pay for my health care.  That's another thing you're wrong about.


-- 
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists