Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Good for the ACLU!

They've finally deigned to investigate on behalf of a conservative website that has challenged the reign of Obama and Bush.

_____

The editors of Antiwar.com have known for some time that the FBI has had an eye on them. Naturally enough, they used the Freedom of Information Act to request bureau’s files on them and their organization—but the FBI hasn’t been forthcoming. Now the ACLU has filed suit to force the bureau to divulge the extent of its snooping on anti-interventionist journalists. As Kelley Vlahos reports:

According to the suit, the ACLU has made several futile attempts to obtain the FBI files since a reader alerted [Antiwar.com editors] Garris and Raimondo to this lengthy FBI memo in 2011. The details in question begin at page 62 of the heavily redacted 94-page document. It’s clear from these documents, the suit alleges, that the FBI has files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommends further monitoring of the website in the form of opening a “preliminary investigation …to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security.”

“On one hand it seemed almost funny that we would be considered a threat to national security, but it’s very scary, because what we are engaging in is free speech, and free speech by ordinary citizens and journalists is now being considered a threat to national security and they don’t have to prove it because the government has the ability to suppress information and not disclose any of their activities – as witnessed with what is going on now at the AP and other things,” said Garris.

“The government’s attitude is they want to know all, but they want the public to know as little as possible.”

by Anonymousreply 3501/11/2015

Link

by Anonymousreply 105/21/2013

Libertarians, idiots, etc.

by Anonymousreply 205/21/2013

Care to explain, R2?

by Anonymousreply 305/21/2013

[italic]"On one hand it seemed almost funny that we would be considered a threat to national security, but it’s very scary, because what we are engaging in is free speech, and free speech by ordinary citizens and journalists is now being considered a threat to national security and they don’t have to prove it because the government has the ability to suppress information and not disclose any of their activities – as witnessed with what is going on now at the AP and other things,” said Garris.[/italic]

That guy can talk a long time without taking a breath.

by Anonymousreply 405/21/2013

OP, while I fully support privacy rights, freedom of speech, and other aspects of the liberty I demand as a US citizen but see eroding in the face of technology and power-creep among government powers, I'm not the kind of idiot who equates the Bush/Cheney stance with those of Mr. Obama.

So fuck you on those principles you seem too tunnel-visioned to appreciate.

by Anonymousreply 505/21/2013

R5-

How is Bush invading Iraq worse than what Obama is doing in Syria, or the belligerence towards Iran?

by Anonymousreply 605/22/2013

r6 Um so what is Obama doing in Syria that is close to the invasion in Iraq that lasted over 8 years with the lost of thousands of lives?

As I recall, Syria is still a civil war and we do not have troops there.

"Belligerence towards Iran?" WTF?

by Anonymousreply 705/22/2013

So sending "aid" to Al Queda in Yemen and Syria is okay, but not okay in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Please make some sense.

by Anonymousreply 805/22/2013

Dear heart, if anyone were actually doing what you are claiming, you might have a point. Since nobody is, you don't.

[quote]Please make some sense.

ROFL.... Talk about projection!

by Anonymousreply 905/23/2013

[quote]They've finally deigned to investigate on behalf of a conservative website

ACLU defends the KKK for fuck's sake. What did you ever get the idea that they were some liberal organization OP?

by Anonymousreply 1005/23/2013

R9 - "Dear heart, if anyone were actually doing what you are claiming, you might have a point"

And that you can make any sense out of R8's gibberish, I salute you sir...

by Anonymousreply 1105/23/2013

ACLU - a decade late, and a trillion dollars short...

by Anonymousreply 1205/23/2013

[quote]Care to explain, [R2]?

Economic Policy Journal = Libertarian Idiot Rag.

by Anonymousreply 1305/23/2013

And the OP is our well-known libertarian/anarchist/conspiracy theorist/gold bug/Ron Paul devotee/anti-Fed loon.

Like a stopped clock, he's only right occasionally and only by accident.

by Anonymousreply 1405/23/2013

JUSTIN RAIMONDO? FORMER DATALOUNGER, FORMER AIDE TO PAT BUCHANAN, GAY QUISLING JUSTIN RAIMONDO?

by Anonymousreply 1505/23/2013

The funny part is that JR is very anti-ACLU, so he'll take their help so he can bash them later.

by Anonymousreply 1605/23/2013

Justin Raimondo used to post here, or else someone posted as him.

by Anonymousreply 1705/23/2013

[quote]ACLU defends the KKK for fuck's sake.

And the Phelps clan. It's that sort of thing that made me quit sending them money.

Although in Fred's case, First Amendment trolling seems to be a business model driven by money settlements from those who get in the way.

by Anonymousreply 1805/23/2013

R16, when has Raimondo bashed the ACLU outside of calling them on their shit record of not defending people against the Patriot Act?

by Anonymousreply 1905/24/2013

[quote]when has Raimondo bashed the ACLU outside of calling them on their shit record of not defending people against the Patriot Act?

I love it when a paranoid loon answers his own question.

by Anonymousreply 2005/24/2013

Ahh, R20- the defender of government, no matter how obscene the crime. The piss yellow troll-dar shows you once again.

Tired of sucking that government dick yet? How much do whores like you get paid?

by Anonymousreply 2105/24/2013

ROFL... Dear heart, it's not like I hide my posts or talk back to myself, as you've done.

And sorry, dear, but I'm afraid I'm not a "defender of the government," nor do I get paid to post here. But hey, do keep on claiming otherwise since it shows you to be the paranoid loon that you are without any intervention on my part.

What's hilarious is that you actually do think that the government would care what you write here. Only in your fevered imagination. It never seems to occur to you that you're nothing more than a source of amusement which is why I continue to egg you on to greater and greater heights.

by Anonymousreply 2205/24/2013

R22 (et al) I only point it out so that no one else takes you seriously.

Your pathetic defense of the government in every case makes you a target for real liberals who don't defend the murder of innocent people.

by Anonymousreply 2305/24/2013

[quote]I only point it out so that no one else takes you seriously.

ROFL.... Whereas, I don't have to do the same thing in reverse, since your own posts handle that quite nicely.

[quote]Your pathetic defense of the government in every case

Alas, then, dear heart, that you still haven't been able to find a single "pathetic defense of the government" post that I've written in any thread, despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

Perhaps someday you'll actually learn to read what I write but I'm not holding my breath.

[quote]makes you a target for real liberals who don't defend the murder of innocent people

Tell you what, dear; as soon as I do that, you let me know. Until then, I'll just point out that this, too, exists only in your fevered imagination.

by Anonymousreply 2405/24/2013

“This is an important moment. You will be funding, today, the allies of al Qaeda.”

That was the declaration Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.; pictured) made on May 21 during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Paul’s comments were directed at his colleagues, nearly all of whom voted to send arms to Syrian rebels.

Senators Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) co-sponsored the bill that authorizes “critical support to the Syrian opposition through provision of military assistance, training, and additional humanitarian support.”

by Anonymousreply 2605/28/2013

Oh, now you're quoting [bold]RAND FUCKING PAUL[/bold] as the voice of Congressional moral authority?

You really are dumber than a box of hammers.

by Anonymousreply 2705/28/2013

Good!

by Anonymousreply 2812/09/2014

v

by Anonymousreply 2912/10/2014

[quote]for Obama to be impeached for arming Al-Quada in Lybia and Syria then I will be happy.

Lybia??

by Anonymousreply 3012/10/2014

R25, it was actually McCain and Miss Graham who pushed for arms to opposition in Syria and military intervention in Syria...without regard for *who* the opposition was...AQ/ISIS.

When it was shown that the public had no stomach for more war, Obama essentially dropped it which then had conservatives taking it as an opportunity to do what they always do: Bash Obama for his weakness. Conservatives counted on the absolute stupidity of the American public in not understanding *who* the opposition was.

by Anonymousreply 3112/10/2014

kl

by Anonymousreply 3301/01/2015

Libertarian idiot, bumping his own posts, long after he stopped making any fucking sense.

Sad.

by Anonymousreply 3401/01/2015

srsly

by Anonymousreply 3501/11/2015
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.