Pentagon Admits Spying on Peace Activists (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Finally, the Pentagon has admitted that it was spying on peace activists, including the Quakers, and putting them in their terrorist data base. They say they are now putting safeguards in place to assure this does not happen again, but if it wasnt for the internet bloggers, they would still be spying on them. The bloggers kept raising hell until, finally, one of the mediawhores (NBC) ran the story.

When I posted on this a few months ago, I was flamed because I used Raw Story as my source. Well guess what? Yup, you got it...Once again, I get to say "I told you so". This is getting to be a habit. Could it be that the mediawhores are not doing their jobs? It appears to be that way. Thank goodness we have bloggers who can keep them honest once in a while.

Article is here.

 

[oldreliable67]

Thank goodness we have bloggers who can keep them honest once in a while.

Whole-heartedly agree with that, but in that same spirit, lets tell a little more of the story. The source you cited goes also has this bit...

But the review reaffirmed the value of the so-called Talon reporting system on potential threats to Pentagon personnel or facilities by international terrorists, said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman. He said the Pentagon was putting in place new safeguards and oversight intended to prevent improper information from going in the database.

Whitman said "less than 2 percent" of the more than 13,000 database entries provided through the Talon system "should not have been there or should have been removed at a certain point in time."[emphasis added]

In your eagerness to pat yourself on the back, you conveniently left out the fact that the Pentagon review reaffirmed the value of the system but acknowledged (as has been discussed previously in threads you initiated) that better supervision and oversight of the system is required and has been initiated. Further, the extent of the criticized entries in the system appear to have been quite small, relative to the total number of entries.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for starting a new thread on something that has been 'threaded' at some length. Rather, if you are going to post a criticism, and the article you're using as the basis of your criticism, has info that puts your criticism in a more complete, maybe even a completely different context, than that which you are attempting to describe, shouldn't your criticism or post acknowledge such? Or at least be consistent with your source, and acknowledge the scale or extent of the basis of your criticism?

 

[danarhea]

Whole-heartedly agree with that, but in that same spirit, lets tell a little more of the story. The source you cited goes also has this bit...



In your eagerness to pat yourself on the back, you conveniently left out the fact that the Pentagon review reaffirmed the value of the system but acknowledged (as has been discussed previously in threads you initiated) that better supervision and oversight of the system is required and has been initiated. Further, the extent of the criticized entries in the system appear to have been quite small, relative to the total number of entries.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing you for starting a new thread on something that has been 'threaded' at some length. Rather, if you are going to post a criticism, and the article you're using as the basis of your criticism, has info that puts your criticism in a more complete, maybe even a completely different context, than that which you are attempting to describe, shouldn't your criticism or post acknowledge such? Or at least be consistent with your source, and acknowledge the scale or extent of the basis of your criticism?

Its a given that any program which deals with terrorists is a good thing, but this topic is about misuse of those programs. I was the first to bring up the abuse of antiterrorist programs, and got the crap flamed out of me for doing so. In that same spirit, I am entitled to a little gloating.

And, BTW, 2 percent is a good number of innocent people who were targeted only because they had an honest disagreement with the government.

 

[oldreliable67]

I am entitled to a little gloating.

Absolutely. No problem with that - as long as it remains a 'little' gloating and doesn't graduate to obnoxious gloating, which yours has not.

2 percent is a good number of innocent people who were targeted only because they had an honest disagreement with the government.

We don't disagree at all on the underlying principles: any number targeted because they had 'an honest disagreement' is too many. Here is where, IMO, faulty training, oversight and procedures let this situation occur. Appropriate training, oversight and procedures would have identified those 2% for what they were and they would never have been in the database in the first place. The Pentagon just did not manage this thing appropriately at all.

To reiterate, my only disappointment in your various posts on the topic are that, reading your posts, one (or at least, I did), got the initial impression that it wasn't 2%, it was an unspecified but highly likely significantly large number of the total. It was only by reading the source that one discovers that the actual number was a relatively small proportion of the total. In other words, you criticize the media, but like the media, you conveniently omitted facts crucial to understanding your argument.

 

[danarhea]

Absolutely. No problem with that - as long as it remains a 'little' gloating and doesn't graduate to obnoxious gloating, which yours has not.



We don't disagree at all on the underlying principles: any number targeted because they had 'an honest disagreement' is too many. Here is where, IMO, faulty training, oversight and procedures let this situation occur. Appropriate training, oversight and procedures would have identified those 2% for what they were and they would never have been in the database in the first place. The Pentagon just did not manage this thing appropriately at all.

To reiterate, my only disappointment in your various posts on the topic are that, reading your posts, one (or at least, I did), got the initial impression that it wasn't 2%, it was an unspecified but highly likely significantly large number of the total. It was only by reading the source that one discovers that the actual number was a relatively small proportion of the total. In other words, you criticize the media, but like the media, you conveniently omitted facts crucial to understanding your argument.

I omitted nothing. It was in the link. When a program like Talon looks at thousands of people, then yes, 2 % is a lot of people. Let me say this again. 2% is a small number, but 2% of thousands amounts to a lot of people and organizations.

An important number here would be the percentage of people and organizations involved in active protest against the war that were being spied upon. I would suggest that this would be a rather high number.

Finally, once more back to your accusation. My interest in this topic is that the Constitution of the United States be adhered to. In this case, the Constitution, for whatever reason, was turned into toilet paper. It is good that safeguards are now being put into place, but that was not happening until the blogs raised enough holy hell that the mediawhores finally made a story out of it.

 

[KCConservative]

Meanwhile, during all the wiretapping stink, how many terrorists went unnoticed while communicating with each other and their al queda commanders? I worry that our priorities are not in order. Bashing Bush now and worrying about the consequences later is a dangerous plan, IMO. I'd rather catch the bad guys and apologize to the Quakers.

 

[oldreliable67]

It was in the link.

Yep, it was. But you made no mention of it. Like the mediawhores that you are decrying (and with which I agree - see, for example, the thread on NBC baiting anti-Muslim reactions), you painted an incomplete picture with your 'headline', one that details in the body of story modified significantly; result: anyone just reading the headline and moving on gets an inaccurate picture.

Am in total agreement with your purpose and objectives; just think you're methods could use a little more completeness and accuracy.

 

[KCConservative]

you painted an incomplete picture with your 'headline', one that details in the body of story modified significantly; result: anyone just reading the headline and moving on gets an inaccurate picture.

How long have you been here, oldreliable? Surely you're not just noticing this pattern, are you?

 

[danarhea]

Yep, it was. But you made no mention of it. Like the mediawhores that you are decrying (and with which I agree - see, for example, the thread on NBC baiting anti-Muslim reactions), you painted an incomplete picture with your 'headline', one that details in the body of story modified significantly; result: anyone just reading the headline and moving on gets an inaccurate picture.

Am in total agreement with your purpose and objectives; just think you're methods could use a little more completeness and accuracy.

Because my interest is the violation of Constitutional rights which every American supposedly has.

 

[Alias]

Because my interest is the violation of Constitutional rights which every American supposedly has.

Whose constitutional rights are being violated?

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

Whose constitutional rights are being violated?

I'd like to tell you, but that would be a violation of their right to privacy.

 

[Alias]

I'd like to tell you, but that would be a violation of their right to privacy.

Just as I thought. Isn't that kinda like saying Bush is secretly tapping American's phones but you can't tell me who they are because then it wouldn't be a secret any more?

The right to privacy is not in the constitution.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And, BTW, 2 percent is a good number of innocent people who were targeted only because they had an honest disagreement with the government.

And....how will the authorities responsible for national security know that those people are innocuous unless they investigate all allegations reported to them?

Hmmm??

Perhaps the government should restrict it's investigations only to those people that don't disagree with the governemnt's policies so that those that disagree but are harmless aren't unnecessarily investigated?

John Walker, the spy, not the idiot towelhead convert, was turned in to the FBI by his ex-wife. The FBI filed her report in the nut bin and Walker was able to continue his operations for a bit longer, causing that much more damage to national security.

Were any of the "innocents" harmed in the course of the investigation? Were any of the assembled dossiers made public?