dagblog - Comments for "The N.S.A. Leaker"

You're welcome.Apologies to

artappraiser — Wed, 18 May 2011 03:59:18 +0000

In reply to HAD TO COMMENT AS A REPLY TO

You're welcome.

Apologies to all that I mistakenly made the link to page 2 of the article; I fixed that now.

Re: HAD TO COMMENT AS A REPLY TO YOU DESTOR, AS THE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM OF AA'S POST WASN'T VISIBLE

Once there is a comment on an "In the News" item, it no longer says "Add new comment" on the "In the News" page. Instead, it says how many comments there are (just like on the front page entries) and you click on that and then you get the full page where at the end of the post there it should say Add new comment.

This link by Stardust

Resistance — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:32:40 +0000

In reply to HAD TO COMMENT AS A REPLY TO

This link by Stardust confirms the total disregard for the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html?_r=1

Tamm and Drake

we are stardust — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:30:05 +0000

In reply to The N.S.A. Leaker

Tamm and Drake interviews:

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/31-2010/1092-tamm-and-drake-two-ridenhour-winners-only-one-facing-prison

HAD TO COMMENT AS A REPLY TO

miguelitoh2o — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:29:56 +0000

In reply to This article was pretty

HAD TO COMMENT AS A REPLY TO YOU DESTOR, AS THE BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM OF AA'S POST WASN'T VISIBLE.

Based on this admission of Hayden's to Roark, can I ask why there hasn't been a referral to the Justice Dept. to investigate? "She asked Hayden why the N.S.A. had chosen not to include privacy protections for Americans. Finally, he mumbled, and looked down, and said, ‘We didn’t need them. We had the power.’" Oh, Snap! It's the Bush/Obama Justice Dept. Ok then, I join Eliot Spitzer and call for Holder's resignation.

From the article: "After 9/11, he says, “General Hayden reassured everyone that the N.S.A. didn’t put out dragnets, and that was true. It had no need—it was getting every fish in the sea.”

Roark, feeling powerless, retired. Before leaving Washington, though, she learned that Hayden, who knew of her strong opposition to the surveillance program, wanted to talk to her. They met at N.S.A. headquarters on July 15, 2002. According to notes that she made after the meeting, Hayden pleaded with her to stop agitating against the program. He conceded that the policy would leak at some point, and told her that when it did she could “yell and scream” as much as she wished. Meanwhile, he wanted to give the program more time. She asked Hayden why the N.S.A. had chosen not to include privacy protections for Americans. She says that he “kept not answering. Finally, he mumbled, and looked down, and said, ‘We didn’t need them. We had the power.’ He didn’t even look me in the eye. I was flabbergasted.” She asked him directly if the government was getting warrants for domestic surveillance, and he admitted that it was not.

Thanks for the link AA.

If he really were a

kgb999 — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:09:10 +0000

In reply to This article was pretty

If he really were a whistleblower, he would have leaked information on ACORN or Shirley Sherrod.

Besides, I'm sure Obama thinks of this as offering 35 years free food and lodging ... better than cash, no? If he's lucky Obama will even let him have underwear.

This article was pretty

Michael Maiello — Tue, 17 May 2011 18:39:01 +0000

In reply to The N.S.A. Leaker

This article was pretty terrifying and it really strains my trust in Obama. The Drake prosecution has got to stop. The government is actually supposed to give cash rewards to whistleblowers.