How Govt Officials Cried ‘Terrorism’ to Cover Up a Paperwork Error

[grue 1]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

So classy, our government is…

cavete terrae.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005.

Woah, how long was she waiting for the paramedics?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Boogers 0]

This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

[quade 3]

Boogers

This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

Quote

FBI agent Kevin Kelley was investigating Muslims in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2004 when he checked the wrong box on a terrorism form, erroneously placing Rahinah Ibrahim on the no-fly list.

Emphasis mine. You figure it out.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[grue 1]

Boogers

This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

Not ENTIRELY fair to blame his band of retards. They only continued the charade. But then again if you move into a house where they kept a rape dungeon and there's someone down there, you're just as bad if you don't free that person.

cavete terrae.

[quade 3]

grue

***This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

Not ENTIRELY fair to blame his band of retards. They only continued the charade.

It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

[Southern_Man 0]

quade

******This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

Not ENTIRELY fair to blame his band of retards. They only continued the charade.

It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

He's not even trying. The continuance of the "security apparatus" is its many manifestations has been my largest disappointment in the Obama presidency.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***
It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

With Guantanamo? ABSOLUTELY! Now, be honest and say what it is. It's certainly not the Oval; it's absolutely CONGRESS and their NIMBY attitude toward where to put the prisoners.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

With the NSA monitoring stuff being classified Top Secret and this kind of thing being a "threat to national security", we have to admit that 'national security' is synonymous with 'embarassing' now. Things are now classified to hide them from the public because they are politically dangerous; NOT because they threaten OUR security, but because they threaten the security of the politicians.

I was very happy with Obama's promise that his administration would be the most transparent in history. I've been very dissapointed in the reality.

I continue to hope for a President who keeps promises...especially the ones that are hard to keep.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[bakerjan 0]

quade

******
It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

With Guantanamo? ABSOLUTELY! Now, be honest and say what it is. It's certainly not the Oval; it's absolutely CONGRESS and their NIMBY attitude toward where to put the prisoners.

Nice enabling, reminds me of the girl whos' boyfriend beats the snot out of her because she didn't cook his eggs right and she says, well he had a rough day at work and someone cut him off in traffic on the way home, and I should have cooked his eggs right, he really is a dear, not his fault, if not for all those other bad people it wouldn't have happened, LOL.

Jan

[kallend 1,651]

kelpdiver

***
It's a lot harder to unfuck something and especially when the original fuck-up has been obfuscated.

It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

IIRC, the CONGRESS tacked a provision onto a "must sign" defense authorization bill that for all practical purposes prevented the transfer of Gitmo prisoners either to the US or to foreign countries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CygnusX-1 42]

davjohns

With the NSA monitoring stuff being classified Top Secret and this kind of thing being a "threat to national security", we have to admit that 'national security' is synonymous with 'embarassing' now. Things are now classified to hide them from the public because they are politically dangerous; NOT because they threaten OUR security, but because they threaten the security of the politicians.

Now? By this statement you have proven that you have never dealt with classified material ever. This behavior has been going on for DECADES. There is nothing new here. The government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as it can keep its secrets from the peasants. I'm just astonished how many people actually believe this "national security" BS that they are fed.

I hate to rehash this dead horse, but remember the "evidence" we had about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and that we (the public) couldn't see that "evidence" because of "national security"? Or was it because there really wasn't any evidence at all.

[Boogers 0]

quade

***This is what Obama calls honest and open "transparency"?

Quote

FBI agent Kevin Kelley was investigating Muslims in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2004 when he checked the wrong box on a terrorism form, erroneously placing Rahinah Ibrahim on the no-fly list.

Emphasis mine. You figure it out.

So once he figured it out, an honest and open administration would just say so and reveal their findings. They wouldn't continue to suppress it. That's not honest and open. You shoulda been able to figure that out.

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

***
It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

With Guantanamo? ABSOLUTELY! Now, be honest and say what it is. It's certainly not the Oval; it's absolutely CONGRESS and their NIMBY attitude toward where to put the prisoners.

The topic is the no-fly list, and by extension, the kill list. Poor transparency on when you're added, and no meaningful process to get yourself off.

Was it intentional that you tried to refocus on Guantanamo? IOW, there is no problem here to fix?

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

******
It is, as Guantanamo has proven. But until you admit there is a problem, nothing is going to get unfucked.

So...is there a problem, Quade?

With Guantanamo? ABSOLUTELY! Now, be honest and say what it is. It's certainly not the Oval; it's absolutely CONGRESS and their NIMBY attitude toward where to put the prisoners.

The topic is the no-fly list, and by extension, the kill list. Poor transparency on when you're added, and no meaningful process to get yourself off.

Was it intentional that you tried to refocus on Guantanamo? IOW, there is no problem here to fix?

Uh . . . dude . . . YOU brought up Guantanamo. Not me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Uh . . . dude . . . YOU brought up Guantanamo. Not me.

like talking to a child. The citation of an example does not redirect a subject.

So yes, you are confirming that there is not a problem here. Therefore, nothing will be done about it. And you will defend that till Jan 2017, or perhaps 4 years beyond.

[quade 3]

Boogers

So once he figured it out...

So, you think the President of the United States, upon taking office knows every little buried fuck-up of the previous administration and can wave a magic wand and instantly unfuck things?

No. That's simply not how it's ever going to work. First he'd have to find out about it, that means getting some sort of audit going, going through the records, determining something might be wrong, confirming it's wrong (because, you know, it's entirely possible it's NOT a fuck-up and the person really IS a suspicious person) . . . we're talking years and years to track down stuff like this.

Get real.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

***
Uh . . . dude . . . YOU brought up Guantanamo. Not me.

like talking to a child. The citation of an example does not redirect a subject.

So yes, you are confirming that there is not a problem here. Therefore, nothing will be done about it. And you will defend that till Jan 2017, or perhaps 4 years beyond.

YOU specifically spoke about Guantanamo, then specifically asked if there was a problem. You did not redirect back to your original subject. Either don't be obtuse or learn how to write more clearly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

[
YOU specifically spoke about Guantanamo, then specifically asked if there was a problem. You did not redirect back to your original subject. Either don't be obtuse or learn how to write more clearly.

This probably explains your refusal to accept the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, too.

[rickjump1 0]

grue

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

So classy, our government is…

The clapper holders? Makes you wonder where they were made. China?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

"IIRC, the CONGRESS tacked a provision onto a "must sign" defense authorization bill that for all practical purposes prevented the transfer of Gitmo prisoners either to the US or to foreign countries."

Damn good idea. If we don't have the nuts to shoot "proven" enemy combatants, don't let them set foot on American soil (there's always the chance of a presidential pardon through this "executive-order president").

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[quade 3]

kelpdiver

This probably explains your refusal to accept the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, too.

Wow. 20 posts to turn this into gun thread. Not exactly a record. You should probably work harder. Then again, just a couple of posts back you were bitching about topic changes you brought up yourself, so maybe you're not having a "good day."

Anyway, thanks for pretty much admitting your opposition to me in this thread has far less to do with the topic at hand and more to do with your perception of my position on the 2nd Amendment. Good job. You obviously "win."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

CygnusX-1

***With the NSA monitoring stuff being classified Top Secret and this kind of thing being a "threat to national security", we have to admit that 'national security' is synonymous with 'embarassing' now. Things are now classified to hide them from the public because they are politically dangerous; NOT because they threaten OUR security, but because they threaten the security of the politicians.

Now? By this statement you have proven that you have never dealt with classified material ever. This behavior has been going on for DECADES. There is nothing new here. The government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as it can keep its secrets from the peasants. I'm just astonished how many people actually believe this "national security" BS that they are fed.

I hate to rehash this dead horse, but remember the "evidence" we had about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and that we (the public) couldn't see that "evidence" because of "national security"? Or was it because there really wasn't any evidence at all.

Really?



If it came to pass that your conclusion was completely in error, would you admit that there was an error in your logic?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[CygnusX-1 42]

Absolutely. I have no knowledge about events that led up to the invasion. I base my theory (and that is all it is - a theory) on what I have seen that has been classified on other subjects unrelated to this incident.

You see that is the difference between evolution and creation. As soon as new evidence is presented, the theory changes to match the new evidence. Oops wrong thread.