FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act 217
DevanJedi writes "According to an article at Wired.com , several FBI agents are under investigation for illegally acquiring information an American citizens. Overzealous agents used 'misleading emergency letters' obtain phone records of thousands of Americans. This marks the first time government officers have been prosecuted for misuse of the Patriot Act. From the article: 'Unit employees, who are not authorized to request records in investigations, sent form letters to telephone companies to acquire detailed billing information on specific phone numbers by falsely promising that subpoenas were already in the works. According to a third source, FBI officials also said at the meeting that some bureau employees have already been granted immunity from prosecution in the investigation. The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, did not recall, however, that FBI officials described the investigation as "criminal."'"
Wow...just wow (Score:3, Insightful)
If this is true, I honestly don't know what to say anymore.
I'm moving to Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do. It's high time the American people hold the government accountable for its actions and use its power of the vote to alter the course of American history.
Pity no one gives a damn enough to do it, though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do what little I can and I vote. It hasn't been working for shit.
Re:Wow...just wow (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll be waiting a long time my friend. Anyone vocal enough to suggest starting a revolution becomes the enemy.... or disappears.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
by the way - nice sig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow...just wow (Score:5, Informative)
Not that the Gulags were vacation spots. They were forced labour camps that didn't include much concern for worker safety. People often died there from "occupational hazards", for trying to escape, or for not being completely subservient to the overseers. Gulag convicts effectively had no rights. But the Gulags weren't death camps in the same way that German concentration camps like Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were designed to kill the convicts. Solzhenitzin got to write Gulag Archipelago because he lived through it. The Russians preferred to wring out as much cheap, effectively slave, labour out of them as possible instead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow...just wow(offtopic) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow...just wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite that, revolutions have a pretty high probability to go awfully wrong. Just because one went right doesn't guarantee the next will.
You know the drill - register as a voter and mobilize your community (visit your neighbors, propose meetings and other forms of discussion where you can explore your differences and inform yourselves about all candidates) so everyone in it can and will exercise their right - and duty - to vote well.
It's your country and your laws. Take them back.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Then you should be voting for them every time. What's better for the people, a governemnt that does a lot, or a government that does less? Even the Republicans say smaller governemnt (despite the actions of the last 3 Republican presidents being the opposite of that philosophy). So, since the Democrats are ineffective, that means they get less done. That can only be better for us.
Make government impotent, vote Democrat.
Re:Wow...just wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow...just wow (Score:5, Informative)
I'm moving to Antarctica."
This isn't anything new.
The last time we had anything like this going on was during and after the Nixon administration. In those days it was an FBI program called COINTELPRO- which infiltrated (CIA style) and collected evidence against a semi-terrorist organization called the "Weather Underground". In fact their evidence was so tainted by rights violations, that with the exception of David Gilbert, who got a life rap for murder, they all walked.
Gilbert of course was involved in an armored car robbery in New York, and charged in New York, so even he walked in regard to the COINTELPRO charges.
The others, who used to blow things up (though they warned people about the bombs so that no one would get hurt), were summarily released one after another once the federal courts got hold of the evidence of FBI wrong doing.
In fact, the evidence that freed them, was in fact STOLEN by them out of an FBI office in Mississippi (If memory serves).
This is nothing new. And under this administration not suprising. And the courts did the right thing... evidence that is "fruit of the poisoned vine" should never be allowed.
Let's hope this latest flap is far less agregious.
Re: (Score:2)
No such animal (Score:2)
Outside of "24" and other spy genre forms of entertainment, the "ticking time bomb" does not exist. But hideous breeches of privacy and civil rights are allowed to continue because people insist that they be allowed to cling the the myth of the ticking time bomb. If we had to accept that the FBI is just freely data mining using whatever means they can manage, basically doing the equivalent of door to door warrantless searches, well
Pardons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This was not official policy.
No Officers will go to jail.
Though I hope the Administration isn't dumb enough to try that line again.
Congress is much more inclined to apply its oversight powers these days.
Re:Pardons (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there is a big difference between what Scooter Libby did and what these guys are doing. Scooter was prosecuted for perjury. His "recollection" of a conversation was different than that of the guy he spoke with. No one was in danger over what Scooter did.
What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.
That is inexcusable... or unpardonable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I, for one, say keep abusing it!!!
Re:Pardons (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
According to Russert:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:...
Now it seems to me that this indictment assumes that it was Scooter who leaked the name. We now know that it was Armitage, who was never charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I copied and pasted from the indictment itself, which I linked to. If you think that the indictment of Scooter Libby is "neocon bullshit"... well let's just say you've got some serious issues. May I suggest that you take your complaint to Scott Fitzgerald. He was the prosecutor that charged and prosecuted Scooter Libby. He's the "neocon" (as you put it) that wrote the indictme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.
I hope it, the PATRIOT Act, is gotten rid of. It's not needed. And I was against it to begin with as well as against renewing it. They already had all the power needed to reduce the risk of terrorist attackes. Yes, I said "reduce the risk", as the risk can't be eliminated even in a police state run by a military dictator.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
thwarted terrorist attacks (Score:2)
Someone please respond to this post with a verifiable example of a terrorist action that was stopped by using provisions of the Patriot act. So far I have only seen it being used to lock up Americans doing stuff totally unrelated to terrorist activities and infringe on peoples privacy and liberty.
You'll never hear the FBI, or this admin, give a single example of a terrorist attcks that was thwarted by intel that could only of been gotten by the PATROIT Act. The Act was not needed!
Falcon
Re:What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't doubt someone, somewhere out there knows how the PATRIOT Act has been used to combat terrorism. But that misses the point. The real issue here is one of abuse or, at the very least, risk of abuse.
If we could trust that power wouldn't be abused, we wouldn't have to worry about civil rights. We could allow those entrusted with our welfare complete power, safe in the knowledge that their actions weren't being guided by personal gain or bias. We'd know that they carefully considered their actions before taking them. And we'd be safer for it.
The reality is that people are human - even those who are entrusted with the duty to safeguard us all. As such, they are prone to all the bias and temptations people are always confronted with. Our laws, complete with checks and balances, are there to not only safeguard the population but to give pause to those who are entrusted with authority and take action against those who abuse that authority (or prove to be otherwise unworthy).
In short, the issue with the PATRIOT Act isn't whether it's effective against terrorists. It's a matter of whether it has the right checks-and-balance to ensure that it is both effective as well as resistant to abuse. History is proving abuse is widespread. And critics already point out that much of the power involved in the Act already existed... we've just stripped away the checks that are designed to curtail abuse. Odd, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, at least a Congressional committee did hear of examples where US
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Patriot Examples (Score:3, Informative)
This page [nationalreview.com] lists several instances in which the provisions of the Patriot act have helped fight terrorism. Several of the facts on the page have links to corroborating stories. The one I most wanted to read is on the uscourts.gov site and was timing out.
I had heard before that the Patriot Act had more to do with inter-agency cooperation than with anything else, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've met a couple people in the FBI and this is a paraphrase of what they've told me about 9-11.
We knew something was coming. We didn't know what, how, where or even when. We could tell because of an increase in chatter, which we couldn't listen to, and activities that we couldn't watch. For example, we would get a tip that there would be a meeting of a terrorist cell at this location at this time. That tip would not be enough for us to get a warrant or it would not give us enough time to conduct surveillance. It was so bad that if a known terrorist came into a restaurant where I was eating and sat at the table next to me, I would have to leave because I would not have a warrant to listen in.
So yeah, we knew something was coming, but there was not a damn thing we could do about it.
And that is what the PATRIOT Act is supposed to fix. According to those I spoke with, they
Re: (Score:2)
the FBI does not want to spy on you if you are not planning a terrorist act.
BS, they spied on Martin Luther King Jr. As director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org] kept secret files on a lot of people from equal right activists to peace activitists.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Uh, right. That was before I was born. I'm talking about anti-terror stuff since 2001. I'm sure the FBI did some questionable stuff during WWI looking for Kaisers as well, but we should move beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
BS, they spied on Martin Luther King Jr. As director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover kept secret files on a lot of people from equal right activists to peace activitists.
Uh, right. That was before I was born. I'm talking about anti-terror stuff since 2001. I'm sure the FBI did some questionable stuff during WWI looking for Kaisers as well, but we should move beyond that.
I lived through it and what happened once will happen again. Hell, it's happening now, that's what tfa is all about. And just like the
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, how can I put this simply? *-*-*NO*-*-*
The entire point of studying history is to learn from the past. There are countless examples throughout recorded human history that show that the more power you give to a government, the more likely it is to become corrupt. We're just supposed to note this, say "huh, that's interesting," and just "move beyond" and take nothing of substance fr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, YES!!!!?
Can't find the quote, but it's something like "when government efficiency outweighs individual rights, we get fascism."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention the civil war. Where did you get that?
Other than you either responding to the wrong post or the "parent" button on your post took me to the wrong place, you are absolutely correct about the one of the causes for the civil war being states rights. For that matter, it's still an issue
Re: (Score:2)
-speaking out against the government
-a peace activist
-espousing politically incorrect views
Trust me, when they ignore reports from one of their own agents claiming that a certain few Middle-Eastern men are taking flying lessons but opting out of the "How to Land the Aircraft" class, The Patriot Act isn't about counter-terrorism.
PATRIOT Act (Score:3, Insightful)
roving wiretaps
Roving wiretaps [wikipedia.org] were already allowed before the PATROIT Act. They were allowed as late as 1988.
Expanding the warrants that can be issued by a judge to include targets more specific to terrorism.
What, warrants couldn't of been used before the act?
Created new crimes related to money laundering and financing terrorism
Like need more laws making things illegal.
Permits the confiscation of the property of those convicted of participating in or planning a terror attack
HAHA!!! Lik
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Believe it or not, when you 'out' a CIA agent, you could be putting in danger the lives of many potential assets as well as any other agents who have in any way interacted with the one you outed. And then the chain continues, if one of those agents is discovered in connection with her, all of their assets and connections are also
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's ridiculous, and a lie in itself. Outing an undercover CIA agent endangers the lives of everyone else abroad who ever associated with that CIA agent or other undercover agents working for the same front company and their associates too. People
I am glad... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so sick of this shit.
The article summary, edited (again) by me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
What we'll never know.. (Score:4, Insightful)
We, as citizens, have no idea why these records were sought, and what was done with them. Were they altered? Were the requests ultimately put to use that saved lives or harmed them? How many made it through without being caught? How will we ever know for sure?
The example for restricting power I like to put forward for arguments sake:
Lets say you're, say, 35 years old, recently divorced, ready to move on and find yourself a new girl. Looking around, you meet someone in a bar, she's recently divorced too. Things are going well for the two of you, when all of a sudden, some charges are brought up on you.
Turns out, her former husband is employed at [pick your favorite cloak and dagger agency], and not happy about his wife dating again.
Are these charges real? are they made up?
Of course, I'm not proposing that this searching power will only be used for such purposes, or that fraudulent data could be put in, but where is the recourse for when some unhinged person attempts to abuse their position?
Similarly, lets say you're in a car accident with the son/daughter of a similarly employed person. They have unknown, potentially damaging power to affect your life and cause you serious trouble in an effort to change the outcome of the situation/extract revenge.
This kind of unchecked power *will* be abused. BOFHs aren't just in server rooms, they're in every employment position imaginable, and there is a nonzero percentage of them who will abuse their position for any reason. I've only given two, I'm certain you can think of many, many more!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What we'll never know.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Congratulations! You just described The Trial [wikipedia.org] , by Franz Kafka. The story was written in Czechoslovakia, just prior to the rise of Fascism in Europe, but I'm sure that the purest coincidence.
Re:What we'll never know.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A murder is discovered, and a suspect is charged. The police illegally search the suspect to find a "smoking gun" piece of evidence. There's no question in anyone's mind that this person is the murderer. The person even admits that they did it.
Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free.
Scenario #2 - "The Right Way": The "tainted evidence" defense is pure crap and doesn't work. Heck, it's not even attempted. The killer gets what's coming to him. BUT... the police still carried out that illegal search. Bring charges against the officers responsible for the illegal search. Dismiss them (fire them) and fine them, then bar them from ever serving as a police officer ever again. In fact, disallow them from being a security guard, private detective, or even a toll booth operator. They should never be in a position of responsibility for the physical safety or authority to grant access to property in the primary responsibilities of their job ever again. This way, you get a system that properly punishes crime, while deterring counter-criminal-crime in the process.
Bottom line: these FBI agents are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Scenario #1 - "Reality": The weasel/lawyer defending the suspect gets the case thrown out because the police conducted their search illegally. All evidence against the murderer already presented in this case is considered inadmissable because it may have been affected by the illegal search. The killer goes free."
As it should be. The justice system has an overarching responsiblity to follow its own rules consistently, and in particular, to not abridge the rights of the accused -- illegal search and seizure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The exclusionary rule, on the other hand, is enforced by the j
don't get too excited (Score:4, Insightful)
not yet prosecuted! (Score:3, Insightful)
And looking at prosecutions of government abuse under the current admin, I wouldn't exactly count on it happening.
So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for the investigation of the allegations, removal of the perpetrators from the FBI, as well as imprisonment for any of them that are convicted of committed criminal offenses. But how about we wait 15 minutes before printing this story and figure out what the hell is actually going on first?!?
-Rick
Press core, grow a pair (Score:5, Insightful)
The third source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity,
Sure would be nice if the US Press Core grew a pair. Everywhere else in the world, officials put their name to their comments because the press won't print comments without any name; there's no accountability, so people have no incentive to tell the truth, so there's no point in printing the comments. I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.
For chrissakes, some of these people are even telling the press exactly how to "anonymously" describe them: Cheney, for example, always demands to be quoted as "a senior Bush administration official." [npr.org]
anonymous sources (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm so fed up with US politicians and officials covering their asses with "anonymous" comments, and the press core lapping it up.
So, you want to get rid of anonymous sources then? Perhaps you didn't live through Watergate [wikipedia.org] which eventually led to Nixon's impeachment. "Follow the money" said one source to a newspaper reporter.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
The thing is, in the past reporters tended to at least do some other digging to corroborate the information from the anonymous sources. Nowadays they seem to just take their anonymous info at face value, which can have unfortunate results, as in the (totally fake) "flushed Koran" controversy.
When was Nixon impeached exactly? (Score:2)
Nixon wasn't actually impeached, he resigned from office before he was impeached. Had he not resigned he would of been impeached, which is exactly what impeachment is there for, to remove someone from office.
FalconRe:Press core [sic], grow a pair (Score:2)
Wait, doesn't that, by his own admission, make him part of the executive branch?
(BTW, it's "corps")
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While on principle I agree with you, I imagine government officials would be far less likely to talk to the press if they knew their identities would be revealed - especially in an administration such as this, where complete lockstep is required from everyone in the executive branch. The recent testimony [slashdot.org]) of the former surgeon general is a perfect example of this - he described
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Prediction. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing the crimes coming was just a matter of knowing history and applying logic.
Even so, I should've seen the weak accountability coming. Immunity to prosecution? What a gyp. Well, I'd like say that maybe we'll see some Supreme Court action as a result of the prosecution of this, but I don't hold high hopes for that working out well after last month's run of rulings.
Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hate to see it be just average schmoes just stalking their ex-girl/boy friends.
Also, subpoenas first you lame ass telcos, checks and balances....
Bush Fatigue (Score:4, Insightful)
But not nearly as tired as I am of having a president and vice president who have corrupted the entire structure of the Executive Branch and who have weakened the foundation of our Nation.
To those of you who think these stories don't belong at a site that's for "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", I'd say that while the illegality and corruption of the Bush Administration, and their poisonous use of technology to take away our rights and consolidate power is no longer "news", it certainly qualifies as "stuff that matters".
I invite any of you who don't think that both Bush and Cheney should be removed from office to please explain. Today, I learned from the Wall Street Journal that there are still 26% of the population (Harris Poll) who support the President. I really need to know why. I have enough faith in the fairness and decency of the American people that it surprises me that Bush's support is still in double digits.
Re: (Score:2)
The first reason is a restatement of the end justifying the means: if they believed that it was necessary to light babies on fire to keep America safe, they'd approve of him lighting babies on fire.
The second is simply admiration/fanboyism.
Both blind people to the consequences of actions, and both are (part of ) the reason that laws, and following the written laws
Re:Bush Fatigue (Score:5, Insightful)
The bulk of those who are still solid bushies are living in a persistent fantasy world. They think the war in Iraq will be "won"...whatever the hell that means, since we still don't seem to have a defined goal other than it going away. They think we went there in the first place for the "right reasons." They think the reason the terrists haven't blown up the Sears tower is because we're "fighting them over there" and not just because terrorists as a whole tend not to be all that successful.
I don't think anything would convince them they're wrong. I mean literally anything; if he was caught on tape having sex with an underage boy, they'd say it was a liberal framejob. There is practically nothing they won't believe is someone else's fault. They're emotionally wedded to their position. If things were reversed, we'd see a similar number of liberal weenies blaming it all on the conservatives.
It's sad to say, but there just aren't a lot of free-thinkers in the world. It just shows up more here because things have gotten so polarized.
Re:Bush Fatigue (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no idea about majority, but a lot of people are, even if they are reluctant to do so. After Bush started his second term, support for Bush and the War was hovering at around 60%. Now it's more like 25%. So a majority of those who supported the war were able to change their minds about it, with the result that the Republicans lost control of Congress and next year perhaps the Presidency if they don't put forward an anti-war candidate (sorry McCain).
I just wish they had changed their mind before giving Bush another four years to fuck things up. I've been reading Iraq-related news constantly, and while sure the upswing in sectarian violence starting the with mosque bombing in early 2006 was a bad sign, overall the picture doesn't really look any worse to me than it did in 2004 -- a mismanaged clusterfuck quagmire that at best ends in civil war after we leave and the puppet government collapses. But I do suppose that even if you support the war you can only hear "stay the course" so many times before you wonder when this course is actually going to get you somewhere.
But better late than never, right? People change their minds, but most of us are hesitant to admit we were wrong, and BOY were they wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But not nearly as tired as I am of having a president and vice president who have corrupted the entire structure of the Executive Branch and who have weakened the foundation of our Nation.
Don't you keep up with the news? The vice-president isn't a member of the Executive Branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bush Fatigue (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Christian (ironic isn't it?)
2. Republican
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis, 1935
I must admit I was initially unsure about voting for Adolf Hitler, but when I heard about his sensible pro-life stance and opposition to non-Christians, I was all for him. I mean, those are the issues that really matter, right? His foreign policy decisions have also been first rate. I think the invasion of France has been a damn good idea, and we'll definitely defeat the insurgents in the next few months. And with their new powers, the Gestapo have been doing a fine job of eradicating the terrorist threat in the Fatherland. I often see them making arrests, which just goes to show how lucky we are to have them - our enemies are everywhere. I'm sure that the stories of human rights abuses in internment camps like Auschwitz are just liberal lies. So that's why I support our President. He's a fine Christian man, and I will not even listen to anyone who doesn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
He went to art school when he was younger
He wanted to be a painter
Hitler was a vegetarian
He was also a non-smoker
He was concerned about overpopulation
He was abused by his father
If Hitler was alive today
He'd listen to The Cure, The Smiths, and Depeche Mode
Hitler was a pagan
He kept every single one of his campaign promises
Hitler was a Time Magazine man of the year
Hitler was also very good with children, and set up a special Youth program for them
Re: (Score:2)
Demographics (Score:2)
And in the end, they'll all get immunity for testifying against each other. At which point, the charges will be dropped because there aren't any defendants left. Of course, the records will be sealed for national security so we'll never know.
"Employees"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the "employees" bit is a direct quote from TFA, so if someone is distorting something by calling them that, its not "Slashdot editors".
The involved employees in the part quoted were apparently from an analytical support unit that did not have the authorized power to conduct its own investigations; it is not at all clear to me that "agents" is a pr
The Song Remains the Same (Score:2)
...granted immunity from prosecution
...did not recall
...criminal
*Sigh* Same old, same old for the US government.
"Slashdot liberal whining"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just seeing that broke my heart, makes me want to cry. What have we come to when holding our officials responsible for their actions accounts to "liberal whining"?
I know we'll never hold Bush accountable, nor Cheney nor any of the real players in this situation. But still, America is supposed to be free, and part of that is punishing police, soldiers, fbi agents, or even presidents when they break the law. The idea that somehow they are above the law, the very *idea* that they are above the law kind of obviates the whole fucking spirit of freedom and why America was founded.
Let me say this exactly once: These FBI agents are *citizens*, and so are soliders, and so are Bush and Cheney. They are not above the law.
I'm not saying this as a liberal ( though I am one ) nor as a libertarian ( though I also sort of am one ) but as a human being, and as an american. A deeply frightened and ashamed-for-my-countrymen american.
Re: (Score:2)
The government can only be trusted to do the right thing when we -- the citizens -- are able to watch the process.
See, It Works (Score:2)
Equal Justice?... yes try not to choke on that (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Day Dream... (Score:2)
In the end, the election year will distract Congress, the FBI will conclude their in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Saddam Hussein lived in an actual dirty hole in the ground big enough for one person, and Dick Cheney was off hunting at the estates of rich buddies.
Has Cheney ever gone on a publicly-known vacation? No, he's always been at "undisclosed locations" which the American people falsely assumed were secure bunkers in our post-9/11 delusions that the administration was competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly not. Cybermen and Daleks are both typically immune to bullets, so UNIT's general policy of responding to alien menace with Five Rounds Rapid is fairly ineffective. They'd just have been observing from their flying aircraft carrier.
I wonder, who would win in a fight between X-Com, UNIT and NERV?