OT: Google subpoenaed


craftech wrote on 1/27/2006, 2:07 PM
You know what I find really amazing.
That Mr. Sony hasn't shut down this thread.
That's because it is civil and the members of this forum have enough respect for one another to keep it that way.

Thanks Sony moderators!
busterkeaton wrote on 1/27/2006, 2:08 PM
Actually we had troops in the region, but we pulled them out in part because Osama bitterly objected to them. The plan was to build permanent bases in Iraq and keep the troops there, but who knows what will happen there. I'm not even saying pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia is a bad idea. It does give the appearance of giving into Osama's demands, but it also helped destabilize Saudi Arabia.

If the US is turned into a Big Brother type dictatorship as you describe, Osama will have achived his greatest victory. I can't think of any patriot who wants that.
winrockpost wrote on 1/27/2006, 2:40 PM
cool, caught up on political editorials by informed experts
You guys are great reading.
Edward wrote on 1/27/2006, 3:13 PM
busterkeaton, my fellow american.
you watch too much michael moore.
we could go through all the points that we think bush is bad/good and still end up unconvincing.
do you REALLY know all these things, or is it just conspiracy theories you and your buddies are conjuring up.
NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH. We can speculate, but noone knows, not me, not you.

like i said, i look at the results. no terror attacks since 9-11 is good for me and my family, and most likely... yours. how it's being done can be questioned, and i agree to that, but to claim the president has other motives than to do his job... i question your opinions.
winrockpost wrote on 1/27/2006, 3:36 PM
"subpoenaed" Wait a minute , I didnt know thats how it was spelled !
I did learn something from this thread . sorry to clutter up the thread with my seemingly meaningless uniformed comments.
Edward wrote on 1/27/2006, 3:43 PM
man, why am i going off on politics. busterkeaton, i appreciate your insight. don't agree. that's that. but i bet there's alot i can learn from you in video editing...

(haven't slept in 2 days... need... more... caffne...)
Coursedesign wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:21 PM
This was a Justice Department -- NOT "White House" or "Bush Administration" -- request

There has been a major concern over the Bush Administration politicizing all work in the top level civil service departments, to an extent not seen in a very long time, perhaps ever. This led to the EPA not enforcing its own laws, the Justice department supporting holding U.S. citizens for years (not months) based on mere "suspicion," the State Department shuffling aside all the people who actually knew the real world, and replacing them with political appointees who brought in a personal reality, decorated Pentagon generals being told how to do their work by political hacks with no military experience, etc., etc.

A serious criminal violent act on 9/11 generated immense fear that had to get an outlet somehow.

Instead of wiser heads prevailing, it was decided to call the hunt for Bin Laden a "war", because then special powers could be accessed allowing us to set up concentration camps again, just like in World War II, and not have to bother about inconveniences like due process, etc.

And it felt good for certain people again, people who couldn't feel strong based on accomplishment, only from feeling their heels on top of somebody else's throat.

It didn't really matter whose throat, because it was just a psychological need, perhaps caused by childhood bullying?

Let me be absolutely clear about something here.
This is not a Republicans vs. Democrats issue (there are many Republicans who are very angry about what this administration has done to the American people, both this and future generations).
I don't hate Bush.
I don't even dislike him.
I think he is a very nice guy, with little personal responsibility for the actions that have made a majority of Americans feel sick to the stomach.

It's his cabinet that has done everything evil, and I don't know who truly put this cabinet together. Probably involved several people, and it doesn't matter who at this point.

Time to clean house, and I am counting on all honest Republicans to clean out the wackos, corrupt con artists, and serious evildoers in the party.

There will be plenty of good Republicans left to do the work, and this will lead to another victory in the elections this fall, because the Democrats can only win over an evil-possessed Republican party right now.

The Democrats are so screwed up today that it's very hard to imagine them getting their act together in 10 months, but they can still win if the Republicans don't clean house.

busterkeaton wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:22 PM
Um,....I don't think I've gotten a single one of those points from Michael Moore. I don't think any one of them is conspiracy theory. Virtually none of what I just posted was speculation. I didn't want to do a linkfest, but I can back it all up. It may be new to you, but it's neither speculation or a conspriracy theory. I don't really have the philosophical skills to address the unknowability of the truth, but I pretty sure we can find out things that have ocurred.

If you care to point out any of the data I posted that seems fishy, I will be glad to show you why I said that. None will be from Michael Moore.

the president has other motives than to do his job... i question your opinions..
Uh, not really sure what you a getting at here, perhaps the desire to go to Iraq. There was absolutely nothing about the buildup to Iraq that simply the president just doing his job. It was an orchestrated campaign. That is a simple fact. It would be a simple fact if the campaign was honest or, as I believe, thoroughly dishonest. The point of the campaign was to portray Iraq as a "mortal threat" in Cheney's words. In early 2002, the administration started leaking to papers about Saddam and WMD, all of a sudden, editorials started popping about Iraq was the primary threat to us. The White House formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG as it was known. It's purpose was to coordinate and disseminate the message on Iraq thoughout the government.

Nothing about 9/11 leads necessarily to Iraq. It just makes the arguments used to justify Iraq sound better. Iraq was a war of choice. There is nothing about that about the president "just doing his job." Nothing about doing his job means in should invade in March 2003. In fact, March of 2003 the inspectors were in Iraq. They were destroying missile and none of the tips we gave them panned out. They fought nothing at the hundreds of sites we told them at WMD. If Bush had choice a policy of containment right then, the policy which was working against Saddam, we would be in stronger position today than we are right now. We could have used the last three years to address some other problems. Like finding Osama. Or if he waited and went in later, remember, "a time and place of our choosing," we could better prepared for occupying postwar Iraq which has been a disaster.

Here's some speculation, a lot of people wondered why the White House went after Joseph Wilson so hard and then damaged themselves with the Plame scandal. The reason they went so hard after Wilson is to protect WHIG, it was designed to intimadate any else from coming foward.

If Bush was, in fact, doing his job, we would be far better off as a nation.

gotta split, I would be curious to see what conspiracy/speculation I enganged in though.
busterkeaton wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:24 PM
Actually I'm better at politics. I should go into campaign ads.
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:30 PM
"bush bash all you want, but when 9-11 happened, things had to change. do you want to be safe from getting your head blown off from playing at the park with your kids (that sorta just happens already tho in some neighborhoods... eeek!)"

"Those that are willing to trade their liberties for protection deserve NIETHER!" - Famous Quote

"it would truley suck to be held for no reason, but are there any solutions? what can we do to safeguard ourselves from another attack? there's so many critics on how 'bush is wrong on this' and 'bush is wrong on that', instead of complaining, SOLVE THE ISSUE. how can u stop the terror threat?"

Easy to say that when you are the one being impacted. But hey, its ok just as long as you get to feel safe in your own little world right? Screw those that are falsely detained or detained for so many years only to be let go. What about their lives? What do they get for the time they missed out on watching their kids grow up? Oh thats right, they are foreigners, screw them. Keep thinking like that because you very well may fidn yourself in those same shoes one day.

"i don't agree in being held for months based upon a suspicion, but i disagree more to being killed in a war started from a madman (osama, just to clarify) simply by just living my life."

Again, as long as you given protection from death then you justify the means. Sad, very sad.

"if it takes our government to scrub every email, scan every phone call, read every letter to ensure our safety from an enemy who don't give a rat's a... about life, then HALLELUJIAH! our govn't is doing something right."

Just because you are willing to forsake your freedom and constitutional right DOESNT give you a right to forsake those that oppose it. If you wish to live in world that abolishes your right in exchange for your freedom, go right ahead. Your safe right? Gee, wasnt this the same shit Russia fed to their people? Hitler too?

"if bush is supposedly bad for my country, then why was he re-elected? damn, we got some sore losers here. u try running the free nation for a year, let's see how u deal with terror attacks.... (oh wait, none after 9-11), okay, worry about other matters..."

Bush was relected on fear of the moronic public. They bought into the media hype that we were under constant attack. Is it a coiencidence that everytime straw polls were taken that terror levels were raised? Anytime his approval rating falls, terror level rises.

And to whoever wrote that we cant bitch but expect taxpayers to offer solutions, "We the people", etc... What world do you live in my friend? First, elected polticians are paid to solve problems, NOT the people. We the people is a nice tag line but newsflash, it hasnt been WE THE PEOPLE since the constitution was drafted. We the government is what decides laws and liberties, NOT the people. We DO NOT live in a true democracy. We live with our so called elected Kings making decisions and laws and doing what THEY think is best for us, not allowing people to decide what is best for themeselves.

Tha sad truth of it all, unless you can further some polticians agenda or contribute to his campaign (pocket), you will NEVER benefit from We the People. Because you see, WE The People decided a long time ago that we would NOT be subjected to random search and seizures without a warrant (and this included data collection and spying) but as Bush said yetserday, the law was developed in 1979 and that it doesnt coincide with modern day issues. Well the Constitution was written long ago and then and now are two different worlds. We have a president who cares more about starting war in Iraq and next will be Iran, cares more about amending the constitution to not let gays get married than he does about securing what our founding fathers cared most about...FREEDOM. Freedom to check out any book at the library without fear of a database tracking your habits only to one day be used against you in a court of law. Freedom to travel and see the sights without being detained because of fear that someone could commit a terrorist act. Free to engage in sexual congress with any consensual party you wish. Hell, half of Congress does this already and most are married. Freedom to assemble in a peaceful manner without fear of being quieted because of the message you are conveying. Freedom to speak out against atrocities comitted.

We are so worried about terrorist and our goal of doing anything to get information from them (torture of Iraqis at the prison, hmmm?) that we look the other way when we commit crimes against humanity that we will gladly stand on TV and condemn other countries for doing.

Furthermore, who in the blue hell are we to decide what, if any, kind of democracy is right for another country? Who are we to decide that the world will only be a better place if every country held elections? Are we so arrogant and righteous to think that our way is the ONLY right way to govern? Who are we to impose our politics and war on countries that we see fit?

Saddam was a bad man who did henious things. If not for oil, we would never have gotten involved. Dont see us invading China now do you?
busterkeaton wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:34 PM
Coursedesign, I don't how you can still think
I think he is a very nice guy, with little personal responsibility for the actions that have made a majority of Americans feel sick to the stomach.

when you know
It's his cabinet that has done everything evil, and I don't know who truly put this cabinet together. Probably involved several people, and it doesn't matter who at this point.

Bush gets away with this amazing doublestandard because even diehard Republicans know he's a little dim, but they think he's good hearted, so we shouldn't be so hard on him.

Bush cleaned house already. The wackos, and con artists and serious evildoers got promotions. Wolfowitz is the head of the World Bank. Rumsfeld is still around. Condi became Secretary of State while Powell got showed the door after sacrificing his credibility with the UN speech. (It wasn't even as dishonest as the speech Scooter Libbey wanted him to give!!!!) Steven Hadley who has been show to push much of falsehoods on WMD, got Condi's job. John Bolton, for lawdsakes, is our Ambassador to the UN. Bolton had conservative Republicans lining up to testify about his dishonesty and his abuse of power. Bush reneged on his pledge to find out who out Plame and waited until Libby's indictment to get rid off him. Even though he was identified long before that.
farss wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:37 PM
"No terror attacks since 9/11"???

I guess that kind of sums up just what is wrong with the USA today. If it doesn't happen within your borders unless it directly affects you it just didn't happen did it!

Even though we're supposed to be your allies in this unholy mess I can assure you there's been more than a few Australians killed in terrorist attacks post 9/11. And then I guess I could mention your other allies, the UK. Does no one in the US get international news coverage? Just to keep you informed quite a few Britains were also killed in terrorist attacks in London, also post 9/11.

I guess the dead in Spain you can be excused for not noticing but Australians in Bali and Indonesia and Britains on London, come on.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is all about "them" versus the USA, it's about "them" versus secular countries, the USA just happened to be an easy target with good media coverage.

And why no more attacks post 9/11 in the USA. Simple, Bush and his administration is doing a fine job of finishing of what they started, making you all feel scared. And our PM isn't far behind either.


p@mast3rs wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:48 PM
Bob, I agree that this is a mjor problem with us Americans. Most Americans think just because we have not had an attack on American soil that Bush is doing his job with the war on terror. It shouldnt surprise you though. We invaded a country that the CURRENT administration testified that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they still HAVENT been found. So instead of nutting up and admitting he f*cked up, Bush calls it a breakdown in intelligence. So all of the INNOCENT American and Iraqi lives that have been lost during this war is for absolutely nothing unless you listen to Bush who says that the Iraqi people have freedom now.

My point earlier is the same. Who is the US to decide that others in foreign country should have to die for freedom too? Canada seems to be the only country that stays out of other countries business. And when was the last time Canada was attacked or had to fight a major war?
PeterWright wrote on 1/27/2006, 4:54 PM
The question I would like to have seen addressed on 12th September is
"What part has America played in creating such hatred?".
This doesn't appear to have even crossed Bush's mind.
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/27/2006, 5:13 PM
Dude, it never crosses his minds or the minds of those that think war is the only answer. Sadly though, we already knew the answer and thats our relationship with Israel and our polciies with the Middle East. Bush took the chance to say "poor poor America, what did we ever do to deserve this" after he sat in a Florida classroom and continued reading to children even after he was told about the first place that slammed into the WTC.

Instead of wondering why we were attacked, we made excuses saying is what that terrorists feared our freedom and attacked it it with a vengence.

I still to this day think that Bush either knew of the attacks and did nothing so he could use this as a basis for his war in Iraq.

Bush was quoted on 9/11 saying that Osama Bin Laden was priority number 1 and a year later Bush was quoted replying when asked where Osama was "I dont know where he is and I dont care. Hes not our main priority right now."

But if all of the Bushy followers think just because we havent suffered another attack on American soil makes Bush a good president, then what does that say about Clinton who suffered NO foreign attacks during his term? It just bothers me that the majority of his presidency at this point has been with our country at war. He has had one term and a year into another and what has he accomplished for our country?

He said he was "hired" by the American people to protect us and our rights and liberties. Really? Ok, I want to fire him. Wait..I cant? Only Congress can? Again, where is this We The People?
PossibilityX wrote on 1/27/2006, 5:28 PM
::::Canada seems to be the only country that stays out of other countries business.::::

There are others. Switzerland and New Zealand and Bhutan come to mind. Not sure of NZ's official stance as to who they're allied with, or Bhutan, but Switzerland is of course neutral. I don't see anyone screwing with the Swiss.

Austria is also neutral---a former superpower and, according to my Austrian girlfriend-unit, very happy to be a FORMER superpower. It means they can devote more of their resources to "butter" instead of "guns." They talk about Lebensqualitat there: "Quality of life."

Isn't that an interesting thing to ponder? Quality of life?

In Bhutan, it's Gross National Happiness they like to consider.

Ah, but I guess these are silly concepts.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/27/2006, 8:10 PM
...and now We The People have gotten ourselves a government that appears to have just added kidnapping to its list of acceptable behavior.

Oh, well.

Back to my script.

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 1/27/2006, 8:40 PM
Does anybody else think that it's kinda absurd that this has gone to 110+ posts??? and it hasn't got the faintest thing to do with video?

Anyway - just sayin - maybe it's time to let this thread shut down.

busterkeaton wrote on 1/27/2006, 9:49 PM

At first I thought your link was going to point to a case of "rendition" where we kidnap someone off the street and fly them to their home country to be tortured. Like the one we took the Syrian-Canadian and flew him to to Syria to be tortured for a year and then we let him go because he was innocent. But no. This is indeed new news and one more thing to shake your head about. God help us, if the rest of Abu Grarib tapes every make their way out.

farss, I don't know if this made news in Australia, but in 2003 the US State Department released its annual report on terrorism, it was riddled with errors and when corrected showed a record number of "significant terrorism attacks" worldwide. In 2004, they decided to stop issuing the report because it would have shown a 3x increase in significant attacks over 2003 and there was an election happened. One particularly chilling thing about the recent Osama tape, is that he is talking about attacks like subway bombs in Madrid, yet the threat level doesn't move. It also just shows that Americans are particularly ill-informed about the rest of the world. The international affairs columnist for the Washington Post (and close advisor of the Bush administration, his wife works for Cheney) was talking about the Australian government recently and he said about "the recent East Asian summit has reinforced Sydney's desire for closer ties (with the US)," not knowing that Canberra is actually Australia's capital. Nor was this caught by his editors.

pmasters, Bush tried to get Canada to come on board for Iraq. They told the Prime Minister that Bush would personally make a presentation to him. Canada replied, we don't want a presentation, we're allies and friends just show us the evidence you have on Saddam. If it's as bad as you say, of course, we will come on board, no question. We never showed them the evidence. If you remember the Joe Wilson story, he didn't come forward for months because he assumed they were talked about a different country than Niger when they made the declarations on "uranium from Africa." A little know fact to that episode, was the Niger story was Wilson was the third American to look into it and debunk it. The US ambassador to Niger thought it was wrong, a four-star Marine general thought it was wrong. The LA Times reported that French intelligence repeatedly told the CIA in 2001 and 2002 that the story was fake and the documents which an Italian operative tried to sell to them were forgeries.
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/27/2006, 9:50 PM
Not trying to be a jerk but its no more relevant than any housing/moving in threads. As long as its being civil there's no problem with it as it very well may have a greater reach than we think in regards to censorship of free speech.

Better to have it all in one thread than in multiple OTs like these threads:



Like you said about this thread, those two have nothing to with video but it didnt stop the poster from posting them. Just sayin.
PeterWright wrote on 1/28/2006, 1:25 AM
Dave, these threads to me reinforce the sort of family feeling that the Vegas community can develop.

Video makers are generally interested in what's happening in the world.

When there's something on our mind, we like to discuss it with those we've got to know, and the breadth of knowledge and international nature of this forum produces a good range of comments. Generally, discussions are extremely civilised compared with "specialist" political opinion forums, and as long as they don't numerically take over from Vegas topics, which they never have, I welcome and enjoy them.

Those that don't want to read OT don't have to.

p.s. Glad to hear your house news - if I were round the corner I'd help you lifting stuff in ...
farss wrote on 1/28/2006, 3:16 AM
First to answers Peters question. 9/11 didn't come out of hatred for the USA, certainly not for what it is or what it does although there's a CIA study that shows a correlation between what the US does and attacks on it over the last few decades. Certainly the western world has created the environments in which this sort of hatred can fester. This is nothing new, throughout human history nothing has motivated men to extreme acts like being surrounded by hunger when others have more than they know what to do with.
But that wasn't what drove the acts of 9/11 nor the previous attacks in modern Islamic states either. Don't forget this lunacy started not with attacks on the USA but attacks in countries like Egypt. What drove these attacks is an ancient form of evil, one we long put behind us, religious fervour. It's a truly scary form of evil because it cannot be reasoned with, there is no ultimatum, no cry for justice, no drive to liberate the oppressed, quite the opposite, these guys want more oppression, less freedoms. They saw moderate Islamic states as their greatest threat and they targeted the US because to them firstly it was "evil", so killing a few thousand there was quite acceptable and because the US was aiding moderate Islamic states which was stopping their own plans.
As to the WMD debacle. Well firstly I think there's one man who's yet to receive enough attention on that score, our very own Richard Butler. Even the US experts were saying there was no hard evidence of any WMDs but Richard had his own agenda. From what I can make of it he wanted Saddam gone because he was the US's man and furthermore Richard's very anti anything that might might be used to kill lots of people. No one seemed to notice his rhetoric, he wasn't just talking about Iraq's WMDs but those in the US, Russia and elsewhere. The line the left wing was taking down here was that the US wanted the sanctions lifted so it could get back to the business of buying Iraqii oil. The west chose to ignore Butler's thinly veiled personal agenda and used his reports to justify its actions.
Now as someone rightly pointed out, it's understandable that one might think Iraq had WMDs, Saddam was sure keen to have them, he quite likely believed he had them too, would you want to be the guy to tell him they didn't exist? Of course not, so the Iraqis created their own internal smoke screen to make it look like they did have WMDs, just to save their own necks, Saddam swallowed it and so did most of the rest of the world. Never mind that neither the US or the USSR ever managed to build functional weapons of the kind Iraq was supposed to have.
Edward wrote on 1/28/2006, 3:19 AM
farss, why you gotta make it sound like i'm ignorant and insensitive to the drama that happened in england, spain, israel, egypt and where ever else.

that's wrong man... wrong. i'm making a point to busterkeaton and you take it outta context.

i thought better of you homey.

busterK, showing me articles from the liberal press impresses me little (sorry, didn't read it, too lazy). it's obvious many have an agenda. so you don't take notes from michael moore, but you sure do have the same talking points.

unless you were there, physically, witnessed all the corruption yourself, that's what i'm talking about. i'm far from saying that our gov't doesn't do some strange and corrupt acts, i'm just saying that i believe in my president. even when that sleeze ball clintion was in office i believed in him. look where he lead us. i guess he was more of an example on how to deal with terrorists... by shooting missles into afghanistan and claiming vengance.

ahh, what ever. you wanna go on about this... fine. but farss, that hurt man... deep. i thought we were boys. sniff.... sniff... don't spin my words into making me an insensitive jerk. because i'm not, i'm just a jerk, not insensitive.

AND LIGHTEN UP GUYS... sheesh. i share my thoughts and i get bashed as if i insulted somebody. if i'm a fool for loving my country and believing in my president, then so be it. I can't know every little detail about the man. i just see the results, and in my "opinion", i approve. simple.

Edward wrote on 1/28/2006, 3:30 AM
"The question I would like to have seen addressed on 12th September is

Peter Wright,
know your history, the muslim extremist drama was around way before america was built. try thousands of years earlier. before they became RICH countries. saying that we're the reason for middle eastern hatred is not knowing your facts.

and why are all these arab countries so interested in obliterating israel? ONE TINY FREAKIN' COUNTRY!!!! The Arabs have MILLIONS OF ACRES OF LAND!!!!!! Face it, Muslim extremists have never got along with their neighbors. They even kill their own for crying out loud!

India, Israel, Casmir, US...
where has US been all these years, with both democratic and republican presidents? Fighting for the lives of Muslims, and yet, most spit in our face. My countrymen DIED to save muslim lives. DIED so that Sony could have a forum where we're FREE to read crap from you like this.

(i edited out some stuff... some venting that was a bit over the top, only because it's very personal to me to hear you imply that we're the problem in the world, that america is the evil of the world... R U Syria... I mean serious?)