Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (153152)	12/31/2005 9:52:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793549

Can anyone enlighten me on just which cat is out of the bag? Of course not. The NYT didn't release all the details. But what it does tell them [if they are smart enough to pick up on it] is that our data mining operation picks up everything they do, even when they think we can't. Remember, Bush had the NYT into his office to try to stop them from publishing. Somewhere, sometime, you have to figure Bush is trying to do the right thing. If you won't even give them that, we are at a sorry pass.

To: Lane3 who wrote (153152)	12/31/2005 11:01:51 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793549

You might look for terrorist attempts that have been foiled in order to check your assumption about what they assumed reasonably. Sorry I don't have a list for you. I've heard about the recent conviction regarding the NY bridge. There is also information assembled that is not understood, passed along, or acted on for some reason. (I'm blanking on the famous 9-11 case that is being investigated, denied, argued about.) Sometimes we gather information that could prevent an attack, but do not act on it. I'd assume terrorists think they can get around detection if they are using a system of communication, though. Just a place to start looking into your question. Is your point that there really was no leaked secret program, hence nothing illegal, if AQ could have reasonably assumed we were doing it?