Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: FBI sued for keeping secret their file on journalist Michael Hastings

Posted 8 months ago on July 31, 2013, 11:29 a.m. EST by itsmyblood (10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Takes time to purge records especially when you are doing an active investigation. Just more evidence that he was assassinated.

http://rt.com/usa/fbi-lawsuit-michael-hastings-753/

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by shadz66 (17974) 5 months ago

So, ''Who Killed Michael Hastings?'' by Carl Gibson :

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20531) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

just a guess - but probably someone from the private sector. And it probably had a great deal less to do with what he had already reported, than what he would have been in a position to report at some later date.

That's just my guess.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17974) 5 months ago

Michael Hastings probably died for what he was investigating at the end of his life, so I agree & fyi :

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20531) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

what the fuk piece of shit is your second link - testing just to see if I click links?

it's bullshit and that is undeniable - from the very first paragraph. Obviously you do not have the least bit of respect for either my intelligence or my integrity, and given that obvious conclusion I would simply say say

  • fuk you

and let the matter end there - but there are other considerations.

And so, for the sake of clarity, I will address why your second link is such total and complete bullshit.

  1. Conservative scum have an established pattern of surveillance and blackmail specifically for political gain

  2. Your second link is partisan: PResident Obama reads the opening paragraph, after posing what the author acknowledges is a provocative question, one for which there is neither evidence nor suggestion.

  3. The lack of editing of an obvious and glaring typo, standing out as it does in the first paragraph, so clearly as to be unmistakeable, must be the result of editorial choice rather than simple mistake. To suggest that the author did not see it, while possible, is hardly credible given a) the construct of the argument, and placement of the typo both b) within the first paragraph, and c) as part of the honorific of the subject of that argument -- this is a cue -- A dog whistle.

  4. The entire argument posed by the author is standard practice among the right wing - there is ample proof. And so to say what if someone else does it is disingenuous. It serves no purpose beyond distraction, or appeals to bias.

.

fuck you I say

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17974) 5 months ago

It was a provocative piece from 'The Atlantic', entitled ''The Surveillance State Puts U.S. Elections at Risk of Manipulation'', which certainly succeeded in provoking you and from which I quote :

''If you were running for president, or senator, even today, (you) might you think twice about mentioning even an opinion as establishment friendly as, "Hey, I'm all for NSA surveillance, but I don't trust a private contractor like Booz Allen Hamilton to do it"? Maybe safeguards put in place since the first Snowden leak would prevent a Bizarro Edward Snowden with strong Booz loyalties from targeting you. Maybe. Why risk it?

''In yet another scenario, the NSA wouldn't go so far as to use information obtained through surveillance to affect an election. But they'd use it to their advantage to thwart the reform agenda of the candidate they didn't like if he or she won.

''And maybe the NSA would be as horrified by this sort of thing as I am. But maybe one of their contractors is on the payroll of a foreign government (My Edit : Or Private Corporation !!), and they want to impact a presidential election by exploiting the unprecedented amounts of data that the surveillance state has collected and stored on almost everyone.

''American democracy could be subverted in all sorts of hypothetical ways. Why worry about this one in particular? Here's the general standard I'd submit as the one that should govern our thinking: if a powerful institutional actor within government has a strong incentive to do something bad, the means to do it, and a high likelihood of being able to do it without getting caught, it will be done eventually.''

~

So keep your knickers on and hold your ''fuk yous'' and I'll consider myself suitably chastised and think twice before engaging your grumpy ass again any time soon but I will still recommend the video on this link to you - tho' you are not obliged to comment nor to get curmudgeonly & thanx for your link too, lol :

vale ...

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20531) from South Burlington, VT 5 months ago

''American democracy could be subverted in all sorts of hypothetical ways. Why worry about this one in particular? Here's the general standard I'd submit as the one that should govern our thinking: if a powerful institutional actor within government has a strong incentive to do something bad, the means to do it, and a high likelihood of being able to do it without getting caught, it will be done eventually.''

disingenuous I said. The Presidential election of 2000 with its butterfly ballot already demonstrates that if quite plainly. The fact is that wide scale surveillance of the population is already taking place, by the private sector and they are not the least bit opposed to using that information any way they see fit.

the piece you cite is an appeal to conservatives - as I stated previously and as anyone can plainly see upon examination. Yet as a piece of advocacy it must fall upon deaf ears. Why would any conservative be persuaded to actually do something about the only technique with proven results in so far as furthering the conservative agenda is concerned? Cheating is of course, the only method that can guarantee results.

How do we know this is true?

Dixie Crat conservatives no longer populate the democratic party - their policy of institutionalized disparity cannot stand on the basis of its merits alone and it has failed. And so the former Dixie Crat has faded away, returning as a tea party repelican, though in truth these fools have their silent supporters among the repelican faithful.

As such, they know they must cheat if they are to win. They must appeal to the base nature of humanity - greed, lust, envy - and where these fail they must depend on fear, on blackmail, and on murder. They depend on these things because their principle idea, of institutionalized disparity, can be sold by no other means.

.

And so ultimately, what purpose can this piece possibly have? That of persuasion and nothing else. The suggestion is to append a supposition of guilt upon an individual where no evidence of corruption has been shown to exist.

.

REPELICANS - they claim they want smaller government.

  • I WANT SMALLER BANKS

about such possibilities these fools remain silent.

.

pfft

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (17974) 5 months ago

''Why would any conservative be persuaded to actually do something about the only technique with proven results in so far as furthering the conservative agenda is concerned? Cheating is of course, the only method that can guarantee results.

''As such, they know they must cheat if they are to win. They must appeal to the base nature of humanity - greed, lust, envy - and where these fail they must depend on fear, on blackmail, and on murder. They depend on these things because their principle idea, of institutionalized disparity, can be sold by no other means.''

Right and don't forget Paul Weyrich but I advocate a more real and representative democracy reclaimed from Corporate Controlled Duopoly and for Publicly Owned Banks understanding banking as a modern, public utility. I will take a publicly accountable monopoly by dint of ownership by The Democratic State over Private Cartels engaging in usury and extraction any day.

So, it was well worth my posting that piece from yes, a conservative perspective (Hello! It was from 'The Atlantic' ffs, lol) and given your confession about a certain lean in that direction - I thought that you'd get it more readily than you did. However, a purpose was served and this good thread bumped.

I will refer you to my other links immediately above and at the end of my previous reply to you and anyway ... wasn't I supposed to be cultivating an affectation of a giant sulky huff with you ?! So bah humbug, lol !!

Finally Zendude - 'Repelicans'' are beyond the pale but a corporate controlled and bankster bank-rolled Democratic Party Machine is a HUGE fail & so a Labor Based, Third Party & Independents of The 99% is what y'all desperately need !!!

beaucoup de pfffffffft ici aussi ...

[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 months ago

can't silence messages by assassination anymore

but you can't teach the old guard new tricks