Calling All Pages: Submit Your Own Foley Accusation
Posted on October 5, 2006
Here is the ABC tip page for any pages out there: Submit your own Foley Scandal. Name address and phone # Not required! Surely, by tommorow we can get up to ten former pages. There is no limit to the number of former anonymous pages that could tell their stories between now and election day.
ABC’s Blotter claims that three more pages have come forward with accusations Foley made sexual advances on them as well.
The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team’s tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.
Seriously, it wouldn’t surprise me if the story is true, but how can this be verified? I think Foley is scum and I sympathize for the victims, but how could any reputable news organization run with this story? I’m not the only skeptic.
Ok, but what is to say that these kids are who they say they are. After all they’re filling out a webform. How do we know that the Daily Kos isn’t sending this stuff in, you know, like they do with online polls.
The Anchoress outs herself.
Hot Air has video of Foley victim calling Drudge prank claim ‘fiction’
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Calling All Pages: Submit Your Own Foley Accusation”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
He turned me into a newt!
but how could any reputable news organization run with this story?
Is that a rhetorical question?
“Name address and phone # Not required! Surely, by tommorow we can get up to ten former pages.”
You really think they just take things off this form and print them?
I didn’t say that gfactor, I just said we can’t really know.
I’m just waiting for the headline: Former page charges ‘Foley turned me into a NEWT!!!’”
“I didn’t say that gfactor, I just said we can’t really know.”
No you didn’t say it. Thats why I asked. What do you think they do? They said they followed up on the pages they have talked to. Do you think they’re lying?
August 20, 2006: A federal judge in Detroit has recently ruled that the NSA’s program to intercept and listen in on terrorist conversations is unconstitutional. This latest success by those waging lawfare against the intelligence community and the Department of Defense, could be the most damaging. The American Civil Liberties Union filed this suit, along with multiple individuals who claimed the program caused them professional difficulties.
The dangers of this ruling come on multiple levels. The most obvious danger is that a federal judge can now destroy an intelligence program. If a group is able to file a suit in front of a friendly judge, then the agency is in trouble. At best, an intelligence agency will have to spend more time and resources on legal matters than it normally would. At worst, programs that get information that can stop attacks, will be terminated by a court order.
Another danger is that litigation will expose details of how intelligence agencies work. Methods of gathering intelligence, and sources of intelligence, are the most valuable secrets a country has. Knowing how an agency collects intelligence enables people to do things to counter efforts to gather that intelligence. Sources can also be exposed via litigation. Since many of the groups the NSA currently tries to listen in on are willing to do things like fly airplanes into buildings, any source who is outed by litigation (or leaks) is in serious danger of getting killed. Dead men provide no intelligence. Worse yet, they become examples to other potential sources.
Finally, there is the danger that litigation will have a “chilling effect” on the intelligence community. In the past, leaks and controversies have often led American intelligence agencies to shun the use of human intelligence. Often, sources stopped cooperation out of fear that they would be exposed. Litigation holds that same potential with various forms of technical intelligence, particularly the interception of communications, which was apparently crucial in thwarting the recent plan to destroy airliners over the Atlantic.
The groups that have waged a relentless campaign against the intelligence community, and which secured this ruling are not the only winners. Terrorists will be the biggest beneficiaries of court rulings that leave intelligence agencies afraid to aggressively gather information due to fears of angering groups like the ACLU enough that they file lawsuits.
The point is that too many people are walking dead men. They just list the ACLU’s crimes and that’s it.
How many who read this will swear to get the traitorous ACLU scum. To destroy them.
Think about it.
You Wanna Talk About Lousy Politicians?
What about the three Republican senators, allied to the ACLU, that recently caused America to lose the war on terrorism?
September 22, 2006: If U.S. Republican politicians John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham did the dirty work of the ACLU prevail in their political battle with the American government over military tribunals, the United States could effectively find itself returned to the policies of the Clinton Administration, when convicting terrorists often compromised the gathering of intelligence. How? Because one of the provisions in the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation would require that terrorists be shown all the evidence against them. Despite their noble intentions, their legislation, if passed, will increase the chance that a terrorist attack will succeed in the future.
How does the proposal place intelligence gathering at risk? The answer is in the discovery process, which requires the government to turn over information pertaining to witnesses, potential witnesses, and the government’s case in general. In 1995, such information was turned over to lawyers representing Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric and leader of the terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. At least one of the documents ultimately found its way to al Qaeda headquarters in the Sudan. That document contained a list of people who were on the government’s radar screen – and thus alerted al Qaeda to the possibility of surveillance.
Once a person, group, or country find out that they are of interest to an intelligence agency, two things happen. First, they tend to become very careful with regards to communications – they take steps to throw off surveillance efforts, and they will even shift to means that cannot be intercepted (like couriers or flying for face-to-face meetings). Second, they begin to wonder how the information is acquired – and try to cut off the flow. If they find out enough of what an intelligence agency knows, they will have an idea of who might be a source… and that suspected source’s ending will not be happy.
Compromising methods of gathering intelligence, and the sources of intelligence creates a chilling effect. If a source wants to be extracted, intelligence he might have gathered in the future is lost. The same loss of intelligence happens when a source stops cooperating for fear of exposure, which happened in 1995 after then-Congressman Robert Torricelli burned a CIA source. Cooperation with other intelligence agencies will also suffer – as they act to protect their methods and sources from being exposed.
The loss of sources, increased caution by terrorists, and a reduction in cooperation from other intelligence agencies will combine to leave the American intelligence community hamstrung. What’s at stake there? For an example, cooperation among American, British, and Pakistani intelligence agencies was crucial in thwarting the plot to destroy a number of airliners over the Atlantic last August. Other attacks have also been thwarted by information obtained by the intelligence community, which has been given a much freer hand since the attacks of September 11, 2001. A lack of cooperation – preventing intelligence agencies from connecting the dots – could have easily allowed those attacks to succeed.
Five years after the attacks, which were brought about by hamstringing the intelligence community and treating terrorism as strictly a law-enforcement issue that required compliance with various protections that only compromised methods and sources of intelligence gathering, Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham are about to force the military to do the same thing if they want to keep terrorists on ice. In this case, one of the critical lessons of 9/11 is being ignored.
What are YOU going to do about it?
When are WE going to stop the ACLU?
When are WE going to stop the ACLU?
If it’s WE, what’s your plan?