Saddam's Documents
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Saddam's Documents

  1. #1
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830

    Saddam's Documents

    Maybe its just me, but this sounds like a HUGE load of propaganda bullshit. I don't believe that Saddam was "controlling" or masterminding the insurgency in Iraq in the first place (rumor has it that the U.S. knows that many of the attacks are from disgruntled citizens who just want us out and not really from Saddam-sympathizers or Al Qaeda- but we wouldn't want that story to get out), but I have a VERY hard time believing that Saddam is running around the desert in Iraq hiding from U.S. and "coalition" forces and barricading himself in small underground spiderholes- but that he is also carrying a briefcase full of important and sensitive documents with him.

    But documents found with him after his mid-December capture in a hole near his home town of Tikrit have provided better than expected information
    The same article also has the audacity to say:

    However, with Saddam gone and intelligence-gathering improving, guerrilla cells were finding it harder to communicate and coordinate large pre-planned attacks, he said.
    I haven't noticed any decline or stoppage in attacks. Bombings and ambushes and shoulder-launched rockets taking down helicopters are still happening daily at the same rate as they were when Saddam wasn't captured.

    The whole thing just wreaks of the government trying to spin Saddam's capture- which was never a real goal of going to Iraq- into way more than it is and ride its coattails for as long as possible as if its some holy grail.

    Full article: Saddam Tight-Lipped, U.S. Captors Tread Softly

  2. #2
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,038

    Re: Saddam's Documents

    The whole thing just wreaks of the government trying to spin Saddam's capture- which was never a real goal of going to Iraq- into way more than it is and ride its coattails for as long as possible as if its some holy grail.
    I find myself agreeing since Bush signed more powers for the FBI into law the same day he was captured.

    Bush: Hey look over there at Saddam while I take away your rights....

    Article:
    Bush Grabs New Power for FBI
    http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html

    Maybe its just me, but this sounds like a HUGE load of propaganda bullshit. I don't believe that Saddam was "controlling" or masterminding the insurgency in Iraq in the first place (rumor has it that the U.S. knows that many of the attacks are from disgruntled citizens who just want us out and not really from Saddam-sympathizers or Al Qaeda- but we wouldn't want that story to get out), but I have a VERY hard time believing that Saddam is running around the desert in Iraq hiding from U.S. and "coalition" forces and barricading himself in small underground spiderholes- but that he is also carrying a briefcase full of important and sensitive documents with him.
    Maybe the report is from the same people that stated that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

  3. #3
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Sadam controlled a powerful nation, not a small pizza shope, a powerful nation and all it's internal workings for 30 years. I don't think he was powerless while hiding. Or the US made everything up. Why? They already have him what are they seeking? Some of those attacks were massivly coordinated, if not Sadam then there is still someone with Dangerous power on the loose. The goal has always been to remove Saddam, that's not a new development.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    681
    the reason why i would believe that this is mostly propaganda is because this is a reelection year and bush is proposeing and signing alot of things that are pissing off the nation... what better way to boost himself against howard dean then to capture saddam, release documents that show saddam was the head of the insurgence (even though it didn't stop), and have the construction begin on the memorial at the wtc. sounds to me like one hell of a plan
    Learn like you are going to live forever, live like you are going to die tomorrow.

    Propoganda

  5. #5
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,038
    Originally posted here by RoadClosed
    The goal has always been to remove Saddam, that's not a new development.
    hmmm..... I remember differently....

    I remember 3 reasons the US said they were going into Iraq:

    1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (couldnt find any so go to reason 2)
    2) Link to Bin Laden (no link so go to 3)
    3) Free the Iraqi oil (I mean people)
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

  6. #6
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Yes you are correct, but all three of those had a single goal and outcome, to remove the standing power in Iraq. Those were excuses to do it....

    Now for "FISH ON" once again, as those in this country are led by little hooks with no forethought into what they propagate (as a society). The article in Wired concerned me so I went and read a few things. The Fiscal Act of 2004, which according to someone who wrote the article is a new law that gives FBI more power and brings in the Patriot Act etc. I also went and found Title 31, section 5312 of the United States code You see, any new powers given to the FBI are something I would be concerned with, and need more information - now my coffee got cold.

    You see the section in question is 374. I will post it here in a quote from the Fiscal Act:


    SEC. 374. MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT.

    (a) MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION- Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    `(d) For purposes of this section, and sections 1115 and 1117 insofar as they relate to the operation of this section, the term `financial institution' has the same meaning as in subsections (a)(2) and (c)(1) of section 5312 of title 31, United States Code, except that, for purposes of this section, such term shall include only such a financial institution any part of which is located inside any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands.'.

    (b) CROSS REFERENCE MODIFICATION- Section 1101(1) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 3401(1)) is amended by inserting `, except as provided in section 1114,' before `means any office'.
    I looked at that and the Wired article and said...wtf? Where is the notice on New Laws that state increase powers, and I quote this:

    The new law (see Section 374 of the act), however, lets the FBI acquire these records through an administrative procedure whereby an FBI field agent simply drafts a so-called national security letter stating the information is relevant to a national security investigation.
    Sigh, congress ruled in 1976, over 20 years ago that public financial institutions give no privacy to individual financial records, that they are public records in the eyes from a government law enforcement standard. The Financial Privacy Act of 1978 helped a little but the FBI NEVER needed a subpoena to get at your bank account. LOL. If you want to blame a president, who was that? Carter, Ford? Chuck me a peanut and call me Charlie, he stole my right to harbor funds in an account. Ever wonder why so many went over to "offshore" banking. It wasn't Bush or the Patriot Act.

    And the law broadens the definition of "financial institution" to include such businesses as insurance companies, travel agencies, real estate agents, stockbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service and even jewelry stores, casinos and car dealerships.
    OK this one is on the up and up. It does broaden already granted 20 year old powers to include those things. But they didnít just make them up. They are in Title 31 which deals with and is titled Money and Finance. They pointed the modified Act to expand the definition of "Financial Institution" to what the Title declared. It does not include Jewelry Stores that is another lie, perhaps he was referring to Pawn shops, because according to the government you go there to get cash and conduct fiscal transactions. But Pawn shops don't sound as good. Those same institutions are also changed to include sources the public can claim restitution from if the government is caught over stepping its boundaries. What really is the major change is territories are included. I bet they are pissed off.

    Basically here is the story.... The Fiscal Act of 2004 changes paragraph D of the Financial Privacy Act that says: "No financial institution, or officer, employee, or agent of such institution, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to a customer's or entity's financial records under this paragraph." to reference "Financial Institution" to include those listed in Title 31 United States code. It does not add the line about no subpoena needed or add the lines that employees can't tell people they are being audited. Those were ALREADY there.

    If I missed some other key point then you can all kick me in the shorts but that is how I see it as it stands right now.



    References:

    http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61792,00.html

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/...er_first_match

    http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws...0firaircao1978

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20

  7. #7
    AO Decepticon CXGJarrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,038
    Hats off man. I missed that in the article. Thanks for the clear up.
    N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •