From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Were they even looking before the stories ?

Using hard to trace cell phones has been on TV for YEARS. If the terrorists
are so dumb as to use readily traceable phones until a story in the NYT
appears  then why do you assume they are smart enough to read the NYT but
not watch TV?


"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:44de36f6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Both you and Rich miss the point of my post entirely.  I didn't claim that
> catching these guys with 1000's of cell phones was due to NSA
> surveillance. I'm saying that this is clearly a sign that the NSA leaks
> did in fact damage our intelligence gathering and that terrorists did in
> fact change their behavior AFTER these traitorous leaks because PRIOR to
> these leaks we weren't apprehending people with 1000's of cell phones.  We
> start apprehending them only AFTER the leaks and would be terrorists begin
> to CHANGE their behavior as a RESULT of the NSA surveillance leaks.
>
> I'm saying this fact that NOW we catch guys with 1000's of cell phones and
> BEFORE the leaks we didn't put the LIE to the liberal traitors pooh
> poohing the effect of the leaks as being inconsequential.
>
> And for Rich to paraphrase your little snark to me.  Don't let the FACTS
> get in the way of defense of the traitors who leak our national security
> secrets.
>
> Gary
>
> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
> news:44de3034{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> I remember all that.   Strange that if these liberal traitors more
>>> interested in political power than the safety of our children were
>>> correct
>>> in their assertions above, that PRIOR TO THESE LEAKS WE WEREN'T CATCHING
>>> NUMEROUS AND SEPARATE GROUPS OF MUSLIM CRIMINALS WITH 1000'S OF PREPAID
>> HARD > TO TRACE CELL PHONES IN THEIR VEHICLES.
>>
>> Trying to make some sense out of all that.
>>
>> The arrests, as I understand it, were prompted not by any sophisticated
>> surveillance but by shop assistants (clerks) at Walmart becoming
>> suspicious - their awareness having been raised by earlier reports and a
>> directive from their management.
>>
>> The directive was apparently the result of an FBI Advisory dated 3
>> August.
>>
>> I don't see where the New York Times, the NSA, leaks, surveillance or
>> anything else fits in this.  It's plain, simple, boring and very
>> effective
>> police work.
>>
>> http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27267626.shtml
>>
>> "During a telephone conversation between British Prime Minister Tony
>> Blair
>> and President George W. Bush regarding the terrorist plot and arrests in
>> the
>> United Kingdom, Blair warned Bush about possible intelligence leaks in
>> the
>> US, according to Fox News.
>>
>> There is fear that the ongoing investigation into a large-scale terrorist
>> attack on airline flights between the UK and US will be compromised by
>> leakers and the American news media, who in the past have compromised
>> national security."
>>
>> Why do you think we didn't ****ing tell you until the arrests were
>> underway?
>> Your intelligence services leak like sieves.
>>
>> I have a friend who is involved in another issue - not directly
>> terrorist-related.  He passed information to two US officials on a
>> "need-to-know" and strict non-distribution basis.  And
read it in the
>> papers
>> days later.  He (and his department) now pass _NO_ information to US
>> authorities.  It just blows their operations.
>>
>> And note - this isn't legitimate whistle-blowing like in the NYT case -
>> this
>> is someone leaking a story for personal gain of some kind.  I support
>> whistle-blowers, but these ****s should be shot.
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5