Reader Comments

Nickname: joepublic

Review: Very true I agree 100%

Date reviewed: Jun 7, 2006 10:13 PM

Nickname: AndrewP

Review: I don't see a problem here. It makes perfect sense. If you want to keep an operation black, you have to prevent any public record of any kind from existing. Look at how enemy-loving activists were able to troll records of landings and takeoffs and from that figure out the pattern of CIA rendition flights. It is easy to see how financial records can open up similar vulnerabilities, especially when ostensibly small companies undertake large black projects that involve a lot of federal expenditure. While a big operation like General Dynamics probably doesn't need this, an small operation might. So might cos that are wholly government owned and pretend to be investor owned as a ruse. Remember, the CIA has the authority to create dummy companies, and some of these cos might issue stock as a ruse to hide their real ownership from foreign targets. The CIA might also run financial black ops against our enemies to wipe out enemies financially, and need a way of keeping investigators at bay.

Date reviewed: Jun 3, 2006 5:36 PM

Nickname: Citizen

Review: Companies play a role in propping up failing stock markets using retirement and other funds in return for no-bid contracts and excessive billing.

Date reviewed: Jun 3, 2006 12:20 PM

Nickname: georg

Review: Great. Just what we need..more power in the name of "National Security". would the finding of improper accounting practices at FannieMae or FreddieMac be a "national security issue"? Would they be exempted from reporting the truth? And whow would pick up the tab for the mess??? I have supported Bush vigorously for the past 6 years. I have come to realize that Bush and his crew are only interested in securing broad powers in the name of "National Security". If things continue along this path, "National Security" will be a greater threat then terrorism!

Date reviewed: May 31, 2006 1:33 PM

Nickname: AWVIP

Review: PROtoCLOWN - "Might have been used." Really? Remember all those put options on UA, Merryl Lynch etc. around 9/11? The SEC and the FBI say there's no evidence of ties to "Middle Eastern Terrorism," which leaves us to conclude that it only shows evidence of US-establishment ties to "terrorism" (in this case a euphemism for false-flagged, self-inflicted wounds upon our own country). Gee, if there were no ties to terrorism, and no evidence of crimes committed, I wonder why no one ever collected on those options (at least so far as we know)?

Date reviewed: May 27, 2006 11:29 PM

Nickname: Eagle

Review: For those interested: a lobbyist can bribe people by putting a stooge golfer in a golf match with the Congressman, having the stooge bet large dollars per hole, etc. and intentionally losing the hole. Likewise, poker games can have large bets and large pots wherein lobbyists put stooge players in the game to fund it and lose the bets to the Congressman.

Date reviewed: May 27, 2006 4:11 PM

Nickname: i do not have one

Review: It is already too late. These cons have been and will continue to destroy individual freedoms. There are 108 elements in the universe and they are all at the tips of your fingertips, provided that you decide to be compassionate, kind, and caring. Then nobody can stop you.

Date reviewed: May 27, 2006 1:59 PM

Nickname: Oceania

Review: This also allows telcos to sue the newspapers who reported the original story, safe in the knowledge that there will be no corporate paper trail to rebut their suit. And since the only other paper trail would require use of NSA paper, to expose it would be treason. It's a manner of allowing "The Big Lie" to go unrebutted. This is very scary stuff--pretty far along the slippery slope leading away from democracy.

Date reviewed: May 26, 2006 7:57 PM

Nickname: Nicholas Levis

Review: Protoclown, you of many excuses for Bush and this provision, which is wrong no matter who came up with it for what reason. The most ludicrous of your justifications is surely that if Company X is known to receive Sum Z and works in a given area D, foreign intelligence will target it for espionage, and therefore the provision is justified. Please! Foreign intelligence agencies are competent enough to figure out which companies they wish to target. The only "protection" this provision provides is against prosecution (or even discovery) for the violaters of SEC rules. Obviously, decisions made under this provision will be in secret. Otherwise it would defeat its own (ostensible) function of "national security." Face it, this is carte blanche to steal, and actually in the context of the present administration as well as the long-running plunder machinery of the war complex, really not unusual. Not that this provides a justification. One thing this also means: Crash coming!

Date reviewed: May 26, 2006 4:00 AM

Nickname: ricke

Review: I'm sure we will see Bush pardon the E-2 chiefs once he leaves office. Remember the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall"? I've seen nothing but a divide in this great nation.

Date reviewed: May 26, 2006 3:39 AM