It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

page: 13
35
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


No, they cannot access your computer anytime they want. They have to provide probable cause and get a warrant to access your records. They people did not do that.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
more and more it looks like obama does not meet the requirements to be president. there's to much smoke not to be fire.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Where is the proof of this. There is no smoke and no fire. Just morons who think they can do whatever they want



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
On page 2 of this thread, there was an accusation that Obama has spent "hundreds of millions" to protect his records. So far there has been no proof provided to back up this lie; are we every going to receive proof?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
more and more it looks like obama does not meet the requirements to be president. there's to much smoke not to be fire.


By smoke you mean just someone allegedly digging into your files illegally and others making unsubstantiated claims even after your actual birth documents have been validated by the United States of America already?

Okie dokie.

That sure proves something, but not about Obama.



- Lee



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
more and more it looks like obama does not meet the requirements to be president. there's to much smoke not to be fire.



Please...show me some smoke...I see no smoke.

I see a bunch of people claiming they have seen smoke...but it has mysteriously vanished, or only they can see the smoke, or someone else said they saw the smoke and told them about it. Or it has proven over and over that there was never any smoke...but people keep saying there is smoke (even though every single one is proven wrong) so there must be smoke.


Please...just show me the smoke...I'm not even asking for the fire...I just want to see some actual smoke.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by STuPiD NiGGeR FoReiGNeR
 


OK now I have to say that has to be the most offensive username I have ever seen on this site..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
more and more it looks like obama does not meet the requirements to be president. there's to much smoke not to be fire.


That's not even a rational statement.

I'm sure you would get brought up on charges no matter which presidents personal information you tried to illegally access.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Someone had to do it.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Let's think about this for a second.

How stupid do you have to be to illegally look at the POTUS' personal information? If you have access to the information then you know that they will get in trouble for this type of action. You would also know that it's probably monitored very closely.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


They committed a crime, plain and simple.


So if its discovered in those records that he is indeed foreign born and leaked to the public would they be heros?

I would think so.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


They may be to some people, but they still would be criminals. If they found anything, do you think they would keep it quiet? They would be on the phone to Ms Taitz in 5 seconds.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
Considering the importance of such of a high level government position, the employer would want to do a thorough job researching a potential employee's background.


This is correct, employers research their employees "before" they hire them... not "after"

All the research on Obama shoud have been done before he got voted in.

Now it is too late... he has closed the books and locked them, and hid them away.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I agree with this, I don't know if it's been stated in the thread as I'm on a mobile device and slowly working through this, but if your employer (in this case, the American public) wants to do a background check on you, everywhere I've worked requires a signed form detailing your permission to do said investigation.

Mind you, I'm not exactly an Obama supporter, but I think if you're going to allegedly break the law, there's a penalty to pay.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
[edit on 13-5-2010 by djzombie]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


They committed a crime, plain and simple.


So if its discovered in those records that he is indeed foreign born and leaked to the public would they be heros?

I would think so.


No matter how much I hope that would be the case, and that they found out some nice little tidbit of info that could be used to try and convict the man, these people still committed a very dangerous crime in today's climate. ID theft and the associated acts are not looked upon kindly by the feds and this is where they nailed these "kids" under those statutes..

Should they be punished or praised?

My personal opinion does not exactly sit well with the strict legal interpretation of the act. (Is that one good Ashley?)



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sodakota

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
Considering the importance of such of a high level government position, the employer would want to do a thorough job researching a potential employee's background.


This is correct, employers research their employees "before" they hire them... not "after"

All the research on Obama shoud have been done before he got voted in.

Now it is too late... he has closed the books and locked them, and hid them away.
They do keep on researching some employees, right here in these United States.
Let's say you work for the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA or let's say maybe even the Secret Service. Do you think they just get a background check before they hire you then that's it?

No, there are continual checks on you and what you are doing, who you are talking to.

But wait, that's different you say! They are entrusted with state secrets or guarding the President!

Ha! I would bet that they keep tabs on what the White House trash collectors are up to when they aren't at work.

Yep! Check up on the guy that dumps the garbage, but we don't need to worry about the President.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Not to mention, I signed over to allow my employer to run a check on me whenever they feel like it, even to this day. So an employer can have that right, but still only if the employee allows them to. Given the presumption that The Office of the President and its powers are only granted by and through the People, I've always been a proponent that the American public is, at the very least, an indirect employer of the President. That said, I sincerely doubt that these 9 can prove they were given permission to allegedly break god-knows-how-many privacy laws.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


Just keep munchin' on the grass there....




top topics



 
35
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join