PRISM was an effective program and a good balance with civil liberties. Snowden should go to jail.

[BrentWil]

It always strikes me as an interesting PR position the government is in when stuff like this brakes. If you believe that talking about something actually puts people in danger, how do you defend a program like PRiSM when they are leaked? Not that too many will take too much pity on the PR for the government, but it is an interesting point of view to take in mind. This story somewhat reminds me of the AP leak story. Yes the government seized records of journalist. However, it was in response to a leak on human intelligence in terrorist organizations. In other words, we had real people, with real families, that were inside terrorist organizations. Talented people with real families. If you were the President and in charge of protecting those people, how far would you go? And once the story is leaked, how do you protect yourself without further undermining those people's safety. We often think of these problems from the side of the civil libertarian. However, it is an interesting perspective and one every President has to deal with.

That brings us to PRiSM. From what I can gather from the news sources, this was basically a program used data from various sources (cell phone companies, internet companies) to look for connections to known terrorist sources. In other words, they were mining the data to see if a certain number called someone. If they wanted to go further and listen, they had to attain a further warrant. Moreover, the program itself was covered by a warrant and legal. The program apparently had pervious success. There are very few things that Saxby Chambliss and Dianne Feinstein agree on. The effectiveness of the program seems to be one.

Given that a majority of internet traffic passes within the United States, there are both legitimate privacy and security concerns. What the program was designed to stop are not just crime. They are events that could undermine our civilization. However, this also has to be weighted against privacy concerns. With that being the case, I don't see anything particularly wrong the arrangement that a democratically elected government came to. Moreover, there was oversight from both the Congress and the courts.

What Snowden did is throw out all these considerations and decide he had the right to make these judgements, not the lawfully elected representatives of the people. I am for more transparency in government. One of the reasons we have problems keeping secrets is because we over classify. That said, he had no right to undermine what was the will of a democratically elected government that was reviewed by the courts. There are actual security concerns and he could have very well undermined those concerns.

[uponit7771]

1. +1, Not only that works for the Carlyle Group, screw that...ALL these "scandals" now look like FUDr

...no doubt

[Buzz Clik]

16. ... and DU swallowed the hook.

[Kurska]

2. Bullshit, this is a democracy and we have a god damn RIGHT to decide whether we wanted this.

They implemented all this behind closed doors with vague authorizations.

[BrentWil]

14. And if cost of complete transparency are terrorist attacks?

There should be a balance.

[Downtown Hound]

19. I remember Bush administration officials saying the same thing

Congratulations to you for choosing your side finally. You have now come down squarely on the side of fear mongering in the name of fascism and so-called security.

[BrentWil]

56. Simply because Bush makes an argument using logic in one case...

Doesn't make that logic wrong in all cases. Nor does it make it right. Each case has to be seen on its own merits.

[Downtown Hound]

85. There is no merit here, and there never was

It's all a pile of crap. I didn't take it from Bush lying down, and I'm not taking it from you or Obama lying down either.

[BrentWil]

93. Didn't Obama do what most were demanding..

Go though the courts.

[Downtown Hound]

105. I really don't know who "most" is

If Obama has nothing to hide, then he shouldn' be afriad of public scrutiny. Gee, where have I heard that before?

I'm not going to just trust that an anonymous court is going to protect my rights.

[cheapdate]

61. "I remeber Bush administration officials saying the same thing"

isn't a serious argument -- and heaping abuse on top of it makes it even weaker.

[humbled_opinion]

79. Amazes me...

Many here must now perform as a contortionist to validate their position on this issue, here let me help them, either Bush was right and justified in using terror as a rationale to spy on American citizens, and Obama is now just as guilty or they are both guilty and should be held accountable by us. If you don't understand that then how about this: What will President Sarah Palin do with her new found Democratic Administration approved power to monitor the citizenry?

[cheapdate]

87. Maybe you meant your reply to someone else.

My earlier comment took no position on the issue and it's hard to see how you could possibly draw so many conclusions about my beliefs based solely on it.

But for argument sake, I'll assume you meant your comments for me. Your premise is that the acts and circumstances of the Bush administration's surveillance programs and the Obama administration's are the same, or substantially so.

The differences have been noted in great detail elsewhere -- the Bush administration was actually using wiretaps, the Obama administration isn't, the Bush administration was gathering information without a court approval, the Obama administration has court approval, the laws that were in place under Bush are not the same laws that are in place under Obama, etc.

Are they the same? I'm not so sure. The details are complicated, contested, uncertain, clouded in secrecy, etc.

But I would make a bet that there is not a single, serious person in the DU community that would dispute the proposition that the laws governing surveillance desperately need to be dramatically changed.

[Downtown Hound]

83. Well, it's a serious argument to me

Because I find it the height of hypocrisy to condemn Bush for abuses like this but give Obama a pass. How many times did we accuse the Bush administration of playing up the fear of terrorism card to justify the loss of civil liberties at home? But now that Obama's doing it, hey, it's a-okay.

Bullshit. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, and I will call anybody on it. The only real abuse that's happening here is being done by the NSA, with the complicity of both the Obama and Bush administrations.

[cheapdate]

88. That's better.

I'm going to repeat the reply I made to humbled_opinion on this very same sub-thread just a minute ago.

<<Your premise is that the acts and circumstances of the Bush administration's surveillance programs and the Obama administration's are the same, or substantially so.

The differences have been noted in great detail elsewhere -- the Bush administration was actually using wiretaps, the Obama administration isn't, the Bush administration was gathering information without a court approval, the Obama administration has court approval, the laws that were in place under Bush are not the same laws that are in place under Obama, etc.

Are they the same? I'm not so sure. The details are complicated, contested, uncertain, clouded in secrecy, etc.

But I would make a bet that there is not a single, serious person in the DU community that would dispute the proposition that the laws governing surveillance desperately need to be dramatically changed.>>

[BrentWil]

95. +1

[Downtown Hound]

108. You just gave a +1 to a post that said:

"But I would make a bet that there is not a single, serious person in the DU community that would dispute the proposition that the laws governing surveillance desperately need to be dramatically changed."

Your whole OP was basically stating the opposite. You said our surveillance laws were more or less just wonderful, democratic, and that anybody that leaks anything about them should go to jail. Please don't backpedal and now pretend that you give a shit about privacy or the constitution.

[Mojorabbit]

109. + a gazillion. nt

[markpkessinger]

23. Nobody ever promised that the cost of living in a free society wouldn't at times be very high

To be a free and open society means, by definition, that we expose ourselves to certain vulnerabilities, and that we accept the risks entailed by virtue of maintaning such a free and open society. This was no less true in 1787 than it is today.

[cheapdate]

65. There were definitely mortal hazards in 1787.

Indians, the British, slave revolts, etc. But I'm not sure that today's threat of religiously motivated mass-casualty attacks against the civilian population in major US cities has any close analogue in 1787 America.

[markpkessinger]

73. Bombs were not unknown, nor was religiously motivated violence . . .

. . . the colonists would have been well aware of the religious strife that swept Europe throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.

[cheapdate]

81. True, bombs were not unknown nor was religiously motivated violence,

but I don't know of any event in early America where those two things came together in an organized effort to blow up buildings to deliberately inflict mass civilian casualties in major American cities.

I understand the inherent conflict between liberty and security. I also recognize that sometimes there is a wide gap between actual risk and American's perception of that risk.

I don't fully understand why the risk of being killed inside the United States by an Islamic terrorist -- which is objectively a miniscule possibility -- seems to inspires such strong fear in people. I can sort-of understand it, but not fully.

[Vinnie From Indy]

35. Balance?

Since 9/11 The US has seen less than 50 of it's citizens killed by Muslim terrorists. In your world does it seem balanced to capture and store all electronic communication of all Americans at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to protect us from Jihadists? Is it balance to do these things as a society when the truth of the matter is that you are 4550 times more likely to be killed by a fellow American and 1800 times more likely to die because your company ignores job safety requirements?

Cheers!

[Logical]

38. Name the last one. n-t

[burnodo]

44. very Bushian thinking

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." –National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

[morningfog]

53. If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

[davidn3600]

67. The government will never be able to guarantee your safety...

...but they will be happy to take your freedom and provide you the illusion of safety.

[markpkessinger]

72. THANK YOU!

There a reason the word 'safety' appears nowhere in the Constitution! There is vulnerability -- cost -- built into the concept of a free society. Sometimes, that cost is very high. Now if only people would grow up and come to terms with that . . .

[Abq_Sarah]

96. I dispute the idea of "balance"

When it comes to the Constitution. Either we live under the rule of law, or we don't.

[mike_c]

107. we're apparently willing to accept thousands of deaths annually...

...as the cost of having a second amendment, mostly so that Americans can amuse themselves with guns. Why not accept an occasional terrorist attack as the cost of having the first and fourth amendments? Which is more important?

Terrorism cannot be stopped. The government can lock us all up in supermax, and terrorism will still happen. So if eliminating constitutional protections and rights won't stop terrorism anyway, stopping terrorism is just an empty justification for abandoning constitutional rights.

[randome]

20. You mean the people we elected?

We elected them to make these decisions. What would it take for you to be satisfied? At some point, we have to admit that we can't micro-manage the world. Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to trust the people we elected.

And there is no evidence that anyone has been harmed. No evidence that anyone but non-Americans are targeted.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[okaawhatever]

47. There are several reportings of this. A large one in the New York Times in Aug of 2012. The problem

is, they didn't scream Every American in the US is being spyed on. Because that isn't true. The software that is used for the data minimg has been reported on in stock and business columns. One article was saying that the data mining software program was already in use by the FBI, DoD and that the NSA might be purchasing it. The problem is, none of that was presented to you with all the hype. They just told you what the program was and no one had a problem with it.

[timdog44]

49. And we should let an asshat like

Snowden make this decision. A lowly employee who probably carried coffee for his superiors. He seems to paint himself as some kind of 007 with a licence to kill.

And almost everything that is implemented is done behind closed doors and we never get to decide on anything.

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. +100

[SlimJimmy]

69. We damn sure weren't okay with this during the bush administration. So why, all of a sudden,

is just hunky dory? Just because the President now is a Democrat, doesn't make it a dime better.

[KittyWampus]

91. Go back to your Civics lessons. This is a Democratic Republic. We ELECT PEOPLE to decide.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. "I am for more transparency in government."

Yet you advocate the jailing of someone providing such a thing.

Welcome to Pluto, Skippy...

[hlthe2b]

4. Actually, I'm amazed that so many are reading what is clearly contradictory information back & forth

yet have made definitive (almost dogmatic) assessments of the entire saga.

Me, I am going to hold back and continue to review what comes out. I am rightfully concerned, but I'll be damned if I'm going to assail anyone or either side at this point.

[OKNancy]

30. +1000

[toddaa]

58. You're no fun

Did somebody take your "Jump to Conclusions" mat?

[reformist2]

5. Ever hear of civil disobedience??? This is it, the real thing.

[Recursion]

6. Meh. "Better than it was in 2004" is not "awesome".

I still think the FISA structure is fundamentally flawed. I just also am capable of remembering 7 years ago.

[jazzimov]

32. Like "awesome" is an option.

We can do better. That is hard enough to achieve. "Awesome" is not an option, especially when we can't agree on what "awesome" would be....

[RB TexLa]

7. Or worse than jail. A case could be made for treason.

Would be hard to get a conviction on treason, but.

[dkf]

8. Snowden knows more about the actual data and processes and he sees things that are unconstitutional.

If you saw things that you knew violated the constitution on a regular basis, that you knew were being kept out of the courts would you shut up and aid and abet that behavior?

[jehop61]

15. Brillient

You have decided in one afternoon that this person is as pure as the driven snow and is a legal scholar to boot!

[BrentWil]

17. In his opinion...

This had due process and was upheld by the courts. Thats how our systems works. It isn't up to the individual. This wan't illegal.

[dkf]

46. No. There are two cases in which they are using Privilege

To keep them from full review. That's a known.

Also the DNI has a report that has found unconstitutional actions which the Admin has been suppressing.

There has been no due process in these cases.

[pnwmom]

34. Do you believe his claim that any agent has "the authorities" to wiretap anyone --

even the President?

Do you believe that he could have shut down the whole US security system in an afternoon, as he also claims?

[treestar]

40. How does he know what is constitutional or not?

I would talk about it in public without revealing classified documents, seeing the dangers to that.

[jazzimov]

41. "Snowden knows more about the actual data..."

ACTUAL DATA!



I guess you don't know much about db structure. As a person who actually has created databases and has also used those created by others - NEVERMIND!

[dkf]

50. I meant the process of data collection.

Where, how, etc. That shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

[okaawhatever]

48. He has worked there for three months and is more of a computer "repair" or "networking" person than

an analyst. He also compared this to Nazi SS in his first interview.

[Marr]

9. I hope you're making a good salary.

It takes a special kind of idiot to defend to the powerful for minimum wage.

[cantbeserious]

11. Always Amazing To Me That The Privileged Can Be So Judgmental - Arrogance Must Truly Be Blissful

eom

[cantbeserious]

10. Not Everyone Agrees With The Surveillance State - However Your Opinion Has Been Noted

eom

[jazzimov]

43. What is your definition of "The Surveillance State"?

Just curious.

[Downtown Hound]

12. So you just trust the so called "warrant" process?

Which by the way, comes from a government that illegally invaded a soverign nation and committed human rights abuses at home and abroad?

Sorry, but it's going to take a little more than your rather pathetic reassurance that all this is a-okay. I remember people like you saying the same thing about invading Iraq. "Oh, all those good government people wouldn't lie to us about Weapon of Mass Destruction. They're really smart and have all these tools so if they say Iraq's got them, Iraq must have them. We should just trust them and the process." Oh and by the way, one of those good government people that I heard defending the invasion and supporting it was Diane Feinstein.

I will never trust people like you again on anything. As far as I'm concerned, you're a BIG part of the problem.

[jazzimov]

45. So you trust noone and nothing

and equate a government that inherited AND ENDED an illegal war with the same Admin that started it.

I'm thinking you should move to Somalia. You'd like it there!

[cantbeserious]

62. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; ...

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

[Downtown Hound]

82. Diane Feinstein, thw woman whom the OP named as somebody we should trust blindly

was a major cheerleader of the Iraq War. And Obama hasn't exactly done a whole lot to end some of the Bush amdinistration's more questionable practices. So no, I don't trust him on this, and anybody that does is a blithering idiot in my book. If that mean I trust no one and nothing and should move to Somalia, then so be it. Personally, I think that's a pile of shit and only demonstrates the emptiness of the case for those who don't have a problem with this gross government intrusion.

[UTUSN]

13. R#4 & K for: Nailed. n/t

[bobduca]

18. If two warmongering senators approve

then gosh by golly its AOK with ME!

[L0oniX]

21. "elected representatives" are not representing me.

[MNBrewer]

22. How the hell do YOU know?

[GeorgeGist]

24. From what I gather, Snowden is far better informed on PRISM ...

than you.

[Cha]

25. Thanks BrentWil.. well, he did mention he didn't expect to see home

again. So, as of now..he expects to hide out in China.

Bob Cesca @bobcesca_go

A Ron Paul supporter and privacy supporter working for the NSA is like a vegan PETA supporter working for McDonald's. I don't get this guy.

Michael Hargrove @MichaelHargrov1

Smells strange, worked for BAH less that 3 months, gathers classified info, passes to Guardian and Greenwald, flee to HK, living it up.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/09/after-newtown-shooting-mourning-parents-enter-into-the-lonely-quiet/#comments

[sgtbenobo]

26. Interesting that you think Snowden should go to jail. Who are you working for?

You applaud an apparatus that if allowed to propagate will only serve to reduce all of humanity to 1's and 0's on some nameless, faceless operative's laptop somewhere. Are you really prepared to live in a world like that? Secrets only serve the secret police and their masters. The secret that was D-day wasn't secret the day after D-Day. It had utility. PRiSM's objective is to make every communication everywhere a secret someday. So, do you really think that Edward Snowden should go to jail so that you can rest easier knowing that someone somewhere knows everything? Kind of naive huh? Do you know something I don't? Or, have you decided that the wave of the 21st century is fascism and that you are going to ride that wave?

Carry on.

[BrotherIvan]

27. “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this.

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Both of my Senators say Congressional oversight is extremely limited and they are my democratically

elected Democrats, they have been raising these concerns for years. In return, you offer Saxby Chambliss as if he was a member of decent society, and DiFi, a right wing Democrat who regularly screws the people over. Diane and Saxby actually agree on far more things than you suggest.
My elected Democrats say there is not enough Congressional oversight. You cite Saxby Chambliss. That's about it.

[Hissyspit]

84. +1

[Art_from_Ark]

101. +2

[nebenaube]

29. Listen, and listen carefully.

Big Brother Intelligence capabilities are not acceptable period. This should blow up. It's the End of the Game for us.

[shawn703]

31. When the parameters of war changes

We need to adjust to counter new threats and fight battles of a different nature.

[sgtbenobo]

39. Oh please.....

......insert picture of kitten here> boobies here> and penis here> Then you might have the start of a position. Parameters and adjustments have very little to do with liberty.

Carry on

[shawn703]

60. Then we agree. N/T

[wandy]

33. The first line might be worded a but too strongly. The rest..........

This story somewhat reminds me of the AP leak story. Yes the government seized records of journalist. However, it was in response to a leak on human intelligence in terrorist organizations. In other words, we had real people, with real families, that were inside terrorist organizations. Talented people with real families.

This also reminds me, of something else.
Ah but it's a different time, we have learned so much more. So let's all get in our wayback machine and fix our mistakes...

Prior to the disclosure of her classified CIA identity, Valerie and Joe Wilson and their twins lived in the Palisades, an affluent neighborhood of Washington, D.C., on the fringe of Georgetown.[5] After she resigned from the CIA following the disclosure of her covert status, in January 2006, they moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico[12][13] where she serves as a consultant to the Santa Fe Institute, a scientific nonprofit research institute for multidisciplinary collaborations. In a 2011 interview, Plame said she and Wilson had received threats while living in the D.C. metro area, and while she acknowledged an element of threat remains in their new home, the New Mexico location "tamps down the whole swirl."[14]

snip.....

On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, from information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[33][34] Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Hip hip hooray! They outed one of those cloke and dagger people?

Complex issues rarely come in black and white.

[Logical]

36. The Government LOVES you! "Keeping them scared" worked on you! n-t

[treestar]

37. Yep, same usual Bradley/Julian BS

And they can't name anyone harmed by the data gathering itself. They don't care about the harm to CIA agents. We just have no right to defend ourselves this way, apparently, due to past interference in Middle Eastern affairs.

[TheKentuckian]

42. Whew! Brentwil isn't concerned and we must have faith in those that protect us from whatever it is

they say they are protecting us from because they are elected and reviewed by a court that issues blanket warrants is some bizarre distortion of the fourth amendment.

No shame, no honor, no principles, no scruples, no vision.

Shut it with the slave talk, property. Free people are talking here, chattel of the big man.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. LOL

[boilerbabe]

52. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[backscatter712]

54. *PLONK*

Why does this fascist garbage get any traction at all on DU? I thought this was a progressive web site.

Buh-bye, brentwil.

[timdog44]

55. I responded

to someone else before I did to you and I apologize. I think you are right in what you say. What Snowden did was decide to be judge, jury and exposer. He may very well have undermined some of our security secrets, and I think there were better ways for him to do this than let the Washington Post, of all rags, be his ally.

I see what Pres Obama doing is what Bush did not do in protecting Valerie Plame. A total outrage and treasonous crime.

[90-percent]

57. Checks and Balances

As our own government dismantles the carefully crafted checks and balances of our democracy, the checks and balances of last resort seem to be the leaker.

I think leaker's tend to be motivated by their respect for the principals of democracy. They are jumping on a grenade for all of us that want all our Constitutional Rights back. Leaking is their only hope to uphold and defend the principals of the constitution, which you tend to be sworn to do if you work for the government.

90% Jimmy

[randr]

59. The real danger of handing our rights over to an anonymous Government

is that they may use it against threats to their rule and not the terrorist objectives.
We have no idea who the President will be.
Given the current administrations' handling of whistle blowers I am already suspect of their ultimate intentions.

[jeff47]

63. Stop conflating separate programs.

PRISM and the phone metadata are not the same program.

PRISM is collecting social media information from non-US persons. The Constitution does not apply to non-US persons.

The phone metadata is collecting phone information about people in the US. The Constitution does apply to people in the US.

[LittleBlue]

64. Wrong!

We do not need a surveillance state to be safe.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

68. The Boston bombings would seem to contradict that sentiment

[appacom]

78. There it is. Wonder what bombing victims and their families think about this?

[Fire Walk With Me]

70. Snowden is a hero and you sir or madam, do not deserve the Constitution under which you live.

"Oversight from Congress"? The congress currently at a 6% approval rating for damn good reason?

[Puzzledtraveller]

86. I swear I wonder if some of these people aren't paid.

[Niceguy1]

71. if rmoney

Was president right now people would be in the streets with pitchforks right now.

[creeksneakers2]

90. With good reason

I wouldn't trust rmoney with this kind of power. I'm still on the fence about Obama.

[Niceguy1]

92. if you can't

Trust a repub with this power then obama shouldnt have it, either. your way of thinking is very dangerous. It could come back to bite us one day.

[Liberal_in_LA]

74. ..

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. "to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this:

your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."


--- ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT -

November 06, 2001

[MADem]

76. The guy might be mentally ill and medically non-compliant. It's just too soon to tell, really.

He said he suffered from seizures.

Depakote is often prescribed for seizures.

It also has "off market" utility as a drug for people who are bi-polar w/schizophrenic affect. Works very well for some, when other stuff does not, which is why doctors prescribe it.

Now, who knows if that's his issue...but I rule nothing out.

Hell, this story just keeps getting stranger and stranger.

Mister Greenwald really bought a pig in a poke, though, didn't he? Sloppy writing, and a shitty source.

There were oversight agencies in both houses of Congress, at Justice, and in the Executive. Any one of them could have been approached if this guy had concerns about program scope/reach, without jeopardizing the program itself.

He threw out the baby with the bathwater.

[RBInMaine]

77. Very well said. TONS of misunderstanding about this. NO ONE is listening in on calls.

[cantbeserious]

97. Might One Be A Bit Gullible? - Just Because The Government Makes A Claim Does Not Make It So

eom

[quakerboy]

80. Chamblis and Feinstein agreeing isnt really a great sign.

Apparently they vote the same a bit over 1/3 of the time. But neither of them is exactly high on the trustworthy list.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Like the way the PATRIOT Act's "special terrorism powers" are used against "terrorism"?

http://boingboing.net/2011/09/07/patriot-act-search-warrants-overwhelmingly-used-for-drugs.html

[Romulus Quirinus]

94. The Cigarrette Smoking Man was a good guy

who had our best interests at heart.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. RIP 4th Amendment. Long live the news Stasi State and its swarm of supporters.

[BrentWil]

99. There was no warrant for this? NT

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Everything the Stasi State does is legal.

[DirkGently]

100. Actually, PRISM was an illegal program.

The administration has been fighting a long court battle to prevent release of the ruling on how it was it was circumventing the law and violating the. Constitution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/justice-department-prism_n_3405101.html

The thing about the "leak" is that now they're scrambling to "correct the record," which will probably require explaining how the program NOW works, that theoretically does not violate the Constitution.

One could even imagine it doesn't matter whether Ny of the reported details are right, if it forces the revelation of what is actually going on as a defense.

[Daniel537]

102. Saxby and DiFi?

Seriously? Those two fascist blowhards are the best people you could cite? Please. Snowden's not going anywhere, much to your chagrin, and these leaks will continue to filter out since they are the only way we the public get to know of just how exactly our govt. is violating our rights on a daily basis, so you can take your right-wing talking points and shove it.

[Flying Squirrel]

103. Unrec n/t

[LWolf]

104. Yes.

And Joseph McCarthy was a national hero.