Clapper & Feinstein finally admit that ALL phone records going back 7 years are being collected

[TakeALeftTurn]

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 09:34 AM - Edit history (2)

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/U1BZ1HQ2y8DMWb4iWu2lAw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/

http://news.yahoo.com/clapper-clarifies-remarks-over-nsa-snooping-155751214.html

They say that they won't look at the records without a good reason.
They previously lied and tried to cover up that they were collecting the phone records of all Americans, what makes you think we can trust them to not look at the data they have collected, whenever it suits the government to do so?

Clapper denied collecting phone records on millions of Americans
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/spy-chief-clapper-denies-misleading-congress-spying-americans-221024826.html
Clapper was previously an executive for Booz Allen.

The reason for the NSA's Mass Surveillance programs is to suppress political dissent, they are not anti-terror measures.

Why didn't the authorities stop the Boston bombing with all of the intel they had and are now collecting on everyone?
There was plenty of evidence that the elder brother was a substantive threat and the FBI had had contact with him for at least 2 years before contact was "dropped" after his 6 month visit to the Caucasus.
His activities in the Caucasus included attendance at, at least one Islamic Extremist conference in Georgia, with the main speakers being Islamic hate preachers.
The Russians warned at least three times that he was a threat and to watch him.
But the authorities didn't watch him. Why not?

The reason the authorities didn't stop Boston is because anti-terror is not the priority.
They would rather use the 4,000+ private contract staff and who knows how many NSA staff, to go after domestic political dissenters.

Edward Snowden was a private contractor working for Booz Allen who had top secret clearance.
(A third of private contractors have top secret clearance.)
Snowden claims that he had authorisation to snoop and listen in on anyone "Federal judges, even the President".

The FBI have already tried to label Occupy protesters as "domestic terrorists".
When the FBI were pursuing and harassing Occupy, what makes you think that the FBI did not go to the NSA and ask "what have you got on these people".
Or "can you help us identify others".
NSA "why we sure can - we've got LOADS of data going back 7 years - we'll get back to you tomorrow."

The authorities will do the same against Monsanto protesters or attendees at gun rights rallies etc.
Anything the government doesn't like, any political dissenters.

Similarly the government will try and use this information on any civil rights activists like the ACLU.
The FBI getting a spy in the camp of the ACLU would be a coup.
There is probably someone in the top levels that has something to hide and can be blackmailed to provide information on what the ACLU is planning to do, or provide some information on some other top level person.
If they can't get a top level person, they will work on the next level down or secretaries etc.

But it gets worse.

The government and party leaders have always kept dossiers on politicians to use as leverage to make sure "they vote the right way".

Now they have access to :-
all their phone records
the contents of every phone call made
every email
every text
their social media interactions
their voice mails
their electronic financial transactions

etc. etc.

They also have access to the same data for all their staffers.

What makes you think the government won't use this information if they want to swing a tight vote?

Similarly they will keep dossiers on all State Party leaders, National Committee members and legislators.

But it gets worse.

What makes you think the NSA does not have a surveillance dossier on every TV anchor and media personality?
What makes you think the government won't try and use the above information to try and ensure the media stick to the "government's story".
(Obviously most of the media personalities won't be able to be blackmailed, but some will. If they can't blackmail the actual media personality, maybe they can get something on their partner or their kids. Threatening to go after their teenage kid for smoking dope and jailing them would be a powerful weapon.)

But it gets worse.

What makes you think the NSA does not have a dossier on every Federal judge?
What makes you think the government won't try and use the above information to ensure "the right verdict" on any sensitive cases?
If there is any doubt, a Federal judge will be appointed that CAN be blackmailed into delivering the "right verdict".

But it gets worse.

What makes you think the NSA does not have a dossier on every member of SCOTUS?
What makes you think the government won't try and use the above information to ensure "the right verdict"?

If all of the above is not happening now, and I am pretty sure it is, what makes you think the President who takes office in 2017 won't do it?
NOBODY knows who that will be.
The time to speak out against this is NOW.

Woo Me With Science put this better than me :-

"The storage of the collected surveillance data is the most egregiously fascistic aspect of this. They are creating a database on every single citizen's communication and activities. Those who don't see the danger in that are either rank apologists, or they have not thought through the possibilities.

Citizen 1,675,402 begins to look a little too angry or activist, and it will be no trouble at all to search through the data and find some reason, somewhere, to call the local officers to check out some violation from 2013. To arrest, and have someone disappear.

It offers an entire infrastructure for pre-emptive silencing of opposition to the government, even before it has a chance to materialize. And for those who are implementing an agenda of corporate, profit-centered and human-exploiting policies that will cause widespread impoverishment and rage, this is exactly the sort of system that will offer tremendous temptations for abuse to prevent the inevitable pushback.

We saw already what the government did to proactively target Occupy. This surveillance program violates the fundamental trust Americans are supposed to have in their representative government. It is deeply disturbing, creepy as hell, and ALL Americans should be standing together now to stop it."

See also my previous articles on the subject of the NSA's Mass Surveillance programs.

The details of the NSA's Mass Surveillance program, plus various relevant articles and videos
Updated 06/11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962685

All the infrastructure a Tyrant would need, courtesy of Bush, Obama and Congress
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022975266

Prism: How the NSA wiretapped the Internet
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022982249

Glenn Greenwald's latest (excellent) interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022985599

William Binney from 2012 on Stellar Wind, the NSA and the dangers of a Mass Surveillance Stasi state.
Binney was a 32 year veteran in the NSA, who resigned and blew the whistle after 911, when foreign intelligence systems were turned inwards to spy on Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022990788

[WinkyDink]

1. "The reason the authorities didn't stop Boston is because anti-terror is not the priority." BINGO.

We not only didn't prevent 9/11; the FBI squelched its own agents who tried to report info.

We not only didn't prevent 9/11; NORAD failed miserably. THIS is how we were going to defeat the erstwhile USSR?

We refused to label the killer of Ft. Hood (13 dead) as a terrorist; we labeled his crimes as "workplace violence," denying the survivors any compensation and the public the truth. "....the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of e-mail communications between Hasan and the Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat...." (Wikipedia)

Same story with the world's most-watched citizenry of the UK: Terrorism is not prevented.

The horrific street attack on soldier Lee Rigby? "A source close to the investigation told Reuters the attackers were known to Britain's MI5 internal security service, raising questions about whether it could have been prevented. " http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/23/us-britain-killing-cameron-idUSBRE94L0WU20130523

[randome]

3. The reason they didn't stop Boston is evidence they do NOT spy on Americans.

And the OP's idea that the SCOTUS is being blackmailed is paranoid and silly.

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

[secondwind]

4. I can buy that.

[TakeALeftTurn]

7. So you think it stops short of SCOTUS

I can buy that.

They will still keep a surveillance dossier on them though, in case anything interesting turns up that could be linked into something previous.

[randome]

10. And you know this how? Because it SOUNDS right to you?

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

[caseymoz]

8. The reason is

They still can't look at every record at once, pure and simple. Records may be in a database, but they still need a reason to look at them.

This database is vast. It's more like an historical library. Until they're hooked into looking at particular records they still don't "know" anything. In the information age, eyes are limited, minds are slow, and attention always has a deficit. This is what limits the process.

Therefore, you don't need a more twisted conspiracy like "they wanted the Boston Marathon Bombing to happen" to explain why they didn't stop it.

[HooptieWagon]

77. They don't need a reason, FISA judges rubber-stamp the warrants.

IM guessing the reason the Boston Bombers weren't stopped is because the NSA was busy going through ph records of real terrosits...like Occupy, pot-smoking grannies, Monsanto and XL protestors...

[zeemike]

9. And that evidence is proof

That all the other evidence that they are actually saying on us is dismissed.

Your conclusion is evidence of your conclusion.

[randome]

11. You have no evidence that they are collecting data on you or anyone else.

A guy who was talking with Greenwald in February -before he got the job at NSA- and who supposedly ran to Hong Kong because "I'm not going to hide"- is your only 'evidence' that they have information on you.

Snowden is not credible so what else do you have?

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

[zeemike]

12. They admit they are collecting the data

And you say there is no evidence?
Wow....this IS 1984...Surveillance is privacy, slavery is freedom..

[randome]

16. They admit to storing the data, I believe.

That's not quite the same, although I can see the point that they are parsing the meaning too much.

This is analogous to Verizon handing over a hard drive with everyone's data on it. NSA runs their program that pulls the numbers that match a pattern and that include a foreign caller or recipient. Then the hard drive is stored somewhere.

I don't see that as 'collecting' data since they are not interested in the hard drive once their matching program runs. Sure, your phone number may be sitting on the hard drive in a warehouse somewhere but the alternative is to have all the carriers run the same program and transmit the results to NSA, a much more complicated process.

This all comes down to 21st century technology that our 18th century forebears could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. The 4th Amendment is there for a very good reason but it did not anticipate the complexities of our society.

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

[Bluenorthwest]

21. That last paragraph is the most disengenous bit of balderdash I have read lately.

These 'complexities' are not part of 'our society' when they are secretive actions done by private companies. That is part of THEIR culture, not our society. Your notion that private corporate power mingled with State power did not exist then is incorrect, the Crown and the East India Company were both opposed by the founders, it was British East India Company that was hit by patriots in what is now called the Boston Tea Party.
The tech is just window dressing that distracts you.

[zeemike]

31. So if I take all the information out of your computer

and store it it is not stealing?...as long as it is just stored somewhere?
So then give me access to your computer and I will just store it...don't worry, if you have nothing on it to be ashamed of you have nothing to worry about....right?

Oh and by the way, if you don't want that then you must be supporting the terrorist...and that trumps that old irrelevant constitution...

Orwell never explained how Big Brother came to be, but if he had I am sure this kind of logic was behind it.

[randome]

33. Copying data from one computer to another is easily discovered so it's not the same...

...as Internet traffic. When I post something on the Internet, I don't really expect the same kind of privacy that I have when using my own PC. The Internet is the world.

And if the law keeps Law Enforcement from using my data without a warrant, I'm okay with it so long as there is no evidence the law is being abused or ignored.

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

[zeemike]

43. A warrant from a secret court

By secret judges who's location is even secret...

Don't worry, give me access to your hard drive...I won't look at the content unless my secret court gives me permission...(I can't tell you who they are or where they are because it is secret)...and it is for your own safety in case one of your contacts happens to be a terrorist.

If you will fall for that one you will fall for anything.

[randome]

46. I'm not 'falling' for it. It is not an admirable system, I admit.

But I see no evidence that spying is being perpetrated on ordinary citizens. Only a lot of hand-wringing about what could happen.

Right now, a police officer could walk into your house and steal the contents of your refrigerator. But there are laws against that sort of thing.

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

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Clapper, who is a Booz Allen man says they have gathered it all up. So keep barfing up

verbiage, see if you find any with chunks of reason in it.

[randome]

20. See post #16.

They are 'storing' the data but they can't look at it without a warrant. I'm good with that. The alternative is to have all the telecoms store the data separately, which makes it much more likely to be misused by a corporate hacker.

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

[Bluenorthwest]

22. What does 'can't' mean? Is it like the Easter Bunny 'can't' be a day early or what?

Shouldn't? Told not to? Trusted not to? Assumed not to?
I'm on a diet and I 'can't' have milk in my coffee, yet I have milk in my coffee. Is it like that kind of can't, the can't where you do anyway?
Explain the actual, physical process. Since you claim to know. Forget 'can't. If a person wanted, could they access that data without a warrant? Police 'can't enter a home without one, but that really means they can't use evidence they get if they do, because you and I know that they do at times walk on in.
If someone accessed the information would others even know? You yourself close with muttered concerns about improper access and misuse, while the rest of your post is a claim that such access and abuse is not possible. So it could not happen, but we take precautions in case it does? Some 'hacker' could access?
Can't, just can't use it without a warrant but some hacker could use it without a warrant.
Cake and eat it too thinking is a side effect of centrism. 'It is both impossible to use without a warrant, and we have to do it this way because someone could use it without a warrant'. Crazy town.

[randome]

25. The law says they can't.

If you have a reasonable suspicion that the law is not good enough, put it out there.

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

[think]

29. How bout the FISA court already ruling the NSA violated the law?

And then the DOJ classifies the ruling so the public can't be shown who, how, or when the NSA violated US Law.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

And the Democratic US Senator, Ron Wyden who wants to find out what the fuck the NSA is up to had to get clearance before he could even mention the FISA court ruling which found that the NSA has violated the law.

A US Senator must get clearance to exercise his free speech in order to tell the American people that the govt is violating the law. Please think about that.....

[randome]

30. The FISA court IS the law, in this instance.

When over-reach is discovered, it gets 'fixed'. So far as we know, anyways. I don't understand about wanting to keep the decision secret but I'm not that worried about it, either.

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

[think]

32. You aren't concerned that the NSA violated the law? Seriously?

In other posts you claim the Govt isn't violating the law. I post where they are and you then say the FISA court is the law and you aren't concerned that the NSA violated the law.

I must say I am baffled by your response....

[randome]

34. Over-reach or mis-steps will occur in ANY government agency.

Our laws are never perfect out of the gate. They get amended, modified, updated. The FISA court ruling is a sign that the system, while far from perfect, pretty much works to clarify the law so that future abuses will not occur.

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

[think]

41. Overreach = SPYING on AMERICANS

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either the NSA breached the public trust and spyed on Americans or they didn't. The FISA court and Democratic Senators say they did.

So the NSA was found by a US secret court to have breached the law and spyed on Americans.

Did the Govt spy on Americans or not?

[Marr]

81. Let me get this straight.

You ask for evidence that there as been abuse. Proof is provided. You cite the proof of abuse as evidence that the system is fine.

?

[Th1onein]

78. The law also said that they couldn't indiscriminately take our information. But they did it, didn't

they?

Really, the only difference between back then, when they had to get REAL warrants, is the technology. They do it because they CAN do it. Not because they need to, for our security, but because they CAN. And they are storing it, and if you ever step out of line, they can "target" you.

[premium]

52. The same could be said of you,

you have no evidence that they're not collecting data on you or anyone else, except for their word, which I don't for one second believe, considering all the past transgressions of our intelligence agencies.

Secret courts, secret warrants? How in the blue blazes is this democratic? Why are so many Americans willing to accept this?
This is not the America I grew up in and it saddens me to know that there are those here, not you per se, willing to defend this undemocratic program.

[randome]

59. It's 'democratic' in the sense that all 3 branches of the government are involved.

The judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches. That may not be enough for some, I get that. But it's okay with me.

And I can't prove a negative so you're right, I have no idea if someone is spying on me right this minute. That lack of knowledge does not bother me in the slightest.

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

[premium]

65. Let me re-phrase that,

it's not the democratic ideals I grew up on, I don't get where people think that secret courts issuing secret warrants is ok, maybe it's because I'm an old fart and remember when this shit wouldn't be tolerated.

Benjamin Franklin was right.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[caseymoz]

89. Your statement presumes wrongly

only evidence that I (or anyone) personally being spied on is proof of this surveillance program. That is simple fallacious. Even if they are spying on me personally, it's not evidence of the program on the scale of PRISM. Therefore, what you're demanding for evidence is, in fact, irrelevant. The program being talked about here is a somewhat larger. In fact, I think your standard of evidence is like telling me to find a snowflake of a specific shape to prove to you there's an avalanche.

The government has admitted what they've been doing. Our Patriot Act, the NDAA and other laws tell us specifically what they can do, and it's consistent with what Snowden has said. There have been other stories written about this in previous years that did not make this kind splash, and they said the same thing that has been disclosed now, without the word PRISM.

Now that I've cited all this, I don't care if you think Snowden is credible or not, because I think you're cracked. Yes, I think you're criticism is so poor and uninformed, it doesn't even merit an answer, and I can't muster the respect necessary to take you seriously. So goodbye.

[GeorgeGist]

13. But you see ..

the older brother was NOT an American.

[randome]

14. Really? I thought they both were.

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

[premium]

60. Nope,

It had been previously reported that Mr. Tsarnaev’s application might have been held up because of a domestic abuse episode. But the officials said that it was the record of the F.B.I. interview that threw up red flags and halted, at least temporarily, Mr. Tsarnaev’s citizenship application. Federal law enforcement officials reported on Friday that the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev in January 2011 at the request of the Russian government, which suspected that he had ties to Chechen terrorists.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/how-boston-bombing-suspects-became-us-citizens/64397/

The younger brother was but not the older brother.

[randome]

63. Thanks for the info.

I'm trying to recall what the NSA rules are on pulling phone numbers that raise red flags.

Isn't it that at least one of the parties has to be outside the U.S.? If that's so, then my original point kind of/sort of still stands in that the Boston bombing indicates -and only indicates- that the NSA is not spying on people inside the U.S.

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

[bornskeptic]

71. Sure, one phone has to be outside the US. That's the whole point.

If a number is suspected to belong to a terrorist in the US, they could get a warrant to obtain those records from the phone company involved. They can't do that if the number is in Pakistan or Iran. A database of all phone records enables them to do a search and find who the suspected terrorist is communicating with in this country. If they identify a suspect domestic number in this way, they still need a warrant to examine the records for that number, whether they get those records from the NSA database or the telephone company.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. No it is not, at best it shows they are miserable at their jobs, at worst that they are

in fact standing aside for the terrorists. Can you make an attempt to explain WHY you think it proves they are not spying? Simply barfing some words out with conviction explains nothing.

[randome]

18. I have no reasonable evidence to say they are spying.

There are laws against spying on American citizens. Until someone makes me suspicious that the laws are not being applied, I'm not going to keep myself awake at night worrying about whether all the government agencies in our country are doing their jobs to my satisfaction.

And Ed Snowden is not 'reasonable evidence' to me.

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

[Bluenorthwest]

23. But you do understand that this is not about your ability to sleep at night?

If you are unable to give a thought to anything without keeping yourself awake at night in worry, your issues are larger than any issue, and are inherent to your current state of mind. I'd look into that, as a fear of thought because you fear losing sleep can keep a person fairly limited in life.
The choices are not apathy or insomnia. There are other worlds than these.

[randome]

38. You're right. Wanting to 'fix' an agency doesn't require total trust or mis-trust.

Snowden may end up doing us all a favor by bringing attention to how easily information is bandied about in our time. Just like the FISA court ruling that found the NSA over-reached, it's all part of the process to make things more efficient and more trustworthy.

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

[leveymg]

27. The reason is the same as 9/11: the Tsarnaevs were part of a CIA program. They aren't investigated

as other known threats would be. They are considered "our terrorists", like the Flt. 77 hijackers, and unless CIA pulls the plug on them, they bloody well can do as they like and FBI/DHS won't touch them until after the buildings fall down or people's legs get blown off.

That's why PRISM and the rest of the elaborate NSA surveillance state apparatus has so often proven to be ineffective. Over and over again. Every one of the al-Awlaki terrorists were known about, but were allowed right to the brink (or over it) in order to protect the operational secrecy of CIA paramilitary and CT operations around the world.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. Yes, the NSA does spy on Americans, nearly all of us from what we can tell so far.

[pnwmom]

36. Exactly. They can go back now and check phone numbers used by the bombers

and perhaps find other associates and stop further attacks. But they couldn't stop this one.

[ljm2002]

72. Tamerlane was not a US citizen...

...and furthermore he did have phone calls (as well as travel) to and from a foreign trouble spot. Add that to the fact that the Russian government warned us about him, and it does bring up the question, why were his calls not being monitored? Or if they were, then why did they yield nothing before the fact?

Now it must be understood, there is no technology anywhere that can prevent all bad acts, and there never will be. So let's take that as a given. Also, it must be understood, we will never know about the plots that were prevented, precisely because they were prevented (and also because the surveillance program is, or was, secret).

But even so. When it comes to the Boston Marathon bombing, there were plenty of red flags about this guy Tamerlane, our own government was given a heads-up, and yet nothing happened. It's enough to make you wonder: if this surveillance program works so well, then did someone stand down? Conversely, if this program doesn't work all that well, then why are we doing it again?

[Th1onein]

76. ROFLMAO!

Unbelievable.

[RC]

87. Brahahahahahahahahahahah... :::catches breath:::

Oh wait, you're serious. Some people just don't seem to get it. They DID know about the older bomber and they did let it slide. You need to pay better attention.

And as for the SCOTUS, that was a reasonable supposition because they are collecting everyone's communications. He did not say they were being blackmailed, but only that they could very well be, to swing a vote or whatever.

[sabrina 1]

49. Money is the priority. These multi-Billion dollar 'security' Contractors NEED work to do in order to

justify funding them. Spying on millions of Americans had to have been funded so Feinstein and Clapper lied and for that, if we had any standards left in this country, they should both be removed from office. We do not need liars and war profiteers running this country anymore. We've had enough of that over the past several decades.

I wonder how many Americans know that shady, private 'security' Corporations are the ones spying on them, with Congress ready to lie to protect them? Who are these people? What are their backgrounds, all these 'workers' who have people's personal records available to them??? The incredible and awful possibilities of these insane 'policies' , the ridiculous excuses that only a two year old would believe, are just stunning.

And to think we have people actually trying to defend it all. I hope this is the beginning of the road to ridding this country of these dangerous 'security' Corporations. Seems to me they are the ones running this country.

And anyone who exposes them is a hero. I never heard of these morons until yesterday, didn't know Clapper's background, I hope he is removed and we can find a Democrat, someone we can trust, to replace him. Someone like Ron Wyden eg.

Why is it so hard for this administration to find DEMOCRATS for these positions?

[snot]

74. And meanwhile, they pre-emptively target peaceful protesters--because THEY are the threat to TPTB.

[cantbeserious]

2. The Federal Oligarch Protection Agency Will Insure Main Street Is Prosecuted Despite The Constitution

eom

[enough]

5. k&r (nt)

[ReRe]

6. God, I thought I was ugly...

K&R

... marking to come back to later. But really, Mr Clapper is one evil scary looking dude. What a mean maniacal-looking person he is. He's got the look of that demented dentist that worked on Dustin Hoffman's character's teeth in Marathon Man. Ouch!

[leveymg]

37. That was Lawrence Olivier with the drill.

And, actually, Clapper is a lot more conscientious than some others who have held that job.

[ReRe]

44. Ya think? Ha!

... who were the others?

[leveymg]

58. John "Mano Blanco" Negroponte, then Mike "NSA Booz Allen" McConnell.

Resonances in both those names.

[ReRe]

73. Thanks... got lost a minute... n/t

[SouthernLiberal]

19. I am not so sure this is paranoid

I spent more than 30 years in the information business. Not the spying business - I worked to help insurance companies manage the data they collect about their insureds. Still, that experience left me with an understanding of the power of metadata. If it is all in a database, it is not that hard to get at it, and no, it does not require a human being to look at every record.

Do you know that a 'known' terrorist called a given number at a certain time of day on every other Sunday? You could search for everyone else who called that number, every one else who made a call at the same time, or anyone who called any one telephone number at the same time of day, two weeks apart. All just as easy. And very, very easy to make false interpretations of this data. Is it a terrorist cell? Or maybe just a local pizza parlor? Or maybe a terrorist cell at a local pizza parlor?

You may laugh, but I have seen business executives draw even sillier interpretations from their metadata.

[sikofit3]

70. You Are Correct!

I also work with metadata on an environmental basis but also through emergency management with address and phone number data etc... Those in the data/metadata world, even just as users, know how powerful these databases are at retrieving any data stored, in seconds. The intelligence of these information systems are amazing. In a good world data saves lives and lets companies work efficiently etc... but this data can also be queried for nefarious reasons and often times it is. Just like you said the interpretation of the data can be accurate, or not so accurate and it is left up to the individuals in charge to decide how they want to interpret and manipulate that data. Its not a joke and when actions from the data and from the interpretation of the data consist of death by drone or imprisoned in a privately owned prison that wants to keep you there, innocent or not, because they need a body in that cell to make money should scare the hell out of anyone. I think in this information age people need to educate themselves on metadata and data collection because its not as innocent and blase as people think.

[geek tragedy]

24. So Boston was LIHOP? Ugh, this entire website has become the 911 Dungeon

in terms of overall craziness.

[leveymg]

35. No - it was just collatoral damage that's considered acceptable to some in gov't.

Like the terrorists who pulled off the '93 WTC bombing, and 9/11, US intelligence had penetrated these terrorist groups and knew the identities, capabilities for destruction, and intent of those involved, but instead of arresting them chose to do some other things instead. The intent isn't necessarily to allow attacks to happen (LIHOP) but the result is the same.

Why does the Intelligence Community and USG operate this way? The most benign explanation is to protect operational security and capabilities of groups and operations requiring the services of foreign trained operatives who are useful in paramilitary operations against the Russians, its allies and other targets. Often, these operations are riddled with unreliable double-agents who predictably act in unpredictable ways. If thousands of Americans die to protect these programs -- as they inevitably have, over and over again -- that's considered collateral damage.

The only reasonable alternative explanation is even worse.

[geek tragedy]

39. This operates from the myth that every terrorist attack is preventable.

Every once and a while, one will slip through.

Does Boston mean that they aren't interested enough in stopping terrorism (see all the other prosecutions as evidence against that) or does it show that the government wasn't using the data to spy on Americans closely enough?

Heck, one could (I won't but it's possible) to argue that Boston showed that there should be more intensive profiling of Muslim immigrants.

It's very dangerous to make assumptions and arguments based on terrorist attacks and how they happen.

[leveymg]

53. Terrorist attacks have happened over and over again since '93. They are largely preventable.

The mainstream theory that this happens because of inattention or lack of resources is largely a myth. In the case of the Flt. 77 hijackers for instance, a warning cable was drawn up by the FBI liason officer at the CIA Counterterrorism Center that detected the entry of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar at LAX on January 15, 2000, but that cable was never sent. Why? Did the FBI analyst fall asleep? Was she overworked and the cable got mixed up with some other papers on her desk? Did the dog eat it? No. The Assistant Director of CIA/CTC ordered her to withhold it after the Director, Cofer Black, briefed his boss, CIA Director Tenet, who had an active ongoing interest (Tenet was briefed numerous times) about the AQ planning summit in Kuala Lumpur the pair had attended immediately before they arrived.

To the contrary: it's very dangerous to not want to know how terrorist attacks happen and why they are often entirely preventable but happen, anyway.

[geek tragedy]

55. They are largely but not entirely preventable.

There's always going to be human error.

There is a very low frequency of actual organized terror attacks in the US succeeding. Lots of lone gun nuts shooting up a place, but the fact that the Boston bombing was such a national story shows that they do get caught the vast majority of the time.

[leveymg]

61. Agreed. That's why the charges should have been 3000 counts manslaughter, reckless disregard,

not murder.

In every major case of foreign terrorism inside the US since '93, the principal terrorists were known to the USG and connected to a CIA foreign paramilitary or CT operation.

WTC '93, 9/11, the al-Awlaki connected attacks were all policy failures, not intelligence failures.

[geek tragedy]

62. Huh? Whose charges should have been manslaughter instead of murder? nt

[leveymg]

64. From program managers right up to the top of the chain of command.

In other words, all those who were aware of the risks bringing such operatives into the US posed but whose misjudgements, bad decisions and orders permitting the entry and under-supervised activities of known terrorists were causational to the resulting mass casualty attacks.

[leveymg]

68. To his credit, Obama shut down the program that used Awlaki to repeatedly attract AQ terrorists

onto airliners entering the US or to detect those already here who were inspired to carry out attacks in place.

[Progressive dog]

85. So our government knows who the terrorists are and does nothing

because they're protecting programs. Thanks for your insight.

[leveymg]

90. You need to start reading up on this subject. Here are some places to start.

Let's go back first to the '93 WTC bombing that involved several CIA and FBI double-agents inside the "Brooklyn Cell" and the active knowledge of US officials who knew about the plot in great detail but allowed it happen because they believed the bomb had been tampered with, and would be less powerful than it actually was: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aspring93wtcinvestigation

Then you can come back and we'll discuss bad judgement by US intelligence in this and other specific cases of fatal terrorist attacks inside the US that were known about in advance.

[Progressive dog]

113. Read some stuff, still curious as to

why some people believe that when the government (made up of people like us) does something that looks like a mistake, it can't be simply that.
I couldn't find credible evidence that the 93 terror attack was "known about in advance." I can see bad judgements but that's not the same, is it?

[leveymg]

114. I'm not saying US casualties are the goal, just that they are foreseeable. Second, if the same high

risk tactics are employed and they result in "incidental" casualties, over and over again, then they aren't mistakes, they are part of a policy that finds American civilian casualties acceptable.

If you don't see that the '93 attack was "known about in advance," I recommend you go back to the following sections:

1) Details how the FBI was aware a large bomb was being constructed from the double-agent who was supposed to mix inert materials into the bomb being constructed:

2) Details how the CIA protected the '93 WTC plotters from the investigations of other federal agencies and law enforcement because the Brooklyn Cell, run by Osama bin Laden, was useful in recruiting Jihadi fighters inside the US being trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

1) February 26, 1993: WTC Is Bombed but Does Not Collapse, as Bombers Had Hoped
Edit event

Bomb damage in underground levels of the WTC in 1993.Bomb damage in underground levels of the WTC in 1993. [Source: Najlah Feanny/ Corbis]An attempt to topple the World Trade Center fails, but six people are killed and over 1000 are injured in the misfired blast. An FBI explosives expert later states that, “If they had found the exact architectural Achilles’ heel or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down.” Ramzi Yousef, who has close ties to bin Laden, organizes the attempt. [Village Voice, 3/30/1993; US Congress, 2/24/1998] The New York Times later reports on Emad Salem, an undercover agent who will be the key government witness in the trial against Yousef. Salem testifies that the FBI knew about the attack beforehand and told him they would thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and the bombing was not stopped. [New York Times, 10/28/1993] Other suspects were ineptly investigated before the bombing as early as 1990. Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes, in internal documents, that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing (see January 24, 1994). [Independent, 11/1/1998] 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is an uncle of Yousef and also has a role in the WTC bombing (see March 20, 1993). [Independent, 6/6/2002; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002] One of the attackers even leaves a message which will later be found by investigators, stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” [Associated Press, 9/30/2001]

Entity Tags: World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Emad Salem, Osama bin Laden, Central Intelligence Agency

2) Late 1980s and After: CIA Blocks Investigations into Al-Qaeda’s ‘Operational Headquarters’ in US
Edit event

Robert Morgenthau.Robert Morgenthau. [Source: Robert Maass / Corbis]In the late 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his mentor Abdullah Azzam are running a charity front called Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK)/Al-Kifah in Peshawar, Pakistan, and it has an important branch in Brooklyn, New York, called the Al-Kifah Refugee Center that is sending money and recruits to fight in Afghanistan. The CIA apparently helps the Al-Kifah Brooklyn office send up to 200 people from the US to fight in Afghanistan (see 1986-1993). Many of them are US citizens. Zalmay Khalilzad, a State Department Afghan specialist who will go on to become a prominent neoconservative, will later deny knowing of any Arab-Americans fighting with the mujaheddin. But one anonymous Congressional aide will recall occasional mentions of Al-Kifah Refugee Center or its head Mustafa Shalabi by some of the most radical mujaheddin. He will say: “Among that cabal, the extreme militant fringes, Shalabi was known.… [T]hey were asking to talk to him so he could organize some particular assistance.” The Neutrality Act prevents US citizens from fighting against countries not at war with the US, but the New York Times will note, “Yet there is no sign that a criminal investigation ever took place even though federal agents had come across broad hints about the center’s activities when they investigated the [Meir] Kahane assassination [in 1990] (see November 5, 1990) and the slaying of Mr. Shalabi [in 1991]” (see (February 28, 1991)). Kahane’s assassin, El Sayyid Nosair, was one of Shalabi’s assistants. [New York Times, 4/11/1993] Apparently the CIA’s ties to the Al-Kifah Refugee Center prevent other US agencies from investigating it, even after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, when all of the bombers are found to have been tied to the center. While Al-Kifah closes itself down shortly after the WTC bombing, it immediately reopens in Boston under a different name and continues to publish the same newsletter and post from the same website (see April 1993-Mid-2003). Robert I. Friedman, writing for New York magazine, will comment, “[W]hen the fanatical fervor [the CIA] whipped up leads to unintended consequences—the assassination of a Jewish militant leader in Manhattan, the bombing of the World Trade Center, a terror conspiracy to blow up the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and other Manhattan landmarks—[the CIA tried] to discourage local law enforcement agencies and the FBI from looking into the matter too deeply.” After Nosair assassinates Kahane, the FBI tells District Attorney Robert Morgenthau that Nosair was a lone gunman, not part of a broader conspiracy. However, the FBI had truckloads of evidence connecting to Al-Kifah strongly suggesting otherwise that it does not closely investigate. The FBI also blocks him from tying Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman to the WTC bombing (see After February 26, 1993). Morgenthau will later speculate the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads. “The FBI lied to me,” he will say. “They’re supposed to untangle terrorist connections, but they can’t be trusted to do the job.” [New York Magazine, 3/17/1995] Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson will call Al-Kifah “al-Qaeda’s operational headquarters in the United States.” [Emerson, 2006, pp. 436] In 1994, a secret internal CIA report will conclude that the agency is “partially culpable” for the WTC bombing because of its support for radicals connected to Al-Kifah. One CIA source will say, “By giving these people the funding that we did, a situation was created in which it could be safely argued that we bombed the World Trade Center” (see January 24, 1994). But even after 1994 there is little evidence that the links from Al-Kifah were carefully explored by any US government agency. For instance, the government will not freeze Al-Kifah’s funds until shortly after 9/11, long after it ceased to exist (see September 24, 2001).

Entity Tags: Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Maktab al-Khidamat, Al-Kifah Refugee Center, Central Intelligence Agency, El Sayyid Nosair, Mustafa Shalabi, Robert Morgenthau

[Progressive dog]

115. Any human endeavor will have errors,

that does not mean the errors were planned.
No one has invented any perfect system or trained perfect people to run it. Human error, limited resources, mistaken priorities cause non optimum outcomes in every human endeavor. That doesn't mean the humans desired to fail.

[leveymg]

118. If the same error gets repeated over and over with an expectation of change, it is an insane policy.

Again, we can't speak to the element of desire (intent), but there can be no question that there has been a failure of policy that this same sort of event keeps recurring.

[Progressive dog]

119. It doesn't, there is no straight path in any investigation

The policies have changed.
The Patriot act was a change of policy. Is that what you meant?
They added scrutiny to airline passengers. Is that what you meant?
They consolidated the command structure by creating Homeland Security. Is that what you meant?

Does the same sort of event mean that increased security at transportation hubs should prevent terrorist attacks at sporting events?
Does it mean that increased security to prevent truck bombs in garages should prevent airplane hijackings?
Does it mean that the policy should spend whatever is necessary and scrutinize anyone anywhere to prevent all possible terrorist attacks?

[leveymg]

120. The policy of running Counterterror programs around double-agents didn't change

The policies have changed. - No, the same basic approach of setting up "controlled" networks of terrorists was used right through the al-Awlaki cases (9/11, The Shoe Bomber, Times Square Bomber, Ft. Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber, Boston Bombers). Almost all are "blowback" from the same program that also involved Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Patriot act was a change of policy. Is that what you meant? - No. The Patriot Act did a lot of things, but it didn't prevent the CIA, in particular, from running terrorists in and out of the country.
They added scrutiny to airline passengers. Is that what you meant? - No. They put the XMas Underwear Bomber on the plane in Amsterdam, and the bomb actually detonated over Detroit (fortunately, unlike WTC '93, only enough to fry his butt) - the fact that witnesses saw a well-dressed American take him into a back room at Amsterdam Airport and get him ticketed, even though he was on the terrorist list, reportedly infuriated Obama, and UnderSecretary of State Patrick Kennedy all but admitted what had happened in his testimony before the Senate Intel Comm. in January 2009.

Here is the relevant section of Kennedy's statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2010. It explains why the State Dept. did not revoke his visa, even though he was on several terrorist watch lists: http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_5433.html

We recognize the gravity of the threat we face and are working intensely with our colleagues from other agencies to ensure that when the U.S. Government obtains information that a person may pose a threat to our security, that person does not hold a visa.

We will use (visa) revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government’s interest in the individual and ended our colleagues’ ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists’ plans and co-conspirators.

They consolidated the command structure by creating Homeland Security. Is that what you meant? No. The CIA is still not revealing the details of it's foreign terrorist operatives programs to the FBI, witness the lack of coordination in the Boston case. Same problem, and essentially the same CIA program against the Russians, going back to the one that led to the '93 WTC bombing.

Does the same sort of event mean that increased security at transportation hubs should prevent terrorist attacks at sporting events? Can't address that rhetorical question.
Does it mean that increased security to prevent truck bombs in garages should prevent airplane hijackings? Ditto
Does it mean that the policy should spend whatever is necessary and scrutinize anyone anywhere to prevent all possible terrorist attacks? No. Just scrutinize the f-cking CIA. Better yet, don't let the Agency run terrorists and there won't be so much blowback to deal with.

[Progressive dog]

121. Of course not, some of the policy stayed the same

and you don't like it. The policy now says the CIA is supposed to share with the FBI.
I really like your solution of not letting the agency run terrorists to infiltrate terrorists. Maybe they could recruit spies and then torture them to see if they're double agents. Maybe torture them weekly in case they changed their minds. We could make sure they only used loyal Americans for spies, they could recruit them from one of those patriotic blog places.
If you have a new paradigm for spying, you should let the CIA know.

[leveymg]

122. I have no problem with infiltrating hostile groups, but I have a big problem with allowing these

characters to run around the US without control while relying on foreign agencies to provide coverage of known dangerous intending terrorists.

The fact is, some of the CIA's foreign programs such as the ones against Russia are so compartmentalized that they would never share the details with the Bureau's gumshoes in the field offices. They didn't before 9/11, and they still don't - the Tsarnaev case shows that. You seem to confuse the public face and rhetoric of the GWOT with the reality - nothing has really changed, and it hasn't because they still think that operational secrecy is more important than innocent American lives.

I have a pretty good idea how US Counter-terroism failed on 9/11, and why it manifestly continues to fail. I've been writing about it here and elsewhere since 2002. Here's one of the early summaries, when I wrote that 9/11 was the result of an illegal warrantless US counterterrorism operation and the need to cover it up. I think I've had it right for a long time: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/03/01_crimes.html

[Progressive dog]

123. Why do you say it fails

The FBI interviewed the older Tsarnaev brother based on info. from the Russians. A quick look shows no CIA headlines.
As to 9/11, that was before policy changes and from a quick perusal the problem seems to again be with the FBI.

I don't see anything that would tell a reasonable observer that any agency of the government performed any act that resulted in the 9/11 attacks.

[Life Long Dem]

26. Finally admit?

Yeah opposed to "listening" in on everyone's phone calls. A stored file of 300 million numbers just waiting to be accessed to match the foreigners phone number.

[morningfog]

40. Yeah. Clapper was caught in a lie.

[Life Long Dem]

45. How so?

[morningfog]

47. He told Congress in March that the National Security Agency does not intentionally

collect any kind of data on millions of Americans.

That was a bald faced lie.

[Life Long Dem]

51. You don't know what he means by "collect"

When he uses the word collect, he is talking about using a warrant. The numbers sit in a file of 300 million. When they have a foreign suspects phone number they then match the terrorist number to a number in the 300 million file, and then they get a warrant to "collect" the U.S. phone number for further investigation. Otherwise the 300 million just sit there, while not being "collected".

It's his word of collection that is misunderstood.

[morningfog]

56. LOL! BUllshit. It is a lie, and I don't doubt there is more.

[Life Long Dem]

91. Clapper himself said this

"He said the misunderstanding has come about because he may have a different definition of what "collection" means."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/Clapper-I-Answered-in-Least-Untruthful-Manner

[morningfog]

94. You are citing the liar trying to defend his lie after he was caught? Hahahaha.

[Life Long Dem]

95. Liar is your opinion

[morningfog]

96. Even he conceded he was untruthful. He clearly lied. I look forward to more lies

being exposed and watching blind defenders squirm.

[Life Long Dem]

98. I believe he will clarify himself better

Which he seems to have a problem with.

[morningfog]

100. He's already made two contradictory statements. Clarity is no longer availible.

[Life Long Dem]

101. That's right. Stifle any chance of Clapper clarifying himself

Yet look forward to condemning him. I see where you stand.

[morningfog]

102. I don't care much for liars. He's already busted, bub.

[Life Long Dem]

103. Like I said. That's your opinion

I'll wait for all this to come out, then we'll see. Like I said, he has a problem with clarity. He already told us our meaning of "collection" is not the same as yours. That tells me people misunderstood him as a liar.

[morningfog]

109. He only changed the meaning of collection after getting caught in the lie.

The lengths people go to defend this. Pure double think. Were you this deferential to the bushies when they lied?

[Life Long Dem]

110. Yep

If I believe someone didn't lie I'd defend them. This is just a smear job on Clapper, and you know it.

[morningfog]

112. If it is a "smear job" it is being led by clapper himself.

[Marr]

83. Oh, brother.

[Life Long Dem]

92. Clapper himself said this

"He said the misunderstanding has come about because he may have a different definition of what "collection" means."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/Clapper-I-Answered-in-Least-Untruthful-Manner

[Marr]

97. Wow-- you're telling me the liar had an explanation for why his lie wasn't a lie?

Well that changes EVERYTHING!

[Life Long Dem]

99. Liar is your opinion

And he said exactly what I said about collection, which everyone has a problem with.

[Marr]

108. He very obviously lied.

Your denial is both silly and threadbare.

[GoneFishin]

86. Wow.

[Life Long Dem]

93. Clapper himself said this

"He said the misunderstanding has come about because he may have a different definition of what "collection" means."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/Clapper-I-Answered-in-Least-Untruthful-Manner

[pnwmom]

42. No they haven't. Your links don't prove that. Clapper has acknowledged

that they keep records of phone calls without identifying information.

If they want to investigate further, they have to bring probable cause to a judge and get a warrant, just as for any criminal case. This is why they were't able to stop the Boston bombing; the brothers had not been sufficiently identified as suspects.

[morningfog]

48. Clapper acknowledges it now, after being caught in a lie.

[pnwmom]

50. No he doesn't, and it wasn't a lie.

He said they weren't collecting data on Americans because the phone calls don't include identifying information and they're only collecting phone numbers, so -- in his mind when he answered the question, he didn't view that as collecting data on specific people.

To wiretap, they'd have to get a warrant from a judge and show probable cause.

[morningfog]

57. I am sure you gave the bush lies the same parsing and deference.

Such utter bullshit.

[marions ghost]

54. Absolutely a violation of the fundamental trust

"This surveillance program violates the fundamental trust Americans are supposed to have in their representative government. It is deeply disturbing, creepy as hell, and ALL Americans should be standing together now to stop it." +++++ your words. No trust in govt = no democracy.

All Americans should be deeply offended

[premium]

67. +1000.

It floors me to see how many people are defending this un-american program, this is not the America I grew up in nor is it the America I wish to live in, that's why I'm trying like hell to elect true progressives to possibly do away with this infernal program, hell, the whole un-american patriot act.

On edit: I watched K. Rove defend this program last night, that right there is enough for me to say, FUCK NO to this bullshit.

[marions ghost]

69. There is no defense for the un-American Patriot Act

[closeupready]

66. If they CAN do it, they WILL do it. Not rocket science, that.

History shows that, as the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Why ever not?

If you have the power to rule the world, you will do so.

K&R

[snot]

75. Knowledge is power, & a balance of power requires a balance of knowledge; &

right now TPTB know a heck of a lot about what were up to, while we know very little about what they're up to--save mainly to the extent that whistleblowers and their publishers have helped us out by leaking.

[CrispyQ]

79. "They say that they won't look at the records without a good reason."

Yeah, like, "I need some dirt on my opponent."

Thanks for the great post.

[Coyotl]

80. What is the next fall-back position?

[Earth_First]

82. Yes, but I am constantly being reminded that this story is from 2006...

So that this still currently exists means that I am not a good Democrat by *still* being outraged.

[peasant one]

84. pen register

Read 1979 Supreme Court case on pen registers--if my memory serves, collecting telephone numbers called is not an illegal search.

[woo me with science]

88. Huge K&R

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. I think the OP has it right and wrong at the same time

He is certainly correct that the NSA and their contractors have the power to snoop an just about anyone and the people that have the power to use that awesome resource can certainly use the information they gather to blackmail or control lawmakers, judges and media personalities. Where I think the OP is mistaken concerns the scale of such an operation.

It makes no sense to blackmail multitudes of powerful people because the likelihood that the blackmail could be revealed or discovered grows exponantially with each new victim. No, the wise use of the powers being discussed by nefarious people would entail only compromising a few KEY people. Feinstein would be a good choice. The always appointed to Bush investigations former Congressman Lee Hamilton would have been a good choice as well.

While I have many large doubts that this is true, it is still a possibility and should be looked at.

[TakeALeftTurn]

107. They will use their blackmail powers "judiciously"

against high level people.

Pun intended.

[arcane1]

105. They're recording "the contents of every phone call made"?

We're going to need a bigger database.

[TakeALeftTurn]

106. They can get the contents of ALL phone calls AFTER the event

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962685

[pnwmom]

111. Yes. By going to a judge, showing probable cause, and getting a warrant

they can then wiretap and get the contents of all phone calls afterwards.

But the only things that are being saved from non-targeted, non-warranted individuals are phone numbers, not recordings or other content.

[TakeALeftTurn]

116. You are assuming an awful lot of trust for something that has absolutely zero oversight

.

[pnwmom]

117. I trust Obama more than Snowden or Greenwald. n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

124. Too much huffing and puffing

The facts themselves are bad enough.
Snowden, however, is still a suspicious person. Telling the Chinese via the South China Morning Post about US hacking of China was a step too far. It pollutes the waters, and makes him a political actor. This won't affect the legal case being brought by the ACLU, but it does affect how effective his message will be to US citizens, who will now weigh his revelations against an act that clearly goes against US interests, and not just governmental - private interests as well. It also injected his revelations into the talks that took place between Xi and Obama re hacking, and not in a way helpful to the US. Why he would have done such a monumentally stupid thing is beyond me, unless he was acting as an agent of China. It's not like he was telling them anything they didn't already know, but the publicity of him saying it obviously would have undercut Obama. There was zero reason for him to do this. You can never be too cynical.
As to the actual substance, I didn't really appreciate the damage until I read the New Yorker piece on the usefulness of metadata. That's a real issue, and not something I'd thought of before. The New Yorker, as usual, manages to present the issue in a reasoned, helpful way. The ACLU, Grayson, and the Senators who kept warning on this will, one hopes, be able to put a stop to this via the courts. We'll see.
Obama should never have allowed this to occur. As a Constitutional scholar, I'm sure he found a way to parse the legalities in such a way as to make it Constitutionally viable, but what he doesn't seem to understand is that all that did was to make this stuff even more dangerous by giving it what I'm sure is a pretty tight legal rationale. We will now need an explicit SC decision to rein in the NSA and all the rest of the spy agencies.