General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIsn't it amusing to see all the Obama defenders ignoring the issue of mass surveillance?
they ignore what people like Bill Binney and Thomas Drake say. They ignore Senators like Wyden, Udall and Leahy. They ignore people like Daniel Ellsberg and Russell Tice. They ignore numerous experts on National Security all of whom say the same thing. They defend a secret court with no accountability at all. They support the very operations that candidate Obama criticized so harshly all because their allegiance to the president trumps every little thing.
they focus almost solely on Snowden in a frantic effort to divert attention from the real issue: the massive, ever expanding national security state.
Pretty amusing, eh?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JI7
(89,244 posts)instead of snowden , greenwald, and hastings death conspiracies.
Maximumnegro
(1,134 posts)I mean we know he's not important and not the real story but why haven't we heard from him? Shouldn't someone have taken a photo of him by now? Why is he silent? Has he been neutralized? Did he get a bug inserted in his navel and his mouth transformed into a mesh of flesh slowly congealing to silence him forever?
cali
(114,904 posts)JI7
(89,244 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Keeps other threads that are about the real issues off the main page.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
aquart
(69,014 posts)Good plan. Louis Gohmert would approve.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for security.
kardonb
(777 posts)I have not given up 1 liberty at all ! But I sure feel more secure knowing our government is trying to protect our county by keeping track of ill-wishers and and conspiracies to do our country harm .
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)harm." ?? Are you taking Republican Clapper's word over Democrats Wyden, Udall, Grayson, Wilson, Plame?
Strange that now you trust Republicans.
The spy machine today is the same machine, with all the same operators that Bush established. Bush's spy machine still lives but now you worship it when before 2008 you disparaged it. It's the same people the same equipment the same contractors.
Isnt Snowden a good example of how badly the NSA and their contractors are? Snowden exposed the lack of security. Others may have taken data and instead of revealing it to the public, they sold it directly to China.
Why arent we talking to Snowden's boss? I bet he/she would have a lot of useful information about what's going on. Oh yeah, you arent searching for the truth, you want this all to go away so you can return to you pretend world of Big Brother is keeping you safe.
Big Brother doesnt work for you. He may dance with you at the dance, but he wont take you home.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)And the fact all these multiple posts you claim to have started sink… tells you something about all the agita on display here.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)'Cause Human Events is too highbrow.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on DU about all three of them, going back to the Bush years on the exact same topic. The out of control 'surveillance' that came into being after 9/11.
I have posted about Wyden, Udall and Leahy, I have asked what happened to Leahy as a matter of fact, since Bush left office as he was one of the most outspoken Senators against Bush policies throughout that horrific eight year period when these grotesque policies began to expand at a frightening level.
What is remarkable is that none of them are saying anything they had not said before. And each time they spoke, during the Bush years, scores of grateful OPs would appear all over the Liberal blogs.
What is odd now is how they are being ignored by people who were screaming about Bush back then, but are now defending the exact same policies.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You're right, since Bush left, it's interesting how little has been posted about them, compared to back then. That doesn't mean that people have not posted about them.
Btw, what do you think of Wyden's statements over the past year or so, eg:
'if the American people knew the way this law is being used, they would be outraged'?
Do you trust Wyden, or do you think Ari Fleischer is more trustworthy? Because that's what it comes down to, doesn't it?
indepat
(20,899 posts)wars, policies, taxes, or personnel: any, all of those continued are patently wrong 'cause everything junior did was either patently wrong for America, wrong-headed, destructive, ruinous, unfair, illegal, unconstitutional, inhumane, and/or all or the like. 
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)not getting FISA warrants for alot of them which is required by law, a law that Jimmy Carter signed into law btw.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for the sole purpose of making legal what Bush's illegal behavior. They protected him and his cohorts in the telecoms by making it legal to get a warrant AFTER THE FACT and made that amendment RETROACTIVE. There was OUTRAGE here and elsewhere when they did that. A blatant slap in the face to the American people.
And to have people point to that piece of trash rescue of a clearly criminal element who got their hands on the reigns of power NOW, after all the figthing back then to try to stop them from changing that law, is beyond endurance sometimes.
I don't like to be crude, but an old saying comes to mind when anyone tries to use that travesty of an Amendment to defend the exact same disastrous policies Bush implemented by telling me 'it's now legal' ... 'don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining'.
Maybe you weren't around when they rescued the criminals with that amendment. Maybe you didn't know that Obama, running for the WH at the time, made eloquent speeches against it. Then he turned around and voted for it. THAT nearly lost him the election. But people had to overlook it including me, although it was a warning of things to come, I know now. He tried to 'explain it' but no one bought the explanations, they chose ot move forward, with way less enthusiasm.
In short the FISA Bill should have been left as it was, Bush and his telecom friends who all violated the law should have been prosecuted, not rescued. Instead, we are where we are. The question is, what now? Electing Democrats was supposed to be the solution.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)its the law now and congress the senate agreed to it so its the law unless a court throws it out which I doubt will sadly.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the law of the land since it so blatantly was the kind of law the FFs provided the people with tools to change. The best way to begin that process is for the American people to sue the US Government. Step one. We certainly cannot expect the SC, which is part of the problem, to side with the people. So it will have to begin with the people.
The ACLU has begun the process with their own suit. More will follow, Verizon customers will file class action suits (this happened the last time, but Congress saved them as I stated before) and hopefully during the process of all of these civil actions, the true nature of these anti-constitutional practices will be revealed.
Along with those steps, people are now rethinking their old patterns of voting. Eg, no longer will they be voting for someone just because they have a 'D' after their names. That 'D' will have to mean something.
It will be a long process, maybe years, but everything begins with a single step.
We were conned, by our own government. That is their fault, but if we don't try to fix it, it will be our fault.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)Obamacare is the law regardless of how republicans wish it wasnt.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . that Jim Crow laws were just fine and dandy until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, right? Because that is where your logic leads.
cstanleytech
(26,276 posts)however even though they do make mistakes (imo atleast) they are the branch of the government that is charged with deciding what laws are or are not constitutional.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Who would you have do it? Dunkin' Donuts?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)When someone said "If you give an infinite number of monkeys and infinite number of typewriters, the monkeys would ultimately write all the great novels of the world," they understood that an infinite amount of time would be required.
Keep trying. Even with short posts, you're not even close.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You accept lying Republicans Clapper and Mueller over Democrats like Sen Wyden, Sen Udall and Rep Grayson?
You side with the Corp-Media in their quest for the lynching of Greenwald and Snowden and their totally ignoring the illegal spying?
Tell us that you forsake the Constitution for the comfort of the security offered by the Authoritarian State.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)He was able to say he disliked surveillance under Bush, but he found all sorts of reasons why it is okay under Obama. How he kept a straight face, I have no idea.
I guess some people have a desperate, all-encompassing love of party that supercedes any other love, like love of civil rights and liberties.
Maximumnegro
(1,134 posts)the endless posts extolling Snowden and Greenwald as brilliant genius martyr heroes who have made incredible sacrific - oops apparently that's changed. What they can't ignore is how Snowden and Greenwald are NOT the story and the messengers are not important and...
cali
(114,904 posts)compared to the number trashing Snowden and Greenwald. And I actually did some counting. Most people have agreed with my ops which have repeatedly stressed that this is about the out of control national security state and not Snowden. As I've written about Snowden, hero or devil's spawn, I don't give a shit. The issue for me is the exponentially expanding national security state.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Roughly the same.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Yes, Obama does have ultimate responsibility as the senior most administration person for setting public policy on surveillance. However, with a combination of post September 11 hysteria and the boom of the clandestine services especially their areas outsourced to private industry thus creating a relentlessly expanding Intelligence Industrial Complex - I am quite certain that we would be at more or less the same state of affairs with an out of control surveillance apparatus if anyone else who had a snowballs chance in hell of being President were President instead. I think the attention should be on how to bring this monster of a mass surveillance system under control - irrespective of who is in the White House and who blows the whistle on it.
cali
(114,904 posts)but that post really irritated me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023125519
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Even when I strongly disagreed - I usually held fire. I certainly didn't have any time for those fake scandals like Solyndra or Benghazi or the iRS business - Even the AP reporter business concerned me - but I took a wait and see approach. Now that we have learned just how massive the surveillance program has grown under the Bush and Obama administration with the prospect of it growing if far more, it is simply a matter of citizen responsibility to try to put some breaks on it and to start trying to make an a powerful part of the government that has been almost completely lacking in accountability accountable.
cali
(114,904 posts)said that I like him. The AP reporter business was a bridge too far for me and the ever encroaching massive national security state-whoever presides over it- is several bridges too far. Still, I don't see it largely as Obama's fault, but I do note his wildly different pov on it when he was a Senator and candidate for President.
mick063
(2,424 posts)He defends the program. He supports the program. He has taken the Patriot Act to the next level.
All this talk about Snowden, who is relatively powerless from this point forward, is trivial. There is nothing he can do to significantly change the future.
I want to hone in on the President who can have an impact on this.
The Republican tactics of diverting from the important issue at hand while smearing the messenger is in full force here in DU. Very Tea Party like.
I call folks an Obama cheerleader while folks call me a Snowden worshipper. I truly believe that my accusation is much closer to reality.
I care much less about defending Snowden than those that cheer for their party to win, simply for the sake of winning, regardless of what compromises are required for victory.
There is no defense for the President facilitating our evolution into a corporate police state. None.
His message should be loud, clear, repetitive, and on the side of the ordinary citizen. He should be championing the common man daily, regardless if it is legislatively viable or not.
"Too big to prosecute" I can't let it go. The man is corrupt.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)And 18 U.S.C. § 2511 makes no exception for an Administration which has a (D), (R), or a (Centrist) designation.
mick063
(2,424 posts)I once heard of a judge that had a financial stake in a juvenile detention center and was charged with sentencing local youth to unusually long sentences to profit from it.
So a few men in a long robes declare that everything about spying on ordinary citizens is legal huh?
I guess everything is alright then.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—
(A) a court order directing such assistance or a court order pursuant to section 704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required. No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
(iii) If a certification under subparagraph (ii)(B) for assistance to obtain foreign intelligence information is based on statutory authority, the certification shall identify the specific statutory provision and shall certify that the statutory requirements have been met.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'collection and storing of phone data' on every, single American citizen?
I am a Verizon customer, I had no idea that someone got a warrant based on the presentation of evidence of wrong doing on my part. I want to know what that wrong doing was.
And I am not alone, every Verizon customer I know has the same question (we don't talk about it on the phone, we speak in person now, strangers, friends and family members).
Were there individual warrants on each and every Verizon customer, or (and I've never heard of this before) were all several million of them accused of the same wrong doing, or were there several warrants where groups of them were accused of different wrong doings? What possible act of wrong doing could millions of people have committed all together? I don't know several million people well enough to be involved in any wrong doing with them.
You are aware that saying 'they abided by the law' requires proof that the warrant, singular airc, that they claim to have obtained, must have been based on sworn evidence of wrong doing.
I can post the law of the land on this if you like.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)exception.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Even those who would like not to be impeded by the Constitution, they know better than to trample on it, at least publicly.
Just how can there be an exception, regarding Domestic Intelligence, to the 4th Amendment, and if by some secret ballot or whatever, this has occurred, the only response by any American Citizen should, and will be I am certain, outrage beyond belief.
Ron Wyden did say 'if the people knew how they are using the law, they would be outraged'. I hope this is not what he meant, because he is right, there will be outrage across the political spectrum.
By now, some Democrat should have introduced legislation to rescind any such attempt to violate the US Constitution. That is what their oath requires them to do. Please explain this 'exception' to the 4th Amendment.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And before you get upset, I also hold my own opinion on the subject irrelevant because I am not a Constitutional law expert.
When you read the opinions of the appellate courts on the subject who are the Constitutional law experts, you will find that your opinion is trumped by the facts. Here are some appellate opinions to chew on:
US v Duggan 1984
US v Truong Dinh Hung 1980
US v Buck 1977
US v Butenko 1974
US v Brown 1973
Zweibon v Mitchell 1975
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)But I know a hell of lot more about this issue than you do.
The Fourth Amendment states:
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Stewart makes it clear that the Fourth Amendment applies not only to tangible things, but to conversations as well (id at 353).
At issue in the case was the listening and recording of a phone call made from a phone booth in which betting information was transmitted across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084. The surveillance was done from outside the phone booth and without a warrant. It was determined that recording conversations without physical intrusion is in violation of the Fourth Amendment (id).
In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Stewart declared that “…searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” (foot note omitted) (id at 357). The Government argued that an exception should be made to allow for surveillance without prior judicial approval. Citing Beck v. Ohio 379 U.S. 89, 96, (1964), Justice Stewart responded, “Omission of such authorization ‘bypasses the safeguards provided by an objective predetermination of probable cause, and substitutes instead the far less reliable procedure of an after-the-event justification for the… search, too likely to be subtly influenced by the familiar shortcomings of hindsight judgment.’” (id at 358). The Court overturned the conviction of the petitioner, obtained through improper procedures.
Addressing the need for authorizing wiretaps, Congress enacted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.) (Title III) allowing warrants for wiretaps for law enforcement purposes (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). Title III was primarily for domestic law enforcement, but did have a provision (18 U.S.C. § 2511(3)) for national security:
The government relied on § 2511(3) in United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) to exempt itself from prior judicial approval, contending that “in excepting national security surveillances from the Act’s warrant requirement, Congress recognized the President’s authority to conduct such surveillances without prior judicial approval.” (id). In that case, three defendants were charged with conspiring to destroy, and one of them destroying, government property. The surveillance used to apprehend the defendants was conducted without a warrant, but an affidavit from the Attorney General had stated that he approved the wiretaps for the purpose of “gather intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.” (id).
Refuting the Government’s claim of authority, Justice Powell stated, “Section 2511(3) certainly confers no power… It merely provides that the Act shall not be interpreted to limit or disturb such power as the President may have under the Constitution. In short, Congress simply left presidential powers where it found them.” (id at 303).
Justice Powell noted the lack of evidence of involvement by a foreign power in the Attorney General’s affidavit (id at 308, 309). Operating under the pretense of protecting national security, Justice Powell warned, the Government may abuse its power by preventing political dissent:
By taking upon itself the role of a “neutral and detached magistrate” in addition to investigator and prosecutor, Justice Powell cautioned, “Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch.” (id at 317) adding “…unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.” (id).
The Government argued that the requirement of prior judicial review to obtain a warrant
The Court refused this claim, stating that security concerns could be satisfied through proper administrative measures (id at 321).
The Court suggested Congress might consider creating legislation to apply to domestic security surveillance, recognizing that domestic intelligence gathering for national security may not be as precise as for standard law enforcement (id at 322). However, government interests and civil rights could be balanced with reasonable procedures (id at 323).
Following the revelation by the Church Committee of serious abuses of electronic surveillance for national security purposes, the Senate Judiciary Committee enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). The bill was “designed … to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it.” (Bazan & Elsea, 2006).. The Senate Judiciary Committee made clear the intent of Congress to accommodate the President’s use of an inherent constitutional power:
Section 2511 of Title III was changed, removing the section pertaining to surveillance executed according to the “constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack” and inserted in its stead § 2511(2)(f), which made Title III and FISA the exclusive means to authorize electronic surveillance within the United States (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). This was done to “put to rest the notion that Congress recognizes an inherent Presidential power to conduct such surveillances in the United States outside of the procedures contained in chapters 119 and 120 .” (Bazan & Elsea, 2006, quoted from S. Rep. No. 95-604(I), at 63 (1978)).
While Title III dealt with electronic surveillance from a law enforcement standpoint, requiring a more stringent standard to meet Fourth Amendment guaranties, i.e. a showing of probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, the FISA standard is lower, requiring a showing of probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). This requirement in FISA was removed briefly by the USA PATRIOT Act following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Bazan & Elsea, 2006).
FISA provides a few exceptions to the warrant requirement to conduct electronic surveillance. 50 U.S.C. § 1802 provides for electronic surveillance of foreign powers without a court order upon Attorney General certification. This certification, in writing and under oath, states that “the electronic surveillance is solely directed at means of communications used between or among foreign powers or on property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power where ‘there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party’ and minimization procedures are put in place.” (Bazan & Elsea, 2006). 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f) provides for emergency authorization of electronic surveillance for up to 72 hours while a warrant is being procured from a FISA court judge. 50 U.S.C. § 1811 provides for electronic surveillance without a court order for 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress. It is important to note that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 did not constitute a formal declaration of war.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)It's a smattering of misapplied court cases having nothing to do with surveillance of foreigners, or metadata.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The standard responses are:
1. Ad hominem "So I guess you are happy with [insert horrible imagined situation here]" or "You're one of them thar dreaded authoritarians!" or "Who are you and why should I/we believe you" (I'm not asking you to believe me, I've cited facts that you can look up)
2. Fourth Amendment !!!!!11! (or various warrant or search and seizure cases in domestic surveillance, none of which apply to national security surveillance)
3. "Your cited appellate court cases don't matter because decisions are overturned all the time" (I love this one because it requires no thought at all. Its an attempt to avoid dealing with dozens of appeals court decisions by in fact just not liking them)
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...with people on the other side of this issue who could actually acknowledge reality. Saying something like: "Yes, obviously the law allows this, but it should be changed. Here's how we could draw the line a little closer, and not interfere with our legitimate national security concerns."
Alas, I've come to the conclusion that the D.U. isn't the place to do this. It seems to be the last bastion of magical thinking, tribalism, conspiracy theories, counterproductive screeching, willingness to completely make "facts" up, and so many different kinds of logical fallacies it's hard to keep track of them all.
The oddest thing is the absolute pure anti-Democratic party hatred. So many here really are the mirror image of the Tea Party: mindless screaming ranters determined to tear the one organized group that is actually effective in pushing forward the policies they purport to believe in. If I were as conspiracy minded as the loons that accuse me receiving a paycheck for posting on the D.U., I'd say they were secretly all Republicans conspiring to tear Democrats down. Alas, Occam's Razor tells me that instead, it's just people too wrapped in their own internal partisan morality play to acknowledge reality or the complexities of the real world.
The good news is that our party isn't plagued by these people as the Republicans are. Hard leftist loons sound doubly mad because they know normal Democrats don't pay attention to them. On the GOP side though, the inmates really have taken over the asylum. Howard Dean said it best, rather recently, to a GOP consultant on Bill Maher's show. "Your party is about 49% crackpots, ours has only 10."
And at least our crackpots know how to use a spelling checker. That's a plus. 
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Very true, that. I've only seen it from the most extreme RW boards, Rush, Fox blowhards, Infowars and Glennbeckistan.
Dripping with disdain, utter contempt that has nothing to do with real life people working for our party's platform. Worse, really, because they come close up and with sharper knives instead of baseball bats like the Tea Baggers.
They know the words that wound, memes that slice the guts out of people, and offer no solution but their way or the highway.
It's an infectious disease, immune to all facts and reasoning and there is no cure, no amount of trying to make one's position clear. At times, I wonder if I'm talking to a living breathing human being or a computer program designed to flay the skin off and devour the heart of compassion.
Just sayin'
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Was it the post where I wrote that you would wet yourself if Edward Snowden was assassinated by a Predator drone?
Oh, well. Keep playing the token liberal punching bag on Fox News.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Simple question. How can the FISA Court issue a collective warrant on millions of Americans' DOMESTIC phone data when that court only has jurisdiction over FOREIGN intel?
If you don't know the answer, just say so. I intend to keep asking as so far, most people simply don't know the answer.
As for your list of cases. I don't do research on lists posted with no links and no information on what they are supposed to mean.
Unless they deal with the FISA Court issuing warrants on Domestic Intel, they are worthless in this conversation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)domestic intel. Five constitutional law and national security law experts and a federal judge signed off that this does not constitute domestic surveillance, that the target is a national security target.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)organizations who KNOW Constitutional Law call it what is is. Domestic Intel.
And show me one of those cases that says it's okay to spy on Americans, just one.
I see what you are trying to do here. You are trying to say that Americans speaking to other Americans inside this country is somehow, in some bizarre, Orwellian world 'foreign intel' so that you can then point to cases dealing with Foreign Intel and claim they are justifying Domestic Intel warrants from the FISA Court.
That is some twising around to try to pawn that off on the public. Did you feel this way when Bush was caught spying, with the telecoms' cooperation, on the American people also?
And don't bother with the 'he was doing it without a warrant' garbage, yes he was, so why did Congress cover for him by weakening the FISA Bill to cover his criminal behavior? That was an OUTRAGE, and even more of an outrage to try to use THAT outrage to cover for the latest outrage. Show us where in our law our government is allowed to spy on the entire population and how they would go about getting a warrant to do so.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So the folks you are trying to cite are guessing at the motives for a warrant they haven't seen and whose arguments in favor they haven't heard.
And their opinion is supposed to be more compelling than the five lawyers whose expertise is national security law and the constitution and the federal judge whose expertise is national security law and the constitution, and these six folks saw the request for the warrant, heard the arguments in favor of it, etc.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Is there another 'secret' warrant somewhere? And if it's 'secret' and only a few people saw it, that makes two warrants, a secret one and the other one. It's getting even more confusing. And that raises even more questions. Secret Courts, secret warrants, secret trials, secret everything and we are supposed to take it all on faith. Right.
Here is the situation. I don't pay attention to anything someone tells me is 'secret, just trust us'. I look at what we know. And we know they are stalking the phone records and emails of the American people and there is NO law that allows that and no court that would issue a warrant, unless those millions of people have been proven to have done something so wrong that when the world finds out, it will be earth shattering.
Absent that, the whole notion of needing to stalk the American people's personal business for no good reason, is equally as bad if not worse than what Bush was doing.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)posted in the BOG to learn some essential background and analysis. I just kicked it up so it shouldn't be hard to find but here it is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510
Having just read I have to say that it offers an infinitely deeper understanding of the FISA issue than any of the Greenwald or Snowden defenses which have been embarrassingly shallow. So please read it forthwith as it will answer most of your questions.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)under corporate rule, the relentless, lying, smearing Orwellian propaganda assaults of the past few weeks have changed that.
It's been chilling, to say the least.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--the corporate propaganda machine is in full swing & clearly illustrates the same authoritarian thinking that has brought us PRISM & the rest of the invasive surveillance.
The concerted effort to propagandize literally proves the truth of what has been revealed. Some people promote silence and secrecy, for a reason. They have a lot to hide.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)who support totalitarian states. Either you are with us or against us.
Either you love America or you should leave.
The idea that we can have a free discussion based on facts that our government has denied us is to frightening to them.
The government has withheld from us the information that is collecting our metadata. And for good reason. It is very probably in my opinion unconstitutional to be collecting it in the indiscriminate manner in which they are. That is why they didn't want us to know about it.
We need an international protocol on how such information is handled, when and how it may be collected and whether each citizen has a right to know what its government and other governments have collected about him or her.
I not only don't want the government collecting this data, but I don't want other governments collecting it either. What's more, I want a private company or individual to ask me before it collects this data on me.
That's what I want.
cali
(114,904 posts)"love it or leave it" folks on DU.
The partisan mentality warps perspective. It becomes all about the President who is good no matter what, and the evil doer Snowden. It's a simplistic sad little mentality.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)My country right or wrong” is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.” – G. K. Chesterton
cali
(114,904 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)They're getting worse and worse.
RACISTS!
RAND PAUL SUPPORTERS!
RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!
blah blah blah
cali
(114,904 posts)but those folks have a small, sad mentality caught as they are in a purely partisan place. It's pathetic
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And every one of them is considered original.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)more so, that President Obama HAS PUT RESTRICTIONS on what Bush did, and President Obama has given the transparency
that was requested
therefore showing it is all legal and that this is NO issue (the majority, big majority) of Americans favor this
I for one am not concerned over this issue. It is a small wedge petty issue.
I am concerned that this issue has become the diversion like was going on in 2000 and spring 2001
that led to the major event-and the major event in 2001 was 9-11
the major event in 2013- is what the US Supreme Court did this week gutting the voting rights acts.
THAT is the important issue.
And poll after poll shows- the American public is united in wanting to be secure and not having another 9-11.
I also find it amusing that people don't acknowledge just how much damage Ralph Nader did in 2000, and still support him today.
DIVERSION is this issue itself is the diversion as America has agreed they do not mind.
But they do mind that the voting rights acts have been dismantled while eyes were diverted
and America is united in knowing that all of this rests in the hands of the legacy of the lie that perpetuated all of this
that both parties are one and the same. That lie by Ralph Nader is of course, why 9-11 happened in the first place.
And why the court decided as they did this week.
cali
(114,904 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)majority
A small number may not like it, but America has voted.
And the amusing thing is- be honest now- will THIS COURT rule against it anyhow?
Because that is the question-
they will ratify it making it forever impossible to change
Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and maybe even the other 4 will all NOT overturn this at this time
Therefore, this is the wrong time for this.
It is not going anywhere, and is a major diversion for things that could go somewhere.
EVEN the guys father says he is guilty, and has attempted to separate his son from the others.
His own father wants him to give himself up, but is barking orders as to where/when
The guys own father(who obviously is in contact with him because how else would he know to say those things).
America has voted, and we are a nation where being kept safe is well,
in the words of Benjamin Franklin (and I don't think there is anyone who is not a fan of Ben's-
"AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE".
and no one is spying. Culling is not spying anyhow.
But Americans WANT THIS.
and there are far many more issues Americans wish congress to attend to.
which is why congress is at 10%, while the President's ratings hold around 51-53% favorable.
cali
(114,904 posts)that may be the worst argument of all. Americans overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war too. Were they right?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)President Obama put this out for discussion.
If the ADULTS talk about it, and remove hyperbole, it will happen.
If it's just a political wedge issue it won't.
THIS US Supreme court took away voting rights. Do you think THIS court will overturn this? I do not.
It is a wedge issue.
ANd I for one think a President's job is to do whatever it takes.
My main flaw with FDR is that he took years too long to get involved.
And FDR is beloved everywhere, yet things were done that weren't so nice.
Lincoln too.
NOBODY has been harmed by this except now in the aftermath, it is a wedge issue.
It was an oblique issue, one of minor importance.
Major is what the court did to voting rights.
BTW-a MAJOR flaw in logic is Iraq.
HAD IRAQ BEEN INVOLVED, then nothing would have been wrong with Iraq.
Because 99.99% voted for Afghanastan, including the so called legend Ron Paul-he voted FOR WAR.
The side issue of Iraq was it was not the correct place.
We need everything to protect the nation and the world from the rogue attackers.
Most wars have a purpose.
Is there anyone who thinks we never should have been involved in the 1930s/1940s
Or the Civil War
Or the revolutionary war?
cali
(114,904 posts)Sure, ALL wars have a purpose, but most of the wars the U.S. has engaged in since WW2 have not had a morally defensible reason.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)For fuck's sake, is this all going to turn into another PUMA bullshit thing or something?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Mea culpa.
Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Let's hope, this time, we're not that petty, and that we get the vote out for Democrats in 2014 and 2016.
The loud minority have no place to go but here, on the message boards. They should all reread the DU Terms of Service:
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
At the rate they're going, they only appear to understand the importance of undermining others within the system to prevent Democrats from winning in the upcoming elections by attacking Democrats {especially Obama} and almost deifying Libertarians like Snowden and GiGi.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)and endlessly post pro-spying NSA talking points. If you are for Snowden then you must automatically be anti-Obama.
I really don't see this issue as Obama vs Snowden. It's about NSA and their corporate rulers who are making huge amounts of money off of spying on every American. If we did NOT have so much of the spying outsourced to out-of-control corporations, we probably would not have this nonstop, massive spying going on right now. It's the money from our tax dollars being thrown to corporate capitalist that causes it to be so massive and invasive. Get rid of the contractors and you could then focus on controlling the NSA, FBI and CIA.
But of course, if you turn it into an Obama vs Snowden issue then you don't have to confront the capitalist incentive to turn every American into a possible traitor who must be controlled and spied upon.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Who is Watching the Watchers? They aren't under government control and the government obviously leaves the "vetting" to other Private Contractors.
Every time that's brought up in a post the attack mob comes in and deflects the info with silly comments and emoticoms or some other distracting post to put the attention back on Obama and Snowden or Greenwald and not on the revelation that the information collected is able to be used by thousands of Snowdens who don't have his more altruistic reasons for leaking it.
They could be leaking to Wall Street, Multinational Corporations, Other Governments of even to "the Terrorists" for all we know. How would folks feel about the former "Blackwater" collecting every bit of their info and turning it over to CIA/NSA/FBI?
My ignore list has gotten to be huge. It's not worth even bothering with answering them because they aren't interested in any discussion.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)money-motivated individuals are not going to take advantage of the information that they can get by spying upon all of us.
It is already unethical for them to do what they are doing. They will not be inhibited by any sense of what is right and what is wrong.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Agent Mike ...used to be a joke ...but not so much anymore.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
cynzke
(1,254 posts)Before these contractors start secretly selling info to the highest bidder? Especially to politicians and political parties.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)and I am one of those people.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)what can be done with that information in the hands of "Private Companies" who can sell it to whomever SHOULD be of concern to all of us.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)ignoring threats from terrorism is not one of them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)now or ever. Occupy = terrorists, save the whale = terrorists, save the trees = terrorists, protect the land = terrorists. I am not afraid of those kinds of terrorists. I'm more concerned about the idiot texting while driving than any real terrorist. It's irrational to spend so damned much money on a secret unaccountable monster over a band of maybe 3000 criminals. The damned power hungry military monsters have used 911 and everything since to build themselves up. Our country starts this shit by interfering with other countries, killing innocent people which creates more terrorists and then they want to spy on me? Some husband who had his family killed by one of our drones decides to get back at the US. That's not a terrorist. Our military plants a base in an Islamic country and it pisses off the Muslims and we thumb our noses at em ...they attack us and they are terrorists? I fear what our own government is doing much more than any real terrorists. Everyone can go play the fearful soccer mom but leave me the hell out of it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Definition of Terrorism.
"Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman emperors, the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and Argentina during the “dirty war” of the 1970s. Terrorism's impact has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of such attacks instantaneously throughout the world. The deadliest terrorist attack ever occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 (see September 11 attacks), when members of al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and one into the Pentagon building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh, Pa. The crashes resulted in the collapse of much of the World Trade Center complex, the destruction of part of the southwest side of the Pentagon, and the deaths of some 3,000 people."
That's the kind of stuff we need to try to stop if possible. Surveillance can help do that.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)traffic fatalities in the US every year?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)the possibility that the reason there aren't more terrorists attacks is because we have such good security controls and surveillance?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Both in the objective and in outcome.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)deserve neither.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)but nice try.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Bush & Cheney did not increase either liberty nor safety.
That was not their goal. Money and power was their goal. And they got that.
They used the fear of others to get that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)it was taken, and the 'security' you got includes Bostonian children blown to bits. How is this a good deal for the dead, that you should feel better with your blankie and warm security milk?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)but at the same time most don't worry about it on a daily basis because most people feel the authorities are doing the best they can with the tools they have to keep stuff from happening.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is so extreme that it does not matter what is done as long as "my guy" does it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’ **UPDATE: on Libertarianism
Posted on April 22, 2011 by jreid
Of course, it’s not unusual for progressive libertarians to feel strongly that a third party movement is the answer to what they see as the sameness of the Democratic and Republican parties. But I think it’s hard to argue, in the wake of the 2010 election and the House Republicans’ all-out assault on women, unions, teachers, the poor, and now the elderly, that there’s no material difference between Democratic- and Republican-controlled government. And for non-elites in the Democratic party, those “short term interests” would be tough to sacrifice, whether its the ability to obtain unemployment insurance if they lose a job, the ability to organize and get decent wages and healthcare on the job, to retire with dignity rather than a voucher, and on and on. The stark right turn the country took when more Republicans were elected is a sobering reminder that most people can’t afford to strike a blow at the two-party system as a “short term sacrifice,” though people in Greenwald’s more privileged position can.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)on the international spying that our international spying agencies are doing.
If he wanted to focus on US surveillance, he could. But that's not his aim. He's not planning to live in the U.S. again. He doesn't care what happens here.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I live in the home of the brave ...why should I give up my privacy rights so those who are insecure can feel safer?
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)you can forget about any future privacy rights.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nor is there any indication that the current civil rights overreaches here and abroad would prevent a bomb attack, See Boston Marathon.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)From the Journal of the Federation of American Scientists.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm
Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat
Henry Kelly testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 6, 2002 on the threat of radiological attack by terrorist groups. This excerpt is taken from the text of his written testimony, based on analysis by Michael Levi, Robert Nelson, and Jaime Yassif, which can be found by clicking here.
Surely there is no more unsettling task than considering how to defend our nation against individuals and groups seeking to advance their aims by killing and injuring innocent people. But recent events make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil acts seriously. Our analysis of this threat has reached three principle conclusions:
Radiological attacks constitute a credible threat. Radioactive materials that could be used for such attacks are stored in thousands of facilities around the US, many of which may not be adequately protected against theft by determined terrorists. Some of this material could be easily dispersed in urban areas by using conventional explosives or by other methods.
While radiological attacks would result in some deaths, they would not result in the hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could be caused by a crude nuclear weapon. Attacks could contaminate large urban areas with radiation levels that exceed EPA health and toxic material guidelines.
Materials that could easily be lost or stolen from US research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation and create terror in large communities even if radiation casualties were low. Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. Since there are often no effective ways to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed at these levels, demolition may be the only practical solution. If such an event were to take place in a city like New York, it would result in losses of potentially trillions of dollars.
SNIP
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nuclear bombs are very hard to make, are very large and very hard to move. They are not easily put into a suitcase. It is a fear mongering myth.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)From the Journal of the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm
Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat
Henry Kelly testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 6, 2002 on the threat of radiological attack by terrorist groups. This excerpt is taken from the text of his written testimony, based on analysis by Michael Levi, Robert Nelson, and Jaime Yassif, which can be found by clicking here.
Surely there is no more unsettling task than considering how to defend our nation against individuals and groups seeking to advance their aims by killing and injuring innocent people. But recent events make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil acts seriously. Our analysis of this threat has reached three principle conclusions:
Radiological attacks constitute a credible threat. Radioactive materials that could be used for such attacks are stored in thousands of facilities around the US, many of which may not be adequately protected against theft by determined terrorists. Some of this material could be easily dispersed in urban areas by using conventional explosives or by other methods.
While radiological attacks would result in some deaths, they would not result in the hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could be caused by a crude nuclear weapon. Attacks could contaminate large urban areas with radiation levels that exceed EPA health and toxic material guidelines.
Materials that could easily be lost or stolen from US research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation and create terror in large communities even if radiation casualties were low. Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. Since there are often no effective ways to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed at these levels, demolition may be the only practical solution. If such an event were to take place in a city like New York, it would result in losses of potentially trillions of dollars.
SNIP
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is an enormous difference. Thank you for proving my point. I hope you read the article you linked to.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)only a standard explosive plus a small amount of nuclear material to produce a bomb that could contaminate a wide area.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Those are fear words. Besides, the article also said it would be relatively inexpensive to prevent a radiological attack.
And, the recommendations do not include spying on everyone, including elected representatives of ally governments or datamining domestic cell phone users. Nor has anyone in the US government said these tools are being employed due to an actual threat of a radiological attack.
This is all fear mongering and conjecture on your part. You are going to incredible, unfounded, lengths to find a tenuous thread to defend these policies. As the OP said, it is indeed amusing.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)There are many reasons to spy on other countries, even our allies. Iceland, for example, is an ally, and they are also a friend of Assange, who deliberately leaked unredacted classified documents, putting our agents and their foreign associates at risk.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)No kidding.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but it is amazing how you dismiss the possibility of terrorist attacks, which have happened, while worrying over someone "spying" on you from the government, which never will happen in your wildest dreams.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Oh we don't want to wait for that mushroom cloud do we.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)bushies pushing their bullshit, non existent "threats." point and laugh, we did.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You can't blame the leaker for what the actor has done. Any harm is a result of the actions and policies, not the exposure of the same.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)until you wind up with a burning tire for a necklace.
I find such people are typically utterly devoid of a sense of humor, and knowing what they are in all seriousness capable of, I find no mirth in the situation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As if it is wrong to defend a D President. On DU.
Stinky The Clown
(67,776 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)There's nothing for a President to sign/veto until then. And you go on and on about the Constitution.
Stinky The Clown
(67,776 posts)If he wants to get shit done he has to start L E A D I N G toward the goal. Not follow.
I know you don't get that, but whatever.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What an empty platitude that is. I'll go with the Constitution and the separation of powers over meaningless slogans.
Stinky The Clown
(67,776 posts)
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Many will not listen to the explanation on how it works. They let the shock and awe "news" lead them or listen to a traitor.
So many are sounding like the paranoid people that use to be the topic of jokes.
It is very sad.
Cliff Arnebeck
(305 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023118008
Remember our President is dealing with the same military industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned and that assassinated President John F. Kennedy. See "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James Douglass. This requires a balancing act every bit as difficult as the tightrope walk across the Grand Canyon.
Ms. Simpson presents an approach that respects the danger this situation presents to both us and our President.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
AmBlue
(3,107 posts)Kinda freakin' me out, actually. Don't get me wrong-- I love Obama and his lovely family. I bought into the whole "hope and change thing" like so many of us. Obama's accomplished a lot considering our uncooperative Congress, and I give him credit for all that. But there is absolutely no excusing warrantless surveillance of the entire world, including our own citizens. This issue has significantly lowered my opinion of my President, Barack Obama. I feel personally violated, disappointed and betrayed.
I"m very glad Edward Snowden has made the world aware so it can be addressed. Even if he had to break the law to do it.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)I have a low tolerance for treason and espionage.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)It will be a good day to me!
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I have spent a lot of time advocating in the state capitol and some of our strongest supporters of economic justice, healthcare, and most other liberal causes were anti-choice. Most of them were from rural districts.
I will definitely defend the president who has done a great deal in the name of equality and continues to fight hard for economic justice. Actually being in that seat and having to make the decisions is far more complicated than some people care to think.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)they don't mean it because they can influence others, President Obama - in my opinion - is the epitome of a politician who not only does not say much about economic justice but does not take action to support the few words that he has said in favor of it.
If you can, please help me with words so that I can be a believer once again.
Doesn't he know that NAFTA has not been repealed or revised? Doesn't he know that since taking office, he has signed three let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements? Isn't he currently preparing to sign another one, one that is called NAFTA on steroids?
Doesn't he know that the banksters - who are still walking around free, rich, and happy, and not trickling down on the American middle-class in a way that is beneficial to the country as a whole?
Does he care about economic justice? At all? In the community in which he was a community organizer, how well do you think that community is doing? By now, wouldn't it have improved? Even a little?
Just because the role of the presidency is complicated does not mean that a person should not speak up from time to time about economic justice. Even if they don't mean it. Perhaps you could contact his office and ask him to do that. It's been a while.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)... although, yeah, that's probably not the point either.
Apparently for some people it doesn't matter what you say so much as who you are when you say it.
Why argue facts, when you can smear someone for having a "pole-dancer" girlfriend?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Mostly sad as it concretely displays just how lost America is, as each party has support while it pushes the country further over the cliff towards totalitarianism and environmental destruction. But how else will the masses be control when there is no water and food to feed them? Its pragmatic 3 dimensional chess.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)On the hearings that several Senators called for?
I'm not talking about a few singular posts on the one thread that sank like a stone.
Really, if you really gave a shat about this issue, you'd be more proactive… rather than attacking other DU"ers.
cali
(114,904 posts)re snooping. she's like you, rah rah for the NSA. And I have posted several threads on Leahy's legislation and numerous threads about the issues pursuant to the ever encroaching national security state. It says a whole hell of a lot that you haven't even bothered to keep up with the actual issues because you're busy with the Snowden threads.
I've been as proactive as anyone here. Your apology will be accepted anytime.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085838
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085106
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023109129
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023081233
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059534
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962947
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059511
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989983
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969761
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023007320
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022994705
I could keep going and going and going and going. Kinda strange you haven't noticed any of the dozens and dozens of issue threads I've posted on this.
cali
(114,904 posts)one of yours which demonstrates in no uncertain terms, how wrong you are. real brave of you.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)How long would it be before...
Blind faith in leaders, and demands of nothing less from others, has led to some of mankind's darkest moments.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Isn't it amusing to see all the Obama defenders ignoring the issue of mass surveillance?"
...Huge straw man attacks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126063
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126302
It's not about Snowden or Greenwald, hero and "conscience" of America, respectively.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It is so much simpler that way.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Laughable, really.
cali
(114,904 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Udall and Wyden raised the same objections then and amendments to restrict the programs were defeated.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)people who think this level of violation of personal freedom, aimed at us and the whole world, is ok ... I feel creeped out being on the same board with them.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)that you are now basing the NSA scandal on witnesses who left under a previous President. . Ellsberg is from 46 years and 7 Presidents ago. Tice is from 2005 also well before President Obama.
One and one half million people with security clearances and your total evidence from the Obama presidency is Snowden. The rest of your witnesses weren't there to vouch for Snowden.
Senators Wyden, Udall, and Leahy have asked for more transparency. They are 3% of the elected Senate, pretty far from a majority, and they are not vouching for Snowden's claims.
lamp_shade
(14,825 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)has had catastrophic consequences in the past.
Logical
(22,457 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)And so it progresses:
He didn't eat the kittens on live TV - that's a damned lie!
He had to eat the kittens - the Republicans were going to torture them to death.
Actually, the kittens were Socialist-Cato Institute Paulbots and they deserved everything that happened to them. Our nation has narrowly averted catastrophe by this act of perfectly lawful kitten gustation.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I'm sure you would have much preferred that McCain or Rmoney had won.
Sorry to disappoint you.
cali
(114,904 posts)and no I fucking well do not attack him, dearie.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)
I'm sure you enjoy your gig AND the pay.
You're too clever to directly attack him most the time. But you are a real pro at shitstirring and getting DUers angry at each other.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Hey, there's a new one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans
Hekate
(90,617 posts)
Somebody's bitter.rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)people say to shut down criticism of the administration. Otherwise, that was the lamest thing I've ever read here.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Feel sorry for them. Not really but kind of.
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)Senators like Feinstein and Franken.
cali
(114,904 posts)Senator Leahy is one of the leading experts on this issue in the entire Congress. He's far more well versed than a junior Senator like Franken, and he's a hell of a lot more liberal than DiFi who's made a lot of money off of war and national security. I give more credence to Senators like Wyden and Udall.
Care to respond?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)existing appellate case law regarding Presidential powers in terms of surveillance of foreign affiliated people or groups in reference to the things we are talking about.
That's just for starters.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)more of your continual advertising of your internet radio show. And advertising is putting it kindly.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I enjoy reminding you of that.
And thanks for mentioning my show. I hope you will appreciate the irony of criticizing me mentioning it by mentioning it yourself.
Don't forget. Wyden is the Senator that wanted to give our Medicare to the private, disgusting
for profit, insurance companies. I live in Oregon, wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.
He replied to my email about this, trying to convince me that Insurance Companies are good.
Try telling this to a family that has a Genetic condition that prevents us from getting private
Health Insurance. He is a disgusting pig.
cali
(114,904 posts)Senator Leahy has been criticizing the NSA programs for years and introducing legislation for years- not to mention that he's one of the few real experts in the Senate on the issue.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)one smear at a time. It delays having to address the policy issue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)June 26, 2013
For Background Purposes
Public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the powerful Government surveillance authorities contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), particularly the impact on law-abiding Americans of provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT and Section 702 of FISA. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013 will improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, and also strengthen oversight and transparency with regard to other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Summarized below are some of the highlights of the bill’s provisions:
New and Shorter Sunset Provisions to Ensure Proper Oversight
- Shortens the sunset for the FISA Amendments Act from December 2017 to June 2015. The June 2015 sunset would align with expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions, and enable Congress to address these FISA provisions all at once, instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
- Adds new June 2015 sunsets on statutes authorizing use of National Security Letters (NSLs).
Higher Standards for PATRIOT Act Surveillance Authorities
- Elevates the threshold standard for obtaining records through Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group.
- Requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approve minimization procedures for data collected under Section 215.
- Requires the government to provide a statement of the facts and circumstances to justify its belief that the Section 215 records for tangible things, or Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices (PR/TT) sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information.
- Strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for Section 215 orders and strikes the conclusive presumption in favor of the government on nondisclosure.
- Requires the FBI to retain an internal statement of facts demonstrating the relevance of information sought to its investigation before it can issue a National Security Letter (NSL).
- For “roving” wiretaps, requires law enforcement to identify “with particularity” the target of a wiretap request under FISA.
Increased Transparency and Public Reporting
- Expands public reporting on the use of National Security Letters and authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of United States persons.
- Fixes a constitutional deficiency found by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey by shifting the burden to the government to seek a court order for an NSL non-disclosure order, and allows the recipient of such a non-disclosure order to challenge it at any time.
Increased Judicial Review and Inspector General Oversight
- Requires Inspector General audits on the use of Section 215 orders, NSLs, and other surveillance authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act.
- Provides for a comprehensive review of FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) surveillance by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG).
- Clarifies the scope of the annual reviews for Section 702 currently required by the law, in order to cover all agencies that have targeting or minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ecstatic
(32,677 posts)(By the way, I don't speak for anyone for myself.)
I realize that my laptop might be tapped at this very moment due to file sharing sites I've visited, etc.... and that is troubling. Still, the issue of NSA/spies/etc. just doesn't resonate with me. It never has. Not when * was in office, and not now.
What bothers me right now? That Roe vs. Wade is under attack. That the right to vote is under attack. That cop wannabes like Zimmerman can gun down unarmed black kids in the street with little or no consequences.
I realize my priorities might not match up with all or most DUers. Maybe my plate is already full of issues that directly affect my day to day life? BUT while govt snooping doesn't top my list as far as important issues, I do recognize the potential for abuse and I'll be happy to let others fight to change the parts of the law that are unconstitutional. I'll do my part in voting for democrats who are receptive to repealing or at least modifying the Patriot Act and all related laws. Ironically, my modest actions will be a lot more effective than some of the actions taken by the people who are the loudest on this issue--their strategy being to vote 3rd party or stay home.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The one that has been beaten to death here on DU.
The one where for the 500th time we hear the same argument and it's still repeated?
The one where where the message is so saturated it's lost any effect?
You and your ilk have done a great job satiating Du.
There is no ignoring the issue. There is ignoring those stuck in the hamster wheel trying to rehash.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)on a messageboard?
Cyber-wring one's hands?
Rec hair on fire posts to oblivion?
What is it that's pissing you off so much about people expressing varying opinions here?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. He introduced it several days ago. Why don't you call your Senators and rep in support of the legislation?
That would be doing something. One thing I've done is to encourage people to support it by contacting their reps in Congress.
Now you know.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)I never understood that and I will never understand that. You don't worship a person just because their charm and rhetoric, Obama had little substance to back his rhetoric at the time. You should not treat politicians like you would to Elvis, the Beatles, or Justin Bieber. This kind of worship / fanaticism is unhealthy and anti-democratic (because there's no sense of accountability because the leader can do no wrong!).
Everyone that's not an Obama lover, you want to know how an Obama lover thinks, just hear Randi Rhodes. Hearing Randi Rhodes go on and on about how great Obama is and how he makes such great decisions, you'd think that she was in love with him and if not fantasizing about having an affair with him, worships him and is wishing Obama knew about her so that he would give her a spot in his administration. Randi Rhodes was even kicked out of Air America in 2008 because of how she trashed Geraldine Ferraro (even calling her whore) for endorsing Hillary Clinton, as well as Hillary Clinton herself (in her eyes, defending Obama.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Rhodes#Departure_from_Air_America
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I just realized Summer's thread came first so I'm posting it there 
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)This whole thing started with the patriot act. Heck, similar, not as high tech grant you, was going on during JFK!
But with it coming back up during President Obama, people are using it to attack.
Sorry to disappoint all the conspiracy groupies around here, but it really is not that big. I am so not wasting my time. I just want to see that Traitor in jail ASAP.
cali
(114,904 posts)that's why he's introduce the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013. And the Senators who signed on to his legislation think it's "that big" too.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Most are in there signing this to help with reelection and to further their carrier.
They know to go along with the shock and awe "news" because it is something they can do without loosing money from corps. come election time.
What will make me want to vote for someone right now is how hard they fight to jail that traitor and stop cutting social programs!!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)1) the NSA program 2) Snowden and 3) the contracting of services for the NSA and lack of background checks. Personally I think the third is what is getting the least attention.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I can't for the life of me understand folks on either side of this issue making it about Obama. It is a much bigger issue than that.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)There is a lot of character assassination of Snowden going on. But once you get away from that, the "diversion" seems to be all coming from the other side.
Dozens of posts have described the legal and constitutional basis of the searches. I might have seen one response to one of those posts which engages the legal and constitutional issues.
For example, talking about 4th amendment searches in regard to what the Supreme Court has for years considered business records is a diversion. There is supposed to be widespread surveillance of voice content, but the only specifics I hear about are purely overseas calls, which were always practiced and never controversial.
For anyone who has been paying attention to the issues surrounding electronic surveillance, this whole issue is sounding more and more like Benghazi in the sense that the more you look the less there is.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Stop making this about Obama defenders. There is a small minority of libertarians and out of touch liberals who are driving the bus on this issue and guess what - the rest of us really don't care. We don't care because it's just a drop in the bucket to the many more important issues facing our country today. It just furthers the disconnect between DU and the rest of the world. You all live in an echo chamber and because you constantly hear your BS, you build it up in your head that this is the most important, pressing issue in all of politics.
I've got news for you, cal, no one gives a fuck. Seriously. The rest of us moved on weeks ago. It's not news anymore. Yet it remains the most dominant topic as you all turn Snowden and Greenwald into heroes reminiscent of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King - while pushing this ridiculous notion that America is now somehow a fascist country. That type of rhetoric and tone is so bat-shit fucking crazy that most people, most sane people, just turn and roll their eyes at how absolutely moronic DU has become lately. It's turned into a constant circle jerk of insanity and most people, most people who have a lick of sense, don't want any part of it.
It's petty, overbearing extremism that makes you look more like Lyndon LaRouche supporters than anyone who actually brings a legitimate argument to the debate. That really is the problem. Ya'll went so far off the deep end over the last month on this issue that no one takes you seriously anymore. DU is a constant back-patting, bullshit throwing, lies spreading, paranoia sprouting fuck-fest and it's totally removed most sane users from the depths of reality and put 'em squarely in the toxic universe known as delirious-ism.
So, while most Americans have moved on, you people continue to dwell - talking more about the NSA than Nelson Mandela (tho, I won't doubt until someone compares Snowden to him, because, you know, that's how demented some of you are), immigration reform, global warming (remember when this was an issue?) and essentially the overturning of the Voting Rights Act (the outrage to that lasted maybe a day ... but most of you aren't directly impacted, so, you guys didn't seem to put much fight into it outside the token shit I'd expect from supposed liberals).
One thing is clear - you either are all daft or you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Might as well change DU to Alex Jones' or Ron Paul's forum because it's been entirely corrupted by conspiracy theories, hyperbole and non-stop talk over the NSA flap - meanwhile, the rest of us on planet earth will continue living our lives and focusing on the most important issues.
But most Obama supporters here are starting to ignore it because it's been co-opted by morons and nutties. Who would want to associate with most you here? You guys are embarrassing. You're so out of the realm of mainstream on this issue that you're in LaRouche and Wayne Madsen territory - the latter who, mind you, has been used as a source here.
And you find it amusing we don't want to associate with you crackpots - that we want to ignore you fruitcakes?
Well DUH!
It's not a tough nut to crack, guys. haha
