General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says
Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)
(This article is from May 25, 2011 but I think it's more relevant now than ever.)
You think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it’s worse than you know.
Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.
“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”
What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.
More: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
villager
(26,001 posts)
think
(11,641 posts)speaking out on secret govt is pretty much the same thing.....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is very, very long since we learned what our Government has been up to.
Wyden has been consistent in his opposition to Bush policies, going back to when all those now supporting them, USED to oppose them.
I would not be surprised to learn soon, if Wyden doesn't just stfu about our rights, to hear that Wyden loves cats better than dogs, or something equally egregious.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #13)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #60)
trueblue2007 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)Once that is fully exploited they will do the same to Wyden. Can't let someone who doesn't play by the party rules wander around talking like that now can you?
Taft_Bathtub
(224 posts)Anything to distract us, anything!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Everyone knows how unpatriotic pole-dancers are!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)It won't be complete, anyway. He's my Senator, and I won't be throwing him anywhere as long as he continues to work for me.
villager
(26,001 posts)or whatever the charge is around here, for questioning unchecked authority...
LWolf
(46,179 posts)
It's embarrassing how transparent, and transparently desperate, the effort to defend the status quo has gotten.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Defender of our liberties.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts) 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts)Guess not! And that was back when he could have done an "anonymous hold" too. But alas.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the violation of our rights revealed by the latest Whistle Blower.
Pssst, Wyden and Udall have called for hearings as recently as this month. I'm sure you will support these Democrats in their effort to get some accountability for the violations we are all now aware of.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130611/11122823408/senator-wyden-calls-hearings-over-intelligence-officials-lying-to-congress.shtml
BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts)Have not rethugs halted legislation with a simple "hold"? Who needs "hearings" on something blatantly illegal?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Holds are used with personnel appointments not laws.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Even if you could put a hold on legislation, you can't put a hold on how the Executive Branch secretly interprets legislation.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)are reserved for Only the Minority members of the US Senate....
So even If Wyden wanted to he could not have.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wyden, with whom you used to agree, has been consistent in his battle against Bush policies and remains so. I'm sure you will be supporting the efforts of these Democrats to get some accountability for the violation of our rights and to end these Bush policies once and for all.
He has stated recently also that 'if the American people knew how they are using this law, they would be angry, outraged'. So if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about in terms of complying with this simply request, I'm sure you agree.
.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to Bush policies. You were very precise also about your own opposition to the Fisa Bill amendment during the Bush years. I did ask you what changed your mind about it? Care to enlighten us as I find such flip flops on major issues like this to be extremely interesting.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)'What it doesn't change is that most Democrats have remained consistent in their oppostiion to Bush policies. You were very precise also about your own opposition to the Fisa Bill amendment during the Bush years. I did ask you what changed your mind about it? Care to enlighten us as I find such flip flops on major issues like this to be extremely interesting."
...a reminder:
Remember the vote for the Patriot Act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987423
From the OP article:
“I’m talking about instances where the government is relying on secret interpretations of what the law says without telling the public what those interpretations are,” Wyden says, “and the reliance on secret interpretations of the law is growing.”
Wyden is concerned about the "secret" interpretations.
He recently co-sponsored this bill: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the FISA Bill amendment that was, as you said correctly, nothing more than a cover for his crimes. Airc, you said 'they can't do that'. But they did, didn't they? And Obama voted for it. After speaking out so eloquently against it. That nearly lost him the election back then, but we had so little choice.
So, now that you support the FISA Bill Amendment that you so vehemently opposed, can you give us the reasons that caused you to change your mind? I opposed it back then and have found no reason to change MY mind, on the contrary. It has done exactly what we predicted it would at the time, weakened the bill and served as cover for even more crimes against the people.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Still unwilling to explain your change of heart regarding Bush's domestic spying and the the FISA Bill amendment that was, as you said correctly, nothing more than a cover for his crimes. Airc, you said 'they can't do that'. But they did, didn't they? And Obama voted for it. After speaking out so eloquently against it. That nearly lost him the election back then, but we had so little choice. "
...when you raised the issue here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3149401), I thought it a single act of desperation. Clearly I was wrong.
I mean, you apparently are resorting to a failed gotcha:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3134799
Desperation must be setting in big time.
Response to ProSense (Reply #39)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"or is it that you don't get paid if you're defending one of your own posts rather than shilling for the DLC?"
Bigger FAIL.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts) ProSense
(116,464 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the FISA Bill amendment considering the position you are taking now. I asked a simple question which you apparently have no answer for.
The problem with that kind of unprecedented change of opinion while making yourself a very prominent defender of what you so outspokenly opposed is that unless you can explain the reasons for such an incredible turn-around, there is a huge loss of credibility there.
I have no reason to be desperate. I learned a long time ago that the 'truth never changes' so it's always best to stick to it, which I certainly struggle to do. Unless some new information is forthcoming requiring a review of a previous held conviction.
I was impressed by your conviction re the Fisa Bill Amendment and simply asked what changed your mind. You might be able to sway others with what must have been something very powerful. So far I have nothing to change my mind.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I didn't raise the issue. It was very interesting though to see how opposed you were to the FISA Bill amendment considering the position you are taking now. I asked a simple question which you apparently have no answer for....I was impressed by your conviction re the Fisa Bill Amendment and simply asked what changed your mind. You might be able to sway others with what must have been something very powerful. So far I have nothing to change my mind."
...you saw where I said I stand by my comment, but you're going to pretend that my statement and the supporting post don't exist.
I'm not "impressed" by disingenuous people.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that affects the very future of this country only to, as several of our elected officials have done also, completely reverse their positions. Noting has changed since that awful FISA Bill Amendment was pushed through Congress to, as you so correctly pointed out yourself, save Bush and his cohorts including the Telecoms, from prosecution for breaking the law.
As you said yourself back then 'you can't change the law to protect Bush'. They did and now some of the very same people who were so outraged back then, are actually DEFENDING what they opposed so strenuously back then.
Nothing has happened since then to make right what was so wrong then. Not a thing. That Amendment was added to the FISA Bill to change the law, retroactively, to make legal what was illegal, or try to. As far as I am concerned, it is still illegal as it violates the over-riding law of the land.
Still waiting for someone to tell us how an Amendment that was so opposed by Democrats, changed in any way ...
"There is nothing more disingenuous than taking a principled stand on an issue that affects the very future of this country only to, as several of our elected officials have done also, completely reverse their positions. "
...the hell are you talking about?
"As you said yourself back then 'you can't change the law to protect Bush'. They did and now some of the very same people who were so outraged back then, are actually DEFENDING what they opposed so strenuously back then. "
You clearly have no idea. My comment had nothing to do with FISA amendments.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)What caused you to change your mind 180 degrees on this policy since the Bush Administration?
Maybe if you clearly explained your epiphany on the substance of this policy, we would all change our minds too.
dflprincess
(29,346 posts)that now the presiden has a "D" after his name.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)What made you change your mind?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that shows Obama also oppossed it at the same time she did, but now that Obama has changed his stance so has she...that doesn't clear it up?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)OMG
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Let's not understand more about the topic that is being re-addressed through legislative means?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So, your point then, is to focus the date, without regard for this subject?"
...that wasn't the "point." The point was to let the poster know that a "hold" isn't relevant because of the date. Somehow, I think you knew that.
I made another comment if you're interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3150215
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Which relieves you from ever having to answer anyone's question in this thread.
I guess I was hoping for you to have a point with all this, but it just makes me think that you're good at not answering. Oh well, everyone's good at something.
BumRushDaShow
(169,761 posts)when the next set of renewals come up. Which would be when DiFi starts barking orders at them and they cower in the corner.
What's that saying? Shit or get off the pot?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when it comes to speaking out in opposition to Bush's policies. You were proven wrong here, and now resort to attacking Sen. Ron Wyden. Do you realize that when you do this you confirm what journalists like Glenn Greenwald among others, have pointed out about 'some on the left'??
Thanks, I'm going to save this comment. Proves Greenwald right again.
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)ProSense has gotten hold of a crop duster! Run, Senator Widen, run!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(48,962 posts)I'm almost positive neither one are Paul supporters.
factsarenotfair
(910 posts)He was hiking in Wyoming.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)I hope they find him safe and soon.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)we may actually have hope of getting some answers.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I'd like to see the number of boxes in his garage before I make up my mind about this.
Mr. David
(535 posts)by just explaining the intel on the open floor.
Nothing is classified. Nothing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Of course he could just do what Snowden did and decide to break the law. Is that what you are suggesting?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yup, he broke the law.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Whistle Blowers heroes. What was your point again? We also have protections for Whistle Blowers when they decide to break the law for a more important purpose.
Scratch that, we USED to have protections for them. The treatment of Drake and Binney demonstrated that that is no long the case in the land of the free.
From now on, US Whistle Blowers know better than to 'follow the procedures laid out for Whistle Blowers' since that is exactly what Binney and Drake did, to the letter of the law, and in return they were persecuted, prosecuted and had their careers destroyed.
Manning was tortured, so now that we have become known as a nation that persecutes Whistle Blowers even those who follow the rules of reporting crimes within the government, it is very likely that all future Whistle Blowers will do what dissidents have always done when these conditions exist within their own nations, seek asylum elsewhere, which it is their absolute right to do.
"Yes, he knew he was breaking the law and what the consequences would be which is what makes Whistle Blowers heroes."
...according to his most recent statement. He appears clueless about the "consequences"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023144319
Snowden does not fall into either category: "Whistle Blowers" or "heroes"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)traitor?) Drake and everyone else whoever exposed the crimes within our government.
What we do know is how they have abused that awful weakening of the original FISA Bill, done to cover for Bush's crimes, just as we predicted it would. You too according to YOU at that time.
So, now that we know about the massive surveillance of the American people, we'll see if finally these Bush policies will be ended, finally.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Different country back then. We were still a democracy."
...back in the day, when "we were still a democracy," Elleberg was prosecuted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistrial
Snowden is no Ellsberg.
When "we were still a democracy," the Chuch Committee recommended the creation of the FISA court.
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978
The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
If the Patriot Act is repealed, should the secret FISA Court be abolished?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999502
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all of whom had respect for the Constitution and as a result with their interference, the case against him was dismissed, the SC ruling in favor of freedom of the press.
By contrast, see what happened to Drake, to Manning whose fate has been pre-determined, and whose 'trial' is generally viewed as a sham.
The people have been lazy, they are to blame for this. Extreme partisanship certainly has contributed to the demise of the respect for the rule of law. However, I am hopeful that this too will be turned around before it's too late.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Really, Prosense, your slips are showing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)“While the public has cried out support of my shining a light on this secret system of injustice, the Government of the United States of America responded with an extrajudicial man-hunt costing me my family, my freedom to travel, and my right to live peacefully without fear of illegal aggression.”
He is simply stating the behavior of the U.S. government since his revelations.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Perhaps that might be why there was such fight erecting the first ten amendments into the constitution. Some of the educated at the time really did have contempt for the common or layman they had to have brushed shoulders with occasionally.
Kind of comes full circle again
RC
(25,592 posts)markpkessinger
(8,912 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)can declassify any piece of intelligence simply by reading on the open floor of the Senate? Did I get that right? I would love to see your source for that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But see my reply to Mr. David on the gag agreement members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have to sign before the Executive Branch gives them the info that is kept secret from Congress as a whole.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)But just keep making stuff up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)what the Executive Branch discloses to them privately.
That came out when torture by Bushco was first hitting the fan and he claimed the proper committees knew all about it. Some Democratic Senator--may have been Rockefeller, but I am not sure--had sent Bush a letter protesting the torture, but could not reveal it (the torture) to the public because of his agreement not to do that.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Not that he would, mind you, but CAN he?
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)He could have vetoed it, but he didn't.
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)I found it in a Google News search. I edited my OP to make that clear.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)It shows Wyden has been trying to sound the alarm for a while, though he's been constrained by secrecy laws.
merrily
(45,251 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)The presidents never know what TBTB don't want them to know. And I think in some form or the other, this has been the case since Eisenhower. Presidents come and go, but the National Security State remains. And why are generals always in charge? Makes me wonder at night if we have a thinly-veiled military dictatorship.
Remember after the assassination attempt on Reagan that Gen. Alexander Haig arrived in the Situation Room and informed everyone that he was in control? Makes me go hmmmmmmmmm.
General Hayden?
General Alexander?
James Clapper - Retired Air Force General?
Admiral Poindexter of Total Information Awareness fame?
Who went to the UN and claimed that Iraq definitely have weapons of mass destruction? -- Former General Colin Powell
I came up with those in about 2 minutes. I'm going to give this more thought. Maybe we need a military purge in the United States. Maybe that's why we seem to have lost our way and democracy seems remote. Maybe that's why Republican presidents are acclaimed even when they are incompetent, and Democratic presidents are the victims of smears and negative media campaigns. Could be coming from the top of the food chain.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)basically the same. They seem to transcend presidents.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,161 posts)have served in several Administrations in various roles...look at Bush 41, for one example.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)dflprincess
(29,346 posts)It wasn't until JFK tried to buck the MIC and was killed for his trouble that the coup was completed. Every president since remembers what happened in Dallas.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Believe me, I have run every possible scenario over in my mind in an effort to explain the FUBAR condition of the US government/nation.
Remember Eisenhower's warning. What would prompt a Republican president to go out of his way to warn the American people about something they were not at all aware of. Eisenhower must have felt this was of supreme importance.
Ike didn't leave office warning us of the "red menace". He did, however, warn us of a part of the "government" that had amassed too much power. Clear back then!
timdog44
(1,388 posts)the other day
"There are forces that run our government no matter who is in office. Some use them, or get used, differently by those forces. I think in the end that corporatism and globalization are the evils we face. I am not sure of a solution, other than a revolution, of some sort. The wake up calls have been showing up for a long time. But they are in the end just wake up calls. It is here that I have been pondering what needs to be done. And I am at a loss."
And Ike did warn us about the military/industrial complex.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm with you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and he did nothing about the MIC, except "warn" us the day he was leaving office?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bothered me.
He was very much part of the MIC for his entire adult life and did nothing about it, not even mention it to the public, until he was about to "fade away."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Like the increasing "Soviet threat". The expansion of nuclear weapons into the Soviet Union. The Problems with East-West Berlin and East Germany.
My best guess would be the thing grew out of control to gradually become the monster he was concerned about. He probably thought French Indochina was an overreach but was told it had to be done because it represented an "opportunity", much like Iraq. An opportunity for the connected war profiteers. We used to hang them. But I think Ike was doing his best in warning us. Not that we peons could do a thing about it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But I think Ike was doing his best in warning us.
I don't think that was the best he could have done by a long shot.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)creating a constitutional crisis. It might have been the last time these people could have been reined in. I wish he would have done more. But remember, they probably killed Kennedy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)have created a Constitutional crisis. He was President and CIC. The entire military and the rest of the Executive Branch is under him.
But remember, they probably killed Kennedy.
That could not have stopped Eisenhower from doing anything while he was general or POTUS.
BTW, I wonder how much smiling Ike made from the MIC.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe even since Lincoln was assasinated?
The technology is so much better now, though.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)"I may have kidded you a little bit but I never lied to you"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)spying on Americans.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's so much easier to tell the truth to a reporter than Congress. When Sen Wyden clearly asked if the NSA collected data on millions of Americans, Clapper thought he meant, did they read the data. He admits he didnt understand the word "collect". After all he personally doesnt collect data. And the NSA probably doesnt directly collect data. So clearly the answer was no. Wyden should have asked, "Do you know of any agency or contractor that collects or compiles collected data on millions of Americans? And does the NSA ever use that data?"
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)Cool Hand Luke, "What we got here is a failure to communicate"
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and they have confirmed that the Snowden leaks are the tip of the iceberg with respect to egregious government domestic surveillance activities. That's why they are calling for hearings, which is the correct course of action.
The fact that the Danger Room article is from 2011 does not weaken the argument - it strengthens it. Trusted sources, in this case two Democratic stalwarts, have been trying to raise the alarm for years now.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)were really just informative. No drama, no arguing. For some reason everyone on the site agreed about this topic.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1173686
n2doc
(47,953 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Or is it Ron Paul?
Or Jane Hamsher?
Or Ralph Nader?
Or ad infinitum..........
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)
And everyone here who is staying focused on privacy issues and ridding ourselves of the Patriot Act-- maybe there is hope. I think the trick here is to work around people whose sole purpose appears to be obstruction of all discussions about civil and constitutional rights (the REASON for which has never been made clear...)
mtasselin
(668 posts)It is about time the democrats filibuster this, you want to make a statement this would do it. Can't complain about this and let it go unchallenged, do what needs to be done Senator Wyden, please.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)The whole point about America is that the law is public and every citizen knows or should know when he's about to violate it. If the law is classified, then one doesn't know that and the government may prosecute one when one has no reason to know that he has violated the law.
This, my friends, is a fundamental violation of due process. It is wrong. It is tyranny. Any congressman who votes for such a law is a fascist and any chief executive who orders that such a law be enforced is a tyrant.
Now, when President Obama comes out and says he's all for it, as we have good reason to fear he will, the Rahm Emanuel Marching Band that resides at DU will come out and tell those of us whose loyalty is to the Bill of Rights and not to any particular individual that we aren't good Democrats or, if that isn't enough, that we're only opposing Obama because he's black. Forget, guys, you lost your credibility a long time ago. They will that the alternative is real right wing moron as president, being that sober conservatives were read out of the party some time ago. Granted; that's why I held my nose and voted for Obama a second time, although he has totally failed to restore the civil liberties taken by the usurper who preceded him and completely failed go after criminal Wall Street financiers who defrauded American home buyers and crashed the world economy. I was so hopeful after voting for him in 2008 that he would clean up the sordid mess left in the Bushies' wake.
Do the members of the Rahm Emanuel Marching Band know what a left handed compliment it is to say that Obama is better than Bush? There's an awful lot of ground between Bush and merely just passing.
This kind of thing isn't protecting America. It's destroying the village in order to save it.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)(e.g., the Twelve Tables)
*Magnus Pyke voice* history!
merrily
(45,251 posts)At least for Wyden. Me, I think the law itself sucks, but what do I know?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Its was shit when it was written and its shit now. ffs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
bunnies
(15,859 posts)No doubt about it.
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)of Democrats in Congress voted against it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They want to fix it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I hadnt seen that. Glad to see somethings in the works.
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)will magically stop.
merrily
(45,251 posts)then act against people citing its own secret interpretations as authority.
And if we repeal every federal law, Obama can just issue an executive order and have a secret interpretion of that, too.
Unless the people find a way to make crystal clear that they will not tolerate this, we are going to get continually screwed and may as well lay back and enjoy it or find a way to shut it out, as rape victims try to do.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)And, if you repeal the law--which should happen anyway--the Executive Branch would only secretly interpret the Espionage Act of 1917 or some other law to all the Executive Branch to do whatever it wants to do.
Plus, Obama can always issue Executive Orders about intelligence--which he has--and then have a secret interpretation of them.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)the gov't is going to find a way to do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what we think or say. And personally, I think theres not a damned thing we can do to stop it. Theres always going to be shady shit going on. Probably always has been. The whole system is corrupted to hell. And as long as theres money to be made at the expense of us citizens, nobody gives a shit about us. Thats my take.
merrily
(45,251 posts)IMO, internet petitions, contacting your Senators and Rep or the WH are all worse than useless. Worse because people have the illusion they can actually accomplish something that way and being human, they take the easy way out.
Demonstrations actually require people to leave their keyboards and TV sets, but I think they are ignored by D.C. as well. Well, except that Homeland Security and Mayors apparently discussed how to harass and harm OWS.
But, an economic boycott for six months or a year might actually make a dent. It's worth thinking about, anyway.
I recently found out that people do an economic boycott on May 1, which is International Workers Day. I never realized that. Maybe we could start a boycott next May 1 and then and keep it going.
Not buy anything for 6 months or a year that we can possibly live without. And then, maybe for a week, buy nothing at all, not even food. That week would require some advance purchases of food, medicine and other essentials, but we could all put our heads together and work up a list.
Anyway, it's a thought. Meanwhile there are demonstrations tomorrow in cities all around the country about the surveillance. Restore the 4th (Amendment).
If you are interested, you may find your state and city on the list.
http://www.restorethefourth.net/protests /
I don't think they'll cause any changes, but I am going to participate anyway.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I dont know when the hell I became so cynical. I completely agree with the first two lines of your post. And I do think an economic boycott might be the only way to get "their" attention. But I sincerely doubt that enough people would be willing to inconvenience themselves long enough or well enough to make a boycott effective. Never mind that this whole incident will probably be well down the memory whole for most people by next May.
The feeling I get over all this from my non-political friends is largely "I dont care. Im not doing anything wrong" or "what are you talking about?". I swear, give most people a wal-mart, reality tv, and a facebook page & they are perfectly content to let the world go on around them.
Maybe Im wrong. Id LOVE to be wrong. Id love to see people get the hell up and DO something about the situation. That said, I'd totally be down with a long-term boycott. I think its a great idea. As is spelling out how to do it in a guide of some sort. And you know? Wouldnt it be something if people from all over the world boycotted US products? It would certainly send one hell of a message.
Thanks for the link. Surprised theres nothing in my state. "Live free or Die" and all that. 
merrily
(45,251 posts)your Fourth "commuting."
I am down with a boycott, too. However, I buy so little anyway that no one is going to notice if I stop buying. The ones who do buy a lot--the so called limousine liberals--are down with Obama because they are little more than neocons who enjoy voting Democratic.
But, in fairness to the American people, they are beyond stressed trying to staying afloat. And you have both major political parties and the msm supporting this. None of the opposition, like us, has the money to mount a propaganda battle to counteract theirs.
Also, it has not been that long since Snowden's revelations. The story really has not had a chance to percolate up yet, except for political junkies like me. Long how long it took to wake people up to the fact that the Iraq War was trumped up. I bet some people still don't know.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)What is it? Something like 64% of republicans STILL think Iraq had WMD?! I mean come on! Hows that even possible?
Its funny that you say you dont buy anything. I dont buy anything either. Save the bottle of JD now and then I cant remember the last time I spent "disposable" income. Hell. I can barely remember the last time I had 4 digits in my bank account. No money = no power. Aint it grand?
Greenwald keeps saying theres a bombshell coming up. Maybe it'll be something that effects people personally. Until that happens I feel like it'll be SSDD in perpetuity. Wish I was more hopeful about the state of things. I really did used to be. I swear! 
merrily
(45,251 posts)Besides, they may lie to pollsters. I might, if it made my favorite politician look bad. Maybe I shouldn't admit that. Then again, I don't have a favorite politician, so I didn't really admit anything.
Isn't it ironic that the guy who ran on hope and change killed the hope of so many Democrats because his change turned out to be illusory?
I was so gung ho for him in 2008. Not at all by 2012. Actually, by the time he signed Obamacare. Sigh.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)The RW cant have their precious look bad. Better to just deny reality than admit W lied to everyone about it.
And yeah. I also was so excited in 08. I mean, bouncing off the walls excited. Maybe I projected unreal expectations onto the man. At this point, I have to think thats probably the case. I believe he's done some great things. But there have been many times when I find myself shaking my head and wondering WHY he does some of the things he does. I do honestly think his back was somewhat against a wall with this NSA thing. Surely, had he ended it & something happened there would have been hell to pay. But I dont see any reason for expanding the scope of it the way it seems he has.
I wanted him to fight for single payer. I wanted him to bully the RW around. I wanted him to use his amazing speaking ability to make people understand why progressive ideals are better. I wanted him to DO something about the corporations bleeding the 99% dry while destroying every corner of our planet. I wanted him to end the wars, close Gitmo & restore our reputation around the world. So much for that, eh?
Clearly set my hopes too high. I think Ive learned my lesson.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If you did, you had a lot of encouragement from him and many in the Party and in the media.
He was clearly the anointed one.
As far as single payer, he had ruled that out during his campaign. However, he did promise a strong public option and no individual mandate, then did the direct opposite.
His ideals are progressive ideals in that the Progressive Party was formed by members of the left wing of the Republican Party. That is exactly what he and Hillary are, IMO.
Remember, the guy who founded the Progressive Policy Institute was one of two original employees of the DLC and he also signed the 2003 PNAC memo. The motto of the PPI is "the place for pragmatic progressives," or something like that. I believe PPI is what that cartoon about practical liberals makes fun of.
And now, we're talking about Hillary in 2016. Has hari kiri been outlawed?
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)the secret government
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)but since Americans are eating junk food, and watching junk news, they mostly are ignorant of what's going on in their name.
We've got an array of problems facing us. A junk media is one of the big ones.
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
merrily
(45,251 posts)Apparently, that is what Obama actually meant when he promised the most transparent administration ever and then proceeded to preside over the most opaque administration in U.S. history.
Very soon after he got into office, though, the ACLU had to sue him over its FOIA request for white house logs when they wanted to show he was meeting health insurers, drug companies and hospitals after promising to put everything about Obamacare on C Span.
After the ACLU got the logs, they moved those meetings outside the White House. Now, the Obama administration brags about making white house logs public. They make them public now because they learned not to hold any of their secret meetings in the white house anymore. People with a short memory are very impressed, though, that the Obama administration is the first in history to make white house logs public as a matter of course.
I could not believe the chutzpah to brag about that!
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
alterfurz
(2,681 posts)...what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine. -- William Blum
merrily
(45,251 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)Therefore we cannot trust him.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Maybe we need a rule that you have to read DU archive before you post and place things into our historical context, our continuing conversation.
Wyden FISA site:democraticunderground.com
https://www.google.com/search?q=wyden+FISA+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com
About 33,200 results
Wyden "Patriot Act" site:democraticunderground.com
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wyden+"Patriot+Act"+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com
About 26,300 results
Wyden "secret law" site:democraticunderground.com
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wyden+"secret+law"+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com
About 4,710 results
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)Have you lectured Skinner about this? He put it on the front page.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Skinner just cashes the huge checks from Google
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)You might check who rec'd this thread.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)"The Left Column" and "Cool" are created by Skinner. Everything else is automated. It doesn't use statistics, it merely shows the latest posts for each category.
If "The Left Column" was automated would it change the title of my thread? (That's some scary smart automation.)
Tenacity is good but not when you're clearly wrong and refuse to admit it.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)No, really. Right??