There was no "legal" way to discuss mass surveillance. Wyden tried time and time again.

[dkf]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

Snowden or someone like him going around the system was THE ONLY WAY we would ever know.

To claim otherwise is just plain stupid and insults our intelligence and Obama etal should stop it.

[cantbeserious]

1. Wyden Warns of Potential Public Backlash From Allowing Secret Law - 2011

&feature=player_embedded

[Coyotl]

30. MUST SEE. Just posted this in Videos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017138186

[ProSense]

2. Congress makes the laws. They can change them. Congress is not impotent.

Congress voted to defund closing Guantanamo.

With so many members of Congress complaining about executive powers, they need to act.

Everyone knows the constraints on the intelligence community.

Senators CLAIM Their Votes On Key Issues Are "CLASSIFIED"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023378616

Congress is the only entity that can change the law.

It seems people are trying to have it both ways.

Former Sen. Gravel: NSA Leaks Should Have Come From Senators
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023215566

[earthside]

3. Defy this President!

Democrats and Repuglicans in Congress need to band together to severely constrain the NSA.

Democrats and Repuglicans in Congress should become whistleblowers and reveal any and all extra-constitutional spying and surveillance on American citizens.

[dkf]

4. And how can they change the law if they can't discuss it with all those voting?

How can anyone know what the impacts are when they don't get data on how it's being used?

Its impossible to discuss anything with you when you seem oblivious to the most obvious issues. Your trust levels are at true believer status. You scare me.

[ProSense]

5. That's

"And how can they change the law if they can't discuss it with all those voting?"

...a lame excuse. I mean, who said they can't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023444506

[dkf]

6. Did you read the piece by Wyden's ex deputy chief of staff?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

Please read it end to end and then tell me if you still believe what you write.

[ProSense]

10. Yes, and that comment at the link is from the same person. nt

[dkf]

11. So you know all that and still post what you post?

If so I honesty don't get how your logic works. And maybe congress will shut it all down now that they know better. I sure hope they do.

[ProSense]

12. Yes, I know Congress knew, and still post. What don't you "get"? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Congress, or at least the house, came close enough to doing that to scare the shit

Out of the bi-partisan authoritarian military/security/prison industrial complex kleptocracy to force the current charade of "new transparency" and reform. But they failed. They failed because there is a shit ton of money backing the status quo and only outrage backing real reform.

[G_j]

8. I thought you had all the facts

guess not...

[KittyWampus]

24. For starters, they can start showing up at NSA briefings. LOL

[sabrina 1]

9. That's all changed now. Now Congress is beginning to take the steps that should have been

taken years ago.

One bill nearly passed, despite the pressure, according to members, placed on them to vote 'no' on that bill.

Several others are being prepared for the return of Congress, Al Franken is working on one eg, among others.

Let's look forward now and begin the process, already begun in a bi-partisan way, by Congress, of dismantling Bush's Security State.

This is what the President wanted, little if any obstruction from Republicans on this as their own constituents are pummeling them.

We have a Republican Rep here, I am calling and so are others, both Dems and Repubs, demanding they take some action on this issue.

The President and Dem leadership can get out in front of this now. They HAVE the support they say they never had before.

'There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune'.

This is one of those rare moments.

[marions ghost]

14. Right, the President and Dems

have the support now. Will they act to restore our rights................................?

[sabrina 1]

16. That, more than anything, will give the answer as to whether it was all talk, or they really

could not 'get anything passed'. Now is their moment, let's see if they take it, or if Congress is pressured, once again, to hold off doing anything constructive to end Bush's Security State.

[marions ghost]

18. Kicking it down the road is not acceptable now

--agree--this is a defining moment, not only for the government but for the country as a whole. Critical.

No bandaids, no rhetoric, no excuses.

They need to actively begin the process of reducing funds to this agency and curtailing their powers.

We need to see that direction.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. That effort failed. The corruption is bipartisan and firmly in control.

The number one issue is the strangle hold of big money corruption on Washington, and now increasingly on state governments as well.

[sabrina 1]

19. The effort wasn't expected to get even close to a successful outcome. In fact it failed by only

a very small margin. It was described by members of Congress as a 'first step' and they were very pleased that so many members resisted the pressures they usually cave to, and helped get it to a narrow margin vote. That has encouraged them to prepare more bills with bi-partisan support.

Democrats especially resisted the pressures on them and a large majority of them voted for the bill.

Now the Leadership can get on the right side of this and instead of applying pressure to 'hold off' or vote 'no', they have the opportunity now to seize the moment and demonstrate what 'winning' means.

But the funding at stake is likely to cause huge opposition to any bill that attempts to cut it off. All the more reason now for every member to push back finally.

It was the closeness of the bill that scared them, imo. They had worked so hard to make Snowden the target and they failed.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I agree that it was close and that caused the current charade

of reform and transparency. But they are very good at theater and nothing will change, except of course that some disloyal reps on both sides will get made an example of.

[sabrina 1]

23. That's probably the plan, and just like the Bail Out vote that denied the bail out, they

keep going back to get the result they want IF something should pass. But that only means the people's side has to be as relentless as they are. And that is where we have failed up to now.

I believe there has been a change, that the overwhelming outrage across the globe, from populations in Europe now putting pressure on their puppet governments, to even here where the people are usually kept in the dark.

At least they are going to have to work a lot harder than they used to as the people wake up and are no longer in the stupor they've been in for the past decade.

[dkf]

76. Pelosi saved it for the Administration

Very disappointing.

[morningfog]

7. Exactly. And those that claim it could happen through

a trial, had Snowden surrendered are also wrong. First, there would never be a trial. The charges would stack to moon to force a plea. If there were a trial, the important questions would not be asked at all or in public. See Manning's trial.

[Recursion]

34. What questions do you think should have been asked at Manning's trial?

IIRC the prosecution wanted to establish motive and the judge didn't allow it.

[morningfog]

74. My point is that a trial does not provide the venue

for the actual issues that need to be discussed. With respect to Manning, once the charges were filed and trial commenced, discussion on US war crimes that he exposed ceased.

[Catherina]

13. Rec'd n/t

[leftstreet]

20. DURec

well worth the read

[rhett o rick]

22. Some of those that object are assuming that revelations will look badly for our President.

And I think that would in turn look badly on themselves.

Some are using Snowden to be righteous. To try to righteously bully others.

Some are using Snowden to disrupt. One might see where a right wing troll would love the disruption.

Some are just plain authoritarians. They love security over freedom.


IMHO if the government makes laws that shield corruption, the laws need to be broken to expose the corruption.

[JDPriestly]

27. If the government makes laws that prohibit the exposure of corruption and thus

discussion of important public policy issues, the laws are unconstitutional. The point of the First Amendment is to protect our right to know the facts (freedom of the press) and discuss (freedoms of speech and assembly) the functioning including the corruption and all other programs of our government.

[rhett o rick]

33. I agree completely. nm

[ljm2002]

25. Absolutely true...

...and we would never have known that Clapper lied, either, were it not for Snowden's revelations.

[Recursion]

37. Well, that's not true. Wyden knew he lied because he's on the committee

That's why Wyden went off script in the public hearing.

[ljm2002]

42. Let's break it down...

...Perhaps you were confused by the word "we":

"we would never have known that Clapper lied, either, were it not for Snowden's revelations"

The word "we" in context clearly refers to the population here in the US. And even if you don't get that basic fact, the word "we" is plural and does not refer to one specific person, Senator Wyden.

Senator Wyden may not have needed Snowden's revelations to know that Clapper lied, but the rest of us did.

Clear now?

p.s. Also, how exactly did Wyden go "off script", when the question was sent to Clapper for review ahead of time?

[Recursion]

45. Wyden knew the answer to the question he asked. That was the point.

That's why he could call Clapper out about lying in his answer. We would still know. Did Snowden's leak influence Wyden's decision to do that? Probably. But it's not like Snowden has shown Wyden something Wyden didn't know.

Also, how exactly did Wyden go "off script", when the question was sent to Clapper for review ahead of time?

By asking a question Clapper and the committee hadn't agreed on beforehand.

[ljm2002]

50. "We would still know"

No, we would not.

Wyden could claim that Clapper lied, but there was no information available to the public that we could use to make a judgment one way or the other. It was merely Wyden's word against Clapper's, until the Snowden revelations.

I don't know how the process works, i.e. whether or not Clapper and the committee all had to agree on what questions could be asked. So maybe you are technically right about Wyden going "off script". But Wyden's questions were sent to Clapper ahead of time, so Clapper already know that Wyden intended to ask this question, and he should have been prepared for it. Well, he was prepared for it, and he chose to tell a bald faced lied for his answer.

[Recursion]

53. It's still just people's words

You're taking Snowden at his word that these abuses are actually happening; remember, all he's done is shown you powerpoint slides of the safeguards in place to prevent spying on Americans and told you that they aren't being followed. It's certainly plausible but he hasn't actually shown us anything to demonstrate it.

Wyden knew the NSA was keeping some data under the provisions of the PATRIOT act (whic h isn't the same thing as what Snowden leaked about) and asked a question he knew Clapper couldn't legally answer truthfully. It was a smart move. But it doesn't particularly relate to Snowden except that Snowden got people interested in the issue (without a big showy leak and white bronco chase, people would have greeted "NSA administrator caught in lie about extent of domestic surveillance" with a huge yawn).

[ljm2002]

57. Now you're just being silly...

...you can go on all day about whether Snowden's revelations are believable. You can go on all day claiming it's still a "he said / she said" situation. But the thing is, Clapper admitted he lied. No one is denying that the NSA collects vast amounts of phone metadata of American citizens, which clearly puts the lie to Clapper's response.

So Snowden's revelations did more than getting people interested -- although they certainly did that, and I'm very glad of it. They also got our government to begin acknowledging certain things, like the facts of PRISM data collection for starters.

Wyden's attempts to bring this to our attention were doomed to failure without the firestorm created by Snowden.

[Recursion]

59. I'm agreeing with your last sentence

Wyden's attempts to bring this to our attention were doomed to failure without the firestorm created by Snowden.

That's what I'm saying. Whether Snowden is telling the truth or not (and for the most part I think he isn't), nobody would have cared about Wyden's maneuver without them.

[ljm2002]

60. Well I'm glad we agree on that at least...

...although I remain puzzled about the arc of this subthread... which started when I said we would never have know that Clapper lied but for Snowden's revelations, and you responded by saying that is not true, that Wyden knew he lied. Looks like you are quibbling about whether it was due to Snowden's revelations, vs. just the fact that his actions created a media firestorm on the matter. Guess I should have just noted it as a non sequitur and moved on.

[Recursion]

61. Sorry, by "we" I was thinking "people who care", rather than "the US in general"

Wyden could have still asked the question and called out Clapper in the lie, but it wouldn't have gotten the attention or the credence.

[ljm2002]

63. No problem...

...thanks for your response.

[dkf]

77. Wyden asked Clapper the question in March.

Snowden had nothing to do with Wyden's question.

Snowden's father surmises that Snowden knew of Wyden's efforts and that is what pushed him over the edge to expose things through the media.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the chief Democratic critics of the Obama administration’s surveillance programs, said Tuesday that Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper didn’t give a “straight answer” on NSA surveillance programs at a March hearing.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/11/sen-wyden-clapper-didnt-give-straight-answer-on-nsa-programs/

[rhett o rick]

62. I hope you are as concerned as I am that there is such a thing as a "script" when

Congress has a hearing. That in itself is very scary. There should never be an "off script."

Gen Clapper's lie was far more serious than President Clinton's, and the President got impeached for his. So why wont Gen Clapper get punished? Because he is a member of the ruling cabal. He has more power than the President. He has the shitz on any possible trouble makers in Congress.

And the whole mess is Snowden's fault.

[Recursion]

64. There should definitely be a "script" in the public hearings about classified programs

That's what they have the secret hearings beforehand to set the parameters of (and, in fact, this is specifically mentioned in the Constitution)

And the whole mess is Snowden's fault.

No, this whole mess is the result of 60 years or so of people kicking the can down the road, but it's good to address it while people are concerned before the next shiny thing appears.

[rhett o rick]

67. So how can Congressional oversight work if Congress's hands are tied by secrecy?

If Sen Wyden thinks that Gen Clapper is violating the Constitution, what are his options?

I get the feeling that you sympathize with Gen Clapper having to answer a direct question about the nature of spying.

[Recursion]

68. Congress is who decides what is and isn't secret to begin with

You can say "well they outsourced too much of that to the Executive branch", which is true, but that's still their authority and they can take it back if they want to.

I get the feeling that you sympathize with Gen Clapper having to answer a direct question about the nature of spying.

I don't know about "sympathize", but it was certainly a difficult position for him. This isn't about him, though, any more than it's about Snowden.

[rhett o rick]

75. Congress may provide guidance for classifications but it's the individual agencies

that determines if their documents are classified. And if they decided that certain documents were classified how would Congress know if they were abusing the system? Sen Wyden cant change the classifications on documents. As he has told us many times, his hands are tied. He has no recourse. That's why we are where we are.

[JDPriestly]

26. And the surveillance issue is a political one that needs to be discussed by voters.

I believe that Snowden's conduct and speech on the surveillance program are protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is, with treaties, the prevailing law of the land. The First Amendment supersedes the Espionage Act or FISA or the Patriot Act.

Snowden's speech and the speech and writings of those who have assisted him or discussed the information he released are protected AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment imposes limitations, prohibitions on our government, and those prohibitions should be followed by courts.

Snowden's speech was political.

When used for specific purposes, such as finding a ring of pedophiles or drug dealers, the NSA program is permitted under the Fourth Amendment and therefore legal. For that reason, it is legal, it is constitutional when used to monitor specific accounts and specific individuals. But the NSA does not have the right to get and no court has the right under the First Amendment to obtain court orders that permit the blanket, fairly comprehensive collection of metadata or other such information such as the content of our personal communications.

This goes beyond Snowden. If I write something anonymously on a computer that belongs to me, I am exercising my First Amendment rights. My writings are especially protected from government interference if what I am writing has political significance. The government has no right to reach into my computer and find out who I am even if I publish my writings or place them in the public by posting them on the internet.

That's my view. My personal information becomes public only when I decide to share it with the public. And my personal identification when I submit something I write to a website anonymously remains protected by the First Amendment.

Using my computer to hack into someone else's computer is not speech and is not protected by the First Amendment.

In Snowden's case, he made documents public that belonged to a private contractor of the government. It can be argued a) that he had to make the documents public because there existence proved massive violations of First Amendment rights by the government that endangered our democracy and our Constitution, and b) that the documents did not really belong to the government, but belonged to the communications services and us and were not obtained by the government within the legal limits of the Constitution.

[truebluegreen]

28. REC

[cantbeserious]

29. Kick And Recommended

eom

[DirkGently]

31. Problem with secrecy. Even "the government" isn't told what's happening.

[AppleBottom]

32. Reporting crime to criminals always ends well.

This is just common sense.

[DirkGently]

55. Worked so well for Thomas Drake

didn't it?

[Recursion]

70. I don't know. The Government got its ass handed to it by the judge in that case (nt)

[DirkGently]

73. After crushing his home, career, & pension.

[Coyotl]

35. "much harder for the Administration to claim that these programs are legal, if people can see"

"... it will be much harder for the Administration to claim that these programs are legal, if people can see their legal argument ..."

[dkf]

43. I hope they weren't so egregious that they will be laughed at.

It's not good if the credibility of our institutions is crushed.

[Coyotl]

54. It might be healthy for democracy

if the credibility of abusers is truthfully displayed for all to see.

[dkf]

56. Then what? I guess only über transparency will work.

Maybe we do have to go that route.

[Recursion]

36. Probably true. Can we stop screaming "the government sucks" long enough

to influence what's about to happen?

[dkf]

41. How can we influence it properly if they haven't come clean?

Obama's latest bit of BS shows they are still not willing to do so and that is what is disappointing.

[Recursion]

44. Can you put aside your disappointment long enough

to do what you can to influence what is happening?

[WillyT]

38. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[WillyT]

49. Fantastic Artcile... From The Ending:

<snip>

In his book, Secrecy: The American Experience, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan included a quote from a 1960 report issued by the House Committee on Operations which I believe provides a far better response than anything I could write on my own:

Secrecy -- the first refuge of incompetents -- must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society for a fully informed public is the basis of self government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than its people.

Which brings me to my final point (at least for now) I think it's awfully hard for the American people to trust the President and his administration when their best response to the concerns Americans are raising is to denigrate the Americans raising those concerns. Because, you see, I have a hard time understanding why my wanting to stand up for democratic principles makes me unpatriotic, while the ones calling themselves patriots seem to think so little of the people and the principles that comprise the country they purport to love.

<snip>

Link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

[kath]

39. Wow. Great article. lengthy, but definitely worth the read.

Thank you Senator Wyden, for trying so hard for so long to expose this bullshit.

[kentuck]

40. If he had gone to anyone in the government...

He would have been told that it is "classified" and to zip his lips and everyone knows it.

[Recursion]

46. He could have taken it to Wyden. Or Rand Paul, if he prefered.

The chain of command frowns on going straight to Congress, but they can't stop you from doing it.

(Yes, "chain of command". NSA is part of DoD.)

[kentuck]

47. And what could they have done?

Wyden already had the information. They are sworn to secrecy.

[Recursion]

48. Well, Wyden showed one thing he could do when he went off-script with Clapper

Maybe Wyden needed Snowden to publicly fall on his sword first, but somehow that doesn't seem like him to me. I'm also reasonably sure Paul would have had no problem going off-script, but I don't think he's on the committee.

(Also, keep in mind that the lie Wyden caught Clapper in wasn't about anything Snowden revealed.)

[rhett o rick]

65. The "chain of command" is designed stifle dissent. We dont know how many people

tried the "chain of command" method and were told to sit down and shut up.

If you really wanted to fix problems, there would be a method that bypasses the "chain of command".

Going to Sen Wyden is a joke. Sen Wyden is bound by secrecy.

[Recursion]

66. Wyden asked a question he knew Clapper couldn't legally answer truthfully

That's a legal way to expose things.

[kentuck]

69. Did that happen before or after Snowden?

I don't remember?

[Recursion]

71. After; if he had done it before nobody would have cared

The weeks of hyperbole and exaggeration on Snowden's part created the environment that let Wyden's truthful exposure actually attract attention. Funny how things like that happen...

[kentuck]

72. Funny.

ha ha..

[silvershadow]

51. K&R.

[AzDar]

52. K & R

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. knr