Pelosi booed for supporting NSA spying on Americans

[grahamhgreen]

Some of the activists attending the annual Netroots Nation political conference Saturday booed and interrupted the San Francisco Democrat when she commented on the surveillance programs carried out by the National Security Agency and revealed by a former contractor, Edward Snowden, The San Jose Mercury News reports (http://bit.ly/19fB6U4).

The boos came when Pelosi said that Snowden had violated the law and that the government needed to strike a balance between security and privacy.

As she was attempting to argue that Obama's approach to citizen surveillance was an improvement over the policies under President George W. Bush, an activist, identified by the Mercury News as Marc Perkel of Gilroy, stood up and tried loudly to question her, prompting security guards to escort him out of the convention hall.

"Leave him alone!" audience members shouted. Others yelled "Secrets and lies!," ''No secret courts!" and "Protect the First Amendment!," according to the Mercury News.

http://news.yahoo.com/pelosis-defense-nsa-surveillance-draws-boos-183845402.html;_ylt=AloyLmQ324wzgk_GbJUo1xHsYcp_;_ylu=X3oDMTIyMGNrMGI1BG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTMzNjU4MDgEcG9zAzEEc2VjA2hjbQR2ZXIDNg--;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3

[Marr]

1. I'm sure it didn't even phase her.

Watching Jon Stewart's recent interview with Pelosi, I was really struck by the way she just waved off uncomfortable questions or talked right over them. Everything had a 'you don't get it because you aren't an insider' air to it, too.

[30cal]

24. She's a career politician

What else would you expect from her.

They all do that shit.

[smokey775]

26. Maeybe she needs to seek a career in something different,

like maybe, constitutional law?

[coldbeer]

32. 30cal, yes, you are correct

She's a career politician

This NSA shit is not about us, it is about the corps. They want to
protect their money and their anti-union bullshit. They want to spy
on us. "We the People." They cannot accept an environment where
we can say "up yours!" . Pelosi benefits from corp corruption but
deep down she sides with us.

I am in the position (retired, food, heat, family, can't afford gas to go
driving around) for my forseable life. If they get me "begging" this country
is in big, big, trouble. Riots, starving, thievery, robbery, on and on.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. She made a very reasonable statement:

The boos came when Pelosi said that Snowden had violated the law and that the government needed to strike a balance between security and privacy.

I think even Snowden would admit he broke the law. I don't think anybody is actually disputing that.

And of course there has to be balance between privacy and security. Did the NSA overboard? I think they dd. There's nothing wrong with having the conversation about striking the right balance.

[winter is coming]

5. "Strike the right balance" means "we won't do anything of substance to change the status quo,

but will pretend we're concerned to appease you".

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Where did she say that?

Link?

[winter is coming]

10. I guess you haven't paid attention to the last 1,000 iterations of "strike a balance".

But if it comforts you to think that Pelosi intends to do anything meaningful about the NSA, go right ahead.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. I find her statement to be reasonable. I don't think it should be twisted. nt

[smokey775]

27. I guess that means you agree with Bush when he said the same thing?

[zeemike]

28. And it was reasonable when she took it off the table

To even investigate the torture and crimes of the Bush administration...we are always told we should just move on when the government does it, because it is not a crime I guess.

[rhett o rick]

43. Rhetoric. Words are cheap. nm

[ConservativeDemocrat]

14. Not to rain on your bitch-at-Democrats parade...

But Pelosi already did do just that a long time ago.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[winter is coming]

15. Actually, it's a bitch-at-politicans-who-disregard-our-4th-Amendment rights.

And if you'd read what you linked to, you should realize that the "improvements" leave much to be desired.

[sabrina 1]

17. Well, last time they were caught, Bush/Cheney and their Corporate friends in the telecom business

they simply changed the law, retroactively, to back before the broke the law. So they did DO SOMETHING. Lol!

Money really does talk.

The question is how do WE the PEOPLE, get enough talking money so that laws can be changed for US?

[Fumesucker]

34. Actually Obama voted for that retroactive change in the laws to protect the telecoms

So it wasn't just Bush-Cheney who did it, Obama was culpable in the matter as well.

I recall his vote on the FISA bill was vigorously defended here by the usual suspects.

[Pholus]

35. That was quite the reversal in position to be sure...

I always wondered what happened behind the scenes.

[sabrina 1]

38. I know, he wasn't the only Democrat. But I was referring to Bush/Cheney being caught red-handed

violating the existing law at the time. It should have been a no-braier, you break the law, apply the rule of law. I remember Obama's vote, and how it nearly cost him the election because while some very loud voices attempted to justify it, most Democrats were appalled.

Money talks, it is speech, that's what the law now says.

So as long as the law tells us that money talks, rather than argue, as we have, that it shouldn't, I'm wondering how the PEOPLE can obtain enough talking money to get them to vote for US?

[Enthusiast]

23. That would be my take also.

[Marr]

8. Was it a reasonable statement when Bush said it, too?

"I think there needs to be a balance, and as the president explained, there is a proper balance," Bush said.

Bush's record on prosecuting leakers can't compare with Obama's, however-- so I guess his balance was a little too lop-sided in favor of the dirty hippies.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/01/politics/bush-interview/

[hootinholler]

11. Her statement is not reasonable at all.

There is no balance to be struck, it was struck with ratification of the constitution. The balance is defined by the 1st and 4th.

The notion that there is some exception to these protections in the name of security is the coward's path. We have nothing to fear but fear.

Fear is the mind killer...

[bvar22]

13. Strongly Disagree.

"the government needed to strike a balance between security and privacy"

No we don't.

We NEED to respect the limitations imposed on the Government in the Bill of Rights.
Our Government can NOT be expected to supervise itself.
It is OUR duty as citizens to OVERSEE the Government,
NOT the other way around.

We can not fulfill our Constitutional Responsibilities if the Government is allowed to operate in secret.

Pelosi is WRONG.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --- Ben Franklin

[woo me with science]

37. Thank you.

[Pholus]

31. "I believe that suspicionless surveillance not only fails to make us safe.."

Another reasonable statement, given the utter surprise with which Crimea seems to have taken our TLA's:

I believe that suspicionless surveillance not only fails to make us safe, but it actually makes
us less safe. By squandering precious, limited resources on "collecting it all," we end up with
more analysts trying to make sense of harmless political dissent and fewer investigators running
down real leads. I believe investing in mass surveillance at the expense of traditional, proven
methods can cost lives, and history has shown my concerns are justified.

From: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf

[rhett o rick]

44. They want to treat Snowden harsh to discourage others from speaking truth to power.

They feel that they dont need change, but since Snowden revealed violations of our Constitution, they will now look at (that's code for do nothing) "strike a balance between security and privacy."

Snowden may have broken laws but Clapper violated the Constitution. The authoritarians all agree that it's Snowden that needs punishing.

Some are clearly choosing security (rather the "promise" of security) over freedoms and liberties, completely ignoring the warnings of our founders.

[Octafish]

3. Marc Perkel, friend of Bartcop?

Friend of democracy, too.

[Token Republican]

4. Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

QED

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Good. She deserved it. Everyone who supports that shit deserves it.

[hobbit709]

9. Good, she needs to be booed. Her and all the other surveillance state apologists.

[smokey775]

16. Especially Sens. Feinstein and Rogers.

Two of the most anti 4A Sen. in govt. today.

[sabrina 1]

18. I think they've gone into hiding since being questioned about their insinuations that Snowden

was a Russian spy. Rogers went silent when he was asked for something, anything that could back that up.

The thing is, it made no sense, because let's go into Rogers' head for a minute and that claim became true, which I'm sure he was hoping for, then the next question would be 'then why did the US Government send the spy home with all his knowledge, instead of making sure he did NOT remain in Russia?

That was a silly claim which I'm sure they know by now ...

[smokey775]

19. Great point, I hadn't thought about that.

It makes perfect sense, they have gone silent lately, maybe because they realize as more misdeeds of the NSA surface, they're defense of spying on Americans is getting ridiculous.

[Enthusiast]

20. I'm glad she was booed.

There is no excuse for this attack on the American people by their government and the corporations.

[jtuck004]

30. +1 n/t

[bobthedrummer]

21. She is the 1%er that took impeachment "off the table" piss on her and her political leadership n/t

[Jesus Malverde]

22. She looks a little run down.

I hope she gets some rest.

[grasswire]

25. Marc Perkel (who yelled at Pelosi)..

...is the man who set Bartcop on its path to publishing. A true activist!

Question authority. Always.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Who gets to decide what the "balance" is? Politicians and spymasters.

If it were the ACLU and Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders it might be a good idea.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Well deserved, the balance struck is in the Bill of Rights not security thug machinations

[markpkessinger]

36. Amen! n/t

[woo me with science]

39. Corporate-purchased vipers dismantling our Constitution.

She is not just a corrupt politician. She and her ilk are destructive to the very foundations of this country.

[santamargarita]

40. What the hell is wrong with her? It seems out of character.

[markpkessinger]

41. And a well-deserved booing it was! n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

42. Good.

[rhett o rick]

45. Authoritarians cant stand whistle-blowers. If the NSA is violating our Constitution

it's ok because they are protecting us from evil. They will protect us from those crazy-assed liberal/progressives that think freedom is more important than security and profits.

I think the 2016 election will bring to a head our need to either go along blindly following authoritarian leaders or strike back for freedom and liberty. The noose is tightening, and more and more Americans are recognizing that the lower classes are being bled dry for more wealth for the wealthy.

How many more bank bailouts can the lower classes stand? How much worse can our infrastructure get? How far will you let them go destroying our schools and our election system. The Conservative Wing of the Democratic Party wont fix these. While they may be better than the crazy Rethugs, they wont save the lower classes. You will have to decide which side you are on.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. She needs to be booed on this issue.

And often.