The Top 5 Claims That Defenders Of The NSA Have To Stop Making To Remain Credible - EFF

[WillyT]

The Top 5 Claims That Defenders of the NSA Have to Stop Making to Remain Credible
By Cindy Cohn and Nadia Kayyali - EFF
6/2/14

<snip>

Over the past year, as the Snowden revelations have rolled out, the government and its apologists have developed a set of talking points about mass spying that the public has now heard over and over again. From the President, to Hilary Clinton to Rep. Mike Rogers, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and many others, the arguments are often eerily similar.

But as we approach the one year anniversary, it’s time to call out the key claims that have been thoroughly debunked and insist that the NSA apologists retire them.

So if you hear any one of these in the future, you can tell yourself straight up: “this person isn’t credible,” and look elsewhere for current information about the NSA spying. And if these are still in your talking points (you know who you are) it’s time to retire them if you want to remain credible. And next time, the talking points should stand the test of time.

1. The NSA has Stopped 54 Terrorist Attacks with Mass Spying

The discredited claim

NSA defenders have thrown out many claims about how NSA surveillance has protected us from terrorists, including repeatedly declaring that it has thwarted 54 plots. Rep. Mike Rogers says it often. Only weeks after the first Snowden leak, US President Barack Obama claimed: “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted” because of the NSA’s spy powers. Former NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander also repeatedly claimed that those programs thwarted 54 different attacks.

Others, including former Vice President Dick Cheney have claimed that had the bulk spying programs in place, the government could have stopped the 9/11 bombings, specifically noting that the government needed the program to locate Khalid al Mihdhar, a hijacker who was living in San Diego.

Why it’s not credible...

<snip>

Much More: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/top-5-claims-defenders-nsa-have-stop-making-remain-credible

[GeorgeGist]

1. Why didn't the NationalSpyAgency stop the greatest threat to national security since 9/11 ...

Edward Snowden?

[rhett o rick]

77. Why didnt the NSA stop 9/11? They were incapable, apparently. nm

[billhicks76]

87. They Had The Data

These programs or at least the most advanced ones started in 1999. I believe warning were given over and over but Cheneys terrorism task force always squelched them. But hey, if you still want your sex life private you must be a libertarian, Ron Paul supporter who hates minorities and women. Lol.

[rhett o rick]

95. I find the need to label someone that is interested in regaining freedoms and liberties as a

libertarian. The question I ask is, "Do you disagree with libertarians with regard to liberties and freedoms?" Never a response.

[billhicks76]

108. Just Words

People probably don't want to feed into stereotypes. You ever think about the word liberal? It's close to liberty too...a main premise of our country. I recall when the word liberal was so demonized even democrats wouldn't use it. Another irony is that we conserve much more than conservatives do. The no government types are crazy and no one will ever take them seriously as long as the media stops using them for ratings. But maybe you are right and they are a bigger danger. I honestly don't know. But I'll never support Gestapo agencies like CIA/DEA/NSA either given their track record. If they are made up of good people then they should prove it and my views will evolve. They attack an easy target like marijuana but facilitate heroin and cocaine imports for obvious reasons...they spy on the wrong people again for obvious reasons. I really don't want anymore wars for oil just because the tycoons don't want to abdicate their thrown and accept alternative energy. I think we all wish Warren was our president in 2016.

[rhett o rick]

109. It's naive for anyone to think that gaining power isnt the goal of most in politics.

And without any controls and with an unlimited budget and with the tool of secrecy, why wouldnt the NSA/CIA gain tremendous power?
And if a corporation or group was involved there could, not only power, but also large financial returns.

Some among us, that call themselves liberal, live in a denial bubble. They want so badly to believe that the NSA/CIA organization is looking out for them and not the 1%.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

120. There are plenty of non-libertarians who are interested in regaining freedoms and liberties

I am one such, for example. I disagree with libertarians on most issues -- see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024324819 for examples.

I have been trying for some time to find a name for a logical fallacy: If person <a> and person <b> agree on subject <x>, it is fallacious to say that they must therefore agree on subject <y>. It is clearly related to the Hasty Generalization, but I think it should be given its own name.

[rhett o rick]

124. Good luck with your idea of a name the the logical fallacy. I think there is one but it's too early

to look.

[Mnpaul]

90. The hijackers were staying in a hotel

less than a mile away from NSA headquarters.

Spying on people that pose no threat makes finding those who do harder.

If you are looking for a needle in a haystack, the last thing you want to do is make the stack larger - Colleen Rowley <--- a person who knew where the terrorists were training.

[rhett o rick]

104. "If you are looking for a needle in a haystack, the last thing you want to do is make the stack larg

But you would have a different attitude if your pay hinged on how big a haystack you can make.

[riderinthestorm]

2. Wow! Those are almost verbatim what we hear here on DU...

Talking points anyone??

I've always been skeptical about those who think people are on some kind of disinformation payroll but this report to EFF???

Wowza.

Can't remember which poster it is that always tries to link to EFF as some kind of authority debunking Edward Snowden's importance. This is going to kinda blow their schtick out of the water....

[bvar22]

113. No it won't.

They are like Creationists.
You can show them hard facts,
debunk their Talking Points with proof,
show them the dinosaur bones buried in the earth,
and they stick to their blind faith religion,
and post the SAME debunked Talking Points in the next daily Two Minutes of Snowden/Greenwald HATE.

This article will mean NOTHING to the Cult,
just like the Dinosaur Bones mean nothing to a Creationist.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Now if I was arguing for a RW talking point I would link RW talking point sites.

[WillyT]

4. And That Would Put You In Trouble...

EFF is not RW...

Link: https://www.eff.org/

[Thinkingabout]

31. Never said it was, I posted IF i was arguing a RW talking point I would link a RW site.

Was your post a RW talking point?

[Aerows]

55. In other words

You claimed the EFF is a RW site, and now have to back away from it because you know well and good that it isn't.

[Thinkingabout]

59. What kind of a site is it?

[Aerows]

62. A non profit site for starters

the .org is indicative of that status. They have fought for Net-neutrality every way they can. To have an open internet.

[Thinkingabout]

65. They have an explanation on their web site, like I say if I want to have site to link to then

I would use a link which shared my points, not always the most truthful means of proving a point.

[Aerows]

66. You indicated that it was a right wing site

I refuted it vociferously.

Take it or leave it, I have no desire to get into an argument with you over something you stated that was ridiculous (Like EFF.ORG is a RW site).

[Thinkingabout]

67. I never said it was a RW site, Willy answered something to that effect and you have said it also.

You can not read something into something in which it isn't. This is not an argument, I did not say EFF was a RW site.

[malokvale77]

70. hmm

You also suggested that being against the NSA spying on Americans is a RW talking point.

That is interesting.

[Aerows]

74. Ann Richards

would be rolling over in her grave.

[malokvale77]

76. Isn't that the truth (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

97. You must have read the wrong post, I NEVER SAID NSA SPYING IS A RW TALKING POINT>

[malokvale77]

111. I read what you posted (nt)

[merrily]

131. Since you've brought it up, what have you said about it?

[rhett o rick]

78. You ask a lot of questions. Cant you make statements? What kind of a site do you think

it is?

[Aerows]

82. It apparently

is "anti-Obama" because it criticizes his policies with respect to the NSA. That's pretty much an unforgivable sin, I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. You're suggesting the EFF is a right wing organization?

Now i've officially heard it all.

[Marr]

93. Just connected to nothing at all, huh?

Lame.

[Dr. Strange]

69. EFF is totally rightwing!

Why, didn't they defend some rightwing political discussion site from the copyright trolling antics of Righthaven? Now, which site was that...?

[Aerows]

75. I know

it's hilarious.

[Aerows]

13. Are you trying to claim

that the electronic frontier foundation is a RW site?

That takes the cake!

[Pholus]

63. And if Willy was, that advice might even be appropriate.

But then again, we both know that it isn't apropos.

[Aerows]

64. It's ridiculous

to suggest WillyT is a right winger, and worse to suggest that the EFF is a right wing site.

I had to edit my post before I posted it because I was about to say something that was ugly.

[rhett o rick]

96. If you are trying to make a point, I sure aint getting it. nm

[marmar]

5. k/r

[questionseverything]

6. some random person will be here soon to explain this

2. Just collecting call detail records isn’t a big deal.

The discredited claim

The argument goes like this: Metadata can’t be privacy invasive, isn’t very useful and therefore its collection isn’t dangerous—so the Constitution shouldn’t protect it. Even the President said, “what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. They are not looking at people’s names, and they’re not looking at content”—as if that means there is no privacy protection for this information.

Why it’s not credible:

As former director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden recently admitted: “We kill people based on metadata.” And former NSA General Counsel Stu Baker said: “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”

In fact, a Stanford study this year demonstrated exactly what you can reconstruct using metadata: “We were able to infer medical conditions, firearm ownership, and more, using solely phone metadata.” Metadata can show what your religion is, if you went to get an abortion, and other incredibly private details of your life.

k&r/bookmarking

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. And if you call about a close relative's medical condition -- would that act get you killed?

Sometimes the inference is about the wrong person.

It's a bit nutty.

[bvar22]

114. Joe Biden (version 2006) knew how dangerous the Meta-Data collection is:

[KoKo]

7. Recommend!

[xchrom]

8. du rec.

[JEB]

9. Most excellent post. Thanks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Why post this on DU? ...

Are there Defenders of the NSA here? ... Or, has NOT supporting Snowden and/or Greenwald become the proxy?

[Savannahmann]

11. There are defenders here

Plenty of them, sadly enough.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I have not seen any/many ...

However, I have seen plenty "Defenders of the NSA" and all sorts of other names because they are not completely enamored with Snowden and/or Greenwald.

Or, is one a sign of the other?

[840high]

23. Olenty of NSA defenders.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. eom.

[Savannahmann]

27. The anti-Greenwald/Snowden people

Since this broke, the defenders have shifted from using so many of those talking points so regularly, to regularly attacking Snowden/Greenwald. They did before, but their talking points about how many terrorist attacks have been prevented went pretty much by the wayside when the Presidential Commission reported that no, none have been prevented. The it's only metadata was posted many times. The "Perfectly legal necessary tool" argument is used by the usual people every time it comes up.

All you have to do is get a thread going with something critical of President Obama renewing the PATRIOT ACT when it was placed before him for his signature and they come out of the woodwork. Post that the NSA is violating the 4th Amendment, and wham they're there to defend the indefensible. So yes, they are here among us. Yes, they use those talking points, and these examples were just off the top of my head. Not a detailed search in other words. I am sure I could overload many of our friends bandwidth with links to the same nonsense posted time and time again, but since I put a user on ignore for posting these kinds of talking points in such a fashion I would feel rather hypocritical. I put several of the users on ignore because I was disgusted by the nonsense they were spouting.

Yeah, they're here among us. Yes, they actually drag those things out from time to time to defend the unconstitutional actions of the Government. I wish it wasn't true, but sadly it is.

Now, since so many people have links to the NSA talking points disproven, many of these same people now run around shouting that Greenwald is a Libertarian and Snowden is a horrible person who should be executed, and then tried for treason. Interestingly what is really upsetting them lately is that 55% of the people seem to agree with the actions of Snowden and Greenwald. I hate say this, but I suspect that it won't be long before the defenders of the NSA will be bringing Greenwald's sexual orientation into the discussion. I think they are grasping at straws even now, and will be reduced to that most disreputable of talking points since the Libertarian cry isn't working to sway public opinion.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. So love Snowden and/or Greenwald or Love the NSA? ...

Gotcha!

[Savannahmann]

30. Not at all

One can hate the messenger, but one must be willing to discuss the message. Notice the trend my friend. Whenever the NSA's unconstitutional spying comes up in discussion, the anti/Greenwald/Snowden people pounce. They are attempting to deflect the discussion, to put the entire topic off limits by categorizing it as propaganda from unreliable sources.

I think Snowden is a whistleblower, and I respect what he did. I don't love him, nor Greenwald. My objections come up based not upon the political affiliation (purported) of those giving us the information, but about the violations of the Constitution.

The PATRIOT ACT clearly violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. These are not subject to the ticking time bomb exclusions favored by the Neo-Cons of the Bush era. They are not subject to any bureaucratic decision that they don't apply. The notional war on terror will end one day. We have to ask ourselves what kind of a country will we have left when it ends? Is it one our ancestors would be proud of?

I wasn't very clear, and for that I apologize. I should have said that the people who used and occasionally will still use the aforementioned talking points now recognize belatedly that they are essentially discredited. But now, they attempt to divert the discussion by claiming anyone who does support those pesky constitutional amendments are doing so because they are dupes of the Snowden/Greenwald libertarian plot to overthrow Obama or whatever. The topics are intertwined now to the point that it is impossible to discuss the NSA/FBI/CIA/DHS/GCHQ spying without being prepared to defend against the claim that you are supporting the Libertarians against the Democratic party and falling for some sort of secret plan to make President Obama look bad. But you see, if you reject the messenger, you must discount the message. It would be as if you quoted Glenn Beck on this site. Even if he said that Global Warming was happening, no one here would want to hear it because Beck is a lunatic RW tool. What they are doing is trying to discredit the message, by smearing the messenger.

To some extent they have been successful. Because as I mentioned above, they have managed to intertwine the two in such a way that the issues are linked probably forever. The problem is that the public did not reject the message when the messengers were tied to it successfully. I respect Snowden, Manning, Ellsworth, Felt, and so many others who have brought information out of the secret halls of Government and in the process made the nation better and stronger. I respect the Reporters, all of them, who have brought these stories to our attention. From Watergate, through Project Azorian, well into the Pentagon Papers. When a Government lies, the people have a right to know, and the people have a right to demand action. We have those rights so long as we are willing to stand up and demand them. Not one minute longer. Those who bring that information out, and tell us about the Unconstitutional actions should all be commended, because that inspires the next group who looks at the work they are doing with disgust.

Frank Serpico showed us the NYPD was rife with corruption. Should I love him because he is generally speaking pretty Liberal? Or should I hate him because he exposed it to the world instead of working within the system. Mark Felt exposed the Watergate scandal. Many people leaked information about Project Azorian. When the Government is doing something wrong, we have a right to know.

I hope I was able to explain it a little better this time. I thank you, by giving me the challenge to do so you have forced me to attempt to put observations into words that I have not done so previously, and I am grateful.

[WillyT]

81. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said... In Both Your Posts Here !!!

[Aerows]

84. Well said n/t

[elias49]

99. Thank you. Right to the point. nt

[zeemike]

103. Well said.

But your statement that the war on terror will end someday is overly optimistic IMO...it is more likely it is intended to be a permanent war...one where there is always a Emanuel Goldstein out there to fight.

[baldguy]

105. No requirement for ideological purity there!

[bvar22]

115. Posts that begin with "SO" and followed by a fantasy statement that NOBODY has made...

..is usually a Strawman Logical Fallacy.
Your post is a classic example.

No Charge.
Just trying to save you from future embarrassment
and raise the level of discourse at DU.

[shaayecanaan]

121. If the pentagon papers were released today

Half the people on this website would be running oppo on Daniel Ellsberg and claiming that he was a right wing libertarian. For fucks sake, he was not the story and neither is greenwald. The story is about the unconstitutional conduct of a government.

I can't believe the rah-rah football team mentality that consumes some people around here.

[Maedhros]

32. There are a number of posters that assert that the NSA's surveillance activities

are not extraordinary and warrant no concern. Usually their arguments include one or more of the following:

1. Blanket surveillance has been ongoing for a long time, therefore any concerns generated by Snowden's recent revelations are misplaced.

2. Corporations collect data as well, so worrying about the NSA doing it is wrong.

3. It's legal, therefore nothing to see here, move along.

4. Those in charge of these programs know more about what is happening that we do, and they wouldn't be doing it unless it is necessary to keep us safe.

None of those arguments hold up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I think you misunderstand what people are saying ...

1. Blanket surveillance has been ongoing for a long time, therefore any concerns generated by Snowden's recent revelations are misplaced.

I have not seen that. To a person, I have seen people saying Snowden's revelations of the NSA's activities is not new or ground-breaking as he (and Greenwald) have been characterizing/sensationalizing them. Not that they are inconsequential.

2. Corporations collect data as well, so worrying about the NSA doing it is wrong.

I have seen that said ... and it is not followed by "no need to worry" but rather, we need to be MORE/AS concerned about corporations, as they have no oversight.

3. It's legal, therefore nothing to see here, move along.

No ... "It's legal/unconstitutional so let's change the law."

4. Those in charge of these programs know more about what is happening that we do, and they wouldn't be doing it unless it is necessary to keep us safe.

I believe that to be a true statement. Like with any protective service ... when nothing goes wrong, no one gets the credit (largely because it is the nature of protective services to not talk about what they do); but when something does go wrong, people are quick to place blame. So I guess I'm a NSA defender.

[Aerows]

42. "Those in charge of these programs know more about what is happening that we do"

If I have ever heard of an apologist remark that government should be secretive and non-transparent, that is the argument I would make.

Oversight is NECESSARY and clearly is not effective at present.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. But that's the thing ...

the problem is not that the NSA is secretive (it's supposed to be) and non-transparent (it's supposed to be that too) ... it's the perceived failure of appropriate oversight.

I know this is quite the popular opinion here; but, in our form of government, the military/National Security apparatus is not supposed to be open or transparent to the "American people" (and, therefore, to anyone else to wants to know what they are up to) ... they are to be open to our representatives, that are elected to act in the best interests of the American People, and are held to account, every 2, 4 and/or 6 years.

[Aerows]

73. It is a quite popular opinion here

that we don't spy on our own, because spying on our own is toxic.

Spying and surveillance on the people that pay you via tax dollars is not just frowned upon, it is a lead up to a state where justice is impossible.

I voted for President Obama twice. That does not mean that he can run roughshod over the Constitution. He didn't start it - Bush did. But he didn't finish it, either, and that makes him just as guilty of infringing on our rights.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. So your beef is not ...

So much with PBO, but rather with Conress' failure to provide appropriate oversight. Otherwise, your beef is misdirected.

[Aerows]

83. Which agencies serve at the behest of the President of the United States?

I'll just sit back and wait while you enumerate them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. I'll do it this way ...

Congress ... the group that: A) Writes the laws and B) is constitutionally charged with providing oversight, is the proper party to be held to account.

[Aerows]

88. Oh, I see

that talking point got shattered and you chose to walk around the question. You didn't answer it, because you KNOW what the answer is. I took civics in eighth grade. I got an A.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. No ...

I prefer to provide answers that provide solutions.

[shaayecanaan]

122. So you don't mind criticism of the NSA

as long as the blame is sheeted home to congress and Obama is no way impugned? It's progress I guess.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Posts that begin with "SO" and followed by a fantasy statement that NOBODY has made...

is usually a Strawman Logical Fallacy.
Your post is a classic example.

No Charge.
Just trying to save you from future embarrassment
and raise the level of discourse at DU.

A "wise" DUer wrote that to me ... you probably saw it.

[shaayecanaan]

174. Posts that contain bare assertions

of "straw man" fallacies,
"taking out of context"
"ad hominem"
"non sequitur"
"reductio ad absurdum"
etc

are usually just that - bare assertions. They mean nothing unless you detail how the preceding argument fits within one of those categories. Keep the change.

The statement I made is not a straw man because it is accurate - you consider that any wrongful conduct by the NSA is a matter for Congress and that Obama is powerless to make any difference.

[merrily]

143. Please quote the provision of the Constitution that charges Congress with oversight of the

Executive Branch.

The Constitution's vesting the President with the executive powers of the US means, at the very least, that the President has the first responsibility for overseeing the components of the Executive Branch. The NSA is one of those components.

Not to mention that, whether the President can override Congress or not is a question that, on this board, seems to vary quite a bit, depending on whether this President claims he can or not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

154. It's the whole idea behind the Separations of Powers Doctrine ...

Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress on the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

[merrily]

132. Regardless of what the NSA is or is not supposed to be, our govt. is not supposed to

be secretive about everything. Especially not a govt headed by someone who got elected by certain campaign promises, including the promise to run the most transparent administration ever.

Telling Americans, in broad terms how much data is being collected on them, how much they are surveilled-how much people around the world are being surveilled etc. would not exactly have given Al Qaeeda a road map on how to defeat the USG. (AQ clearly knew that stuff anyway.) The fact that the USG would rather citizens not know certain things does not always mean that those things are supposed to be kept secret.

To the contrary, when citizens are paying for everything and at least theoretically in charge of government, via the voting booth, only the barest minimum of information should be kept from them.

[Maedhros]

46. Yet all of these arguments are in response to those who express concern with the growing

National Security State, as reasons why the concern is unfounded.

I have not seen that. To a person, I have seen people saying Snowden's revelations of the NSA's activities is not new or ground-breaking as he (and Greenwald) have been characterizing/sensationalizing them. Not that they are inconsequential.

Yes, that is the form the argument takes: "they're just sensationalizing it," usually followed by chiding the poster for being concerned.

I have seen that said ... and it is not followed by "no need to worry" but rather, we need to be MORE/AS concerned about corporations, as they have no oversight.

I'd wager that 100% of the people concerned about NSA surveillance also object to data gathering by corporate entities. I know I was fighting against corporate information hoarding and abuse back in the 90's - generally, and specifically by canvassing against a law that allowed car insurance companies to use credit rating scores to determine insurance rates.

In that context, the argument is entirely spurious. In another, the government has exclusive law enforcement capabilities that adds a unique risk to blanket surveillance and data gathering.

No ... "It's legal/unconstitutional so let's change the law."

I have to disagree here. The entire point of vehemently objecting to the NSA's practices is to spur changes in the policy, and changing the law is one of the goals. Many posters base their criticism on the lack of effort to do just that.

I believe that to be a true statement. Like with any protective service ... when nothing goes wrong, no one gets the credit (largely because it is the nature of protective services to not talk about what they do); but when something does go wrong, people are quick to place blame. So I guess I'm a NSA defender.

As they say, "trust - but verify." NSA surveillance has been resoundingly not verified to protect us from terrorists. Administration claims to the contrary have been soundly debunked, and the NSA has clearly lied to the nation and to Congress about it's program. Snowden's leaks show that NSA surveillance does not target terrorists, but is directed toward allied heads-of-state and corporate entities for industrial espionage purposes. There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that the NSA should not be trusted.

[tkmorris]

100. Well rebutted

[bvar22]

116. Well Done.

Checkmate!

[neverforget]

119. Excellent!

[merrily]

130. Maedhros is one of the most discerning posters on this board.

I would be very surprised if he or she has misunderstood to the degree you claim.

[merrily]

136. The Constitution restricts government, not corporations.

I have the power to vote or not for government but I don't own enough shares in corporations to manage them. S

Government does have the power to restrict corporations, but,instead, it sells info to them, buys info from them and grants them immunity.

So, please explain exactly why I should focus more on corporations than on government? Doesn't that leave me totally unable to do anything at all about this, unless I can afford a controlling interest in a corporation?

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. Very true ...

The Constitution restricts government, not corporations ... And as you accurately indicate, we have no control over corporations that are engaged in the same data collection and using it for its own, often unknown, ends.

While it is true the government COULD target lawful dissidents (though it doesn't seem to be a wide-spread problem), corporations can, and DOES use this information to affect one's ability to eat, work and shelter. I think that is a far more real threat ... Don't you?

That is why I want more focus on corporations.

[merrily]

155. You missed the point. You can focus on corporations all you want, but you

have no power over them. The government has power over them but chooses to help them and to cooperate with them in trading in our information. And you do have some power, however theoretical over government. So, by choosing to focus on corporations rather than on government, you take from yourself what little power you do have.

Put another way, let's assume you are correct. Stop looking at the government that you elected and, in theory, can change every two, four and six years. Look only at corporations. Now tell me what you propose to do to change corporations, even as you ignore the government that panders to them.

That will have to be my last post on this for a while. Other things that require my attention right now. Besides, I very much doubt that this discussion will go anywhere productive.

[Aerows]

41. It's awfully hard to see trees

if you are part of the forest.

[rhett o rick]

80. Those that openly disparage Snowden and Greenwald refuse to explain what they think about

the NSA. Are you suggesting they are ambivalent about the NSA violating our Constitution? And if we went back to the beginning, when the story first broke, some here openly defended the NSA.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. No ...

you are only seeing what you want to see. The vast majority of those disparaging Snowden and Greenwald have separated the two (three) issues out (ironically, just as the Snowden/Greenwald supporters argued with the "It's not about Snowden or Greenwald" pleas).

Most (or many, or those that I have read) have said that if what has been reported is true and accurate ... something that has not been made clear and that keeps getting more clouded with each Snowden/Greenwald appearance ... then, most think there has been governmental over-reach; but for that most, the jury is still out on the question of constitutionality/legality.

[rhett o rick]

102. You say "the vast majority" have separated the two issues. First I really wonder how you know how

they feel about the NSA spying because they sure dont discuss it in DU. Second, why would they show such extreme, obsessive loathing of Snowden and Greenwald and not express an opinion on the NSA? To me the magnitude of the importance of NSA unregulated spying on Americans far out weighs whatever Snowden and Greenwald did. Yet those that disparage Snowden see it the other way round. I agree that the jury is still out but some are acting like they either arent interested or do not want to know.

To me the barrage of hate posts for Snowden and Greenwald detract from the critical issue. I think that it would be very believable that when Bush was president that the NSA/CIA gained an enormous power that we have no way of even revealing. Sadly, some are afraid that if the truth were revealed it would be too difficult to handle, so the best thing is to punish Snowden severely and just forget the whole thing.

[merrily]

133. Everyone who disagrees with you is not seeing things as they are? Only you are?

the jury is still out on the question of constitutionality/legality.

Really? The 4th Amendment says govt must have some reason to think I am doing something wrong before it invades my privacy or conducts a search of some kind. Seems to me my privacy has been invaded even though the government has no reason to suspect me.

[Aerows]

89. Those that defend the NSA and the CIA

have a problem. Both agencies serve at the behest of the POTUS, and they squirm because it is a reflection on President Obama's legacy as CIC.

They can run from it as far as they want to do so, and make anyone that criticizes the policy a RWer or a hater or however they want to frame it, but the bottom line is that President Obama owns a deeply unpopular program.

[joshcryer]

49. Name one poster parroting the 54 attacks myth.

I have never seen it posted here.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. I might give you that one

3. There Have Been No Abuses of Power - that has been vomited up repeatedly.
2. Just collecting call detail records isn’t a big deal. - get a mop, a big mop, and a bucket.
5. There’s Plenty of Oversight From Congress, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and Agency Watchdogs - yup, been here seen that.

[joshcryer]

94. Mixed opinion on 3 and 5.

3 in particular I've seen people admit that the ex-lover spying was an abuse of power, what they tend to say is that oversight works. That ties into 5 because the fact that they were caught means that the oversight within the system works, etc.

2 I admit I've seen several times here. What they always fail to recognize is that it's not just meta-data being collected but also the data itself. What's being looked at is the metadata, but if the metadata tells a story, they can then "go back in time" and look at the data itself (with a warrant). What's unclear is whether someone like Snowden could really do that, without the warrant. That's a huge deal, and it seems that's what Snowden was saying. This, btw, would be a function of a lack of perfect forward secrecy within the underlying metadata-data collection system; you would want a sort of "nuclear football" for the warrant to use the metadata to unlock the past data. If that doesn't exist then there's a gaping hole there, too.

So I'll say 2 I've definitely seen before and I would not chastise posters for 3 and 5 too much because I know all of them would be for passing the "Ending Secret Law Act." When people start judging other posters here it's BS because just because they're not overly concerned doesn't mean they'd be against more government transparency.

Full disclosure, I advocate abolishing the NSA. I'm playing devils advocate / legalese here.

[Savannahmann]

112. This is why I put them on ignore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023003017#post34

That is but one. As I said, as they became utterly discredited, the talking points shifted to Snowden/Greenwald.

[joshcryer]

118. I see nothing about 54 attacks there.

[dawg]

106. Yes. There are defenders of the NSA here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5045357

[merrily]

126. Yes, there are. There are also here people who remain strangely quiet about the NSA

Moreover, since when is it a criterion for posting something at DU that DUers must be among those described in the article?

What an odd post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. Come onnnn, Merrily ...

Your first response answers my "odd post."

[merrily]

134. I have no idea what "Your first response answers my "odd post" means.

Can you be more specific/clear?

[Jefferson23]

12. Recommend. n/t

[Autumn]

14. The talking points. Recommended Willy

I'm gonna bookmark this.

[Aerows]

15. Boom!

That's the sound of talking points being disintegrated!

[Go Vols]

16. +1

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Thank you, Willy

K/R

[cantbeserious]

19. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[woo me with science]

21. K&R

[840high]

22. Thanks. k/r

[LuckyTheDog]

24. I don't defend the NSA program, but...

I think it is worth noting that the NSA program started under GW Bush and had far less judicial oversight before Obama took the reins.

Should Obama have stopped it? If I was him, I would not have done so. But I would have encouraged Congress to force me to stop it.

Here is why: The president is responsible for the security of the country. If we get hit, the president has to be able to say he (and, after 2016, probably "she&quot did everything legally possible to keep the country safe. Nobody would have patience that, sure, those people are dead, but our integrity is intact. A president who could have stopped an attack, but didn't do the things required, would be run out of office.

So, once started, it was the responsibility of Congress and/or the courts to stop it. No president could be expected to take that risk alone.

[Maedhros]

33. Has Obama really instituted far MORE judicial oversight than Bush?

The NSA surveillance program is overseen (in secret) only by the FISC, and I don't believe that there have been any additional checks and balances added by the current Administration. Do you have a link to support that claim?

In any case, I don't absolve the President of his responsibility to defend the Constitution - his oath of office requires him to do so, and says nothing about keeping us safe.

[LuckyTheDog]

36. Obama at least uses the FISC

A lot of what Bush did was completely without warrants and almost no Congressional oversight or legal authority. This is pretty well documented. Here is one source that explains the broad strokes: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/304753-hoyer-draws-distinction-between-bush-and-obama-surveillance-programs-

As for whether the collection of phone metadata with court approval is unconstitutional... that's a matter of opinion.

People like to pretend that determining constitutional questions is just a matter of looking at some government action, then opening up the U.S. Constitution to the appropriate section and checking the "rules." In reality, nothing is that simple. Applying broad 18th-century principles to the modern world can be very, very tricky and incredibly subjective.

It's also naive in the extreme to think that, after an attack, the country would forgive a president who had refused to use all the legal authority he had in order to keep the country safe. Presidents don't have the luxury or indulging their consciences in that way.

[Maedhros]

38. Thank you for providing a link.

A lot of what Bush did was completely without warrants and almost no Congressional oversight or legal authority. This is pretty well documented. Here is one source that explains the broad strokes: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/304753-hoyer-draws-distinction-between-bush-and-obama-surveillance-programs-

Fair enough, although I would apply the caveat that secret courts interpreting secret law to apply to secret policy really isn't effective oversight. Also, Wyden and Udall have done a good job of demonstrating that Congressional oversight of the NSA does not happen - though not as good of a job as Clapper did himself, by flat-out lying to the Senate.

As for whether the collection of phone metadata with court approval is unconstitutional... that's a matter of opinion.

Generally it's the opinion of the Left that gathering and storing data on the entire population in the absence of any suspicion of a crime is bad. Generally it's the opinion of the Right that this is necessary to Keep Us Safe(tm).

People like to pretend that determining constitutional questions is just a matter of looking at some government action, then opening up the U.S. Constitution to the appropriate section and checking the "rules." In reality, nothing is that simple. Applying broad 18th-century principles to the modern world can be very, very tricky and incredibly subjective.

I think there are enough intelligent people analyzing the NSA surveillance situation and reaching valid conclusions regarding its threat to democracy in the United States, though. A number of former Federal justices have opined that it may be unconstitutional. I wouldn't be surprised if the current Supreme Court found it constitutional, but then again they are paid shills for the Right.

It's also naive in the extreme to think that, after an attack, the country would forgive a president who had refused to use all the legal authority he had in order to keep the country safe. Presidents don't have the luxury or indulging their consciences in that way.

BUT IT DOESN'T KEEP US SAFE. Your argument is based on a false premise.

[LuckyTheDog]

48. A couple things

Generally it's the opinion of the Left that gathering and storing data on the entire population in the absence of any suspicion of a crime is bad. Generally it's the opinion of the Right that this is necessary to Keep Us Safe(tm).

Not really. Some of the most breathless criticism of the NSA program comes from the right -- or, at least that has been the case since Obama was elected. Much of the criticism from the right is based on the false idea that the NSA is actually recording phone calls, not just collecting billing data. And, like I said, I would like it if the Congress, the courts of both put an end to this. But I don't see an upside for the president if he ended it unilaterally. ANY attack on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests would then be blamed on Obama's "weakness" in refusing to do "what needed to be done."

Also: I do tend to get impatient with people who jump immediately to the assumption that something in unconstitutional and base all further comments on that premise. Usually, I get that from right-wingers who try to say "the Constitution is written in plain English and is easy to understand." The reading level of the text is not the issue (as I am sure you know). Things like the vast amount of often contradictory precedents and legal theories make applying the ideals in that "simple text" into a very complicated thing.

So, while I could be persuaded that the NSA data collection is unconstitutional, I do not side with those who say Obama is willfully violating his oath of office - as if that was a matter of obvious fact, and not opinion. There are legal arguments to be made on both sides of this question. I expect the president and is lawyers think what they are doing is defensible. I object to the program mainly because I think it's intrusive and probably expensive and ineffective. I also see the potential for abuse. So, whether or not it's technically constitutional, it should be stopped.

BUT IT DOESN'T KEEP US SAFE. Your argument is based on a false premise.

Even if you are right, it hardly matters. As I said above, if the U.S. is attacked, any U.S. president has to be able to say that everything possible was done to prevent it. If it is later shown that the president left anything on the table, then whatever he did not do will be blamed for the attack. The political enemies of this particular president would not hesitate to lie about the cause of any attack or to politicize it for the purpose of impeaching the president.

[Maedhros]

56. If this is true:

Even if you are right, it hardly matters. As I said above, if the U.S. is attacked, any U.S. president has to be able to say that everything possible was done to prevent it. If it is later shown that the president left anything on the table, then whatever he did not do will be blamed for the attack. The political enemies of this particular president would not hesitate to lie about the cause of any attack or to politicize it for the purpose of impeaching the president.

Then any activity is justified to keep us safe - torture, rendition, Muslim internment camps, collective punishment of Muslim villages, etc.

This is one of my biggest gripes with Obama's leadership style - he fails to act properly because of his desire to avoid Republican criticism. The NSA's surveillance program has been shown to have no significant role in keeping us safe. Continuing it, just to avoid potential criticism, is weak leadership.

[LuckyTheDog]

60. I get that.

But I think collecting metadata flies under the radar more than your other examples. And, because it is not well understood, the potential propaganda value of not doing it would be greater, assuming the U.S. was attacked.

But really, all of this is splitting hairs. We'd both like to see the program ended.

[merrily]

135. FISA court warrants are a joke anyway.

Always have been, but even worse, if that's possible, since 911. More than one branch is failing us.

[merrily]

137. "Legal" authority. Legal being the key word.

People like to pretend that determining constitutional questions is just a matter of looking at some government action, then opening up the U.S. Constitution to the appropriate section and checking the "rules." In reality, nothing is that simple. Applying broad 18th-century principles to the modern world can be very, very tricky and incredibly subjective.

Any interpretation of the Constitution can be incredibly subjective. The idea that the President's unilateral decision to kill someone satisfies the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment, an idea that Holder has alluded to, is as subjective as any I've heard.

However the 4th amendment does expressly require govt to have a reason to suspect me of wrongdoing before it surveills me. It says reasonable cause. It doesn't say "unless future inventions make it easy for govt to surveill everyone. "

If the Constitution is outdated, amendment is the way to go, not "interpreting" its protections out of existence.

[LuckyTheDog]

145. I absolutely agree with you in principle

Finding the right language for an amendment would be tricky, though.

I wish we had a Supreme Court that could be trusted to lay down some reasonable markers. Sadly, though, we really, really don't.

[merrily]

146. I don't think you do agree with me in principle.

Finding the right language for an amendment would be tricky, though.

So? Finding the right language for any law is always an issue. That does not excuse failure to bring the matter to voters.

I wish we had a Supreme Court that could be trusted to lay down some reasonable markers. Sadly, though, we really, really don't.

So, it's better to trust the Executive Branch to do so secretly? Better to let Holder and Yoo and Gonzo decide such things however they wish?

Sorry, but your post sounds to me like a collection of makeweight statements to justify the status quo.

[LuckyTheDog]

147. I am being realistic

Congress and the courts have to draw boundaries for the Executive Branch. Nobody can expect the administration to rein itself in unilaterally.

That's because, if an attack happens, nobody is going to pat Obama on the back for protecting our civil liberties. Nobody. The first questions asked would be: "Could collecting metadata have prevented this? If so, why did Obama refuse to do it? Did Obama WANT us to be blind to potential threats?"

That would be followed by screams of "IMPEACH!" "BENGHAZI!" "TREASON!" and attempts to impeach the president. And in the aftermath of an attack, the chances that an impeachment succeeding might be pretty good.

So, from the perspective of the White House, if the NSA program has ANY chance of preventing an attack, then there is no upside for them in ending it on their own. Based on that, I think it's ridiculous to blame Obama for the NSA program and absolve Congress and the courts of all responsibility for passing a law that allows for this kind of thing.

The president could (but will not) ask Congress to take away the NSA's authority. So that part is on him. He should be leading on this. But it's pretty obvious that Obama wants the NSA data collection to continue. That's on him, too. The trouble is that, while I trust Obama more than I have trusted some other presidents, I also know he has some real blind spots. So, I trust him only so far.

More importantly: When I look out at the field of who could become the next president, I see a lot of people I don't trust at all. That includes Hillary. So, I agree the NSA program needs to be ended.

So, say what you want about my motives. If trying to think through all the realities of a complex situation makes me a bad person in your eyes, I can live with that.

[merrily]

150. I disagree. Doing little but defending the status quo is not realism.

It maybe somewhere between resignation and cheerleading, but it's not realism.

That's about what the whole "pragmatic progressive" bs boils down to. Let's accept what is, because it's all anyone can realistically expect.

while I trust Obama more than I have trusted some other presidents,

Putting aside whether your trust is either well placed or persuasive as to any point, it's totally irrelevant. Obama will be President only until 2016. Who comes next is also irrelevant. Many Presidents will follow Obama (or so we hope). This is very bad precedent for a Democratic President to set.

So, say what you want about my motives. If trying to think through all the realities of a complex situation makes me a bad person in your eyes, I can live with that.

Spare me. As you well know, I never said you were a bad person. More to the point, whether you are or not a bad person or a good one is also irrelevant.

Either way, you have indeed tried to defend the NSA on this thread, while claiming, also on this thread, that you don't defend the NSA; either way, you haven't made your case that the NSA's actions are defensible; and either way, the NSA is collecting and storing my data without a hint of reasonable cause to believe that I am violating the law or about to violate the law.

[LuckyTheDog]

157. ONCE AGAIN

I am not defending the status quo and your attempts to smear me with that are ridiculous.

My ONLY point was that you cannot blame this entirely on Obama and that it is silly to expect the administration to change this on its own.

You might one time try addressing the actual points I am making instead attacking my motives. But I guess that would be harder.

[merrily]

162. ONCE AGAIN, spare me.

My ONLY point was that you cannot blame this entirely on Obama and that it is silly to expect the administration to change this on its own.

You can't really call that a point, since I neither blamed everything on Obama nor expressed any expectation, silly or otherwise, that the administration would change on its own. Nor did I attack your motives. Didn't say you were a bad person either.

You might one time try addressing the actual points I am making instead attacking my motives

Right back at you. And which point? That's some expectation that I never said I had had is a silly expectation? Why that one? There must be millions of expectations that I never had that are silly. Shall we list every one of them and then pretend you made some kind of point?

But I guess that would be harder.

Very cheap attempted shot--and one that doesn't work, especially when what you consider the points you made had nothing to do with what I had actually posted. You erected straw men to avoid addressing what I actually said, then accused me of dodging your straw men because addressing them is supposed to be too difficult for me? Jaysus. I can't even give that a "nice try."

Why don't you try refuting some claim that I actually made before accusing me of ignoring your straw men because addressing them is supposedly too difficult for me?

[LuckyTheDog]

164. So, not only do I have to agree that the NSA porgram should end...

... I have to also agree that it must end exactly the way you want it to end, otherwise I am just a stealth defender of the status quo. Great.


It's exactly this kind of dogmatic thinking that keeps the political left from achieving more than it does.

[merrily]

165. More stuff I never said. Please, have pity on the straw men. They need their rest, too.

[LuckyTheDog]

167. Yes, you did.

You accused me of being a stealth defender of the status quo and of not really meaning what I said. And you attacked me when I suggested going to Congress or the courts was a better course of action that expecting Obama to take all of the political risk on himself.

Classic straw man.

[merrily]

168. Don't keep attributing to me lame stuff you make up.

It's dishonest and reeks of desperation. I won't be replying to more of it on this thread. Among many other things, it's dead boring.

[stone space]

151. Jury results

On Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I don't think you do agree with me in principle.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5047834

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is 1) mis-characterizing my statements in order to make a bogus point. Saying that there are reasons why you cannot hang the whole NSA thing around Obama's neck is not at all the same as advocating to "let Holder and Yoo and Gonzo decide such things however they wish." And 2) Questioning my motives instead of addressing what I actually posted. Not cool.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:44 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This might be the worst alert I have ever seen. If someone mis-characterizes your statements, refute them. Their statement about your intent was clearly presented as their opinion/impression...correct that impression if it's wrong. Don't try to get their post hidden and their voice silenced in that thread.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, let me get this straight. The alerter is the person whom this reply is to? Instead of using the jury system, why not try an actual rebuttal. There is nothing inappropriate or disruptive with this post. How about we ban the alert for Jury misuse?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DON'T USE ALERTS TO DEBATE POINTS YOU HAVE TROUBLE MAKING IN THE THREAD. I WISH I COULD ALERT ON YOUR ALERT. ALERT FAIL. ALERT FAIL. ALERT FAIL (there I said it thrice).
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the alerter really is Luckythedog, then I'm a little embarrassed for you that you would send this weak alert. Just respond to the replier.

But maybe someone else posted the alert and made it seem to be Luckythedog
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. There is nothing uncivil here. Nothing.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A good example of a post not worthy of an alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[aikoaiko]

152. And the jury results are in...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:33 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I don't think you do agree with me in principle.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5047834

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person is 1) mis-characterizing my statements in order to make a bogus point. Saying that there are reasons why you cannot hang the whole NSA thing around Obama's neck is not at all the same as advocating to "let Holder and Yoo and Gonzo decide such things however they wish." And 2) Questioning my motives instead of addressing what I actually posted. Not cool.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:44 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This might be the worst alert I have ever seen. If someone mis-characterizes your statements, refute them. Their statement about your intent was clearly presented as their opinion/impression...correct that impression if it's wrong. Don't try to get their post hidden and their voice silenced in that thread.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, let me get this straight. The alerter is the person whom this reply is to? Instead of using the jury system, why not try an actual rebuttal. There is nothing inappropriate or disruptive with this post. How about we ban the alert for Jury misuse?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DON'T USE ALERTS TO DEBATE POINTS YOU HAVE TROUBLE MAKING IN THE THREAD. I WISH I COULD ALERT ON YOUR ALERT. ALERT FAIL. ALERT FAIL. ALERT FAIL (there I said it thrice).
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the alerter really is Luckythedog, then I'm a little embarrassed for you that you would send this weak alert. Just respond to the replier.
But maybe someone else posted the alert and made it seem to be Luckythedog
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert. There is nothing uncivil here. Nothing.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A good example of a post not worthy of an alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Lizzie Poppet]

156. I was going to post this, too!

At least this person won't be alerting for 24 hours...sheesh!

[LuckyTheDog]

159. I guess it's OK to attack a person's motives on DU now

Great to know.

[Lizzie Poppet]

173. Nice straw man.

Does it keep crows from eating your garden?

[LuckyTheDog]

158. So smearing me is not good enough?

Now you go to the public shaming.

Disgusting. Also disgusting is posting a call for me to be banned for basically agreeing with you, but proposing bringing a little nuance into the discussion.

[aikoaiko]

169. It's jut not your lucky day, is it?

Take the feedback and move on. Many of us have not has jury votes go our way.

[BlueCheese]

45. Honestly...

I think most people are rational enough that they understand that we can't ever be 100% safe, or that the president can personally guarantee that even if it were possible. Clinton wasn't blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing. When 9/11 happened, the general public didn't really blame Bush. Nobody seriously thinks Obama could have prevented the Boston marathon bombing. Political hacks did, but they would blame the president for bad weather too.

I've reached the point that even if these programs did prevent one Boston marathon bombing a year, I would still want them repealed. Tragic as it was, far, far more people die or are seriously disabled because of other preventable causes. We could save many more than that many lives with better public health initiatives, and also not set up the framework of an all-knowing intrusive surveillance state.

[LuckyTheDog]

51. You give people a lot of credit...

... I used to be like you. Then I witnessed the rise of the tea party.

[merrily]

138. The impact on your of the rise of the tea party is not exactly a

justification for government's collecting every communication of mine.

[LuckyTheDog]

149. Never said it was

So, your comment is kind of meaningless.

[Aerows]

53. You hit the nail on the head

my friend.

[merrily]

140. ? Posts of yours on this very thread are, in essence, defenses of the NSA's actions.

[LuckyTheDog]

148. Only if you look at this simplistically

I am not defending the NSA. But I do understand why Obama has not acted on his own to end the program,

[Savannahmann]

170. Force you to do the right thing?

Interesting standard. Because you are concerned about being blamed for something that the NSA has been wholly unable to prevent a single incident of, you want to be forced to do the right thing?

My Friend, you could write the speech that President Obama could give when shutting the system down, and it would be wholly embraced by the American People. Not now of course, because no matter what President Obama said now, it would appear that he had been forced to do the right thing.

I say right thing because the Constitution, that pesky thing that the President and everyone in Government has sworn to protect and defend says that it's wrong. We have different ideas amigo. I believe it is a duty to act honorably, and you seem to think it is a duty to be forced to do so. I forget what Roman it was who said "If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it." I find it disturbing that the Romans seem to have a better developed sense of honor than we do some two thousand years later in our evolution.

[LuckyTheDog]

171. Responsibility should be shared. Congress should be involved. Period.

As for this:

the Constitution, that pesky thing that the President and everyone in Government has sworn to protect and defend says that it's wrong.

That's an opinion. Sorry, but you don't get to decide for everyone else what is constitutional or not. Obama would say that he has the authority to collect the metadata. Agree with him or not, but it's a legally defensible decision. People who imply that Obama is willfully crapping on the Constitution here usually are people who oppose him in general -- from the left or the right.

And yes. Congress should take the initiative to rein in the Executive Branch. That's their job. It's not the job of the president to take 100% of the political and legal risks here. Some things should be done with a consensus. This is one of them. Short of that, a legal decision striking down the data collection would do nicely. But I don't expect this Supreme Court to issue one of those.

[ctsnowman]

26. The # 1

claim I'd pick is that we have to cut social programs because we can't afford them. If we can afford this massive boondoggle we can afford to help the poor.

[Aerows]

43. Amen

I don't pay taxes to support this sort of thing, I'd rather pay taxes to help the citizens of this fine nation.

[Pholus]

61. And that is the main point!

Very expensive program, no successes to speak of but definitely waste to describe (whooshing doors, anyone?).

In terms of national security, I agree that a lot better things that can be done with the money.

Like burning it in incinerators for example.

[daleanime]

29. K&R....

[Uncle Joe]

35. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT

[riderinthestorm]

37. Afternoon kick. I see the usual crowd is ignoring this thread.... nt

[Savannahmann]

39. Well what did you expect

I mean, they couldn't come out and tell us that those talking points were true, no matter what the facts were. Then they look like lunatic flat earth types. If on the other hand, they came out again, after being identified in everything but name, as having used those discredited talking points what could they say? Snowden and Greenwald are Liberatarians, and that means that we are fools for listening to them or something.

The problem for those that have used such talking points previously, is that they know they are losing. That's why they have so much animosity towards Snowden. IF they can just get him into custody, and get a nice showy trial going, where Court TV and CNN have the experts on talking about how Snowden will get life in the electric chair then perhaps the NSA can go back to business as usual. If nothing else, they'll scare the next guy who sees something absolutely unconstitutional going on.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Oh agreed on all fronts. Kick! nt

[Aerows]

44. They are absolutely terrified

to come in here, because that has been their talking points all along.

[riderinthestorm]

52. I've bookmarked this thread and the article. The next time they use one of these talking points

I'm simply going to reply with the number of the TP they're using and the link to the article.

I'm so done trying to have a conversation anymore. ITs futile

[Aerows]

54. The circular arguments they make

signifies that it is all bullshit. They don't want the truth, they don't want justice, they just want to make sure that they protect the government despite the government actively partaking in wrong-doing.

[vi5]

128. Do they actually attempt to argue?

I haven't seen any of them argue any actual points. The full extent of their argument seems to be "GG AND RON PAUL 4EVA!!!!!!!" or some variation thereof.

[Zorra]

40. If they didn't use BS propaganda talking points, they'd have no other way to

to defend the NSA.

[Aerows]

47. Precisely

I have no doubt this is a stinging nettle in their side that their talking points are revealed as ludicrous.

[merrily]

139. Except that the alleged absence of any defense of the NSA by them is also a talking point.

See how easy it is?

[vi5]

57. They're not NSA defenders.

They are President Obama defenders.

More than likely they were against the NSA when Bush was in charge (as I think almost everyone on here was).

Now that there is a Democratic President in charge of it, the are o.k. with the NSA but only because not being so would mean having to say something less than flowery and full of praise regarding President Obama.

If there is a Republican president, and the NSA continues it's efforts unabated then these people will go back to criticizing it and complaining about it.

[bvar22]

117. That is just sick,

...the results of no internal moral compass.

[merrily]

144. I am not so sure that they can or will go back to their 2006 stances.

They have to know that the inconsistency of their future positions with their current positions will be pointed out, just as the inconsistencies between their 2006 positions and their 2014 positions are being pointed out. And, any criticism of future Presidents who do the same things that Bush and Obama did will reflect as badly on Obama as they do on any other President. So, I think it's very possible that they will defend future Presidents who do the same thing.

If something is okay for Democratic President Obama to do, it has to be okay for any future president, Republican or Democrat, no? That's the thing about setting bad precedents. It takes one time.

[LuckyTheDog]

161. Not true

But it is worth noting that:

1) Obama has reformed the program (albeit not enough) and that...

2) It is unrealistic to expect the administration to police itself on this. That's because there is no upside for them. In the (probably unlikely) event that ending the NSA program enables an attack to take place, nobody will say "Sure, those people are dead, but our integrity is intact. Good job, Obama!"

Thus, I maintain that it is the job of Congress and the courts to rein in the administration. That's where I think change has to come from.

But, apparently, one not only has to oppose the NSA program, but one also has to INSIST THAT OBAMA END IT UNILATERALLY. Any deviation from that view is seen as blasphemy.

Well, screw that, I say.

[ProSense]

58. Don't forget to

That’s why it’s time to tell Congress that these excuses won’t work anymore. Right now, Congress is considering legislation that could be a first step to reining in NSA mass spying. But there’s a contentious political battle taking place on Capitol Hill, with NSA defenders pushing a weaker version of the reform bill while civil liberties groups campaign for powerful reform. Please add your voice and call on the Senate to pass real NSA reform.

...send your message to Congress to pass the "most meaningful reform of government surveillance in decades."

End the NSA’s Mass Spying

Tell Congress: Support the Senate's Stronger NSA Reform, S.1599 The USA FREEDOM Act. Stop the FISA Improvements Act & Other Fake Reforms.

Since Edward Snowden’s first leaked document, we’ve learned disturbing details about the full extent of NSA spying. We now have confirmation that:

• The NSA is sweeping up the call records of millions of innocent people ;
  
  
• The NSA is collecting the Internet communications of law abiding people around the globe;
  
  
• The NSA is undermining encryption, making the Internet less safe for everyone;

There’s a powerful reform proposal moving in the Senate, S.1599 The USA FREEDOM Act. The bill would limit bulk collection of phone records and add transparency to the egregious NSA spying.

If S.1599 passes, it will be the most meaningful reform of government surveillance in decades. While S.1599, The USA FREEDOM Act, doesn’t address every issue with NSA surveillance, it’s a powerful first step.

But certain members of Congress don’t want reform. Senator Dianne Feinstein is promoting the FISA Improvements Act, a bill posing as reform that attempts to legalize the worst aspects of NSA surveillance. And the House's recently passed version of the USA FREEDOM Act, H.R. 3361 is a fake fix: it may have the same name, but it's been entirely rewritten and gutted.

We can’t let NSA apologists preserve the status quo. Demand real reform. Stop mass spying. Support S.1599 The USA FREEDOM Act.

https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9642

This is Senator Leahy's bill.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/usa-freedom-act_-introduced-10-29-131

[Logical]

98. What a coincidence this is happening now! nt

[Enrique]

72. this does not belong here

the NSA defenders at DU have no interest in remaining credible.

[Mnpaul]

91. That was my first thought

Most don't even get to the point of making these arguments. Most of their time is spent trying to smear the messenger.

[Vattel]

107. You got that right. These talking points, although lame, are

at least more plausible than the smears.

[elias49]

101. K&R!!

Thanks for breaking this mess into little pieces.

[yallerdawg]

110. I don't find anything in this article...

that conclusively discredits any of these arguments. And, in fact, what makes these the top 5 claims -- this article?

I'm just not worried. I know how incompetent my government is. And you can't make me.

&feature=player_detailpage

[baldguy]

123. Title should be: "How To Construct A Straw Man In 5 Easy Steps"

[Octafish]

141. ''No President should fear public scrutiny of his program.''

For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. - President John F. Kennedy, from an address to newspaper publishers.

SOURCE: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx

President Kennedy appreciated the importance of openness, public scrutiny, review and accountability for Democracy.

[randome]

142. The one thing Snowden/Greenwald defenders need to remain credible.

Evidence.

Brian Williams pressed Snowden to specify what the NSA has done that is illegal and he could not name one thing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

160. hard to explain to those who refuse to see

SOD bypasses the Constitution

Even beyond the larger systemic problem of insulating NSA surveillance from judicial review, criminal defendants whose arrest or case is built upon FISA evidence are now deprived of their right to examine and challenge the evidence used against them.

Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.

Courts must have all the facts

The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.

[randome]

163. I think it's a hard line to straddle.

If the NSA is monitoring a foreign suspect and sees evidence about an American, they can't pretend they didn't see that evidence. The prudent thing to do would be to turn the evidence over to a domestic agency. But they don't want to reveal that they've been monitoring Suspect X in Poland so the domestic agency looks for other evidence.

That 'other evidence' still needs to stand on its own. If it doesn't, the accused American goes free.

At least that's how it looks to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

166. yes that is how it looks to you because you do not revere the Constitution

as the law of the land

for those of us that do..it is an obvious criminal violation

blanket surveillance warrants are also illegal

changing the requirement from probable cause to reasonable suspicion also illegal

meddling in corporate espionage to pick winning and losing corps, also illegal

and clearly it is not just foreign suspects, it is everything,every1

[uponit7771]

172. asking for evidence = refuse to see?!?!?! REALLY?! tia