August 21, 2013

NSA Declassifies Documents Revealing Unconstitutional Spying On U.S. Emails

color me shocked.

not

It reads to me like we can finally lay to rest who got right from the beginning, and who got it wrong.

Would we be "knowing" any of this butfor the efforts of those villians GG/Snowden is what I'd like to know.

The National Security Agency on Wednesday declassified three previously secret court rulings related to its domestic surveillance programs, including one revealing a massive unconstitutional collection of Americans’ emails.

While heavily redacted in some portions, the rulings from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are the most in-depth look into the NSA programs first revealed this summer to be gathering information from Americans. In one document, related to an April 2011 petition from the government to continue its collection of internet communications, FISC judge John Bates expressed his concern that the Court was only just learning of the extent of the collection process, which “exceeded the scope of collection previously disclosed by the government and approved by the Court.” This led the Court to realize that it had been operating under false pretenses in judging whether government actions are legal under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.

At the heart of the FISC’s concern was the NSA’s “upstream collection” — constituting approximately 9 percent of the more than 250 million internet communications the NSA acquires yearly under Section 702 — which siphons off international data passing through U.S.-based cables into a repository where it could be stored for later analysis. This is separate from the discrete Internet communications acquired under the PRISM program, which it gets from Internet service providers. The transactions in question are effectively unable to be sorted between foreign and domestic traffic and further unable to distinguish between a single discrete communication and multiple communications which may or may not have been about the target the NSA analyst was searching for. As a result, thousands of solely domestic email conversations were swept up in the process.

The outcome was a ruling from the Court that the collection was unconstitutional, requiring the NSA to revamp its methods and purge all domestic communications from its databases in 2012. Despite the change in procedures, one footnote in the 2011 ruling spotlights the extent to which the administration had previously misled the Court over the breadth of the NSA’s programs: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/08/21/2506621/nsa-declassifies-documents-revealing-unconstitutional-spying-on-us-emails/

August 19, 2013

Greenwald Partner falsely detained as Terrorist: How to Create a Dictatorship

and create and secure a large fanbase of defenders in the process.

The latter starts by energetically exploiting the tribal element making what was bad for their goose now good for my gander, and vice versa. This is probably the easiest ingredient in the goose seasoning recipe used to baste in haste when the temperature is dramatically raised like with the Snowden revelations. Of course BHO isn't Bush, and they were no doubt counting on that, as well as the predictable response to it from those who prefer to live in denial of any possibility that he might still be a goose cooker. It's also why some "oil meets water" difficulties arise like "This is nothing new!!!" that simply refuse to cooperate as part of good dishonesty recipe. It takes a lot of intelligence to be a good liar, and even "Nth" dimensional chess players are limited by the number of ingredients so to speak, like some poor participant on "Chopped".

What they've served up tastes like illegalities and unconstitutionalities to many, with a bitter aftertaste of dishonesty, hidden agendas, and goals, that weren't part of the ingredients they were given to work with. To others it is merely something that can be fixed with additional seasoning, like sympathy, because whatever faults that are present are solely due to what the chef was handed to work with.

It reads like a recipe for disaster to me, no matter who is dictating the ingredients, preparing them, or serving them up.

Greenwald Partner falsely detained as Terrorist: How to Create a Dictatorship
Posted on 08/19/2013 by Juan Cole
How to turn a democracy into a STASI authoritarian state in 10 easy steps:

1. Misuse the concept of a Top Secret government document (say, the date of D-Day) and extend classification to trillions of mundane documents a year.

2. Classify all government crimes and violations of the Constitution as secret

3. Create a class of 4.5 million privileged individuals, many of them corporate employees, with access to classified documents but allege it is illegal for public to see leaked classified documents

4. Spy on the public in violation of the Constitution

5. Classify environmental activists as terrorists while allowing Big Coal and Big Oil to pollute and destroy the planet

6. Share info gained from NSA spying on public with DEA, FBI, local law enforcement to protect pharmaceuticals & liquor industry from competition from pot, or to protect polluters from activists

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/greenwald-terrorist-dictatorship.html

August 18, 2013

The NSA leaks are all hype from the conspiritorial rightwing Hydra

on which Snowden/GG are but one little head.

I can't help but recall how years ago when I first stumbled onto the "internets" to engage the rightwing monster during the lead up to the Iraq War, and in what turned out to be less than civilized debate, I argued that they were gonna lose suport of libertarians as a result of the militaristic face Bush was then putting on the fascist face already long in evidence, and that the right/republican/libertarian fusionism that had long been much the rule, could/would be altered. Not only did the loss of rightwing support occur

Libertarian-leaning voters started drifting away from the GOP even before Katrina, civil war in Iraq, and Mark Foley launched the general stampede. In their recent Cato-published study “The Libertarian Vote,” David Boaz and David Kirby analyzed polling data from Gallup, the American National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center and concluded that 13 percent of the population, or 28 million voting-age Americans, can be fairly classified as libertarian-leaning. Back in 2000, this group voted overwhelmingly for Bush, supporting him over Al Gore by a 72-20 margin. By 2004, however, John Kerry—whose only discernible libertarian credential was that he wasn’t George W. Bush—got 38 percent of the libertarian vote, while Bush’s support fell to 59 percent. Congressional races showed a similar trend. In 2002, libertarians favored Republican House candidates by a 70-23 spread and Republican Senate candidates by a 74-15 margin. Things tightened up considerably in 2004, though, as the GOP edge fell to 53-44 in House races and 54-43 in Senate contests.[/blockquote] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/liberaltarians

but as the title of that piece suggests, some were interested in forging a more substantive and lasting relationship between the libertarians and the left.

To date, Democrats have made inroads with libertarian voters primarily by default. Yes, it’s true that Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame caused something of a stir by proposing the term “Libertarian Democrat” to describe his favored breed of progressive. And the most prominent examples of his would-be movement—first-term Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, fellow Montanan Tester, and Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb—have sounded some libertarian themes by being simultaneously pro-choice and pro-gun rights. At the same time, however, their anti-nafta, Wal-Mart-bashing economic populism is anathema to free-market supporters.

In short, if Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning voters, they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are we content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we want to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.

This is precisely why I've argued from the beginning on this issue, that while I think the NSA/spying stain on BHO that will likely result is inescapable, like his with his continuing support for unpalatable cuts http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17835-white-house-continues-playing-lets-make-a-deal-with-the-gop-on-social-security-and-medicare-benefit-cuts should they occur, there's nothing stopping those in the congressional races from exploiting both the opposition to those cuts and that to the spying for their benefit -- and libertarian/libertarian-leaning voters could certainly have a role in that.

Wow, libertarians are making an issue of/exploiting something that shows the Janus-like condition shared by our alleged left/right pols in DC on matters of foreign policy after having reacted favorably when that perception didn't exist? I thought they were merely doing what should be expected of them, which happens to be something that the protectors of the state, and here on DU, the protectors of the current face on it, don't like, outta anyone regardless of their politcal stripe. It simply can't be accepted it seems, that they are merely being the allies of many who find much of the rest they stand for (particularly the right-leaning, anarcho-capitalist types) unacceptable.

Imo all the bashing of the libertarians on this issue is counterproductive to the goal we as dem voters presumably share -- maintaining the senate and regaining the house. And all the guilt by association BS from the authoritarians around here in the form of "Paulite", etc designations intended to insult those who'd dare align themselves with the libertarians on this issue, is gonna have the net effect of eroding support and election participation of the kind sought outta those ranks as well.

But hey, we'll just add this to the ever-growing list of things rightwingers don't have a monopoly on in these days of a growing faux duopoly in DC on such matters of peace and war -- the political acumen and foresight of an earthworm on the part of those who see themselves as the lefty "good guys". Like rightwingnuts as well, this silencing of critics efforts by the various methods and means we've seen deployed/employed here, has merely been an exhibition of their flair for being their own worst enemy too imo, because of ignorance or a lack of foresight.

ANd who is that "most effective congress critter" working with to achieve that designation, and why isn't he being denounced for the things he's achieved as a result for daring to work with that enemy, as opposed to recieving that rather flattering designation?

The new strategy is simple. Grayson and his staff scan the bills that come out of the majority. They scan amendments that passed in previous Congresses but died at some point along the way. They resurrect or mold bills that can appeal to the libertarian streak in the GOP, and Grayson lobbies his colleagues personally. That’s how he attached a ban on funding for “unmanned aerial vehicles,” i.e. drones, to the homeland security bill. He swears that they don’t back away from him because of his old persona—well, his relationship with Webster is “strained,” but he points out that Webster won re-election by 5,000 votes and Grayson won with 70,000. Never mind that. Are the members of Congress more forgiving than members of the press?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/florida_democrat_alan_grayson_is_the_most_effective_member_of_the_house.html

as some say authoritarians "THINK ABOUT IT!"

August 18, 2013

No, there's nothing strange about the designations

or the endless revisions from the authoritarians in DC or their sychophants here.

Most of the rancor, etc, was intitiated by those on defense from the beginning with this -- you guys. It was simply inconcievable and certainly intolerable to be having the "good guy" in the WH even tangentially tied to the intitial revelations and all that has followed, even though he is in responsible charge of those indicted by them.

I wish you guys would make up your minds as to whether he's an incompetent nincompoop outta this particular loop, or a liar on the matter, although I won't hold my breath while waiting.

ANd all this stuff about "welcoming further reforms and safeguards" has been the goal (well, demanding it really) of all of us alleged "authoritarians" from the start, so by all means, explain all of the "paulite/bushite/racist/etc" BS that has come from your side.

Oh that's right, you're tripping all over yourselves. The only reason all that stuff came from you authoritarians is because it makes the one in charge look bad, and rightly so. You're trying to have it "both ways", which is just another thing on a long list that dedicated rightwingers don't have a monopoly on. If reforms/safeguards are desirable and determined to be necessary, then that's because what we're currently living under is bad/undesirable, and can't be detached from BHO, because it's his admins interpretations of the governing laws that will figure prominently in them.

Any efforts that result in those reforms/safeguards that correct the likely illegal/unconstitutional nature of the violations are gonna justify/validate the criticisms and complaints from we "authoritarians", and incontrovertibly establish BHO's participation in them.

All you'll then have left when the smoke clears is something akin to Rice's "WHo could have possibly known/predicted they'd fly planes into the towers!" line of BS, because that's what all the protectionism of BHO is in spirit if not substance. If anybody has elevated anybody to "godlike status", it's been those defending BHO in the ways and manner you guys have.

Beyond that, I find this insulting effort both amusing and a classic case of projection. Try starting the "kindness" routine yourself, and spare us the the thinly veiled BS about alleged Snowden/GG/etc worship, "fearmongering" charges (while claiming to want the same thing they're asking for/in pursuit of) and whitewashing/denying all the BS your side on this matter has polluted this board with that has served as provocation.

Gee, if they aren't spying on Americans, where's the DEA getting their tips? http://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+DEA+connection&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7 ANd if that's the case, and judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their defendents are victimized by ignorance that should be dispelled by discovery, how does that impact your "no victims" claim? Of course victims that don't know they've been victimized aren't stepping forward in droves. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

That read like an effort to lay claim to the high ground you've never had on this matter, and to ameliorate the ego pain down the road after you've been shown to be disasterously wrong about BHO's role and responsibility is all of this, and that's largely due to a clinging to misplaced trust long after it was unwarranted imo.

August 9, 2013

The record/our memories indicate NSA and apologists, etc, have lied

I'm beginning to think that this question should have figured more prominently in the "debate" from the beginning.

It's really about the only time imo, that Saint Raygun's evil nine words "I'm from the gov, and I'm here to help!" has a real world application in terms of the inherent dubiousness of claims made by gov officials. It also dovetails with the notion that in this great debate between security v rights that the CiC no doubt gives the former greater weight to (in a "I was against it before I was for it kinda way&quot and therefore a motive for taking license with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Avoiding it certainly explains all of their focus on we racists, etc, and messengers like Snowden, GG, etc.

Imo gullibility (like a lotta other unflattering things) is something that rightwingers don't have a monopoly on, and this has been showcased throughout this debate, as have some of those other unflattering things.

Why believe anything the government says about the NSA?
8/8/2013 10:30am by Gaius Publius 74 Comments
. .At this point, why would you believe anything the State, or anyone fronting for it, tells you about NSA domestic spying? Even the gullible have to be non-virgins by now. Let’s take a look.

Here’s security expert Bruce Schneier on just this subject. He starts (my emphasis, including a few bullets and some reparagraphing throughout):

Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet
In July 2012, responding to allegations that the video-chat service Skype — owned by Microsoft — was changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, Corporate Vice President Mark Gillett took to the company’s blog to deny it. Turns out that wasn’t quite true.

Or at least he — or the company’s lawyers — carefully crafted a statement that could be defended as true while completely deceiving the reader. You see, Skype wasn’t changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, because the government was already able to eavesdrop on users.

And this is just the start of this great piece. Two things to note: http://americablog.com/2013/08/why-would-you-believe-anything-the-state-tells-you-about-nsa-spying.html

Or hell, given that "secrecy" is an intregal part of whole thing, isn't it an expectation that taking license with the truth is gonna be part of the effort to preserve it?

I do think so.