General Discussion

okaawhatever

(9,565 posts)

177. I think opening up secret cases is a slippery slope, but I do want scotus or the legislature to give

Sun Jun 9, 2013, 02:39 PM

Jun 2013

boundries as to what can't be kept secret. Such as when an American citizen is involved. If it's an American citizen who has traveled overseas and trained with terrorists (what is considered voluntarily giving up your citizenship without the formal paperwork) I can see how we should be forced to have a trial based on the info that they have in fact renounced their citizenship. Only then can we treat them as non-citizens. I also don't like having sweeping scotus rulings on issues where the facts are very different in each case. Gay marriage is easy. It doesn't matter what gay couple you choose as an example, it's a pretty black and white issue. Marriage or no marriage. With some of the top secret cases there is a different scope of info, much different situations. American citizen or dual citizenship? Are they training inside a country currently recognized as an enemy state or are they training with enemy individuals inside a friendly country. So on and so on. That's just my opinion, but I do know that there are very good reasons to keep info top secret. The question always comes down to, is this one of those times?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

184 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So all that hysteria yesterday [View all] pnwmom Jun 2013 OP

What do you mean? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #1

The WA post story has already been walked back pnwmom Jun 2013 #5

Oh, got it. But the massive domestic spying program is ongoing DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #11

The WA Post and the Guardian reported the same thing -- both incorrectly. pnwmom Jun 2013 #20

Sorry, your facts are incorrect DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #23

The Verizon story has also been falsely described. pnwmom Jun 2013 #25

The difference is no direct access, Feds still need judicial oversight. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #28

And that they have to get judicial approval just as they would in any crime case. pnwmom Jun 2013 #29

And here is the judicial approval. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #85

I read it. So what is your point? n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #115

Judicial review that proves blanket authority to surveil isnt oversight. The idea of judicial rhett o rick Jun 2013 #149

that was the court order to store all the information. The info doesn't even include names. It's the okaawhatever Jun 2013 #171

So we allow our government to gather massive data on each of us that they promise not rhett o rick Jun 2013 #173

I'm okay with that. I would rather the gov't keep it than the phone companies. They have a better okaawhatever Jun 2013 #174

If the govment has it so do the phone companies. Corporations run the govment. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #182

Bush/Cheney were spot on then? Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #157

The tech guys say there is a way to do this so that the Govt gets the info without going to the dkf Jun 2013 #42

But will unwarranted info stand in a court of law? Even the tech companies would sue the Fed JaneyVee Jun 2013 #50

You think the only purpose of information is to convict in a court of law? dkf Jun 2013 #53

What other non-tinfoil hat reason could there be? We know they're using it to convict people JaneyVee Jun 2013 #64

LOL Aerows Jun 2013 #143

They don't need to use it as evidence. They can do a lot JDPriestly Jun 2013 #87

Can you explain to me the damage that can be done? Possibly include links to instances? JaneyVee Jun 2013 #156

In the first place, just by retaining this information at the JDPriestly Jun 2013 #180

SCOTUS ruled on parts of this. There have also been court cases that went to Fed appeals court. nt okaawhatever Jun 2013 #175

How's about this...it would be nice if they would drop the secrets privilege and let the 2 cases dkf Jun 2013 #176

I think opening up secret cases is a slippery slope, but I do want scotus or the legislature to give okaawhatever Jun 2013 #177

Well now that they declassified maybe there are no secrets to protect. dkf Jun 2013 #179

Super. Which parts of it are untrue, and where's the documentation for that? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #33

The first reports about Verizon claimed that the government pnwmom Jun 2013 #40

This is an opinion piece DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #45

That story was instantly blown up, distorted, and exaggerated pnwmom Jun 2013 #73

Read the court order: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #89

The court order: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #88

Yes. Here is a copy of the court order that set this off. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #84

That order is specific magellan Jun 2013 #103

The order speaks for itself. But I think it fair to draw JDPriestly Jun 2013 #106

Yep. And I know that order doesn't deal with the internet magellan Jun 2013 #109

Pretty good regardless of what the government says. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #112

I came a little late to the game magellan Jun 2013 #119

Implicated in what? Passing on telephone numbers? n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #116

If you have ever done any paralegal or legal or investigative JDPriestly Jun 2013 #118

Corporations are collecting more information than this every day. pnwmom Jun 2013 #123

You mention the Boston bombing attacks. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #181

I have no doubt Aerows Jun 2013 #144

No, the FISA Court Order expressly said all data from all users. If that is representative, the leveymg Jun 2013 #158

Did Verison's political donations enter into their selection? Why spy on only 66% of phone conversa rhett o rick Jun 2013 #146

Interesting article here. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #153

Same orders have been served on all the major telcos. leveymg Jun 2013 #159

I must have missed that. Can you give me a link? I am not doubting just like to rhett o rick Jun 2013 #161

Here's The WSJ and NYT reports, 6/7: leveymg Jun 2013 #165

Thank you very much for the articles. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #167

UR Welcome eom leveymg Jun 2013 #169

Um, nope. woo me with science Jun 2013 #2

It's unreal isn't it? Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #8

"It can't happen here" villager Jun 2013 #17

We don't worship Obama. We just aren't stupid enough to fall for the ratfucking hyped-up "scandals" KittyWampus Jun 2013 #34

Though you fall for every single "official" explanation of unacceptable policy... villager Jun 2013 #55

Though you fall for every single "Conspiracy Theory" from our notorious right wing corporate sheshe2 Jun 2013 #92

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #125

Greenwald works for the Kochs, not Obama. ucrdem Jun 2013 #133

Read the court order: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #91

If you dont ever question his decisions and adamantly defend them to a fault, you can see rhett o rick Jun 2013 #162

It is pure double think. morningfog Jun 2013 #35

in a way I envy them Skittles Jun 2013 #59

It's kind of a red pill/blue pill kind of thing, isn't it? AllyCat Jun 2013 #83

It is amazing and it is the same group of people. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2013 #75

Here is the court order: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #94

I totally agree Mojorabbit Jun 2013 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author BenzoDia Jun 2013 #3

Depends on who you ask. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #4

I think this is just getting started actually quinnox Jun 2013 #6

What's just getting started is the drip, drip, drip of bullshit BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #16

Here is the court order: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #96

Here is the court order. It's pretty awful. Broad as broad JDPriestly Jun 2013 #95

And what will we do with that awareness? Generic Brad Jun 2013 #168

Yep Andy823 Jun 2013 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author freshwest Jun 2013 #76

Here is the court order that backs up what you call "BS." JDPriestly Jun 2013 #98

Yeah, I understand they're opening an investigation of the leak Fumesucker Jun 2013 #9

U bring up a good point. This was leaked in 2006, wouldn't surprise me if its still the same person. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #12

You seem to be confused - jazzimov Jun 2013 #18

I was repeating stuff I've read on DU Fumesucker Jun 2013 #27

This court order does not expire until July 19, 2013. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #100

You're kidding, right? Because no one thinks that. DirkGently Jun 2013 #10

Actually it's gaining steam on social media: JaneyVee Jun 2013 #13

Thanks for the additional link. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #14

Yes, apologists are spinning furiously. DirkGently Jun 2013 #19

The WA Post has already walked back its own story. pnwmom Jun 2013 #21

OMG! Rove! Poor Obama. morningfog Jun 2013 #39

I don't know if I'd call it spin, they seem to be bringing more facts than hyperbole with them. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #24

Is the President still spying on Americans? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #54

I agree, the article agrees to. It's just referring to the hair on fire stuff. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #66

I may already have responded to you with this. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #102

It's cool DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #107

Thanks. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #108

The problem here is that pesky word "spying". THe govment isnt "spying" they are just collecting rhett o rick Jun 2013 #163

Here is the court order signed by the court in April 2014 JDPriestly Jun 2013 #101

Nothing routine or demonstrably legal about it. DirkGently Jun 2013 #148

If it's on social media, IT MUST BE TRUE! OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #22

The link cites sources, not hyperbole. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #26

I wonder whether we have a couple on DU. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #105

Awesome article! jazzimov Jun 2013 #30

^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^ sheshe2 Jun 2013 #41

Ya beat me by a Cha Jun 2013 #46

LOL' two to be exact~ sheshe2 Jun 2013 #61

No, I was talking about my Cha Jun 2013 #68

It's so true, jazz.. Cha Jun 2013 #43

Especially this: JaneyVee Jun 2013 #52

Yeah, that's bullseye, Janey! Cha Jun 2013 #58

Greenwald routinely refers to supporters of the president as "cultists". I hate to tell you how I.. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #136

Greenwald Has An Agenda otohara Jun 2013 #154

Doesnt that apply to all that dare challenge the president? How do you know what his "agenda" is?nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #160

Oh, I Don't Know, Maybe Because He's otohara Jun 2013 #164

I believe that Hillary Clinton said much the same about trusting Bush. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #170

Really? jazzimov Jun 2013 #15

Seems like chicken little is off duty tonight Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #31

LOL. Yeah, I guess that's why I had pnwmom Jun 2013 #32

Don't worry, they'll dig something up. They can always go back to the motherload: freshwest Jun 2013 #114

LOL ucrdem Jun 2013 #121

I was consistently on record in maintaining that this was nothing. NYC_SKP Jun 2013 #36

I heard ya! Cha Jun 2013 #38

Me too madokie Jun 2013 #134

"Misread"!? Say it ain't so! Cha Jun 2013 #37

It's over? Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #44

jazzimov, sheshe2 Jun 2013 #48

Do you mean Cha Jun 2013 #62

Nothing has changed. The spying continues. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #47

Under court supervision, with congressional oversight bhikkhu Jun 2013 #86

Dear lord~ K and effing Rec! sheshe2 Jun 2013 #49

How do you explain this? LittleBlue Jun 2013 #51

The Republicans are framing Obama for the crimes committed under Bush!!! Initech Jun 2013 #56

This real scandal is not going away until our gov abandons it's Stasi policies. usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #57

Right on brother! OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #70

That's why I noted got a Constitutional professor. tblue Jun 2013 #72

Yep, you broke the code . . . OldRedneck Jun 2013 #60

Yeah, that's why the NSA want a criminal probe into the leaks MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #63

I No Longer Trust The US Government And The Politicians That Run It cantbeserious Jun 2013 #65

Uh-huh. a2liberal Jun 2013 #67

The media went into hysterics over an overblown, inaccurate story pnwmom Jun 2013 #74

If it wasn't true a2liberal Jun 2013 #135

The government isn't going into hysterics. They're responding appropriately pnwmom Jun 2013 #137

So... a2liberal Jun 2013 #138

Is This Post RobinA Jun 2013 #69

I'm sure it's satire. Some people here have no sense for irony Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #151

DU rec... SidDithers Jun 2013 #71

Damage Control Unit 3, do you copy? nt Zorra Jun 2013 #77

It's like Ghandi said: Marr Jun 2013 #78

It's like stumbling into the hotel hosting Denial-Con 2013 in here kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #93

It's the "FOX-i-fication" of the news, and Greenwald is perfect for it. Is there any wonder.... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #79

As Bill Maher said, Reagan began the process of just 'making shit up.' The media has that script... freshwest Jun 2013 #122

You're right. Sadly, the telecommunications act allowed for the fusion of news & entertainment. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #130

The Washington Post decided to rile up the Crazies alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #80

exactly! kooks and cranks like Al Gore have been exposed as the crazies that they are Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #99

Has Gore commented on PRISM? alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #147

Al Gore calls Obama administration�s collection of phone records �obscenely outrageous� Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #150

And the band plays on.... LovingA2andMI Jun 2013 #81

Here. Read the court order for yourself. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #82

I agree with you. OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #120

That court order is only to store the info. Not access individual numbers. In other countries the okaawhatever Jun 2013 #172

No. I am not OK with that. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #178

If the Food Stamp/Farm Bill is to be Voted on this Monday... Lady Freedom Returns Jun 2013 #90

Too many scandals bunched together should raise a red flag. pacalo Jun 2013 #104

No, most of the "hysteria" was over the Verizon thing. JoeyT Jun 2013 #110

You do realize they have government owned equipment duplicating 50+ companies data? dkf Jun 2013 #111

I think Obama's in a catch-22. pnwmom Jun 2013 #113

That's even worse, that they have all this access and still can't prevent things... dkf Jun 2013 #117

It's because, well, they don't really know what to do, but... Amonester Jun 2013 #124

If they actually seemed competent with the info maybe I would consider it. dkf Jun 2013 #126

Hey, nobody's perfect. Amonester Jun 2013 #127

Honestly that was almost comedic though. dkf Jun 2013 #128

Get ready because, one thing is for sure... Amonester Jun 2013 #131

No, it's not worse. The system mostly "looks back" after a crime has occurred pnwmom Jun 2013 #129

The problem is there is too much data, not enough focus. dkf Jun 2013 #132

What specific rights have you given up BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #139

How would it harm you if everyday a stranger walked a circle around your house snapping GoneFishin Jun 2013 #141

Arne Svenson, is that you? BeyondGeography Jun 2013 #142

Then I understand now why you are perplexed by the outrage. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #145

Yeah, people are over-reacting to this for sure. DCBob Jun 2013 #140

Give away your rights as you wish. 99Forever Jun 2013 #152

why do Obama and others keep threatening to send the leaker to jail burnodo Jun 2013 #155

Yup. another day another smear another Darrell Isaa yawner. Yet they persist. graham4anything Jun 2013 #166

Another Day - More Confirmation That The Scandals Are Real cantbeserious Jun 2013 #183

First of all, knock off the "hysteria" crap. Secondly, if it's much ado about nothing, you think the WinkyDink Jun 2013 #184