Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
51. They started their cases back in the Bush Era.
Fri Jun 21, 2013, 04:59 PM
Jun 2013

A lot of changes to the Patriot Act and FISA have occurred since then and Bush was clearly doing illegal wiretapping.

The FISA court even ruled against the NSA not long ago.

It isn't a perfect process and at least one of those 3 -Drake, I believe- actually stole documents and that's part of what he was dinged on.

Every time I see more allegations of spying on all 300 million Americans and parsing every single regulation in place for them, I think it's gone too far. And it's usually because Snowden is held up as a 'hero'. I don't see him as that at all, for the reasons I've outlined.

Yes, he started a conversation but he's also hurt his own cause.

Even the OP is predicated on the idea that NSA analysts are clearly doing things against the Constitution. And that's because of Snowden's 'influence' on the conversation.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

Recommendations

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

If this would be the rule then police would not be able to ask any questions of Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #1
You wish regular warrants were approved on this basis? Guidelines for the police to interpret? dkf Jun 2013 #3
I never said I would like for warrants to be issued everytime a query is made, but if you get this Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #4
It's search and seizure. That's how the 4th amendment works. dkf Jun 2013 #5
I am surprised you would really want this to happen, frivolous in the least. BTW, the Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #7
Why would the Internet go away? dkf Jun 2013 #8
You ask a lot of questions which should be simple but no more queries, no news, if Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #10
Well I have no idea why you think the Internet would be shut down. Weird. dkf Jun 2013 #17
Weird you don't undertstand. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #19
I'm baffled at why the internet would go away, too. dawg Jun 2013 #18
Would it be proper to say you are not in position to make the decision of what would suffice. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #23
No. dawg Jun 2013 #25
You do understand I'm not talking about a google search, right? dawg Jun 2013 #26
Why would you assume that? Phone company metadata does not include any of that. randome Jun 2013 #34
Well I'm not assuming it entirely. That's why I said "probably". dawg Jun 2013 #36
Now I gotta say, this is an interesting new talking point nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #20
I would appreciate it if you would stop calling everyone else's posts to be 'talking points'. randome Jun 2013 #29
What in the world does ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #30
Anyone can be "queried" solely on the basis of secret computer profiles that aren't subject to leveymg Jun 2013 #2
'Grocery items'? Where do you get that from? randome Jun 2013 #6
They are collecting directly off of the fiber optic cables. That's pure raw data. dkf Jun 2013 #9
How do you know? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #11
WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #13
How is it done? Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #16
AP dkf Jun 2013 #24
i would not bother engaging with them if they will not even discuss the facts of the documents Monkie Jun 2013 #53
Just what I thought, just throw some words out and let the story continue. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #56
They copy the data from the fiber optic cables. dkf Jun 2013 #57
I do understand more than you know but you continue your talking point. Thinkingabout Jun 2013 #58
You'd think Snowden would have mentioned this if it was true. randome Jun 2013 #12
WAPO dkf Jun 2013 #14
You know the article ProSense Jun 2013 #22
I'm not defending Bush. Am I supposed to be blaming him for the fact it still goes on? dkf Jun 2013 #54
Link? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #55
This is what the EFF lawsuit is about...they have ATT records. dkf Jun 2013 #15
Bush era stuff. I agree, let the EFF lawsuit proceed. randome Jun 2013 #27
Snowden wasn't director of the NSA. dawg Jun 2013 #21
I don't think he had access to anything because he wasn't able to show any evidence. randome Jun 2013 #28
There is enough information out there now to be concerned about ... dawg Jun 2013 #31
He could easily have hurt the case he wanted to make. randome Jun 2013 #46
I think it's interesting how everyone else here but you cites multiple sources leveymg Jun 2013 #32
The link about Snowden's fake resume. randome Jun 2013 #33
That mischaracterizes things. I left my comment over at the other thread. leveymg Jun 2013 #37
It's looking like he also lied about working for the NSA before going to the CIA. randome Jun 2013 #42
According to the NSA, Snowden was the one ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #35
Note to Snowden debunkers: Alexander is not saying the documents are fake. leveymg Jun 2013 #38
No one is saying the warrant is a fake. randome Jun 2013 #41
Never said he was. eom leveymg Jun 2013 #52
I meant he didn't have access to private information. randome Jun 2013 #40
He knew because of the documents he found. ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #43
I'm not disputing the validity of the Verizon warrant. randome Jun 2013 #44
I don't need to trust him to ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #47
I hear you. randome Jun 2013 #48
Not really - ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #49
They started their cases back in the Bush Era. randome Jun 2013 #51
and the aclu. allin99 Jun 2013 #45
Yes, them, too. n/t ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #50
K&R KoKo Jun 2013 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The NSA searches its mass...»Reply #51