An alternative view from a “lackey butt-kissing shit”

[grantcart]

33. I didn't complain about DU not hiding a thread

I complained about the sophistry that was used to justify it.

For the most part I have been voting to leave most of the threads that discusses Meta issues in a polite way and I even established the principle with a question to Skinner in ATA.

I welcome threads that discuss DU in a civil way and I challenge you to find anything I have said to be an attack on a DUer or filled with vitriol.

Re the letter I don't find that to be in contrast to what Frankin said about spying.

He doesn't think it was spying, he does think it should be more transparent

In addition to raising concerns about the law's scope, the senators noted that keeping the official interpretation of the law secret and the instances of misleading public statements from executive branch officials prevented the American people from having an informed public debate about national security and domestic surveillance.

The senators said they were seeking public answers to the following questions in order to give the American people the information they need to conduct an informed public debate. The specific questions include:

• How long has the NSA used Patriot Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans' records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?

• Has the NSA used USA Patriot Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records?

• Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans' cell-site location data in bulk?

• Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.

I would like to see answers to these questions as well.


I also have questions about the efficacy of the program and the cost.


My point about the various ways meta data is being gathered is that I don't find the NSA meta data base to be as intrusive as others, and the others have NO repeat NO oversight. Beyond that there is the question of non government data gathering, which is much closer to actual spying, by commercial companies.

That is why I find this statement by the President particularly on point:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Number two. I've stood up a privacy and civil liberties oversight board, made up of independent citizens including some fierce civil libertarians. I'll be meeting with them. And what I want to do is to set up and structure a national conversation, not only about these two programs, but also the general problem of data, big data sets, because this is not going to be restricted to government entities. (Charlie Rose Show, June 17, 2013)

If you are concerned about privacy then this is the most far reaching statement of interest by any President at any time.

Re: the FBI Director

This is a non partisan position and Muller has no public affiliation with any party. I remind you that at Gitmo when the FBI interrogators were presented with evidence of waterboarding that they packed up their bags and left because they considered it illegal.

People can be as skeptical as they feel they need to be. My point is that if you are embracing yourself as an FDR Democrat on one hand (when over 100,000 people were illegally put into concentration camps) and vilifying Obama the next then it is obvious that you have a rather obvious double standard. I support FDR but consider that he made a few big mistakes. I have yet to see anyone get a knock on the door under Obama and note that even undocumented workers have a significant increase in civil liberties under this administration.

It isn't going into a data base that worries me it is how it is used coming out.

I think we agree that there should be more transparency and accountability. I believe that the President also agrees.

Glad that we could agree on a return to civility.