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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WSJ: The NSA's Surveillance Is Unconstitutional [View all]99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)40. In fairness, Snowden's whistle hadn't been blown yet under Bush
Snowden's huge data dump, exposing the omnipresent scope of NSA's
snooping, etc. had not happened.
Now that we are ALL "Terrorist suspects" under 24/7 surveillance -- if you
can fog a mirror you're being subjected to it <-- this kind of changes things.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I recall the exact opposite. The WSJ was one of few media pubs that rallied against this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#2
What's your point here? That this cant be true because some lowly columnist wrote it?
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#7
Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for WSJ - not a columnist. arely is wrong on this.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#10
Nonetheless, it was known & revealed that everything was scooped up under the surveillance regimine.
Coyotl
Jul 2013
#53
Snowden only released evidence of Verizon customers' phone records being collected. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#74
There was outrage back in 2006 when it was revealed that the telecoms were spying on
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#88
So now it's hypocritical to change ones mind? How would you expect to correct
xtraxritical
Jul 2013
#49
Not weighed in on this? The WSJ decides what to publish under its banner.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#51
Newspapers print op/eds that are contrary to their editorial board's position all the time.
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#61
It is presumed that people intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2013
#67
The 1st article is clearly marked opinion, but the one I posted is not marked as an opinion...
Melinda
Jul 2013
#8
It has a byline. It is not the opinion of the WSJ, but rather the author whose name it carries. nt
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#12
You're wrong about this. Siobhan Gorman is an investigative reporter for the WSJ, period.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#16
The opinion of the WSJ would be expressed in an editorial by the editorial board and without
arely staircase
Jul 2013
#17
It's not an editorial - it's a piece by an investigative journalist. Seriously, this is a bit anal.
Melinda
Jul 2013
#23
What other 'side' would a judge want to hear from when granting a search warrant?
randome
Jul 2013
#25
The WSJ and the Economist are fearful the NSA spying is uncovering money laundering and
byeya
Jul 2013
#43
Here's the law establishing it: it looks like a standard regulatory agency to me
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#87
Of course the WSJ would never have said this while Dummya Bush was a presidentin'.
Enthusiast
Jul 2013
#89