General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

53. It's still just people's words

Reply to ljm2002 (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 02:39 PM

Aug 2013

You're taking Snowden at his word that these abuses are actually happening; remember, all he's done is shown you powerpoint slides of the safeguards in place to prevent spying on Americans and told you that they aren't being followed. It's certainly plausible but he hasn't actually shown us anything to demonstrate it.

Wyden knew the NSA was keeping some data under the provisions of the PATRIOT act (whic h isn't the same thing as what Snowden leaked about) and asked a question he knew Clapper couldn't legally answer truthfully. It was a smart move. But it doesn't particularly relate to Snowden except that Snowden got people interested in the issue (without a big showy leak and white bronco chase, people would have greeted "NSA administrator caught in lie about extent of domestic surveillance" with a huge yawn).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

77 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There was no "legal" way to discuss mass surveillance. Wyden tried time and time again. [View all] dkf Aug 2013 OP

Wyden Warns of Potential Public Backlash From Allowing Secret Law - 2011 cantbeserious Aug 2013 #1

MUST SEE. Just posted this in Videos. Coyotl Aug 2013 #30

Congress makes the laws. They can change them. Congress is not impotent. ProSense Aug 2013 #2

Defy this President! earthside Aug 2013 #3

And how can they change the law if they can't discuss it with all those voting? dkf Aug 2013 #4

That's ProSense Aug 2013 #5

Did you read the piece by Wyden's ex deputy chief of staff? dkf Aug 2013 #6

Yes, and that comment at the link is from the same person. nt ProSense Aug 2013 #10

So you know all that and still post what you post? dkf Aug 2013 #11

Yes, I know Congress knew, and still post. What don't you "get"? n/t ProSense Aug 2013 #12

Congress, or at least the house, came close enough to doing that to scare the shit Warren Stupidity Aug 2013 #15

I thought you had all the facts G_j Aug 2013 #8

For starters, they can start showing up at NSA briefings. LOL KittyWampus Aug 2013 #24

That's all changed now. Now Congress is beginning to take the steps that should have been sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #9

Right, the President and Dems marions ghost Aug 2013 #14

That, more than anything, will give the answer as to whether it was all talk, or they really sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #16

Kicking it down the road is not acceptable now marions ghost Aug 2013 #18

That effort failed. The corruption is bipartisan and firmly in control. Warren Stupidity Aug 2013 #17

The effort wasn't expected to get even close to a successful outcome. In fact it failed by only sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #19

I agree that it was close and that caused the current charade Warren Stupidity Aug 2013 #21

That's probably the plan, and just like the Bail Out vote that denied the bail out, they sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #23

Pelosi saved it for the Administration dkf Aug 2013 #76

Exactly. And those that claim it could happen through morningfog Aug 2013 #7

What questions do you think should have been asked at Manning's trial? Recursion Aug 2013 #34

My point is that a trial does not provide the venue morningfog Aug 2013 #74

Rec'd n/t Catherina Aug 2013 #13

DURec leftstreet Aug 2013 #20

Some of those that object are assuming that revelations will look badly for our President. rhett o rick Aug 2013 #22

If the government makes laws that prohibit the exposure of corruption and thus JDPriestly Aug 2013 #27

I agree completely. nm rhett o rick Aug 2013 #33

Absolutely true... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #25

Well, that's not true. Wyden knew he lied because he's on the committee Recursion Aug 2013 #37

Let's break it down... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #42

Wyden knew the answer to the question he asked. That was the point. Recursion Aug 2013 #45

"We would still know" ljm2002 Aug 2013 #50

It's still just people's words Recursion Aug 2013 #53

Now you're just being silly... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #57

I'm agreeing with your last sentence Recursion Aug 2013 #59

Well I'm glad we agree on that at least... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #60

Sorry, by "we" I was thinking "people who care", rather than "the US in general" Recursion Aug 2013 #61

No problem... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #63

Wyden asked Clapper the question in March. dkf Aug 2013 #77

I hope you are as concerned as I am that there is such a thing as a "script" when rhett o rick Aug 2013 #62

There should definitely be a "script" in the public hearings about classified programs Recursion Aug 2013 #64

So how can Congressional oversight work if Congress's hands are tied by secrecy? rhett o rick Aug 2013 #67

Congress is who decides what is and isn't secret to begin with Recursion Aug 2013 #68

Congress may provide guidance for classifications but it's the individual agencies rhett o rick Aug 2013 #75

And the surveillance issue is a political one that needs to be discussed by voters. JDPriestly Aug 2013 #26

REC truebluegreen Aug 2013 #28

Kick And Recommended cantbeserious Aug 2013 #29

Problem with secrecy. Even "the government" isn't told what's happening. DirkGently Aug 2013 #31

Reporting crime to criminals always ends well. AppleBottom Aug 2013 #32

Worked so well for Thomas Drake DirkGently Aug 2013 #55

I don't know. The Government got its ass handed to it by the judge in that case (nt) Recursion Aug 2013 #70

After crushing his home, career, & pension. DirkGently Aug 2013 #73

"much harder for the Administration to claim that these programs are legal, if people can see" Coyotl Aug 2013 #35

I hope they weren't so egregious that they will be laughed at. dkf Aug 2013 #43

It might be healthy for democracy Coyotl Aug 2013 #54

Then what? I guess only �ber transparency will work. dkf Aug 2013 #56

Probably true. Can we stop screaming "the government sucks" long enough Recursion Aug 2013 #36

How can we influence it properly if they haven't come clean? dkf Aug 2013 #41

Can you put aside your disappointment long enough Recursion Aug 2013 #44

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Aug 2013 #38

Fantastic Artcile... From The Ending: WillyT Aug 2013 #49

Wow. Great article. lengthy, but definitely worth the read. kath Aug 2013 #39

If he had gone to anyone in the government... kentuck Aug 2013 #40

He could have taken it to Wyden. Or Rand Paul, if he prefered. Recursion Aug 2013 #46

And what could they have done? kentuck Aug 2013 #47

Well, Wyden showed one thing he could do when he went off-script with Clapper Recursion Aug 2013 #48

The "chain of command" is designed stifle dissent. We dont know how many people rhett o rick Aug 2013 #65

Wyden asked a question he knew Clapper couldn't legally answer truthfully Recursion Aug 2013 #66

Did that happen before or after Snowden? kentuck Aug 2013 #69

After; if he had done it before nobody would have cared Recursion Aug 2013 #71

Funny. kentuck Aug 2013 #72

K&R. silvershadow Aug 2013 #51

K & R AzDar Aug 2013 #52

knr Douglas Carpenter Aug 2013 #58