Obama's "Spy on Everyone" policy was already public? My *ass*, it was.

[MannyGoldstein]

Our President called it a leak today:

"I don't welcome leaks... Our goal is to stop folks from doing us harm and if every step that we're taking to try and prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspapers or on television then presumably the people who are trying to do us harm are going to be able to get around our preventive measures... That's why these things are classified."

Yesterday, James Clapper, Obama's Director of National Intelligence said:

"The unauthorized disclosure of a top secret U.S. court document threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation."

It may not be surprising to anyone who's been following the Obama administration's words and deeds, but "Spy on Everyone" was only suspected before, not known.

And just think - a week ago, they'd have denied they were doing this, because they hadn't been caught. Think about all of the other crap they're denying now.

Unnerving?

And the brave soul who spilled the beans on this outrage? They will go to jail.

We need to get our government back under control. It no longer serves us, other than serving us up to the Predator Class.

[geek tragedy]

1. The drone program was also supposedly a secret. nt

[still_one]

3. The CIA has been doing assignations for years. Read the pentagon papers

[xtraxritical]

120. Yes sir, the CIA's a hot date alright!

[byeya]

72. A secret from whom? Certainly not the family and associates of those murdered.

A secret from the American people, probably; but how much of a secret can it be when death from the sky is widely reported by non-USA media.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

2. a vocal MINORITY on here used to argue it was technically imposible, but since yesterday they have

changed their tune (since the cat is out of the bag) to "that's old news"... these people give me the creeps.

BTW: Manny, did you notice how quick our Dem leaders & the POTUS were to denounce the extra scrutiny of the Tea Party freaks, but not the extra scrutiny of ALL the American people?

Or is it just me?

Thanks Manny for all you do on helping to keep debate alive on DU, it's much appreciated

[still_one]

5. I don't know I see it as a pretty even split on du

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

12. actually, I should have said some, as they really are just a vocal MINORITY here.

Especially when you look at the polls done on here about these topics, the vast majority are against blanket gov spying on American citizens, but there are a FEW, who always come out with the spin to feebly try to cover for the admin, no matter what they do, even if it's the same unconstitutional policies that DU has been against since day one.

Definitely not an even split.

[still_one]

16. My point really was blanket statements are not necessary good.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

17. Just like blanket spying, right?

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes they are a minority, but even that few who claim to be democrats, and I do not doubt it, is far

too many. Because of them, same thing on the other side, who will support anything their team does, we are in the situation we are in.

Now we will have to start working as hard as we worked to get Democrats back in power, this President, to get some non-Third Wayers elected in their place. Congress is where the power is, that is where we need to focus our efforts, Too much time is spent on the WH when the power of the people is in Congress. Not THIS Congress, but one that understands why they are there.

It's no impossible to get rid of the rotten apples in Congress, we did it before.

Once we have a strong Progressive Democratic Congress we can begin the process of dismantling this 'Security State'. We are behind by a number of years now, we thought we were going to begin the process back in 2008, so we have to start all over again and we need to start now.

[Marr]

83. Yep, they always make those points and they are *always* there.

I agree that it's a minority. I see basically the same ten or so names making these lame defenses, but they make them everywhere. They seem to post non-stop.

[SolutionisSolidarity]

174. Isn't it wonderful when peoples hobbies and profession line up.

If I make more than a few posts in a day, it's taken up most of the free time that I have to spend online. But some people can keep going as if they get paid by the post. Remarkable.

[A Simple Game]

183. And some are so Pro Obama it just doesn't make Sense. n/t

[xtraxritical]

121. It was G.W. Bush and that Congress that gave us this FISA act and

it's the current Congress that has to repeal it. The President can not unilaterally shut down this program, I don't think. It's very old news and the outrage should be at Congress, not the President.

[Occulus]

6. AND THEY'RE THE SAME FUCKING DUERS DOING IT AS WERE SAYING THAT

Sorry to yell, but that can't, literally, can not be stated loudly or often enough.

THE SAME DUERS WHO WERE SAYING IT COULDN'T BE DONE ARE THE ONES NOW SAYING IT'S OLD NEWS.

[woo me with science]

11. +1000000

You can't even parody the apologism anymore. We are deep in Orwellian territory.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

23. yes, you are absolutely correct, and you are also right to voice it at the type of your lungs

I would also argue that these sycophants are also enemies of our constitution that gives us ALL the right to privacy under the 4th amendment!

Those arguing in favor of blanket spying on all Americans should be tombstoned, immediately, as they go against not only the spirit of this DEMOCRATIC site but also the norms, values, and traditions of America.

[sabrina 1]

25. And they think no one notices. Ignore them from now on. We have work to do and we need to start

now.

But to repeat what you said, so that no one is in any doubt, the same people who claimed last week that it wasn't possible, are the same ones now saying it's old news.

[byeya]

59. Right you are. There are some here well practiced in the art of self delusion.

[Marr]

84. +1, yep-- it's sickening.

[Zorra]

140. +1

[bvar22]

143. And they ALL seem to get the same Talking Points at the same time.

Funny how that happens.

[Fumesucker]

14. Preternatural flexibility is a characteristic of pom pom wavers

[boilerbabe]

18. lol. they are unbelievable.

:O i bet they stick pins in Glenn Greenwald voodoo dolls.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Yes, I have noticed the sharply different approach

In the case of the fake IRS scandal, they fired a guy who had zip to do with it then apologized to anything with a pulse.

And thanks for the kind words.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. You're confused

The FISA warrant was made public recently. That document was classified. But the policy of acquiring phone records from telecom companies was known since 2006.

[xtraxritical]

126. Frontline did a two hour special on the specifics of how they do the "vacuum" years ago.

It's another Benghazi at this point and the trolls are having a feeding frenzy. Also - screw Ben Franklyn all he had to worry about were Tory's with muskets and his terrorists wore uniforms. He would alter his views today, he was "practical". The fourth amendment does not specifically enumerate a "right" to privacy it's been inferred and interpreted by the courts in various ways. If your all for universal gun registration what's wrong with this?

[pmorlan1]

163. No, you're confused

We all knew about Bush spying via telecoms in 2006 (and earlier). The news from the Guardian confirmed that the Obama administration has continued that spying. Prior to that story there was no proof, only suspicion. The information that confirmed this (current court order) was leaked to the Guardian. It's a huge story because up until this story there was no proof that Obama, like Bush, was using the NSA to spy on Americans. This isn't old news by any stretch of the imagination.

[cstanleytech]

173. Correction.

It was the NSA who continued the program while with oversight from both the whitehouse and congress.
And the only reason its a big story is because there isnt any other dog and pony show the media has to entertain the masses as of this moment.

[Cali_Democrat]

177. When did Obama specifically say he would end the NSA collection of phone records?

Link?

[randome]

7. You mean the government no longer serves YOU.

In a Utopian world, I suppose no one would have secrets from anyone. But that's not the world we live in, is it?

You're mad because something was classified?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

10. I'm mad because *something specific* was kept secret

Spy on Everyone is awful.

[randome]

13. Phone record metadata is blase, IMO.

It's the Internet Age. Much of what we do online is not expected to be private anyways.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JDPriestly]

35. This means that the NSA of a sitting president can obtain

the phone records of the candidate running against his re-election campaign.

Now think about that please.

What is to stop him/her since this is all done in secret to begin with.

And this may explain why all our news media is so utterly full of cowards. Perhaps they have sensed or maybe even known that their phone calls, who they call and who calls them, is known to the administration. This could really discourage in depth reporting.

Think about things like Cointel, the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, all sorts of historical violations of our rights under the Constitution. This tops them all because of its incredibly broad scope.

Obama needs to stop these programs.

And look. All those phone numbers and even apparently a warning did not protect the people in Boston. It is a huge waste. This much information about innocent, law-abiding people overwhelms the very security systems that should be focused on those who are potential threats. Don't ask me who they are. But I think there are personality profiles that can point to the kinds of disturbed people who are susceptible to these grandiose, violent acts, and if there aren't, we need to do the research until we have them.

Collecting all these numbers is an absurd waste as is collecting all e-mails, etc. It isn't the quantity of information gathered that is helpful. It is the quality. Judging from the number of dramatic, mass murders we have, we need to focus on quality data not just massive amounts of it.

This program is not only, in my view unconstitutional, but it is not as productive as a good anti-terrorist program should be.

They are collecting thousands of irrelevant numbers for each relevant fact they get. How stupid can you get.

This is some sort of super-sales job by a contractor who is making a mint on an inefficient and illegal program.

[randome]

53. There is a process set up for all of this.

The FISA court, the judge who signed the warrant and the members of Congress who review the program are all 'guardians' in a way.

It may not be enough of a review process, it may not be adequate, but it's there.

If, as I saw postulated somewhere, they are looking for calling patterns then I could see wanting to look at the entirety of the metadata.

Of course the system could be more thoroughly reviewed. Of course it could be more open. And I hope we get more information about it in the days to come.

We don't know if it is a waste of time. Sure, government in inefficient but I do not expect, when a terrorist cell is stopped or yet another KKK or NRA whackadoodle plans mayhem, that Obama gets out in front of a microphone and says, "This is how we caught them."

Law enforcement does not work that way. You don't tip your hand that easily so that the next group of killers knows how to circumvent you.

I am okay with collecting phone record metadata. I'd like to know more about why but it doesn't bother me overmuch, either.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SlimJimmy]

159. It's not, and it's much too intrusive at this point. If the NSA had a specific foreign

target, and a FISA order, then I'd be okay with them obtaining all records associated with that person or group. But that's clearly not happening.

It may not be enough of a review process, it may not be adequate, but it's there.

[randome]

160. I'm okay with them shutting the whole thing down, too.

I just don't think it's fair to blame Obama for using the tools at his disposal and I'm trying to figure out why he does.

I just don't see anything particularly nefarious about it but, like I said, shutting it down is okay with me. Maybe if enough people truly lean on Congress to do something about the Patriot Act, we'll all feel better.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SlimJimmy]

162. Agreed. I think it's well past time to look at everything in the Patriot Act and

decide what is good and keep it, and what is bad and eliminate it.

[A Simple Game]

184. You don't blame President Obama for using the tools at his disposal? What if you called

an exterminator because you have a mouse in your house and the exterminator had some dynamite at his disposal, would you blame him if he used it to get rid of the mouse in your house?

[KoKo]

75. And, who sees this information? Not just a Govt. Controlled agency

And, who sees this information? Not just a Govt. Controlled agency but private Non- Government companies like the Chertoff Group who have access to this information. If they have access who knows how they use it? Are they compiling profiles to give to Internet Advertisers? Profiles on Behavior Patterns for Research in other areas by other agencies?

Non Government controlled Contractors can do a lot with this mass of information in Data Bases. It's expanded since Bush and that's the worry. Who besides some Government Agency sees all our phone numbers, tweets, photos, FaceBook posts Yahoo, G.Mail, Hot Mail and Skypes (which small businesses use extensively to save travel money in their budgets).

Our Government is Outsourcing this to other companies to do as part of supposedly cost savings. They pay "PRISM" $20,Million to Data Mine. Who works for PRISM...what do they do with the DATA besides give it to the Government. What other outside groups are allowed to Data Mine besides PRISM? Are there former Military involved in securing these contracts?

That's my worry from reading the information as it unfolds.

[GoneFishin]

107. The fact that you limit the scope of your comments to meta data is very telling to me.

It is a hell of a lot broader than that. But much harder to apologize for when the broad body of information from PRISM is included in the discussion.

You are cherry picking and we know it.

[randome]

150. The PRISM data SUPPOSEDLY targets foreign individuals.

They could be lying about that, of course, but I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. And I would like additional levels of review on that, as well.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

28. Well, if they have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about, right? Do you view elected

officials as somehow superior to the people who gave them the job? Are they different from the rest of us to the point where they feel THEY should be treated differently from the average person? Like Royalty eg?

If the above mantra re 'having nothing to hide' applies to the people, and it sure has been repeated ad nauseum over the past few days, then why on earth wouldn't it apply to the Government?

I view elected officials no differently than I view anyone else with a job to do. If they had done nothing wrong they had nothing to worry about. Considering how worried they are, it appears they had done quite a bit wrong.

[randome]

30. Classifying documents is clearly mis-used.

But there are some things we DON'T want to be public knowledge. There are some things we trust our officials to do in secret.

The only 'worrying' I see is the idea that some operations have been compromised because of the leak. We could all use some more information about the program but I don't see phone record metadata as particularly worrisome.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JDPriestly]

37. I explained to you about chilling speech and other guaranteed

rights earlier today.

Now think about the fact that a sitting president can obtain the telephone records of other politicians including those running for his job in a re-election campaign.

That ends democratic elections right there.

While Obama might not do that, some candidates would.

Further, if the news reporters know that their telephone records can be and are being obtained by the sitting president, they would hesitate to talk to sources that might give them vital information that would displease that sitting president.

That could make democratic elections mere facades (if they aren't already).

Besides, collecting these massive amounts of information is inefficient and overloads our meager security system. We don't really have the personnel to make sense of this. If the Justice Department could not bring banks to trial in part because of the difficulty and enormous work involved in sifting through the evidence (individual accounts and records), how in the world could anyone make sense of these massive random telephone numbers. That means that they collect all these numbers and then work from hypotheses about how to find the ones they need. That opens the field up.

They should only collect records on people suspected of crimes. That is what is legal. This business of collecting massive banks of numbers is foolish and unconstitutional. They should never have been able to get such subpoenas because they do not describe with particularity the things to be searched and they are not based on probably cause. Please read our Constitution. Read the Bill of Rights.

Cornell publishes a version that is searchable online. Please.

[randome]

68. I do get your point, I really do, about the 'chilling' aspects of this.

But if the metadata is only being used to find patterns, I'm okay with it. Of course we don't have any way to be sure of that and I can see more information being provided to reassure us, if possible.

But that information being out there now, it may be pointless to search for patterns because Greenwald just gave all terrorist organizations -homegrown and otherwise- information they can use to avoid this.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[KoKo]

77. Excellent post on this, JDP!

[ReRe]

45. But there's too much secrecy, randome...

... Yes, there may be some things we don't need to know. But, no, I don't trust any org or business or office that keeps too many secrets. Who makes that decision? To keep something secret in our government? Blind trust is a dangerous and sometimes deadly thing.

We didn't need that Patriot Act and we don't need the NSA doing what it's doing now (or whenever they started it, a long time ago according to James Bamford.) If you think that the USG didn't know how to find out something about somebody before 9/11, then I don't know what to say to you.

There's just too fine a line between secret keeping and hiding things. How do we know which is being done? That's why I don't trust secret keepers. Seems like, as time goes on, totally innocent citizens are the ones who end up on the short end of the stick.

[randome]

65. But where do you draw the line at 'too many secrets'?

Judging the current administration by its goals, accomplishments and character lets me give them the benefit of a doubt.

And if OWS (hate that name) or any other organization wants to get their act together and press for changes, I'm all for that.

Impeach the Patriot Act!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ReRe]

175. Yes, this Adm has done some wonderful things...

.... but the one great big giant thing they should have done in the beginning wasn't done, i.e. holding the Bush Adm accountable, wasn't done. The ADM and the Congress lost a great deal of credibility almost immediately. He promised to close Gitmo during his first few weeks in, and that incubator of terrorism has not been closed yet. And yes, he didn't work to do away with the Patriot Act.

The time to draw a line at "too many secrets" was the beginning. And PO did promise "transparency", as we all heard it from his lips. Thank you for this respectful conversation, randome.

[Ms. Toad]

48. Think for a minute about who was president in 2008

Really? You would have trusted Bush with that information?

Phone metadata = who you called, when you called them, how long you talked, and where you (both) were.

[randome]

64. With three levels of review as we have now, I wouldn't worry much about it.

Of course Bush tried to do this without review of any kind and got slapped down for it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Ms. Toad]

80. You really think it is OK for Bush to have the access

which President Obama has to all calls logged by Verizon?

The review comes when the request for data gathering is made, and because it is a secret request ordinary citizens whose data is being swept up do not know it is being done, and do not have the opportunity to challenge it (and members of Congress - as we heard - cannot challenge it because their knowledge of it is also classified.

And - once gathered, especially since we are not being informed it is being done so no one knows to challenge it, the data could be used for all sorts of purposes well beyond the purpose for which it was being gathered.

[randome]

153. I could easily see Congress ensuring that the data is never used for anything...

...but crime prevention. Limiting who gets a peek at it and all that.

That would be a welcome change. And to be frank, I would prefer that the entire program be shut down.

But if Obama thinks he needs it right now, whether for crime prevention or political purposes, it's not going to keep me awake at night thinking about how some hypothetical person might hypothetically be damaged by this.

If we want this to stop, we need to press for the Patriot Act to be rescinded. That's the only way this kind of stuff will ever stop.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Ms. Toad]

187. Bush thought he needed it too.

That is the problem with secrecy - when the person in power thinks he needs to do something, and it is done in secret, there are no checks and balances.

You're right - the Patriot Act should be repealed. But that doesn't mean that I don't also expect the president, who happens to be a constitutional law professor, to actually remember he is one - and to act like he respects the constitution (regardless of the unwise power granted to him via the Patriot Act).

Perhaps you, and organizations you are active in, have never been targeted and spied on by an administration that was too big for its britches. My family, and organizations I have been on the governing body for, have been. I expected better of President Obama - and he doesn't get a free pass just because I worked my tail off to help ensure his re-election.

[enlightenment]

96. Would that be the review

that you just admitted up-thread may be inadequate?

[randome]

148. Sure, it 'may' be inadequate. I can be convinced of that.

But personally I don't have any use for my own phone metadata so why not let someone else use it? They're just numbers and date/timestamps. Of no use to me at all. If I want to keep a secret, I'll stay off public communications channels anyways. After all, there are hackers out there.

I had to get a new debit card issued because of a hacker break-in at a grocery store. So hackers have harmed me more than the government has.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[jtuck004]

137. Just by-the-by, Richard NIxon had the same controls. Didn't stop him at all. n/t

[randome]

149. I don't think he had a panel of judges, two Congressional subcommittees and a signing judge, did he?

But you're right, this power can be abused. I'm not disputing that. I don't see that it is and I would like more information about the program. We all would.

But I'm not too worried about it. Cell phone records are routinely requested via warrant during the investigation of a crime so if anyone wants to hide anything, I would think they'd know enough to not use public communications channels.

OTOH, some terrorists and KKK and NRA whackadoodles aren't too smart.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[jtuck004]

161. As Nixon said, "If the President does it, it can't be illegal" or somthing along those lines...

I see what you are talking about, but we have a whole country that makes excuses for all sorts of bad behavior, treating the Constitution like it's just so much toilet paper. So all those protections don't mean as much any more.

The whole "terrorists and KKK are stupid" thing - those aren't the ones that we really need to be concerned with, I think. Regular policing can catch most of that, and snooping and spying on everyone's Internet and phone communication is going to turn this country into something I think most of us won't like, far greater damage than bringing down a single airline, as dramatic as that is. And to change it like we are doing it means we are letting the whackadoodles win, giving them far more impact and strength that they would have had from their biggest bomb.

The ones that can cause real damage aren't going to be caught by removing everyone's shoes in an airport or listening to all our phone calls, I am betting. The next really big event, and I don't mean like an OKC or World Trade Center, but big, is very likely to be biological, and those aren't stupid people by any stretch of the imagination.

[pmorlan1]

165. One point

Hey Sabrina 1. I know you and I agree on this but I did want to add one thing to your comment.

I do view elected reps differently because they are. They are our public servants and we are private citizens. We should know about what our public servants are doing and they should no nothing about what we are doing. We are the private citizens not them. Over the years they have reversed this - now they want to know everything about us and want us to know very little about what they are doing. This must change.

[JaneyVee]

8. It was secretly public:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

[FarCenter]

9. See this - "Greenwald got the media to bite on a story from 2006"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022968994

[nebenaube]

15. Nope

We knew about in 2004... sorry, try again.

[Corruption Inc]

21. Take it up with the president, he's the one who said it was a leak

So sorry, try again.

[sabrina 1]

29. It was leaked to the press during the Bush years and it was a SCANDAL at that time. WE, Democrats

were OUTRAGED as we should be.

Sorry, try again yourself. What happened when that scandal broke? This president spoke out against the violations of rights and promised to correct them if he was elected.

But as the outrage increased against Bush, Congress jumped into action. They passed a bill known as the FISA Bill, which made what was illegal when Bush broke the Fisa Law, legal. Yes, Congress including some Democrats, one of them being this president who went back on his original stand to vote for it.

So, yes, what we knew was that an egregious act was taken by Congress to protect the Bush criminals after the broke the law and it was exposed by a Whistle Blower.

However, since then we elected a Democratic Administration who had promised to restore the rights taken away by Bush. Some people warned that we were being misled after Obama voted for the vile FISA Bill but we thought, naively as we now know, that he would return to his original and later position on restoring the rule of law and end Bush's spying on the American people.

Having elected a Democrat, despite being very aware of the FISA Bill that made legal what had been illegal to protect Bush et al, we felt confident that things would be begin to change. We were wrong as he told us himself today 'I have kept Bush policies'. Yes, he has and he has appointed Republicans to positions of power that we wanted to go to DEMOCRATS. That is why vote for DEMOCRATS. If we wanted Republicans, we would have voted for Republicans.

The whole thing is disgusting.

[Laelth]

52. +1 for the truth. n/t

-Laelth

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Just one quibble

FISA was modified to contemplate this. FISA is a product of the 1976 Church Committee and it only contemplated phone calls. It was greatly expanded and for the first time included Americans in the net.

Otherwise, correct.

[sabrina 1]

87. True, I wasn't really clear on that. FISA was in place and was modified to protect Bush and the

Telecoms, it was modified retroactively also, something that made it clear they were trying to protect those who had broken the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. And retroactively violates core principles of American law

[Corruption Inc]

19. Yes but "nobody's listening to your phone calls" except Verizon, AT&T...

Apple, Microsoft and a host of others. Not to mention the surveillance of Occupy, reporters, whistle blowers and anyone else whoever speaks out about anything.

This entire Orwellian political speak of "don't worry, the spies ordered to spy on you are not spying on you" is so absurd that it actually fits perfectly with todays "post-reality politics".

[boilerbabe]

20. yep Obama's words by calling it a leak yesterday refutes their weak spin!nt

[newmember]

26. Worst administration ever

That will be the Obama legacy

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Worse than George W. Bush?

[newmember]

33. Yes not because Bush was better but because Obama was suppose to be different

The country knew what it was getting from a Bush.
Obama has thrown away everything he once believed in.

He's nothing except a long list of failed presidency's

[SunSeeker]

36. So ending the Iraq War, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Pre-existing Condition Exclusion don't count?

Saving the auto industry and taking on healthcare insurance reform and actually managing to pass a law that will cover people who could never get insurance before will guarantee him a place as one of our best presidents. Thanks to Obamacare, my middle aged brother with a pre-existing condition will have health insurance for the first time in his adult life. Bush was happy to let 40,000 Americans die without insurance every year.

Saying "Bush was better" is just flat out wrong and makes me wonder what you are doing on this board.

[treestar]

58. No, people with ODS are blind to that.

And that is what the OP has.

Note he is putting all his faith in Elizabeth Warren. How long would it take her, if elected President in 2016, to betray them all? Some practical matter is bound to come up where she does what she has to do and it betrays them.

And guess who will still be supporting her? Us, the ones who are accused of supporting Obama as if that's a crime.

[emulatorloo]

132. IMHO the Elizabeth Warren stuff is just cover.

OP has never ever criticized a Republican. Only harsh and false criticisms of Democrats. Has been pointed out to him several times. All then all the sudden he gets very flashy with a Elizabeth Warren sig.

[MannyGoldstein]

145. That's wrong, and unfair.

I certainly complain about Republicans - they're horrific. Do a search. If you look back in the DU archives, I was an early and ardent Obama supporter through his first Presidential election, until he picked Rahm and Larry and it became clear that "helping the middle class" was not his goal.

Why did Lincoln fire the losing Union generals instead of just bitching about the Confederacy? Because the Union generals were the only way to defeat the Confederacy. We need a great Democratic party to defeat the regressive forces we're fighting, and that's what we should all be working towards.

[Laelth]

54. I must disagree on that point.

W's administration was worse, by far. To the extent the Obama administration has continued and expanded upon Bush policies, it's pretty bad too. On other fronts, however, the Obama administration is much better.

-Laelth

[WilliamPitt]

125. Derp

[ProSense]

27. This OP

proves my point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969079

[Laelth]

55. Indeed. Nobody is offering any solutions to these problems.

Only a few people (with any real political clout) are standing up for the Constitution and the rights of the people guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Why is that?

The fact that concrete solutions to these problems are not being offered is evidence of the fact that the leadership of the Democratic Party has no interest in fixing these alleged deficiencies. It is the fact that the Democratic Party appears, once again, to have abandoned its base that irks me, and I suspect that many Democrats share my concern over this haunting betrayal.

-Laelth

[L0oniX]

181. Whatever. Obama is the one who has been reaching across the isle.

Do you see DU reaching across the isle to freepers? No need to wonder why some Dems are on the attack with Obama.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. I hear they're also in touch with aliens....

BTW: I hear Bachmann is going home.

[JDPriestly]

34. Thanks. Most DUers just don't understand the legal meaning of

what is happening.

It's interesting to me how many DUers who are really dedicated to civil rights and even human rights when it comes to race issues just don't understand what this means. It is very sad.

I guess that they didn't live through and can't remember the McCarthy era and the Cold War like I do. This sort of blanket surveillance is precisely what we criticized East Germany and the Soviet Union for. Precisely.

I wonder what else is going on. Are neighbors being encouraged to report or spy on their neighbors?

[jberryhill]

42. I guess I should make a collection

of links on DU recommending "report that to the secret service" about all kinds of stuff on the Internet.

[JDPriestly]

44. Violent threats should be reported if they concern the president

or others in our government. What does that have to do with our discussion of the surveillance? I'm wondering whether neighbors are being urged to report people of other religions or races or whatever as suspected terrorists.

[jberryhill]

46. FDR locked up the Japanese

...and that would be a tough act to repeat.

Our system is self correcting. Guantanamo is diddly next to the Japanese internment, and FDR is a progressive hero. We're pretty good at fixing the door after the cows get out, though.

[JDPriestly]

47. This surveillance door needs to be fixed. That's all I can say.

I hope we see some bi-partisan action on this.

I know that some Republicans like Lindsay Graham have come out in favor of it, but if they stop to think, they will have to ask whether they really want a sitting president to have a list of the numbers they call when they are running for office. I should think not.

[Melinda]

66. 13 Counties in FL have set up a such a system - iWATCH program (report your neighbors and friends!)

I haven't seen this on DU yet - it's fair chilling to me. The IWATCH program.

Sheriffs in 13 Northeast Florida counties announced an online system Thursday for residents to report suspicious activity they think may be terrorism-related.

Individuals can make reports online to any one of the counties from Nassau to Alachua that are part of the iWATCH program.

The site provides examples of red flags to watch for, such as people with an unusual interest in building plans or who are purchasing materials useful in bomb making. Important places to watch include hobby stores and dive shops.

Reports entered in the iWATCH system are sent to the individual counties through a central clearing house. It is also passed to other counties, in case the information can be connected to something similar or related. The program was set up using a $150,000 state grant and piggybacks on an existing information-sharing system law enforcement uses now.

Florida Times Union

[DevonRex]

38. *snort*

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. k&r

[Bolo Boffin]

40. There was a leak involved, but the program has been reported on several times. n/t

[jberryhill]

41. Haven't you always been showing your ass?

Your subject line is hard to figure out, Manny.

[Number23]

43. lol!

[pmorlan1]

172. Not hard to figure out

It's not hard to figure out unless your viewing it from the shallow end of the pool.

[sigmasix]

49. imaginitve reconstruction of the truth

Everyone is supposed to fall in line with this OP and it's premise because it's oh so cool to be cynical in the face of the reality of our world and the dangers that exist for America. Gaslighting the populace is the job of right wing and corporate media, why is it neccessary here at DU?
You can call attempts to protect Americans from fundie terrorists an Obama "spy on everyone" conspiracy all you want, doesnt change the fact that it isnt true or supported by the evidence.

[MannyGoldstein]

69. I said all of that? Then *you* said that the Iraq War was necessary.

You say that because I decry a specific action that's allegedly needed to fight bad guys, I am against all actions alleged to be needed to fight bad guys.

By the same logic, you must be in favor of all actions alleged to be needed to fight bad guys. Like the Iraq War.

[sigmasix]

50. america shouldnt have kept D-Day secret either

This silly notion that our armed forces and intelligence officials should have no secrets kept from the terrorists because some teabagger has a problem with the present commander in cheif is evidence of hatred for the actual America that exists and a desire for an America without all those pesky freedoms and liberties won in the civil war. This is also known as treason.
So our military commanders should send a nice letter to our enemies, filled with our plans, because this infantile conspiracy has the wrong politician in possession of the secrets and sole command of the combined military and intelligence apparatus.
Anyone that believes there are no dangers to America that entail the need for secret intelligence gathering is being simple-minded. Teabaggers have no problem with a stronger executive house, but they dont approve of the democratically elected c in c that is in posession of the most powerful political office in the world.
Cynicism and Conspiracy theories among some DUers seems to be the end in itself.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. Yes, that's what I said.

I love the terrorists and hate our troops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2970604

[Laelth]

51. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[forestpath]

56. K&R

[treestar]

57. You think President Warren will do away with all classified information?

Are you going to see her as betraying you if she lets the CIA operate?

Further, are terrorist attacks occurring under her reign going to be accepted? You expect she'll say, "That's the price we had to pay for our freedom" right?

[whatchamacallit]

60. She'll never be president

Unless I misjudge her character, she won't be able to make the Faustian Bargin Obama did.

[treestar]

61. She is too good a person to be President?

So the only people good enough to be President are those who can't win the election?

[whatchamacallit]

62. Yes.

[treestar]

63. Why bother then?

Does this include Congress and governors, etc?

If we can elect these people freely, why do the voters choose only bad people for these offices?

[whatchamacallit]

67. We choose who we believe are the best of the survivors

of a rigged system.

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Yes, that's what I said.

In some alternative universe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2970604

[treestar]

73. You have to say that

Obama is terrible for having these things and holding them over from an earlier administration. I say President Warren must do away with them, Congress be damned, or how is she not as bad as Obama is?

You don't get to make exceptions for her - tell us what she must do to protect national security. These laws are presumably still in place, and likely to be still in place on Jan. 20, 2017. What will President Warren, who can do no wrong, do? I assume she will get the money to close Gitmo, Congress be damned. Explain how.

I think what will happen is that she will have betrayed and disappointed you. She'll probably use all the powers the executive branch has, and be limited by the separation of powers too, and that's going to be a disappointment.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. She'll *try*

And if she loses, she will (as she's fond of saying) "leave plenty of blood and teeth on the floor".

That's all I ask. That's all that most of us ask.

We make progress by fighting bad stuff, not by embracing it.

[treestar]

76. What does that mean?

Blood and teeth on the floor? Ewwww. Do you mean that literally. If not, what damage will she cause to who? How is she going to live that down politically?

Explain how she will close Gitmo and where she will get the money for it. Explain how she will do without using any covert surveillance and intelligence and how you will react to terror attacks that may occur during her presumably two terms.

You're the one saying the right president can save us all and that's all that matters.

The generality of the above post does not answer anything.

[sabrina 1]

78. Since when did spying on the entire country have anything to do with 'protecting national security'?

Did you make this argument when this issue was first exposed during the Bush administration? Were you supporting him when a Whistle Blower revealed what was THEN illegal and the Telecoms, under that law which existed at the time, were subject to prosecution?

Airc, we were demanding that they be prosecuted. Democrats I mean, and even some conservatives who finally saw that these excesses were DANGEROUS to a Democracy.

And then, Congress saved them all from prosecution by introducing the Fisa Bill making LEGAL what had been ILLEGAL. And we all went to work to try to get Democrats elected in 2008 so that we could begin the process of ending these threats to our democracy. And the candidates on OUR side, promised to to do that, to restore our rights.

So what can we do you asked? Spend every dime, every minute we used to devote to the presidential elections to CONGRESS. Put the same energy we put into getting Democrats the WH and Congress in 2008, into electing only Progressive Democrats in the Senate and in Congress. If we succeed in doing that no president, regardless of who, can continue these draconian policies. Congress is where the people's power should be and can be if we work hard to remove the Corporate puppets.

[treestar]

82. Spying on the entire country?

please write a 9 paragraph rant about how the entire country is under surveillance. Explain how putting this metadata together for the government consists of spying on the entire country.

And you do expect President Warren do to away with it all, terror attacks be damned?

[ucrdem]

89. Warren is a tough-on-terra former Republican.

She wouldn't abolish anything except possibly the peace that Obama and Kerry are forging. The Warren-would-be-better meme is really dumb.

[treestar]

103. The OP believes she would be much better

to the point where he is campaigning for her in 2016 and overlooking 2014 entirely. Oh, and the 2016 Congressional elections.

So given the subject of this OP, it would be presumed that President Warren will undo the national security apparatus.

[ucrdem]

119. Go figure. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. It is spying on the whole country

It is building a database. It is the kind of totalitarian state bullshit we'd denounce if it was the Stasi I think you are blinded by partisanship, period.

This has none at all to do with party, and all to do with your rights.

I expect partisans to miss this...on both sides.

[ucrdem]

94. Like the IRS database? So maybe we should we abolish the IRS, too?

Hey, let's Stand with Rand!

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Look, I grew up in a country were we had to watch what we said

In the streets and on the phone. All your cutesy responses are just that, cute, and highly ignorant to boot.

You are blind to what is going on...I hope you never ever realize the truth of what you are defending.

By the way, welcome to non sequitur theater.

[ucrdem]

102. You do realize that this inane non-story blew a huge hole

in the US-China summit taking place right now, don't you? And that cyber-crime including intellectual property theft was at the top of the agenda until Greenwald and co helpfully made us look like total idiot?

Talk about missing the point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Do you realize I stand with the Constitution?

And that non story is just a talking point coming from a deep partisan?

What's next? You are with us or against us?

Or perhaps, if you got nothing to hide...

Some of us get it...obviously some don't. You don't.

And this is a huge story...

[ucrdem]

110. It was a huge story in 2003 when Congress shot down TIA

and several times subsequently as various Bush-Cheney crimes came to light.

It's a non-story now, except in the tabloid press, which is just about all of it these days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. For partisans it s a non story

By the way, TIA was defunded, but functionally it is at work right now.

Congrats.

And it is such a non story that it is being covered right now

[ucrdem]

112. Say the tabs. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Say the deep partisan

You really remind me of a republican circa 2003, serious. Same blind defense.

Some new talking points, but mostly the same.

[treestar]

106. We don't have to watch what we say here

We can ask for a lawyer any time the government wants to come near us.

What of the CIA, should it be allowed to exist? If so, how far can it go? Somebody has to do some spying on someone or we won't have the info. We didn't like Valerie Plame outed on DU, now I say, why not? Shouldn't her activities have been transparent?

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. You think we had to do this overnight?

I will admit, those who don't learn from history...

I guess it's time to find a mimeograph machine.

[treestar]

105. That database is a lot worse

Who calls who (and in fact there are no names) is nothing compared to what the IRS knows. They know how much money I make and how much I claim to have spent on keeping the business running. They know the amount of my phone bills. If they audited me, they'd know which carrier I use.

They know my marital status and my address. In fact they demand that exact information. That's a lot more spying than the information given to the NSA.

Plus they could use it to prosecute me if they think I did not pay all the law required me to pay.

And anyone who has applied for government benefits has been spied on to a much greater degree than that. Where is the OP to call for abolishing the food stamp program?

[sabrina 1]

93. Again, explain to me how the NSA knowing who is calling who in this country is going to stop terror.

You avoided most of my comment, but to be clear. These claims, 'we are trying to prevent terror' were made by Bush when he was caught using the Telecoms to spy on Americans, also, he was unable to tell us how spying on who Americans are talking to, what time they make calls, was protecting us from terror either. THAT is why they modified the FISA Bill because he could not explain it and had clearly BROKEN THE EXISTING LAW. So they CHANGED that law to protect him and his Telecom buddies and WE WERE OUTRAGED.

Once again, explain to me why WE WERE WRONG and BUSH WAS RIGHT.

[ucrdem]

95. Bush broke the laws, Obama doesn't.

He didn't create the NSA, DHS, DoD or any of the rest of the behemoth MIC but he's doing what he can to tame the beast. Some people don't seem to like that though. Hmm.

[treestar]

113. To me the President sounds perfectly reasonable:

You know, I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs, my team evaluated them, we scrubbed them thoroughly, we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safe guards, but my assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. And the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name and not looking at content, that, on net, it was worth us doing. Some other folks may have a different assessment of that. But I think its important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We're gonna have to make some choices as a society. And I can say in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our ability to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they are under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of US citizens or Us residents absent further action by a US federal court, that is entirely consistent with what we would do in a criminal investigation, I think on balance we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about.

But again, these programs are subject to Congressional oversight and Congressional reauthorization and Congressional debate. And if there are members of Congress who feel differently, then they should speak up and we are happy to have that debate. Ok. All right, we'll have a chance to talk further during the course of the next couple of days. Thank you guys."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251310274

But hey, let's not hear his side on anything. Hearing both sides might make it harder to rant and play victim citizen of USSR-like state.

[ucrdem]

117. Great speech. Video here:

Starts at 21:00

Off the cuff too. Remarlable.

[sabrina 1]

129. Wrong, Bush broke the law, yes, but then Congress adjusted that law, retroactively, so now he

technically did not break the law. That modification was an outrage, making Bush's illegal spying, legal.

Obama, who had spoken out against what Bush had done, in the end, voted to help make legal what was illegal when it occurred.

There is a higher law in this country however, that no amount of fixing of laws to get the guilty off the hook, can be overcome, and that is the Constitution. Laws the attempt to change the Constitution, such as this one, should never be supported by anyone who took an oath to 'protect and defend the constitution'.

Bottom line, Obama is taking advantage of an egregious law that he voted to to get Bush off the hook, to argue that what he is doing is 'legal'. Shameful, considering all his words about restoring the rights of the American people and his initial, publicly stated opinions about the illegal, at that time, actions of the Bush administration.

[ucrdem]

130. So I'm exactly correct and you admit it. Thank you. nt

[sabrina 1]

138. No, you couldn't be more wrong. The law was adjusted making what Bush did legal. Just as that

adjustment now makes what Obama is doing legal. An adjustment Obama unfortunately voted for. So the question is now, since his vote was completely a shock to his supporters at that time, me included, was this his intent when he cast it, to be able to do what Bush did?

He stated yesterday that he has 'kept Bush policies in place'. Certainly nothing to be proud of, is it? For his willingness to do this, he is receiving accolades from the likes of Ari Fleischer which should make any decent Democrat sick to their stomach.

This law will be rescinded eventually, as other deceptive and bad laws have been. History will not be kind to this period when two presidents in succession signed away the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Ben Franklin warned about this when he stated that 'those who are willing to give ups some of their freedoms for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety'. How correct he was.

We are not safe, and never will be as that is impossible and now we have lost many of our rights based on the false promise that we can be 100% safe if we are willing to give up some of our freedoms.

What a lie that is. How shameful that any elected official in a democracy would even try to peddle that lie.

[treestar]

109. I don't know that.

I'd need to hear from informed people on both sides. I'm not just assuming as you are that is does no good. Using the law of basic logic, it must do some good, or the NSA would not bother. They don't want to look like idiots and they are motivated not to be blamed for not catching terrorists before any attacks. Unfortunately no one on DU seems interested in discussing this technical question. They just want to rant on about how we live in a place that's just like the USSR (yeah ask someone who was there how it's so similar).

They may just want to use it after the fact. Like where someone is suspected of a crime, so their fingerprints are taken, and if they match the ones at the crime scene they are guilty. Are you equally angry that the feds keep a database of all fingerprints they have taken? Then if they find a print at a crime scene, they run it through this database, and if there is a match, they actually arrest the matching person for the crime. Is this wrong (keeping the database)? If not, what is the difference?

[sabrina 1]

136. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss it and you are asking good questions.

Is it wrong to keep a data base of fingerprints? As I understand it, that is done only when someone has been arrested on suspicion of a crime. As far as I know it has never been done to an entire population on the basis that one day someone might commit a crime. Treestar, this might surprise you, but I do respect you and believe you are very sincere. I often don't agree with you, though. So here's my opinion on that.

As a democracy, we often have to sacrifice convenience, even when it might be effective for law enforcement, to protect the rights of all citizens. IF we were to agree to allow the authorities to keep records, fingerprints, dna, phone records etc on all Americans, we would be risking possible, no almost certain abuses against the population due to the fact that unless we are so fortunate that our government would always operate on the highest of standards, giving that kind of power to any government is extremely dangerous. That was the opinion of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

We cannot ever be 100% secure, it is simply impossible EVEN IF we give that kind of power to the Government.

I think Ben Franklin answered your question very succinctly when he stated that 'those who are willing to give up some of their freedoms for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety'. That is a paraphrase of what he said. We as a society have signed on to what the Founding Fathers created. Because as a nation we value rights and freedom from government oppression, more than a wish for something we can never have anyhow, 100% security. It's a trade off. Totalitarian societies have promised that kind of security, but not once throughout history when a society signs on to those kinds of promises in return for sacrificing rights, has it resulted in anything but disaster.

So let me ask you a question, even if you trust Obama with these policies, are you prepared to trust the next Republican president with them? Did you trust Bush with them? He started these policies, WE did not trust him. There will be a Republican in our future that is a certainty like it or not. So what do we do when that Republican begins to abuse the laws we trusted a Democrat with? Isn't it too late at that point to try to change them? What will they say to us 'hey, you supported this so stop your whining now'.

In the end for me, it isn't about the president or any other politician. It is about keeping our eyes on what our government is passing into law and whether those laws have the capability of being abused.

I do not believe that spying on a population ever prevented or could prevent terror attacks. Terror attacks have been around throughout the history of mankind. There are far more effective ways of stopping terror. All the laws Bush inposed on us have not succeeded in 'making us safe'. Nor will they.

My focus is never on politicians, it is on our rights and freedoms and which politician is the most likely to defend them, as their oath of office requires them to do.

I consider all of Bush's policies to be a threat to those rights and could never support them.

So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. If spying on everyone has the potential to 'keep us safe' then it should be made clear how. No free society should ever trust any government with that kind of power over them. Any that have, have deeply regretted it in the future. Show me one society who once having given up their rights, were 100% secure and did not deteriorate into totalitarianism.

[pmorlan1]

171. Yes, spying on the entire country

Do try to keep up with the news. There are multiple stories easily accessible to anyone who really wants to know what's going on.

[Marr]

92. Yeah, because opposing "spy on everyone" is the same as saying nothing can be classified.

Welcome back to Non Sequitur Theater!

[treestar]

115. What can be classified?

What would it be wrong for a Manning to let go?

When is spying OK? On who? Should there be a CIA and if so, what can it do?

[kentuck]

81. Perhaps the President and his advisers do not understand?

That the Security apparatus, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs, the Defense Department, and others, want very much to create more secrets. If you oppose them too much, you could pay a heavy price, politically and worse...

They want their wars. It is all about national security. Anything and everything can be justified with those simple words: "national security".

But he's the President, you say. He can do whatever he wants. Really?

I do think the President may need some new advisers? He needs more opinions and more options than he has, at present, in my opinion.

[NoodleyAppendage]

85. Good for Obama that this Big Brother stuff came out after the election.

As a life-long Democrat, I would NOT have voted for Obama's re-election if I knew that he was supporting this PERVASIVE INTRUSION into our civil liberties.

Also, I still want to know if Prism or the phone surveillance programs were used to distrupt, monitor or otherwise hinder the Occupy Wall Street protest movement.

J

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. We know there was coordination from DHS

You think????

[Life Long Dem]

151. Yeah good thing

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=1&

We get who we vote for.

[arely staircase]

86. I have known about this since 2006

nt.

[MannyGoldstein]

97. You knew that the record of every telephone call made in the US

was given to the NSA on a daily basis?

And that Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple were feeding the NSA with info?

Anything else that you can reveal to us at this point?

[arely staircase]

99. yepper

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

As for the second part about Facebook, et. I still don't know that. But I ouldn't be surprised.

[MannyGoldstein]

101. AMERICA THROUGH THE N.S.A.’S PRISM

AMERICA THROUGH THE N.S.A.’S PRISM

[GoneFishin]

114. So then your actual answer is no.

"And that Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple were feeding the NSA with info?"

[arely staircase]

118. again, i knew the NSA was collecting all our phone metdata in 2006, didn't you?

and if not why not.

[GoneFishin]

122. I did not know about PRISM but admit, like you, to suspecting it. I presumed the phone data

collection was happening. It is a significant leap from presuming to having complete confirmation though.

[arely staircase]

124. I don't have near the problem with PRISM that I do with the phone data mining.

nt

[GoneFishin]

127. I do. They are not going to stop there. After it runs it's course you may.

[arely staircase]

128. I may. But tht is slippery slope speculation

nt

[suffragette]

176. It's slippery slope trajectory

The more this is done, the more systems to keep it functioning must be funded, built and staffed; the more "defense" cuts must be prevented; the more money must be siphoned to perpetuate it, etc.

[Life Long Dem]

152. Where Obama stood as a candidate

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?_r=1&

[phleshdef]

146. Wow, the OP is pretty much completely undermined by this article.

[suffragette]

100. EFF is stating the gov't is asking for more time for other surveillance cases now

Which is an indication the gov't views this knowledge becoming public as a change.

In Light of NSA Revelations, Government Asks for More Time in EFF Surveillance Cases

https://www.eff.org/my/deeplinks/2013/06/government-asks-more-time-eff-surveillance-cases


In light of the confirmation of NSA surveillance of millions of Americans' communications records, and especially the decision by the government to declassify and publicly release descriptions of the program, the government today asked the courts handling two EFF surveillance cases for some additional time to consider their options.

The first notice comes in EFF's Jewel v. NSA case (along with a companion case called Shubert v. Obama), which seeks to stop the spying and obtain an injunction prohibiting the mass collection of communications records by the government. While the Guardian importantly confirmed this with government documents on Wednesday and Thursday, we've been arguing for seven years in court that the NSA has been conducting the same type of dragnet surveillance. In the government's motion, they ask the court to hold the case in abeyance and that the parties file a status report by July 12, 2013.

The second notice comes in EFF's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeking the DOJ's secret legal interpretations of Section 215 of the Patriot Act (50 U.S.C. section 1861), which was the statute cited in the leaked secret court order aimed at Verizon. Sen. Wyden and Sen. Udall have long said publicly that the American public would be "shocked" to know how the government is interpreting this statute. The leaked court order gives us an idea of what they were talking about. The government seeks a status report within 30 days of today, June 7, 2013.

In both of these cases, the government has long claimed broad secrecy. Obviously, now that the DNI and many members of Congress have confirmed those portions of the surveillance program, any claim of state secrets protection or the classified information privilege under FOIA would fail in the courts.

[MineralMan]

123. Is that "No Way!" Manny writing?

Anyone who has been paying attention knew, even without the confirmation provided by that court order. The capabilities were known, and even disclosed in public documents. Where there are capabilities, those capabilities will be used. That is the first rule of government, I believe.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

131. If its technically feasible, you assume the government will use it

...and you're ok with that. Well, I can't say I'm surprised.

[MineralMan]

135. No. I didn't say I was OK with it.

I said that if something is possible, it will be used. I didn't make any judgments. I just stated the fact.

You're reading things into my words that are not there.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. e.g., see post #100 nm

[jazzimov]

139. First of all, there is NO "spy on everyone" program,

it is only targeting non-American citizens. Secondly, the "leak" was the leaking of the FISA document. Secondly, yes, we all knew about it and talked about it extensively here on DU.

[blkmusclmachine]

141. The Cheerleaders LIE.

And we know they know it. But boy, oh boy, are they out in force trying to get people to believe their lies that everything is just "no big deal." "Obama's got it!" And "11 Dimensional Rope-a-Dope Chess." NOT. BUYING. IT.

[MisterP]

142. it's like that New Outer Limits episode where the doctors are hooked into a woman's mind as it

collapses in on itself: anyone objecting to behavior way beyond anything Nixon did is now a GOP dupe, even Gore becomes a phony, and they defend the very program which they attack the GOP for introducing, because they say they're afraid that opposition to the policy will let the GOP win and they'll continue that same policy

[markiv]

155. 'way beyond anything Nixon did'

i lived through the Nixon years

your statement is absolutely correct

Nixon spied on an opponent's office, during an election he was going to win anyway (dumb as hell)

This is spying on every single call I made on the phone sitting in my pocket as I type this

[pmorlan1]

169. Yes, it is.

It is like an Outer Limits or Twilight Zone episode. I guess when you put in a lot of time campaigning for someone it's hard to accept that they lied to you. Unfortunately it happens all the time in politics. Any candidate you work for you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt. You have to watch what they do, not what they say. I just hope these hysterically shrill people come back to the real world soon because we need everyone we can get to fight this.

[pmorlan1]

168. The Cheerleaders lie to themselves and us

I've never seen people twist themselves into so many knots to try to deny the truth. You just want to grab them by the shoulders and shake them. They are so deep in denial that they aren't listening to anything. They are totally irrational right now. Hopefully, they will eventually come out of this trance and come back to the real world. I must say it's really quite amazing to watch how people are totally manipulated into believing demonstrably false information.

[donnasgirl]

144. Manny thank You

I have felt this way for a long time, I have distrusted government for years now and this and other issues just assure me my suspicions are correct.

[RBInMaine]

147. TeaLeftist Overreaction.

[frylock]

179. devistating reposte

[markiv]

154. 'To serve the Public'....IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[pmorlan1]

170. I remember it well

That was a great episode.

[BlueStreak]

156. SENATOR Obama co-sponsored a bill that would outlaw any warrants without specific probable cause

which just happens to be what the Constitution says. The bill was written by Larry Craig, and had a bunch of co-sponsors, including Senator Barack Obama.

Didn't take long for his values to change, did it?

[limpyhobbler]

157. On the one hand the spying and over-secrecy are outrageous.

On the other hand it has been outrageous for a long time. I think the MSM got ticked off when Obama started targeting the press directly, via the AP phone scandal, and by calling James Rosen a conspirator. So the MSM was already primed for outrage. So when the Guardian started releasing this latest round of stuff the outrage just blew up like that. But that's good because it actually is pretty outrageous. The mistake Obama made was in getting the MSM angry. That's why Holder was out trying to do damage control and trying to get all the DC press chiefs to the secret meeting that most of them boycotted.

[cartach]

158. TROLL !!! eom

[WillyT]

164. K & R !!!

[ileus]

166. this post may have landed you on a watch list.

[tavalon]

167. TIA total information awareness

Bush puppet's favorite project.

[gcomeau]

178. There is no Spy On Everyone policy

Get a fucking grip and try and focus your energy on non-imaginary problems.

[chervilant]

180. Molly Ivins would have loved this:

"... potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation."

Sounds like the same fearmongers -- Wolfowitz, Perl, Feith, Rumsfeld, and their lapdog pundits --who helped Bush and Cheney lie us into invading Iraq.

[NewEngland4Obama]

185. Its was made PUBLIC in 2006. Where have you been?????????????????

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET Share on emailE-mail | Share on printPrint | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this

Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic phone record collection program.
Enlarge By Roger Wollenberg, Getty Images

Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic phone record collection program.



REACTION

From the White House:
The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.
''The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks,'' said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.

From Capitol Hill:
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel ''to find out exactly what is going on.''

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the panel, sounded incredulous about the latest report and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of Congress.
''Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?'' Leahy asked. ''These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything ... Where does it stop?''
The Democrat, who at one point held up a copy of the newspaper, added: ''Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents.''

The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden - Bush's choice to take over leadership of the CIA - had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

Source: The Associated Press



NSA SURVEILLANCE

Opinion: Congress in the dark | Specter: My bill would provide light



ACLU, NSA to head to court



VP pressured panel, Specter says



Senators won't grill phone companies



FCC: NSA probe impossible



Pre-9/11 records help flag suspicious calling

More




TIMELINE





OFFICIAL WORDS ON SURVEILLANCE

Bush administration officials have said repeatedly that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is carefully targeted to include only international calls and e-mails into or out of the USA, and only those that involve at least one party suspected of being a member or ally of al-Qaeda or a related terror group.

Some comments related to what the administration calls the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and surveillance in general:


Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, and now Bush's nominee to head the CIA, at the National Press Club, Jan. 23, 2006:

"The program ... is not a drift net over (U.S. cities such as) Dearborn or Lackawanna or Fremont, grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.

"This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al-Qaeda. ... This is focused. It's targeted. It's very carefully done. You shouldn't worry."


Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Feb. 6, 2006:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "Only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is, communications between a foreign country and this country. ...

"To protect the privacy of Americans still further, the NSA employs safeguards to minimize the unnecessary collection and dissemination of information about U.S. persons."

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.: "I don't understand why you would limit your eavesdropping only to foreign conversations. ..."

Gonzales: "I believe it's because of trying to balance concerns that might arise that, in fact, the NSA was engaged in electronic surveillance with respect to domestic calls."





By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

[GoneFishin]

186. Nothing presented here by the apologists excuses it or mitigates how disgusting it is.

The fact that Bush did this too is a straw man argument. I never had any good expectations from Bush. I didn't vote for him.

Some posters emphasize that some of this information has already been disclosed. So what. Another straw man argument.

These arguments must be on a talking points list somewhere because these same ones are brought up over and over as though these posters have no original thoughts of their own.

I also don't care if YOU don't mind being spied on. Maybe you don't pull your shades at night either. Don't tell me I shouldn't pull mine.