Without comment, a comment from Techdirt: "The security theater is ridiculous"

[Jackpine Radical]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130804/10100824058/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml

It didn't stop the Boston Bomber. It didn't stop the Ft Hood bombing. It didn't even stop the Washington shooter. We shut down a city for Gods' sake and that wasn't what got the Tsarnaev. As soon as the police stopped their search a private citizen found the guy an hour later!

So now, our president, who supports these programs, wants to tell me that they needed these programs? NEEDED?!

No, you need a swift kick in the ass for lying to the American people. You need a better strategy than taking away the freedoms of the Constitution and only giving it to your financial backers. You need to learn from history and quit repeating it. You need to fire the people that have you wrapped around your finger as a public figure while you support their policies (looking at YOU Keith Alexander!). Finally, you need to grow a pair and face the music that the American public DOES. NOT. LIKE. BEING. SPIED. ON. BY. OUR. GOVERNMENT.

We did not sign up for constant surveillance. It didn't work for the past decade. You used drone strikes in our name and we're unhappy with that. You abused a war on an idea that was unpatriotic and created massive deaths in multiple countries. You cared more about your backers than the American people which you gave the worst debt to. You continued the Bush doctrine which essentially continued the problems that we've had since Reagan.

It's time to END IT! The internet is our global democracy, not the plaything of politicians that don't understand it. The government was created of, by, and for the people. Your surveillance is wrong, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. It cuts against political and patriotic lines and does nothing to help anything beyond the state to lose legitimacy. That is not the American way. It's the way of tyrants and dictatorship.

Cynicism--It ain't just for the DU Out Crowd anymore.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Good rant, but the problem was there before Obama and will be there after Obama.

POTUS is a punching bag for ranters.

Nobody seems to want to call congress on this, it's their fault too.

Also, "grow a pair" is just very sexist and I'm increasingly tired of that term, along with a half dozen others that get thrown around too easily.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I agree entirely with your comments.

I particularly despise the "grow a pair" meme, the equating of "cojones" with courage (although I love it when they misspell it as "cajones," which means "boxes&quot , and obviously the problem predates Obama. I have in fact written about some of the origins of the surveillance/social control state dating back to the Civil War. But I was re-posting something from a geek site, mostly as an example of how pervasive our national awareness of and unhappiness with the NSA and related problems is becoming.

[bvar22]

57. +I agree too, and THAT is WHY....

...we need to NOT focus so much on President Obama.

He is only the current Standard Bearer for the
Centrist wing of the Democratic Party who STILL push for
Reaganesque, "NeoLiberal" Trickle Down Economic Policies,
and "Private" "Market Based Solutions".

It is these Republican Economic Policies that are our BIG PROBLEM.
[font size=3]We have to KILL "The Invisible Hand"
before the "Invisible Hand" kills us![/font]



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[TM99]

14. So let me get this straight.

None disagree that congress must also act.

And because this was there before Obama, is now worse on his watch, and will be there to be further abused after he is gone, he is, what, somehow blameless?

Does he not have any responsibility, you know as President of the Free World, blah blah blah to actually not promote the wholesale gutting of the Constitution in the name of 'freedom & security"?

[rwsanders]

19. Yep. I know congress passes laws, but the operation of the entire executive branch is under...

the president.
Reminds me of another one that infuriated me, the Navy somehow "needs" to train in the Northern Right Whale calving ground. Got taken to court, the usual stuff and of course the whales lost, and you know what it would have taken the president to stop it?
A phone call, an e-mail, a directive, all in all about 3 minutes of work.
There weren't laws in question, civilian agencies involved, nothing. The Commander in Chief could have issued an order.

[Amonester]

27. Oh yeah, because he magically knows every single thing that's ongoing out there, just like

God himself!

Yep.

Edit:

[rwsanders]

31. So he never picks up a newspaper? No one in the USFWS does an update on endangered species?

The Right Whale thing was in the papers and the courts for years. And are you really trying to imply that he had no knowledge of the drone strikes or domestic surveillance?
May be possible, but if so he needs to have one of the kids pick up a paper on the way home from school, break out of the bubble and see what's going on. I think your contention that he doesn't know might be supporting the OP rather than refuting.

[truedelphi]

32. Actually, Malia Obama has been known to ask her Daddy a few pointed

Questions. She asked him about "Why can't you get someone to fix the oil drilling leak?" or something to that effect, in the months after the Deepwater Horizon event.

I am glad she has a conscience and I hope she keeps on pushing.

[rwsanders]

40. That's great, good for her. That is really the only reason the "dolphin safe" label on tuna...

came about.
Someone mailed pictures of dolphins caught in tuna nets to the homes of some of the tuna industry executives and the families got ahold of them.
Maybe progressives need to start lobbying Malia instead of the president and congress.

[90-percent]

45. Isn't there no more "dolphin safe" tuna labeling in the US?

Using it offended the Japanese and it was removed per the terms of an international trade agreement?

I"m just asking. I remember Thom Hartmann covering this.

-90% Jimmy

[rwsanders]

64. Got killed by the mexican fleet under NAFTA. I'm not eating it anyway due to high mercury...

so I haven't figured out a way to boycott things more that I'm not eating anyway.

[Maedhros]

22. The President is the leader of the Democratic Party

He needs to lead, rather than go-along-to-get-along.

[BillyRibs]

41. Blah, Blah, Blah,

yeah it was their Before Obama, BUT, Here's a NEWS FLASH! IT"S STILL THEIR AND THE POTUS SUPPORTS IT! So much for ranters using the POTUS as a punching bag. If you put yourself in the way of a moving Bus, it's your own fault you got thrown under it!

[AlbertCat]

54. T"S STILL THEIR AND THE POTUS SUPPORTS IT!

THERE... not THEIR.

Blah blah blah....

[BillyRibs]

68. OMG I'm Just soooooooooo

Intimidated. YAWN.

[AlbertCat]

70. No intimidation...

Just pointing out you used the wrong word.

I mean, if your statement is so important to you, you might want to use the correct words. Obviously, it's not important to you, so who cares what you're saying...even in all caps?

[sabrina 1]

43. Everyone has been calling Congress on this for a long time. Airc, we were furious at

Democrats in Congress who supported every bad policy forced on them by Bush.

And if you want to be President, then you should expect to taken to task for supporting policies which are the antithesis of what those who elected you, wanted.

All he has to do to get support is to start standing up against these Bush policies. I for one would be jumping for joy if I saw him fight for what he was elected to and what he promised to do.

[rhett o rick]

47. I have decided that "It aint Obama's fault." I think he doesnt have the power to fire

Gen Clapper. THe intelligence agencies were there with their programs running before he showed up. I am betting they told him in no uncertain terms that he had to go with what they had or else.

[L0oniX]

49. Congress / Obama does what the little people want? That must be something new.

I voted for single payer health care, for closing Guantanamo, for ending war, ect. Democracy is just an illusion.

[sabrina 1]

65. Not they don't. But in many ways that is our fault. We have allowed ourselves to be talked into

supporting Third Way candidates after the Party refuses to support real Progressive Candidates. We've seen now over and over again.

Fear of Republicans caused us to make that mistake. Changes in what we do have to be made because we know how what we have been doing has failed.

I eg, will never donate to any political pac. Donate directly to the candidate.

Nor will I support of donate to candidates in other states as we have done in the past, who are not true Progressive Democrats. We did that and look at where we are.

They don't need our money, they are already bought and paid for, but when we donate to them, we are depriving Progressives of at least some funding they badly need.

And all this talk of the 2016 Pres. race is meant to distract the people from focusing on Congress. I am not interested in that race right now, I am interested in primarying Third Wayers and replaching them with Progressives.

[L0oniX]

67. I totally agree. n/t

[rhett o rick]

46. Why dont you just say, "It aint Obama's fault." and save us the pathetic rationalizations? nm

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. x2

[xocet]

62. President Obama has the power to tell the DNI what to do.

The DNI has the power to tell the NSA what to do.

President Obama could initiate change if he wanted to do so: he simply chooses not to do so.

Yes, Congress would need to act to fix the framework of laws that have been distorted to allow what is currently going on.

However, President Obama could order change if that is what he wanted.

Hence, the president deserves to be a punching bag for ranters.

[gulliver]

2. More tedious, ungrounded assertions.

But hey, the all-caps-with-periods, now THAT.IS.CONVINCING.

[ProSense]

3. Maybe, just maybe

"It didn't stop the Boston Bomber. It didn't stop the Ft Hood bombing. It didn't even stop the Washington shooter. We shut down a city for Gods' sake and that wasn't what got the Tsarnaev. As soon as the police stopped their search a private citizen found the guy an hour later!"

...the program doesn't target Americans? This person is outraged that a program the President says doesn't target Americans didn't stop "the Washington shooter"?

Isn't that a function of law enforcement?

Wyden:

Not all programs revealed in the recent leaks found themselves under fire from the senator. When it comes to the NSA’s filtering through internet communications, including the use of the PRISM program, Wyden noted that the agency’s collection had created “information with real value.” Congress should add further privacy protections to Sec. 702 of the PATRIOT act, which authorizes the program, Wyden said, noting that “one program is doing all the work, while the other is along for the ride.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023322100

Also:

So now, our president, who supports these programs, wants to tell me that they needed these programs? NEEDED?!

No, you need a swift kick in the ass for lying to the American people.

WTF?

[TM99]

12. So how about you

or one of the other persona's enlighten us as to what some of this 'information of real value' is?

What plots have been thwarted? What arrests or targeted assassinations of enemies of America have been made based on these NSA programs?

If you are going to defend the programs, you kind of need to provide real information in its defense.

Oh, wait, never mind, I am sure it is classified.

[ProSense]

21. Does grasping as straw men make you feel better? n/t

[TM99]

37. You need to read another book on logic then.

Your post provides a quote stating that these programs are beneficial to our national security, and yet again, neither you or anyone else who states this will own up with us all. You and the quote you provided simply say nothing - no facts, no dates, no arrests, nothing.

So I will ask you again (but I am certain you will not reply with facts), can you please provide proven examples of these NSA programs actually protecting American interests and security?

[Android3.14]

55. I see you are back on the job.

I bet it pays well.

[savannah43]

20. Wyden, et al., can say anything they like, because they can never be made to prove it.

Talk about grasping at straws. Can't face the truth? The real job of the majority of elected politicians is to keep people like you quiet unless you're sticking up for them. Catch up! You're welcome.

[Waiting For Everyman]

38. ...because the Boston bombers had no foreign ties at all, right?

They were just all-American, Dobie Gillis, guy-next-door types. No ties or trips to any hotbeds of terrorism in THEIR background. They would never be in the NSA's FOREIGN database. No way!

[L0oniX]

50. Well ...that explains why the FBI and DEA all want access to that big ol NSA data base.

[dkf]

5. Wow the defenders are all over this.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I seem to have inadvertently chummed the waters.

[DirkGently]

16. Must have touched a nerve. They curse more when frightened. n/t

[truebrit71]

60. Apparently so...

[ProSense]

7. "Defenders"? It's a stupid fucking comment.

What the hell does the NSA have to do with "the Washington shooter"?

[Ed Suspicious]

10. You are indeed a tireless defender the NSA. Great job. I hope they give you a cookie

or something.

[ProSense]

11. No, that's your perception, and some people prefer not to deal with facts. n/t

[RC]

24. Yeah, we noticed.

Not event he obvious kind of facts.

[Logical]

30. LOL, really? You are not a defender of the NSA? N-t

[NYC_SKP]

15. I got an iPad4 last month.

Had to buy my own case tho.

[backscatter712]

13. A few of them may have been called in on their day off, so they're pissy...

[AzDar]

8. K & R

[DirkGently]

9. Wow. How do I fit this on a bumper sticker? n/t

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Without doubt, the most irritating thing about all of this,...

....is seeing the media as a whole rise up against this crap since it has been defined as the product of a "Liberal President".

When we were protesting this during the Bush Years they paraded the widows and orphans of 911 at us and accused us of either being amnesiacs that had forgotten 9/11 or traitors or "useful idiots" working for the enemy.

[adirondacker]

28. +1000. If only a Snowden showed up during *'s reign. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. Popular culture has embraced the idea that these spy agencies suck.

[adirondacker]

35. One of the biggest problems I have is allowing private industry to get involved. That, and the lack

of regulatory oversight. I would expect that Scooter would be serving a 20 to lifetime sentence if the system was working, and Cheney would be his cell mate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. In some ways, we can thank the over-reach of the Bush Years....

Thanks to the likes of Halliburton and Cheney the idea of companies doing work for the government got exposed as a source of corruption. Before that it was seen as a possible piece of junk that was the result of the lowest bidder.

[GoneFishin]

23. I guess then POTUS is just a powerless figurehead?

Well, just for shits and giggles he could stop nominating Republicans, Wall Street leeches, and Blue Dogs as agency heads.

[RC]

25. They kinda forget that part in their ceaseless devotion.

Makes me wonder which side they really are on.

[GoneFishin]

26. I understand why some suggest there are pros present, when facts don't really seem to matter as

much as regurgitating half-truth talking points that might fool some of the people some of the time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. They're on the side of a lost cause: Capitalism.

[Logical]

29. Two guys shut down boston for a day! Wow, not a good example. n-t

[limpyhobbler]

36. nice rant. It's not all Obama's fault except for that those are his policies.

So I guess it is his fault, shared with the Republicans and other assorted whores of DC.

"does nothing to help anything beyond the state to lose legitimacy"

yep. that's the big tragedy.

[midnight]

39. I agree-It's time to END IT!

"It's time to END IT! The internet is our global democracy, not the plaything of politicians that don't understand it. The government was created of, by, and for the people. Your surveillance is wrong, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. It cuts against political and patriotic lines and does nothing to help anything beyond the state to lose legitimacy. That is not the American way. It's the way of tyrants and dictatorship."

[grantcart]

42. So because it doesn't shut down 100% of the threats that means it doesn't stop any.

There are sensible lines of logic to be taken.

This isn't one of them.

[TM99]

48. But here is the real question

that you and others who support this refuse to answer.

What threats have been stopped? We know which ones were not....obviously. But no one will share which ones were. If they are stopped, then there is no need for secrecy. The bird has flown. So, can you or anyone else please provide a list of threats stopped?

Thank you.

[grantcart]

53. I support what exactly?

Since I haven't issued a policy statement on what I support I am curious what you think I support, especially in light of several reality based concerns I have raised on several occasions about efficacy and cost beyond the issue of civil liberties (see reply #52 below).

I will tell you what I don't support and that is overblown hyperbole and historical ignorance.

Someone else quoted an article by Noam Chomsky that intelligence gathering has NO value.

History has shown quite the opposite and in our major conflicts intelligence gathering has been the strategic factor in our military efforts.

It started with Washington's effective use of intelligence to surprise the Hessians and since that time where we have had superior intelligence gathering we have had victories where we should have been defeated and losses where we were militarily superior.

In the Civil and First World War there was no substantial intelligence advantage of one side over the other (except the South had more sympathizers north and were able to have generally better intelligence) and both wars were decided by intractable engagements of attrition.

In World War II we had a decisive advantage in intelligence in both theaters of action and in both theaters it provided a decisive strategic and tactical advantage. In the Pacific we were completely defeated and had the Japanese forces stayed in Hawaii we would have faced 100% defeat. Because we had substantially better intelligence we were able to defeat a much larger naval force. For an example you can study the Battle of the Coral Sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea.

In the European Theater we had also broken the Enigma Code and as a result was able to misdirect the Axis forces on where the invasion was going to land and as a result successfully land at Normandy.

After WWII Senator McCarthy led a politicized attack against our diplomatic and intelligence community and drove out our best experts including people like John Stewart Service who had been 100% correct about developments in China. As a result after the landing at Inchon when the UN forces went north there was a major miscalculation about Chinese intent and China entered the war. This lack of expertise in the far East remained and was a major reason why there were numerous miscalculations that led to major strategic and tactical errors in Vietnam.

So for those that argue for a complete dismantling, that is not going to happen but if it makes you feel better then go ahead.

The reason that they are not going to detail successes is because the reason that those successes succeeded rested on "sources and methods" and that is why they are not going to reveal anything about "sources and methods". It is not a new question. It can only be solved in a representative government by effective methods of overview, not dismantling. Such discussions are largely a waste of time here because the hyperbole has reached such ridiculous levels that sensible discussion is a waste of time. The fact is folks like you are all wound up waiting to jump on anything or anybody that doesn't agree with your completely unfounded perspective, and the fact that you would characterize my position without being informed of it is a perfect example.

[TM99]

56. I have studied history.

I don't require a lecture on the value of intelligence gathering.

This is beyond intelligence gathering. It is the wholesale collection of all types of data on private US citizens not involved or even suspected of 'aiding the enemy during a time of war'.

So it is hyperbole now then to ask a rational question of those, like yourself, who support the current NSA programs, what exactly has it produced of tangible value? The 'sources and methods' have now been revealed, for good or ill, by Snowden and others. So as I have said before, the cat is already out of the bag, the bird has flown the coop, etc.

If I am being asked to sacrifice privacy for security, yes, as a citizen of this country, I would like to know what exact security I am being provided. You may be more trusting, and that is certainly your prerogative. But to suggest that all who disagree with you are being hyperbolic, don't understand meaningful intelligence versus wholesale surveillance, etc., is bullshit. You are smart enough obviously to know that.

So yet again, I have a non-answer to my simple question. Thank you for your time this morning.

[rhett o rick]

61. I have two things to say about "overblown hyperbole". When Snowden came forward

the deniers started immediately with the "overblown hyperbole" They didnt say that we should investigate and put the issue to rest. They immediately started with the ad hominem attacks and ridicule. Bullying attempts to shut down discussion.

Snowden wasnt the first to point to a problem with the NSA. Earlier whistle-blowers and journalists, were ignored. Maybe it takes some "overblown hyperbole" to get the attention needed for reform.

Your insinuation that we dont believe we need security is ridiculous. But when tens of billions are being spent in secrecy, how do we know we are getting our moneys worth?

[nolabels]

69. Back in the day when they were giving person-hoods while writing the American State papers........

many were thinking giving some only a percentage of it was hyperbole. They later took it up again with a very bloody civil war

[L0oniX]

51. So then how many billions per stopped event are we paying for here?

Just wondering about the cost effectiveness. Waiting for the "how much is one human life worth" (as long as they are not on death row) (or in other 3rd world countries) or (not in my neighbourhood) response.

[grantcart]

52. I could not agree more

And have said so many times for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022958713

I suspect that in neither case was the level of surveillance that now exists was ever imagined at the time the security people started the operations, but that there is an element of operational creep involved that pushes the bureaucracy to slowly demand more and more.

Not only should this be pruned back from time to time with a demanding eye for civil liberty reasons it should also be done to reduce bureaucracy and wasteful use of limited resources. In the same way that we continue to buy tanks that would have been great for WWII but are no longer needed I suspect that this meta data mining is another wasted expenditure that is no longer useful because the enemy has made tactical adjustments.

In the example of the purchase of the tanks, however, the resources used are accountable and not secret and it is the government bureaucracy (the army) that pushes against the economic and political interests requesting that no more tanks be purchased. In a world of secret intelligence budgets without public scrutiny the public is left trying to balance unknown safety issues against unknown civil liberty issues with unknown financial costs.

Beyond the civil liberty issues there are also pressing issues of efficacy and cost and more transparency is needed.

That is not what this OP is about. The hyperbolic "hair on fire" over reach undermines asking more sensible questions. We should be talking about sunset provisions and a separate Congressional oversight committee to make judgments on efficacy and cost and that every 3-4 years each of these programs needs to be recertified on a cost/efficacy basis completely aside from the ethical and transparency questions that are also being raised.

[raouldukelives]

44. K&R nt

[Uncle Joe]

63. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Jackpine Radical.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. K&R