Obama To Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'

[cali]

This is the kind of comment that just makes me shake my head.

President Obama on Tuesday defended the , telling that: "There is no spying on Americans."

"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on . "What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack. ... That information is useful."

Obama also called the National Security Agency's surveillance a "critical component to counterterrorism," and defended the shutdown of U.S. embassies and travel warnings this weekend, saying they followed information about a possible terror threat "significant enough that we're taking every precaution."

But he added: "We're going to live our lives," and noted that for Americans, the the odds off dying in a terrorist attack is lower than dying in a car accident.

<snip>

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans

[randome]

1. Let's see, Snowden's claims versus the President's.

I'll go with Obama, please. And if anyone wants to point me to some evidence to the contrary, instead of insisting "It's out there! All you have to do is look for it!", I'll be happy to consider it.

Notice I said 'evidence'. Not more vague claims.

"I am not here to hide from justice." Sorry, that always cracks me up!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

2. You think the Reuters NSA/SOD/DEA story is complete BS?

[randome]

3. The writer of that article did not ask whether or not the data furnished...

...came from a foreign source. Which is kind of the NSA's responsibility, to monitor foreign communications.

A might-have/could-have insinuation is not 'evidence' to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

131. Convenient for you that they illegally hide sources so you can go on believing.

It suits your world view for them to lie.

[randome]

172. Clearly we both are inclined to believe one position over another.

But to implicate someone, we still need evidence. I do not approve of what the SOD may be doing but I want to see something more than claims.

Fortunately for us both, the DOJ has opened an investigation into this department. Let's hope it's a thorough one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[KurtNYC]

4. okay...

All phone calls are recorded; source:FBI agent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319789/ALL-phone-calls-US-recorded-accessible-government-claims-FBI-agent.html

FBI says it doesn't need warrants thus confirming that they are doing this:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/8/4312666/fbi-operations-guide-ecpa-email-access-without-warrant

How the system works as confirmed by General Petraeus:
http://www.zdnet.com/yes-the-fbi-and-cia-can-read-your-email-heres-how-7000007319/

And, finally, in keeping with the OP, some more Leno...

[randome]

11. Former FBI agents may not be the best source of the NSA organization.

The reading the emails -again, this is FBI, not NSA- is troublesome, I admit. But there are legal guidelines regarding this. They should likely be changed.

And Petraeus. I would think any high-ranking intelligence official has his email monitored. It seems only prudent.

The only one that bothers me is the FBI claim that they can look at emails without a warrant. Again, there is legal justification for that so they may actually be operating within the guidelines. But we should have a public conversation about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[snooper2]

41. explain to me the infrastructure required to record all phone calls

we are talking around a trillion MOU a month for all US Carriers-


Go ahead, I'm all ears

[Marr]

61. If I had to take a guess,

I'd say voice recognition software that transcribes the content into a (searchable) text format. It'd be much smaller in file size, too, of course.

[snooper2]

76. Voice recongnition software is running about 83-84% accuracy

You know how much bandwidth all of the active calls in the US require at busy hour?

[Marr]

119. Eighty-three percent is very good.

And I'm sure the total bandwidth involved is gargantuan taken all together, but so what? It's not taken all together. I don't see what's supposed to be so technically unfeasible, so long as you have the cooperation of service providers.

I mean, this data is carried every day and no one finds it particularly shocking. And it's already 'recorded', however briefly, as it's transferred. Transcribing a percentage of that content at some point in the transfer would hardly be that impressive a feat, compared to actually carrying it.

[snooper2]

128. "and it's already 'recorded', however briefly, as it's transferred."

LOL,

Packets don't work like that. Do some google searches on recording of RTP, read for a couple hours then come back to me-

Also, come to Plano TX and I'll bring you in the lab and show you if you think 83% is good. My counterpart, who has a strong accent, the transcription capabilities went to shit. Check out ScanSoft/Nuance communications

[Marr]

144. I think you know I'm not saying it's physically recorded like a tape recording.

I'm saying you aren't talking into a can with a string attached to it. The data could be transcribed en route.

As for your friend with an accent, well no kidding. English pronounced with an accent is harder for voice recognition software to translate.

If he were speaking his native language, it would not be so hard to translate.

[ceonupe]

177. The us government

And it's private contractors pay lots of money for persons that speak native tounges and languages and dialects.

Many Arabic and tribal dialect speaking college kids are given high paying jobs doing this type of work. Heck if u have IT skills and that u are golden still and can easily make over 100k. This is all assuming u can pass a background check and obtain security clearance.


Once you know who is calling who you can selectively listen and randomly record for later processing other calls.

Also we are talking about voice traffic (not impossible to record it all and store it for long periods of time where you run futher analysis on it and keep what u deem needed to keep.)

For the data traffic (an amazing amount of data transported is repeated data and has little value and lots of the heavy data hogs are Netflix YouTube type stuff that they already have direct access to thru agreements policy and law ) an example is only thing that needs to be captured from my post is just my response not the whole page and all the HTML and graphics that checksum out to items already cached .

We are building a huge data center that is mostly underground. And have tons of government and government contractor run data centers in buildings all over America and offshore.

[KurtNYC]

151. At 1 Mb per minute that is only 1 trillion Mb, or 931 petabytes

but with decent compression and limiting the audio spectrum to mono and a narrow range, say 300 to 3000 Hz you can get 1 hour of audio down to 3.6 Mb.

So now for your mythical month where every phone in the USA is used for 3,000+ minutes, we need only 56 petabytes. Facebook has well over 100 petabytes of storage capacity, so approximately one half the capacity of Facebook's servers would be adequate.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Right they're not 'spying' on them they're just 'collecting data' from them... n/t

[randome]

19. Data sitting on a hard drive in Verizon or the NSA.

Which organization is more likely to be concerned with the Bill of Rights? Surely you don't think corporations give much credence to such things.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[PoliticAverse]

39. The NSA Bill of Rights is apparently missing some parts...

And the Bill of Rights was about the Federal Government, not private corporations like Verizon.

[randome]

51. I can't watch that now at work.

Is he trying to parse the language a bit too far? His 'opinion' is still not evidence of wrong-doing, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[EOTE]

116. He's saying that the 4th amendment makes no mention of probable cause.

And given by the looks of things lately, it appears the NSA agrees with him.

[markiv]

112. disturbing nt

[dkf]

133. I miss Keith Olbermann.

[cali]

13. Of course you will. There's plenty of evidence. Kurt points to some of

it in his post.

You won't consider it. Your mind is closed to anything that in any way contradicts the President.

Hardly worth talking to people with such tightly closed minds.

[randome]

18. I already addressed Kurt's evidence.

Vague claims by a former FBI agent? And no follow-up questions from the interviewer. How are they 'storing everything'? Inquiring minds might want to know that.

We have telecom experts on DU who say it's all nonsense. If he wanted to 'spill the beans', why didn't he offer up any specifics? Without specifics, he sounds like someone who wants attention for himself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Marr]

66. That's addressing the information? Really?

Asking for clarification on a couple of points, and questioning the source's reliability based on absolutely nothing is "addressing" it? Your thinking couldn't be more biased.

This part describes that bias very clearly:

"We have telecom experts on DU who say it's all nonsense."

No-- there are posters on the internet, whom you know nothing about whatsoever, who claim it's all nonsense. They could be telecom experts or they could be toy makers. You don't know. Internet credentials mean nothing. But you're choosing to believe them over a former FBI agent who could reasonably claim to have had some interaction with the program in question, and does so on the record.

I'm not saying I'd take him on his word alone, but I certainly think that word carries more weight than an anonymous internet post by someone claiming to be an expert.

[randome]

70. You have a point. Internet posters are not the ultimate source of information.

But I think it's more than just a 'couple of points' to know how this is being done, where it's being done, etc. The kind of journalism questions I was taught should always be asked.

And the weight of posters -more than one- who say it's nonsense is just as much weight as a single, former FBI official who offers no details of his own.

All statements are evidence, I agree. But only if they lead to the truth. Otherwise, they're just statements.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[chimpymustgo]

26. Obama is straight-up lying. Perhaps you can call it "semantics". Or you can call it lying.

Numerous sources - inside and outside government - have confirmed the massive surveillance, the data collection.

I think Obama's specious argument here is that they can "collect" your data, and it's not "spying" until they use it.

Kind of like, they can steal your money, but it's not "stealing" until they "spend" it.

Obama knows just enough Americans are stupid, afraid, and gullible enough to go along.

[randome]

47. Maybe that applies to the metadata, which is a business record not subject to 4th Amendment.

But if they are 'gathering', 'collecting' data on Americans without regard to that exception, I'd agree that needs to stop.

With as many providers and telecoms as there are in this country, I kind of doubt that is happening.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Union Scribe]

83. Does it hurt, how much you have to bend

to parse words enough to defend all this?

[randome]

96. Again, the metadata storage is not illegal. Go ahead and make it illegal, that's fine with me.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

148. it is not just metadata

the following is what current admin admitted on charlie rose/////




It gets run through the system, split into two parts, and stored until data-mining finds an "articulable suspicion", and another agency is alerted and seeks a FISA warrant. The content isn't looked at until a warrant is issued, we are told, but the content (acquired by the universal collection 2015 program) -- which must be minimized under 702 if not obtained with a proper FISA warrant -- is retained in a compartmentalized state. The content is isolated electronically (encrypted) from the metadata - that's how Bill Binney explained the process. The President also admits that's how the process works, here:

STEP 1: "2015" sweeps up the content and metadata into a database:

"You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is, is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place. So that database is sitting there," he said.

STEP 2: The NSA encrypts the content, stores the content, and profiling software start crawling through the metadata looking for links to foreign bad guys. NSA managers can deencrypt and put it back together again if the profiilng and datamining software shows there's an "articulable suspicion." FBI obtains a FISA warrant.

"Now, if the NSA through some other sources, maybe through the FBI, maybe through a tip that went to the CIA, maybe through the NYPD. Get a number that where there's a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this might involve foreign terrorist activity related to al-Qaeda and some other international terrorist actors.

Then, what the NSA can do is it can query that database to see did this number pop up? Did they make any other calls? And if they did, those calls will be spit out

STEP 3: NSA sends the reassembled data over to CIA or FBI:

A report will be produced. It will be turned over to the FBI. At no point is any content revealed because there's no content," Obama explained.


////////////////// look at step 2.....there clearly is content

[randome]

174. I have no idea what "universal collection 2015" is. I Google, all I get are DU pages.

Obama says upfront that no content is stored. I don't know what STEP 2 is supposed to be. Is that quoting someone else?

It sounds like the 'content' being spoken of is the metadata itself. Technically, metadata is not content but sometimes when referring to the metadata in specifics, some might use the word 'content'. Obviously there is 'content' in the case of numbers and letters for individuals.

That's a far cry from 'content' meaning recorded conversations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. If money were digital then you might have a point...

otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges...

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. US court renews permission to NSA to collect phone metadata

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has renewed permission to the U.S. government for a controversial program to collect telephone metadata in bulk.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence said the government filed an application with the FISC seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and the court renewed that authority, which expired on Friday.

The information was being disclosed “in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program,” and an earlier decision by DNI James R. Clapper to declassify certain information relating to the program, it said.

The secret court has been set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires the government to obtain a judicial warrant for certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044883/us-court-renews-permission-to-nsa-to-collect-phone-metadata.html

[randome]

53. Business records are not subject to 4th Amendment protections.

If that needs to change, fine, but I don't have a problem with NSA storing a copy of such data in a secure location.

Carl Bernstein said it sounds like they have a strong review system before the data can be looked at.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. The definition of 'spying' is not 'breaks the 4th Amendment'

What you're saying is that the NSA does spy on millions of Americans, but you don't have a problem with it.

With 3 'hops,' NSA gets millions of phone records

Testimony before Congress on Wednesday showed how easy it is for Americans with no connection to terrorism to unwittingly have their calling patterns analyzed by the government.

It hinges on what's known as "hop" or "chain" analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people.
...
"So what has been described as a discrete program, to go after people who would cause us harm, when you look at the reach of this program, it envelopes a substantial number of Americans," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

John Inglis, the NSA's deputy director, conceded the point but said NSA officials "try to be judicious" about conducting hop analysis.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/united_states_ap/government-braces-for-coming-changes-to-nsa-powers/article_148fe8fa-9f5b-513a-bc53-6f00a9299873.html

You have faith that all those NSA employees and contractors are 'judicious'.

Document suggests bulk collection of Americans' phone records is 'relevant' for terrorism investigations – but critics disagree

"NSA shall ensure, through adequate and appropriate technical and management controls, that queries of the BR (business records) metadata for intelligence analysis purposes will be initiated only using a selection term that has been RAS-approved," former Fisa court judge Roger Vinson wrote on April 25, using an acronym for "reasonable articulable suspicion", the legal standard NSA must meet to search the database – a standard judges do not certify the NSA has met before each search.
...
But Vinson also wrote that the NSA's "technical personnel may query the BR metadata using selection terms that have not been RAS-approved … and may share the results of those queries with other authorized personnel responsible for these purposes, but the results of any such queries will not be used for intelligence analysis purposes".

A footnote in the document specifies that "technical personnel responsible for NSA's corporate infrastructure and the transmission of BR metadata" may handle the phone records data without the "special training" in court-ordered restrictions undergone by NSA intelligence analysts. They do not require "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do so.

NSA algorithms, and not just human analysts, search through the databases. Vinson specified that searches through NSA's phone records database can occur "either by manual analyst query or through the automated query process described below."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/us-government-declassifies-court-order-nsa-surveillance

[randome]

71. No, I truly don't have a problem with metadata retention and I don't consider it spying.

If enough people believe differently, change the law so that business records in bulk cannot be obtained.

It's all the same to me.

But 'spying' to me means actively monitoring someone's activities. There is no evidence the NSA is doing that to American citizens except as an inadvertent activity when investigating a foreign suspect. Such as reading an email from a foreign suspect that is sent to an American citizen. An NSA analyst cannot 'unsee' that American citizen's involvement.

So far as we know, that's about the extent of the NSA's spying on American citizens.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. The SOD evidence is there, used in drugs operations

They are lying to courts about it. It's already been mentioned , but you're pretending it's not there.

[randome]

74. The SOD 'evidence' about NSA collaboration?

Why didn't anyone think to ask if the data NSA furnished referred to a foreign individual? That's what NSA does, it monitors foreign communications.

And I don't like the idea of the SOD being used this way. Maybe it should cease. That's nothing to do with spying, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. No, the NSA also monitors communications inside the USA

All the documents that have been cited confirm this. It's ridiculous for you to deny it. They admit it. What do you think they said they were 'judicious' about?

[randome]

84. The NSA monitors communications of foreign individuals.

I forget if those individuals need to be outside our borders but I believe they do. I'm not sure what else you're talking about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. And it monitors the communications of the Americans they talk to

That's the whole point of the 'three hops' rule - the Americans they talk to are one hop, the Americans those talk to are 2 hops, those they talk to are 3 hops. All this can be analysed by the NSA, without having to get warrants to cover each investigation - it's 'business as usual' for them.

[randome]

101. I think there is legislation to change this.

That is still not the same thing as imagining a vast surveillance state or that the government is spying on all of us indiscriminately. It is still part of an ongoing investigation.

Restricting the number of hops? Again, I'm fine with that. Restraining the reach of the NSA? Again, fine with me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. So we conclude that the government does spy on Americans, just not every single one

Just those 3 degrees of separation from a foreign suspect.

[randome]

120. I can see your point about wanting to change that.

And that would constitute 'spying' unless the 'hop' is intended to find out whether someone is a citizen or not.

I would think -and it's just speculation on my part- that once it is determined a communicant is American, that's when the warrant machinery goes into action. But you can't request a warrant for an American citizen until you have verified that he/she is, in fact, an American citizen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

137. Helloooooo...the SOD spies on Americans so they can give tips to the DEA to pull over people on a

Pretext.

For all we know they make up a broken tail light or speeding so they can search these vehicles and persons.

The Reuters article is about domestic spying being used for criminal prosecutions.

[randome]

141. I'm not sure that's at all clear.

LE agencies try to find alternate ways to get 'the goods' on suspects all the time. 'Recreating a trail' may not mean actively spying or manufacturing evidence.

If it does, that needs to stop. Secrecy breeds distrust and there is too much secrecy in all these agencies. I'm all in favor of opening them up to the sunlight and letting the chips fall where they may.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

143. Ether you didn't read it carefully or you conveniently have forgotten what it said..

A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

[randome]

147. Sounds more like this.

Agent A encounters Suspect, who quickly crumples up a piece of paper and hides it on his person then walks quickly away, glancing over his shoulder repeatedly.

No legitimate reason to detain Suspect, is there? But based on body language and behavior, Agent A 'knows' Suspect has the evidence on him.

Agent A alerts Agent B to detain Suspect at a vehicle stop and that a drug search may prove fruitful.

Is that all there is to it? I don't know and I don't have a problem with the SOD being more up front about what they do or even being disbanded altogether.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

150. No...they are pulling over vehicles not looking at suspicious behavior from suspects.

This is what the former agent described as the usual process.

[dkf]

145. And they recreate the trail so they don't have to reveal the spying.

[MADem]

100. Back before these nationwide calling plans, I remember getting a copy of my

"metadata" on half-sized sheets of paper every month.

It would tell me that I called this number in Chicago and talked for 12 minutes at 8:21 PM, and that I called this other number in Atlanta at 9:02 PM and talked for 14 minutes, and that I called Lebanon at 6:44 AM and talked for a half hour...etc., etc. Every single phone call was RECORDED!! Every number I dialed, TAKEN DOWN! Every single call monitored, so they knew where I called and how long I spoke!!!!

And then the basstids billed me for all that talking!

I remember when I lived in Asia my phone bills exceeded five hundred bucks a month, when that was some serious scratch, too.

I used to do a lot of dialing on my old rotary phone, so I had a numb pointer finger, and a phone bill that was a quarter inch thick, listing all those phone calls, from a few minutes to an hour or more! It was like a printout for an alibi, if one had need for such a thing...!

People who wanted to get divorces for spousal infidelity often got those phone records from the phone company to reduce or increase their alimony payment, back when alimony was a common thing. Police officers investigating murders often got those records from the phone company to prove that the cheating spouse called the hit man at such-and-such a time on such-and-such a day.

The phone company KEPT that metadata! The noive of them!!!

[randome]

102. I think the most that can be said of the NSA is they are overzealous.

Big deal. Rein them in and move on to the next challenge. It's not worth all this angst.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

134. Rein them in, provide a transparent oversight structure to address any issues,

and then move on. I think much of the agita has to do with a lack of knowledge re: how to make a complaint about overreach.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. Okay lets look at it this way....Hospitals have access to all your medical records..

low level unskilled and in fact temp employees in the records department have direct access to those physical files. Yes they COULD read your records and find embarrassing things out about you....HOWEVER, there are strong penalties should they do so that acts as a deterrent to such behavior. Immediate dismissal for one....and everyone knows of the potential...and everyone else could potentially use that information to have you terminated...

But just because those employees "COULD" read your file.....is not evidence that they HAVE done so....

This is the situation we have but on a much much much (talking microscopic) scale. There has to be specific evidence that it HAS happened. Not the "potential" for it...
This also happens with your retirement records....your social security records...your credit records....etc. etc. etc. People employed with those agencies DO have direct access to that information.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Evidence for specific cases was classified, so no-one can find out how much they're being watched

Until the courts rejected Obama's arguments on that, so now we may find out the scale they do it on:

Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.
...
The Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel in 2009, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets” and that it was immune from suit. The court instead ruled that the case should be dismissed on standing grounds. Fortunately, in December of 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to provide standing and Jewel could proceed in district court.

In July, 2012, EFF moved to have the court declare that the FISA law applies instead of the state secrets privilege; in September, 2012 the government renewed its "state secrets" claims and the matter was heard by the federal district court in San Francisco on December 14, 2012.

In July 2013, the court rejected the government’s “state secrets” argument, ruling that any properly classified details can be litigated under the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The court did dismiss some of our statutory claims, but the other claims, including that the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, continue.

https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

Do you too have faith that, although procedures allow the NSA and its contractors to look at the data on Americans, they hardly ever do, because they're just a bunch of nice guys who won't even go as far as they've been told they can go, but are just 'judicious' instead?

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. So do we prosecute crimes now on the potential that they will happen?

So because some employee in the records department at the hospital "could" have peaked at your record.....we should just fire them all?

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. Where has your non sequitur come from?

Why are you talking about prosecuting crimes?

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. its an analogy....ever heard of them?

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. Crimes have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt

That makes them particularly unsuitable as analogies for other things.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. Yes but that depends on the crime and the type of court

In this case it is a very good analogy...because peaking at your medical records by someone in the records department whos job it is to access those records is not really a crime either...but it does have consequences.

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. But there are no consequences for the NSA technical personnel looking at the data

But Vinson also wrote that the NSA's "technical personnel may query the BR metadata using selection terms that have not been RAS-approved … and may share the results of those queries with other authorized personnel responsible for these purposes, but the results of any such queries will not be used for intelligence analysis purposes".

A footnote in the document specifies that "technical personnel responsible for NSA's corporate infrastructure and the transmission of BR metadata" may handle the phone records data without the "special training" in court-ordered restrictions undergone by NSA intelligence analysts. They do not require "reasonable articulable suspicion" to do so.

It's saying the court is fine with the technical personnel searching how they want. The court doesn't want it to be part of the intelligence analysis.

[VanillaRhapsody]

164. Oh yes there are....have you read the agreement they signed as a requirement for employment...

and no its not saying that...

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. No, there are no consequences - this is the decision from the judge that says it's OK

for them to do it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. then your problem is with the judge...

But there still is no direct evidence that it HAS happened....only conjecture that it COULD. Lots of things could happen.....doesn't mean they have..

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. Sure I have a problem with the judge - why do you think everyone has been saying "rubber stamp"

about the FISA court?

This particular judge is also infamous for trying to strike down the whole of Obamacare: http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-verizon-wiretap-judge-obamacare-roger-vinson-2013-6
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/31/141721/vinson-frc/

The court is just there to provide excuses and make secret rulings allowing the government to do what it wants. If you think that the NSA, having been told how it can play around with the data by a judge, will not do so, when they've previously been caught passing around the phone calls of the military back to their spouses and partners, they you are hopelessly naive. The NSA has no scruples about anything. They have to be restrained by law, and by watchdogs that can properly watch them and enforce the laws.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. still conjecture and not proof...

sorry but epic fail. "If You think that the NSA..." says it all....You will never make changes with specious arguments. When Snowden can show where it HAS happened ...instead of that it could....then you have a starting point.

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. As I said....just because medical records employees could snoop at your embarrassing medical

treatments....However....you would have to prove that they did....not guess that they could. And that is the point

[Mojorabbit]

179. Thank you! nt

[lame54]

43. What evidence has Obama given you?

[randome]

48. Well, he's not about to try and prove a negative.

If there is anything other than metadata -not subject to 4th Amendment protections- then let's see it.

So far we have the discredited PRISM contention. Then there is the 'hoovering up the Internet' claim. And the nefarious suggestion from Snowden that he 'saw things' without ever telling us what that means.

Too much secrecy, on that we can all agree.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[lame54]

54. Your standards aren't equal for both sides...

If you think Obama is full of shit you must have absolute "hard evidence"

But, if you believe Obama, we're back to this...

[randome]

60. Absent evidence to the contrary, what else would I do?

Look under my bed for hidden monsters? Keep a lookout on my garbage in case the FBI tries to go through it? We trust authority every day of our lives. We would not be able to function otherwise.

Absent evidence to the contrary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[lame54]

67. I'll hand this over to another DU'er...

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18022-you-are-in-fact-being-watched

[randome]

75. If you or anyone else want to believe Obama is wagging the dog, I can't help you.

Paranoia runs deep for some.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Turbineguy]

63. OK. let's sort this out:

1) I'll believe anybody who confirms my paranoid suspicions. Especially if they are looking for money or fame.

2) "They" are only spying on law-abiding citizens. If you tell anybody you are thinking of committing a crime, they shut off the link so as to not keep crimes from being committed.

3) "They" have people who read your emails and listen to you on the phone. The NSA employs several billion people to do this. Because they outsource to China and India, they only have to pay those people $5 per year.

These are not "vague claims". These are facts. I got these facts from the internet and no, I'm not providing links. You can look it up yourself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Several Billion .....LOL!

Love it!

[randome]

105. Okay, you got me. I give up and bow to the superior wisdom of the Internet.

Come to think of it, I've never seen Snowden outside of the Internet. Hmm....reminds me of this guy.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

125. I'll go with the evidence. And you SHOULD crack up at 'hiding from justice'. He should have said

'hiding from injustice, as in Bradley Manning and the persecution of Whistle Blowers like Drake and Binney'. He slipped up there.

[Vashta Nerada]

129. Politicians don't lie?

[randome]

136. Of course they lie. And they should be called to account for it when they do.

Is Obama lying? You might want to provide evidence of that before jumping to that conclusion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

162. EVIDENCE!!1111 SLOBBER!!11!

[randome]

175. Say, could I use your lasso of truth for a few minutes?

I promise I'll return it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

5. It's a comedy show.

Obama was trying to be funny. It was about as funny as the rest of Leno's material. Only real explanation for such a comment.

[ProSense]

7. If he's lying, Congress should impeach him.

Seriously, he's clearly delusional in some people's eyes.

There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026

Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098

[cali]

14. Is he under oath on Leno? Amazing. I didn't know that.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Do you think you're being spied on right now?

[cali]

20. that is so not germane.

that's not the question that YOU and others like you need to ask.

You need to ask:

Is the NSA operating outside its legal restraints?

[BeyondGeography]

32. This whole saga is becoming less and less germane

Snowden exposed congressional dereliction more than anything. Let them exercise their power to draw more clear lines on domestic surveillance. The continued pounding of the President by the keyboard left is misdirected energy.

[cali]

38. for fuck's sake. The NSA is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The National Security Agencies have long been out of control what with secret budgets, carve outs and their long history of operating extra-judicially. the branch of government most directly responsible for the activities of those agencies is the executive branch. Does Congress have some responsibility? Yes. They need to do far more to curb these agencies- but so does the executive branch which utilizes them and is the branch of government that these agencies are governed by. The NSA, CIA and other National Security Agencies are part of the executive branch. It is fucking ludicrous to pretend that its Congress who they operate under. THEY DO NOT.

I'm so tired of this disingenuous nonsense about how the executive branch isn't responsible and wah wah wah it's the fault of Congress; the executive branch has no power. it is bullshit. Executive orders and regulations are far more powerful tools regarding the NSA and other National Security Agencies than what Congress has. Sure, Congress could theoretically defund the NSA, but let's get real- something you seem averse to doing.

The NSA operates under the jurisdiction of DOD which is an executive office branch.

http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/oversight.shtml
http://usinfo.org/enus/government/branches/nsa.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-charlie-rose-interview-nsa/66325/
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/civil-liberties/terrorism-and-security/national-security-agency-surveillance/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/why-nsa-cant-be-trusted-run-us-cybersecurity-programs

[PoliticAverse]

21. ProSense calls for Obama's impeachment - film at 11... n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

126. Somebody call Ripley.

[Bonobo]

8. He's not lying.

It all depends on what "is" means.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Lame

It's not even close to a lie. Communications are stored and reviewable; that's not spying by any definition.

[PowerToThePeople]

29. uh that IS spying

if they are stored and re-viewable, that is spying. Think Nixon tapes. Just because they may not have listened to the tape yet does not invalidate the spying.

[BeyondGeography]

35. Then you'll have to get off the Internet, I guess

Did phone bills constitute spying?

[PowerToThePeople]

37. I'll stay here, thanks.

I can use this, full well knowing that I could be spied upon. That does not mean I should support someone doing it. Especially my government who has legal avenues to be followed in order to put systems of "spying" in place upon a citizen.

[LondonReign2]

103. Might want to check with that troublesome 4th Amendment

I'd swear there is something in there about probably cause.

[Th1onein]

180. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy?

Or do you really buy the bullshit?

[BeyondGeography]

185. Come back to me with an actual "spying" victim

You can't.

[L0oniX]

110. "is" that right?

[limpyhobbler]

9. liar. nt

[marshall]

12. It's tracking data, not spying on people

It all depends on how you look at it.

[DrDan]

16. not unlike "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

[think]

24. yup

[Le Taz Hot]

52. Or, "I am not a crook!"

[Life Long Dem]

17. But... but... Greenwald said...

I'll listen to Obama any day over Greenwald/Snowden.

[cali]

22. sigh. then don't listen to them. Listen to the scores of others

from Senators Leahy and Wyden to whistle blowers like Binney and Tamm.

[hlthe2b]

23. wow... now I can no longer think Obama is merely using cautious language...

It is damned hard for me to think this anything but an overt and very inexplicable LIE.

[ProSense]

25. There is no "lie,"

but the reaction to the President's comment is going to be fun to watch.

[hlthe2b]

30. You are very naive if you think there is ANY President, past or current who hasn't LIED

to the American people.

Sometimes it is understandable and perhaps even justifiable due to circumstances.

I find, given all that has come out with respect to NSA and related surveillance, that "justifiable" may be hard to maintain as time goes on.

[ProSense]

31. I'm saying the statement in the OP is not a "lie," but you knew that.

I'm not "naive" enough to be unable to recognize a red herring.

[hlthe2b]

33. Continue to bury your head in the sand, despite the bombardment of information to the contrary...

If it makes you feel good at night. It certainly does nothing to ensure the survival of our democracy.

[ProSense]

34. Continue to buy into bullshit spin. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

57. Speaking of bullshit, has Clapper been charged with perjury yet ? n/t

[Fumesucker]

59. It's not perjury when the DNI does it

It's known as "protecting sources and methods".

Everybody knows that.

[ProSense]

79. Well,

"Speaking of bullshit, has Clapper been charged with perjury yet ?"

...good luck with that. There is no way that charge sticks. First, it was a hearing from March, long before the leak. Secondly, nothing revealed shows any deliberate targeting of Americans and nothing illegal.

Finally, Wyden isn't pushing the charge that Clapper lied. He keeps talking about misleading statements, and it's likely because he knows that the information was classified. He himself refuses to discuss the details.

&quot Sen. Wyden) on Edward Snowden, how the NSA misled Congress, and reining in the massive collection"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023381665

[Vanje]

90. "He ( Wyden) himself refuses to discuss the details. "

Probably because he doesnt want to live in an airport in Russia.

[Life Long Dem]

117. Yeah that makes a lot sense

[LondonReign2]

104. Actually, Clapper admits he lied

"least untruthful".

Snowden broke the law, Clapper broke the law; you only want one to be held accoutable for some reason.

[ProSense]

109. Isn't

Actually, Clapper admits he lied

"least untruthful".

Snowden broke the law, Clapper broke the law; you only want one to be held accoutable for some reason.

...that true about you? I mean, Clapper said something stupid in order not to reveal classified information. That has no bearing on President Obama's point.

Snowden broke the law, and you don't want him "to be held accoutable."

[LondonReign2]

114. If it is possible for Snowden to get a fair hearing

i.e., an open, public, fair opportunity to determine if what he did was indeed illegal or if he should fall under whistleblower status, and not simply be thrown in jail instantly, then I'm all for it. Yes, I believe he is a whistleblower, and I believe a transparent discussion would be enormously beneficial to the country. I'm not sure you could find anyone anywhere on wither side of this issue that believes that if Snowden returned he'd get that fair hearing though.

Now, if you could just point me to all your posts saying Clapper should be held accountable I'd appreciate it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

118. or Clapper criminally lied to Congress in order to not be held accountable.

Obama lied to Leno in order to not be held accountable to Leno and his viewers, many of whom are American voters.

[Life Long Dem]

27. Yeah, add that to all the other Obama bogus lies

[dkf]

135. Maybe that was the least untruthful thing he could have said.

Hahaha.

[Oilwellian]

28. Just add him to the list...

of lying liars. It's blatant and in your face now.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

36. Fox's take on the appearance

Terror threat mounts as Obama laughs it up with Leno
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2589879909001/terror-threat-mounts-as-obama-laughs-it-up-with-leno/?playlist_id=928378949001

Neil Cavuto practically wets his pants.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Willfully misleading, at best. Fucking lying liar, I sez.

[ProSense]

58. So Obama isn't just a "liar," he's a: "Fucking lying liar"?

What's the world coming to?

[zipplewrath]

99. Reality

What is it coming to? Reality. Of course it is a reality that has existed for a long time. What does someone expect him to come out and say? "Yeah, we're spyin' on alot a ya." He's parsing the expression "spy" just as much as Clinton sparsed the expression "sex". A rose by any other name.

Ike said we weren't flying over Russia, Gary Powers put the truth to that lie.
LBJ said we were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. History put the truth to that lie.
Nixon said "I'm not a crook". The Washington Post put the truth to that lie.
Reagan said we weren't negotiating with Iran. Poindexter covered is ass on that lie.
Clinton said "I did not have...." A blue dress put the truth to that lie.
Bush said "Last resort". History put the truth to that lie.

So what will it take to put the truth to this?

[millennialmax]

44. President Obama spoke with authority and honesty.

When he says that no one's calls are being listened to, I believe him.

Some people are just naturally distrusting of authority, out of some fear of looking naive or being played a fool. That's not a bad characteristic to have, but often it trumps their rational thought.

[Th1onein]

181. No, they're being STORED so that they can listen to them later. Which is much worse.

We're not naturally distrusting. We're just not idiots.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Will he do an interview with a reporter with the guts to call bullshit on something like that?

I'm thinking of the Irish reporter who skewered Bush so well, for instance. I know American reporters find it difficult to hold their own president to account.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

64. And if obama stood firm with that irish reporter when questioned

would you then believe Obama being honest or would you believe he was still lying but just stubborn about it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. I'd have to hear how he phrased it

The problem is that an unchallenged "we don't spy on Americans" will eventually get parsed as "our definition of 'spying' is 'targeting an individual who is the centre of a specific operation', and the fact that we analyse the records on all the Americans he has contact with, and those Americans who have contact with them does not mean we are spying on them, no sirree, that is still spying on the nasty foreigner that we want you to fear" - which is the only way that Obama was not lying. But we want such weasel definitions to be made plain now, not when some government apparatchik or president is finally forced to do so under oath in legal proceedings.

Really, it's much better for Obama to be honest with the American people in an interview than have to be force to do so under oath. It would maintain his dignity better.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

186. I would have asked you who would parse it like that

but it would be a foolish question since you have already done so yourself and seemingly having decided based on said parsing.

Which is less Obamas problem and more your own for potentially reading a lot more into what is said then is said

[muriel_volestrangler]

187. The thing is, the material evidence is all against Obama

Using normal meanings of words, he's lying. The only way he can claim not to be is by redefining terms. Someone really needs to say to his face "you're lying".

[woo me with science]

46. LIES and more LIES.

Fucking in-our-face LIES.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

[tridim]

130. Thanks Woo, you beacon of honesty, you. nt

[woo me with science]

149. This is exactly the quality of interaction we have come to expect

from the defenders of every single predatory, authoritarian, and Constitution-assaulting policy the corporate Third Way and their corporate allies in the GOP perpetrate on Americans.

You really ought to be deeply ashamed, but I suspect that to do this type of work, you cannot be capable of shame.

[wtmusic]

49. Didn't I vote for this guy?

Sickening.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. FFS, I'm living under Nixon again.

[Savannahmann]

55. President Obama may have told the truth, from a certain point of view.

If you define Spying to mean that someone is physically watching you, aiming cameras, hiding in a van disguised to look like a repair vehicle. Then it is true that the NSA is not spying on us.

If you define spying to include the capture of all your data, all your phone calls, all your text messages and then storing that data, then yes, we are being spied upon.

Terminology is often the key to understanding someone. A Medical Doctor uses words that describe certain procedures or processes and anatomical parts. We do not normally use those terms in common language. A guy with a hole in his chest is just shot to us. To a Doctor, that is a Pneumothorax. When you seal the hole, you save his life, but you also start him on the path to death. When the pressure builds up, it becomes a big balloon in his chest, squeezing the remaining lung so he can't breath. To a medical person, that is a Tension Pneumothorax. To us, the poor bugger has trouble breathing.

So I think that technically speaking, the President spoke truthfully, if your definition of spying is one where someone is physically watching you. There is almost certainly some bureaucratic term of art for the data collection. So those who deride the President as lying, might be a little harsh. Those who say he told the truth, might be a little right too.

Words have meanings, and it is entirely possible that the President told a literal truth, while telling a technical lie.

FYI. After Chuck Norris made his movie called Delta Force, the US Army continued to deny the existence of anything known as Delta Force. They continued to deny this for years despite sequels to the Delta Force movies. Then the Army said that a group did exist, but they were not called Delta Force, they were called Special Operations Detachment Delta. Completely different don't you see? Substantially true, and a lie all rolled into one.

[questionseverything]

178. well said

If you define Spying to mean that someone is physically watching you, aiming cameras, hiding in a van disguised to look like a repair vehicle. Then it is true that the NSA is not spying on us.

If you define spying to include the capture of all your data, all your phone calls, all your text messages and then storing that data, then yes, we are being spied upon.

[Th1onein]

182. So they get to have secret courts, secret laws, secret interpretations of the law,

secret prisons, and now, secret meanings of words?

I don't think so.

[Waiting For Everyman]

56. Ohhhhhhhh, it's only "some mechanisms", it's not spying.

Well, that makes it all different then. "Some mechanisms" are fine. Who can be upset about "some mechanisms"?

Us silly citizens! What were we thinking?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. In other news: President announces there is no wet in water or bull in bullshit.

[limpyhobbler]

65. This could be the quote that comes to define his Presidency.

I am not a crook.
Read my lips no new taxes
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Heck of a job Brownie.
There Is No Spying On Americans.

[ProSense]

81. Yeah, and when it is revealed to be true

it's going to be really disappointing for some.

[forestpath]

88. +1000

[woo me with science]

91. [phone]

2 + 2 = 5

[leftstreet]

106. +1

[AnotherMcIntosh]

111. There's a big difference between Nixon and him. A major difference. He has a big (D) after his name.

[L0oniX]

113. Pffft ...like a "D" means anything remotely Dem anymore after the constant moving to the right.

[leftstreet]

121. Yeah. Nixon wanted a Guaranteed Annual Income

Despite expectations from some observers that Nixon would be a “do-nothing” president, his administration undertook a number of important reforms in welfare policy, civil rights, law enforcement, the environment, and other areas. Nixon’s proposed Family Assistance Program (FAP), intended to replace the service-oriented Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), would have provided working and nonworking poor families with a guaranteed annual income—though Nixon preferred to call it a “negative income tax.” Although the measure was defeated in the Senate, its failure helped to generate support for incremental legislation incorporating similar ideas—such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI),...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/416465/Richard-M-Nixon/214055/Domestic-policies

Apparently Obama wants us all to work part-time at Amazon

[AnotherMcIntosh]

122. And didn't he have some concern about environmental issues?

[leftstreet]

124. OSHA-dup!

[Th1onein]

183. Someone needs to whisper in his ear, "This will be YOUR legacy, sir."

Not Obamacare. But wholesale spying on Americans and then lying about it.

[winter is coming]

188. +1. n/t

[AppleBottom]

68. Well now we have a bold faced lie...

[bowens43]

77. To Obama credibility is a very distant relation.....

[Union Scribe]

82. An Obama apologist's day

1. Wake up, see Obama has done/said something indefensible
2. Sigh in the back of their mind
3. Crack their knuckles
4. Start defending the indefensible
5. Feel slight pain as old ideals die
6. Continue defending the indefensible

[grasswire]

85. George Bush: We don't torture people.

Same same.

I'm so disappointed in Obama I could spit.

[Initech]

86. Move along, nothing to see here!

[Safetykitten]

93. This is odd, Leno's show is supposed to be comedy, but is not, and now suddenly is comedy.

[CakeGrrl]

94. Some here have steadfastly sworn not to believe anything the President says

while they swallow every line from Snowden as gospel.

Anyone who's read what Snowden has released as "evidence" has no need for head-shaking.

[Enrique]

123. i don't think he lies very much

this is one of the few, but it's a big one imho. Other lies I can recall are about the safety of offshore drilling, and some of his positions during the 2008 primaries, such as free trade.

[Marr]

127. Well, there's a reason for that.

The president is a politician, and has an obvious self-interest in denying such information.

Snowden is just a citizen, and revealing such information has (obviously) been much more of a difficulty for him that just playing along would have been.

So the word of these two men aren't exactly equally credible when it comes to this subject. That doesn't mean Snowden's word is gospel, or that he doesn't need evidence. Then again, he's provided that as well.

Given the situation, I have to say that anyone who weighs the words of a whistleblower + physical documentation equally to the word of some politician who is saying exactly what you'd expect him to say is not thinking very clearly.

[cali]

139. And some people here, like you evidently, have steadfastly sworn not look at factual info

if it puts the President in a bad light or if it's in any way connected- no matter how tenuously- to Snowden.

It's hardly about believing Snowden. It's about the factual information available. Information from such people as Tamm and Binney and
Senators Wyden and Leahy.

[randome]

173. None of those people you mention are 'facts'.

Some have made claims. But for claims to have the power to implicate someone, they need to be followed by evidence.

Otherwise, it's all just talk.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Th1onein]

184. It's not just Snowden, CakeGrrl.

That's the problem. The façade is crumbling.

[joeybee12]

95. That comment can be interpreted differently depending on what the definition of "is" is...

Hmmm...nice...they all do it.

[Orsino]

97. He just described a domestic spying program.

Lie.

[Recursion]

142. Well, if you call that "spying", I suppose

But you'll find fewer and fewer Americans care as they find out what this "spying" actually is.

[Orsino]

189. Well, as we are told it isn't spying, yeah.

Some of us aren't disposed to believe that this surveillance capability was built but isn't being used.

[LuvNewcastle]

107. Another day, another lie.

That's what I've come to expect.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

108. That giving the least-untruthful-answer must be catching.

[FlyByNight]

132. I guess it depends on what one defines as "spying"

Orwell would be impressed and not for good reasons.

Sure looks like spying to me.

[Bake]

138. Sorry, Mr. President, but I don't believe you.

I just don't. You may not be lying. You may just be misinformed. But I don't believe you.

Bake

[WillyT]

146. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[kestrel91316]

140. Oh BULLSHIT, Mr. President. My assumption at this point is that the government has been spying on

all of us via the internet for as long as there has BEEN an internet. It's just been ramped up in recent years because almost everybody is now online.

[Blue_In_AK]

152. I don't believe him. n/t

[GalaxyHunter]

156. again, how do you know if a politician is lying?

[quinnox]

157. Right, and the moon is made of cheese

[Octafish]

159. Depends on defintion of ''Americans.''

Those who clear more than a million per, yeah, they're not under surveillance. Wonder why the banksters all got away? Well.

Those un-American freeloading communist crybabies in Occupy Wall Street? No, they're not Americans and they don't have any rights. Turn snipers on those turds.

[morningfog]

161. He lied.

[kentuck]

170. Maybe he doesn't know?

Maybe he believes that there is no spying on Americans? He's only the President.

[KamaAina]

169. Ford to Carter: "There Is No Soviet Domination Of Eastern Europe"

[boomer55]

176. Obama has lost so much credibility amongst my progressive friends

He's lost it all for me. What a disappointment he has become.