Below are the arguments of those that support the NSA over Snowden's revelations*.

[rhett o rick]

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

There is no spying, Snowden's girl friend is a pole dancer.

There is no spying because Snowden broke the law.

There is no spying because a warrant is required (and we know the NSA wouldn’t try to get around that).

This might reflect badly on Pres Obama, therefore Snowden, Greenwald, Ms. Valerie Plame, and Sen Wyden are racists.

The NSA isnt really looking at the data, only collecting it. And it's only meta-data after all.

Snowden isnt telling us anything we didnt know. (so he should be thrown in prison?)

Gen Clapper didnt really lie, well maybe just a little lie. When he said the NSA wasnt spying he really meant they werent looking thru keyholes. Collecting and analyzing data isn’t really spying. Pres Clinton could have taken a lesson from Gen Clapper on how to lie to Congress and get away with it.

Pres Obama says they arent reading emails. (“they” refers to him and Bo)

Snowden is a traitor because he is giving China and Russia all our secrets but he doesnt have enough to prove the NSA is spying. (I know that sounds confusing but trust me I know I know the truth, I got it from CNN)

The Constitution no longer applies because we have new technologies. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t even mention e-mails.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects.

Warrants arent necessary for meta data, phone logs, Google searches, library reading lists, or anything else so deemed.

We need the spying to assure our safety. Dog bless Generals Clapper and Alexander.

The NSA says we are reading emails but only of foreign suspects and those in America they correspond with.

The NSA doesn’t do anything w/o a warrant. And the warrant they have authorizes spying on everything, anytime, on anyone. (At least it’s legal)

The President says that America needs the discussion that Snowden brings to daylight. (not sure he actually mentioned Snowden by name) He added that "we" still arent spying on Americans. (not sure who he included with his “we”, maybe he and Bo again)

The $100 billions we pay to Booz-Allen is worth the secret "something" that might make us safer.

The NSA says they are reading emails but only of foreign suspects, those they correspond with and those they correspond with. Sorry, lost track of how many "bumps" the NSA has admitted to spying on but I think it’s like 100 million persons and 20 million dogs.

The President says we are lucky to live in America where we can freely speak of possible Constitutional violations by our government. And he would gladly demonstrate such if he could only get his hands on Snowden. There is no greater reward than a lifetime of solitary confinement.

The President says “they” (he, Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, and Gen [redacted]) will investigate and take the proper actions in secret, of course. And when it’s all over, he will be able to assure us that “they” aren’t spying on us. (can you spell déjà vu?)

Did I mention Snowden dated a girl that was a pole dancer.

* Subject changed as advised.

[otohara]

1. About The Pole Dancer

who on DU gave or gives a shit about who he dated?

I haven't seen the pole dancer mentioned anywhere for weeks. You're the one fixated
on her.

[Pholus]

3. Umm.... "for weeks" kind of makes the point it did occur. nt

[otohara]

6. "Did"

past tense - no one gives a shit about the girlfriend he dumped.

[Pholus]

7. Seems to me this is a historical list of arguments.

Note how they shift to reflect the events of the last two months as well.

[HiPointDem]

8. then why did they post about it for weeks. the list is not just about current talking points, it's

an attempt to list all the talking points so far.

[Hissyspit]

10. He dumped her!??!

[Mojorabbit]

32. And she was a ballerina!!!!!11!! nt

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Is this talking point permanently retired or on the bench?

And is he still a formerly-bad neighbor?

[otohara]

105. I'd Say So

hadn't heard he was a bad neighbor, but I've been celebrating since my neighbors moved out on 8/1.
Five perfectly healthy grad students trashed the newly remodeled home and garden in one short year.

[MrMickeysMom]

15. FFS... you don't have your "don't give a shit" timeline in order...

Get your decoder ring out and look at some of the comments that were raised immediately about the poll dancer!

I recall seeing this right and left and right here on DU again, right before all the other things in pretty much the same order...

Indeed!

[sabrina 1]

49. Lol, they cared, until it failed totally as a 'strategy'.

[AZ Progressive]

2. the Demopublicans like to use Talking Points just like the Republicans...

It's all about propaganda, remember? Serving up bullshit and successfully selling it to the people...

[bvar22]

43. Extra bonus points for those who can ID the author of this:

"But the most brilliant technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."[/font]

[ljm2002]

57. Goebbels. n/t

[backscatter712]

67. Classic Nazi propaganda technique: the Big Lie.

The propaganda bots are putting that technique to use here.

[bvar22]

71. Close, but no cigar.

volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler

The preceding paragraph is also enlightening:

".. its purely intellectual level will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach."

[/font]

That is why so much of it is dominated by one line insults and Ad Hominen Fallacies attacking the OP or the messenger.
Because that is EASY and requires no critical thinking or discernment.

[ljm2002]

74. Darn...

...I even looked it up on the Internet before posting. And the site I went to looked convincing.

Are you telling me that everything on the Internet isn't true?

But seriously, thanks for the info. It's a great quote and one we should all keep in mind.

[rhett o rick]

129. Info on the internetz is like Schrodinger's cat. It's true until you read it. nm

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. Bernays? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

53. I guess they fell heir to Bush's old

propaganda information disseminator.

[leftstreet]

4. But Obama says there's no spying on Americans

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

by Greg Henderson
August 07, 201312:44 AM


President Obama defended the US government's surveillance program, telling NBC's Jay Leno on Tuesday that: "There is no spying on Americans."

"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "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."

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

DURec

[HiPointDem]

5. good job. but you forgot the latest: by defecting to russia, snowden is supporting russia's

anti-gay holocaust.

[Pholus]

9. Remember it's just 1.6 % too! Depends on which 1.6% of course...

[limpyhobbler]

48. good point here - sweet graph too.

1.6% could even possibly be all the metadata.

[hfojvt]

11. now I am totally confused (but what else is new?)

I thought I read the Snowden lovers saying that it is NOT about Snowden.

[Pholus]

13. Why is it even about Snowden? The "Snowden Haters" made it that way.

See, their point is if Snowden is a bad man then anything he says is bad so we should pay no attention to what he says.

That passes for logic with some.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. Snowden haters gotta Snowden hate... Pholus...

Saying it enough times works until you need a lobotomy.

[Pholus]

21. Aaaargh! You got me!

One more post explaining how Snowden's numerous character flaws mean the NSA needs to get a full pass on their shenanigans will probably have me pining for the sweet release of the needles.

[Maedhros]

87. It's a self-perpetuating strategy.

They counter every revelation of NSA wrongdoing with an attack on Snowden. Then, when you counter their ridiculous argumentum ad hominem , they can attack you for "making it all about Snowden when you said it wasn't." Then they throw in a few mocking smilies because they think they somehow won.

[hfojvt]

23. well, look at it this way

if, say, a fan of Rush Limbaugh starts publicly attacking a Democrat, supposedly from the left, isn't it wise to consider the source and not get played like a fiddle?

I mean, I remember in August 2009 it seemed like DU was just flooded with low count posters who had been members for five or six years (but had not bothered to post all that much in those years) were suddenly posting OPs proclaiming how upset they were with Obama.

And I thought the question needed to be asked, and I did ask it a number of times - are these people REALLY from the left and for the left, or did they have another agenda of demoralizing and discouraging the left?

But what the heck. It's not like DU is gonna be all focused about 2014 anyway. We always find something shiny to fight about when the M$M dangles something in front of us.

[Pholus]

31. One person's shiny object is probably important to another person.

For me, I went from lurker to active poster here in 2002 precisely because I considered the Total Information Awareness program to be the greatest threat to democracy of the many Bushie created and I wanted the snooping bastards to see that position had a lot of popular support. It doesn't hurt that I also think Democrats are the best hope out of the options available for our nation.

Certainly, we all seemed to be on the same page in 2006!

But, the mantle fell to us in 2009. All of a sudden the things that were horrible before seemingly needed to be defended or nuanced. I guess I'm just not a person that is that mentally flexible. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. That leads to a certain amount of friction of course.

If we trip in 2014, it isn't about something shiny at all -- it's that we forgot that you stay true to your ideals.

[bvar22]

45. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^BRAVO! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

worth repeating:

"it isn't about something shiny at all -- it's that we forgot that you stay true to your ideals. "---Pholus, post #31 this thread.

[hfojvt]

65. we were not all on the same page in 2006

in fact, after 2006, DU sorta became a Pelosi-bashing site.

And I thought it was kinda stupid, that a large contingent of DU wanted Bush to be impeached - even in September of 2008. The #1 question of the blogosphere for candidate Obama was "Do you think Bush should be impeached?"

But it is not all about the shiny object. My main points are that

1. there are some people who like to bash Democrats - because they want to elect Republicans and libertarians.
2. they want to discourage people from voting by showing that "all politicians are just a bunch of crooks" (and thus it does not matter if Bush is President or if Gore is President or if Pelosi is Speaker of the House or if Boehner is speaker.)
3. If we want to win in 2014 perhaps it would be more useful to promote OUR side and bash the OTHER side instead of being so quick to do the opposite.
4. the Republicans already have a RWNM to bash OUR side. Unfortunately often the leftwing blogosphere just sings in harmony with the RWNM.
5. As I have said before, perhaps we could promote our ideals more instead of just bashing the politicians for not following our ideals.

[Pholus]

83. Some thoughts on your points.

1. Considering the thread I am amused that anger about an illegal, out of control Republican created corporate giveaway being embraced and extended by Democrats somehow translates as supporting Republicans.

2. Considering the thread, perhaps it might help our side TO HAVE A SLIVER OF DAYLIGHT showing between this administration's policies and the last. Candidate Obama made a lot of pretty speeches saying all the right things about dragnet surveillance right up until July of 2008. Then there was a 180 with lots of equivocation but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because "President McCain that's why." So I voted for that guy and I got President Obama instead. The guy was better than McCain on most things, but frankly he IS the Republican on this issue.

3. My friends here have already told me in 2012 to choke down my concerns yet again because "President Perry/Bachmann/Sanatorum/Romney that's why." So I showed up and did my bit AGAIN. Ask me what that got me here.

4. Oh those horrible professional lefties, trying to keep the party from triangulating their way into a moderate sect of the Republican party!

5. Why do I get the feeling that your idea about "our ideals" really means "your ideals" and that it translates as "because shut up, that's why."

Certainly let me tell you this right now. "President Cruz/Bush/Christie that's why" is not going to be sufficient this go around. I expect better leadership from our people which is NOT unreasonable. We're supposed to be better than the Republicans, not morphing into them. I'm done with mediocre behavior being justified every election by the "lesser of two evils" card being played.

[hfojvt]

85. I NEVER just talk about the President

Our party got crushed in 2010, and THAT is a big part of the reason why we are where we are.

5. And yes, as for "our" ideals, I do happen to care more about my ideals than I do about yours. But considering this thread, I am NOT the one who started a thread saying basically "everybody who disagrees with me is a moron with stupid arguments and stupid ideas".

There is no Obama or McCain or Palin running in 2014.

[hfojvt]

89. and as to point 4

let me try to explain the point - again.

4. the Republicans already have a RWNM to bash OUR side. Unfortunately often the leftwing blogosphere just sings in harmony with the RWNM.

The RWNM sells a whole bunch of anti-left propaganda, which happens to be very effective.

So they will sell a message like
social security is going broke
there is no trust fund

and a big part of their message is also things like
Democrats suck
Democrats are hypocrites and liars.

So those professional lefties, who happen to make better than average income, many of them BTW (LarryO http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/130). Instead of talking about issues and advancing "our" ideals. Instead spends a lot of time spreading the latter two messages.

Democrats suck.
Democrats are a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

With friends like that on the left, who needs enemies? http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/127

And this OP does not appear to me to be about attacking the NSA program as much as it is about "attacking DUers who try to defend Obama's position on the NSA program".

In other words, an attack on some of our fellow Democrats.

[Pholus]

115. Act like a Republican, get treated like a Republican.

Defending Reagan's national security policy which begat Bush's TIA which is getting abused to unconstitutionally fight Nixon's drug war isn't exactly being center-left.

[rhett o rick]

123. All Democrats are not equal. Some Democrats support the Constitution while

others support Republican programs. The NSA spy programs were built by Republicans and are currently being run by Republicans. These programs and their operators have not changed for a decade. Some Democrats think these Republican programs violate the Constitution while other Democrats agree with the Republicans that support these programs. One might see the problem.

Some will argue that supporting the Republican spy programs is pragmatic. I say bullshit. These programs, without proper oversight, are a tyrants dream. What is so radical about desiring proper oversight?

This OP is intended to expose the ridiculous arguments that support the Republican spy programs. Decent arguments are always welcome.

[hfojvt]

133. and some Democrats support progressive taxes

and most others, like Obama and most Senators and Representatives (on the Democratic side of the aisle) voted for massive permanent tax cuts for the rich.

But in general, I try to persuade others here to support progressive taxes. I usually fail, but I do not then resort to attacking those who do not see things my way.

Because to do so is hardly a way to make friends and influence people. I want more people on my side, not to anger people who are already against me.

Your OP here to me just seeems to boil down to "nobody on the anti-Snowden side has even two brain cells to rub together. Here's a list of the stupid sh*t that they say."

I just have my doubts as to whether they really say those things, and I don't think mocking them is very productive, even if one side does get a good laugh out of it.

[Maedhros]

91. "Promoting our side" is great, as long as "our side" is doing the right things.

For example, Obama instructing the DOJ to cease considering quantities of certain drugs when prosecuting possession cases. That's the RIGHT THING to do, and so I support the President's decision.

However, there are a number of policies that are promoted by OUR SIDE that are absolutely the WRONG THING to do:

* Designating all military-aged males in the vicinity of a drone strike as "militants" so that collateral damage appears to be minimized.

* Continuing an ever-expanding drone warfare campaign when military and terrorism experts agree that it generates more terrorists than it kills.

* Preemptively putting Social Security on the negotiating table.

* Claiming the authority to execute U.S. citizens without due process, accountability, oversight or transparency.

* Re-authorizing the Patriot Act, with even more egregious Article 215 provisions than the Bush version.

* Undoing the post-meltdown banking regulations that were put in place to prevent the same thing from happening again.

* Allowing war criminals who tortured people to walk without charges.

* Allowing bank executives who committed fraud that stole billions from Americans and destroyed the world economy to walk without charges (or, in some cases, serve in the President's cabinet)

* Allowing 60 Gitmo inmates, who have been cleared of any and all wrongdoing, to continue to be imprisoned and subjected to forced feeding.

et alia.

When "our side" does WRONG THINGS, it is our duty to call them out on it and MAKE THEM STOP DOING THE WRONG THINGS.

[hfojvt]

98. in spite of that long list though

those are not very many things.

I, myself, tend to be far, far more concerned about the 70,000 people in my own county than I am about 60 people in Gitmo.

and this

"When "our side" does WRONG THINGS, it is our duty to call them out on it and MAKE THEM STOP DOING THE WRONG THINGS."

Depends on a perspective.

Our side does perhaps 10,000 things a day, and yet "we" or somebody or some people are determined to ferret out the 50 things that they are ABSOLUTELY upset about and try to turn it into a mountain that they can shout from.

Something will always be wrong somewhere. I do not feel a personal responsibility to put out every fire.

And it might be possible, in some dimension, that the Republicans in Congress are also doing some wrong things. Things that are never discussed here because they got blown off the table by drones.

Maybe if we spent more time disussing them then 98% of Republican incumbents would not be re-elected to Congress in 2014.

[Maedhros]

103. Well, that's where we part ways.

Your primary focus is on electing Democrats, regardless of their policies.

I'm focused ending the War on Terror and restoring the Bill of Rights. That is more important to me than partisan calculus.

[hfojvt]

117. uh huh

And do you somehow think you can end the war on Tara without defeating a whole lot of Republicans at the ballot box? Sure, good luck with that.

[limpyhobbler]

54. It's Snowden lovers vs. Snowden haters (pick a side bro).

Just kidding.

I think the OP is more about celebrating the talking points used by some who defend mass surveillance.

Snowden comes up because discrediting him is part of the talking points.

[RetroLounge]

125. Here is another example of the authoritarians response to this

Deflect with snark, ignore the list.

"But it's not about him..."



RL

[hfojvt]

126. the OP is almost 100% snark

and I am the one deflecting with snark?

and I am the authoritarian? It is not me, who is the one unwilling to listen to other people, wanting only to mock what they say. That would be the OP, and you with your gag reflex.

I sure did ignore this list because right from the start it seemed silly and insulting. Starting with some pole dancer nonsense, as if anybody has made that argument. Plus, admittedly I have probably not read 90% of the threads about Snowden/NSA.

But I sure did see the one with the title saying "It is not about Snowden"

[RetroLounge]

141. Willfully ignorant?

or have you not noticed these have been the response from the same crowd over the past few weeks?

Ignore all you want, doesn't make it not true.

Snark can instruct, pay attention...

RL

[MannyGoldstein]

12. AWESOME, all in one handy spot!

Can you work RonRand Paul, Libertarians, haters, and not forcing down the plane of a democratically-elected head of state?

[Recursion]

30. Do you have a response to #5? That's basically my argument (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Try this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3443460

[Doctor_J]

17. there is no spying and Snowden has boxes in his garage

Or am I thinking of Greenwald, who by the way is gay?

[ProSense]

18. One

"There is no spying because Snowden broke the law. "

...of these things is backed by evidence: "Snowden broke the law"

The other one, not so much: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023423551

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Two.

Things,

first this is total nonsense.

I forgot what the second thing is.

[mindwalker_i]

35. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian

You're never going to make any headway here, because you're arguing against faith.

Wind, meet fart.

[ProSense]

50. "I forgot what the second thing is."

Snowden is a "hero"

[Warren Stupidity]

68. so

you say

[ljm2002]

59. So you are saying...

...(1) the assertion "Snowden broke the law" is backed by evidence, while (2) the assertion "There is no spying" is not backed by evidence.

I can agree with that.

[MuseRider]

19. Excellent!

Good list.

[AverageJoe90]

20. There's just one problem.

I have never honestly heard anyone say, or imply, that there was no spying, at all, from the NSA and other agencies.....I mean, come on, I get that you like Snowden(as tragically misinformed as some seem to be about the man), but at least TRY to use actual arguments instead of strawmen, shall we?

[sabrina 1]

51. It's worse than saying there is no spying, they DEFEND it because 'it's old news'. Until it's not

convenient to call it 'old news', then it's a treasonous act for 'stealing secrets' we didn't know. Which is why they have zero credibility. Constantly moving goal posts tends to lose you any credibility at all.

Oh and 'the 4th Amendment can be interpreted any way you like'.

Thanks, I like the 4th Amendment which is pretty clear to me and no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to interpret it to mean that it's okay for the Government to spy on its own people.

[AverageJoe90]

111. The problem is, Sabrina, I haven't seen too many people defending NSA excesses, either.

TBH, I don't doubt that a few may be out there, but I've hardly seen any, either.

[rhett o rick]

122. There have been some that claim that we need the NSA spy programs to be safe from the terrorists.

Actually I dont disagree. My argument is we need oversight.

While few have actually defended NSA excesses, many have denied them. This OP attempts to show how they changed their argument based on the latest revelations. They started by claiming the NSA couldnt be spying because Snowden was a bad character.

[Vinnie From Indy]

128. +1

Cheers!

[HangOnKids]

88. The OP "likes" Snowden?

Is that LIKE or LIKE LIKE? And why would the OP be concerned what SOME seem to misinformed about?

[Maedhros]

92. The argument used is that collection of metadata isn't spying,

and it is used quite frequently. It's a sub-type of the "move along, nothing to see here" argument.

[HangOnKids]

100. Stop With Your Straw Man Crush On Snowden

Lots of folks are shoveling heavy loads here today, it has got to be exhausting.

[rhett o rick]

132. Talk about strawmen, "I get that you like Snowden." Nowhere did I say that?

"as tragically misinformed as some seem to be about the man". This implies that you are more informed about him than others. How do you get to that conclusion? Do you have sources that others dont? But in any event this statement pertains to his character which is irrelevant in the discussion of whether or not the NSA and Booz-Allen are violating the law. Discussing his character is a distraction.

I hope you would agree that the NSA and Booz-Allen need oversight. That's all some of us are saying. Why are some having such a hard time with that?

The purpose of this OP was to expose the sad arguments that are being used to stifle discussion about possible NSA illegal surveillance. If you have a good argument, please share.

[AverageJoe90]

139. Yes, I won't argue against more oversight, not at all.

But we need to look at exactly why Snowden did what he did. And unfortunately, I've seen lots of evidence suggesting foul play may be at work. Maybe I can get around to posting one of these days.....

[rhett o rick]

140. There appears to be enough evidence to warrant an investigation irregardless of what Snowden's

motives were or are. But it looks like those that dont want the NSA to be accountable are going to get their wish. Pres Obama is going to have Gen Clapper investigate himself. "Move along, there is nothing here to see."

[another_liberal]

22. Well that does it!

Invade Russia without delay!

(BTW: Do you have any video of her act?)

[JackRiddler]

24. Excellent! Hilarious! Thank you!

[UTUSN]

25. You forgot *my* argument: He ran. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

42. In light of Bradley Manning, I'd run too. Harriet Tubman "ran" also

so did most of the Underground Railroad despite the Fugitive Slave Act.

Your point?

My point is that sometimes it takes breaking the law to demonstrate how flawed the law is.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. And there's no spying, which is why the DEA has apparently been concocting fake evidence trails

and lying about it in court.

You know, to cover up the spying.

That isn't, actually, happening.

Hey, look! Matt Damon!

[rug]

28. Don't forget that Brad Pitt is better than Matt Damon.

[Recursion]

29. #5 is roughly my argument. Do you have a response to it?

I don't think it's a joke argument.

[backscatter712]

56. I've got a couple, just to be quick.

1. That's what the NSA claims. Would the NSA lie to you?

2. They don't need human analysts to do the majority of sifting - they've got supercomputers running Google for Tyrants. They're not just storing the data, they're sorting, indexing and searching it.

3. Metadata is sensitive. Or as the EFF puts it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters

• They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.


• They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.


• They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.


• They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.


• They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.

[Maedhros]

94. Snowden's intent was to transit through Russia and take asylum in

Iceland or South America. However, the United States made it impossible for him to leave the Moscow airport and he was forced to accept a one-year asylum in Russia. His decision had nothing to do with the anti-gay legislation passed by the Russian parliament, and had everything to do with survival.

Even if Snowden was supportive of the Russian law (which there is no indication, AT ALL, that he is), that fact would not make any of the information he revealed less true.

[Recursion]

96. Was that meant to be to another post?

I was talking about the "It's just metadata and they aren't really looking at it" argument, which I more or less agree with.

[Maedhros]

99. In your first post, you referred to "response #5" as your argument,

which I took to mean POST #5, hence the misunderstanding.

As for your point, I believe the information released on the XKeyScore program clearly indicated that the metadata is indeed being looked at, as well as content.

[rhett o rick]

120. It's a joke argument. The NSA tells you they are not being bad and you buy it.

We are talking about programs being run by far right -wingers and you trust them? And dont give me the "Obama is in charge" crap. One I am not convinced he is against the Bush spy machines, and two he has kept the same team together.

The NSA looks at whatever data they want to. What's stopping them? There is no penalty if they do. I believe that they have used information to affect politics. Why wouldnt they? They are Republicans. Have you decided to trust Republicans?

[Recursion]

121. No, that's a separate question

I know what the NSA is doing because Snowden leaked documents. They're looking at routing data.

The NSA looks at whatever data they want to. What's stopping them?

The same thing that stops HHS from misusing my medical records: the law.

[davidpdx]

33. You are using a real broad brush there

I for one don't like Snowden, nor what he has done, but have said I support an investigation of the NSA programs. Very early on I was one of the people questioning why Booze Allen was given a contract with sensitive national security data. I questioned how and what manner they were doing security background checks and whether they were even adequate (including the one on Snowden himself).

So to say you can't be a Snowden groupie and question some of the stuff that is going on is ludicrous.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I'm not a Snowden groupie, and I support Obama. And I'm profoundly concerned about the NSA spying

along with trashing the Constitution for dubious purposes, like the drug war.

[marble falls]

36. Did you ever stop and think that Prism is way more discussion worthy than how one feels about....

both rings of the Snowden circus? It doesn't matter what one thinks of Snowden we all can say that he would have been much more effective here in the US 'splaining things, demonstrating how his obligation as a patriot letting the truth out trumped his obligations to who-ever it was he ultimately worked for.

Like I said, Prism is the real target here, Snowden made his decisions and thats it. Get your eye back on Prism, hairpulling over who Snowden is is a distraction.

[rhett o rick]

73. I absolutely agree that we need to keep our eye on the NSA/Booz-Allen spy programs.

Making sure they work for us and not against us.

I do think it's a little naive to think that Snowden could have stayed in the country. The Powers To Be must make an example of him to keep others from doing the same.

[marble falls]

112. I don't think he faced any sort of mysterious death, do you? And sometimes someone has to take....

one for the rest of the team. Nathan Hale, Bradley Manning etc. If I am in possession of the sort of stuff they knew, I'd have to handle it in some way to keep it not about me but about the truth and my duty to expose the truth.

A lawyer and a court room would be a great place to expose it.

[rhett o rick]

114. I dont think the court room would have exposed anything. It's all secret. What did

we learn from Pfc Mannings trial? Other than the fact that our government wants to severely punish whistle-blowers.

[marble falls]

116. His trial was public and hid nothing and the press exposed and ended the torture.

[rhett o rick]

119. What did we learn? nm

[bowens43]

38. gee maybe I should reconsider my opposition to domestic spying........ nah, nevermind

[Tikki]

39. Did you get the part where the NSA is 60 years old and that 5 repug and Democratic Administrations..

have been served by the NSA.
That they can only furnish information and that if it is not acted upon, their info is moot.

There was a time in the U.S.A. when treason was punishable by the death penalty
and ask Valerie Plame about leaks.

You want our President to do something about a entity that is older than most Americans and entrenched for
over half a century...

He is concerned about our Nation's safety...many appear to be concerned about getting their toes wet.


Tikki

[truebluegreen]

66. He didn't swear to protect us.

He swore to protect the Constitution.

[Tikki]

70. The Constitution of the United States of America...

I have no problem with Americans working with their legislators to better understand how
security and our safety fit into our daily living. Remember, we weren't allowed to talk about the why's of 9-11.

This President has protected us. Will continue to do so and holds justice in high esteem.

The NSA is nothing new. Information gathering on Americans is nothing new.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an organization I respect. There, they gather information on
civil rights abuses and work to take action to correct the abuses.

The National Policy Institute (NPI) is a racist organization that gets tax-free status while spewing
misinformation, imo. I do not know if they take action on their agenda because I don't really pay
a lot of attention to them ([small]I have read a bit of their statements[/small],ick) but the NSA, FBI etc. does.


Tikki

[Maedhros]

97. "holds justice in high esteem": Fact not in evidence.

Refused to investigate/prosecute Bush Era war crimes, including torture.

Maintains a "kill list" which includes U.S. citizens who can be targeted for execution on the President's say-so, with no due process, oversight or accountability.

Designates all military-aged males in the vicinity of drone strikes as "militants" to artificially reduce collateral damage estimates.

Signs the NDAA. doing away with habeus corpus.

Issued only platitudes in response to Israeli commandos murdering U.S. citizen, Furkan Dogan, aboard the Mavi Marmara.

None of these actions indicate that Obama holds justice "in high esteem." Perhaps you're mistaking justice for vengeance?

[Tikki]

108. Pursued and eliminated ben laden...

Justice in form.

NSA scope is only broader because it was captured by broader technology.

And yes our President should use the already established, cost effective means at his disposal.
Starting a whole new bureaucracy..NO.

I would be interested in reading your posts from 10, 5, 4, 3, 2 years ago on the NSA.


Tikki

[Maedhros]

109. Justice would have been to capture Bin Laden

and try him in a court of law, just like they tried Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. Putting a bullet in the back of his head and dumping his body in the ocean is vengeance.

Ten years ago I was outraged at warrant-less wiretapping, but not posting on DU.

[truebluegreen]

101. The fact that the NSA is "nothing new" doesn't make it right.

And their staggering capabilities and operational freedom certainly are new.

[rhett o rick]

124. I am guessing your point about the age of the NSA is that an agency that old

would never infringe on our rights. I hopy you understand that there are individuals and groups that have their own agenda. Like the Iran/Contra crowd, Nixon's plumbers, etc. I am not against the NSA. I want proper oversight and cant understand those that would rather stick their heads in the sand and hope the NSA will do the right thing.

I am glad you mentioned Ms. Plame. She does know a lot about leaks. She says we need to listen to Snowden and investigate. By the way, those that ruined her career didnt get punished but got applause on the View. Better believe Snowden, who blew the whistle on Constitutional violations will be given life in solitary confinement.

Those that are running the NSA / Booz-Allen spy programs are hard line conservatives, not known to respect the Constitution. They need oversight.

[MotherPetrie]

40. K&R

[WillyT]

41. LOL !!! - Perfect !!! - K & R !!!

[BlueManFan]

44. Doesn't The Very Term "Secret" Lose much of its meaning when 850,000 people have "top Secret"

clearance and literally millions of documents are labeled "top secret?" I'm just asking!

[SidDithers]

46. Locking...

Meta.

Sid

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

62. Unlocking...

Data

[In_The_Wind]

134. Statistics and Information

About usGovOwesUs3Trillion

Statistics and Information

Account status: Posting privileges revoked
Member since: Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:13 PM
Number of posts: 2,022
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1893
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 1802 posts in the last 90 days (95% of total posts)
Favorite group: NA
Last post: Tue Aug 13, 2013, 10:12 AM

[Raine1967]

136. Was usGovOwesUs3Trillion a host?

Holy moly.

I like the host system, I like the jury system.

I don't think I like this turn of events.

HMMmm.

[In_The_Wind]

137. No ... usGovOwesUs3Trillion ... was not a Host.

[Raine1967]

138. Thanks.

It appears he was a smart ass, I guess.

I''m not sad that it is gone. UGOUTT didn't add a lot to good debate.

Thank you.

[limpyhobbler]

47. du rec. Good round up. nt

[backscatter712]

52. K&R! The propaganda-bots have destroyed their own credibility. n/t

[woo me with science]

55. You nailed it, rhett o rick.

What a pathetic display from the propaganda machine.

Thank you for this great post. K&R

[ProSense]

58. Thanks for this

It's clearly evidence of spying on Americans.

I was so very wrong: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023423551

[hootinholler]

60. Was the edit a condition of unlocking the thread?

As is the fabled cat, I'm curious.

[rhett o rick]

75. No. When this got blown out of proportion I realized that I was in part to blame

for my wording in the subject line. (Actually it was nicely pointed out to me). The issue became the locking itself, which distracts from my intended message. I believe those that support the NSA to the exclusion of transparency are aiming to distract.

[hootinholler]

81. Not only does it detract, but it kind of kills the thread.

At least it put it on ice overnight.

Thanks for the reply.

[SidDithers]

77. The lock was not editorial...

There were 5 Hosts that commented on the thread before it was locked. The vote was 4-1 to lock it.

Hosts do not act in isolation. A Host that takes action on their own, against the wishes of other Hosts, wouldn't remain a Host for very long.

Your accusation in ATA was bullshit.

Sid

[hootinholler]

82. As I said, Without insight into the hosts discussion it appears editorial.

From this side perhaps it would have been better if another host locked it then, or maybe something more than meta as a reason. I described what I saw.

[Rex]

130. Skinner could see no reason to lock the thread, ergo it was unlocked

it would seem?

[hootinholler]

131. It doesn't work that way.

Skinner won't unlock anything (unless maybe he tombstones a host for locking something), it is up to the host who locked it to unlock it.

[Rex]

135. The admins can and have unlocked threads in the past.

I'm not saying that happened here, just that Skinner weighed in and the hosts agreed with him. Have no idea what goes on in the Host forum, just guessing.

[reformist2]

61. Don't forget about the suspicious boxes in his garage!!

[rhett o rick]

79. Well, I am not sure they dont have something with that one.

Just kidding

[raouldukelives]

63. Handy talking point round-up.nt

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

64. K&R

Well done

[xchrom]

69. i'm going to rec this and Pole Dance while i do it. nt

[quinnox]

78. lol!

[rhett o rick]

80. For the record, I have nothing against pole dancers. Some of my best friends are pole

dancers. Well.......you know what I mean.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Thanks. Pls also consider: Civil disobedience is not legitimate unless someone agrees to be arrested

They will probably come up with more. All we have to do is wait for a while.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Add to the list: Sen Franken says it's OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451229

“I’m on the Judiciary committee and the Judiciary committee has jurisdiction (over) N.S.A. and on (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the Patriot Act,” he said. “I availed myself of these briefings so nothing surprised me and the architecture of these programs I was very well aware of.”

“I think there should be enough transparency that the American people understand what is happening…But I can assure you that this isn’t about spying on the American people.”

Franken, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, also said there are aspects of security programs that he should be aware of but the public should not.

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that’s not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” he said. “Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right? And there’s a balance that has to be struck between the responsibility of the federal government to protect the American people and then people’s right to privacy. We have safeguards in place …The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know.”

He said that the data the security agency has collected have kept Americans safe.

“I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” he said.

(emphasis added)

[truth2power]

84. Brilliant! Thank you. K&R. n/t

[markpkessinger]

86. You should really consider . . .

. . . numbering the list. Think of all the bandwidth that could be saved if the NSA apologists, instead of having to type these reasons out, could instead refer, Chinese-menu-style, to "No. 7!"

[Puzzledtraveller]

90. k&r

[stupidicus]

95. excellent list

to be bookmarked for future reference when and if the apologists give up

[Just Saying]

102. I think a lot of people fall somewhere in between

Thinking Snowden is a hero and supporting the NSA. I don't really get a thrill out of trying to label people and then claiming to know what "they" believe.

To each their own I guess...

[rhett o rick]

118. I have no problem that "fall somewhere in between". I do have a problem with those here

that never discuss issues unless it pertains to Pres Obama. Never discuss issues like the XL Pipeline, or the TTP, or fracking, or access to water, or anything unless they adulating for the President and attacking those that dont.

Here are a list of threads that you wont find them discussing and this is typical"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023233743 war crimes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3225280
Warren
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023226323
Warren – Glass-Steagall

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244053 Fascism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023240309

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262702
FISA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023281378 NSA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023282003 Suits against NSA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220667
Patriot Act

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023368969#post7
Prison State

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023368969#post7
Dept of HLS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406830
Water

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014560337
Larry Summers

[cantbeserious]

104. Kick And Recommend

eom

[michigandem58]

106. You have a pretty low opinion of John Lewis

n/t

[1awake]

107. K&R n/t

[Katashi_itto]

110. K&R

[SergeyDovlatov]

113. cool list n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

127. Well done and very funny!

Thanks for this post! K & R!!!