Glenn Greenwald is naming names---NSA Spied On Five Politically Active American Citizens

[kpete]

According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes:

• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;

• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;

• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;

• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;

• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/09/under-surveillance/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Sadly, that won't bother most Americans.

They've all got 'foreign sounding' names. Unless he can come up with some 'Bob's, 'Tom's, or 'Mike's being spied upon, most Americans are going to simply shrug.

[dballance]

22. Unfortunatly you are correct.

Most Americans will read those names and think "Gee, they're Arabic and Muslim so they must need to be spied upon. They might be terrorists."

Most Americans tend to forget that Cliven Bundy recently fomented a revolution against the US government by calling up a group of people who committed treason against the US. I don't think I saw a single Muslim amongst those domestic terrorists. Bundy and his ilk are going to have hell to pay after the elections in November.

[kelliekat44]

29. You are sadly correct. People with kind of names are considered "terrorists" by the teabags anyway.

If NSA hadn't spied on them and anything happened the RW would be asking why they weren't under surveillance.

[Callmecrazy]

126. So wpuld the LW. nt

[MohRokTah]

2. "The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008."

This is definitely troubling, however, it won't make a ripple at all because it sounds like they were spying on Muslims and most Americans are going to be fine with that.

And once again, it was all 100% legal under the USA PATRIOT Act. There's the problem. Right there. Anybody who paid attention in 2001 knew for a fact that the government could legally do this shit.

[MohRokTah]

3. Nihad Awad

That's pretty damning. The two lawyers being spied on without a warrant are bad enough because the FBI pierced the attorney-client privilege, but this was a direct target of a group that fights for the rights of a minority religion in this country and the FBI targeted that group.

CAIR is moderate and the FBI specifically attempted to radicalize them.

[JDPriestly]

24. I figured that one of the reasons for the secrecy is hiding the fact that the

surveillance is or might appear to be discriminatory. On the other hand, the fear of revealing that fact may be unwarranted because so far the terrorism we have recognized and called terrorism is related to certain Muslim groups.

We tend to find acts that terrorize people but are not related to extremist Muslims "random acts" or the work of isolated individuals maybe mentally unstable individuals.

There used to be Irish terrorists in Britain, but Ireland is peaceful now.

I wonder whether any of the members of white supremacist groups are on the list.

Attorneys should not be placed under surveillance. That is a big problem.

[kelliekat44]

30. But, but the RW doesn't consider Muslims have a "religion" only Christians. nt

[Armstead]

64. The attorney client privilege is a very good point

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Not in LBN

last time I checked.

K & R

[randome]

35. Maybe because it's from 2008?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

67. Funny isn't it

The GG groupies don't seem to read what is posted, about the e-mails that is.

"The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008.

I have no idea why the OP says that GG is naming names, hell if he has to go back this far to find 5 people who were being "spied on" I would consider "history" not breaking news of any kind.

[Octafish]

83. Not as funny as how fast the defenders of the NSA rush to point out the trivial.

Who cares if it was between 2002 and 2008?

NSA spying on Americans was and is illegal.

[randome]

89. And that's why the FISA Amendments were passed in 2008.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

97. Yeah. Sort of like retroactive immunity.

Still doesn't make it right or legal or constitutional.

Oh, that's right.

[randome]

98. What, you don't like the idea of amending the Constitution or even coming up with a new one?

There was no 'immunity' involved because no one was prosecuted. That's a different kettle of fish and I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone in the previous administration going to jail.

But Greenwald's 'fireworks display' is predicated on information that predates the change in the FISA law. So he is still trying to sell us something and I'm not buying.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

99. The one from 1776 is just fine. I've no problems with amendments.

My problem is with NSA spying on Americans. The problem is that many don't understand that problem. People who make "GG" the issue also are part of the problem.

As for why it's a problem, the late Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho):

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal-to-JFK New Frontier, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, a man of integrity, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, he narrowly lost re-election a few years later.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/277

[JDPriestly]

107. Octafish, your post #99 is excellent. Thank you.

[Aerows]

135. Outstanding

I guess I'm an Octafish/JDPriestly groupie now. I'm not sorry about it - I'm in good company!

[JDPriestly]

106. What do you think he is trying to sell?

He didn't ask me for any money for anything? On the other hand, the NSA is costing us all a bundle.

[randome]

108. He is selling us his self-appointed role as our hero.

Regurgitating Bush, Junior's excesses serves no purpose other than to remind us of what a despicable president he truly was.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

132. He's doing the same thing every journalist

has ever done - told the truth. I realize it is hard for some to swallow, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Aerows]

134. I particularly like that part

that you are a "groupie" if you read what a journalist reports. I had no idea that I was a "groupie" of so many people. I feel invigorated by reading the paper now!

[geek tragedy]

5. Oh my.

In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target’s real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: “Mohammed Raghead.”

K&R

[jehop61]

6. Thank goodness

Glad our country is on top of things. This is Greenwald's BIG REVEAL?

[jehop61]

12. This is no more surveillance

than Amazon knowing what I read and where I bookmark it's pages. Or any business knowing what websites I shop at and then innundating my computer with ads. Face it, our privacy is violated everywhere and everyday. At least our government is focusing on activists in the muslim community who just might have a ulterior motive. Poor Greenwald, nobody has talked about him for a week or so......

[Fuddnik]

14. The difference is

Amazon can't throw you into solitary confinement for the rest of your life without any evidence or charges.

[DesMoinesDem]

17. So if you're Muslim you might have an ulterior motive? Are you aware you're a bigot?

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And this isn't anything close to what Amazon does. Amazon isn't spying on peoples communications.

[alp227]

25. Jury results for that post:

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I was okay with the post until the "focusing on...muslim community." Xenophobic in a bigoted way, IMHO
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Talk about trying to force an alert. This is not a disruptive post at all.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I simply do not agree that this is over the top or intentionally hurtful, it can be interpreted that way only by ascribing motive to the poster and I think its a dangerous slippery slope to get on to ascribe intent. If the offending passage had included slurs or offensive names instead of the generic "muslim community", then I would have been inclined to agree; however, I can't see this as meeting those criteria.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an OPINION! It's not bigotry. Might have a ulterior motive. Might have a ulterior motive. Please, alerter. Stop this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the alerter that the post expresses a level of bigotry that is repulsive, and there's the usual snark by the whistleblower haters, however, I do not see why this should be hidden. Let the poster's repugnant views be visible for all to see. there is an ignore feature. I've seen far worse.

Wow...my alert failed because of typical "it's an opinion" jurors and "there are worse" excuses.

[QC]

63. The wrong post got hidden here,

but that's to be expected from the jury system, which is as arbitrary as rolling dice.

[closeupready]

18. You're as good a Constitutional law scholar as most others, it appears.

[L0oniX]

20. False equivalency epic fail. Let us know when Amazon throws someone in jail.

[alp227]

53. "activists in the muslim community who just might have a ulterior motive"

WHAT motive? Are you sure you're posting at the right forum?

[merrily]

56. Websites disclose their "privacy" terms to you and you agreed to them.

Moreover, you have no first, fourth (or 2nd, 3rd, 5th, etc.) rights against those websites. Further, if you are bothered by them, you don't have to use them. None of those things apply to federal government.

At least our government is focusing on activists in the muslim community who just might have a ulterior motive.

No comment.

[Maedhros]

73. The content of your post is remarkably short-sighted and ill-conceived.

I can expect that any other posts will be equally as vapid.

/ignore.

[George II]

31. What's the point of your "good little German" comment?

[iamthebandfanman]

33. oh?

they've started to round people up have they ?

get a grip :p

[progressoid]

7. Based on America's track record, I imagine they knew they were being spied on.

e.g. MLK jr, John Lennon, Jane Fonda etc.

[frazzled]

19. Yes, it's sort of not surprising: we've "spied" on citizens since forever

I don't know if using the word "spying" is meant to ugga-booga people into thinking this is something wholly new and terrifying, and that big brother is watching what every single one of us is doing at every moment. But I've been around for a long, long time. Activists have had government files on them for many many decades, if not throughout our history.

The question for me is what happened to these people. What harm may have been caused them, or actions taken against them. Were they sent to a Gulag? Were they rounded up (as we did in World War II to every American of Japanese ancestry) and put them in internment camps? Were charges brought against them? I don't know.

I do think we need to make clear what is and isn't legitimate in terms of government tracking of citizens. And it should be more transparent. But is this a galactic revelation? I think not. We knew the Bush administration was looking everywhere.

[JDPriestly]

109. Yes. But it shows the danger in the spying. Someone who is clearly not a

terrorist gets spied upon simply because he or she might communicate inadvertently with someone who is a terrorist. The non-terrorist gets scooped up just in case.

That is the way it works in totalitarian societies. We watched the movie "Cabaret" last night. It's very old.

In one of the scenes, Liza Minelli's landlady talks to a tenant. One of them complains
about something to the effect of "the Jews have all the money," meaning that they are rich, and how "the Communists are in league with them." The other, I think the landlady catches the lack of logic in it in her answer. And that is, why would the rich team up with the Communists? The idea is absurd because the rich and the Communists would have had very different goals.

But in a society unable to figure things out logically because it is acting out of fear and seeking out the suspicious in every hiding place, individuals become suspects just because they might have a wayward, troubling thought or might know someone who does.

The NSA and Amazon, etc. spying is a problem because it enables the government to collect a vast assortment of information on any individual it chooses without having to answer publicly as to why it chose us.

Hence, in earlier versions of this kind of program in the US, people like John Lennon and many other innocent people were placed under a primitive, far less encompassing form of surveillance or investigation.

You don't have to buy from Amazon. And if you don't buy from them, they have no interest in you. But the only way you can avoid the surveillance of the US government is if you don't communicate by e-mail, phone or other electronic means at all. And then, I suppose if they want to snoop on you, they follow you around.

Does anyone have a problem seeing the danger in the NSA program? Please watch The Lives of Others if you do. Available from Netflix.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

[truedelphi]

113. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

9. It wasn't really spying.

It's only electronically enhanced research.

[kpete]

11. xlnt phrasing:

electronically enhanced research

peace to you and yours
littlemissmartypants,

kp

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Off to the greatest with you kpete. nt

[hueymahl]

13. No problem - they are all A-RAB sounding names - must be turrerists!

Do I really need the sarcasm tag?

[malaise]

15. No

but you stole my post

[hootinholler]

16. But metadata

or something.

[DirkGently]

21. KNR

[Savannahmann]

23. We have high level very specific but somehow vague intelligence

That they are all different. Also, we're seeing a lot of references to the letter I. We think that could be significant. It seems to be used a lot. So we'll keep on spying until we figure out the significance of the letter I in all of these messages.

[George II]

26. Ah.....Eddie and Glenn keep doling out the blockbusters when their names haven't been...

....in the headlines for a few weeks.

So, the "spying" is that the five email addresses are on a list of 7800 or so other email addresses?

Do you people know that for a few hundred bucks you can buy email address lists that could possibly contain those same five email addresses? Or yours? Or mine?

My bank has a list containing hundreds of thousands of email addresses. I'd bet that the DMV in my state has tens of thousands of email addresses. DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND can probably put together a list of tens of thousands of email addressed!!!!!

[Cha]

40. Ed's blockbuster this week is he wants to stay in Russia.. or nobody else wants him and he has to

be some place.

Edward Snowden applies to extend his stay in Russia

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014842380

[randome]

27. This is indeed damning -to the Bush Administration.

Actually, it's not damning at all since the documents specifically state that authorization needed to be obtained.

Oh. My. God. The fireworks display is here and...and...


[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Armstead]

66. Which sort of highlights the fact that Greenwald was not limiting his work to Obama administration

[randome]

70. For a change, yes.

But you'd think he might have pointed out that the FISA amendments were specifically designed to prevent this sort of activity. A thorough journalist would give the full story.

Not Greenwald.

He always conflates data to make it appear that this is still ongoing. He sold this 'fireworks display' as something for the world to be outraged about. Why do you think he does that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Call me naive; but ...

here's a thought ...

Redact the names; but leave the activity descriptors ... can anyone think of a reason why the NSA might have an interest in their communications?

For me, it's not enough to provide a list of names ... I can, without much thought, think of a reason to monitor these "politically active American Citizen's" accounts. Oh, this might be relevant:

The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

And, out of the 1,000s of names GG has information on, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that each of the names he released are easily identifiable as being of Arab descent, right? Not to mention, the list is from 2002-2008!

Folks are getting played by GG ... again!

[Savannahmann]

36. So you suggest that every Arab descendant should be watched?

Should we keep an eye on people with Germanic sounding names. You know they started two world wars once. How about Spanish names. There was the war with Mexico, and the Spanish American War. Oh, how about Slavic sounding names, we were in a cold war with the Russians and Putin is all KGB alumni and all that.

So anyone who isn't a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) needs to be kept an eye on. WASP's, you can trust. They are the good and loyal Americans right?

You have a lawyer who represents his clients. You have a former member of the National Security team under Bush. Granted, that means I'm unlikely to trust him, but it also means he was vetted and investigated before he got the TS Clearance.

Come on man, think for a change. Remember, content of their character instead of the color of their skin? Little dream some guy had that inspired a nation? I remember reading about it sometime or another.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. No; but I'm okay with ...

every Arab descendant that:

... Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.

Be monitored.

Did you read the article?

[morningfog]

48. Did you read it? "Many" and "among" is not all.

I know, I know, your stock is in apologia. Keep up the good work comrade!

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. I'm pretty certain that ...

had GG:

1) Had someone, out of those 7,000+, that was not connected to terrorist networks, he would have trumpeted them, rather than the names he identified;

2) Had something more recent than 2008, he would have released that, instead of Bush era names;

But hang your hat on "some" and "many" because clearly the vague disproves the clear.

And, Comrade?

[tkmorris]

102. Are the 5 he did mention connected to terrorist attacks?

Admittedly I have not gone into full "research mode" but I didn't see any indication they had done anything to warrant being surveilled.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. The article, unsurprisingly, doesn't say ...

one way or the other.

But it's prudent to assume (in the context of the article) that since the article DOES make note that "some" or "many" are believed to have terrorist ties, these 5 are/might, also, fall under that descriptor. No?

Why else would the article point out the connections of "some/many", without pointing out these 5 are excluded?

[gratuitous]

115. The logic of the 1950s black list and red scare

"Many" of the email addresses on the list "appear" to belong to "foreigners" whom the government "believes" are "linked" to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Allow me to share a few humorous words from a quaint old document that has been superannuated in our brave new world of surveillance and counterterrorism: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, it seems to me that if there was some of that "probable cause," then someone somewhere could have filled out an affidavit and gotten a court order for a warrant. After all, this happened over a seven year period, so it's not like there was some emergency situation so beloved by the "ticking time bomb" crowd. The language seems pretty non-negotiable: "shall not be violated." Not a lot of wiggle room, there. But then, I'm hearing many of the same, tired rationales to excuse this that were so often employed after World War II right through the early 1970s, a 30-year period of repression and police state tactics that ruined countless lives and careers.

But it helped give us three Bush administrations, so we have that impressive track record to appreciate.

[Marr]

41. I think it's time for the apologists to just give up.

First they complained that there was no information, and now they complain that Greenwald is awful for releasing it. Of course, there wouldn't be a need to release it if the apologists adored government leaders and agencies weren't overstepping boundaries, and they themselves weren't denying it and defending it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Funny ...

I think it's time GG/Snowden apologists to just give it up.

First they cheer that GG/Snowden really HAS information, and now they ignore that Greenwald is releasing information that: 1) is dated (2002-2008), while insisting that its damning to this administration; 2) is not exactly shocking because the list is of people the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen. (From the article that GG/Snowden apologist apparently feel no need to actually read)

Of course, there wouldn't be a need to respond to the release if the (GG/Snowden) apologists actually read what their adored leaders' actually wrote because it would be clear that (in this instance) the evil, evil government was NOT over-stepping boundaries, and they themselves weren't actually denying and defending that GG played them ... again.

[rhett o rick]

120. So you are saying that you dont care if the NSA/CIA are violating the Constitution? That's the

issue. Do you support the Patriot Act?

[1StrongBlackMan]

130. No ...

as much, and as often as I disagree with the SCOTUS' Decisions, in this/our form of government, the SCOTUS determines what is, and what is not, constitutional (violative of the Constitution) ... and the SCOTUS has yet to declare/rule that anything the NSA/CIA has done is unconstitutional.

Do you support the Patriot Act?

No ... I do not support it in its current form. But, in the absence of a limiting ruling, it is our duty as citizens to urge/lobby Congress to act. Until there is a ruling or Congressional action, the law is the law. That is what the rule of law means.

[frylock]

46. these people are incapable of admitting they were mistaken..

take a look upthread. Amazon and the Democratic Underground have our email addresses, so nothing to see here or something.

[morningfog]

49. You are ignoring the monitoring of the five named in the article.

They are not addresses that appear to belong to foreigners. Nor are they believed to be linked to terrorists. They are 5 innocent Americans who were monitored because of they are prominent Arab-Americans.

[randome]

50. And you're ignoring that the surveillance was at the request of the FBI.

And that judicial authorization needed to be obtained. And that it happened during Bush, Junior's reign.

This is the fireworks display Greenwald promised? Information from before the FISA Act was amended?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Aren't you ignoring something bigger? ...

You have no way of knowing whether the 5 names in the article are believed to be linked to terrorist or that they are innocent Americans who were monitored because of they are prominent Arab-Americans.

Now do you? Be honest with yourself, if not me.

[morningfog]

84. Did you read the article? They are thoroughly discussed, comrade.

[randome]

86. So your question is: why did the FBI want to spy on these individuals, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

142. Well, per recent reports ...

it appears that ALL of those 5 people named had some tie (at most 2 leaps away) to terrorist groups. Color me unsurprised.

When will GG fans, er ... full governmental transparency fantasy fans recognize that GG is playing them ... again?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. Yes, I read the article ...

apparently you either didn't, or didn't/don't understand/don't wish to acknowledge that Nation-States actually monitor people suspected of having criminal ties.

BTW, your continued referring to me as "comrade" says way more about you, than me. You'll learn that when you get out middle school ... or you won't.

[morningfog]

96. The five in the article didn't have criminal ties.

I do admire your double plus good thinking, though!

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. And how do you know ...

The five in the article didn't have criminal ties?

[randome]

103. One of them said so! It's right there in the article!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Well, that settles it for me! ...

this is clearly over-reach by an out of control surveillance state because terrorist suspects are known to admit their ties, when their name comes out!

[morningfog]

110. Their history and the fact that years of monitoring

Didn't result in any charges!

Furthermore, NO ONE has claimed that they were! Not even the NSA.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Their years of being monitored ...

proves that they weren't believed to have terror ties because they weren't subsequently charged?

Come on ... Not even you can believe that!

[morningfog]

125. No, I am sure they are terrorists and committed all sorts of crimes. The US gov just gave them

a break, because that's what they do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Okay, this ...

and you, is just being silly.

Peace ... I'm done.

[morningfog]

138. So long. I guarantee you that if the government monitored

your email for 7 years and they had ANY evidence, even a tiny shred of criminal activity, you'd be charged. Especially as a minority with an Arab name.

This can't be justified. This turd won't shine. I just wonder why supposed Democrats defend Bush on this. Curious how many are on DU practicing bush apologia.

[stevenleser]

75. Not only that. Compare this allegation of a few thousand whose metadata was checked out to this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_wiretapping

or this:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0569kissingerwiretap#a0569kissingerwiretap
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's pretty underwhelming.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. But ...

You must understand, all of that happened in the past ... to someone else ... before it could have possibly applied to me! So that is all to be ignored, historic context be damned!

[bobduca]

143. You are naive n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

145. Thank you ...

Did you hear/read that those 5 American Citizens do, in fact, have ties (all within the FISA-permissible "3-leaps&quot to terrorist organizations?

GG plays DU ... again!

[bobduca]

146. I'm sure Glenn Greenwald is laughing at DU

really we are that important!11111

[1StrongBlackMan]

147. Laughing all the way to the bank ...

Wait ... I thought DU single-handedly prevent President Obama from bombing Syria, withdraw CPPI from budget negotiations, and forced President Obama to end DADT/DOMA ... all against what he, CLEARLY, WANTED to do.

Now, your suggesting that DU is unimportant?

[conservaphobe]

32. If anything, this list will ease the minds of most Americans.

I know it has eased mine.

Nice to know the program ended in 2008. I guess elections DO have consequences.

[hughee99]

87. Sorry, I didn't catch the part where it says the program ended in 2008.

Could you please point that out to me?

[conservaphobe]

92. Saw it on Twitter. Not in this particular article.

Zeddonymous @ZeddRebel · 13h

Greenwald's last big NSA scoop is a program that ended in 2008. So ultimately his conclusion is that elections do, in fact, matter?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

116. Greenwald says the program is still active. nt

[randome]

123. Well, then, case closed!

And Greenwald said this because...he likes to say stuff?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

139. honestly, you take the tweet of someone called "Zeddonymous"....

on its face as truth?

Really????

[randome]

94. The FISA Amendments of 2008 put an end to this type of activity.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

34. Nothing to see here....

This is nothing new! The NSA has been reformed! If they were doing nothing wrong.... Boxes in a garage....Stripper pole...

Finally some names, but will the NSA apologists be satisfied or will the goal posts be moved again?

[randome]

38. Did you not read that judicial authorization was required?

Did you not read that the FBI was the investigating agency? Did you not read that this happened under the Bush administration?

No one needs to be an 'apologist' to read the facts.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Enter term: (+/=) GG, Snowden ...

jump on board ... no reading of search results necessary.

[blackspade]

58. And did you not read that...

Judicial authorizations were based on made up justifications?
So what if the FBI was the investigating agency? Does that make the surveillance ok? Does the fact that this started under Bush mean that it shouldn't be investigated now that he's not in office?

[randome]

62. Well, the FISA amendments were designed to specifically stop this type of behavior.

So go ahead and investigate something that was recognized and fixed years ago. I'm not sure what you expect to come of it, though.

"Hey, this was wrong. We should do something about it."

"Oh. Wait. We did. Never mind."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

65. But did they 'fix' the problems?

That is the question. We have no way of knowing without transparency in the process.
But, look forward, not back, correct?

I would prefer this:

"Hey, this was wrong. We should do something about it."

"Oh. Wait. We did. These guys went to jail."

[randome]

68. That's not going to happen but I applaud the sentiment.

Still, now that Greenwald is peddling info from 6 years ago, I think it's safe to assume that his much-vaunted fireworks display is a dud.

I don't understand how he could possibly think this was some sort of 'Pentagon Papers' moment for him because that's how he sold it. At least that's how it sounded to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[blackspade]

71. Fair enough, but

Whether it was from 6 years ago or last week, it's damning stuff that needs to be investigated.
I'm aware that it won't be by the political establishment because there is likely too many corpes in the closet that they would just as soon not see exposed to the public.
They protect their own, and it's not the American people.

[stevenleser]

81. None of the Greenwald cheering squad seems to have read that this happened under Bush.

they are all reflexively using the talking point that we are underwhelmed to protect Obama.

[randome]

90. I know. It's interesting to see their reactions to the 'grand finale' 'fireworks display'.

Of course maybe this is just the precursor to the 'real' fireworks display. Any day now...any day...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

137. Your reckless idealism borders on beautiful

Hold on to it as long as you can.

[BlueCheese]

76. The goalposts have been to the other side of the Earth by now.

Spying on individual Americans without apparent cause is now okay.

[iamthebandfanman]

37. looks like they started

doing so under the bush regime...

yay patriot act

[marmar]

43. K/R

The downthread spin cycle is reaching desperation levels.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. I agree ...

Read the linked article ... you might wish to self-delete your support of GG on this one.

[marmar]

51. For me, it's not about "supporting Glenn Greenwald" ....

..... to be honest, I don't know how I feel about him.

It's about the larger issue involved -- an out-of-control surveillance state.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Okay ...

But, (or rather, so) the facts contained in the article, i.e., "many" of the 7,000+ names on the list are believed to have terrorist ties, doesn't give you pause as to whether this 2002-2008 list is representative of an out of control surveillance state?

[neverforget]

47. spin, deflect and distract. rinse and repeat.

Over and over.

[truth2power]

54. Yep. Teams. n/t

[truth2power]

52. kpete - Thanks for posting....

There was an article about this on Common Dreams this morning, but your link is much more comprehensive, having come directly from The Intercept.

If you don't mind, though, I'm going to add the Common Dreams link here because reading the comments section is instructive.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/07/09

Something few seem to have noticed about this newest disclosure is that naming names makes it a whole new ballgame, so to speak. It's my understanding that Chris Hedges' et. al. lawsuit against the Obama Administration over the NDAA was finally thrown out because the Court said the Plaintiffs didn't have standing, that is, they couldn't prove they had been harmed, due to the Gov't refusing to say whom they were survveilling.

I would hope that the lawsuits are being prepared as we speak, although I'm not confident of a positive outcome because we no longer have a judicial system in this country that's worth a fart in the wind. Regardless, this is a significant disclosure.

Which brings me to another concern. I'm continually amazed that there are some DUers who are at pains to trivialize NSA machinations in toto. It's very strange. I don't know who they think they're talking to, or whom they expect to convince. Perhaps some adolescents who have happened on DU for the first time.

I expect that some of us older folk who have significant life experience know how dangerous all this is. Greenwald/Snowden are courageous individuals who deserve our support.

[snooper2]

55. Is this hugh yet?

[randome]

57. Next thing you know, we'll hear what went on during the Vietnam War.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[MindPilot]

59. Hey Greenwald! you better not say anything that reflects badly on our precious president!!

He's a Democrat you know, and that's way more important than those silly individual rights.

[randome]

61. Please try to keep up.

This is data from 2008. Bush, Junior's time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[JI7]

112. Obama wasn't President from 2002-2008

[Uncle Joe]

60. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[Andy823]

69. 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008.

Wow, going back that far to come up with 5 names is NEW? Is this more of the "ground breaking information" that has been promised for how long now? You have to be kidding, right?

[Jamaal510]

118. It must be

a slow news cycle...some of the folks on MSNBC have been rolling with this, too, inviting GG on their shows today. Pathetic.

[BlueCheese]

72. I have a hard time believing the mental gymnastics people are performing to defend this.

It is unfathomable to me that anyone on here would be defending these activities if a Republican were president. Or deliberately missing the point of the article as blatantly as they appear to be doing.

[stevenleser]

79. A Republican WAS President during the times in question. Did you read it?

It's still underwhelming nonsense.

[DanTex]

82. Umm, actually these activities did occur while a Republican was president.

From 2002 to 2008 to be precise.

[BlueCheese]

85. Right. But people are still defending them.

Of course, I'm pretty sure these things are ongoing. If they had stopped, I'm sure the administration would have jumped on the opportunity to say that they had reformed the Bush era abuses.

[randome]

88. That's what the FISA Amendments were designed to do: stop this type of thing.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[elias49]

119. So when is that type of thing going to stop??

You trust the FISA court apparently.

33,949 FISA requests submitted since its inception.
11 denied.

Sound about right to you??

[randome]

121. That has been endlessly discussed.

No prosecutor goes before a judge to request a warrant unless they are near 100% certain it will be granted. Otherwise, the judge starts to look at said prosecutor with distrust and is more likely to deny other warrant requests.

It's standard prosecutorial procedure to be damned sure of yourself before you make such a request.

And it was the FISA Amendments of 2008 that put a stop to the NSA spying on Americans.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[elias49]

124. So they were all valid requests?

Of course they're going to be granted....not because they necessarily are valid, but, hey, it's FISA.

And as for having been "endlessly discussed" - sounds suspiciously like "Oh, we've known all this forever!....There's noting new here" The favorite tactic of those who - in reality - DON"T WANT something discussed. "Nothing to see here....move along"

[randome]

128. By 'endlessly discussed', I mean this topic has been addressed on DU innumerable times.

Like I said, it is standard procedure to never go before a judge or a court unless you are damned sure you will come out of it smelling like roses.

The best change to come out of this NSA review is the idea of appointing an adversarial rep for suspects. That should alleviate some people's concerns and I think it's a good move.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

136. You seem tired

Get some rest. I'll post more pictures of dogs tomorrow

[JI7]

114. a republican WAS President during 2002-2008

[elias49]

122. And between 2009 and 2012

during a Democrat administration there were around 6,000 FISA requests...and 1 denied. Son of a gun!

[Octafish]

78. Obviously they are all foreigners and communists.

Er, terrorists.

[Helen Borg]

93. They all have weird names! So "NOT ME", I'm afraid...

That's what most US folks will think.

[BlueCheese]

127. Did you see the fake name they used as a placeholder?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

129. "Palestinian rights"

Ah!

Mythology.

[Babel_17]

133. Those who should be focused on this now have more justification ...

Those who should be focused on this now have more justification to power through any bureaucratic roadblocks.

[NanceGreggs]

140. Just posting in this thread ...

...because it obviously needs some love and attention.

As of this writing, this thread about Greenwald's STOP THE PRESSES - THIS IS HUGH!!! latest revelations has 139 replies, and 3,554 views.

On the other hand, the OP about quinnox's sudden and involuntary departure from DU is at 456 replies, and 12,980 views.

Looks like GG's long-awaited and much-anticipated "fireworks display" hasn't garnered enough interest to compete with a virtual DU funeral.

We can only hope that GG's next earth-shattering bombshell isn't delivered on a Sunday - the more newsworthy "LOL Cats" edition will undoubtedly prove to be insurmountable competition for everyone's attention.

[elias49]

141. You can lead a horse to water...

but you know the rest Nance

[bobduca]

144. Wow such amazing analysis! a grave dancing thread means DU supports the Roberts FISA court!

worth every penny! DU disappears up it's own ass with a grave dancing thread, and therefore the FISA court is AOK.

[NanceGreggs]

148. Yes, of course.

"a grave dancing thread means DU supports the Roberts FISA court."

I keep forgetting that this is the kind of thing that passes for logical thinking here these days.

The point is that this was the BIG NEWS the Snowden/GG crowd have been breathlessly anticipating for weeks! It was going to be explosive! The Greenwald naysayers were going to be shut up once and for all when they saw GG's "fireworks display" of information!

Well, looks like the big fireworks display turned out to be GG holding a fizzled-out sparkler - and even the staunchest Greenwald fans couldn't come up with enough enthusiasm to discuss his earth-shattering revelations.

A follow-up OP about Greenwald's promise that there's "more to come!!!" only elicited a few yawns.

Maybe - just maybe - some people are finally waking up to the fact that GG has been playing them all along.