Obama signs Warrantless FISA bill

[Cinga]

What is being done is legal, approved by Congess which also has oversight, and needs approval by a FISA court. So it's consistent with his statement to end illegal activity.

 

And if you paid attention you would know that he wants to close Gitmo, and bring the detainees to US courts and prisons, but to date has been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Again consistent with earlier statements.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Carry on with your fantasy camp.

 

More like he's been blocked by the American People who don't want to bring the scum of the earth into our borders.... Or do you fail to remember the uproar it caused when Holder tried to bring them to NY for trial???

[B-Man]

 

 

The Asymmetric Outrage of Big Government Scandals :Spare us the talk of bipartisan disgust with the IRS.

 

Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) has apparently had enough of both the IRS and Eric Holder, and thinks that it’s time for both to go. But I was struck by this comment of hers:

She feels the outrage over the politically motivated targeting is generally uniform throughout the House: “I think there’s enormous bipartisan outrage. This transcends party lines. We would be just as outraged if they were targeting liberal organizations.”

 

I’m willing to believe that the outrage is bipartisan, at least to some degree — there are many Democrats who see the danger here. (Even if the concern is simply regarding what might happen in a future Republican administration.) But I’d be willing to bet that the outrage remains much higher on the Republican side of the aisle than on the other.

 

What really struck me was the absurdity of the notion that such a thing could have happened to “liberal” organizations, even with a Republican administration. The reason is that this may not be a consequence of a lawless, hyper-political White House, but of a deep-rooted bureaucratic culture:

The IRS is not supposed to be a partisan agency. The federal bureaucracy was explicitly designed to be non-partisan so that it would impartially enforce the tax laws and regulations passed by the Congress and approved by the Executive. But the IRS like many other federal bureaucracies tends to be

staffed by people — especially at the management level — who believe in robust, activist government.

In other words: it is staffed mainly by Democrats. And however nonpartisan the organization is supposed to be, it cannot help but reflect the culture of the people who comprise it. The IRS, being led by and staffed with activist-minded Democrats, cannot help but reflect that worldview. The culture reinforces itself because adherence to the culture is the only way to move up. Dissenters and contrarians do not last long in an organization like the IRS (any more than they do at the FBI or EPA or DOJ).

 

I don’t know if this is true, but I think it would be the way to bet, and this is even more frightening than a lawless and hyper-politicized White House. If true, what are the implications?

 

Well, for instance, it means that the counterfactual described above — the IRS (or any federal agency) going after organizations favorable to Democrats in a similar manner, even with explicit White House direction — would only occur in a galaxy far, far, away.

 

Imagine that George W. Bush had given speeches describing the illegitimacy of “progressive” organizations like MoveOn.org, had called them a “threat to democracy,” or had refused to denounce his vice president’s characterization of them as “terrorists.”

 

Imagine that he had used crude and sexually derogatory terms to describe them. Or had implied that they criticized and hated him because they hated white people.

 

Further, suppose that the press not only wasn’t outraged, but instead agreed with him and even elaborated on his calumny, denouncing the racist and un-American terrorists at Soros-funded groups.

 

In this alternate universe, a press corps that went into “journalism” to “make a difference” has somehow miraculously transformed itself into cheerleaders for conservatism.

 

Back in reality, does anyone expect that a massive government bureaucracy, whose very existence and future growth is contingent on the continuation of big intrusive government, would actually start to give harsh scrutiny to organizations that are its own cheerleaders?

 

Take it a step further. Suppose that the White House had not only publicly identified its political enemies, but also had sent the explicit message to the bureaucracy — via phone calls, emails, even official memos — that it was to make life as difficult for them as possible.

 

Would they then salute and follow orders?

 

Of course not. We know exactly what they would do: leak the emails and memos to the press. Some might even publicly resign in protest, in a noisy press conference with their Pearl Harbor files in hand.

 

That any significant number of them would have actually followed administration dictates would be unthinkable, because their colleagues and superiors would shun them per the culture described above.

 

In the real world, none of that happened, of course. There would be a few noble souls who fought it, but for the most part, the troops dutifully went along, because it made perfect sense that enemies of their own agency (and of course the benevolent state itself) must not be allowed to carry out their nefarious and evil schemes. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, after all.

 

This is the danger the Founders foresaw, but that too many in our day have forgotten or never learned. The State will always attempt to arrogate power unto itself and grow, and will develop intrinsic antibodies to any attempt to rein it in, and defenders of liberty and limited government will always have to wage an uphill fight just to hold the battle lines, let alone avoid continued retreat. Let us hope that in this overreach, it will be (as the state’s defenders might themselves say) a “teachable moment” and a rare opportunity to significantly roll it back.

Edited June 9, 2013 by B-Man

[Azalin]

What is being done is legal, approved by Congess which also has oversight, and needs approval by a FISA court. So it's consistent with his statement to end illegal activity.

 

And if you paid attention you would know that he wants to close Gitmo, and bring the detainees to US courts and prisons, but to date has been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Again consistent with earlier statements.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Carry on with your fantasy camp.

this is exactly what people can expect to hear from the left about this, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, spying on AP reporters, and anything else that may come up between now & 2016. there was a time when I believed that there were true believers in the american left that actually had a pragmatic side to them, but I was either wrong or they have all died in recent years.

[Cinga]

this is exactly what people can expect to hear from the left about this, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, spying on AP reporters, and anything else that may come up between now & 2016. there was a time when I believed that there were true believers in the american left that actually had a pragmatic side to them, but I was either wrong or they have all died in recent years.

 

Azalin, I wish you were right, but unfortunately, we're hearing defense of all this crap from the left AND the right. Most are establishment types, but it's there....

It HAS actually surprised me though, to hear many in the media, and young guns in Congress, both right and left. condemning the program...

We'll see where it goes from here but even with the above joining the cause, I doubt the American people are following it....

[Ralonzo]

America:

 

You didn't see any problems with requiring car manufacturers to offer seat belts as an option, did you?

 

You thought nobody needed to worry about reporting a $10k financial transaction, right?

 

And orange tips for cap guns, it could save lives, eh?

 

So why should anyone worry about open-ended FISA at the behest of the Attorney General?

 

I mean, he's acting to defend your rights, the American Public, isn't he? Isn't that his job?

 

Come on people, get with the times. What's the problem? Slippery slopes are so 20th century. Maybe even 19th.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Ralonzo

[Azalin]

Azalin, I wish you were right, but unfortunately, we're hearing defense of all this crap from the left AND the right.

I've been surprised at this as well. Karl Rove defending the data-gathering, and Michael Moore & Glenn Beck both calling Snowden a hero.....it ain't what I'm used to.

[B-Man]

[B-Man]

 

FBI requests for records under Patriot Act have increased 1,000% in just four years

 

It’s not just the number of requests, it’s the scope of them. They’re not demanding records related to particular investigations anymore, they’re demanding huge troves of records on random Americans for data-mining purposes, the same thing Patriot Act co-author Jim Sensenbrenner complained about a few days ago but somehow didn’t foresee in 2001.

 

Like I said, you might want to re-poll Bush’s numbers.

 

“That they were using this (provision) to do mass collection of data is definitely the biggest surprise,” said Robert Chesney, a top national security lawyer at the University of Texas Law School. “Most people who followed this closely were not aware they were doing this. We’ve gone from producing records for a particular investigation to the production of all records for a massive pre-collection database. It’s incredibly sweeping.”…

 

Google, Facebook, and the gang started to resist NSLs on grounds that they were dubious legally, so Mueller shifted to Section 215 and got back to squeezing them for more and more and more data. Hence Google’s new move, announced just this afternoon: To take some of the heat off itself and push it back onto the feds where it belongs, the company’s lawyer is asking the DOJ to let it publish the number — and scope — of FBI requests for records it receives each year. Right now it’s forbidden to say because Section 215 imposes a gag order on the target of the record request. If Google can’t legally resist complying, at least it can soothe its critics by revealing just how much pressure it’s under from the Most Transparent Administration Ever.

 

 

Exit question: This WaPo story is nothing more than a textbook pro-Obama leak authorized by the White House to take some heat off of him and maybe show the virtues of aggressive cyberwarfare, right?

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/11/fbi-requests-for-records-under-patriot-act-have-increased-1000-in-just-four-years-update-data-mining-goes-deeper-than-thought/

[3rdnlng]

 

 

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/11/fbi-requests-for-records-under-patriot-act-have-increased-1000-in-just-four-years-update-data-mining-goes-deeper-than-thought/

 

I just read somewhere that Dennis Hoyer claimed that what Bush was doing was illegal but Obama has scaled things way back and is doing it legally. Now, I don't have a link at the moment but I didn't put anything in quotes. Just for EiI's sake I'll try to remember where I saw it and post it.

[Cinga]

I just read somewhere that Dennis Hoyer claimed that what Bush was doing was illegal but Obama has scaled things way back and is doing it legally. Now, I don't have a link at the moment but I didn't put anything in quotes. Just for EiI's sake I'll try to remember where I saw it and post it.

 

And I'm seeing all the talking heads saying it was totally legal... but therein lies the problem... Just because some dumbasses pass a law, doesn't make that law CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

[B-Man]

And I'm seeing all the talking heads saying it was totally legal... but therein lies the problem... Just because some dumbasses pass a law, doesn't make that law CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoyer: No comparison between Obama, Bush on secret NSA surveillance

 

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday defended the Obama administration's domestic spying programs, arguing that, unlike the secret surveillance under President George W. Bush, the current programs appear legal.

 

"The difference between this program and the Bush program [is that] the Bush program was not sanctioned by law; this is pursuant to law," Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol. "I think that's a very important distinction that some people don't draw, but they ought to draw."

 

 

http://thehill.com/h...-#ixzz2VxjpvKsh

 

 

 

But according to Congressman Sensenbrenner the practical ´author´ of the Patriot Act, the activities are well BEYOND the law, so who ya gonna believe.................

Edited June 12, 2013 by B-Man

[Ralonzo]

And I'm seeing all the talking heads saying it was totally legal... but therein lies the problem... Just because some dumbasses pass a law, doesn't make that law CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

 

There's still one way to guarantee that it's constitutional.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Ralonzo

[B-Man]

Of course CBS will be as diligent on this as Fox was on the James Rosen case.

 

 

 

 

CBS News confirms multiple breaches of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer

 

CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson revealed in May that her computer had been compromised. When asked about the situation, CBS News responded with a statement that it was conducting an investigation.

That investigation has reached the following conclusions, according to CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair:

“A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/14/cbs-news-confirms-multiple-breaches-of-sharyl-attkissons-computer/

 

 

.

 

[IDBillzFan]

CBS News confirms multiple breaches of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer

 

Remember the old days when people who worried about the federal government hacking into their computer to search for information were considered crazy?

 

And here we sit, completely ready to NOT be surprised when we find out someone at DOJ was digging to see where Attkisson was getting her information about Fast and Furious.

[DC Tom]

Remember the old days when people who worried about the federal government hacking into their computer to search for information were considered crazy?

 

And here we sit, completely ready to NOT be surprised when we find out someone at DOJ was digging to see where Attkisson was getting her information about Fast and Furious.

 

I'm sure it wasn't anyone at DOJ.

 

It was someone hired by a contractor subbed to another contractor contracted to DOJ's office of public affairs who went rogue and did it all on his own without any management or executive oversight or knowledge.

[B-Man]

I'm sure it wasn't anyone at DOJ.

 

It was someone hired by a contractor subbed to another contractor contracted to DOJ's office of public affairs who went rogue and did it all on his own without any management or executive oversight or knowledge.

 

The government has got him narrowed down.......................

 

[Nanker]

I'm sure it wasn't anyone at DOJ.

 

It was someone hired by a contractor subbed to another contractor contracted to DOJ's office of public affairs who went rogue and did it all on his own without any management or executive oversight or knowledge.

While BO was campaigning fund raising and trying his damnedest to get to the bottom of the Benghazhi story.

[OCinBuffalo]

If only she would use more emoticons.

I'm not attempting to get paid for this, Malkin is. And, I use emoticons as a haze.

 

All it takes is for one poster to admit that they demanded them from me, and the reign of gifs will be over.