DC Tom Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I covered that in one of my following paragraphs, though I didn't realize your were another neo-Nixonite. "Ultimately you're melding Nixon's "...when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." with the Bush doctrine which dictates an aggressive executive interpretation of the Constitution; which makes all things Constitutional and permissible; until such time as they aren't; and this is neither moral nor condusive to freedom and prosperity." The president didn't do it. Congress passed and modified FISA. The executive (in this case, the FBI) followed due process under the law in acquiring a court order that itself was allowed under the law and legally binding. If you don't like that, then challenge it in federal court. There's plenty of constitutional grounds to challenge it on - whether the FBI's petition to the court constituted proper "due process," given that it's a closed, secret court; whether the court itself is legal given that, as a closed, secret court, there's no practical way to appeal its decisions; and whether the order itself is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. You'll lose the last, but might win the first two. If they let you file a challenge - an appellate court could just as easily find that you don't have standing to challenge the order in court, since it's AT&T's data and thus you're arguably not the aggrieved party. There's probably other federal laws you could challenge it under as well (file a suit saying it conflicts with HIPAA - that'd be fun.) But stop your incessant puerile whining that it's "illegal" because it's "judicial activism." It's not. Of all the legitimate complaints you can make about this program, why the hell are you picking one that makes you look like a complete idiot?
B-Man Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) Huh...............haven't seen any pro-Snowden pieces in a few days..................... 3 Former NSA Employees Praise Edward Snowden, Corroborate Key Claims. USA Today has published an extraordinary interview with three former NSA employees who praise Edward Snowden's leaks, corroborate some of his claims, and warn about unlawful government acts. Thomas Drake, William Binney, and J. Kirk Wiebe each protested the NSA in their own rights. "For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens," the newspaper reports. "They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media." In other words, they blew the whistle in the way Snowden's critics suggest he should have done. Their method didn't get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on. But they are nonetheless owed thanks. And among them, they've now said all of the following: His disclosures did not cause grave damage to national security. What Snowden discovered is "material evidence of an institutional crime." As a system administrator, Snowden "could go on the network or go into any file or any system and change it or add to it or whatever, just to make sure -- because he would be responsible to get it back up and running if, in fact, it failed. So that meant he had access to go in and put anything. That's why he said, I think, 'I can even target the president or a judge.' If he knew their phone numbers or attributes, he could insert them into the target list which would be distributed worldwide. And then it would be collected, yeah, that's right. As a super-user, he could do that." "The idea that we have robust checks and balances on this is a myth." More at link.................... . Edited June 18, 2013 by B-Man
section122 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Just a note: if anyone is watching the discussions to congress from our intel leaders, you see an amazing presentation difference between people like this who know/believe they are doing the right thing, and the Holders/Lerners/Mueller/IRS weasels who were choking on their own vomit in front of an oversight commttee because they knew they were busted using the government to silence critics. It is clear that you agree with this happening may I ask why? Is it the overwhelming sense of terrorist groups coming to get you? I don't want to give up my expectation of privacy. It is one of the things I value most about being American. Wasn't Bush's whole argument to not let the terrorists win that we should stay the course? That we shouldn't change our day to day lives? I like/prefer living in a society where I don't fear the government. This isn't me being grandiose either. I am a nobody. They aren't coming after me. However, they can go after anyone that doesn't fit their agenda. They can silence critics. It is a very slippery slope. If you are okay with that and trust them to do the right thing then that is the disconnect. I can't/don't. So if you don't like a law, that means it's an invalid law? Mighty imperial of you. No wonder you like a democracy where you get to decide what's best. So every law ever passed was a good one until it wasn't? MLK was in the wrong because he spoke out against segregation? The Jim Crow laws were good until they were illegal? It was okay to own slaves until it wasn't? Women not voting was okay until it wasn't? The government has made many terrible laws and they were brought down by people getting together and speaking out against them. This is one of those cases to me. The government has overstepped their bounds to me and I am glad that Snowden brought it to light. The system of checks and balances between the 3 branches has one final check/balance - public opinion. If it turns out I am in the minority this program will continue on. That is a democracy where we the people DO (or should at least) get to decide what's best. yes I know I'm an idealist.....
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 It is clear that you agree with this happening may I ask why? Is it the overwhelming sense of terrorist groups coming to get you? I don't want to give up my expectation of privacy. It is one of the things I value most about being American. Wasn't Bush's whole argument to not let the terrorists win that we should stay the course? That we shouldn't change our day to day lives? I like/prefer living in a society where I don't fear the government. This isn't me being grandiose either. I am a nobody. They aren't coming after me. However, they can go after anyone that doesn't fit their agenda. They can silence critics. It is a very slippery slope. If you are okay with that and trust them to do the right thing then that is the disconnect. I can't/don't. I can't/don't trust them at all. In fact, as a partisan shill, I'm happy to admit that I don't trust THIS administration most of all. One day they look like they're overreaching and the next day they just look incompetent. But that wasn't the point of my post. After listening to the fumbling, bumbling, stumbling of the administration as they refuse to answer questions about Benghazi, F&F and IRS audits, and behave like petulant children who act amazed anyone is questioning them, it's a pretty amazing contrast to hear the discussions this morning in a confident, forceful manner. Unlike the other topics where they just point fingers at other people and refuse to be accountable for anything, today they have a full grasp and confidence in this NSA thing...whether you agree with it or not.
GG Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 So every law ever passed was a good one until it wasn't? MLK was in the wrong because he spoke out against segregation? The Jim Crow laws were good until they were illegal? It was okay to own slaves until it wasn't? Women not voting was okay until it wasn't? The government has made many terrible laws and they were brought down by people getting together and speaking out against them. This is one of those cases to me. The government has overstepped their bounds to me and I am glad that Snowden brought it to light. The system of checks and balances between the 3 branches has one final check/balance - public opinion. If it turns out I am in the minority this program will continue on. That is a democracy where we the people DO (or should at least) get to decide what's best. yes I know I'm an idealist..... Got enough strawmen in there? If you don't like the laws, then do something to change them. That's what happened to all the laws you cite above. It wasn't fake outrage, but a real call to action that mobilized the population to get their representatives to act. But frankly, I am not that concerned about the data gathering, simply from the fact that the data gathered is too immense for anyone to do anything tangible with. But because this story plays into the conspiracy nuts' bogeyman fairy tales, people are clinging to the NSA trope, while ignoring things that will matter much more to their daily lives. You may be afraid of possibly NSA spying on you, but I am much more concerned about the reality of the IRS stifling political talk and then IRS having a major say in ACA implementation. You worry about a phantom hypothetical police state, while I worry about the growing bureaucracy of government dunces controlling every aspect of my life in a real and tangible way. For all the noise about NSA collecting telecom routing data, how come no one cares that their cars and license plates are videotaped whenever they cross a bridge or a tunnel? Where's the outrage at airlines sharing flight manifests at a drop of a hat. That is FAR more intrusive than your number being one of 300 million popping up in a database search.
section122 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I can't/don't trust them at all. In fact, as a partisan shill, I'm happy to admit that I don't trust THIS administration most of all. One day they look like they're overreaching and the next day they just look incompetent. But that wasn't the point of my post. After listening to the fumbling, bumbling, stumbling of the administration as they refuse to answer questions about Benghazi, F&F and IRS audits, and behave like petulant children who act amazed anyone is questioning them, it's a pretty amazing contrast to hear the discussions this morning in a confident, forceful manner. Unlike the other topics where they just point fingers at other people and refuse to be accountable for anything, today they have a full grasp and confidence in this NSA thing...whether you agree with it or not. That is interesting. I wonder why that it is? I wonder if they are glad that they can pull out the "but but terrorists card" and think that many will be pacified, while the other scandals don't have such an easy answer (scapegoat?). It is a very interesting point regardless, the why makes it moreso for me. Then again it is kind of frightening that they believe so strongly in this program. Got enough strawmen in there? If you don't like the laws, then do something to change them. That's what happened to all the laws you cite above. It wasn't fake outrage, but a real call to action that mobilized the population to get their representatives to act. But frankly, I am not that concerned about the data gathering, simply from the fact that the data gathered is too immense for anyone to do anything tangible with. But because this story plays into the conspiracy nuts' bogeyman fairy tales, people are clinging to the NSA trope, while ignoring things that will matter much more to their daily lives. You may be afraid of possibly NSA spying on you, but I am much more concerned about the reality of the IRS stifling political talk and then IRS having a major say in ACA implementation. You worry about a phantom hypothetical police state, while I worry about the growing bureaucracy of government dunces controlling every aspect of my life in a real and tangible way. For all the noise about NSA collecting telecom routing data, how come no one cares that their cars and license plates are videotaped whenever they cross a bridge or a tunnel? Where's the outrage at airlines sharing flight manifests at a drop of a hat. That is FAR more intrusive than your number being one of 300 million popping up in a database search. It isn't strawman. I was pointing out several examples of the law being wrong, meant to refute your "So if you don't like a law, that means it's an invalid law?" statement. I think you see that. Where is this fake outrage that you speak of in this case though? I along with many other people am outraged that this is a practice of our government. I'm hoping that more than just myself are calling on their representatives to do something about this, and if they don't replace them with those that will. I don't like the IRS story either but this thread isn't about that. You don't mind the collection of this data and I do. Hopefully more people fall on my side than yours so we can see real change. That is the democracy side of things - if they fall on your side we won't see change to this ridiculous law and I will be sad. As for the cars and license plates in public outrage - when I am in public, specifically on government roads I am okay with them knowing I am there. If I was in my neighbor's yard I would want him to know I was there. There is no expectation of privacy for me while out in public. When I am sitting on my couch, minding my own business, talking to a friend I do expect privacy. Where are their manners! Listening to other people's conversations is very rude! Didn't their mother's teach them anything?! (alright the last part was in jest) I don't see the situations as similar. I'm democrat, fairly liberal, for gay marriage, for guns (not gun control), and all over the place in general in my belief system. Each situation deserves its own fact finding, research, and conclusion. Partisanship is a bad bad thing. I know this might not be the place to say that but I think it gets lost regularly in PPP. (this is not directed at either of you 2 in particular just a general observation). This thread started as a great conversation then devolved into name calling. We all love this country (I hope) please don't lose sight of this as this DISCUSSION continues. (told you I was an idealist )
GG Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 As for the cars and license plates in public outrage - when I am in public, specifically on government roads I am okay with them knowing I am there. If I was in my neighbor's yard I would want him to know I was there. There is no expectation of privacy for me while out in public. When I am sitting on my couch, minding my own business, talking to a friend I do expect privacy. And that's the whole thing. The data collected is not telephone conversations, but routing data of call origination and termination. That phone number and traffic isn't yours, but the telephone company's. Once they need to go beyond that, then a different protocol is in place.
3rdnlng Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 (edited) What Snowden had to say in an interview yesterday: Home | Newsfront Tags: snowden | live | guardian | nsa | monitoring Snowden Appears Live on Guardian Website, Believes US Could Kill Him Tom Grundy, an activist, blogger, and co-organizer supporting Edward Snowden's campaign, browses the live chat with Snowden on The Guardian website from his house in Hong Kong on June 17. Monday, 17 Jun 2013 03:22 PM By Melanie Batley More ways to share... Mixx Stumbled LinkedIn Vine Buzzflash Reddit Delicious Newstrust Technocrati Share: More . . . A A | Email Us | Print | Forward Article 5 inShare. inShare.5 Edward Snowden, the self-confessed leaker of the documents revealing the National Security Agency's top-secret phone and Internet surveillance program, appeared suddenly online Monday and began answering questions live on Britain's The Guardian newspaper's website. The Guardian was the newspaper that first reported Snowden's revelations of NSA monitoring. The 29-year-old former NSA contractor, who is reportedly still in Hong Kong, began answering questions on why he revealed the agency's top-secret program at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. There was no independent way for news services to determine that it was actually Snowden answering the questions. But the commentator identified as Snowden talked about the media frenzy that has since ensued, and offered his thoughts on his now-uncertain future. He also dismissed being called a traitor by several lawmakers as well as former Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the allegations in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him ... the better off we all are," he said. "This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineer a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead," he said. The live chat appeared on the the columnist page of Glenn Greenwald, the American reporter who broke the story after making contact with Snowden. Greenwald monitored the chat. In his initial answers published on the website, Snowden avoided a specific question on the scope of documents he has in his possession, but he said he believed the federal government wants to either jail or murder him. He also said he didn't reveal any U.S. operations "against legitimate military targets. ... I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous." "How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?" a questioner asked Snowden. "All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped," Snowden wrote. Following Snowden's disclosures, the Obama administration confirmed the existence of two surveillance programs: one designed to collect phone-call records from millions of U.S. citizens and another that monitors the Internet activity of foreigners with links to terrorism. The revelations by the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee to The Guardian and The Washington Post newspapers sparked a criminal investigation by the Justice Department, calls for the surveillance to be reined in, and a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing the government of violating citizens' privacy. Snowden fled to Hong Kong on May 20 before revealing himself as the source of the leak. Several U.S. lawmakers have called the leaks treason and urged the Justice Department to seek Snowden's extradition from Hong Kong and press charges against him. Snowden said he fled to Hong Kong over Iceland — his preferred destination for asylum — because of travel restrictions for NSA employees. "Leaving the U.S. was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored," Snowden wrote. "There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current U.S. administration." A questioner then asked him, "Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?" Snowden replied: "NSA likes to use 'domestic' as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans' communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. "They excuse this as 'incidental' collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of 'warranted' intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a 'real' warrant like a police department would have to. The 'warrant' is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp." Greenwald then interjected with a question of his own: "When you say 'someone at NSA still has the content of your communications' — what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?" "Both. If I target, for example, an email address ... under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything," Snowden said. "And it gets saved for a very long time — and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants," he added. Attorney General Eric Holder called Snowden's disclosures "extremely damaging" at a meeting with European Union officials in Ireland last week. "I can assure you that we will hold accountable the person responsible for those extremely damaging leaks," Holder said. U.S. prosecutors are in the midst of putting together charges against Snowden, according to two officials briefed on the investigation. Snowden also defended U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning for his disclosures of documents to Wikileaks, which he called a "legitimate journalistic outlet," which "carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest." Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.c...1#ixzz2WbFYccuh Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! Edited June 18, 2013 by 3rdnlng
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 That is interesting. I wonder why that it is? Because they have their asses covered on the NSA thing. Think about it...as soon as the juice got out about the Verizon phone records, the WH was quick to grab a mic and say "Hey, everyone in Congress was told about this. This should come as no surprise to anyone who represents you." Now, that's not the way it happened, but they did OFFER to brief everyone in Congress, and that puts the onus on Congress, not the WH. It's always easier to approach these things when you operate from a proactive position. This falls perfectly into the true incompetence of this WH, which is "Hey, it's not my fault if no one showed up for that meeting we called on a Thursday as everyone was leaving town. We did our part." Alternately, the minute F&F, Benghazi, and especially IRS happened, the WH and its staff turned into an Abbott and Costello routine. Because they didn't expect to get caught, and deniability keeps them out of prison.
GG Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Because they have their asses covered on the NSA thing. Think about it...as soon as the juice got out about the Verizon phone records, the WH was quick to grab a mic and say "Hey, everyone in Congress was told about this. This should come as no surprise to anyone who represents you." Now, that's not the way it happened, but they did OFFER to brief everyone in Congress, and that puts the onus on Congress, not the WH. It's always easier to approach these things when you operate from a proactive position. This falls perfectly into the true incompetence of this WH, which is "Hey, it's not my fault if no one showed up for that meeting we called on a Thursday as everyone was leaving town. We did our part." Alternately, the minute F&F, Benghazi, and especially IRS happened, the WH and its staff turned into an Abbott and Costello routine. Because they didn't expect to get caught, and deniability keeps them out of prison. And talk about the gift that the NSA has given them. Now that everyone is worried about the impending Dick Cheney police state, which Obama assured Charlie Rose that he will not put in place, everyone forgot about IRS & Benghazi
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 And talk about the gift that the NSA has given them. Now that everyone is worried about the impending Dick Cheney police state, which Obama assured Charlie Rose that he will not put in place, everyone forgot about IRS & Benghazi If Obama had a squirrel, it would look like NSA. No question. I don't think the IRS thing is done, though. Trey Gowdy says they have more evidence coming in that will bring it front and center, and tend toward believing him, which goes against my basic belief that you should never trust a man whose hair looks different every time you see him.
dayman Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Some significant bacon attempting to be shown today at hearings.
dayman Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 Just heard a clip of Carney being very strong on China regarding letting him leave.
Rob's House Posted June 24, 2013 Posted June 24, 2013 I'm not sure I'm ready to declare the guy a hero, because I do have reservations about those trusted with classified info releasing it, and if these were secrets of military positioning, weaponry, or something equivalent I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune, but as of now I do hope he avoids extradition. I thus far do not see how the information he's released amounts to espionage or treason. Light treason, maybe, but since no one's taken the bait thus far I doubt you'll start now.
Cinga Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I like Judge Napolitano's take on this so far. I know, this kid broke a "double secret pledge" in the Animal House we call government, but where is the line? So far, he merely told Americans that the government is spying on us and that same government, is the one calling him a traitor... I'll say it once again... We're too easy to lose focus on the issue itself. I don't care about Snowden, but I most certainly care that the government has been collecting data on all of us WITHOUT a warrant!!! Read below.... The NSA is America’s domestic spying apparatus. Its budget is secret. It will soon occupy the largest federal building on the planet. It often hires outside contractors to do much of its work. One of those contractors is Booz Allen Hamilton. Booz Allen’s co-chair is former Admiral John M. McConnell, who once headed the NSA. When Snowden began his work for Booz Allen, he took two oaths. The first oath was to keep secret the classified materials to which he would be exposed in his work as a spy; the second oath was to uphold the Constitution. Shortly after Snowden began his work with the NSA, he came to the realization that he could not comply with both oaths. He realized that by keeping secret what he learned, he was keeping the American public in the dark about what its government is doing outside the Constitution in order to control the public. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/20/fidelity-to-constitution-when-need-it/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2XBRNNNmb
dayman Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) I like Judge Napolitano's take on this so far. I know, this kid broke a "double secret pledge" in the Animal House we call government, but where is the line? So far, he merely told Americans that the government is spying on us and that same government, is the one calling him a traitor... I'll say it once again... We're too easy to lose focus on the issue itself. I don't care about Snowden, but I most certainly care that the government has been collecting data on all of us WITHOUT a warrant!!! Read below.... Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...k#ixzz2XBRNNNmb The emboldened portion is interesting, given that your entire post is geared towards Snowden and the worthless nature of his oaths. If you are really so concerned about the substance of the reveal, articulate it more fully so I can know where you are coming from. Conclusory statements of unconstitutionality don't do it. Edited June 25, 2013 by SameOldBills
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I like Judge Napolitano's take on this so far. I know, this kid broke a "double secret pledge" in the Animal House we call government, but where is the line? So far, he merely told Americans that the government is spying on us and that same government, is the one calling him a traitor... I'll say it once again... We're too easy to lose focus on the issue itself. I don't care about Snowden, but I most certainly care that the government has been collecting data on all of us WITHOUT a warrant!!! Read below.... Read more: http://www.foxnews.c...k#ixzz2XBRNNNmb Look again at the title of this thread. There was another thread started last December I believe that dealt with FISA Court renewal and the NSA.
IDBillzFan Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 I'll say it once again... We're too easy to lose focus on the issue itself. I don't care about Snowden, but I most certainly care that the government has been collecting data on all of us WITHOUT a warrant!!! You have to appreciate the irony of the WH trying to get your mind off the NSA stuff by making everyone focus on "Where's Snowden" while consequently showing everyone that not only have the bumbling fools lost him, but Russia and China are convinced the WH is turdbowl of leadership. I heard Carney today say how strained US relations will be because Russia won't play ball...as if Russia gives a flying rip about the US and it's gutless leader. How did that reset button thing not work???
3rdnlng Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 You have to appreciate the irony of the WH trying to get your mind off the NSA stuff by making everyone focus on "Where's Snowden" while consequently showing everyone that not only have the bumbling fools lost him, but Russia and China are convinced the WH is turdbowl of leadership. I heard Carney today say how strained US relations will be because Russia won't play ball...as if Russia gives a flying rip about the US and it's gutless leader. How did that reset button thing not work??? C'mon LA, you know that all it takes is for Obama to be nice to other leaders and countries and they will just fall in line. It was Bush and Cheney's policies that made everyone hate us.
Cinga Posted June 25, 2013 Posted June 25, 2013 The emboldened portion is interesting, given that your entire post is geared towards Snowden and the worthless nature of his oaths. If you are really so concerned about the substance of the reveal, articulate it more fully so I can know where you are coming from. Conclusory statements of unconstitutionality don't do it. Look again at the title of this thread. There was another thread started last December I believe that dealt with FISA Court renewal and the NSA. And again, neither of you read the link, nor understand how a warrant is supposed to work.... ******HINT******* Mass warrants to include whatever you might find, are UnConstitutional, thus making FISA itself, unlawful....
Recommended Posts