This whole NSA story is nothing more than recycled outrage. Glenn Greenwald didn't break shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

Writing about an issue that we've known about since 2006 isn't breaking news. Greenwald hasn't revealed any new information.

Oops!!!

Article from 2006:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

NSA has collected Verizon phone records since 2006, lawmakers say

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/nsa-has-collected-verizon-phone-records-since-2006-lawmakers-say/2125337

So why is the media going crazy over it now? The answer is simple. They want to drown Obama in fake scandals.

But don't let this 7-year-old story stop you from being outraged and dancing to the media's tune.



The media wants you outraged NOW at Obama.

Impeach!!11!1(one)11!!

[NYC_SKP]

1. K/R. (nt)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. I don't support spying on the American public.

I'm disappointed to find that you apparently do.

[ProSense]

4. Well,

"I don't support spying on the American public. I'm disappointed to find that you apparently do."

...I'm "disappointed" that people prefer ginned up outrage to facts.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. Hi, ProSense. Do you support the President's domestic spying program?

No links to your own previous posts will be necessary, thanks, but I would be interested in knowing your answer.

[ProSense]

10. Do you think that attempt at gotcha changes the point of the OP?

"Hi, ProSense. Do you support the President's domestic spying program?"

What "domestic spying program"?

This is a "domestic spying program": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959557

No matter who makes the claim, the President does not have a "domestic spying program"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959738

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Hey, those are precisely the links I already told you I don't need

I'll mark you as a Yes, in full support of the President's domestic surveillance program that he wanted hidden from its victims for a period of 25 years.

[ProSense]

34. Well,

"Hey, those are precisely the links I already told you I don't need"

...those are "precisely" the links I decided to give you.


"I'll mark you as a Yes, in full support of the President's domestic surveillance program "

Mark it however you want to. I mean, if you want to make up your own facts, you might as well make up other people's responses to your made up facts.

Enjoy.

[ProSense]

27. Grow the fuck up! n/t

[Occulus]

33. Thought better of all the "fuck you"s and telling me to change my name to "occulusshithead", huh?

I'd imagine you did.

All that matters is that you know I have your number, ProSense. I know you for what you are and I will not stop making sure others know it, too.

[ProSense]

36. Oh, I stand by what I think.

[Occulus]

38. I'm sure you do. Your problem is,

I hold being thought of badly by people such as yourself as a badge of honor, to be worn proudly and publicly, as a an accomplishment in public service and the pursuit of truth.

[ProSense]

39. Seems like your problem

"I hold being thought of badly by people such as yourself as a badge of honor, to be worn proudly and publicly, as a an accomplishment in public service and the pursuit of truth."

I never heard of you!

What's interesting is that you appear to believe that there is some principle or virtue in this bizarre silliness: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2967956

[Laelth]

186. Attack the messenger? Discredit the speaker? That's pretty low.

I think this mini-discussion got derailed when you made the blanket statement that "the President does not have a "domestic spying program"" when it's pretty clear that he does.

A defense of this data-collection on its merits would me more effective than denial.

But, ultimately, who am I to give you any advice?



-Laelth

[pocoloco]

199. Shame on you!

Got their panties in a crack!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. This is one of the relative few bedrock issues we encounter

Most everything else is negotiable one way or another, but our basic freedoms and privacy have been violated, and no one has any plans to stop anytime soon. The people wanting to shift responsibility away from the President in so many different ways are failing in their basic and sacred civic responsibilities. If they won't stand against this and admit that our own guy is in the wrong, they won't stand for anything. Thank you.

[Hestia]

158. +1 great post

[red dog 1]

254. + 1000

This is a great post.

[OrwellwasRight]

260. +1

I don't understand those who blindly support any president. Support what's right. That's what's right. Not mindless, blind followers. "My president right or wrong" was stupid when Bush was president and it is stupid now.

[Cha]

7. THANK YOU!

[Occulus]

8. Hi, Cha. Do you support the President's domestic spying program?

No links to your own previous posts will be necessary, thanks, but I would be interested in knowing your answer.

[Cha]

12. Yes.

[Cha]

22. No, I'm your enemy.

[Occulus]

35. They heard me once, Cha. You don't need to repeat me.

[Cha]

74. I'm repeating nothing of yours. You're calling me names

and using demagoguery to whip up the mob.

[boilerbabe]

30. she showed those long ago.

[boilerbabe]

25. they will tell spying is ok now because they made it legal.

that is how they are spinning it.

[magellan]

264. The government made torture "legal" too

I wonder if those defending this also defended waterboarding on the same basis.

[billh58]

17. It's amazing that

so many DU-ers actually believe that they have been "spied on." No personal information which is protected by the Constitution has been collected, and no personal conversations have been listened to by the NSA.

The information that is being scrutinized has already been collected by Verizon, AT&T, FaceBook, etc., and is the property of those entities, and NOT of individual citizens. It is data that is being collected, and it does not belong to any one individual anymore than a phone book belongs to those whose names appear in it.

Any excuse to bash President Obama is sufficient for those who are looking for a reason.

[Niceguy1]

28. it records your

Activities and who you are talking to...... private info.

[Maedhros]

61. Sort of like being followed around

by an agent and watched with binoculars all day. No personal information is accessed! No conversations were overheard! They just took note of where you went and to whom you talked.

They weren't spying on you!

[Summer Hathaway]

171. It's 'sort of like'

That's right up there with "some people are saying" - but with even less credibility.

[Laelth]

187. Excellent analogy.

I'd suggest a new OP on this point alone.

-Laelth

[Ikonoklast]

258. And would be perferctly legal if done by, well, anyone.

[A Simple Game]

89. It seems apparent that they are also getting your internet history.

I hope you didn't click on any links to make your own silencer. You haven't shown an out of ordinary interest in mass killings, have you. Priced any cookware online lately? Nahh, they wouldn't take note of that. Don't let that car parked down the street bother you, probably a bill collector after one of the neighbors.

Why are you so sure they aren't listening to the phone conversations? Because they told you they weren't? They didn't tell you they were data mining either until they got caught.

There are 100 people that still trust their government in the United States, all of them apparently are members of DU.

[billh58]

123. If I were anywhere

near that important, I wouldn't be on DU, or ANY place on the Internet. And I seriously doubt that the NSA has the time or resources to spy on everyone in the USA, no matter how important the average person thinks they may be. They are collecting massive amounts of privately owned data (that has already BEEN collected) for further analysis.

Paranoia runs deep in the Internet conspiracy theory community it seems, and it is interesting to observe. The question that I have yet to see answered is why in the hell would the "government" be interested in what you or I do if it is not connected to terrorism? If what someone does IS connected to terrorism, then I would like see those persons dealt with. This particular CT is right up there with the black helicopters and the hundreds of "concentration camps" being secretly built.

This is where you drag out the Ben Franklin quote, or something similar I believe...

[A Simple Game]

182. Of course you wouldn't be on DU if you were important to the terrorist community.

What a foolish way to pass information, on a Democratic forum, everyone would suspect you. And we have no foreign posters so I'm sure we are safe from prying eyes here. Oh, wait, we do have foreign posters, I certainly hope you never responded to one of them, wouldn't want to raise any suspicions now would we. And why would a foreigner want to post on an American Democratic forum? That wouldn't raise any suspicions now would it? I can think of one foreign poster that is fairly prolific but has never actually said anything in thousands of posts, or has he? Now I wonder why that is? Don't bother checking your posting history, it's probably too late. Never mind, don't let it bother you, they would never look for patterns on DU.

Why would the "government" be interested in what you or I do if it is not connected with terrorism? How do they know it isn't connected if they don't check it? Do you suppose that a terrorist would speak in plain language or use code or key words strategically placed to provide specific meanings? Do you do your banking with a foreign based bank? I certainly hope not. Of course you have never traveled outside the US.

Check the link below if you really want to start learning about these things. But please don't stop there, much more if you look for it.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/06/prism-by-the-numbers-a-guide-to-the-governments-secret-internet-data-mining-program/
Bahh, never mind, it's all just a conspiracy theory... well, until they get caught.

[billh58]

184. Amazon and my credit

card companies know more about me (and you) than the government does. And yes, I have traveled extensively (Africa, Middle East, Asia) and I have never been inconvenienced in my private life as a result.

I envy those of you who actually believe that you are important or interesting enough for the NSA to be poking around in your rubbish bins. It must be such a rush to listen breathlessly for the clicking noises on your telephone, or look for the telltale signs of your mail being steamed open.

[A Simple Game]

214. Tell me how the NSA knows I am important enough to merit their attention

without checking on me? Not all terrorists broadcast the fact that they want to cause trouble. I would assume most would like to keep a low profile. They would perhaps want to fit a profile that looks like me. So do you think the NSA would check out someone like Brad Pitt, or would they be more likely to check out someone with a profile like me?

And you can envy someone else, I have no delusions of grandeur.

[billh58]

215. Okay, I admit it.

I work for the NSA and we've been following you for weeks now based on your frequent calls to the local chapter of the SPCA. We are closing in, and you have no where to run or hide. Bwaaaahaaaaaaa...

You guys crack me up.



And, (if necessary)

[A Simple Game]

216. Thanks for admitting you lost the argument. If you were serious you

would have offered proof, but it is obvious you can't.

[billh58]

218. My supervisor just

told me that since you are the target of a super-secret operation, I can't continue this "non-secure" dialog with you. The phrase for today is: "try NOT to think of an elephant."

On a more serious note, is this the part where we ask our friends from the Gungeon to "take up arms" against our mean old government because they are acting tyrannical? I can't wait to see how THAT works out.

Take care Bubba, and try not to look so obvious when you attempt to act "normal."

[A Simple Game]

219. On a more serious note, just one last question.

How do you keep the sand out of your eyes?

[billh58]

220. I made a deal

with a sand witch from Niihau...

[dennis4868]

156. Wrong

The PRISM program does not apply to US citizens and does not apply to anyone in the US. Only foreign Internet users. Read the law, know the facts.

[CokeMachine]

124. Wow

Does a fucking phoone book tell someone who've you called and for how long. You can do better Bill, on second thought nevermind!!!

[billh58]

210. I'm not exactly

sure what a "fucking phoone" book is, but your telephone company keeps a record of who you called and for how long. All the NSA did was to ask Verizon (or whoever) for the records which have already been legally compiled.

Actually they don't care how long you've talked with Aunt Martha in Tucson, but if you've called Islamabad four times a day for months, they may be interested in you (and so am I). It's called "probable cause."

[CokeMachine]

249. Is that all you have Bill?

A typo, really. That is some week shit you have going there -- nothing new though. You do know that it isn't only international call information they are coollecting (extra "O" just for you Bill so you have something to post about) don't you?

Have a good weekend!! It's getting hot inland so it's off to Bodega Bay (Fresh Oysters and Salmon for tonights BBQ -- yum yum).

Spell Check: Complete!
Preview: Complete!
Explain extra "O": Complete

[meaculpa2011]

230. It's amazing that so many are so naive...

as to think this is not a gross erosion of our freedoms.

I was ensnared in a Federal investigation because I called someone who called someone who knew someone who was connected to organized crime.

No content, just call records.

[billh58]

232. Shit happens. n/t

[meaculpa2011]

235. Brilliant. n/t needed.

[caseymoz]

138. Which part of Greenwald's article wasn't factual??

Cite the factual error or lies please. The only thing your calling a "ginned up" is that Obama is as responsible for this scandal as Bush was.

If Obama has been in the White House for four and a half years, and he's kept this program, is he responsible for it? True or false.

It's illegal for the government to gather wholesale information on people according the the 4th amendment. Is that a fact or a lie?

Adding ad hominum attacks on Greenwald and anybody who points this out to you does not change the answers to those questions.

Nor are they changed because you're happier with Obama in the White House.

[roguevalley]

259. I don't want anyone to do what the constitution forbids. That includes Mr. Obama. Replace Obama with

Bush and tell me you would be on his side. Just saying.

[whistler162]

42. That does really limit your life!

[jeff47]

48. Do you support feeding the American public?

One of the events we aren't talking about are the votes to cut food stamps. Because we're supposed to be suddenly outraged about something that started more than 8 years ago.

It's an 8-year-old program that should be restricted or ended. But there's very important things that are getting no coverage because of the sudden outrage.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Of course I do. I'm a liberal.

Don't attempt to detract me from the matter at hand. If Obama wanted to move his political agenda forward, I'm thinking maybe he shouldn't have spied on the American public, as this tends to erode political support. Also known as, that ship already sailed.

[jeff47]

56. Oh, it's not Obama's agenda.

It's the fact that Democrats just voted for poor people to starve. But you won't let anyone distract you from an 8-year-old program.

Isn't it great when a plan comes together?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. George Peppard is dead, and I bid you a good weekend.

[LovingA2andMI]

78. Totally ON POINT!!!

Thanks Disgustipated speaking truth to the "Groupthink Mentally" is PERFECT!!

[arely staircase]

64. but its existance has just been discovered

btw, I am posting from my secure undisclosed location in May of 2006.

[Union Scribe]

140. Let me get this straight.

So I guess this is the latest deflection tool; seen it a few times already. I'm supposed to believe that the same people who care so much about the needy that they were also deflecting for Obama when he wanted to poke holes in SS now are just steamed that attention is being taken away from food stamps for a petty thing like wholesale violations of the Constitution.

Right.

[jeff47]

253. No, I'm saying the Senate vote on cutting food stamps is Monday.

All the Democrats voted for Cloture on Thursday. Right about the time DU started screaming about this program that's been in existence for 8 years, and the Obama administration greatly restricted compared to W.

Isn't that an odd coincidence?

Can't argue with the results though. There's were tons of threads on the "Greatest" page about this program. There were 0 threads about the cuts to SNAP.

[Jamaal510]

166. +1

[cheapdate]

91. I don't support baseless assumptions.

I'm disappointed to find that you apparently do.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

94. So you support the domestic surveillance program. I don't. Thank you.

[cheapdate]

102. I see that you're prone to making false assumptions

and drawing premature and false conclusions. Whether it's because you're careless, sloppy, have inherently poor thinking skills, or your mind has been corrupted from years of watching and emulating what passes for argument on Fox News, I can't say for sure.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. Groovy, let's end the assumptions and get to the answer

Do you support Obama's domestic spying program or not? Take courage and answer.

[cheapdate]

151. The FISA laws are too vague, too secretive, and too broad.

I agree with the ACLU that the laws governing surveillance and the collection of telephone and communication data desparately need to be revised and updated to protect privacy and to ensure that legitimate law enforcement needs are limited to persons actually and demonstrably believed to be involved in criminal activity. I'm not at all surprised that the Obama adminstration is utilizing the existing laws and the existing surveillance apparatus for the presumed purpose of detecting terrorist activity. The courts are unlikely to significantly overturn these laws, as was demonstrated by their decision earlier in March to deny standing in Clapper et al v. Amnesty International. Congressional action is what's most needed, and that unfortunately would appear to be a long-shot.

Your question is absurdly simplistic. I believe you mask a deep insecurity and shallowness of understanding with an outward attitude of belligerence. But take courage, that's only my opinion.

[snooper2]

99. I saw your laundry hanging outside

I thought you liked stripes not solids

[DisgustipatedinCA]

104. Cool...I saw you playing "I'm a VOIP engineer, so I know everything about the NSA"

It probably succeeded in snowing a few people.

[snooper2]

169. I'm doing groom work tonight,

had to re-route a GIGE through a new tap because your SMTP server kept changing IP

Is that you messin' around?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

176. I'm a network guy

So no, I wasn't playing with email servers tonight. Earlier, you talked of the impossibility of a hypothetical government "tap" on your data (presumably VoIP) without your knowledge. I just wanted to point out that it could very well happen without your knowledge. You peer BGP with someone, or multiple someones, likely at carrier hotels. With court-ordered encryption keys in hand (that your legal department knows about, but not necessarily you), it would be pretty trivial. I don't know that it's a likely scenario, but it could be done.

[snooper2]

180. all of our VoIP customers traffic is encapsulated within an IP VPN

from the customer premise to our SBC which are directly connected to our Application servers via 10G Ethernet switch ports. Customers like to be able to use RFC 1918 space obviously for security reasons. They usually don't like to hear we'll deliver a SIP Trunk solution using public space protected by ACLs

Once a registered endpoint makes a call to the PSTN it goes out either SIP or SS7 based on least cost routing (no taps on those network segments trust me)


On edit, my GIGE just came back up I've been working on


GigabitEthernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Pinnacle GE, address is a019.adb2.ct60 (bia 1016.bab2.cb90)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit, DLY 10 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation 802.1Q Virtual LAN, Vlan ID 1., loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
Full Duplex, 1000Mbps, 1000BaseLX, Force link-up, media type is LX
output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is unsupported
ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
Input queue: 0/75/41/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
30 second input rate 233000 bits/sec, 64 packets/sec
30 second output rate 169000 bits/sec, 64 packets/sec
1696772568 packets input, 391140826340 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 34054 broadcasts (0 IP multicasts)
2 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
2 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
0 watchdog, 0 multicast, 0 pause input
1683389530 packets output, 378638388052 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets
0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 PAUSE output
0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

[DisgustipatedinCA]

229. You're running a way-over engineered .1q fiber trunk with default vlan 1 (tsk), & you've changed the

...default ARP timeout from 2 to 4. And yeah, I understand its not likely over engineered, since you just brought it up at night, on a weekend. Do you want to just exchange Linked-In profiles to establish bona fides? It might be easier. I see you as a competent network engineer with whom I sometimes disagree politically. I hold the same title, and have for just about 20 years--routing and switching and firewalling, oh my. But in the end, I'm just a mechanic who works on networks, no rocket science involved. The major career difference between us probably boils down to coffee vs Mountain Dew (unless you're one of those newer energy drink fiends). I have respect for the work that you do, largely because I have a good understanding if what you do. Have a good day.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Good finds. K/R.

[Cha]

5. Greenwald tricked his readers! Facts aren't going to loosen the jaws

of hate runamuk. The big knives are out and they're not going anywhere.



thanks for the post, Cali.. Glenn is sitting back snickering at all his Clicks.

[BlueCaliDem]

92. All just in time for the 2014 elections, too! Greenwald is the GOP's *bestest* friend!

The Libertarian-posing-as-a-Liberal, Bush-luvin'-Gary-Johnson-supporting-KKK-defendin'-Obama-hatin' man is a sycophant. Any Liberal who listens to his tripe should have their head examined. The fact that this is an EIGHT YEAR OLD STORY seems to have slipped the mind of the frothy-lipped who never voted for Obama to begin with. All the usual suspects - and some new ones - have appeared. Just look at the snail-trail they leave behind.

[Cha]

96. Nah, Greenwald luvin' bush?!!!!111

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/06/rise-and-shine-521/

Yes, all the usual suspects and those riding the gravy train.

[SunSeeker]

103. Wow. He gives the benefit of the doubt to Bush...but not Obama.

Greenwald looked unhinged on MSNBC last night.

[Cha]

108. I bet Greenwald looked "unhinged"!

No, hatin' on Obama gets him on the tv and Clicks.

[Marr]

111. It's always funny when authoritarian "Democrats" try to label people to their left "right wing".

Still, points for actually posting something other than a high-five for one of your fellow Fan Clubbers. I half suspected you were just a bot.

[sheshe2]

132. Twitter sure has some words for Glenn~

Jessica W. Luther @scATX

So, Greenwald uncovered NSA/phone call news broken in 2006 and actions of govt outlined in 2008

Goldie Taylor @goldietaylor

Your "base" doesn't tell people you are "no better than" the last POTUS...

TheObamaDiary.com @TheObamaDiary

When Glenn Greenwald believed a President's national security judgment should be "deferred to": pic.twitter.com/ivQ4Ygv2pR
11:25 AM - 7 Jun 2013

Great graphic, Cha

[Cha]

146. Yes, Greenwald is getting ridiculed by those who aren't buying his "breaking news" shite,

she. Glenn is aware enough to know there are plenty out there who will eat that shit up.

We are shocked, shocked…

snip***

"Is it just me or does the entire news media — as well as all the agitators and self-righteous bloviators on both sides of the aisle — not understand even the rudiments of electronic intercepts and the manner in which law enforcement actually uses such intercepts? It would seem so."

snip**

"The question is not should the resulting data exist. It does. And it forever will, to a greater and greater extent. And therefore, the present-day question can’t seriously be this: Should law enforcement in the legitimate pursuit of criminal activity pretend that such data does not exist. The question is more fundamental: Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy — and in a manner that is unsupervised.

And to that, the Guardian and those who are wailing jeremiads about this pretend-discovery of
U.S. big data collection are noticeably silent. We don’t know of any actual abuse. No known illegal wiretaps, no indications of FISA-court approved intercepts of innocent Americans that occurred because weak probable cause was acceptable. Mark you, that stuff may be happening. As happens the case with all law enforcement capability, it will certainly happen at some point, if it hasn’t already. Any data asset that can be properly and legally invoked, can also be misused — particularly without careful oversight. But that of course has always been the case with electronic surveillance of any kind.

***snip

Much More.. Good read, she..
http://davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked-shocked/

h/t http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/07/facts-always-win-over-feigned-outrage/

[sheshe2]

150. Simon's article was great, Cha

I caught it on TOD earlier this evening (well my evening).

I was going to post it on as a thread, but saw DU already had it.

Simon nailed it!

[Cha]

153. I didn't know DU already

had it, she. Can please link me?

Yeah, Calm facts from David Simon.. Priceless.

[sheshe2]

161. I rec'd it earlier

just now posted there.

It needs two more recs...

I found it by chance when I was on TOD...I had problems getting to the link and a reference to DU came up.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022967013

[Jamaal510]

167. He supported the Iraq War, too?

OMG.
This guy has to be the biggest phony and opportunist around.

[Hissyspit]

234. That info was not hidden. Plenty of us know it. Why do you just now know about it?

His disgust with the revelations of Bush unconstitutionality are what made him start blogging. That graphic - which is Greenwald himself explaining his disgust with the Bush administration - leaves out everything he did after to attack the Bush administration's lies and actions and the war in Iraq. What else are you ignorant of.

[freshwest]

263. FFS! What a POS!

[Cha]

265. There's more.. more current..

NSA Bombshell Story Falling Apart Under Scrutiny; Key Facts Turning Out to Be Inaccurate

snip***

"Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

It’s a shame because there’s a way to have this debate without selling out to misinformation. Instead, we appear to be careening way off the empirical rails into hysterical, kneejerk acceptance of half-assed information."

***snip

snip***

Here’s how this story has played out since late Thursday

1. Both Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post reported that the NSA had attained “direct access” to servers owned by Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple and other big tech companies in order to attain private user information via a top secret government operation called PRISM. Initially, this appeared to be a major violation of privacy. The implication is that the government enjoyed unchecked, unrestricted access to metadata about users any time it wanted.

***snip

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

[Laelth]

188. Quite the contrary.

This is a good time for the expose if your intent is to not influence national elections (some 18 months away). Would you have preferred these revelations to have hit the press in October of last year?

imo, Greenwald is being very responsible about this (informing the public, but not trying to harm Obama).

-Laelth

[DevonRex]

118. He always misleads.

That means he lies, for those of you who prefer the straight truth.

[Cha]

141. The Profiteering

left or whatever he's suppose to be.

[DevonRex]

148. Did you see the look Maher gave him

a couple of weeks ago? It was classic. Withering. I wondered why GG was on. Now I know he was getting the GeeGees prepared for this idiotic stunt. Like Lawrence Welk waving his little baton & saying 'ana 1 ana 2' to his orchestra to bring them in on the right beat.

[Cha]

152. No, I didn't see it.. but, thanks

for telling me. Some context there..

BFD BREAKING NEWS!

[Hissyspit]

236. Do you have any actual facts?

Or nothing but name-calling and slander?

And, for the record, I did not agree with Greenwald saying that within the context of their conversation that night and I would have said such on Twitter to him, if I had had a chance.

Everything he said after that was spot on and Maher was wrong.

[DevonRex]

238. Try this interview about the AP leak and journalists' responsibilities.

Walter Pincus.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/52097085/

There's a transcript with it if you can't watch. But he is very, very good.

[Hissyspit]

239. I already read his column about it.

It's interpretation, not fact, and self-serving considering Walter Pincus' role in the Plame affair.

[DevonRex]

240. Really? He disapproves of AP outing the operative and explains it fully.

The entire story. Most people have no clue what really happened. As a matter of exact, most believe some obvious RW talking points that began during Brennan's confirmation hearing. Reporters have repeated them as if they're gospel, as usual.

[Hissyspit]

247. He outed a CIA operative for no good reason.

What is your point?

[Luminous Animal]

196. How did he "trick" his readers when he mentioned the 2006 NSA revelations right in his article.

It is worthwhile reading the entire source before spouting off and making false claims.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

9. He might have broken wind

He is a gas bag after all.

[randome]

11. "Impeach the Patriot Act!" should be our battle-cry.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[rhett o rick]

16. That makes sense, but doesnt fit with the others in this thread. nm

[Niceguy1]

21. you mean

He current version signed into law by obama??

[randome]

31. Did he have a majority in Congress to support him then?

I'm sure he didn't. And if Congress overruled him and made it the law and he chose not to use it, do you know what would happen if a terrorist attack occurred? We would have Republican rule for ANOTHER 30 years!

If the tools are there, he will use them. We, the people, need to scale this back.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Niceguy1]

37. that is a poor excuse for Obama's

Approval. He approved it, he owns itm. Not onlynthat, he is defending it. Our guy....defending .....

[randome]

77. I am much more afraid of another 3 decades of Republican rule than I am of phone record metadata.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[SunSeeker]

97. +1

[Laelth]

189. Me too, but that's not very likely, is it?

Would I sacrifice the 4th Amendment to keep Democrats in control of the Federal Government for 30 years? Would you?

It's an interesting question.

-Laelth

[randome]

201. It is very likely if Obama were to scale back and a terrorist attack then occurred.

Everyone has their own meaning when it comes to 'sacrificing the xth Amendment'.

I would not say this trashes the 4th Amendment but I have to admit at the very least it puts it under some strain.

If we don't want Presidents to have this power, then we need to repeal or vastly revise the Patriot Act.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Laelth]

202. I suspect you are absolutely correct regarding Obama's motivations, here.

As I have argued elsewhere:

Democratic politicians are very concerned about what people will say about them or what the electorate will do to them. They're thinking, "Well, what if there's another massive terrorist attack, and it is shown that the attack could have been prevented if we had done X, Y, and Z (all of which are legally authorized by the Patriot Act and other recent laws)? What then? We'll be crucified in the media! Republicans will say bad things about us! We will lose elections! Therefore, we must do X, Y, and Z, so that we don't get blamed for not preventing a terrorist attack."

That's the mindset that those of us who value our civil liberties are up against. I have no solution, but I fully understand why the same, authoritarian, police-state policies are pursued by both parties.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2959744

Obama isn't running for re-election. He's no longer under the same pressures. He could do the right thing if he wanted to. He could restore the 4th Amendment by simply standing down. As the executive, he could order the NSA to stop collecting this data. He has not. And Congress has nothing to do with this. Sure it would be great to repeal the Patriot Act, but that's not happening any time soon, and you know it. Why not simply agree with me that the President should just order the NSA to stop?

Will you agree with me on that?



-Laelth

[randome]

204. I would prefer that the data collection STOP.

But I understand the politics involved. Obama is also the titular head of the Democratic party so his lack of re-election is not an end point.

We would still have another 30 years of Republican rule if Obama shut down this program and then an attack occurred because the mantra would be 'Democrats are soft on terror!'

I'm just speculating, of course, same as everyone else, but I think that plays into his thinking on the matter.

In the end, we need to judge the current Administration on its goals, accomplishments and character. I am far more willing to trust Obama than any Republican at this point. That doesn't mean I trust him in EVERYTHING but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Laelth]

206. Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, yes.

And the party is valuable (I have run for elected office under its banner; I vote for its candidates; I appeal to its elected members). I fully expect the President to look out for the Party's interests.

But I think the President is making a mistake here. I do not believe, for a second, that ending this program would give us 30 years of Republican rule. I think that's beyond hyperbolic. In fact, I think we'll have a Democratic President for at least two more cycles, if not more. The demographics simply do not and will not support a Republican President right now.

That said, the President would do the Party a great deal of good if he abolished this program now. He would earn us tremendous goodwill (even amongst some of our enemies). Most of us are just not that scared of terrorists, and most of us are unwilling to freely abandon the 4th Amendment in order to stop a few of them.

Food for thought.

-Laelth

[randome]

207. Just ending the program would not bring back Republicans. I thought I made that clear.

But ending it followed by a terrorist attack would do that because Republicans would capitalize on it.

I would also prefer more honesty and transparency and fewer protestations of fear. But with what we know of Obama's public character, I still think he's to be trusted.

And you do provide food for thought so thanks for all of that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[rhett o rick]

255. Let me get this straight. Because you are afraid of republican rule, you are willing to look

the other way when our president emulates republican rule. What the Republicans do is ok if done by a Democrat.

And you dont know what kind of records they are keeping. Your mimic of the term "metadata" comes from those accused. If our president says he isnt spying, apparently that's good enough for you.

[randome]

257. Obama may not be the Progressive we wanted but he's close enough in my book.

Gay rights. Equal Pay Act. Ending the Iraq War. Pushing for Immigration reform. Pushing for Climate Change action (even without Congress' approval).

It's a mixed bag but he's no Republican, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[madokie]

13. The media hit the jackpot here at du

I've never seen so many go over the deep end in all my days here

[one_voice]

71. Hell we've got people declaring others...

enemies of the state and traitors. WTF is that about? Seriously, that seems like some shit I'd see some teaturds do.

[Cha]

114. Yeah, Demogoguery at its Worse.

But, considering the source.. not a surprise.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Sad, Huh ...?

The same folks that over the past few years were yelling "Don't trust the media" are today using that same media that for the past few months has been feeding them "scandal" after discredited after discredited "scandal", to say, "the media said ..."

Un-Be-F'ing-Lievable!

I have a theory ... Some people must feed their fear to feel alive. Thank the Universe, I'm not one of them.

[madokie]

86. Me either

What gets me is there was some of these who I had a lot of respect for who over the years stayed above this kind of crap that got caught up in this one. As you said Un-Be-f'ing-lievable
I still don't know whether to laugh or to cry

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. To go a little further ...

The same folks that over the past few years were yelling "Don't trust the media" AND SPENT THE MAJORITY OF THE MOST RECENT ELECTION SEASON LAUGHING AT REPUBLICANS FOR BELIEVING THE MEDIA NARRATIVE THAT THE RACE WAS TOO CLOSE TO CALL are today using that same media that for the past few months has been feeding them "scandal" after discredited after discredited "scandal", to say, "the media said ..."

Un-Be-F'ing-Lievable!

[freshwest]

267. And they call others blind followers without any judgment...

[davidpdx]

271. ROFL

A very good point. But you must worship the media and Glenn Greenwald!

[1StrongBlackMan]

273. But ... But ...

our Liberty is at stake ... greenwald, through the media, told me so and DUers have pointed me to Orwell's 1984 and Kakfa's The Trial to convince me to be all afeared.

I guess a just ginned up fear deaf.

[sheshe2]

90. Excellent point

One StrongBlackMan.

[TheKentuckian]

112. What isn't true? The President is not only acknowledging but defending.

What is it not to believe? Reality?

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Well ...

the whole "I'm supposed to be out-raged about the new invasion of my privacy" thing comes to mind.

[woo me with science]

128. The corporate propaganda IS at DU.

North Korea has nothing on American propaganda.

[DevonRex]

142. Lots of ya'll prefer North Korean propaganda to

plain old truth. Greenwald is a propagandist. Not even a good one, either. Good ones aren't so easily and quickly debunked. What Greenwald does have is a ready-made following: The GeeGees. He talks and they
[img][/img][/url][URL=http://www.sherv.net/olympic.torch.fire-emoticon-1740.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/fire-emoticon-702.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[woo me with science]

143. So far today I have seen the apologists for everything corporate-authoritarian

try desperately to dismiss Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, *and* Al Gore.

I said earlier, it's been kind of like watching Kim Kardashian try to discredit Richard Dawkins.

You guys really need some new material.

[DevonRex]

159. Anybody who paid attention knew about this all along.

As a matter of fact advances in technology have actually made things much better for privacy. But you'll have to figure that out yourself.

Everyone should learn a little about spying since WW2. It's fascinating. Actually, there is some interesting stuff from 1900 to WW1 that's fun, too. But start with Echelon, Shamrock and Minaret for more pertinent reading.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET

[woo me with science]

170. My, the tune has changed.

Repeatedly. The hypocrisy is frankly breathtaking. I have recently posted a few examples of the remarkable shift by members of the corporate Brigade here from outrage over these things under Bush, to stalwart defense under Obama. And just a few months ago, we were being lectured that the government wouldn't possibly have the technology or interest in surveilling all of us.

And how long it has been going on is far from relevant. This is a matter of right and wrong, trust in our government, and our fundamental Constitutional protections.

The Third Way vastly underestimates the anger they generate with this brazen apologism for an assault f this magnitude on ALL the American people. IMO you will find that Americans greatly resent being lied to and spied upon, and they will especially resent the arrogance with which this fascistic garbage is being defended.

[DevonRex]

174. ...

Awesome performance. Really. Tomorrow you should discontinue your phone and internet service. Start making plans for living off the grid.

[woo me with science]

175. That's your best response? Really?

That's sad, DevonRex.

[Laelth]

191. +1 Well said, woo.

Of course, the 3rd Way Democrats have a remarkably bad track record when it comes to the American people. They often act against our collective interests. What's most galling is that they don't even care when people get upset about it. Why should they? Their control of the Democratic Party is far more solid and absolute than most of us are willing to admit.

-Laelth

[emulatorloo]

228. True, Karl Rove-paid FAKE PROGRESSIVES have infested this place like cockroaches

Drumming up endless BULLSHIT, SHIT STORMS, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

All for one purpose - depressing dem turnout and ELECTING REPUBLICANS.

[freshwest]

266. They said they're voting for Ron, er, Rand Paul:

Another contingent will vote for Rand because:



Obama is coming to get them.

[madokie]

268. Its pretty f*cking sad

All this time leading up to the last few outrages I thought I was on a site of like minded individuals. Appears not to be so.

[Mojorabbit]

15. I am totally happy it is in the public eye again and that the media is actually covering it

I hope it gets enough outrage so some changes are made. I am glad for the publicity. I hope it becomes even more intense.

[Cha]

26. That would mean electing new members to Congress who

are as outraged as you. And, those on the internet who are so outraged that they actually put their action where their rage is.

[Mojorabbit]

32. Congresscritters rarely change their mind when it is just us writing and calling

Get the press on their case and occasionally they are moved to do something. I hope that happens.

[zbdent]

18. It's now news because it's a Democrat in the White House ...

despite the fact that Republicans were well aware of all this.

"We" liberals warned the people, as far back as (at least) 9/12/2001 ... but "we" were told that we hated America and wanted the terrorists to win.

[Luminous Animal]

197. And it was news then when a Republican was in the White House.

[BlueCheese]

23. Well...

We didn't know that the program had continued under Obama.
We didn't know that it now encompasses purely domestic calls, as opposed to those that are between the U.S. and another country.
We thought we had left this shameful practice behind with the Bush administration.

[jeff47]

45. Actually, we did.

After all, Obama signed the relevant re-authorization law in 2011. I'm really curious why you think he'd sign the law and then not use it.

[BlueCheese]

47. You have a point.

The Patriot Act is so big, however, that you can't be certain who supports which provisions of it, and whether it was something he was forced to swallow.

This is the first concrete evidence that Obama is using it to the extent that he is, and that it includes entirely domestic calls. Maybe it's the difference between wondering if your spouse is cheating and then walking in on them in the act.

[jeff47]

52. You should assume every president will use every law to the fullest extent.

There's no incentive to not do so.

If Obama was not using the law, and a terrorist attack happened it would get him thrown out of office. The incentive for President Obama is to use every law as much as possible. That doesn't match the incentives for Senator Obama, because Senator Obama wouldn't be blamed for the attack.

[MineralMan]

190. Not true, actually.

"We" is a misused term in this case. You may not have known those things. Many others on this forum did know them. Using "we" is often a mistake, since it is inclusive of everyone in a particular situation. That is rarely accurate.

"I" is more accurate in this situation.

[BlueToTheBone]

40. Thank you.

Now let's change the law.

[Cali_Democrat]

55. I can agree with that.

[Crowman1979]

41. That's the old print media being slow as usual!

They might as well post blogs via Mimeograph.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

43. Seems that some are shocked & surprised that folks don't approve of spying on ALL americans

I would suggest you look at the DU archives to understand that most DUers haven't changed their views, even when the presidency changed, only their expectations.

And now that it has been proven that their expectations have been misplaced, their outrage should not be unexpected.

my only question is will our administration listen to his constituents and react democratically to the overwhelming disapproval, or will he behave more like this guy...


Turkey's Protests Must End Immediately, Prime Minister Erdogan Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/turkish-protests-erdogan_n_3400946.html?utm_hp_ref=world






or this one...


''Size of protest -- it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group,'' Mr. Bush said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/weekinreview/the-nation-focus-groups-to-bush-the-crowd-was-a-blur.html

[pmorlan1]

46. Greenwald Did Break Huge Stories

I thought your post was sarcasm when I first came here but evidently you are serious (please feel free to correct me if you aren't).

I hate to burst the bubble you guys are in but Greenwald did break a huge story (several of them, in fact). Your news articles are from 2006 when Bush was in power. They show what the Bush administration was doing. The Greenwald piece shows what the Obama administration is doing. While those of us who have been paying attention suspected that Obama was still doing this spying, the FISA Court document that the Guardian published confirms our worst fears.

The media could care less if you are outraged. You have to come to terms of whether or not you approve of the government using it's vast tools to spy on Americans in every conceivable way. It's not up to the media to make that decision for you, it's up to you and your principles. But one thing this is not is a fake scandal. This one has legs.

[arely staircase]

65. uh, no

greenwald reported on something that has been public knowledge since 2006.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. No, he didn't. You're not entitled to your own facts

Hint: Obama was a candidate in 2008. Now he's the President. He features quite prominently in the new article for a reason. Are you about there, or should I guide you the rest of the way in.

[arely staircase]

100. and Obama said he would end this program?

nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

107. No. He came out forcefully in support of his spying program today.

[arely staircase]

109. so it has been public knowledge for six years and you just got mad about it recently?

nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

117. Again, you don't get to make shit up

It's a story today for a very obvious and valid reason. Is there anything you won't sacrifice in order to feel like you've won a political victory? Seems to me that's a question we all need to be asking ourselves right now.

[arely staircase]

136. either you have known about it and said nothing

or you haven't been keeping up.

[pmorlan1]

245. Willful ignorance

Greenwald reported on it in 2006 when Bush was doing it and he's given us confirmation in 2013 that Obama is also doing it. How do you not understand this? How is it possible to blind yourself to the obvious facts?

[arely staircase]

250. why would I have thought for a moment Obama wasn't doing it? he never said he would end it. never

announced it had ended.

greenwald reported nothing new.

[magellan]

270. He sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have sharply curtailed gov spying on US citizens

And one reason he came to prominence as a candidate was because he was all about rolling back BushCo infringements on civil liberties.

Now we find him defending the NSA's collection of call detail records on everyone. Here's the actual court order from April this year. And it won't only be Verizon that's been ordered to turn data over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Maybe you voted for an expansion of the surveillance state, but I sure as hell didn't.

[LovingA2andMI]

82. Exactly!!

And I guess this folks have another "idol" that have fell off their good graces as first 25 minutes or so of RACHEL MADDOW debated President Obama's rights to spy on our data. Guess which side R.M. was on....

The same folks that decried when George W. Bush was legislating away by the stoke of his Presidential Pen, our Civil Liberties!

But don't let those facts stop your Obama idol worship. The Bible speaks pretty frankly about worshiping false idols....

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. The difference is, that was 'anonymous sources', which the govt could just say 'no comment' to

and you had no idea how reliable the sources were. You'd assume they were collecting something, but were the unknown sources right that it was everyone's entire data? Now, we have the court document that says, yes, it is.

[Coyotl]

113. Guess again. Read this thread and watch the videos.

HELLO WORLD! George W. Bush illegally spied on American citizens. Read all about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022963663

[kristopher]

50. I always assumed the data in question was on routinely part of my telephone record

It is the same stuff that is on my bill, I thought the phone companies kept it on file for a few years as a matter of routine.
I find it really difficult to get upset to find out that it is going into a master database instead.

[kentuck]

51. But isn't that the problem??

It's recycled?

[Maedhros]

63. Confirmation that this activity has been ongoing for 7 years

should not lessen our concern.

[another_liberal]

54. This program of wiretapping without a warrant . . .

This same program of wiretapping without a warrant began under Cheney and George W. Anyone with half an unbiased brain assumed long ago that the NSA was tapping all of our electronic communications, with or without legal authority. The Guardian has just eliminated the spooks' plausible denial of that fact.

[struggle4progress]

135. Since 1979, American courts have taken the view that collecting telephone call records

is entirely different from wiretapping: Maryland v Smith held that telephone call records could be collected without a warrant, unlike wiretapping

Bush was wiretapping without warrants. Obama got a warrant to collect telephone call records for which the courts have for thirty years said there is no presumption of privacy

[another_liberal]

168. Technology got ahead . . .

Sounds like technology got ahead of the law and the NSA used that loophole like a borrowed mule. We need to update our privacy laws to reflect current technology. The 4th Amendment needs to be protected, otherwise we will lose something very precious indeed.

[Hissyspit]

244. The issue is massive blind dragnet.

Which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Simple solution: Don't spy on Americans. End of embarrassing story.

[arely staircase]

69. agreed, but this ain't news, or new

I have known about is since 2006, haven't you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. It appears to be news to a lot of people. And, is finally being discussed.

Don't you think it's about time?

[arely staircase]

75. absolutely

there is a whole raft of shit in the patriot act that needs to be done away with. actually, I don't know of anything in it I am for. there may be something. Sen. Feingold's speech I posted in another thread is a warning from the not so distant past about the thing.

I take issue with both those who support it because Obama is President as well as those who think (or pretend) this is something he started.

[kenny blankenship]

80. Well the President welcomes having this discussion, so he says

although his silence, while presiding over the total destruction of the 4th Amendment up to this point, could be thought of as something very different. I guess it slipped his mind to initiate the discussion over the end of the core liberties this country was founded on. It kind of slipped his mind there for, like, four and half years, despite his educational background in the field of Constitutional law. Could happen. Sometimes I forget to buy toothpaste when I know that I'm running low and I need more. I have all my teeth and I brush them twice a day. Yet somehow it still can slip my mind to get a new tube of toothpaste for a couple grocery runs in a row. Then I'll probably have to make a late night trip to the store, pretty much just for the toothpaste. Crazy. It's never slipped my mind for four and half years, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

163. Yep. He "welcomes the discussion" the same way people welcome root canals.

Or, kids when parents "discuss" with them the missing cookies.

[SlimJimmy]

76. +1, it's what I've been saying all day.

[Summer Hathaway]

59. But, but, but ...

DUers are way too smart to be manipulated by the MSM!!!

Unless the MSM gives them something to be OUTRAGED! at the Obama administration about - at which point, the MSM is magically transformed into truth-tellers who are trying to keep the country informed.

Funny how that works, huh?

[FSogol]

73. +1 Spot on.

[Laelth]

195. Sorry, that just doesn't jibe with reality.

Most of us ignored the IRS non-scandal, for example, and derided those who "pushed it" because we could tell that it was a non-scandal being covered in the media for solely political, right-wing purposes.

What you're seeing here is quite different.

-Laelth

[arely staircase]

209. so you waited six years to get mad about this?

nt

[Laelth]

212. Sigh.

Obama is the President. He is responsible for what the executive branch of the Federal Government does. He could do the right thing if he wanted to. He could restore the 4th Amendment by simply standing down. As the executive, he could order the NSA to stop collecting this data. He has not. Why not simply agree with me that the President should just order the NSA to stop?

If the President fails to end this program, he will deserve all the criticism he gets from all quarters, left and right.

-Laelth


P.S.: Who cares when I got mad about it? How is that even remotely relevant?

[arely staircase]

213. all of that is true but it has been true

why the outrage now? why not last year or the year before?

[Laelth]

222. Would you have preferred it if Greenwald had released this info in Oct. 2012?

If you ask me, Greenwald has been very careful and responsible in his timing. Instead of dropping his bombs during election season, he waited until now ... some 17 months before the mid-term elections and after Obama had already won re-election.

Congress is gridlocked, so it's not like this "scandal" is hurting Obama's legislative priorities. No, I think this is a great time to be having this discussion. This is when it will do the least amount of damage to the Democratic Party and to liberal causes.

-Laelth

[arely staircase]

223. why wait on greenwld when you already knew all of his?

or you should have:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

[Laelth]

225. Um ... as I said, because this is a better time to have this discussion. n/t

-Laelth

[frylock]

251. you've been here for a 18 months. how do you know what people here were saying in 2006?

[arely staircase]

252. uh, so you do know non-members can read DU, right?

[frylock]

256. evidently you can't..

otherwise you'd know that yes, we were pissed and very vocal about this in 2006 har har har.

[nineteen50]

60. I wonder if this board would react this way if

Romney were president.

[arely staircase]

68. thank god we will never know?

nt

[DirkGently]

62. Wrong. It's the first time we've seen the FISA orders Obama promised.

When he took the reins of this unholy spying scam from Bush, he promised transparency. Suddenly, it's "Trust me, there are 'safeguards' in place."

Twist all you want -- this is news, people and people are pissed.

The fact that a portion of this bullshit was already going on has got to be the worst argument ever plucked from a loyalist robot's ass.

[arely staircase]

66. Obama promised to end this?

link?

[RoccoR5955]

67. Greenwald got a few little specifics

and mentioned that this program is being ratcheted up on ALL internet services.
Sure I remember when the news broke on Olbermann, that there were wires running into a secret room in Verizon's switch facility, way back in the beginning.
It was the Patriot Act that brought it on. The Bush Crime Syndicate achieved their goal when they let 9/11 happen on purpose, so that people could be railroaded into this out of fear.

[FSogol]

72. Kick and Recommend!

Next week get outraged about Benghazi and fluoride!
The following week will be Acorn and the IRS!

[Initech]

81. The Republicans are trying to blame Obama for the crimes committed under Bush.

That is the real issue at stake.

[Hissyspit]

105. That is true. But that does not mean this is not news

and it is certainly not the only issue at stake.

[PatSeg]

83. Thanks for posting this

As I listened to all the outrage, I couldn't help but remember that I've heard this all before. I'm not terribly happy about the database, but I know this is not new and the commentators on television should know that too. Yet another distraction in DC that will keep lawmakers from actually doing any work.

[Cali_Democrat]

85. I'm with you

Not happy about it and wish it would end, but people need to be careful about saying "how high" when the media tells them to jump.

The media recycles stories from 7 years ago, but they don't talk about jobs bills.

[Vinnie From Indy]

84. lol

I will admit that I have had a few incredible ales and that probably is the reason I chuckled at this OP. The OP is OUTRAGED that this story is hitting most every major media outlet in the world. The central proposition in the OP is that this is old news and that Greenwald's piece was simply a rehahsh of what was already known. Well, to be fair, Greenwald did indeed have something new to bring to the party - a copy of the actual legal document authorizing such activity. That is a big deal and that is why this is a huge story that is only going to get bigger. Not only has Greenwald broken this story wide open, he is doing so at great risk as the folks in this Admin. as well as the NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA and a host of other very powerful agencies take a dim view of people pissing their punchbowl.

Cheers!

[Skip Intro]

87. There comes a point where you just can't blame it on bush anymore.

Obama's been president, the guy in charge, for going on five years.

Things don't happen by accident. Programs don't get used and expanded by accident.

Directives and agendas are issued, orders are given.

The IRS doesn't apologize for targeting groups based on their political expression by accident.

The DOJ doesn't spy on the media by accident.

The NSA doesn't spy on innocent Americans by accident.

Oh wait, maybe they do:

Officials: NSA mistakenly intercepted emails, phone calls of innocent Americans

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18831985-officials-nsa-mistakenly-intercepted-emails-phone-calls-of-innocent-americans

[Cha]

121. If you want the laws to change.. Change Congress. This is nothing new. And, as

the OP stated. It's not "breaking".. that's some disingenuous shit right there.

And, damn straight I'm glad we have President Obama in charge of this instead of bush or romney.

Transcript: President Obama's remarks today in regard to the surveillance issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251310274

[Dragonfli]

231. By the same token, if you want to ignore the 4th Amendment, repeal the 4th Amendment

Pretending a law does not violate the 4th does not make it legal to violate the 4th. Using the patriot Act to nullify our rights is not actually legal, to do what they are doing legally they must repeal the 4th as they once did the 21st. There is no way around that no matter how much you claim our executive can ignore our rights based on an unconstitutional law used as a fig leaf.

[DevonRex]

88. No he didn't.

I'm telling you, that asshole is nothing more than a RW operative. It's laughable that anybody falls for his shtick.

Timing is everything. Remember that.

[Hissyspit]

181. "RW operative"

Yes, that's why he spent most of the Bush administration absolutely attacking and documenting every civil liberties violation and outrage of the Bush administration.

Ridiculous ad Hominem, just like the OP.

[Luminous Animal]

208. He wrote 3 books and thousands of blog posts against the Bush admin.

And Greenwald never claimed that he was revealing anything new. He even mentions the 2006 NSA story in his article. What he stated in his article was that he had obtained tangible proof that millions of U.S. citizens are being spied on. Tangible.

[truebluegreen]

93. Unrec.

Are you trying to tell us we should be happy about this?

Sure, I "knew", as did many here. But now we KNOW, and now so does everyone else who pays any attention whatsoever. Now is the time to speak up, now when the story has substance and legs.

[blackspade]

95. Wrong.

Greenwald has an actual document that shows that the shitty 4th amendment violations that were going on under that asshole Bush are still going on under a Democratic president that ran on changing how things were being done in DC.

This is not a new outrage (I agree with you on that) but actual documentation has been sparse at best.
All the bullshit 'scandals' if anything are obscuring this actual scandal.
The M$M will not follow this for long because it is an actual problem that has roots deep into the powers that actually control this country.
Regardless, Obama has signed onto this and unfortunately now owns this detestable Bushe era policy that should have been ditched within hours of taking office.

So, please, this is not an effort to 'get' Obama. In this case he is a party to the continuing erosion of our Constitutional liberties.

[Hissyspit]

101. Barack Obama was President in 2006?

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2013, 11:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The revelation that the program continues in the form it does is news.

[TheKentuckian]

120. You're right and I'm sorry. I'll leave the text below for the reference of those

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2013, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

playing such a tired hand though.


He is President now. Are you really playing the he didn't start it game? Is that serious?I think it is really far beyond lame. I mean really, really fucking pitiful.

When that is all you got, you know you have less than nothing. Just pissing away the advantage of hindsight and any semblance of integrity of values. Low, low shit.

[Hissyspit]

139. My point is the revelation IS news because while we may have thought the program was still going on

during the Obama administration, we didn't have any proof of this type. I was countering the OP. I think you may have misunderstood.

[SunSeeker]

110. K & R

[blkmusclmachine]

116. The Gov't LIED to the American public when it claimed only int'l contacts would be targeted,

then turned right around and EXCLUDED int'l contacts.

That's what's news.

[woo me with science]

178. It's getting very difficult

to keep abreast of all the lies.

[okaawhatever]

122. There was a huge story about the same thing printed in Aug 2012 in NYT. Read the wiki article on the

co-author of the story, Laura Poitras

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

[sheshe2]

125. Kicked and Recommending!

Thanks Cali_Dem.

[AgingAmerican]

126. Bush did it too!

n/t

[flamingdem]

127. This is another frenzy to feed the haters

What a crock.

Obama is being blocked by his own now

[Union Scribe]

130. Blocked from doing what?

Please explain.

[flamingdem]

164. Blocked from being able to get past fake outrage and succeed

in his second term

[Union Scribe]

173. Anything more specific? nt

[Laelth]

200. Blocked?

There's very little Obama can do with the Republican House of Representatives in its current state. He knows it, and so does everyone else. I can't see how he's being "blocked" at all.



-Laelth

[Mkap]

129. This is the new norm

Its been like this since 2002, read Robert O' Harrows "No place to Hide". The government has been collecting data mining from companies like Lexis Nexis and travel records from airline companies. The thing that suck is that Obama was suppose to stop this shit when he came in office

It all reminds me of the 1974 movie "The Conversation" (which i had to watch in polly sci class)

[video]

[/video]

[uponit7771]

131. +1

[caseymoz]

133. You're prevaricaricating and you know it.

The news is Obama was supposed to stop it. Or at least fight it. Rather than say, embrace it enthusiastically. And maybe those of us who have been telling you this about Obama aren't surprised, but Obama supporters were surprised about something. Maybe you're affronted by being called out to defend this outrage again, after many of you denied that he could possibly be as bad or worse than Bush on this issue.

I'm amazed you don't have any shame, or perhaps any awareness of what your post says. Because what you're admitting is you stopped caring about your civil liberties in 2006. Obama didn't improve it and you knew it all this time, but having him in the White House made it more palatable to live under a rock. "Yes, I knew it was all true all this time, but Obama was destroying my Constitutional rights, therefore it was okay."

You just admitted you've eaten dirt for Obama since 2008. Maybe you're sacrificing too much for and you're getting too little from this guy? Better I tell you now than you be stunned at your level of self-deception in 2018.

[arely staircase]

137. you say obama said he would stop it, please give us a link

nt

[caseymoz]

145. Sure I'll give the link.

The President takes a one-sentence oath where he promises to uphold the Constitution. Here is what Obama promised in his oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He said this twice. On or about January 20th 2008 and on or about January 20th 2012.

And here's the link:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Look at the 4th Amendment. See what it says. Does this surveillance program follow that Amendment? Yes or no?

If he's been approving of it for four and a half years, has he been upholding and defending the Constitution? Yes or no?

If he breaks this, and it's the central, minimal promise of his office, does it really matter what he said on the campaign? And can you really believe any of it?

He's playing eleven dimensional chess, except you're his opponent. And you're a pushover. Not only do you smile, but you'll fight before you believe you're being played.

If that link isn't good enough for you, then it doesn't matter what other link I give you, because you'll just call them dickheads like Greenwald and me.

This is the Internet Age. If you don't know what he said on the campaign, it's because you don't want to know.

[arely staircase]

154. nothing

nt

[JoePhilly]

203. Bush was bypassing FISA and the Congress, and Obama does not.

That would be an IMPROVEMENT.

By the way ... The creation of the FISA court occurred under Carter and was proposed by Ted Kennedy.

So clearly they played an important role in creating Obama's police state don't ya think?

Again, recycled outrage.

[caseymoz]

224. You mean by getting single warrant for massive surveillance

I don't consider that an improvement. In fact, since it was used to expand the program, I consider that to be a deterioration.

How is the past use of FISA even relevant? None of those guys used a single warrant for massive surveillance in absence of probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment and the President's oath of office. It isn't. It doesn't compare with what President Obama has done.

Recycled outrage? Oh, so held it in and voted for the guy twice? That's an idiotic thing to say.

I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post:

He broke his oath of office twice. That's more important than anything he said on the campaign. Here's the Oath of Office, the minimal promise he's expected to keep:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Here's the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

"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."

Was there probable cause to this data mining? Yes or No?

Does mass surveillance preserve, protect or defend the 4th Amendment. Yes or No?

Does mass surveillance do the opposite? Yes or No?

If your answered no to the first two and yes to the last, then you think he broke his oath of office, no if's, ands or buts. What's more you don't care.

Now, be honest, did you really expect him to do this when you first elected him? Did you really listen to his campaign and think to yourself, "He's going to be spying on all of us"? Were your standards for him really that low?

If so, what did you care about, then? That he pronounce "nuclear" correctly? Was that the sort of thing you were counting on him to do?

I expected a little better.

I'm tired of eating shit about this. I'm on the edge of resigning from the party and from this site. And there have been posts that have told me others feel the same way.

Outrage? You haven't seen outrage yet.

[SidDithers]

134. Greenwald is a clown...nt

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

144. Obama's "Spy on Everyone" policy was already public? My *ass*, it was.

Obama's "Spy on Everyone" policy was already public? My *ass*, it was

[Cali_Democrat]

172. LOL

[Zen Democrat]

147. I want to ask the people who are outraged by unjustified power in the NSA and intel agencies:

Where have you been the past 50 years? What do you think Vietnam was about? What do you think Reagan was about? What do you think Neocons are about? You are so naive in your outrage. And in the obligatory false equivalency.

[Hissyspit]

160. Nonsense.

I've been outraged since I was a teenager in the 1970s. I remember the Church Committee quite well.

I'm not goddamn naive at all. I'm perfectly aware that every time reforms are made someone thinks of a way to get around them and undo them.

That's why transparency in government is so important.

[WinkyDink]

217. I don't know about you, but I've protested, volunteered, and THOUGHT I was voting for Democrats.

[Fire Walk With Me]

149. Some of us understand that this is nothing new. However, as it is nothing new,

why did Obama do nothing but add to the neocon/Bush agendas with HR347, NDRP, the NDAA section 1021, drones drones drones...who cares when it started. Obama has ADDED to the surveillance state, significantly. He's one of them. This is becoming worse, not better, and if he were one of "us", he'd have done something, anything, to stop this crap, and NOT add to it. He's had how many YEARS to "change" this? Some of us have been screaming for him to, shouting about the fact that he's making it worse. Listen to us

[Corruption Inc]

155. The spying on innocent Americans is just as wrong now as it was then

It's not the media's problem, although they are being spied on to, it's everyone's problem.

[Major Hogwash]

157. I watched Faux Snooze earlier this evening to see how they were dealing with it, and . . .

. . they were acting like they had never heard of the NSA spying program before.
Tucker started going apeshit, and Chris Wallace started smirking really hard because he wasn't able to contain his smile anymore, he was just about to start laughing at Tucker and so he had to cut away to a commercial.

Krautheimer couldn't help himself, saying several times that President Obama was a liberal.
Like that was news.
Then some guy in the middle, name unknown, stated correctly that Bush didn't get warrants for the spying when he did it -- and Krautheimer interrupted him, just like he always interrupts everyone, and he said, "We had to do something after 9/11".

There you have it in a nutshell, they had to do something -- after BUSH LET AMERICA GET ATTACKED!!!

[RobinA]

162. Why Am I

Not supposed to be outraged? I was outraged then and I'm outraged now. I've been outraged that more people aren't outraged. If, in fact, people are suddenly outraged, I say it's about time. As far as I am concerned, stories such as this can be published once a week until everybody pays attention.

The meme from a lot of people seems to be that because it's Obama, he shouldn't be called on it. I'm a card carrying ACLU member, and I'll call all Constitution shredders.

[Jamaal510]

165. Exactly what I've said all along.

All of this is old news. The tracking has been re-authorized by both parties in Congress every several months since Bush ll was in office, and yet Obama is the one that is supposed to shoulder the blame, as on other issues. Slow job growth? Blame Obama. Gay people still can't marry federally? Blame Obama. Republicans want to eliminate entitlements? Blame Obama. Obama is stealing our freedoms!!! WAAAH!!!

[ucrdem]

179. Neat trick isn't it?

Anything but the good news, and there's plenty of that!

[ucrdem]

177. QFT.

[Zavulon]

183. Recycled or not, the outrage is perfectly legitimate.

I expect this shit from Republicans, not from us. And the story has us at each other's throats, which is exactly what Republicans want.

The Democrats who support the spying (and the ones who refuse to admit it with their evasions of point-blank questions, say, in threads like this) have me mystified. I seem to remember outrage when Bush was doing this, but now it's okay?

[Laelth]

185. The attention this issue is getting belies the OP.

If this is just "recycled outrage," then please explain why it is getting so much attention and why it is generating such passions in people.

Many DU participants are upset about it (in a way that they were not upset about the IRS non-scandal, for example). It might be useful to consider that this data-collection issue is far more real to most Americans than other, recent "outrages" that have not disturbed people on the political left.

-Laelth

[Yukari Yakumo]

275. Easy, you dope

Benghazi has ran out of fuel.

The GOP and their sycophants needs a new "scandal" to waste time on.

[Laelth]

276. You're such a charming person. ;)

But seriously, this isn't GOP outrage that you're seeing. It's national outrage. A lot of people on both the left and the right are upset about it. Plenty of non-scandals have been trotted out of late. That's true. They've also failed to get any traction because they are, pretty obviously, non-scandals. Many people, on the other hand, are concerned about creeping fascism--our slowly becoming a police state. Do you not consider that a valid concern?



-Laelth

[GoneFishin]

192. What is "recycled" is this ploy to downplay peoples legitimate outrage, along with the

ploy "it is only meta data, and besides they won't even look at it without probable cause and a warrant". That is bullshit since they already provided "probable cause" to get the warrant for the meta data collection of 300,000,000 phone records. I guess all 300,000,000 US citizens are suspected of terrorism.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

193. It's all part of the GOP scheme

[Luminous Animal]

194. Apparently you didn't read Greenwald's article. He acknowledges the 2006 NSA revelations.

[Marr]

211. Why would they read something they don't want to know?

I swear, I have trouble distinguishing the fan club sorts from yesterday's fingers-in-the-ears Bushies.

[kenny blankenship]

242. Truthfully, I don't think Bush ever had the same kind of personality cult around him.

But maybe I just didn't go places where I would encounter that. The Republicans of the Bush Era had a frighteningly strong party movement that was brutally impervious to reason and triumphantly ignorant, and thoroughly Fascist in the way it pushed the delegitimization of any opposition to their party; but Bush himself didn't seem to be the incarnation of the movement, absorbing all loyalty to the party into himself. For our local fanatics, however, the importance of the Leader figure seems to completely absorb and eclipse the party he leads, and anything it might have ever stood for.

"It's all for you, Damien!"

[Highway61]

198. Amen!

Thank you!

[sellitman]

205. The minute Obama weakens the Patriot Act

The bastards will then claim he is soft on terror. He cannot win.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

221. If it's such a non-story, why is Obama making speeches about it and pursuing the "leaker"?

[Vilis Veritas]

226. 2006 is just the latest trickle in the rain...

These are centuries old techniques, generally used since the advent of Postal delivery. History is littered with this kind of surveillance being used by those who rule.

Sure the technology has changed, but the collection remains.

The outrage is orchestrated and being used to deflect. Look around and see what kind of things get signed and implemented while we all look at the shiny object on the ground, just my 2 cents.

[The Blue Flower]

227. "Hey, NSA, I never had a big brother, so thanks!"

I added that sig line to all my emails in 2006, so I know for sure this isn't anything new.

[The Wizard]

233. Same shit different day (NT)

[Hissyspit]

237. Greenwald has been writing about the issue since 2006, so no it's not,

and yes he did, but if it makes you feel better...

[Scurrilous]

241. Bingo!

K & R

[Roland99]

243. This is NOT a fake scandal. It's a continuation of Bush admin policies

And the Dems in 2005 did what to stop this then? They're ALL complicit in this crime against the Constitution!

[limpyhobbler]

246. Spying on us is outrageous. I'm glad the issue is finally getting some attention. nt

[great white snark]

248. K&R

[MjolnirTime]

261. Greenwald is scum.

[freshwest]

269. Breitbart of the Left? No, he's a Libertarian ratfucker working to elect conservatives.

[MjolnirTime]

277. a ratfucker if there ever was one.

[DonCoquixote]

262. Pardon me but

While I personally do not trust Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, or for that matter, most libertarians any farther than I could throw them, they are right on this issue.

Yes, I know the GOP is trying to make us stumble into 2014 weak and weary.

Yes I know a President Clinton would praised for this, and probably will be if she wins in 2016.

and Yes, even though some people are being consistent (as well as getting in a few cheap nyeh nyeh nyehs) many of the so called defenders of free speech will run right back into their rabbit warrens the next time someone remotely Arab makes a bomb. Never mind that the Boston Bombing was thwarted by good old-fashioned police work, as well as people with cell phone cameras, rather than anything the feds did!

But two and two is 4, and if we want Obama to succeed, we need to tell him to stop listening to the old guard.

And for those keeping score, yes, I do include Hillary in that, as I think that come 2008, there should have been an outright purge of all the old guard. I( wanted to be wrong, but between Getiner, Holder and Hillary, it seems the DLC made damned sure that nothing was going to change.

[DCBob]

272. In fact the only thing new is that it confirms the Obama admin is doing it legally.

I am ok with this as long as they are getting warrants. There are legitimate reasons for getting this information.

[Bonobo]

274. Did you support it in 2007? nt