Wow! Look at how "hysterical" and "poutraged" all of DU USED to be...

[Bonobo]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2879548

Back then I guess we cheered for the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) for their FOIA request and whistleblowers telling the dirty secrets of the govt.

Did the election of "our guy" suddenly transform all the concerns about privacy and corruption into "Poutrage" and "Hysteria"?

SOME CHOICE QUOTES FROM 2007

"Total Information Awareness" never went away.
Domestic surveillance networks in the USA dwarf all others in the history of the world.
Our only defense against tyranny is to be outspoken as we actively resist the tyrants.
We cannot win our battles for human rights on fields of privacy and secrecy."

Any time WH Press Sec. said "Outrageous Claim" and "That's Ludicrous"
apparently what he or she really meant is "Oops, you caught us"

When do we find out what the NSA was after.....
? It's doubtful they're after terror plots. More likely AT&T (my Internet provider after the SBC/AT&T merger)is doing political duty for the GOP.
And I suppose some person in a room right now is reading this post....?

This administration is Big Brother and Hitler
wrapped into one
who could workl for these SOB'S

And You Wonder Why Nobody Stands Up to Dear Leader?

[pnwmom]

1. Bush was engaged in warrantless wiretapping.

Obama is not -- so you're comparing apples and oranges.

[Bonobo]

2. Yes, they changed the law to allow it.

Of course everything is so secret that we cannot know about it.

EFF Takes FOIA Fight Over Secret Wiretaps to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/EFF-takes-fight-against-secret-law-to-FISC

Today, EFF filed a motion in a secret court.

This secret court isn’t in a developing nation, struggling beneath a dictatorship. It’s not in a country experimenting for the first time with a judiciary and the rule of law. And, as Wired recently noted, it’s “not in Iran or Venezuela, as one might expect.” No, the court is here, in the United States (it’s in Washington, D.C., in fact). It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or the FISC), and it reviews the federal government’s applications to conduct surveillance in national security cases. It’s comprised of 11 district court judges from around the country, and its opinions and orders are the law of the United States, like other federal courts.

But the FISC is different from typical courts in one fundamental way: almost everything about the FISC is secret.1 In fact, just being able to publicly say that we filed a motion with the FISC is unusual. Most proceedings are done ex parte (in this context, meaning just with the government and the judge), and any non-governmental parties involved in proceedings are typically forbidden from ever disclosing it. Even when the FISC finds that the government has acted illegally, so far, that illegality has been been kept hidden from public scrutiny and accountability.

So why did EFF file something with the FISC? In response to our FOIA lawsuit—and in an attempt to justify hiding the government’s unconstitutional conduct—the DOJ pointed to the FISC. The DOJ argued the FISC’s procedural rules prohibited DOJ from releasing the opinion under FOIA. But, five years earlier (in response to a separate case brought by the ACLU), the FISC itself said FOIA was the proper avenue to access FISC opinions. In fact, in that case, the DOJ argued that FOIA was the only way the public could access the opinions. So we filed a motion with the FISC to allow that court to definitively resolve whether its rules prohibit the disclosure of its opinions.

But, for the time being, a DOJ-imposed Catch-22 blocks the public from knowing more about the government’s illegal surveillance. According to the DOJ, we can’t use FOIA, because the FISC rules prevent it; and we can’t go to the FISC, because the FISC says FOIA is the proper avenue. If Joseph Heller were alive today, he would be impressed. So, too, would Franz Kafka. A public trapped between conflicting rules and a secret judicial body, with little transparency or public oversight, seems like a page ripped from The Trial.

[pnwmom]

4. No, the new law doesn't allowing warrantless wiretapping.

Any wiretapping that takes place requires a warrant, just like it does for any criminal investigation.

[Bonobo]

11. Wiretapping laws

In all cases are to be interpreted to be as narrow as possible in order to ensure that the civil liberties and rights to privacy of those not targeted are not trodden upon.

In this context, the dragnet style stealing of metadata of tens of million of people is clearly a violation of the spirit of the law no matter what kind of squirrelly behavior and shenanigans is done to pretend that it isn't.

[pnwmom]

12. No data has been stolen and it's within the law that Congress passed.

If you don't like it, go after your representatives in Congress.

[Bonobo]

14. Ah yes, congress.

I knew you would eventually come to that.

It's pretty damned sad, though, that that is the way you have to take it because you cannot face up to the fact that the POTUS is responsible for the actions of the NSA.

[Skidmore]

42. She's correct though.

It just doesn't fit into your magical thinking that immediately factors out congressional resposibility while transferring all responsibility to the executive. Rs have trained the public well through constant whining, constructing poisonous legislation that sidesteps ther oversight responsibilities, and employing McCarthy-like measures to silence opposition. Yes, there is law that governs this. Now, if it is bad law, get it repealed or amended in congress. However you still have a greater public which has vivid memories of 9/11 and other acts using terrorism which may be alright with the law as it stands.

[LaydeeBug]

64. ^^ this is soooo true ^^

But if we are being honest, the term "modest encroachment" is NOT one I expected associated withing the parameters of our rights, under this or ANY Democratic Administration.

[Number23]

111. + a million. It is very telling the people who become infuriated when they are told to direct their

ire at this and other issues at Congress.

But any OP that puts "Dear Leader" in it is basically waving a red flag of cluelessness afaic.

[JDPriestly]

155. Some members of Congress expressed their disgust with

this program. A few voted against it. I believe that Feingold was one of them. Where is he?

But remember, based on what we know, the only politicians who have the authority to see a lot of the data that has been collected on themselves are in the White House and administration.

Based on what we know, the members of Congress do not have the authority to examine their own dossiers.

This program gives ultimate information and ultimate power to whoever is in the White House and whoever controls the program -- which apparently is an unelected, independent corporation that does not answer to the American people but rather to only the president (maybe, who knows?).

Information is power. And this program collects the ultimate information on every American. This program gives the executive ultimate power over all of us.

So far, the information may not have been used as a weapon of ultimate power. But there is nothing to stop its use in that way.

What I am writing may sound extreme, but really it is the only logical result of this kind of data collection. Everything from the name of your hairdresser to your bra size to the names of your friends and where you made that reservation for dinner for your anniversary. It's all there as is the name and number of every friend or member of Congress you ever called from a phone that can be associated with your name.

This is 1984.

Try to think logically and just one step beyond the very obvious. You can come to no conclusion but to see the danger in this.

I am not claiming that Obama has actually studied the data on members of Congress, but there is nothing to prevent him or a future president from doing that. And even if you passed a law that could discourage him from doing that, how would you enforce it? I don't think you could. This law makes the executive branch into a sort of "God branch of government" able to see and know all.

Imagine the data that has been assembled on the phone services of the members of Congress. Pretty revealing.

[cui bono]

168. Indeed.

Thanks for posting that. Very well said.

[JDPriestly]

151. What a lot of DUers are overlooking is that this kind of

surveillance enables a sitting president or anyone with good access to this system to destroy any political opponent or anyone who criticizes the system.

Think about that. If you don't understand what I am saying, I will explain it to you in detail by giving you some hypothetical examples. But this is not difficult to think through and figure out.

[Skidmore]

170. Dirty tricks in politics didn't originate with the digital age.

I understand perfectly what you are saying but it doesn't take any more than a whisper campaign to destroy an opponent and we've seen it happen. This technology will not be going away. Too much money has been invested and its use is widespread. There are whole industries built around it. We need to have acceptable laws that govern its use. Period.

[sabrina 1]

171. 'IF it's a bad law'?? I thought that was decided back when it was rushed through

Congress to make legal what Bush did, which was illegal when he did it. Any law whose main purpose is to protect a lawless President can never be considered a 'good law'. And any law that allows dragnet surveillance of the population in any democracy, can never be considered a good law.

Unfortunately, after opposing the law at the time, or I should say, amendment to the law, Obama changed his mind and shocked his supporters by voting for it. He spent the rest of his campaign trying to explain that vote. I could not support anyone who voted for the Iraq war so had no choice other than to hope he meant what he said about ending Bush's abuses of our rights.

This week he stated he was keeping Bush policies in place, again contradicting himself in his campaign.

At this point I don't much care what they say, I just watch what they do. It isn't about them anymore, it's about what is happening to this country and what we must do as what we have done has failed. I will not defend the destruction of Constitutional Rights, I sure didn't do it under Bush and see no logical reason to it when it is our party 'keeping Bush policies'.

[Skidmore]

173. It was bad law when it was made.

Lord knows I spent lots of time back then calling and writing my legislators and others in the pecking order. DU was a busy place too. Most of the post 9/11 reaction by the government was just plain overreach and panicky CYA stuff for Bush and his band of merry men.

[Billy Pilgrim]

127. Is POTUS directly responsible for the actions of the NSA?

I didn't know that, if it's true.

I've always assumed the government kept track of phone, internet, and text usage - prior to each technology being made public. And I've always hated it.

I'm anti-surveillance. That's it. No partisanship required.

We Obama supporters are allowed to admit that this is a disappointment, and a breach of civil-liberty.

[JDPriestly]

148. It isn't within the law because it violates the Constitution

in a number of ways including chilling our rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and association. It also violates our rights to privacy and a fair trial guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments.

The government has kept this a secret because they know it is wrong, incompatible with a democratic society and that now that we know about it, their power will be reduced one way or another.

Maybe we will guard our use of telephones, etc. Maybe this will change the way we vote. But it will change us.

These private contractors need to be fired. All of them. This is an abuse of power.

[leveymg]

33. FISA was changed to legalize untargeted "driftnet" warrants that allow NSA to collect everyone's

calls, email, and other communications if there was a reasonable possibility that some bad guys might be using the same phone company network.

It's these overly broad warrants that need to be struck down as contrary to the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment.

[Aerows]

40. Exactly

A secret warrant that affects tens of millions isn't a warrant at all, because there is no probable cause.

[leveymg]

43. When the FISA Amendment Act was passed, I think few imagined that warrants would be issued for

an entire company, Verizon, ATT, etc. The argument made for FAA was that the nature of the technology made it necessary to intercept wireless calls and email at the main routers (telco switches and ISPs), and that might involve the collection of some thousands of other users.

But, warrants for all the records from entire companies? That indeed goes beyond what Sec. 702 seemed to require.

[Ms. Toad]

136. Many of us who opposed the act

were afraid of just that.

What I didn't expect was that President Obama's administration would take advantage of it.

[tavalon]

139. Same here, but I've finally accepted that the letter after the name doesn't matter,

it's being a true politician. It's a conundrum because only a true politician would want to be in Congress or the Presidency and generally, by the time you climb that far,you are irreparably damaged.

[Ms. Toad]

146. The letter after the name never mattered to me

There are plenty of Ds who have done really reprehensible things, and a few Rs who are honorable.

I did have expectations for this specific D president in the realm of terrorism/foreign affairs with resepct to which he has deeply disappointed me. (In other areas he is about what I expected - and when it became politically expedient to do so he even exceeded my expectations on LGBT issues, so while I was angry at some of his actions in that arena during the first term, I was not surprised)

[JDPriestly]

156. Thank you for explaining this so clearly.

It isn't all or nothing. The government could still get warrants based on probable cause. It is the warrants without limitations that are a problem.

Most people are law-abiding. This program is overly broad.

[tavalon]

138. Probable cause,

such a sticky little problem, that.

[leveymg]

174. If you don't have probable cause, you don't get a warrant. That used to be the rule.

Last edited Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Even the Bush Justice Department opposed reducing the standard for FISA warrants down to a reasonable suspicion. The standard actually applied now isn't even that lesser test because the 2008 FISA Amendment Act permits "driftnet" warrants that are issued for collection of all the data from any collection source if only one person on that network is suspected of international communications furthering espionage or terrorism. That renders the whole concept of warrants meaningless.

We need to revive the rule of law, which requires individualized targeting and retention. The NSA can still collect, but the rest of the data needs to be minimized, as it was previously.

If the agency wants to collect and take action beyond a warrant, it may prove exigent circumstances in certain cases, and that's fine. But, NSA is treating all circumstances as exigent which defeats the purpose of warrants and the Fourth Amendment.

[SlimJimmy]

131. +1 I wish more folks here understood that. But apparently, they either don't

know or don't care. I for one am quite outraged at this encroachment on my fourth amendment rights. So, tell me, where is the probable cause to collect *any* data in such a wide ranging manner?

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.

[JDPriestly]

157. Actually, this also violates nearly all your rights.

It isn't just your Fourth Amendment rights that are implicated here.

This chills all your First Amendment rights and could jeopardize your right to a fair trial and effective legal counsel.

[SlimJimmy]

175. That's true

[Ms. Toad]

134. A little hard to do that when we aren't allowed

to know they exist.

[backwoodsbob]

100. what difference does that make

when you can get a warrant to spy on EVERYONE?!!!

[kenny blankenship]

62. They may change the law to make their illegal activities legal,

but the haven't changed the Constitution, which says not only is the activity is illegal but the law is illegal as well.

[woo me with science]

3. Bullshit apologism.

The Obama administration is collecting and storing surveillance records of millions of Americans. They are making it LEGAL to do things that DU was outraged Bush was doing.

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

Shame on you for defending this.

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. Oh the shame!

What will the children think?

DU is becoming unhinged.

[woo me with science]

9. Well, that was vapid. nt

[Bonobo]

13. You need to return that avatar of Bernie Sanders.

You haven't the right to use his face considering what I see you posting around today.

[Art_from_Ark]

35. I'm surprised he isn't using the "Che" avatar

That would really solidify his "liberal" credentials

[QC]

54. Protective coloration. n/t

[tavalon]

141. DU is no more unhinged than we were when Bush did this

Getting a warrant to spy on all of us doesn't make this one bit more right.

[pnwmom]

6. Collecting phone numbers doesn't constitute wiretapping.

You need to reread the document you're citing.

The Bush administration was engaged in listening in on calls -- wiretapping -- without getting a warrant. The Obama administration has been collecting telephone numbers only, without names or other information; and wiretapping is not engaged in without a warrant, as is required for any criminal investigation.

[woo me with science]

7. I am not going to retype all this, but your argument is bullshit.

See this post, and the links within:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2975561

[pnwmom]

8. There's nothing in that post that contradicts what I wrote. You're making a mountain

out of a digital molehill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/making-a-mountain-out-of-a-digital-molehill.html


But shouldn’t I be concerned that F.B.I. agents are trampling my rights, just like the I.R.S. might have trampled the rights of certain organizations seeking tax-exempt status? As it turns out, the answer is no. The raw “metadata” requested will not be directly seen by any F.B.I. agent.

Rather, a computer will sort through the millions of calls and isolate a very small number for further scrutiny. Perhaps one of the numbers was called by one of the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombings. Or perhaps a call was placed by a Verizon customer to a known operative of Al Qaeda. The Supreme Court long ago authorized law enforcement agencies to obtain call logs — albeit on paper rather than from a computer database — without full probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

To listen to the contents of any particular call or to place a wiretap on a particular phone, the F.B.I. would have to go back to a judge for a more detailed order, this time showing probable cause sufficient to meet stringent Fourth Amendment standards. Otherwise, the evidence from the call could not be used to prosecute the caller or call recipient. Privacy rights, in short, have been minimally intruded upon for national security protections.

Finally, let’s consider the alternative some activist groups and media organizations seek: more narrowly tailored gathering of records, and full transparency after the fact about what kinds of records have been obtained. There are obvious problems with this approach. Let’s say the judicial order leaked to The Guardian this week had specified the phone numbers about which the F.B.I. had concerns. Releasing those numbers would surely have tipped off the people using those numbers, or their associates, and caused them to change their mode of communicating. Already, there is a real probability that individuals planning terrorist activities are using channels of communication that will not show up in the databases of service providers. If the order revealed more expansively the standards the F.B.I. used to seek broad sets of records, again those seeking to avoid detection for terrorism-related activities could simply change their methods of doing business.

[woo me with science]

16. An opinion piece by a Reagan appointee.

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 07:11 AM - Edit history (7)

But that aside, you are missing the point entirely in your myopic focus on warrantless wiretapping. The point is that the government has no fucking justification to sweep up and STORE the ongoing phone (or internet, or credit card, or....etc..) records of THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, EN MASSE.

If you suspect someone of a crime, you go through the proper channels that have always been used, and you wiretap them.

You do not CREATE AND MAINTAIN DATABASES on the daily communication and activities of MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS so that you can later go back and comb through the records of any citizen at any time. That is a recipe for a police state. It enables preemptive targeting of any citizen the government decides is a risk to it or might be a risk to it at some time in the future. If the Fourth Amendment does not apply to these sorts of things, to what does it apply?

You obviously did not read the links within the post I provided. They describe very well the implications of creating this sort of outrageous citizen surveillance infrastructure in a country that is supposed to provide protection to citizens from government overreach, searches/seizures, and intrusion. What you are defending here is unconscionable.

[Aerows]

41. I can't believe anyone can defend this

This is as non-partisan as it gets - it violates everyone, and I have pretty much formed my own opinion of why anyone would defend this. I'll leave you to your own conclusions because I'm sure I'd get alerted on if I shared mine.

[tavalon]

144. It is pretty amazing that anyone is wlling to bend themselves into a metaphorical pretzel to justify

this. I'd suggest some ibuprofen because these are advanced pretzel poses.

Here, let me make it simple. It's wrong. With or without a warrant, it is wrong.

Easy speasy.

[woo me with science]

145. Thank you.

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.

[Billy Pilgrim]

128. It may be that most of the data collected is irrelevant-

-and I would expect that. But we the innocent public haven't had a say in the matter.

It is (I hate to admit) a violation of civil-liberty, and an important one for anyone who values privacy.

Will privacy have to become a philosophy before it's respected? Privatarianism - those who value the Liberty of Privacy above all else?

When my partisan ideology is threatened I ask myself - what would the ACLU have to say about this?

The ACLU disagrees with the Obama administration on this.

[Ms. Toad]

135. You are extrapolating limits which are not part of the order

Rather, a computer will sort through the millions of calls and isolate a very small number for further scrutiny. Perhaps one of the numbers was called by one of the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombings. Or perhaps a call was placed by a Verizon customer to a known operative of Al Qaeda.

(1) The order does not place this limitation on the data collected.
(2) And if the number of an innocent person was called by one of the Tsarnaev brothers - or an innocent person placed a call to a known operative of Al Qaeda? That is why probable cause, specific to the individual whose data is being collected, is required. So innocent individuals who just happen to be circumstantially connected to people who may have done some vile things (or who happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time) aren't caught up in generic non-specific sweeps - like some of those individuals who have been sitting in Gitmo for a decade or more.

[pnwmom]

163. Yes, and probable cause is required for the warrant, just as in any criminal case. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

164. Proable cause means

information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the evidence of a crime or contraband would be found with respect to the person's information being sought. It is not a general suspicion that if the FBI was permitted to gather a bunch of data on a bunch of people (most of whom are innocent) that maybe someday they might find some unnamed person who may have done something wrong.

How do you believe that the FBI met that standard against each person for whom data was ordered to be turned over - given that what was ordered was not logging the data from a specific person - but all calls within the United States or between the United States and another country.

Probable cause cannot constitutionally be established to support a general fishing expedition - which is what this was.

[pnwmom]

165. I'm not saying that probable cause was required for turning over phone numbers alone,

without identifying info.

But it is required for collecting further information about individuals and for wiretapping.

[Ms. Toad]

180. Hmm...how hard is a reverse lookup?

On the off chance you haven't actually tried it, it is trivial.

[pnwmom]

181. Yes, and that is the point.

With that name, and whatever probable cause they had, they could then go to the judge and get a warrant for wiretapping, etc.

[Ms. Toad]

182. No. You are missing the point.

They are not just getting disconnected information. They are getting a massive database which it is trivial to match up to every single US resident who has called or received a call on the Verizon (and likely other) networks.

The data should ONLY be gathered on individuals with respect to which there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be obtained. That is how probable cause works. You don't get to go on massive fishing exercises on the off chance you will catch some person (who may well be innocent) in your net - except by violating the constitution.

If it really was just data - not data connected to specific, identifiable people, there would not be such justified concern. But it is not just disconnected data.

I am really appalled that so many people on a progressive site seem to have such regressive, 1984-like (or McCarthy-like, or Hoover-like) ideas about this (or any) government building a database about the movement and associations of the population.

Do you have any idea how valuable the House Unamerican Activities would have found the data being collected by the NSA? Had the government possessed the data about this current government has about Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo, Helen Keller, Leonard Bernstein, Burl Ives, Pete Seeger, Artie Shaw, Zero Mostel, Charlie Chaplin, Langston Hughes, and Orson Welles, Dolores del Rio, Danny Kaye, Dorothy Parker, Lena Horne, Gypsy Rose Lee, Burgess Meredith, Ruth Gordon, Eddie Albert, Richard Attenborough, Barbara Bel Geddes (and many many more) who courageously refused to participate in the witch hunt for their alleged communist associates? With phone data connecting them to each other, their refusal to testify would have been for naught.

Not to mention massive domestic surveillance on the theoretically violent and subversive organizations which the FBI infiltrated and spied on not much later (I was on the governing entity of one such organization - which, incidentally, won a Nobel Peace prize). As bad as the spying was - it would have been truly terrifying had this data been added to the mix.

[leveymg]

39. The "metadata" argument is misleading, and here is why:

NSA collects and stores the voice and content part of emails, as well as the metadata (pin registers, locations, times on call, etc.). All that gets dumped into vast server farms like the one most recently constructed in Utah. It appears that analysts have free access to phone call metadata without requesting a warrant.

The system runs all this data -- including content, I believe -- through software that profiles suspected characteristics and key identifiers. If the profiling software "red flags" someone, a warrant is obtained and all the related content of everyone who that caller ever had contact with is made available to investigators.

In other words, the NSA is profiling everyone who uses a phone or email as potential terrorists. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214479/-Is-Universal-Profiling-of-phone-users-in-America-the-next-revelation

That's worse than mere warrantless wiretapping.

[woo me with science]

143. Thank you.

The propagandists ignore all this, determinedly.

[tavalon]

142. Telephone numbers only?

Oh, that makes it all better. And it's not collecting any other information (yes it is)? Oh, well, okay, nevermind.

[JDPriestly]

159. Did you listen to the statement by the whistleblower?

I gathered from that statement that the program may have gone beyond just collecting numbers. I was surprised to hear that, but I think I did.

The whistleblower was talking about sifting through the data, a process of data analysis that could virtually reveal what an actual wiretap would reveal.

And of course the data analysis could be used to acquire another pretty broad court order for wiretapping on someone even though the person was not suspected of criminal behavior.

Have you listen to the whistleblower's statement? The Obama administration has not denied this. And Congressman Wyden warned that we would be shocked and very unhappy about this program if we understood it.

[tavalon]

140. That pretty well sums it up

They made it legal secretly, so I can't see the warrant, just doesn't work for me.

[Demo_Chris]

83. Why not get the same judge to issue a warrant...

Allowing for the blanket search of every home in America?

Or how about an arrest warrant for everyone?

Do you understand that a warrant is supposed to be a bit more specific than a search of "everyone" and for "anything"?

[sabrina 1]

91. The law was changed to protect Bush. And Democrats were outraged over that too. NOW some

people are USING that outrageous law to justify what they once opposed. Amazing to watch the contortions to try to justify something that was so opposed not so long ago.

[AnalystInParadise]

116. Sabrina I know we significantly

disagree about Bradley Manning, but on this issue we are in full agreement. I know I am being consistent and it is interesting watching the people that agree with me on Manning tear me down for my support of Mr. Snowden. Wrong is wrong and I know we are differing on Manning, but on this we are simpatico..............I can't believe people are defending this violation of the rights of every single man, woman and child........

[AnalystInParadise]

113. Agreed they don't even need a warrant now that has anyones name on it

They just turn on the vacuum cleaner and it sucks up all data out there. It is a punch in the gut to watch people who were born free men and women cede that freedom because "our guy" is in charge. So many defenders are arguing how this is all legal, etc.....ignoring the moral argument that it doesn't matter if we have anything to hide or not, our government, Democrats and Republicans got together and decided this was a good idea. Whether or not they are collecting your data pnwmom, they now have the power to do. And if that doesn't trouble you, I don't know how to respond to that. If you are not troubled by a government having the power at their whim to collect every piece of information about your personal life, about your personal private life, and use it to track you in every transaction you make, then I just don't know what to say to you. Legal or not, it certainly isn't ethical or moral or Constitutional........

[Ms. Toad]

132. It is at most comparing Jonathan to McIntosh.

If you are honest, you know that if the Bush administration had gone to a secret court and obtained a warrant to collect information on all calls (to whom, when, for how long, and likely geographic data), and kept it secret from everyone whose data was being collected, that we'd have figuratively torn him a new one.

Approval by a secret court, which is not subject to appeal, is only a hairs breadth different from warrantless wiretapping.

[tavalon]

137. No we're comparing illegal apples to probably illegal warrented oranges

Not nearly as different as you would like them to be. Unless, of course, there is probable cause that you, me and every Joe Schmoe on the street is credibly a terrorist or tied to terrorist activity. Is that possible because then this would be perfectly fine?

[pacalo]

10. I'm not going to go anti-Obama in regard to this; it would have continued regardless

of who is president. We are perhaps being naïve in regard to the limitations Obama has because I do believe he is a good man. I'm thinking that there are higher powers that don't afford Obama a choice in the matter.

But, I'm totally against putting American citizens under surveillance. I want our leaders to honor the Constitution. The Patriot Act needs to be abolished as well because, obviously, it can be used arbitrarily for political purposes (Bush/Cheney).

This becoming a "scandal" due to the fact that a Democratic president is in office might be a blessing in disguise. If the label "Democratic" gets the attention of those who have slept through the Bush/Cheney regime's anti-freedom program, perhaps the greater number of protests will cause positive changes.

[HiPointDem]

15. what are these higher powers? what is a 'good man'?

[graham4anything]

20. Well, there is John. He was in the Hangover.

Now, the Hangover was a really stupid movie. Hangover2 was worse, and I won't waste my money seeing the 3rd one.

I grew up.

[HiPointDem]

21. go Whirled Salaam Man!

[neverforget]

93. John Yoo supports this program too.

[pacalo]

25. Wall Street, corporate world, a group of independent billionaires,

who knows who they are. I think Obama has to do what he's told to do.

A good man has good morals & a sound order of priorities.

[AgingAmerican]

98. If he was a good man with good morals and sound order of priorities

he wouldn't be a puppet of Wall Street, the corporate world and a group of independent billionaires (Koch brothers).

From his actions we are left to surmise he is a tool of the oligarchs.

[pacalo]

106. "From his actions we are left to surmise he is a tool of the oligarchs."

I said as much in my post, although I'm wondering why this didn't become as much an issue when Dubya was president. The Patriot Act was his administration's creation.

[tavalon]

147. You might have been on vacation when the Dubya Patriot Act rage happened

and the rage when we found out that he was Data mining. If you missed it, it was pretty much identical to this rage. One thing that I can be proud of DUers, for the most part, is that they are choosing consistency in this matter. There are a few, but a very small few who are defending this.

[pacalo]

154. I wasn't clear, tavalon.

Only the left was outraged about the Patriot Act, yet no one in the media raised objections to it. That was actually the point I intended to make but failed to mention it.

[tavalon]

158. I get you

Of course, I can't speak to it because I don't have cable TV. So, I don't have the 24/7 "news" channels telling me what to think. I guess that would be why I don't see the disparity.

[pacalo]

160. During that time I got all the news from DU & Keith Olbermann.

Keith was passionate & the most eloquent linguist in presenting the issues. I sure miss him.

[treestar]

81. Agreed, that is just scapegoating, and dishonest

There is no scandal in duly passed laws. People have a lot of nerve acting like this came from our leaders and imposed on us. A majority for all for it after 911, re-electing Bush and a new Republican Congress. The people of this nation do not get to act like victims of all this.

[pacalo]

86. It's looking to me like the IRS "scandal" was introduced as a preliminary solicitation for public

outrage -- that's one government institution for which all taxpayers can find common ground.

When the fire has been properly lit, it's time to let the people know about the program that's been going on since the Patriot Act was put into effect.

All of these back-to-back scandals are compliments of the angry billionaires who lost their precious money in trying to maneuver one of their own into the White House, imo.

[AgingAmerican]

99. The "IRS scandal" is an excuse to defund the IRS

[pacalo]

104. That, too.

[graham4anything]

17. one word graham says "Silly".

but feel free to vote for Jeb/Rand in 2016.
It's your constutitional right.

[Bonobo]

18. That's not one word.

But "simpleton" is.

[graham4anything]

19. the man in the gaberdine suit was a spy but I loved Mrs. Wagner Pies. Wish they were here

and wish wellness hasn't made it impossible to eat pies like that (edited this because cut/ paste went awry)

You know, not for nothing, the internet isn't taxed only because technology changed.

Laws gotta move up to the modern technology.

After all, only those that don't want to move forward are still partying like its 1859

Vote early, vote often vote for Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton.
After all, if you don't like the President, then I guess Hillary was the answer after all.

That would be telling.

[cantbeserious]

34. Nope - Many Had To Choose Between The Lesser of Two Evils - Just Like Every Primary Or Election

eom

[graham4anything]

44. I voted and received 100%of everything I ever dreamed of.The American Dream came true for me in 8/12

and the greatest satisfaction I have against Ralph Nader is that
because of Ralph Nader himself in 2000
never again shall a 3rd party ruin anything for the democratic party
no matter how some might wishin and hopin as Dusty Springfield sang back in the days when the protests
accomplished nothing more than taking down the #1 most liberal president of all time (so liberal some might even say
LBJ was a socialist) and with actions leading to consequences, that move meant the war lasted another what, 5 or 6 years.

from 1968 to 2008 we had 40 wasted years

But the satisfaction is, Ralph Nader in 2000 enabled the two party system more than anyone else in the history of the world.
So I do thank Ralphie for that. I triple dogged dared Ralphie and he took the dare.

hey, wasn't Ralphie the little kid in that Christmas story, he asked knowing the answer in advance.)

Now working to continue the agenda of Barack Obama forever.
And come August, if for some reason Hillary won't run, we now have a viable alternative, and his name is Cory Booker.
Just think what they can do if they both run on the same ticket. Hillary/Booker 2016. Booker/Michelle 2024.
Michelle/Chelsea 2032.


(btw, to remind folks, just because THEY didn't like it when Bush did it, NEVER MEANT THEY were for Obama or Hillary.
(some probably were for that $400 haircut guy Edwards, who had a whisper campaign around the title of that older James Earl Jones movie. (and it wasn't Star Wars or the Lion King).

BTW, Willie Nelson said it best in his song "Still is still moving to me".
Sometimes moving forward is still.
(and to paraphrase Lionel Richie "I will support Barack Obama's agenda STILL&quot .

Thomas Jefferson stated and wrote "All men are created equal". Except, Barack Obama44 was NOT part of the most important founding
fathers statement. And neither was Hillary Rodham Clinton45. Thomas Jefferson, of course, meant every word he said specifically.
No parsing of his words were needed. He meant what he said.\


Wow, as somebody's signature here states (from memory may not be exact) I love waking up each morning and President Obama
is the President to add-(and his agenda goes on forever and ever)
President Obama is the Ocean, and not just a wave.

[cantbeserious]

45. Well We Now Know You Are Blessed - You Might Consider Some Of Us Are Not

eom

[graham4anything]

46. As John Lennon said twice -Material items don't matter & Money can't buy one love. Imagine.

[Bonobo]

50. If you think anyone would spend even a minute reading that dribble...

then you must really be crazy.

I honestly don't waste more then 2 seconds reading anything you write.

It's called wisdom that comes with age.

[CokeMachine]

95. A full two seconds??

You have me beat by at least two seconds.

[Bonobo]

117. I rounded up. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

118. No, no, read it. It's freaking awesome

Sure, I got lost toward the end, but the Nader hate is always fun, and as a bonus, he lets us know the Obama/Clinton family members that will be President and Vice President right up through 2040. I'm disappointed he didn't work Roger Clinton in there somewhere, but you can't get everything you want...unless you're G4a, of course.

[Dragonfli]

161. .

[tavalon]

149. With things going as they are, a viable third party or a revolution

could both be in your future. Don't be so smug.

[graham4anything]

167. The revolution was won in 2008. Of course, people could do what they did in Russia(USSR)

Gorby tore the walls down
the people alas tore Gorby down
and handed the ball back to the people Gorby tore down which is exactly what would happen if one got rid of the President/VP
and handed the ball directly back to the Bushs aka Jeb.

But they won't.

There will NEVER again be a 3rd party, because of Ralphie Nader. He ensured it would never happen with his wreckless feckless run in 2000.

[NYC_SKP]

55. I was juror #2.

At Sun Jun 9, 2013, 06:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

That's not one word.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2975612

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Calling someone a simpleton is an obvious personal attack. Typical rude behavior from this poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 9, 2013, 06:35 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Maybo Bonobo doesn't suffer fools lightly and graham is one.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: On the fence, but the alerter's note is a tell: " Typical rude behavior from this poster." suggests a personal beef. So, I'm leaving it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I disagree. I suspect someone is feeling a little sensitive this morning.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: 80/20!! Bonobo is being kind to this gish galloping spam poster.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bonobo]

56. Funniest (and truest) jury results ever! nt

[Fuddnik]

110. Should have been unanimous.

[bvar22]

102. Kudos to the Jury.

They nailed this one!

[graham4anything]

22. So, an impeached Prez/VP and Paul Ryan is President in 2015, that what you are saying?

remember, actions beget consequences
President Paul Ryan the day the protest voters in 2014 decide to toss the election Nader style to the repubs

(Ryan will oust Boehner from the chief seat shortly after election, and thereby set himself up to become President)

[awoke_in_2003]

119. You can't even get...

the order of succession right- Ryan ain't in it. If you think the American people would allow the VP to be removed from office right after the president, then the house would have a coup and replace Boehner with Ryan then you must be smoking some good shit.

[graham4anything]

120. Ryan has wanted to replace Boehner for 2 years now. Jan. 2015, Boehner can be history

the tea party hates Boehner, who is hanging onto his title by a thin string

[awoke_in_2003]

122. Well, he can wish in one hand...

and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. Ryan would still have Cantor and some more senior pigs to get by first.

[graham4anything]

123. So would you want President Cantor or Boehner then?

[awoke_in_2003]

125. Of course I wouldn't...

You do know that the odds of removing a president and vice president are next to nil.

[graham4anything]

166. Tell that to Gerald Ford. And not sure if you know but

Bush41 attempted to be Nixon's VP both after Agnew and then attempted to be Gerald Ford's VP

of course had that happened either way, he could have been President sooner

of course, the people who voted for Reagan in 1980 allowed Bush to become President when they also voted against Mike Dukakis

[Dragonfli]

162. Is there to be a special 2015 Presidential election? better start the primary campaigns now!

[another_liberal]

23. "Nobody stands up to Dear Leader"

That's bullshit. I and many others here criticize our President constantly on any number of issues, especially the NSA's wholesale spying.

One needs to read a good deal more of what's being written here before making such claims about DU posters generally.

[davidpdx]

24. Comparing Obama to Kim Jong Un

Who's hysterical?

[LondonReign2]

115. The quote was from 2007 and the comparison was with Bush

Obama has since *expanded* Bush's programs, so we got that going for us...

[watoos]

26. As someone said on HuffPo

Republicans have a problem with young voters, Democrats have a problem with young nonvoters. You figure it out what these "scandals" are all about.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. You are absolutely right. This is the first post to say this whole NSA thing under Obama was wrong.

[Fumesucker]

30. I think the point is that there would have been little to no dissention back during Smirk's reign

All of DU would have condemned spying like this, there would not have been an extremely vocal contingent defending in any and all ways.

Well, there was OperationMindCrime but that's a special case.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. Oh yeah,..the Obama/Hillary war showed real unity.

[Fumesucker]

89. Which of them was running on spying on the American people?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

94. I thought the point of the OP was DU unity.

[Fumesucker]

96. About a certain subject, the subject of spying on the American people

Primaries have always been fractious here, but I don't recall anything like a major division over spying programs before 2009.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. Claiming it's nothing new isn't approving,...despite some who claim it is.

[Fumesucker]

103. I thought a leak investigation was under way?

Why start a leak investigation now for something that's been common knowledge since 2006?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. Maybe someone needs to look into THAT as well...

[timdog44]

28. Here we go with another boohoohoo

post about data collection. Your data has been collected for years by non governmental agencies and where is the outcry. Any piece of advertising you receive is because of data mining and collection. This is the internet age. If you don't want your data collected don't use the internet and quit using your phones. It is a waste of time and energy to complain about this issue. It is a done deal. And you want to sweep under carpet "if you have not done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". Well suck it up. It is true. Have you done something wrong that you are worried when the government looks at phone calls made, not conversations? Corporation do it all the time. How many of you guys get viagra ads in your email since you turned 50 or 60? That is mining by big corporations. Where is the outrage that China has hacked us? Where is the outrage when Israel hacks us? Those are far more important than my phone calls or posts here on DU. And how many out there who are against this issue want to register guns and ban certain kinds of guns and magazine clips and how many bullets they can carry? Do you care about jobs? Do you care about healthcare? Do you care about education? Or how about bigotry? Or the sexual attacks that go on daily and get swept under the rug? I think it is time to get priorities first.

[BeyondGeography]

36. People (some at least) actually have an expectation of privacy on the Internet

It's funny.

I agree with you; here we are again, gathered 'round the bright, shiny object, wasting our time.

[timdog44]

73. Correct.

There is not privacy on the internet. Even the social media. Take a picture of your kid. Send it by face book ans some pervert gets his hands on it and the GPS coordinates are embedded and whalla, kids are gone. A lot of this has to do with protecting yourself.

The other thing is that just because I disagree with something or someone, does not mean I don't trust them. At some point an article of faith needs to come into play. Granted the repukes are a little over the line, at least the new breed, and I don't trust them, but there is some basis in fact to the distrust there.

[rhett o rick]

48. So you are saying that since we've lost a lot of our privacy we should concede the rest?

Another demand to "sit down and shut up" post.

I agree that priorities are messed up but some are only reacting to the priorities that the current admin is choosing. They are not creating jobs, upgrading health care (ACA was to be just the first step, when will we see step 2?), dealing with the gun problem or rape problem. The admin thinks that denial of medical marijuana is more important than reigning in the excesses of Wall Street.

I agree that the country has priorities messed up and the Pres and Congress are to blame.

Every single small encroachment of our rights is one step closer to strong authoritarian control. Stop blanket domestic spying and repeal the Patriot Act.

[Puzzledtraveller]

59. That is what they are saying and what they want us to believe.

I made a post about this here but I'm certain many will not get it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022976071

[timdog44]

74. I am not saying to sit down and shut up.

But where are the solutions. We are wasting time fretting over this until a solution comes to mind.

And the priorities are screwed up. And getting the things done that need doing take time. We have let ourselves become the McDonalds society. I want it, I want it now. I think that little by little things are coming around. State by state marijuana laws are changing and pretty soon the administration, this one or the next, will have to take the unheard of step to say OK to marijuana. ACA is a first step. But look how Canada had to do it. One province at at time. When one state sees how good something truly is, others will follow. The rape and sexual assault problem is being addressed. And that one to me is not happening quick enough. Too many people have their lives screwed up in the mean time. Guns are never going to be banned in the United States, period. The only thing we can work at is to get them registered and certain kinds banned. That will take a lot of time.

I don't believe the spying is a blanket spy program. From what I understand it is calls from here to overseas that are not really being monitored, unless by court order, it is just how many and to where. To tape all the phone calls in America and put them into a database that is usable would be so overwhelming as to be impossible.

So, no, I don't say we concede the rest. I have never disagreed with the talk of having to keep an eye on the government, but we also have to have the faith to believe they are looking after us, otherwise why live here.

[rhett o rick]

78. "From what I understand it is calls from here to overseas that are not really being monitored,

unless by court order, it is just how many and to where." But what you understand comes from a government that is reluctant to tell us anything. I believe they are only telling us part of the story.

[timdog44]

79. Again I can only say,

at what point are you ever going to believe. There of course needs to be some skepticism, but out and out doubt is not going to ever get us anywhere. If the entire government was changed, employee wise, would you then trust them. I think not. Healthy skepticism tempered with faith, and the knowledge that our administration is of the same political persuasion we are. Or most of us. I tend to be a socialist.

[rhett o rick]

84. And I say, "Trust but verify", but never have "faith".

If you tend to be a socialist, then this admin is not of your same persuasion.

[timdog44]

85. Trust but verify. Better.

And no this is not my ideal administration.

[tavalon]

150. Faith and belief played a large part in my being swept up in 2008

I voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils in 2012 and hoped he would change to seal his legacy. That hasn't worked out. No, we socialists are far left of most, but it would have been nice had Obama rolled back a few of the Unitary Executive bullshit actions. No such luck. We've had a useless Congress for far longer than I care to remember.

[Generic Brad]

52. No one seems to question where the NSA data is coming from

They are obtaining it from data collected by private corporations. Your banking activity is collected, but the data retail stores collect contextualizes the banking data. Your internet provider collects data on which sites you visit, but those particular sites contextualize your activity on their sites.

All that individual information alone is not nearly as revealing as when it is all pieced together. The NSA pieces it all together.

This is not as simple as a "government is spying on you" issue. Businesses are also spying on us. It all needs to stop or be seriously curtailed or have legal parameters set. Clearly we have crossed an ethical line as a society and we need to redraw our boundaries.

[timdog44]

75. We are definitely crossing into

a new generation of life. It is scary. I don't think the NSA has the ability to "put it all together". Maybe the "red flagged" things. Like when you have a computer program do your taxes. At the end it tells you if your forms will be red flagged because of things that lead to cheating. So, if a person lives a "red flag" life, they are going to be looked at more than I am in Hicksville, out in the country on my two acres, not breaking any laws.

Businesses spy on us because we let them. We want things cheap and don't want to pay taxes on the products and so we buy on the internet instead of supporting our local businesses. We have let the big box companies take us over. Walmart, Sam's Club, Lowes, Home Depot, Menards. For every one of these stores we have lost a host of hometown businesses. And the employees are paid so little that we have to pay for their medicaid and food stamps. Not bad mouthing these people, they need the help. But we have created our own monster in this regard. And this may be off the subject, but because we want a certain product to be cheaply purchased, we go to these big box stores that mine our information. Pay by cash. Credit card history defines your life. We need to take control of our own lives before we can expect the government to change the way they operate.

[Billy Pilgrim]

129. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This type of surveillance by private organizations is wrong, and so is this type of surveillance by the federal government.

You'll have to forgive some of us for wishing Obama would have been a little more progressive in this area.

The complaining is justified.

[Daniel537]

176. What an asinine comment.

So we're supposed to cede our right to privacy because there are other issues that you claim are more important? Fuck off with your defeatist bullshit. You sound just like someone conditioned to live in a dictatorship.

[Ash_F]

29. Oh hey Pavulon was in that thread

...posting the pro-jackboot line. The original RW DU multi-thousand post troll. It's OK to call this one out since he did get banned, right? The quislings aren't going hide this post in terror of being called mean to the far right, are they?

Most of the 'against' posters are no longer here. If they were, they would probably still be against. DU has moved to the right, while the country has been moving to the left.

[Sognefjord]

169. Historic Thread

At least Pavulon could be jolted and dented a bit, the new professional apologists will spin here until BO's term ends.

[DCBob]

31. warrantless was the part I was outraged about.

[TheKentuckian]

107. So a piece of paper signed by a judge for everyone meets your muster?

Your problem was not violating the essence of the law but the letter, huh?

Just thought the previous regime was too sloppy but otherwise on target?

Get the fuck out of here with the ethical gymnastics.

[DCBob]

108. FU to you too.

[TheKentuckian]

183. I didn't say fuck you, Bob. I said get the fuck out of here with your bullshit warrant for all.

But whatever is clever.

[xchrom]

32. du rec.

[SCVDem]

37. What they will find in all the data

is that Americans are addictedd to porn!

Openning mail or tapping individual lines may have workrd when we were a small country and the world was not advanced, but there are so many Terabytes of data that I doubt even phone sex gets a hit. An order for 20 tons of Anfo may trigger a warrant just to glance at the specifics.

Elint isn't the end but just the start of many dead end investigations. Humans will make the final determination on degree of threat.

Those of you who applauded the Patriotic act and weren't scared away by the words "Motherland" just weren't paying attention.

This all exploded in the Pro Americas fervor after 9-11 when America truly lost her mind and allowed Darth Cheney amd his cabal free reign to financially screw us.

Get rid of the Patriotic Act and if that dispatch is really inportant, use a courrier.

The government is fishing for very stupid and sloppy people. The job is so huge with limited manpower that a request for crack won't even get noticed.

I'm curious what the filters are set to alert on.

You can't stop the signal!

[Solly Mack]

38. I still am grateful to the EFF.

[Puzzledtraveller]

47. Not only are we counted on to go back to bed,to go back to sleep

by the those running the show, now it's seems we are counted on to do the same by our own compatriots and they will not stop until we do. The effort is in full swing here. The sad part is that some of us will go back to sleep, occupied and amused once again by the bread and circuses, slowly convincing ourselves ever so subtly and before you know it's happened that all this okay, ignorance is bliss and a cage is always safer than the wilds. I hope for those that remain vigilant they do not mute their voices voluntarily.

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Oh does your pony have butthurt? Awww...

Take your pinko nonsense elsewhere, we're not buying what you're selling here.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[Buzz Clik]

51. Hitler, Big Brother, and Kim Jong Il all rolled into one.

Gee, it's hard to be more hysterical than that.

Are we supposed to be totally ANGRY and UPSET that someone dared to make such comparisons? Ok, let me give it a shot:

Oh, oh. I am so miffed at you right now. I am going to insult you any second.

[Bonobo]

58. Ahem, those were references to Bush. nt

[Buzz Clik]

65. In 2007 they were references to Bush. You changed the context and wondered where the outrage is.

It was clever, and you actually thoroughly pissed off a few posters.

I find your trick (with really sloppy formatting as your aid) to be transparent and not helpful.

And in answer to your question: we're supposed to get red-faced every day at some conjured sin of "the Obama administration", with criticism coming from within and without. After awhile, we weary of the call to arms and wonder how legit this one is.

Yeah, this pisses me off -- and, yes, it's more erosion. But outrage? Nah.That was burned up by the time Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Sorry, but we get misled so often...

[Bonobo]

66. You are over-reading and missing the point.

My point was to show the hypocrisy that exists and I could not have been clearer in stating that the quotes were from 2007.

I cannot help it if you have poor reading skills but only a tiny minority of people on this thread made the mistake you did.

[Buzz Clik]

68. "I cannot help it if you have poor reading skills" Oop.

"My intention was not to insult anyone, and because you thought that was my intent, well, FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."

Nice sales job, Bonobo.



EDIT: I read just fine. I know exactly what you are doing. My analysis has not changed. Don't play innocent just because someone alerted your OP.

[Bonobo]

69. Make yourself a sandwich, drink a glass of milk...

Do some fuckin' thing.

[Buzz Clik]

70. Thanks!

[opiate69]

87. Marvin! Look out!!!!

LOVE that movie.

[Bonobo]

114. +1

Someone got it!

[opiate69]

121. So many quotable characters in that flick...

If we ever get a name change amnesty, I may have to go with Alonso Mosley

[tavalon]

152. Thing is, Bonobo, all of us who've been here a long time, you included

We're enraged when Bush did this and having a stupid warrant that can't be read until 25 years from now in no way diminishes the anger that DU still feels over this gross misuse of the "judicial" process.

[randome]

53. "...Big Brother and Hitler wrapped into one..."

Talk about hyperbole!

I know Godwin's Law accommodates the 'rise of Hitler' on Internet message boards but is there a similar term for invoking George Orwell?

Yes, Obama's SS will soon be carting all objectors to the concentration camps. And soon we will be living in a 1949 novel.

Sure, "those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it." But also "those who tie everything to the past are condemned to ignore the present."

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

[Bonobo]

57. Ummm, those were references to Bush. nt

[randome]

71. Whoops. My apologies.

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

[Bonobo]

72. Thank you. Quite forgiven. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

60. Yeah !! besides HST allowing the CIA to be formed

Shrub did more to Steal liberty and implement a police state , unopposed by Checks & Balances, than any president in history, Trickie Dick included .

[Coyotl]

61. I wish I had thew time to research the archives and show how NOT new all this news is.

Not to mention, to re-educate DU on how much illegal, warrant-less spying was going on under Bush. Here is one link to illustrate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022963663

[Bonobo]

63. Yeah, we totally get that.

What we don't get is why it is now defended.

[ProSense]

67. Because

"What we don't get is why it is now defended."

...conflating what's going on now with illegal wiretapping (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973979) in nonsense.

Obama administraton releases details on Senate briefings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022974680

ACLU: DOJ Tells Court It's Reconsidering Secrecy Surrounding Patriot Act's Spying Powers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973455

[tavalon]

153. You don't need to re-educate us. We were angry then and we're angry now

Most of us, thank goodness, are consistent.

[Apophis]

76. But it's okay if a Democrat does it!!!!!! 111111!!!

Or something.

[Coyotl]

178. No, it is O.K. now because it is legal now. That does not mean we have to like it any more

than we did when it was being conducted illegally.

However, what is being fomented now is a new outrage front, the right-wing-nut amnesiacs who defended Bush no matter how illegal his actions are now being whipped into an anti-Obama frenzy by Glenn Beck and Rand Paul because the USA has a spy program that might be used to take away their guns. What is happening now is an orchestrated media show to hang Bush's spying program on Obama as a lead up to the next election cycles.

[fredamae]

77. Yes, everything they're doing

is "legal" because (as I understand it) they passed a retroactive law to cover the previously illegal actions---

However is it Right? Is it what you want?

And the other "Elephant in the room"--the biggie...
Is This Constitutional-Legal or Not?

[treestar]

80. Continuing with the myth that electing a different President changes the entire laws and government

Like it is all swept away and started anew.

There should be no outrage over this; just a movement to roll back the laws this country wanted after 911. Scapegoating Obama for it does nothing.

[Savannahmann]

90. We are left with nothing but outrage.

Because reasoned arguments aren't working. So we are left with screaming at Washington until they get the idea that we the people are not at all pleased with this nonsense.

I'll be interested to see where the polling puts this. Expect a lot of Politicians to get on board if the polling numbers are as high as I think they could be.

[treestar]

92. I find this post ironic

There has been no attempt on DU to learn anything on which to even make a reasoned argument. The screaming starts first.

None of the DU "discussion" has even asked the question of which law this is done under and what the 4th Amendment issues surrounding that law are. Any attempt (one poster posted the statute) is greeted with screaming about losing my civil rights and spying on me and us poor innocent Americans (who apparently never demanded that the government "protect us" after 911) who are being targeted for - well they can't say what.

There has been zero nuanced discussion on it. The most nuanced thing posted is the transcript of the President's speech on it - at least he recognizes there is an issue and would welcome the debate. DU has no debates, just posturing and emotional outbursts.

[forestpath]

82. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Yep. That's when DU members believed in civil liberties instead of "Father Knows Best".

[Billy Pilgrim]

130. Yeah.

Well put.

[maxrandb]

109. This post is great for a debate on the 3RD Grade Level

But it requires you to buy into that tired old "all politicians are the same" and "there's not a dime of difference in the parties" arguments. Well, that simply isn't true.

There is a reason I vote for Democrats. I know that Democrats are better for this country, and they better reflect my values.

That's why, when President Obama came into office, he ordered a review of these programs, and a review of the Patriot Act, and made significant changes, and placed significant oversight in place.

Yes, we "democrats" were pissed about this type of stuff under the Bush Admin, but let's not forget...IT WAS THE BUSH ADMIN.

Do you honestly think that Dick "Unitary Executive" Cheney would have devoted one second to review anything thing that might put a check on his power? Do you honestly think he would have pushed, or put in place strong oversight and checks on his power and authority?

Ya' know, this is the kind of shit that pisses me off about folks who call themselves "Democrats" and yet act as if there is "no difference between Democrats and Republicans"

I said this before in another post, but if you just look at the way Democratic Presidents have exercised their role as Commander-in-Chief, compared to how Repugs have exercised that role, YOU CAN'T HELP BUT SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

That's why we elect Democrats. They may not be perfect, but they have demonstrated that they are more thoughtful, reasoned, reflective and SANE than any Repug of recent memory.

To argue otherwise is juvenile at best, and at worst, PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF THE REPUBLICANS

That doesn't mean I am ready to surrender all my privacy, but then again, it's only the Glenn Beck twits that are arguing that. Sane and reasoned people understand that the NSA Program is not the "Gestapo", and is merely one of many "logical" and "required" tools that we use to protect our way of life.

If I didn't trust President Obama and the Democrats more than Repugs as the Commander-in-Chief of our military...and if I didn't trust President Obama more than the Repugs with our National Security, then there would be no reason for me to vote at all...then again, with posts like this, and these "Sudden shock and outrage over a 12 year old NSA Program" stories...that may be the goal

[hobbit709]

112. That's still 4 grade levels higher than what passes for debate in Congress.

[graham4anything]

124. Best post about this whole smear campaign

[Daniel537]

177. Lol, another buffoon who buys into the "Dems are automatically good" rubbish.

You think the average Democrat in office gives a damn about you or your rights? All these assholes in congress only care about snuffing out as much of your rights as possible, but morons like you are more than happy to fall in line with the tired old "if my guys do it, its ok" bullshit. If Gore had launched the Iraq War i bet you would have proclaimed him t have been a liberator.

[maxrandb]

179. You forget a very important point

Al Gore did not launch that Iraq War and what I believe is if morons like you hadn't fucking bought that crazy ass "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans" shit that you hear from such paragons of reason like Limbaugh and Hannity then we wouldn't have had a fucking President Bush.

I believe that if we didn't have fucking morons who voted for Nader because "there's no difference between the parties", then Gore would have been President

Any you fucking know what????

I voted for Gore and I firmly believe that had he been President we wouldn't have had a fucking 9/11...we wouldn't have had a fucking Afghanistan War...we wouldn't have had a fucking Iraq War....we wouldn't have had a fucking economic melt down...and we wouldn't have a fucking $14T National Debt

So fuck you're "it's OK if our guys do it" shit, BECAUSE OUR GUYS DON'T FUCKING DO IT and there's a HUGE fucking difference between Dems and Pubs.

[babylonsister]

126. Haha! Apples and oranges, but have fun! nt

[grahamhgreen]

133. "poutrage" is an obvious right wing think tank term. We should not repeat it.

[Skittles]

172. the Groupies are prone to its usage too