If we don't fix this under a Democratic President, it will never be fixed.

[kentuck]

Republicans love this secrecy and spying. They created it. The "national security" excuse permits them to continue spending trillions of dollars on defense and defense-related programs. That's the bottom line for Republicans.

If President Obama has to take a little heat for these exposures, then so be it. We need to get the truth, at a bare minimum. We should continue to demand more from these secret organizations. Somebody has to be guarding the guardians. In our country, we have chosen the free press for that job.

We should also recognize that if we don't fix it now, we will probably never fix it. It is important. It is not a trivial matter. It is non-partisan. It is about how much freedom we wish to keep and how much freedom we wish to give to the government?

[villager]

1. Well, actually Truman signed the order creating the CIA

...and it's been downhill from there.

But your point is well-taken.

[kentuck]

2. Yes, that is true.

And the Republicans have since adopted it as their own. That was part of their long crusade to be seen as the "strong on defense" Party.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. Truman regretted it...

[villager]

9. Well, those regrets do little us for us now, with the MIC firmly in place.

Alas.

[Cooley Hurd]

10. The whole mess is so institutionalized that there's little chance to change it...

...short of a r... a rev... a dramatic change of policies. (Hi Agent Mike! Almost forgot about you until this past week!)

[villager]

16. Dramatic change of policies indeed....

[awoke_in_2003]

75. Fuck agent Mike...

revolution is about the only thing that will fix this country. Democrats are just as bought and paid for as their "opponents" on the other side of the aisle.

[xtraxritical]

96. Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic President is the only way

to change this. I do not want to destroy everything and ruin lives to "fix" this. More Snowden's and more Democrats is the only way.

[RainDog]

20. what was the context that led to the creation of the NSA?

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

After WWII, the U.S. brought Nazis into the U.S. under a program, via the OSS, the intelligence agency began at that time, called Operation Paperclip.

Truman insisted that Operation Paperclip be limited to those German scientists who were not associated with the Nazis. So, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency created fake biographies and employment histories for those scientists, in order to allow them to work in the U.S. with security clearance.

So, from the beginning, the intel "oversight" engaged in lies to do whatever they wanted because their objective was to keep information away from the USSR...even tho the USSR had been our allies in WWII and had, in fact, WON the war on the eastern front in Europe.

The U.S. moved from hating Nazis to hating commies - because, not only did Operation Paperclip bring Nazi scientists into the U.S., it also helped to hide Nazi party bigwigs in the U.S. and in South America.

And these Nazis shaped American foreign policy and fueled McCarthyism.

One of them was Klaus Barbie, called "The Butcher of Lyon," because he personally tortured prisoners.

KLAUS BARBIE WAS RECRUITED by the U.S. intel services at the time because of his anti-Marxist credentials.

Yes, the U.S. govt. moved from support for the Marxists fighting against the Nazis in Western Europe to support for Nazis in the new cold war, that again placed the U.S. to the far right, most especially in comparison to any other western democracy. But this pro-Nazi intel apparatus did align U.S. policy with the businessmen's crusade against socialist reform in the early 20th century (thos same businessmen who plotted to assassinate FDR for his New Deal policies.) Those same businessmen were supporters of fascism until it wasn't good business to admit this.

So, if you want to know about the history of the U.S. in the mid to late 20th century, you have to realize that Nazi-sympathizing intel agencies and their govt. mouthpieces made sure fascism was well supported in the U.S. (but here it's called "freedom.&quot

[villager]

25. Always good to remind folks of Operation Paperclip

The whole genesis of the MIC is quite revealing indeed....

[Savannahmann]

24. I repeated a joke to a friend to describe the CIA.

The Spanish American War began when the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor Cuba. Among other units, we dispatched the Rough Riders who acting on the best intelligence available, charged up San Juan Hill, located in Puerto Rico. Everyone had a good laugh once this error was finally realized, and the CIA promised to try harder to get their hands on an Atlas.

[DonCoquixote]

31. part of the reason he did that

as to kep the cia out of the hands of the one who wanted t, one J edgar hoover. Think of hm with a CIA.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Kick and REC!!

This needs to be addressed and shut down NOW... before it's too late!

[dkf]

4. +1000

[emulatorloo]

6. I agree with you. Needs fixing. I also feel it would be good to have all the facts.

So far I don't think we are getting them, because of shoddy journalism:

WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022974284

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022974638

[Zorra]

7. Another reason why we need to nominate and elect Elizabeth Warren in 2016. nt

[Yo_Mama]

8. I agree

I don't expect the GOP to be defenders of constitutional rights. They've never tended that way since I was a kid. Which was four decades ago.

So if we can't discuss this in the Democratic party, we can basically kiss it all goodbye. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Every generation, in one way or another, has to deal with these issues.

[graham4anything]

11. Franklin said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"and was talking about preventing 9-11

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

title was truncated in cut/paste-so I am editing to add the following-

it should have said preventing 9-11 from happening again. Security has prevented it

[Marr]

15. Yes, Benjamin Franklin was talking about government spying and terrorists in jet airplanes.

You're drunk-- go to bed.

[Fumesucker]

35. Your position is that Smirk and Sneer are blameless for 9/11 because they didn't have the tools

Way to go, support the Republican dream team.

[graham4anything]

37. preventing 9-11 from happening again. Seems the #characters got cut off on the cut/paste

the end of my statement got cut off in a truncated cut/paste.
End is-
preventing 9-11 from happening again, which it hasn't, thanks to the security in place since.

[theaocp]

59. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense.

Why not just put a camera in every bathroom and bedroom, since more security prevents terrorist happenings? Correlation obviously equals causation.

[graham4anything]

60. Every single gun could be removed from the street, except for the NRA's interference.

[rhett o rick]

80. We had enough security in place to prevent the attacks on the WTC. But for some reason they didnt

work.

I am not willing to give up any more of my rights for the hollow promise of greater security.

But I can fully understand how you might. Authoritarians love the comfort of Big Brother Authoritarian Rule.

[graham4anything]

81. The constittuion is a living breathing thing. Which means it is not set in stone.

after all, if only it were, then President Obama could run 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 times.

SO I agree, let's get rid of that amendment that says he can't run again in 2016.
Because he would easily cream the other party like he did the last 2 times America voted unanimously for him.

[rhett o rick]

82. I dont want anymore of Obama thank you. I want a true Democrat that wants to support

the people and not the 1%. I want a president that wouldnt give the time of day to Penny Pritzker (the female mit Romney). I want a president that prosecutes the war criminals living among us and not Don Seigelman, and the whistle-blowers. I want a president that dumps domestic spying, and the Patriot Act. I want a president that has empathy for those that use medical marijuana for a little comfort.

But I can see how those that worship at the idol of fascism love the security. "Big Brother, please be nice to me".

I bet when Pres Obama pardons Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and all the rest, you will be in extacy.

[graham4anything]

85. Same old name calling and Ron Paul soundbytes.At least we can all agree on reintrpreting the 2nd.

[rhett o rick]

87. Unlike yourself I am against all of Bush's policies that stomped on our Constitution.

The Patriot Act, domestic spying, indefinite detention. But the authoritarians among us embrace Bushes policies as continued by Pres Obama.

We are in a class war. On one side is the 1% Ruling Elite and Penny Pritzker and Mit Romney. On the other side is the 99%. Which side do you choose?

[graham4anything]

88. same soundbytes as the libertarians. Me, I want an 80-20 and have legislature pass like it did

Nothing wrong with mainstream, after all the Beatles Rolling Stones Clash and Pink Floyd all were mainstream.

I don't believe in hating someone just because they have money. Because, money can't buy happiness, and hating money means one thing- that if the person has money, all the problems are solved, therefore it's not that they actually hate money, just that they wish they had money. The old "other persons grass is always greener".

After all, at the 12-12-12 concert that was free, major corporations gave major money, so that people like Roger
Waters could sing "Money" and bring in millions of dollars in the most ironic moment of all time.
I don't rage against the machine
but I will buy a rage against the machine cd as they sing mainstream music too.
(anyone with a #1 album is after all, mainstream.)
(just like the only difference between the mainstream media and the alt-media is the size of the paycheck ALL media receives.
After all they are writing as a hobby but as a profession, and whatever they write, their audience depends on their words to be what their specific audience wants to hear. ("Buy my book and I'll tell you what you wanna hear" they hawk.)

I am more happy that now, in America, every single woman can now grow up to wanna be President, and it's no longer said
to be impossible being that the next president will be a woman President.
And every single black person in America (who doesn't run into a Zimmy in Florida) can now grow up to be President because of
Dr. King, LBJ and Barack Obama.
Now there is hope.

Something prior to Barack Obama, there never was.

and with an 80-20, and the 80 includes the regular republicans, great things can happen
After all, LBJ needed the republicans to pass his legislature to get past the Wallace dixiecRats wing of the democratic party
(today those would be the democratic Paulites along with the republican tea party.

And, after all, Lincoln needed democratic votes to pass his historical bills that the same as the Paulites tried to stop then.

(and it's funny, some people I have been told, actually hated LBJ and Lincoln.)

And people are selective about who they adore. They say they like FDR, yet, of all presidents, FDR certainly abused
the rights of millions,(the Japanese) and his NOT going into WW2 for many years, caused how many millions to perish til he found an excuse but it was a few years late.

Now, let's not even talk about Truman(who is NOT a favorite of mine), and for the life of me,
I don't understand why people in 1952 voted for Eisenhower and again in 1956 over the single smartest person ever to run for
President, Adlai Stevenson. Go figure yet, the same people later voted for Reagan over Jimmy Carter (the 2nd smartest person who ever ran for President).

No, I will be happy with an 80-20, rendering the 20 politically obsolete after the 2016 election of Hillary Clinton/ Cory Booker 2016.

Real liberals are liberals like John V. Lindsay and Jim Florio, who of course, the public tore down in each case, making it 100% impossible that either will ever be elected office anytime in the next three decades.

and, as for money, well the NRA rules because of the money.
all we need to beat the NRA in 2014 and 2016 is someone with more money than the NRA to take them on, in every single state.
I welcome someone like that to defeat the NRA.

A real liberal would place getting rid of all guns/bullets from the streets (except for on duty cops and law enforcement,
and bring the 2nd back to meaning National Guard=Militia.
Because a true liberal wants guns out of the streets.

Which is why we need a Great Equalizer against the NRA.

imho

and it's all about the gun/bullet and always has been.

and you know what is better than pot for Cancer?
Eraticating cancer completely by coming up with new technology and new
treatement, and new vaccines (like the great Gardasal vaccine every single girl and boy man and woman should get as it prevents 25% of certain types of cancer)
and any other vaccine they come up.
But it takes big money to pay for that.
So, sorry, but I am not against big money. Bad money, but not good money.
And I myself am not looking for vengeance and an arena gladiator.

I am for wellness. (nobody needs a 48 ounce soda in a 90 minute movie with a free refill.)
Wellness saves big money at the doctor's office.

I don't think Ron and Rand Paul are for even 1% of what I would want being that the Paul's are in their John Birch Society world.

I want NINE Supreme Court Justices like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayer(who might just be two of the greatest justices of all time).
Not the ones Ralph Nader enabled to be put on the court, like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and the people who voted for Reagan in 1980-1984,and Bush41, that gave us Clarence Thomas and Scalia retire one of these days in the next few years.

I want votes like the vote that was 97 to 0 the other day for a Judge who soon will be elevated to the top court at the next opening.

imho, feel free to disagree, this is a free country and we are posting on an international read board here, free of restraints except for what is in the rules. (the rules that say NO to Paulites).

[progressoid]

89. And there it is.

you just can't get through an argument without resorting to associating a DUer with Ron Paul can you?

[graham4anything]

90. It is the same talking points Rand Paul/Ron Paul uses, the same Nader used.

no one is saying anything about the poster, but the points being used are the same ones.

[progressoid]

91. And now Nader too!

Throw in Glenn Beck and you win the trifecta!

Show us these quotes, oh sage of the internet.

[awoke_in_2003]

76. Security did a bang up job in Boston. nt

[graham4anything]

77. an event that 2 thrillkill fame seekers did,who planned on July 4 so they didn't even know the date

hardly the same thing especially as it seems one of them was involved in a triple murder that was done a few years ago

but they weren't an international terror group, just 2 thrill kill 15 minutes of fame killers who stockpiled guns and bullets like
McCoward in Oklahoma City did when he killed all those kids and adults believing in some conspiracy theory

[meanit]

12. Fixing the CIA and their like has been tried.

JFK tried....

[byeya]

14. Even Carter tried - +1 for Carter

[villager]

33. ...and we saw how that wound up. nt.

[roamer65]

51. Yup.

November 22, 1963 is cancer growing on this country. We won't have resolution until it is solved.

[99Forever]

13. Unfortunately...

... first we have to elect an actual Democrat as POTUS.

[kentuck]

17. That is why he is going to have to make a choice with whom he stands on this issue?

The Republicans or the Democrats?

The election of 2014 for Congress will probably be our last chance to fix it?

[Fuddnik]

69. And a Senate.

Remember who co-sponsored the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA?

Liberal? Dick Durbin.

[treestar]

18. Not with a Republican Congress

And many of the Democrats were fine with it all after 911.

[ProSense]

19. Well,

"If we don't fix this under a Democratic President, it will never be fixed."

...it's never going to be fixed. That's not the goal of this debate. The goal is to prove Obama sucks. Once that's established, all will be right in the world.

What can we all agree on?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022969079

[kentuck]

22. And if he doesn't find a way to help us (the people) fix it...

then he will indeed suck.

But that is not the goal and should not be the goal. He can undo the Bush policies, that were created to cover up his incompetence, or he can find a way, thru other channels, to fix it. There will need to be criminal penalties for those in government that create these programs, not the whistleblowers who report on them.

[RainDog]

32. oh, for fuck's sake

it's incredible that someone can dismiss the actual concerns because it's "off message" for political operatives.

[kentuck]

34. What are the "actual concerns"?

And what is "off message"?

[RainDog]

36. actual concerns are in your OP

I'm not attacking you.

I'm just flabbergasted that someone can dismiss that people have been bothered by this issue for more than a decade and may see this as an opportunity to do something to counter some of this abuse of privacy.

...as I noted here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973203#post9

[kentuck]

38. Oh sorry.

[Skittles]

62. that's what they do for a living

and I think are a joke

[OnyxCollie]

45. Upton Sinclair said it best.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

People do things for all sorts of reasons; an objective monetary incentive is not the only one. (Although it's a really good one.)

[kentuck]

48. Well said.

[A Simple Game]

68. There is no,

"goal is to prove Obama sucks."

That has been established for quite awhile, it was known by many before the 2012 elections. The reason Romney lost is because he sucked some much more than President Obama.

Don't bother responding with any links, I won't read them. As a rule I don't usually respond to your posts, for what I think are obvious reasons.

[ProSense]

70. Well,

"That has been established for quite awhile, it was known by many before the 2012 elections. The reason Romney lost is because he sucked some much more than President Obama."

...it's your fault and you have to live with what you voted for.

"Don't bother responding with any links, I won't read them. As a rule I don't usually respond to your posts, for what I think are obvious reasons."

Thanks for sharing your opinion on how superior you think you are. I'm going off to cry now.

[Autumn]

21. It ain't gonna be fixed.

The Democrats, and that includes Obama are just as on board with this as the republicans. That's the bottom line.

[kentuck]

23. Then, they will need to take the heat...

won't they?

[leveymg]

26. Excellent point. KNR

[suffragette]

27. "When is the right time? If not now, when? If not us, who?”

K&R

[Skidmore]

28. Well, duh.

So the man comes before the nation and literally points out that too much power has been GIVEN to the office he holds and says that some of it should be taken away. In the slosh bowl of power, some of that rightfully belongs to the do-nothing congresses of the past decades which literall allowed neocons and their defense industry cronies to dictate lrgislation. Agood place to begin would be for Congress to recli. its war powers.

[Savannahmann]

29. People are imperfect beings.

We make mistakes. The trick to advancing as an individual, and as a species, is that we admit our mistakes, and we make sure we don't repeat them. We've made a tremendous mistake, and we must fix it, and make sure we don't repeat the damned thing ever again.

As far as embarrassing the President, I'm sorry, but if that is what it takes to end this unconstitutional spying on the citizens of this nation, then so be it. We should have a Government of, by, and for the people. It should not be a Government where our first concern is will the President be embarrassed when they are caught doing something wrong? There is a name for that kind of Government, and the phrase Representative Republic is not what you call it.

[kentuck]

30. Well said, Savannahman.

+1000

[Melinda]

79. ^^^THIS^^^ is a perfect example of why DU needs an individual post rec feature.

Cut straight thru any baloney right to the heart of the matter. I burst into tears reading your words. Powerful words.

Many thanks for stating what should be the obvious for all on this board and in this Republic.

I don't know you, I don't recall ever interacting with you or reading you on DU, but I know that I you.
I do. Huge K&R.

[marions ghost]

93. Right, in fact I consider it

our duty to hold our Democratic president's feet to the fire.

He is wrong in this and we must make him feel our strong objection, otherwise we are complicit in a historic miscarriage of justice and threat to our vision of Democracy.

Blind support that we would NEVER give if this were a Rethuglicon president--makes no sense.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. It will be fixed whenever there is enough uproar over it

Until or unless it seems like people are personally affected/damaged by it, most people probably won't notice/care.

[nakocal]

40. Fix it my voting in 2014 and NOT staying home

If progressives did not stay home crying that the president did not make changes happen fast enough and then let the tea baggers in this problem could be more easily solved. These issues can not be solved with executive orders, but requires legislation.

[Hissyspit]

43. That's not what happened.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

54. Congress needs to change the laws

[MNBrewer]

67. The President has NO intention of changing this

We will have to change congress AND the presidency.

[Union Scribe]

83. Progressives don't stay home.

Moderates do.

[frylock]

97. derpa derpa derp

[Bonhomme Richard]

41. I would be willing to bet that Obama had that discussion with.....

his people.
My gut tells me that, in general, they are not fans but someone pointed out to the President that if he closed down the operation and we were attacked then he would be blamed (whether one had to do with the other or not) and that it would be used against the Democrats for a very, very long time.
End of discussion.
If anything he is a pragmatist.

[kentuck]

49. Well, it was created as part of the war effort against the "war on terror"...

...and the President has said that all wars must end.

When the war ends, so do all the special liberties which were taken at that time, and must be returned to the original owners...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. yes

the Patriot act and all the other stuff needs to be repealed but they were spying long before 2001. Seeking out 'reds under beds' communists etc.They didn't have fancy telephone systems and internet then.

How many Congressmen agree with the Patriot act? I would think that most of them do? That's the problem.

[humbled_opinion]

57. You have rationalized him as a coward

who will not stand on his principles for fear of being attacked politically.....Not the man I voted for...

[blkmusclmachine]

42. It'll never be fixed. THIS IS BIPARTISAN.

And it'll get worse, much much worse, under the next GOP Pres. Imagine a Pres. Rubio.

[alterfurz]

58. precisely.

As the Rude Pundit points out:

"No president is ever going to give back the powers that were granted to George W. Bush in 2001. If you're scared that Obama has them, well, shit, a bunch of us warned you that Bush wasn't gonna be president forever. And even if the Patriot Act were, through some miracle, overturned in court or legislated out of existence, it's too late: the web of surveillance has been put in place. You can bet that its future legality has already been set up.

It is a frightening thought, yes, that our responsibility as citizens is not to try to reclaim our lost privacy. What revolution will accomplish that? It ain't gonna happen. It's sad, frustrating, enraging, and ultimately exhausting and enervating. That boat has sailed, and it ain't ever returning to port.

What we are left with is merely electing people who we believe will be wise shepherds of this power to invade our privacy whenever they wish in order to "protect us" from "terrorists" or the fake existential threats of the future. That is a sad reduction of democracy. That is the opposite of hope, no? Merely wanting to be led by people who won't harm us?"

http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/06/nsa-phone-record-collecting-and.html

[forestpath]

44. If only we had one.

[tblue]

95. +1. We're still waiting

for the one we've been waiting for. Obama wasn't it. I don't care about the reasons why he can't or won't. I've heard them all and they don't change anything. He just isn't what what we sorely need at this time.

(And yes I vote in midterm elections and yes I volunteered for his campaign. This mess, I guarantee you, is not my fault.)

[AgingAmerican]

46. It will become the baseline for future Republican presidents

Creeping fascism

[faithnomore]

47. The problem with this is, we apparently only "thought" we had a Democrat for a President.

His actions speak volumes and are the direct opposite of his words. And don't throw that goddamn "Affordable Healthcare Act" up to me. The biggest beneficiaries of that are the Insurance companies.

[RC]

72. +1000 Many here agree with what you said.

I know I feel betrayed.

[DonCoquixote]

50. even under a Democratic president

I do not trust President Hillary Clinton to undo this, indeed, being SoS under Obama, I strongly suspect she encouraged this.

[roamer65]

53. You will never see "a fix" from our current power structure.

[Laelth]

55. Agreed. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Demo_Chris]

61. It cannot be fixed until it self destructs. Imagine a boot stomping a human face forever. nt

[Octafish]

63. Same could have been said at another critical point in our nation's history.

The national security state is destroying democracy, what Eisenhower warned us about and Kennedy stood up to oppose.

[midnight]

64. Get it done.... Fix it....

[H2O Man]

65. President Obama has said

numerous times that he expects citizens to hold his feet to the fire. Thus, there are two possibilities: {1} he was telling the truth; or {2} he was lying.

There are currently two factions on DU: {1} those advocating holding President Obama's feet to the fire on the spying; and {2} those who advocate supporting every move he makes.

If people really support President Obama, but refuse to challenge him on the spying program, they are essentially taking the position that he was lying when he said he expects people to hold his feet to the fire. Those who challenge him are taking him at his word, and are more sincere in their overall support for him.

President Obama deals with two entities that are pressuring him to engage in the spy policy:{1}congress; and {2} the defense industry. In order to stand up to them, the President needs people of conscience to oppose the spy policies.

I find those expressing "support" to be short-thinking and shallow.

Recommended.

[kentuck]

66. Exccellent point, Waterman..

"Those who challenge him are taking him at his word, and are more sincere in their overall support for him. "

[Little Star]

71. +1

[TheKentuckian]

73. You sure as hell can't even play "fix it later" by tolerating, accepting, or even supporting it

to "stand by your man".

28%er logic there.

To fix it now or later folks have to say "Hell no" in no uncertain terms.

[awoke_in_2003]

74. Big old K&R. nt

[babylonsister]

78. I love the sentiment, but

know so little about what is going on, anything new anyway.

I already have resolved that I am being watched, sort of. When this initially happened under dimson, I almost lost an old friend because I was so vociferous in my anger at the gov't 'watching' us.
Now, I know if I am on the internet, all bets are off. I assume I am being watched. But whomever is watching is bored out of their brains.

[Union Scribe]

84. This is true. But it'll probably have to be the next one. nt

[BlueCheese]

86. Unfortunately, it won't be fixed under this particular Democratic president.

Obama has made it clear that he supports these programs all the way. He is not being forced to do this, no matter what some people here say. He is not being forced to defend these programs, nor is he being forced to list journalists as co-conspirators.

DU really seems completely unable to get beyond the whole pro-Obama/anti-Obama facet of this discussion to figure out whether these spying programs are a good thing or a bad thing. To me, this issue goes beyond any partisan bickering. There are worse things than a Republican becoming president-- a vastly overreaching government that stores records about every private citizen is one of them.

[valerief]

94. We need a progressive president. nt

[reusrename]

98. true,

and the only way toward change is with a new Supreme Court. This Roberts' court will support this crap to the bitter end. (Impeaching Scalia would be a good start.)