Should they take the "foreign" outta FISA, and rename it

[stupidicus]

or add "domestic" to it for accuracy?

I do think so. Furthermore, for those who seem to think that poor BHO has been unjustly/unduly criticized for his role in all of this, it seems to me that defenses of him over it are getting narrowed down to whether or not he was ignorant as to the scope of it all, as well as all the "interpretations" of this and that. This is why I suggested weeks ago now it seems, that if illegality or unconstitutionality questions are present in terms of implementation of the "interpretations" that he's long been aware of, then it's a mystery to me why he couldn't simply quit stonewalling on the legal front and allow the cases pursued to be heard in open court http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance in way similar to but not to be confused with refusing to defend DOMA. It seems to me an argument against that would require the assertion that he can be compelled to keep defending against any non-FISA court scrutiny with national security, state secrets, etc claims.

Much like with his offering up chained cpi, it's his choice in this matter that damns him, whether or not in that case it is actually inevitably put on the chopping block or not.

That's also why I say he has more ownership of all this than his adoring fans have been willing to admit to this point. And quite frankly, it's a mystery to me given that BHO himself has framed all this as a weighing of national security v civil liberties, and that it's practically a given which side he's gonna lean towards, why any of this would surprise anyone anyway.

but what could a racist/Bushbot/Paulite know, no?

Some Democrats and civil libertarians have expressed disappointment in what they say is a pattern of excessive secrecy from President Obama. He had pledged to run a more transparent administration than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who signed off on the NSA’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program and, with the authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, launched the bulk data-collection program that has continued.

“The national security state has grown so that any administration is now not upfront with Congress,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. “It’s an imbalance that’s grown in our government, and one that we have to cleanse.”

Administration officials say they have been as transparent as they could be in disclosing information about sensitive classified programs. All House and Senate members were invited to two classified briefings in 2010 and 2011 at which the programs were discussed, officials said.

Defenders of the surveillance programs in Congress, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence panel, have said the programs were fully explained. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pointed to “many, many meetings” where surveillance was discussed and said members had “every opportunity to be aware of these programs.”

But some lawmakers say they feel that many of the administration’s public statements — often couched in terms that offered assurances of the government’s respect for civil liberties and privacy — seemed designed to mislead Americans and avoid congressional scrutiny.

Wyden said that a number of administration statements have made it “impossible for the public or Congress to have a genuinely informed debate” about government surveillance. The Oregon senator, whose membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee gives him access to the classified court rulings authorizing broad surveillance, has tried in recent years to force a public discussion of what he has called “secret law.”

“These statements gave the public a false impression of how these authorities were actually being interpreted,” Wyden said. “The disclosures of the last few weeks have made it clear that a secret body of law authorizing secret surveillance overseen by a largely secret court has infringed on Americans’ civil liberties and privacy rights without offering the public the ability to judge for themselves whether these broad powers are appropriate or necessary.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-say-administrations-lack-of-candor-on-surveillance-weakens-oversight/2013/07/10/8275d8c8-e97a-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_print.html

[snappyturtle]

1. Absolutely! When the spying was turned on the citizens

the foreign went out of it. And, it's no longer "if" a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil has contact off shore. Listen to the following podcast....just a few weeks old. The NSA 'inquired' about then senate candidate Barack Obama after his speech at the 2004 convention. Which is very interesting in light of an OP yesterday questioning if the President has been blackmailed by the NSA. Which might explain....well...what some of us complain about. Also interesting explanation of connecting meta collection to revealing content.

http://www.peterbcollins.com/2013/06/19/boiling-frogs-blockbuster-nsa-whistleblower-russell-tice-reveals-that-obama-many-top-officials-were-targets-of-nsa-surveillance/

And, in case anyone is thinking I'm a conspiracy kook...forget that. Let the pieces fall where they may. imho

[stupidicus]

2. yep

I briefly discussed the potential for blackmail/fear having a role in his conduct with another poster a week or two back.

It's certainly a possibility, and one those that are up in arms over criticizing him for it may have as the only option left when the smoke clears.

Methinks he knows he's been on the wrong side of this issue, if this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/senator-ron-wyden-white-house-data-collection can serve as any kinda yardstick

I wouldn't worry about the "conspiracy kook" charge. At least as often as not that just means you're getting too close to the truth.