Democratic establishment unmasked: prime defenders of NSA bulk spying

[Catherina]

Democratic establishment unmasked: prime defenders of NSA bulk spying

NYT: "The Obama administration made common cause with the House Republican leadership"

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 July 2013 10.09 BST


One of the most vocal supporters of the Obama White House's position on yesterday's NSA debate: GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

One of the worst myths Democratic partisans love to tell themselves - and everyone else - is that the GOP refuses to support President Obama no matter what he does. Like its close cousin - the massively deceitful inside-DC grievance that the two parties refuse to cooperate on anything - it's hard to overstate how false this Democratic myth is. When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party.

The rabidly pro-war and anti-Muslim GOP former Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, has repeatedly lavished Obama with all sorts of praise and support for his policies in those areas. The Obama White House frequently needs, and receives, large amounts of GOP Congressional support to have its measures enacted or bills its dislikes defeated. The Obama DOJ often prevails before the US Supreme Court solely because the Roberts/Scalia/Thomas faction adopts its view while the Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Breyer faction rejects it (as happened in February when the Court, by a 5-4 ruling, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Amnesty and the ACLU which argued that the NSA's domestic warrantless eavesdropping activities violate the Fourth Amendment; the Roberts/Scalia wing accepted the Obama DOJ's argument that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue because the NSA successfully conceals the identity of which Americans are subjected to the surveillance). As Wired put it at the time about that NSA ruling:

"The 5-4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito was a clear victory for the President Barack Obama administration, which like its predecessor, argued that government wiretapping laws cannot be challenged in court."

The extraordinary events that took place in the House of Representatives yesterday are perhaps the most vivid illustration yet of this dynamic, and it independently reveals several other important trends. The House voted on an amendment sponsored by Justin Amash, the young Michigan lawyer elected in 2010 as a Tea Party candidate, and co-sponsored by John Conyers, the 24-term senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. The amendment was simple. It would de-fund one single NSA program: the agency's bulk collection of the telephone records of all Americans that we first revealed in this space, back on June 6. It accomplished this "by requiring the FISA court under Sec. 215 [of the Patriot Act] to order the production of records that pertain only to a person under investigation".

...

That's why the only defenders of the NSA at this point are the decaying establishment leadership of both political parties whose allegiance is to the sprawling permanent power faction in Washington and the private industry that owns and controls it. They're aligned against long-time liberals, the new breed of small government conservatives, the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, many of their own members, and increasingly the American people, who have grown tired of, and immune to, the relentless fear-mongering.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/democratic-establishment-nsa

[Le Taz Hot]

1. The Cheer Squad isn't going to like this article. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's by Glenn Greenwald

If they get desperate, they'll post a few photoshops of him as Blofeld, or make anti-intellectual remarks about commentators having the temerity to write books too. Or post a picture of Alex Jones.

[truth2power]

45. "Or post a picture of Alex Jones." Heh heh....

Too funny!

Yet, I've been griping about exactly this, around here, lately. It seems that it's not acceptable to post something if Alex Jones has said it first.

The problem is that what's going on, politically and otherwise, in this country has gone deep into the weeds of the ludicrous and even bizarre. Most DUers probably agree that our presstitute, so-called 'mainstream media', is worthless. So, where is one to go for information? Alex Jones and his ilk are going to start looking positively moderate, just by default. And that shouldn't be blamed on the citizens. It's the fault of our psychopathic leaders for instituting policies that resemble the ravings of a lunatic.

As far as smearing Glenn Greenwald, it's already started in this thread. Posting a pic of him speaking at the Cato Institute, as if that's relevant to anything at all. If any of these people ever addressed the ISSUES, I think I would have a heart attack and expire on the spot.

[bvar22]

95. One thing they will absolutely NOT do is address the substance of this atricle.

It will be another Mutual Masturbation spree of Strawmen, Innuendo, and Ad Hominems.

[questionseverything]

110. wyden says

'Secret Laws'

According to Wyden, the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act have done more than facilitate a level of domestic surveillance. If allowed to expand, unchecked, he argued, they could turn "the idea of a telescreen monitoring your every move...from dystopia to reality."

The Senator says that the Acts created, for the first time in our nation's history, a secret system of laws. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Courts, operating in secret and relying only upon the one-sided, non-adversarial secret presentations by government lawyers, issue decisions that only the government is permitted to see.

Wyden stated:

The reliance of government on a secret body of law has real consequences. Most Americans don't expect to know the details about ongoing, sensitive military and intelligence activities, but, as voters, they absolutely have a right and a need to know what their government believes it is permitted to do. Because, that is what Americans need to be able to ratify or reject decisions that elected officials make on their behalf.

It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that laws should not be public only when it is convenient for government officials to make them public…If Americans aren't able to learn how their government interprets and executes the law, then we will have eliminated the fundamental bulwark of our democracy.

Without public laws, and public court rulings interpreting those laws, it is impossible to have informed public debate. And when the American people are in the dark, they can't make fully informed decisions about who should represent them, or protest policies that they disagreed with.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10152

[Fantastic Anarchist]

63. If they do any of that, you should post this picture:

Five different pitches, same delivery, and steeeeeeeerike, you're out!

For those interested, that's Japanese phenom, Yu Darvish (it doesn't even include two other pitches from his seven pitch repertoire).

[karynnj]

6. There are good reasons not to like the article --- having NOTHING to do with the NSA

Is it really a myth that the Republicans have blocked every Obama initiatives? I saw Snowe and Collins vote against ACA which a decade before, they would have signed on as sponsors. I saw REAL confrontation when the debt ceiling had to be raised - something where protests were always just theathre in the past. I saw Republicans sign on to the infrastructure bank bill - only to withdraw support when Obama supported it.

It seems that Greenwald may not share some of the things that I always thought drove most liberals and progressives - improving the lives of those not in the top 1%.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Here--You need this for your post:

Greenwald was very explicit about exactly where the Administration intersects with the Republican establishment:

When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party.

[karynnj]

33. That does NOT change the part I referred to -- at the very start of the article.

[TiberiusB]

80. You know what a strawman argument is, yes?

Just askin'.

[karynnj]

84. Yes I do - and my comment was not one. It addressed a statement that GG put up front

and which sides with the Republicans in disputing that they have been obstructionists.

As I said this has NOTHING to do with the NSA. It has to do with important Democratic framing of what the Republicans have done since 2009. I know that the are many here who really do not care about the Democrats winning in 2014 - after al most are not pure enough for you.

The fact that is does NOT address the point that most of you have made does not make it a strawman comment.

[TiberiusB]

115. Let's review...

"The fact that is does NOT address the point that most of you have made does not make it a strawman comment."

From Wikipedia:

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet [non]equivalent proposition (the "straw man&quot , and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The subject of this thread is that many leading Democrats are turning their backs on the 4th Amendment of the Constitution and their citizens right to privacy, positions commonly held by Republicans that exploded a great many heads on this very board when it was Bush doing the very same thing. You made a comment suggesting that because Republicans have blocked many of Obama's initiatives, it is therefore a myth that they haven't obstructed ALL of them. It is a myth. The GOP and Obama are uncomfortably cozy on issues involving the security state and the Constitution. None of which has anything to do with the ACA, or the debt ceiling, or stimulus spending, or immigration, or whatever.

"I know that the are many here who really do not care about the Democrats winning in 2014"

Yes, because it isn't the NSA going on massive fishing expeditions and vacuuming up personal information on millions of Americans in what appears to be a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment that hurts Democrats, it's people talking about it.

[karynnj]

141. The subject of the thread was the Greenwald article

It is completely reasonable within a thread to discuss anything in the OP. Here, I commented on text considered important enough that it was included in the OP itself. Further, I said in my title line that I was not addressing anything to do with the NSA.

It is rather hard to say that what I wrote was a "strawman" - when I explicitly was NOT speaking of the NSA. I was very clearly pointing to what I thought was a dangerous comment - at best written without thinking of what it implied.

I did not comment on the NSA - thinking this was not a good thread in which to have a real discussion. Having nothing to do with what I commented on before, I will state what I think.

I actually do not think collecting telephone records violates the 4th amendment - as long as a court order is needed to access an individual's records. These are the same records the phone company has always kept -- and prosecutors have requested them likely since before you were likely born. I realize that most people here disagree with me, but - as the government has said - these are third party property and belong to the various phone companies.

In today's world where there is not one local company that will have the records, it would be very time consuming to request from all possible phone companies the outbound and inbound calls from people for whom there is a very valid reason to get this information. This could very valuable time lost.

I do not feel any more insecure because the government has that information than I did when it was just the phone company. ( I worked for Bell Labs until the late 1990s and understand how much information can be pulled out of this by data mining.) However, I think the issue to push is to increase the restrictions on access. In addition, the number of people working for NSA would have to be very greatly enhanced for the NSA to analyze patterns for everyone and then use the information against them. This is as paranoid as thinking that everyone is looking at you as you move through busy streets in places like NYC.

[TiberiusB]

151. Progress

Trying to steer the discussion away from the NSA spying program is exactly why your post was a strawman. The title of the OP is "Democratic establishment unmasked: prime defenders of NSA bulk spying" not "Let's debate Glenn Greenwald". There is no way you can reasonably argue that this thread was meant to be a discussion on whether Glenn Greenwald "may not share some of the things that I always thought drove most liberals and progressives - improving the lives of those not in the top 1%." Right there you veer into strawman territory. Rather than debate the NSA's spying program(s), you tried to shift the discussion to Republican obstructionism and from there to Glenn Greenwald.

Now this comment is actually the exact opposite. You actually list the reasons for your taking a particular position on the NSA debate. I may not agree, but at least it builds a foundation for me to see your position and helps move the discussion forward. For me, the issue isn't that they can't sift through all the data now, it's that they can hang onto whatever they please until they find a reason to sift through it later. Does anyone doubt that the records of individuals involved in organized protests like the Occupy movement are more than a little likely to be getting a little extra scrutiny? Keep in mind that many activists have been officially labeled terrorists, been put on no fly lists, had personal belongings like notebooks and valuable research confiscated, and so on. That the current administration routinely argues that everything it does is legal but refuses to prove it in a court of law is hardly encouraging. Imagine the political damage possible to an opposition party eager to dig up any and all dirt on an opponent. I'm guessing it has already happened, and more than once, though not necessarily under this administration. As for the "it's just meta data" argument, imagine I decided to keep an eye on the leaders of a particular environmental group, tracking just their phone calls and locations. I could look for patterns suggesting up coming protests, or try to find a journalist's sources, or find that elusive mistress. Meta data is extremely potent if analyzed correctly.

[karynnj]

171. As I said, there is no rule on what part of the op can be discussed

and it has been perfectly acceptable to comment on ANY thing in the op - which you might know if you you had more than 107 posts.

You clearly have no real concept of what a strawman is. You could say that what I posted was a "digression" from the main discussion - but not a strawman. In fact, a case can be made that some posts that make exaggerated claims on what NSA does -such as recording all calls- and then uses that to say that the program needs to end can more fairly be called on for using "a strawman". As the comment did not create an alternative version of what any of the NSA programs was doing, it could not be called a Strawman.

You ignore that I said that ACCESS to the database was what had to be investigated and strengthened if needed. (They also need to implement means to determine if their own employees and contractors are doing things that are both not legal and not for their job - such as Snowden speaking of being able to pull anyone's data. Note that he did not say he did this, but there have to be methods to track what is pulled and by whom and any illegitimate pulling of the data has to be a firing offense. ) What I did argue is that it is important that the database be there so it can be used for the purpose it was designed for.

[hopemountain]

174. well argued, karynnj

i agree with your stance and responses.

[truth2power]

47. That's a particularly good representation. Love the expression..

[ProSense]

16. You nailed it.

Greenwald's goal is to convince that his version of civil liberties hyperbole is the most important thing in our lives. Doesn't matter that most of what he does is fearmongering hype. The fact that so many have bought into this, and others are using it to fan the own political fortunes doesn't matter.

Look at all the problems facing this country, attacks on minority and women's rights, a stagnant economy, the most vulnerable Americans (poor, disabled, seniors) becoming more vulnerable, the middle class being decimated, and yet the NSA issue becomes the top priority across the political spectrum. This is the issue that demands coalition. They can lump Pelosi in with Bachmann, and then hype teabaggers. The issue is the most important thing in our lives.

Think about it, Congress could have acted on this at any time, like they did yesterday. These are programs that have been exposed, including the worst abuses by Bush, debated and in the focus of civil liberties organizations for more than a decade. There have been changes, and concern these changes haven't gone far enough. The loopholes have been discussed. As recently as December 2012, Wyden and Udall raised there concerns.

No one has the courage to stand up and call this bullshit. The issue is important, but the hyperbole, kabuki theater (including Snowden's Russian adventure) and misinformation and is bullshit.

[NoMoreWarNow]

24. Greenwald focuses on personal liberty and the national security state

that these are being infringed relates a lot to our overall economic situation. Hint-- it's the same selfish, greedy 1% that are oppressing us in all matters possible. Just because Greenwald doesn't focus on those same exact issues you mention doesn't mean they are not related.

[grasswire]

58. a post without one link

you're slipping

[rhett o rick]

26. Greenwald isnt the only person saying this. And yes the Republicans fight like hell against

the ACA, gay rights, immigration, what color to paint the Green Room, however,

When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party.

Do you recognize that the things you were referring to are not included in the above list???

[karynnj]

31. The WAY he said it ignores that on the economic/social issues Obama

has been fought even on things they were previously for. Not to mention, even on foreign policy, the Republicans have disagreed. McCain has wanted to enter the wars in both Syria and Iran for years.

[rhett o rick]

81. Of course the Republicans give a lot of lip service to objecting to every thing Obama

stands for, but have they tried to change his economic decisions? Or civil liberty stances? Has the Republican House tried to reign in Wall Street or do they seem to go along with the President's "hands off" approach? The Republicans totally see eye to eye on the Patriot Act and the FISA law and indefinite detention.

Of course the Republicans fight Obama on social issues. The 1% oligarchy doesnt care about social issues except using them as distractions while they steal our wallets.

And I bet the Republicans are loving it while Pres Obama is busting medical marijuana dispensaries, depriving medical patients from pain and nausea relief, in a state where possession is legal. Sending people to prison for 20 years for doing something the state has declared legal.

[karynnj]

87. The Republicans have tried as hard as they could to stop almost everything he has done

This is most easily seen in his first term:

The economy
- The very needed stimulus was passed with just 3 Republican votes - Specter, Collins and Snowe
- The bill to bail out the auto companies had very few Republicans
- The various jobs/stimulation bill had - in each case - a few hard won Republicans. Including one in fall 2010 that paid for the jobs programs by simply increasing regulations on money going out of the country - to insure more was declared and taxes.
- They blocked various attempts to spend more money on needed infrastructure repair.
- They blocked programs like TANF that provided jobs to those who otherwise would not have them.

Wall Street:

First of all, it was the Democrats wanting to rein in Wall Street - not the reverse as you state. Again, the Republicans worked to water down anything they tried to do.

- Dodd/Frank actually did help especially with the Consumer Bureau. It passed with ONE Republican vote - Scott Brown. (Brown was paid off by requiring they drop the provision where the banks fund their own future bailout fund.)

[rhett o rick]

92. I am not falling for the "his hands are tied" excuse. He runs the Executive Branch which could be

prosecuting Wall Street crime. He doesnt need Congress for that. Instead he prefers to send medical marijuana dispensers to prison for 20 years.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

66. "What color to paint the Green Room"

Hilarious!

[BlueStreak]

90. The problem isn't that Republicans are for those things. They always have been.

Re: "When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party. "

The problem is that Obama is now for those same things, and most of us find that contradictory with all the speechifying he did in his two campaigns.

It is not a case of "common cause" It is a case of far too many Democrats, including the President, going to the dark side.

There may be no clearer sentence in the Constitution than the one requiring warrants and probable cause. If we cannot even protect that right, what is the point of having a Constitution?

We aren't that different from Egypt now.

[raindaddy]

32. I wonder how the GOP will vote when it comes to....

the new corporate empowering TPP Obama's negotiating in secret? I'm betting that one sails through. Or we'll probably not hear a lot of grief from the GOP on cuts to Social Security and Medicare or if Obama actually decides to appoint Larry Summers to run the Fed. Nor the drone program, fracking, GMOs, etc... All major issues that will have a huge impact on our future!

Speaking of what drives liberals or Democrats in general, protecting Social Security from Republican cuts was once a mandate, as was protecting our civil liberties!

I don't really blame Democrats who still feel loyal to Barack Obama. He's more personable, more intelligent and not a public embarrassment like GWB was. And we all looked forward to the new transparent, populist administration Obama promised. But at some point it becomes time to look at the facts in an objective way and that can't happen if the only objective is defending Obama.

[RegexReader]

43. looked forward to the new transparent, populist administration

but we're almost half way through a second term and still haven't seen it. If anything, more FOIA requests are denied now than under GWB. Congressional oversight committees are getting thousands of blank pages from the DOJ. It is deja vu all over again. SSDD.

and American continues to circle the drain.

[sabrina 1]

53. Which things that 'drive most liberals' does GG not share?

[Catherina]

10. That's great. I'm here to support the Wyden-Conyers-Sanders-Amash-Conyers football team, not them.

"If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it." - Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

It's like NAFTA's old cheer squad. They never go away, just change their uniforms and come back to cheer for the next corporate sponsor.

[bvar22]

116. " just change their uniforms and come back to cheer for the next corporate sponsor. "

EXACTLY!!!


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font][/center]




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their speeches, promises, or excuses.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. K&R

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

[dipsydoodle]

3. K & R

.

[FarCenter]

4. "tired of, and immune to, the relentless fear-mongering" by Glenn Greenwald

[rhett o rick]

29. Yes I can see how challenging it might be. Life would be so much better if we didnt have these

damn whistle-blowers and others that dare challenge authority.

When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party.

I agree with that statement, and it isnt "fear-mongering".

[FarCenter]

49. In NJ, the two Repubs who did not support the President were Scott Garrett and Chris Smith

These are the two most radical Republicans in the state.

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

As a state legislator, he once proposed public schools teach intelligent design alongside evolution.

Garrett was the only congressman from New Jersey to vote against the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act for purposes of states' rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Smith_(New_Jersey_politician)

Smith is one of the strongest opponents of abortion in either house of Congress.

In 2011, he introduced HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.[15] The bill contained an exception for "forcible rape," which opponents criticized as potentially excluding drug-facilitated rape, date rape, and other forms of rape.

In February 2013, Smith voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. The extension nonetheless passed in the House of Representatives by a large margin.

Obama should consider himself fortunate to not be supported by the above radical Republicans.

The more moderate Republicans supported President Obama -- LoBiondo, Runyon, Lance and Freylinghuysen.

President Obama was also supported by Democrats Andrews, Sires, and Payne. He was opposed by Holt and Pascrell. Pallone did not vote (he's in the primary for Senate, and must think he still has a chance against Booker).

[Fantastic Anarchist]

69. And the most radical reactionaries support Obama.

Like Bachmann, unless you don't think she's reactionary.

But that's besides the point. So, you're radicals aren't as authoritarian as Bachmann. Big deal. This guilt by association works both ways.

So, are you for or against this massive violation against the Constitution? A simple "for" or "against" should suffice.

I'm totally against it.

[FarCenter]

74. There has been no massive violation against the Constitution

[Fantastic Anarchist]

76. Keep your head in the sand.

[limpyhobbler]

106. Bachmann is pretty much as fascist as far as I know.

It's telling to see where the top Dems come down on this issue.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

107. Oh, I agree.

Maybe I should have used fascist instead of reactionary. But both do apply.

[limpyhobbler]

108. Yes certainly both apply.

It's quite frightening to see the top Democrats joining forces with this far-right faction. It's the MIC über alles .

[Fantastic Anarchist]

112. It is certainly looking like a coalition ...

... or, dare I say, a front. At the risk of having Godwin's law slapped down on me, Hitler formed his right-wing front in order to come to power.

But, everyone wants to keep their heads in the sand.

[limpyhobbler]

113. Yes the coalition of the defenders of the corporate state.

Just like the title of the OP says: unmasked. They try to keep up the good-cop/bad-cop charade.

But every once in a while there is no way to hold power without taking off the mask and showing us all the ugly face of corporate capitalist power.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

114. But then what will we do?

Accept it? You know, as Americans, even as we espouse our love of liberty and freedom and blah, blah, blah, we are remarkably a servile and pussified bunch of morons.

We're the greatest nation ... that has ever been so weak and stupid.

[limpyhobbler]

117. probably we will make sweet infographics and post them on web forums.

I don't think people are weak and stupid morons. It's just that the system has us sort of trapped. There's a real democracy deficit. What the people want isn't what gets enacted into law. Similar to the way the system in China has people there trapped, even if many there want change.

Although I get your point. The system structure keeps us in fear and dependent, and encourages people to be like sheep. That includes the corporate media propaganda. Also capitalism keeps people constantly at a subsistence level, so we spend all our time working for the basic needs of life. People don't have time to study up on issues, or to devote to activism.

There could be a big popular backlash. The bad thing though is if the backlash comes, there is no telling what it will look like, or which ideas will dominate.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

119. I agree with your points actually.

And I like your "democracy deficit" point, especially.

Though, there are people out there, despite being given all the facts, wish to remain morons and servile to authority. It's a personality trait.

And your point about capitalism keeping people at a subsistence level is spot on.

If there is a breaking point, yes, we won't know what it'll look like. It could go either way. It's kind of scary to think about.

[limpyhobbler]

123. Yeah it seems to be a personality trait.

The system may have made them that way, but that's no excuse for ongoing willful ignorance.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

126. I can understand economic and political conditions ...

... that influence or formulate a person's worldview, even if it's wrong - especially if they're lied to constantly. But I would think that given a chance to have actual information, then they would adjust accordingly. Too many people do not do that.

[limpyhobbler]

129. I'll copy and paste something from another thread...

This was in response to a well meaning guy, who seems like a good person, who seems pretty happy with the Democratic Party, and is concerned that there is too much "anti Democratic" stuff on the web site.

So I said...

Apparently your life has not yet been destroyed by corporate capitalist forces.

Forces enabled by the Democratic Party, at least its leadership.

Maybe once it has, you might change your mind and join the chorus of the angry and disenchanted.

It's cool to be angry at the Democrats for them helping to flush America down the toilet.

Not all Democrats, but the party leadership certainly.

I'm not sure. Maybe that's not right. Certainly it's a simplification because some people don't recognize who's whipping them even when they are being whipped. But will our system continue to fail in meeting people's basic needs? Will more and more people be impoverished and forced into desperate situations? If so it seems like people will lose respect for the establishment political institutions. And the Democratic Party is going to be right at the top of that list, because they are they party committing the biggest fraud against the American people, by pretending to be defenders of the working class, while constantly shilling for the 1%.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

131. One doesn't even have to be destroyed or disenchanted to get it.

I have a good job, I'm not affected by voting restrictions imposed by the Republicans. I make good money, I'm white (a Jew, but white nonetheless), I'm straight, and live in a nice part of town.

But, I have a major problem with the way both parties treat those less fortunate. Those that weren't born in the 1%. Or are of the wrong color. Or may be working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. I see what's going on around me. I see that neither party could give a shit. I can't stand it. I'm disturbed by all of the cheerleading. I'm disturbed that if it can happen to other people, it can happen to you, or to me.

If I can't make my voice heard for the working poor, or for gays and lesbians, or for people who can't vote, or for people who are "destroyed" and "disenchanted," then I have no business whining about my rights.

This country is crumbling, yet some think it's a football game. Not only that, but a football game with refs that would, at least, keep things level.

No, we're not playing football here. Real people are being hurt by the policies of both parties.

[limpyhobbler]

132. right. that's empathy.

To go along with our democracy deficit, we have an empathy deficit. It could partly be that capitalism is conditioning people not to give a shit about each other. Also when life is competitive struggle for survival, who can waste time caring about others.

To be fair Democratic Party has made a lot of progress on equality issues, such as for LGBT, and seem pretty good about racial and gender equality. That's to be applauded. Still it doesn't excuse the party's failings on the other big issues of the day: the distribution of economic power, addressing climate change, protecting civil liberties, etc.

I'm not talking about all Democrats. Just a good chunk, especially the leadership.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

134. Yes, and without having read your link ...

I think we've had this discussion before regarding Kropotkin and his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. In terms of society's conditioning of either cooperation or competition.

I'm more and more reminded of that as I see how a capitalist society would breed sociopaths and select against empathetic people. In the end, though, you have nothing but sociopaths and society is lost. Kropotkin's book gives good indication that cooperative societies are more intelligent and tend to "survive" versus their competitive counterparts.

I'll read your link now.

[limpyhobbler]

136. That article is kind of long.

It was posted here a while back...

I'll read some Kropotkin. Or look for videos probably. Gotta split. see ya

[Fantastic Anarchist]

137. Take it easy. The book is available for free and the link is in the Socialist Progressives group.

Be well and peace.

[rhett o rick]

77. In an environment where the Republican Party has pledged not to

support Pres Obama on anything, it's interesting that this is an area where he can get support.

You mention "moderate Republicans", as I see it today, the Republican Party has no moderates. They have their right-wing and the wack-a-doodles. The moderate Republicans call themselves Democrats.

[frylock]

46. isn't american idol or honey boo boo on?

[truth2power]

50. Fear-mongering. Yes, absolutely...

Everyone go back to sleep, now. Nighty-nite, wabbit...

Zzzzz...

[markiv]

68. here's what that immunity looks like

[ProSense]

7. Vote 'em out, and

"The House voted on an amendment sponsored by Justin Amash, the young Michigan lawyer elected in 2010 as a Tea Party candidate, and co-sponsored by John Conyers, the 24-term senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "

...make sure this guy wins re-election.

[JimDandy]

20. Vote 'em out, and

make sure Dems get in that will protect our constitutional rights. We can't afford to keep protecting Dems who won't protect us.

Conyers co-sponsored the amendment, but hey, if these Dems don't want to endorse a good and reasonable change to the surveillance laws because of its sponsor, then I'm sure they will immediately propose their own amendment.

That would be just dandy with me...how about you?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

70. At what point are you going to put down the pom poms?

Get rid of the cheerleader outfit, and start thinking for yourself?

This isn't a sporting event.

[Egalitarian Thug]

149. ROTFLMAO!

You know to whom you are responding, right?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

150. Unfortunately, yes.

A guy can try, right?

[Egalitarian Thug]

152. Absolutely! I would never try to dissuade anyone from tilting at worthy windmills.

But, I also reserve the right to enjoy the show.

Here it comes...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

153. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls!

Watch as I attempt to remove someone's head from their ass!

Step right up and enjoy the show!

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. And there it is: unmasked, and it isn't pretty.

This might be the very early beginning of a new political paradigm.

Both the NSA and the TPP issues seem to be aligning in a similar way.

[Catherina]

12. I hope so because we "don't have a functioning democracy at this current time"

as President Carter very recently put it. We have people in both parties who pretend to represent us but they represent the lobbyists who pad their checks instead.

NSA and TPP, both serving corporate interests. What's there for a bunch of people with fat stock portfolios and war profiteering not to like? Occupy got it right, it's the interests of the 99% against the interests of the 1%. I hope Occupy hits the streets again sooner rather than later. Waiting for democracy with a small d.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

73. But Carter isn't a real Democrat, don't you know?

But anyway, this is precisely why I hate party politics. Bolsheviks or Mensheviks, we're still screwed.

[ucrdem]

9. "the new breed of small government conservatives"

I wonder who that might be . . .

[JoeyT]

22. Whee! Guilt by association!

Our side has drawn some mildly nutty people. Yours is full of crazy, stupid and mean, and downright evil. So how many innocents have Rand, Palin, and Greenwald murdered?

[yeoman6987]

27. "the new breed of small government conservatives"

The Tea Party is not for smaller government that they claim. They are for smaller government on issues that they believe in only. They big time screw the workers.

[Maedhros]

82. Here are some other notable individuals who have worked with the Cato Institute:

(Links can be found here: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html)

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here);

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs&quot .

the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);

Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);

Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and

Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).

So, as clever as you imagine yourself to be, it's just not that out-of-bounds for liberals to speak at Cato events.

[TiberiusB]

125. and the best part...

The video links to a Greenwald speech decrying the war on drugs.

What a monster.

[stupidicus]

11. yep, the primary reason the apologists are all wet about BHO's responsibility for and ownership

of the matter.

It's been rather obvious from the beginning.

[Catherina]

17. The love of representatives of the 1%, allied with Bush lizards like Bachmann, is disturbing n/t

[stupidicus]

38. no doubt catherina

but not real surprising

It's all part of the ongoing good cop/bad cop routine we've all beeen victimized by for at least a couple of decades now. I've long wondered (and argued) if the relatively recent foray into madness on the part of rightwinguts in the form of the Pee Party, etc, isn't part of the effort, allowing the good cops to be a little more "bad" without getting the notice and outrage it should warrant.

All the tag team has to do is instill fear and validate it say, with things like the owner of this board has pasted prominently on the top page, and if they manage to preserve what we had, or most of it, they're our saviors again. The good cop role is to simply save what we have with as small erosions as they think the voting public will tolerate, as opposed to advancements towards our collective betterment at the expense of those who have plenty. Even if ACA succeeds, it's not like their corporate masters won't be left holding the bag of money, etc. It's all about taking baby steps of that kind on all fronts (ongoing on the corral and control front in earnest since 9/11 especially, where a reason and cover was given) that keep the levels of complacency and compliance intact to do more than maintain a status quo, and to keep filling the coffers of the 1% and their political power and control over us.

Just imagine the freedom single-payer would provide us little guys.

The big picture tells me that all this NSA stuff is more than tangentially related to their schemes, and a critical element in consolidating and maintaining a plan hatched long ago, either in conjunction with or on the heels of the movement towards the wealth transfer and resulting inequalities we see today.

I suppose all that could make me a "conspiracy" kook... lol

They know that our only hope for salvation is to elect those not interested in playing their game, and that that will be impossible to the extent necessary as long as our choices are dependent on them in varying measure to be competitive in the election process.

Money talks, and "hope and change" walks -- like a cripple.

[reformist2]

13. Not just the Obama Admin, but almost half of the Democratic members of the House! :(

[Catherina]

19. I love how Bvar puts it all the time: "By their fruits shall ye know them"

And right now people are paying attention. Not amused.

[Mojorabbit]

97. Yes nt

[zeemike]

30. Well you know the old saying

You dance with the one that brought you....and big money brought them to the dance.

[KoKo]

67. Bought, Sold and wrapped in the pretty packaging of Compromise....

And what's that saying?... "Fool Me Twice?"

[sigmasix]

15. it is to laugh

"new breed of small gov conservatives" - so that's what Greenwald calls teabaggers that are trying to destroy America. He sure seems to have an awful lot of respect for right wing extremists that have created the multitude of economic and social disasters that have befallen America over the last 30 years. Everyone that has been payying attention knows that Greenwald's precious teabaggers are the ones trying to enable the criminally wealthy elite right wing to have access to all our private information in the name of Koche Brothers plans to destroy America and rebuild it as a dystopic libertarian wasteland. Greenwald shares the teabaggers's hatred for America and the desire to destroy our liberties through state tyranny and the liberal application of right wing lies and hyperbole about this president.
Why do teabaggers and Glenn Greenwald hate America so much?

[marions ghost]

21. K&R

---

[DontTreadOnMe]

23. "the new breed of small government conservatives"

That phrase alone is all you need to see through this drivel from Greenwald.

The "drown it in the bathtub" fear mongers have their slips showing.

[Peacetrain]

25. My Dad.. a Democrat to the core.. used to say..

"you are judged not only by your actions, but by the company you keep, and the values you espouse"

I will tell you what has been unmasked.. not the Democrats.. but those who have a vested Libertarian point of view to destroy the Democratic Party.

They share just enough of our values, to sneak in under the tent.. and grab a megaphone.. and shout everyone down,

But 80% of them, really belong with the Republican tent.. the tea party.. CATO..

Greenwald can take that small goverment tea party crapola and stick it in the ground!

He blew smoke in Snowdens eyes.. and left him to rot out in Russia.. I have never felt so sorry for anyone in my life, as I feel for that guy.. If Greenwald had an ounce of caring for the country, he would have helped him get in touch with sympathetic congresspeople, but no.. he took him for all he is worth.. and now the kid is having to ask Putin.. who is getting ready to lock up every person who is gay or support the gay community in any way shape form or fashion up.. The irony is overwhelming.

I am not impressed

[great white snark]

28. +1000

As per usual, most of your responses should be OP's. This one included.

[zeemike]

34. That is what they said about Jesus too.

That he ate with publicans and sinners.
Guilt by association was used then too.
And that is why Jesus used that phrase...you will know them by their fruits.

[bahrbearian]

37. "you are judged not only by your actions, but by the company you keep, and the values you espouse"

So what this say about Our president and the repugs

[ProSense]

40. Amash

"you are judged not only by your actions, but by the company you keep, and the values you espouse"

So what this say about Our president and the repugs

... "the young Michigan lawyer elected in 2010 as a Tea Party candidate" and a member of the "new breed of small government conservatives," endorsed Ron Paul in 2012.

What does "this say about" those who align with him?

Paul: Nobody In Congress Has ‘Stronger Belief In Minority Rights’ Than Me
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023337264

[L0oniX]

54. +1

[SidDithers]

39. Nailed it...

as bvar likes to say "By their fruits shall ye know them"

Those who only post articles that bash Obama over and over and over and over and over are certainly showing their fruits.

Better believe it.

Sid

[Mojorabbit]

99. And you consistently do the opposite. Shrug. nt

[Broward]

41. So, do the people supporting

the President on this issue belong in the same Party as the authoritarians on the other side of the aisle?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. So...you are telling me that Jefferson and Franklin

Are libertarians who should be shunned? They were, I stand with them, as well as those today trying to protect civil liberties.

I won't encourage you to do it...but come 2014 I will vote against my rep based on that vote in both the primary and general. I know, I can read numbers, he is in for a hell of a fight. But some of us vote on principles.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. 111 Democrats voted for the amendment; 83 against it

The Democratic party wants an end to the NSA freedom to do whatever it wants. Are you calling those 111 Democratic Representatives "those who have a vested Libertarian point of view to destroy the Democratic Party"?

[Mojorabbit]

100. They bring up the libertarian boogey man in everyone of these threads

It is like a sickness.

[markiv]

72. oh good night nurse

i cant imagine anything more weak minded, than an inability to occasionally conceed a point to someone you dont often agree with, when they're right, for fear that in doing so, they are now taking over your mind

and for those old enough to remember, 40 years ago, during watergate, greenwalds point of view was ABSOLUTELY they position of the Democratic party, including a young lawyer named Hillary Clinton, who made great hay of it personally

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. It's the Bachmann Democrats who are out of step not only with the party's liberal tradition

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

but with the tradition of liberal western democracy that binds all free people and those aspiring to be free together. To be free from the authoritarian state is what many of our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for some 70 years ago. I'm glad that the majority of Democrats in the house still hold to our sacred values.

[SidDithers]

35. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

65. Canada. Lol...nt

[leftstreet]

133. ...

[Coyotl]

36. This is more opinion piece than news story.

I'd like to see the votes if there was a carefully crafted bill on this issue after a hearings process instead of a quick amendment attempt.

[forestpath]

42. K&R

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

44. I'll remember these Democrats for not kowtowing to an enemy of the state.

We need to send a message that no matter what you leak, the law is not beholden to your criminal actions.

For the ones voting YEA, you have exposed yourselves as irrational and reactionary.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

91. "Enemy of the state" ...

... and that's how it starts.

First they came for the ...

[Mojorabbit]

102. Your post is just breathtaking. nt

[TheKentuckian]

155. John Yoo Turd Wayers are just secular corporate TeaPubliKlans.

To their credit, most of them aren't anti-tax zealots but many have handy excuses for why most of the top should be exempt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. But, we knew this.

I've gotten some of the rabid defense from leadership, on tape no less

[MotherPetrie]

52. K&R.

[JoePhilly]

56. The last paragraph describes Glenn's real intent.

To connect the far right and far left under the small government conservative or libertarian banner.

He attempts to mask this intent by hiding the Republicans he likes and would find his own bipartisan agreement with under the phrase "the new breed of small government conservatives" description.

I'm guessing using the phrase "small government Republican" would not have helped his argument as much.

Ironically, Greenwald bemoans the fact that some Republicans agree with the administration, even while he himself, in the exact same article, is more than happy to side with other Republicans (this "new breed" type of "small government conservative" that he invents) who happen to agree with him.

The fact is, he'd be happy to join with these Republicans under that smaller government banner, or perhaps under the Libertarian banner, but he knows he can't say that out loud ... so he masks it some.

[ProSense]

57. Good point:

"Ironically, Greenwald bemoans the fact that some Republicans agree with the administration, even while he himself, in the exact same article, is more than happy to side with other Republicans (this "new breed" type of "small government conservative" that he invents) who happen to agree with him."

...the Republicans who sided with "new breed" of "small government conservative" are the good Republicans.

Of course, the reality is that Republicans are hypocrites and opportunist.

The new found disdain among Republicans for NSA overreach
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023337937

[sabrina 1]

61. So what do you think about the voting down of something we Democrats have worked for ten

years, a step towards ending Bush 'security state' policies?

[whatchamacallit]

75. Why let issues ruin a perfectly good character assassination?

[JoePhilly]

89. First ... based on the vote count ...

"We Democrats" didn't seem to be very unified. And neither did the GOP.

One article put it this way ...

The vote was surprisingly close, with broad bipartisan support in favor of the amendment, and equally strong support opposed; this is a vote that split parties. The final tally was 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats in favor, and 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats opposed.

More Democrats tended to be FOR, and more Republicans tended to be AGAINST. Not a surprise.

Setting that aside ...

I'm not a big fan of broad generalities like ... "a step towards ending Bush 'security state' policies?"

I say that because I think the details matter.

I'd have been fine if this Bill had passed. And I'm also not surprised that it failed to pass. I also don't think it puts much of a dent in the "security state" some claim exists. I say that because meta data queries aren't a great way to go after specific individuals. If you know exactly who you want to target already, you're going to be able to get a more focused warrant, one that allows you access to far more than just some phone records.

I think what kept this bill from passing was that it prevents the use of call meta data to help identify an individual who you don't already have the name of, and it does so, in apparently all cases. The bill doesn't get into why meta data is useful, or why and when it isn't. Being more specific might have generated more FOR votes.

I think what congress could do is outline a set of situations in which using meta data to find an unknown individual is allowed, and create rules and guidance for the courts around that. Not that I think this congress is capable of doing that.

I suspect that Boehner only allowed this to come up for a vote because he knew that no matter how many Dems voted FOR the amendment, he could get sufficient GOP members to vote against it if needed. Now, the members of both side can go home and say that they voted the way they think their constituents wanted them to with little risk one way or the other.

[reusrename]

173. The metadata is the greater danger to liberty and freedom.

This spying on the public, it's apples and oranges.


There are two separate concerns, for sure. One is the privacy issue associated with listening to phone conversations/reading emails, along with all the questions of whether or not the laws are constitutional, or whether or not they are even being followed. This has always been the case with the 4th Amendment, ever since the country was founded.

The second concern is completely new, and it has to do with the use of metadata. Metadata is used to create the targets for a counterinsurgency operation. Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network (or insurgency) is not the most high profile or the most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is why the metadata is being collected and for what it is being used. It should be obvious how this information can be used/misused to affect our first amendment freedoms, specifically our right to peaceably assemble. There are a couple of stories floating around today about how the MIC is targeting opponents of the keystone pipeline. This counterinsurgeny technology and training is being used against law-abiding citizens right here in America.

Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that information the algorithms sort out the social connections.

Almost everything about this particular type of surveillance is new. The science behind the algorithms that are used and the computers that store and sift the data are new. The idea behind controlling the pubic is not new, however. It has been done before, and very effectively, even without this new weapon.

This all fits into the bigger picture of the War on Terror. Remember that our country was founded by insurgents. Many, if not all of our heroes, would have been easily thwarted under this type of surveillance regime and folks have written about how Paul Revere could have been easily stopped using this technology.


For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords:

thesis+insurgent+social+network


This use of the metadata seems to be the more dangerous issue. The eavesdropping can be used to disrupt/detain/dissuade/discredit a specific target once it has been identified. But the meticulous scientific selection of targets is what thwarts our (the ones who are trying to change things) ability to properly organize any resistance. This is serious. Without organization we have no idea who to aim our pitchforks at.

Basically, we are racing toward future where you either support the 1% or else you are a terrorist. This path leads to the restoration of slavery. There is no doubt about it.

Without any ability to organize, we will never be able to define who "they" are.

>>>


Snowden’s leak of classified US government information acquired during his work for the National Security Agency (NSA) confirms that the US government is gathering and archiving online data and metadata on a massive scale. The data is stored at NSA data centers, where zettabytes of cloud storage are available to authorities. Snowden’s revelations have again framed the debate over the balance between our privacy rights and our need for security.

>>>


The point we should derive from Snowden’s revelations – a point originally expressed in March 2013 by William Binney, a former senior NSA crypto-mathematician – is that the NSA’s Utah Data Center will amount to a “turnkey” system that, in the wrong hands, could transform the country into a totalitarian state virtually overnight.

>>>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/13/prism-utah-data-center-surveillance?CMP=twt_gu

The common wisdom in the US is that we are too well armed for this kind of thing. We have too many guns, it could never happen here. Our would-be oppressors will always be outgunned.

This line of thinking illustrates a complete and total misunderstanding of what we would actually be up against.

The only way to mount any effective armed resistance would be to organize. We would have to know who to point our pitchforks at, and we would have to know why they were the enemy.

This new technology is specifically targeted at disrupting our ability to organize. This is what folks need to come to terms with. Only a very small number of individuals need to be removed from the public to accomplish this end.

My guess is that less than 1/100 of 1% of the population would need to be detained in order to create such a totalitarian state. For a town like mine of 30,000, that is less than 3 people. If such a crackdown were to occur overnight, what is it that these folks who have all the guns and feel so safe right now, what is it that they will do? Will they shoot the sheriff deputy when he comes to serve a terrorist warrant on the neighbor? Who, exactly, will they point their guns at?

I believe that this is the question that should be asked. Not: "can it happen here?" but, instead: "what would it look like if it did happen here?"

By the way, there have been many reports that Haliburton has built detainment facilities that can hold up to 1/100th of 1% of the country's population, so that's where I come up with that figure. It is actually way too high a number.


Recent Historic Example: During the Iranian uprising several years ago, only 800 people were arrested, IIRC, and only three or four were killed in order to put down a revolution that was very broad and very deep. Remember that this was a population in which many had lived through the overthrow of the Shah. (Since the revolution was put down, most, if not all, of the 800 who were detained have been executed.) IIRC, the US had no official position on any of this. My understanding of these events is two-fold: that we need to have a bad guy in order to have a nuclear confrontation and that the thwarting of this uprising would not have been possible without our technology. YMMV. Total population of Iran is about 75 million and the only arrested (and have since executed) about 800, which is about 0.0001% or way less than what one might normally think is necessary.

[Maedhros]

83. You write this, as if you think it's some kind of clever riposte:

Ironically, Greenwald bemoans the fact that some Republicans agree with the administration, even while he himself, in the exact same article, is more than happy to side with other Republicans (this "new breed" type of "small government conservative" that he invents) who happen to agree with him.

Of course he's happy to side with Republicans when they are on the right side of the issue. If there are Republicans that want to reign in the security state, then by all means praise them for taking that position.

When politicians do things we want, they should be praised. When they do things we don't want, they should be scolded. It's a much better approach to politics than "Support my Party, regardless of the bad things they do. Attack the Other Party, regardless of the good things they do."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Bi-partisanship at its most revealing. Peter King and Obama. Bachmann and Pelosi.

What a pathetic crew.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. Violating the Constitution is about the only bi-partisan consensus ...

... being achieved in Congress.

It's a bi-partisan affair.

I'd like to see a list of all the Democrats who voted against the Amash amendment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. And this is damming but true

The sooner the myth of "intractable partisan warfare" is dispelled, the better. The establishment leadership of the two parties collaborate on far more than they fight. That is a basic truth that needs to be understood. As John Boehner joined with Nancy Peolsi, as Eric Cantor whipped support for the Obama White House, as Michele Bachmann and Peter King stood with Steny Hoyer to attack NSA critics as Terrorist-Lovers, yesterday was a significant step toward accomplishing that.

[dionysus]

127. "damning" nt

[markiv]

64. Under the differing superficial idiological garb

you have basically the same thing

Obama does seem less reluctant to go to war with Iran, I'll give him that much, and that is an important thing

but that's it

beyond that, it's tweedle dee or tweedle dum on the rest, as far as I'm concerned

the excuses they make for what they do sometimes differs, but their actions dont

[polichick]

71. ONE Corporate/MIC Party - TWO Faces...

Finally, citizens are beginning to get it.

[woo me with science]

96. [phone]

[limpyhobbler]

109. +2

So glad we have the freedom to be able to say so. For now at least.

[leveymg]

78. This is like the Vietnam War era. That split the Democratic Party down the middle, too.

Guess that there are a lot of people who weren't around back then who don't remember the viscous infighting that went on within the Party over the war, with a lot of otherwise liberal Democrats supporting it, primarily because they didn't want to be seen as being "soft" on Communism. So it is with "the war on terrorism," and Mideast issues, in general.

This is just another variation on an old theme. We'll outgrow this one and put this behind us, too.

[bemildred]

135. I think we are just about there now.

Twenty-First Century style.

[leveymg]

138. We're just waiting for the Persian Gulf Incident to justify it.

Or the shoot-down of a western jetliner with a Libyan sourced missile that can be blamed on someone on our hit list. Or something like that - or, maybe, they don't think they need a pretext, and -- as in Libya and Syria -- can simply appeal to "humanitarian" considerations and ride on while the Democratic grassroots continue to squabble, marginalize and self-cancel the potential opposition.

G-d, I hope I'm wrong about that.

[bemildred]

139. Me too. nt

[Purveyor]

143. Shouldn't be long now. This one is getting out of the establishments control. "By way of deception,

thou shall make war"...

[Le Taz Hot]

169. Same factions, too.

The Establishment, pro-war Democrats vs. The Sane People Who Were Right All Along About Viet Nam. The difference, of course, is that back then we had a REAL Congress and a REAL Supreme Court and we could still go through legal channels, difficult though it was. Now "our Representatives" (nod nod, wink wink) are merely employees of the 1% and the Democrat and Republican parties are the party planners.

[TiberiusB]

79. Glenn Greenwald, the new Godwin's Law

New Rule.

First person to invoke the argument "but..but...but...GLENN GREENWALD!!!!" as a defense for the Democrats loses the argument.

Never go full Greenwald.

Here's the list of Democrats who have no trouble with the NSA trampling the 4th Amendment. Take special note of those, like Nancy Pelosi, whose words and values seem to be often at odds with their actions. Because my imaginary father used to say "he talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?"

ALABAMA

Sewell

ARIZONA

Barber; Kirkpatrick; Sinema

CALIFORNIA

Bera; Brownley; Costa; Davis; McNerney; Pelosi; Peters; Ruiz; Thompson; Vargas

CONNECTICUT

Esty; Himes

DELAWARE

Carney

FLORIDA

Brown; Castor; Frankel; Garcia; Murphy; Wasserman Schultz; Wilson

GEORGIA

Barrow; Bishop; Johnson; Scott, David

HAWAII

Hanabusa

ILLINOIS

Duckworth; Enyart; Foster; Gutierrez; Kelly; Lipinski; Quigley; Schakowsky; Schneider

INDIANA

Visclosky

MARYLAND

Delaney; Hoyer; Ruppersberger; Van Hollen

MASSACHUSETTS

Kennedy

MICHIGAN

Levin; Peters

MINNESOTA

Peterson

NEVADA

Titus

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kuster

NEW JERSEY

Andrews

NEW YORK

Bishop; Engel; Higgins; Israel; Lowey; Maloney, Sean; Meeks; Meng; Slaughter

NORTH CAROLINA

Butterfield; McIntyre; Price

PENNSYLVANIA

Schwartz

RHODE ISLAND

Langevin

TENNESSEE

Cooper

TEXAS

Castro; Cuellar; Gallego; Green, Al; Hinojosa; Jackson Lee; Johnson, E. B.

UTAH

Matheson

WASHINGTON

Heck; Kilmer; Larsen; Smith

WISCONSIN

Kind

[markiv]

85. Hillary Clinton began her career helping hold Nixon accountable for his

excesses in Watergate

Now we're being told than anyone who agrees with the positions she held THEN, and helped propel her to where she is NOW, are really republicans who 'need to be exposed'?

what GALL

[leveymg]

140. Hillary Clinton started out as a Young Republican Goldwater youth delegate.

I put it to you, she hasn't really changed on foreign policy and war-and-peace issues, anyway.

[Hydra]

86. Totally ironic

All of the smoke and mirrors from 2008/2009 are falling down. Always on the same side unless it's for show. The President was even against Equal Rights for LBGTs on Religious grounds until recently.

I remember how people vilified us for suggesting this was Bush's 3rd term. The NSA thanks you for not paying attention.

[ProSense]

88. Which 17 Democrats Voted Against the PATRIOT Act in 2011 But Voted with the NSA Yesterday?

Which 17 Democrats Voted Against the PATRIOT Act in 2011 But Voted with the NSA Yesterday?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338346

[TiberiusB]

118. It makes you wonder...

Is it clear that many of the Democrats that voted against the Patriot Act in 2011 did so out of conviction? Is it possible that many of those Democrats only developed a spine because they knew their votes wouldn't impact the outcome, and so they decided to score some liberal cred to bolster them in the 2012 elections? It's a good bet that some of them are trying to have it both ways. Certainly Nancy Pelosi's "evolving" positions on certain issues are highly suspicious. She used to oppose the Patriot Act and Bush's warrant less wiretapping. Now she's fine with it. 'Cause it's legal. So legal it can't be debated in open court. She pulled the same flip flop on the whole chained CPI debate. Opposing it only to do a 180 a year later when it looked like she needed to get the House to back it for a "Grand Bargain".

More like Elizabeth Warren, please. Not perfect, but damn close. And why? Because the people picked her, and not the Beltway.

[leveymg]

144. The really surprising one was Sheila Jackson-Lee, unles you know she's on the Homeland Security Sub-

committee. Like her, a good number of the 17 are on the Intel or DHS subcommitees, have been "read in" on some of this and feel they're invested in the status quo. In other words, as the domestic spying controversy heats up they've been enjoying the:

[eridani]

165. Schakowsy shocked the bejesus out of me as well n/t

[arely staircase]

93. more greenwald shark jumping nt

[woo me with science]

94. K&R

They are not Democrats. They are corporate thieves and murderers in Democrat suits.

[NealK]

98. K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

101. "The Obama administration made common cause with the House Republican leadership"

That could be the subheading on every single article related to the White House.

[Catherina]

103. As have several people here. Such fine company to bask in. War criminals, murderers, thieves

But silly me! They must not be, after all, we refused to prosecute any of them while telling everyone to *look forward*.

And people making common case with the House Republican Leadership, with criminals like Boehner, Bachmann, Bush, Cheney, Hayden, Noriega, Chertoff fucking dare attack Greenwald.

And then they want their fantasy posts to be taken seriously.

[DemocratsForProgress]

163. It certainly could be.

Although it would be completely incorrect.

And childishly stupid.

[WillyT]

104. K & R !!!

[limpyhobbler]

105. K&R and Thanks Catherina.

3 cheers for you.

[soundsgreat]

111. kick

[QC]

120. kick

[woo me with science]

121. What worries me is what comes next.

Given that this outrage is not going away, I am sure that they will try some cosmetic fix to convince the masses that they have addressed the problem.

I really don't want to see new legislation outlawing certain types of spying and therefore tacitly admitting that all the other types of spying are just fine and dandy according to the Constitution.

We should not need new laws to outlaw something that is prohibited by the Constitution in the first place. The spying needs to end, period, because it is unconstitutional.

I think that's the direction they will go: They will pass laws to limit some spying and win praise from the public, but those very laws will set the legal precedent that says spying is by default okay, and only that prohibited by specific laws is illegal.

[Catherina]

128. Me too. Pelosi is already laying the groundwork for that. All we can do is stay very alert.

This time they're facing an army of informed, angry and very loud citizens. I don't think they have any idea about the depth of the anger and the commitment too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

130. These are very clever bastards. n/t

[Catherina]

148. "How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program"

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/25/how_nancy_pelosi_saved_the_nsa_surveillance_program

[railsback]

124. The End of the World

..because Glenn says so.

[Douglas Carpenter]

142. knr for the Dick Cheney Democrats

[RegexReader]

145. They're asking for the passwords for

user accounts now.

Marvelous. Just marvelous. Like nothing can go wrong with that. And people are going to just drop their pants and grab their ankles since we now have a Democrat in the White House. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that we voted to not have such shenanigans since he vowed it wouldn't happen on his watch? Now if Bush was still in the White House, we would have had millions marching in DC with 24/7 coverage on CNN.

But now we only have crickets.

[link:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/|

Someone please tell me where this madness is going to end??? We're going full tilt to a police state and no one seems to give a damn.

[Catherina]

147. It just gets worse every day. Read this from the ACLU Massachusetts

Unlocking the latest Wyden code: Does NSA operate a bulk domestic location tracking program?

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has a habit of dropping hints to the public about classified information related to the surveillance state. In remarks to the Center for American Progress earlier this week, he hinted that the bombshell revelations about NSA spying -- ranging from mass metadata collection to invasive PRISM snooping -- are really just the tip of the iceberg. Of particular interest were comments that could be read as implying that the government operates bulk, domestic location tracking programs, and also uses malware to turn our cell phones into bugs and spy cameras.

The Senator did not explicitly disclose any such programs, but there is ample reason to believe this speech was meant to sound warning bells about precisely those issues. That's because Ron Wyden has a habit of finding clever ways to inform the public about secret surveillance programs, without running afoul of the secrecy rules that prevent him from explicitly disclosing classified information.

...

http://www.privacysos.org/node/1130

I can't summarize it. You have to read the whole thing.

[DirkGently]

146. But wait ... isn't the NSA scandal a 'debunked' Republican conspiracy just like

Benghazi?

No?

Hmmm!

[ucrdem]

159. Yes, and long since. Bachman is just too thick to realize it.

Those crazy teabaggers will believe any damn thing that enables their raging ODS, even a serial fibber like Greedwald. Pretty whacky, huh?

[DirkGently]

160. Er no. Wacky Bachman's taking your view of "Greedwald."

Maybe you read it wrong.

[ucrdem]

161. Nothing about her view of Greedwald in the piece.

There's half a sentence about her vote and a stock photo of her at the top and that's it. In any case I was talking about the teabaggers' "common cause" with Greedwald's ODS, or in this case DDS, as he calls in as many Dems for jeers as he can fit into his jumbo vanity column. Or more accurately his free comment, as it seems the Guardian doesn't actually pay him for these baloney fests, and I wouldn't either.

[DirkGently]

170. Just so you understand Bachman defends NSA spying. It's not a "GOP scandal."

[99Forever]

154. When The Batshit Crazy Lady supports you...

... it shows just how from being a Democrat you have slithered.

[Fearless]

162. Inversely, her disagreeing with something does not make one agree with it to be a Democrat.

Pretty sure we still don't support Osama Bin Laden. Either of us.

That's the kind of statement you just made. It's a false argument.

[99Forever]

168. The "kind of argument you ...

... just made," has a name too, it's called a strawman.

You are dismissed.

[Fearless]

172. Actually no

Yours was but mine was not. You were comparing two groups using irrelevant conditions. I was comparing two groups using those same conditions to show that doing so is inaccurate. There is a difference. And please keep your snark to yourself thanks.

[99Forever]

175. Bullshit.

You made up an completely improbable analogy to make a ridiculous point. That buddy boy, is a strawman.

Bye bye, you aren't worth another second of my time.

[Fearless]

176. I used YOUR conditions!

[hopemountain]

156. naw. they are just using a little reverse psychology

to stir up the democratic base. they know very well how much democrats detest michele fachmann- because we are not "sheeple" as some of you purport us to be.

the HUGE error in the thinking of most of the posters on this thread is that you are lumping all democrats who support the president into one corner...but in doing so, you lump yourselves into a corner as well.

[Douglas Carpenter]

157. knr

[Douglas Carpenter]

158. knr

[Dustin DeWinde]

164. new breed of small govt consevatives? is that a joke?

You lavish praise on teabaggers as "small govt conservatives" even though they want govt in peoples bedrooms telling folks to bring every pregnancy to term and telling other folks who they can marry. Some small govt that is.

Then you berate Obama for using the power given to presidents, is it that only white presidents should use the patriot act?

And most absurdly you act as if a few gopers putting country first and siding with the president on narional security is somehow an indictment of Obama. But your siding with radical teabaggers is ok. Get a grip

Side with whoever you wish but dont pretend itts for altruistic liberal reasons. It clearly is not. Every phone call you or I or anyone else has ever made has generated a record somewhere or the phone companies wouldnt know how much to charge you.

You wanna scrap the patriot act? Fine i'm ok with that but you are asking too much to expect the president not to use the tools given him by congress. Whether your animus against Obama is driven by race by ideology ignorance or whatever, most americans dont share your hatred.

And if we are supposed to be upset that our soy agencies actually engage in espionage....griow up why dontcha

[blkmusclmachine]

166. 1 Party, 2 Faces.

[PBass]

167. False premises in this article:

"One of the worst myths Democratic partisans love to tell themselves - and everyone else - is that the GOP refuses to support President Obama no matter what he does."

Straw man argument. "No matter what he does"? -- I've never heard anyone say that. Block legislation, yes. That is verifiable. Don't take a concept (Republican obstruction) and magnify it into a caricature, in order to make a point.

Another false premise being played by Greenwald: whatever position a staunch Republican takes on an issue, that position is automatically bad. (Peter King likes it! How can you defend that?) That is just childish nonsense.

I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments against FISA, but don't try to sway me using bullshit tactics. And if I can't trust you to argue your position honestly and without hyperbole, then you're only making me doubtful about your other positions. Because I can see that you're a manipulator, and not a straight shooter.

[JackRiddler]

177. So damn true - one party of MIC & Wall Street

Democrats should be the ones most angry about how the party is run.

[Catherina]

178. Many of us are.

This wasn't what I donated for, worked for in 2008. The hindsight of how I cheered this along before the very revealing June 2008 Fisa vote is downright embarrassing.