I still haven't seen any evidence of the NSA spying on Americans.

[ProSense]

I've read a lot about metadata and potential for abuse, but nothing in terms of actual evidence that Americans are being spied on.

The President states, "There is no spying on Americans."

Where is the evidence that proves this statement a lie?

There is no Obama policy of spying on everyone and no domestic spying
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022971026

Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023039098

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Whew. That's a relief.

[tridim]

2. So you don't need evidence before making judgments?

That's pretty special.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

3. Judgments? If the poster says she hasn't seen any evidence of NSA spying, why isn't that good enough

for you?

If you've got contrary evidence, just post it.

[Wait Wut]

4. So, I was chewing on my lip...

...because they're chapped and it's bugging me, when I read your comment.

You made me bite my tongue.

You're just lucky it isn't bleeding.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. I don't need the likes of you telling me how to make judgments, that's for sure.

[Bay Boy]

5. "I still haven't seen any evidence of the NSA spying on Americans"

Then that means they are doing it right.

[Life Long Dem]

27. It means one needs to prove NSA is spying on Americans

Greenwald/Snowden or anyone have not shown any evidence NSA is spying on Americans.

And all of the 20,000 documents Greewald claims to have in his possession will all concentrate on foreign spying (but of course Greenwald will fail to mention any spying being foreign in his release of the docs).

[DontTreadOnMe]

6. It's not the stuff you know, it's the unknown you should be paranoid about!

can't you just sense the big eye looking at you now?

[Coyotl]

74. ROFLMAO

Fear the Unknown. Isn't that the motto of the John Birchers

Sorry, I'll leave the paranoid politics to the wingnuts.

[msongs]

7. and if that evidence was posted here, the poster would have to flee to russia lol nt

[uponit7771]

8. Wha... WHA!!?!?!! You DOUBT Limbaugh, SNOWDEN, Greenwald, Some Random Guy on a blog!!?!?!?!?!

WTF?!

Can't be a DU'r, some naked crazy dude says something we believe em dammit!!!!

/sarcasm <-cause that's needed here

[JaneyVee]

9. You would think at least one person would come forward and claim harassment

By now.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/nsa-surveillance-order-explained-aclu

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order released yesterday by The Guardian reveals that the U.S. government is regularly tracking the phone calls of potentially millions of Americans.

ACLU attorneys have been monitoring the U.S. government’s use of the Patriot Act for years, and this document confirms our biggest fears. Have a look at the notes we’ve made on the court order to see how we understand what it says about the powers the government claims. (Just click on the document below and hover on the red dots to see our comments. This embed will serve content from thinglink.com.)

[randome]

14. "regularly tracking" and "potentially" in the same sentence is rather odd phrasing.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

23. nobody is seriously contesting that the government hasn't been engaged

in a mass domestic surveillance program. The claims, for example by the OP, are not serious. I have no idea who you all think you are fooling, but it isn't anyone reading this message board.

[ProSense]

25. Obama is lying. He isn't "serious."

Where's the evidence?

[madokie]

40. GD needs evidence?

Seems to me there isn't much evidence needed around here to set hair on fire

I wish I was just being sarcastic but I'm not

[ProSense]

46. It's tabu

[Warren Stupidity]

53. He isn't. He's just going through the talking points on this.

He's reading off the script. I have no idea why at this point. It isn't like he can run for office again.

[randome]

59. Every time I ask for evidence, I am told, basically, that it's out there.

Where is this evidence? Something beside vague claims and might have/could have insinuations.

I'm not even asking for proof, just evidence.

So far there isn't any. Greenwald's one claim to fame -PRISM- is not what he thought.

Snowden said he could spy on anyone with an email address. Why didn't he do that to get evidence for us?

He said he "saw things" but he will never say what that means.

Is the NSA watching our thoughts form as we type? Evidence?

Carl Bernstein said it looks like the NSA has robust procedures in place to prevent abuse. I agree with him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[appleannie1]

129. Could and actually are doing are 2 different things altogether. When I worked in law enforcement I

could access all sorts of data bases but if I did without authority and a damn good reason, I would have been punished. Having the ability to do something does not mean it is done regularly. There would be no unemployment in this country if everyone's emails were being read. They would be begging for more people to read them all.

[ConcernedCanuk]

81. It's called "doublespeak"

..
.
.

I expect you know that already.

CC

[jeff47]

128. That's the metadata program

And the problem for the ACLU's argument is that data doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the phone companies, per a 1979 SCOTUS decision. And the phone companies have already been selling that data for years.

It's difficult to argue under current law that such a program is unconstitutional. If Congress changes the law so that our metadata belongs to us, or otherwise protects it, then such a program could become unconstitutional. But that's not current law.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. The problem with the ACLU's argument is that it has been tossed out of court

prior to Snowden because the ACLU could not establish that they or anyone else had standing. Their attempts to force that documentation via FOIA were stone-walled. That obstruction has now been erased.

[jeff47]

149. That just gets them in front of a judge

Which will run smack into the problem I covered above.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. That remains to be seen.

[cali]

11. lol. and you won't. Even if you were presented with irrefutable information

that the NSA had been illegally spying on you personally.

You can't possibly see the facts while you've got your mind and eyes tightly shut and you're screeching LALALALALALA I can't hear you at the top of your lungs.

[LondonReign2]

18. +1000 cali

She never, ever will

[GoneFishin]

58. +1000. What utter Nonsense.

[ProSense]

19. "if"

[uponit7771]

49. "if" = she hasn't been presented with evidence...but who gives a shit about facts?

[LondonReign2]

54. From the person who said

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:55 AM - Edit history (1)

"Either way, Obama isn't a dictator and when he does act outside of the constitution even following the law, bashers still bash"

So not only do you admit and support the fact that Obama acts outside the Constitution and follows un-Constitutional laws, you can't can't figure out why some people may criticize this? Excuse me if I don't take your opinion on NSA spying seriously.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. You nailed the words,

But forgot the image.

[hughee99]

93. I'm sure evidence will be acceptable,

once a repuke comes into office.

[NuclearDem]

156. Well, then Team Democrat won't be responsible!

No reason to blindly support a policy by Republicans! They aren't our team.

[KurtNYC]

95. The government itself TOLD US ALL that they ARE spying on us but that is not enough for the OP

11 years ago, 2002:

Early this year, the Department of Defense disclosed the most sweeping effort to monitor the activity of Americans since the 1960's, a program called Total Information Awareness. The T.I.A. program is the Bush administration's most visible attempt to implement an idea that became ascendent after 9/11: that the best way to catch terrorists is to allow federal agencies to share information about American citizens and aliens that is currently stored in separate databases. When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, it pledged to share data with state and local officials that is currently maintained by the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.
...
According to its Web site, which features a Latin slogan that means ''knowledge is power,'' ''Total Information Awareness of transnational threats requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models.'' To this end, T.I.A. seeks to develop architectures for integrating existing databases into a ''virtual, centralized, grand database.'' In addition to analyzing financial, educational, travel and medical records, as well as criminal and other governmental records, the T.I.A. program could include the development of technologies to create risk profiles for millions of visitors and American citizens in its quest for suspicious patterns of behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15TOTA.html

Ari Fleischer told us all what that means in no uncertain terms on 9/26/01:

There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do.

Meanwhile Bagdad Bob still hasn't seen any evidence that the US has invaded Iraq.

[jeff47]

131. Except not so much.

TIA didn't happen. It was a proposal that got shot down. As announced by the same people that announced TIA. Though plenty of conspiracy theorists keep claiming it exists.

There's TIA-like programs as released by Snowden, but the problem is those programs are spying on non-US persons. That's legal. Non-US persons don't have Constitutional rights.

And ominous quotes from Fleisher are no more "evidence" than quotes from Bagdad Bob.

If Greenwald has this mountain of documents proving spying on US persons, then how come he hasn't managed to put out a single page that shows it? Every single document he has released shows programs target non-US persons, and has procedures to avoid targeting US persons.

[jeff47]

130. Yet you keep not quite providing such evidence

It's amazing that with such a giant mountain of evidence you haven't quite managed to point to a bit showing actual spying.

[PsychoBunny]

12. You're not supposed to see the evidence

That's the whole freakin' point of spying!

Jeeeeezzzzz.

[creon]

31. Post proves nothing

No content in post

[PsychoBunny]

35. You don't understand spying?

How about - covert?

[Silent3]

76. By that reasoning, you're always being spied on no matter what

Even if there weren't an Edward Snowden or any NSA revelations, that reasoning would mean a lack of evidence simply means the spies are doing an even better job of spying.

[Egnever]

159. Wait we aren't always being spied on?

I cant keep up!

[Mojorabbit]

13. Call the ACLU and tell them they are worried for nothing

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-privacy

Using their power to collect massive amounts of private communications and data, agencies like the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) apply computer programs to draw links and make predictions about people’s behavior. Tracking people two, three, four steps removed from the original surveillance target, they build “communities of interest” and construct maps of our associations and activities.

With this sensitive data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. The data sits indefinitely in government databases, and the names of many innocent Americans end up on bloated and inaccurate watch lists that affect whether we can fly on commercial airlines, whether we can renew our passports, whether we are called aside for “secondary screening” at airports and borders, and even whether we can open bank accounts.

Dragnet surveillance undermines the right to privacy and the freedoms of speech, association, and religion.

edited to add that today's talking point is a big fail

[ProSense]

21. You call them.

You linked to a generic statement about metadata.

[Mojorabbit]

29. I am not the one denying all the information leaked about multiple programs

Not even the organizations responsible for them have denied it.
As for metadata It is like our vice Prez said back in the day and I agree
there should be a thorough investigation.

[leftstreet]

15. Read Obama's Lips: There's No Spying On Americans!

Obama To Leno: 'There Is No Spying On Americans'

by Greg Henderson
August 07, 201312:44 AM


President Obama defended the , telling NBC's Jay Leno on Tuesday that: "There is no spying on Americans."

"We don't have a domestic spying program," Obama said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. "What we do have is some mechanisms that can track a phone number or an email address that is connected to a terrorist attack. ... That information is useful."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/06/209692380/obama-to-leno-there-is-no-spying-on-americans

That's good enough for me!

[darkangel218]

37. Are you just being sarcastic??

[LumosMaxima]

16. Funny thing about "not seeing evidence" . . .

is that it doesn't mean that the evidence does not exist. It just means you're not looking at it. Like the guy who once told me he'd "never seen any evidence" that homosexuality exists among non-human animals. The evidence was there -- he just hadn't seen it himself, and so his assertion was meaningless.

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:

• According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’

[PsychoBunny]

17. And thus

"It just means you're not looking at it." Or even looking FOR it.

"Like the guy who once told me he'd "never seen any evidence" that homosexuality exists among non-human animals. The evidence was there -- he just hadn't seen it himself, and so his assertion was meaningless." But it was true.

[Life Long Dem]

38. Please share if your looking at it

It just means you're not looking at it.

[jeff47]

132. Ok, post it.

If there's a giant pile of evidence, surely you can post one bit of actual spying on US persons.

(And note that the metadata program doesn't qualify, since the SCOTUS says it isn't our data)

[Logical]

20. LOL, you are a piece of work! n-t

[kentuck]

22. "Well, not intentionally..." DNI Clapper

Afterwards, he explained that he gave the least untruthful answer possible.

And Senator Wyden knew the answer before he asked the question, according to Saxby Chambliss.

So obviously, there has been no spying on Americans.

[Zorra]

24. Call Congress right now!1!!1! nt

[davidn3600]

26. They are collecting and storing our data communications without warrant or probable cause

The fact they say they won't look it without a warrant is irrelevant. That's not the way it's supposed to work in this country.

Law enforcement gets probable cause and then obtains a warrant. THEN they can collect the data on those persons.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-4th amendment

The government is clearly violating this amendment by collecting our data. The government is putting the cart before the horse.

[phleshdef]

51. Its not "our" data, it actually belongs to the companies that provide us with these services.

I'm pretty sure if you read the terms of service agreement from your ISP, your cell phone provider or any website you have a membership with, something to that effect will be in there. And something to the effect of cooperating with law enforcement at their own discretion is in many of these agreements too.

You nor I own the business records, the businesses own them and there is no part of the fourth amendment that guarantees that governments can't collect aggregates of data from business records.

[dkf]

56. So our emails don't belong to us either? How about our phone conversations?

Does every bit of digital data belong to someone else?

[phleshdef]

61. I'm still operating under the assumption that wiretapping is only being done...

...with the standard warrant that only covers particular individuals. There is plenty of legal precedent established by past court cases that says that phone calls made on your own private phone can't be intercepted without a warrant.

Emails on the other hands are a different question. I believe we need more legal precedent there. I'm inclined to say that it depends on the privacy agreement that you and your email provider both agree to.

Google's privacy policy states:

For legal reasons

We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:

meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues.
protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public as required or permitted by law.;

That last part can be interpreted with a fairly broad reading in my opinion. Its saying that if Google administrators believe that its necessary to disclose information to protect against the harm of the public, then they will disclose it. Everyone who signs up for an account is forced to agree to this as well and as far as I know, there is no law saying they can't allow the government to have that information within those parameters.

Don't get me wrong. I want this NSA bullshit scaled down about 20 notches. But my feeling is, the laws are not structured the way we would probably prefer them to be or how some might assume.

[jeff47]

133. The content of your emails is yours

But the routing information is public.

To use a real-world make analogy, anyone can read the address and return address from the outside of the envelope.

Now, in reality email is much more like a postcard - the content is visible to every server along the way, so getting the content is trivial.

But back to the topic at hand, Greenwald and Snowden haven't released any evidence of emails being gathered on US persons without a warrant. They have released evidence of emails being gathered on non-US persons.

But what people are claiming is the non-US persons programs are also gathering on US persons. What those people are failing to do is provide evidence that this is happening.

[Recursion]

144. The emails belong to you. The routing logs belong to me (or whoever your mail provider is)

That really is how it works.

[Th1onein]

68. So, when we send a letter by regular mail, the words don't belong to us, either?

Your argument is specious, at best.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Nope. You bought that envelope from a company, right? And the paper. And the pen.

So it's theirs, obviously.

[Th1onein]

124. lol

[Recursion]

145. USPS has taken photos of the outside of every letter mailed since World War 1

and handed them over to US intelligence.

That's very closely analogous to phone metadata, since it's just a record of who is mailing whom and not what they mailed.

[Th1onein]

163. You know what's really, really sad?

The fact that that's OKAY with you, and that you base your argument on it.

Shame.

[Thinkingabout]

101. Good point, Davidn3600, this information is gathered by the communication companies. The

Records being collected by NSA is like the information shown on our bills, I have yet to get anyone to tell me how the conversation on the calls is provided by the records. I will even help them, NO your phone calls are not recorded. It has been for many years the ability to wiretap, again this is with another warrant specific to.the line of interest. It is very simple, there is not enough personnel available to record and listen to every call.

[villager]

28. "I still haven't seen any evidence that humans cause climate change"

Yeah, I got a million of 'em!

[Coyotl]

75. I haven't seen any evidence aliens cause climate change

so I'm going with the humans for now.

[villager]

96. If this were "Human Underground," you'd be in violation of the rules!

[creon]

30. Neither have I

[alc]

32. they've admitted to collecting information

They can't use it in courts. It wasn't collected constitutionally and they don't want to expose their methods for common criminal cases.

If they use it outside of courts, they still don't want anyone to know, so you won't see evidence unless they screw up. You may see an unexpected election result - and anti-NSA candidate dropping out or a pro-NSA candidate getting unexpected donations. Or an unusual oversight vote or court appointment. Or the RNC may get a list of democrat donors and details they can use to stop donations. But the NSA would certainly not want you to see evidence if those things happen.

Or it may be that they never have and never will use the information unethically or illegally. It comes down to how much trust you have in the NSA and in current and future presidents as to whether or not you think collecting the information is a good idea. You won't get evidence, especially if they are making it easier to spy on journalists.

[randome]

50. It also comes down to bureaucracy.

Rules and regulations, when put into place appropriately, prevent abuses. That's all we have to make illegality or abuse less likely.

There is no law, no promise, that will stop someone from doing what he/she desires.

But Carl Bernstein said it appeared to him that the NSA's system of checks and balances were pretty good. And if what was hinted at in one of the PowerPoint slides is true -that there are 4 levels of approval before data can be viewed- I would agree with that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

33. For once, I agree with you. When actual US terrorist attacks occurred, NSA spying was useless.

For several decades, every real mass casualty "foreign" terrorist attack that has succeeded inside the US has been carried out by groups and individuals associated with CIA covert operations. In some of these, particularly 9/11, the NSA was conducting surveillance on some of the principal participants, but the FBI was prevented from accessing this data by another federal agency, the Central Intelligence Agency.

Consider this, for instance, about the hijackers who commandeered Flt. 77 on 9/11: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=143890

Court records from the trial of convicted co-conspiractor Zakaria Moussaoui shows the FBI was aware of NSA intercepts of Midhar and and his partner Nawaf al-Hazmi in the months leading up to 9/11, who went on to hijack Flt. 77 that slammed into the Pentagon. The pair had also met with the other principal 9/11 hijackers at various locations inside the US. Based in part on NSA wiretaps that were later withheld and suppressed, FBI agents had, in fact, located the pair inside the US in mid-2001, but the investigating agents were ordered to close their files after CIA refused to cooperate and pressured the Bureau to shut down several lines of field investigation that were focusing on the plotters.

(FBI Director) Mueller's claims omit those key facts. The Director instead stated that Khalid al-Midhar was being monitored by intelligence agencies, but “they lost track of him,” Mueller said. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0613/Secret-NSA-program-could-have-derailed-9-11-attacks-FBI-director-says-video

In each major terrorist attack that occurred here during the last twenty years, one or more of the perpetrators was known directly to the CIA and identified as a terrorist, yet they somehow managed to enter the US and carry out attacks. This is true going back to WTC '93, and includes 9/11, the string of Anwar al-Awlaki-related incidents (which included 9/11 and the Underwear Bomber), and the Tsarnaev brothers. In other words, almost all real terrorism that has caused civilian casualties in America in recent times has been carried out by "our" terrorists, or more accurately, individuals known by the CIA to be part of terrorist groups.

Let's look at the older Boston Bomber, Tamarlan Tsarnaev. Tamarlan was nominated by the CIA as a terrorist in the fall of 2011 after a Massachusetts triple-murder in which the older brother is now implicated in the killing of his closest friend. Nonetheless, while an active murder investigation was ongoing, Tamarlan was allowed to leave the country to travel to Russia and Chechnya where he met with Islamic militants, and then hastily returned when his local contact with the militants was killed by the Russian security forces. Yet, inexplicably, he was never stopped or questioned during these travels, despite being on three terrorist watch lists. Again, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was designated a terrorist at about the same time he is alleged to have been involved in a triple murder, but at the time whatever was known to the CIA was never turned over to Boston Police or the FBI. In addition, he was not stopped when he left or returned to the US, despite the fact that he is not a US Citizen and was listed on the watchlist: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/27/17945669-boston-bombing-suspects-mother-was-in-us-terror-database?lite


If, after 9/11, we had simply curtailed the CIA's use of terrorists, instead of hastily passing the Patriot Act, we wouldn't be having this debate about NSA. Instead, the government threw money at NSA contractors to spy on everyone, Bush invaded Iraq, and the CIA continued along its merry way, running known terrorists in and out of the country who proceed to carry out attacks with seeming impunity.

Unfortunately, American casualties from terrorist attacks is seen as acceptable collateral damage of CIA covert operations (or, treated as acceptable by US policymakers, who never really change the way intelligence agencies do business) and are used as a pretense to go to war (not necessarily against those who actually attack us) and to build up a police state apparatus inside the US.

This is the real "intelligence failure" of U.S. Counter-terrorism. The lies told to obscure and redirect responsibility for these losses are all the more revolting for the fact that they are so transparent.

[ljm2002]

154. Very informative post...

...thanks for that. It is so obvious that our government needs to change its way of operating; sadly, it is also obvious that this is not in the cards. I don't know what it will take to change things, I really don't.

[leveymg]

160. I had hopes for constructive change to CIA Counter-terrorism operations in 2008.

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (9)

The Tsarnaev case points out the fatal lack of reform and control over U.S. covert operations. In particular, we now see that the Obama Administration has in fact not been successful in efforts to fix what the President previously characterized as "a systemic failure" of U.S. intelligence to prevent the entry of persons known to the CIA to be terrorists. That this obvious fact after the Boston Bombing is being pointed out on a blog and not in the major media also highlights that there has also been a failure of the corporate press, and its abdication of any meaningful role since 9/11 as public watchdog over these dangers.

At the beginning of the Obama Presidency, and that seems a long time ago, there seemed to have been some cause for hope for change after the 2009 Underwear bomber incident. Obama was reported to have been furious that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was known to the CIA since the previous August, was allowed on a Xmas Day flight to Detroit at Amsterdam's Skocpol Airport. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2009/12/obama-systemic-failure-allowed-alleged-bomber-on-plane.html The President was quoted at the time as saying,

"The warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America," Obama said. "A systemic failure has occurred, and I consider that totally unacceptable."

A new candor by the Administration appeared to have been signaled when, in early January 2010 Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pretty much came out and admitted in public testimony to a Senate Committee that a decision had been made to permit the Underwear Bomber to keep a visa to enter the US even though he was a known intending terrorist. Here's the key section of Kennedy's testimony, that was widely ignored:

1/20/10: Statement of Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management - Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_4635.html - Cached - Similar

In addition to these changes, the Department is reviewing the procedures and criteria used in the field to revoke visas and will issue new instructions to our officers. Revocation recommendations will be added as an element of reporting through the Visas Viper channel. We will be reiterating our guidance on use of the broad discretionary authority of visa officers to deny visas on security and other grounds. Instruction in appropriate use of this authority has been a fundamental part of officer training for several years.

The State Department has broad and flexible authority to revoke visas and we use that authority widely to protect our borders. Since 2001, we have revoked 51,000 visas for a variety of reasons, including over 1,700 for suspected links to terrorism. We have been actively using this authority as we perform internal scrubs of our data with watchlist information provided by partner agencies. For example, we are re-examining information in our CLASS database on individuals with potential connections to terrorist activity or support for such activity. . . We recognize the gravity of the threat we face and are working intensely with our colleagues from other agencies to ensure that when the U.S. Government obtains information that a person may pose a threat to our security, that person does not hold a visa.

We will use revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government’s interest in the individual and ended our colleagues’ ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists’ plans and co-conspirators.

But, apparently, even after all the publicity that Umar had been assisted onto the flight, the Anwar al-Awlaki operation in Yemen stayed open for business, as we found out later with the AP embroglio over the wire service's report published in March that the Yemen AQ bomb-making cell had been penetrated by the CIA and Saudi intelligence double-agents. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/15/184274166/leaks-bombs-and-double-agents-more-on-that-ap-story The droning of al-Awlaki and several other highly visible AQ figures appeared to have put an end to this sort of attract and trap operation involving CIA double-agents.

The Boston Bombing in April, nevertheless, is yet another instance where we are told that information about a designated terrorist let into the U.S. wasn't shared or fell through the cracks -- even though Tamarlan Tsarnaev was originally nominated as a terrorist by the CIA, and his name (with alternative spellings) appeared on three watch lists before he traveled and returned through US customs following his adventure in Russia and Chechnya -- yet, again, nothing was done to even monitor him and prevent another attack.

Nothing has changed, and this is just sickening.

[millennialmax]

34. You'd think in those 20,000 files, there'd be at least one recording of a phone call...

Between some son and his mom discussing the weather or someone ordering a pizza. Something to prove that all calls are recorded of their content and sit on a database.

You'd think there'd be at least one e-mail in those 20,000 files of someone talking to a cousin on the other side of the world about their sick dog.

Something to prove everything is collected and recorded, no matter the topic of conversation.

20,000 files. Lots of exposing our security to foreign enemies. But nothing of substance for those of us on the home front.

[randome]

48. But Snowden said he "saw things". That should be enough!

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

[Egnever]

158. This is what I keep coming back to

With the all seeing eye supposedly tracking our every movement. Where are all the people that have been targeted?

Surely they should be able to point to someone that has been spied upon and is being persecuted because of it.....

[darkangel218]

36. Thanks for the laugh, prosense.

Never a dissapointment.

[AngryOldDem]

39. Why? Because the administration says so?

Okay. Good enough for me.

[tularetom]

41. See, that's the whole point - you can't prove a negative

You're not supposed to see any evidence of it.

If they actually are spying on American citizens, do you really believe the president of the US is going to come right out and admit it?

If they are spying on you, you won't know it. If they aren't you still won't know it. Either way, they aren't going to tell you.

[Silent3]

79. So you have to assume you're always being spied on no matter what you read...

...or hear because the less you hear about spying, the better job the spies must be doing.

[Puglover]

42. Well that's that.

Thanks for taking such a huge load off of my mind.

[sagat]

43. You haven't seen any...

because there isn't any.

[niyad]

44. oh, my. .. .

[Cha]

47. But, snowden, greenwald, putin, and limbaugh are all in accord.. "USA=bad Russia=

Good". So, isn't there some "spying" going on in there someplace? Or are they all full of shit.

Thanks ProSense for the links. Of course it makes no difference to those entrenched in crapping all over PBO's USA but Putin's Russia is a haven for those who believe in Freedoms.

Making a stupid cartoon showing Pres Obama taking home his bear.. but, I believe many many Amrericans see it differently. Snowden isn't the fuck end all of why Putin's ass was canceled..

"Given our lack of progress on issues such as missile defense and arms control, trade and commercial relations, global security issues, and human rights and civil society in the last 12 months, we have informed the Russian government that we believe it would be more constructive to postpone the summit until we have more results from our shared agenda," the White House said.

"We're not in the business of doing summits just to do summits," the official told CNN."

Despite canceling the Moscow talks with Putin, the White House said a meeting set for Friday between Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel with their Russian counterparts would proceed "to discuss how we can best make progress moving forward on the full range of issues in our bilateral relationship."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/politics/obama-putin/

snip//

"President Barack Obama said Tuesday he has “no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.”

Speaking to “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno, the president was asked by the host about recent legislation in Russia that cracks down on gay rights.

“Do you think it will affect the Olympics?” Leno asked the President, whose own views on the subject have evolved in the course of his presidency. Russia is slated to host the Winter Olympics in 2014, in the city of Sochi.

Obama was adamant. “Every judgment should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam, and people’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with it.”

He also noted Russia’s eagerness for a successful Olympic games, saying "I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn't tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/07/president-obama-no-patience-for-anti-lgbt-laws-in-russia/

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

52. Of course you haven't because you REFUSE to see

what the rest of the world has now seen, for the first time, documentary evidence of it, and first-hand accounts by many insiders.

Not to mention we a U.S. senator telling us that it is WORSE than what the totalitarians are telling us.

You partisans will be the death of us.

and so it goes...

[snappyturtle]

57. +1 Thank you. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Good. Apparently, Snowden revealed nothing and they can call off the dogs and return his passport.

And, Obama & Co. can stop making ridiculous CYA statements that tell us that being spied on is good for us.

[GoneFishin]

60. Yeah, he told us nothing, plus everyone already knew it all already, plus it's a danger to national

security, plus it's not even true anyway, plus his girlfriend was a poll dancer, plus Ed Snowden is a doodyhead.

[markpkessinger]

80. Silly Feds!

Getting their knickers in a knot over nothing at all! If only they'd talk to ProSense, they could all calm down . . .

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. Well shit... Hey kids! Fold the tents! ProSense has links to ProSense posts proving no spying!

[ProSense]

63. Well, I guess you couldn't find the evidence either

Nice image though.

[Socal31]

64. Im am very sad about this.

During the same week we find out that the DEA gets the information and forwards it to other agencies, and then directs them to cover where they got it.

The data is collected on everyone. Then, it is up to humans to decide what data is searched for, which is the problem. DEA agents aren't constitutional scholars. They are promoted/hired/fired based on performance, and this is low hanging fruit.

You know that MASSIVE data center in Utah that is about to open? The one that can potentially hold exabytes of data? What do you suppose that is for?

[Amonester]

67. What do you think the Congress wanted it for?

Wasn't the (elected) congress "concerned" about something?

[limpyhobbler]

65. collecting data on Americans is spying.

I'm sure you've seen evidence of that.

[uponit7771]

69. Then each person "spies" everyday just looking outside at crap

[limpyhobbler]

70. Collecting logs of everyone's calls, emails and websites = looking outside at crap...

lame

[uponit7771]

71. "logs" = hell yes, if that's all they're collecting by law that's equivalent of looking at people in

...a park.

But some are going to call it "spying" because some idiot said it was...

[limpyhobbler]

72. So you're saying everyone's phone and internet use is public information like something hanging on a

wall in a public place... like a park.

[uponit7771]

73. No, you said logs...I know the difference between "use" and logs like what IP address's a computer

...connects to, what level of file based incription they're using, if they're spoofing on a white supremacist web site...

All public

Someone looks at another person reading a book in a library is NOT spying...

at some point this crap get rediculous,

[limpyhobbler]

78. So you're saying everyone's phone & internet logs are public information like something hanging on

a wall in a public place... like a park.

[uponit7771]

84. The people sending the email don't own the switches, like people don't own the street they travel on

...people down own phone pbx's (if they're still used) just like people don't own hallways of private buildings they walk into.

Now, they do own the privacy in a bathroom stall for instance (the content of phone calls \ emails) because there's a reasonable expectation of privacy then.

The second I see PROOF (not what some stupid basher pundint says) that they're looking into the stalls or phone calls or emails then it's time to say enough.

People are in arms for very little

[limpyhobbler]

86. But there is a reasonable expectation of privacy with web browsing history.

Web browsing history is like bathroom stalls. Right?

[Recursion]

92. Not remotely

There's not even remotely an expectation of privacy in what web sites you visit. That information is sent unencrypted (even if the web traffic itself is encrypted) through dozens and sometimes hundreds of third parties' networks.

If you have been using the web unaware of that, consider this a valuable lesson.

[limpyhobbler]

97. This is nonsense. It would be completely illegal for a citizen hack in and read such logs.

Or to capture it in transit.

That's why routers (and traffic logs) on the public internet are locked down and have passwords.

If it were public info like you suggest then there would be a public login where anybody could log in and view traffic logs.

In fact if any employee at service provider were to copy such logs and publish them publicly, he would be fired immediately.

This information is far from public.

Some people who work in the infrastructure have access to it. Others would be accessing it illegally.

Just like some people who work at the bank have access to your transaction info.

[Recursion]

98. Those routers are run by citizens

I look at my routers' logs all the time, and since I run BGP and peer with my upstreams I get a lot of traffic between the two.

Your guess about what would happen if somebody published the info is wrong; MRTG reports are frequently made public.

[limpyhobbler]

99. No, internet routers are run by organizations. Companies, governments, universities.

MRTG is SNMP right?

1) You can't access a device that way unless you have a password.
2) You're probably talking about summary information, not full logs.

Your router logs are your own, but if you are providing transit service for IP packets(which you probably do not), and you make your traffic logs public information, you won't be providing transit for much longer. Nobody would do business with you.

You could choose to publicly publish it, assuming you have no contractual obligation with your customers or peers not to do so. That would be like a bank choosing to publish all their customers' bank transactions if they had no contractual obligation not to do so.

Let's take phone numbers as a good example.

You would claim there is no expectation of privacy for people's phone call logs.

Yet everyone would be angry if their phone company publicly published their call logs.

That anger, that right there, is the thing that clues us in to whether people expect privacy in their phone call logs.

[Recursion]

91. Very much so. If you don't know that, you need to learn it.

The routing of Internet and telephony data is done by other people, in cleartext, and you have no reason to think, ever, that they are obliged to keep it secret.

[jeff47]

134. Except they aren't doing that.

According to everything that Greenwald and Snowden have released so far, there is no email or website collection on US persons without a warrant.

Phonecall metadata is being collected, but under current law that doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the phone companies. Can't really claim it's a violation of privacy when you don't own the data. Not to mention the phone companies have been selling that metadata for years.

There are email and website collection programs on non-US persons. But they have no Constitutional rights.

[limpyhobbler]

136. 1) A warrant that covers everyone is illegal and unconstitutional.

Despite the President's claim that it is legal, nothing authorizes it.



2) Metadata belongs to the phone companies. They can turn it over to the government if they want, and then I can switch phone companies. But what we have here is the government requiring the phone companies to give up all records.

There are email and website collection programs on non-US persons.

Too bad email collection also goes on against US persons and the government claims they don't even need a warrant for it.

[jeff47]

138. There isn't a warrant that covers everyone.

There's specific warrants that cover each phone company, and requires those companies to turn over the metadata they have collected.

Metadata belongs to the phone companies. They can turn it over to the government if they want, and then I can switch phone companies. But what we have here is the government requiring the phone companies to give up all records.

That would be the specific warrants, yes.

Too bad email collection also goes on against US persons and the government claims they don't even need a warrant for it.

Ok, and where's the evidence of such warrantless collection? Even the documents discussing the "within-three-hops" gathering discuss protections to prevent gathering on US persons.

[limpyhobbler]

139. Warrants that require collection of data of millions of people not suspected of any crime...

are illegal and unconstitutional.

The leaked FISA warrant we saw for Verizon, for example, is an illegal and unconstitutional warrant.


See also http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.htm

[jeff47]

151. Only if that was those people's data.

The data doesn't belong to those people. It's the phone company's business records, according to the SCOTUS. And I really don't think you want to head down the road of letting giant corporations hide their business records.

And your link leads to "page not found". But I presume it will be another person claiming the data belongs to those millions of people, when it doesn't.

[Rex]

66. I think that is why they call it spying.

Unless you are joking.

[Silent3]

77. By that reasoning, you're always being spied on no matter what

Even if there weren't an Edward Snowden or any NSA revelations, that reasoning would mean a lack of evidence simply means the spies are doing an even better job of spying.

[Rex]

82. Not at all, that is what good spying is.

Doesn't mean they care about you or I. Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are still not out to get you.

[on point]

83. It's one one of those open your eyes experiences, not close your eyes and imagine

[hobbit709]

85. Some people don't look very hard.

[AppleBottom]

87. very patriotic, don't let the enemies of the state win, fight terrorism

[hootinholler]

88. Here: Jewel V. NSA

https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

It also includes declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence, including secret government documents recently published in the Guardian and Washington Post that confirm our allegations. Two of the most critical documents directly reference the “upstream” collection of communications from fiber optic cables and the domestic telephone records collection program, which was subsequently confirmed by the government in June, 2013.

Links at link because I know how you lurve linkys

[ProSense]

100. That's it? A 2008 case? n/t

[hootinholler]

102. Thanks for confirming

That you don't actually look at links others provide you.

[ProSense]

104. I looked at the link. Is that all you have because

it's not evidence of spying on Americans by the Obama administration. Evidently, you're unaware of what you posted.

Who is bringing the Jewel v. NSA lawsuit?

The lawsuit is brought by five people. The plaintiffs are ordinary Americans who all use AT&T as their communications provider, some for phone, some for internet. They bring some of their claims as individuals and others on behalf of all AT&T customers.

Who is being sued?

The lawsuit is against the United States Government itself, a number of government agencies, as well as a number of current and former agency officials who participated in or ordered the illegal surveillance. The claims on behalf of all AT&T customers seek a declaration that the surveillance is illegal and an injunction to stop it, while the individual plaintiffs also seek damages against all the defendants (except for the President, who the courts have ruled has absolute immunity against civil damages claims). The specific defendants are the United States, the National Security Agency, the Department of Justice, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorneys General Alberto Gonzales and John D. Ashcroft, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, and former DNI John Negroponte.

<...>

Why didn't you sue the government until 2008?

In 2006, suing AT&T looked like the fastest way to halt the illegal surveillance. Unfortunately, Congress interfered with the judicial process in our case by granting immunity to telecoms that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. In response, we are opening up a new front in this battle. Our top priority is to stop the ongoing illegal surveillance as soon as possible, and to hold those responsible for the program to account

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/faq

[hootinholler]

109. Picking Cherries are we?

Funny that there are more cases. Yes, Jewel is over shrimpy's program, but there's another case over more recent actions of this administration.

First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA

At the heart of First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA is the bulk telephone records collection program that was confirmed by the publication of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in June of 2013. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) further confirmed that this formerly secret document was authentic, and part of a broader program to collect all major telecommunications customers’ call history. The order demands wholesale collection of every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other “identifying information” for every phone and call for all customers of Verizon for a period of three months. Government officials further confirmed that this was just one of series of orders issued on a rolling basis since at least 2006. First Unitarian v. NSA argues that this spying violates the First Amendment, which protects the freedom to associate and express political views as a group.

Essentially this suit is against the same practices that date to Jewel, which recently was allowed to proceed because of Snowden's disclosures.

The timing of your reply to me above is interesting.

[ProSense]

111. Evidently, you are. Again, where is the evidence?

You posted different link to about a first amendment challenge to the collection of metadata.

Our goal is to highlight one of the most important ways that the government collection of telephone records is unconstitutional: it violates the First Amendment right of association. When the government gets access to the phone records of political and activist organizations and their members, it knows who is talking to whom, when, and for how long. This so-called “metadata,” especially when collected in bulk and aggregated, tracks the associations of these organizations. After all, if the government knows that you call the Unitarian Church or Calguns or People for the American Way or Students for Sensible Drug Policy regularly, it has a very good indication that you are a member and it certainly knows that you associate regularly. The law has long recognized that government access to associations can create a chilling effect—people are less likely to associate with organizations when they know the government is watching and when the government can track their associations.

<...>

How does this case compare to Jewel v. NSA?

This case is a companion case to our long pending one, Jewel v. NSA, where the court—in July 2013—rejected the government’s claim of state secrets privilege. The Jewel case also addresses the phone records collection, but on behalf of individual AT&T customers in a class action. It also includes the claims of direct access by the NSA to the Internet content and records of our communications carried on the fiberoptic cables of AT&T. Those were first revealed by Mark Klein and recently confirmed in the secret NSA slides released by the Guardian and the Washington Post.

Why such strange bedfellows?

The First Amendment especially is designed to protect people in their associations without regard to what those associations are doing, so it’s not surprising that groups from across the political spectrum and whose focus is on a range of issues, some of which may conflict, all agree on the need for the protections of the First Amendment against government access to the records of who they associate with, when, for how long and at what frequency.

[hootinholler]

112. Bless your heart

How about here?

[ProSense]

116. You're

linking to the EFF timeline?

That's not evidence there has been domestic spying by this administration. That's a collection of all the things I alluded to in the OP.

In fact, the closest thing to any violation is this from July 2012.

Government Admits NSA Spying Violated Constitution

Jul 20

The Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the nation's intelligence agencies, admits in a letter to Senator Ron Wyden that on "at least one occasion" the FISA court found that “minimization procedures” used by the government while conducting surveillance under FISA was “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

Greenwald's own report indicated that the minimization procedures were strict.

[jeff47]

137. Again, you need evidence of spying on US persons

for it to be what Greenwald and Snowden are claiming.

Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

Yeah, it's not like San Francisco has a fiberoptic cable running off into the Pacific or anything. So clearly all communications there would be domestic, right?

Oh wait....

It also includes declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence, including secret government documents recently published in the Guardian and Washington Post that confirm our allegations.

Yet even with that mountain, they still didn't manage to produce a document showing spying on US persons.

Two of the most critical documents directly reference the “upstream” collection of communications from fiber optic cables

Because all fiberoptic cables run entirely within the US.

Oh wait....

the domestic telephone records collection program

Not our data. It isn't an invasion of your privacy when you don't own the data. And when the people who do own that data got your permission to sell it years ago, and have been selling it. You did read all that fine print from your phone company, right?

Again, there's people making claims, and there's a mountain of evidence of spying on non-US persons. The problem is the claims are of spying on US persons. And there hasn't been anything leaked to document that.

[hootinholler]

141. Um, there were are 2 programs

One targeted the communications and the other the metadata. Both continued into the current administration with (I'm assuming) enhancements and the blessing of Congress and retro active immunity to the phone companies.

That aside, they indeed do have evidence, page 9 is interesting.

[jeff47]

150. By my count, there's about 8 programs.

The problem is only 1 collected information related to US persons - the metadata program. And again, not our information under current law, so we don't get to restrict it.

All the other programs collected on non-US persons. Page 9 says the same thing. You'll note they were careful to include "information from telephone switches" with "Internet communications".

"information from telephone switches" is the metadata program.

Again, there's a mountain of evidence of spying on non-US persons. There a mountain of claims about spying on US persons. There's zero documents showing spying on US persons. If the EFF finds some through discovery, great - there will finally be something backing up those claims.

[markiv]

90. very true - and it's against the spyocratic oath, to do anything in secret

so i'm confident as well

[bowens43]

103. collecting and analyzing why are h is spying. Collecting it is abuse.

This isn't Obama's first lie, he's quite accomplished.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Uh, Why would the DEA have to perform "parallel construction" (read: Lie in court) to cover up

spying that didn't, actually, happen?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

[ProSense]

108. Because the

"Uh, Why would the DEA have to perform "parallel construction" (read: Lie in court) to cover up spying that didn't, actually, happen?"

...original story was inaccurate hype. See the correction at the end of the piece:

Correction: This piece originally described the information provided to the DEA as “Section 702 phone records,” but the Reuters report doesn’t specifically identify the type of information shared. The article has been edited accordingly.

Here is the correction in the text:

The report makes no explicit connection between the DEA and the earlier NSA bulk phone surveillance uncovered by former Booz Allen Hamilton contractor Edward Snowden. In other words, we don’t know for sure if the DEA’s Special Operations Division is getting its tips from the same database that’s been the subject of multiple congressional hearings in recent months. We just know that a special outfit within DEA sometimes gets tips from the NSA.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. The DEA is getting tips from the NSA and the DEA is covering it up in court. That's obvious.

And if the evidence was legitimately obtained, they wouldn't need to do that- especially because if it comes to light, it jeopardizes the entire case.

There's just no way to polish this turd. Sorry.

FWIW, I don't blame Obama for this OR the Drug War, although first thing he needs to do is tell his AG to stop sending SWAT Teams into Medical Marijuana states to arrest and harass sick people.

But those of us who've been saying for YEARS that the entire "War On Terror" was going to translate into a blank check for LEOs to do what they've wanted to do since forever- namely, subvert the "pesky" aspects of the constitution- have been proven right.



Again.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.

At this point, there are a lot more questions than answers about what Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Hanni Fakhoury has dubbed the DEA’s “intelligence laundering” operation. Here are three big ones: How far does all this go? Where does it stop?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/07/nsa-data-was-supposed-to-make-the-deas-job-easier-instead-it-makes-prosecutors-jobs-harder/

http://americablog.com/2013/08/dea-using-nsa-data-then-lying-about-it.html

[ProSense]

118. The DEA program has nothing to do with the NSA

The SOD is not evidence that the NSA is spying on Americans.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. That's absurd. It obviously has to do with the NSA.

There's nothing in the WaPo "correction" that says that, either. Saying there's no evidence that it has anything to do with the specific stuff Snowden has revealed is not the same as saying "it has nothing to do with the NSA".

[ProSense]

122. No,

"That's absurd. It obviously has to do with the NSA."

...it doesn't.

How DEA program differs from recent NSA revelations

By John Shiffman

WASHINGTON | Mon Aug 5, 2013 5:16am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former spy-agency contractor Edward Snowden has caused a fierce debate over civil liberties and national-security needs by disclosing details of secret U.S. government surveillance programs.

Reuters has uncovered previously unreported details about a separate program, run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, that extends well beyond intelligence gathering. Its use, legal experts say, raises fundamental questions about whether the government is concealing information used to investigate and help build criminal cases against American citizens.

The DEA program is run by a secretive unit called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Here is how NSA efforts exposed by Snowden differ from the activities of the SOD:

Purpose of the programs

NSA: To use electronic surveillance to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation catch terrorists, the U.S. military fight wars, and the Central Intelligence Agency collect intelligence about foreign governments.

SOD: To help the DEA and other law enforcement agents launch criminal investigations of drug dealers, money launderers and other common criminals, including Americans. The unit also handles global narco-terrorism cases.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-nsa-idUSBRE9740AI20130805

[Warren DeMontague]

148. Pah. Did you even -read- the rest of that?

SOD: The SOD forwards tips gleaned from NSA intercepts

How you get "doesn't have anything to do with the NSA" from that, is completely beyond me.

[otohara]

107. So That's Why I Haven't Been Arrested

for posting on DU.


I'm more worried about the Disability Police in Tea Land deeming me not
disabled enough and getting shot by some asshole with a gun.

[MrMickeysMom]

110. Sec 702 of the FISA Amendment Act...

Gives permission for (the secret back door)... to conduct searches on law abiding citizens....

I'm the secret "back door man"... (civilian's don't know it but the spooks understand!)

While you're surfing... I'm making my midnight "peep"... Yup!

The lawyers don't know, but the secret judges understand...

[RetroLounge]

113. Well, thank fucking god!

RL

[krispos42]

114. Nor will you.

The NSA finds out something illegally, they tell the FBI, the FBI finds a way to legally find out the information they already know.

"Acting on an anonymous tip...", etc.

[Turbineguy]

115. Shhhhh! Don't tell anybody.

you'll get bannished.

Bannished, bannished bannished! I'm getting a new tucker-inner!

[dipsydoodle]

121. Semantics

If GSHQ in the UK, and doubtless others too, do the work on behalf of the NSA then technically the NSA have not done the spying.

[ProSense]

125. I think I found that evidence

A thorough debunking of my claim: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023447813

[dipsydoodle]

147. I should've said

I think that may be semantics. I don't believe anybody really know what's going on here.

[hobbit709]

123. Hard to see when your eyes are closed.

[unblock]

126. well nixon didn't spy and didn't lie so i guess it's ok for our government to have toys like this.

our entire constitution and bill of rights is based on trusting the government to do the right thing, after all, right?

right?

[liberal N proud]

127. You would think that if Snowden had something, it would be evidence of that very thing

Wouldn't you?

But as of yet, there has been nothing from him proving it.

Only those who are absolutely certain in their minds that this must be true.

[The Second Stone]

135. What would you accept as evidence?

There are four NSA whistle blowers and now a White House aide that claim there is inappropriate spying. You are free to reject that as evidence.

However, it is not a crime to make up a bunch of lies about the government, even if you had top security clearance. If everything Snowden is saying is a lie, he is merely engaging in the writing of fiction, which is not at all chargeable as spying. Nor is it civilly actionable as defamation because you cannot defame the government. You can infer from the complete freak out from D.C. powers that be that Snowden isn't merely some ex-NSA employee now writing fiction. Ian Flemming was not hunted by MI6 because he was writing fiction. Official D.C. is freaking out because Snowden is outing them, and by the way the less famous whistleblowers who didn't flee the country largely confirm it. Welcome to the United Stasi of America. But at least it protects us from terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing. Not.

[bravenak]

140. I know.

Neither have I.

[CakeGrrl]

142. There is none, and there's one easy way to tell:

Because if ANY illegality could be linked to the President, then HE (to hell with Pere Snowden's claim) would be "under the White House" faster than you could say 'Paul Revere'.

[stonecutter357]

146. K&R

[Lancero]

152. Same with Birthers...

"I still haven't seen any evidence of Obama having a Birth Certificate"

You could be waving it right under their face, and they will still dismiss it as a fake, all the while saying that the Hawaiian newspaper that announced his birth was apart of a multi-decade conspiracy to put a black muslim socialist into power.

[WinkyDink]

153. Then why does Obama think Snowden is a traitor?

[Egnever]

157. Because he revealed the scope of our foreign survielance

pretty straightforward.

[WinkyDink]

162. "Spy vs. Spy."

[markiv]

161. i saw you pose for a photo during your research

[ProSense]

164. I'm not white or that young, but it's an interesting attempt at a personal attack. n/t

[markiv]

165. it was an opinion and observation

a valid one, i think

[ProSense]

166. A silly photo is your "opinion"?

Good to know.

[markiv]

167. a picture is worth a thousand words

i think that pic says it all

so what's your story, should you care to share? an intern for the party, or web site?

[David Krout]

168. I disagree

With your assessment.