So NOW the excuse is "Obama was going to discuss this all along, Snowden has nothing to do with it!"

[Logical]

And if you believe that spin, I assume you believe that there are still Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq!

Snowden caused this new urgency of discussion. No doubt about it. Unless you are really gullible, you know it!

Obama announces proposals to reform NSA surveillance

Obama touts NSA surveillance reforms to quell growing unease over programs

Obama Touts NSA Reforms: 'America Is Not Interested in Spying on Ordinary People'

THE N.S.A.’S DIRTY DISHES: OBAMA’S PRESS CONFERENCE

Apple, Google and AT&T meet Obama to discuss NSA surveillance concerns

Obama sets plans to improve privacy in NSA surveillance

Obama's NSA Conference Could Be Subtitled 'The Guardian Gets Results'

Obama Promises Reform of NSA Spying, But the Devil Will Be in the Details

[woo me with science]

1. It's an absurd claim.

But we are in the realm now of

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
and
2 + 2 = 5

[Logical]

3. So true!! n-t

[Maedhros]

18. You should add "Obama is Liberal" to that list [n/t]

[ZombieHorde]

4. Although your claim is very reasonable, in my opinion,

we don't really know for sure.

[randome]

5. He did announce a review back in May. I'm sure that Snowden had an impact, too.

It's quite easy to hold those two ideas in one's head at the same time.

Try it. You may be surprised.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

6. I see zero evidence. He is how long in his **second** term?

Seriously exactly what do you think he intended to reveal and when?

[randome]

8. Once more: he announced a review in May, before the world knew of Snowden.

I'm sure Snowden 'encouraged' that process to continue and probably sped it up as well.

(Damnit, why can't we have spell-check on the subject lines?)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[dkf]

9. Hell he set up a privacy board years ago that never convened. You can point to that too as evidence

Lol. CYA at best since he knows he is in egregious violation of his oath of office.

[elehhhhna]

15. he is as much a bs'er as any pezzy in recent memory

which means everyone since Carter

[Aerows]

69. OT-but I agree

We need spell check in the subject lines. Heaven knows I'm the queen of typos.

[morningfog]

28. You would know about two ideas in one's head at the same time.

It's called double thought.

[JimDandy]

32. A review of what exactly. Inquiring minds want to google.

Or you could simply provide a link, as you have been asserting this new meme in numerous post.

[Rex]

33. Here ya go. They should have picked a different month!

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-23/politics/39467399_1_war-and-peace-cold-war-civil-war

His speech was about drones and the closing of Gitmo...something that Congress will never do. UNLESS it was another speech in May. I will not hold my breath.

[JimDandy]

39. I saw that speech with the heckler. No way did Obama

talk about loss of privacy, metadata collection, transparency about spying on all Americans, or revising the Patriot Act in that speech.

When someone like the above posts a brand new meme numerous times on DU but with no links to back what they are asserting, the info almost always turns out to be a turd. If he has something he should post the link.

[Rex]

40. I agree and cannot find another May speech.

I just take what is given to me and when someone puts out a claim without backing, I will go out and try and find support or lack of. In this case it seems not to exist at all and the poster doesn't seem willing to find it for us.

Why is that?

[randome]

46. No memes, sorry to disappoint you.

But it's possible I was mistaken about that May review. The President says he called for a review in May but the speech referred to did not mention it.

So I will stop referencing that unless I find something more specific.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JimDandy]

48. Thank you for your gracious reply.

[randome]

51. And for your reply to my reply.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

49. The transcript you linked to did not include this.

But this one does.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-barack-obama

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

Not sure which transcript is accurate. But it's not quite what I envisioned so I will, as I said, stop making that claim.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

71. Whatever his intentions were, and they may have been excellent, the progress

would have been slow, we would have heard of 'Republican Obstructionism' etc and years would go by before, or even if anything happened. These programs are far too lucrative to be given up lightly.

Snowden or someone like him, as Ellsberg said, was NECESSARY.

[Rex]

72. True they might have been the best intentions.

I also noticed that the Feds are right back to dealing with Booz Allen...so it is very, VERY hard for me to take anything they say at face value.

Right back to their failed business model...BUT things are changing...yesirreeebob.

[dkf]

7. Someone should do a poll so we can determine who the most gullible suckers on the board are.

[Scurrilous]

10. What's with all the blue links?

[SMC22307]

11. They don't lead back to Logical OPs.

Big difference. I'll actually read these links, rather than view them as Charlie Brown teacher "wa wa wa" that I've completely tuned out.

I'll play along!:

[Cha]

12. they just like to whine about ProSense.. and personally insult her. It's bad

when she does it. Anyone else is okay. And, so what some are to OPs that relate to the point? Anything to insult and try to stifle her information.

[Scurrilous]

21. And her crime?

Defending the administration on Democraticunderground.

Oh, the humanity!!

[Cha]

41. lol Yes, invaluable information that I appreciate..

I remember when she was a Kerry supporter and I was for Dean. Yow!

[sheshe2]

83. Yikes~

Defending the administration on Democraticunderground.

Oh the shame What was ProSense thinking!

Thanks Scurrilous~

[Logical]

36. I just wanted to see how fucking easy it was to google stories and link to them. It is mindless.....

work really. I assumed it was but just wanted to test the theory.

[randome]

50. You could spend your time a little more productively, IMO.

Once you start obsessing over DUers, it may be time to take a break.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

53. I am obsessed with the truth about the NSA. Lying pisses me off. n-t

[Cha]

79. One would hope he could spend his time more productively.

Obsessions over other people are not healthy.. online or off.

[zeemike]

38. And has become a victim to some

Oh the poor dear...a martyred saint in the ILOVEPBO protection brigade.
Oh the humanity!

[Marr]

60. I'm sure you see the difference between posting links to external, relevant info...

and posting links to your own (often completely unrelated) threads.

[ProSense]

62. This is simply an absurd argument.

Linking back to an existing thread allows a debate to continue, access to opinions on the topic, and avoids the repeated posting of the article(s), and the threads always contain the external links.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023441222

It's simply bullshit deflection to focus on links, and even more ridiculous to focus on the color of the links. Anyone pretending (I hope it's pretense) that this is a problem that requires the level of obsession demonstrated by the constant discussion of links, appears to be more interested in deflection.

[Marr]

66. I'm not focussing on links themselves-- that's my point.

It's your use of those links that I find troublesome. You misdirect, inviting readers to spend time reading information that often has no relevance to the subject at hand. You post links to your own threads in other peoples' threads on the same topic, rather than simply engaging the topic where you found it.

There's nothing wrong with links in themselves. The problem is using them to derail or divert discussion.

[ProSense]

74. Yes, you are, and

I'm not focussing on links themselves-- that's my point.

It's your use of those links that I find troublesome. You misdirect, inviting readers to spend time reading information that often has no relevance to the subject at hand. You post links to your own threads in other peoples' threads on the same topic, rather than simply engaging the topic where you found it.

There's nothing wrong with links in themselves. The problem is using them to derail or divert discussion.

...that's simply inaccurate. Also, there is a lot of hypocrisy among those complaining about links and making that argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338992#post14

[Marr]

77. Don't tell me what I'm saying.

My problem, once more, is your particular use of links-- not links themselves.

[Mojorabbit]

94. It is the unvarnished truth. nt

[Mojorabbit]

91. The op's links do not link to previous posts from the op

which have nothing to do with the conversation at hand and that is the big difference.

[PSPS]

13. Was that Obama's famous "let's abolish the bill of rights" speech everyone was talking about?

[Maedhros]

22. This?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/06/07/president-obama-you-cant-have-100-security-and-also-then-have-100-privacy-and-0-inconvenience

"You Can't Have 100% Security, and Also Then Have 100% Privacy and 0 Inconvenience." - Barack Obama

I wouldn't quite call that "abolishing the Bill of Rights", but it's certainly on the other end of the spectrum from:

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Benjamin Franklin

The indefinite detention clauses of the NDAA, the article 215 provisions of the renewed Patriot Act and the President's claimed authority to execute U.S. citizens without due process come much closer to abolishing the Bill of Rights.

[PSPS]

35. I was being sarcastic

Obama would never admit he is both breaking the law and violating his oath of office. Crooks always profess their innocence.

But your examples pretty much amount to the same thing. Ignoring the 4th amendment (part of the bill of rights) is what is being done here, all apparently without any fear or remorse. It's all about how to spin it through Obama, his people, or the state/corporate media. But that's life in america now where criminals are coddled and glorified, and the treasury is shoveled into the pockets of political cronies and "contributors" like the banksters, who also get a pass on their lawlessness.

[moondust]

14. Nobody knows.

It very well might have taken place in Senate and House chambers rather than in the glare and hysteria of 24/7 media and anonymous Internet bloggers--with or without Republican cooperation, which may still be the case. I didn't see any Republican co-sponsors of the Blumenthal/Wyden/Udall bill. In fact, Republicans are just as likely to double down on the tools of authoritarianism. Peter King called the Obama speech "another apology tour."

Obama acknowledged yesterday that the discussion needs to happen in this "new age" (of ubiquitous electronic communications), so he clearly does understand the fundamental need to address privacy issues in this environment, as do Wyden, Udall, et al.

[truebluegreen]

81. Previous debates did not and could not take place

in "Senate and House chambers" because very few Senators or House members were in on the secret proceedings. And all of them were prohibited from informing their other colleagues, or aides, or consulting with attorneys...they couldn't even take notes.

It ain't about Republican obstructionism in Congress. It's about what the Executive branch has been up to--and the Judiciary--with the law the legislature gave them.

Thank Dog for the glare and hysteria of 24/7 media and anonymous Internet bloggers, because nothing would be happening without them, or without Snowden's whistleblowing in the first place.

[cantbeserious]

16. Amazing To See The Ostrich Effect Demonstrated Daily

eom

[Recursion]

17. The fact that he made a major speech about it in May doesn't do anything for you?

Nothing at all? Really?

[JimDandy]

42. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy?

Otherwise please provide a link or more info so we can google this "major speech about it in May".

[Recursion]

45. It's hardly his fault you don't pay attention

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986695

That's one of the many OPs on it. Read the speech. He called for an end to the AUMF and tighter restrictions on intel. It was all over the news. Did you really miss it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. Are we talking about the same thing here? I just read every word of that speech and I didn't see

a single word referring to the NSA or meta-data or any mention of privacy concerns at all.

Not sure what your point is?

[JimDandy]

54. Massive FAIL! A speech on drones is NOT

a speech on the government being more transparent about the secret FISA court orders, nor does it speak to ameliorating our loss of privacy due to the NSA's collecting massive metadata on every American citizen.

Obama never spoke of those things in May prior to Snowden revealing that info to the media.

It is YOUR fault that you either aren't paying attention, or you are deliberately misrepresenting this speech.

ETA: In fact, on May 26, Obama did just the opposite by renewing, for four more years, the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act (see snappyturtle's post #31 below).

[Rex]

59. It was never about accuracy or fairness in reporting for some.

They keep moving the goal posts until there is no field left.

[JimDandy]

61. Yes. The intellectual dishonesty of that post is breathtaking.

I have found a couple things of the 'Snowden naysayers' with which I agree, but the above type of post is why I find it difficult to keep reading posts by some of them.

[Rex]

19. What do you expect? They have nothing.

The May speech was on drones, but they are so desperate now that it is pathetically funny to watch them play CYA. I knew it had nothing to do with fairness and accuracy. And so did you.

What do you think will be their next biggest cop out?

[ProSense]

23. The OP is nonsense. n/t

[Rex]

26. And your name is ProSense.

nt.

[Logical]

37. I honored you by posting 8 blue links to stories that I liked. I wanted to see how much....

effort it took to mindlessly link to stories that I agree with. It took 3 minutes.

So it gave me some insight to your process.

[Marr]

64. I just realized what it reminds me of.

I once watched a performance by a band that had a lead singer who could not keep a beat. Kept changing tempo, and the poor rhythm section was desperately trying to keep up.

The Obama Administration seems like it can't decide what song it wants to play, and their drummers are all over the map trying to anticipate.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. BESIDES, NO ONE IS SPYING ON AMERICANS, REMEMBER?????

[Rex]

25. No no no...Obama is NOT spying on Americans!

As for the ABC agencies...ya spying like crazy!

[Maedhros]

27. That's completely inaccurate.

"Dangerous Suspect is separated from society at minimal cost to taxpayers."

MIMIMAL COST? Hardly. We need a platoon of paramilitary goons in full battle-rattle and armed to the teeth with the latest weaponry. That ain't cheap. They probably also need an armored car and a squadron of drones.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Locking Daniel Chong in a room for 5 days with no food or water, so he had to drink his own urine to

survive, only ended up costing the taxpayers $4 Million dollars, silly! (Not counting administrative costs)

To bust a guy for smoking a bowl? A BARGAIN!

[Enthusiast]

24. The President was

not going to discuss reforming NSA surveillance. What a load of bullshit. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Rex]

29. They have an answer for every embarrassing thing that pops up on the radar.

They cannot actually and factually stand that Snowden made some kind of difference in this. The May speech wasn't even about metadata or spying! It was about the use of drones in the War or Terror!

[snappyturtle]

31. All along? No, just the opposite.....

On May 26, 2011 the President signed (while in France) a four year extension of the Patriot Act to include: (article by John Nichols)

The three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and IRTPA give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the “thing” pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person‟s privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or the provision should be allowed to expire.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as “roving John Doe wiretap” provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called ‘lone wolf’ provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts, is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government’s investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. According to government testimony, this provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/158381/obama-takes-wrong-turn-civil-liberties-adopting-worse-patriot-act-stance-gop#axzz2bazPJU5n

[JimDandy]

47. Yes. If Obama had said this instead of John Nichols...

now that would have been a 'major speech in May'.

Thanks for posting that! It should help dispel the cheer squad's ridiculously mindless assertion that Obama was concerned in May about our loss of privacy due to the Patriot Act or lack of transparency about the secret FISA orders.

[snappyturtle]

57. Absolutely and thank you. All of this 'stuff' is being pushed out so

fast it's hard to get one's head around it. No one is more disappointed than
I am. We need to look at what has been and is being done....not just said. imho

[LittleBlue]

34. Ridiculous people claiming ridiculous things

It's verging on right-wing double think at this point.

[forestpath]

43. K&R

[WillyT]

44. K & R !!!

[Californeeway]

55. Is this about the NSA or proving that Snowden is Awesome

and that Obama -or anyone who questions Snowden is a dumb asshole?

the trollishness of it is palpable.

[JimDandy]

75. No it's about the new (false) assertion,

by some on this board, that the Obama administration's new website addressing American's concerns about lack of transparency regarding the NSA's collecting of our metadata, and proposed reviews in the future of secret FISA court orders, was not due in large part to Snowden's revealations.

Instead, they have been saying that, on May 23rd, prior to Snowden's revealations to the media, Obama gave a speech on the government's need to be more transparent. That speech was about drone intel and had nothing to do with metadata or secret FISA court orders.

In fact, Obama did just the opposite of calling for transparency when he renewed provisions of the Patriot Act on May 26th (see post #31 below).

[AverageJoe90]

56. To be truthful, this is actually true from what it can be seen.

Obama really would have addressed this at some point. All Snowden did was move the timetable, and at a really bad moment, too.....why did he choose the dates that he did? There was a major summit with Russia going on and yet, here he was, the loser with no life who somehow got lucky enough to become an official NSA person with very few credentials whatsoever.....

And not to mention that most of this stuff was happening during the Bush administration, too.....this isn't new, folks, never was.

[Th1onein]

85. Which are those on the list?

Let's see......

Number one: It's nothing new. Bush did it.
Number five: Snowden is bad. Spying good.

[AverageJoe90]

87. Here's the problem: Number 1 is actually true and number 5 is a strawman.

Care to try again?

[Th1onein]

89. Nope. You're wrong.

Number one is PARTIALLY true. And Obama promised that he would curtail this program; instead of expanding it. And expand it, he did. At least under Bush, the program had to be SPECIFIC, but we lost all of that. Look at the FISA warrant--it demands ALL of the data; not just some related to specific targets, ALL OF IT.

And, if number five is a strawman, it's YOUR strawman, baby. Own it.

[hughee99]

58. Why were they going to discuss it anyway, it's all legal, and for your own safety, and old news,

and a breach of national security? Oh, and no one is doing it at all.

[Rex]

63. THIS is what gets me the most!!!

It IS all legal! Why would you want to restructure something, when no laws have been broken!?! I think this ONE point really gets ignored when it is convenient and brought up when it is needed.

[hughee99]

65. As long as the government tries to give the people the least untruthful answers possible

I'm sure some people can eventually come to be okay with it. I'm not one of them.

[Rex]

68. I agree completely, they started with Clapper lying to Congress.

Well it probably started way before that, but really they should be able to be adults and come out and say they fucked up and are working on fixing the problem created during the Bush Era.

[Union Scribe]

78. Lol. That about sums it up. nt

[Life Long Dem]

67. Obama was already on it before Snowden came around.

In 2012 Obama signed new whistleblower protections into law.

The law, known as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, expands protections for federal workers who blow the whistle on misconduct, fraud and illegality.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/11/27/obama-signs-whistleblower-protection-bill-into-law/

During Barack Obama's Friday afternoon press conference, in response to a question about NSA leaker Edward Snowden, the president told NBC's Chuck Todd the following: "As I said in my opening remarks, I called for a thorough review of surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden."

What Obama said just a few minutes earlier was:

I called for a thorough review of our operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference, and I think the American peoples’ preferences would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/09/Will-media-fact-check-obama-nsa-reform-claim

[JoePhilly]

70. So wait ... it IS about Snowden again?

Its so tough to keep up.

[Marr]

73. Did that make sense in your head when you posted it?

It's fairly obvious the OP was referring to the information brought to light by Snowden.

"Making it about Snowden" tends to refer to things like pictures of his girlfriend, questions of motive, etc.

[JoePhilly]

82. So apparently, if one says that they think ...

Snowden committed a crime ... that's unfairly making it "about Snowden".

But him credit and demanding others ignore the criminal aspects of what he did, that's ok.

You said ...

"Making it about Snowden" tends to refer to things like pictures of his girlfriend, questions of motive, etc.

Trying to examine his motives, and how those might cause him to edit what was released, or even change how it is characterized ... or even lie about his abilities while at BA to make the perception much scarier than the reality ... that's out of bounds.

Which is my point. Its only about Snowden when his fans want it to be. Like in the OP.

[bowens43]

76. This president is bad joke.......

[Logical]

80. A fucking Dem doing this shit. That is what is so disappointing. n-t

[Safetykitten]

84. This below...no comment.

[Logical]

86. Don't get it. Nt

[Progressive dog]

88. Yup, Bob McDonnell got us discussing vaginal probes, too. nt

[QC]

90. I meant to do that.

[DirkGently]

92. It's the very last fallback position.

After the denials. After the character smears of both Snowden and Greenwald. After the spinning on what the NSA docs said or didn't say. After the attempts to minimize "metadata." After the attempts to say it's all old news. After the attempts to say it's all legal because FISA. After the attempts to say terrorist threats were being thwarted left and right. After the abuse of the terms "patriot" and "traitor."

After all of that, they are left with, "But we were JUST about to fix anyway."

Good.

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. not only was he planning to reform the whole thing all along - there is nothing wrong with it that

had not reformed already - thus we don't need any reforms. So in other words it is already reformed and he was planning to reform it.