face it: Snowden/Greenwald forced Obama's/NSA's hand, and built real power to change things

[nashville_brook]

It's the holy grail of political activism.

How do you get people to listen to you?
How do you move your targets?
How do you build power?

Snowden saw an important, frightening issue that he felt he could affect, and he did something about it.

Greenwald, as an advocate journalist and lawyer, has analyzed the material and distributed it with clear, compelling narratives.

And, it's had an effect.

This is speaking truth to power. This shows that everyone, no matter if it's just one person with a decent friend, can change things. Never doubt every one of us has the power to do this.

We've heard for years about how "there's nothing you can do" ...until... there's a democratic president. Or House. Or, if ALEC didn't exist. Or...if if if...anything but our current situation.

This is a respite from cynicism. This is how things can happen. In terms of strategy and tactics it's been efficient and powerful. It required a hero to pull it off, but it also proved that heroes actually exist. That's pretty cool right there.

Who knows how it's going to shake out. Who knows what lies in the hearts of men. But we all can see with our own eyes that this is what democracy looks like.

[woo me with science]

1. Hear, hear!

Thank you for this encouraging post.

[Bigmack]

2. ditto ditto ditto

Snowden be a HERO of mine! Ms. Bigmack

[nashville_brook]

28. just a moment's reflection :)

it's truly a remarkable thing that's happened.

[PSPS]

3. All well and good, but...

You say, "this is what democracy looks like." No, this isn't what democracy looks like. This is what an authoritarian surveillance police state looks like. If congress were to put a stop to this, I would agree with you. But with the racist teabaggers in control of the House, nothing will be done. And with congress thoroughly corrupted, nothing will be done. And we can't rely on Obama to do anything about it (which he could) beyond yet another meaningless speech with empty rhetoric or another one of his insultingly condescending admonitions to "eat our peas."

No, I'm afraid the ship has sailed on our "democracy." But feel free to get back to me if I'm wrong and this rogue administration is brought to heel.

[nashville_brook]

92. building power with people is what democracy looks like.

[backscatter712]

4. In before the swarm! n/t

[backscatter712]

5. K&R! Maybe finally our country will put the brakes on the creepy police state shit. n/t

[nashville_brook]

84. one thing is for sure,

there's more people, with more power behind them, than there were a few months ago.

[Raksha]

101. You are right about that.

Thank you for this thread, and for the much-needed realistic encouragement. It's been in very short supply lately.

[nashville_brook]

112. always good to take a moment and realize how far you've come :)

it's gobsmacking that POTUS is saying that he was already fixing this. no one thinks that.

we expect better of this administration than that. or... we did, at least.

[tularetom]

6. I hope things will change

Whatever one may think of Snowwald, they did bring the issue out into the open. Now only those in complete denial believe we're not living in a surveillance state.

But I'm afraid that all it will force Obama to do is to be even more opaque and secretive with the government snooping.

And it isn't just Obama, any president would do the same thing. The technology exists, so it must be utilized to keep us complacent and afraid. If they build it, the feds will use it.

[nashville_brook]

85. we're fighting for adherence to a robust legal framework that is policed and fair.

it's not an unreasonable expectation if this Constitution of our is to be taken seriously at all.

[Rex]

7. No way, the POTUS teleported back to 2011

and told that POTUS to mention new regulations and oversight over the NSA before May 2013. He then zipped into the near future and saved the world from the 2012 apocalypse, the secret alternative one.

[nashville_brook]

114. he should have teleported back to 2009

[DirkGently]

132. Who IS that guy? I like him. n/t

[nashville_brook]

134. he's been a stranger around these parts lately.

[AverageJoe90]

8. Snowden didn't do shit, Nashville.....

Other than rearrange the timetable, and in a way that hurt the Administration, at that. Not to mention that Snowden's intentions were anything but pure.....

[nashville_brook]

29. the administration can decide for themselves how much this will hurt them

by deciding how married they are to domestic surveillance.

[AverageJoe90]

96. "the administration can decide for themselves how much this will hurt them". I wish that were true..

Believe me, I do. But the cat's already been let outta the bag, and it came just as an important international summit is being held; in fact, my question is, if Snowden truly HAD been genuinely concerned(which I don't believe he ever was), wouldn't he have waited until all this was over, AND pointed out the fact that Bush/Cheney started this shit? But he didn't, did he? Nope, he did neither of those things.

[sabrina 1]

52. From my reading of Snowden's motives, and from those for whom I have respect who've

been where he is now, his motives are as pure as we are ever going to get. Ellsberg calls him 'the man we've been waiting for, for 40 years'. I know WE'VE been waiting for over a decade with no hope in sight even AFTER we WON.

If there was a timetable, we sure weren't privy to it. Same old, same old. We get some hope, then years go by, five going on six now and instead of reigning in the Surveillance state, it just got worse.

Crumbs is what we get. IF Obama really wants what he claims he wants, now is his chance. STOP talking about Snowden, instead talk about Ron Wyden, talk TO him. Talk about Bush's dangerous policies, jump on the growing bandwagon NOW before it's too late.

But from our perspective, we saw the NDDA, the Patriot Act renewed, secret this, secret that, secret 'kill lists', secret courts, secret warrants etc etc.

But we the people, had zero input. Nor did our Progressive Reps in Congress.

Someone had to force their hands, and Snowden has done it. However, we have been here before. And my fear is that Obama did what he did yesterday, to try to delay the Bills being prepared by Congress to begin the process of reigning all this in.

They should go ahead and not be dissuaded. And he can join them. It is their duty.

[nashville_brook]

88. "The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. The way to make it accountable,

is to make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they are being made, and whether their interests are being well served."

[AverageJoe90]

95. I'm afraid you've been terribly misled, TBH

Because I've looked into this man extensively as well; and from what I can see, his motives are anything BUT pure.....at the very least, he was certainly someone's useful idiot, and uncaring about anyone who may have been put in jeopardy by his actions.

Sabrina, I've liked you personally for a long time, I'll be honest; and I still do. But I'm afraid you've just been totally hoodwinked by this guy, and misled by those in the media who rushed to his side without thinking real well(such as Glenn Greenwald).

[sabrina 1]

104. That's your opinion. I, unlike you, have been 'looking into these ISSUES pretty extensively

over the past DECADE, and I know this, the Surveillance State's motives have been ANYTHING but pure. Eg, Snowden, to my knowledge did not lie this country into a devasting, murderous war, nor did he use 'National Security' to take away anyone's Constitutional Rights.

This guy is not who influenced me. He's just a messenger telling us something we have known needed to be dealt with ever since Bush and his gang of War Criminals began this whole, tragic era in our history.

Long before I ever heard of Snowden, my opinions on all of this were exactly the same. All he has managed to do is to get the attention for them that so far, no one else has been able to do.

Frankly I don't care what he does in his personal life. There are very few 'pure' people in this world, all heroes have flaws, some more than others.

What I am grateful for is that finally, people like Ron Wyden and all the other Dems who tried to do something about the decline of this country, now have the platform they needed for so long.

I like you too, Joe, no problem, people disagree from time to time, I don't mind that and it doesn't change my mind about them, as a person.

[nashville_brook]

105. "I've looked into this man extensively" -- really?

This post takes the condescending and supercilious tone that the vice principal might use on the straight-A student when she's caught smoking a joint at the bus stop.

[nashville_brook]

123. but please tell us how Snowden is a BAH/Trilateral Commission plant secretly working for the Bushes

[randome]

9. Democracy looks like stealing stuff?

Running to hide after saying "I am not here to hide from justice." Really?

After claiming that 'direct access' meant the NSA is 'watching our thoughts form as we type'?

We're finally getting the change we wanted and you can't put your weight behind that? You'd rather keep the focus on Snowden. I suppose it's always easier to complain than it is to work through the nitty-gritty of policy specifics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[classof56]

11. +1000

[raindaddy]

23. The focus is on Snowden.....

The focus is on Snowden because he exposed the survalance state that Bush started and Obama improved upon.
Of course he's no hero to Obama because traditionaly if you have a D behind your name the idea of partnering with corporations to spy on the people you,re supposed to be representing goes against what the party once stood for.

[randome]

50. He didn't expose anything. He made claims with no evidence to back them up with.

He did start a conversation. It's too bad he ruined his life, the lives of his family and fiance and put national security at risk in order to do that.

But let's move on. What kind of meaningful changes do you want to see at the NSA? Or is it that now that you have what you wanted -a chance to see more transparency and less secrecy- you really have no idea what you want to do. Are you going to squander this opportunity?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

57. You either don't know how to read the slides he released, or you are willfully blind.

He didn't expose anything. He made claims with no evidence to back them up with.

I guess you don't care whether your hyperbole is so extreme that no one takes you seriously anymore. Is the point to simply condemn Snowden and to disagree with anything positive that's written about him here - objection for it's own sake? Your statement is just absurd.

[randome]

59. What slides? Like PRISM and 'direct access'?

He didn't even understand that PRISM is a database, not a program. And that 'direct access' referred to secure FTP servers.

But again, what specific, real changes do you want to see in the NSA? Or do you want to see any changes?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

62. PRISM is a database of databases - a system. The slide reads "collection directly from the servers"

(Green box at bottom) Read it.

It's not Snowden or Greenwald's interpretation - it's marked on the NSA's own training slide:



Are you so zealous as to be willfully blind or just misrepresenting facts?

[randome]

65. 'Directly from' the secure FTP servers these companies set up for information obtained via warrant.

Or do you think every telecom in the country is lying to you, too?

And these are briefing documents, not technical documents. They purposely condense everything down to bullet points. That's all PowerPoint is useful for.

It's evidence of nothing. Now what changes do you want to see at the NSA?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

71. That's your interpretation based upon the defense offered by the corporations.

I think corporations lie to us every day. It's part of their business model.

If there's imprecision in that phrase, that makes it a poor briefing document, not a liar of those who released it.

We have only just begun to understand how NSA works with other US agencies and intelligence services around the world to watch and profile the American people without warrants. We don't have all the facts yet. It's a bit premature to come up with the final list of changes needed, and the changes offered so far don't even begin to start to make the necessary reforms to restore the 4th Amendment.

[Mojorabbit]

86. The poster has had it explained in detail to him multiple times in multiple posts

It is just a way to derail the thread is my guess. You can see this same response from him in a large number of threads.

[Raksha]

102. It sure looks that way.

Re "Is the point to simply condemn Snowden and to disagree with anything positive that's written about him here - objection for it's own sake?"

[rhett o rick]

76. If he had no evidence like you say, how did he give the Chinese secrets? You cant argue that

Snowden has no evidence and that Snowden is compromising the NSA. You would be much more creditiable if you discussed issues other than disparaging Snowden.

[randome]

103. Why do you keep asking this question?

Snowden had no evidence to substantiate his claims. He did have evidence about what computers the NSA was hacking into and showed this evidence to Chinese journalists.

I apologize for hijacking this thread last night but it's very dismaying to see threads pop up that want to do nothing but play 'power politics'.

The entire debate, as evidenced by this OP, comes down to this:
"Our side is on top now!"
"No, our side is!"

Power politics. No one has any suggestions for real change. I don't think some of us want change. Because that would take away the ability to constantly complain.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

124. that you see this as an "our side/their side" struggle, says more about your orientation

than it does about anything else.

it's really very simple -- the U.S. government needs to stop spying on Americans.

[rhett o rick]

128. Because you continue to make up schtuff. You've been wrong since day one.

Your incessant ad hominem attacks on Snowden and Greenwald are getting a little old and arent really distracting from the facts that the NSA is spying on Americans. Why are you are obsessed with making the distraction?

I am interested in a reasonable balance between safety and freedom. We need intelligence agencies but they need oversight. I would think this is straight forward. So why are so many trying to distract from that? Since I cant get a straight answer, I will have to guess:

> If we deny that the NSA is overstepping their bounds, then they arent.

> The authoritarians among us actually prefer safety to freedom.

> Some are using this issue to disrupt.

> Choosing to blindly support the President is righteous.

[nashville_brook]

131. spot on.

> If we deny that the NSA is overstepping their bounds, then they arent.

> The authoritarians among us actually prefer safety to freedom.

> Some are using this issue to disrupt.

> Choosing to blindly support the President is righteous.

[raindaddy]

77. Right, meetings with lawmakers materlized out of thin air.

Snowden's unsubstantiated speculations were enough to light a fire under Democratic leadership's asses. Obama suddenly is all about serious conversations and he's open to ideas. Mr. Snowden must be one powerful mf lighting such a fire under so many asses with no evidence.

Let's begin with an investigation of the secret rubber stamping FISA court system, who are they really representing? Let's have a serious conversation about why we're allowing terrorists who supposedly "hated our freedoms" to be the major excuse for taking them away!

Just curious randome do you feel less safe after Snowden "failed to expose anything." If he didn't expose anything and had no evidence how did he place national security at risk?

[nashville_brook]

111. the fallacy of last resort

when all else fails, demand that random internet users solve geopolitical problems or else forfeit the right to have an opinion on the subject.

[DirkGently]

136. I also love the "They were JUST about to fix it all ...!" fallback.

[nashville_brook]

137. ...just about to fix it and when along came a perfect opportunity to fix it

and still unable to fix it.

[appal_jack]

153. You want meaningful changes? Here are some meaningful changes...

You want meaningful changes? Here are some meaningful changes.

From henceforth, all NSA operations will function under the following restrictions:

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It's not up to me (or any American) to devise solutions above and beyond this. The Constitution is already the Supreme Law of the Land. It's up to our government to abide by and uphold these laws. People who do otherwise are the real traitors.

-app

[Civilization2]

25. lol really,. last week it was all a lie and snowden made it all up, according to your posts,.

Now we just need to support the pres. and "work through the nitty-gritty of policy specifics" ?

So which is is? is it no longer "all lies and without proof" since the pres. has admit some of it and moved to "reform" the pogrom of out sourcing to corporate big-intel for the police-states prol surveillance needs?

I am confused, your talking points are all a jumble ,. lier or "nitty-gritty of policy specifics" ???

[randome]

42. Snowden's ridiculous claims were not a lie. They were just stupid claims.

The NSA is not 'vacuuming up the Internet'. The NSA is not 'watching our thoughts form as we type'.

He could not 'spy on anyone' armed with only an email address.

He had no evidence of any of that. The best thing to come of this, however, is more transparency and less secrecy.

Yet now that we've arrived at that point, no one wants to take the ball and run with it. Too many want to still complain and use hyperbole to simply whine about how 'rotten' the system is.

This is the chance to push for real changes. Now what changes do we want to see?

Do you still want to hyperventilate about who is right and who is wrong or do you want to effect meaningful change?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

107. Turns out there's an app for that -- XKeyscore

The NSA boasts in training materials that XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight.

The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10. "I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials (and many DUers) vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

[DirkGently]

140. The iceberg continues to be revealed.

I suspect that's behind part of this sudden onset of conscientiousness. Metadata dragnets may be the most benign tool of the new surveillance state. I think we're seeing movement now in hopes of quieting things down before even nastier bits and pieces come to light.

[nashville_brook]

34. who is stealing whose stuff, really?

looks like the government has been stealing data for quite some time.

if you see something, say something.

[randome]

45. What are you on about? The NSA is prohibited from spying on American citizens.

You have evidence to the contrary, present it. Otherwise, I think the best course of action is to use the window of opportunity we have to effect meaningful change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

54. You mean like a secret FISA court ruling that PRISM violates the 4th Amendment?

Here you go.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/06/14/eff_lawsuit_may_force_government_to_release_some_secret_info_on_unlawful.html

On Wednesday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rejected an ongoing attempt by the Justice Department to prevent the release of a classified 2011 FISC opinion detailing unlawful surveillance. The existence of the opinion was first disclosed last year by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who revealed that there was at least one case in which the FISC had found the government conducted spying that had circumvented the law and was “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” which is supposed to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.

Prompted by Wyden’s statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched an effort obtain a copy of the FISC opinion through Freedom of Information Act litigation. But the case hit a roadblock when the government claimed an obscure rule prevented it from releasing the opinion, even if it wanted to, because publication would have to be first approved by the FISC judge who authored it. This led EFF to take up the case with the FISC directly, filing a motion asking for the disclosure to be authorized.

That's not counting Clapper's "not wittingly" lie. Or the revelation that the standard the NSA has adopted to avoid targeting domestic sources is "51% certainty."

Come on.

Stop playing dumb. Snowden forced the administration's hand here. He did you a service, whatever obfuscation you want to pile on it.

[randome]

60. You don't get it still. Snowden is gone. He's irrelevant. He chose to hide in Russia.

Here is the opportunity to effect real change and you STILL want to talk about Snowden.

Fine. I'll try putting words in your mouth. You mention the secret FISA court. It should be more open. There is a need for some secrecy but why can't they release all the details after an event?

Does that sound good to you? What else? Any ideas?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

67. I believe the OP's focus is on the impact of Snowden's leaks.

I understand you'd like to move on to another topic less humiliating for the administration now forced to announce policy changes in the wake of those leaks.

However, the particular point at hand is the value of those leaks, and the situation we find ourselves in as a society where government secrecy has been created such that oversight appears impossible short of leaks such as these, which have been condemned, in these very pages as traitorous, cowardly, and worthless.

None of that is true.

Do YOU get it, yet?

[randome]

70. And I understand you want to keep the focus on Obama.

Because that's easier than trying to articulate specific changes you want to see at the NSA. I'm willing to leave both Snowden and Obama out of the conversation for now.

What specific changes do you want to see at the NSA?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

109. the focus is on building power to affect change,

but your focus since this started was on how this affects Obama, rather than us as Americans.

[randome]

63. I don't see any mention of PRISM being part of the ruling.

It talks about 'one case'. PRISM is a database of information so I doubt that had anything to do with the court's findings.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

66. More at the link. It's a ruling on 702. Upon which PRISM is based.

The secret opinion’s existence has taken on new significance this month, as leaked documents published by the Guardian and the Washington Post revealed previously clandestine surveillance programs operated by the NSA. The NSA system code-named PRISM is particularly relevant here. PRISM operates under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s section 702, a controversial 2008 amendment that sets out how the government can spy on “persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” PRISM monitors communications sent using the services of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and other tech firms. This surveillance is targeted specifically at foreigners, but it can in some cases “incidentally” sweep up Americans' communications.

[randome]

72. I don't understand why the Guardian article mentions PRISM.

They failed to show that it has anything to do with the FISA court's ruling. They are guessing it might but it's just a guess.

Probably because it's a secret ruling! And it should not be.

And Wyden's characterizing of the ruling as 'one case' hardly sounds like a complete repudiation of PRISM.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

74. It's not the Guardian connecting the ruling to PRISM. It's the ruling that does that.

Here's the Electronic Frontier Foundation site, talking about the EFF's years' long struggle to get the ruling released:

In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program.

EFF filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act in August 2012, seeking disclosure of the FISC ruling. Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall revealed the existence of the opinion, which found that collection activities under FISA Section 702 "circumvented the spirit of the law” and violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. But, at the time, the Senators were not permitted to discuss the details publicly. Section 702 has taken on new importance this week, as it appears to form the basis for the extensive PRISM surveillance program reported recently in the Guardian and the Washington Post.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay

[nashville_brook]

108. oh silly me! there's LAWS against spying on americans ERGO

no spying on americans has ever or will ever take place!

[DirkGently]

58. That's what it looked like when Ellsberg did it. He hid too.

Do you contend he was a traitor, and the Pentagon Papers did democracy no good?

[randome]

61. Ellsberg had solid proof, the Pentagon Papers. Snowden had PowerPoint slides.

Slides that he and Greenwald misinterpreted. What changes do we want to see at the NSA?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

64. The NSA's Powerpoint slides, you mean. That the NSA claims don't mean

what was stated right on them, if you're referring to direct access to servers, anyway. That wasn't a "misinterpretation," by Greenwald or anyone else, given it was the exact statement on the NSA's own docs. The NSA simply claims part of its own documents are bullshit.

Which is of course entirely possible.

I have a feeling we're seeing this sudden lurch toward possible reform in part because the rabbit hole that's been opened goes a bit deeper than "metadata" and "51% certainty" and "not wittingly."

As for reform, a certain former Senator from Illinois once favored more public discussion of FISA rulings. There's a start. Perhaps the administration and DOJ will stop fighting the aforementioned effort to see exactly what went on in 2011 and how the PRISM Fourth Amendment violations have been "cured."

We need to more about what's going on before we can start draining this particular cesspool. That should be an interesting process, if it actually occurs.

If the NSA has nothing to hide, then it has nothing to fear, eh?

[randome]

69. Which means that neither Greenwald nor Snowden knew what they were talking about!

Do you really think every telecom in the country is lying to us, too?

Supposedly Snowden had all this superior technical knowledge and yet all he really knew was what he saw on NSA briefing documents.

For this, Snowden stole thousands of documents and fled the country?

Of course the NSA has things to hide. It's a goddamned spy agency!

But now we have momentum in the direction of more transparency and less secrecy so what specific changes do you want to see at the NSA?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

73. But Greenwald and Snowden DID know what they were talking about.

Again, I see that you would like to discuss something other than the very worthy subject embodied in the OP. But you need to back up a step. We are having this conversation because of leaks and investigative reporting, that lead to public pressure, that led to Congress and the President taking action.

It is too late to change the subject. The subject is that this form of action has pushed our democracy in a direction it needs to go.

If want to start a thread on your Top 10 Most Needed NSA Reforms, by all means do so. You start, as I suggested earlier, with Obama's proposal to make FISA rulings more transparent.

But that is another topic. This thread is about the Snowden story's contribution to the democratic process.

Would you say it was one of the most important leaks in recent years, or THE most important leak, for example?

[randome]

75. As far as leaks go, it was a pointless one.

As far as starting a conversation, Snowden did good. That does not excuse him for stealing national security documents and giving access to them to foreign sources. He broke the law and his leaks did nothing directly, only indirectly.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

115. and the fact that Snowden broke the law does not excuse the government from stealing our data

[ronnie624]

141. "...what specific changes do you want to see at the NSA?"

In no manner does terrorism threaten the 'national security' of the United States, so your question is irrelevant. The best way to reduce the already minuscule threat posed by terrorism, is through a reversal of foreign policies that seek strategic dominance and control over the world's resources and markets.

[sabrina 1]

106. Democracy looks like spying on all of your citizens??

[randome]

110. Spying is not the answer. Stealing and hiding in Russia is not the answer.

The answer is to get real changes made. But I hear very little talk about that. All I see are power politics like this OP, endless promotions of so-and-so over so-and-so instead of discussions about how to deal with this window of opportunity.

Here is Recursion's thread on changes we want to see. It's getting little attention, probably because it's focused on effecting real change instead of power politics.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023443255
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

113. that thread does nothing of the sort -- it's the same talking point you're putting forth here...

demand that internet users solve the whole problem of domestic spying or else forfeit the right to object to being spied on.

[DirkGently]

138. Reminds me of Bushies demanding we solve terrorism

... or agree to invading Iraq. You know, because we all must choose between horrific governmental abuses or "terrorism."

[morningfog]

116. Yes! Democracy is empowering the people with information!

Hear! Hear! To Snowden and Greenwald! And an extra cheer for Snowden out maneuvering the Adminsitration's ham handed and aggressive attempt to lock him up for the rest of his life. One more cheer to all those to follow Manning and Snowden in such non-violent civil disobedience. Information is power. It belongs to the people.

[JaneyVee]

10. It's not Obama's hand that needed forcing, he only signs/vetoes legislation.

It's congress' hand, and Snowden picked the wrong congress to fuck with. They aren't going to do shit about this.

[Mojorabbit]

87. He has all manner of things he can do to advance an agenda just like Bush did.

The house almost got something passed on the first pass. I am hoping for success on the second.

[nashville_brook]

133. are you of the mind that Obama has no power?

Why bother in having democratic presidents if they have no power to affect change?

[leftstreet]

12. DURec

[Californeeway]

13. yes we must conceed, Snowden is God

Obama is an asshole.

Congrats, this is the 5th of 6th post today saying the same exact thing. You guys sure have your talking points down considering how much time you spend calling other people "paid shills" and such.

What I don't understand is why is it so important for people to see him as a hero, to lionize him and insist that we take everything he says for the truth with no critical analysis.

There is something very suspicious about demands for blind faith in anything.

[Maedhros]

16. You are making a number of assertions that are not accurate.

Yes we must conceed [sic], Snowden is God Obama is an asshole.

The OP says neither of these things. You are conflating condemnation of the NSA program with condemnation of the President, which was not done in this OP.

...insist that we take everything he says for the truth with no critical analysis.

There has been an abundance of critical analysis by U.S. Senators, former intelligence sector whistleblowers, journalists, terrorism experts and tech sector experts. The consensus is that the program is troubling in the least, disastrous at the worst.

There is something very suspicious about demands for blind faith in anything.

Suggesting that persons critical of the NSA program are engaging in "blind faith" are likewise disingenuous. Snowden's revelations have been amply corroborated. Nobody is demanding "blind faith", but they are demanding good-faith arguments.

[Californeeway]

21. you are conflating two different things

Snowden worship with genuine concern for what's going on with the NSA.

If I find the sycophancy towards Snowden unbearable and see this unhealthy obsession with making Obama look dumb as counter-productive to Liberal goals in general, that does not somehow equate to total support for the NSA or any other government program that might infringe on the civil rights of citizens...Quiet the opposite and I think Snowden is intentionally misleading people about the programs in an act of pious fraud and when that becomes apparent it will damage to movement to check these programs.

And from what I've read, there is no consensus concerning the programs. Some people are calling it disastrous, some are saying that there are a number of safeguards that are being ignored by detractors, I tend to assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thus I support and expect reforms but refrain from drinking the Snowden cool-aid and calling America a police state, comparing Obama to the Stasi and other hyperbole that just makes all of us Liberals look dumb.

I can be concerned about the NSA and not trust Snowden at the same time.

and yes, Snowden supporters are demanding that we not question anything he says on threat of being labeled an authoritarian or a corporate sock puppet, on like pretty much every thread that touches on the subject. Choose to see that or not, it's staring us all in the face.

[DirkGently]

33. It is entirely up to Obama how dumb he looks.

I love this conceit that the administration's embarrassment is a product, not of its own failure to support reform of invasive domestic surveillance, but of the events that brought it to the public attention.

[Californeeway]

78. who said the administration is embarrassed?

Obama seemed more annoyed than embarrassed.

To say it again clearly. Too many Liberals are determined to make Obama look dumb, to discredit him, to convince Democrats in general to lose faith in him. I can sense clearly in many of the posts, this OP being a decent example, how emotionally invested people are in proving Obama wrong, proving him to be a liar, as an enemy to be fought against. How that advances Liberal policies, I don't know, but it does seem to help make Republican's jobs of stopping Liberal policies easier.

[burnodo]

100. Obama did. in his speech Friday.

The fact that you prefer to ignore that says much about you. Democrats seem to be more than capable of trashing liberal policies on their own.

[nashville_brook]

117. Obama is doing a fine job of managing his appearance...if he appears "dumb" or "discredited"

that's on him, not on those who want to reign this in.

the characterization of Obama being a "liar" and an "enemy" is yours. in a democratic republic we have a responsibility to fight for our own interests, and most of us see that struggle in realistic terms. we see the regulatory capture and we see whole armies of interests fighting against each other -- which is to say, this isn't about Obama.

[nashville_brook]

120. and let's talk about "losing faith" and "Liberal policies"

when democrats of good faith have total surveillance shoved at them, and told that they must accept this or else no "Liberal policies" for you, they tend to call bullshit.

nothing promotes 'lost faith' quite like exchanging liberty for security.

[Californeeway]

149. I can call bullshit too

because the president already backed reforms.

If you want reforms, he's your ally on that point.

If you are still looking for ways to be pissed off and blame the president for stealing your liberty or some other quixotic rebel-rousing formulation, I think that's kinda bullshit too. It's silly romanticism.

I think people have swallowed a lot of bad info and are believing it because it confirms their anti-government bias just a little too sweetly. The truth is not so rosy, but not as dire as people want it to be.

And I am sure, kneecapping the President and Democratic Party coming up on 2014 will do great things for the election. As though a Republican House and Senate and going to make reforms to the NSA more likely?

[DirkGently]

139. Oh stop it. Republicans love the NSA.

So that broken old line about criticism "helping the enemy" fails once again. It was Republicans siding WITH the Whitehouse that scuttled the Amash Amendment.

As for embarrassment vs. "annoyance," politicians don't announce policy changes over mere annoyance. Embarrassment poses a political threat, which is what gets things moving as it has done here.

[treestar]

51. Great post

They call us apologists for not supporting snowys acts. BLack and white thinking

[burnodo]

19. There's been a shit-ton of analysis that Snowden haters have ignored

and ZERO people have suggested Snowden is "god"

[AverageJoe90]

97. Unfortunately, my experience has been to the contrary.

If anything, it's Snowden's fan club & other supporters who've had a hard time accepting the analysis of the truth as it is: And it says that Snowden's intentions were definitely not as pure as they've been made out to be.....amongst other things.

[burnodo]

98. "The truth as it is"

You don't even hear yourself

[AverageJoe90]

99. Cool story, bro. =p n/t

[nashville_brook]

135. zomg! Snowden is a Bilderberger! I saw him at Bohemian Grove with Jeb Bush!!

[nashville_brook]

37. it's unfortunate that you feel a need to make this about Obama

it's not like he's down in the details of how every spying program works. lord knows there's too many of them for any one person to keep track of.

there's no blind faith involved in seeing how the law has been subverted. and that's pitiful talking point, anyway given that the information is out there. where the refutation? where's the lie?

and, what does any American have to gain by supporting this massive domestic spying program? just b/c there's a democratic president, are we to completely jettison our Constitution? really? What then when there's a republican in the White House?

[treestar]

53. And they will talk of blind faith in

Obama. Hey at least Obama is our elected president. Snow den was never elected to do anything.

[msongs]

14. he broke the law. he broke the law. rinse and repeat ad nauseum lol nt

[Life Long Dem]

15. Change is still to be seen

Obama can talk chained-cpi 24/7 and get nowhere.

[EC]

17. I seem to remember a speech about a month or so

before Snowdon, where President Obama spoke of reining in the military and intelligence complex. He asked Congress to review the Patriot Act and to pull back on much of the power. So why does Snowdon get credit? Maybe for forcing Congress, because we know that Obama asking the Congress to do something brings such great results. But I don't like the way people seem to be giving Snowdon all the credit and making Obama into a bad guy. He asked for the review to begin with. He was questioning it to begin with.

[nashville_brook]

38. Obama is quite capable of not being the bad guy here.

[burnodo]

18. K&R

[cantbeserious]

20. Yes - Well Said

eom

[TomClash]

22. I must have missed something

I haven't really noticed much change. The NSA and its subsidiaries seem to be churning on as always.

[nashville_brook]

130. indeed -- i didn't say that things had changed.

i said that we're in a better position today than a few months ago. that for the actions of one person things have the potential to change. it's a process of building power and re-aligning our congress to our interests rather than those of the surveillance state.

[TomClash]

147. I think I read well enough

"This shows that everyone, no matter if it's just one person with a decent friend, can change things. Never doubt every one of us has the power to do this."

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. They had already fixed the problem and they were already planning to fix it anyway

Unlike every government in the history of the world - political pressure is never required on this Administration to try to take the right action. In this case to rein in a vastly expanding surveillance state - Which does not need any reining in anyway because they already already did rein it in. But because in their infinite wisdom and in spite of their strong opposition to imposing restrictions on the NSA - which they had already fixed when they first came to office they were going to fix the whole problem that does not need fixing anyway and does not need any reining in. Anyone who can't see that is either a blind hater of Obama or a blind worshiper of Snowden and Greenwald.

[nashville_brook]

91. whew! dodged a bullet there! can you imagine how fucked we'd be if this wasn't fixed!

...and, i can't believe the haters who'd say that Obama doesn't stand behind an accountable and transparent government. jeezus! talk about condemning with faint praise.

[QC]

26. He is a ballerina-abandoner!

With boxes in his garage!

[Recursion]

27. Agreed. It also did real harm to our intel capabilities

Both of those statements are true.

[DirkGently]

31. Like what?

[Recursion]

32. Like telling the Chinese which computers of theirs we had compromised

That's a start.

[DirkGently]

35. Hadn't seen that. Evidence?

[Recursion]

36. Seriously?

You're kidding, right? That's the main reason calling him simply a whistleblower is ludicrous.

http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-says-us-targets-included-china-cell-phones-073119007.html

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china?page=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/edward-snowden-south-china-morning-post_n_3441250.html

[nashville_brook]

39. as if China didn't already know the United States was spying on them.

i'm sure they were shocked... SHOCKED to find out.

[Recursion]

40. Right, but he told them which computers in particular we had compromised

Or, at least, the South China Morning Post says he gave them that information.

[Downtown Hound]

145. Good for him. Fuck the NSA. n/t

[Egnever]

55. As if we weren't well aware of the NSA spying

I Was shocked shocked when this stuff started with snowden !

See how that works?

[DirkGently]

41. Are you serious? Those posts don't say what you claim.

1.

Snowden told the South China Morning Post that "the NSA does all kinds of things like hack Chinese cellphone companies to steal all of your SMS data." It added that Snowden said he had documents to support the hacking allegations, but the report did not identify the documents. It said he spoke to the paper in a June 12 interview.

Doesn't say anything about computers or anyone telling anyone which ones at all.

2.

In a frank hour-long interview, the 29-year-old, who US authorities have confirmed is now the subject of a criminal case, said he was neither a hero nor a traitor and that:

US National Security Agency’s controversial Prism programme extends to people and institutions in Hong Kong and mainland China;

Says PRISM extends to Hong Kong. Oh boy. The worldwide spying program extends to part of the world. Not what you claimed.

3.

In the hour-long interview, Snowden made a headline-grabbing claim -- that there have been 61,000 NSA hacking operations worldwide, including with targets in Hong Kong and mainland China –-

Same interview as the other two. Doesn't say what you claim.

You don't get to just make up any bullshit you want, throw some links down that say something else entirely and expect people to buy it.

We already have people here for that.

[Recursion]

44. OFFS.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowden-claims-evidence-shows-us-hacks-china/story?id=19384436

The (South China Morning) Post said Snowden provided documents, which the paper described as "unverified," that he said showed U.S. cyber operations targeting a Hong Kong university, public officials and students in the Chinese city. The paper said the documents also indicate hacking attacks targeting mainland Chinese targets, but did not reveal information about Chinese military systems.

He gave the Chinese media operational documents about our attempts to attack Chinese computers.

[DirkGently]

46. Same interview. One, unverified, vague claim. Nothing about damaging intel.

For fuck's sake yourself. You latched on to one vague report that doesn't even say what you say it does. You have no basis for the silly attitude of certainty or the sweeping claims of damage to intel operations.

[Recursion]

47. Well hell, it's no more vague than the claims he's made about spying on Americans

And that has people covering their houses in tinfoil.

Do you at least acknowledge that he did in fact give the Chinese media documents about our attacks on Chinese computers? Or do you only believe the parts of the story you like?

[nashville_brook]

89. There's nothing vague about how DHS and NSA are making a mockery of the law.

There's nothing vague about Clapper lying to Congress. There's nothing vague about the DEA using NSA information, hiding it in discovery and claiming "parallel" evidence in drug busts. There's nothing vague about mapping out every email, phone call and text message in the country. Nor is there anything vague about collecting the content of those communications for "future use."

Nothing vague about any of this.

[Downtown Hound]

148. I don't give a shit if he gave the Chinese everything

If Uncle Sammy wants my support, then stop spying on me and trying to scare me into supporting bullshit wars. My allegience to my government went out the window the minute they let Wall Street and Bush administration war criminals off the hook but doused OWS protesters with chemical weapons and rubber bullets.

[morningfog]

119. Our intel capabilities should be reigned in.

[Downtown Hound]

144. LOL. I'll file that one under, "WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?"

Our intellignece apparatus is out of control and has been for decades. And I'm long since done with listening to scare tactics about how I'm supposed to give up my privacy or civil liberties so the assholes in charge can protect me. If they want to protect me, they can do something about income inequality, global warming, and Wall Street instead of wasting time and lives invading Iraq.

[nashville_brook]

150. word.

[DirkGently]

30. +++ This IS what democracy looks like. n/t

[underthematrix]

43. Snowden has nothing to do with democracy

It is not a hero but it is very very expensive and I can definitely understand why the US government would want it back - unharmed.

[nashville_brook]

82. neener neener.

[treestar]

48. Democracy looks like the People deciding

Via their elected representatives.

[nashville_brook]

81. really? that's where your responsibility ends?

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. Exactly! That's how we got abolition, women's suffrage, the labor movement and the New Deal, ended

Jim Crow segregation and brought in civil rights, ended the Vietnam War and brought about more fairness for women and for LGBT people. Did ANY of those people ever create a big fuss or try to put pressure on good elected Democrats? NO! Of course not! Everyone just voted in the right people as their elected representatives and the rest took care of itself. I'm gobsmacked at how so many people here have not studied enough history to know that.

[AppleBottom]

49. HERO

Yeah I said it.

[nashville_brook]

90. he's a hero at a time when we thought heroes no longer existed.

that's 'triple word score' right there.

[gulliver]

56. Has there been change?

I don't see change happening or likely to happen.

[nashville_brook]

80. read what i wrote. it's about building power.

[limpyhobbler]

68. K&R

Very good. This is what democracy looks like.

Mass surveillance is what a police state looks like.

[nashville_brook]

79. if we've learned nothing else, it's that we're as vulnerable to Dems running those

as we are Repubs. Sad... but abundantly evident.

[WillyT]

83. K & R !!!

[marions ghost]

93. K&R

"real power to change things..."

[DCBob]

118. That is if you consider this a "frightening issue".

I don't.

[nashville_brook]

121. history of full of those who were unable to see "frightening issues"

We either have 4th Amendment protections or we don't. What side are you on?

[DCBob]

122. and history is also full of those making moutains out of mole hills.

I fully support the 4th amendment with exceptions for national security.

[nashville_brook]

125. then how do you square 4th Amendment protections with domestic spying?

[nashville_brook]

127. i fully support your right to free speech except for the stuff i don't agree with...

i'm sure you'll fully support the need to put you in jail for those 1st Amendment "exceptions."

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. I suspect even Stalin would have supported the right to privacy except when national security

was at stake. What authoritarian order in the history of the world did not justify its intrusions into human rights on the basis of national security?

[nashville_brook]

152. +1

[BlueStreak]

126. One person can change things -- but it may cost him his life.

Power doesn't give up easily.

[nashville_brook]

129. yup. that's where hero status comes from.

[Octafish]

142. ''This is what democracy looks like.''

In a democracy, it's: "We the People."

When secret laws passed by secret bodies interpreted by secret courts enforcing secret justice, it's something else.

[nashville_brook]

143. Cryptocracy = tyranny.

[Douglas Carpenter]

146. knr