General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSen. Al Franken: “I Assure You This Isn’t About Spying on the American People”
Noted far right nutjob (do I need a snark tag on that?) Sen. Al Franken says he was not surprised by the Greenwald/Snowden NSA revelations.
I think there should be enough transparency that the American people understand what is happening But I can assure you that this isnt about spying on the American people.
Franken, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, also said there are aspects of security programs that he should be aware of but the public should not.
There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know thats not appropriate for the bad guys to know, he said. Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so theres a line here, right? And theres a balance that has to be struck between the responsibility of the federal government to protect the American people and then peoples right to privacy. We have safeguards in place The American people cant know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know.
He said that the data the security agency has collected have kept Americans safe.
I have a high level of confidence, that it is used to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism, he said.
See the video at: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42112_Sen._Al_Franken-_I_Assure_You_This_Isnt_About_Spying_on_the_American_People
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)If so, then it will or already has been.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)then there are those, and always will be, who think they're above the law - and Washington is full of such people
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)we need it to be illegal to collect all of this data
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)for some it is only the possibility of being caught and prosecuted that prevents them from doing harm.
we are talking about how do we prevent the government from using their power to spy on people.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)So, yeah, it is the point.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)against us, you think it should be legal that she do so, and we should be protected by her moral grounding?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)by the worst people who will someday hold office. That's the problem right there.
What's more, is that it is only to a small degree dictated by the President. There is a career security establishment in place, a surveillance state with its own agendas, with pretty much no meaningful oversight of their activities. They're the people I believe are actually running things. You would find such people in the NSA, and the JCOS. Who is president might or might not mean much to those people. They might even control who gets to be president.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We're acting like it matters what laws are in place with these people. Clearly it doesn't. Pass all the laws you want ... it won't change anything. At least the Obama administration appears to be going about it as legally as possible. So, I don't know what else to say or accept or push. Who knows what other presidents have done with personal data. God knows what Hoover did at the FBI ... or what Nixon when he was president.
The thing is, just changing the laws won't change the crooks. They'll just find other means. So, I guess what I'm trying to say - we need to stop electing crooks.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)If it doesn't matter what laws are on the books, then we're locked in for an authoritarian future controlled by heartless profiteers. You might find that acceptable, or be resigned to the inevitability of it, or disagree with that statement altogether, but I'm certain that's where it leads.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Do you think this is the first we've had leaders spying on American citizens ... or at least leaders who had the capabilities to spy on American citizens? Hell, Hoover made it his livelihood.
That's why it's important you elect leaders who have the moral fortitude to do what is right. But honestly, do you think the law mattered to George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? Of course not.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Huge difference. Shocking that you would even claim it's the same ol' same ol'. It's the difference between a criminal with a slingshot and a criminal with nuclear weapons. The whole Total Information Awareness effort, using modern technology, is a beast not yet seen on this earth, nor should it ever be.
I don't think W. and Cheney always followed the law, but I think it did make a difference to them that they could someday be held accountable to those laws. That's why they went to all the trouble to have their hand-picked legal minds (such as Yoo) come up with legal justifications for their actions. And it's why they passed the Patriot Act. Your argument is empty, or worse.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But it's okay. Live in your fantasyland where presidents won't break the law in secret. It's never happened. Nope.
If you want a law on the book, urge the congress to repeal the Patriot Act and then set up laws banning it.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)And you're arguing against a claim I never made, nor would I, I have no idea where you came up with me not thinking presidents won't break the law in secret. I just don't agree that because someone might break a law that makes the law obsolete or unnecessary.
People can, and usually do, consider legality and consequences of their actions. If they break the law and we find out about it, we have some recourse. Without the law, we have none.
And I'm going to enjoy a DU without your presence. I don't like to use ignore but you've earned it by making false attribution to my claims and beliefs, then laughing at that false attribution. Bye.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Reagan really feared the law, didn't he?
C'mon now. Let's stop pretending there aren't Republicans who feel they're above the law. As Nixon said, "when the president does it, it it's not illegal..."
But like I said, urge Congress to repeal the Patriot Act and fight for them to ban the surveillance program. Make it illegal. Just don't bellyache when a President sidesteps the law.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and make a copy would you like it?
And if I go to all the mailboxes in the city and do the same thing and then scan the bills and put the scanned bills in a computer that can compile the information available from them about who talks to whom, how often and what phone calls are made within so many minutes of each call. And if I do that analysis on every phone call and every person. And if in addition to all that, I peruse transcripts (we get them from Vonage [Skype] in our e-mails for missed calls) of all your calls and e-mails for specific words like wedding or funeral or whatever code words the NSA is looking for that might be commonly used by Americans, then would you like that?
And why do you want perfect strangers having all this information about you?
And why would the NSA get a court order requiring Verizon to collect all that information if they weren't planning to use it?
To trust a Senator who is, granted very smart, but a comedian and not a former intelligence officer or a lawyer or an expert on surveillance or even a historian, to judge the wisdom of the FISA program is not wise in my view. I want to know the opinions of experts on surveillance past and present, the former intelligence officers, the lawyers for the whistleblowers in previous cases and those whistleblowers themselves. Franken's opinion after having sat through a propaganda (maybe even psy-ops or brainwashing) session presented by the administration and the perpetrators of the NSA program really is not persuasive to me at all.
Neither is Obama's self-serving "White Paper." Seen things like that. Don't trust them at all. Think about all the wonderful things that have been said about the Keystone Pipeline and the gas fracking. Good people must stay skeptical. Especially when it comes to protecting our basic freedom of privacy. We have no freedom at all if we compromise that basic one.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)In fact, I don't think your comparison makes much sense. Already, strangers have that information - it exists in data bases at companies that collect it for business reasons anyway. So, eh. Moreover, unless you can prove to me that my data has not only been collected, but read by some stranger (not just thrown into some massive data base), comparing it to one stranger coming up to my mailbox and reading my mail, or scanning it, doesn't work. It's not the same.
I'm pretty confident no one from the NSA has ever read an e-mail or checked my phone records.
frylock
(34,825 posts)how do you know that someone you recently talked to hasn't talked to someone on a watch list?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I also have confidence my mailman isn't reading my mail.
But I can't say without a doubt she isn't.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Private companies are going to use that information if they get it at all to try to make a profit from their products. They aren't going to use it to control our political speech. They will try to convince us to buy their products, but they won't try to convince us to start an illegal war or hate the people of another country or agree to waste money on more surveillance.
Private companies are somewhat controlled by their obligation to make money for their owners or shareholders. It isn't much solace when compared to the amount of information they have about us, but it is some.
When the government has this information, it can use it for purposes that destroy meaningful democratic government or even any illusion of meaningful democratic elections or government or decision-making.
And above all, when we say that the government has this information, what we really mean is that a tiny clique in the government, a clique that is part of and controls our domestic and foreign military power and legal power over people's lives here and around the world. They have that information. That information that I hypothetically took from your mailbox, and unlike private companies, they can easily access all your information, not just your phone bill but your electric bill, your charges at Walmart, everything that you have entrusted to electronic transmissions.
And that tiny clique has your information, all the details of your life in their possession. Maybe they won't use it. Maybe they will.
But what is unacceptable is having that much information on so many Americans in the hands, in the databases of so few. It is like the Middle Ages where you had to check in and out at a gate as you came in and went out of town. Your movements, that vacation in Maine, that call to your old high school boyfriend in Florida, the phone return you made to Verizon, the big bills you ran up talking to your son in Ireland? All of it is within the files of a small clique of people. Do they access all of it all the time? No. But it is within their discretion to access any or all of it at any time.
East Germany did not have the capacity to place their nation under surveillance that our NSA has, and yet they wreaked havoc in the lives of East Germans.
Giving the NSA the authority to acquire all this information is too great a temptation, too great a power for government. I'm no libertarian, but I do know a bit about history.
This is the most dangerous program I have ever heard of.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)that has our country in an inequality headlock is to the clique in
government to the general population.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Is it possible to make it so that you are physically unable to do so? No. It's not.
It is similarly impossible to make it so that the government does not have the technical ability to get your metadata and actual data. Hackers can do this. It's not possible to put the technology genie in the bottle when it comes to the internet.
So what will constrain the government from doing this?
The same things that constrain someone from opening their neighbors mail. A combination of morals and law.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)but it does make it much more difficult to reach in and steal someone's mail.
I no longer trust the morals of my government, and as for the law, it no longer seems to govern us. Look at what the mortgage companies and banks were able to pull off. Biggest heist in history. And how many mortgage company managers or bankers have been prosecuted? Very, very few compared to the amount of fraud and the size of the heist.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)"We have no freedom at all if we compromise on that basic one...
I hope every person here holds every legislative person, including Al Franken, to understanding what limit each power taken has on the rest of us. The intent of governmental powers, regardless of what positions and transitions they go through as our elected leaders is to do no harm to basic rights.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...that the ONLY thing keeping many people in check is fear of legal consequences and morality has little to do with it.
Indeed pretty much any time someone tries to talk about morality and law in the same sentence, it's because other people aren't "behaving right".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)6/10/13 1:52:52
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42112_Sen._Al_Franken-_I_Assure_You_This_Isnt_About_Spying_on_the_American_People
The article cited in this thread was written more recently since some of these recent sessions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325
Senator Franken's point of view appears to have evolved a little. He is now taking the administration and the NSA to task for lack of transparency.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They can definitely be used against the American people.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Physical proof of the use will very likely be available.
With use of parallel construction, any political foe could be taken out. There would not be any way to know it was NSA spying. And the whole, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bullshit - we all have skeletons in our closet that, with the correct spin, could be used to ruin our lives.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or something like that.
Not only "can it" be done in secret, it is done in secret fairly regularly, especially to people whose skin is somewhat browner than average. But saying "police have to be unarmed" is not an option.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)all of them have information or weapons that could be used against the American people. We could just disband the government. Good thinking, but the Libertarian-Republican-Anarchists beat you to it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)is, the technology exists to grab your phone records from your provider. The technology exists to listen to your conversations and hack into your emails.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent someone in the government from doing this. The only thing you can do is make it illegal where appropriate and put checks and balances where appropriate. The technology to eavesdrop and hack is not going to go away.
Response to PowerToThePeople (Reply #1)
Scuba This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If they weren't collecting it, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with this question.
Skraxx
(2,965 posts)Should we scrap the Postal System?
Any technology, any system can be used for nefarious purposes, that's why there's laws and oversight. What Franken is saying is that there is, in fact, oversight.
Now, is it truly sufficient? That's a good question, and worthy of debate.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Skraxx
(2,965 posts)Without a warrant. That's also a crime.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Skraxx
(2,965 posts)If you "believe" the earth is a cube, you'd be wrong. Feel free to "believe" whatever you want. You're still wrong, and it is a crime.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats
An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it's possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans' e-mail "without running afoul" of the Fourth Amendment. (CNET)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/
Skraxx
(2,965 posts)Do you deny that?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)read my above cnet link.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I do know that it is a crime to show certain things to citizens of foreign countries, as I have first hand experience in this. Is the collected data "top secret" or something? How is this data getting classified? I do not know. Do you? The closest thing to understanding the thoughts concerning this data (for me) would be the DOJ response linked above. This tells me that they consider it completely unclassified, open and available information.
edit- Even if it is a crime, where is the check and balance? Who is going to press charges? How will they know they need to press charges?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)The cat is out of the bag. There is not going to be any way to get it back into the bag. What we need is someone with some pull going to the public and letting them know that none of their digital communications are secure. They need to press to public to get all of their communications encrypted, secured from any prying eyes. We could also do this:
4th Amendment for the 21st century
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, digital footprint, 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.
digital footprint being any data of any form which can be associated with a citizen.
MADem
(135,425 posts)How do you prevent Russia and China from doing that?
Ask nicely?
It's a different paradigm, these days.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Is it "OK" if they do it?
And how are you gonna stop 'em?
markiv
(1,489 posts)lol
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)All that personal information COULD be misused (and in the hands of Republicans probably has)
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)fed into their system. I am aware of what they've been given. With the
NSA...not so much. And, they have much,much more than my financial
side of life. imho
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)But a different administration could pass a whole different set of laws, too. Whatever we do to make us "safer" under Obama could disappear quickly under a new Repub President. As long as we have computers and the internet, there will be the possibility of misuse.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)....and we gottah believe em dammit!!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)not tell lies. But they did it anyway. Now you want me to throw Snowden and Greenwald to the dogs, after you have proof that two public servants lied before Congress?
That bucket isn't going to hold any water.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)...and the question he got asked that he shouldn't have answered (told the guy to screw off would've been better)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)WHOM do you perceive as a basher and an idiot?
neverforget
(9,433 posts)If that's the one you're talking about, you think Clapper should have told Senator Wyden to screw off?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and therefore lied before the nation.
I have enough common sense to not believe people that lie to my face.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)eissa
(4,238 posts)Nothing should be classified. It's just another tactic by this tyrannical government to trash the Constitution.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)Laugh at all the people freaking out. Digital data is going to be collected, like it or not it's going to happen. They are (government, private companies), are going to stockpile information, the only way to stop collections is the usps and analog phone lines.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)That let me know all I needed to know about the man.
Many of the biggest Health Insurers have their headquarters in Minneapolis/St Paul. And Franken wanted their campaign monies.
The answer to the mystery: how is a funny guy from SNL going to get a seat in The Senate? was suddenly available.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)I'm instantly distrustful of anyone who invokes a nebulous "the bad guys" to justify government secrecy. For one thing, it's a license to keep doing it forever, because there are always bad guys of one sort of another in the world.
But the other is that it deprives the American people of things they might have an urgent need to know. If a dam upstream from you had structural weaknesses and the government kept that secret because "bad guys" could exploit the knowledge, would that be making you any safer? What about if there were safety violations at a nearby nuclear plant? And how many corporations would push to get their operations under the shield of government secrecy in order to avoid making necessary repairs or being liable for deaths and injuries if they did occur?
There's a very slippery slope here, and any line of argument which suggests that the American people can't be trusted to know about things which concern them spells death to the fundamental assumptions of democracy.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)people until he actually made a statement they couldn't twist to fit their story line.
Your argument seems to be that government should tell all secrets to the American people and let them decide what should be kept secret. I'm trying to figure out how that would work.
starroute
(12,977 posts)"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand."
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)Neither Jefferson nor the philosophers he got his ideas from were libertarians. Jefferson understood the importance and responsibilities of government.
This quote is about education, not about criminals disclosing secrets.
This quote doesn't say all information.
Remember, Jefferson SECRETLY negotiated the purchase of the Louisiana territory,
from Wikipedia
From John Locke on government and rights
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)but they are always a potential source of chatter, and for that we need to have strip searches of granny at airports and damnit we need to let the NSA secretly spend billions collecting our conversations and data through coercion of corporate entities or simply by turning on my laptop mic from a remote bunker in Utah. It really is for our own good. We want to be safe, right?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)IS amorphous these days. It's become a "fill in the blank" situation.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)Check your dailypaul for updates on Senators who are have joined the Obama conspiracy against your civil rights.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)before Congress will be truthful to Al Franken? He's a member of Congress.
Does common sense tell you to believe the least untruthful answer on a regular basis, or do you just call it what everyone else does, a lie?
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)before some random internet poster, especially one of the Al Franken was "right until today" people.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that politicians try to smooth things over and when the responsible people get called to Congress and stand up in front of them and lie, they will put the best face on it.
Note I haven't said Al Franken is wrong. I've said Al Franken has been lied to. As was admitted by Clapper and Alexander. Two people that supposedly were there to supposedly detail their activities, they lied about them.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I tend to see Franken as a pompous guy who thinks he knows more than those to whom his puppet strings are attached.
And he certainly thinks he is smarter than the rest of us mere plebes.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)disagree with me.
He already addressed that point, so he does know more than we do (it's pretty silly to think there is any point debating specific secrets in public)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)We know what "line" they mean.
The One Percent are on one side of that "line" and they are seeing to it that the eternal actual combat wars, and now the inside America-and-against American-citizens-who-might-be-terrorists- wars are funded, continually. So that the profits accrue to them.
And some of us have already remarked that if there ar e people in power who think that Snowden is a traitor, for what information he has allowed us plebes to understand, that tells us all we need to know.
To be a traitor means to assist the enemy. And the only entity that has been assisted by Snowden's leaks are The American Public.
So if he is a traitor, than we are the enemy, aren't we...
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)we can vote them out. For some reason we chose to re elect that NSA enabler Obama who ran against the guy funded by the one percent.
Yep, Snowden was chased out of the US by drones. They're still out to get him and anyone who supports him. You are very brave to post "THE TRUTH' on an internet board, because the GOVERNMENT is out to get those on the other side of the "line." Line is only used by the one percent.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and before Greenwald, activist/journalist/attention-seeker and Snowden, Russian defector.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And just for good measure, Fuck Rand Paul too.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)trying to masquerade as Democrats. They twisted Franken's earlier statements to make him seem to support the Snowden Greenwald claim that the Obama administration was illegally spying on the American people. Now they have to move Franken to the fool, dupe, or freedom hater category, along with President Obama.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)I'm with Frankin & Obama. Ron Paul & Rand Paul - and those who support them - should be anathema to Democrats, liberals and progressives.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and Darth Cheney on the other
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589521/dick-cheney-defends-nsa-surveillance-programs/
I'm with Jimmy Carter.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)I was mocking some of the libertarian t-party garbage I keep seeing posted here. I would assume any real Democrat would agree with us.
I posted this in response to one of the
I posted this on the subthread
before some random internet poster, especially one of the Al Franken was "right until today" people.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)I thought so.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)Democrats who post the Snowden/Greenwald crap from there.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)since those that brief him have already been proven to lie before Congress.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that could be offered.
Now I don't know about you, but what do you think about "the least untruthful answer"?
"Where is my money? :least untruthful answer: "I don't have it on me." (it's in a secret safety deposit box).
markiv
(1,489 posts)funny how this has thrown cold water on the 'cloud computing' fad
who'da thunk putting all your data through a public trafficway would be a security/privacy risk?
the stupidity of IT continues to amaze me
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)But according to Franken the point isn't spying. It's...er.... something else and also bad guys.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Franken also sold his principles to support SOPA and PIPA.
This is what systemic corruption and a purchased system reap.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)leftstreet
(36,078 posts)wut?
+1
markiv
(1,489 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)anything for power
i just wish he were playing it on SNL, instead of inside the capitol
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)... now that the public demand for transparency and privacy protections have been heard. so much has happened between then and now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)not be trapped forever into a position taken in the very early stages of the revelations.
There's a hard core of DUers on whom I have pretty much abandoned hope, but Franken's evolution is noteworthy and his current position diverges dramatically from the position he took in early June!
I note the OP has pretty much abandoned the thread, not deeming your observations worthy of comment. That in itself is noteworthy.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)In the article you cite, Al was angered by how slow certain declassifications had gone:
In the June piece, he says pretty noncontroversial truisms about the need for secrecy regarding certain government activities, because what the public knows the terrorists will know as well. Nothing in the July article suggests he now believes the NSA is spying on Americans. He just appears angry that the ODNI did not move fast enough to declassify studies regarding the program, doing it just before the hearing he needed them for apparently.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Thanks for making me laugh, Senator...
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Some of them don't seem so bad. Especially the kids.
RC
(25,592 posts)So that makes it alright.
We'll never know, because they are now dead. But it sure improves the surviving kids chances of growing up to be "Bad Guys", and that is the whole purpose. To make new terrorist so we can continue the War on Terrorism forever. USA USA Ra Ra Ra!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What are the safeguards?
Why are there secret laws and interpretations?
Knowing what the law is does not endanger the American people.
This quote is especially disturbing:
Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so theres a line here, right?
RC
(25,592 posts)[center][h3]WE ARE THE ENEMY![/h3][/center]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Al Franken isn't defending NSA surveillance anymore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325
intaglio
(8,170 posts)have turned against one of the most outstanding Senators in Congress
They have decided - against the evidence - that the NSA actions were illegal and unConstitutional.
They have decided that the USA is now so bad that the GOP can have complete control and that that will bring on the revolution.
Awww - Didums.
Let us know when you have finished your temper tantrums.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I always considered him to be a smart, resourceful and progressive man.
But now I think he has drunk the Kool-Aid and bought the t-shirt. He believes the crap they are feeding him.
Such a shame for someone I thought was going to be a game-changer. He is still a progressive on so many issues but his attitude on unconstitutional spying surprises me. Perhaps he was offered a summer home, etc. in exchange for treason. I don't know.
SleeplessinSoCal
(8,994 posts)Truly, think about this. Terror tactics being used as opposed to an army invasion by a nation. How would we have fought that?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)The link you offer does not discuss that position.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)He made similar remarks after this whole affair was exposed initially.
It doesn't MATTER who the targets are. There are things known as judicial WARRANTS. There is a 4th AMENDMENT.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)for non US citizens. So ya it kind of matters who the targets are.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Snowden has worked in the reality of the program and presented the everyday abuses that are inherent in it.
I like Franken very much, but he is under tremendous pressure to approve this program. He does not want to be responsible should the program be ended and we have terrorist attacks. But look, the program was fully functioning and we had terrorist attacks at the Boston Marathon. So the program did not deter foreign terrorists.
Why do they need Verizon to safeguard all its billing records if they aren't targeting Americans?
Same for the other telecoms that mostly serve American phones. I don't think that terrorists are likely to communicate via AOL or Verizon, so why does the NSA want access to those records.
Sounds to me like Franken has been handed a bowl of watery soup.
So, Senator Franken, how many records of American communications does the NSA collect in an average month?
How much metadata on Americans does the NSA collect in a month?
Those are among the facts that I want to know because I have heard some horrendous numbers. Is Franken saying that Wyden has been exaggerating his concern about the programs?
Something does not make sense.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)I dunno...Barack Obama? I could see him laying back at first due to his "comedian" fame...but now? He seems to have left his nerve back at SNL. He certainly isn't channeling the late, great Paul Wellstone, although he certainly evoked him enough. I'd actually like to see him tangle with Bill O'Reilly now. The Republican party is stuffed with outspoken people, even though most are idiots. Democrats need to get loud and proud, it being nearly impossible for them to sound as ignorant as the Repugs. Otherwise, I guess the idea that the Democrats are throwing the fight for Wall Street makes perfect sense.
lastlib
(22,981 posts)Do we need to say any more about this??
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Those who had "hair on fire" should now apply extinguisher.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)The difference is, some of us are not paranoid and know they are after us. Some of us are paranoid to some degree or another and think they are after us. And then there are those that just think they are NOT after us.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for repeating this lying talking point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023449501
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438572
Hekate
(90,189 posts)... and said bus is being run back and forth over him.
Lessee, who should I trust in this situation? A man who has been on the side of truth and freedom and justice all along, or a bunch of message board denizens so hysterical with hatred for everything the government does that they can no longer distinguish friend from foe?
Hmmmmmm. That's a tough one.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)thrown off the cliff, down the river, and hung out to dry by DU. The only thing I haven't seen is him being called the "t" word.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I remember listening to his radio show every day before he entered the Senate, and being shocked at how often he accepted very suspect government statements at face value.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)To be one, you must be good at lying. It is unavoidable, for a career in politics you need to like very frequently (if you simply say what you think you will be buried alive). And if you lie, you know well that others are doing it as well, all the time, and that what they say needs to be verified.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)"I have James Clappers word on it."
bowens43
(16,064 posts)No amount of spinning or lame attempts at justification will change that. The government has no right to gather the data.
Rex
(65,616 posts)when a fellow congress person went OFF script and asked a question not authorized by the NSA. The lies have been fast and furious since then.