Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong.

[Catherina]

Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong.

By Andrea Peterson, Published: August 15 at 10:28 pm



At a Friday press conference, President Barack Obama insisted that the threat of NSA abuses was mostly theoretical:

If you look at the reports, even the disclosures that Mr. Snowden’s put forward, all the stories that have been written, what you’re not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and, you know, listening in on people’s phone calls or inappropriately reading people’s emails.

What you’re hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they’re not abused is because they’re — these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law and would be against the orders of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Sureveillance Court).

Today our colleague Barton Gellman released new documents that contradicted Obama’s claims.

Gellman obtained an audit of the NSA’s compliance record from NSA leaker Snowden earlier in the summer. The audit, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months where the agency engaged in “unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications.” The audit only covered issues at NSA facilities in the Washington, DC area and Fort Meade areas.

...

So the NSA has, in fact, been “listening in on people’s phone calls.”

Obama said that wasn’t supposed to happen because it would be “against the orders of the FISC.” So why didn’t the judges on the court catch these abuses?

In another story broken by the Post today, the Chief of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court admits he doesn’t actually have the capability to investigate the compliance record of NSA surveillance programs:

The FISC is forced to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Court [...]The FISC does not have the capacity to investigate issues of noncompliance, and in that respect the FISC is in the same position as any other court when it comes to enforcing [government] compliance with its orders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/15/remember-when-obama-said-the-nsa-wasnt-actually-abusing-its-powers-he-was-wrong/


RELATED Threads:
Steve2470: NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds
KPete: The Chief Judge of Secret FISA Court Admits In Written Statement That It Cannot Properly Oversee NSA

President Obama needs better Advisors. The NSA is totally out of control and it's no use pretending it's not.

[ProSense]

1. Actually,

"Remember when Obama said the NSA wasn’t “actually abusing” its powers? He was wrong."

...he wasn't. Here's the key part:

Members of Congress may read the unredacted documents, but only in a special secure room and are not allowed to take notes. Fewer than 10 percent of lawmakers employ a staff member who has the security clearance to read the reports and provide advice about their meaning and significance.

The limited portions of the reports that can be read by the public acknowledge “a small number of compliance incidents.”

Under NSA auditing guidelines, the incident count does not usually disclose the number of Americans affected.

“What you really want to know, I would think, is how many innocent U.S. person communications are, one, collected at all, and two, subject to scrutiny,” said Julian Sanchez, a research scholar and close student of the NSA at the Cato Institute.

The documents provided by Snowden offer only glimpses of those questions. Some reports make clear that an unauthorized search produced no records. But a single “incident” in February 2012 involved the unlawful retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court had ordered the NSA to destroy, according to the May 2012 audit. Each file contained an undisclosed number of telephone call records.

They're still talking about metadata, not all the searches produce records, inadvertently targeting U.S. persons may or may not be the reason for the compliance problems (the report doesn't say), and it appears the minimization procedures work (records destroyed).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023469108#post8

[Logical]

21. LOL, I bet you tire Catherina kicking your ass here! m-t

[MFrohike]

23. You probably know this but

You're quoting an article that deals with Congressional oversight of the NSA in a thread that deals with the actual operation of NSA.

Also, you should read the article linked and the clickthrough to the original article as they deal with incidents dating back to 2008, not February 2012.

[Progressive dog]

49. It is the same document

or at least some of the quotes from it are identical.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. They count on nobody ever bothering to check.

Building credibility through volume, and knowing that few will ever look twice. The republicans made it work for them, so...

[bobduca]

122. Googlebombing is hard work

[uponit7771]

89. Same\similar doc

[chimpymustgo]

107. Butt hurt. Keep bringing it on, Catherina! The truth will defeat the ProCheney, ProAuthoritarians.

[JaneyVee]

2. Actually he didn't say it doesn't happen, only that if it does happen

They get trashed, and the plug is pulled. They would never hold up in a court of law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. At this point this is in the same category as bananas

And a running gag

[LordGlenconner]

82. Speaking of running gags...n/t

[joeglow3]

88. Results of Jury Service

At Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Speaking of running gags...n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3471707

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The comment seems rather out of line and clearly directed to nadin. Quite rude and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 16, 2013, 12:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: WTF? Someone reported this?? THAT is the real crime. Thanks for wasting 60 seconds of my day.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is Rude? Maybe I have been reading in the gun forums too often...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[laundry_queen]

95. How would you know, being here since July?

Have you been here before?

[sabrina 1]

97. Good question.

[bvar22]

111. A question that we ALL know the answer to.

Been more than just a couple of these miracles posters over the last few days.

[JaneyVee]

99. The rate of mistakes is 0.01399999999

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Only if you assume they are mistakes

I don't.

And yes, bananas are not as safe as radiation either.

[JaneyVee]

101. They have to be mistakes because they would never hold up in a court of law.

Unless you believe the NSA is just monitoring people for shits and giggles during their lunch break. The defense would easily jump on the fact that the foreigner they were tracking was on American soil. Case closed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. They have, US troops in the field

So yes, they have done that for shits and giggles.

And if you think this is just for a court of law, you'd be half right. No mechanism like this is built exclusively for that. Extorsion comes to mind, readily, as well as spying on anybody opposing the power structure...

[Threedifferentones]

119. What an obviously false dichotomy.

I believe that people have uses for secrets outside a court of law.

You for forgot to add "or unless you believe that someone with access to NSA's information intends to use other people's secrets in a way that does not involve a court of law."

Indeed, a much more accurate assessment of the situation would read:

This is really disturbing, unless you believe that no one would ever use this illegally collected information to gain power in some sort of illegal way.

Or:

This NSA spying is really scary, unless you believe that the same people who collected it against the will of a court will need to rely on the will of a court in order to put it to use.

[rhett o rick]

61. What I heard him say it that we have a system that can be abused but isnt being abused

because it's not supposed to be abused.

In other words, no one drives thru the intersection without stopping because there is a stop sign.

And if you arent happy with that, we will gladly put up more signs.

If you still think people are driving thru the intersection, we will have Gen Clapper monitor the intersection.

Pres Obama is a master of rhetoric.

[sabrina 1]

77. That sounds about right. They really do think we are all stupid. Although the frenzied reactions

to the leaks and even to anonymous people on the internet, indicates that they are rather shocked to find out that maybe we are not stupid, we just didn't know what was going on.

[rhett o rick]

93. I think they are well aware that a lot of Americans, while maybe not stupid, really dont care.

And those that arent stupid have limited recourse.

We need to convince some of the elite that it is in their best interest to stop the greedy elite from pillaging the middle class.

[JaneyVee]

98. Zero mistakes are impossible. The rate is extremely low though, you must admit.

[rhett o rick]

102. We have no idea how many "mistakes" because no one has been monitoring.

This article says there have been thousands of "mistakes". And that's only the ones they will admit to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3472872

“The executive branch has now confirmed that the 'rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans' have been violated thousands of times each year.

And these "mistakes" that they are now admitting to do not include all the cases were they have gathered data that they interpret dont require a warrant. Some dont agree with their interpretation of the Constitution. I think those cases are "mistakes". Just because Gen Clapper says it meets the Constitution doesnt make it so.

I hope you agree we need an honest investigation.

[Just Saying]

113. And they are auditing

Which means that they do indeed have limits and are evaluating themselves. That is normally done to improve methods and lower the rate of mistakes.

[BlueCheese]

3. One could argue...

... that the government abused its power once it decided to store all that data, even before they accessed it incorrectly.

Also, didn't someone say recently that they only accessed the phone database for fewer than 300 people last year? Clearly that statistic was meant to mislead, most likely by only focusing on one program instead of all of them-- unless somehow they had 2776 violations on only 300 people.

[sweetloukillbot]

5. It is possible...

If there were 10 violations for each of the people they tracked, that's 3000 calls. That's not that many per person. I don't necessarily think that's the case though.

[Catherina]

8. How much easier it would have been to just come clean or simply say

"I don't believe these perturbing allegations are true but to protect the constitution, I'm looking into it". At least he'd have left himself wiggle room. Instead we're treated to an embarrassing spectacle. The cat's out of the bag. Admit it already instead of blaming the "dribs and drabs". Even the staunch Obama defenders in my family are appalled and embarrassed. And even a harsh critic like me just wants to shake him and say "DUDE!" Despite his 2008 FISA betrayal, I voted for him and convinced people to vote for him. I worked so hard for him that wiser friends actually laughed and a close friend cussed me out for betraying my principles.

The government has been abusing its power for decades. This didn't start with Obama but he is SO wrong to so willingly cover for the abuses. The hope ran out years ago, where's the change?

Every parsed statement coming from the DIRNSA and the government is meant to mislead. Then another "drib" or "drab" comes out. Just come clean.

[Th1onein]

14. One could argue.........and they would be absolutely correct!

The fact that they are STORING our communications is more alarming than anything else, in my opinion.

[clarice]

76. +1. nt

[Union Scribe]

4. Haven't you seen the new memo?

Obama is single-handedly reforming the domestic spying that totally wasn't happening in the first place or if it was we all totally knew it was since like 1899. Like the reform is awesome but if he drops it that's cool too because chess and shit.

[Pholus]

7. Just reading the number of 180's in there makes me dizzy! nt

[Catherina]

10. Yeah, something like that. Exactly that. And only McCain & Graham could go to Egypt

in the name of spreading democracy. Too many memos coming out right now.

[grasswire]

35. It almost sounds as if you need beer and travel money. nt

[TDale313]

42. "That's cool too cause chess and shit."

Might have to steal that for my sig line

[Marr]

44. +1

[vi5]

56. Wow. That sums it up so well.

You could insert any number of subjects, policies and issues into that but that pretty much is the best encapsulation of the apologists and defenders in this place, and their twisted pretzel knots of logic.

[Th1onein]

96. DUzy!

[Catherina]

11. Does he even know he's lying?

I don't expect him to know all the details of these programs or what the NSA is doing. Is it possible he calls them in and asks and they lie to him and then he *unwittingly* repeats their lies? Like a non-technical CEO of a manufacturing company who has to rely on the explanations he gets from his Plant Engineer he wrongfully trusts?

Scratch that. I take that back. Between Constitutional Lawyer, secret courts, secret interpretations, secret rulings, I take that back. This is too messed up for words.

[limpyhobbler]

12. I don't really know but it does raise the question,

what did the President know, and when did he know it ?

[Catherina]

13. Is that a Nixon-era quote? It just rings that kind of a bell.

I can't explain this but I don't want to see the first Black President of the US go down on something this stupid. Like over a little piece of duct tape on a door.

Edit. Black, White, fuck it. Don't lie. Don't cover for lies.

[ProSense]

15. "I don't want to see the first Black President of the US go down on something this stupid."

He isn't going to. Hyperbole is not the case for impeachment.

[ProSense]

18. Like I said, hyperbole isn't the case for impeachment.

I know some are drooling at the prospect, but it's not happening.

[delrem]

46. You're correct. When he totally absolved the past, saying "go forward, not back",

he exonerated himself in a way that R's will respect.

Whether this is a good thing or not, that's up to you to judge.

[bemildred]

72. I would almost guarantee that he will, now.

It's the Pubbies only hope, and this is much bigger than a blow job, and they have nothing else on him. The only thing he has on his side is they are all neck deep in it too.

But they will never convict him unless they take the Senate in 2014, maybe not then, that would mean Biden is President.

[limpyhobbler]

17. I think it is a Watergate-era quote. I've heard it in that context.

Not sure.

The main thing like you say, is he ought to turn a new leaf at this point and clean house. He shouldn't be running cover for those guys.

I think we all had high hopes that Obama was going to be a transformational figure and really change the way Washington works. Partly because he is the first Black President, and mostly because that was how he was marketed to us.

But the whole surveillance scandal really is pretty scandalous. I don't think he's going to be impeached or anything but hey in decades past it may have been enough to bring down a President. It certainly will be a major part of how he is remembered.

[Catherina]

69. Thank you. It's quite powerful n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. It is...

Was said by the WAPO mid way, and adopted by the Watergate Special committee.

[ljm2002]

20. Yes it is from the Watergate hearings...

...when that question was first voiced at the hearings, it marked the beginning of the end for Nixon.

[Catherina]

70. Thanks n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. With the Internet, we may see the first President to DO something about it....

There are people in the intelligence community who haven't had to answer to ANYONE. The government has always denied they've existed. That's why they have come to be known as "spooks". That immunity from the law is contagious with those types and they just ASSUME they're asses aren't just covered but armor plated but we're all seeing them doing a major BA...

...and some of us own darts.

[Catherina]

71. That's the problem right there. No accountability n/t

[KoKo]

91. Sen. Howard Baker in Watergate Hearings...Here's a bit of fascinating stuff...

In 1973 and 1974, Baker was also the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, that investigated the Watergate scandal. Baker is famous for having asked aloud, "What did the President know and when did he know it?", a question given him by his counsel and former campaign manager, future U.S. Senator Fred Thompson.


WHERE IS HE NOW?

In 2003, the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy was set up at the University of Tennessee in honor of the former senator. Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech at the 2005 ground-breaking ceremony for the center's new building. Upon the building's completion in 2008, Sandra Day O'Connor assisted in the facility's dedication.

In 2007, Baker joined fellow former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole, Tom Daschle, and George Mitchell to found the Bipartisan Policy Center, a non-profit think tank that works to develop policies suitable for bipartisan support.[12]

Baker is currently Senior Counsel to the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.[13] He is also an Advisory Board member for the Partnership for a Secure America, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy. Baker also holds a seat on the board of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems', a non-profit which provides international election support.[14]

[Divernan]

92. "Constructive knowledge" can be assigned to Obama.

In addition to actual knowledge, the law also recognizes the concept of constructive knowlege.
Constructive Knowlege

That which exists, not in fact, but as a result of the operation of law. That which takes on a character as a consequence of the way it is treated by a rule or policy of law, as opposed to its actual character.

For example, constructive knowledge is notice of a fact that a person is presumed by law to have, regardless of whether he or she actually does, since such knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care.

For example, possession of the key to a safe-deposit box is constructive possession of the contents of the box since the key gives its holder power and control over the contents.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/constructive

Then the question becomes whether Obama took reasonable care to exercise oversight and control, as required of a president.

Which then raises the question of how much "plausible deniability" has Obama put in play re NSA, CIA, etc.

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.


Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.

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

[rhett o rick]

63. There is a fine line between rhetoric and lying. He is certainly a master at rhetoric. nm

[DirkGently]

19. Inconceivable! n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. Do you honestly believe the CIA hasn't had ongoing operations regardless of who's President?

[DirkGently]

26. Wait. What? CIA, who, now?

What post are you responding to?

Did you like my Princess Bride reference or not?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. It was Inconceivable!

[NealK]

32. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

[dkf]

33. Lol...that's the famous Princess Bride quote...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. I kinda figured that out.

[ohheckyeah]

22. "What you’re hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused."

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the government admits to taking an inch it took at least a mile. Of course they are abusing the power because that's what out government does and has been doing. Hell, that's what most governments, if not all, do.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. Just as I thought, we have a rogue agency.

[grasswire]

37. ....and the president of the united states is not in charge.

The intelligence elites are running the country.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. They're not "running the country". They're doing their own thing...

We want them doing OUR thing.

(....damn,...that sounds dirty, doesn't it.)

[kentuck]

28. Damn!

What next?!

[ProSense]

30. NSA statements to The Post

NSA statements to The Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023469856

[NealK]

34. Chicken Noodle Soup Recipe:

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/tyler-florence/chicken-noodle-soup-recipe/index.html

[ProSense]

36. ACLU: NSA Legislation Since the Leaks Began

ACLU: NSA Legislation Since the Leaks Began
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023469450

[NealK]

38. This is a must read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3469901

[limpyhobbler]

40. LOL!

[idwiyo]

43. you win this thread!

[NuclearDem]

45. +10000

Game, set, match.

[Aerows]

68. LOL!

[xocet]

47. Apparently, there is a glitch in the matrix.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023469577#post30

[Kermitt Gribble]

106. LMAO! Best reply ever! eom

[Waiting For Everyman]

48. What a surprise.

Who could've seen that coming? He's heading for a lot more of the same too, and it will all be self-inflicted. Of course there was/is always another choice -- to just say it isn't ok and get to the bottom of it, and fix it. Then, he'd look great, and wouldn't have to be wrong all the time. So simple.

I get the impression that Obama really doesn't listen well. (aside from other issues that may exist)

[Progressive dog]

50. Audit themselves and tell Congress,but it's a coverup

and the President did it.

[cali]

53. they didn't actually tell Congress.

The audit was leaked to the WaPo by Snowden. Do some reading. I suggest reading the entire long WaPo article. YOU are wrong.

<snip>

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.
The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency’s top leaders, counts only incidents at the NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other ­facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak­ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.

<snip>
The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

<snip>

Despite the quadrupling of the NSA’s oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009, the rate of infractions increased throughout 2011 and early 2012. An NSA spokesman declined to disclose whether the trend has continued since last year.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

[Progressive dog]

54. Yes, it was available to Congress nt

[cali]

55. in a highly edited and redacted form.

[Progressive dog]

58. Oh, you saw it nt

[Aerows]

60. Dianne Feinstein didn't know anything about it.

She's on the Intelligence committee. Or at least that's what she said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317345-report-new-snowden-documents-show-consistent-nsa-overreach?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz2c73d7v3D

[Progressive dog]

118. That's what she said-nt

[Aerows]

120. Which doesn't

necessarily mean she didn't know anything about it LOL.

[Progressive dog]

124. I remember Al Franken being

taken out of context to make the same argument.

[Aerows]

125. Could be

I trust Al Franken a whole lot more than Diane Feinstein.

[rhett o rick]

62. What do you suggest? nm

[Progressive dog]

117. Maybe they could have the Chinese audit them,

or they could get Greenwald to name a committee.

[David Krout]

121. What did they tell Congress?

And to how many Congressmen?

[Progressive dog]

123. To all Congress who bothered to look.

The report was available for them to look at it.

[cali]

51. of course he was wrong

anyone who has a few functional brain cells firing knew that.

Good morning dear Catherina.

[Catherina]

73. Good morning dear Cali

It's lovely to see you first thing I got a PM this morning and as usual, was excited to go read it, thinking it could be from you. It turned out to be a disgusting threat about gladly ripping my belly open and feeding my guts to the dogs.

Of course I alerted and then saw the poster has been banned. Thanks for being a bright note to help wash that ugly away.

These are sad days all around. People like you are such a bright note

[1awake]

80. wtf?? Seriously?

I'm sorry someone threatened you. Disgusting.

[Catherina]

81. Seriously. And thanks

I'd post the PM here but it would only give that little filth the attention it craves. It's ok, they were banned by the time I read it which makes me think I wasn't the only recipient.

[1awake]

85. It just makes me sick that there are people on here

like that. Even though I have been here for like 6 plus years, I don't post a lot. Normally I prefer to read as you can tell by my post count. In any case, when people like this appear on here, it's sad. Hope you have a great day ma'am. See you around the threads!

[Puzzledtraveller]

52. k&r

[JoePhilly]

57. So the NSA can't be trusted ... but we believe their internal audits.

Why would an out of control spy agency, one with no oversight, even conduct audits in the first place?

What's the purpose of the audits? And wouldn't the NSA just create fake audits that make it look great?

Or wait, I got it ... the NSA knows that we'd be very suspicious if they had internal audits, which when leaked, showed that their system didn't have any flaws. That would be too convenient.

So .... what they did is make up fake audits to trick us. But these fake audits show that they have plenty of flaws in their system. That way, when these audits are leaked, we'd believe them.

And then, naturally, because these internal audits show problems and violations, we'd come to the conclusion that the NSA is in fact NOT spying on us because they are conducting these regular audits ... audits that must be true because they don't make the NSA look so good.

Damn they're tricky.

[LondonReign2]

66. Still trying to defend the NSA?

Even after an internal audit that was never meant to see the light of day shows thousands of violations, covering only two locations, you attempt to defend their actions. Bizarre.

[msanthrope]

83. I'm glad I'm not the only one pointing out that the OP is using an NSA document. nt

[Just Saying]

114. Well said.

People are seeing what they want to see.

[MjolnirTime]

59. You don't know more than Obama, Mrs. Snowden

But you sure can post thread after thread after thread after thread...

[rhett o rick]

65. It seems important that you think the President knows more than Snowden.

I am guessing you are using that rationalization to somehow believe that the President wouldnt lie. Not very straight forward logic. It's entirely possible that about this particular subject, Snowden does know more than the President. The President gets "briefed" by Gen Clapper.

But how much you know doesnt reflect on whether you lie or not. Not that I am suggesting that the President is lying. But there is a fine line between lying and rhetoric.

The bottom line is that the NSA needs decent oversight, dont you agree?

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. From my blog today...it applies, and I gave benefit of doubt

When we assured by President Barack Obama that none is spying on Americans we must conclude that either these violations are well bellow the pay grade of a President, or that the President knows far less (just as Congress and other departments tasked with oversight) than he will admit to. Regardless, the end result is the same. We have a government agency that is quite out of control.

http://nadinabbottblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-nsa-is-indeed-breaking-our-privacy/

[ProSense]

64. N.S.A. Often Broke Rules on Privacy, Audit Shows

N.S.A. Often Broke Rules on Privacy, Audit Shows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023470095

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. Why is it when when some people are wrong, they're LYING, but when others are wrong

they're just wrong?

I notice that the word LIE is very often used where WRONG is what's meant.

[Safetykitten]

75. Very true.

[uponit7771]

90. At this point its hard to take SnowGlen fans seriously because of the consummate amount of sophistry

...that's beyond government level.

I can expect a government to spin, anonymous folk on a poly board? not so much

[Savannahmann]

127. It depends on the circumstances.

Let's say I have an old fashioned wind up watch. It stops working, and you ask me the time. I don't realize that the watch is broken, and read it out for you. I have provided you with the best information I have which is in error. I am wrong. Later I will discover my watch has stopped, and presumably take action to correct the problem.

On the other hand, let's say my watch is working just fine, and I tell you the wrong time. In that instance, I have knowingly provided erroneous information. That is a lie.

Now, what we are supposed to believe is that the President doesn't know what is going on with the NSA. His statement would have been vetted, that is to say checked by the NSA before he made it. That is a common practice, the department that is affected by the statement is checked with.

So we have two possible options. Either the NSA lied to President Obama, obviously they would know what they were up to, and Obama was mistaken in saying something he thought was true. However, the obvious problem with that is once President Obama learned his own department lied to him, would he continue to support and keep James Clapper on? If you were my subordinate, and you served at my pleasure, and you let me go out and make untrue statements, you wouldn't resign, you'd be fired publicly and with great fanfare as an example to others.

Possible explanation number two. President Obama decided to continue the fiction under the impression that no one would ever disprove his statement. Much like Eisenhower put forth the fiction that Gary Powers was not spying, and was not over the Soviet Union when his plane went down. The truth made him look very bad later. Not just for the spying, but for the lie.

The follow on actions of number one do not suggest that is the situation we find ourselves in.

[Dreamer Tatum]

130. It's way simpler than that.

If you like the person who didn't tell you the right time, they were wrong.

If you didn't like them, they were lying.

[Savannahmann]

131. No it is simple, but accurate.

It is a lie if I knowingly give you incorrect information. It is a mistake if I unknowingly provide you with incorrect information. The knowing is the difference. Blame it on a popularity factor if you want, but the difference is the knowing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Well, now that he knows of the abuse, I'm sure Obama will prosecute the abusers....won't he?

[Safetykitten]

79. Holder is on it! Like the SEC on Wall Street, or banking regulators on Bof A

[msanthrope]

84. You are using an NSA document. Are you vouching for its veracity? nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

94. NDAA: It is legal for the government to lie to your face.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438872

[truedelphi]

105. And in a world where Binney, manning, Snowden et al

Are considered by the like sof Di feisntein to be "treasonous" all of us should be worried.

All the information being made free did was to assist the American public in understanding what is going on. That what could have been a HUGE FRIGGIN' PEACE DIVIDEND is instead being converted into a Surveillance Program. So the many daily terrors of not ahving operational roads and bridges, and having our school budgets slashed, and fire districts de-manned -- all that terror will continue so the people inside the very inner circle of the spying world can make their Big Bucks.

If giving us information makes these three people traitors, then and treason is defined as "aiding and abetting the enemy" then it only goes to show that you and I and eery other member of the 99% are the ENEMY!

[truedelphi]

104. Have to say I agree with the OP. n/t

[Logical]

109. Kick! n-t

[slipslidingaway]

110. "President Obama needs better Advisors ..."

evident from the get go when his economic advisors appeared clueless about the down turn in housing and associated derivatives.

Gosh, 'if anyone could have seen this coming' then I would not be advocating the Bush bailout, but he did as did most Dems.

I'll never forget him giving a speech in favor of the bailout and saying 'who could have known?' And as leader of the Dem party he brought many on board with the bailout, no questions asked, because 'who could have predicted?'

Still needs better advisors

[bvar22]

112. I absolutely agree!

Who gets to appoint Obama's Advisers?
THAT is where the problem is!

I bet its those obstructionist Republicans or Joe Lieberman or Ralph Nader who is appointing all these idiot advisers!

[slipslidingaway]

115. Of course it was 'someone else' and who could have foreseen ...

what might transpire.



All joking aside, and absence of sarcasm noted, it really does matter who one chooses to surround himself or herself with when seeking advice.

[fascisthunter]

116. He's a fraud

that is all

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Kick

[TBF]

128. K&R nt

[wildbilln864]

129. k & r! n/t