"Here's what now should be taken as an operating procedure in any discussion of the NSA..."

[WilliamPitt]

"Absent that, here's what now should be taken as an operating procedure in any discussion of the NSA and/or the surveillance state. First, everything they say is a lie, or, at best, a quarter-truth. Second, any argument based on the fundamental premise of "Trust us," should cause the person making the argument to be laughed out of government service forever. Third, any defense based on the alleged safeguards of either the FISA Court, or the responsible committees of the Congress is prima facie worthless, whether it comes from your favorite pundit, your favorite congresscritter, or, especially, your favorite President of the United States. Fourth, Edward Snowden, International Man Of Luggage and flawed human being, has blown himself a helluva whistle here."

- Charles P. Pierce

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Snowden_Effect_And_What_Should_Happen_Now

[WillyT]

1. K & R !!!

[rhett o rick]

40. Is anyone keeping track chronologically of the revelations, admissions, and corresponding defenses?

I have run into people that are making denials of information that the NSA or FISA courts have admitted to. Those NSA/Booz-Allen defenders are having a hard time keeping current on their denials.

[Jackpine Radical]

82. To do so would be a wonderful public service.

A timeline with revelations above & defenses below would be a great graphic.

I have neither the time nor the skill, but I bet it would go viral if anybody cared to do it.

[rhett o rick]

87. I am betting there is someone out there that has already done it.

By the way, there is an interesting discussion in a thread were I posted this response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3477028

I thought you might want to weigh in.

[Jackpine Radical]

92. Yeah, I know Altemeyer's work & have followed the evolution of

Authoritarianism theory since the days of Frenkel-Brunswik & Adorno.

One of the better popular expositions of Altemeyer's writing is John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience.

Somehow, though, I have trouble hooking into these internecine mudslinging matches with the Usual Suspects. Denial and projection are such tough defenses to crack.

[rhett o rick]

93. I havent read Dean's book. I will make a point of it. So much to read, so little time.

I understand your reluctance to engage with those that are intellectually dishonest. I have the worst on ignore so I wont get baited into their level. I am weak.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Perfect.

Hey do us a favor...

Don't let her goad you into getting locked out of a really good thread today!

Thanks for posting this.

[WilliamPitt]

6. I got it out of my system.

Only had to be said once.

[hootinholler]

24. Oooo, which thread was that?

I'm hoping the she starts with P

[rhett o rick]

42. She cant goad me any more. I use the ignore function and it's been great. nm

[chervilant]

78. Me, too --

MUCH more dynamic, adult conversation without shrill, sarcastic, or sanctimonious sycophants (not that there ARE such individuals herewith...).

[rhett o rick]

88. I agree. I have a weakness that makes me argue with those that IMO are only

here to cause disruption. Therefore, my arguing is only furthering their agenda. I have most on ignore and not being tempted to be baited.

[bvar22]

97. The problem with that is...

....you miss classic meltdowns, like yesterday evening.
I know I should avert my eyes from this type of public humiliation,
but I just can't.
My mother and The Buddha would be so disappointed in me.

[rhett o rick]

99. You are right of course with everything you said. And I would add that

I need to learn to be able to withstand the urge to mock and ridicule, those things that I preach against. I am better but have been baited. You must tell me more. Maybe a link.

[pscot]

3. Smart guy, that Charlie Pierce

[Safetykitten]

4. Watch out Will...there is a purge of ideas currently going on.

[WilliamPitt]

5. I brought my helmet.

[Safetykitten]

7. Good for you, as they are touchy with the facts...or ideas in general.

[rhett o rick]

43. And you seem to be particularly popular.

I am glad that Skinner settled things down for those hosts that were overly anxious to hide threads.

[SwampG8r]

65. i went through all the posts for that day

and amassed a list I addressed to him about it
proudly every op I listed was unlocked
and I kept it fair too I found posts from both sides of the issue and listed them all
it was only 4 I think that I found

[longship]

8. This is increasingly becoming my position as well.

Above all, some people need to begin asking some probing and very difficult questions; the more, the better. And the more people asking, the better.

Somehow we have to break through the shell protecting these programs from oversight.

The problem is, we may have a very tall mountain in front of us.
R&K

[Autumn]

9. Recommended

and watch out for the incoming

[OnyxCollie]

10. "whether it comes from your favorite pundit, your favorite congresscritter,

or, especially, your favorite President of the United States."

Or our resident Propagandist.

[JDPriestly]

32. OOWEE!

That resident propagadist.

There is something unreal about a "person" who always defends the authority. It isn't not a very human thing to do. I wonder how many DUers are aware of that presence.

Makes me wonder what the government and maybe the NSA are doing besides just surveillance. Or do you suppose some private or partisan group sponsors the propagandizing?

[quakerboy]

59. I propose that it works like this

The NSA secretes money. But instead of actually acting like a responsible spy agency, it acts like Rand Paul already took over, and hires a private company to do its work for twice the cost of directly hiring people to do the work for the government agency. A company such as Booz Allen Hamilton. Lets imagine, to make up a number out of thin air, that government spying contracts make up 49% of their corporate revenue of 5.8 billion annually. So 2.8 billion.

Now lets say that it actually costs Booz 1 billion to do the work it actually does, the equipment and pay for the actual workers. It would surprise me, because the fact that Snowden actually got inside their system would seem to indicate they are not really putting much of their cash into the work they are doing. It reeks of sloppiness. That leaves them 1.8 billion to take for the most important things, like extravagant salaries for the top management, bribe... I mean donate to politicians, and of course some profits.

In the scheme of that, 300k to hire a half dozen willing and ardent liberty university grads to troll the internets and propagandize the hell out of them to try and control or distract internet opinion trends to protect the gravy train from any incidental derailings is hardly even noticeable.

[JDPriestly]

60. +1

[go west young man]

73. On the money.

Those grads have been all over DU lately.

[reusrename]

83. I believe cult behavior is also critical to this type of disruption.

I think this is something that also often sneaks under the radar.

I was a member at another very productive board (some of the best researchers on the web were members there) and it was disrupted in this same manner until it ultimately became run by a cult.

The cult members all had the exactly the same ideology and they all believed the exact same fantasies. It's weird how a whole group of people can all believe, in lockstep, that their reality comprises each of the same proven falsehoods.

[randomelement]

85. Makes me wonder if this has/had anything to do with it

Don't want anything "productive" going on ..,,,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ordered-software-to-manage-army-of-fake-virtual-people/

[bvar22]

98. Privatization of Governmental Responsibilities and The Commons...

....was formerly a Republican Scam.

Sad to say, it NOW has Bi-Partisan Support,
thanks to the Centrist "New" Democrats.

What were once Basic Human Rights under the "Old" Democrats,
are NOW Commodities to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.

Orwell would be delighted with the newspeak.
"New Democrat" and "NeoLiberal".....REALLY?

What was wrong with the "Old" Democrats?
The "Old" democrats are why I joined the Democratic Party.
Why do we need "New" Democrats anyway?



---bvar
an "Old" Democrat

[Whisp]

62. There are fire n' teabaggers here propagandizing

One would think That is a problem on a Democratic site, but noooooooooo....

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. absolutely!

[caseymoz]

12. K&R

[stupidicus]

13. the level of blind trust has bothered me from the beginning -- my "bluelink" special

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023434186 if I might be pro-sense on the matter.

the tribal element it goes to is really nothing more than a measure of the effectiveness of the divide and conquer tactics to be seen in all of this, and the ever escalating (and fear of) rightwingnuttery is being energetically and effectively used to fuel much of the support in the dem ranks, who would otherwise be screaming with the rest of us if this was all ongoing under a repub admin.

As one who "debates" on mixed boards elsewhere, I find it also pathetic the number of rightwingers who are all aflame over this as former "if you have nothing to hide" former Bush defenders on the matter.

Many seem to have lost sight of the fact that whether a "good/bad" cop, they're both still cops that have their interests in mind, not ours. While under their thumb you trust them at your own peril.

[FlyByNight]

14. Charlie is spot-on again

K & R.

[another_liberal]

15. Clapper and the other bald-headed Nazis running our NSA . . .

One thing seems quite clear: Clapper and the other bald-headed Nazis running our NSA have got some really incriminating information about major figures in the Obama administration, perhaps about the President himself. This must be information bad enough that it could destroy our President's legacy, if not end his Presidency itself.

Why else would the same men who have knowingly lied to Congress and repeatedly violated the Constitutional rights of at least thousands of Americans still be in their accustomed positions of power? It is inconceivable!

[RC]

27. +1000. Yes, how else. There has to be a lot of blackmail in all that data.

[another_liberal]

46. That is my best guess.

Though it goes without saying, I have no certain proof that is what happened.

[Mnemosyne]

66. Hoover on steroids. nt

[HooptieWagon]

38. Possible.

But I think its more likely that Obama was bought off by massive $ from telecoms and security companies. NSA budget has soared under Obama, and all that expansion has been with private contractors.

[another_liberal]

45. I sincerely hope you are wrong.

However, I must admit something is clearly rotten, and it is very close to the top

[Blanks]

51. I googled 'NSA budget soars under Obama'...

and there wasn't a story that jumped off the page to support your assertion. I googled 'graph NSA spending vs year' and nothing popped up.

Do you have a link to support your claim that the NSA budget is increasing at a rate greater than inflation? Or at a greater rate than the increases in other federal spending.

I'd hate to think that you're just making a baseless claim.

[go west young man]

74. NSA is listed as a "blacked out program", therefore no factual info is put out.

However, estimations can be made based upon the entire growth of the entire US surveillance budget. http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/news/economy/nsa-surveillance-cost/index.html

http://www.stimson.org/about/news/gordon-adams-is-quoted-on-the-national-security-agency-at-cnnmoneycom-/

http://www.csbaonline.org

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/who-manages-the-nsa-s-super-secret-budget-20130620

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

The last article by Dana Priest in 2011 explains the "ballooning" intelligence budget.

[Blanks]

84. 'Blacked out program' translates into guessing...

That makes it easy to smear the president since any claims of 'Ballooning spending' can be neither verified nor disproved.

How convenient.

[go west young man]

96. Your "opinion" vs. my links.

And you translate those links into smearing the president? Your not helping your own cause. Based upon the fact that no "evidence" is in the public domain on NSA spending you feel that giving the most relevant information in regards to possible estimates on NSA spending is a smear on the president. Then you attempt to debunk by claiming others haven't linked any info. You gave me a good afternoon chuckle with that. We at DU have to do better than just saying someone is smearing the president when putting forth debate.

[Blanks]

100. Let's talk about the last article then...

It talked about the buildup of intelligence gathering resources 'since 9/11' (2001 - long before Obama became president). The article was last updated in September of 2010. The research for the article took place over a couple of years. It wasn't about Obama expanding spending on intelligence gathering - at all.

Now, my initial response was specific to the expansion SINCE Obama became president. There was a very specific slam that I was addressing.

It might seem impressive to some that you've posted a bunch of links responding to my query, but its even more impressive if you actually post links that prove (or at least address) the issue that I raised: "has top secret spending on this shadow government significantly increased under Obama"?

You posted an article that showed that spending has gone bat-shit crazy since Dubya was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. That does nothing to prove that it has increased under Obama.

Pointing out that all this spending is secret makes it difficult to prove that it has increased under Obama, and that's fine, but take a break from your chuckling and think for a second.

It's a perfectly reasonable request (anywhere, not just DU) that if you can't back up a statement (once again, specifically - that this secret spending increased under Obama) that you don't continue to make the statement.

If proof cannot be offered that the spending on this DID increase under Obama - then all I ask is that the claim that it DID increase stop appearing as though it were fact.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable request, and the response: "we'll it might have, prove that it didn't" - is childishly moronic in that it requires proving a negative.

If it ain't true, don't say it is. I think it's odd that you're amused by such a straight-forward request.

[go west young man]

104. Excerpt from the article you claim you read.

Keep in mind it was written in 2011. 3 and a half years years after Obama took office.

Excerpt: Not far from the Dulles Toll Road, the CIA has expanded into two buildings that will increase the agency's office space by one-third. To the south, Springfield is becoming home to the new $1.8 billion National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, which will be the fourth-largest federal building in the area and home to 8,500 employees. Economic stimulus money is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for this kind of federal construction across the region.

From my simple perspective I believe it's common sense that complex systems continually expand before they break down. To refute your point I would ask the question "do you have any evidence that the NSA is shrinking since Obama took office?"

I think your simply attempting to defend the man when he has no real ability to reel in the behemoth that the NSA has become. If anything they control him. Not the other way around.

Another excerpt this time mentioning new building and funding taking place as of 2011. Please explain to me after reading this that the NSA is not expanding under Obama. Obviously you never read the whole article even after you requested proof.

Excerpt: Blair acknowledged the problem. His solution: Create yet another team to run down every important lead. But he also told Congress he needed more money and more analysts to prevent another mistake.

More is often the solution proposed by the leaders of the 9/11 enterprise. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Leiter also pleaded for more - more analysts to join the 300 or so he already had.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for more air marshals, more body scanners and more analysts, too, even though it can't find nearly enough qualified people to fill its intelligence unit now. Obama has said he will not freeze spending on national security, making it likely that those requests will be funded.

More building, more expansion of offices continues across the country. A $1.7 billion NSA data-processing center will be under construction soon near Salt Lake City. In Tampa, the U.S. Central Command’s new 270,000-square-foot intelligence office will be matched next year by an equally large headquarters building, and then, the year after that, by a 51,000-square-foot office just for its special operations section.

Just north of Charlottesville, the new Joint-Use Intelligence Analysis Facility will consolidate 1,000 defense intelligence analysts on a secure campus.

Meanwhile, five miles southeast of the White House, the DHS has broken ground for its new headquarters, to be shared with the Coast Guard. DHS, in existence for only seven years, already has its own Special Access Programs, its own research arm, its own command center, its own fleet of armored cars and its own 230,000-person workforce, the third-largest after the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Soon, on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeths mental hospital in Anacostia, a $3.4 billion showcase of security will rise from the crumbling brick wards. The new headquarters will be the largest government complex built since the Pentagon, a major landmark in the alternative geography of Top Secret America and four times as big as Liberty Crossing.

[Blanks]

109. You want to be right. I get it, but the link below...

About the series, explains when each of the articles came out (look in the lower right hand corner).

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/editors-note/

The last article in the series was about 3 years ago.

The runaway growth of the secret government is something that I'm aware of and I'm probably in agreement with what's seems to be the majority opinion around here: the president isn't doing enough.

That's a criticism that I see frequently, and can even agree with. However, I never made the claim that the NSA is shrinking - therefore there is no reason for me to provide proof. What I'm doing is calling bullshit on someone else's claim. That puts the burden of proof where it belongs - in the lap of the person making, what appears to me to be, a false claim.

You're right, I didn't read the entire article, I read enough of it to recognize that it was critical of the growth in the secret government since 9/11. I read enough of it to see when it was written - which was enough to point out that it did nothing to refute my original 'bullshit' call.

The government is like a giant ship that doesn't turn on a dime and the president has been faced with the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. I would not expect him to stop huge construction projects nor would I expect him to cut federal spending on projects that took years of planning without the ability to spend that money on something else.

When all of these secret government buildings are constructed, they can be repurposed. Are you suggesting the president just sign an executive order bringing construction to a halt on all buildings that are involved in the secret government?

I'd rather they just go ahead and finish the buildings - keep the people working. I would prefer the money be allocated to something else, but I think it would be a mistake to halt any kind of construction while the economy is trying to recover. You did notice that - didn't you? It was an article mostly about a lot of spending on construction projects.

How do you think the presidents approval would hold up if he cancelled a couple of $billion in building projects?

[bvar22]

102. Checkmate!

Well Done!



"We at DU have to do better than just saying someone is smearing the president when putting forth debate."

That used to be the norm at DU.

[woo me with science]

16. K&R

[kentuck]

17. Time for another Church Committee?

Ever so often, the spy nest needs to be cleaned.

[bullwinkle428]

18. And another one down, and another one down,

and another one under the bus!!

K&R.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. K&R

A-fuckin'-men, brother.

[Catherina]

20. That's one helluva article.

I'm still reading it, following all the links. I recommend everyone read it. Thanks for posting that terrific paragraph

"Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls. 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."

Moreover, my understanding is that those 2776 times do not represent 2776 individual violations but, rather, 2776 times the NSA violated the privacy rules. Each violation might contain thousands of unique infractions.

(And, not for nothing, because I always thought the real story was the information revealed, and not the nomenclature used to describe Edward Snowden, International Man Of Luggage, except for when NBC News blithely called him a "spy," but this story really ought to end the debate over whether or not Snowden is a "whistleblower" or not. He shared with The Washington Post -- and therefore, with the country that pays the bills for it all -- information proving that the government agency for which he worked regularly violated its own regulations, and that it at best actively deceived the responsible oversight authorities in both the Department Of Justice and in the intelligence community. If you don't think that's whistleblowing, well, you're James Clapper and you should lawyer up.)

...

"The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency's top leaders..."

(Of course. Can't have the peasants knowing that they're being spied upon. We spy on our citizens in secret and make sure they don't know it. That's how we differ from East Germany because...freedom!)

...

It's well past time for another Church Committee -- or, if you will, another Pecora Commission -- dedicated to a full exposition of the surveillance state and its place in our lives and in our democracy. No half-truths. No hedging. No James Clappers, slow-dancing with perjury and obstruction of Congress. Put people under oath and compel their testimony as to what is being done in our name, especially what is being done to us in our name. If we're going to have a "national conversation," then let's have a by-god national conversation, and let it be held in the place where we are supposed to have our national conversations on issues like this -- in the Congress, among our elected representative, out in the open and in the light of day. Let us at least have all the information so we can decide for ourselves how to keep ourselves safe. We are not fragile children. We're the world's oldest democracy. We should damned well begin to raise hell and act like it.

[JDPriestly]

34. Yes. We need a complete opening of the NSA surveillance files.

Nothing should be hidden.

That would make blackmail impossible. The embarrassment and prosecutions would be out there and done with and we could get on with democracy. If we turned the tables on the NSA and opened their files -- just opened them to the world -- perhaps no one would be stupid enough to try this kind of Cointelpro operation again.

We need privacy laws that also prohibit private companies from collecting personal information on us from the internet beyond what we actually give that specific company, and that law nees to be part of an international protocol.

There could be exceptions for subpoenas in actual criminal investigations and a requirement that the showing of probable cause include very specific, listed information such as the crime being investigate, the name of the person or source of the information causing suspicion of the specific person being investigated, etc. and a statement that the suspect's constitutional and privacy rights are being respected. Something along that line.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

75. +1000

[KoKo]

41. But...at this point in time...Who would appoint that Commission...

If the President and others in his Administration are involved in a "coverup" then he couldn't be trusted to appoint someone who would do the kind of job of Pecora or Church. Plus could Eric Holder be trusted to set up such a Commission? Who could we trust in Congress to appoint such a Commission when so many of the senior Senators and Congresspersons have all been in on it since "9/11 and before?" Wyden and Udall can't do this on their own. And the usual suspects outside the Government are not reliable either. We'd get something like Simpson-Bowles, "9/11 Commission" or "Star Investigation with a Special Prosecutor that would go on forever while the Spying Continues.

This is serious. And, the corruption of Govt. has gone on for so many decades now...who could be trusted? It's actually frightening to think about.

[chimpymustgo]

48. " Can't have the peasants knowing that they're being spied upon..."

-edit-

The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency's top leaders...

(Of course. Can't have the peasants knowing that they're being spied upon. We spy on our citizens in secret and make sure they don't know it. That's how we differ from East Germany because...freedom!)

...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.


Read more: Audit Finds NSA Broke Rules Thousands Of Times - The Snowden Effect, Continued - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

[LondonReign2]

101. That's why the 2700+ violations number is misleading

It counts only a fraction of the violations since not all facilities are included. The problem is much, MUCH worse that than the 2700+ noted in this one audit.

[dkf]

21. On the MONEY!!!

I wonder if this only extends to the NSA. Sigh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. But, but the pole dancer....and the boxes!!!

Sometimes statues have clay feet...

Now, here you go...I share the Nomex...trust me...it gets hot fast! But it can keep you safe.

[chervilant]

80. Oopsies!

Be careful with any "feet of clay" references! I had a comment hidden because I noted that some icons have such crumbly pegs!

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Well, so be it.

It is a classic lit reference. But I expect the ignorance any longer

[MotherPetrie]

23. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine

[frylock]

26. kickaroo

[Hekate]

28. KnR Will

[xocet]

29. blue link matrix computing...computing...computing....

n/t

[Maedhros]

50. Don't say it's name!

If you say it, it will come!

[raindaddy]

30. Thank You!

Made my week!

[Hissyspit]

31. But Snowden broke the law.

That makes him immoral.

All that law-breaking by the NSA? That's just an accident.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. K/R

[Phlem]

35. K&R!

-p

[Th1onein]

36. knr

[leftstreet]

37. DURec

[kentuck]

39. "Give me safety or give me death!"

To paraphrase Patrick Henry. Fuck your so-called "liberty"!

[cantbeserious]

44. Kick And Recommend

eom

[Isoldeblue]

47. Instead of slinging arrows from either side,

I'd like to see a discussion on what's acceptable and what isn't. At some point we have to say, we give up a little of our privacy, for the sake of our safety. So where is the line on that?

I'd also be curious to know about those who rail the loudest, at how much info they provide on the various social medias. I see a real hypocrisy there.

While I value my privacy and worry at how much is being willfully taken away in the guise of intelligence gathering, I hope I don't have to like Snowden. Because, I don't like the guy. Two wrongs never make a right. He could have handled this differently. Though, sometimes the means justify the ends, I'm glad we know what the NSA is doing, be it but in dribs and drabs, according to Snowden's whims of press releases. The fact remains he deliberately broke a commitment, he falsely made, it's hard for me not to question his motives.


I'm also curious as to why no other contractors like Snowden haven't come forward to back up his leaks. No biggie, just a musing thought.

[questionseverything]

53. what's acceptable?

following the 4th...thats it...if you don't agree with that you can start up a group to change it with an amendment..other than that there is probable cause and actual investigations,not fishing trips

and this line>>>>. At some point we have to say, we give up a little of our privacy, for the sake of our safety>>>>

begs the question...WHY?

[Isoldeblue]

54. I just don't see it as black annd white as you do. n/t

[questionseverything]

55. so you do not believe in the Constitution?

sigh..i wish every1 had had my 5th grade history teacher,a retired marine that loved his country and made the founding fathers come alive for us

and he warned me about you..he said during your life people will try and tell you that safety is more important than freedom but remember with out freedom you can never be safer than your MASTERS allow

[Isoldeblue]

56. I absolutely do.

I just finished writing a post about the importance of it.

Are you saying that we should do away completely with the NSA or any intelligence gathering to foil terrorists? That is the question I raised earlier.


I also said that I am NOT comfortable with my privacy being invaded. I'm sorry that I can't conform to your either or, but I want to know everything, before I make a judgement on it.

And if I do have to sacrifice a little privacy because of the reality of our current world and that doing that would keep my children and grandchildren safe, it's worth it. Just as the survivors of 9-11, would not have minded to have their loved ones saved, as a result. Now that is my personal take, for now.

[quakerboy]

61. Why?

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.[1]


Where and when does the constitution apply?

There are level of this argument. I think many of us here on DU would agree that the prism program presents a situation where there will be specific violations of the 4th

But we also have arguments about whether they should be allowed to use the full body scans on us when we fly. Thats a search of my person, and they certainly have seized many a pocket knife, etc. But taking it a step further, if privacy is inviolable, can the TSA legitimately screen our bags bit scanner or by opening them up when we go on an airplane? If the TSA stops scanning my effects, can individual airlines do it themselves? Presumeably they are private companies, so the constitution does not apply to them in the same way.

With the NSA... I dont know. Maybe theirs a similar program. Is there any part of the fourth that explicitly prevents a private company like Booz Allen Hamilton from creating a program like prism? Its not something the framers could have reasonably expected to imagine, so they didn't answer it. Is your email part of your "papers"? Is a private company hired by the government subject to following the constitutional limitations, which as i understand it, were placed on the government?

I think the line has been crossed. Our Government has become too entangled with private interests, and the spying has become a way to make money. Above and beyond any legitimate or nefarious purpose that the spying itself might serve. But there is a line, this country should not be a libertarian fantasy world where your rights are limited only by your ability to enforce them. There are things that are legitimate concerns of society that will infringe on personal liberty and privacy.

The problem is determining those things. Right now, we are strongly skewed in determining those things in such a way as to profit some individual or small group of individuals, rather than our society as a whole, or even a majority of those in that society.

[questionseverything]

64. i think you misunderstood my why

i think that giving up rights for safety is a false question...afterall this spying did not stop those prison breaks in the last couple weeks

yes we are way past the "line",clearly illegal ,unconstitutional spying has occurred

[Isoldeblue]

94. This is the kind of debate I'm talking about.

You said it better than I could have.

[sabrina 1]

67. Other Whistle Blowers have come forward. Snowden is just the latest. As for this:

At some point we have to say, we give up a little of our privacy, for the sake of our safety. So where is the line on that?

Are you serious? What exactly does that mean. That we have rights until we feel threatened? Then we just give them up

So why do our elected officials and our military all take an oath to protect and defend only thing? The Constitution of the US. Why do you think that is, why not 'the American people' or 'America'?

No, we do not 'have to give up some of our freedoms'. Where is this coming from?

We are not even in imminent danger and we are supposed to give up 'some of our privacy'?

So much for the 'land of the free, the home of the brave', except when we're scared. Well, I'm not scared, so you go ahead and give up whatever you like, but you have no right to give up everyone else's rights, especially those who are not as easily frightened.

[scarletwoman]

79. "...in dribs and drabs, according to Snowden's whims of press releases." Wrong!

I don't give a rip about whether you "like Snowden" or not, but please at least get your facts straight. This latest material published by the WaPo was received by them back in June, when Snowden's material was delivered all in one go to both the WaPo and the Guardian. The two papers have released various parts of the material over time, after they've taken time to study it, vet it with their lawyers, etc. Snowden has no control of the timing of what each paper chooses to publish, it's out of his hands. He's not sitting around making "press releases".

When you base your opinions on erroneous assumptions, it makes your opinions pretty meaningless.

[Isoldeblue]

95. Excuse me, but I DID say

I want to get all the information before I make a judgement. Or was that conveniently omitted so you could put me down to make yourself feel better?

"...but I want to know everything, before I make a judgement on it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3474293

I could have added that I hadn't had a chance to catch up on all the latest info, but I didn't feel that I was obligated to anyone to defend myself.

All I want is a respectful debate on where do we draw the line between corporate and/or governments access to our personal information.

Also, I was speaking directly to only Snowden's style of leaking. It was you who took that further, to something different.

You accuse me of the same thing you've done of making erroneous assumptions. So what does that make your opinion?

[awoke_in_2003]

49. When the pukes we're in charge...

and dems brought up surveillance tactics they got shouted down by the pukes. Now the pukes are starting to make noise and are getting shouted down by the dems. Plenty of DUers were against the Patriot Act, etc, the whole time, but now are called Randinistas.

[Logical]

52. Great Idea! I am on board! n-t

[steve2470]

57. Dick Cheney says "What problem ?"

CIA brass tells of Cheney pressure

[Doctor_J]

58. IF the president loses Pierce, he's in big trouble

One of the most anti-republican writers going.

[Coyotl]

81. Yeah, his 80% approval rating with liberals will drop to 79%.

That's gonna sting

[Doctor_J]

91. We'll see how the midterms go. since the president is so hugely popular it should be

a thundering win for liberals and Dems, right?

Best of luck with that

[cthulu2016]

106. Since his approval rating with liberals is 68%...

...the laughter may be inappropriate

[DeSwiss]

63. Some whistle indeed.

- It may have been the whistle that made America keep its promises and we can get our country back.....

K&R

[center]

Little Boy Eddie come blow your horn,
The NSA's in your emails, your voicemails, your porn.
Where is the boy who looks after the sheeple?
He's under some luggage hiding from people.
Will you try to arrest him?
No, not I - for if I do, he's sure to fly.
(To Wikileaks)
[/center]

[vanlassie]

70. Bravo!

[idwiyo]

68. K&R

[liberal_at_heart]

69. wow. That was great.

[blkmusclmachine]

71. Transparency, shransparency.

"Lies You Can Believe In"

[Cryptoad]

72. I know which

I know which party I want appointing the judges that are suppose to be guarding us against Intrusion and government surveillance ....... !

[Pholus]

77. Too bad elections don't always go to the good guys.

Which is why it is a Bad Idea (TM) to enable the very system President Perry would use to create a new fundy order.

Just sayin...

[bvar22]

103. There is a good chance a Republican will be sitting in the Oval Office in 2016.

What are you going to say then?
and how will you explain to your kids that YOU helped the Unitary Executive gain ALL these supra Constitutional permanent WAR Powers without any Accountability or Oversight?


That is WHY is is such a bad idea to pledge allegiance to a Person or a Party,
and instead STAND for Values, Ideals, and Policy.
THAT never changes, no matter WHO sits in the White House.




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Cryptoad]

105. Well ,,,

we sure know you by your works,

The Progressive Tea Party, heh?

Funny but all the facts say you are clueless

But keep beating that drum,,,,, LMAO!

[bvar22]

107. If all you have is Ad Hominem Logical Fallacies and adolescent Name Calling

...then you got nothing at all.

Did you get lost on your way to The Beavis & Butthead Chatroom at AoL,
and wind up here accidentally or something?

That is WHY is is such a bad idea to pledge allegiance to a Person or a Party,
and instead STAND for Values, Ideals, and Policy.
THAT never changes, no matter WHO sits in the White House.

[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Cryptoad]

108. Thank you,,,

for illustrating my post.

Every post that shows you in your light and "WORK", you call ad Hominem

And Logic is surly your enemy.

But you can always resort to personal insults when you have nothing else to say.

Enjoy your fantasy !

[Oilwellian]

76. Great post to wake up to

K&R

[gulliver]

86. Do you stand behind your source? nt

[DirkGently]

89. Obvious stuff, to many. Apparently needs saying. Repeatedly.