The argument about domestic spying isn't one the other side is having to any extent

So it's always been here. From the FBI tracking John Lennon and before.

Rightwingers think they represent the establishment, money, and status quo. They want to know what people who might challenge those things are doing.

What I can't figure out is what kind of liberal doesn't care.

the left has been the target of the govt. in this nation since the beginning of the 20th century.

has been overthrown by the far right. I can't think of any exceptions.

former Republicans. So are some of the best informed experts who are the ones who help us understand the system we want to reform.

I believe that there is a lot of reassessment going on right now on the other side, it's just more individualized.

It's really a tough decision for the Repubs, go with what gives them a woodie, spying on the 99%, or go what makes a thrill go up their leg, bashing Obama.

There was a major split within the IC during the Bush Administration after it became apparent that people like Dick Cheney really don't 1) have any ethics, and 2) the interests of this country aren't really first and foremost in their motives.

A lot of IC people are again having one of those moments about the Obama Admin., which they hoped would implement needed reforms, but seem instead to have double-downed to suppress whistleblowers and the press.

The GOP pols are hopeless goons, most of them.

Lame attempts are already being made to smear the whistleblower in this case on the basis of a supposed donation to a Paul (forget Rand or Ron).

I don't care. Right doesn't become less right because of who is supporting it.

are former Republicans.

... what the hell are we even arguing FOR?

I try to recognize when those I disagree with most do or say something I agree with.

That's how we move forward, isn't it?

Well, it certainly won't change for the better anyhow, the other way I'm not so sure about.

I think that particular submarine sailed a long, long time ago.

which George Will demonstrated by lying about who, at the IRS, was responsible for the teabagger interest at the FBI (it turns out 2 REPUBLICANS WERE THE ONES WHO FLAGGED THE TEABAGGERS as "of interest" with their claims to be charitable groups.)

He's trying to pretend that Republicans don't engage in dirty tricks, and have done so for a loooong time.

But the reality is that both sides engage in down and dirty politics, depending on the politician. The Republicans have been caught more often, that's all.

But, yeah, this is an issue that people who fucking care about the rule of law and constitutional protections should and do care about. Whatever side of the aisle they may be on.

This is why I am a Liberal. The bootlicking goosesteppers give me but one choice and that is to align with people who care about me keeping my private business private.

The bootlicking goosesteppers all want to get into my business and tell me how to live.

This situation clearly delineates the differences. They want the government to spy on me.

Hi there bootlicking goosesteppers, fuck you!

Play victim
Follow me out of the wilderness
We (they) WIN!!! because we are right/more righteous/have always been right

Next story - repeat step #1

democrats tear each other and their President apart over some "suddenly shocking" 12 year old program

I guess you can say they are concentrating on how to maintain and increase their Majority in the House, and maybe take back the Senate.

We shouldn't be helping them in their endeavors, but it appears we didn't learn anything from 2010 when "some" were "outraged" that we didn't mandate Medicare for All, or whatever else....

Oh well, infighting like this will only set the country back a few generations as we fight to wrest power from the hands of people that REALLY ARE TYRANICAL in their policies and deeds.

Evidently in your view it's not the spying that's the problem but rather those who dare to object to it.

this program is vital to protecting our country against terrorists, and vital to stopping attacks before they can happen, and vital to finding collaborators or aides that may be assisting them.

My argument is that President Obama had his administration conduct a review of the Patriot Act, and made sure that our intelligence team were operating within the law and the Constitution.

My argument is that President Obama ensured that we have career Federal Judges and Congress in their proper oversight roles.

My argument is that President Obama did not use this law to seek "warrantless" wiretaps.

My argument is that President Obama has nominated judges to the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary that support strong protections of individual rights...including the right to privacy.

My argument is that the collection of phone records is behind a firewall that can only be breached with the review and approval of career federal judges, and only in cases where our national security is threatened.

My argument is that President Obama ended torture.

My argument is that President Obama and his team have put oversight safeguards in place that prevent future administrations from using this data for nefarious means.

My argument is that there are necessary programs that may make us "squishy", but that squishy feeling is nothing compared to what we would feel should a major city be vaporized.

And my "problem" is with those who scream outrageous crap like "Gestapo", or "Stalin", or "Spying" or "Illegal", or "Death Camps", or "Tracking Innocent Americans" or "Un-Constitutional", etc., when it's obvious they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

If you think Republicans are going to respect any sort of "safeguards" built into a spying program if they get in charge then you are far too naive to be having a serious discussion on national security with.

What do you think happens when you make a phone call? What do you think happens when you go on the internet?

Amazing how even DU can place ads on the page that coincide with what you may have shown interest in...everything from dental insurance to New Cars.

How do you think courts get phone records in a criminal, or even civil trial? They go to the people who collect that data, and order it be handed over.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, data on what we do on the internet, who we call on our cellphones and landlines, where we go in our car equipped with GPS, where we use our Credit Cards and what we buy, etc, etc, etc...is being collected all over the place.

The innocuous phone data that A COLLECTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES authorized to be collected, that CONGRESS WAS FULLY BRIEFED ON, and that has been collected FOR OVER 12 YEARS is completely and entirely useless, unless and until there is a valid and compelling reason to retrieve and review it.

How this program works is that, suppose there is a terrorist attack, or we catch a bunch of folks that were planning an attack, say or "your town", or they had plans to bring down a city block where your family lived, or your children went to school. As part of that "criminal investigation" or "arrest", the FBI seizes these folks cellphones. They then go before a Federal Judge and request that the NSA database be searched for numbers called by that phone number. This database would provide the FBI with vital information that could prove vital to our national security.

I happen to think that's a good thing.

Folks who try to make this program more than it is, or think that the "gubmint" is listening to your phone calls, or "spying" on you, are - just - plain - WRONG!

Why you would want your enemies, people who hate you and everything you stand for, to have this sort of power I simply cannot fathom.

that dozens of Federal Judges, hundreds of House and Senate members and their staffs, thousands of career intelligence officers and tens of thousands of law enforcement agents would allow them to get away with it.

Some of this talk I'm seeing on DU sounds like it's coming from the paranoid fantasies of Glenn Beck.

They proved that the judiciary at least is corrupt all the way to the top and sure as hell the legislative and executive didn't cal them on it.

for Liberals and Libertarians to unite and make a difference.

We are a surveillance society.



I got this from a website connected to the Cato Institute, oddly enough.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/

how long ago it was that I realized there was really no difference betwixt and between the Republican and Democratic parties.
Democrats have not, at least in the last 12 years had ANY complaint about domestic spying.
They think it will make them feel ... 'safe'.
dc

to split us.

This is really a non-issue. But the Right is trying to use this to split us apart and then to portray us as "non-security", and to argue that Dems will make us "less safe"

Don't fall for their trap.

It takes two to argue, stop defending dragnet surveillance of the American people and the issue goes away.

fighting terrorism? Pushing this story undermines the right-wing mime that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer or at least soft on terrorism. However terrible the expansion of the surveillance state is - outside of limited circles - I doubt we will see many Republicans wanting to make much out of it. This scandal causes way too much cognitive dissonance for the right-wing mind.