We Are Not Advocates Of the NSA Or Police States. We Are Reality Based & Advocate Facts

[KittyWampus]

reasoned discourse and placing responsibility on appropriate parties.

We like to take a few days before lighting our hair on fire and engaging in reactionary screaming.

Seems to me, that anyone engaged in "more liberal than thou" finger pointing really ought to check their own heads first.

It's amazing how any time an issue surfaces for whatever reason, so many instantly become experts and can insist on the veracity of only a small section of information available… and that information will always agree with one's own bias.

I prefer facts to conjecture and hyperbolic babbling.

I am far left of center.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a reactionary screamer.

[boston bean]

1. You prefer facts to "hyperbolic babbling"

good to know!

[cali]

2. what's with the royal we? why not just speak for yourself?

[KittyWampus]

4. it's a quirk. Like you calling others "cupcake", I suppose. And a lot of us are sick of being called

enablers etc.

[markiv]

10. if you dont like being called an enabler

quit being one

[ElboRuum]

109. Or if you're GOING to call someone an "enabler"...

...pretend that it is your onus to explain why, not for the "enabler" to reflexively apologize for his or her view if it disagrees with yours.

[cali]

15. I think it's more like not having the courage of your convictions and it's

contemptible to speak for others in that manner.

but then the op is a vapid, self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious little dribble of inanity.

[redqueen]

16. Or "shitbags" nt

[bunnies]

21. "liberal sockpuppet authoritarian shitbags"

Dont leave the good parts out.

[Logical]

83. I suggest you write another post saying that. The WE crap makes no sense. n-t

[Bobbie Jo]

126. Nonsense

The post is just fine the way it is.

You certainly don't speak for the WE around here either.

[Logical]

134. LOL, 41 recs. Sure. n-t

[Bobbie Jo]

142. Recs?

Who cares?

Again, you are not WE by any stretch.

Recs.

[Logical]

143. Here is a post for the "WE" crowd. Maybe it should be......

"WE are gullible as hell!" Which ALREADY has more recs. LOL. Embarrassed yet?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023024565

[Bobbie Jo]

144. ?

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Was that your intent?

Grow up.

This is like a bad episode of mean girls.

Seriously.

eta: followed the link....

I wouldn't take anything from that poster at face value. If he posted "today is Saturday" I would find a calendar.

[Logical]

145. Well, I am honored I am smart enough to not know what "a bad episode of mean girls" is. n-t

[Bobbie Jo]

146. Yeah

That makes you a fucking genius.

[Bobbie Jo]

161. Are you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023025873

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3025519

Talk about embarrassing.

Yes, apparently your "WE crowd" are gullible as hell!

[Logical]

165. Yes, you are still gullible as hell. Let me know if Mean Girls cover this story. LOL!!

[graham4anything]

105. I myself agree with the OP. So I am royally part of we.

[B2G]

3. Bull. Pure politics.

[Quantess]

104. Very interesting. A lot of it is based on rooting for a team.

A large percentage of people support whatever their party is doing.

Democrats are not immune to this phenomena, although they like to believe they are more advanced creatures.

[The Magistrate]

5. True, Ma'am

This is not a reasoned or disinterested dispute over proper extent or exercise of government power.

It is a political fight, in which one side aims to discredit the other, to hamstring and hobble it in the period before the next election, and to shift the focus from its own lacks and discredits. In this particular fight, one side is composed of tea-bagging traitors, the most un-American bunch to infest our political life since the confederacy, and their Birchite corporate pay-masters; the other side is President Obama and his Administration. I am on one side of this, the only side a person who opposes the most reactionary elements of our political culture can be on in the present situation.

I support President Obama.

[Dragonfli]

33. It would appear sir, your principles are nothing more than affectations of the moment

Your moral compass is a spinning prop that reveals hypocrisy.

First, on the subject of the N.S.A. operation revealed recently, it is undeniable something must be done. The action is a flat violation of the law; the current occupant of the Oval Office has publicly declared he ordered it done. This is a situation unique in the history of the Republic, that the current holder of the title of Chief Executive has stated publicly he has committed a felony. It is precisely the sort of crime of state, committed by the Executive wielding subordinates to its commission, the Founders had in mind when they included the remedy of impeachment. Some may well feel political expediency requires silence or inaction in the matter, but fealty to the Constitution, the touchstone of patriotism in our Republic since its foundation, dictates otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2523073#2523886

You were respected and admired as a man of principle back then, now that I know it was a mere illusion, I conclude your statements are meaningless partisan bobbleheading.

[The Magistrate]

34. The Law Today, Sir, Differs From The Law As It Was Then

This is really not so difficult a concept to grasp, and one suspects those who fail to grasp it have to put some effort into the thing....

[n2doc]

35. But is the law always right or moral, Sir?

It has not always been so, and certainly there are aspects that appear to still be morally wrong. Ask yourself if it always moves in the correct direction, or if it moves at the whims of those leading this country.

[The Magistrate]

37. The Question, Sir, Is Whether A Thing Was A Crime Under Law Or Not

When Bush began this program, he did in fact authorize his agents to commit felonies under existing statute, and to denounce him for this was proper, and does not make it a principled duty to denounce President Obama as a felon liable to impeachment when the law in force now permits the actions.

Whether a law is right or moral is a separate question. I have not addressed it here, and will not, for the reasons I set out above in my earlier post. I will not join an effort to attach a cloud of scandal and malfeasance to President Obama's administration over this.

[n2doc]

39. I see nothing in the OP about this, Sir.

I also discount the calls for Impeachment. However I can also discern between blind following of our President's actions because they are legal, and opposing what is morally and constitutionally wrong. The Supreme Court may condone the present day ignoring of several Amendments, but that is not certain to continue in the future. Especially if enough Americans oppose the loss of its protections. The phrase "silence equals consent" comes to mind.

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. The more I read the rationalizations, the more I conclude

that DUers will accept ANYTHING so long as it's "legal."


Which makes you wonder why all the kerfuffle about the PATRIOT Act. Geez, guys, it's the LAW. Accept it.

[Summer Hathaway]

98. Speaking of rationalizations ...

Some DUers will accept anything so long as it puts the current president and/or his administration in a bad light.

How ironic that Obama supporters are invariably accused of hero-worship - when the greatest example of hero-worship has been that of Snowden.

Within 48 hours of everyone hearing his name, and his tale, for the first time, he was duly canonized. It was instantaneous, and any questions raised as to his background, his resume, his experience, his life in general, were immediately labelled as "smearing".

And now we see the result of buyer's remorse, as the early jumpers onto the bandwagon realize the bandwagon's wheels are not as sturdy as advertised.

"DUers will accept ANYTHING so long as it's "legal."

Rational people accept that once something is legislated into law, it is the law. They can like it, love it, hate it, be indifferent to it - but their view of it doesn't change the fact that it IS the law.

If you don't like the law as it stands, you have your remedies.

[ElboRuum]

110. On progressivism and rationality...

...I've had it proven on many occasions that while they can go together, it should never be assumed that they do.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. The 4th Amendment and Article V are the law. Yes, they are always right.

Statutes adopted contrary to the 4th Amendment and Article V are always wrong.

[The Magistrate]

64. Statutes Adopted, Sir, Contrary To Your View Of These, However, Are Not Always Wrong

Your view of the meaning of the 4th Amendment is not determinative.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. Sir, the plain words of the 4th Amendment are the law.

[stevenleser]

84. The first amendment is plain too, but it has limits and interpretations. The second does as well.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand the Constitution.

[The Magistrate]

86. No Words In Law, Sir, Are Quite So Plain As You Seem To Imagine Them To Be

It is vanishingly unlikely, for instance, your view of 'unreasonable' would jibe with any court's view....

[graham4anything]

106. unreasonable does not mean reasonable. And, prey tell, what does the #2 one mean?

According to zim from florida, it means he could shoot coward style unarmed man in Florida and say the 2nd.

After all, the second then did not mean the 2nd now. It was a reinterpretation that giveth it today,
and tomorrow another reinterpretation will taketh away.

And, what does Tom Jeff's statement All Men are created equal mean
It says plain word style ALL MEN are created equal that are considered equal in the eyes of Tommy Jefferson, who of course
SPECIFICALLY DID NOT say women or any minority.

SO plain words??? They are unreasonable.

[Dragonfli]

107. I am glad the Mage has found an acolyte intellectually worthy of defending

his new improved principles. It takes a mind as nimble as yours to help him argue the meaningless of the fourth now that the President has changed and retroactive immunity has been granted.

[Marr]

36. Surely you can understand why making a thing legal retroactively, then blocking

any real judicial review by saying no one can bring suit since they can't prove to have been spied upon personally, does not seem very legitimate to many people.

It may be technically legal at the moment, but only, I would say, because it's being kept in a sort of legal limbo via abuse of 'national security' secrecy. The morality of the thing hasn't changed, and the 4th Amendment hasn't changed.

[The Magistrate]

41. The Same Complaint, Sir

Might be raised against a change in law which made something previously lawful a crime, that persons would now be charged for something they had before been free to do. The fact is that the law was changed.

Even if a person proved that the government had records of their telephone usage, they might well still fail the test of standing to sue, by being unable to demonstrate having suffered any real damages from this.

[Marr]

47. No, it cannot.

The problem isn't that the law was changed-- laws change all the time. The problem is that it was done in a secrecy vacuum, and all of the mechanisms currently in place (supposedly) to prevent abuses are also secret. Secret courts, secret rulings, secret warrants, etc.

As for your second paragraph... "might" be unable to prove that any real damage was done? Since when is that a reason to deny legal review? Any random murderer "might" beat the murder charge. That's kind of the whole point of a trial.

Until this thing is allowed out of it's national security secrecy limbo and actually challenged in an actual court, I don't see how anyone could consider it legitimate.

[The Magistrate]

51. Part Of Bringing Suit, Sir, Is Demonstrating A Harm Done To You

If you cannot show you were harmed, in a real, not a hypothetical, way, you cannot sue for redress in a Federal court. That is what the question of 'standing' to sue concerns. 'I think X did Y to me' is not sufficient, and even 'X did Y to me' may not be, unless you can show 'X did Y to me with Z harmful consequence'. The fact that a suit does not survive test for standing does not mean a thing has not been challenged, it means the court finds at the outset that nothing has been done to the plaintiff, and so there is no case to try. It is on standing that the various 'birther' suits foundered, for example, because the plaintiffs could not show at the start that any harm had been done to them. In most real suits, the question is obvious from the start: a bill has not been paid, and asset has been seized or destroyed, evidence has been with-held from a defense, a person has been placed under arrest, or what have you.

[Luminous Animal]

93. And "national security" has put standing in a catch 22. We can't win for losin'.

[Number23]

97. Awesome posts. Absolutely fantastic. And your point about showing HOW you've been harmed

is essential, but unfortunately someone forgot to explain that to these people. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/nsa-court-challenges

They are suing the Obama administration for THREE BILLION dollars based on the NSA surveillance without so much as a shred of proof.

...The lawsuit offered no specifics of any targeted surveillance. The Stranges based their allegations on "information and belief."

[Marr]

124. The 'harm done' is the violation of your privacy rights.

I don't understand how you think you can argue both these points at the same time.

You're simultaneously arguing that 'this is just metadata' and no real intrusion, and at the same time, saying secret surveillance doesn't do harm because no one being spied upon actually knows for certain that their rights have been violated.

Using that logic, the government could perform any sort of mass surveillance it wanted, and it would be A-OK, since it's secret and you'd never actually be able to prove it.

[The Magistrate]

130. I Am Not Arguing Anything, Sir

I am simply pointing out what has to be satisfied to gain standing to sue in Federal court. If you cannot show something was done to you by the entity you wish to sue, or you cannot show some tangible harm was done to you by that entity, you cannot sue. Whether your privacy rights were violated depends on whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a court's definition of that may well be very different from yours, so different, in fact, that you might cry out 'That's just nuts!' when you read it.

[Number23]

139. I argued no such thing. I wish to GOD IN HEAVEN you would put me on ignore

[Marr]

147. This is what, the third time you've asked ME to ignore YOU, instead of just doing it yourself.

Why is that? Is it because you still want to be able to respond to discussions and look like you "won" or something?

Just use the ignore button on me if I annoy you that much. I'm not going to do the ignoring for you. I'm not your fucking mother.

[Number23]

148. You have decided to chase me around with the most asinine NON-points

Your definition of arguing is to be as nasty as you are wrong. There are lots of people that I disagree with here but there are only a select few that I have asked to put me on ignore because their behavior can only be construed as harassing or the quality of their posts is indicative of someone with issues. I'll let you figure out which group I think you qualify for.

Your response in this thread is a prime example. You are ascribing arguments to me that I have never even made in order to argue just for the sheer hell of arguing even though it's obvious you ain't got a damn thing to actually say about anything.

In the old days the admins would put someone like you on forced ignore. If you could constrain yourself and cease responding to me, this wouldn't be an issue. But since it is glaringly apparent that you cannot, I am going to ask ONCE AGAIN that you put me on ignore.

[Marr]

150. Uh, you jumped into an exchange I was having with the Magistrate, genius.

Glance up the thread there. I don't follow you around at all. To be very frank, yours is one of the very few names here that I tend to skip over more often than not, because I know we just don't agree on much of anything.

I'll say it one more time. If you don't want to see my name, YOU put ME on ignore. That is how it works. If you refuse to do that, you have no right to whine about seeing my posts.

[Number23]

151. I posted a link to an ARTICLE to the Magistrate. I didn't even read your post but posted an article

that supported the MAGISTRATE'S posts. I do not and HAVE not posted anything to you. And yet, that still didn't stop you from conjuring up an argument you claim I made that I have not. You are seeing things and arguing with yourself. AGAIN.

Which has now lead to my 4th request for you to put me on ignore.

[Marr]

152. I'm sorry, but your behavior is just bizarre.

I'm not going to put you on ignore. I have no one on my ignore list and I don't intend to change that. You can manage your ignores for yourself.

We're finished here.

[Number23]

153. The man conjuring up arguments in his head so that he can argue with half the board

is calling MY behavior bizarre.

Ignore me or leave me alone. Either option works for me.

[Marr]

154. I will respond to your posts every time I feel like doing so.

If you can't take it-- again-- feel free to put me on ignore.

[Number23]

155. I thought you were "done?" Your behavior is so very telling

I'm beginning to understand why you have to chase after people that have absolutely no interest in you or your opinions. It's all rather terribly sad.

[Marr]

156. I was. But you posted more insults.

And I felt like responding, so I did. I realize that's terribly traumatizing for you, and I do wish you a speedy recovery.

[Number23]

157. So, sad. Really. Really sad this is the only way to get people to acknowledge you

But it's certainly understandable given your posts. At least there have been no rampages...yet.

[Marr]

158. Haha, yeah-- isn't that something?

So how's the weather there? Done any fishing lately?

We might as well get to know each other since we're apparently going to play forum tennis all night.

[Number23]

159. So sad. Bye now. You take good care of yourself. Bless your heart.

[Marr]

160. I caught a trout.

Big one. Great day out.

[Marr]

121. They aren't blocking suits because no one can show they've been directly harmed.

They're blocking suits because no one can prove they've been *spied upon*. It's understood now that mass surveillance is in fact taking place-- but since no individual can prove a violation of their privacy, the DoJ blocks legal action.

The 'harm done' is the violation itself. If someone steals your individual right to vote, you don't have to prove that your single vote would've changed the outcome of the election. The violation of your right is itself reason to bring suit.

[The Magistrate]

125. That Is Part Of Standing, Sir

If you are only guessing someone did something to you, you have no case.

Then you move on to tangible harm.

Being prevented from voting, whether by force or fraud, is a tangible act: either you were turned away from the polling place or your vote was not counted. You have been prevented from exercising a right, and that is a tangible harm.

Things become more nebulous when claiming harm from something like a list of telephone numbers you called being present in a government file. That is, by old precedent, something you have no expectation of privacy over. Even in the question of e-mails, the fact that you know a record is held by the service carrying them opens a question of whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding them. It is not like sending a letter in a sealed envelope.

[Marr]

127. By that logic, there is no limit to acceptable mass surveillance.

It's all secret, so it no problem. So why bother arguing about so-called 'metadata' being no big deal, as has been the primary thrust of these arguments? Why bother making assurances that these operations don't cross any lines that would make people uncomfortable, when secrecy itself seems to be all that's required to make them legally unassailable?

Besides, the public is no longer just 'guessing' that something has been done to them. As a group, the general public is on solid footing now in asserting that its privacy rights have been trampled.

[The Magistrate]

128. That May Well Be, Sir

My point here is simply that the actual state of the law on the matter is not nearly so clear-cut as many seem to suppose. The fact is that law, regarding both expectation of privacy and reasonable search, has eroded considerably from what you would have been taught in a civics class fifty years ago. When you add into this the traditional deference of the Courts to the Executive when necessities of national security are claimed by the latter, things become murky indeed....

"I don't make the rules, I don't even play by them, but I know what they are."

[Dragonfli]

38. I grasp that what was reprehensible then is reprehensible now. Retroactive immunity

and bad legislation only affects the ability to prosecute scoundrels. You must feel the need to apologize to Bush now that you are an unwavering supporter of the policies you once were outraged by. My point stands, how can I take such shifting morality seriously?

You appear to only believe in one principle consistently - IOKIYAD.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. The 4th Amendment has remained the same, Sir. The Constitution cannot be changed unless the

procedures in Article V are followed, Sir.

You should know that, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

61. Has A Court Ruled The F.I.S.A. Un-Constitutional, Sir?

I suspect none has.

You are free therefore to have your own view of the matter, but cannot expect to have it given deference as an authoritative statement of fact.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

73. You, sir, cannot provide one court opinion in which the Supreme Court held that a statute is

constitutional until a court determines that it is unconstitutional.

The law is clear. Under Article V, the legislature cannot change the Constitution by merely adopting a statute in conflict with it.

[The Magistrate]

85. That, Sir, Is Flat Nonesense

[AnotherMcIntosh]

90. The nonsense is that you, sir, cannot provide one court opinion in which the Supreme Court so held.

None at all.

[The Magistrate]

91. Can You Cite Constitutional Language Give The Court Authority To Rule A Law Un-Constitutional, Sir?

The idea that a statute is to be presumed in violation of the Constitution, and therefore void, prior to be ruled so by the Court, is indeed flat nonesense. A statute is presumed legitimate, and will be enforced, unless and until it is declared in violation of the Constitution by the Court.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

92. Actually, you are showing your unawareness of Near v Minnesota in which the Supreme Court held

that a statute which results in a prior restraint on what may be published cannot be presumed to be valid.

Such prior restraint is a violation of the protection provided by the First Amendment.

[The Magistrate]

95. That Does Not Say What You Think It Says, Sir

It does establish that were someone to pass a law today which allowed direct censoring of a newspaper, or other media outlet, on ground it was defamatory, malicious, etc., the first court to which an appeal for an injunction was made would be bound to grant an injunction against its enforcement, and that the result of review of the law would be that it would be thrown out. It does not by any means state that a person may disregard such a law without immediate consequence, absent an injunction against its enforcement. An editor, in other words, could well find himself appealing from a cell; he would win, but he could be taken into custody if the law provided for that, in the interval between its passage and the issuance of an injunction staying enforcement. He would not have a case for false arrest, any more than would a person, say, arrested for possession of marijuana by state authorities the day before a law making possession legal went into effect would.

[MNBrewer]

122. The secret interpretations, you mean?

[The Magistrate]

123. Tou Are Aware The Text Was Altered, Sir?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. Oh, SNAP, Sir. +1 nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Is that an NSA talking point, Sir?

[The Magistrate]

53. What Do You, Think, Sir? Do You Suppose That Organization An Arm Of The Democratic Party?

Or do you suppose it to be opposed to the most reactionary elements of our political life?

[The Magistrate]

63. And The Last Of The 'Lefter Than Thou' Raggle-Tag Staggers Into View, Sir....

"I prefer the wicked to the foolish. The wicked sometimes rest."

[woo me with science]

71. Translation: "You're STUPID!"

See how handy this translator is for showing how vacant the Third Way tantrum *really* is?

[Summer Hathaway]

99. And out comes the Label-Maker TM*

right on cue!

It's handy, it's dandy! It can be used anytime, anywhere! It slices, it dices, it juliennes!

Tired of having to actually debate someone on a political discussion board with facts 'n' stats? No problem - just pull out your Label-Maker TM* and punch out a catchy phrase like Republican-Lite, Conservadem, Water-carrier for The 1%, or the ever-popular Third Wayer!!!!

Dazzle your family! Amuse your friends! Never be at a loss for words when the Label-Maker TM* can say it all for you!

The Label-Maker TM* makes a great gift, whatever the occasion - although re-gifting is greatly encouraged.

[Number23]

102. Testimonial:

"We love the Label-Maker! It's made being pointlessly rude and alienating people much smarter than us so much easier! Now we can endlessly toss out the world's most useless, moronic insults without even having to THINK about it!"

[Bobbie Jo]

118. LOL!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. Well done. Now if we could only have an app to translate 3rd-Way bullshit into English in real time

[calimary]

59. A most elegant post, sir.

Can't say I disagree.

"I am on one side of this, the only side a person who opposes the most reactionary elements of our political culture can be on in the present situation."

GREAT quote!

[Whisp]

72. +++

[Monkie]

87. by framing it as one side vs another you block discourse

you can sir or ma´am all you want but if you frame the issue as either A or B, in a complex world with a alphabet of possibilities then you, sir, you stifle discussion, this is undemocratic, politely so, but still, not democracy.
the fact is, sir, that democratically elected democratic law makers have said that they were surprised by the secret briefings they were given as a result of these leaks. and to quote just one of them.

"What we learned in there," Sanchez said, "is significantly more than what is out in the media today."
...

"I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg," she said.

"I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too," Sanchez said of the briefing.

the tip of the iceberg, astounded most of us, almost appealing for more leaks. watch the video yourself.

http://thehill.com/video/house/305047-dem-rep-lawmakers-learned-significantly-more-about-surveillance-programs-in-nsa-briefing#ixzz2W1vDJJVM

if you can watch this sir, and tell me this is really just a attempt to discredit, a political fight, that it is obama and his administration vs the un-americans, then i really wonder about your capacity to judge these issues. if you really believe in the law, in democracy and in debate, this must disturb you.
i can see this democratic law maker wants to debate in the video, but she is forbidden from doing so.

[Bonobo]

100. One wonders which side of the "political fight", Sir...

that you imagine Al Gore and Bernie Sanders to be on when they stated quite unequivocally that this degree of NSA spying falls outside of the spirit of the 4th Amendment whose purpose was to offer us some protection from intrusive spying upon the privacy of the citizens.

[The Magistrate]

108. Perhaps, Sir, They Are Operating Under The Mistaken Impression Some Here Seem To Share

And imagine this is some reasoned and disinterested dispute over proper extent or exercise of government power.

Mr. Gore in particular has never struck me as a man with a good sense of what the political waters are, of what sort of a fight he is in, whether he knows it or not. His calamitous decision in 2000 to distance himself from President Clinton, signaled by his selection for Vice President of a person, Lieberman, whose sole credential for the ticket was that he had been the first Democratic Senator to denounce President Clinton's sexual behavior, abundantly demonstrates Mr. Gore's lack of political perspicacity.

The fact is that this is not a reasoned or disinterested dispute over proper extent or exercise of government power.

It is a political fight, in which one side aims to discredit the other, to hamstring and hobble it in the period before the next election, and to shift the focus from its own lacks and discredits. In this particular fight, one side is composed of tea-bagging traitors, the most un-American bunch to infest our political life since the confederacy, and their Birchite corporate pay-masters; the other side is President Obama and his Administration. I am on one side of this, the only side a person who opposes the most reactionary elements of our political culture can be on in the present situation.

I support President Obama.

[Monkie]

166. i see that you chose not to address my question and Rep. Sanchez's statements.

are you saying that Rep. Sanchez is part of a un-american infestation?

or are you just a very polite cherry picker?

[The Magistrate]

168. Your Question Was Answered Sir: You Just Do Not Find The Answer Useful....

And that is because you do not want to think seriously about what the actual political circumstances and stakes are.

[Monkie]

170. lets continue this conversation when the republicans are in power next then, sir.

i'm sure you will be ready to listen to reason then.
i think i understand the stakes quite well, the stakes are the american empire and its attempt at dominating the whole planet at the behest of the greedy sociopaths some call the 1%, and its current servant, obama.

[markiv]

6. who is 'we'?

and when did this 'we' i am not a part of, decide this?

and who appointed 'we'?

the evidence on the table (metadata of all verizon phone calls), not denied by the admin, is enough justification for outrage

[think]

7. The FISA court is OK with the release of it's ruling that the NSA violated the law

(Bold added for emphasis.)

FISC Will Not Object To Release of 2011 Court Opinion That Confirmed NSA’s Illegal Surveillance
By Sreeja VN | June 13 2013 1:32 AM


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, ruled Wednesday that it has no objection to the release of a 2011 opinion of the court, which found that some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs under the FISA Amendments Act, were unconstitutional....

~Snip~

However, the ruling will not make the opinion immediately available to the public, and EFF will have to pursue the matter in a lower court -- where it initially filed its plea -- which would then decide whether the document is eligible to be released under FOIA.

EFF attorney Mark Rumold welcomed the court’s ruling and said it is the first victory for a non-governmental party in the FISC.

"It's important to know that while this is a victory, it is a pretty modest one," he said. "It's the FISC realizing that the Department (of Justice) was making crazy arguments, and they quickly got rid of it. Now we have to go right back to the district court." said Mark Rumold, according to the Huffington Post.

Full article:
http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023#

Can we start here?

[OilemFirchen]

29. That's very useful, indeed.

I hope that the EFF case continues, so that the Judiciary can properly weigh in on this matter.

Please note this from the NBC article:

The letter, from Kathleen Turner, Clapper’s chief of legislative affairs, provided no further information about what the FISC found to be unconstitutional, but did state that the government “has remedied these concerns” and the FISC has continued to approve its collection activities.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/12/18925384-secret-court-wont-object-to-release-of-opinion-on-illegal-surveillance

My emphasis.


ETA: Cite.

[think]

30. Wouldn't it be nice if our Senators could tell us when the NSA violates the law

without having to get permission?

Because I really don't give a rats ass about the least untruthful answers given by the NSA when they already violated the law....

[sibelian]

8. Oh NO my young apprentice.

I'm afraid it is YOU who are mistaken.

ABOUT A GREAT. MANY. THINGS.

cackle.

[RC]

9. What really bothers me are those here that defend what our government is doing to us and the rest of

the world.

Those are tactics of a totalitarian state that many are defending.
For those that think they want safety over freedom, just whose safety do your think our owners deem is more important? Ours or theirs?

[Bluenorthwest]

11. WE? Are you conjoined twins?

Characterization of your own views as 'reality' and others as 'babbling' is a text book example of hyperbole.

[Atticus]

96. sigh---

Still waiting for you to post something that isn't polluted with snark.
Can you contribute something positive or is being snotty more important?

[Bluenorthwest]

140. And here you are making petty, personal comments unrelated to the topic of the thread

whose tone I answered in kind, snarling bit of venom that it is. I note the author could did not respond. I note you only complain about the faults of others.

[Atticus]

171. sigh---

just "sigh---

[reformist2]

12. We are the milquetoasts, who get our rights trampled on. But we're so reasonable!

[morningfog]

13. We are sensible woodchucks.

[bunnies]

19. Yesterday it was BOrG, today its woodchuck.

These inter-DU insults are so hard to keep up with. Whats it mean?

[morningfog]

20. The easiest way to think of it is propagandist or apologist.

For clarity, they all mean the same thing.

[bunnies]

23. Well, that makes it easy.

Thanks for filling me in.

[frylock]

54. google "Chuckles the Sensible Woodchuck"

[ElboRuum]

112. Oh, you know what it means, they just used different terminology before...

Square, shill, sheeple, it's all the same. The redpillers trying to educate the bluepillers, and whining about how intractable they are.

[demmiblue]

14. Is anyone else getting tired of these Meta-type threads in GD? n/t

[bunnies]

18. Yes. We are.

couldnt help myself. But I understand what Kitty is saying.

[ElboRuum]

117. No.

DU has always been a sort-of-nation-at-war-with-itself and with the demise of Meta, these threads serve to remind everyone that just because two people call themselves "progressive" doesn't mean they agree on a goddamn thing. I like that kind of gutcheck every now and again.

I like how we all like to think of ourselves as kind and principled people and then read threads where basically we call each other insulting, labeling names and conflate each other with the worst traits of our enemies simply on a basic disagreement on perception and degree.

I like how we all like to think of ourselves as somehow more learned and educated and ever so much more scholarly than the average bear and have the temerity to imply it or outright state it.

I like how they reveal how exclusionary we've all really become, and how completely willing we are to see people who only agree with us partially as a troll or a plant or an "operative". That last one is my favorite, it conjures images of smoke-filled back rooms... VERY conspiratorial.

I like how these threads all really lay bare all of our shortcomings not only as political junkies, but as people. It takes the conversation out of the rafters and back down to earth where we can start thinking about it rather than pontificating about it.

I'd like to say that this complete polarization of DU into the redpills and the bluepills or whatever the labels are these days was as valuable and necessary as some would suggest, but it seems more or less a justification of its own end to those who like to inhabit the fringes of the continuum.

I have always believed, unlike some of my more 'principled' cohorts around here, that our lack of unity in either principle or platform or priority has not been a political strength. It is a liability. I know this because our opponents use it without fail to undermine our ability to change things for the better. Does this mean I am for lockstep belief and faith in a particular leader? No. Far from it. In fact, I don't even think the progressive movement is political in nature, rather is a major shift in attitude and values at the societal and personal levels, and therefore does not even REQUIRE a political head. However, I would be remiss that there isn't a political component to it. It is in this component that it fails.

It fails because political movements are like amoebae. They can only move if most (not all, but most) of its innards are moving in the same direction. If an amoeba churned in its innards like we do, it would be utter chaos on the inside, but motionless looking in from the outside. It may be true that some bits of cytoplasm aren't going to like all of the directions we are going, but that doesn't mean that going there isn't necessary to other ends.

And that's why I think a good meta thread is good every once in a while. It is one of the few ways that you can get a real impression of what the issues are, not with progressive views, but with progressive people. Whether anything comes of that depends on the individual and if they're here because they think of this place as a forum for ideas, conjecture, and reason, or as just a sounding board for their own views.

Yeah, it's a train wreck, but it doesn't have to be a pointless one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Here is some reality for ya

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13410

After you are done reading that...come back and tell me you are still a reasonable woodchuck.

That said, we live in a dictablanda, inverted totalitarianism, whatever you want to call it.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

56. When does the war with North Korea start?

Several weeks ago you said it was imminent.

Answer the question.

[HangOnKids]

65. Could you please post another picture of your crying kid?

Because that makes about as much sense as your post.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

67. Awww

Don't be a gloomy gus. She said a few weeks ago we were going to war with North Korea. Never happened. Now she refuses to answer the question about her assertion, which was obviously absurd.

[HangOnKids]

69. Awwwww I care what Nadin says here you not at all

So please keep posting pictures of your whining kid.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

70. You don't care about what I have to say?

Why golly gee willackers that's not very nice.

[treestar]

81. We still don't know when the war on NK starts, however

[Andy823]

22. I will be part of that "we"!

Very well said. I don't think many here are advocates of the NSA or police state, except maybe some of the Rand Paul supporters who have been posting. It's way to easy to get caught up in the moment, to say things simply because we get mad, but as you said we should all take time for the facts to come out to get a better picture of what is going on.

I really hope that congress has a real debate on this issue, and they fix the problems, and I am sure there are problems that need to be fixed. Nothing will change unless congress makes those changes, and more important we vote in people who are willing to make the changes that need to be made. If we don't do our job of voting for candidates who we think will work for the people, then when we get more tea party clowns, or right wing morons in congress who will put their agenda in place, and to hell with everyone else.

2010 should have been a lesson for everyone who didn't bother to vote. We can argue all we want on boards like this, but what it really comes down to is not letting the Rand Paul types, the tea party, the neocons, the Michele Baccmans, the Steve King bunch, etc. gain control of our government. We can't afford that, no way, no how.

We should be able to agree to disagree on some issue without becoming divided to the point some say they will never vote for a democrat again, or they will simply not support anyone in 2014. That's what the right wants, and we have to make sure we don't let them get what they want.

Thanks for the post.

[redqueen]

25. Just to highlight the part that *should* have people going "hmmmmm"...

We should be able to agree to disagree on some issue without becoming divided to the point some say they will never vote for a democrat again, or they will simply not support anyone in 2014. That's what the right wants, and we have to make sure we don't let them get what they want.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. In 2010 Oregon had the largest midterm turnout since at least the 80's

We elected Democrats.
Since you are pointing to a 'lesson' can I assume your State had great turn out and elected Democrats?
Because if you did not, and your turnout was low and your Democrats lost, you can get plenty of help from those of us who know what we are doing.
Will you share with DU how well you did in 2010 locally, since you are well mounted in the pulpit delivering 'lessons' ?
Many here who spout about 2010 and turnout and point fingers come from Red States with low turn out that elect only Republicans. The irony is thick, but I'm sure that's not you, so share with us....

[Andy823]

31. I live in Washington state

We did what we always do, democrats won on the west side and republicans won on the east side, but the numbers were down, and it was close. Locally the numbers were way down from 2008, but I live on the east side and republicans always win at least 95% of the time.

Check out the numbers in states like Wisconsin and the others were republicans took control of local and state governments.

Your attitude is and one reason why thing around here seem to be so divided. Why is it that you have to question the motive of all those who disagree with you? Does that help unite people or divide them?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. What is my attitude, that people should get turn out up and elect Democrats?

What do we disagree about? Why were your numbers down? I think they should be better. Do you disagree with that?
Show me the bits of your post that were uniting. Because it read like a list of what is wrong with other people.
I don't know anyone who did not vote in 2010. Do you? If so, why did they say they skipped the election?

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. Lacking any means to compel people to vote, 2010 should have been a

lesson to the party. Obviously it didn't take.

Oregon and Vermont are the closest thing we have to sanity in this nation, but they are hardly indicative of where the rest of us live.

[TheKentuckian]

103. Well then don't be divided over things that you claim not to favor anyway.

Instead of a dominate coalition able to exert great influence on the direction of the party, some folks would rather fight against what they supposedly believe is best and folks they agree with.

How does this strange dynamic occur? I think in no small part because of the fear of what happens when the illusion ends. Maybe the greatest cynics are the loudest and most fanatic, they don't want to be around when the lights come up. Hoping against hope that everyone just goes along to get along and maybe they can shuffle off the stage of the little play before the pretense is dropped, damn the future.

[pa28]

24. Right, let's end the lighting of hair on fire.

And the reactionary screaming from finger pointers and most of all the hyperbolic babbling. Totally agree.

[Just Saying]

26. I'm with your "we"!

I'm not a panic kind of person in the first place. I'm not sure how that reaction is helpful in a crisis anyway!

[markiv]

28. perhaps not an advocate, but definately an apologist nt

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Fortunately, virtual hairfires rarely escape...

the intertubes and are usually put out fairly quickly when they do. It seems people who are actually involved want little to do with all this time-killing by people with little else to do.

There are exceptions, of course, but more and more I'm thinking the real point of everything from Facebook to DU is to occupy a certain segment of people so they don't go out in the real world and fuck things up more than they already are.

NSA spying and bureaucratic nonsense? I felt it during Johnson's time when I dropped out of college, got drafted and my membership in an ROTC honor fraternity while in college put black marks on my record because they never asked what the Carolan Guard was and just assumed it was some bunch of rightwing nutters. One commander was apologetic when it got straightened out, but I heard nothing from the asshole who started the nonsense without checking.

Then came Nixon and while we all in the anti-war movement assumed we were being spied on, now we knew we were. I was out of the army then, and we imagined FBI agents and NYC cops gagging when they looked in the mirror every morning and realized they didn't have to shave. Ever see an FBI agent try to look comfortable in tie-die?

Now we have a flood of new initials and COINTELPRO is no more-- but reborn under one of the new ones. Our government, like all governments, is going to spy on us no matter what we do. As is Google, Verizon, and Pathmark when I use the member card to get the sale price or KMart to get some points. I constantly see Amazon ads popping up in the strangest places as if they know what I'm thinking, but I never bought anything from them so how do they know? My bowser tells them, of course-- my browser history shows Facebook, Amazon, and other sites it claims I visited when I know I didn't-- at least not by choice.

I don't like it, but I understand it. It's incredibly difficult for us humans to stop doing something we learned to do when we think it might be the right thing to do, or at least beneficial. Fuhgeddabout it if it's fun or secretive and allowed.

Those spying on us are convinced that they are doing the right thing and whether it's selling us more stuff or catching criminals they are the good guys. Unlike doctors, who may be tempted to try some ethically challenged procedures to save lives, there is no mechanism to reign these spies and voyeurs in. Any rules or laws out there are as much a secret as the spies themselves are, as are any inquiries or investigations.

What to do? I really have no answer. Maybe the best we can do is occasionally break through the secrecy, go nuts over the findings, and soon enough go back to the same nonsense with some new rules that will be broken shortly. An endless cycle of secret spying and exposure.

Pogo once said "We have met the enemy and it is us." And Pogo had a heyday during the McCarthy era. Assuming we are the height of evolution, evolution has a ways to go. If we are actually the highest creation of some god, maybe there's a reason no god has made a personal appearance in over 2,000 years.

On edit-- lookee what I found:

[UTUSN]

40. R#13 & K for this o.p. It sickens me that a few DUers LOOK FOR ENEMIES among OTHER DUers

instead of always keeping their focus on attacking wingnuts.

[zappaman]

42. This...

"Seems to me, that anyone engaged in "more liberal than thou" finger pointing really ought to check their own heads first."

Right on the money.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. By Monday of this week, you had concluded that Greenwald is a liar

I think that may be reactionary screaming. I could look for more examples, but the first Google hit served to convey my point.

[Hissyspit]

48. With no actually examples of lying.

Dem Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez: "What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."

[bobduca]

119. But trying to explain direct vs. indirect access to the blue linker in chief

and i was accused of speaking gibberish. FYA, Snowden Bashers!

[frylock]

50. fuck your "reality" and fuck your condescending bullshit..

and fuck right-wing policy set forth by "liberal" politicians.

[byronius]

55. Thanks. Appreciate this post.

[JoeyT]

62. Claiming to advocate facts and reasoned discourse and almost

managing to complete the next sentence without using an insult.

Good one.

I don't doubt for a second you're just as liberal as I am. I think you're wrong about this issue, but it isn't really a left/right thing either. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (to use the extremes of left and right, respectively) would be hard pressed to show who was more invasive of their citizen's privacy.

If your position is that the government programs aren't solely or even mostly Obama's fault, I'll agree with you. If your position is that there's nothing wrong with these programs, we're probably never going to agree about this. Our intelligence agencies have, through their history, shown they have zero qualms about abusing any power they're given, legal or not.

[bvar22]

66. A Good Rule of Thumb:

Those who have to claim they are "Reality Based"
...usually aren't.

People who ARE Reality Based
never have to advertise it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

68. "I am not, nor have I ever been, a reactionary screamer."

Let's look at the tape, Dan...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2981596
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2981609
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2981647
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2981640

[FSogol]

76. K&R. n/t

[burnodo]

77. "I am far left of center. "

heh! hardly

[Monkie]

88. i´m slightly to the left of attilla the hun!

i´m so far left of glen beck its just silly!

[Rex]

78. So you are advocates of the NSA or Police State.

Because you would not be denying it, if it was not true. I keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!

[NoOneMan]

79. Yes, anyone who doesn't advocate character assassination is a hyperbolic babbler

Huh?

Everyone *thinks* they (or their group) has a monopoly on reality. Stating it in such a divisive way is simply a polite way of saying anyone who doesn't agree with you lives in fantasy land. In any case, your positioning is yet another grand way not to talk about the actual facts of any issue, but to instead imply superiority.

[treestar]

80. I agree

It's like we are not allowed to question once an outrage has been started. Or consider both sides. No one here has even discussed whether or not the database is reasonable and the extent of the intrusion on privacy. One is supposed to assume it is unreasonable on the spot.

All leakers are heroes and we are not allowed to question that either. Without getting called all these names. The funny thing is the lock step. One side is accused of it and the other does not allow any variation from their lock step or they get to call us apologists and assume we are all for the worst excesses they can imagine.

It would be fair if we started saying they want terrorists to roam unmolested.

[Logical]

82. LOL. Cryptic shit for sure! n-t

[Catherine Vincent]

89. Did NSA have anything to do with this?

[Number23]

94. I'm reccing because of your line about how so many consider themselves instant experts at everything

When I honestly believe that alot of the "leftier than thous" in GD don't have the sense to figure out how to properly flush a toilet.

I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act or of Snowden. And I know that there are alot of people who feel the same way I do.

[ljm2002]

101. We are not amused. n/t

[Agony]

111. The Secret Facts or those other ones?

[dragonfly301]

113. I'll put $$ on the OP coming from DKos

where I read a very similar post - right down to the hair on fire and use of the word hyperbolic. Over there she is supported by a gang, hence the word "we". I came DU to escape the gangs - hope the posting setup here doesn't support it.

[The Magistrate]

114. She Has Been Here For Eleven Years, Sir

I strongly doubt she 'came from anyplace', though perhaps this is not the only site she posts on.

You, on the other hand, have a distinct air of the sock drawer about you, and if offered money, I would take six for seven 'may-fly' will prove a more appropriate name....

[dragonfly301]

115. No not a sock, but I'm relatvely new

Basically just reading and reccing for the past few weeks - sort of like test driving a car. Apparently you don't like your tires kicked - good to know.

[uppityperson]

120. So cute. eom

[The Magistrate]

132. Note No. 131 Below, Ma'am

"Talking to yourself is fine --- just don't lose the arguments."

[Dragonfli]

136. Screw you, you are a damn liar sir, attempting to smear me for pointing out your hypocrisy

Check with the admins before making baseless accusations of sock puppetry, they will no doubt inform you my IP is entirely different and likely originating from a geographic location far from the other poster's. I dare you sir to answer with the facts! Have the Admins investigate your baseless petty smear.

Is this what you have become? Will the horde now follow me around making Hannah Bell and Better believe it smears in an attempt to substitute slander over truth?

How far you have fallen SIIIIR.

To think I once thought you were an honest intelligent and passionate voice for reason.

[The Magistrate]

137. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

[uppityperson]

149. And 3-3 decided to leave it. Incredible. Wondering how"screw you, you are damn liar" is not hideable

Interesting.

[Bobbie Jo]

162. Pitiful.

The hate runs deep with that one.

[uppityperson]

163. I got a pm doubling down oN explaining the insulting language "but he is a...."

There are ways of making a point without resorting to insults.

[Dragonfli]

131. There is a "gang" Dynamic- that posters gang is known as "the boggers"

Best known for a bizarre cult of personality fetish that presents as a self proclaimed vanguard to protect the president from any and all criticism. (the term comes from "the Barack Obama Group", or BOG) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1102

Some even admit to being opposed to the same behavior under bush, but have found religion and now unwaveringly support that same behavior under Obama.

Sadly a poster I respected for years was eloquently outraged over Bush's disregard for the fourth and now defends the same policies just as forcefully under Obama, I posted so above if you are interested.

The OP may or may not post on KOS but is a long time DUer whom was once worthy of great respect before all of the 180 principle changes due to a letter D being present next to the name of the POTUS occured.

There are also "gangs" that unwaveringly stick to principle over party and as you can imagine the gangs clash quite emotionally sometimes. You will not escape the gang dynamic here, in this respect we are very similar to KOS.

[dragonfly301]

133. thanks for the lowdown

not the news i wanted to hear though... Hey, sorry my name is similar to yours - I liked the Gilmore Girls back in the day and this was the name of Lorelei's inn.

[Dragonfli]

135. No need to be sorry, I took my name

from a native American legend to remind me my ego gets me into trouble especially when dealing with coyotes.

http://www.planetdeb.net/spirit/dragonfly.htm

It is actually the pagan name I took when preparing for my first degree initiation several years ago. I use it here as well and everywhere else.

you can't actually take my name without using a special character to write it (the funny I at the end of my sig). There are many dragonflies in nature, there can be many here as well. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[DirkGently]

116. Interesting there's not a single "fact" in this post.

It's a vague call-out accusing non-specific people of unnamed outrages.

Hallmark of flamebait, and not helpful.

[TheKentuckian]

129. Far left of the center of the Birch Society. I doubt you and your fellows are advocates

in any meaningful sense other than for the establishment in general and some political personalities in specific and whatever has to be wiped and dangled along the path, so be it! There would never be a thought about the NSA either way but strong and certain opinion comes when it comes down which way the wind is blowing from on high.

[SidDithers]

141. HUGE K & R !!!

though the "more liberal than thou" are the best source of unintentional comedy on this board.



Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

167. Is Bernie Sanders popular in Canada, Sid?

[CakeGrrl]

164. Glad to Rec...

I love how people are railing about the use of "We" and "condescension" when I've seen crap like this within the last couple of days:

"Fucking Apologists" (with a capital "A&quot
"True Believers are the dumbest MFERs on the planet"
"The BOG"
"Where are the Obamabots?" "They're waiting for their talking points to be e-mailed to them"
"Quick! Answer before President Obama tells you what to think"


And the fucking nerve to scream 'condescension' about this post. That's rich.

People who can't keep their anger in check at whom or whatever is causing their anxiety making this an increasingly nasty and insular place. And I'll bet some actually think it passes for activism.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

169. With your self righteous disdan, and dismissal of the majority here who are participating

in discussing this issue from the opposite side that you have chosen to take, how classy, yet revealing.

Here, add this to deliberations...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023019302

Government Accountability Project Statement on Edward Snowden & NSA Domestic Surveillance

I. SNOWDEN IS A WHISTLEBLOWER.

Snowden disclosed information about a secret program that he reasonably believed to be illegal. Consequently, he meets the legal definition of a whistleblower, despite statements to the contrary made by numerous government officials and security pundits. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), Sen. Mark Udall (D-Co), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) have also expressed concern about the potential illegality of the secret program. Moreover, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) who is one of the original authors of the Patriot Act – the oft-cited justification for this pervasive surveillance – has expressed similar misgiving.

II. SNOWDEN IS THE SUBJECT OF CLASSIC WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION.

Derogatory characterizations of Snowden‘s personal character by government officials do not negate his whistleblower status. On the contrary, such attacks are classic acts of predatory reprisal used against whistleblowers in the wake of their revelations.Snowden’s personal life, his motives and his whereabouts have all been called into question by government officials and pundits engaged in the reflexive response of institutional apologists. The guilty habitually seek to discredit the whistleblower by shifting the spotlight from the dissent to the dissenter. Historically, this pattern of abuse is clear from behavior towards whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Felt, Frank Serpico, Jeffrey Wigand, Jesselyn Radack, and recent NSA whistleblower Tom Drake.

III. THE ISSUE IS THE MESSAGE AND NOT THE MESSENGER.

As a matter of course, whistleblowers are discredited, but what truly matters is the disclosure itself. Snowden’s revelations have sparked a public debate about the balance between privacy and security – a debate that President Obama now claims to welcome. Until Snowden’s disclosures, however, the government had suppressed the facts that would make any serious debate possible.

IV. PERVASIVE SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

Many have condemned Snowden for disclosing classified information, but documents are classified if they reveal sources or methods of intelligence-gathering used to protect the United States from its enemies. Domestic surveillance that is pervasive and secret is only a valid method of intelligence gathering if the country’s enemies include most of its own population. Moreover, under the governing Executive Order it is not legal to classify documents in order to cover up possible misconduct.

V. THE PUBLIC HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KNOW.

In a democracy, it is simply not acceptable to discover widespread government surveillance only after a whistleblower’s revelations. Because of Snowden’s disclosures we now know that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper deliberately misled the Senate Intelligence Committee when he stated on March 12, 2013 that the NSA did not purposefully collect any type of data from millions of Americans. Regardless of the justification for this policy, the public has a Constitutional right to know about these actions.

Unfortunately, the responsibility has fallen on whistleblowers to inform the public about critical policy issues – from warrantless wiretapping to torture. Whistleblowers remain the regulator of last resort.

VI. THERE IS A CLEAR HISTORY OF REPRISAL AGAINST NSA WHISTLEBLOWERS.

By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past. In many cases, the critics are the exact officials who acted to exclude national security employees and contractors from the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

Prior to Snowden’s disclosures, NSA whistleblowers Tom Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, all clients of GAP, used internal mechanisms – including the NSA chain of command, Congressional committees, and the Department of Defense Inspector General – to report the massive waste and privacy violations of earlier incarnations of the NSA’s data collection program. Ultimately, the use of these internal channels served only to expose Binney, Drake and Wiebe to years-long criminal investigations and even FBI raids on their homes. As one example, consider that Tom Drake was subjected to a professionally and financially devastating prosecution under the Espionage Act. Despite a case against him that ultimately collapsed, Drake was labeled an “enemy of the state” and his career ruined.

VII. WE ARE WITNESSING THE CRIMINALIZATION OF WHISTLEBLOWING.

During the last decade, the legal rights for whistleblowers have expanded for many federal workers and contractors, with the one exception of employees within the intelligence community. The rights of these employees have significantly contracted. The Obama administration has conducted an unprecedented campaign against national security whistleblowers, bringing more Espionage Act indictments than all previous administrations combined.

Moreover, at the behest of the House Intelligence Committee, strengthened whistleblower protections for national security workers were stripped from major pieces of legislation such as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (for federal employees) and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (for federal contractors). If those protections existed today, Snowden’s disclosures would have stood a greater chance of being addressed effectively from within the organization.

The actions already taken against Snowden are a punitive continuation of what has become a "War on Whistleblowers." Through a series of retaliatory measures, the federal government targets federal employees who speak out against gross waste, illegality, or fraud, rather than prosecuting individuals engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. So far as we know, not one person from the NSA has yet to suffer any consequences for ordering, justifying or participating in the NSA’s domestic spying operation.

It is the opinion of GAP that recent events suggest the full might of the Department of Justice will be leveled at Snowden, including an indictment under the Espionage Act, while those who stretched their interpretation of the Patriot Act to encompass the private lives of millions of Americans will simply continue working.

VIII. IN THE SURVEILLANCE STATE, THE ENEMY IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

If every action has an opposite and equal reaction, the whistleblower is that reaction within the surveillance state. Dragnet electronic surveillance is a high-tech revival of tactics used to attack the civil rights movement and political enemies of the Nixon administration. Whistleblowers famously alerted the public to past government overreach, while helping to defend both national security and civil liberties.

In contrast, secrecy, retaliation and intimidation undermine our Constitutional rights and weaken our democratic processes more swiftly, more surely, and more corrosively than the acts of terror from which they purport to protect us.

Contact: Bea Edwards, Executive Director
Phone: [phone], ext. 155
Email: [e-mail]

Contact: Louis Clark, President
Phone: [phone], ext. 129
Email: [e-mail]

Contact: Dylan Blaylock, Communications Director
Phone: [phone], ext. 137
Email: [e-mail]

http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2760-gap-statement-on-edward-snowden-a-nsa-domestic-surveillance