NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

[DirkGently]

So, when they said they weren't listening to phone calls, they meant yes, they were listening to phone calls? Oh, but it's okay, they secretly interpreted the law and found it was legal.

Apparently.

Edit: Oh, and you know, e-mail. And stuff.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that." If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."

[Catherina]

1. Oh make sure you see the thread I just posted about this

where a former NSA Senior Official for almost 40 years, (director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group and was a senior NSA crypto-mathematician largely responsible for automating the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network) stands by Edwards Snowden's leaks. Thread here: Former NSA Senior Official. "slippery slope toward a totalitarian state".

"Intent from the beginning, before 911, was to gather info on all Americans"

"I call it being on a slippery slope toward a totalitarian state"

What you said. "Oh, and you know, e-mail. And stuff. " And it is worse than that. They can come into your computer and grab anything they want. And again, as you just posted "an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required".

Oh boy, oh boy. Nothing to see here eh? Move along eh?

Tip of the fucking iceberg.

Rec'd and bookmarked.

[DirkGently]

4. Whoa. Tip of the iceberg is right.

[Occulus]

149. *notices absence of Prosense from thread*

*runs and hides*

[tavalon]

242. You are correct

Pointing out the paid participants isn't technically against the rules.

[newthinking]

264. They know that they can't defend this

They are still active, but it seems their directions are to try and discredit the messenger. That is what and where they are posting. The operatives on this site are so obvious.

[Occulus]

280. That shift proves the case for us

Shooting the messenger, intimating they are lying, and changing the subject are all part of perception management techniques. It is the clearest indication we have yet that certain parties who shall remain in this post nameless are not posting on DU in good faith.

1) a certain member was far, far too cognizant of every last detail of the Affordable Care Act prior to that piece of legislation's submission to Congress for debate.

2) the ACA is a vast piece of legislation; no one person can possibly be aware of every last detail and be able to truthfully rebut every last question or criticism on demand without a great deal of study; the amount of study necessary to do so makes this member's utter perfection (and I stress, it was and is absolute perfection) regarding this subject suspect

3) this member, whom a jury should note still remains nameless in this post, was able to perform the actions in steps 1) and 2) at all hours of the day and night, seemingly immediately

4) this member, and I wish to stress this to any jury called, was not ever once incorrect in their answers to any and all questions, concerns, and criticisms related to the ACA, again, prior to its submission to Congress for debate

The above, in particular point 4), is impossible to consistently maintain for a single individual working alone and unaided for any length of time, let alone for years on end as this member has done. It is incredible, in the sense of completely lacking credibility of any kind, that this member is just an ordinary individual working alone.

I submit that we have been and continue to be played like a harp.

[bobduca]

286. Its definitely a collective, always has been

Accusing posters of posting "gibberish" when they nail the critical logical flaws in official talking points.

[dixiegrrrrl]

304. Occulus, anyone with an IQ above room temperature has caught on

to the propaganda posters, since they are SO predictable.
I have even written posts guarenteed to attract them.
Sure enough........

[Enthusiast]

179. Once a nation decides that

torture is a valid and justifiable means to an end, that nation has descended into the depths of depravity we had in Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Nazi Germany.

There is simply no way around it.

Anything the nation did after that 2,000 Bush v Gore decision should not surprise us. The ruse continues.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

Frank Zappa

[nashville_brook]

199. there's been high-level leaks saying basically the same thing for years...

and they've managed to keep it under the radar up until now. one thing Snowden did right is he "went big" enough to focus attention.

[Yo_Mama]

2. Which makes a complete mockery of the Constitution

The evidence that this is out of control is clear, and also the American people have not been told the truth.

Also note that the Constitution protects Congressmen from prosecution for revealing classified information, but that this administration has very aggressively pursued journalists who reveal such information (i.e. reporting as the First Amendment gives them the right) and even asserted in federal court that journalists can be criminally prosecuted for reporting what they have been told.

Anyone who really believes this is okay is more than a bit odd, in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this, Dirk.

Oh, and also the president lied to us when he said no one was listening to our phone calls. They are.

[DirkGently]

5. It's sure looking that way. "Interpreting the law" to bypass

...the Constitution has been the problem since Bush.

[Catherina]

9. Maybe that's why they needed a Consitutional Scholar next n/t

[Occulus]

140. It would take such a scholar to interpret the Constitution properly.

Our government is not at all properly interpreting the very clear and unambiguous words of the Constitution.

Therefore.....

(I'll let you fill in that blank for yourself.)

[tavalon]

245. President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar

To spell out Catherina's sad joke.

[Occulus]

281. Oh, I get the joke

I'm not laughing, but I do get it.

Sad, isn't it?

[Yo_Mama]

12. The infrastructure to do this was started under Clinton

But it seems as if every administration is doubling down, and I don't want to see what the next one will do.

Yeah, this hurts. I thought President Obama would prevent some of this. I didn't expect him to go all the way, but I did think he would back down the excesses of the Bush era. But it seems to me that he's gone further than Bush.

I think this is happening almost by accident. You put the infrastructure in place, and it becomes default to use it. I don't think there is any bad intent, but that doesn't mean it won't work out very badly.

The reason I reacted so badly to the news of the AP phone log warrants was that I thought "Oh, now it's over. They're tightening down the screws so no one can even talk about this in public."

I currently alternate between slackjawed amazement and great grief. This is not safe and it is not going to work out well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Earlier, the Church committee slowed some of this

And the Ford Administration fought it since it would do extreme damage to the national security of this country.

I wish I were kidding

[ReRe]

83. "National Security" has become a misnomer....

... any time you see the term "National Security", think "National INSECURITY!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Or alternatively, creative lies

[HooptieWagon]

129. "National Security" = $$$$$ for contractors.

And fancy toys for authorities to use on anyone who objects.

[ReRe]

134. It's a money machine.

And We The People need to put a cog in the wheel and stop it, once and for all.
Stop the fucking evil machine!

[marions ghost]

25. Agree, it's bad

sharing grief & loss of trust

But it's better to know than not to know. It can't continue if the people wake up and realize the abuses this represents (and maybe some in Congress who have any conscience).

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Time is short

But we need a few more massive demonstrations, civil strikes, disobedience, and in my case a few less fires.

[marions ghost]

74. whatever way

people can speak up & protest without ending up in Gitmo is the only way I know to go to bring about change. We must object. If we just roll over and go back to sleep we will be sorry.

Yes, time is short.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Well...I need to troll a few twitter feeds

I know so is the NSA, and FBI and local cops.

[marions ghost]

82. Happy twittering

Subdued today at DU at least, intense week all around. There will be more to come.

[reusrename]

135. I don't think this will bear any fruit. We can no longer organize that way.

This new technology is specifically designed for disrupting our ability to organize. This is what folks need to come to terms with. Only a very small number of individuals need to be removed from the public discourse in order to accomplish this end.

Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network or insurgency is not the most high profile or most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.

That, in a nutshell, is what the metadata is being collected and used for. Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that the algorithms sort out the social connections.

For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords: thesis+insurgent+social+network

My guess is that less than 1/100 of 1% of the population would need to be disrupted/detained/dissuaded/discredited in order to derail any popular movement. For a town like mine of 30,000, that is less than 3 people. If such disruptions are actually occurring, would we even know about it?

Add to this a propaganda machine that everyone acknowledges is the best ever invented, and you will start to see what we are up against. Just so there is no misunderstanding I mean "we, the ones who are trying to change things" and I include some right-wing libertarians in this group. The other day someone asked if I supported Ron Paul. Of course not, but I would rather have one Ron Paul on the team than ten Diane Feinsteins.

People are NOT apathetic, they are super-motivated. The baggers are ready to start shooting at the first sudden noise and the left are ready to start beating each other into submission, if necessary. IMHO, the science of suppression is being actively deploy against an unwitting public and it is working astoundingly well. Of course it works, it's science.


Recent Historic Example: During the Iranian uprising several years ago, only 800 people were arrested, IIRC, and only three or four were killed in order to put down a revolution that was very broad and very deep. Remember that this was a population in which many had lived through the overthrow of the Shah. (Since the revolution was put down, most, if not all, of the 800 who were detained have been executed.) IIRC, the US had no official position on any of this. My understanding of these events is two-fold: that we need to have a bad guy in order to have a nuclear confrontation and that the thwarting of this uprising would not have been possible without our technology. YMMV. Total population of Iran is about 75 million and the only arrested (and have since executed) about 800, which is about 0.0001% or way less than what one might normally think is necessary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. We need to think outside the computer

As in really think outside the computer.

The other choice is just give up.

It might come to that...but at least I am not willing to conclude that yet.

[reusrename]

205. Knocking on doors...

Hi! Are you a registered voter?

No.
I can help you register to vote. It will take just a few minutes. Then you can make your vote count on Election day.

Yes.
Are you planning to vote in the upcoming election? It's very important that everyone turn out. Are you a registered Democrat?

Yes.
Then it's even more important. Did you know that the Republicans are trying to...?

No.
Did you know that so-and-so, the Republican state senator voted to...?

(credit to MineralMan for this dialog)

[bvar22]

208. Yep!

If we had a majority of Democrats in the House or Senate,
and a Democrat in the White House....
this kind of shit would NOT be happening!!!!





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. I disagree

For a longer reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023017085

For the cliffs notes empires have a logic to them. First we need to come to grips what we live under, a democracy...it has not been one for a long time. Why these days Frank Church would never ever make it to city council, let alone the US senate.

[reusrename]

212. Coming to grips with where we are.

At this point we have basically lost our constitutional republic (rule of law) and embraced a system of democratic fascism (rule by the manipulated majority).

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. Remove democratic and you got it.

We live in a fascist state where elections are just part of the scenery.

[reusrename]

228. I don't make the same distinctions that you are making.

I believe that the will of the people was to elect Obama, twice. I don't think the will of the people was to elect Dubya, ever.

In either case, the will of the people is being manipulated. That is the most important part of this whole national security progrom.

And yes, I meant to say that. The destruction of Arab culture could be motivated by something as simple and obvious as the Islamic teachings on usury. It makes more sense than anything else I've ever read or heard.

In any event, you should try and focus on what is different between Mexico in the '60s or Germany in the '30s and the US in the 21rst century.

The hundreds (or thousands) of doctoral thesis on social networking analysis, and the computers necessary to use this science, were not around back then. This is a completely new weapon being used against the public.

[nadinbrzezinski]

237. As I said, the heads of the stasi

and the Mexican Security Apparatus, and the KGB and the Gestapo are drooling with envy.

Sorry, if I no longer consider this a free country, with free elections and all that.

I consider this a dictablanda... period, and since my present avocation makes me an automatic enemy of the state, that is life.

[reusrename]

244. Enemy of the state isn't a very high bar.

I have to disagree again. I see the same problems, but I make completely different connections and distinctions.

The elections today seem far more free and fair than they were in my youth under Jim Crow, although some of the tactics are slowly returning.

Our current problem is that we don't get to count the votes that are cast, and that is a distinctly different problem, and most likely a different solution.

For example, the president could single-handedly bring about clean elections if he chose to do so. He could create a "President's Council on Democracy" where high school kids would get special credit for participating in exit polling while elementary kids would learn about voter suppression and the Voting Rights Act.

It really is that simple.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021866082

[nadinbrzezinski]

247. Well here is where we are

You can chose the blue pill and still believe in the myth

Or chose the red pill. I chose the red pill. It is not just personal history but also knowledge of history.

I know the tools in place can be keyed up in a matter of hours. Elections, as frank Zappa quite astutely observed, are just the dressing up.

[reusrename]

256. I am really clear on what you are saying here.

You are saying that if Obama took such an action it would be moot because the crackdown can begin at any second. I agree about that. If (or when) the terra-ist warrants start getting issued, it won't take more than a few hours.

I don't see how you get to the place you are at. Or maybe I do, I just don't agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

260. A few debriefs of the victims of

our chickens in El Salvador help. Those chickens are coming home, and they have grown into full fledged Frankesteins... they are really not cute. I know cute, my Sun Conure is cute, a velociraptor not so much.

As well as a degree in history. In fact a masters degree.

And that memory of my dad warning me NOT TO SAY ANYTHING ON THE PHONE BEYOND PLEASANTRIES AT FIVE. That kind of leaves a mark.


Then there is that fact that as a daughter of the Holocaust, alarms have been going off for a while. We are not a free country, all pretension to the contrary.

So come next election, I will vote for the PRI... er whatever party... will do a little less damage or seems less scary at the moment, will pay particular attention to the judge races, where you actually can have some short term effect... and NOT ASK FOR THE I VOTED STICKER. It does not matter really.

[Yo_Mama]

240. That might be the case.

I'll think about what you just wrote.

Can anything like that be stable? I don't see how it could. My instinct is that we are in a transition phase, and I'd like to see things move back to a more freedom-oriented society.

The words "democratic" and "fascist" seem to have a basic dissonance.

[reusrename]

263. I think this is an age-old struggle that is on a continuum throughout our history.

Slavery is a historical reality. Some say we have already returned to something close to chattel slavery. It's hard to make a case that we are not on that path.

I believe that if we lose this particular fight right now, the battle over how this new science is implemented, then the arc of history that bends toward justice will be set back for at least a generation, probably much longer.

No one is arguing that this technology will never be used. It's basic science and science doesn't go backwards. Galileo's retractions did nothing to change the orbits of the planets around the sun. This technology will be used. We have understand what it is and what it does before we can have any rational discussions about it.

[tavalon]

248. I would fervently like to believe you

But I don't. I think this stopped being about Democrats and Republicans some time ago.

[bvar22]

282. I was being facetious.

Maybe I should go back up and edit in the sarcasm thingie.

If we had a majority of Democrats in the House or Senate,
and a Democrat in the White House....
this kind of shit would NOT be happening!!!!

The Democratic Party held BIG majorities in the House from 2007 - 2011,
has had a Majority in the Senate from 2007 - today,
and has held the White House since 2009.
and NOTHING has Changed,
The building and expanding of the World's most technologically advanced Security/Surveillance State has continued unimpeded.

The reality is that just Electing "Democrats" won't change a damned thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

210. This is some really funny shit

Voting in this kind of a system really is academic.

Here

For a long answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023017085

[tavalon]

251. Yeah, it's weird,

I do it because I think it's right, but I can't remember the last time I really believed it mattered all that much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. If it helps, LOCAL elections still matter a tad.

national elections, not so much,

[Catherina]

52. I have to agree with you

Well not have to, I do with the small difference that I don't think this is by accident.

My sister likens the US to any corporation that has 5, 10, 15 year strategy and operational plans. And like any good corporation, it has a Board of Directors to keep things moving in the right direction and keep its investors happy.

The corporations have a CEO and a President who interview for the job with the Board of Directors. The one they think will manage the business best gets the job. We just get to rubberstamp their choice.

And if an un-anointed one gets too close, you get a "Dean Scream" or something.

It's like Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. All of that was written into a strategic plan years ago.

I currently alternate between slackjawed amazement and great grief. This is not safe and it is not going to work out well.

[Enthusiast]

182. You are exactly correct.

"And if an un-anointed one gets too close, you get a "Dean Scream" or something."

They have so many options that will destroy a candidate before they get off the ground.

[DirkGently]

103. Now that it's godzillion-dollar business, can ANYONE stop it?

The U.S. is no stranger to this dilemma. In response to security concerns after 9/11, Americans witnessed the growth of a massive domestic security apparatus, fueled by federal largesse. According to Tomdispatch's Mattea Kramer and Chris Heilman, post-9/11 federal spending on homeland security exceeds $790 billion. That's larger than TARP and, when adjusted for inflation, the New Deal.
Exactly how much the U.S. has spent on domestic surveillance is murky. Municipalities aren't particularly keen on sharing how many cameras they've installed. And homeland security grant funding, in many cases, does not require a line-item accounting of how cities have used federal funds.
Nevertheless, U.S. investment has helped fuel the growth of a global video surveillance industry. According to a 2011 report by Electronics.ca Publications, a market research firm, the video surveillance market was slated to grow from $11.5 billion in 2008 to $37.5 billion in 2015.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/26/video-surveillance-boston-bombings/

[tavalon]

257. This is one of those weird dichotomies in the macro and micro

In the macro, there could be good things about another, just as dangerous as all the other, Empires implodes. Empires never end benevolently.

In the micro, a lot of us are going to be hurt and or killed during the death of our nation.

And no, I don't believe there is anything we can do to stop it. I'd like to get surprised on that one.

[tavalon]

243. "This is not safe and it is not going to work out well."

That would be the understatement of the decade.

[DontTreadOnMe]

109. Isn't there already a complete mockery of the 2nd Amendment too?

Like some how the Constitution actually means anything anyway...

[Logical]

3. This cannot be true. All the DUers said there was always a warrant! n-t

[cantbeserious]

17. Correction - Only Some DU Members Supported The Establishment

eom

[Logical]

21. True. I would say 50/50. n-t

[ReRe]

88. Well, as of late, anyways... n/t

[Occulus]

150. It's ten or so actual members.

They make 99.99% of the noise you're misinterpreting as an even split. NOT your fault... they're a bunch of shrill and prolific motherfuckers.

[ReRe]

156. It's something isn't it?

Sure seems like more than that, but guess you're right. All I know is it's the highest form of hero worship I've ever seen in my life. I stand corrected.

[KurtNYC]

178. +1 prolific indeed

[backscatter712]

233. Only if you count the sockpuppets.

If you count actually humans, I'd say it's 95-5.

[marions ghost]

23. Yep

...always a warrant, they said.

The spinning and weaving factories were working overtime.

And the "Snowden fan club had egg on their faces"...

Now who's got egg on their face?

[Logical]

24. I think they had a super duper secret invisible warrant. So we still might be wrong! n-t

[marions ghost]

35. that's right

those invisible warrants...

:shiver: I am creeped out by this whole thing periodically. Reality bites. As somebody here said, the genie is out of the bottle, and won't go back in. No re-sets on that genie. This is not a scene from some futuristic dystopian movie. This is real. Don't we wish it weren't. But knowing is always better than not knowing.

This is a huge betrayal and an outrageous insult to the American people.

[Logical]

40. So true! I worry enough about the qualified people seeing this information, but just think...

about the abuse of this information going on from non-qualified people.

People here do not realize that people abuse power.

[marions ghost]

69. Everyone wants to trust

--but you'd think that after the Booshcheney joy ride they would realize that you can't have blind trust in the corporatocracy. Too much money and corruption. There are a lot of greedy opportunists in this world. Some don't turn bad until opportunity presents.

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Certainly no Dems from California! n/t

[marions ghost]

78. Of course not

The Kochs farmed the job out to India.

[ReRe]

90. I've noticed allot of yellow faces around here lately.... n/t

[marions ghost]

102. a few

[beevul]

108. There was ALWAYS a warrant.

They listen to it in the background while they snoop.

[Logical]

112. LOL, OK, makes sense now. I feel sort of stupid. n-t

[backscatter712]

147. That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!

[burnodo]

6. This does not agree with the establishment narrative on the matter

How many boxes are in your garage? Are you dating an acrobat??

[DirkGently]

8. Have you ever thought about dating an acrobat?

Hooboy. No wonder they were stomping on this so hard.

[burnodo]

13. Thought about it, sure!

Had the chance, no.

But that isn't your point is it I'm sure there's a LOT that the NSA is doing that we don't know about and that isn't keeping us safe.

[Yo_Mama]

15. No wonder they were stomping on the press so hard

One of the biggest protections against this sort of thing is simply individual conscience. Whistleblowers speak to the press and that implicit threat constrains official actions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. And the press started to push back

I wish it was last Monday with all we know now.

I suspect madam leader would have ducked even harder...arrrghhh "no comment".

[LittleBlue]

7. Shut it down now

The security nuts will ruin this country

[markpkessinger]

68. And while you're at it, repeal the Patriot Act and dismantle the DHS! n/t

[DirkGently]

97. THIS. ++

[nebenaube]

160. and end the war on pot

because that was the foot hold in the door.

[Lifelong Protester]

259. Yes, as soon as they called it Department of HOMELAND Security

I thought that was chilling, too much like "Motherland" for me...

[Jackpine Radical]

290. For some reason I immediately translated it into German in my head:

Heimatssicherheitamt. It just sounds so…Hitleresque.

[Life Long Dem]

10. Rep. Jerrold Nadler admits what he heard from NSA.

NSA doesn't admit anything.

[Roselma]

92. Muller and Nadler had the following

exchange where Nadler asks him about this. Nadler said that it was his understanding that analysts can listen in. Mueller claims that is not his understanding of the NSA program. Nadler may be mistaken. Here's video of the testimony Thursday from C-span. The exchange begins 45 - 46 minutes into the testimony:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1

[Life Long Dem]

95. Thanks

[OilemFirchen]

136. Thanks Roselma

Interesting to hear what Nadler said, versus what was reported. If, as Nadler suggests, an individual's testimony in the secret briefing contradicts Mueller, then it's imperative to determine the truth - as the legality of the various programs turn on this question. However, two of Nadler's observations should temper this discussion (probably won't, especially with the constant sneering interjections of one of our resident Purity Queens):

Nadler notes that he "thinks it's the same question" and that "you could get specific information from that telephone..." in the context of a question related to subscriber information. He may have been referring to content, though that's certainly not explicit. He most certainly did not say that the NSA "does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls", as suggested by the article.

Clearly, if the NSA has strayed from the court-sanctioned collection of numeric metadata, even to include only subscriber information, that's troubling and calls for swift legislation. Time will tell.

Finally, it's worth noting that nothing raised in either the article or hearing was put forward by either Snowden or Greenwald, and that neither of them have offered one piddly bit of useful information since, despite their empty promises. Thanks to Nadler for adding to that narrative, and to Mueller for explaining why Snowden's non-revelation is still likely illegal and potentially damaging to national security.

[Roselma]

151. I think the CNET writer maybe threw

his/her personal assumption into the exchange (she/he read between the lines). The writer seems to translate the exchange as Nadler actually affirming wiretapping, but that's not at all what was said.

[OilemFirchen]

153. The more I read, the more that's become clear.

McCullagh is apparently yet another of the Paulite stable of "journalists". These guys are damned good at whipping up the naive "left" with one after another misleading story. That the solid WHOOP has gone up in this thread proves their potency, if not their veracity.

One of my fave comments on LGF:

Paulbots - enabling fascism one dope smoker at a time.

[marions ghost]

11. good article

Data Mining in Utah

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. But, but, there is a terrorist under my bed!!!!

Who will protect me?

[temporary311]

18. Nobody.

That would require the purpose of all this to be about protecting us from terrorists. That's merely convenient pretext.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. I know

Bit I have had that exact argument made...this is to protect us from them eviiillll commu...err forgive me, terrorists that we need to catch and shit.

[Logical]

22. The TSA and milk delivering cops will protect you! n-t

[Daniel537]

217. Oh come on now

Its perfectly fine for cops to go around kicking down doors and locking down a neighborhood, just as long as they get milk for the kiddies!

[Logical]

219. LOL! n-t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

113. It used to be Reds under the bed

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. I know I know.

Quick ma, that commu...I meat terrorist, is under the bed....quick, call the Feds!

[fascisthunter]

19. They are more interested in controlling We the People

that much is obvious.

When a government is so paranoid of its own people, you have to wonder why. Who are they protecting? Surely not We the People.

[ReRe]

99. They're protecting themselves..

.. They are tyrants. Remember the gist of what TJ said: When the government fears the people, you have democracy. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.

[bvar22]

20. Certain heads "should" be exploding on DU,

followed by amends.
But it won't.

This WILL be followed by an even louder, more desperate, and more insistent level of Denial with even more convoluted logic and tortured twisting of reality.
...just as soon as the talking points are distributed.

[Junkdrawer]

26. What if Nadler left a pole-dancing ballerina at the alter? Huh? HUH?

Ever think of that?

[marions ghost]

28. Amends...

not in their vocabulary.

Yeah, when are the new talking points coming down the pike?--waiting for those packets I guess...

[morningfog]

34. It certainly explain the vehemence from the administration.

This is looking very bad.

[kenny blankenship]

41. Vacuums do not ex-plode

[HooptieWagon]

87. True...the vacuum-heads will implode...

and then swarm over DU with their talking points parsing the definition of "listening to phone calls without a warrant".

[Jackpine Radical]

50. I just don't know what to think.

I'm anxiously scanning down the thread looking for the Usual Suspects to come & set me straight about how none of this is really happening, and they have to do it to protect us from the terrorists, and Obama has struck the right balance here.

[Maedhros]

89. They're not here yet.

They're having a web conference with their handlers, receiving instructions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Well you see, all this is to find the next terrorist

We need to fear and stop the next 911. The POTUS knows what he's doing and section 712 of the USPA was renewed and it *is* legal.

Does this make you feel at home? Somewhere I got the NSA talking points as of this morning...it's been updated to *only* 300 numbers.

[Jamastiene]

119. It is the weekend.

Their new talking points probably have not arrived yet, but we can bet, they will and disseminate them, they will. I wonder what they'll say this time.

[nashville_brook]

225. 12-dimensional chess, my friend.

check.

[Enthusiast]

186. We see this on every issue.

"an even louder, more desperate, and more insistent level of Denial with even more convoluted logic"

The propaganda effort is on par with the surveillance effort.

[HooptieWagon]

265. No doubt being run by the same organizations. nt

[Matariki]

27. Ah, now where are our resident propagandists to move the bar?

[morningfog]

32. Waiting for there marching orders, er, talking points.

No doubt they will be along shortly to spin however they are asked.

[GoneFishin]

38. I'll erase the line in the sand if someone else can pull up the goal posts, just as a courtesy

in preparation for when they arrive.

[marions ghost]

91. done

[MisterP]

275. they'll upbraid us for being outraged before this particular story broke: us 80-percenters are STILL

hair-on-fire outrage addicts who never wait for the whole story in their eyes

of course it must be quite hard on them now that Gore's denounced this: they've been blaming Nader for everything from Iraq to *Lebanon* to anal itching, so hearing Gore 1) denounce a Dem and 2) say that Nader didn't steal 2000, Jeb and Harris and the Felonious Five did must basically be a divide by zero: half of them aren't on DU anymore because they're flatlined and the other half are just taking things to hilarious extremes (or "centers"?) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023027238

[MotherPetrie]

29. What a shocker! NOT. K&R.

[Melinda]

30. Wait one cotton picking minute; PBO just said "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls."

He also said, at the very same press conference, “These are programs that have been reauthorized by broad, bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006,” he continued. “Your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we’re doing.”

So it seems to me that someone is lying OR someone doesn't have a clue as to what the NSA is actually doing. Someone can't have it both ways. Or at least not until usual paid shills supporters come along to post doublespeak an explanation. You know, something like Nadler is a liar.

I'm sure there's a good explanation just waiting. I'm just sure of it.

[ReRe]

116. PBO isn't God...

.. and my elected officials forgot to fill me in on exactly what the NSA was doing, or at least a HINT of what they were doing.

Maybe the next town hall meeting in our districts we should go with a big box of those little pocket versions of the Constitution. (I've already got mine.) Pass them suckers out and go through with our elected officials.. each and every article and amendment. Just an idea on how to get them to fess up to something.

[beevul]

125. And remind them that...

And remind them that they took an oath to support and defend it.

Repeatedly.

[MannyGoldstein]

157. The NSA has more than 1,000 analysts with the surname "Nobody"

They changed their names just for this purpose.

"Who's listening to my calls?"

"Nobody"

[nolabels]

169. Terence Hill is probably proud of a movement he has started

Terence Hill - My Name Is Nobody ( Full Movie English ) 1973 - YouTube

[struggle4progress]

31. Why does the article add "A representative said Nadler was not immediately available"?

It suggests the author, Declan McCullagh, did not hear Mr Nadler say this, but rather was relying on a second-hand report of something Mr Nadler said

Nadler is an opponent of government spying. Here (for example) is his press release of 6 June:

http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/conyers-nadler-and-scott-nsa-phone-tracking-overbroad-call-immediate-hearings

If Nadler believes that warrantless wiretapping is occurring, I'm quite sure we'll hear more from him on the topic

[Junkdrawer]

36. It came from a hearing Thursday:

...

Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."

Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.

"I don't think so," Mueller replied.

"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."

.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[struggle4progress]

77. NPR provided some coverage of that hearing:

http://www.kuow.org/post/four-exchanges-you-should-listen-about-nsa-surveillance

Frankly, there's not enough of an excerpt there for me to be sure of much, except that Nadler thinks he was told different things at different times. And maybe he was -- or maybe there was a misunderstanding of some sort. I expect if there's a real problem here, we'll hear more about it from Nadler and the rest

[nashville_brook]

224. and that's precisely what makes it important.

[Pholus]

39. To heck with deflection, I think this is more interesting.

`Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged this week that the agency's analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."'

Remember that last week we were guaranteed that "Nobody is listening to your calls"

I guess NSA analysts must have the nickname "Nobody" or something?

[woo me with science]

64. They filed the change of name paperwork this week.

It was stated in the present tense...

[struggle4progress]

79. Here's Feinstein on Thursday:

Dianne Feinstein: NSA needs no court to query database
By TIM MAK | 6/13/13 4:50 PM EDT

... Feinstein spoke to reporters after a briefing on NSA monitoring by top Obama administration national security officials. She echoed an explanation given by NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander when he appeared before a Senate panel on Wednesday, including the specific legal hurdle NSA says it must clear before it can look into the data it collects.

“To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order” ...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html?hp=f2

[Art_from_Ark]

168. Nadler also had some terse comments about the 2000 election

http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=6ZMVjFGlR20C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=Nadler+whiff+of+fascism&source=bl&ots=mqWv4sayMa&sig=byzWf5Dvmjd6sZlDqKSlt8SKcwI&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=iH-9UcLEBIqjiQfpiIHQDg&ved=0CGYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Nadler%20whiff%20of%20fascism&f=false

[struggle4progress]

170. I'm not questioning Nadler's morals or decency -- but now that more of the transcript

has become available, the CNET article looks like a deliberate misrepresentation of what might have been a simple miscommunication

[Monkie]

181. ah the misrepresentation of a miscommunication, quite some struggle you have going on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/13/fbi-director-mueller-senate-nsa-live

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York accuses Mueller of giving a misleading answer to a question about whether agents need to seek further permission before examining individual calls.

Mueller said that agents need to do so. But Nadler says that answer conflicts with an answer given in a private hearing to Congress on Tuesday.

it is NOT just CNET, this was reported live on the guardian website during the hearing, and posted here.

[struggle4progress]

252. The CNET headline: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

From the CNET article: "... Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders ..."

The actual exchange:

~snip~

Nadler: ... We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. Other-words is what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.

~snip~

[Monkie]

267. so Mueller will be happy to clarify it IN SECRET

thank you.
i know
i was following this when the hearings where being held, i know what was said, and the fact that Mueller can only answer in secret says all i need to know about this.

you dont wonder why Mueller can only answer that question in secret and not directly if there is nothing to hide?

[morningfog]

33. More lies exposed. No surprise. Keep tugging th thread!

Thu is getting better everyday.

[SlimJimmy]

42. It's what some of us have been saying since the beginning of this *scandal*.

Maybe this will convince some of the more authoritarian DUers to rethink their position.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. You have more confidence in that than do I. The authoritarians do not act in good faith.

Truth doesn't matter to them.

Principles don't matter to them.

Experience has shown that all that matters is cheerleading, the rejection of reason, and the suppression of dissent.

[SlimJimmy]

206. And on a Democratic board. It boggles the mind, doesn't it.

[beevul]

122. Authoritarians generally do not rethink.

Theirs is a position of constantly evolving justification, essentially.

[SlimJimmy]

207. True

[Warren DeMontague]

43. Yeah, but every time you talk on the phone, you're sharing that information voluntarily with the

person on the other line!!!

You let them "listen", don't you? WHATZ TEH DIFFERNCE???!?!?!

[RC]

287. A version of that excuse has been used for justification on DU.

Another is that the phone company owns that (meta data) information, so therefore the 4th Amendment does not apply, as they, the phone company, can do what they want with their own information. As a common carrier, the can't.
Everywhere, the fact the government is even spying on its own citizens is proof of how corrupt our government has become.


And this is what makes it all legal and morally right, for too many people.

[morningfog]

44. I am beginning to understand the sudden urgency in Syria.

[GoneFishin]

46. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Yup, the other day I said it

When all else fails...wag the dog

[Logical]

51. Wow, great point. n-t

[DirkGently]

63. Food for thought. n/t

[ReRe]

123. "How much is that doggie in the window...

.... the one with the WAGGILY tail?

How much is that doggie in the window?

I do hope that doggie's for SALE!"

[Mojorabbit]

132. +100 nt

[Enthusiast]

192. It's bio and chemical warfare and stuff.

You know, WMDs like in Iraq.

[nashville_brook]

203. "Chemical weapons experts still skeptical about U.S. claim that Syria used sarin"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/14/194016/chemical-weapons-experts-still.html#.Ub3DA_Z4Z0s

“It’s not unlike Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn’t bark,” said Jean Pascal Zanders, a leading expert on chemical weapons who until recently was a senior research fellow at the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies. “It’s not just that we can’t prove a sarin attack, it’s that we’re not seeing what we would expect to see from a sarin attack.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/14/194016/chemical-weapons-experts-still.html#.Ub3DA_Z4Z0s#storylink=cpy

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Oh, well. Don't look back. On to Syria!

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Hey kids...this explains all those votes against the interest of the people

They knew what they were cooking...and civil unrest...well that is damn inconvenient.

Sometimes the tin foil brigade is correct.

So let me apologize to the tinfoil brigade...now the partisans....expect even more pushback...waiting for the next set of NSA talking points.

[GoneFishin]

53. We didn't say they had a warrant to listen, we said that their listening was warranted. You

apparently heard what I typed differently from how I meant to type it.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. I'll warrant that you're right.

[DirkGently]

61. But was it "wittingly" warranted?

[rainy]

55. My activist friends, when the Iraq war started and we were organizing against the war and Bush etc,

we often heard strange sounds in our phones and we used to joke that "they" were listening to us. Funny thing is it lasted for a while then it stopped.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. They were

Due to who I married that was a given. Fuck Hoover left my mouth often.

[Jackpine Radical]

58. We were hearing & saying the same things in the Vietnam days.

[HardTimes99]

163. When radicals and members of the counterculture

protested in the 60s that the FBI was spying on them, they were routinely dismissed as "paranoid."

Then (of course) it turned out the FBI was spying on them!

I'll be damned if I know what the moral is.

[Jackpine Radical]

250. The moral is that only paranoid thinking

has any chance of providing a reasonable model of reality.

[scarletwoman]

279. Awesome! Trenchant, pithy, and germaine!

The moral is that only paranoid thinking has any chance of providing a reasonable model of reality.

I'd like that on a t-shirt. Or, perhaps embroidered on a sampler that I can frame and hang on my wall.

[Jackpine Radical]

289. Jeez, thanks, SW.

Maybe we oughtta put together one of those little Cafe Press shops & get rich.

[HardTimes99]

285. It does bring to mind that old Zen-ism of the 60s: "Just because

I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me!"

When I read your reply to my wife, she laughed, clapped her hands and said, "Priceless!"

[markpkessinger]

305. As Heller said . . .

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."

[nadinbrzezinski]

295. That you are not paranoid.

Otoh I am not sure if being right is better.

[rainy]

59. When we rises up to fight this you know the police state will be backed by our fellow

citizens the republicans who will say we are dirty liberals like they demonized "Occupy."

[JimDandy]

104. I would be willing to bet

that the repubs and freepers are just as disgusted by this as we are. The wave of civil unrest over this is going to be bipartisan. The very thing Obama wished for: bipartisanship, may actually happen because of his policy on this, his duplicity and the complicity of his involvement. Ironic.

It's all just overwhelmingly sickening.

[Matariki]

307. I've had that happen too.

It would sound like someone crunching up a potato chip bag. We'd joke that there was no way that the technology was that shoddy in this day and age, so either 'they' wanted us to be paranoid or some slub in the NSA was actually eating potato chips on the job...

I joke, but I don't really find it funny.

[ohheckyeah]

60. But......

you just don't understand the exceptions and reasons for them or some such shit, which is what I was told yesterday.

We NEVER get the whole truth, so this is, I assure you, just the tip of the iceberg and there is way more going on.

Didn't President Obama assure us they weren't listening? And yet, somehow I didn't believe it.

[GoneFishin]

62. This does explain the reason for the telecom retroactive immunity. (Explain not justify)

The telecoms were being forced to turn over information to the NSA and and were barred from talking about it. If the lawsuits were allowed to move forward it would have created a shitfest during the discovery process when the plaintiffs made document requests and other requests for information from the telecoms, and the telecoms refused to respond because of the gag orders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Hey, remember when Ari Fleisher told us to watch what we said?

He was telling the truth...for once. Gee...golly.

[HardTimes99]

164. That, my friend, is or should be

a DUzY! Congrats on a brilliant bon mot!

[DirkGently]

70. Hmmm. Some are saying Nadler is confusing metadata with listening.

http://muckrack.com/topic/Nadler

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Even here, it started.

Lovely woodchucks

[neverforget]

71. I'm sure someone will be along shortly

about how this okay because Snowden had boxes in his garage

[Harmony Blue]

105. Too funny

but sadly predictable.

[DevonRex]

72. It doesn't give Mueller's answer. And Feinstein never said what they have her saying. LOL.

In addition, Nadler himself couldn't be reached for comment. Um hmm. Curious, that.

It also puts something in quotes that Feinstein did not say to reporters - not to give that meaning. Here is what she actually said.

"To search the database, you have to have reasonable, articulable cause to believe that that individual is connected to a terrorist group,” Feinstein told reporters. “Then you can query the numbers. There is no content. You have the name, and the number called, whether it’s one number or two numbers. That’s all you have… if you want to collect content, then you get a court order.”
(PHOTOS: Pols, pundits weigh in on NSA report)
Asked to confirm that intelligence officials do not need a court order for the query of the number itself, Feinstein said, “that’s my understanding.”
So even though the NSA or other intelligence agencies must return to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get authorization to eavesdrop on a call, they do not need to ask the court to search the “metadata” that NSA collects from telecom providers. Officials must only conclude for themselves that they have a “reasonable, articulable” suspicion about someone and then they may query their database."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dianne-feinstein-nsa-92760.html#ixzz2WL4E0q00

[99Forever]

75. Are you fucking Apologists startng to...

... get it yet?


I fucking doubt. True Believers are about the dumbest MFERs on the planet.

[Logical]

80. They will show up. With some other excuse. n-t

[nashville_brook]

101. you'd think self-proclaimed centrists would embrace moderation in tone

loud and wrong. yikes.

[Fuddnik]

171. Now, tell us how you really feel!

[HooptieWagon]

81. Nadler charged with sex crime...3...2...1...

You know the smear is coming...

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. I am expecting his junk on the twitter soon

[radhika]

85. It's almost as if the Church Committee served to innoculate the citizens against these ops...

Instead of alerting us so we could prevent domestic spying once and for all - the opposite happened. Every President since then has done it, doubling down as someone said. The American People yawn and move-on.

Now in 2013, illegal surveillance is ho-hum, stale news.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. The recomendations worked

Then came 911. It is literally before and after

[DirkGently]

100. Frogs boil; rights erode.

People cease to care. Or, that is the hope of some.

[mwooldri]

86. Sickening. What I knew is coming out in the open.

I have been convinced for years that the NSA, GCHQ, etc have had this ability.

With *all* voice traffic going through an Internet-like (or actual Internet) network, the term and act of "wiretapping" is obsolete. Hence there is now no need to get a wiretap warrant. The phonecalls are not encrypted. Most email isn't encrypted. Your text messages are not, and the contents of this website aren't either.

If you need to exchange email securely, get it encrypted. Sure, it can be intercepted and decrypted but the law about decrypting a message is different from intercepting it and reading it. Intercepting and decrypting an encrypted email is a very clear violation of the 4th Amendment. IMO doing what they're doing is a violation of the 4th Amendment anyway. Failing that, decrypting any encrypted message could be a violation of the DMCA. Or something.

[Ash_F]

94. Democratic apologists should note that the NSA are not Democrats and do not like Democrats

And they do not like Obama.

Just saying you should listen to Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.

[HooptieWagon]

106. And Clapper, Mueller, and Obama all lied...

When they said there was no listening to phone calls without a warrant. Nadler and Snowden were right...they are listening to phone calls without warrants.

[Progressive dog]

130. If Nadler actually said it nt

[link:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows|

[Monkie]

183. Nadler said Mueller was misleading, and posting from a racist right wing site helps make a point?

seriously, a progressive dog on the racist littlegreenfootballs.com?
you hate brown people too?
you hate muslims?

nadler said that mueller was misleading and what he said in public contradicted what he said in public hearings, it was widely reported, including on the guardian website's live blog of the hearings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/13/fbi-director-mueller-senate-nsa-live

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York accuses Mueller of giving a misleading answer to a question about whether agents need to seek further permission before examining individual calls.

Mueller said that agents need to do so. But Nadler says that answer conflicts with an answer given in a private hearing to Congress on Tuesday.

[Progressive dog]

187. Huffington Post reporting story faces skepticism

I didn't realize LG Footballs was right wing racist site.
Here's what wikipedia says about it "On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." He has been heavily critical of conservatives and libertarians since then."
Thanks for pointing that out.

[Monkie]

188. No Problem, it happens to all of us, just a heads up

the racism is mostly hate against anything/anyone muslim, but i havent looked at the site in years because it was so sickening.

[Progressive dog]

191. Yup I just heard that Rep. Jerrold Adler fled to Hong Kong

That's why the CNET guy couldn't ask him what he meant.

[OilemFirchen]

189. The racist littlegreenfootballs.com?

[Monkie]

190. hating muslims is not racists?

i'm not laughing and i dont know why you are..

[OilemFirchen]

193. Because this:

"i havent looked at the site in years".

If that isn't a perfect straight line, I don't know comedy. And I know comedy.

[Monkie]

198. some people feel dirty when they constantly wallow in racist hate

i dont visit the stormfront site either, so you are telling me that littlegreenfootballs.com has suddenly gone from a vile cesspool of anti-muslim hate to a site promoting peace and love between all peoples regardless of race creed or colour?

i really dont understand the joke or your point..

[OilemFirchen]

201. Actually, that's kinda what was said in a post slightly upthread.

Which, like LGF, you clearly did not read. Better pre-conceived notions than no notions at all, right?

[Monkie]

204. sorry i was actually already checking my pre-conceptions

i dont mind admitting i am wrong when i am wrong, no shame in that from my pov.
when i saw two people post that LGF now was not a anti-muslim hate site anymore the first thing i did was go check my pre-conceived notions, because its the right thing to do.

so i have no problem admitting i was wrong, my preconceived notions were wrong.
i saw no anti-muslim hate being posted, i skimmed the comments of a few threads and did not see any abnormal anti-muslim comments.
what can i say?
i am amazed at the reinvention that has happened at LGF.

[Monkie]

202. from anti-muslim hate site to shilling for the surveillance state, quite a reinvention

i do stand corrected, i held my nose and visited there for the first time in years and i am truly amazed at the way the owner of that site has reinvented himself.
from the evils of muslims under bush to cheerleading the obama administration, it is not often one sees a transformation such as this.
maybe anti-muslim hate does not sell as well as it used to

[OilemFirchen]

209. Johnson is no Obama cheerleader.

Though I suspect that not reflexively swallowing every anti-Obama bowl of swill automatically buys him a pair of pompoms in your book. Could be wrong, I guess, but I know of him a lot more than I do of you.

BTW, the commenters on LGF are nearly on par with those at Sadly No! Tough crowd, believe me.

[Monkie]

214. what i know is he ran a anti-muslim hate site, and its now filled with cheerleading

for the current government.
i admitted i was wrong where i was wrong, i have no problem repeating that.
i was completely wrong to say that LGF is a hate site.
i could remove or edit the posts where i was wrong, but i prefer to be honest and open about my mistakes.

but the fact that it was under bush, and now is not, says something about johnson does it not?
if we are questioning motives and agenda's, the way Johnson does Snowden, i think its fair of me to bring up these points because they are very relevant.
i am not interested enough in Johnson and LGF to search back in history to find the exact point in time of his "damascus moment" and why he had it, but if we are talking about "walking back" that is some very impressive reverse step he did ot am i wrong?

[OilemFirchen]

226. It's absolutely fair to discuss Johnson's history.

He was, and continues to be, quite vocal about why he turned on the right wing fuckwits with whom he was associating. He didn't do a momentous political backflip, just turned his site into a repository of drool-encrusted comments from elsewhere. Think of him like you would David Brock, though without the partisan surety. LGF has become more of a run-of-the-mill news-oriented blog over the past few years, but its initial transformation brought in keen participants, who remain.

Snowden, OTOH, is a blank check. He made some starting claims and neither he, nor his biographer Greenwald, has had the temerity to back them up.

[reusrename]

278. Before you backpedal too far, let me ask something.

Why gin up Muslim hate to begin with? Could it be their teachings on usury?

If so, has anything really changed at a site like LGF?

[Monkie]

288. im sorry i do not understand your question at all?

my take on the "hate on muslims" is simple, they are a convenient enemy, one that seems more convincing to white americans, not only is their skin colour "wrong" most of the time, but "hate on commies" was not working, and since so many americans seem to believe the word of god as written in the bible is the literal truth then these evil heathens make a nice target..

the way i see it, war on communism=war on drugs=war on muslims, same people shilling for it, its just updated to fit new narratives..

[reusrename]

292. No doubt it's racist.

I guess if one looks at it as some kind of inherent hate, one wouldn't ask this question. But you do see it as something that has been ginned up by the propaganda machine, so my question is why the Muslims? What is it that makes them a target for the MIC?

I'm only curious, that's why I asked the question. I guess the simplest answer would be that we just need a convenient enemy so someone somewhere flipped a coin and Muslims won the toss.

There could be more to it than that. Teaching people that usury is wrong as basic tenet of humanity might not go over so well with some people. The same people who actually do control the propaganda machine and the MIC. Dangerous people.

[Monkie]

294. i understand now where you are trying to go but i dont quite want to go there..

it is true that the propaganda against arabs started long ago, but going further than that starts to go into territory beyond my personal beliefs, and that is that all the people of the world are my brothers and sisters, even those that dont want to be.

[reusrename]

300. I understand and agree with your philosophy.

Thankfully, most people probably believe as we do.

Your original question, the one about "how does LGF get from there to here?" sort of got me thinking, that's all. Sometimes I can't stop myself.

[HooptieWagon]

268. Yes. They're reduced to citing conservative racist hate-sites to "bolster" their argument.

A real head-scratcher. I assume that next they'll be linking to Brietbart...

[OilemFirchen]

276. What conservative racist hate-site (sic)?

What's making your head itch?

[HooptieWagon]

284. DUers citing Little Green Footballs to smear Nadler.

[OilemFirchen]

299. LGF is not a "racist hate-site (sic)".

Nor is it, as you suggested below, a "neo-con" site.

There's enough info on this thread alone to relieve your tortured soul about this. Or, alternatively, you could actually go there and find out.



This reminds me of the "Nelson Mandela is Dead" thread which, hours and hours after debunking, continued to receive posters offering their condolences. At least they had good intentions, despite their reflexive need to comment without reading upthread.

[HooptieWagon]

301. Johnson is a neo-con who cut ties with the teabaggers.

And he posts regular anti-muslim rants. LGF is generally considered a hate-site. Look it up on Wiki for yourself.

[OilemFirchen]

303. Okay. I'll go there again.

Golly. Look what I found:

Media observers in the United States long described the site as "right wing",[2] but since 2007, the site's emphasis has changed, such that "LGF has become better known for the various fights it picks with many on the right."[3]

Johnson stated in 2006:

I'm not pretending I'm giving equal time to both sides. But I do think what I'm advocating, and what I believe in, is the right side.[4]

More recently, in 2009, he has claimed that:

I don’t think there is an anti-jihadist movement anymore... It’s all a bunch of kooks. I’ve watched some people who I thought were reputable, and who I trusted, hook up with racists and Nazis. I see a lot of them promoting stories and causes that I think are completely nuts.[3]

Take your own goddamned advice.

For funsies, you could also read Johnson on Johnson:

Why I Parted Ways With The Right

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

[ReRe]

131. They don't like that damn pesky Constitution either....

... like GWB said "it'd be a whole lot easier to be a dictator." chuckle chuckle.

What he was chuckling about was the fact that the intelligence agencies were stomping all over that Constitution behind the scenes.

[BlueStreak]

107. Incurious Barack

OK, I won't Photoshop a Curious George cartoon with Obama's face, because some yahoo would accuse me of being a racist -- even though we did exactly that to Bush all the time.

But there is a serious pattern happening here. Obama came out and threw the IRS under the bus before he ever knew the main facts. The fact is that there wasn't much that the IRS did wrong. Their biggest problem was in allowing ANY political organization to get 501(c)(4) status. If Obama would have waited for even a couple of days, he could have figured this out. it just wasn't that hard.

Same thing with this NSA stuff. Obama came out with a belligerent defense, but he obviously didn't know even the most basic facts. I believe the Generals lied to him just as they lied to Congress.

We thought that Dubya was incurious. Obama seems every bit Dubya's equal in that regard. It would not have been hard for him to have pressed on these issues and gotten the real answers. After all, Snowden already told us the real answers.

By being so incurious and locking himself into rigid positions, he is making a habit of painting himself into corners.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Neither man is incurious.

It's the nature of empire. These are the tools of empire, social engineering and control. You do not fuck with these forces.

If...and that is a big IF we are going to deal with it, we will have to come to terms as to what we are.

It also puts in perspective all those unpopular votes. They really do not fear the people. The tools of a police state are in place.

[Enthusiast]

194. Precisely.......nt

[AgingAmerican]

229. He has been doing this since he first took office

He somewhat knee-jerk reacts to whatever the right says or does. I wouldn't call him incurious though, I would just call him 'Third Way®'

[BlueStreak]

238. He's definitely sucked into that 3rd way thing. But I still go with incurious

In both the IRS and NSA cases, if he had been at least slightly diligent, he could have found enough of a scent of problems such that he would know the best initial reaction was not 100% acceptance (IRS) and 100% denial (NSA). And frankly, I don't see how any of the values he has articulated over the years are advanced by these instant dismissals of the issues. In the case of the IRS, this could have become an opportunity to shut down the abuse of the 501(c)(4) designations. In the case of the NSA, this could have become, at minimum, a point of negotiation for him to scale back the Patriot Act and also forced some action on Gitmo.

So really, what was he thinking?

The charitable answer is, "not very much" i.e. "incurious.

The less charitable answers speak very badly of the man, and his willingness to sell out.

[Progressive dog]

110. If anyone caes to see another take, the video is here

[link:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_But_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows|

[CakeGrrl]

121. So the NSA did NOT admit this? Sounds DEBUNKED.

But let the hysterics and garment-rending continue. It will anyway.

Then there'll be crickets.

This was blaring as the HuffPo lede an hour ago, now it's gone and there's somesuch about Prism.

Okey doke...

[Progressive dog]

155. I think you made a good prediction

The crickets are coming.

[Fuddnik]

172. Little Green Footballs is a low rent Breitbart.

[Progressive dog]

180. Sure they are, reads just like Breitbart

Huffington Post now says CNET story faces skepticism. Gee, who would have known?

[Monkie]

184. little green racists n/t

[bluemarkers]

133. I read that too, Charles Johnson

seems very level headed. Started following him via twitter several months ago.

... "we heard" .... code speak for gossip no matter who says it

[Progressive dog]

154. This should die down gone quick except for a few diehards

I watched NBC 4 news, 3 to 4 minutes reporting the NSA claims and not one word about what CNET claimed Jerrold Nadler said.

[OilemFirchen]

141. Gods bless Charles Johnson

Had I read that, I wouldn't have had to spend my time posting above.

Doesn't matter, of course. Pure waste of time on both of our parts. The borg here will never read either one.

[HooptieWagon]

272. Yep. They're using a neo-con website as a reference.

Kind of makes you wonder who's writing the talking points.

[OilemFirchen]

273. Who is?

What website?

Color me confused.

[HooptieWagon]

283. The DUers citing Little Green Footballs to smear Nadler.

I don't think board rules permit me calling them out by name.

[OilemFirchen]

145. A few more tidbits for the tiny Sanity Section:

First comment on the LGF blog entry:

Declan McCullagh is the writer responsible for the “Al Gore claims he invented the internet” story.

Third comment:

The distortion of Gore’s remark that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” apparently originated in a March 11, 1999, Wired News article by Declan McCullagh, which stated, “It’s a time-honored tradition for presidential hopefuls to claim credit for other people’s successes. But Al Gore as the father of the Internet? That’s what the campaigner in chief told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer during an interview Tuesday evening.”

... and fourth:

He also is (or was) a member of the “Bay Area Republicans for Ron Paul” meetup group.

Greenwald has some serious competition!

[Progressive dog]

152. I didn't know anything about McCullagh till now

Thanks,

[OilemFirchen]

158. Declan McCullagh, Alex Jones, and Ratfuckers of the World Unite.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Declan+McCullagh+Alex+Jones&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org

I'd like to be surprised by the depths that are plunged here, but sadly cannot. I will, however, remain mildly embarrassed for the easily cowed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

167. And the usuals fell for it. I couldn't stop laughing at some of the shrillness upthread.

Derogatory names like "paid shills" were cheered. Anyone can make a negative claim about this president, or his administration, and the usuals go into automatic overdrive. I'm convinced that ODS is a real sickness. I hope the professionals are researching it.

So it turns out the author is just another Paultard, like Snowden, and they're covering each other's backsides? Go figure.

[nashville_brook]

111. we're going to find out that it's a worst case scenario. then what?

does Obama repeat his passing the buck to Congress? or does he lead?

at this point, it might be best if he sat this one out, but he at least needs to acknowledge the problem.

[DirkGently]

117. First there will be the parsing & obfuscating.

We'll hear argument that it's not exactly as Nadler said -- somehow it will be technically different.

But as that happens, the gates are open. And it would be very surprising if whatever the truth actually is, is any better than the "worst case scenario" we've all imagined.

This is the problem with secrecy. Once it's out, you're caught. Snowden might have details wrong. The NSA's own graphics might be quibble-able.

But that doesn't mean they're doing it right. If they were doing it right, we'd know by now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Technically different

Already started

[Harmony Blue]

137. No kidding

the disinformation has begun.

[nashville_brook]

114. someone made a great point in another forum today, that the worst part about the spying

is that panopticon world forces us to live without intimacy. how can you carry on earnestly when you know there's someone logging your every keystroke? hearing all your calls to your parents...or your fights with your boyfriend?

what sort of life is THAT? what does that force us to become?

i think we're seeing a bit of that right here. it forces people to rah rah...pick the right team...and fight fight fight!

it forces us into a perpetual state of high school.

[DirkGently]

120. It's chilling to any sort of "progress" is what it is.

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

More power entrenchment. These powers will not be used on the rich companies to whom the spying is outsourced.

Questionable if it will really be used on our "foreign enemies."

Who's going to rock the boat knowing they could be targeted this way?

We already know OWS was regarded as a "national security threat" on the basis of possible loss to the financial industry.

These dots don't even need to be connected.

[Enthusiast]

195. "These dots don't even need to be connected." nt

[nashville_brook]

197. we know, actually, that NSA was busy targeting OWS while the Russia was raising alarms

about the Boston bombers. they were apparently too busy cracking down on US college kids to look into a REAL threat.

dot connected.

[marions ghost]

142. A perpetual state of high school

--yes when you treat people like children they act like children.

I keep coming back to the insult--the idea that the millions of American people are expected to trust our leaders in the face of this kind of betrayal.

[blkmusclmachine]

118. .

[Marr]

124. Tagging for later.

This is going to be interesting.

[WinkyDink]

127. No matter if the System is allegedly changed; WE WILL NEVER AGAIN KNOW IF WE ARE BEING LISTENED TO.

[Progressive dog]

138. Another link calls Nadler confused

[link:http://inagist.com/all/346071503667884032/|

[pnwmom]

139. I wish the article reported what Mueller's response was to Nadler.

Nadler handled this very well -- getting him to say that this info wasn't classified -- and then explaining how it conflicted with what he was told in the briefing.

Too bad Snowden mucked this all up by concurrently releasing the info about hacking China -- to China. I remember when he compared himself favorably to Manning by saying he was more selective and didn't just dump documents. But he's got thousands of documents, according to his claims; what's he going to do with them?

[Monkie]

185. if you are not racists what is the difference between talking to a chinese or a UK newspaper?

im curious you know, because from what we have seen he just talked to a newspaper, he did not go to commie headquarters and spill all the US secrets he knows, or at least nobody credible has claimed that one so far.

if you dont understand why the chinese might be unhappy he spoke to the newspaper about spying let me explain.
china has a surveillance state that might almost be as big as the US has, the news of one mans stand against the surveillance state might get chinese people thinking about their own state.

so considering these 2 facts, that he talked to a newspaper and not the state, and that the chinese might not like this, the only thing that remains is irrational fear and racism..

[pnwmom]

261. China is not an ally. The UK, which is a country of diverse racial backgrounds,

is a long time ally.

But it wouldn't matter. No classified documents, especially those that could harm our diplomatic relations with any country, should have been released.

[struggle4progress]

255. The CNET headline: NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

From the CNET article: "... Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders ..."

The actual exchange:

~snip~

Nadler: ... We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. Other-words is what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.

~snip~

[pnwmom]

262. Thanks! nt

[BlueCheese]

143. Let's be careful here.

I definitely believe that collecting all the phone records of every call made by any American is already a big overreach, but before believing this particular piece of news, I'd like to be clearer on the source.

If I understand the article correctly, it's saying that Nadler said during an (unclassified?) Judiciary Committee hearing on June 13 that in an earlier, classified, briefing, the NSA said it could access the contents of a phone call.

Is this what they're basing the article on, or is there more to it than that? It's curious that they don't have any comments from Nadler himself. If so, then shouldn't other people have noticed at the time that Nadler was dropping such a big story?

[DirkGently]

161. Mueller & Nadler appear to disagree.

Nadler's not the only member of Congress saying what he heard in the recent briefing disturbed him.

Remains to be seen whether he understood exactly what was said. I'm sure we'll hear soon as whether he got any of it wrong. Of course, that will require explaining more of what's actually going on, which is all the better.

And also of course, that's secrecy again. If anyone had been straight in the first place, we'd all actually know what we were discussing.

The oft-repeated wish that "It will all die down soon; nothing to see here" is, however, hilariously. deluded.

[Cali_Democrat]

144. If true this is definitely illegal

[Coyotl]

146. Correction, they secretly interpreted the secret law!

[BlueCheese]

148. Video of exchange between Nadler and Mueller

Starts around 46:00 of this video:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/313323-1

I hope CNET's article is based on more than this-- that indicates that either Mueller or Nadler has a misunderstanding. They might be right, but I'd like to have more confirmation.

[DirkGently]

162. Here's what one commie (oops Libertarian) thinks

Sounds like he could have a handle on it. No idea who Julian Sanchez' girlfriend is though.

What seems more likely is that Nadler is saying analysts sifting through metadata have the discretion to determine (on the basis of what they’re seeing in the metadata) that a particular phone number or e-mail account satisfies the conditions of one of the broad authorizations for electronic surveillance under §702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Those authorizations allow the targeting of whole groups or “categories of intelligence targets,” as the administration puts it. Once the FISA Court approves targeting procedures, they have no further role in deciding which specific accounts can be spied on. This is, as those of us who wrote about the FAA during its recent reauthorization observed, kind of a problem.

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2013/06/15/nadler-and-mueller-on-analysts-getting-call-and-e-mail-content/

[Marr]

227. That's how it seem to me as well. Although...

I wouldn't say the two would be exactly equal. Mueller has a clear reason for "misunderstanding", while Nadler doesn't. At least, none that I can see.

When considered in the light of Clapper's flat-out lies on the subject, I'm not inclined to give much weight to the statements of surveillance industry bureaucrats.

[avaistheone1]

165. k&r

[anAustralianobserver]

166. This is what happens when you appoint Leslie Nielsen as FBI director.

(just a little humour while waiting for this story to develop )

[DCBob]

173. Well, this is a problem if its true.

Has there been any response or clarifications?

[DCBob]

174. The discussion might have been about metadata not real time listening to phone calls...

The key quote: “We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone.” Notice: Nadler did not say they could listen to the phone call, he said “get the specific information.”

.. this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word “metadata.” And metadata is not “listening to phone calls,” it’s the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. That’s why Mueller begins by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows

===========

Not sure what to believe now.

[randome]

176. But the 'discussion' at DU is more like this.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[mtasselin]

175. think

Think of the worst thing you can think of with this spying on everyone, not just Americans. Good now that you have thought about it consider it worse than that, it is a program that is out of control. Now guess what, if thr policy should start to change I will make a prediction that some form of terrorism is going to happen so the American people will start living in fear again and say it is ok to do this because we have to remain safe it whatever cost.

[Hubert Flottz]

177. It all started with those damned "Secret Decoder Rings."

Those kids grew up to be spying on everybody.

[ProSense]

196. This is how the media

"NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants"

....spreads misinformation. From the OP article.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

<...>

The NSA yesterday declined to comment to CNET. A representative said Nadler was not immediately available. (This is unrelated to last week's disclosure that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)

Second- and third-generation claims about misinterpreted statements. Not only is it inaccurate to claim that the NSA "admits listening to U.S. phone calls," the article is written to imply (bogusly) that any analyst could listen. That's a claim long debunked as absurd.

CNET Story Alleging NSA Can Listen To U.S. Phone Calls Without Warrant Faces Skepticism

A blockbuster article published by CNET Saturday night alleges that the National Security Agency has the power to listen to Americans' phone calls without a warrant.

That bold assertion lit up social media, but also drew skepticism, with many arguing that it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding.

The core of the CNET article focused on an exchange between Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and FBI Director Robert Mueller at a hearing on Thursday. (Watch above.) During questioning, Nadler claimed that in a separate, closed-door briefing, he had been told that NSA analysts could listen to the contents of a phone call at analysts' discretion.

Given the apparent illegality of listening to Americans' phone calls without warrants, some questioned whether Nadler understood the briefing he cited. As of late Saturday night, several publications were not able to reach the congressman for comment.

Mother Jones's Kevin Drum writes that "information from that telephone" could mean one of many things, and that Nadler may have been "confusing the ability of an analyst to get subscriber information for a phone number with the ability to listen to the call itself." Normative's Julian Sanchez wrote that Nadler may have been referring to a more limited set of circumstances than the CNET article implied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

[nashville_brook]

200. my guess is that Nadler will be a hot commodity this week.

[Daniel537]

215. So fucking what?

Obama is God. He has a D after his name for fuck's sake, that makes him infallible. All this whining about civil liberties and privacy, spare me. Its all about the Party! Within the Party, Everything, Outside the Party, Nothing!

[skepticscott]

216. Hell, anyone can do that

All you have to do is sit around a public place and you'll hear the "private" phone calls of all sorts of people being practically shouted in your ear. I can't count the number of times I've listened to other people's phone calls without a warrant.

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. Are you a member of the state?

Because we can spend days trying to explain this.

I won't waste my time. The bottle of blue pills is over there...swallow them.

[skepticscott]

220. I was being facetious, my overwrought friend...

But you're slathering at the mouth too much too have any sense of that, aren't you? I was making a rather ironic comment about the amusing and sometimes annoying habit people have of blurting out their private business in public, on their devices and social media, not trying to be an apologist for the NSA.

Maybe it's you that needs to take a pill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. Matrix reference whooshhh!!!

[skepticscott]

230. Yawn

Never seen a minute...no desire to. No apologies for not being totally immersed in every pop culture icon. But my real meaning went completely past you, didn't it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

239. Actually you missed an extremely good dystopia

that is far from pop culture. Sometimes movies say truths that you cannot say otherwise.

Those two brothers knew their shit very well indeed.

Sad though that GE is now using that as a soft porn commercial, given they got the number of contracts with the Feds, that commercial just became even creepier

[reusrename]

249. I hope you don't view the prophet Orwell in this same light.

And the blue pill/red pill reference is going to be around for a while.

Has to be one of the top 10 works Hollywood has ever produced, IMHO.

[marions ghost]

274. "The Prophet Orwell"

yes he should be elevated to prophet status now....

1984 is no longer speculative fiction.

[reusrename]

277. My brother started referring to him that way several years ago.

After doing some careful thought on the subject, together with some cursory research, I also adopted the honorific.

Glad you agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

297. Phillip K Dick

In particular his dept of Pre-Crime, and Aldous Huxley, with Heinlein should join him.

I have said for years...their works today would not see the light of day. There is a reason modern day fiction sucks. It mostly can't go there.

[nashville_brook]

223. it wasn't exactly clear to me either...

only b/c we've seen the loyalists say the same thing so often. we're thru the looking glass.

[skepticscott]

231. Try getting out in the real world a little

It might have been clearer.

[nashville_brook]

234. wow -- crusty much?

i was defending you.

[DirkGently]

235. Post your phone bill in the thread then.

Plenty of room for questioning the facts here. Nadler's comments and the Cnet article included.

Not sure I believe anyone really doesn't care about widespread domestic spying on Americans not accused of wrongdoing in a court of law.

[lastlib]

221. A Public Service Announcement from the NSA:

[saidsimplesimon]

270. thank you lastlib, songs from yesterday for today

[lumberjack_jeff]

232. And since the private contractors recruit their "analysts" from Kinko's...

... yikes.

[cstanleytech]

236. When was he told this though? Was it during the Bush administration when they were ignoring the law

and not getting FISA warrants or was it more recent? After all Nadler has been in congress since 1993 so pinpointing when he was told this by the NSA would be helpful in judging the merits of it as it applies to right now.

[tavalon]

241. Whoops, looks like those of us being chastised for having our hair on fire,

are the only ones not burned to a crisp.

I can't wait to see the patented DU pretzel dance over this latest revelation.

" It can't be true, Nadler is a Democrat and a New Yorker, to boot. How can we trust someone like that? Besides, look how much his name looks like Ralph Nader's!" and so on and so on and so on.

[Liberal_in_LA]

246. wow

[ProSense]

253. Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls

Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023027901

The most important part of Nadler's testimony is italicized. You can watch the full video here. Since the scandal broke, Nadler has walked back his comments in a statement. "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant," the New York Democrat told Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski.

[struggle4progress]

258. ^^^^^ *** !!!!! *** ^^^^^ *** !!!!! *** ^^^^^ *** !!!!! *** ^^^^^

[newthinking]

266. More like "oops", "we need to contain that"

NSA and Administration: "Get the heads on the phone immediately! They need to call Nadler right now and give him a different story!"

[JackRiddler]

306. Actually, he didn't say what he thinks.

According to that he talked about how happy he was that he had received empty assurances from the administration about how it's all peachy.

[Downtown Hound]

269. So will all you pathetic, NSA humping lemmings kindly do us a favor now and

STFU?!

Thanks.

[WillyT]

271. K & R !!!

[farmbo]

291. Talking Points Memo has just shot this story down...

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/think_thats_all_she_wrote.php?ref=fpblg

Everybody needs to take a deep breath.

[nadinbrzezinski]

293. That is why hearings

(Never happen) were called for.

[Cali_Democrat]

296. How dare you

Bring truth to the table.

[rhett o rick]

298. All that statement says is that the WH told him to sit down and shut up. He didnt explain

about the fact that someone told him in a closed briefing that the NSA could listen in to phone conversations.

The quote says that the administration told me that everything is fine.

This shows why relying on congressional oversight is bogus. Nadler learned something in a briefing but apparently cant tell us.

[humbled_opinion]

302. Amazing...

It seems that the transition to George W. Obama is now complete, an administration that lies and spies to and on its own citizenry, and how does this raise our standing on the world stage???