"People Who Urge Calm Over NSA Spying Make Me Nervous"

[G_j]

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/06/25/people-who-urge-calm-over-nsa-spying-make-me-nervous/

People Who Urge Calm Over NSA Spying Make Me Nervous

Posted by Jim Naureckas


"There are reasons to be concerned about intelligence-agency overreach, excessive secrecy, and lack of transparency," wrote Hendrik Hertzberg in a New Yorker piece (6/24/13) about NSA surveillance revelations. "But there are also reasons to remain calm."

It's his reasons to remain calm that make me nervous.

"They have not put the lives of tens of millions of Americans under 'surveillance' as that word is commonly understood," Hertzberg writes; with "every American's phone calls," the government is merely recording "the time and the duration of the calls, along with the numbers and, potentially, the locations of the callers and the called."

Really? If government agents followed Hertzberg around, keeping tabs on where he went and how long he stayed there, and entering these facts into a government database, I would think he would acknowledge that he was under surveillance–even if the agents didn't get close enough to overhear his conversations. Likewise, if the government had a record of who was contacting whom through the mail–who, for example, was getting a periodical-rate mailing from the New Yorker every week–surely this would be understood to be a surveillance program.

But, Hertzberg reassures, none of the info the NSA collects on every phone call is "ever seen by human eyes except in the comparatively tiny number of instances in which a computer algorithm flags one for further examination, in which case—at least, since 2008—a judicial warrant is legally required."

So unless your pattern of phone calls are deemed to be somehow suspicious–and who know what that means, because, as Hertzberg stresses, they're looking for people who are calling "unknown, unsuspected terrorists"–the government won't go to a secret Star Chamber to get rubber-stamp approval to listen in on your actual conversations. This is what Hertzberg means when he says, "From what we know so far about these NSA programs…they have been conducted lawfully." Feel reassured yet?

Hertzberg goes on to say of NSA spying programs:

The threat that they pose to civil liberties, such as it is, is abstract, conjectural, unspecified. In the roughly seven years the programs have been in place in roughly their present form, no citizen's freedom of speech, expression or association has been abridged by them in any identifiable way. No political critic of the administration has been harassed or blackmailed as a consequence of them.

It's a defense often made of NSA surveillance, and it's peculiar: It's as if it's not possible for the government to violate people's Fourth Amendment rights (to be protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures&quot unless it violates their First Amendment rights at the same time.

In reality, of course, our civil liberties are violated–concretely, certainly and specifically–whenever we are subjected to an unreasonable search, which is to say one that is conducted without a judge having been convinced to warrant that there is probable cause to believe that we've done something wrong. It's not OK for the government to sneak into our homes just to have a look around–even if they don't use what they saw there to mess with us.

[sabrina 1]

1. The 4th Amendment doesn't say it's okay to track people's behavior

their comings and goings, their reading material, what time they go to buy a newspaper or to the bookstore to buy a book, UNLESS they use that information to harass them in some way.

The very stalking of people's actions, on such a massive scale, whether on the phone, or on the internet, IS the harassment the 4th Amendment made illegal. Does Hertzog think that the 4th Amendent only covers the few and it will always only be a few, at first, who are harassed by the Government's stalking??

They did not, they forbade all stalking of citizens by the Government because that in itself is an intrusion on their privacy from Government intrusion, without a warrant issued upon presentation in court before a judge of evidence of wrong-doing.

How did we get to the point where morons like this are taken seriously in a democracy?

Good article by someone who actually understands the principle behind protecting the people from the potential of an oppressive government.

[L0oniX]

2. There are plenty of people here willing to give up my privacy for their security.

[pnwmom]

5. And there are plenty who are willing to give up my life for their total privacy.

One popular thread recently was whether DUers would be willing to sacrifice 200 American lives to terrorist attacks every year for the sake of civil liberties, and many people said yes.

I bet they would feel differently if they knew their own children were part of the 200.

[L0oniX]

9. While yer at ...it let me know when they keep the other driver from risking my life.

I hear that death toll is over 40k. So Ben must have been an idiot ..to you.

[mick063]

14. So tell me your threshold

Would you implant an electronic chip in your child's forehead to protect 200 lives a year?

Would you tattoo a scan-able barcode on your arm to save 200 lives a year?

You have a much greater chance of dying from your neighbor's handgun than from a terrorist attack.

We can't put tracing elements in gunpowder, but we can collect a billion bits of phone call data a day.

Here is the bottom line when it comes to your false security. Folks are taking your tax money and spending it on gathering your personal information to satisfy some obscure share holder's bottom line.

ALEC has you just where they want you.

[pnwmom]

16. I'm not going to respond to ridiculous hypotheticals

that are not at all comparable to collecting the type of information that comes on phone bills.

[mick063]

17. Right

There is nothing hypothetical about storing vast amounts of data.


Just in case, hypothetically speaking, that you might be a terrorist.

[marions ghost]

22. Your fervent wish

is that it's only about your phone bill. We all wish it were limited, but now we know that it's not.

The govt is storing all the Facebook pages from everybody around the world. Think about the implications of that.

The scope of this invasive data-mining is vast.

[snappyturtle]

42. +10000! nt

[marions ghost]

50. +++++

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Gasping at 'ridiculous hypotheticals' moments after you posted this:

"One popular thread recently was whether DUers would be willing to sacrifice 200 American lives to terrorist attacks every year for the sake of civil liberties, and many people said yes.

I bet they would feel differently if they knew their own children were part of the 200."

Sort of ironic. By sort of I mean very.

[marions ghost]

49. +++

[HiPointDem]

61. you're the one who introduced the ridiculous hypotheticals.

[The Green Manalishi]

18. It could be a 911every day and a Benghazi every night and I would *STILL* say abolish the NSA

and require a valid warrant for ANY action other than the pursuit of a felon.

[Progressive dog]

21. I'll bet they would too

"I bet they would feel differently if they knew their own children were part of the 200."

[snappyturtle]

51. And if they gave up their privacy to save 200 children what would they be leaving

to the millions of surviving children? Sacrifice is never easy. imho

[Progressive dog]

59. You said "Sacrifice is never easy. imho"

"And if they gave up their privacy to save 200 children"
You do know that privacy is fundamentally different than life. If you give up "your privacy", it's not all gone. It could be minor parts of your privacy that are gone. Life is a whole, when it's gone you can't get it back.

[snappyturtle]

63. Thousands have died to keep us free. Are we supposed to roll over

now essentially saying they died in vain?

[Progressive dog]

65. Some of those thouisands were spies.

Do you really think that those thousands would have died knowing that their sacrifices were to keep your telephone call logs away from the hands of the government they died for?

[snappyturtle]

67. Either the Constitution is worth dying for or it isn't. I take it that you

vote, "No". I disagree.

Now I'm going to go see if Salmonenchantedevening has posted LOL cats.

[Progressive dog]

71. If you only have two choices, it must be very "simple"

for you.

"Either the Constitution is worth dying for or it isn't."
Sounds to me like you are very willing to have others die for your understanding of the parts you have read.

[snappyturtle]

73. There's another legal avenue: amend the Constitution. Until

then it stands as read. Yes, pretty simple.

[Progressive dog]

74. Oh you're on the Supreme court

or did you not actually read the Constitution.
Sorry, your honor. LOL

[snappyturtle]

75. I've said what I wanted to say. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Have a beautiful Sunday!

[Progressive dog]

76. I have no problem with that.

[blackspade]

52. Who came up with that bullshit scenerio?

We sacrifice 200+ lives a year for many things: unsafe products, food, chemicals, guns, etc.
So the notion that supporting civil liberties at a mandatory 'cost' per year is just stupid.
I would hazard to guess that supporters of civil liberties are much more likely to suffer the 'cost' than those willing to give them up. Far more have died supporting the cause of civil liberties than those that died because of them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

86. The rare double false premise in one reply.

First; your safety is much more jeopardized by your refrigerator than by the mythical terrorist network.

Second; taking all of our rights doesn't even make you safer, it just makes those that rule you more powerful.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Calm should return, reasonable thinking would indicate it would not be necessary to follow the calls

of everyone in the USA places or receives. How boring it would be. I am beginning to think there is a fascination who may think their phone calls are so wonderful others might want to listen.

[G_j]

7. have you, or anyone you know been a member of

Occupy?

[Thinkingabout]

8. Not that I know of

[blackspade]

53. And there you have it.

As a supporter of occupy, you should be very concerned given some of the recent news about occupy 'targeting'.

[Thinkingabout]

56. Perhaps I do not choose to be a part of occupy, would you be comfortable with me suggesting you

withdraw from being a supporter of occupy?

[sibelian]

64. Waht a strange question.

Why are you trying to encourage someone not to be part of Occupy?

[Thinkingabout]

72. Perhaps you did not read the previous information, I dont care if you do or do not actively

Participate in occupy, but don't expect everyone to participate.

[blackspade]

79. And why would I do that?

Oh right, Because the government has shown no interest in stifling the occupy movement.....

This seems to be response for a lot of folks: "I have nothing to hide"; "If your doing nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about"; etc.

Tell that to occupy and other dissident groups who are conducting lawful, peaceful protests against the government and the corporations that control it..

[Thinkingabout]

84. Just because I am not an active participant in occupy does not mean I am not

Sympathetic to the movement. This is where too many draws conclusions about others. Just as the occupy movement is about being heard and the vile comments made about those in the movement should halt some of hard comments heard here.

[blackspade]

85. Good to hear.

Your previous comments seemed to indicate that you did not support the movement.
I'm glad that impression was incorrect.

[deurbano]

32. My calls are not "wonderful"... but my phone may have been tapped in the 1980's, anyway.

My housemate was an active member of the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. There were a lot of clicks whenever we used the phone, and we used to joke that the calls were being monitored by the FBI or CIA. Later, when it was confirmed that CISPES members actually were being spied on by the FBI, it didn't seem so funny, anymore. In fact, I found it alarming. (I still do.)

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-01-27/news/8803250682_1_fbi-agents-cispes-investigation-counterterrorism-investigation

[JDPriestly]

37. The point is that the government can chart all of your contacts and who they

contact. Through that means, they can determine who influences whom. They can determine what sources a journalist contacts before writing a story, what experts or witnesses a lawyer contacts before filing a lawsuit or preparing to defend a client.

And it isn't just the government as an abstract entity. The individuals who do what Snowden did, the systems managers and others who have access to this system can secretly obtain information they want. They can probably do it surreptitiously.

It isn't just the Fourth Amendment that is violated. It is our ability to speak, worship and associate freely without the government being able to identify our speech (which reflects our thoughts), our religious views and our associations. That is surveillance even if the government has to get a subpoena to obtain the specific words we said or wrote. And if you look at the history of totalitarian countries around the world, the stages are always 1) an awareness of having dangerous enemies 2) developing into a feeling of national or racial or ethnic vulnerability, 3) progressing into a need to defend, 4) moving on toward some sort of spying or surveillance system, 5) and when the consensus is that all those precautions prove insufficient, 6) acceptance of repression -- hauling people off to Siberia or concentration camps or renditioning them or simply arranging for them to be killed in their homes or on the streets. Once you have repression, people continue to insist that they are free, that they can say what they want, that their news is free, etc., but they become silent, sullen and less creative. The society slows the pace of its development. The security of the government becomes the primary concern of government as it is increasingly distanced and isolated from the people -- for fear that the people will rebel.

We are on step 4. And we still won't be perfectly safe. We will never be perfectly safe. So, as long as we think that instead of having the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, we have the right to eternal life in our bodies on this earth, we will probably be ready to move to steps 5 and 6.


That is where we are headed. This surveillance, and that is what it is, needs to be stopped now before we reach the next step.

[blackspade]

54. +1000

[OnyxCollie]

4. The Surveillance State and DU - There is No Connection There.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2490563

[marions ghost]

12. From Mar 11

pre-Snowden and post-Snowden.

A giant gulf has opened up.

[OnyxCollie]

13. I'm sure the poster

would like you to continue believing that there is no interest in surveilling DU.

[marions ghost]

19. Never did believe

that there is no interest. The nannies are extra busy now.

[Quantess]

69. In one DUer's opinion.

That's not convincing.

[Skidmore]

6. I have said one thing only and consistently on this board.

The laws need to be changed by going to Congress and having legislation written to reflect what you want, or to repeal or revise the Patriot Act and FISA provisions. Either that, or work some cases up to the SCOTUS to have those cases ruled unconstitutional and sent to the Congress. Regardless, you need to go to Congress. Period.

[KittyWampus]

10. Well, that's being reasonable and implies people will be proactive. Ranting w/your hair on fire

on the internets is just a better way to feel superior!

[DontTreadOnMe]

15. Exactly +1

eom

[mick063]

20. Ever stopped to consider that this is part of the process?

Here is the deal about politics.

With persuasive argument, one can convert a single vote in to two votes, or five votes, or ten thousand votes.

Has been that way since the advent of representative government.

This is going to Congress. No doubt about that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. With persuasion? For most politicans, what's more persuasive than money?

[mick063]

29. I gotta give you credit for being right about most politicians

Regardless, there is more political power in numbers than through individualism.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Gee wiz, that's why some of us elect Wyden and Merkley who have been along

with some other Democrats attempting to get this discussion going for years now. So yeah, we already went to Congress, that part of the process is ongoing. Many people on DU who say things like 'hair on fire' a lot and like to talk about Snowden seem to really dislike both of my Democratic Senators and my Democratic Rep as well as the other Democrats who want to get answers and make needed changes to this slow rising yeast bread of unproven security policies.
When I call for changes, I already have people in Congress doing the same, Democrats. When people say 'Snowden' and 'hair on fire' I have no idea who they have speaking for them in Congress, some Republicans and Blue Doggies I guess. They could support Udall and Wyden and Merkley and the others. But they don't.
Had the administration and the security apparatus been properly responsive to duly elected officials in the United States Congress, they might not have would up dealing with some Snowden and all of this conflict inside the Party. They were not responsive to the satisfaction of my Democratic United States Senators. This is how democracy works.
Folks who don't like it can have their Senators say 'hair on fire, we love the NSA' for them.

[Skidmore]

47. I'm sorry to disagree with you in that I think you make quite a few inferences

that probably don't exist. In my instance, I am a Democrat and have been for my entire adult life. I support the Democratic Party and its elected officials and give them feedback when I disagree with them. In regard to the NSA, I have not seen anyone on DU say that they "love the NSA." I have seen some posters, and I include myself in that group, who have simply pointed out that this whole thing had a history long before Snowden and Greenwald and lots of it had been published too. There has been discussion on the part of those posters about the necessity to address any changes to the NSA programs with legislative measures or through the courts, which would ultimately kick it back to the legislature. Now because someone points out facts related to the history of events or has some knowledge of the legal system or the technology and how it works and tries to present those facts, I don't assume that they are an enemy or that they do not have issues or problems with how this system works. That is a giant leap to conclusions. Castigating someone who may have questions or observations that don't quite mesh with yours or mine, does not mean that they are not entitled to an opinion nor that their opinion should not be treated with the respect that you would demand for yourself.

[nashville_brook]

11. k and r

[panzerfaust]

23. Our past two administrations seem to be working to realize Mussolini's Dream in America

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. The activities that are already illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 should be prosecuted. n/t

[treestar]

26. People who urge calm make him nervous

Hmmmm. Calm people make better decisions than panicked people do.

[Chaco Dundee]

28. here is where it goes

As we all know,prices, actions and provitions ecalade with time.a loaf of bread was to be 39c. cents according to Reagan if he were to become President.when he became president,that loaf of bread went to $1.39.do you really think,the N.S.A.is collecting phone and internet records to look at patterns and adresses which mean nothing? They do what you forbid yourself.snooping in other peoples private affairs.that used to not only be wrong,but used to be called a Perversion.there are people who defend that kind of action.so as is escalates,it will not be to long,before you will by law have to install a observation camera in your beddroom and you will be charged for the cost and maintanance.then it will escalade from there.

[Narkos]

30. People who defend treason make me nervous

[JDPriestly]

40. I just read a stirring section on the patriotism and willingness to serve of US servicemen and

women during WWII. The book is "In Search of History" by Theodore White.

Theodore White reported on China for Time magazine beginning off but mostly on in 1939.

He described the air force Eleventh Bombardment Squadron as follows:

The squadron counted sixteen B-25s and until 1943 was the only striking instrument of American power on the mainland of Asia. It had been put together as a unit before the war, and was thus largely volunteer in its manpower. The squadron specialize in hit-and-run strikes, for it was, in function, an airborne guerrilla unit. It struck Hong Kong for the first time, Hanoi for the first time, Haiphong for the first time, on all of which strikes it permitted me to go along. But after playing red dog, or poker, or after a good raid in which no one was killed, or after getting drunk in the wildest drunken bashes I have ever enjoyed, the men would grouse about the command. They would grouse aggressively -- about what we should be doing that we were not doing.

Combat morale actually outran command.

On Christmas Eve of 1942, I recall, the squadron disagreed with General Chennault, who had ordered a stand-down for the holiday, because most American generals hate to order troops to attack on Christmas Eve. But any number of the flying men in the squadron felt that Christmas Eve was just the proper time to "jump the jap" [White's racist insult not mine, and he did not put it in quotations. I find it offensive but it is part of the text.] because they would not be expecting us. Thus, after the party in the barracks, they recruited themselves into scratch crews, found enough men to get our B-25s off the ground, and unauthorized, all of them volunteers, took off in the night to bomb the Japanese across the Salween River. Most of us were slightly alcoholized when we took off, but the raid was performed splendidly. We coursed up and down the gorge of the Talween, locked in tight formation, the moon lighting the walled Chinese villages below like fossil rectangles. We located our target, Tengyueh, and as we strung our bombs down the main street, where the Japanese depots were located, Japanese answered back, their pink and yellow tracers scratching for us; then we turned, locked on the flight leader as he turned, as if this raggle-taggle band had practiced such a formation maneuver for years, and heeling over, our planes delivered a broadside of our own, our red, blue and white tracers flaring until we had extinguished those of the Japanese. Then, as we lifted and gained height, we adjusted our earphones and the pilot tuned in the armed forces shortwave broadcast out of San Francisco: they were playing Christmas carols fo the men overseas, and we joined the broadcast, caroling "Oh Come, all Ye Faithful" as we homed on Kunming. We expected to be court-martialed for violating orders, but Chennault (the American general in China at the time) only chuckled at the idea of his men exceeding command.

Upon this spirit, this absolutely reckless desire of the young Americans to get the war over, rested, first, our tactics and then our strategy, for bravado gave lift to daring planning and one could see the American reach spreading."

Theodore H. White, In Search of History, pp. 215-217.

I posted that excerpt here because it shows the degree of patriotism that it took to win WWII.

Remember, the men who fought that war came out of the Great Depression. Most of them were really poor. Many were farm boys who had grown up doing hard physical labor. They were, most of them, educated in public schools. Most of them loved Roosevelt (according to White describing the soldiers elsewhere in the book).
Roosevelt had seen them and their families through hard times and done right by them. Today's government -- not so helpful, not seen as doing right by American citizens.

That's the big difference. Were our citizens more patriotic during WWII and earlier times? I suspect so on the whole. Treason was far more rare than it may be today. Roosevelt had no patience with war profiteers. Today, the war profiteers run the country.

In my view, the turning point was November 1963, the Kennedy assassination. After that, everything in our country began to decline.

Is it any wonder that a guy like Snowden feels alienated?

Loyalty has to be earned. I'm still of the old school. I love my country, but when I hear about this surveillance and see the cynicism that inspired it, I feel very disgusted. You don't win people's loyalty by spying on them.

You win their loyalty by standing by and with them in hard times. Our government let people lose their homes, many, many people. And our government is allowing the public schools to disintegrate. Our government is not adequately funding college educations for those qualified to go. Our government is not the government of the New Deal. And it was the government of the New Deal that produced the patriots that won WWII.

Chennault did not court-martial his soldiers for doing what they believed was right.

Snowden probably believes that he is answering to the Constitution with his revelations. The Constitution is a higher authority than the men who directed Snowden in his work. The Constitution is even higher than our president.

The specific issues raised by this massive surveillance and application of algorithms to our communication data have not been considered by the Supreme Court. We need to wait until we get their input on the constitutionality of this snooping. And the first case they hear will not decide the matter -- or at least probably won't. It will have to be revisited, maybe many times.

Patriotism of the kind that won WWII, that would have silenced Snowden, has to be earned. And our government is not earning it. That is not Obama's fault. This course was set way back in 1963 -- maybe before right after WWII.

Sorry for the long post, but I think White's story is just amazing.

[Narkos]

41. I read your reply

And I agree that patriotism has to be earned. I would have praised Snowden if faced the music in his own country and didn't leak our fully Constitutional intelligence efforts against our foreign adversaries. He chose to give up some information that has nothing to with domestic spying, which for me is unforgivable. He made himself the focus, and the nation is worse off for it

[snappyturtle]

43. Had Snowden "faced the music" in the U.S. he would have had the next

cell number next to Manning. Don't you think he'd weighed his options?? To your second point, I read here on DU earlier that in fact he hasn't done damage internationally. I suspect you keep on top on these things and read it too. No, I'm not going to site the link because I don't have the time to look for it. He's not stupid. imho

[Narkos]

57. Yes, if he was courageous

He should have accepted the possibility of jail time.

[jberryhill]

58. "Patriotism of the kind that won WWII"

The will to intern more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

The will to firebomb entire cities in Europe.

The will to incinerate 93,000 people at a single blow, with thousands more dying from the lingering effects of radiation.

That is what was deemed necessary by the "patriotism" necessary to win WWII - the ability to dehumanize and exterminate tens of thousands at a time, in order to demonstrate to our enemies that our industrial capacity for mass death, and our will to use it, far exceeded theirs, while we remained unscathed, with more than 100,000 of our own people locked up and dispossessed by their own country.

Nationalizing our industrial capacity and rationing goods, creating entire secret cities in Hanford, Washington; Albuquerqe, New Mexico; and Oak Ridge, Tennnessee with an unlimited budget and no oversight of toxic contamination which persists to today; drafting a million men into military service while maintaining separation of the races and having thousands die in combat in a single day.

That is what it took to win WWII and we would not stand for any of it today.

[randome]

31. You never make changes in the law in a climate of fear.

Never.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[G_j]

33. ok

glad we still have these Bush policies in place, wouldn't want to be hasty now!

[randome]

34. As treestar said above, panicked is the worst state of mind to make changes.

It's the worst state of mind for anything. The moment you stop thinking rationally is the moment you lose control of what you want to accomplish.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[G_j]

36. panic is your take then, as well as irrational

projecting much?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. And it was panic that gave birth to the Patriot Act and all of this crap. Fear.

Bush shouting about smoking them out, mushroom clouds and NY in ashes is what got us in this cycle of poorly crafted and thus very likely ineffective security spasms. We were running around invading Iraq, so rationality was long departed it was yellow cake at high tea in crazy town, passing laws as fast as a goose passes blue grass.
You would, I assume, agree that this means that law is most likely utterly worthless, having come from the most panic based irrational moment in all of American history.

[randome]

48. No, I don't admit it's utterly worthless but I do think it is badly flawed.

But I confess to not having studied it in all its intricacies. The government's reaction to 9-11 was abominable. The attack on Iraq completely unjustified.

Did you think anyone on DU would believe differently? Maybe you could find one or two but that's about it, I'd wager.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fumesucker]

66. Are you saying the PATRIOT Act wasn't written and passed in a "climate of fear"?

[randome]

70. No, I am not saying that. Clearly it was.

That doesn't mean every single thing about it is wrong.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[whistler162]

35. Ahhhh... another supporter of Peter and C. Little

PANIC.....PANIC.... mist not think for yourselves.... PANIC.... PANIC!

[G_j]

38. nice try

who said anything about panic?

[mick063]

39. No doubt

You know you are winning the argument, when the argument resorts to a cartoon depicting folks as panic stricken.

A better description of my mental state would be pissed off.

[blackspade]

55. Like this?

[HiPointDem]

60. kr

[DCBob]

62. not urging calm.. just urging common sense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. knr

thank you
usGovOwesUs3Trillion for posting this photo


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[Progressive dog]

77. My life in the phone lines

would make a good book title.

If government agents followed Hertzberg around, keeping tabs on where he went and how long he stayed there, and entering these facts into a government database, I would think he would acknowledge that he was under surveillance–

That is pretty creepy, having the NSA follow you through the phone lines.

[Thinkingabout]

78. There is a history of the FISA Courts all should understand, it is here to

Protect our citizens and expand the Fourth Amendment.

[Aerows]

80. You must be joking

Did you type that with a straight face?

[Thinkingabout]

83. Previously to the FISA Act whoever was the presidemt could get the wiretaps without

Any oversight as happened during the Nixon administration who ordered them on his political enemies. This was signed on 1979 and is not new. When Obama was running for president in 2006 he complained about the wiretaps ordered by Bush who considered his war powers covered his ordering of wiretaps. Bush felt he did not need to wait the 24 hours for FISA court to act. Since Obama has been president he returned to the FISA Act process. I know you will not hear this information from many because they do not want the correct information to contradict what they want you to believe.

[Aerows]

87. No use arguing with the infatuated

against the indefensible.

[Thinkingabout]

88. You may be correct in arguing with those infatuated with non truths, just like "scandals" of recent

When the real truth comes out then the "scandal" dies on the vine. Lies about this is the indefensible, truth sets you free.

[geckosfeet]

81. I certainly do not advocate running out in a panic, but clearly there has been

a violation of the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What does that mean to you? It certainly does not imply unlimited surveillance of all (electronic) communications. A least not to me. The violation is clear.

Now. What to do about it.

[nashville_brook]

82. kick