If I stipulate that Snowden is slime, Greenwald is a hater, Morales is a dictator

[cali]

the plane incident had nothing to do with the U.S. hunting down Snowden, etc. that still leaves us with an ever expanding NSA that operates so secretly that even its budget and number of employees are classified. It still leaves us with a FISA court under the direct supervision of Chief Justice Roberts; a secret court whose reach and power are growing exponentially. It still leaves us with mass surveillance of the American people.

The festering problems of what has become a National Security state, where rights are sacrificed in the name of keeping us safe, don't just go poof because of Greenwald and Snowden and Morales and the hunt for Snowden.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hpw

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/

[reformist2]

1. Hear, hear. It's time to begin discussing what we do about all the illegal spying.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Yes it is time to do something about the illegal spying, starting with checking on the security

Clearance of every employee and contractor involved with our nations security. The illegal spying by Snowden is not acceptable.

[nineteen50]

33. and we need to stop outsourcing the job of American Security

to for profit international corporations.

[Thinkingabout]

50. This may be a good issue for many operations. It always turns into another corporate welfare

program.

[nineteen50]

64. Like the hiring of private armies and security guards for government

and military dignitaries and no bid cost plus contracts.

[graham4anything]

2. Al Gore did not nominate John Roberts. Therefore, Ralph Nader lied...what could have been

had NH given its 4 electoral votes to Al Gore in 2000. He would have received then over 270.
And John Roberts and Sam Alito would not have been SCOTUS at all.

[pinboy3niner]

3. Throwing darts is not the best way to pick a thread in which to place your post

But in this case, we'll give you another throw...

[graham4anything]

6. Head Justice John Roberts is mentioned prominently in the OP lower paragraphs.

That it is John Roberts that would decide it. It goes without saying, Al Gore did not pick John Roberts, but W Bush did.

[nineteen50]

34. and which Democrats voted for him?

[Fumesucker]

10. It's not darts that poster is throwing

[Savannahmann]

7. And if President Obama had vetoed the reauthorization of the Patriot Avt

The NSA would not have the authority to gather the data either. If my Grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. If, if, if....

One theory is ridicules. One is irrelevant, and the last one is the truth. Any guesses as to which one is ridicules, which is irrelevant, and which is the truth?

[cali]

8. Or as my mother said a few thousand times while I was growing up:

If ifs and ands were pots and pans and all the sea were ink
and all the trees were bread and cheese,
what would there be to drink?

[graham4anything]

9. The veto would be overridden 99 to 1. The correct person to lobby is Peter King, republican, Long Is

The HOUSE gives the money to support these things.

Which house member is going to shut down the FBI, CIA, HS, The entire defense department?
I have not heard any that wants to spend zero dollars on defense.

besides Smith vs. Maryland 1979, took care of this issue forever.
It is reasonable and legal
The court ruled it as such.

[Fumesucker]

11. A veto makes a moral statement

[truedelphi]

84. Yes, it does. And it enables a few in our media to discuss why this bill or that bill was

Vetoed.

But of course, often a veto takes courage.

[Savannahmann]

12. I doubt the veto would have been overridden.

Not if the President had explained his veto, going before the people, and explaining about the PATRIOT ACT, and how they violated Civil Rights. I think that this discussion would have been held then.

Right now, 45% of the people are opposed to the Cell phone metadata collection. More than 50% are opposed to the internet data collection. Are you telling me that those numbers would not jump dramatically if the President came out and said he was opposed to this as a Constitutional Scholar, and a Constitutional Professor? Are you telling me that Congress would, in the face of this criticism, leap at the chance to override the veto? Sure, some of the RW a-holes would, but the rest? They are more afraid at the moment of looking weak on terrorism, than looking weak on civil rights.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

The bloody bill did not pass the Senate 99-1. Stop with the disinformation G4A. There were 74 Senate votes for it in 2011. Are you telling me that President Obama could not have twisted 9 arms to prevent overriding his Veto?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s81

Stop with the disinformation G4A, we deserve better than that.

[graham4anything]

13. What are you talking about? 91% of the american people want major gun control months ago and now

91% of the people want the 2nd amendment reinterpreted to get guns out of the street

President Obama, Gabbie Giffords and VP Biden strongly have lobbied for it

Yet the house and senate didn't do it, did they?

BTW, the vast majority of people according to all surveys say they don't want another 9-11.

[cali]

14. What the absolute fuck? your posting is completely off the rails.

this post has NOTHING but nothing to do with the post you responded to.

good grief.

[graham4anything]

16. Yes it directly answers the question above it. The veto would have been overridden

doesn't matter what a poll would say

THE REPUBLICANS vote in the house, and the Patriot act would NOT have been discontinued.

The proper outlet is Republican Peter King.
Ask him about the Patriot act.
He leads the republicans on the security issue, and if you think he would lead a revolt of republicans to discontinue the defense department and the patriot act, show me in a link where he has indicated such.

thank you.

public polls show the vast majority of people when asked, do NOT want to get rid of the security that has prevented another 9-11.
(even if you don't believe an event has been prevented, the public does).

[baldguy]

19. It proves that just because the people want something doesn't mean it'll get through Congress.

Reading comprehension skills.

[Savannahmann]

17. Graham

The reauthorization didn't pass 99-1, so there is no way the override would have gone anywhere near that. Again, President Obama had a chance to take control of the narrative, and do the right thing, the Constitutional thing, and get the nation talking. Instead he picked the easy way, and now we are left with OUR guy looking like the authoritarian jackass.

Of course nobody wants another 9-11, nobody but a handful of jackasses who hope to cause one wants another 9-11. That's like saying a majority of people polled don't want Herpes. That's as obvious as the sunrise. The question isn't another 9-11. The question is do we want Civil Rights, and right now, a majority of the people say yes regarding Internet Data, and a bare minority say yes regarding cell phone metadata.

91% of the people wanted background checks. That wasn't a desire to re-interpret the 2nd Amendment. That was public support for a single portion of the issue. Yes, the President lobbied for it, and guess what, with his support, it had 91% approval. Are you telling me he couldn't get a majority of the people thinking about civil rights with a couple speeches? The fallout of that will be seen, I don't think it will result in as many lost seats for Rethugs as you do, but then again, I'm stuck in reality while I have no idea what fantasyland you inhabit.

Seriously, I don't know why you go through so much trouble to spread so many untruths in a single post. But things are a lot easier to discuss if everyone is camped out on this side of the reality line.

[randome]

18. You do realize the reauthorization put safeguards in place that were not previously there.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Savannahmann]

23. Safeguards in name only.

Are the various agencies, Intelligence and LEO gathering data exactly as they were? Yes. Now they have a scrap of paper for some of it, issued by a court with a 99% approval rate for warrants. Warrants that in no way meet the standards set forth in the 4th Amendment.

Yeah, I know, and that is far more disappointing than anything else. They slapped a new coat of paint on an unconstitutional program and called it fixed.

[tularetom]

4. No, in some circles, all that means is that you have Obama derangement syndrome

and are quite possibly a racist to boot.

All that NSA stuff was only an invasion of privacy when Bush was doing it. Now they're only spying on bad guys.

[baldguy]

15. You're still missing the fact that A) Snowden's assertions & accusations were lies

B) The documents he has provided did not reveal any new activities, just specific names of programs along with methods & practices
C) The NSA was following the law and the relevant court decisions as they exist today

and most importantly

D) Obama can't really change anything without the cooperation of Congress.

So, anyone saying that this is unAmerican are fucking idiots who are talking out of their ass. Anyone using epithets like "fascist", "corporatist", "authoritarian", etc, etc, against people simply because they point out facts are fucking idiots who are talking out of their ass.. Anyone calling for Obama to be impeached over this are fucking idiots who are talking out of their ass.

Anyone who is having hysterical fits over everything the NSA does or may do, and just refuses to believe it needs to exist - but has no qualms about or even interest in the private corporations which do exactly same things are fucking idiots who are talking out of their ass.

[cali]

20. No. I'm focusing on the incontrovertible facts of the expanding National Security State

Now why don't you contact Senator Leahy and tell him he's having "hysterical fits' over the NSA and FISA.

I'm hardly having fits over EVERYTHING the NSA does, dearie.

[baldguy]

22. "but has no qualms about or even interest in the private corporations which do exactly same things"

Reading comprehension skills.

[sabrina 1]

51. Martin Luther King:

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany did was legal.

[baldguy]

57. "but has no qualms about or even interest in the private corporations which do exactly same things"

[sabrina 1]

59. Explain that please. I have huge problems with those private 'security' Corporations

such as Booz Allen, Clapper's previous and probably future employer, and the revolving door through which many of them march through into positions in our government that give them access to information and credibility to push for policies that benefit their multi-billion dollar corporations.

Why is Clapper, eg, a Conservative Republican and old Bush guy, former CEO of Booz Allen, in a Democratic Administration in the position of 'Director of Intelligence'? Are there no Democrats anywhere who could fill that position and who have no ties to these nefarious private Corporations and are less likely to be lying to Congress?

[baldguy]

67. And you miss the point entirely.

None of the information you give to any corporation belongs to you. When Walmart or Coca-cola get you email or phone number they can sell it to anyone, anywhere - including the NSA - and it's all perfectly legal. You don't own your phone records. You don't own your receipt records. You don't own your bank records. Hell, you don't even own your medical records. And it's not even anonymized metedata (like what the NSA gets & which you're so upset about), its linked forever to you personally AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT CORPORATIONS DO WITH IT.

The easiest way to enslave a person is to limit their choices.

[sabrina 1]

74. Well, that ought to make everyone feel really secure. There is no obligation for

banks, you are saying, to share your information with anyone they choose, some Contractor in a foreign country, some thief who makes a career out of switching funds from banks to their own accounts.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. This is a new invention of the Surveillance state, and if this is going to be their defense, I can't wait until the International Community starts making laws to stop these dishonorable, thieving criminals from continuing these abuses now we know, not just against US citizens, but aagainst the people of the world.

I have given NO STRANGER I don't know permission to have access to anything personal, including phone data, bank records, emails or anything else that belongs to me.

Stalking and peering in windows is still against the law here, or is it?? Is that what you are telling us, anyone can now take your SS # at Motor Vehicles, eg, and keep it for future use?? Where are the laws that legalize stalking, peeking tomming, etc.?

Show me the laws that say no one has the right anymore not to be stalked by strangers?

This is insand. And something needs to done IMMEDIATELY to disabuse these criminals from even thinking that what they are doing is in anyway acceptable, let alone legal.

There will be lawsuits over this and I can't wait to join the Verizon customers suits and we'll see what the courts say about these abuses.

Making up their own rules, this IS the problem, THIS is what people are so outraged over.

[treestar]

71. +1

[randome]

21. How does that Orwell phrase go?

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations."

The same thing could be said about:
"Evidence is something that stands on its own. Everything else is opinion."

When you use phrases like "an ever expanding NSA" and "rights are sacrificed in the name of keeping us safe", you are still going by what Snowden says instead of what the evidence says.

The 'evidence' S&G have submitted is, at best, ambiguous and in at least one case directly refutes Snowden's claims.

We need more transparency and less secrecy but you keep bringing Snowden into it when you effectively declare his word should be taken without supporting evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[cali]

24. No. I'm going on what Senators Wyden, Udall and Leahy say.

And I simply posted an ironic op title that results from the dozens of threads about how Greenwald defended some right winger and how Snowden just wants to be famous and all the crap that actually clogs up the DU intertube with nonsense that has zip all to do with the issues which I address in the body of the OP.

[randome]

25. They're calling for more transparency, right?

And Leahy is blasting the NSA for letting Snowden get his hands on classified documents.

I think we're all on the same page on those 2 points.

And if they want to do away with the metadata collection, I doubt many would stand in the way. But I suspect the records do have usefulness so I wonder if that's going to gain any traction.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

32. The evidence speaks for itself. Read the docs.

It shows an expansion of surviellance. We don't have to rely on Snowden's word, in fact we shouldn't. We should rely on the docs.

Clapper lied, the docs exposed that. He admitted he lied. The docs show we have been spying on our allies. The docs show at least one communications carrier operates subject to a warrant that ALL logs of ALL customers are turned over to the NSA EVERYDAY.

You have been trying for weeks to say the docs say nothing. You fail, massively.

[randome]

38. We have always spied on our allies.

If we need to rule metadata as out of bounds, then let's do it and stop whining about 'fascism' because some of us don't like what the courts have said on the subject.

But how do those two points support an ever expanding surveillance state?

We have always spied on our allies and we have collected metadata for a long time. Where is the 'expanding' part?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[morningfog]

43. It was "legalized" under Obama, like torture was under Bush.

We have not always spied on our allies, and certianly not to the same degree. Stick your head in the sand all you like.

You cannot deny their has been an expansion. Just go back and review Clapper's lies. He denied that which existed because he didn't want to reveal the extent to which it had expanded. Democratic Senators have also confirmed that there is much more than what is public. The Patriot Act expanded surveillance, the current application and interpretation of the Patriot Act further expanded it. THe secret body of law alluded to by our Democratic Senators is a clear indicaiton is has expanded further.

If you deny there has been an expansion you are being intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant.

[randome]

47. I don't see an expansion. I hear lots of proclamations that it has occurred.

The Patriot Act revisions also put more safeguards and restraints in place.

If we want to settle the question of what the NSA actually does and if it has sufficient safeguards and whether it needs additional restraints, then we should all be pressing for more transparency and less secrecy.

That's something that should unite us.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[treestar]

72. the terms of more transparency and less secrecy

are the very subjects the same people avoid in favor of Eddie is a hero merely for releasing classified documents. Ever since Wikileaks, it appears that OP and others take "transparency" to mean revelation of all documents. The idea we cannot have any information classified at all. They refuse to discuss that. Maybe Eddie should not have released those documents. That possibility is not even considered.

[randome]

73. They've fallen for Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'.

It must be nefarious because...we aren't running it!

And S&G always leave out the other half of the story: the safeguards and restraints.

Why do they leave this part out? Because they don't know. It's always an incomplete picture with those two. Just the part they want to turn us against one another with.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

77. The evidence does stand on its own. Have you been away or something?

Eg, I will be calling my bank tomorrow to find out if they will verify what I just read in this thread, that my bank records belong to anyone who wants access to them. They are not protected from thieves and stalkers and peeping toms as I assumed they were.

I will read to the manager the claims I am seeing here and ask him to put in writing what the policies of his bank are.

This is scary stuff you guys are defending. I'm beginning to think these policies are for Big Business and not even remotely related to our security. Now, what I'm being told is that if someone steals my SS# they have a perfect right to do so because I gave it to the Bank. Actually I have objected over and over again to that being used for any reason other than its original purpose. Now hopefully we will go back to when that was the case.

See, they first put these sneaky laws in place with the help of the puppets they buy in government. THEN they BLAME YOU for getting your data stolen BY THEM.

The Mafia would be envious. You need to wake up and find out what's going on.

[randome]

78. You are this excited about metadata?

How about voting rights? Abortion rights?

I'm not 'defending' anything, I'm pointing out that there is nothing illegal (that we know) about what the NSA is doing. And nothing that S&G have 'dumped' that points to 'mass surveillance of the American people', according to the OP.

You want to go to the mat for the protection of your precious metadata? Go for it. The rest of us think there are far more urgent matters that need attention.

Maybe there is 'mass surveillance of the American people'. But we have no evidence of that. S&G release only enough to get everyone worked up. They don't mention the safeguards and restrictions.

Do you want to know why they don't mention those? Because they have no idea. IOW, they have an incomplete picture and they want you to take their word for it that it's a complete picture.

There is nothing that S&G have released that does not pertain to foreign involvement. Except the metadata. Most people outside DU -I think- don't really care about that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

79. Is that what you think? So haven't been paying attention.

Martin Luther King: Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.

[truedelphi]

85. No there are journalists who have been after the Big Story of the NSA for some

Time, so unless all those people are fools, then I would say there is much more evidence than what Snowden has offered Greenwald. And then remember this is quite a challenge - when even Senators are refused information as so much of all of this is classified, then the journalists have some serious problems in trying to connect all the dots.

On edit: for example, a story from June 2012, Wired Magazine journalist:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/

[randome]

86. More transparency, less secrecy. That's what we all want.

I agree too much time is spent on S&G. (But it's kind of fun to watch their antics, too! Such as when Snowden said "I am not here to hide from justice.&quot

But enough about that! When do Leahy, Wyden, ect. get a response or a hearing on the issues they raised? Do you or anyone know?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Jackpine Radical]

26. This is an outrageous post.

How dare you intrude substance into a coordinated diversion by ad hominem attack?

You're the same kind of jerk who would have gone on digging into the Bush AWOL story after everyone knew that some of the evidence might have been a forged exact replica of the real evidence.

[cali]

48. if I meekly apologize and start posting threads about

what a little weasel Snowden is and how Greenwald once had the temerity to defend a white supremacist, maybe I can be forgiven.

[davidpdx]

27. I'm happy to see some people coming around and start to agree on things

I hope they also investigate the contracting and background checks as well. There are so many areas that need to be fixed.

[RufusTFirefly]

28. The million dollar question: Why are they doing this??

1. Why is our government indiscriminately vacuuming up our e-mails and telephone communications in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit stipulation of probable cause?

and, not nearly as important, but still troubling

2. Why are some people on this board -- I call them "distractivists" -- deliberately going out of their way to divert discussion from this fundamental and deeply troubling question, repeatedly starting and disrupting threads with the clear intent of misdirection?

The Distractivist Playbook

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

And, thanks to this thread, I think I need to add one more that's so obvious that I can't believe it's been left off until now.

15. It's all Nader's fault.

[gholtron]

36. You forgot one very true important distractive.

Snowden is a nut case. Now that is true.

[sibelian]

83. THANKS.

EDITING MY THREAD.

[watoos]

39. #16

Nothing is going to change. No one in Congress wants to change it. Everything will go on as it has been. One thing and one thing only has changed over the surveillance scandal, Pres Obama has been weakened. I am just stating that maybe that was the agenda from the git go.

[pscot]

40. +1 for Distractivist Playbook

[RufusTFirefly]

44. Thx. Credit should go to PSPS (I think)

I got the original list from a post by PSPS. (Whether PSPS got it from elsewhere, I really don't know.) I thought I coined the term "distractivist" but I see in Googling that it has been used before, albeit not quite as precisely. So I can take credit for popularizing the term and for naming the list, but the list isn't original with me.

[JoePhilly]

54. What's the answer to question #1 in your post?

You asked ...

1. Why is our government indiscriminately vacuuming up our e-mails and telephone communications in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit stipulation of probable cause?

... but you don't provide an answer to that question.

So, what's the answer to that question?

I'm curious.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. How could I know the answer to that?

That's precisely why I'm posing the question.

What motivation could possibly lead our government to feel as though it can violate our Constitutional rights?

Seems to me that our government should never violate our Constitutional rights. After all, that is what defines us as a country. And if our government is found to violate our Constitutional rights, it seems to me that there should be consequences that discourage further or additional violations.

If the very foundation of our country can be ignored, that strikes me as highly problematic.

[JoePhilly]

68. How specifically have they violated our Constitutional rights?

I keep seeing people make that claim but I've yet to see much if any actual evidence of it.

The founders constructed our government to have 3 co-equal branches. The NSA is part of the executive branch. Congress has oversight, and applies that oversight through a number of committees. The judicial branch, via the FISA court, ensures warrants are in place.

The FISA court was created in 1978 (proposed by Ted Kennedy, signed into law by Carter) specifically to handle warrants that required a higher level of secrecy than standard requests for surveillance.

Which part of this "ignores" the "very foundation of our country"?

The mining of communications meta data is not a violation of the Constitution. Obtaining warrants through a court like the FISA court does not either.

So again, exactly how have our Constitutional rights been violated?

All of this makes me wonder, if we are sure that the government is violating our constitutional rights for some nefarious purpose, why in the world would we on the left want that same government to control social programs like say, universal health care. Wouldn't they use the information about our medical records against us? That would be, to use your term highly problematic.

The thing I've noticed is that when the original meta discussion started, many incorrectly called it "wiretapping". As the use of that inaccurate term was confronted, the term changed to the even broader and more inaccurate "spying". Its a more amorphous term and can take on any meaning one wants.

The same can be said for general the claims of "Our constitutional rights have been violated". Sounds scary. But its a mile wide and an inch deep.

How specifically have they been violated?

[RufusTFirefly]

69. Two-word answer: probable cause

In an eerie indication of things to come, former NSA Director Michael Hayden seemed unwilling to admit that such a phrase even existed in 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.

As for the FISA court, for starters, it's a secret court. And furthermore, it would appear to be a rubber stamp. According to an editorial in the Sacramento Bee:

The last three years, the judges approved every single one of the 5,179 applications; 40 of them were modified before permission was granted. One was withdrawn by the government before a ruling. The numbers are similar in previous years, according to groups that keep track. From 1979 through 2009, the court approved a total of nearly 28,800 requests, modifying about 400. It rejected only 11, while the government withdrew about 20.

I appreciate and respect your addressing the fundamental issue rather than introducing distractions into the conversation. We may disagree about the constitutionality of this surveillance, but at least we are focusing on that issue. Thank you.

[frylock]

80. #15 was played yesterday..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3188765

[RufusTFirefly]

81. Indeed. And...

in this very thread as well.

If only we had Vice President Lieberman to save us!

[frylock]

82. shame we don't have a time machine to go back and rectify all those ills..

seems like a much easier task than making people aware and working toward a solution.

[truedelphi]

87. There are two answers as to why they are doing this:

One is that we the common everyday people are a thorn in the side of the PTB. Regardless of all the efforts of the CIA and NSA to remake this nation into a nation of full time supporters of Big Energy, Wars, Financial Gain only for Big Financial Firms, and to re-shape the Two Party System into One Big Money Party, we little people still create groups like Occupy, and we still protest everything from Wall Street policies to Fracking, to the XL Pipeline to Monsanto. Just as Gollum grumbled about how Frodo kept tight hld of "The Precious" we middle class and lower middle class refuse to give up on our right to free assembly and our right to free speech.

The second reason is the money. The vast monetary resources of the MIC are being diverted from crude and barbaric items like weapons to Surveillance. Over the next five years, my bet is that the budget for all things surveillance will easily exceed the amounts of money spent on the Iraq War (three to six trillions of dollars is what experts say tht war cost us.)

For instance,it would not be possible for me to doubt for one moment that Senator Di Feinstein is making it possible for her husband Richard Blum to handle another set of contracts similar to those he handled after George Dubya's Shock and Awe campaign of 2003. Richard Blum made some 27 millions of dollars then - I bet the Golden State couple are hoping to make five or six times that amount on surveillance.

[freedom fighter jh]

29. Yes. And the court makes law in its findings.

And that law, and those findings, are secret.

A body of secret law.

[bobduca]

31. All of them appointed by

this guy

[ctsnowman]

30. Exactly.

And we are going to have to cut social security to pay for this BS.

[RC]

42. Well, if that keeps us safe, why not?

What has become of DU, since the appointment of bu$h the lesser? The tolerance of the current status quo, the tolerance of the direction we as a nation, are going? Have DU really gone that far to the Right that support of the coming totalitarianism is A-OK here? Why so many posts supporting what our government is doing in all areas of terrorism? From engaging in it, to supposedly "keeping us safe" from it.

[truebluegreen]

53. Maybe safe. Definitely hungry.

[gholtron]

35. I keep asking what laws were broken?

Everyone knew the N.S.A was collecting Data. The data was data that does not fall under the 4th amendment. What many of us didn't know that there were safeguards put in place in collecting the data so that the 4th amendment would not be violated. These articles explain the rules and procedures for the N.S.A to collect data. Two of the articles were written by no other than Mr. Greenwald and the NY Times wrote the last one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-a-procedures-nsa-document

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html?_r=0

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Here

In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay

[msanthrope]

41. No. I won't let you abandon poor Ed. Y'all brung him to the dance....

you're takin' him home.

[RC]

45. Actually Ed showed up on his own.

His crime was exposing the lip syncing of the singers.

[msanthrope]

52. Eddie didn't go stag to the prom. I am reminded of the House Managers.....

when Monica Lewinsky did not give them successful interviews they attempted to reframe their quest to what they thought was more noble terms....the President had committed perjury. They tried to forget people like Linda Tripp and helpful elves like Ann Coulter.

Eddie came to the dance in a blue dress. Y'all own that.

[truebluegreen]

55. Which must mean you are adopting

NSA, the FISA Court and Chief Justice John Roberts as your bestest friends.

Good luck with that.

[msanthrope]

60. Nope...don't have a single post supporting them. I don't date strawmen. Eddie's

your problem.

[truebluegreen]

61. I don't have a problem with "Eddie". You do.

And the personality thing, it seems.

[msanthrope]

63. Absolutely I do. And this OP, disclaiming him, tells me I'm on the right track. nt

[truebluegreen]

66. I fear you have a problem with your reading skills.

The OP "disclaims" personality issues in order to focus on the actual secret surveillance programs directed at Americans.

But if you wish to continue obsessing about Snowden, be my guest.

[cali]

56. Not I. I didn't bring him, ergo no responsibility for taking him home or

waltzing with him for that matter. I'm not coupled to Snowden. That's kind of the point of the OP.

[msanthrope]

62. Et tu, cali? nty

[backscatter712]

49. You're just a racist Paulbot!

[Progressive dog]

65. It leaves us with the same bodies who

passed the FISA law, the Patriot Act, and the secret funding for NSA still in charge of writing the laws. It leaves the Constitution that does mention something about providing for security in place. It leaves a President in place who has sworn to faithfully execute the laws in place.

It leaves the state governments in place, many of whom are trying to take away voting, minority, and womens' rights.
It gives new meaning to protecting our rights, when the lessening of Federal authority due to the selling of the 'Snowden files', gives RW controlled states yet more room to attack civil rights.

This really is a brave new world, where a thief and spy who fled to avoid prosecution, aided and abetted by Greenwald and his ilk, vouched for by the Libertarians (the craziest wing of the insane tea party faction of the RW party known as Republican), is a poster boy for Freedom. This is a brave new world where authoritarian regimes are held up as models for the USA to follow because they didn't arrest Snowden.

[cali]

75. well, no, it doesn't. There's been a lot of turnover in Congress

since 1978 and even since 2002 and 2008. So they're really not the bodies they were then.

Your introduction of red herrings- such as the SCOTUS overturning the VRA (something btw, that I've posted a lot about and I post more about abortion rights than anyone) doesn't do much to advance your argument which I think is something along the lines of:

Greenwald bad, Snowden bad bad, President good. Congress bad. Other things more important anyway so we shouldn't talk about the NSA or the National Security State. U.S. shining star of goodness in a bad old world. South America sucks.

Not much of an argument anyhoo.

[Progressive dog]

76. Oh yes it does, we still have a Senate a President

a House and even a Supreme court, unlike dictatorships or some so-called democracies, US government does not change on a whim of the majority, like certain SA countries which shall remain unnamed.
BTW, I said nothing about the SCOTUS overturning VRA.

[treestar]

70. so what is the suggestion on how to improve the situation

amendments to FISA? To what effect?