HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We can applaud media's gr...

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:44 PM

We can applaud media's greater NSA scrutiny AND think that Snowden's resume/timing/motives

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

deserve scrutiny, too.

Why on earth would anyone who lived through the last few decades of BushInc not be cognizant of the benefit the closer scrutiny from the corporate media that Snowden brought to NSA's excesses?

Why on earth would anyone who lived through the last few decades of BushInc not be cognizant of all the red flags on Snowden's work record and not question the motives of someone who skipped over the excesses of the CIA and NSA during the worst of their over-reach, then concentrated all his verbal firepower on President Obama?

And, for the record, I highly doubt President Obama has accrued enough power in DC over the last 5 years to take ON, let alone take down the darker forces of the CIA and NSA and the select private firms that form the powerful elite. Selected in the 70s and 80s by Poppy Bush. It's naive to think that any president since has held complete control over the CIA and NSA.

Remember NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

113 replies, 7691 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply We can applaud media's greater NSA scrutiny AND think that Snowden's resume/timing/motives (Original post)
blm Mar 2014 OP
Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #1
frazzled Mar 2014 #2
Cha Mar 2014 #3
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #4
cui bono Mar 2014 #10
Demeter Mar 2014 #36
blm Mar 2014 #46
WillyT Mar 2014 #74
blm Mar 2014 #79
grasswire Mar 2014 #104
blm Mar 2014 #105
Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #56
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2014 #5
rlegro Mar 2014 #34
brush Mar 2014 #60
Skidmore Mar 2014 #6
winter is coming Mar 2014 #7
Scuba Mar 2014 #8
ProSense Mar 2014 #13
Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #76
Scuba Mar 2014 #77
blm Mar 2014 #82
Eleanors38 Mar 2014 #92
cui bono Mar 2014 #9
ProSense Mar 2014 #11
cui bono Mar 2014 #12
Skidmore Mar 2014 #14
cui bono Mar 2014 #16
ProSense Mar 2014 #17
cui bono Mar 2014 #19
ProSense Mar 2014 #20
cui bono Mar 2014 #22
Cha Mar 2014 #28
Number23 Mar 2014 #51
Cha Mar 2014 #54
OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #21
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #68
cui bono Mar 2014 #96
blm Mar 2014 #38
Number23 Mar 2014 #52
blm Mar 2014 #70
treestar Mar 2014 #58
cui bono Mar 2014 #98
Th1onein Mar 2014 #62
sendero Mar 2014 #95
cui bono Mar 2014 #97
sendero Mar 2014 #103
kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #15
Number23 Mar 2014 #26
markpkessinger Mar 2014 #18
stevenleser Mar 2014 #24
Cha Mar 2014 #32
blm Mar 2014 #39
Ichingcarpenter Mar 2014 #65
blm Mar 2014 #88
KoKo Mar 2014 #90
blm Mar 2014 #94
grasswire Mar 2014 #106
blm Mar 2014 #109
TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #107
blm Mar 2014 #108
TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #111
blm Mar 2014 #112
frylock Mar 2014 #23
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #25
frylock Mar 2014 #27
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #29
frylock Mar 2014 #30
Skidmore Mar 2014 #31
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #33
Skidmore Mar 2014 #40
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #42
Number23 Mar 2014 #53
blm Mar 2014 #41
treestar Mar 2014 #59
delrem Mar 2014 #61
stupidicus Mar 2014 #35
blm Mar 2014 #43
stupidicus Mar 2014 #47
blm Mar 2014 #48
stupidicus Mar 2014 #49
Cha Mar 2014 #57
whatchamacallit Mar 2014 #37
blm Mar 2014 #44
Skidmore Mar 2014 #45
delrem Mar 2014 #50
blm Mar 2014 #69
delrem Mar 2014 #71
blm Mar 2014 #72
delrem Mar 2014 #73
blm Mar 2014 #78
delrem Mar 2014 #80
blm Mar 2014 #81
delrem Mar 2014 #83
blm Mar 2014 #85
delrem Mar 2014 #86
blm Mar 2014 #87
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
delrem Mar 2014 #91
delrem Mar 2014 #93
ecstatic Mar 2014 #55
BelgianMadCow Mar 2014 #63
blm Mar 2014 #89
Fearless Mar 2014 #64
ucrdem Mar 2014 #66
Bobbie Jo Mar 2014 #67
Zorra Mar 2014 #75
questionseverything Mar 2014 #101
fascisthunter Mar 2014 #102
leftyladyfrommo Mar 2014 #84
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #99
leftynyc Mar 2014 #100
PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #110
bobthedrummer Mar 2014 #113

Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:46 PM

1. Thanks...Agree wholeheartedly

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)

If we can agree that people in Ukraine united to ditch their president for a *multitude* of different motivations, why can't DU have different motivations/reasons/ideas/etc. for opposing NSA overreach?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:50 PM

2. Absolutely

In an easier analogy: we can applaud the media's greater scrutiny of airline security vis-a-vis stolen passports AND still think that the persons who boarded the plane from Malaysia with stolen passports may have had questionable motives. They are the reason the media is finally paying attention to the issue of stolen passports ... but they're certainly not heroes for doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:52 PM

3. Damn Straight we can, blm. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:56 PM

4. I agree, 100%. But the fools who criticize Obama think Obama created the NSA's PRISM machine...

In fact, they think (or at least they speak as if they think) Obama is responsible for the damages the Repukes have wrought on this country since 1981.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:18 PM

10. But the smart people who criticize Obama know that he expanded BushCo's illegal spying

and pushed for laws to make it legal.

What has he done to try and stop this unconstitutional spying? It's his admin now and has been for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:43 PM

36. And furthermore, they elected him with the expectation that he would put an end to

 

BFEE-style government.

Silly them, I mean, us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demeter (Reply #36)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:10 PM

46. You think power is accrued that easily in DC, Demeter?

Obama's is the weakest WH I've seen in terms of accruing the power needed to change the national security infrastructure built by Poppy and his loyalists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #46)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 09:04 PM

74. So Spit It Out... Do We, Or Do We Not... Live In A Democratic Republic ???

 

Because the CIA and the NSA, are BOTH, part of the Executive Branch.

And President Obama is in charge of said branch.

He can fire, replace, retire, and investigate ANYONE working in that branch.

Are you saying he's under some unseen constraint?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 09:35 AM

79. You believe he's been apprised of everything CIA/NSA has been doing, even by private firms selected

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

to work with CIA and NSA decades ago by Poppy Bush? I highly doubt any president has been told everything by the global power structure overseen by BushInc. Even Reagan.

Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:00 PM

104. If that is so...

....and if Obama knows that it is so, then he has a sworn obligation to the Constitution to force the revelation of the truth.

His oath is not to national security, or to the surveillance state, or to the MIC, or to plausible deniability for anyone. His oath is to the Constitution and protection of the separation of powers.

At this moment, he appears to be in violation of that oath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #104)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:13 PM

105. Doesn't everybody have that obligation? Why didn't Carter? Clinton? Gore?

And every one of us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:54 PM

56. What have you done? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:58 PM

5. His timing seems suspect

I was WAY more worried about what was going on during the W. Bush/Cheney years in terms of what they were doing in the name of their "war on terror" than what is reportedly going on right now. I mean, people were actually being tortured with implicit government support and, of course, Bush was wiretapping WITHOUT legal authority (surprised that didn't really rankle Snowden). Plus, as I recall, Snowden was previously VERY against leakers. Granted, President Obama hasn't been able to roll some of the W. Bush/Cheney excesses back to the extent that he said he wanted to (i.e. Gitmo) but many of those shortcomings are more of a result of Congressional obstruction than him backtracking or changing his mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:38 PM

34. Good post. However....

It's hard to impute motive. One could even put positive spin on Snowden's past vs. present views re leaks; after all, people's thinking does evolve, people do come to see policies they formerly supported as wrong. I do not really think (as has been suggested elsewhere) that it's likely a secretly planted Bushie outed the NSA to get Obama and then willingly fled the country and ruined his life in important respects to avoid arrest. Not many right-wing intellectual martyrs around, these days. Besides, right wingers at NSA could have handled that mission more adroitly in other ways, without having to sacrifice a friendly. Furthermore, I'm inclined to think the national-industrial intelligence complex wouldn't have preferred or chosen to have all these revelations come out just to "get" a president who arguably was in sync with their operations and who was going to leave office in a couple years anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rlegro (Reply #34)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:35 PM

60. Have to pull your coat

I'm not a Snowdenista but I do think he did a good thing in exposing the NSA's domestic spying. Where I think he and Greenwald went wrong is in revealing intricacies of our international covert operations.

On everyone of these Snowden threads the Eddie fan's don't seem to want to accept that this is a TWO-PART ISSUE. On the domestic side, imo, he is a legitimate whistle blower.

As far as the international revelations, I say it is not the business of a somewhat naive 29-year-old to make the decision to give away details of his own country's international covert operations. It's that simple. He wasn't elected. It was not his decision to make, especially when just a few years earlier when Bush was in office he was vehemently against this sort of thing.

When Obama came in, the right-leaning Snowden had a dramatic change of heart that has made him a hero to some progressives. If you want to know more just read the transcripts below from an online correspondence Snowden (TheTrueHOOHA) had with a User19 in 2009:


"This is the background of Snowden and his position on this very issue...

Another topic made him even angrier. The Snowden of 2009 inveighed against government officials who leaked classified information to newspapers – the worst crime conceivable, in Snowden’s apoplectic view. In January of that year the New York Times published a report on a secret Israeli plan to attack Iran. It said that President Bush had ‘deflected’ a request from Israel for specialised bunker-busting bombs to carry out the risky mission. Instead Bush had told the Israelis he had authorised ‘new covert action’ to sabotage Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons programme.

The Times said its story was based on 15 months’ worth of interviews with current and former US officials, European and Israeli officials, other experts and international nuclear inspectors.

TheTrueHOOHA’s response, published by Ars Technica, is worth quoting in full:


<TheTrueHOOHA> HOLYSHIT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp
<TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
<TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Jesus christ
<TheTrueHOOHA> they’re like wikileaks
<User19> they’re just reporting, dude.
<TheTrueHOOHA> They’re reporting classified shit
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
<TheTrueHOOHA> and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignty violations of another country
<TheTrueHOOHA> you don’t put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
<TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> HELLO? HOW COVERT IS IT NOW? THANK YOU
<User19> Meh
<TheTrueHOOHA> I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars they just completely blew.
<User19> You’re over-reacting. It’s fine.
<TheTrueHOOHA> It’s not an overreaction. They have a HISTORY of this shit
<User19> with flowers and cake.
<TheTrueHOOHA> these are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over and over again. Thank God they’re going out of business.
<User19> the NYT?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Hopefully they’ll finally go bankrupt this year. yeah.

A few minutes later the chat continues:


<User19> It’s nice they report on stuff.
<TheTrueHOOHA> I enjoy it when it’s ethical reporting.
<TheTrueHOOHA> political corruption, sure
<TheTrueHOOHA> scandal, yes
<User19> is it unethical to report on the government’s intrigue?
<TheTrueHOOHA> VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no
<User19> meh.
<User19> national security.
<TheTrueHOOHA> Um,YEEEEEEEEEEEES.
<TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out’
<TheTrueHOOHA> it’s because ‘this shit won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’
<User19> Shrugs
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> direct. quote.
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEN WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO REPORTERS?!
<TheTrueHOOHA> ‘Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.’
<TheTrueHOOHA> THEY’RE NOT COVERT ANYMORE
<TheTrueHOOHA> Oh you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now the NYTimes is going to determine our foreign policy?
<TheTrueHOOHA> And Obama?
<TheTrueHOOHA> Obama just appointed a fucking POLITICIAN to run the CIA!
<User11> yes unlike every other director of CIA ever
<User11> oh wait, no
<TheTrueHOOHA> I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.

The ‘fucking politician’ was Leon Panetta, appointed by Obama in 2009 despite his evident lack of intelligence background. The appointment was supposed to draw a line under the intelligence scandals of the Bush years – the renditions, the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretapping.


This should be required reading for you Snowden supporters.

Snowden evidently knew of WikiLeaks, a niche transparency website whose story would later intersect with his own. But he didn’t like it. At this point, Snowden’s antipathy towards the New York Times was based on his opinion that ‘they are worse than Wikileaks’. Later, however, he would go on to accuse the paper of not publishing quickly enough and of sitting on unambiguous evidence of White House illegality. These are somewhat contradictory views.

Certainly Snowden’s anti-leaking invective seems stunningly at odds with his own later behaviour. But there is a difference between what the Times arguably did – reveal details of sensitive covert operations – and what Snowden would do in 2013. Snowden nowadays explains: ‘Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone.’"


In 2009 he thought covert operations leakers "should be shot in the balls" (his words). Quite a change in philosophies he had from 2009 to 2013 don't you think?

I know I myself haven't went from being a progressive to a teabagger since 2009, yet Snowden has somehow managed just the reverse of this in his thinking from that of authoritarian right winger to a progressive beacon of human rights.

IMO that just doesn't happen. Obama happened.

Greenwald recruited him and the naive, 29-year-old right winger was off to the races.

It worked out well for Greenwald — what with the newly financed media venture and the press coverage and humanitarian awards.

For Snowden, not so much.

Wonder if Eddie, now holed up in Russia and having to periodically come out and kiss Putin's . . . er ah . . . extoll Putin's human rights virtues, is thinking he might have been used just a touch?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:00 PM

6. We have similar views.

Back during the Bush years, I distinctly remember all of the outcry on DU regarding the creation of the expanded security network after 9/11 and the ramping up to the Iraq war. I remember concerted effort being directed to providing feedback to legislators about the creation of Homeland Security and the gateway it opened to governing by fear. I also remember something about a big telecom building during the Bush/Cheney, Part Deux. I know that there were many of us older DUers who actively protested the advent of these mechanisms through as many means available to us as possible. Does anyone recall the endless discussions back then about whether Congress was largely silent and did not push back on preposterous legislations pushed by Bush/Cheney because perhaps the unholy duo "had something on them?" This concern is not a new one even though I'm astounded to see some people here treating it as something new rolling over the horizon.

There is always room for reform or eliminating the product of a poor decisionmaking. My issues with this whole mess are along the lines you have mentioned--this surveillance is not new or unexpected. The Bush dynasty along with Cheney created a shadow government. We talked endlessly about this here on these forums for a decade. Part of the tools they used was the technology of the internet, a handy dandy new tool which had so many whizbang bells and whistles that the people saw no need to demand regulations be codified up front. Congress very much assisted Bush and Cheney firmly ensconce a machine that runs itself. Dismantling it will also take congressional action, but it will not happen with a Teabagger run legislative body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:01 PM

7. +1000.

Whether Snowden is a hero or a villain or something in between doesn't change the wrongdoing he exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:14 PM

8. I agree that it's not about Snowden. I respectfully disagree ....

 

... with this statement: "I highly doubt President Obama has accrued enough power in DC over the last 5 years to take ON, let alone take down the darker forces of the CIA and NSA and the select private firms that form the powerful elite."

He's the Commander in Chief. If he didn't accrue enough power to take on/down these organizations when he was sworn into office, then our democracy has been over for a while. I'm not ready to admit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:30 PM

13. These

"He's the Commander in Chief. If he didn't accrue enough power to take on/down these organizations when he was sworn into office, then our democracy has been over for a while. I'm not ready to admit that."

...agencies are huge bureaucracies with thousands of career employees. I mean, look at the current battle between the CIA and Senate. The agency claims that staffers initially removed documents from a site that it set up to give the Senate access to documents. Senator Feinstein says they were placed in the system and then removed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024645057

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 10:41 PM

76. It looks to me like these agencies look upon Obama as a modest irritant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #76)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:47 AM

82. Pretty much the way I see it.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #82)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 07:47 PM

92. The alternative? He doesn't know. Hardly reassuring...

 

The issue is, what any of us will do. It's well beyond Obama and various forms of hep-cat Gotcha in DU. God, am I drunk (but stoned!) in Austin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:16 PM

9. This OP is just a round about way of defending Obama

when he is the one who pushed for more of this activity and to make it legal. Why is that okay? You used to go after BushCo and Clinton with a frenzy and all of a sudden when Obama is president, eh, not so much worry about all the same policies.

What's wrong with Snowden's motive? He wanted to get the information out about the unconstitutional spying. Why do you think he did it?

As to Obama, he pushed to make BushCo's illegal spying legal, albeit unconstitutional and expanded it. It's naive to think he isn't for this sort of thing when he pushed for it and expanded it.

What has he done to try to stop it?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:22 PM

11. Completely

"As to Obama, he pushed to make BushCo's illegal spying legal, albeit unconstitutional and expanded it. It's naive to think he isn't for this sort of thing when he pushed for it and expanded it. "

...inaccurate.

Bush was actually spying on Americans, Obama did not push to make that "legal."

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

Note, this is inside the U.S. and involves bypassing the FISA court to actually "eavesdrop."

Republicans fought to make that legal, and succeeded in doing so before Democrats were able to force an expiration of the law.

From a post last year:

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history


The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007


Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:28 PM

12. I admit I didn't read your whole post. After seeing all your LOLs and totally rude

and ridiculous posts I simply do not feel you deserve it. But here you go... hope it clears some things up for you.

EDIT: ACLU source coming...


Fact Checking Obama's Misleading Answer About Warrantless Wiretapping on The Daily Show

On last Thursday’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart boldly went where no mainstream reporter has gone so far this election cycle: asking President Barack Obama why has he embraced Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program after campaigning against it on civil liberties grounds. While Stewart’s question was commendable, Obama’s answer was puzzling because it seems so obviously untrue.

Stewart first reminded Obama of his Bush-era statements that “we don’t have to trade our values and ideals for our security,” and pointedly asked the President, “do you still believe that?” He then specifically raised warrantless wiretapping, which Obama frequently criticized as a presidential candidate in 2008:

STEWART: I think people have been surprised to see the strength of the Bush era warrantless wiretapping laws and those types of things not also be lessened—That the structures he put in place that people might have thought were government overreach and maybe they had a mind you would tone down, you haven’t.

OBAMA: The truth is we have modified them and built a legal structure and safeguards in place that weren’t there before on a whole range issues.

To the contrary, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—which includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress. All the while, his Administration has been even more aggressive than President Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/fact-check-obamas-misleading-answer-about-warrantless-wiretapping-daily-show



Government Engages In Shell Game To Avoid Review Of Warrantless Wiretapping
By Patrick C. Toomey, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project at 3:51pm

Less than a year ago, the government convinced the Supreme Court to dismiss the ACLU's constitutional challenge to the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)—the controversial warrantless wiretapping statute that is the legal basis for the PRISM program—because our clients couldn't prove that they had been monitored under it. The government repeatedly assured the court that such a restrictive view of who could challenge the law would not forever prevent court review, because criminal defendants who were prosecuted based on evidence obtained under the FAA would be informed of such and would then be able to challenge the statute. Based in part on this assurance, the Supreme Court in February of this year dismissed the case, Clapper v. Amnesty, in a 5–4 vote.

But now that the case is closed, we are learning that the government's assurances that it would notify criminal defendants of its reliance on surveillance under the FAA were not what they seemed. Here's one example of the government unequivocally assuring the Supreme Court, in its brief, that criminal defendants would receive notice of FAA surveillance and an opportunity to challenge the statute:

If the government intends to use or disclose any information obtained or derived from its acquisition of a person's communications under [the FAA] in judicial or administrative proceedings against that person, it must provide advance notice of its intent to the tribunal and the person, whether or not the person was targeted for surveillance under [the FAA].

In response to questions from the justices at oral argument, the government reiterated this position. Never mind that the government had not notified one criminal defendant about this type of evidence in the five years since the warrantless wiretapping program was written into law.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the government's position—but, using language almost identical to that in the brief, it highlighted the government's duty to "provide advance notice of its intent" to "use or disclose information obtained or derived" from FAA surveillance. The court plainly took the government's representations at face value, and it concluded that a criminal proceeding would offer an alternative avenue for testing the legality of the FAA's warrantless wiretapping program.

What we have learned since the Clapper decision, however, has revealed a yawning chasm between the government's words and actions. Faced with recent revelations about the FAA surveillance program, intelligence officials have raced to defend the controversial law. And, in doing so, they have touted at least four cases where warrantless FAA surveillance was purportedly critical to preempting terrorist plots. Yet not one of the defendants in these prosecutions was told that the government's evidence was obtained from FAA surveillance, and thus they had no opportunity to challenge the statute. This fact runs directly contrary to the arguments that lawyers for the government paraded before the Supreme Court just last fall.

Indeed, the government has openly departed from its previous position. Criminal defendants in Chicago and Florida have filed motions seeking to compel the government to provide notice of its intent to rely on evidence obtained from warrantless wiretapping under the FAA, yet the government is now arguing that it has no obligation to do so. This amounts to a remarkable about-face. These particular defendants have particularly good reason to ask whether evidence against them was obtained under the FAA: In December, Senator Feinstein referenced their cases in testimony urging Congress to reauthorize the FAA's surveillance program. Despite this testimony, the government is fighting the defendants' efforts to understand where the evidence against them has come from, and even told the court that it has no obligation to tell criminal defendants like those in the Florida case whether its evidence came from a warrantless interception of communications under the FAA or from more traditional foreign intelligence surveillance.

The distinction is crucially important, because without adequate notice defendants may never know they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping. And, without that, despite the government's guarantees to the Supreme Court, a defendant would have no basis to bring the type of constitutional challenge that would finally test the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-engages-shell-game-avoid-review-warrantless-wiretapping



New Justice Department Documents Show Huge Increase in Warrantless Electronic Surveillance
By Naomi Gilens, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at 1:32pm

Justice Department documents released today by the ACLU reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.

The documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney general’s 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power. (Our original Freedom of Information Act request and our legal complaint are online.)

Pen register and trap and trace devices are powerfully invasive surveillance tools that were, twenty years ago, physical devices that attached to telephone lines in order to covertly record the incoming and outgoing numbers dialed. Today, no special equipment is required to record this information, as interception capabilities are built into phone companies’ call-routing hardware.

Pen register and trap and trace devices now generally refer to the surveillance of information about—rather than the contents of—communications. Pen registers capture outgoing data, while trap and trace devices capture incoming data. This still includes the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing telephone calls and the time, date, and length of those calls. But the government now also uses this authority to intercept the “to” and “from” addresses of email messages, records about instant message conversations, non-content data associated with social networking identities, and at least some information about the websites that you visit (it isn't entirely clear where the government draws the line between the content of a communication and information about a communication when it comes to the addresses of websites).

Electronic Surveillance Is Sharply on the Rise

The reports that we received document an enormous increase in the Justice Department’s use of pen register and trap and trace surveillance. As the chart below shows, between 2009 and 2011 the combined number of original orders for pen registers and trap and trace devices used to spy on phones increased by 60%, from 23,535 in 2009 to 37,616 in 2011.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase



Obama authorizes five more years of warrantless wiretapping
Published time: December 31, 2012 17:14

Congress had only up until the end of 2012 to either reauthorize FISA and the FAA, or let the bill expire. Despite a large grassroots campaign from privacy advocates and civil liberties organization to ensure the acts would fade from history, though, the Senate approved a five-year extension of the legislation on Friday. Just two days later, Pres. Obama signed his name to the act, opening up the inboxes and phone records of US citizens to the federal government until at least 2018.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-fisa-faa-signed-143/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:30 PM

14. You are using breitbart.com as a source?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:32 PM

16. Oops! You are right, I shouldn't do that! It was an accident.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

You know I had Bartcop in my head since he passed recently, that's weird. I will take that one out and find something else that references the ACLU.

Doh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:37 PM

17. Breitbart?

To the contrary, there’s no indication that the still-active warrantless wiretapping program—which includes a warrantless dragnet on millions of innocent Americans’ communications—has significantly changed from the day Obama took office. With regard to the FISA Amendments Act, the Obama Administration has actively opposed all proposed safeguards in Congress. All the while, his Administration has been even more aggressive than President Bush in trying to prevent warrantless wiretapping victims from having their day in court and has continued building the massive national security infrastructure needed to support it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/fact-check-obamas-misleading-answer-about-warrantless-wiretapping-daily-show

This has nothing to do with Bush's illegal program. Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Specifically, the Act:[19]

  • Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.

  • Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).

  • Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]

  • Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]

  • Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]

  • Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.

  • Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.

  • Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)

  • Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]

  • Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

  • Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

  • Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

  • Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year
Effects

  • The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]

  • Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions


Here is a fact that even Snowden's legal reps understand:

Our Chat With Edward Snowden’s Legal Counsel

<...>

Winship: How would you characterize what he has revealed?

Wizner: Well, maybe the best way to answer that question is to remember what President Obama said in the first week after the revelations began to appear on front pages. He said Americans shouldn’t be too worried about these disclosures because all three branches of government had blessed the programs and activities that were being disclosed. That was a true statement. That was also exactly the problem. And it’s worth looking at what those same three branches of government have done since Edward Snowden’s disclosures, since the public was brought into this conversation.

So let’s look at the courts. Now, it’s true that a court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved, in secret, some of these programs. It’s a court that hears only from the government, does not have the benefit of adversarial briefing, didn’t get to hear what our objections would have been. It’s also a court that was set up to give warrants, not to write opinions on whether surveillance programs in general were lawful. And when we tried to bring challenges to these programs in open federal courts, we got as far as the Supreme Court, but every court turned us away without even considering the legality of the programs. The government said, “These plaintiffs have no right to be in court. They can’t show that they were subjected to these surveillance programs, and therefore they don’t have standing. And they’re not allowed to use the discovery process to learn that, because that would be a state secret.” The result being that no one has the right to go into federal court to challenge the legality of these programs.

Edward Snowden was watching this. In our very first conversation, one of his first questions to me was, “Have these documents that have been published so far given you standing to go back in court?” To him, the idea that a court would not answer the question, “Is this program legal? Is it constitutional?” but instead would contort itself in order to not answer that question seemed like a failure of oversight, and he was right.

What’s happened since his disclosures? We have now taken some of these documents, gone back into federal courts, where our standing is really much harder to question. Two federal judges have now considered, for example, the constitutionality of the government’s collection of all telephone metadata. They’ve come so far to different conclusions on the legal question, but both said that the plaintiffs have standing to be in court. So one thing that he’s done is he’s reinvigorated judicial oversight.

- more -

http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/11/our-chat-with-edward-snowdens-legal-counsel/




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:46 PM

19. I've acknkowledged and corrected that error.

GOP and Feinstein join to fulfill Obama's demand for renewed warrantless eavesdropping

The California Democrat's disgusting rhetoric recalls the worst of Dick Cheney while advancing Obama's agenda

To this day, many people identify mid-2008 as the time they realized what type of politician Barack Obama actually is. Six months before, when seeking the Democratic nomination, then-Sen. Obama unambiguously vowed that he would filibuster "any bill" that retroactively immunized the telecom industry for having participated in the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program.

But in July 2008, once he had secured the nomination, a bill came before the Senate that did exactly that - the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - and Obama not only failed to filibuster as promised, but far worse, he voted against the filibuster brought by other Senators, and then voted in favor of enacting the bill itself. That blatant, unblinking violation of his own clear promise - actively supporting a bill he had sworn months earlier he would block from a vote - caused a serious rift even in the middle of an election year between Obama and his own supporters.

Critically, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 did much more than shield lawbreaking telecoms from all forms of legal accountability. Jointly written by Dick Cheney and then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, it also legalized vast new, sweeping and almost certainly unconstitutional forms of warrantless government eavesdropping.

In doing so, the new 2008 law gutted the 30-year-old FISA statute that had been enacted to prevent the decades of severe spying abuses discovered by the mid-1970s Church Committee: by simply barring the government from eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without first obtaining a warrant from a court. Worst of all, the 2008 law legalized most of what Democrats had spent years pretending was such a scandal: the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly implemented by George Bush after the 9/11 attack. In other words, the warrantless eavesdropping "scandal" that led to a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporters who revealed it ended not with investigations or prosecutions for those who illegally spied on Americans, but with the Congressional GOP joining with key Democrats (including Obama) to legalize most of what Bush and Cheney had done. Ever since, the Obama DOJ has invoked secrecy and standing doctrines to prevent any courts from ruling on whether the warrantless eavesdropping powers granted by the 2008 law violate the Constitution.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping



Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

By Timothy B. Lee
August 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm

If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.

In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from "My House." They opened the phone to determine the number for "My House." That led them to the man's home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.

The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man's argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man's phone.

The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit's ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.

But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.

On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn't have the wealth of information we store on more modern cellphones. It's arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said the police can search. So, as Orin Kerr points out, if the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on "facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:54 PM

20. I posted the provisions of the amendment and you post spin about it.

Everyone knows what the objections to the amendments were (primarily it was immunity for the telecomm). Everyone also knows that these included needed reforms.

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with Bush's illegal spying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:07 PM

22. I told you, after seeing mostly LOLs and rude posts trying to ridicule people with no substance

and smileys I don't read your posts. You haven't earned the respect it takes for me to spend that much time on a post. And usually they don't follow a train of thought anyway. So if mine don't either, it should work out fine.

I'm really just giving you info to help you on your way. Take it or leave it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:17 PM

28. Thanks for knocking down the bullshit spin, ProSense.. I don't read those posts

because of said bullshit. Except for the one I read just now about how you're so bad and rude and whine whine whine and they're so sanctimoniously freaking god's gift to the internet. Rofl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:14 PM

51. *sputter*

you're so bad and rude and whine whine whine and they're so sanctimoniously freaking god's gift to the internet.

Oh my God, you NAILED it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #51)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:19 PM

54. ..

not to mention fucking hypocrites.

Hey, 23~ Howzit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:55 PM

21. Obama voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms

 

for Bush's "illegal" (your quote) surveillance program.

From your second link:

Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.

What are the "specific grounds?"

Like the big banks, telecoms are too big to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:18 AM

68. This unfortunate "accident"

Doesn't surprise me in the least, as their material has become virtually indistinguishable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #68)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:47 PM

96. Prove that statement with links to quotes of mine. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:55 PM

38. LOL - I think Obama's is one of the weakest presidencies in modern history. I think you must

believe that all power gets handed over the new president on day one. LOLOLOLOL

IMO, You must not have a realistic view of Poppy Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #38)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:15 PM

52. What's made it so weak in your opinion? Repub obstructionism or the goals set by the admin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #52)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 09:25 AM

70. Both - I think getting along with opposition party should have been shelved as a goal

by summer of 2009 because it completely weakened him in almost every other goal.

BushInc never even had to break a sweat against Obama - congress and stay home Dem voters in 2010 took care of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:24 PM

58. Obama went back to getting warrants

And maybe it's "OK" because it might track down some terrorists, and the courts said it was OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #58)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:50 PM

98. He pushed to make the illegal activity of BushCo legal.

That's okay with you?

Also, if it's meant to track down "some terrorists" why did they miss the Boston bombers? Perhaps "some terrorists" doesn't mean what you think it means.

The courts have been wrong and overturned many, many times. What the NSA is doing under Obama is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #9)


Response to cui bono (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 08:48 AM

95. This argument is getting shopworn..

.... "Obama has no power". Really? Ok, then why vote for anyone? You really cannot have it both ways.

Obama doesn't have as much power as he should because he gave it away. And his appointment of assorted Bush era retreads was hardly a useful exercise of power.

Obama has a LOT of power over things like intelligence gathering and he has been pushing the wrong way. It was wrong when Bush did it and it is wrong now and there simply IS no fucking excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #95)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:48 PM

97. I think you replied to the wrong post. I agree with what you said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #97)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 04:20 PM

103. My apologies..

..... I think you are right. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:32 PM

15. OMG!!! A voice of reason!!! I can't take it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:13 PM

26. + a million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:42 PM

18. The President consistently defended NSA overreach . . .

. . . until it became politically impossible to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:11 PM

24. Not correct. He spoke about it 10 days before Snowden's leaks.

 

The President was refining the NSA's surveillance program throughout his administration, to the point that up to one and a half weeks before Snowden leaked his information, the President was talking about that at this speech at the National Defense University. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university to wit:

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.


For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:20 PM

32. Thanks steven for your detailed response to

the fallacy. The President wants to protect us.. I can understand that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:58 PM

39. That's not true. As I observed he was hearing the extent of SOME of it as we were.

I think pretending that there are NOT greater powers at work in the world is naive. Especially since the PRIVATIZATION push of operations in the 80s and 90s onto specifically chosen firms that just happened to be loyal to Poppy Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #39)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 05:32 AM

65. I don't think they see the big picture

and the Secret Government that came out of the 80's documented by Bill Moyers.

America’s Secret 4th Branch of Government: The NSA kept even Obama in the Dark


Ever since the Snowden revelations of the massive, world-girdling extent of NSA electronic surveillance surfaced, I have been wondering two things: Did they tell Obama about it when they took office in 2009? And, do they have something on Obama?

Outgoing NSA head Keith Alexander or his circle leaked to German tabloid Bild am Sonntag that Alexander had told Obama about the tap on Merkel’s personal phone in 2010 and that Obama asked for more information on Merkel at that time.



In attempting to repair Obama’s reputation with his colleagues at the G-20, however, the White House counter-leakers have made an epochal and very serious revelation: The President wasn’t in the know. (Even in the best case scenario that he was told in 2010, he wasn’t in the know for the first 18 months of his presidency!)


Edward Snowden’s critics have alleged that he revealed classified US secrets to the enemies of the US. But it seems increasingly likely that he revealed them to . . . Barack Obama.


If so, imagine how furious Obama is behind the scenes. It is not his style to act out in public. But the sudden announcements of the retirement of NSA chief Keith Alexander (who apparently should be in jail) and of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (who certainly should be in jail for lying to Congress) likely signal that Obama demanded they leave.


http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/americas-branch-government.html

I really think some are very naive about the entrenched hidden power in bureaucracies that out last the terms of at least 9 terms of administrations

Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:09 PM

88. And recently, NSA whistleblower Russ Tice.

Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #65)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:57 PM

90. You make important points in your post that most of us who keep posting

about Snowden, NSA newest revelations feel ourselves. I, too thought Alexander and Clappers announcements meant that Obama, behind the scenes made it plain that there was no other option for them. They could keep their retirement and perks and go work in private sector if they want...but he wanted them out. He seems to dislike controversy so much that he will always give a person an out and hope they take it.

I think he was unaware of how vastly corrupt everything has become and how little power he had to deal with it or he didn't feel that using power wouldn't just make things worse for the country and himself.

If anything I blame our Dem Party Insiders and Operatives and the Corporations that Fund them for letting this get out of hand for Decades. Both Repugs and Dems worked together to allow this corruption to get out of hand. They were happy to take the money, let the lobbyists write the bills and vote accordingly. Most of the Senate and House Members who came from poor backgrounds who had to work their way up and know something about real life people (remembering the NEW DEAL & FDR) are gone and a new breed (the DLC /NeoLiberals)have taken over with their Globalization Dreams and Wall Street/Banking worship.

But, I disagree that we should sit around and feel sorry for Obama and encourage his doing nothing about the situatation he has found. We must keep pressuring him to try to try to clean this all up or we are done for as a country going forward. The people have had enough and it's going to be some very bad years for this country with unrest and battles with our ever increasing Military/Police/Surveillance state if he doesn't at least try to roll back to before Bush II.

He owes it to all those who worked hard out in the streets to get him elected and to the future of the youth for which he was such a huge inspiration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 08:36 AM

94. I agree. I wish there WAS a way for Dems to accrue the power base needed to confront this

but, there is absolutely no chance for Obama to be the one now that his presidency has been so successfully weakened from its first year.

It has been decades of Dems being backed into corners by BFEE that made this so tough now. Ike couldn't do it, yet, so many newly engaged minds think it should be no problem at all for the first black president who probably knew less about the real BFEE when he entered the WH than some of us here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #94)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 05:17 PM

106. if his presidency is that weakened, then he has little to lose

He can either cement a legacy as a hero of the caliber of MLK/JFK/RFK/Lincoln, or be known forever throughout history as the man who let democracy go.

Yes, he might lose his own life in the process, but he would be martyred and revered forever.

There comes a time when in the course of human events each citizen must choose liberty or tyranny. This is his time. Liberty? Or tyranny? Not choosing is a choice for tyranny.

Our forebears pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to protect the Republic. It's Obama's time to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #106)

Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:42 AM

109. I agree - and do so from the comfort of my world OUTSIDE the actual arena.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #39)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 06:49 PM

107. No, the point is to force you to stop pretending such and go after the ones with the power

rather than vigorously playing this little game they set up for us to have the illusion of some control and in turn force our party to bring it to a head and either lawfully take some of that power or show the game is rigged trying.

Admitting it doesn't mean that for all practical intents and purposes you are not going along with the play even if you are just mouthing the words in hopes of not getting whacked in the back of the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #107)

Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:40 AM

108. Clinton accrued more power in his tenure than Obama has and STILL won't confront them.

You can't convince me that any one here would do differently when most every one here avoids even stepping into the arena.

Sorry - but this nation blew its last chance for this generation of DC officeholders when Clinton took office and proceeded to waylay or deep six IranContra, BCCI and CIA drug running investigations and report findings, as he continued GHWBush's privatization policies and overall politicization of the CIA and NSA.

Perhaps some overhauling CAN be done down the road, but, with Bush2 holding control over his father's papers due to changes in document laws he made in 2001, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 16, 2014, 11:43 AM

111. Excuses to continue the pretense. Push them to lawfully take the power or prove that it

cannot be done through electoral means.

Fuck the excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #111)

Sun Mar 16, 2014, 12:27 PM

112. I agree - Fvck the excuses - say those of us lefties who choose to stay out of the arena

and judge those who do. I am as guilty as anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:09 PM

23. so tell us, what were his motives?

and why wouldn't we be cognizant, if not outright wary, of people that were against unfettered surveillance when bush was in office but are seemingly cool with it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:12 PM

25. My Question is...what the hell can we do about it?

 

I mean in stopping the NSA to have the ability and power it does now? We have to do something about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:17 PM

27. we continue to pressure congress..

they're already starting to crack now that they know that they aren't safe from the NSA's overreach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:18 PM

29. and it's why dialogue on DU about this is so important

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:19 PM

30. word

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:19 PM

31. Except, what has been happening on DU lately has not

been dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:22 PM

33. It's Why I made the Statement

 

to support the idea of concentrating on the issue of NSA spying and the overreach of their powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:00 PM

40. It needs to start with acknowledging that not everyone shares

the same opinion of Snowden and let it be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:01 PM

42. That's True

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:18 PM

53. Perfectly said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:00 PM

41. Who said we're cool with it? Strawmen builders?

As far as motives....Always look at the calendar in Bush land.

The launch of the Bush rehabilitation tour coincided with the release, iirc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:27 PM

59. getting attention

he seems to have some sort of psychological problem. He's run all the way to a country which will surely spy on him without checks in order to get famous and talked about.

The metadata crap is not the end of Freedom as We Know It. Every time he talks he exaggerates in order to dramatize himself. He says things are are provably untrue and exaggerated. He is not playing with a full deck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:38 PM

61. Congratulations!

You hit every ad hominem meme that the NSA has put out there, without skipping a beat or pausing to think.
Love that pic of Biden, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:42 PM

35. because the whines about lying, credibility, etc, are silly

 

given who won the "Lie of the Year" award recently, and who also went to great lengths to cover up what we now know to be the truth in this matter.

The only diff between the Snowden bashers around here, and say the Gore bashers on the right, is the fact that they don't think Gore is describing reality, whereas some of you do appear to think otherwise in the case of Snowden -- after initially denying it just as avidly as the common flat earther did and continue to do with the work of Gore. Gore's likely heard or read about every slam regarding his doing it for personal fame and/or fortune too as opposed to it being possibly no more complicated that doing the "right thing". Snowden isn't getting bashed to the extent that he is because he's an occasional liar like the rest of us, it's due almost in its entirety over whose face the egg landed on.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you accept the fact that most of the NSA spying is done to protect the monied masters, then he and Gore are on the same team.

And based on what did you assert that he shoulda acted sooner? As far as I can tell, he likely couldn't have in terms of attacking Bush with the same info.

Snowden has said that in the 2008 presidential election, he voted for a third-party candidate. He has stated he had been planning to make disclosures about NSA surveillance programs at the time, but he decided to wait because he "believed in Obama's promises". He was later disappointed that Obama "continued with the policies of his predecessor".[54] For the 2012 election, political donation records indicate that he contributed to the primary campaign of Republican candidate Ron Paul.[55][56]

Snowden resigned from the CIA in February 2009[61] and began work for Dell, a private contractor, inside an NSA facility on a US military base in Japan.[29] Snowden remained on the Dell payroll until early 2013.[75] He was one of around 1,000 NSA "sysadmins" allowed to look at many parts of the system without leaving an electronic trace and able to argue for the use of thumb drives in a secure environment.[61] Persons familiar with the 2013 government investigation into Snowden's history said that Snowden had downloaded sensitive NSA material in April 2012.[76] NSA Director Keith Alexander told the U.S. House Intelligence Committee that Snowden "moved into the Booz Allen position in March [2013], but he had worked in an information technology position for the 12 months preceding that at NSA Hawaii. So he'd actually been there 15 months. He had moved from one contract to another."[77][78] In those contractor positions, Snowden held top secret Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances.[79] Snowden took a six-day Certified Ethical Hacker training course in 2010 in India.[80][81][82][83] USIS completed a background check on Snowden in 2011.[84] On January 23, 2014, the US Department of Justice filed fraud charges against the USIS for routinely failing to properly investigate individuals.[85][86] The company is accused of falsifying 665,000 background checks on government employees.[87]



It looks like he got the bulk of the damning material after Bush was gone. WHether he does or doesn't have some less than noble goals doesn't matter any more than it would if Gore's efforts the monied masters hate so much involve things like personal gain too. That kinda BS in both cases whether coming from flat earthers or Snowden bashers is nothing more than a respite from the impotence they find when they try to rebut their respective work products in an effort to shield themselves and their idols from the shame/shaming they deserve.

And Snowden must not be very bright if he thought he was gonna exploit his efforts monetarily in sufficient enough measure to warrant the price he's paying as a man with no country.

but by all means, scrutinize and bash away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:03 PM

43. Plenty of Snowden contradictions in your post.

Why on earth would he say he believed in Obama's promises and then vote for a third party?

Sorry - I go on pure logic and the facts of history. Your intentions here aren't credible, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:20 PM

47. more silliness doesn't help your cause

 

there's nothing mutually exclusive about his believing BHO's pre-election/candidate povs http://boingboing.net/2013/06/22/obama-candidate-vs-obama-pr.html on such matters and still voting third party -- presumably libertarian -- which was more appealing to his wider political interests as such.

If contending otherwise as what you've argued here is tantamount to, well, your intentions here are the least of your problems on the "credibility" front, beginning with your self-assessment and the role "logic" plays in your analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:36 PM

48. LOL - whatever. You can fully trust Snowden's motives - I do not.

And my reasoning is sound.

You are welcome to believe that Obama has 100% control over CIA and NSA and even grabbed more power than Bush had, and I will nod my head at you and think you're naive because it is obvious to me that Obama has accrued very little serious power within the DC power infrastructure. I can live with that difference between us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #48)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 09:38 PM

49. thanks for conceding your silliness in the example cited

 

and continuing it like the common strawman factory laying claim to "logic" use.

I made no case that I "fully trusted" Snowden's motives, I made the case that they are largely irrelevant to anyone not a dedicated BHO cheerleader, who coincidentally, are guilty of the same offense you fallaciously or erroneously, but certainly illogically, charged me with here.

The same case could be made with your "believe BHO has 100% control..." BS, which is something else I never even implied.

If all that is what you call "logic and reasoning", I'd say your thought processes have been poisoned by too much irrational BHO-love seasoning.

The simple fact of the matter is that whatever "control" BHO may or may not have had or yet has for that matter, served as no bar to him proposing whatever remedial measures he's proposed since the revelations, even if they effectively change nothing https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.zdnet.com/obamas-proposed-nsa-reform-changes-nothing-7000025329/&sa=U&ei=87YfU-ncBKbmyQGrhIGYDQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNE7xvtRs1pUy3k3EAVeXpuQf2sPPQ now does it?

And from Snowden's and the common "BHO-haters" pov, if he lacks sufficient control then who are we to blame that on -- anybody besides the guy that never actively sought it as one who was so opposed to this and that on that front before getting the job? WHat's next Mr "Logic", there's no diff between trying and succeeding? And isn't that lack of control, if it exists, also a problem he should be correcting. Bush didn't seem to have any problems dictating illegal wiretaps, so why aren't they listening to BHO?

Why he hadn't tried prior to -- even to give such an effort some lip service -- the Snowden revelations http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/16/131216fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all is the question, and will remain the only important one until he does propose and pursue meaningful changes.

But you stay focused on your shiny little Snowden bauble, no? I'm sure the history books will share your interest in and focus on ferreting out the many ways Snowden lied or undermined his own credibility due to the speculation as to his motives such spawned.

"Naive"? That's pretty funny coming from such an illogic master. I'm almost 60 and have been living politics since before graduating from college. You should go back and retake a logic class, or find some of the integrity you're so avidly arguing Snowden lacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 11:21 PM

57. There are plenty of contradictions in all of Snowden's pronoucements.. he said

the US wanted to assassinate him and another time he said the US wasn't afraid of him it was us they were afraid of.

He's calling Sen Feinstein a "hypocrite" while he's whining about the USA's NSA from Russia. Too chickenshit to say anything about Russia unless he's praising it(Putin) for being among the first to stand up against human rights violations. Idiot.

Says he tried 10 times to alert someone before he went rogue but absolutely no proof.

It's obviously not just about NSA's spying on Americans.. he hates America.. they must have done him wrong.

Snowden and Greenwald Beginning to Self-Destruct; ‘The Nation’ and ‘Mother Jones’ Raise Questions

snip//

"He handed over documents about American cyber warfare against China — to China. Specifically, Snowden gave the documents to a Hong Kong publication. Perhaps he was emboldened by all of the attention, hero worship and deification he received here. Who knows. Whatever drove him to do it, it was phenomenally irresponsible on a couple of fronts. Not only could he have exacerbated an already dubious international relationship, considering how there appears to be an escalating hacking war between the United States and China, but he also managed to turn numerous Americans against him — Americans who believe he crossed the line from whistleblower to traitor."



TDB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 07:48 PM

37. Keep in mind there would be no 'greater media scrutiny' to applaud without Snowden n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #37)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:05 PM

44. Which is exactly what I wrote in my post. Keep in mind everything else, too. There is ONE family

in particular who benefited the most from the timing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 08:08 PM

45. Indeed. I keep waiting for Jebbie to quit being coy.

It's only a matter of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 09:52 PM

50. "the last few decades of BushInc" include 6 yrs of ObamaInc., 8 yrs of ClintonInc.

IMO the exclusive focus on party over policy is fundamental cause of US political dysfunction, where you have tweedledum/tweedledee administrations on matters of economic military policy and you have nothing else than spin to suggest some deep dividing difference. Spin that is directly contradicted by the D&R politicians themselves in their more candid moments.

The notion that after 6 yrs as president Obama hasn't "accrued enough power in DC to take on...." is utterly absurd, esp. when compared to the obsequiousness of the premise, which surrenders to and absorbs a right-wing "BushInc" message that the fascist right is all powerful. Even after 6 yrs. As if "BushInc" should have more natural power than "ObamaInc".




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #50)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:43 AM

69. LOL - Apparently you never heard of Poppy Bush or his privatization of intel and

security since the 70s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 07:24 PM

71. So your message, complete with a "LOL" aimed at me,

is that the R's, esp. the Bush family R's and "Poppy Bush" in particular, are strong powerful leaders who know how to get things done and DO get things done, whereas the D's, esp. Obama, are weak feckless do nothing wasters of time and flappers of gums who pretend (doing a poor job at even that) at being leaders during interludes when the R's aren't directly in power.

Your LOLing at me aside, is that the gist of your message, your excuse? Or do you have a deeper message, a deeper excuse in there somewhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #71)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:42 PM

72. I think you don't 'get' it at all. It would take you months to get through the full BCCI report

if you start now......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #72)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:57 PM

73. You are saying NOTHING. Responding to NOTHING. Not even to defend your own OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 09:24 AM

78. I feel that if you can't wrap your brain around what was said, only focused research can help you

and BCCI would be a great place for you to start. Just warning you that it would take at least a month and then you would be more likely to 'get' it. You see - YOU are the one saying nothing that matters, del rem, but, I doubt you could see it. Anyone who truly believes that in the 5 years of Obama's presidency that he accrued the power in DC, the CIA, NSA and in the world to tear down the power infrastructure that Poppy Bush and his cronies have built and accumulated since the 60s, is just not dealing with reality.You assume a fantasy of a presidency with all-encompassing powers that hasn't existed in many decades. Even Eisenhower warned us.

Your postings make it clear that BCCI Report is something you never even pondered, let alone studied.

If you start now...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #78)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:35 AM

80. Has NOTHING to back up your apologetics for Obama's impotence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:46 AM

81. You are acting as apologist for the rampant lack of knowledge about the presidency and

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

the limit of its power in modern history, as intended by the powerful, Bush-loyalist elite who built a global intel and security infrastructure and privatized many of its aspects, back in the 70s and 80s.

Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:49 AM

83. The BCCI report gives NO excuse for Obama, or any other president, to claim powerlessness

before an out of control "global intel and security infrastructure...back in the 70s and 80s"

You're being ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 01:14 PM

85. You're showing you're vastly under-informed. Get thee to National Security Archives, and....

be swift about it.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 02:07 PM

86. You're showing that all you can do is throw shit at a wall,

because you have no point to argue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #86)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 02:17 PM

87. I do - but when one is in an exchange with someone unrealistic about the presidency

and its actual powers, it makes it difficult.

No one who grasped the historic reality of the last 5 decades would be so dug in as you.

The National Security Archives will make a considerable difference in your internet exchanges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #87)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 07:37 PM

91. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 09:44 PM

93. OK, that was a pleasant hiatus.

I understand your only point to be, putting words in your mouth:
"you, delrem, are a singularly ignorant person who has no learning."
"That's why you are "wrong", and disagree with me, blm, when I flatly state that President Obama, as a Dem., is singularly impotent to act."

That's how I paraphrase your argument.

One: I say that such an argument is self-defeating in that it contends that the President of the USA is impotent, and that's fucking well false. Excuse my adjective, if you're one who doesn't enjoy expletives, even when well placed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:40 PM

55. Bingo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 04:22 AM

63. K & R for nuance. The NSA/CIA thing goes well beyond Obama

that's not to say I'm not disappointed, but it just isn't just about him. Thank you for providing a nuanced "third" position, between "NSA lover" and "Obama hater".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BelgianMadCow (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:11 PM

89. People forget about NSA whistleblower Russ Tice.

Whistleblower Russ Tice: The NSA began spying on Obama in 2004; the program, which spied on members of government, the military, and the private sector, was run out of VP Cheney's office; the country is run by the upper echelon of the intel community, not the 3 legitimate branches of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 04:24 AM

64. Sure, but which REALLY matters in the real world?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:08 AM

66. The media's interest begins and ends with Snowden's usefulness as a Benghazi.

Yes, it's all about Iran. What Obama-Holder "scandal" hasn't been? The Neocons will give us no peace until we bomb their latest obsession into oblivion, and after we do, and sooner or later we probably will, they'll find another "threat" to obsess about. JMHO.

p.s. triple K/R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 08:14 AM

67. Excellent OP

Thank you for this. The juvenile screaming and finger-pointing is beyond tiresome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Wed Mar 12, 2014, 10:10 PM

75. I could halfway buy that if the majority of the same people attacking Snowden

with silly personal attacks weren't making the same type of silly personal attacks on Greenwald, Assange, and Manning.

If "Everything Is Always All About Obama", then Snowden would have gone public with the information before the 2012 election.

I agree, it's good to scrutinize motives, but, based on your logic and assumption of facts, if Snowden wanted to bring down Obama, he would have revealed this info just prior to the 2012 election, assuming that he had the info at that time, which you seem to imply, in your OP, that he did have the info.

There are other reasons why your argument does not hold water, one of which is the very great probability that Snowden had to take great care and time to plan and time his whistleblowing so as to be successful, and not get caught and imprisoned by the most powerful spook agencies in the most powerful countries the world.

Obama is not perfect; and that's A-OK, because nobody is. Snowden kind of made him look bad, because this happened on Obama's watch. He had important information, that took him a long time to safely gather, to reveal. It would be silly to expect him to wait until after Obama's second term was over to release it, just to save lot of hurt feelings among his fervent admirers.

Isn't it time to stop attacking and complaining about Snowden, and see what we can do to help the President "take down the darker forces of the CIA and NSA and the select private firms that form the powerful elite. Selected in the 70s and 80s by Poppy Bush."?

Shooting the messenger over and over, and over again because of hurt feelings may make some people feel better, but it isn't going to solve our problem in any way.

Instead of shooting every messenger who makes us aware of serious problems, let's stop this silly waste of time and put that time in energy into something constructive.

Everything is not all about Obama.

It's all about us, the People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 03:37 PM

101. k&r this from your post

Isn't it time to stop attacking and complaining about Snowden, and see what we can do to help the President "take down the darker forces of the CIA and NSA and the select private firms that form the powerful elite. Selected in the 70s and 80s by Poppy Bush."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 03:39 PM

102. great post

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:52 AM

84. I think the debate has been good for the country.

I haven't really decided how I feel about Snowden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:53 PM

99. YUP ... you can be sure there are Bushies still

running around within the government. And its going to take a long time to get rid of them.

Every time we get a GOP President, they work hard to populate the inner levels of the government with cronies and hacks. Folks who are they specifically to help ensure that the government does not work the way it should.

Clinton had a well working FEMA, Bush destroyed it, it works again under Obama. But most parts of the government that the GOP breaks simply are not that easy to repair.

Its going to take a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:54 PM

100. I've been saying that from the beginning

 

but the Snowden sycophants try and tie to two into a very tight knot. It's completely dishonest and I've come to ignore and scroll by certain screen names knowing they aren't the least bit honest about the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Sat Mar 15, 2014, 11:51 AM

110. You can do whatever you want

 

This administration has NOT worked to stop the unconstitutional/illegal acts by * since he left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:40 PM

113. K&R n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread