President Obama is not violating his liberal principles by defending the NSA. He is exercising them.

[OKNancy]

The liberal case for high-tech NSA surveillance

http://theweek.com/article/index/245464/the-liberal-case-for-high-tech-nsa-surveillance#


Let's say you're a liberal. Your inclination is to ward against authoritarian government invading personal privacy. You grew up appalled by the actions of Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy. You raged against the PATRIOT Act when it was proposed by President George W. Bush.
And yet today, after seeing all the recent leaks about Presidenet Obama's high-tech surveillance, and absorbing all the anger from various civil libertarians, try as you might to shake your fist and pound your keyboard, you're just not feeling the outrage.

Does this mean you're a giant hypocrite?

No.

There is, in fact, a strong liberal case to make for America's current use of surveillance to combat terrorism.


Liberals are not libertarians or anarchists. Liberals believe in a proper use of government to maximize the common good, including public safety.

What liberals have long opposed are abuses of power that harm individuals yet do nothing to keep us safe: systematic torture, racial profiling, FBI infiltration and disruption of civil rights groups, communist witch hunts, Japanese interment camps, the Palmer raids — the list goes on

--------
more at the above link... it won't take long to read.

[upaloopa]

1. This assumes the only use of domestic spying is to keep us

safe from the bad guys. I don't buy it. The next President will have the same power be it Dem or Repub. Seeing how repubs are whores for ALEC and the Kochs I see the next Repub President using the power to remain in power.
We should kill it now!

[Progressive dog]

6. Lots of things can be put to bad uses

Unless it's killed by SCOTUS or a change in the law, the next bad guy can bring it back instantly. If the next president uses the law to keep power, he/she would be in violation of other laws.
The bottom line is this, a president willing to violate law to stay in power is willing to violate law to stay in power, so making different laws solves nothing.

[NoMoreWarNow]

41. I disagree-- otherwise, why do we bother having laws at all?

putting laws into place at least erects some barrier, no matter how flimsy.

[Progressive dog]

43. You misunderstood what I said

If the laws still allow the NSA to do what you mischaracterize as spying, then the next Republican president can still do it with impunity.
President Obama cannot change the law.

[reusrename]

49. I'm going to try to say this in as neutral a fashion as I can muster.

This argument of whether things are legal or not as a justification is not the right approach. It is the exact same approach that lead to the Holocaust being a "legal" progrom. I'm not trying to criticize anyone or blame anyone for trying to bring about another Holocaust, that is not what I am saying, I'm just trying to let folks know that we studied this stuff in great detail when I was a kid, how the Holocaust happened, under the banner of "never again."

When I was a child they were still studying it. My mother worked in mental health and actually was involved (very remotely) in the discussions of whether or not it was ethical to use the knowledge gained through Dr. Mengele's horrible experiments. People had not faced these questions before and they also had to deal with nuclear detente. They had to walk and chew gum.

The more correct way to look at this question, IMHO, is to ask if we want to try and keep our constitutional republic (rule of law), or should we continue moving toward embracing a system of democratic fascism (rule by the manipulated majority), because that is what we are talking about here if we allow our Constitution to be brushed aside so easily. It has happened before in fairly recent history.

[Progressive dog]

52. So NSA storing telephone logs leads to holocausts

That's an argument that I've seen before. Pen logs do not equal records of Mengele's experiments. Those are sick equivalences. They trivialize the holocaust. You should be ashamed.
They debated whether to use knowledge from Mengele's experiments and you use it to try to make a cheap political point.
You should be ashamed.

[reusrename]

57. You need to dial back the hyperbole and outrage a little bit if you want to have a conversation.

You seem to be trying to trivialize my post, that much is clear, but do you really believe that this discussion is about pen logs?

[Progressive dog]

58. Your post was below trivial

I don't have to trivialize it, you beat me to it.
BTW Hyperbole is exaggeration, comparing the holocaust to pen logs falls in that category.
Yeah, the discussion is about pen logs, anything else is imagination or speculation.

[reusrename]

59. IMHO, the stuff about Dr. Mengele is extremely relevant to this conversation, and here's why:

We know, without any shadow of a doubt, that monsters very high up in our govt. authorized and then participated in covering up many atrocities including torture and murder. We know this. We know that these monsters are still at large and, in many cases, they still have their hands on our levers of power.

One reaction to this reality is to clasp one's hands over one's ears and shout la la la la..., and another reaction is to try and include this vital fact in the conversation.

So yes, monsters like Dr. Mengele really do exist, and they always will. Why does it upset some people so much to be reminded of this particular fact?

[Progressive dog]

60. You talk about Mengele, monsters in our government

You should be ashamed.


You said ":So yes, monsters like Dr. Mengele really do exist, and they always will."
What does that have to do with pen registers?

You should be very ashamed.

[reusrename]

61. Am I getting frustrated, yes, but I am not afraid of facing facts.

I don't really care too much about "pen registers" or, for that matter, the copying of all the content of all of our electronic communications. If it's digitized, go ahead and store it, why not?

The specific question that I am primarily concerned about is how the metadata is used.

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

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

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

There have already been reports of government cooperating with business to use this information to thwart the voice of the people. I don't think this can be tolerated in a free society.

[Progressive dog]

62. Facing what facts?

That our government stores pen register data?
That some people in government do not do their jobs perfectly, as defined by you?
That you have seen reports of stuff on the internet?
That you put it all into your mind and the output is Mengele, holocaust, monsters?
That you are not ashamed of this?

[reusrename]

64. I've already responded to all of your questions and you have answered none of mine.

I think we are done here, unless you want to try and formulate a thought or two.

[Progressive dog]

65. You should be ashamed

[reusrename]

67. I don't know how to say this without sounding patronizing, but I'll ask a sincere question anyway.

The reference to Dr. Mengele really seems to torque your jaw, that is very clear to see. I honestly don't know why it should. Do you think the Holocaust is something that should be forgotten and never discussed? I am being sincere here, even though it may not sound that way. Can you help me understand why this upsets you so much?

[Progressive dog]

68. You equated government empoyees to monsters

You equated NSA pen registers to the Holocaust.
You even brought up Mengele
And you are still not ashamed.
What planet are you from?

[reusrename]

69. Are you too ashamed to discuss the Nazis or the Holocaust?

The Nazi ideology is working it's way into our lexicon and you believe we should just allow it because it would be to shameful to have a discussion about it?

I guess when we replace "domestic security" with "homeland security" and we replace "torture" with "enhanced interrogation techniques" your either just fine with underlying Nazi ideology or your just too ashamed to stand up against it.

What is going on here?

Ahh, after I wrote this, I think I had an insight. You don't think it can happen here.

Am I right?

[Progressive dog]

70. Ever read "the boy who cried wolf"?

If you did, you sure didn't get the moral, did you.
BTW You might want to look up what lexicon means before the next time you bring up Mengele and the Holocaust.
You also might want to scrutinize the entry for ideology.
You should be ashamed.

[reusrename]

78. Goebbels said it best:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023018878

[Progressive dog]

79. Obsessed with Nazi stuff aren't you

Not everyone here is a Nazi fan, in fact you might be one of the few.
I think FDR, the Democrat said something about the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. He said it during the great depression, when Mussolini and Hitler were in power, when Japan had already invaded Manchuria. Being a Democrat, I prefer his quotes. Being an American, I prefer his quotes. I'll bet if you look you can find some quotes from Stalin or some other loser and post them.
If I were going through life believing there was a Nazi behind every wall, spying on me, and reading my emails, I guess I would think I had something to fear.

[NoMoreWarNow]

50. first, it's not clear the laws even allow that-- it seems likely this was illegal.

second, President Obama CAN work on getting the law changed-- though obviously he can't do it by himself.

[Progressive dog]

54. If the Congress passes it, the President signs it,

it is legal till overturned by SCOTUS. Simple as that. So if SCOTUS overturns the law, then it stops. Until then, it is going to be enforced.

[Andy823]

9. I agree

There could be a republican president someday, and if that happens I too would worry that they could use all of this power to keep themselves in office and republicans in charge of the whole country. I also believe president Obama had made a statement they he wants congress to take away some of these powers they have given him, or any president. Once again it's congress that has to make changes, the president can not change laws that congress has passed. This is time to force congress to have a real debate about this program and all the powers that have been given to any president that is in office. Call your members of congress and demand they get the facts and make changes that are needed to prevent any president from abusing the powers they are given.

One thing many who post on DU seem forget is just how dangerous it would be to see a Chris Christie as president, or another Bush, and God forbid maybe even a Rand Paul! I have see a poster make the comment that we could do worse on both sides than a president Christie! Now I don't know about you, but that's just plan insane!

In 2010 republicans took control of a lot of states, and a lot of voter didn't get out and vote because they were going to "teach president Obama a lesson" simply because he didn't put "their" priorities on top of the things he was doing. Posters on DU encouraged people to stay home and not vote, and I have seen the same tactics being used here in the last few weeks. I just hope people realize that congress needs to act to change things, and if you let the republicans, or tea party take control of congress, that's not going to happen.

[Rebl]

19. Amen

To that!

[NoMoreWarNow]

22. Yes-- so true

I don't buy at all this the spying is just about catching "terrorists". You'd have to be pretty naive to think that, imo.

[Cha]

44. yeah, you'd have to be a real idiiot to think that..

[freshwest]

86. OMG, what you did!

[treestar]

39. Bush wasn't able to do it

Obama backed off from Bush's position on this issue. So why didn't Bush stay in office?

[Progressive dog]

46. 2 term limit maybe

[treestar]

53. The thread is about using these phone numbers to quell all opposition

become a dictator and therefore not have to respect that rule.

[Progressive dog]

55. You are right, I apologize

[dennis4868]

48. Any president can abuse their powers...

What about the code to Nuclear Weapons? This is what elections are about.

[Cha]

2. Excellent article, OKNancy.

Liberals are not libertarians or anarchists. Liberals believe in a proper use of government to maximize the common good, including public safety.

Libertarians care about their rights but everyone else's.. not so much.

Our job is to ensure we have another Democratic President for more reasons than one.

[truebluegreen]

3. Un-rec

until the program is guaranteed impossible to abuse--un-doable?--because if it can be, it will be. And it also needs to be proven effective--which it hasn't been (assertions are not proof).

[Cha]

4. Yes, it has been proven effective. Details you're not interested in.

You've wander into the Barack Obama Group. We deal in reality here.

[GoneFishin]

5. Bring me up to date on how it has been proven effective, so far I have seen only

assertions and no proof.

For $80 billion a year I am sure there must be thousands of good examples, but I would settle for three rock solid proven examples. Preferably cases in which the FBI did not provide the dangerous materials.

[Cha]

23. No, that's not the reality ..that's

only your "reality".

You can take your "fascism" utterings elsewhere. This is the Barack Obama Group.

[Progressive dog]

47. how would this control thing work?

Btw Fascism has been out of fashion since that awful democrat FDR stood up to them.
Also thought I'd point out that "terrorist" doesn't rate as a canard. Did you just see the word someplace?

[NaturalCommunist]

83. It's not fascim

There is nothing wrong with what Obama is doing. We do need to ensure that someone like Obama or maybe even Obama himself stays in power so that we can continue moving forward.

So perhaps rather than fear monger we should work on planning the next election.

[Cha]

11. I actually believe those in charge who

are in a position to know like Senator Franken. And, I trust President Obama.

I'm grateful they're trying everything legally possible to try and keep People safe.

[Civilization2]

25. So blind faith then?

Proof is more useful,.

I don't care if it "foiled an 'evil terrorist' plot" or not, government secrecy and the new normal of corporate/military contractors running secret intelligence black-ops are evil and never have been, or will be, a good thing,. What are you so afraid of?

[Whisp]

35. You have tons of other space to speak. This is a protected group. Be off. n/t

[Cha]

36. No, it's not "blind".

[JEB]

29. Once again a money making scheme

using fear and funds from the US Treasury. Money for nothing at best.

[Cha]

45. No, JEB.. the shit is real.. whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Reality like the reality of how the terror-fightin' powers of The Patriot Act have *actually*

been used?

That kind of "reality"?

[Cha]

31. Yes, it sucks, Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Glad we agree.

It's fucking ridiculous. So when a lot of us - including people who normally defend this administration, like myself - cast a skeptical eye towards arguments about "it's being done to keep you safe", shit like that is why.

I understand keeping people safe from terrorism, but throwing granny in jail because she uses pot brownies to modulate her chemo nausea is not "keeping people safe from terrorism". Obama has an opportunity here to recommit himself to civil liberties and the like, and I think he would establish a far more durable 2nd term legacy in doing so. I think Holder needs to go, for starts.

[Cha]

33. I know it's stupid.. I don't understand it. But, I will

kept fighting it every chance I get.

I live in Hawai'i and there's none of that here..I live in a building that has a "Medical Marijuana sign posted on one of the front doors. I stopped smoking a long time ago but I fully support the rights of others. Just don't be blowing cigarette smoke anywhere around me.

dunno why it's different in other states.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Strongest thing I do these days is green tea.

And after fukushima now I'm all anal about where that is supposed to be sourced.

I think the train towards ending pot prohibition has left the station. Its only a matter of time. Knowing Holder's history as an apologist for the drug war, I have to imagine he's chomping at the bit to charge into CO and WA to punish the voters for legalizing pot. I suspect Obama has counseled restraint so far, but like I said I think a stronger commitment to civil liberties and freedom would go a long way with the base.

I think the larger story on Obama and the spying is, you have two currents- one is the right wing that will be against anything that has to do with Obama, but the other is people who have been disturbed by this shit since the Bush administration, and still have legitimate objections. I think its a mistake to assume that the 2nd group is working for or at the behest of the first one.

[treestar]

56. Nothing is impossible to abuse

Nothing at all. Only if we had no government. in that anarchy other people would abuse you.

[NaturalCommunist]

82. Exactly right

We must ensure another liberal democrat takes over for Obama. We're so close to what the world should look like. However, there is still much to do.

This may seem a bit extreme but we need more people on public assistance to realize that if they don't vote correctly they could be in danger of losing everything. Clearly our next win lies with a majority of minorities and the poor.

[Cha]

84. Well said, NC. And, I don't

think it's "extreme" at all. I've long wished people like me who are being helped by our Gov would realize and appreciate that enough to get out and VOTE.

Welcome to DU and the BOG, NC

[freshwest]

87. Plus a million.

[Number23]

7. "Liberals are not libertarians or anarchists." Could someone let 2/3 of GD know this, please??

'Cause they seem MIGHTY confused on that point.

This is an interesting read and thanks for posting it. I don't agree with it but I appreciate the analysis. I have disliked the Patriot Act since it was passed and contrary to the author, I do consider it an abuse of power.

The idea that this type of surveillance is illegal, unConstitutional etc. are the arguments of the clueless. The program NOW is legal, is regularly reviewed by Congress, has the support of both houses of Congress, and enjoys the support of large majorities of the American people. We may not like any of this but this is the REALITY of the situation. Frothing at the mouth as if this is new or screaming all day that "Obama = Bush" does fuck all and is the height of childish unproductivity.

And the lawsuits are already starting to come in, and they sound as clueless, uninformed and hysterical as so much of the garbage we've been reading on this web site lately:

A $3 billion class-action complaint by Mary Ann and Charles Strange of Philadelphia was believed to be the first civil case against the Obama administration since last week's blockbuster disclosure in published reports about the super-secret National Security Agency surveillance efforts.

...The Stranges have sued Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, NSA director Keith Alexander, Verizon, government agencies and the judge who signed the secret order on phone monitoring.

...The lawsuit offered no specifics of any targeted surveillance. The Stranges based their allegations on "information and belief." http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/11/politics/nsa-court-challenges/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

What I'd really like to see is a concerted effort to get the Patriot Act repealed. Yes, I am aware that it has probably saved lives and if we'd had 10 more 9/11's since 9/11, alot fewer people would be up in arms over this, but I have never supported this law. Now that the cat's out of the bag for the apparently large numbers of people who apparently never even knew there was a cat, it would be great to capitalize on all of this with some public awareness on getting the Patriot Act repealed. It will take some time and the "Obama bad" crowd on BOTH SIDES will caterwaul as they always do, but I think it's the right thing to do.

And as usual, the aim of the Obama Bad crowd is off. This has to be done through Congress. So once again, the Big O has to put away his magic wand for another day.

[freshwest]

12. Correct. Want change? Change Congress. They passed it. Obama has asked them to change his powers

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:01 PM - Edit history (2)

granted under the AUMF, as they can be abused when he leaves office and are a danger to begin with.

THEY WON'T DO IT.

Instead, Congress is passing federal ultrasound law, slashes aid to the poor and children and is ignoring the harm the Sequester is doing to millions of Americans now.

The personhood riders, and ending food stamps, Head Start, TANF, Medicaid and ACA, which civil libertarian hero Rand Paul puts on every budget bill, doesnt ever come up in discussion of 'civil liberties.' So they approve, just as the Infowars crowd approves of all of that.

There is a significant difference in 'civil liberties', 'civil rights' and' human rights', then. Apparently, they are the problems of those other, lesser people that don't matter.

Animal Farm indeed.

[reusrename]

63. This is rather thin gruel.

I suppose it would be correct, under your thesis, to argue that we legally tortured folks.

How far do want to take this rationalization? Do you have some line you draw somewhere, and if so, is this an arbitrary line that you decide?

Just curious how this works, in your thesis.

[Number23]

75. This does not seem in any way to be a response to what

I've written and I have no idea what you are talking about.

[reusrename]

76. I don't know why I put it here. I should never open more than one tab in my browser.

That was my response to another poster. I think this is how we take back the House, by the way, advocating exactly what you say. If we could only get the party to speak with one voice on this (or any other issue) we could have HUGH!!! majorities among the public because we would look much stronger than the alternative.

[Number23]

77. Don't feel bad. I've done the same thing

I'll have too many browsers open and write something and the person writing me back will be like "what?" and I realize I've responded to the wrong post/issue.

If we could only get the party to speak with one voice on this (or any other issue) we could have HUGH!!! majorities among the public because we would look much stronger than the alternative.

Absolutely.

[longship]

10. This thread isn't going to be w/o controversy.

Oh. BTW, R&

I support my Democratic President. (Of course, not unconditionally. He is in many ways a disappointment. But I knew that going in. He just doesn't have the experience, IMHO, and it is showing rather glaringly right now.)

I do not support this NSA overreach in any way shape or form.

And, NO. Obama did not start any of this.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Everyone who protests against this idea is being noted....

Just so you know.

[sheshe2]

14. Kicked and Recommending!

It needs to be said, OKNancy. Over and over!

[Kath1]

18. It can't be said enough right now.

I've had to talk some of my friends in off the ledge. So much hysteria right now. Things could be one hell of a lot worse - like President Romney (gag!).

[Fuddnik]

15. Obama is no liberal.

Amendment IV

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

[Cha]

27. President Obama is Progressive and he's quite Liberal on so many issues.

Gotta get informed, Fuddnik.

[Kath1]

16. Thank you, OKNancy!

"Liberals believe in a proper use of government to maximize the common good, including public safety." - Absolutely right. I'm about as liberal as you can get and I still support Obama. I am very glad that he continues to push his agenda despite all the criticism and distraction.

[Fuddnik]

17. And where is that unrec button when you need it?

[MotherPetrie]

30. +1

[humbled_opinion]

21. This is nothing more than

an exercise in group think... The bottom line is if you allow Obama to have it then you have created an environment ripe for President Sarah Palin to abuse it.....

Best to stick to principles and stop all this worrying around the edges crap.... Next thing you know we will be starting an ill conceived war in Syria.... Oh damn too late... the transition to George W. Obama is now complete.

[Cha]

26. As opposed to your "group think"? You just happen to be in the wrong

Group.

[NYC_SKP]

66. No shit!!! "George W. Obama"????

Fuck that.

[freshwest]

88. Yes, but the links to the appropriate group are not allowed at DU.

[treestar]

38. President Sarah Palin could not figure out how to abuse it

Bush however, did do a lot more - he claimed he could wiretap without warrants and did. The Republic still stands. It's a matter of how much effect each thing has. If we had to be checked by police every time we went outside, it would be too much. If we have to pass a metal detector to get on a plane or go into a courthouse, that's an infringement, but not too much to ask. The question is where to draw the line. The collection of this data doesn't really do anything to anyone. It could even clear people in some cases.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. The you for posting, OKNancy, but . . .

. . . collecting all the phone data of all Americans, in my view, still falls outside of any reasonable test for what the government should be able to do and still stay within the confines of the Fourth Amendment.

I voted for Barack Obama twice to end the abuses of the Bush junta. I feel betrayed. I have no trouble feeling outrage while pounding my keyboard or pounding a newspaper rack displaying a headline proclaiming a leading California Democrat's approval of this outrage.

[DeSwiss]

28. Which is why I detest labels.

[Cha]

42. But, you don't mind ignorantly flying your BS flag.

[treestar]

37. It is a question of balance

We do want to prevent terror attacks if we can. We have been willing to give up some liberties for it, but they aren't "essential" liberties of Franklin's quote. Like the freedom to board planes without screening.

It's a matter of how reasonable this is, and it sure does not sound like it really has any negative effect on anyone.

[stevenleser]

40. This OP has been like pheromone sprinkled flypaper.

Those who don't support the President on this issue seem drawn to it, and then they are getting blocked.

[NYC_SKP]

71. And, deservedly so.

I think I'll block somebody right now!

I served on a jury, but it didn't get hidden...

[NoMoreWarNow]

51. evidence that the program is not even legal--

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/put_the_nsa_on_trial/

[stevenleser]

72. That is wrong information. For starters, two of those cases are regarding Bush warrantless

wiretapping. So they do not apply to FISA and since the NSA Surveillance we are talking about involves a FISA warrant, two of the four cases this Salon article cites do not apply.

Of the other two cases, there is the Clapper vs. Amnesty International, and the unnamed case about a particular FISA warrant exceeding FISA's mandate.

The article notes that in the case of Amnesty, FISA was upheld due to standing issues (meaning the Constitutionality of FISA was not addressed one way of the other) and in the unnamed case, it was found that in that one instance, the request for a FISA warrant exceeded FISA's mandate. That is not an indictment of whether FISA is legal or Constitutional.

This Salon article does not address the dozens of appeals court cases that upheld the legality of FISA.

It also does not address WHY the appeals courts upheld FISA. The authors dont even pretend to know the reasoning why.

I lay out most of the reasoning here--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244 in particular everyone wanting to understand this should read the Duggan decision particulary the paragraph where the judges in the Duggan decision list seven other cases where FISA was upheld as Constitutional.

[NoMoreWarNow]

73. Rebuttal to this?

"Permanent Washington and Obama partisans who support the NSA surveillance program cite the Patriot Act and the fact that NSA obtained a FISA warrant as proof that the program is legal and as a way to ignore the constitutional questions. They would have us not only ignore the NSA’s own aforementioned admissions of illegal behavior, but additionally have us believe the constitutionality of NSA’s unprecedented surveillance and of such a broad-sweeping “ongoing” FISA warrant has already been definitively established, even though, of course, it hasn’t. Not even close."

Where has a court decided on such a broad use of FISA?

[stevenleser]

74. Do you understand why FISA has been upheld and before its existence, warrantless wiretapping was

upheld in Federal Appeals Courts in these situations?

If you understand that, you will understand why this will be upheld. I am covering that in my show this weekend.

[NoMoreWarNow]

80. because appeals court justices are predominantly conservative assholes?

In any case, the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality.

[stevenleser]

81. That flippant suggestion might work if it wasn't 60+ years of caselaw we were talking about

including on FISA since 1978 and on warrantless-wiretapping before that.

And yes, the SCOTUS has said they don't want to hear these cases, essentially affirming the lower courts' rulings by denying cert.

[NoMoreWarNow]

90. except a lot has changed in 60+ years

and the bottom line is these programs need serious legal examination, not excessive secrecy.

And you've seen this?
news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-admits-listening-to-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/

[stevenleser]

91. As I noted in what I wrote.

The CNET article is being walked back at least somewhat as we type. I'll discuss it during my talk with Alan Grayson next week and hopefully by then the story will have stabilized.

[freshwest]

89. Anyone who wants to think clearly about this, go to Steven's link, read it or get the podcast.

[Major Hogwash]

85. This is a really good article.

The notion that somehow we are all so safe, to the point that we don't need the NSA anymore, is absurd.

The whackjobs that live up North in Northern Idaho don't want any federal government, as they rail against it all of the time.
Almost 30 years ago they started railing against "black helicopters" and they became more paranoid as they grew to be more anti-government.

That is, until they retire, and then they are the ones that shout the loudest that their Social Security checks aren't enough to get by on!!
They are the same whackadoodles that voted for "Right to Work" for less back in 1986 here in Idaho.
And so they worked for lower wages until they retired, and now they wonder why they have such small Social Security checks.

As a result, we've been dealing with people who have expressed "Tea Party" values here for a long time.
They are not moderate Republicans, they have always been extremist Republicans.
Most of them gave up on the idea of trying to be moderate about their value system a long time ago.
So, for me, most of what they spew is just recycled garbage that I have heard before.
Many decades before, in fact.

[NoMoreWarNow]

92. the point is whether this massive data collection helps or hinders.

I would prefer a more targeted approach than searching for a needle in a haystack and opening us to all sorts of constitutional abuses. Not to mention the huge waste of money involved in sucking up and storing these astronomical amounts of electronic communications.