August 18, 2013

The NSA leaks are all hype from the conspiritorial rightwing Hydra

on which Snowden/GG are but one little head.

I can't help but recall how years ago when I first stumbled onto the "internets" to engage the rightwing monster during the lead up to the Iraq War, and in what turned out to be less than civilized debate, I argued that they were gonna lose suport of libertarians as a result of the militaristic face Bush was then putting on the fascist face already long in evidence, and that the right/republican/libertarian fusionism that had long been much the rule, could/would be altered. Not only did the loss of rightwing support occur

Libertarian-leaning voters started drifting away from the GOP even before Katrina, civil war in Iraq, and Mark Foley launched the general stampede. In their recent Cato-published study “The Libertarian Vote,” David Boaz and David Kirby analyzed polling data from Gallup, the American National Election Studies, and the Pew Research Center and concluded that 13 percent of the population, or 28 million voting-age Americans, can be fairly classified as libertarian-leaning. Back in 2000, this group voted overwhelmingly for Bush, supporting him over Al Gore by a 72-20 margin. By 2004, however, John Kerry—whose only discernible libertarian credential was that he wasn’t George W. Bush—got 38 percent of the libertarian vote, while Bush’s support fell to 59 percent. Congressional races showed a similar trend. In 2002, libertarians favored Republican House candidates by a 70-23 spread and Republican Senate candidates by a 74-15 margin. Things tightened up considerably in 2004, though, as the GOP edge fell to 53-44 in House races and 54-43 in Senate contests.[/blockquote] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/liberaltarians

but as the title of that piece suggests, some were interested in forging a more substantive and lasting relationship between the libertarians and the left.

To date, Democrats have made inroads with libertarian voters primarily by default. Yes, it’s true that Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame caused something of a stir by proposing the term “Libertarian Democrat” to describe his favored breed of progressive. And the most prominent examples of his would-be movement—first-term Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, fellow Montanan Tester, and Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb—have sounded some libertarian themes by being simultaneously pro-choice and pro-gun rights. At the same time, however, their anti-nafta, Wal-Mart-bashing economic populism is anathema to free-market supporters.

In short, if Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning voters, they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are we content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we want to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.

This is precisely why I've argued from the beginning on this issue, that while I think the NSA/spying stain on BHO that will likely result is inescapable, like his with his continuing support for unpalatable cuts http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17835-white-house-continues-playing-lets-make-a-deal-with-the-gop-on-social-security-and-medicare-benefit-cuts should they occur, there's nothing stopping those in the congressional races from exploiting both the opposition to those cuts and that to the spying for their benefit -- and libertarian/libertarian-leaning voters could certainly have a role in that.

Wow, libertarians are making an issue of/exploiting something that shows the Janus-like condition shared by our alleged left/right pols in DC on matters of foreign policy after having reacted favorably when that perception didn't exist? I thought they were merely doing what should be expected of them, which happens to be something that the protectors of the state, and here on DU, the protectors of the current face on it, don't like, outta anyone regardless of their politcal stripe. It simply can't be accepted it seems, that they are merely being the allies of many who find much of the rest they stand for (particularly the right-leaning, anarcho-capitalist types) unacceptable.

Imo all the bashing of the libertarians on this issue is counterproductive to the goal we as dem voters presumably share -- maintaining the senate and regaining the house. And all the guilt by association BS from the authoritarians around here in the form of "Paulite", etc designations intended to insult those who'd dare align themselves with the libertarians on this issue, is gonna have the net effect of eroding support and election participation of the kind sought outta those ranks as well.

But hey, we'll just add this to the ever-growing list of things rightwingers don't have a monopoly on in these days of a growing faux duopoly in DC on such matters of peace and war -- the political acumen and foresight of an earthworm on the part of those who see themselves as the lefty "good guys". Like rightwingnuts as well, this silencing of critics efforts by the various methods and means we've seen deployed/employed here, has merely been an exhibition of their flair for being their own worst enemy too imo, because of ignorance or a lack of foresight.

ANd who is that "most effective congress critter" working with to achieve that designation, and why isn't he being denounced for the things he's achieved as a result for daring to work with that enemy, as opposed to recieving that rather flattering designation?

The new strategy is simple. Grayson and his staff scan the bills that come out of the majority. They scan amendments that passed in previous Congresses but died at some point along the way. They resurrect or mold bills that can appeal to the libertarian streak in the GOP, and Grayson lobbies his colleagues personally. That’s how he attached a ban on funding for “unmanned aerial vehicles,” i.e. drones, to the homeland security bill. He swears that they don’t back away from him because of his old persona—well, his relationship with Webster is “strained,” but he points out that Webster won re-election by 5,000 votes and Grayson won with 70,000. Never mind that. Are the members of Congress more forgiving than members of the press?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/florida_democrat_alan_grayson_is_the_most_effective_member_of_the_house.html

as some say authoritarians "THINK ABOUT IT!"

August 18, 2013

No, there's nothing strange about the designations

or the endless revisions from the authoritarians in DC or their sychophants here.

Most of the rancor, etc, was intitiated by those on defense from the beginning with this -- you guys. It was simply inconcievable and certainly intolerable to be having the "good guy" in the WH even tangentially tied to the intitial revelations and all that has followed, even though he is in responsible charge of those indicted by them.

I wish you guys would make up your minds as to whether he's an incompetent nincompoop outta this particular loop, or a liar on the matter, although I won't hold my breath while waiting.

ANd all this stuff about "welcoming further reforms and safeguards" has been the goal (well, demanding it really) of all of us alleged "authoritarians" from the start, so by all means, explain all of the "paulite/bushite/racist/etc" BS that has come from your side.

Oh that's right, you're tripping all over yourselves. The only reason all that stuff came from you authoritarians is because it makes the one in charge look bad, and rightly so. You're trying to have it "both ways", which is just another thing on a long list that dedicated rightwingers don't have a monopoly on. If reforms/safeguards are desirable and determined to be necessary, then that's because what we're currently living under is bad/undesirable, and can't be detached from BHO, because it's his admins interpretations of the governing laws that will figure prominently in them.

Any efforts that result in those reforms/safeguards that correct the likely illegal/unconstitutional nature of the violations are gonna justify/validate the criticisms and complaints from we "authoritarians", and incontrovertibly establish BHO's participation in them.

All you'll then have left when the smoke clears is something akin to Rice's "WHo could have possibly known/predicted they'd fly planes into the towers!" line of BS, because that's what all the protectionism of BHO is in spirit if not substance. If anybody has elevated anybody to "godlike status", it's been those defending BHO in the ways and manner you guys have.

Beyond that, I find this insulting effort both amusing and a classic case of projection. Try starting the "kindness" routine yourself, and spare us the the thinly veiled BS about alleged Snowden/GG/etc worship, "fearmongering" charges (while claiming to want the same thing they're asking for/in pursuit of) and whitewashing/denying all the BS your side on this matter has polluted this board with that has served as provocation.

Gee, if they aren't spying on Americans, where's the DEA getting their tips? http://www.google.com/search?q=NSA+DEA+connection&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7 ANd if that's the case, and judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and their defendents are victimized by ignorance that should be dispelled by discovery, how does that impact your "no victims" claim? Of course victims that don't know they've been victimized aren't stepping forward in droves. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

That read like an effort to lay claim to the high ground you've never had on this matter, and to ameliorate the ego pain down the road after you've been shown to be disasterously wrong about BHO's role and responsibility is all of this, and that's largely due to a clinging to misplaced trust long after it was unwarranted imo.

August 9, 2013

The record/our memories indicate NSA and apologists, etc, have lied

I'm beginning to think that this question should have figured more prominently in the "debate" from the beginning.

It's really about the only time imo, that Saint Raygun's evil nine words "I'm from the gov, and I'm here to help!" has a real world application in terms of the inherent dubiousness of claims made by gov officials. It also dovetails with the notion that in this great debate between security v rights that the CiC no doubt gives the former greater weight to (in a "I was against it before I was for it kinda way&quot and therefore a motive for taking license with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Avoiding it certainly explains all of their focus on we racists, etc, and messengers like Snowden, GG, etc.

Imo gullibility (like a lotta other unflattering things) is something that rightwingers don't have a monopoly on, and this has been showcased throughout this debate, as have some of those other unflattering things.

Why believe anything the government says about the NSA?
8/8/2013 10:30am by Gaius Publius 74 Comments
. .At this point, why would you believe anything the State, or anyone fronting for it, tells you about NSA domestic spying? Even the gullible have to be non-virgins by now. Let’s take a look.

Here’s security expert Bruce Schneier on just this subject. He starts (my emphasis, including a few bullets and some reparagraphing throughout):

Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet
In July 2012, responding to allegations that the video-chat service Skype — owned by Microsoft — was changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, Corporate Vice President Mark Gillett took to the company’s blog to deny it. Turns out that wasn’t quite true.

Or at least he — or the company’s lawyers — carefully crafted a statement that could be defended as true while completely deceiving the reader. You see, Skype wasn’t changing its protocols to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop on users, because the government was already able to eavesdrop on users.

And this is just the start of this great piece. Two things to note: http://americablog.com/2013/08/why-would-you-believe-anything-the-state-tells-you-about-nsa-spying.html

Or hell, given that "secrecy" is an intregal part of whole thing, isn't it an expectation that taking license with the truth is gonna be part of the effort to preserve it?

I do think so.

July 25, 2013

Why does the Guardian hate BHO so?

I'm beginning to think that they are a racist rag that should be boycotted here in the states.

It could just be however, that they are still jealous that we won our war of independence, and became the shining beacon of human liberty and rights while they still entertain royalty. WHat are the odds they'll ever get a black prince, princess, king, or queen, as we did a pres, no?

For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice". So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just their tough luck?

Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.

The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision – which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/23/us-v-blewett-obama-justice-department-shame

July 24, 2013

It looks like the Greenwald left has a lot of recruits

it sure is tragic that so many elected leaders have gone down the conspiracy kook trail, ain't it?

Joan McCarterFollowRSS
Daily Kos staffProfileDiaries (list)Stream.Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM PDT.

House to vote on bipartisan amendment curtailing the NSA's powerby Joan McCarterFollow .

59 Comments / 59 New.A bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization bill to curtail the NSA's surveillance power has been approved for a vote, possible as soon as Wednesday. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), co-sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and over 30 other bipartisan members, would substantially curtail the NSA's domestic spying.
The amendment [pdf] basically defunds the NSA's dragnet collection of every bit of metadata on all phone records as well as other bulk records that have not yet been revealed. The amendment still would allow the NSA to collect information under the original intent—and understanding—of the law, that is information actually related to actual investigations.

The NSA and its supporters are, of course, fighting back. They've introduced a second amendment intended to peel support away from the Amash amendment. What this second amendment, from Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL), does is to pretend that it will withhold funding for bulk collection, but it actually just reiterates what's already in the law, and it just reiterates the status quo.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/23/1226007/-Notorious-sexist-with-notoriously-bad-judgment-is-reportedly-top-candidate-for-Fed-chair

I'm shocked that Kos would even allow such treachery to be reported on his board.

July 11, 2013

Should they take the "foreign" outta FISA, and rename it

or add "domestic" to it for accuracy?

I do think so. Furthermore, for those who seem to think that poor BHO has been unjustly/unduly criticized for his role in all of this, it seems to me that defenses of him over it are getting narrowed down to whether or not he was ignorant as to the scope of it all, as well as all the "interpretations" of this and that. This is why I suggested weeks ago now it seems, that if illegality or unconstitutionality questions are present in terms of implementation of the "interpretations" that he's long been aware of, then it's a mystery to me why he couldn't simply quit stonewalling on the legal front and allow the cases pursued to be heard in open court http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance in way similar to but not to be confused with refusing to defend DOMA. It seems to me an argument against that would require the assertion that he can be compelled to keep defending against any non-FISA court scrutiny with national security, state secrets, etc claims.

Much like with his offering up chained cpi, it's his choice in this matter that damns him, whether or not in that case it is actually inevitably put on the chopping block or not.

That's also why I say he has more ownership of all this than his adoring fans have been willing to admit to this point. And quite frankly, it's a mystery to me given that BHO himself has framed all this as a weighing of national security v civil liberties, and that it's practically a given which side he's gonna lean towards, why any of this would surprise anyone anyway.

but what could a racist/Bushbot/Paulite know, no?

Some Democrats and civil libertarians have expressed disappointment in what they say is a pattern of excessive secrecy from President Obama. He had pledged to run a more transparent administration than his predecessor, George W. Bush, who signed off on the NSA’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program and, with the authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, launched the bulk data-collection program that has continued.

“The national security state has grown so that any administration is now not upfront with Congress,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. “It’s an imbalance that’s grown in our government, and one that we have to cleanse.”

Administration officials say they have been as transparent as they could be in disclosing information about sensitive classified programs. All House and Senate members were invited to two classified briefings in 2010 and 2011 at which the programs were discussed, officials said.

Defenders of the surveillance programs in Congress, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence panel, have said the programs were fully explained. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pointed to “many, many meetings” where surveillance was discussed and said members had “every opportunity to be aware of these programs.”

But some lawmakers say they feel that many of the administration’s public statements — often couched in terms that offered assurances of the government’s respect for civil liberties and privacy — seemed designed to mislead Americans and avoid congressional scrutiny.

Wyden said that a number of administration statements have made it “impossible for the public or Congress to have a genuinely informed debate” about government surveillance. The Oregon senator, whose membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee gives him access to the classified court rulings authorizing broad surveillance, has tried in recent years to force a public discussion of what he has called “secret law.”

“These statements gave the public a false impression of how these authorities were actually being interpreted,” Wyden said. “The disclosures of the last few weeks have made it clear that a secret body of law authorizing secret surveillance overseen by a largely secret court has infringed on Americans’ civil liberties and privacy rights without offering the public the ability to judge for themselves whether these broad powers are appropriate or necessary.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-say-administrations-lack-of-candor-on-surveillance-weakens-oversight/2013/07/10/8275d8c8-e97a-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_print.html

July 11, 2013

SO the WP had to post a correction about Greenwald eh?

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/wapo-runs-huge-correction-on-pincus-column-about

Surely these errors in reporting don't matter, because he's obviously guilty of so much more, like practicing journalism for example. I'm surprised that none of his detractors haven't tried to make hay outta the fact that he rescues dogs off the street. Surely there's something nefarious about that just waiting to be revealed.

June 19, 2013

That damn Greenwald is at it again

will his racist scaremongering ever end, and should the Guardian oversee his work more closely and print them in colors representing "error alerts"? His noting for example as I recall, that the NSA power point used "direct access", was a biggie.

That's why Democratic senators such as Ron Wyden and Mark Udall spent years asking the NSA: how many Americans are having their telephone calls listened to and emails read by you without individualized warrants? Unlike the current attempts to convince Americans that the answer is "none", the NSA repeatedly refused to provide any answers, claiming that providing an accurate number was beyond their current technological capabilities. Obviously, the answer is far from "none".

Contrary to the claims by NSA defenders that the surveillance being conducted is legal, the Obama DOJ has repeatedly thwarted any efforts to obtain judicial rulings on whether this law is consistent with the Fourth Amendment or otherwise legal. Every time a lawsuit is brought contesting the legality of intercepting Americans' communications without warrants, the Obama DOJ raises claims of secrecy, standing and immunity to prevent any such determination from being made.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

June 19, 2013

Are fears of big "brother" racist?

&feature=player_embedded

June 14, 2013

The "real" reason for alleged NSA excesses?

I've long thought as many others no doubt have, that big brother is less worried about threats from without as those from within.

After all, what foreign threat threatens the corporate grip on power in this country, and all that entails? Since 9/11, OBL has won if the goal was to witness that pain and worse with some of the self-inflicted variety to follow. Sadly that's happened, and we all know who has suffered the most and worst of it, and it ain't the 1%.

If you assume that big brother is mostly a righty given the way our gov has married the corporate/monied interests, then it's pretty clear he has problems within his own family on the domestic front. The reason why they so vociferously killed the 2009 DHS report on the growing rightwing extremist threat in this country was no doubt due to the guilt by association thingy, and it also no doubt had a role in their recent outrage over the IRS thing. Maintaining victim status while being the victimizers is critical to the success of any "Big Lie" effort. That is after all, what underlies the great "war on terror" we're embroiled in that this NSA stuff is alleged solely attached to/directed at. The fear that rightwingnuttery itself (in its current form here in this country anyway) might become suspect as a governing ideology should more McVeighs arise, is likely a rational one, so I can understand why they'd wanna ride herd on their own.

And then of course is the threat of we good guys to consider.

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis – or all three.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/14/nsa-prism-pentagon-bracing-for-anti-government-activism-over-climate-change-disasters/

Methinks they've long recognized and rightly feared this looming perfect storm, and that inevitably it will be non-ideological climate change and dedicated self-interest it will foster in the individual that give the storm its fury and strength. After all, to mitigate the human toll and suffering here and abroad AGW will bring is likely gonna require "socialistic" solutions their ideology will never entertain or offer -- not without a big fight anyway. That's why I've long seen the neverending and increasing wealth inequality and increasing radicalization, apathy, ect of the rightwing in this country as analogous to the building of the arks in the movie 2012. They want their horde of wealth to be maximized before circumstances and happenstances start wittling away at it, so that they are still on the top of the wealth mountain when the waters recede.

While they've always played the survival of the fittest/laws of the jungle game, never before have they faced the existential threat to their power they are in this country. Hell, I'd guess that looming brown demographic tsunami alone (who as we all know, is comprised soley of lazy and freeloading socialists) would be sufficient cause for their fears. They should just make their job of spying on them easier, and give them all Obamaphones like so many trojan horses.