Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What the hell, DU? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)67. No
Has it just become "Obama's America, love it or leave it?"
I don't care what you think about Snowden or Greenwald on a personal level, or what you think about their identification with libertarians, or with their past histories. The fact is, when the corporate-owned Washington politicians were agitated and embarrassed by the NSA leak, they pulled out their usual tricks: distract, divide, poison the well. Their corporate media lapdogs joined in immediately after, digging up every ounce of dirt possible on the leakers and journalists who made their Correspondent's Dinner dates uncomfortable. "Troublemakers", "traitors", "anti-Americans."
I don't care what you think about Snowden or Greenwald on a personal level, or what you think about their identification with libertarians, or with their past histories. The fact is, when the corporate-owned Washington politicians were agitated and embarrassed by the NSA leak, they pulled out their usual tricks: distract, divide, poison the well. Their corporate media lapdogs joined in immediately after, digging up every ounce of dirt possible on the leakers and journalists who made their Correspondent's Dinner dates uncomfortable. "Troublemakers", "traitors", "anti-Americans."
...it hasn't, and I think that's a huge straw man. It's the same kind of logic that attempts to portray everything that's wrong with America as Obama's fault.
IMO, Snowden is a coward and a hack. I distrust his intentions and find the distortions of the information and the hypocrisy of trying create an international incident by exposing U.S. state secrets to countries that aggressively violate human rights to be disturbing.
I know people love the idea of the poking this country in the eye, but I don't see how this helps in the big picture. It will only serve to steel the resolve of countries who will use this as an opportunity to say to the U.S.: you have no reason to talk.
If anyone think that's good, then s/he is completely naive. There was a right way and a wrong way to approach NSA accountability, Snowden's international escapade was not it.
On the domestic side, the debate should have been ongoing, and it should have been the focus. The debate needs to be on the facts. I do notice that one of Greenwald's recent releases got little attention after it was pointed out that safeguards were in place. The debate briefly returned to: Oh, what about the next Republican President?
Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules
By SCOTT SHANE
<...>
On Thursday, in the latest release of documents supplied by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now believed to be hiding in Hong Kong, The Guardian published two documents setting out the detailed rules governing the agencys intercepts...They show, for example, that N.S.A. officers who intercept an American online or on the phone say, while monitoring the phone or e-mail of a foreign diplomat or a suspected terrorist can preserve the recording or transcript if they believe the contents include foreign intelligence information or evidence of a possible crime. They can likewise preserve the intercept if it contains information on a threat of serious harm to life or property or sheds light on technical issues like encryption or vulnerability to cyberattacks.
And while N.S.A. analysts usually have to delete Americans names from the reports they write, there are numerous exceptions, including cases where there is evidence that the American in the intercept is working for a terrorist group, foreign country or foreign corporation.
The documents, classified Secret, describe the procedures for eavesdropping under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, including an N.S.A. program called Prism that mines Internet communications using services including Gmail and Facebook. They are likely to add fuel for both sides of the debate over the proper limits of the governments surveillance programs.
They offer a glimpse of a rule-bound intelligence bureaucracy that is highly sensitive to the distinction between foreigners and U.S. persons, which technically include not only American citizens and legal residents but American companies and nonprofit organizations as well. The two sets of rules, each nine pages long, belie the image of a rogue intelligence agency recklessly violating Americans privacy.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html
By SCOTT SHANE
<...>
On Thursday, in the latest release of documents supplied by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor now believed to be hiding in Hong Kong, The Guardian published two documents setting out the detailed rules governing the agencys intercepts...They show, for example, that N.S.A. officers who intercept an American online or on the phone say, while monitoring the phone or e-mail of a foreign diplomat or a suspected terrorist can preserve the recording or transcript if they believe the contents include foreign intelligence information or evidence of a possible crime. They can likewise preserve the intercept if it contains information on a threat of serious harm to life or property or sheds light on technical issues like encryption or vulnerability to cyberattacks.
And while N.S.A. analysts usually have to delete Americans names from the reports they write, there are numerous exceptions, including cases where there is evidence that the American in the intercept is working for a terrorist group, foreign country or foreign corporation.
The documents, classified Secret, describe the procedures for eavesdropping under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, including an N.S.A. program called Prism that mines Internet communications using services including Gmail and Facebook. They are likely to add fuel for both sides of the debate over the proper limits of the governments surveillance programs.
They offer a glimpse of a rule-bound intelligence bureaucracy that is highly sensitive to the distinction between foreigners and U.S. persons, which technically include not only American citizens and legal residents but American companies and nonprofit organizations as well. The two sets of rules, each nine pages long, belie the image of a rogue intelligence agency recklessly violating Americans privacy.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/documents-detail-nsa-surveillance-rules.html
<...>
Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here's the nickel summary:
I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it's mistakenly collected domestic content, it's required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it's already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:
Today, in the latest release of classified NSA documents from Glenn Greenwald, we finally got a look at these minimization procedures. Here's the nickel summary:
The top secret documents published today detail the circumstances in which data collected on US persons under the foreign intelligence authority must be destroyed, extensive steps analysts must take to try to check targets are outside the US, and reveals how US call records are used to help remove US citizens and residents from data collection.
I have a feeling it must have killed Glenn to write that paragraph. But on paper, anyway, the minimization procedures really are pretty strict. If NSA discovers that it's mistakenly collected domestic content, it's required to cease the surveillance immediately and destroy the information it's already collected. However, there are exceptions. They can:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023060180
WaPo: New documents reveal parameters of NSAs secret surveillance programs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023058091
Claiming opposition to Snowden's actions is equivalent to being an "apologist" for the NSA is part of the problem. His actions are a separate issue from the debate on NSA accountability.
There is little attention being paid to proposed solutions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750
I will repeat:
In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.
This is the reason that while Senators like Udall and Wyden are critical of the program, they're offering a fix. You can bet there will be those who don't think it goes far enough, and others who will dismiss it.
One thing is certain, whether its a SCOTUS decision or a Congressional fix, the U.S. surveillance program, the 61-year-old NSA, isn't going anywhere.
I suspect that any fix in operation can earn the label unconstitutional. I suspect that if the Church Committee existed today and proposed the FISA court, it would be challenged as such.
You don't have to love it. You never did. You can push elected officials for accountability, but will you be satisfied?
My beef is there is no need to distort the facts to debate the issue. That is what Snowden's leak did, and I might add, intentionally.
The NSA doesn't need to be sensationalized to spark a debate. The facts of its operation are enough to do just that, as evidenced by the years of challenges mounted by civil liberties organizations.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
270 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Part of the problem is that the word "liberal" is often used interchangeably with
merrily
Jul 2013
#74
Yep: Some think it repression when 'the other' does it, 'defending freedom' when one does it.
panzerfaust
Jul 2013
#84
What hapened? Congnitive dissonance. Are we pro-Obama or Pro-Civil Liberties
BlueStreak
Jul 2013
#157
Where's the sarcasm tag. You just forced me to exercise idependant thought...
TheMadMonk
Jul 2013
#11
Neither are they saying it's more important than the issue of Mr. Snowden. :-/ n/t
DeSwiss
Jul 2013
#17
I agree. Sad that the OP comes out of "lurking" just to smear fellow DUers. nt
SunSeeker
Jul 2013
#58
So you claim that James Clapper changed the surveillance programs when Obama became president?
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#169
There is no difference in wiretapping w/o a warrant and wiretapping with a FISA kangaroo warrant. nm
rhett o rick
Jul 2013
#167
You're changing the subject. I asked the poster for a link to back up his assertions.
SunSeeker
Jul 2013
#194
Right. Got "a link" to someone smearing Snowden AND acknowledging his point?
DirkGently
Jul 2013
#49
Not true. I asked for a link to back up the poster's assertion. Which no one has done.
SunSeeker
Jul 2013
#68
It is not an "answer." I asked for a link that says what you claim DUers are saying.
SunSeeker
Jul 2013
#239
It is PRECISELY that easy. As a Catholic and a Democrat, I support principles, not fallible men.
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#37
My bet is that the 50-centers or trolls have dummy accounts set up just to do jury-duties.
backscatter712
Jul 2013
#98
Indeed. If 4 people just don't like you your post gets hidden. Doesn't matter if rules were broken.
L0oniX
Jul 2013
#179
In fairness to the admins, the paid shills are very good at not crossing the line.
Zorra
Jul 2013
#232
If you're a left-leaning, 4th Amendment loving, anti-corporate, anti-establishment libertarian
baldguy
Jul 2013
#39
Obama is the one calling for power to be scaled back. Vote a different Congress in 2014
JaneyVee
Jul 2013
#45
Then his rogue justice dept. needs to be leashed, they are going for a cover-up
Dragonfli
Jul 2013
#105
She has backed herself into a corner where she has to deny that any massive domestic surveillance
Warren Stupidity
Jul 2013
#127
So then you DISAGREE with the current surveillance of Americans? That's good to know
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#241
Right!Despite"Years of challenges to NSA"it keeps growing like a malignant cancer
Divernan
Jul 2013
#141
Perfectly stated - thanks for putting down what I've been feeling for weeks. K and R.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2013
#94
She is a host of GD. What probably happened was that some hosts had voted to lock this,
scarletwoman
Jul 2013
#174
When the Snowden story broke, they came out with entire sock drawers! n/t
backscatter712
Jul 2013
#134
You might be on to something. Actually, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
indepat
Jul 2013
#156
He's not kidding, even though no one can back up his assertions about DUers with any links.
SunSeeker
Jul 2013
#253
If Snowden was an unabashed liberal -- and a Republican was in the White House - would you support
Douglas Carpenter
Jul 2013
#180
I think I would reserve judgment based on what this guy actually did bring to light.
airplaneman
Jul 2013
#214
Thanks Pacalo, Greenwald has always supported SS and other Liberal policies. For a
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#216
I pointed that out because I've seen that labeling a number of times & it's factually wrong.
pacalo
Jul 2013
#218
Sorry a bit of common sense and pragmatism doesnt fit your version of a progressive/liberal.
DCBob
Jul 2013
#192
Well, there's no logic to defending Bush policies on a Democratic forum other
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#236
same goal as Sen. Cranston had in '78 and the DLC had in '88: to move the party
MisterP
Jul 2013
#238
not really: it just needs organization and willingness to *fight* for goals and principles
MisterP
Jul 2013
#247
alas, this is all stuff I've learned over the decade--maybe I'll make a nice, magisterial OP 1 day
MisterP
Jul 2013
#264
341 recs. You are not alone. There are a lot of us who feel this way.
liberal_at_heart
Jul 2013
#257