Skip to main content

View Diary: Press, polls wrongly conflate Bush and Obama NSA surveillance (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The liberal community lost their minds yesterday (25+ / 0-)

    I couldn't believe the hysteria and stampede to burn the government to the ground -- the same government that we want to empower to run medicare, medicaid, social security, educate our children, hire our police and fire fighters, pave our roads, and prosecute our criminals.  

    But find out that (gasp!) the NSA might be operating in secrecy as part of a twelve-year plan to adjust to the internet age to catch terrorists, and suddenly yesterday most liberals turned into Ayn Rand Paul libertarian anarchists ready to tear down the entire government.

    Unreal.

    Hey people, we're supposed to the be side the believes in effective government.  More transparency?  Absolutely.  But still, we believe in effective government.  

    The other side wants to destroy the ability for government to function.

    There's a reason Snowden (and Greenwald) celebrate Ron Paul.  Ask yourself if you really believe that group is the way to go forward.

    Read Al Franken's statement today.  We can and should demand more transparency, while at the same time realizing how "mavericks" like Snowden are not heroes.  

    •  I think this is a complete false dichotomy. (11+ / 0-)

      There's plenty of room between (1) wanting to "tear down the entire government" and (2) not wanting to live with a secret government program that logs every call we send/receive.

      I want the government to provide for a social safety net, and education, and clean air/water, universal health care, etc.

      I don't want the government to engage in wholesale clandestine spying on its citizens without even a hint of individualized probable cause.

      There is no cognitive dissonance between these two positions.

      •  You think the government is engaging in (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, SaintC, WinSmith, hardart

        wholesale spying on its citizens with no probable cause? You really think this is happening?

        •  This is from the ACLU (7+ / 0-)

          Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief:

          In response to information published by the media, the government has acknowledged that it is relying on Section 215 to collect “metadata” about every phone call made or received by residents of the United States. The practice is akin to snatching every American’s address book—with annotations detailing whom we spoke to, when we talked, for how long, and from where. It gives the government a comprehensive record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of detail about our familial, political, professional, religious, and intimate associations.
          •  Well, that's inaccurate for several reasons. (5+ / 0-)

            But let's concentrate on the most obvious. Snowden revealed that the NSA requested all records from Verizon for the last three months. Now ask yourself the following:

            1. Do all Americans use Verizon?
            2. Did every American make a phone call through Verizon in the last three months?

            If you answered those correctly, you should be able to infer that the NSA couldn't possibly have procured the phone metadata of "every phone call made or received by residents of the United States."

            Remember, what you cited is a legal argument. There is no room for ambiguity of meaning.

            •  you really think (3+ / 0-)

              they only asked Verizon?

              •  More to the point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wasatch, dream weaver

                even assuming arguendo that the NSA only collected Verizon data, can you straight-facedly claim there was probable cause to seize the records of every Verizon user (plus those called by a Verizon user)?

              •  No. I don't think that. (0+ / 0-)

                But that's the basis of their law suit. They're claiming they have standing to sue because they're Verizon customers, and that's the evidence upon which they're basing their claim.

                But none of that matters, because it's highly unlikely that every Verizon customer made a phone call in the past three months. Or every unique customer of every other telecom they asked.

                •  When's the last time you went 3 months... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...without making a telephone call?

                  I suspect that I would just cancel my phone service if I didn't plan on using it for 3 months.

                  Stop the NRA and the NSA
                  Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

                  by dream weaver on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:37:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Look. (0+ / 0-)

                    If Verizon hands over phone records of calls that were made over a three month period, you don't even know that all those calls were made by Americans.

                    How many of those calls were made by foreigners? Just because they were made in America doesn't mean they were made by Americans.

                    How many of those calls were made by people to whom the phone numbers were assigned?

                    How many of those calls were made by people other than those to whom the phone number was assigned?

                    Suppose your significant other called the psychic hotline for hours at a time on your phone. It may look as if you're having an affair with Dionne Warwick, when you're not at all.

                    This is why the collection of metadata, in and of itself, is not an invasion of privacy. Other forms of data have to corroborate a) your identity and b) the fact that you made the call. The government has to obtain a warrant in order to corroborate that data.

            •  From the next paragraph of the above- (0+ / 0-)

              referenced ACLU Complaint:

              The government has confirmed the authenticity of an order issued six weeks ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) requiring Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“VBNS”) to turn over, every day, metadata about the calls made by each of its subscribers over the three-month period ending on July 19, 2013. Government officials have indicated that the VBNS order is part of a program that has been in place for seven years and that collects records of all telephone communications of every customer of a major phone company, including Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint.
              Are you saying that the ACLU is knowingly filing an inaccurate Complaint?
    •  Not only that, we voted for this! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lookit, jiffypop, WinSmith, doroma

      That's what angers me about this whole episode. Nobody questions the fact that Snowden subverted the will of the people in order to "save us" from tyranny. Apparently, Snowden, and not the public, gets to decide what's secret and what's not.

      You know what you call someone that subverts the will of the people because he doesn't like their laws?! A TYRANT!

      •  Define "we". Who voted for what? (nt) (3+ / 0-)

        Stop the NRA and the NSA
        Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

        by dream weaver on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 05:54:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really?! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larsstephens, WinSmith

          You really can't grasp that those who represent our will voted to repeatedly to reauthorize the Patriot Act?!

          It doesn't matter what one feels about domestic surveillance. A majority of Americans elected the various Congresses that voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act every single time. Whether we like it or not, this is what a freely elected government enacted.

          No one has the right to nullify that. Now matter what you feel about the Patriot Act.

          •  Last time I checked it takes a whole lot more (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Simian, Thomas Twinnings, xrepub

            than a vote in Congress to repeal an amendment to the United States Constitution.

            Moreover, the adminstration's interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act likely broader than what Congress intended in passing the law.  Of course we won't know for sure unless/until the administration produces its interpretation.

            •  The Constitutionality of the collection of (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Larsstephens, WinSmith, hardart

              metadata was established well before the Patriot Act. Established by the Supreme Court. I'm by no means a lawyer, but their reasoning in the case of phone metadata seems sound, because metadata, by itself, can't identify anyone, which is another reason the ACLU's argument is weak. They'd have to know not only that their phone calls were logged, but that they were also identified. They can't claim the NSA knew about them specifically unless they have evidence that the NSA identified that theirs was one of the billions of numbers.

          •  So if the Supreme Court ruled it (0+ / 0-)

            unconstitutional, you would be sad?

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:46:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Anybody who voted for the Patriot Act most... (0+ / 0-)

            ...certainly did NOT represent MY will.

            They may have represented YOUR will, though. I can't speak for you.

            You really can't grasp that those who represent our will voted to repeatedly to reauthorize the Patriot Act?!
            Next you're going to tell me that those who voted for and signed into law DOMA represented my will.

            Stop the NRA and the NSA
            Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

            by dream weaver on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 01:41:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  subverted the will of the people? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        What part of the public gets to decide what is secret and what is not?

        I truly fail at understanding what you mean..........

        Nobody questions the fact that Snowden subverted the will of the people in order to "save us" from tyranny. Apparently, Snowden, and not the public, gets to decide what's secret and what's not.

        You know what you call someone that subverts the will of the people because he doesn't like their laws?! A TYRANT!

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:09:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I did not vote for breaking campaign promises. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo, happymisanthropy

        Economic Left/Right: -7.38
        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
        Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

        by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:11:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you think one individual has the right to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allenjo, WinSmith

          commit treason and nullify our laws because a politician didn't do what he said he'd do?!

          •  Treason? He's a patriot. (0+ / 0-)

            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.

            Economic Left/Right: -7.38
            Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
            Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

            by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:32:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He ADMITTED to committing treason. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Larsstephens, WinSmith

              This is not my opinion. It's your right to believe that someone who committed treason is a patriot, but you're not entitled to pretend he didn't do what he SAID he did. If you believe in liberty, than at least have the guts to own the fact that you applaud a treasonous act.

              •  You keep using that word. (1+ / 0-)

                I do not think it means what you think it means.

                Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:05:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No one has the right to decide for himself (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WinSmith

                  which laws to follow and which to break. You seem to think that Snowden does in this case.

                  I would not have voted to reauthorize the PA were I in Congress. But the will of the people is the will of the people, and the people have a right to decide how much freedom they're willing to cede in exchange for security. We have decided that, again and again, and we'll continue to adjust the balance over time. That is our right.

                  One guy does not have the right to nullify that because he doesn't like the law.

                  •  Yes - we all have that duty (1+ / 0-)

                    to disobey laws that violate human rights.  Not right - duty.

                    Article 12

                    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

                    Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                    Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                    by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:43:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But these laws don't violate human rights. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      WinSmith

                      Human rights have a specific definition under international law. These laws are not relevant to human rights. "Human rights" does not mean what you think it means.  Not even Snowden alleges that these law strip people of their personhood.

                      You cite the 4th Amendement prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. Well guess what? We the people get to define what "unreasonable" means, and what its boundaries are. That is what we are doing when we debate and reauthorize the PA. That's what we are doing when we mount court challenges to the law. I don't think the ACLU will get very far, but I support the general idea of asking what those boundaries should be, which is what they're doing through their law suit.

                      All of this deliberation is pursuant to the law. Snowden is no different than Bush in the sense that both went outside the law to obtain information that they could use in ways that suited their ideology. Both placed their ideology above the law.

                      •  Yes and I cited article 12 (0+ / 0-)

                        of the Declaration of Human Rights.

                        Now how pray tell are "We the People" supposed to debate and give informed consent to this program, when revealing its very existence is prima facie illegal?  Would the ACLU be filing suit if Edward Snowden had not stepped forward?

                        Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                        Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                        by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 09:26:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What's at issue with the Patriot Act (0+ / 0-)

                          is the 4th Amendment.  But since you mentioned Article 12:

                          No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
                          The collection of metadata that the Supreme Court has held is constitutional is not arbitrary interference with privacy. The key word here is privacy. The Supreme Court held that records of calls you make voluntarily to a third-party are not private.

                          If you dial a number provided by a phone company, and make a call on a network owned and operated by that phone company, the record of that phone call, absent any other identifying information, is not private. What is private is the content of that phone call and the fact that you made it. For the government to verify that you made that call and to access its contents, it must obtain a warrant.

                          Snowden disclosed that the NSA has the capability to search billions of records of sensitive information. But capability is not authority.

                          The mere existence of this data and the capability to search it does not, in and of itself, constitute arbitrary interference from privacy.

                          The fact that Snowden maintains that abuse is inevitable is not reason enough to leak national security secrets. If that's the case, then we may as well not have a government because abuse in our government is inevitable. The constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from abuse. What it guarantees is the means of the people to redress those abuses.

                          The people have the right to determine what constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure" and we also have the right to expect that our laws are respected.

                          •  Bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            http://news.cnet.com/...

                            "we also have the right to expect that our laws are respected."

                            I agree 100%.  The NSA is not respecting our laws, and I thank Ed Snowden for doing his patriotic duty by bring that to our attention.

                            Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                            Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                            Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                            by jvance on Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 12:34:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Who asked Snowden to protect "my" privacy (0+ / 0-)

                      when I am okay with the laws that he is fighting against?

                      •  Now you're presuming to speak for everyone. (0+ / 0-)

                        I thank him for what I might not have been willing to do.  

                        I'm sure that there are plenty of gays right now who are perfectly OK with marriage inequality and unequal protection under the law.  That is not an argument in favor of those things.

                        Economic Left/Right: -7.38
                        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
                        Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

                        by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:08:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Treason is not disobeying unconstitutional laws. (0+ / 0-)

            Treason is following unconstitutional laws.

            What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:48:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And treason? Really? (1+ / 0-)

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

            What act of war did he commit?  Which enemy is he allying with?  Al Quaeda?  They already know and encrypt their communications.  Prism isn't designed for or capable of going after actual bad guys.

            He has not committed and act of war against the United States, nor has he aided any enemies.  Therefore, not a traitor.

            Well, unless you think like this:


            Economic Left/Right: -7.38
            Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
            Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

            by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Come on dude, THINK! (0+ / 0-)

              Secret information is secret because if it wasn't it would AID OUR ENEMIES!

              We bar the public from seeing information that we determine will AID OUR ENEMIES!

              The prosecution in the Manning case reportedly presented evidence that information leaked by Manning was discovered in Bin Laden's compound. If true, that is prima facie evidence that his actions AIDED OUR ENEMY!

              I know Manning probably didn't intend for Bin Laden to collect this information, but Manning also knew the information he leaked was classified, and he knew the reason why. I actually have a good deal more sympathy for Manning than I do Snowden. Manning actually uncovered ambiguously unlawful activity, and so I think his actions can be construed as ethical. Snowden, on the other hand, divulged classified information about programs and capabilities developed pursuant to the law. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have the right to disregard the law because you don't like something legal.

              It doesn't matter what Snowden's intended audience was. What matters are the effects of his actions. If one of those effects is that information he leaked is used against us, then he committed treason. Pure and simple.

        •  Listen all the way to the end... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jvance

          "The FISA Court works...."  Obama didn't break his promise, if you parse what he said, it was all about not following the rule of law.  Since the new Patriot Act authorized this, and the FISA Court evidently approved it, Obama goes to sleep at night with a clean conscience.  Meanwhile, the police state has metastasized.

          You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

          by Simian on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:53:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If I'd known he was parsing harder than Clinton (0+ / 0-)

            I would have voted Green.

            Economic Left/Right: -7.38
            Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
            Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

            by jvance on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:02:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Me too. Instead, I wrote a heart-felt (0+ / 0-)

              diary about how I was supporting Obama because it felt like destiny that just at the time when the out-going President had intentionally committed war crimes including torture,  staged an unprecedented assault the rule of law, and waged war on our civil liberties with unprecedented warrantless spying, a candidate stepped forward who was, among other things, a Constitutional scholar.  It makes me blush with embarrassment to recall that I actually believed that.

              You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

              by Simian on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:47:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Defying The Will Of The Majority? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        How very... uppity... of him!

        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:25:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's interesting how much of the defense (11+ / 0-)

      rests upon:

      1. Hey, it's been going on for a long time so what's the big deal.
      2. Personality attacks on the messenger(s).
      3. Terrorists!

      Thank you for illustrating all 3 in one comment.

      •  For me, the defense is more that (5+ / 0-)

        there's no invasion of privacy because what do I care that there's a record of which numbers call which other numbers and for how long? I don't.

        The government doesn't even access that data unless some number on that log has a connection to terrorism. Then they search it and analyze for connections and patterns.

        Frankly I'm astonished they're so competent and glad they have this in their toolkit.

        •  What a crock of shit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder

          if they wanted to subpoena just those call records to or from terrorism suspects, they could.  Even after the fact.  

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:50:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They could, after the fact, (0+ / 0-)

            which would take time. So the question is so much less important than the screaming ideologues on both sides make out: Does the minor, marginal benefit of quicker access to vital information outweigh the minor, marginal privacy violation of having impersonal metadata logged for ready access?

            •  what about the severe, inevitable violations (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Argyrios

              of having such a database at the next J. Edgar Hoover's fingertips, ready to become non-impersonal at the touch of a button?

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 07:38:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then that person would be a criminal (0+ / 0-)

                and I would be quite upset with that person, let's call him Jay, for violating the law. However, I don't think Jay would be much inconvenienced by a lack of precedent. If Jay is a lawbreaker, then he doesn't respect the boundaries imposed by law, and so he certainly won't care what boundaries were established by precedent and discretion. Let's be clear: The data exists.  It could be misused, and if anyone, in the future, misuses it, then you will find in me a strident ally. As far as I can tell, nobody is alleging that the Obama administration misused the data. Instead, the argument seems to be that the data should not exist. Which is to say, they wish for that which is, not to be. Which strikes me as an "old man yelling at clouds" type of mentality.

                •  Jay would be inconvenienced (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dream weaver, divineorder, mkor7

                  by the fact that the dataBASE wouldn't exist, he wouldn't be able to access it with a few keystrokes, and he would in fact have to either swear a false affidavit, or falsify a court order, to get his hands on the information.

                  What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                  by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 11:39:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The database certainly will exist (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    divineorder

                    on the servers of the telecoms. And the Obama administration has just conclusively proved that no falsified court order is needed; a real one is readily obtainable.

                    But of course a tyrant wouldn't need a court order. Bush asserted he didn't, and people went along for a while.

        •  Then let's make it an opt-in program. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          divineorder
          there's no invasion of privacy because what do I care that there's a record of which numbers call which other numbers and for how long? I don't.
          That way, folks like you can get your way, and so can we.

          It's a win/win all around.

          Stop the NRA and the NSA
          Repeal the Patriot Act and the 2nd Amendment

          by dream weaver on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:50:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well said. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic
    •  Oh, please. When people like William Binney, (5+ / 0-)

      former NSA mathematician, computer expert, and analyst, believes that the necessary info to fight terrorism can be done both way more inexpensively (massively so) and way less intrusively (hugely so), then we should at least listen to him.

      And no, I doubt he's anti-government or a Paulbot.

      You should check out his interview from today on Democracy Now.

    •  Right on, WinSmith! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic, aitchdee, WinSmith

      It was the "Invasion of the Hollywood Screenwriters" yesterday, with each one proclaiming the End of Time arriving quicker than the last.

      Look around. There has never been more freedom in any country on Earth at any time in history than there is right now in America, and that is not gonna end tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or in 1984. And it will stay that way because we have a Supreme Court determining the laws, because of each one of us, and because we have an army to fight external threats.

      I don't know what anarcho-Libertarians expect from the government, but if the state can protect Americans from terrorism without violating the Constitution, then I believe that it has not only the power to do so but the fucking duty. And I've done the actual analysis of the process using the Supreme Court's test in privacy cases. An anonymous phone number is not a "Stop and Frisk" and not the "East German Stazi." It is constitutional. (See my analysis in a post below).  

      I'm glad that I'm not so damn paranoid that I think the government cares a shit about what I'm doing; rather, I'd just as soon enjoy my freedom.

      I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

      by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:12:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm intriqued by your statment about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat

      the "twelve-year plan to adjust to the internet age to catch terrorists."

      Any recommendations for reading on that?

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

      by Onomastic on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:16:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The debates and discussions after 9/11 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic

        Bush and company broke the law.  It was revealed in 2006.  Frankly I thought he should've been impeached.

        After that, though, the government and the NSA adjusted their options, using the ruling of the Supreme Court.

        There's no evidence Obama's NSA broke any laws.  Quibble all you want, but that's the facts.  Those elected officials who voted for the Patriot Act are answerable to the American people.  Snowden is not.

        •  I'm sorry, WinSmith (0+ / 0-)

          but I'm confused. I wasn't "quibbling" with your earlier statement.

          There is much in it that I agree with.

          I was just asking for reading recommendations on NSA's work to adjust to the internet age.

          How our laws have not caught up to our technology is of vital importance and I thought any reading recommendations you may have would be helpful.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

          by Onomastic on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:37:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I Gave Up On Al Franken Some Time Ago (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:23:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, even when he worked at Air America (0+ / 0-)

        he refused to even talk to any of the other hosts he considered to be to his left.

        What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 06:52:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site