Skip to main content

View Diary: The important questions (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
    That is if it had been created around 2006. It was at that time when GW Bush signed the Patriot Act,
    Um... the USA PATRIOT (aka Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act) (yes, that's its actual name) was signed in 2001.
    However Obama expanded it to where every member of Congress oversees it
    Really?  Every member?  All 435 members of the House, or all 535 members of the House and Senate?  Pray explain how that happens, and what that "oversight"  actually consists of, without unsubstantiated conclusory assertions if you can manage it (which I actually doubt).  Bonus if you can do it w/o parroting WH talking points.
    the NSA,  The Justice Dept. and more checks and balances than you'll ever imagine..
    Please describe specifically what those checks and balances are.  If you can't, then rest assured your unsubstantiated claim will be regarded as exactly that, and not taken seriously.
    in fact it is now the most monitored transparent program in our govt;
    That's yours to prove, not ours to take your word for it.  Sorry.  It sort of doesn't pass the laugh test, though.
    Both GOP and Democrats thus far agree with it.
    Really?  Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) agrees with it?  Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) agrees with it?  Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) agrees with it?  Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) agrees with it?  Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) agrees with it?

    Riiight.  You might want to read this article if you believe that hooey.

    Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said there “obviously” needs to be more congressional oversight on the telephone surveillance program, under which so-called metadata from cellphone records are surrendered to the FBI and the NSA on a daily basis.

    “I did not know a billion records a day were coming under control of the executive branch,” Sherman said.

    Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said that several lawmakers were skeptical about what they were being told about the surveillance programs and the information being collected.

    Yeah, that totally sounds like they're all in agreement about it.  
    The House briefing came hours after eight U.S. senators – six Democrats and two Republicans – introduced legislation that would require the U.S. attorney general to make public secret decisions of the court that grants permission for collection of such records.
    Yep, those 6 D's and 4 R's sure sound like they're right behind the program.  
    “Americans deserve to know how much information about their private communications the government believes it’s allowed to take under the law,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement. “There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies. We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’ communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”

    Joining him in his effort were Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Al Franken, D-Minn., Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

    “Alaskans highly value their privacy and their right to privacy,” Begich said. “Our Alaska constitution specifically protects this right from being trampled on while ensuring national security information isn’t at risk.”

    In other words, you lie.

    You might also try reading this one.

    Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been critical of Obama's surveillance programs, saying over the weekend that the administration has "gone too far" in eroding privacy rights.

    Asked after Tuesday's briefing if he still has those concerns, Cummings said simply, "Yes."
    "Most of the members that spoke seemed to be pretty concerned," he added.

    And:
    Intelligence Committee leaders have said that lawmakers had access to the classified information had they requested briefings. But [Rep. Brad] Sherman argued that the nature and scope of the program was essentially hidden, even if it was available.

    “If somewhere on page 9,412 was the disclosure of this program, it was well concealed under the other 9,000 pages,” Sherman said.

    It's unsurprising, btw, that these brave folks are in the minority.  The fact that most members of Congress, in both parties, are firmly in the pocket of the national security surveillance state is hardly news.  That doesn't mean, however, given the choices with which our system presents us, that those of us who voted voted for it.

    The remainder of your comment  -- including your unsubstantiated fantasies about mythical terrorist attacks deserves about as much credit as the parts I've reproduced, and refuted, above.  Which is to say, zero.

    Ben Franklin's quote from over 200 years ago:

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    rings as true today as it did then.  So does the Madison quote in my sig.  You're willing to flush those liberties down the toilet.

    "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

    by gharlane on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 09:06:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site