Skip to main content

keypad on a cell phone
Verizon customers learned Wednesday night that the government had been tracking their phone calls, including when they're made, how long they last, and what numbers they're between. Content of the calls and the identities of the customers were not included in the secret court order allowing the information collection, which was obtained by the Guardian. The Bush administration specialized in such practices, of course, and the Obama administration is obviously continuing them enthusiastically and on the same grounds. A set of administration talking points responding to the revelations without outright confirming that the secret court order in the Guardian is real—after all, "Orders of the FISA Court are classified"—says:
Information of the sort described in the Guardian article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.
Which is pretty much exactly what you knew they were going to say. It's what we've been hearing for years, after all. Ever since "9/11 changed everything," as they tell us. Some congressional Democrats, at least, have attempted to lay these practices bare:
Congress has previously passed up opportunities to compel public disclosure about the breadth of domestic surveillance operations. Last December, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon attempted to amend federal law to force the government to disclose more about the secret intelligence court’s interpretations of the executive branch’s surveillance powers. His amendment was voted down 37-54, with only three Republicans in support.

Another amendment, proposed by Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, would have compelled the NSA to give an estimate of how often the NSA ends up collecting information on Americans–a request the NSA had previously refused to fulfill on the Orwellian grounds that it would violate Americans’ privacy for the agency to disclose how often it spies on them.

That amendment was also rejected, 43-52, with most Republicans in the chamber voting against it.

Republicans are now faced with a choice between continuing to defend the practices they so strongly supported during the Bush administration even in the hands of the Obama administration, or opposing this because they oppose everything President Obama does. So far, there doesn't seem to be much outrage coming from Republican leaders: Reince Priebus, usually such a reliable source of outrage, began the day tweeting about a new finance director hire and wishing Eric Cantor a happy birthday.

6:47 AM PT: Will the DOJ launch a leak investigation? NBC's Pete Williams has sources who say yes, while a senior administration official tells Huffington Post "There’s been no referral yet from the intelligence community."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Excuse me.... (8+ / 0-)

    total information awareness photo: Total Information Awareness TotalInformationAwareness.jpg

    OK, you may now read this Diary.

  •  Fucking traitors all of them. (16+ / 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.

    Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

    by hazzcon on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:37:59 AM PDT

  •  This is deep national security state stuff (4+ / 0-)

    No one can stop it. Period.

    •  Please read the court order personally... (11+ / 0-)

      and stop taking the word of so called "journalists"...

      As someone who was called "unpatriotic" for railing against the Patriot Act I hate to call a halt to this diatribe....I think we all need to step back and actually read the court order.  It does not cover all of the Verizon customers, just those of Verizon Business Network Services - Verizon's corporate customers.  

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

      •  Hmm .. interesting point but are you sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TJ, Jazzenterprises

        that ordinary customers don't fall within this?  That is, could non-business accounts not fall under the umbrella of the corporate entity "Verizon Business Network Services"?

        I ask because the order also says this:

        IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Custodian of Records shall produce to the
        National Security Agency (NSA) upon service of this Order, and continue production
        on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this Order, unless otherwise
        ordered by the Court, an electronic copy of the following tangible things: all call detail
        records or "telephony metadata" created by Verizon
        for communications (i) between
        the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local
        telephone calls.
        (emphasis mine)

        which would appear to apply to all Verizon customers.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:52:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, ordinary citizens don't fall under .... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBL55

          Ordinary citizens, like you and I, fall under the Verizon Wireless "umbrella" of Verizon.  

          •  . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rabel

            you clearly can't read.

            all call detail records or "telephony metadata" created by Verizon for communications (i) between
            the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.

            "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

            by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:01:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  With all due respect, post the entire sentence (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wadingo, jeff in nyc, JBL55, Libbylalala

              There is nothing that irritates me more when people post out of context...:"Verizon" as is referenced in your sentence is referring to Verizon Business Services...you know a "shortcut" to refer to Verizon Business Network Services...often used in documents so that Verizon Business Network Services does not have to typed so many times.....

              This Court having found that the Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for an Order requiring the production of tangible things from
              Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. on behalf of MCI Communication Services Inc., d/b/a Verizon Business Services (individually and collectively "Verizon")

              •  Oh, do tell us (0+ / 0-)

                the fucking difference, and while you're at it, explain who would make sure "the specific business division" complied properly and correctly.

                Jesus, just give it a rest. Please. There is no excuse for this. None.

                "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:14:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is no excuse for hyping this out of context (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Libbylalala

                  That allows people who defend this to label, and dismiss, us as nothing but sensationalists.  This should be protested, but it should be protested with accurate information.  The average consumer, with their smart or dumb phones, fall under Verizon Wireless or Residential, which is separate entity from Verizon Business Services, in other words they do are not included in this order.  Trying conflate the two, as I said, just gives the defenders the right to dismiss people against this as ignorant fear mongers.

                  It's akin to gun nuts saying Obama wants to take away ALL the guns.  Hyperbole and exaggeration is the quickest way to be ignored and marginalized.

                  "while you're at it, explain who would make sure "the specific business division" complied properly and correctly"

                  Explain to the gun nuts why Obama won't take away their guns.  Because you're making the same argument they are.  Which doesn't help.

                  •  Uh-huh. Being concerned (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy

                    for our privacy is just exactly like being a gun nut. Riiiiiight....

                    You guys are simply going to have to do better than that bullshit.

                    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                    by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:46:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  When you start making comments (0+ / 0-)

                      alluding to government run rampant with no checks, then, yes, you do sound like a gun nut who is afraid of a government running rampant with no checks.

                      There's a difference between concern/outrage and outright hyperbole.

                      Nine points about this

                      •  Uh-huh (0+ / 0-)

                        don't get back to us when it actually affects you. By then it'll be way too late.

                        "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                        by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:14:19 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  So where's the check on this? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie

                        I mean, people are worried about the government not being checked in this because they are not in fact being checked in this action. That seems pretty straight forward and worrying to me.

                        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                        by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:29:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not if your goal (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          AoT

                          is to make people feel stupid for worrying. If that's not the goal, I'd like to know what in the hell is the point of their denial.

                          It is not ok for the government to do this, in this fashion. Most people get that. And all this idiotic ridicule and obtuseness among a small minority of (fill in your preferred adjective here) isn't going to stop the discussions among those of us who do.
                           

                          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                          by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:55:25 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  But what does it fucking matter (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lunachickie, fuzzyguy

                    whether I'm being subpoenaed under this order or under an identical one served to a different office?

                    There's no reason to subpoena every record from one provider, unless you're intending to do the same for every other provider too.

                    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 Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:32:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  it's misleading to post that as such (4+ / 0-)

                And not note that the tangible property of Verizon's being referred to there is the phone records. I don't own my phone records from when I was a Verizon customer, Verizon does. That means if the government wants records of my phone calls then they subpoena Verizon for their property. This most certainly is not just limited to Verizon's corporate communication. There is absolutely no reason for the government to subpoena that info secretly, unless you think they're claiming that Verizon itself is a terrorist organization.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:44:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Notice the lack of specifics (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, AoT

                  when asked:

                  do tell us the fucking difference , and while you're at it, explain who would make sure "the specific business division" complied properly and correctly.

                  "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

                  by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:48:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Well if you have personal knowledge (4+ / 0-)

            of the full corporate structure of Verizon, then I'll take your word for it pending contradictory information.

            I'll note, however, that it's entirely possible there are other warrants covering Verizon's non-business customers as well as those of other carriers - we simply don't know.  After all, if (as seems likely) this related to the Boston Marathon bombing investigation, it's unclear why they would be interested in all business communications but not non-business ones.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:12:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong, wrong, wrong (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happymisanthropy, fuzzyguy

            The Verizon business network cited in the ruling is the section of the company responsible for the actual infrastructure and routing, selling bandwidth and cell phone access to other providers. Which means that this ruling is worse than it sounds. It includes not just Verizon customers, but also any customer whose phone company has a deal with Verizon and uses the Verizon network. It would make absolutely no sense to only look at Verizon businesses.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:52:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, it's all OK then. Secret courts, secret (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, AoT, happymisanthropy

        warrants, mass collection of phone data.  Not to worry!

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:17:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why Does This Matter? (8+ / 0-)

        First: Do you lose your rights because you're a business customer? Is there something about Verizon business customers that indicates they are all criminals?

        Second: What does "Verizon Business Network Services" do? According to Business Week:

        It serves residential customers, businesses, and communications wholesalers, as well as federal, state, and local government entities.
        In other words, it wholesales connections, which means that non-business traffic is carried on the network. It used to be MCI Network Services.

        Thanks for posting the link to the court order, which I don't think was in the original article.

        •  "Verizon Business Network Services" (3+ / 0-)

          Means that they got the records for everything that goes over the Verizon network, whether it was a Verizon customer or not, and based on the wording it could include things like skype as well, which may or may not fall under the legal definition of telephony.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Does it make it less of a 4th amendment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        Violation if its not happening to YOU?

      •  And this makes it better how? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Bush said "terrorists only win if they change us" (7+ / 0-)

      He was right.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:47:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is disgusting and wrong and not what (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4, Libbylalala

    America stands for. It needs to be stopped and insured against ever happening again.

    But let's be frank, here. This isn't so different from the data-mining shit private companies pull all the time, and the main difference is that our government is still (nominally) of, by, and for The People. At least we have an option of stopping it, and the government still has a nominal obligation of having to listen to us.

    How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

    by athenap on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:40:59 AM PDT

    •  Private companies can't arrest and jail people (14+ / 0-)

      That's the big difference.  Private companies can data-mine looking for profit.  But they can't do shit to our civil liberties.

      The federal government however, can data-mine records, and then go out and yank thousands of people off the streets in the dead of night, declare them terrorists, and lock them up for years without trial.

      Or they can bust someone for dealing an ounce of weed, then go through everyone's phone records and bust everyone who ever talked to that person.

      The government can single out Occupy leaders, secretly spy on everything they do, and then the FBI sends in their moles to build cases for arrests.  They could declare every Occupy protester a terrorist and none of those people would have civil rights after that.

      The government has the police powers backed up by guns and prisons.  Please don't even try to equate that to corporate advertizing.

      •  Simplify= Nacht und Nebel (3+ / 0-)

        But that judge's order is Top Secret also.

        Time to learn what my parents didn't teach me after their miserable experiences in the Old Country: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

        And only contact the organs of state security if you really really have to. time to read The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia by Orlando Figes.

      •  Corporations have power too my friend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        Corporations can use your private records to bankrupt you, take away your house, your job, your livelihood, starve you, sue you to within an inch of your life and yes, even put you in jail.

        In both cases--government and corporations--the only way to curtail these abuses of power is an informed and organized citizenry.

        Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

        by NCJan on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:05:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There is an inverse iteration of this (25+ / 0-)

    "Republicans are now faced with a choice between continuing to defend the practices they so strongly supported during the Bush administration even in the hands of the Obama administration, or opposing this because they oppose everything President Obama does."

  •  I'm joining the Tea Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4, Faito

    Just kidding.

  •  What this highlights for me ... (12+ / 0-)

    is how completely worthless the FISA court is for protecting our civil rights.  The order gives no hint what investigation prompted it, but it's hard to think of anything that would justify such a blanket and long-term seizure of records.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:42:58 AM PDT

  •  This is the beginning of the end (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    shigeru, TJ, Aspe4, LaEscapee, lunachickie
    Hidden by:
    Aquarius40

    of the Obama Presidency. Good riddance.

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:43:10 AM PDT

    •  It's definitely part of his legacy now (13+ / 0-)

      Drone strikes and the domestic survailence state.  He swallowed the post 9/11 hysteria and put the lie of state security before the rights and freedoms of citizens.  He re-authorized it and allowed it to expand.  And so these violations of our civil rights are on him.  When I first voted for him in '08, I never expected that he would continue all this shit started by Bush.  I knew I was getting a pragmatist, but Jesus fucking Christ, I'm losing so much respect for the man.

      His legacy is going to be a mess.  The Left has plenty to complain about - this, plus so much wasted time trying to compromise with the GOP.  And of course the Right is going to view him about same as we view Bush.

      But technically, since he's now in his second term and not running for re-election, yes it is the beginning of the end of his Presidency.

  •  About a decade ago, when the news came (4+ / 0-)

    out that AT&T was delivering this data to the government, I called Verizon to ask if they were also doing the same: they said they were not. So, at some point, they were ordered to. AT&T started doing so willingly. This was definitely in the Bush years, but I don't know how long ago it was.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:43:16 AM PDT

  •  This is beyond politics, it's the security state (10+ / 0-)

    Equally bad no matter who is president.  Note that the seizure order itself is secret, so you get the illusion that you are not being monitored.  But don't look behind the curtain.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:44:07 AM PDT

  •  Come on. (7+ / 0-)

    Republicans have never opposed the totalitarian stuff Obama does.

    •  He's not tapping ENOUGH phones! (4+ / 0-)

      Terrorists, making phone calls all over the country all the time, and the president is only recording the conversations on Verizon phones! Looks like all the bad guys have to do is switch to Sprint. Mighty suspicious that this information has got out; does the president want the terrorists to have unfettered communication about their next plot?

      SNARK

  •  Lindsey Graham says he's glad about this. (15+ / 0-)

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/...

    Mr. Graham said that he is a Verizon customer and has no problem with the company turning over records to the government if it helps it do its job. The South Carolina Republican said that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about because the NSA is mining the phone records for people with suspected ties to terrorism.
    Are you sure about that, Lindsey?  All your phone records....?
  •  chickens coming home to roost - it will (5+ / 0-)

    be interesting to watch Republican reactions.  I myself think this is outrageous.

  •  If our government isn't doing anything bad (8+ / 0-)

    then they shouldn't have anything to hide right?

    No more secrets. I support Bradley Manning and Julian Assange and every other whistleblower this White House is pursuing.

    Total Information Awareness is good for thee, but not for me, eh?

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:47:29 AM PDT

    •  There are no charges against Assange (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libbylalala

      from the US.  Assange's run from the law is from rape charges.  In Sweden.  A country that he himself had called his "shield" and chosen because they have the best whistleblower protections in the world and one of the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe, which bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

      Manning and Assange are two totally different people here.  Manning is suffering for his act of conscience.  Assange gets treated like a rock star, goes around meeting with Lady Gaga and Yoko Ono, and the only "suffering" he gets is his self-imposed exile in an embassy that dotes on him so that he can avoid having to stand trial for what multiple courts have found is probable cause that he F*'ed a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to unprotected sex with him.

      •  Correction: no publicly known US charges. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, AoT

        There are reports of a sealed indictment.  Whether that's real or not is unknown.  Making definitive statements about US charges against Assange one way or the other is not warranted.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:31:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  However, Sweeden has said that they will (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        hand him over if the US asks, EU law be damned.  After all, what exactly is the penalty if they hand him over anyway?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:41:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Troll. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy
        There are no charges against Assange (0+ / 0-)
        from the US.
        the comment you are replying to never says there are.  Of course, there could be a sealed indictment that neither of us know about.

        Wikileaks was destroyed by the financial blockade that the US orchestrated, there's essentially nothing left of it now.  To pretend that the US didn't hunt Assange is idiotic.

        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 Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:45:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  oddly enough, we are in much the same position: (11+ / 0-)
    Republicans are now faced with a choice between continuing to defend the practices they so strongly supported during the Bush administration even in the hands of the Obama administration, or opposing this because they oppose everything President Obama does.
    We are now faced with a choice between continuing to condemn the practices we so strongly opposed during the Bush Administration, or supporting this because we support everything President Obama does.

    History has a sense of humor, it seems . . . .

  •  This is not "news." Just a reminder that this (7+ / 0-)

    has been going on since 2001, it is Legal and the FISA court approves the warrant......I just can't get upset NOW about something that is not new

    •  It's not new, no. (4+ / 0-)

      However, now that it's out in the open (disclaimer: ASSUMING THE DOCUMENT IS REAL AND UNALTERED), the President can no longer claim plausible deniability. How he handles this issue (or doesn't) will be a defining moment.

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:51:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You didn't think it was happening? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Libbylalala

        This sucks, it should never have been allowed, and I've opposed the "Patriot" Act and all the other tools that Congress has given the President to spy on us, but it's been out in the open that the President has been doing this, both Bush and Obama, for years.  We know more details now about some of it, but no one should be one bit shocked, that it's happening, and that the current President is using the same justifications for it.  

        •  Um, no (0+ / 0-)

          I knew it was happening long before President Obama declared his candidacy for President. Are you replying to the right person?

          The PATRIOT act needs to be repealed (at least large chunks of it). Executive administrations (if not the President himself) will always use the power they've been given.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:17:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I wouldn't go around bragging about that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      people might think you've fallen for the deliberate"outrage fatigue" foisted on this nation for the last 12 years, and will want to study your brain further.

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:05:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's been going on a lot longer (5+ / 0-)

      I grew up during the Cold War, when neighbors spied on neighbors and reported to government, all in the name of rooting out Communists.

      J. Edgar Hoover was a master of subverting the fourth amendment, going back to before the 1920s.

      Many of us active in the anti-Vietnam War effort had "files."  Most of us who belonged to leftist groups just assumed we had "moles" among us.  (Because we did.) It was almost a parlor game to ask for your FBI file after the Freedom of Information Act passed.

      The difference now is that technology makes it easier for government to gather information, in fact, to drown in it.

      And to complicate matters, there's a generational disagreement about what exactly "privacy" means.  This hasn't been fully explored.

      I'd like to see some thoughtful work on this subject.  It's necessary.

      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

      by NCJan on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:24:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about bizaare rationalizations. (0+ / 0-)

      The fact that it's been going on for a long time makes it all okay.

    •  it started long before that (5+ / 0-)

      Warrantless spying on US citizens happened as long ago as the First World War. Indeed, the very law the administration uses to justify it, the Espionage Act, was passed wayyyyy back in 1917. And one of America's first mass arrests of dissidents, the Palmer Raids, began not long after.

  •  Deflect? (7+ / 0-)
    The Bush administration specialized in such practices, of course, and the Obama administration is obviously continuing them enthusiastically and on the same grounds.
    May be true but, it's been over five years since Bush...sorry but the attempt to lessen the blow by incorporating "The Bush administration" just doesn't work anymore - at least not for me.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:49:28 AM PDT

  •  One has to wonder what good it does as (7+ / 0-)

    a terrorist will likely assume that all his/her communications are being tracked, recorded and logged. Of course it may be an instance in which there is so much data that creating information from it is impossible.

    The real effect and probably the real intent is to chill communication critical of the government in general.

    "Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do..... Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do." Grant

    by shigeru on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:50:23 AM PDT

  •  Isn't this the exact information (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Derfel, JBL55

    I get with my phone bill?

  •  I'm not defending this rubbish. Our govt is (6+ / 0-)

    becoming an uncontrollable leviathan, all based on the justification of national security.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:53:20 AM PDT

  •  What did they expect? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red rabbit

    What did they expect when they voted for it in July of 2008?

  •  Big Brother with a smile and a waving hand... (6+ / 0-)

    Obama is the best I've seen in my 63 years, and the most progressive.  I am not likely to see a better President.

    And yes, I know,  on election day there was no better choice available.

    But still,  here we are.  Orwell with a smile and a wave.

    "I am shamed through all my being, to have loved so slight a thing."

    It may require a change that hasn't come before.

    by RedBlueNoMore on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:58:16 AM PDT

    •  You're shocked too? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WVUCavalier

      You shouldn't be, for reasons I've stated above.  

      Congress needs to take the power away from the President that they gave him, and that won't be easy.

      •  Shocked? Somewhat... More saddened... (0+ / 0-)

        It reverts to the question,  is progress possible in the USA?  We all worked hard and we did elect the best President I have seen.  And there are some promises kept.

        But Homeland Security and the AG don't seem to know that executive power has any limit whatsoever.  The executive can decide within itself what documents are relevant to a subpoena, with no judicial or legislative eyes on them.

        And now, this insane extreme,  wire tap everyone all day every day.  You're right, I shouldn't be shocked, but I am.  Our candidate never argued for this.  

        So, likely, we'll never have very much of what we want.

        It may require a change that hasn't come before.

        by RedBlueNoMore on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:40:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was written in his cave on FISA before his (0+ / 0-)

          first election.  He had my voted until he put Social Security on the table, but I didn't kid myself about his hypocrisy on civil liberties.  There was a lot of outrage about that FISA vote from the left and the general response to use was what's the big deal, but it told us a lot about his character which has turned out to be every bit as expedient as that vote predicted.  

  •  When I discuss with people the areas (3+ / 0-)

    where Obama has been a big disappointment, this NSA issue and his very apparent lack of understanding of the meaning of separation of church and state are my top two.

    And he taught Constitutional Law!??

  •  Will the DOJ launch a leak investigation (3+ / 0-)

    against who? Whoever leaked to Greenwald and the Guardian?

    Oh, you can count on that, no matter what they tell "the press".  

    "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

    by lunachickie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:00:22 AM PDT

    •  Presumably an employee at Verizon (0+ / 0-)

      because somebody on the inside would have told about the subpoenas going to every other provider as well.

      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 Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm actually ok with the NSA obtaining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zbob

    and analyzing such records if it can demonstrate their relevance to ongoing terrorism investigations and obtain a court warrant that is specific to that investigation. I.e. only the records of the entities involves will be released to the NSA, and only if it can demonstrate that they are or could be involved in terrorism. After all, telcoms already store such data for all calls placed and received, and likely keep them for years since storage is cheap.

    However, obtaining, and analyzing, the records of ALL calls made by EVERYONE in or calling the US, the vast majority of whom and which have NOTHING to do with terrorism? That's insane, and I believe unconstitutional.

    Not to mention a huge violation of our privacy and a colossal waste of time, money and resources that could be better used to actually prevent terrorism.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:01:15 AM PDT

    •  The thing is, you'll never know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      If this was all out in the open, in regular courts, maybe your point would be valid.  But this is all classified information, secret court orders issued by secret FISA courts accountable to no one.

      They're not ever going to demonstrate relevance to specific investigations.  They don't have to tell you jack shit.  It is unconstitutional, and we'll never be able to prove it.

      •  I was speaking theoretically (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        Practically speaking, I've no doubt that they're abusing the constitution and not doing this. I was just delineating one limited valid use of such capability, if done properly. To know what's wrong, you have to know what's right.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:10:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is The Warrant Really Only for 3 Months, or ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      is it a rolling warrant?

      The court order obtained by the Brits was only for 3 months. As someone said on MSNBC this morning, one possibility is that the warrant is in response to a credible terror threat.

      If, on the other hand, the warrant is of the "rolling" variety (i.e., it gets renewed for 3 months at a time and never really lapses), then we have a different story.

  •  Dkos as usual you jump the guns (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WVUCavalier, JackND

    The Boston Marathon Bombings happened on April 15, 2013.  FBI would be irresponsible to ignore monitoring phone calls.  This site, Greenwald, your pet goat, and all these hateful idiots with personal vendettas get you all easily rallied up.  Stop with the nonsense and seek for all the information and Stop the 24/7 assistance in helping the right Tear down this president and the Liberal way of governing.  The FBI would have been IDIOTS had they Not seek the phone records.

    STOP The IDIOCY People.....especially, people on the Left.

    •  Completely WRONG (3+ / 0-)

      If the FBI has legitimate reasons to investigate, then let them go through regular courts with regular warrants, so that we all know our rights are still intact.

      It's not the investigation, it's the use of secret warrants, secret FISA courts, classified information.  They will violate your civil rights and you will never know until they find some dirt on you and ship you off to a for-proffit prison.

  •  Dkos as usual you jump the guns (0+ / 0-)

    The Boston Marathon Bombings happened on April 15, 2013.  FBI would be irresponsible to ignore monitoring phone calls.  This site, Greenwald, your pet goat, and all these hateful idiots with personal vendettas get you all easily rallied up.  Stop with the nonsense and seek for all the information and Stop the 24/7 assistance in helping the right Tear down this president and the Liberal way of governing.  The FBI would have been IDIOTS had they Not seek the phone records.

    STOP The IDIOCY People.....especially, people on the Left.

  •  good lord. (3+ / 0-)

    this was part of the Patriot Act that was voted in 2006... nothing more than a renewal of what has been going on for 7 years...  and now everyone is outraged???

    like this is something new and different.

    like it or not, we elected the Congress and they passed the Patriot Act. Obama even voted in favor of it in 2006 and we have elected him 2 times as President of the country.

    •  Well, maybe we've reached a point where we'll (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TJ, happymisanthropy, fuzzyguy

      finally wake up and see what's wrong with it!

      I'm not optimistic, but you never know.

      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

      by helfenburg on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:21:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we've always known what was wrong with it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ratcityreprobate

        but we still have it. and it ain't gonna change just because we all know what's wrong with it.

        •  Change is still possible. May not happen, but (0+ / 0-)

          it could if we made it happen.

          The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

          by helfenburg on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you know, if i felt like we were (0+ / 0-)

            under attack by our own government to spy on us and you know, get our hairdresser's number... or our aunt sadie's beach house number...
            i'm just not getting the urgency of how this particular part of our privacy needs to be protected.
            i can't imagine the president, and any one of them, democrat, republican, libertarian whatever would want this power for evil purposes. this is the united states of america... it's just not gonna happen. too many safeguards. hell, Obama is about to get impeached for some stupid ass shit... don't you think if one of them really tried to pull something we could get them out of office in a half hour.

            •  Think about secret courts and secret judges, (0+ / 0-)

              tito. Does that work for you?  What you know about what they are doing now is only what some leaker told the Guardian and the Wash Post.  You have no idea what they are going?  Does that seem like democracy?  Well, presumably some people on the intelligence committees in Congress know - so, do you trust them to make sure that everything is A-OK?  The members of Congress?

              The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

              by helfenburg on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 03:38:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i do trust congress on this. (0+ / 0-)

                Loving me some Obama right about now... Economy is improving, he is moving forward, just like he said... and Michele Obama, oh my... Awesome!

                by titotitotito on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 04:51:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. Just wow. (0+ / 0-)

                  The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

                  by helfenburg on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 05:49:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i trust the judiciary and the executive (0+ / 0-)

                    branches as well, it is a coordinated effort.

                    i think this leak of national security efforts is not good for the continued efforts to combat terror threats from abroad. but if we as a country get rid of the current congress and do away with the Patriot Act (when pigs fly) and nothing bad happens to us, cool.

                    on the other hand, if we stop trying to find these guys that want to come over and do mass killings, and they come over and do mass killings, we shouldn't complain.  

                    Loving me some Obama right about now... Economy is improving, he is moving forward, just like he said... and Michele Obama, oh my... Awesome!

                    by titotitotito on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:35:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It can't be challenged in the judiciary because we (0+ / 0-)

                      can't know what their doing - it's secret.  Convenient for them how that works, isn't it.  Sorry to hear that you buy it.  

                      And I agree about the mass killings.  We'll have to tolerate some fear and possibly some damage in order to live by our professed principles.  But it's looking as though we don't have the guts.

                      By the way, if the government wants to do something that is not constitutional, they can bloody well go through the process of amending the constition -- and that is what they'd do if they honestly, as Obama said, welcomed the debate.

                      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

                      by helfenburg on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:47:36 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  You all need to WAKE UP! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCJan, WVUCavalier

    Do any of you really believe that the government would allow ANY technology to be widely used that they cannot intercept, track, file, and analyze?

    Do any of you remember party lines? The technology of the 60's and 70's?

    Well, I have a news flash for you all. They (NSA, etc) were listening, recording, and analyzing your information then, and they are still doing it now. If you believe for even one second they NEED a warrant for that, you are sadly mistaken.

    The only difference between now and 50 years ago is that we have email and cellphones. They can still record it ALL, from any phone or computer in the entire world. And no, your next smartphone won't be "secure" either.

    “Dogs’ lives are too short. Their only fault, really.” – Agnes Sligh Turnbull

    by A Man Called Gloom on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:09:51 AM PDT

  •  Well what the hell did we think they were (5+ / 0-)

    going to do when they set up secret courts?

    Come on people!  If you think that having secret courts and secret warrants is in any way consistent with our Constitution, you need to read more and study harder.

    The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

    by helfenburg on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:14:38 AM PDT

  •  When conservative policies become standards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WVUCavalier, JBL55

    Republicans have this annoying and destructive habit: do something because they CAN or because they can GET AWAY with it.

    The problem is that once you've let the toothpaste out of the tube, you can't put it back in.

    After 9/11, in customary conservative knee jerk reactions, they implemented regulations (torture, eavesdropping, etc.) and provided extraordinary power to the President that went out of American traditions.

    Of course, now that a Democrat is President, they want to turn back the clock. Not because they have found again some common sense, but simply for political reasons.

    The problem is that whether they/we like it or not, some practices cannot be overturned on a dime. Government is a big ship, and  it doesn't have a brake or steering wheel like cars do.

    This alone demonstrates Republicans' inability to govern responsibly, because they have put partisan politics at the forefront of their agenda.

    •  As I've said for years ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Libbylalala, freeportguy1, AoT

      ... the ship of state doesn't turn on a dime.  

      I don't see how Obama could ever have fixed everything that the Bush/Cheney maladministration broke.  

      And if the same techniques are being practiced, it's because they can be.

      A lot more would have to change in this country for them to be rescinded, including less of a propensity for the American people to (a) allow this shit in the first place, and (b) not accuse those who want to abolish it of hating America.

      "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." ~ Al Cleveland & Marvin Gaye (1970)

      by JBL55 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:16:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Added to Dkosopedia (0+ / 0-)

    This article has been added as a resource to Prosecuting Officials for Crimes on Dkosopedia.

    According to The Guardian, these records contain phone numbers and call locations, so the fact they've been sanitized of the account names is meaningless. There's absolutely no protection of privacy.

    This is why I keep pointing to the Bush dictatorship as the single biggest threat to our lives short of climate change. The concept behind this is to know everything you do and be able to track you anywhere you go.

    Consider a database with your name, address, employer, tax history, DNA, e-mail messages, Web searches, and phone calls in the hands of your political opponent. This is where we're headed.

    •  Then again, (0+ / 0-)

      Think about what millions of Americans voluntarily post about themselves every single day on Facebook.  (eg name, address, diseases, sexual preferences, political affiliations, tattoos, , "friends", employers, tax history, e-mail messages, and phone calls...)  

      •  Think About That (0+ / 0-)

        They post it on a private site, which is supposed to be protected from the government by laws that would require a subpoena to get the information.

        Facebook may be evil and maybe their CEO could fall into that category, but at least they don't have the right to take you prisoner or kill you. There's a wide gulf between giving your information to a private company and having the government scoop it out without due process.

        As far as I know, Facebook hasn't captured anyone and put them in a prison cell.

        •  What exactly (0+ / 0-)

          is "private" about Facebook?  The company is notorious for changing their privacy settings more often than Zuckerburg changes his underwear, all so that they can sell users' info to whomever has the dough to buy it.  Give me a break.  

          •  It's Private from the Government (0+ / 0-)

            Correction: It's supposed to be private from the government.

            BTW, despite the fact I have my profile on Facebook locked down pretty well, I only put things on Facebook if I think it's okay for my worst possible enemy to have them. But even my sanitized information is not for government consumption.

            As I say, evil as Facebook might be, I don't believe they are prepared to execute me for something they don't like.

  •  Overreaction Obscures the GOP Playbook (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    killerfurball, JBL55, Libbylalala

    Unfortunately journalists are feeling like persecuted puppies lately due to the Justice investigations, in spite of the fact that there's plenty of good and important stories that get uncovered because they VOLUNTARILY go after scandals that don't really reveal news.

    Where is the real news in this story? These records have been part of Patriot Act surveillance for years. I don't particularly like that fact, but it's a fact. Rattling your sabers about freedom and privacy and such doesn't really address any issues about how better to deal with the key problems that prompt such investigations.

    And all of this seems to obscure the real and sad pattern of the news media falling for the same GOP playbook that poisoned Bill Clinton's second term. Before he was even sworn in for his second term, we got Monica. Before Obama got sworn in for his second term, we got Benghazi. In both instances, the first term of democratic presidents fell victim to government shutdown attempts, and the second term, in which Republicans could not easily tamp down Democratic successes that eked through in the first term, try to make everything a scandal, so that the puppet-designees in the next election can claim to go to Washington to "Clean up this mess."

    Noise, noise noise. And boring noise, at that.

    •  I do agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBL55, Libbylalala

      It is a sad state for journalism in the United States now. We've gotten to the point where everything has to be shocking and the worst ever.

      •  Well, it's been that way for a while. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Libbylalala

        I don't know how long "news as entertainment" has been afflicting our society, but when I renovated my c. 1880 house, the newspapers used as insulation were full of salacious headlines (e.g. a story almost exactly  like that of Anna Nicole Smith's marriage) about people and events completely irrelevant to the lives of most of the readership.

        Then after Watergate every reporter and his mother-in-law began to fancy themselves investigative journalists on the hunt for the next Whatever-Gate.

        And of course the Iran hostage crisis helped give birth to the 24-hour news cycle.

        But fear gets people to tune in, which raises ratings, which enables media marketers to jack up their ad rates.

        And people wonder why I haven't watched TV news since 1984.

        "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." ~ Al Cleveland & Marvin Gaye (1970)

        by JBL55 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  At most the number of people the government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    could legitimately have investigated regarding the Boston Bombings were in the hundreds, maybe thousands, with respect to their phone records. Namely, not only all calls placed or received by the brothers and their close friends and relatives and other associates, but all such calls placed or received by these people as well. No way was this more than a few hundred or thousand.

    But every Verizon customer, the vast majority of whom had no connection to the brothers OR the people they knew or had calls with? Ok, I suppose that all of us have some Nth degree of connection to the brothers, as we do to each others, a la the Kevin Bacon game. But beyond a 2nd or at most 3rd degree connection, I don't see the point. It's just a waste of resources and abuse of power, like checking every building in town to track down a suspect fire.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:29:05 AM PDT

  •  Just a cynical, cranky point of view but (0+ / 0-)

    what and how is this supposed to all go down?  If someone with a "foreign name" or "brown skin" so much as scratches someone who is "not foreign" or is "not brown" the media and many start yelling TERRORISM or CONSPIRACY and demanding that someone do something.  For instance the general consensus is that enough investigation wasn't done on the Boston bombers.  There was a general hue and cry over the leaking of security secrets earlier.  We were all outraged about the affair/affairs of Petraeus and that "other woman".

    I sometimes believe in psychic powers, at least in Kay Hooper's books, but really I can't fathom how the government, whom everyone wants to protect from those "others" without accessing some of this information.  Really what do people want them to do, just send out surveys asking politely
    1. Are you a terrorist
    2. Have you ever been or plan to become radicalized and become a terrorist
    3. Was your mother/father/sister/brother/Aunt Martha every involved with or intimate with someone who is not really white and might be "foreign"

    Many can't take a breath without their phones or their internet access, so of course those will be inspected, not your car repair records.  

    We as a citizens demand protection, perfection, and absolute utter privacy at the same time want utter absolute transparency in the government.

    I am confused how that can be done without stepping on some toes.  Please without quoting the constitution or some obscure legal jargon, how is it supposed to be done?

    "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medication to the dead." Thomas Paine

    by My two cents worth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:33:56 AM PDT

  •  It's an outrage!! (And it IS) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Faito

    But for your small comfort: there are many more of us than of them, and we make lots n lots of phone calls.  So if you're worried that someone at the NSA is listening in on your phone sex, relax....

  •  Since the media (0+ / 0-)

    rolled over and went back to sleep when W's warrantless wiretapping practices came to light, I have a feeling they'll do the same this time around.

  •  Remember when GWB did this and all GOP said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Libbylalala

    "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to fear!"

    Don't hear much of that now...

    -this space for rent-

    by EsnRedshirt on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:51:23 AM PDT

  •  Rod Serling covered this already (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, JBL55, fuzzyguy

    I watched two excellent episodes of The Twilight Zone last night. They were The Whole Truth and The Obsolete Man, both from Season 2 and both written by Mr. Serling.

    In The Whole Truth a used-car salesman buys a haunted car, the effect of which is that he can only tell the truth. After getting rid of all of his customers with his honesty he comes across a politician, who figures out the deal. First the politician says to sell the car to his opponent on the city council, but they then swing for the fences and end up selling it to Nikita Kruchev, figuring that having such a figure have to tell the truth will make The World Safe For Democracy.

    The second show was much more Big Brother, featuring Burgess Meredith as a librarian who has been sentenced to death for being of no use to the State, since all books have been destroyed and thus there are no more librarians. He manages to pull a partial reverse on the head judge of the secret court by locking both himself and the judge into the room where Burgess is scheduled to be executed by a bomb blast. Even though he lets the judge escape at the last minute the final scene shows the judge himself being judged obsolete since he did not show the qualities demanded by the state during a difficult situation.

    Both were aired in 1960.

    •  Burgess Meredith had TWO book-lover roles on TZ? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't remember the one you describe -- I'll have to look for it.  Thanks!

      "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." ~ Al Cleveland & Marvin Gaye (1970)

      by JBL55 on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:08:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am more, but not very, surprised at the media.. (4+ / 0-)

    reaction to this. Acting as if this has never happened before nor has it been reported before. On Morning Joe I am reminded why I never watch it as Joe was going on about how "I don't think anyone saw the Patriot Act being used this way, and this is just a shock." which begs the question as to what planet he has been living on for the past 10 years. LOTS of people saw this coming when the Patriot Act was passed, and news agencies were reporting years ago the Bush Administration tapping into phone calls and collecting this information from telecoms via the FISA courts. This is neither shocking, new, or a ramping up of previous policy. It's the same policy being use in the same way. Disagree with the policy, but don't sit there and act like no one saw this coming and it has never happened before.

    For the record, I am outraged that Obama is continuing this practice, but I can equally be annoyed with the faux outrage that is bound to come out of Faux News over this though they kept their mouths silent and condoned Bush doing the same damn thing with AT&T.

  •  Daniel Ellsberg (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, fuzzyguy

    From a recent interview.

    DE: There was a period after the Vietnam war, partly due to the Pentagon Papers, and largely due to Watergate, that made people much less tolerant of being lied to, much more aware of how often they were lied to and how the system operated to make that lying possible without accountability. We got the Freedom of Information Act. The FISA court was set up. The FBI was reined in a great deal. The NSA was forbidden to do overhearing of American citizens without a court warrant. That lasted for some years.

    But 40 years have passed, and after 9/11 in particular, all of those lessons have been lost. There’s been very great tolerance that if the magic words “national security,” or the new words “homeland security” are invoked, Congress has given the president virtually a free hand in deciding what information they will know as well as the public. I wouldn’t count on the current court with its current makeup making the same ruling with the Pentagon Papers as they did 40 years ago. I’m sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case.

    Various things that were counted as unconstitutional then have been put in the president’s hands now. He’s become an elected monarch. Nixon’s slogan, “when the president does it, it’s not illegal,” is pretty much endorsed now. Meaning not only Obama but the people who come after him will have powers that no previous president had. Abilities on surveillance that no country in the history of the world has ever had.

    Interestingly, after the AP revelations and the [revelations about] Fox News reporter [James Rosen], who was actually charged with aiding and abetting a conspiracy with a source, every journalist has suddenly woken up to the fact that they’re under the gun. That may actually have the effect of waking people up to the fact that, for example, Attorney General Holder has been violating the Constitution steadily, and that he should be fired. But fired for what? For doing what had the approval of the president.

    Holder should be fired for a whole series of actions culminating in this subpoena for James Rosen’s cellphone records. I think that would be the first step of resistance in the right direction, of rolling back Obama’s campaign against journalism, freedom of the press in national security.

    There are no sacred cows.

    by LaEscapee on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:58:54 AM PDT

    •  up to 10 years or up to 12? (0+ / 0-)

      It was painfully obvious from the outset that President Obama and Attorney General Holder, along with Speaker of the House Pelosi, all disrespected the Constitution and the populace.  

      All swore to uphold the Constitution, and therefore, they were required to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Rove, Ms. Rice, et. al.  

      When they failed in this most basic duty, it was an indication that the various abuses would be endorsed and engaged in by the current administration.  So the recent revelations about violations cannot be any surprise.  

      Unfortunately, the alternative, Mr. Romney, would have been even worse -- he almost certainly would have investigated the first-term war crimes committed by the current administration while letting the Bush cabal remain free, and he undoubtedly would have uncaringly, unconscionably lowered taxes, involved us in more reactionary, unnecessary, unaffordable, immoral wars and shredded the security net even as he continued and expanded the clearly illegal practices now held by the White House.  

      So yes, we are all screwed.  It's merely a matter of how quickly the end comes.  With the radical, reckless, unchecked Republicans, America would end within a decade, while with the cowering, unquestioning Democrats, America may last a dozen years.

  •  The strange... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55, Libbylalala

    thing here is that apparently I'm supposed to get the vapors about this today instead of long ago when permission to do precisely this was granted.

    Do you all think that only in 2013 did they start doing what they are already entitled to do?

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:09:25 AM PDT

    •  I really don't get this argument. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee, happymisanthropy

      Is your point that the wrongness of an action wears off over time?  That this would be bad if it had only begun in April, but since it's actually been going on for years it's all A-OK?

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:29:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Question for those who are outraged (5+ / 0-)

    Do you seriously think Hillary Clinton will reverse this policy or be less likely to expand it?  

    And you are going to vote for her anyway aren't you?  

    We are a nation of sheep.

  •  To those saying this relates to Boston bombing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, fuzzyguy

    The Washington Post suggests otherwise:

    An expert in this aspect of the law said Wednesday night that the order appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006. The expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said that the order is reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other agency.

    The expert referred to such orders as “rubber stamps” sought by the telephone companies to protect themselves after the disclosure in 2005 that widespread warrantless wiretaps could leave them liable for damages.

    The order falls under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorizes the government to make broad demands on telephone carriers for information about calls. In this case, the order requires Verizon to provide “ongoing, daily” information about “all call detail records . . . created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad; or wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.”

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:11:51 AM PDT

    •  shhhhhh... (0+ / 0-)

      we wouldn't want the American people to realize this has been ongoing for years. Then it wouldn't be new or as shocking.

      •  Why would the ongoing nature of this intrusion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        make it any less objectionable?  Seems to me that makes it even worse.

        And this is news - it's the first time one of these orders has been seen by the public.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:26:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't seem to comprehend the inherent... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Libbylalala

          hypocrisy in the attitude the media is taking. Coving this story as an overreach by the Government centering around the Obama administration (which is the central theme I am hearing) is so amazingly misleading it's not even funny. This has been going on since 2006 and known about since 2005 when this process was set up after revelation that the Bush Administration doing this set up telecoms to be liable for civil action. It's where we got the retroactive immunity shield and this process for the FISA courts to begin with when Bush did this with AT&T. Yeah this might be the first time we have seen the court order but it is also because the court order situation was established by the Bush administration in order to shield telecom companies over something that was, prior to 2005, considered illegal.

          We've know about this for YEARS now. Reporting it in the media as something new and shocking even though this is a continuingly renewed court order for 90 day length started in 2005-2006 when this process was established is beyond misinformation.

          •  It's the first time one of these orders has been (0+ / 0-)

            seen by the public.  That's news.

            And the fact Bush did something doesn't excuse Obama doing it.

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:34:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When and where did I excuse Obama (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Libbylalala

              And yes it is the first time the order has been seen, how does that change the fact that we've know this has been going on for 7 years?

              •  It verifies what we had been told (0+ / 0-)

                and what many people were denying. Of course there are still some folks moving the goal posts on spying, but this confirms what a lot of people have been saying, so that's important and makes it pertinent news.

                And given Obama's statements on these things when he was running it seems entirely appropriate to castigate him more than a president who mused openly more than once about how much easier things would be if he were a dictator.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:31:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And as I have said (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Libbylalala, AoT

              The media isn't exactly reporting this as a "first time we've seen an order" but as "Obama overreaching on Patriot Act provisions in a way never intended" which is a flat out lie.

        •  In other words, I have nothing against this being (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Libbylalala

          considered objectionably. I do have something against considering this an overreach of a policy that was started years ago, set up years ago, has been going on for years, as some new amazing overreach by the Obama administration and a ramping up of Bush policy. It simply and totally isn't.

  •  I no longer have a wireless phone (0+ / 0-)

    As I can't afford it, however, if I did I have nothing to hide, I would call my wife or family that's about it, so if Uncle Sam wants to see how often I call those I love, I have no issue. Nor should anyone else that might be monitored.  President Obama is approving this to protect us all.  

    •  I truly hope this is snark. It HAS to be. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      Otherwise, you are really on the wrong site . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No snark here (0+ / 0-)

        We all sadly live in a new world, if Bill Clinton were still prrsident (I.e. 1999) this would be an issue, the reality is we need to be on constant watch. If everyone is watched the officials will find those guilty of seaking to harm the United States and its allies.  If you are innocent of all, then who cares if you are monitored.  When I had a phone it was with AT&T I can only hope that they are next on the watch list.  

        •  You are on the wrong site, then. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          You are espousing a view that is antithetical to anything close to the center, let alone the left of the US political spectrum--and that is already far to the right of what the world has to offer politically.
          The only reason you think we have to "be on constant watch" is becuase we are the world's most annoying country; our actions overt and covert alike prompt deadly responses from all over the globe. You want us to feel safe as a US citizen? Get our country to stop doing harm to others. Breaching the US Constitution does nothing but harm to us.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:23:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why then (0+ / 0-)

            Would our president who we all voted for, allow this, last I looked he is half a step to the left, not as far as most would like but he is by no means any where near the looney right.  He is doing/allowing this to protect us and for that he deserves praise.  From what I have learned today, all that is being recorded is numbers dialed duration and place of origin, nothing  to do with content.  Thus no harm no foul.  

        •  And who defines who the bad guys are? (0+ / 0-)

          What if the next president decides that people who support a teachers' union's strike are "harming" the US? Giving these sort of powers to the government opens them up for a later time by someone who disagrees with you politically. It is hopelessly naive to think that these powers will only be used to target "terrorists".

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:34:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Okay I get that the president has to (0+ / 0-)

      Protect us, but it's an issue of what will be done to protect people. I mean what is the point of all of our freedoms being taken away. It is just disconcerting. :(

  •  As I said in this morning's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, fuzzyguy
    What's Happenin'? ☮ ♥ ☺2nd Anniversary 6.6.13
    diary;
    candidate Obama promised increased government transparency. Since we have a government of the people and by the people, he simple decided to start with the people

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 08:52:03 AM PDT

  •  There are plenty of Democrats with "dirty hands" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    killerfurball, fuzzyguy

    This isn't all just a Republican policy.

    Dianne Feinstein is the worst

  •  are they... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT

    Are they collecting information about incoming calls as well as outgoing calls?  Yesterday, at 4:30 a.m., I received a call from "Enrique" in Florida, and that call, along with the many other wrong numbers I receive each day, could end up incriminating me for things I did not do.  

    •  This information is a record of all calls (0+ / 0-)

      that are on or passed through the verizon network. So even if you have a different carrier it is likely that some of your calls would be included.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 11:32:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank goodness I have Comcast, not Verizon. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site