Skip to main content

Responses to polling question about public congressional hearings on NSA surveillance.
As Greg Dworkin and Chris Bowers have already noted, polling on the NSA revelations is a tricky business and the latest from Washington Post-ABC News isn't an exception. One thing though is very clear: The public wants Congress to do its job in regards to the NSA and conduct real oversight.
Americans are divided when it comes to charging Edward Snowden with a crime for leaking portions of the National Security Agency’s sweeping surveillance of phone records and Internet activity, but they clearly want to know more, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly two-thirds said they want open, public congressional hearings on the previously secret programs.
Slightly more (48 percent) oppose criminally charging Snowden than support (43 percent), suggesting that more see him as a whistleblower than a traitor, even while they support the program by a 58 percent margin. (The question asked: "It’'s been reported that the federal government’'s National Security Agency collects extensive records of phone calls, as well as Internet data related to specific investigations, to try to identify possible terrorist threats. Do you support or oppose this intelligence-gathering program?" Note that the "ordinary Americans" formulation Chris Bowers highlighted as key in how people respond to the question was left entirely out in this question: It's not clear from the question whose phone calls are being swept up.) But they want to know more about the program.

The entirely unambiguous response to this poll, however, is that the American people want to know more. They want transparency and they want congress to provide it. But if Tuesday's performance by the House Intelligence Committee is any guide, we're going to have a long wait before that happens.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:49 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 08:49:39 AM PDT

  •  guardian-uk livechat now: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, leonard145b

    google's legal officer Q&A here.

    @Hugh: There is no Article II power which says the Executive can violate the Constitution. * Addington's perpwalk? TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:06:48 AM PDT

  •  FYI: Original FISA act was written by Sen.Kennedy (7+ / 0-)

    and  signed by Pres. Carter in 1970's in reaction to public outrage over domestic spying on the left in the 1950's to 1970's after the Church Committee  hearings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    We all thought problem was solved until the Patriot Act was signed by the President GW Bush after 9/11 attacks.

    Many on the left, including myself, sounded the warning signs of the over-reach of the Patriot Act.

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:07:12 AM PDT

    •  I worked for NSA (9+ / 0-)

      at the time of the Church and Pike committee hearings, was glad it happened, and thought FISA was an absolute indispensable minimum.  I also joined you in recognition of the threat that the Patriot Act embodied, and that is why my point at the time and ever since is that the name of Russ Feingold is forever inscribed on the roll of true patriots in the USA, and the only Senator or above of this era so to be honored.

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:18:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Believe this or not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smokey545

      Many on the right were uncomfortable with the excesses of the Patriot Act.  I remember one RW radio host thinking out loud:  "how does surrendering our rights make us safer".  

      It could even have been Limbaugh.

      •  the goppers were vociferous in opposing the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1, lotlizard, smokey545

        surveillance provisions in Bill Clinton's 1995 and 1996 terrorism bills.

        They were far less vociferous in opposing Dubya's patriot Act, though.

        I suspect that's for the very same reason that we see people cheering the NSA today-----anything is OK as long as it's our side doing it, and everything is bad bad bad as long as the other side is doing it.

        •  Sometimes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, PhilJD, smokey545

          Sometimes people slip up and tell the truth.  In the early days before the Patriot Act became law, some conservatives were uncomfortable with it.  

          I suspect that's for the very same reason that we see people cheering the NSA today-----anything is OK as long as it's our side doing it, and everything is bad bad bad as long as the other side is doing it.
          Isn't there a passage in the Bible about "who's ox is being gored"?
    •  well, let's include ALL the history . . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, smokey545

      Most of the Patriot Act was in fact written by Bill Clinton.  In 1995 and 1996, Clinton introduced his own "anti-terrorism bills", which included such things as requiring librarians to report people who checked out particular books, provided for indefinite detention of people without trial based on secret evidence gathered through warrantless wiretaps, allowed easier access to personal financial records by federal authorities, relaxed the standards for "pen register" searches (those should be familiar to those following the current NSA thingie), and repealed a provision that prevented the FBI or State Department from investigating or denying US entry to people based solely on their political beliefs.

      Some of the more extreme provisions were dropped after the Goppers in Congress squealed about "civil liberties !!!!" (the Clintonistas in Congress responded by squealing "national security !!!"). Clinton complained that the Repugs had watered down his bills.

      After 9-11, when the Goppers needed an anti-terrorism bill in a hurry, they simply dusted off all the old Clinton proposals that they themselves had killed back in 1996, rewrote them, and voila--the Patriot Act was born. This time it was a contingent of Dems who squealed "civil liberties !!!" and the goppers who squealed "national security !!!".

      Then when Obama was elected in 2008, he renewed the Patriot Act five times---and this time neither party even made any pretense of squealing any protest at it.

      When it comes to our current national-security surveillance state, both parties erected it, both parties support it, and neither party wants to repeal any of it. The neocon agenda is bipartisan.

  •  Tricky Polling Indeed (6+ / 0-)

    I too would like to know more, and I too would like congress to do it's job, and I too would like that to involve hearings.

    That said, the history of THIS congress has been that "holding hearings" has very little to do with "doing its job" and quite a bit more to do with "attempting to publicly humililate/damage their political opponents."

    They'd start with the NSA and keep looking for a blue dress.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:07:39 AM PDT

  •  And a full 90% of those polled... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, DRo

    tweeted to everybody how they responded and also updated their FB pages accordingly.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:09:37 AM PDT

  •  James Bamford first wrote about NSA in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, lotlizard

    The Puzzle Palace in 1983 and has written other NSA books since then.

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

  •  Interesting to see the GOP defending (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, lartwielder, lotlizard

    the NSA.

    Obama must be pleased, bipartisanship at last!

    The GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, told CNN that OBAMA'S (D) NSA "is not listening to Americans' phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law."Talking points issued by the House GOP in defense of the OBAMA (D) NSA claimed that surveillance law only "allows the Government to acquire foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S.-persons (foreign, non-Americans) located outside the United States."
    What a pleasure to see the "two" parties working together to defend the illegal activities of our out of control corporate government.

    I'm wondering though - perhaps Mike Rogers (R) didn't get the memo that he needs to oppose Obama every way he can?  I mean gosh, I'm just a slight bit confused to see Obama's NSA being defended by the Republicans.

    I was equally perplexed to see the Republicans enact the Patriot Act only to have Obama pressure Congress to renew it.  

    Bipartisanship.  Too bad it doesn't occur when it involves the working class.

    Oh wait.  It does.

    The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:13:39 AM PDT

    •  not a surprise (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnathan Ivan

      Despite all their arm-waving and partisan patter, the sad reality is that both parties are in love with the neocon agenda, and the whole national-security state program is bipartisan.

      •  Then the logical question (or follow-up)... (0+ / 0-)

        If the parties agree on:

        -- National Security State
        -- NeoCon Global Domination Policies
        -- NeoLiberal Economic Policies

        Wouldn't that mean that the parties are actually in agreement on the core issues, using social issues as a means of distraction to keep folks focused away from the pro-1% policies which both parties embrace?

        And if the parties are in agreement on the material aspects of advancing the interests of the 1%... then the logical conclusion is that.. the parties are merely flavors representing the same 1% interests...

        The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

        by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 12:04:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes and no (0+ / 0-)
          Wouldn't that mean that the parties are actually in agreement on the core issues, using social issues as a means of distraction to keep folks focused away from the pro-1% policies which both parties embrace?
          The differences between the parties on social issues are very real, and have very real effects upon very real people.

          But both parties are indeed one when it comes to neoliberal economics and the national security state.

          I suppose whether it's a "distraction" depends on whether or not any particular individual is one of those real people who are really effected.

          •  As a member of a group which is (0+ / 0-)

            affected...

            I do recognize the real differences on social issues.  However, I also recognize the relationships between socio-economic, education, and social issue progress.

            In other words, improving economic mobility and education is a sure-fire way to improve on Social issues.

            Simultaneously, the 1% don't care about social issues for the most part - they are a class which is not affected by such concerns.  As such, they leverage Social issues to keep people divided while they continue the economic liquidation of the working class.

            And by the time social issues are "settled" (which I believe, by design, shall never happen but let's pretend otherwise), the 1% will have so eviscerated the working class and instituted strong enough police controls / legal "reform", as to render any political awakening irrelevant.

            The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

            by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:31:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting paradox (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein, lotlizard, PhilJD

    1. Give us Congressional hearings, we want our freedoms
    2. Bring us the head of Edward Snowdon the traitor

    OK, got it.

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:14:22 AM PDT

  •  This is where the President can lead and (3+ / 0-)

    show some more transparency.

    He can release that FISA decision, for one.  Good reasons, bad reasons, at least get it out there, some of these court rulings--as much as can be declassified.

    It will be a start.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:14:58 AM PDT

    •  "This is where the president can lead..." (0+ / 0-)

      BWAHHHAAHAAHAHAAAH...

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:35:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought he already gave his big wonderful speech (0+ / 0-)

      about how the war on terror needed to end because it was corrosive for democracy.

      So why do we need this big military program in the first place?  We have to spy on everyone to defend ourselves from kids with pipe bombs and guys with boxcutters?  Really?  

      We didn't even allow this kind of stuff back when we were fighting the USSR, with its 2 million man army and its 70,000 multi-megaton nuclear weapons.

  •  Well, (3+ / 0-)

    if what the public wants follows recent trends it wont happen.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:15:20 AM PDT

  •  USA Today reported this back in 2006 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko, mikidee

    Where was the outrage from the Right Wing and the public back then under President GW Bush and Dick Cheney?

    NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls  
    yahoo.usatoday.com
    Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

    The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
    http://yahoo.usatoday.com/...

    Now that both sides are in an uproar seven years later, can something be done or will GOP just use this as another witchhunt against President Obama?

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:18:34 AM PDT

    •  I can assure you I was expressing outrage (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, smokey545

      After all, I am old enough to still remember the FIRST time the NSA went amok, wayyy back in 1975.

      And I recognized then (and recognize now) that nothing--not a single thing--prevents them from doing the very same thing today.

    •  Some things can/should be done, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, smokey545

      AND, the GOP will just use this as another witchhunt against President Obama.  
      Maybe the NSA could be charged with examining phone and e mail records of all government officials from 1/20/01 - 12/31/03, in order to ferret out the lies and deception that got us into war and engendered crimes against humanity, including torture and false imprisonment, and fostered an economic climate that decimated the middle class and enriched individuals and corporations through all manner of illegal and unethical practices.

    •  A good start would be to implement some of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, smokey545

      the suggestions in The Constitution Project's REPORT ON THE  FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008. This is from September 2012, and hits pretty much all of the 4th Amendment problems that are implicated by the Snowden disclosures.

      Read the entire report.

      Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

      by mikidee on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:54:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    Unfortunately, "strong support" by the public gets translated into "we don't have the votes" in Congress.  

    And let's face the truth:  The White House isn't too hot for in investigation either.  

    •  There are two choices (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, BroadwayBaby1, lotlizard, NonnyO

      (a) shitty politicians incompetent to convert strong support into votes, and unable to build out from strong support for additional support;
      (b)  complicit politicians, entirely happy with the national security state slowly strangling the last gasps of genuinely active democracy out of the citizenry.

      I used to believe (a), but it's gone on unchanging for much too long, at this point it can only be (b).

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, koNko, maryabein, ActivistGuy, lotlizard

    regardless of belief (or non), I wish every American would punctuate every cell phone call, every email, land line call, etc by repeating "Allahu Akbar" at least a couple of times. Put every transmission into their NSA puzzle box.
       

    The Republican motto: "There's been a lot of progress in this country over the last 75 years, and we've been against all of it."

    by Hillbilly Dem on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:22:48 AM PDT

    •  No matter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, Hillbilly Dem

      I'm sure they can find a reason that we are all suspect.  In my little neighborhood there is one woman visiting her home in Columbia, one couple that has a son in Afganastan, an Indian couple , some have been known to eat falafel and several of us eat Chinese food.  That is enough to make the whole complex suspicious.

      Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

      by DRo on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:31:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  House Intel Committee hearings gave me a laugh (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo, maryabein, Mogolori, lotlizard, NonnyO

    I rarely (read: never) watch all that Fox/CNN/MSNBC wall-to-wall coverage of the gaping maws of our rulers.  However, I was walking past the living room where my elderly father had the NSA "hearings" on.  There was a female voice, marching dutifully through the usual "pragmatic, centrist Dem" mantra of justifications for the spying program, how it is keeping us all safe and secure and warm and toasty;  how it's stopping international terror at every turn; how rather than being disturbed at the NSA program, we should be shocked and outraged that Snowden was able to leak this information, and the purpose of the hearings should be how to make sure that never happens again.

    Having heard all those arguments relentlessly from "pragmatic progressives" here at dailykos, I was certain that the speaker had to be one of the president's ardent partisan defenders.  Knowing she's a big cheese on one of the intel committees, I asked my father, "Is that Feinstein speaking?"

    "Oh, no no no," he clarified, "That was Bachmann."

    I'm still cracking up here.  

    "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:24:04 AM PDT

  •  Wonder if Jeb Bush is watching? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein

    With his older brother GW rising in public estimation, and the current administration intent on pursuing some of the worst practices of the Bush administration, you've just got to wonder if a "Bush: Third time's the charm" campaign is in the offing.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:25:10 AM PDT

  •  hear, hear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    koNko

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:26:12 AM PDT

  •  Well, the American people appear to have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mets102

    an eminently sensible point of view on this program. They recognize the need for some surveillance of terrorists, they are unsure of whether the safeguards in the current program are adequate and they want Congress to inform them.   Quite sensible.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:28:00 AM PDT

  •  We didn't get any further down the road (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard

    to understanding 9/11 after that Commission.  Half of that book was redacted out and many questions remained unanswered (untouched).  How much further down the road would we get to after some such commission on the NSA, a book with 3/4 redacted out for us "underlings"?  Personally I don't think we will have an answer unless/until the masses start chaffing at the bit.  

  •  Collection of domestic phone records began (0+ / 0-)

    right after 9/11 according to the 2006 USA Today article:

    NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls  
    http://yahoo.usatoday.com/...

    Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. "FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining," said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

    The caveat, he said, is that "personal identifiers" — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can't be included as part of the search. "That requires an additional level of probable cause," he said.

    ..........

    The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

    The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.

    The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

    With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.

    AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."

    In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."

    Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."

    Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."

    Fighting Liberal at
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” --Gandhi:

    by smokey545 on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:46:59 AM PDT

  •  Can of worms (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikidee, lotlizard, maryabein

    does not begin to describe a Congressional hearing on surveillance.  Maybe silo of worms, or Yucca Mountain of worms.

    Congress is so utterly complicit in this constitutional crisis that hearings risk its core capacity to operate (not that we're perilously close to this now).  Whosoever would lead the charge on this would presumptively be leading the charge to reform Congress whole-hog, and as such be virtually friendless without  millions in the streets.

    We have a long way to go before we realize the ramifications of this story.  

    "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

    by Mogolori on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 09:48:35 AM PDT

    •  This - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, maryabein, Mogolori
      Congress is so utterly complicit in this constitutional crisis that hearings risk its core capacity to operate (not that we're perilously close to this now).
      is what is so disheartening to so many of us. And their complicity is borne of fear (of being perceived as "soft on terrorism") and ignorance (of, among other things, the scope of collection of data from ordinary Americans without regard for our 4th Amendment rights).

      Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

      by mikidee on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:13:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Any Congressional hearings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard

    ...require an independent investigative staff and a time horizon broader than the Obama administration to get at the truth.  And likely it will require that the staff have subpoenaa powers.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:06:10 AM PDT

  •  "Public hearings" sure.... (0+ / 0-)

    But congressional public hearings....that is a circus I don't think we really need....

    "I know the meaning of life. It doesn't help me a bit."

    by dss on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 10:09:26 AM PDT

  •  So exteme, first nothing is going on, not only is (0+ / 0-)

    there something going on but their saving my information for retrospective use.  And who outs them two young patriots who smell a rat and go for truth.  Now we want public hearings on the NSA.  No, we need a broader debate than merely the NSA.  But we can start there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site