Obama Administration Declassifies Details On “PRISM,” Blasts “Reckless” Media And Leakers.

[JaneyVee]

-snip-

Following near-simultaneous reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post this week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that contrary to press reports, “PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program.” He maintained that the government computer system is authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and is overseen by all three branches of the federal government. He said that the program does not target US citizens or anyone known to be in the United States, and pushed back on reports that the government has continuous access to Internet companies’ systems.

“Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so,” he said.

The disclosure followed on a release Thursday of details about the National Security Agency’s collection of telephone “metadata” of all calls made in the United States.
In both instances, Clapper fiercely defended the programs, in the case of the Internet surveillance saying the program has “proven vital to keeping the nation and our allies safe.”

“It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security,” he added.

Clapper also lashed out at both the Guardian and the Washington Post, calling the disclosure of classified information “reckless.”

“There are significant misimpressions that have resulted from the recent articles,” he added. “Not all the inaccuracies can be corrected without further revealing classified information. I have, however, declassified for release the attached details about the recent unauthorized disclosures in hope that it will help dispel some of the myths and add necessary context to what has been published.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/08/obama-administration-declassifies-details-on-prism-blasts-reckless-media-and-leakers/#ixzz2Vf4sxOmJ

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. This is a fascist program, sig-line protests to the contrary notwithstanding

The NSA collects all the Internet packets. They're now telling us that they're only sifting foreign-bound or originating traffic from those packets. I'm not foolish enough to believe them, but on the off-chance they're telling the truth, they're still capturing citizens' browser visits. I will probably never understand why there are Democrats defending this abortion.

[phleshdef]

7. I suggest you look up fascist in the dictionary.

In no fascist regime, there would be no oversight, there would be no panel of 11 judges to approve each activity, there would be no Congressional authority approving and authorizing the program, there would be none of the following regulations governing the program...

"The Government cannot target anyone under the court-approved procedures for Section 702 collection unless there is an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition (such as for the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities, or nuclear proliferation) and the foreign target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States."

"We cannot target even foreign persons overseas without a valid foreign intelligence purpose."

"Minimization procedures govern how the Intelligence Community (IC) treats the information concerning any U.S. persons whose communications might be incidentally intercepted and regulate the handling of any nonpublic information concerning U.S. persons that is acquired, including whether information concerning a U.S. person can be disseminated. Significantly, the dissemination of information about U.S. persons is expressly prohibited unless it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence or assess its importance, is evidence of a crime, or indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm."

Theres more, but that basically proves my point. Before throwing around political buzzwords, like "fascist", I suggest you actually go and learn what such words actually mean.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. My statement stands.

[phleshdef]

17. ...corrected.

[arely staircase]

20. proving you do not live in a fascist state

oh, the irony

[treestar]

91. lol so true

Why is that poster not in jail by now if we live in such a fascist state? Why aren't they more scared to make these statements publicly on the government minded internet? Agent Mike is on his way!!!!

[GoneFishin]

104. It's evident that neither of you knows what fascism is.

[treestar]

106. What is it?

There is freedom of speech in fascist states? Who knew?

[SomethingFishy]

101. Where did the poster claim they lived in a Fascist state?

Nowhere. What the poster claimed was that the program was fascist. Yet you take their claim blow it up into something that they didn't say and then excoriated them for saying what you claimed they said not for what they actually said.

Very.. Fox newsish...

[Vinnie From Indy]

34. Yeah, history has so many examples of politicians following the law

Gulf on Tonkin
Bombing Cambodia
Trying to assassinate Castro
Watergate
Tuskegee expirements
Human radiation expirements
MK Ultra
Operation Northwoods
Yellowcake
Valerie Plame
etc
etc
etc

Go sell your bullshit to somebody else! I ain't buyning it!

[phleshdef]

36. Yet none of that has a damn thing to do with what I said.

[Vinnie From Indy]

47. What you offer is true!

The US has not descended yet into the depths of facism as practiced by the Nazis in Germany.

Cheers!

[treestar]

93. Yes it does

Many politicians have "followed the law." It's usually a scandal when one doesn't.

The law is not even broken here. The government using the powers we the people gave it because we were scared after 911 is now such an outrage.

I hate that Greenwald guy's methods. He's so dishonest. And the people who lap it up unthinkingly.

[Cha]

61. It dosen't bother them that they

have no clue what "fascism" is.

It sounds really really bad

[Jesus Malverde]

75. Your panel of Judges could be 11 mannequins

Are you aware of them ever denying a request? Denying a new technical program presented to them? Lets hear about this critical panel and their judicial prowess....lulz

Oh yeah... thats all SECRET.

[phleshdef]

90. The judges aren't secret.

Here are their names....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

[treestar]

92. lol

How dare you be an apologist for the U.S. government? It is EVIL!!!!!!! It is worse than the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain and the 14th century monarchies of England and France!!!!! It will cut off your head without trial!!!! All for sending an email!

[Xipe Totec]

2. The Washington Post Responds.

[randome]

18. Did not see that coming!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MADem]

3. That won't matter.

No matter what is said, or how carefully it is explained, there WILL be poutrage, foot stomping and dramatic "I'm leaving the Democratic Party" declarations.


The fact sheet is pretty straightforward:

Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

· PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program. It is an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a). This authority was created by the Congress and has been widely known and publicly discussed since its inception in 2008.

· Under Section 702 of FISA, the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. In short, Section 702 facilitates the targeted acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning foreign targets located outside the United States under court oversight. Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so.

· The Government cannot target anyone under the court-approved procedures for Section 702 collection unless there is an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition (such as for the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities, or nuclear proliferation) and the foreign target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

We cannot target even foreign persons overseas without a valid foreign intelligence purpose.

· In addition, Section 702 cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, or any other U.S. person, or to intentionally target any person known to be in the United States. Likewise, Section 702 cannot be used to target a person outside the United States if the purpose is to acquire information from a person inside the United States.

· Finally, the notion that Section 702 activities are not subject to internal and external oversight is similarly incorrect. Collection of intelligence information under Section 702 is subject to an extensive oversight regime, incorporating reviews by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches......

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/08/obama-administration-declassifies-details-on-prism-blasts-reckless-media-and-leakers/#ixzz2Vf6ReO51

[leveymg]

11. The terms target, collect, US person, foreign, intentionally, oversight are all used contrary to

their normally understood usage.

The fact is that the NSA collects virtually all the data that moves through all telephone company networks, including purely domestic local calls. It also collects domestic data from most of the major web based search, retail, and social network boards operating in the US. That domestic communications and transactions data is mined and analyzed by the NSA using profiling software to detect patterns which might indicate patterns that are regarded as suspicious according to criteria the government keeps secret, regardless of whether that person is a US or foreign national.

In other words, if you make a phone call or send an email inside the US, you are automatically profiled. If your profile scoring goes over a certain limit, you are targeted and a warrant is obtained. The FISA Court never denies such warrants. If you are identified as a terrorist, regardless of your citizenship, and you are outside the US, you are subject to intentional lethal attack without further judicial process.

That is the new FISA counterterrorism regime as currently interpreted by this Administration. It is not acceptable, it is not Constitutional.

[MADem]

16. When you get in your car, you're tracked. Your cellphone tracks you, too.

Your credit cards provide a record of your activities. Your automatic toll payer leaves a trail of bread crumbs.

Years ago--before cellphones, back in the good old dark ages, when I got my phone bill, it would be several half sheet-pages long, and it was an itemized record of every single phone call I ever made. The longer the call, the further the distance from my home, the more it cost.

They were keeping track of that shit way back when.

Who the hell is surprised at this? The only way to avoid this kind of thing is to pull a Unibomber and live off the grid.

And why blame the President for laws that Congress passed? People who are outraged need to start talking to their Senators and Reps...."King Obama" didn't do this. Congress did.

[leveymg]

25. Responsibility for this rests in all branches of gov't, both political parties, Administrations and

national security and law enforcement agencies going back generations. You may be surprised to hear that I have the gut feeling that Obama would like us to be outraged by this, and that he may actually desire to scale this thing back. That would go along with his recent statements to that effect about finally declaring the GWOT over.

But, with or without him, it's now reached a tipping point, and time has come to demand that the Fourth Amendment be respected and that we pull back for the precipice of becoming a Total Surveillance State.

That's not just the progressive Democrat in me saying this. It's the American.

[MADem]

59. Do we want the Supreme Court to rule that the law is unconstitutional...that is the question.

NSA and the other three letter agencies, are, near as I can tell, operating within the parameters of a law passed by Congress and that has been operative for a decade and change.

Or do we expect Congress to act with a prompt repeal? They haven't done diddly in some time, near as I can tell.

I don't know how Obama feels about this, I am just not terribly surprised about it--it's a tool, granted by Congress, that makes it easier to look at 'fishy' sorts. Rightly, wrongly, or somewhere in-between, who, given that tool, granted that "permission," wouldn't take the easy road? If we are to be honest....

[BlueCheese]

30. There is a gigantic difference between companies doing this and the government.

Companies can't put you in jail, have you arrested, or vaporize you with a drone.

[Sheepshank]

37. OMG...the dreaded domestic drone thing again?

its been discussed all to hell already, please try and keep up and while you're at it quite using hyperbole. If you have a point, make a valid argument, please. This alarmist shit is already at defcon #2300 on DU.

[BlueCheese]

39. I'm saying that personal information in the hands of the government is much more dangerous...

... than information in the hands of Safeway. I don't expect the government to turn tyrannical tomorrow, but if it ever did, knowing all about the habits and histories of individuals would be terrible. All Safeway will do is send me more coupons.

My comment had nothing to do with any domestic drone program (of which I'm not actually aware). I'm just pointing out the government has a lot more power than Crate and Barrel.

[Sheepshank]

44. Actually it's not comforting at all that capitalists know your fears,

weaknesses, addictions, desires, likes, income, health, illness, weight, height, allergies, what you drive, how often you fill up with gas, what eyewear you use, where you live, when you vacation, where you work, how much you owe, how often you have been arrested, your eye color, the number of kids under 18 in your household,....... or any of those things bout your entire family.

You want to put all of that in the hands of people like Romney or Adleson or Koch to manuipulate and turn into another money making bonanze for them, then have at it.

oh and by the way, I was reacting to this line "or vaporize you with a drone." Just getting plain old sick of hyperbolic statements that are fox news worthy

[MADem]

60. They can SELL your information, though.

What's the next step? They sell the info to the gov't?

[GeorgeGist]

84. Are you dizzy yet?

[MADem]

89. How very "pithy," yet apropos of absolutely nothing! nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. And in March, Clapper claimed to Congress that they didn't

In March, DNI Clapper specifically told me #NSA does not wittingly collect any type of data on millions of Americans

?t=6m9s …

https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/342697603361820672

[treestar]

96. Congress did it and it was signed by Bush

It's makes people look stupid when they act as if all the laws Bush signed, or for that matter, Clinton, BushI, Reagan, Carter just disappear!

[Th1onein]

69. Thaaaattt's RIGHT! They gather and store it ALL, but they don't "target" Americans UNLESS

they're on foreign soil. Then, they can kill them, outright, no trial, no judge, no jury--you're a threat? Don't go into another country, you could end up dead.

[BlueCheese]

22. Using terms like "poutrage" and "foot stomping" to describe those who disagree with you...

... doesn't help the tone here. It also antagonizes those who you putatively are attempting to convince, making it counterproductive.

A healthy skepticism of government surveillance is a good thing in a democracy. As citizens first and Democrats second, we owe it to ourselves to be as diligent about the actions of a Democratic president as a Republican one.

[MADem]

62. Well, the tone is pretty well toasted, and it was way before I got here.

And I don't "disagree"--I think this is a worrisome development that deserves a bit of fact-based conversation so that we can all be very clear--without that drama and hyperbole--on what the Big Bad Gubmint is actually doing.

Unfortunately, we've gone straight from "They're collecting/aggregating call data" to "They are recording every word you speak, every email you write, and they're aggregating this information against the day that they have enough on YOU, Mister or Ms. American Citizen, and 'they' are just waiting for 'you' to fuck up. Why? There is a drone with a missile with your name on it following you constantly, and if you say the wrong thing, it's gonna blast you off the expressway on your way to work some bright, sunny morning."

Hair on fire, lather, rinse, repeat.

[Cha]

64. Thank you for the information, anyway, MADem.. I appreciate it.

KSK(africa) @lawalazu

In the age of Obama, leaking classified info &MSM outrage is in vogue. Under GWB , not so much. Then, Cheerleading a war was all the rage.

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/06/08/night-owls-white-house-performances-music-for-the-soul/#comments

[MADem]

65. "But the reporting from Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post has been shoddy and misleading."

Gee....who'd a thunk-it?
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

Canonizing bad reporting as a means of inciting a debate is as bad as no debate at all. Attachment to empirical reality must remain a central trait of the left, otherwise the progressive movement is no better than the non-reality based propagandists on the right who will say and do anything to further the conservative agenda. So perhaps some positive changes on domestic spying are eventually achieved, but at what cost? Greenwald, who doesn’t really care about “left and right,” isn’t concerned with anything other than his personal agenda and clearly he’s willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of those goals. Specifics presently.

It’s a shame because there’s a way to have this debate without selling out to misinformation. Instead, we appear to be careening way off the empirical rails into hysterical, kneejerk acceptance of half-assed information.

Here’s how this story has played out since late Thursday.

1. Both Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post reported that the NSA had attained “direct access” to servers owned by Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple and other big tech companies in order to attain private user information via a top secret government operation called PRISM. Initially, this appeared to be a major violation of privacy. The implication is that the government enjoyed unchecked, unrestricted access to metadata about users any time it wanted.

2. Then, naturally, heads exploded throughout the blogs and social media. Left and right alike.

3. While everyone was busily losing their shpadoinkle on Twitter and the blogs, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Apple all announced in separate statements that not only were they unaware of any PRISM program, but they also confirmed that there’s no way the government had infiltrated the privately-owned servers maintained by these companies. Furthermore, Google wrote, “Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” Google also described how it will occasionally and voluntarily hand over user data to the government, but only after it’s been vetted and scrutinized by Google’s legal team....

[Cha]

66. Why, and I had someone on here just today telling me

that it was just the WaPo article spreading misinformation.. basically saying GG's was different.

More proof to me that facts don't matter. what matters is GG's Ginning up false information against Pres Obama. That's all they need to know.

1. Both Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post reported that the NSA had attained “direct access” to servers owned by Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Apple and other big tech companies in order to attain private user information via a top secret government operation called PRISM. Initially, this appeared to be a major violation of privacy. The implication is that the government enjoyed unchecked, unrestricted access to metadata about users any time it wanted.

What freaking news media.. talk about big fucking brother.

[MADem]

67. Supposedly, we've had some form of data collection for, what, eight years or more?

I guess it's OK if you're a Republican...or not the BLACK guy in the WHITE House...?

I swear, I sometimes wonder if this isn't about 'big fucking brother' but instead, fucking over that brother in the WH...I'm trying like hell to not think like that, but I keep coming round to it.

And then, it turns out that way too many folks lit their hair on fire for no reason at all....but I'll bet most people won't bother to read the boring "corrections" and "walk-backs" of this story.

They've stuck it to Obama yet again, and we see the damage done.

[Th1onein]

70. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT IS TRUE?

I keep hearing that we've known about this for eight years. Well, SO WHAT? I didn't know that those policies were continueing under Obama. Lots of us didn't know. We didn't know about PRISM. Now, we know, and we're pissed. Give us that much. Whether it's been going on eight years, or twenty, it's WRONG, and Obama promised us he did not support it and would get rid of it.

Do you REALLY think that we're indulging in hysterics? Can you understand that maybe we feel that we've been lied to and our privacy violated?

Good grief.

[MADem]

72. Yes, I do.

Here, read this. Read every word. It's long, but it's itemized--very easy to read and digest.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

You were lied to with shitty reporting, a load of hyperbole, and some sky-falling drama; you took the bait that Greenwald offered, and you and a shitload of others went off on a tangent.

Now it's time to come back down to earth. Overreaching and bullshitting is no way to sell a story--and Greenwald and WAPO have some serious 'splainin' to do.

[Th1onein]

76. I'm sorry. I've read the entire thing. I'm not convinced. And for some very good reasons.

First, if the information is "old" then why is Obama upset about the leaks? It can't be both old and newly leaked at the same time. I'm willing to grant you that Greenwald is guilty of shoddy reporting, but, if this information is handed over only when a warrant is issued, why have dates for when each company began to "contribute" to the program? And, another thing that bothers me: Storage of the data. For obvious reasons, that alone is alarming. Something else--why the quote about being able to read our thoughts as they are being formed? That's not sloppy reporting, that's a quote, and if it's not true, then it's an out and out lie. Finally, there is the powerpoint presentation, itself, which clearly suggests that the NSA is tapping into these companies' servers. And, as to the companies denying that they've given access, isn't it against the law to tell anyone that you've been issued a warrant, and what that warrant is requesting?

I'm sorry, when I weigh all of this, I come to the conclusion that our government is spying on us in real time. And, for you to accuse me, or anyone else who believes this, of being hysterical, or of trying to screw the party in some way, is just wrong.

I said, early on in this, that I would not vote Democratic anymore. I've thought about that, and I've changed my mind, for good reasons--because I know that the Republicans are even worse than the Democrats. But something must be done; there is no doubt about that.

And, by the way, your arguments sound like those of a defense lawyer who has a guilty client--you are taking potshots at small things, attempting to crumble the entire edifice. The FACTS are, and even Obama is cognizant of these facts, and admits them--that an insider in the intelligence community leaked this information. Greenwald might be a sloppy journalist, but there's a fire burning, and I smell smoke.

[MADem]

99. It's down to sources and methods. You know that "metadata" is collected where you might not have

been cognizant before. How do you avoid being tracked if you need to make particular communications? I'd clone someone else's cellphone, if it were me. Use it for a bit, then toss it. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You go on about facts, and lawyers with "guilty clients," but here's the ultimate fact about the ultimate "guilty client"--Congress, not POTUS, makes law. Congress is playing the "What, who meeeee?" game, when they can't possibly be that stupid--and if they are, they've failed at THEIR task of oversight.

In 2010, Dems didn't show up to the polls. If the GOP is lucky, 2014 will be a repeat.

We've got Maureen Dowd calling POTUS "Barry" WRT this matter, and a bunch of people here who don't understand how the US government functions screaming about "constitutionality" when they can't tell the difference between the legislative and executive branches.

I just am not ready to light my hair on fire. And Greenwald has some cleaning up to do--his stuff is sloppy, and since HE'S the lawyer, here (not me), that's concerning.

[Th1onein]

108. Now you're changing the subject. You can't defend what Obama is doing.

Look, no matter what Congress does or does not pass, Obama has the power of the veto. He PROMISED us that "with the stroke of a pen" he would undo this. He did not.

I don't care about Maureen Dowd. Neither should you.

Obama is spying on every single American and storing every single bit of information that they send, overseas or otherwise. It's unconstitutional; he promised it would stop, and he lied.

[MADem]

111. Now YOU'RE changing the subject--power of the veto? Hello!!!!

Obama was NOT THE PRESIDENT when the law authorizing this was passed.

Seriously-- you aren't trying to tell me that Obama can pluck out laws he doesn't like and "veto" them ex post facto?


I do care about Maureen Dowd--she hears dog whistles. She's like a canary in a coal mine. When she keels over, there are other forces at play. And when she calls POTUS "Barry," I have to wonder who she's serving this time.

Obama is not "spying on every single American," but if you want to believe that, get spun up about it, yell at me and spit and wail, go right ahead.

I'm just not into dramatics. And if it's unconstitutional, it needs to get into the courts and up to the Supremes, so we can get a ruling on it. Get crackin' on that....sue the government.

[Th1onein]

117. It's the Jesuit logic.....

Accuse a Jesuit of killing a man and his dog and the Jesuit will triumphantly produce a dog.

It's word play and you know it. PRISM was continued under Obama, whether it was started under Bush or not doesn't matter. Obama promised that programs like this would end. Americans were under the impression that it had ended, and here we are.

I'm not into dramatics, either, and the fact that Americans like me are, quite rightly, upset about these revelations is nothing to be surprised at. It's an insult to our intelligence, and our loyalty to Democratic principles to label our reactions as hysterical, or "dramatic," as you put it.

[MADem]

120. Obama did not make any specific promises. He said he'd close GITMO and he wouldn't spy on

Americans. Congress won't let him close GITMO, and this program, which requires warrants to access the material, targets foreigners, not US citizens.

I think the overreach and hyperbole at the outset of this revelation are what is making me skeptical. People are, quite frankly, Making Shit Up and they're being overdramatic in order to paint a worst-possible-case scenario. They're ignoring the whole warrant and oversight system that affiliates itself with this program and provides a record of what is accessed, they're screaming "unconstitutional" about a program that -- at a minimum--the Intel Committees in Congress know about (assuming they attend their briefings, of course)--and they're insisting this program targets Americans, when it doesn't.

I am happy to see it run up the legal ladder -- but people might not like the end result. The concept of "privacy" has been undergoing a social and legal redefinition in the last thirty or forty years. I know people don't like to hear that, but that's just the doggone truth. It's not "the government" doing it, either--it's We, The People, actively participating in social media, gleefully tossing our details hither and yon on the internet, hello-hello, I am this gender, this race, this age, I live in this town, I went to these schools, I make this much money, I am married to this person, I have this number of children, I have these diseases, I work in this line of work at this company, I vacation here and there, I like this movie and that, this tv show, this brand of cereal, etc. etc. and so forth...oh, and here's a few hundred pictures of me, take a good look, now...it's like the world has an horrific case of diarrhea of the mouth. In 1963, no one would think it appropriate to share that level of information with strangers. Nowadays, you're a weirdo (or, on an internet discussion board, a "troll&quot if you don't.

I like to tell people I'm an astronaut. It's my subtle way of telling folks that oversharing isn't always such a smart idea. People are smart to guard their privacy, but the tendency is to NOT do that any more, and instead, post idiotic self-portraits taken in bathroom mirrors and intimate details of private lives that are better kept private--but aren't.

[Th1onein]

121. "And this program, which requires warrants to access the material, targets foreighners, not US

citizens."

Absolute lies. Period. You know better. You can twist the facts any way you want to, but they have the material, ALL of it, from ALL of us, and THEN they get a warrant to get it off of their own servers. Just bullshit semantics.

[MADem]

122. Look, you keep telling me I'm lying, but I'm getting this from a link YOU provided.

This is getting tiresome.

I give you information from YOUR link, and you rail at me "Lies!! Bullshit semantics! Not true! Waaah!"

Perhaps you should have selected a different link if you didn't want to me actually READ the contents of it...?

[Th1onein]

124. No one, and certainly not me, is telling you that YOU are lying.

The persons who are running this program are lying. They are obsfucating; playing semantics.

The article says exactly what you say, but it says more, MADEM. Come on now, you know better. They take EVERYTHING, and then "minimize" it so that it doesn't include any US citizens. That's like saying, hey, I'm going to take ALL of your lunch money, but I'm only going to SPEND part of it, so I really didn't steal the rest.

And the only person crying "Waaah!" is you.

[MADem]

125. You need to read this:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-cia-officer-officials-considering-nsa-whistleblowers-case-potential-chinese-espionage/

[Th1onein]

126. Oh come on! Really?

This is really just laughable.

"I know I peed my pants, but Jimmy peed his pants, too!"

[MADem]

127. Fine. Disbelieve and dismiss. Read this.

http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/statement-reports-leaked-information-060913

This magnificent source has ISSUES.

[Th1onein]

128. So WHAT?

Geez.

[MADem]

129. You've told me all I need to know. Thanks for clearing that up! nt

[Th1onein]

130. That's right, MADEM, I'm just a bad, bad person because I don't agree with you.

Everyone has "issues." This young man gave up a lot in order to blow the whistle on these programs. I'm sorry, but that gives him credibility, in my books. You give me a link from mainstream media, which is nothing but a water-carrier for the power elite, and you expect me to buy it hook, line and sinker. I don't.

You've tried the "it's OLD NEWS" gambit, but you can't ignore that Obama, himself, is talking about this being a new leak. Read their OWN statements very carefully--how is it that the companies that are "responding" to their warrants know NOTHING of what they are requesting per these warrants? How is that? How would that work?

There's only ONE way that that kind of system works--they're pulling from a database that contains EVERYTHING. A database that THEY have complete control over. A database on which EVERYTHING is stored.

Nothing, NOTHING you've given me supports your case. And, everything that this young man has done goes to support his.

And, now, you've resorted to the last bastion of the propagandist: I'm a bad, bad person.

WOW.

[MADem]

132. You should write fiction! You're great at making things up and putting words

in people's mouths! Wow, indeed.

Hope you don't mind if I save that post--I find it fascinating, and I wouldn't want it to go away:

Th1onein
130. That's right, MADEM, I'm just a bad, bad person because I don't agree with you.

Everyone has "issues." This young man gave up a lot in order to blow the whistle on these programs. I'm sorry, but that gives him credibility, in my books. You give me a link from mainstream media, which is nothing but a water-carrier for the power elite, and you expect me to buy it hook, line and sinker. I don't.

You've tried the "it's OLD NEWS" gambit, but you can't ignore that Obama, himself, is talking about this being a new leak. Read their OWN statements very carefully--how is it that the companies that are "responding" to their warrants know NOTHING of what they are requesting per these warrants? How is that? How would that work?

There's only ONE way that that kind of system works--they're pulling from a database that contains EVERYTHING. A database that THEY have complete control over. A database on which EVERYTHING is stored.

Nothing, NOTHING you've given me supports your case. And, everything that this young man has done goes to support his.

And, now, you've resorted to the last bastion of the propagandist: I'm a bad, bad person.

You repeated, twice, that you're a "bad, bad person" and that may or may not be true. I have no knowledge of your goodness or your badness. I do know that you have issues with accuracy, and this latest post of yours demonstrates that quite eloquently.

[Th1onein]

135. Last and best resort when you can't win an argument: AD HOMINEM ATTACK

I'm done with this.

[MADem]

136. Good move. nt

[Th1onein]

77. I think it's time for YOU to come back down to Earth. Read this:

They are playing word games with us, MADEM. I don't like it and neither should you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

One top-secret document obtained by The Post described it as “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

Intelligence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff.

....

According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.

Crucial aspects about the mechanisms of data transfer remain publicly unknown. Several industry officials told The Post that the system pushes requested data from company servers to classified computers at FBI facilities at Quantico. The information is then shared with the NSA or other authorized intelligence agencies.

According to slides describing the mechanics of the system, PRISM works as follows: NSA employees engage the system by typing queries from their desks. For queries involving stored communications, the queries pass first through the FBI’s electronic communications surveillance unit, which reviews the search terms to ensure there are no U.S. citizens named as targets.

[MADem]

100. The key bit, though...

Under Section 702, the attorney general and director of national intelligence must show the FISA court that they have procedures “reasonably designed to ensure” that their intercepts will target foreigners “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

If your hair is on fire, you're overseas.

[Th1onein]

107. NOPE, you're wrong, MADEM.

They are using "target" in a totally different manner than that which it is normally used. FIRST, they are gathering ALL of the data. ALL of it; every American's data from searches, emails, phone calls, EVERYTHING. Then, they are using minimization techniques, to filter out what is not "reasonably" from an American on American soil. The KEY bit here is that they have all of our data on their drives and they have it stored. This is unconscionable. The minimization has to do with who they are "targeting," but at that point, they have ALL of our data, period. Anytime they want to, they can "task" the system to get more because it's stored on their systems.

[MADem]

114. I'm not wrong--that's from YOUR source.

There's gotta be a warrant for everything they "target" and we do have a Congress that--since it isn't passing any laws, lately--is entirely capable of earning their pay and doing some of that "oversight" that they like to tout for political purposes. Now, maybe, they need to get off their asses and exercise their oversight prerogative when it comes to National Security matters.

[Th1onein]

115. I say again, you're wrong.

They are using "target" in a totally different way than that which it is normally used. Once again, they are GATHERING and STORING ALL of the material. EVERYTHING. THEN, they "minimize" it and pull from THEIR servers what they want on their "targets." We are ALL potential targets for them, and we can become targets any day, and they've got everything stored about us and our communications and searches, to draw from.

They are playing word games, MADEM. It's pretty obvious. And I'm as concerned as you are about Congress, but we should be concerned about everyone who is supposedly a Democrat, including Obama, and who is participating in this.

[MADem]

116. Your link says otherwise--they aren't "storing the material." Per your link.

That unit then sends the query to the FBI’s data intercept technology unit, which connects to equipment at the Internet company and passes the results to the NSA.

Look, I have no objection to someone, anyone, running this whole business up the flagpole, and let's see if anyone salutes. If they do give it the One Fingered Unconstitutional salute, fine, strip it out of the toolbox.

But until they do, I think the hyperbole (They're tracking all of us 'Muricans!!! They're watchin' our videos as we make 'em!!!) is a bit OTT and damages the arguments "against."

I am also hoping like hell that the "informant" resting comfortably in a luxury hotel in China (having inexplicably given up luxury digs, a six figure job, and a girlfriend in Hawaii, supposedly...) isn't a double agent. He's sure done them a few favors, even if he isn't.

[Th1onein]

118. They ARE storing the material. In the unit, and then accessing the unit.

Playing word games again.

[MADem]

119. If by unit, you mean internet provider, well, the internet provider does that as well.

They are engaging in a double-blind system so rank-and-file people at Google, Facebook, et. al. can't see what they are doing, but they aren't the ones storing the material--the "unit" is the entity doing that. If the service providers wanted to stop cooperating, all they would have to do is pull the plug.

All I can do is keep quoting the source you gave us:

“PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program,” the statement said.

Clapper also said that “the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.”.....Executives at some of the participating companies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged the system’s existence and said it was used to share information about foreign customers with the NSA and other parts of the nation’s intelligence community.

...Under Section 702, the attorney general and director of national intelligence must show the FISA court that they have procedures “reasonably designed to ensure” that their intercepts will target foreigners “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

“Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so,” Clapper said Saturday.

The law prohibits officials from intentionally targeting data collection efforts at U.S. citizens or anyone in the United States. The standards for intentional targeting require that an analyst have a “reasonable belief,” at least 51 percent confidence, that the target is a foreign national.

The law also provides “an extensive oversight regime, incorporating reviews by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches,” Clapper said in the statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

[eridani]

78. Just about everyone on DU objected to it when Bush started it

People vote for Obama to END it, not to continue it.

[treestar]

95. Same old thing adapted to new technology

Reminds me of the drone outrage - they are more outraged at the drones than at the long term history of wars and how the drones are a modern innovation that makes a bad thing less damaging.

It's like there is no history to these people. They discover something to be outraged about and jump on it before looking at it long enough to realize that jumping on it will make them look foolish.

[MADem]

97. Yes. A drone is an airplane. The pilot happens to be some distance away.

Imagine how useful they would have been in WW2....

I have to wonder if they actually they think China, Russia, NK, Iran, Israel, etc. will "stop" engaging in intel collection and espionage if we do?

[treestar]

102. that too, I'm all for transparency but have a practical streak

I guess you and i have that - we can hardly have no classified intel! And where are the complainers to even look into what other countries do. Even here on our soil there are likely to be foreign spies. These posters would just say we deserve that, I'm thinking.

[ProSense]

4. Cool! n/t

[phleshdef]

5. This is perfectly legal and morally sound, with a shit load of oversight.

But I know half of the people here won't even bother to read the details and of the ones that do, half of them will declare it all a lie. People don't want the truth, they WANT to be pissed off.

[BlueCheese]

23. There is no way we know enough to say that.

When senators are saying that they were unaware of the program, you can't say there's enough oversight.

[Sheepshank]

40. Senators can't (didn't) talk about this shit in public because of the nature,of you know, security

It's for the senators to get off their collective lazy fat arses and talk to the appropriate committee members to get details on any going project. This is not stuff talked about on the floor.

But by all means, lets give them a pass for deliberately allowing themselves to be uniformed idiots.

[BlueCheese]

42. I stand by my comment that we don't know enough to declare that the program is sound.

[Sheepshank]

45. Of course you do n/t

[Th1onein]

71. Absolutely untrue.

People are understandably upset. I'm one of them. And I've been reading about this from every source I can get my hands on. I would love to sit back and relax and know that everything is okay. Unfortunately, I can't.

Most people DO want the truth and most people DON'T like being pissed off. Saying that shit is like saying "They hate us for our freedoms."

[woo me with science]

6. Declassifies "SOME" details.

You left out that word: "SOME."

What a shock. "SOME" details, picked and chosen for disclosure. And, simultaneously, threats and intimidation re: the disclosure.

The pigs are being lined up for spinning and lipstick application. Gee, I wonder how they will pick and choose what to show us?

[ProSense]

8. No,

"You left out that word: 'SOME.'"

...the word wasn't "left out." Here is the title at the OP link:

"Obama Administration Declassifies Details On “PRISM,” Blasts “Reckless” Media And Leakers"

"The pigs are being lined up for spinning and lipstick application. Gee, I wonder how they will pick and choose what to show us? "

What the hell does that have to with the OP reporting that information is being declassified?

Are you pissed that the facts are coming out?

[woo me with science]

12. Brazenly false. Again. Shame on you.

The very first sentence of the article:

Facing a firestorm from liberals and conservatives over controversial counterterrorism surveillance programs, the Obama administration moved Saturday to declassify SOME details about a program to monitor foreign Internet traffic.

ALWAYS read the article. Headlines are written by headline writers, not the journalist. ALWAYS read the article... and this was the VERY FIRST SENTENCE. Just because you routinely post blue links that lead to utter irrelevancy not worth reading does not mean that others do the same.

[ProSense]

13. You made a stupid statement. There is no "some" in the original title.

"Brazenly false. Again. Shame on you."

Clownish!

[woo me with science]

15. ^^^^^^For anyone who collects examples of brazen, twisting spin^^^^^^^^

Here's a doozy for your collection.

You can't even parody the shamelessness anymore.

[ProSense]

26. You're a joke. I'm laughing at you. n/t

[MADem]

68. Here's some "brazen twisting"--but it's from the SOURCE of this sloppily-reported story.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/06/nsa-story-falling-apart-under-scrutiny-key-facts-turning-out-to-be-inaccurate/

3. While everyone was busily losing their shpadoinkle on Twitter and the blogs, Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL and Apple all announced in separate statements that not only were they unaware of any PRISM program, but they also confirmed that there’s no way the government had infiltrated the privately-owned servers maintained by these companies. Furthermore, Google wrote, “Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.” Google also described how it will occasionally and voluntarily hand over user data to the government, but only after it’s been vetted and scrutinized by Google’s legal team.

4. The freakout continued.

5. Furthermore, Glenn Greenwald used the phrase “direct access,” as in unobstructed direct server access, four times in his article, most prominently in his lede, “The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.” Unless the tech companies were collectively lying, Greenwald’s use of “direct access” is inaccurate. And if it’s inaccurate, the most alarming aspect of this NSA story is untrue.

On Twitter, Greenwald defended his reporting by reiterating that the NSA said within the PRISM document that there has been “collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook…” But this could mean that the data was drawn from the servers, vetted and handed over to the NSA per Google’s stated process of legal vetting. And if the data was made available, it’s possible that the tech companies posted it on a server for the NSA analysts to download, just as you might download a file from work or a friend via Dropbox or an FTP server. Regardless, it seems as if Greenwald’s entire story hinges on a semantic interpretation of the PRISM language. And his mistake was to leap from “collection directly from servers” to “direct access.”

6. More exploded heads anyway. Anyone relaying the new information is accused of being an Obamabot....

That snip doesn't begin to provide the full picture. I urge a full reading of the article at the link.

[woo me with science]

83. Outrageous misdirection and spin.

All this carefully worded quibbling over whether there was "direct access" to "central servers" is misdirection. All it does is enable manipulative denials of very specific, hypothetical, and utterly irrelevant scenarios. The point here is not whether information was obtained through direct access to servers. The point is not even whether the surveillance was made "legal." Part of the playbook for authoritarian overreach is making what you do legal.

The point is that the government of the United States of America has no fucking business collecting and STORING surveillance information like this on the American public in the first place.

Let me repeat that. They are scooping up and placing into databases the private communication information of Americans, en masse. Read the fucking court order, which documents the government's demand for the phone records of MILLIONS OF AMERICANS:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

This is the sort of infrastructure that totalitarian governments build, with files and histories on the activities of their citizens. This is exactly the type of government abuse that the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution were intended to prevent. And this is exactly the sort of authoritarian bullshit that Obama promised he would stop when he became President.

I strongly recommend that every DUer read these important threads and posts on the implications of this type of behavior by governments:

Stored surveillance information and preemptive silencing of dissent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2975053

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022970768

The Mass Surveillance program is to protect the government FROM the people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022962685

All The Infrastructure A Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy Of Bush And Obama - TheAtlantic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973186

This is gravely serious stuff, and not partisan. The Verizon information is just the very ugly tip of a massive iceberg. For the very first time since 9/11, we are finally, at long last, getting some media and thus public attention to the outrageous, constantly escalating assaults on our Constitution and civil protections by our own elected politicians. We must seize this moment and come together as Americans to demand a deep and thorough investigation, accountability, and change.

[MADem]

94. Talk. To. Congress.

They passed the law that enabled development of these programs.

And it has EVERYTHING to do with how accurate (or inaccurate) the reporting has been on this matter thus far.

People are getting bullshit about stuff that is NOT happening. Hair is on fire. Hyperbole is king.

Now, if you, in fact, know what's under that iceberg of which you speak, definitively now--not speculating, cough it up.

Otherwise, you're in the Hair On Fire club.

I don't disagree that the topic should be discussed, but I absolutely find the "Sky is falling" quality of the discourse off-putting on a good day.

[sibelian]

19. ProSense...

Nobody except you buys the bullshit.

Having the last word doesn't mean that some random punter watching the thread is going to change their mind because you feel you have put in the appearance of disagreeing with your opponent in good faith.

Transparently incoherent misinterpretation of your opponent's position doesn't score you any points with anyone in the "gallery".

[ProSense]

31. Who the fuck are you?

Nobody except you buys the bullshit.

Having the last word doesn't mean that some random punter watching the thread is going to change their mind because you feel you have put in the appearance of disagreeing with your opponent in good faith.

Transparently incoherent misinterpretation of your opponent's position doesn't score you any points with anyone in the "gallery".

I mean, your comment is beyond bizarre.

[SidDithers]

46. +1...nt

Sid

[jazzimov]

52. +1

[sibelian]

85. You can plug away as long as you like.

It doesn't change anything.

[woo me with science]

41. +1 Well summarized.

Last edited Sat Jun 8, 2013, 08:04 PM - Edit history (2)

As we know, the "gallery" is well aware of this one's tactics. They are a running joke at DU now, and you will see references all over the place. From the brazen misdirection, to blue links that go nowhere, to blurted non-sequiturs...I wasn't entirely joking about offering this one up for someone's collection.

The mystery to me is the purpose...because if this is supposed to be PR, it is clearly, astoundingly, breathtakingly counterproductive.

[sibelian]

86. I have no idea what to say to them.

There's not even an attempt to make sense.

[woo me with science]

87. You're right. It's all disruptive strategy by the very same group

that swarms every thread critical of this administration's assaults on civil protections and traditional Democratic values, principles, and policies.

They can't argue the point here, because they are demonstrably wrong.

To cope with that, they deliberately pollute the thread with guffawing nonsense, hoping that the relevant posts, like the one with the link showing Prosense's brazen posting of false information, get lost in all the garbage.

They also engage in deliberate nastiness, trying to make posting here so unpleasant for those who challenge the corporate party line that they will hesitate to do so in the future.

And, finally, they try, though the swarming, to give the impression that their mocking attitude is the prevailing one. As you can see by scanning the recs of posts over time, they are sorely in the minority...their loud and obnoxious performance here notwithstanding.

I appreciated your post. The good thing about these surreal interactions is that they expose for anyone who is reading here how the Third Way really operates and how malignant to the integrity of our party their presence really is.

[sibelian]

88. "how the Third Way really operates"

Yes. TREACHEROUSLY.

The Third Way is all about acquiring social "capital" and spending it how they see fit. There isn't a word coming out of them that means anything, they are fundamentally untrustworthy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. "Are you pissed that the facts are coming out?"

DING DING DING.

[ProSense]

32. What is with this "brazen" comment?

Shame on you!!!!!

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Their strategy is now to outright refuse to argue with you - they opt for innuendo and accusation

It is the tactic of any Stalinesque shithead who cannot win an argument. "This one," they call you, without any sense of their own ridiculousness. Well, they have the frothing lynch mob on their side, and the leaders of the frothing lynch mob don't need to argue. They need merely point at their interlocutors and say "This one. This one is very suspicious. We've known about this one for a long time. Everybody knows, in fact, about this one...." Such is the state of discourse. The little Madame Defarges, knitting and carrying on, and sarcastic Third Wayers, like "Cato give his little Senate laws and stand attentive to his own applause..."

[woo me with science]

54. I see the troops are in.

Junior high circles of giggling don't change the content of the article, which clearly demonstrates Prosense's attempt to mislead.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. "Stalinesque" really shouldn't be uttered by someone who supports spying on all citizens

I'm sure you can see my point.

[JaneyVee]

38. Don't shoot the messenger. I just copied & pasted directly from the article.

[woo me with science]

43. Please just be aware

that headlines are written by headline writers, not the journalist. It's always better to read the article to make sure what you post is accurate.

In this case, the word "some" is extremely important, and omitting it gives a false impression of what the administration is doing here. You really should change the wording of your post headline.

[sweetloukillbot]

79. Were details not released?

The headline says details were released. Some details are still just details. Headline writers have a limited amount of space to provide information on the story. I'm sorry you are upset that the word some was left out, take it up with the page designers who only gave so much space for the headline.

[woo me with science]

80. Oh for dog's sake. There is plenty of space at DU to be clear, if you *choose* to be clear.

Sheesh.

[sweetloukillbot]

98. I understood the headline.

[dkf]

9. And why did they need to classify it in the first place

What happened to the "consent of the governed"?

[woo me with science]

14. Thank you. And now come the legal pursuit and intimidation to the leaker

who had the audacity to think the American people should know they are being surveilled by their own government.

"Most transparent administration in history" my ass.

[randome]

21. You mean someone in an intelligence agency who can't be trusted with intelligence?

Gee, I wonder why that might impact one's job prospects.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[L0oniX]

53. What? The NSA National Snooping Assholes can't snoop out the leakers? Epic Fail!

[FirstLight]

58. your last line... +1000

says it all for me!

[Bonobo]

81. Yes and why are they "going after the leak"? nt

[hughee99]

24. "leakers"? I thought the latest meme was "old news"? n/t

This can be old news that went public years ago, or it can be classified news that was just recently leaked, but it can't be both.

[woo me with science]

28. +100000 It's "old news," but don't doubt that an example will be made of anyone

who let Americans know we are being surveilled *by our own government.*

This is how sick and creepy the culture of authoritarianism, and the propaganda that surrouds it, have become.

[L0oniX]

55. Re-leaking old news is hurting our national security...

[woo me with science]

56. Someone will be made an example of...

because this "oldnews" is likely just the tip of a very ugly iceberg.

It was also reported today that the Justice Dept. claims to be open to reconsidering some parts of the Patriot Act. My guess is that we will soon see offers of a few meaningless, cosmetic changes in order to try to quell criticism and stave off demands for a much needed more thorough investigation.

There's a hell of a lot of ass covering and wagon circling going on.

[Th1onein]

73. You are absolutely right.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. "A lie will go round the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on..."

The assistance of paranoid shitheads aids greatly in that travel schedule.

[BlueCheese]

33. Some issues that need to be cleared up.

Clapper appears to be saying that PRISM is just an analytical tool that works on data collected under other means, i.e. FISA warrants or other things. This would be consistent with the companies' claims that they're not part of any data gathering operation, and respond only to lawful warrants. It would also be possible to construe the NSA slides' statement of direct collection from company servers as the companies pulling the data directly themselves.

That would be a great relief if this were all there is.

However, a couple of things don't quite fit into that.

First, in the NSA slides, there's a list of companies and the dates on which they started providing data. If all the government were doing was serving warrants, why would there need to be dates, or a list of companies? Can't they serve warrants on whomever they want whenever they want?

Second, if this is all there is, what is so reckless or dangerous about the leak? If all that was disclosed was some (somewhat mistaken) information about a frontend program, why such a big deal?

[Major Hogwash]

35. Great thread, Janey.

Nothing clears the air faster than the truth!!

It is reckless for the media to go on a witchhunt like this.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

74. Truth? From NSA? Come on now.

[SidDithers]

48. DU rec...

woo me with truth.

Sid

[jazzimov]

50. Just as I thought - much ado about nothing.

Also seeing articles in USA Today, Time, and CNET on Google News.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Clapper's blasting seems to be at odds with the President who said he was glad to be having this

conversation, but that is at odds with the fact that he never started this conversation, and that is at odds with his complex promises about transparency in government.

[MNBrewer]

109. He's a complex and multifaceted man, that President.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. You can't fight hysteria, you just have to let it wind down on its own. Fast & Furious anyone?

All these "scandals" have one thing in common, and I think "DEMOCRATS" know what it is.

[MADem]

103. I'm sure the GOP are rubbing their hands together with glee... nt

[GoneFishin]

105. You are probably right. So why then does BO reach across the isle for their approval

while backing-handing his own base?

[MADem]

113. It's not their approval he seeks. His efforts across the aisle have more to do with

independent voters--who are rapidly becoming the largest force in any election--than far left party members, who are going to complain about any Democrat that makes it to the national stage, because they will NEVER be "liberal" enough to suit them (but someone liberal enough to suit them doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of winning anything, ever).

He continues to be polite, the GOP continue to be obstinate--over time, that paradigm becomes obvious, and if there's anyone who needs to be blamed, the blame is usually placed on the crew that acted like assholes, not the guy who tried to be reasonable. It's the sort of thing an independent voter observes, and remembers.

[DirkGently]

131. Unlikely. Probably their guy who was breaking the law with PRISM.

[MADem]

133. I thought I read here on DU that he had fans over at Faux, but I just don't watch that

network. I think much will ride on what he does next.

He's left his Kowloon hotel; is he headed to another part of HK, to the airport, or over the border? That's the question.

[justiceischeap]

110. Whether these stories have led to "misimpressions" or not

This is worthy of the public being outraged about. I think the issue isn't so much they may be doing it now but it can be done in the future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. CYA complete with shrieks.

[DirkGently]

134. See his head snap around at the news conference?

Some question about "leaks" right at the end. A button was successfully pushed.

[KoKo]

123. It Broke the "Cool/Pragmatic." He DID NEED to deal with This....

I see he's "Come Out Swinging." Is it an "OUCH FACTOR?" or just what He Had to Do?

We Shall See.