HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NYTimes Op-Ed: "The Crimi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:57 AM

NYTimes Op-Ed: "The Criminal N.S.A."

The Criminal N.S.A.
By JENNIFER STISA GRANICK and CHRISTOPHER JON SPRIGMAN
Published: June 27, 2013

THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.”

It didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have called the surveillance legal. So have liberal-leaning commentators like Hendrik Hertzberg and David Ignatius.

This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.

~snip~

Even in the fearful time when the Patriot Act was enacted, in October 2001, lawmakers never contemplated that Section 215 would be used for phone metadata, or for mass surveillance of any sort. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and one of the architects of the Patriot Act, and a man not known as a civil libertarian, has said that “Congress intended to allow the intelligence communities to access targeted information for specific investigations.” The N.S.A.’s demand for information about every American’s phone calls isn’t “targeted” at all — it’s a dragnet. “How can every call that every American makes or receives be relevant to a specific investigation?” Mr. Sensenbrenner has asked. The answer is simple: It’s not.

The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious. That is a shockingly flimsy argument — any data might be “relevant” to an investigation eventually, if by “eventually” you mean “sometime before the end of time.” If all data is “relevant,” it makes a mockery of the already shaky concept of relevance.


~snip ~

Like the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act gives the government very broad surveillance authority. And yet the Prism program appears to outstrip that authority. In particular, the government “may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.”

Much More Here> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=opinion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a very good read imho.

70 replies, 3448 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply NYTimes Op-Ed: "The Criminal N.S.A." (Original post)
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 OP
Th1onein Jun 2013 #1
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #2
BehindTheCurtain76 Jun 2013 #16
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #3
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #5
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #10
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #15
Th1onein Jun 2013 #12
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #17
rhett o rick Jun 2013 #21
Hydra Jun 2013 #23
PoliticAverse Jun 2013 #26
bvar22 Jun 2013 #41
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #49
Th1onein Jun 2013 #53
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #54
kentuck Jun 2013 #56
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #57
Melinda Jun 2013 #66
Waiting For Everyman Jun 2013 #18
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #55
Waiting For Everyman Jun 2013 #62
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #64
cali Jun 2013 #19
kentuck Jun 2013 #42
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #59
kentuck Jun 2013 #60
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #61
railsback Jun 2013 #4
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #6
railsback Jun 2013 #11
Th1onein Jun 2013 #13
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #14
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #7
railsback Jun 2013 #9
Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #25
railsback Jun 2013 #29
Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #33
railsback Jun 2013 #36
Romulus Quirinus Jun 2013 #37
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #34
railsback Jun 2013 #35
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #63
bhikkhu Jun 2013 #8
DesMoinesDem Jun 2013 #20
ucrdem Jun 2013 #22
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #27
marions ghost Jun 2013 #24
Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #28
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #46
woo me with science Jun 2013 #30
Douglas Carpenter Jun 2013 #31
kentuck Jun 2013 #32
woo me with science Jun 2013 #38
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #45
treestar Jun 2013 #39
marions ghost Jun 2013 #48
kentuck Jun 2013 #40
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #44
PufPuf23 Jun 2013 #43
L0oniX Jun 2013 #47
99Forever Jun 2013 #50
silvershadow Jun 2013 #51
Bonobo Jun 2013 #52
marions ghost Jun 2013 #65
Bonobo Jun 2013 #67
marions ghost Jun 2013 #68
sibelian Jun 2013 #58
woo me with science Jul 2013 #69
woo me with science Jul 2013 #70

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:13 AM

1. It IS criminal and it needs to stop.

You've got to torture, like Clapper, the English language, in order to call this legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:20 AM

2. The nice thing about Op-Ed pieces is that the newspaper can't fire the writer(s)

because they are not employed by the paper in the first place,
it is a one-shot deal. I seriously doubt that a staff writer could
have gotten away with this, without being pressured to fire its
authors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:27 AM

16. CRIMES

 

Especially criminal if what Russ Tice from NSA said is true...that the top echelon of federal judges and politicians are the main focus of the wiretaps to gain leverage on them to blackmail them into making decisions the NSA and the military want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:24 AM

3. Interesting, but inherently flawed.

First of all, data collection is not "surveillance". The Census Bureau does not surveil, though the data they collect is far more complete than that of the NSA.

Secondly, "a highly selective reading of the law" is perfectly legitimate. That's what lawyers do and, until a court dismisses the interpretation, it's still the law.

Finally, the authors' dismissal of different interpretations by others, including "liberal-leaning commentators" via the antagonistic "this view is wrong" is itself wrong. Editorialists can and should disagree with one another. Flippancy is not a hallmark of a well-honed opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:43 AM

5. THIS 'data collection' consists of monitoring who, when and how often I phone or email

So when I contact a "someone", who happens to be a "suspect" or
on a watch-list of some kind, then **presto!!!** I suddenly become
a suspect as well, etc. and so on it goes. Ever-more "suspects" to
be hounded and scrutinized, without their knowledge even.

THIS is what's so insidious, odious and unconstitutional about this
business of drag-netting and mining "meta-data", then based on that,
delving into actual content, with a high-five from the nearest FISA
court.

Once you start that ugly ball rolling (which we have already done apparently)
it will be a bitch to stop it from completely taking over as in Big Brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:02 AM

10. I'll say it one last time. Then I'm done.

NSA telephone metadata consists of five elements: outgoing phone number, incoming phone number, date, time, and duration. There are no names attached. There can't be, because there's no way to determine who or what was on either end of what may, or may not, have been a conversation. Further, it's encrypted. Nothing can be determined from this data other than some useless statistical analysis.

That's what this editorial discusses. Nothing more. To pontificate about the ramifications of what may happen once a warrant is issued and surveillance commences is fodder for a different thread - of which there are a whoptillion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:20 AM

15. It's a pity that reverse phone directories don't still exist

so you can trace numbers back to names, addresses, etc. I feel very safe now, knowing
that NSA "only" has me and my friends phone numbers, times, dates & duration, and don't
suspect for a minute that they can trace numbers back to names, addresses, etc. .



I'm happy you are "done", and on that we can at least agree, i.e. to disagree, pretty much
completely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:14 AM

12. Wow! You should go to work for the government!

It's illegal. They know it. We know it. The whistleblowers before Snowden knew it. And, now, all of America knows it.

Except for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:28 AM

17. Except for me and the courts.

They determine what's legal. Not you.

And also for the very last time: All laws are legal. Does the simplicity make it difficult to understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:02 AM

21. Of course the "law is legal". The interpretation by the government may not be.

When the law says that you need to identify specifically who you are spying on and what data you need, and the FISA court issues a warrant that the NSA can get any and all available records on all Americans, IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:26 PM

23. No...

Not all laws are legal. DOMA, for instance. The Constitution is the highest legal document. If you pass a law that conflicts with it, that can't legalize illegal behavior.

The FISA court has deemed their behavior to be a violation of the 4th amendment. Obama's DoJ has blocked the release of the ruling, so we know it's not favorable to their position.

They are NOT allowed to spy on anyone without a warrant based on probable cause. They have been spying on people without probable cause. And they've lied about it to Congress, which is obstruction of justice.

It's all documented, we've just been forbidden to know about it until Snowden leaked the docs. If you're against rule of law, just say so- don't pretend you're defending innocent behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:44 PM

26. Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

Additional article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/fisc-ruling-surveillance_n_3430402.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 08:02 PM

41. Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."

Account status: Active
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 905
Number of posts, last 90 days: 350

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:56 PM

49. Things that make you go "D'oh".

Work hiatus. Illness.

Thing that make you go "fuck off":

Thinly-veiled accusations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:01 AM

53. The courts have not ruled on this brand new handy, dandy INTERPRETATION of the law.

Up until Snowden, THIS INTERPRETATION WAS SECRET. So, no, it's NOT a law. It's an interpretation of it, and probably dead ass wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:09 AM

54. There ain't no fuck in chocolate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #54)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:24 AM

56. ???

What does that mean??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:37 AM

57. Google broken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #56)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:24 PM

66. It's an old joke...

A little boy and his dad go to an ice cream store. The boy orders a chocolate sundae and is told there is no chocolate. He asks for chocolate again, and gets the same response. This goes on for several moments until the server asks the boy:

How do you spell the STRAW in strawberry?

The child replies "S T R A W", straw

The server asks "How do you spell the VAN in vanilla?

The child replies "V A N", van

The server then asks "How do you spell the FUCK in chocolate?

The child exclaims "There is no FUCK in chocolate"

The server finishes "that's what I've been trying to tell you - there is no fuck'in chocolate."

FWIW, my mom use to tell this joke, and I am almost 59 yrs young, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:41 AM

18. Census data collection is not INVOLUNTARY and SECRET.

It's nothing similar, but nice try.

Next point. Unconstitutional things, and even immoral, unethical, things can be "legal". So what? That doesn't mean they're written in stone, and can't, and shouldn't, be changed.

Finally, the author doesn't need to promote or even accept others' points of view in a piece. He is writing his own. Besides, I like me some flippancy in resistance of oppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:14 AM

55. "Refusing or neglecting to answer the census is punishable by fines of $100,

" for a property or business agent to fail to provide correct names for the census is punishable by fines of $500, and for a business agent to provide false answers for the census is punishable by fines of $10,000, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 221"

Otherwise, you're right. Census data is secret. Just like NSA data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #55)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:38 PM

62. It so happens that I worked for the Census this last time,

and I can tell you that even if such a law is on the books, it is being completely ignored. There were nothing but absolutely voluntary instructions issued to us... emphatically so.

It is no secret that the data is being collected, not that we have access to it -- of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #62)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:50 PM

64. I'm not sure what your point is.

That the law is ignored doesn't negate that census participation is required by law. Thus, it is not "involuntary" as you stated.

Don't understand your second sentence, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:41 AM

19. of course it's surveillance. Even they say it is.

and "a highly selective reading of the law" may be technically legal, but that doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 08:24 PM

42. If it's not surveillance?

then what is it? A pretty strong argument but not many NSA cheerleaders responding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #42)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:44 AM

59. No, it's not suveillance.

It's data collection. And the poster above you cannot cite where the NSA calls it anything else.

Who are the NSA cheerleaders? Can they be identified by their uniforms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:47 AM

60. yes. That and the cheer they are leading.

Some still need their pompons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #60)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:58 AM

61. Who are they?

I think they should be encouraged to participate in this conversation.

Can you name them, or would that be against DU rules?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:42 AM

4. Seems opinions are all GreenSnowdenWald have left.

 

What's criminal is that the NY Times helped sell Bush's invasion of Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of lives were permanently destroyed, without an apology. So here's my 'opinion' to you: BITE ME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:45 AM

6. They also printed the leaks of another whistle blower. One Daniel Ellsberg.

You might also note, that a lot of Democratic politicians signed off on Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #6)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:06 AM

11. Ellsberg release the Pentagon Papers in 1971

 

over 30 years prior to Iraq, so that statement has no relevance. And what difference does it make that Democrats signed on to Bush's war, too? Am I supposed to say, 'oh, right, sorry NY Times'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:17 AM

13. I seem to recall someone once saying that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat

it. 30 years is a relatively short period of time. And the statement IS relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:20 AM

14. Ellsberg also supports Manning and Snowden and their efforts.

With or without the Times.

As does the ACLU and Amnesty International.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:51 AM

7. FYI - it was actually an "op-ed" piece, not an official NYTimes Editorial.

Op-ed articles are written by people deemed by the NYTimes to have
some credentials on a subject and/or an important point of view to
be considered by readers.

The two who co-authored the piece are primarily academicians re: law,
and/or civil liberties.; and do not work for the NYTimes. <-- THIS is
great, because the NYTimes can't be bullied into "firing" them by the
powers that be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:00 AM

9. Yes, 'deemed' by the NY Times

 

Enough said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:13 PM

25. So where do you get your news from?

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulus Quirinus (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:23 PM

29. FYI

 

Going back to the previous poster, the NY Times also considers David Brooks to have some credentials and an 'important point of view', which totally flies in the face of the op-eds mentioned as being relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 05:39 PM

33. So?

What source is totally unpolluted with being wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulus Quirinus (Reply #33)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 06:00 PM

36. Expected the blank look.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #36)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 06:03 PM

37. Pardon? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #29)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 05:50 PM

34. So now the evil NYTimes is "The Issue"?

Anything to divert attention away from the heart of the matter, i.e. that
we are being spied upon illegally by our own government.

sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 05:58 PM

35. Yeah, I forgot to cherry pick my messenger attack

 

So sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to railsback (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:20 PM

63. Forgetting appears to be your forte. ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:59 AM

8. My disagreement comes from the notion that phone numbers are private

...as I've always considered that our phone system is a public utility, the same as our roads are public roads, and the same as the internet is a public place. One could argue that some measure of privacy is reasonable in a public place, but to expect absolute privacy isn't so reasonable.

If they are talking about collecting lists of phone numbers, dates and times, that seems minimally intrusive. If the usefulness of the practice is demonstrated as far as law enforcement, then I would be satisfied with the balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:59 AM

20. "It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:09 AM

22. "Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul . . . "

Stand with Rand fail.

It didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality.


I can guess where this link came from, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:01 PM

27. Eerrr. aarrghhh...

I'm at a loss for words. Listen.

They could just as easily have said "or Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon",
who is MY US Senator, and a solid Democrat from the Democratic
wing of his party. He has also been pretty outspoken about the NSA
revelations as well.

Should we throw Sen Wyden under the bus too? After all, he
"agrees with Ron Paul" about it, so is Wyden now "tainted" and
less than trustworthy in your estimation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:10 PM

24. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:13 PM

28. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:32 PM

46. Interesting video link

Reel Bad Arabs.

Glad someone is exposing these kinds of lame stereotypes, so we
can finally "grow-up" as a society someday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:26 PM

30. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 04:57 PM

31. a very important article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 05:37 PM

32. The NY Times?!!

Wow!

======

"We may never know all the details of the mass surveillance programs, but we know this: The administration has justified them through abuse of language, intentional evasion of statutory protections, secret, unreviewable investigative procedures and constitutional arguments that make a mockery of the government’s professed concern with protecting Americans’ privacy. It’s time to call the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs what they are: criminal."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 07:10 PM

38. This needs to stay on top. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #38)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:22 PM

45. Thanks. YES.

I'll be floating it on some other stings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 07:12 PM

39. This is no more sophisticated than right wingers declaring the EPA or OSHA or IRS to be "criminal."

If you don't like the law, you don't like it but it's pointless to blame the agency tasked with carrying out the law with, well, carrying out the law. People show they are abysmally ignorant and don't deserve a blog or column sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:39 PM

48. Two lawyers from excellent schools

Stanford & UVA--qualified to write an excellent opinion piece with a lot of food for thought, published by the NYT. Credentials don't get too much better.

They are accusing the agency of over-reach, circumventing the intent of the law, and instituting the secret PRISM program without proper review and oversight:

"The court does not approve the target or the facilities to be monitored, nor does it assess whether the government is doing enough to minimize the intrusion, correct for collection mistakes and protect privacy. Once the court issues a surveillance order, the government can issue top-secret directives to Internet companies like Google and Facebook to turn over calls, e-mails, video and voice chats, photos, voice­over IP calls (like Skype) and social networking information."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 07:33 PM

40. Where are all the rebuttals??

This is the NY Times - not some nobody on DU....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #40)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:20 PM

44. Well, the post #39 above yours, sums it up. That's all they got. ~nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 08:39 PM

43. kr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 09:38 PM

47. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:03 PM

50. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:42 PM

51. Uh oh. Guess the Army Times won't be carrying the story. Guess the Pentagon will cut NYT from

troops internet access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:43 PM

52. B,but if Greenwald + Nader and Snowden=narcissistic traitor, then...

NRA surveillance must be okay!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #52)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 03:12 PM

65. did you mean

NSA surveillance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #65)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 07:47 PM

67. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #52)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 08:14 PM

68. K&R

---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:39 AM

58. K+R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 06:26 PM

69. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 04:52 PM

70. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread