The massive, suspicionless spying is UNPRECEDENTED, and is why many folks object to it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Just an FYI for folks who say 'countries have always spied on one another' and therefore do not get what all the hubbub is about.

This has gone way beyond trying to catch terrorist, so there is no justification for it, and must be stopped.

And if your privacy does not matter to you, so you could care less about other's privacy concerns, or the chilling effect it is having on free speech, think about the ENORMOUS COSTS, especially in this stagnant economy, where our schools, healthcare, pensions, bridges, etc. can not be afforded (as claimed by many on the hill)... but even if the economy was booming, would you want this enormous amount of money being spent on the spying of EVERYONE, GLOBALLY?

And finally, for what purpose is this massive harvesting, storing, and analyzing of all communications for? It is obviously not just for catching a few terrorist... so, it begs the question: what is the purpose?




Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
34th president of US 1953-1961 (1890 - 1969)

[Buzz Clik]

1. Now he's Paul Revere? I thought he was John Brown?

Where is Waldo, anyway??

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

14. I think it is an interesting analogy

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Considering that at the time, what he did, inform the people that their government leaders were up to no good, would have been considered espionage by the law of the land, too.

[baldguy]

30. No, he's Gandhi, MLK, Albert Sweitzer, Daniel Elsburg, & Karen Silkwood, all rolled into one.

How he maintains his svelte physique, I'll never know.

[JoePhilly]

2. We should cut taxes, shrink our evil government, and then ...

... drown it in a bath tub!!

Or maybe hold a tea party rally.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

3. You sound just like a tea bagger

[JoePhilly]

6. Perhaps, however ...

I did it sarcastically ... not so sure about you.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

21. what the fuck do you mean "not sure about you"? DO you EVER hear TB talking about improving gov

programs like education, health care, ss?

YOU did not put a sarcasm tag in your post, and it is YOU, not me, who sounds just like a freak bagger.

I am getting very tired of these insults to myself and other DUers who have real concerns about these unconstitutional spying programs, and are trying to start a serious discussion that is always interrupted by these childish, lame, and hostile false accusations, so please stop.

thank you.

[JoePhilly]

27. How about this ...

If you stop using silly comparisons, like this one with Paul Reevre ... I'll stop mocking them.

The only people I hear talking about the impending revolution are Tea Baggers.

They, like you, take an historical event from the revolution (the Tea Party) and then totally miss apply it.

Nice Picture though.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

48. Just Stop Your Baseless Insults and Accusations.

How about that?

[jazzimov]

116. Oh. My. God.

I should have known from your OP, but your inability to recognize sarcasm proves everything I suspected.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

119. u2

are going for the personal attacks, vs real discussion of the issues, though im sure it just confirms a lot of folks suspicions as well.

[leftstreet]

5. Nice try

The OP was suggesting no such thing

Re-directing taxes to meet the needs of the working classes rather than the wealthy elite

But you probably knew that

[JoePhilly]

9. Can you imagine what the evil government will do when ...

they combine our phone and email records with are medical records after we get single payer health care?

I mean think about it ... with that combination, they'll be able to kill us off through our medical system and make it look like natural causes.

[leftstreet]

10. They're already killing us off just through costs n/t

[JoePhilly]

12. So we don't support Single Payer anymore?

Just wanting to clarify ... single payer used to be important to us here on DU ... but I'm not sure that we'd want our evil government in control of it.

[leftstreet]

15. LOL I haven't seen anyone but you make that comparison n/t

[JoePhilly]

17. One can not logically argue that (a) we now live under a totalitarian government and (b)

we want that same totalitarian government to manage our health care system.

[leftstreet]

18. Yes, look what Medicare and SS have done to seniors!

[JoePhilly]

20. So you agree with me, we do not live under a totalitarian government.

And that's my point.

[leftstreet]

24. When did you stop supporting SS & Medicare? n/t

[JoePhilly]

33. Never. I support both. And Single Payer.

In part because I am not terrified of our government.

[leftstreet]

35. That's good to know n/t

[kestrel91316]

59. Well, we want DOCTORS to manage our health care and the government to

pay them directly. And we want insurance companies barred from selling medical "insurance" since that's just a scam to fleece people out of their hard-earned money without providing services.

We don't want government managing healthcare. But you knew that.

[JoePhilly]

77. Why trust them in the one case, and not the other?

To get reimbursed, the doctors will have to provide medical codes that correspond to your specific medical needs.

Which means that the government will know EXACTLY which conditions you have had. They will know if you are seeking mental health. They will know if you are being treated for addiction.

I find it interesting that many of those who are sure the evil government is listening to their phone calls, are also sure they won't be data mining your medical records.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

100. Are you serious? One is a foreign spy agency looking for evil-doers, the other is concerned about

your health.

You don't see the huge difference between the two agencies?

Think about the historic difference between these two agencies throughout history, and the trouble one has caused vs the other.

see the difference, yet

[galileoreloaded]

38. you dont seem to understand EMR, ARRA, and "meaningful use". suggest you google more. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. this is a progressive board and we don't believe in that sort of thing here anymore than we believe

that government should develop the instruments of a totalitarian state. When Bush was President everyone here shared those beliefs.

[JoePhilly]

11. Looking forward to the day where our totalitarian government, also has direct access to our medical

records, via a single payer health care system.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. oh bullshit. if you think there is a moral equivalency between having a single payer universal

healthcare system and living under a surveillance state where the entire apparatus is in place to monitor everyone you communicate with. And if you think that is the same thing. ,,, you are not living in the real world. It used to be that everyone here on DU was against he surveillance state yet the vast majority supported single payer healthcare.

[JoePhilly]

19. The same government would be controlling both ... no?

My point is pretty simple ... you can not run around screaming that we have a totalitarian government AND THEN ALSO say that you want that same totalitarian government to control your health care.

Those two things are at odds.

Now personally, I don't think we live under a totalitarian government, and in fact, I trust our government enough to want it to run a single payer health care system.

So for me, there is no logical contradiction.

I'm not so sure about some others here on DU recently.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. oh for crying out loud. Medical files used for medical reassons are not the same a a national

security apparatus - Numerous countries in the world have developed even socialized healthcare systems without every\ descending into totalitarianism - no society has ever put in place a massive security apparatus to monitor everyone's communications without descending into totalitarianism. You are making the Ronald Regan argument that Medicare was the first step toward totalitarian communism and rational people don't buy it.

[JoePhilly]

31. Why would we trust them to use our medical files only for medical purposes?

I mean, we're sure that they are listening to all of our calls ... why would they NOT read our medical files and then DATA MINE that information?

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. I don't agree with the rightwing view that socialized medicine leads to totalitarianism

I do agree with liberals and supporters of liberal western democracy that vast networks of surveillance that monitors everyone's communications are likely lead to vast networks of control. That's how we liberals think;.

[JoePhilly]

45. Think some more ...

I did not say socialized medicine would lead to totalitarian government. Yes the RW does say that. I did not.

I am however, suggesting that a totalitarian government (or we could use Fascist, or any other term used here on DU lately) would use the medical records as part of their police state (another word thrown around lately).

And so, if one is throwing around such words, or making reference to a 2nd revolutionary war, they're going to quickly run into a conflict of logic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. massive surveillance states do frequently lead to totalitarianism - socialized healthcare never has

I can't believe I am on a liberal board having to defend the principle of why I believe in western democracy.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

112. Though it does clearly illustrate the absurdity of their claims

which i think is a good thing for folks who just drop by DU briefly, to get the latest news, to see the lame "arguments" copied from officialdom or the M$M, crushed.

thanks for contributing

[baldguy]

44. You're making the Ronald Reagan argument. And JoePhilly is the one pointing out how ludicrous it is.

As you insist, it's an issue of trust. You want to eliminate a marginally intrusive program by one govt agency which deals with entirely anonymous information, but want to hand over to another govt agency highly personal, highly sensitive information which could be easily abused.

You're right about one thing: Rational people aren't buying your argument. That's why most polls show people think Snowden is a traitor who should be tossed in prison.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. show me one poll that says most people consider Snowden a traitor?

but that's besides the point. We don't believe in massive surveillance states here - but most of us do believe in universal healthcare - we don't agree that they are moral equivalents - nobody does except right-wingers and born-again authoritarians

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

68. U & JoePhilly are making the ludicrous claim that our data is safe & confidential with a SPY agency

but we should be suspicious of a government managed health program, that would primarily have access to billing information.

Talk about nonsense... but at least it's out there for all of DU to see.

Thanks for sharing

[baldguy]

71. If it's not safe with a SPY AGENCY - whose entire existence rests upon keeping secrets

How could it be safe with an entire industry that has nothing to do with keeping secrets - which is healthcare?

And healthcare info isn't just billing.

It's what diseases you have & had, what drugs you take, sexual history, history of injuries, mental health, etc. etc. etc. Your healthcare information is A HELL OF A LOT more personal & private than your phone & email metadata.

You're not making any sense here. You do realize that, don't you.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

73. Yeah, they are doing a swell job of that

and Exactly, healthcare has nothing to do with SPYING, so does NOT have access to ALL our digital communications, not to mention the conversations we have with our doctors and nurses, hello...

And, yes, the government involvement in our healthcare would be LIMITED, to just our billing data, hello, again...

You're not making any sense here. You do realize that, don't you.

[baldguy]

96. So you're going to blindly accept Snowden's word that the NSA shouldn't be trusted

because it can't keep nefarious people from leaking classified information...

Nefarious people like Snowden?

May I say that my mind is totally & completely boggled that THIS is the argument you're using to justify your double standard?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

97. it's not just his word, it's his TOP SECRET documents...

which have not been disavowed of or had their authenticity challenged... see, it's NOT JUST ABOUT THE MESSENGER.


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[treestar]

29. Does seem strange that the same evil government, which you do not trust

is really dangerous having a record of phone calls but not dangerous to have your health information. In fact the outrage when the right wants to cut of birth control and abortions indicates you are fine with the evil government, which you do not trust, knowing who had an abortion. But not that person's phone calls.

Really lame.

[JoePhilly]

32. And we'd trust this same evil government with a gun registry.

Or at least here on DU many used to want this ... not so sure now.

[treestar]

50. Another good point.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. then you just don't understand how free people in democratic societies think. We believe that

providing healthcare to everyone is high priority. But we don't want to put in place the instruments of absolutely surveillance that monitors all our communications with virtually everyone we have dealing with. We feel that this can only grow in time to a vast web of control. Since many countries with even socialized healthcare systems have remained open and liberal democracies - but states with vast and all encompassing security systems that monitor and record everyone's communications almost always descend in time into totalitarianism.

[treestar]

54. You are skipping the part where the government would know

your entire health history, who had what procedures, and who had abortions and who used birth control.

A list of phone calls is not monitoring communications, either. They have to have a warrant for a wiretap, for the 8 millionth time.

And they would also know, per our own demands, who has what guns.

We are fine with them "spying" on businesses - EPA, OSHA, etc.

So why they can't follow some patterns to see if they can head off terrorists is just blind. No one has claimed to be harmed. No one ever seems to want to deal with the issue when I bring it up - but it would likely be Muslims/mosques that would feel the brunt of this, and the media at least has not made any complaints. The only media coverage I've seen is that there should have been more spying on Tamerlan's mosque.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. I don't actually believe you believe what you are saying. But we can look around

the world and see what happens when state security services get so large and their networks of surveillance grows so big - I don't agree with the right-wing line or "libertarian" line that there is an equivalency between vast networks of surveillance and instruments for the public good. Obviously when a centralized state agency has the records of everyone's communications - a complex profile of that person is immediately available and is already in secretive and centralized state hands. It would be the pinnacle of naivete to imagine that such a vast system of surveillance and data would not in time turn into an instrument of control. I am shocked and outraged that on a liberal board there are people who cannot see the difference.

[treestar]

79. Nonresponsive

It's telling you ignore the issues raised and just repeat yourself again.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. I did respond but you just don't understand that those of us who believe in modern liberal

democracy believe in universal healthcare but don't believe in setting up a massive surveillance network that watches and makes records or all our communications. It's not the same. There is no case in the history of the world where universal healthcare has lead to the authoritarian state. There is no case in the history of the world where the massive surveillance society has not. No one here on DU was defending the massive surveillance state when Bush was President. Well sooner or later another bush with another Dick Cheney is going to be power and the instruments of the totalitarian state will be handed to them on a silver platter - if this is not stopped.

[treestar]

86. There's no massive surveillance state for one thing

People who have to exaggerate to make their point should wonder about their point.

And having health information would be very valuable to a would-be political operative. A person makes some sort of objection to something and suddenly their health history is out there. Mental health treatment, sexual and birth control issues - how can the government have that if it's so corrupt and not use it?

You may find UK and Sweden not to be corrupt and not to be "massively surveilling" because you have not looked into it and want it to be that way. I would venture to say there is some national security in those countries, too, and probably a lot more effectively intrusive than anything this country can pull off.

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. I would just suggest you look into the matter a little bit - there are several sources

and that are reporting an explosion in the surveillance state. There is really no need to post any links here. Because several articles written by reputable sources and supported with documentation and credible witnesses are available right here on DU and numerous other places. Ronald Reagan may have believed that universal healthcare would spell the end of freedom. But, I'm not buying it.

[Ash_F]

127. It's not the same government

NSA, DNI and CIA are over-run with fundie pubs. PRISM is a Republican construction, operated by the right. Just because we have a Democratic President right now doesn't change any of that. Clapper is a Bush league tool.

People that are even somewhat moderate get run out of these organizations, as Valerie Plame did.

Plame on PRISM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/valerie-plame_n_3466824.html


You can tell from Obama's tone that he is not at the reins here, but nodding along, trying not to rock the boat. He and other Dems should be championing the dismantlement of this program while rightfully pinning it to the Republicans. It would be a winning strategy for 2014.

[marions ghost]

137. Right

they are RethugliCon controlled and they have a lot of power.

I agree that calling for dismantling these invasive surveillance programs would be a winning political strategy.

[Downwinder]

39. Are you implying that they do not have access already?

[Narkos]

4. Jesus ,Snowden is Paul Revere now?

[JoePhilly]

13. Apparently, the OP is anticipating a 2nd revolutionary war.

[treestar]

82. OP does not like the system the Founders created

It would be interesting for OP to define the system that would be good.

Probably one where a "good" President like Dennis Kucinich or Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson decides what is constitutional or not, makes all the laws with congress just being for show (a true leader gets congress to do what the leader wants by using intimidation tactics) and does all this with no national security agency and no military spending.

Yeah, the Russians would sure leave us alone and not try to take over.

[Demit]

7. I'm afraid you should've ended your fine post before the comparison.

It gives the naysayers a focus for their ridicule so that they don't have to respond to what else you said.

I know that similes and metaphors generally help in illustrating abstract ideas, but this is a very literal, linear-thinking crowd you're attempting to reach.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

25. Thank you for your wise advice

I have removed it from my OP in the spirit of genuine dialog.

[ProSense]

22. I guess

"The massive, suspicionless spying is UNPRECEDENTED, and is why many folks object to it."

...screaming that the bogus claim ("suspicionless spying&quot is "UNPRECEDENTED" makes the claim less bogus?

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

The program was in fact a wide range of covert surveillance activities authorized by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. At that time, White House officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, had become convinced that FISA court procedures were too cumbersome and time-consuming to permit U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to quickly identify possible Qaeda terrorists inside the country. (Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, referred to the FISA court in one meeting as that "obnoxious court," according to former assistant attorney general Jack Goldsmith.) Under a series of secret orders, Bush authorized the NSA for the first time to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between the United States and a foreign country without any court review. The code name for the NSA collection activities—unknown to all but a tiny number of officials at the White House and in the U.S. intelligence community—was "Stellar Wind."

http://web.archive.org/web/20081216011008/http://www.newsweek.com/id/174601/output/print

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

Greenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041862

Secret to Prism program: Even bigger data seizure
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/secret-prism-success-even-bigger-data-seizure

The entire article is framed to create the impression that warrantless wiretapping is legal, and that Obama approves of it.

The article mentions the Protect America Act, quotes Obama opposing it, and then creates the impression he embraced it when he became President.

From the article:

The Bush administration shut down its warrantless wiretapping program in 2007 but endorsed a new law, the Protect America Act, which allowed the wiretapping to continue with changes: The NSA generally would have to explain its techniques and targets to a secret court in Washington, but individual warrants would not be required.

Congress approved it, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in the midst of a campaign for president, voting against it.

"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide," Obama said in a speech two days before that vote. "I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."

<...>

Years after decrying Bush for it, Obama said Americans did have to make tough choices in the name of safety.

There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the PAA with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.

While the article mentions that Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), there is no mention of the fact that the Act expired in early 2008.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

It's illegal to collect this information on Americans.

Here is information on the FISA law including the 2008 amendments.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008

Specifically, the Act:[19]

• Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
  
  
• Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to keep the records for a period of 10 years).
  
  
• Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists". Immunity is given by a certification process, which can be overturned by a court on specific grounds.[20]
  
  
• Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance if the target is reasonably believed to be outside the country.[20]
  
  
• Increased the time for warrantless surveillance from 48 hours to 7 days, if the FISA court is notified and receives an application, specific officials sign the emergency notification, and relates to an American located outside of the United States with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power. After 7 days, if the court denies or does not review the application, the information obtained cannot be offered as evidence. If the United States Attorney General believes the information shows threat of death or bodily harm, they can try to offer the information as evidence in future proceedings.[21]
  
  
• Permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to jointly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, for one-year periods, targeted at a foreigner who is abroad. This provision will sunset on December 31, 2012.
  
  
• Requires FISA court permission to target wiretaps at Americans who are overseas.
  
  
• Requires government agencies to cease warranted surveillance of a targeted American who is abroad if said person enters the United States. (However, said surveillance may resume if it is reasonably believed that the person has left the States.)
  
  
• Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval. [22]
  
  
• Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
  
  
• Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
  
  
• Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.
  
  
• Requires the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the President's Surveillance Program to "complete a comprehensive review" and report within one year

Effects

• The provisions of the Act granting immunity to the complicit telecoms create a roadblock for a number of lawsuits intended to expose and thwart the alleged abuses of power and illegal activities of the federal government since and before the September 11 attacks.[citation needed]
  
  
• Allows the government to conduct surveillance of "a U.S. person located outside of the U.S. with probable cause they are an agent of a foreign power" for up to one week (168 hours) without a warrant, increased from the previous 48 hours, as long as the FISA court is notified at the time such surveillance begins, and an application as usually required for surveillance authorization is submitted by the government to FISA within those 168 hours[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Provisions

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

34. the TOP SECRET documents released don't agree with your post, and

if they did, do you think there would be such an outcry at home and abroad?

Do you really think the whole rest of the world are misreading these documents, but that somehow only you are able to read them correctly?

BTW: My OP was not about spying on Americans, so your entire post is off the mark, being all about FISA.

Think about it...

[jazzimov]

121. Actually, they do. Have you even read them?

And the leaked documents specifically exclude Americans on American soil. If you read the documents themselves.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

123. again, this is OFF TOPIC

I am talking about the massive world wide suspicionless spying, not referring to domestic spying in the OP, that is a whole nother thread.

so, what do you think about the questions raised in the OP, and or it's premise?

[randome]

124. What is this 'read' you speak of?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[woo me with science]

56. ProSense: "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."

Speaking of conscience and consistency....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[ProSense]

60. Can't quit

being disingenuous, huh: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122617

Do you stand by this post, Prosense?

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

Yup, stand 100 percent behind it.

Ever heard of the PAA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023026724

By all means, go on pretending you never received a response.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122942
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133739
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3125366
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3122561

[treestar]

23. Meh

Everyone has access to the technology. We are just richer, so we use it more. They would if they were the only superpower.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

46. So, you think everyone would do it, if they could, therefore we should do it, because we can?

So, we should violate our laws, international laws, and sovereign nation's laws, simply because we can, no matter the coasts?

For what purpose?

[treestar]

80. Have we violated any of those laws?

Details, details.

And yes, every other country would do it. Not a one that would not.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

91. Yes, privacy, and free speech. Now can you answer my questions?

Just an FYI for folks who say 'countries have always spied on one another' and therefore do not get what all the hubbub is about.

This has gone way beyond trying to catch terrorist, so there is no justification for it, and must be stopped.

And if your privacy does not matter to you, so you could care less about other's privacy concerns, or the chilling effect it is having on free speech, think about the ENORMOUS COSTS especially in this stagnant economy, were our schools, healthcare, and pensions can not be afforded (as claimed by many on the hill)... but even if the economy was booming, would you want this enormous amount of money being spent on spying on EVERYONE, GLOBALLY?

And finally, for what purpose is this massive harvesting, storing, and analyzing of all communications for? It is obviously not just for catching a few terrorist... so, it begs the question: what is the purpose?




Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
34th president of US 1953-1961 (1890 - 1969)

Thank you

[otherone]

28. I too would prefer that my money be spent elsewhere

its not that I don't care, but I just don't see what all the buzz over Snowden is all about. In The Simpsons Movie there is a scene where global surveillance is used to track down the Simpson family. Did anyone really doubt the government was spying on us all?
50 terrorist plots foiled, tryanny working for us.
Freedom, what have you done for me lately?

[otherone]

43. see

[Waiting For Everyman]

36. Apparently totalitarianism is fine, as long as it comes in under a Dem president. n/t

[nashville_brook]

37. signs of a declining empire

moving money from people projects to suppressing people.

[tridim]

55. What money did Obama move from infrastructure to "supressing people"?

I await your link.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

64. Do you think this massive spying program is operated for free?

So, you are willing to go along with the proposed cuts to SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Education, etc. to pay for these immoral, and illegal programs?

And to what purpose do you support this massive spending on global suspicionless spying?





Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
34th president of US 1953-1961 (1890 - 1969)

[tridim]

67. I asked a specific question of the person who made the assertion.

Nice strawman though. Nothing you asserted describes myself or anyone on DU.

There are no proposed cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid or education. That would be a lie. Typical.

Thanks for playing.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

69. So... this is an OPEN discussion. But YOU continue to duck the questions in the OP...

and the more direct questions I asked of you just now.

Now, maybe you are not that well informed, but let me assure you that our economy has been suffering since 08, especially for the middle class, which has prompted MANY proposals on the hill for cuts to not only the programs I mentioned, but to others as well because of fiscal concerns. Please read more DU or google to bone-up (don't just take my word for it).

But, let's pretend that you are right, and there are no talks of cuts to social programs due to our current fiscal climate, and that the economy is BOOMING...

Are you still comfortable with the massive spending required by these programs?

And if you are... to what purpose?

Thank you, kindly.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

74. Oh, now you are throwing around personal insults

because you can not participate in the discussion with actual details?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

99. h/t to the jury

the less disrupters on this thread, the better

[Bobbie Jo]

101. Bogus hide.

Belated welcome to DU.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

102. personal insults are not good for free discussion

nor allowed on DU, fortunately.

and even better, no more disruptions/attacks from that poster on this thread (at least).

Thank you

[Bobbie Jo]

104. Good to know you're familiar

with what is "allowed." No doubt you're familiar with the TOS as well.

You're welcome.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

105. Yep, well versed

[Bobbie Jo]

106. We shall see.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

107. oh, now i am beginning to wonder if you are?

is that some kinda stalking threat, or worse?

Can we please, stay on topic?

Now, what do you think about the OP premise and/or questions?

Thank you

[Bobbie Jo]

110. I think your OP is a massive

exaggeration.

Didn't quite catch the what you "wonder" fragment, not that it matters.

One more thing....I'll post what I want, where I want without your redirection or approval. You see, that's also "allowed" on DU.

Don't like it? Alert.

Good luck, and enjoy your stay.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

113. finally

thank you.

As to what I was wondering about... it is your knowledge of the TOS, since it seems you have some not so "hidden" agenda... to harass and/or stalk me simply because my opinion differs from yours.

Which I do believe is also against the TOS here at DU, fortunately.

Good night

[Bobbie Jo]

118. Please

feel free to alert to your heart's content. You know how it works, right?

Stalking? Hardly. Some noobs are just......"interesting."

Again, enjoy your stay.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

120. zzzZZZzzz

not with you around, that's for sure.

I'm done, good night

[Bobbie Jo]

122. Outstanding.

Happy trails.

[HardTimes99]

41. While the spying may be unprecedented, I do not believe that is why people

object to it.

I think their objections are two-fold:

1) Trust in government has seriously eroded since the Vietnam War and no President has ever fully restored it.

and

2) People feel their right to privacy (a vague and implicit right but real nonetheless) is being violated when they have done nothing wrong and have committed no action that would constitute probable cause.

If my analysis is correct, the discussion should move to how we restore trust in government and how we convince people their privacy is being protected and not violated. I wish I knew the answers to one or both of these questions. I don't, but at least with the right questions, we can begin to seek answers.

[woo me with science]

53. What we see is no less than encroaching fascism.

You are absolutely right that trust is gone, and for good reason. We have a government in which both parties have been purchased by corporations, and they are systematically dismantling our Constitution and imposing policies to exploit us for profit and enrich themselves. We don't have representative government anymore. Nothing that is coming out of Washington right now in terms of policy even remotely reflects what the people have repeatedly said we want and need.

The government is doing its best, with despicable, lying propaganda, to "convince people their privacy is being protected and not violated." That is NOT what we need.

We need to purge corporate interests from government and return the government to the people and to our Constitution, which prohibits this outrageous mass collection and storage of private information. The government does not need to "convince" us that they will keep our information safe. They need to RESPECT our privacy and NOT STEAL IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Progressive dog]

51. You can take the Paul Revere off the OP, but you can't

make the readers forget.
Just saying that hiding the comparison between Snowden and Paul Revere is not the same as disavowing it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

62. That has nothing to do with the questions I raised

Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[Progressive dog]

63. You posted it, reposted it, but it has nothing to do

with the questions you raised in your post. Was that your least untruthful answer?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

65. I posted it just for you

To show I stand behind the analogy.

I removed it from the OP in order to not distract from my questions.

Now, do you care to respond to the OP, or not?

[Progressive dog]

70. Try reply #22 from ProSense to respond to some of the questions but

I'm still trying to understand what you are saying here. This sounds very RW Republican to me.

think about the ENORMOUS COSTS especially in this stagnant economy, were our schools, healthcare, and pensions can not be afforded..

I don't agree that we can afford low taxes for the rich and not schools, healthcare, and pensions.
I have no objection to Global Spying, it's something nation-states do. We can argue about whether we spend too much or too little on military and spying but don't pretend that some spying is not necessary.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

89. Her post was off topic, and I responded (LINK) but nothing i said is "RW" that is a complete miss

nothing i said is "RW", that is just a complete misinterpretation of my point, "why are we spending so much money on this massive suspicionless spying programs"?

I updated my OP to be more clear, though.

And believe you me I am certainly not in-favor of our current tax rates on the wealthy, they should go back to FDR rates (90%) imho, but I must point out another misunderstanding you have... this is not the same old TARGETED spying that nation states have participated in forever... this is completely UNPRECEDENTED in history, too.

so do you support the massive spending on it, and if so, for what purpose?

BTW: link pointing out prosense off-topic reply...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3133543

[Progressive dog]

92. It isn't unprecedented except as our technology is unprecedented

It was difficult to spy on e-mails or even telephones before they existed. Our weapons are unprecedented too.
So in this context "unprecedented" is meaningless. Our transportation-unprecedented. Our information storage-unprecedented.
The purpose is to prevent terrorist attacks on the US or our allies. The purpose is to watch our adversaries. The purpose is exactly why nation-states have always spied on each other. The purpose is security.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

93. It either is, or it isn't. I think most would agree that it IS unprecedented.

2nd, we are NOT in a world war.

3rd. how can spying on the whole world, in secret, be justified to catch a few terrorist?

4th. You are willing to give up your rights to privacy, and speech because of a rag-tag band of terrorist?

5th. You think that spying on EVERYONE on the globe is an effective means of catching a few hundred terrorist?

6th. How much are you willing to spend out of the GDP for this UNPRECEDENTED, GLOBAL, suspicionless spying?

Thank you

[marions ghost]

138. ^^^^^

[Progressive dog]

141. I agreed that it was unprecedented

The technology in use today is also unprecedented.
We can argue about other things if you like, but to call the NSA spying unprecedented is just plain deceptive.
They are no longer spying on carrier pigeon messages or smoke signals.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

142. Spying on ALL communication IS unprecedented.

Pointing out that fact is not deceptive, trying to minimize it, is.

[Progressive dog]

143. No one is spying on all communications

there is absolutely no evidence of that and it would be impossible.Impossible. So don't claim that it is happening. Even Hong Kong Eddie and his buddy haven't claimed that it is.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

145. Directly tapping into the fiber optic trunk lines among other devices

Would seem to indicate otherwise.

Also, Snowden isn't the only one with first hand knowledge speaking out.

[Progressive dog]

147. What part of impossible didn't you get?

No one is claiming that the US could or is spying on all communications except people who don't know enough not to display their ignorance. See, it's impossible. I can tap into the water main, but it's going to take a big container to steal all the water.

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. I like your poster and I 100% agree with the sentiments

For all we know Paul Revere might have had a girlfriend who was a poll dancer?- maybe his neighbors didn't like him either? Perhaps he was a narcissist who did what he did for selfish and cowardly motives? Who knows? He certainly was considered a traitor and a criminal by the respectable establishment of the time. I'm sure the voices of established power tried to smear him too. None of that matters. Like Edward Snowden Paul Revere spread the warning. And that for that reason, whatever he was or was not - history will record that like Edward Snowden he took a stand for against tyranny.

[reformist2]

75. What's so wrong with comparing Snowden to Revere?

[Progressive dog]

76. That can't be a real questioin, can it?

It has to be sarcasm, or extreme ignorance of who Paul Revere was and what he actually did.

[reformist2]

78. Paul Revere warned his fellow citizens of an imminent threat to their liberty. So did Snowden.

[Progressive dog]

83. You really don't know any American history

try at least looking it up.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. Considering the parallels I think MANY find that it resonates

Just because it doesn't with you, does not mean there isn't any merit in it.

[cantbeserious]

52. See Details On PRISM Tasking And Sources Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023133554

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Our spying is ever so helpful to foreign relations.

Germany Compares US Bugging to 'Cold War' - AP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023133668

Attacks from America: NSA Spied on European Union Offices - Der Spiegel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023131880

EU concern over Der Spiegel claim of US spying - BBC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023131896

[fredamae]

81. The Path to Domination

Only those who "unwittingly" support the dominator's" will be Surprised?

[On the Road]

88. Unprecedented?

Really?

For starters, all civilian mail leaving the US was opened and censored during WWII.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

90. exactly, this massive, GLOBAL, suspicionless spying of ALL digital and phone communications IS UN

IS UNPRECEDENTED.

For starters, we are not involved in a World War (yet), and this goes way beyond just snail mail...

How about answering some of my questions though?

[reusrename]

94. We have never before had the capability to record every phone call.

I think unprecedented is the correct word.

Also, we have never before had the capability to collect and analyse metadata in order to map our citizens' social networks.

Also unprecedented.

Really.

[sikofit3]

140. ++1000

"Map" is the key word here. Georeferencing our every move with meta data and attributes is a very powerful capability

[HiPointDem]

95. +

[Liberal_in_LA]

98. kick

[Harmony Blue]

103. Good thread

[randome]

108. It's so incredibly unprecedented that we don't even have evidence that it's happening!

The bastards are sneaky!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

109. You keep using that word... 'evidence'

Again, the big news is that we now have (finally) top secret documents directly from the NSA documenting what they are doing.

psst... thats called 'evidence'.

[randome]

114. The most recent documents we have are slides that show how PRISM works.

Does this mean that the NSA is spying domestically? Or does it mean that only data with a foreign communicant involved is being looked at?

We can make assumptions that support our point of views all day. In fact, that's mostly what DU has devolved into lately. But until evidence shows that the NSA is violating the law or the regulations, we have no reason to assume the worst.

That has nothing to do with pushing for more transparency and less secrecy. In fact, I'm sure we'll all agree that it's a foregone conclusion that the NSA will change because of Snowden.

But screaming about 'fascism' and a 'total surveillance state' is simple paranoia unless backed up with evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

117. Which is what this thread is ALL about

Just an FYI for folks who say 'countries have always spied on one another' and therefore do not get what all the hubbub is about.

So, now that that is cleared up, what do you think about my questions/premise?

THank you

[randome]

125. You make all sorts of assumptions in your OP.

"...massive harvesting, storing, and analyzing of all communications..."

If you mean should we be spending money on more important things, I wholeheartedly agree! Even though we don't know the full costs involved, there are a thousand better ways to spend our country's money.

You will never get an argument from me on that score. I am no supporter of the NSA, I simply point out where I think we are making unwarranted conclusions.

But if a decision was made tomorrow to close down the NSA and spend the money on something worthwhile, I would vote in favor of it.

Congress, though? I don't think they have their eye on the ball.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

126. Nope, just going by what is on the docs, and what other NSA employees have testified about.

But see, we have some common ground... we think at least the money could be better spent. great!

Now what do you think it's true purpose is?

I know the official story is "terrorism" but that seems very hard to believe that it is necessary to spy on the whole world to keep us safe from terrorism.

Count me skeptical, but what say you?

[randome]

130. 'Terrorism' is a term bandied about off-handedly.

I would think the NSA also helps track international human trafficking, child pornography rings, organized crime, etc.

I don't know this for a fact but I doubt that 'terrorism' is the NSA's sole responsibility. If they don't serve much of a purpose, then, yeah, let's shut them down.

We need more transparency and less secrecy to know what the NSA does, why it does it and if it's worth the money and the effort.

That's the end result of the entire Snowden affair. It's too bad he went about this in such an awkward, self-destructive manner.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

131. It's definition has certainly broadened as has the term WMD, and is another BIG RED FLAG

I appreciate your straight answers, though

However, we part company, again, when it comes to the whistle blower who is the very one who has enabled this discussion to take place in the first place.

I have a great deal of respect for whistle blowers, and what they have sacrificed to make us aware of wrong doing by the government especially when it comes to our liberties.

I also have a great deal of respect for our investigative journalist who also can do a great deal to help inform the american people, not to mention the rest of the world, when dangerous wrong-doing is going on.

Once again though, thank you randome for being civil.

[randome]

136. Always.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[jazzimov]

111. Actually, NO! The main reason people are against it are because

they are being LIED to about the program.

Please stick to the facts and stop spreading lies.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

115. Excuse me?

How am I spreading "lies"?

Your's point is just one more to add to the heap, not mutually exclusive in anyway.

Let's have less of this black-n-white thinking, and more open mindedness, I think that would be much better for everyone.

Thank you

[CakeGrrl]

128. "Suspicionless spying?" Where is that proven?

and 'They have the tools, so you just KNOW they're doing it' doesn't count as proof.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

129. the TOP SECRET documents he released to the press (LINK)

The NSA files | World news | The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-nsa-files

Just in case you have missed it

[CakeGrrl]

132. So, they have to meet conditions to collect on FOREIGN targets, and

they have to MINIMIZE collection on incidental communications of Americans, including removal of the identity of the person.

What did I miss?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

133. Didn't look like that to the documents and testimony I have read

looks like massive harvesting, storing, and analysis is going on to me.

Are you really that vain or naive to think that only you have ability to see the truth, and the whole rest of the world is misreading these TOP SECRET documents?

u can't be serious, r u?

[CakeGrrl]

146. What has the "whole rest of the world" been saying? Do tell us!

[forestpath]

134. K&R

[Zorra]

135. Alan Grayson video on NSA surveillance

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

139. Excellent video!

Thanks for sharing

[KoKo]

144. Thanks, Zorra!