Another NSA "Bombshell" Starts to Fizzle Out, as Greenwald Pushes Government Conspiracy Theory

[ProSense]

Another NSA "Bombshell" Starts to Fizzle Out, as Greenwald Pushes Government Conspiracy Theory

by Reggid

Or: How Histrionics and Hysteria Continue to Drive A Misleading Narrative

As has been discussed in numerous diaries over the last two days, a Washington Post article reported on Thursday that the NSA "broke privacy rules thousands of times" per year, according to a May, 2012, audit covering several intelligence analysis facilities over the course a year, covering the last 3 quarters of 2011 and the first quarter of 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

This report has been seized by many purportedly as evidence of a lack of oversight over a supposedly out-of-control NSA which is allegedly abusing its programs to spy illegally on Americans at will.

But looking past all the usual histrionics, hyperbole, and gross exaggerations, what do the report and the audit upon it which it was based actually show? As usual, once the initial hysteria dies down, when one gets past all the usual outrage porn, one discovers that the reality of the "violations" is actually far less sinister, and in fact much more mundane, than suggested in the article and the diaries it spawned here. Indeed, a careful reading of the actual details of the report beyond the hysterical headlines not only confirms that the "violations" were actually just mistakes and errors, most having little or no impact on Americans' communications at all, and representing only an infinitesimally tiny portion of the communications data processed by the faciliities at issue; but also confirms, contrary to the existing narrative, that there are numerous working safeguards in place. An actual close reading of the article and the audit document further demonstrates that there is zero evidence that any of the "violations" were willful or intentional, and confirms, once again, that there is still no evidence of any actual abuse of the programs, much less any policy of abuse.

A healthy dose of reality, in a super-sized cup, below the fold.

Part I: In Which the "Privacy Violations" are Grossly Exaggerated and Over-Hyped

The WaPo report goes to great length to note that the audit reflects 2,776 separate incidents amounting to "violations" of one privacy rule or another. But we have now learned, based on a more detailed analysis of the "violations" by the New York Times, that more than 2/3 of those "violations" consisted entirely of the programs monitoring the foreign communications of foreign targets as they are authorized to do, but failing to recognize when those foreign targets had actually come to the U.S. and brought their foreign cellphones with them. So, in over 1,900 cases, the "violations" had zero to do with Americans' communications at all, but rather resulted solely from a geographic anomaly not picked up by the computer programs, which impacted otherwise perfectly legal, authorized surveillance of foreign calls:

The largest number of episodes — 1,904 — appeared to be “roamers,” in which a foreigner whose cellphone was being wiretapped without a warrant came to the United States, where individual warrants are required.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/us/nsa-often-broke-rules-on-privacy-audit-shows.html

Which actually, therefore, leaves less than 900 total incidents of errors and mistakes causing inadvertent over-reach across numerous facilities over an entire year -- less than 3 per day among thousands and thousands of analysts and billions and billions of pieces of data! Hardly the doomsday scenario pushed in the WaPo article, by Greenwald, and in various diaries here.

But wait, there's more (or less, in fact). It turns out, again per the more thorough and less histrionic anlysis by the NYT, that the "202"/"20" area code/nation code mix-up is likewise much less alarming than initially suggested by the WaPo article and in diaries and comments here. Indeed, it turns out that when the 202 area code was used instead of the 20 nation code, only metadata and not the calls themselves were collected:

In one case in 2008 . . . the system collected metadata logs about a “large number” of calls dialed from Washington – something it was already doing through a different program – because of a programming error mixing up the district’s area code, 202, with the international dialing code of Egypt, 20.

So once again, we see that this supposedly "serious" and "scary" incident turns out to be essentially no incident at all. In this case, there really is no there there, as the error merely resulted in the programs doing what the NSA was already separately authorized by the FISC to do -- collect telephone metadata. But that apparently didn't stop the WaPo and numerous diaries and comments here from hyping this non-incident into a mountain of spying-on-Americans outrage porn:

Some language in the Washington Post story requires a bit of parsing as well. On page one, there is mention of a computer mix-up where Egypt’s calling code (20) is accidentally input as DC’s area code (202), resulting in a “large number” of calls being “intercepted.” However, on page four, the incident is clarified to have only involved collecting the metadata about those calls, and not their content — a key distinction.

This last bit is key. Charlie Savage, a fantastic reporter at the New York Times who’s done wonders in reporting on intelligence issues, had to correct his story when he thought the mention of “intercept” on page one meant “listen to.” Slippery language in reporting — a sadly common trend in a lot of the coverage of the NSA leaks — leads to assumptions that tend to be false. Metadata is not content, and is treated differently under the law and Supreme Court precedent, and that’s an important thing to keep in mind.

http://joshuafoust.com/nsa-rule-violations-matter-but-arent-severe/

And here we see the typical pattern from all of these NSA stories: Lead with the outrageous headline, then hype the scary story, but bury the contradictory clarifications, caveats, and actual facts pages later. And in this case, the factual clarification really matters: The scary-sounding area-code mix-up did not, as widely claimed, result in any eavesdropping on Americans' communications; instead, it merely resulted in the gathering of phone metadata, which the NSA was already doing anyway pursuant to FISC authorization.

Oh, but wait, there's still more (again, actually less)! Just as the WaPo article and its progeny over-hyped the number of of actual incidents having any impact at all on domestic communications, the claim that similar "thousands of violations" occur "each year" is completely unsupported by anything in the audit or any other document cited in the WaPo report. As noted above, and as appears on the face of the audit, it covers a period of one year. So, for that one yearlong period, from the 2Q 2011 through 1Q 2012, there were 2,776 total incidents at the various facilities covered by the audit. But that figure includes the 1900+ foreign roaming non-incidents. So, where does the report get the claim that there are "thousands" of incidents each and every other year, too? Nowhere -- the report doesn't cite any information for any other year, so that claim is apparently based purely and entirely on assumption and speculation. Now, it may turn out that other years have similar error rates as 2Q 2011 - 1Q 2012, but we don't know that, and the WaPo article provides no information to suggest that they know it, either. The article provides no support for the claim at all -- it apparently just makes an assumption and then engages in speculation, yet states its unsubstantiated claim as a fact anyway.

<...>

Part III: In Which Glenn Greenwald Goes Off The Rails

So, given all the foregoing fundamental flaws and misleading claims in the latest NSA "story" and The Narrative, how does the poster-boy for fundamentally flawed and misleading NSA reporting, Glenn Greenwald, respond to the fact that it was the NSA's system and audit safeguards and oversight which caught and identified the incidents of over-reach? If you guessed, "Come up with a way to blame the government and push a conspiracy theory instead of acknowledging that it was NSA system and audit safeguards that caught and documented the errors and mistakes," then you're correct!

Faced with the knowledge that it was, in fact, the NSA itself which caught all of these incidents and thoroughly documented them through an audit, and it was, in fact, the carrying out and documenting of that audit that even allowed knowledge of the incidents to come to light, how does Greenwald spin the existence of the audit? As a government conspiracy, naturally:


<...>



Good grief. Really, Glenn? If these were supposed to be secret "internal" audits, then why would they be white-washed? Why would they "white-wash" something that no one was supposedly ever supposed to see? And if it's a cover-up, then why would the audit look so bad, at least on its face? If the NSA was secretly trying to abuse the programs and cover up any such abuse, then why would they identifyy and document more than 2,700 separate incidents? If they were were really trying to abuse the programs and get away with it, why document any actual incidents of over-reach at all, much less 2,700 of them? And why, as the article notes, would the DOJ self-report incidents of over-reach to the FISC? As usual, Greenwald's anti-government hysteria makes no sense. But as we know, with Greenwald, if something doesn't fit The Narrative, it must be ignored or explained away, and for Glenn, government conspiracy is always an easy fall-back position. Like I said, good grief.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1231839/-Another-NSA-Bombshell-Starts-to-Fizzle-Out-as-Greenwald-Pushes-Government-Conspiracy-Theory

It's all hype
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023474183




Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[cantbeserious]

1. Ever More Character Assassination

eom

[Summer Hathaway]

14. Of course.

Every time GG is caught playing fast and loose with the facts, and/or twisting them into a pretzel to somehow fit his own agenda-driven scenarios, it is "character assassination".

[cantbeserious]

64. res ipsa loquitur

eom

[Mojorabbit]

21. More pathetic every day. nt

[leveymg]

38. The NSA like the rest of the gov't lies in reports all the time. Nobody's deceived except Congress

and a few true-believing apparatchiks.

Good grief. Really, Glenn? If these were supposed to be secret "internal" audits, then why would they be white-washed? Why would they "white-wash" something that no one was supposedly ever supposed to see? And if it's a cover-up, then why would the audit look so bad, at least on its face? If the NSA was secretly trying to abuse the programs and cover up any such abuse, then why would they identifyy and document more than 2,700 separate incidents? If they were were really trying to abuse the programs and get away with it, why document any actual incidents of over-reach at all, much less 2,700 of them? And why, as the article notes, would the DOJ self-report incidents of over-reach to the FISC?

In answer to why 2,700 reported incidents, instead of reporting none? Because nobody's going to believe there were zero "errors" in a system that profiles something like 27,000,000 people each month. That's why. Incredibly naive, even for a rhetorical question.

[Mojorabbit]

43. Exactly. nt

[Cha]

88. Here's a tip.. "eom" is written in the subject line so we don't click on

the post to find out that it's "eom".

[cantbeserious]

96. We All Have Different Styles

eom

[Purrfessor]

111. bom...and not all styles are logical...eom

[Cha]

121. Sorry, it's not a "style" it's a courtesy to the members of the board. n/m

[Th1onein]

126. Aren't there rules against SPAMMING this forum?

I'm all for free speech, but at some point, when you post time after time, on the same subject, and it's continual character assassination, very little real substantive content, well...... it's spam.

[snappyturtle]

131. That's exactly what it is. nt

[cantbeserious]

170. The Same Could Be Said For The OP

eom

[Th1onein]

171. Uh, that's what I'm saying.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Great. Nothing to see here.

So are you petitioning Obama to dismiss all charges against
Snowden, since "it's all hype" anyway. no big deal.

[cantbeserious]

3. Great Comeback

eom

[99th_Monkey]

9. Thanks

We actually had this same conversation yesterday, on another string; and
the non(PRO)sensical response was some tortured illogic about how it's now
somehow improper to discuss "surveillance" and Snowden in the same conversation.

^I'm not sure I got that exactly right, but it's in the ball park.

[Skittles]

39. what is up with the IGNORE function?

it seems very inconsistent lately

[99th_Monkey]

79. Mine's been working fine

but I only have like 4 people on it.

[Skittles]

118. I should not be seeing this thread

[Thinkingabout]

10. The charges against Snowden will stick, they have evidence of his wrong doing, this does not clear

Him of the charges. The only hype I have seen and read is hype put out by Greenwald and Snowden.

[99th_Monkey]

16. "IT'S ALL HYPE' <-- Your transparent ruse to divert attention from illegal gov't spying

[Benton D Struckcheon]

17. If you've ever worked in IT,

and been audited, you know for a fact that violation could mean anything. Like, say, not posting the doc with the right template in the project folder.
Get a life.

[Mojorabbit]

22. Welcome to DU. Glad to see you have made yourself right at home nt

[Thinkingabout]

48. Nope, it is hype Snowden has been charged with espionage, the only hype I read are those who

Attempts to incorrectly understand the Constitution Fourth amendment, it is simple and easy to understand. BTW, why are the post here to pardon Snowden?

[orpupilofnature57]

81. You didn't see the Presidents press conference ? Chuck Toads query ?

[Whisp]

19. the hype has got no relation to Theft of classified material.

Snowden is a thief. He violated federal law and the laws of his employ.

No wiggle room.

[rhett o rick]

24. And Booz-Allen is violating the FISA Laws and the Constitution. No wiggle room. nm

[jeff47]

29. Except they're not.

Booz-Allen is doing IT support. The people actually doing the spying are employed by the government.

Snowden's job was to keep computers running. Other people actually used those computers for work.

[jeff47]

28. It's amazing that so many people who are supposedly "paying attention"

Keep managing to forget that Snowden and Manning leaked lots of information that isn't part of "the big story".

So far, we know Snowden leaked information about the NSA's spying on China. And Manning leaked 700k documents that did not include anything sinister by our government.

Yet the fans of these leakers, who keep screaming "pay attention!!", just keep forgetting that. Over and over again.

If they had only leaked the documents that upset you, then you might have a case. Both Snowden and Manning leaked much more.

[Summer Hathaway]

57. That's because a lot of people

who are supposedly paying attention have put the facts on Ignore.

They find it much easier to "forget" the inconvenient truths about their designated heroes, once all of those pesky facts are out of the way.

[orpupilofnature57]

115. Totally lying is a way around " pesky facts " unless inconveniently some traitor

EXPOSES the people lying, convolution with details and disparaging diversions, doesn't diminish what we didn't know before Snowden, and saying " I was going to " is worse than " I should of ".

[orpupilofnature57]

114. The " CASE " is exposing the apparatus of Fascism, and the power of

" Contractors "

[jeff47]

130. No, it isn't.

Because Snowden, and all the other contractors, didn't do any spying. And could not have, despite what's been written about him.

Snowden was the IT guy. He kept the computers running. People that work directly for the government operate those systems to actually do spying. But he could not have. That's why he failed to back up his claims of spying on Americans with any actual spying on Americans - Spying on himself would have been fantastic proof for his claims, yet he failed to do so.

What he did have access to was JWICS. And he leaked briefings from that. That doesn't mean he can actually do the spying in those briefings.

[orpupilofnature57]

134. Didn't say " Spying " I said " Power " as far as access and dispensing information .

[jeff47]

136. There is not much power in installing an Operating System.

And there's very little information to dispense.

On the other hand, the "operators" have lots of access and lots of information. And they work for the US government directly.

[CakeGrrl]

45. Nice try. Person who stole still stole. -nt

[Union Scribe]

4. Nothing to see here, folks, move along!

Go back to your homes, your privacy is safe with our trusted corporate partners.

[99th_Monkey]

15. lol - well done ~nt

[NuclearDem]

5. Cool, I'll add that to the list too.

[DevonRex]

8. The NYT article was great. This is a wonderful summary of it. nt

[ProSense]

83. The NYT article looked at the facts. n/t

[DevonRex]

84. I wonder why the factual articles never come out first.

Is that the price of getting the information, I wonder. Skewing the article so nobody pays attention to the facts?

[Egnever]

93. Because Hyperbole is easy

And gets lots of hits, Facts tend to take thought and careful examination to figure out and aren't nearly as sexy.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Again, thanks for the information, I looked at the article which contained a chart of the audit. It

Seems there was several reported which is nothing more than typos and I ask a question, how many typos have I had, for me too many to count but a total over action to any number by some post here on DU. For the amount of information gathered, some 2700 incidences is very small. It seems the NSA gets a big passing grade.

[DevonRex]

7. That is THE best analysis of the idiotic WaPo report. And LOL at GG.

Everyone should read this and the NYT article. The WaPo report was rubbish. GG writes trash tabloid junk.

[Thinkingabout]

11. K & R

[ProSense]

18. I love that tweet.

[DevonRex]

25. "Everybody loves a clown so why don't you?" Why, ProSense, Why????

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Hekate]

85. Lead with the outrageous headline... hype the scary story, but bury the contradictory...actual facts

My favorite part from the OP:

And here we see the typical pattern from all of these NSA stories: Lead with the outrageous headline, then hype the scary story, but bury the contradictory clarifications, caveats, and actual facts pages later. And in this case, the factual clarification really matters: The scary-sounding area-code mix-up did not, as widely claimed, result in any eavesdropping on Americans' communications; instead, it merely resulted in the gathering of phone metadata, which the NSA was already doing anyway pursuant to FISC authorization.

Aside from weighing in on Snowden's behavior, which I find baffling, I've mostly been looking for information and clarification to come along. It seems to be arriving in bits and pieces -- glad for your estimation of the OP.

[DevonRex]

90. Yes. Same pattern every single time. Price of the information seems to be

agreeing to write bullshit panic-producing pablum for those who prefer melodrama. Then when real journalists come in and pry the facts out of hysteria nobody's interested. They need their melodrama you know.

[kentuck]

12. The assumption is that the tens of millions of "non-violations" were all OK?

And it was only the 2,776 that are causing all the histrionics. That is quite an assumption.

[Maedhros]

35. And it's not clear what may be the scope of those 2,776 violations.

One of them was "Oops - gathered everything for Washington DC (Area Code 202) instead of Egypt (Area Code 20)."

And yes - shouldn't the fact that the NSA can cite "tens of millions" of surveillance acts cause some alarm?

[randome]

50. Tens of millions of what? Queries on foreign data?

Yeah, I'd be okay with that. Now show us evidence those queries were intentionally done to American data.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[kentuck]

56. Whose responsibilty to show evidence or intent?

I think you have it bass ackwards?

[randome]

59. And how would they show that?

Show us the queries? Allow the public to 'tour the facilities' while analysts are doing their jobs?

Really, how could you prove any of it? I suppose more concrete oversight would help. Oversight with teeth, not the lazy kind that Congress opts for. But then you're back to giving authority to someone else to do that job for us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[kentuck]

69. Why do we have a free press?

To report on secrets the government may be keeping from the people??

[randome]

74. So let the Press 'tour the facilities'?

I have no problem with revealing malfeasance but there is a reason for secrecy in law enforcement. You don't willingly invite the Press to watch everything that goes on. A Press Card does not automatically bestow responsibility. Take Fox News as an example. Are these the guys you want to oversee national security operations?

And then they overstate and exaggerate stories like the original story referenced by the OP. They don't even bother asking that basic question I posed: do the queries intentionally target American citizens' data?

Again, the only thing we have at our disposal is robust oversight. If we need more than we have currently, who would have a problem with that?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[kentuck]

108. Let the Congress "tour the facilities".

And then report it to the press. That would be my choice.

[jmowreader]

169. Exactly what good would that do?

Who remembers Senator Gary Hart, Democrat of Colorado? He came to Berlin to take a tour of my unit, and we explained to him what it is that we did...and he was stunned that you could actually do that. Hart was a reasonably intelligent man, so you can pretty much imagine what would happen if we sent Peter King or Michele Bachmann out to the building to decide whether what they're doing is in violation of the Constitution.

[BenzoDia]

13. k&r.

The WaPo article basically shows NSA internal auditing and FISA oversight. Isn't that what we want more of?

[Whisp]

20. no

we want more smell of burning hairs.

[sheshe2]

34. Like this~

[Whisp]

36. Like That!

[sigmasix]

103. no truth for conspiracy mongers

the only "truths" recognized by the hair on fire crowd are those that can be twisted to serve as confrimation of the latest government conspiracy theory that claims President Obama is attempting to spy on every American all the time.

[AZ Progressive]

23. The Daily Propaganda

Your always right on time, Prosense.

[SunSeeker]

26. K & R

[rhett o rick]

27. Correct me if I got this wrong. The NSA says that most of the thousands of

violations they report in their internal audits are just minor errors.

Is that supposed to make us feel better? The NSA says they audited themselves and found lots of problems but they are minor. This is flack. The NSA and their supporters (non-anti-authoritarians) are shooting flack, hoping to distract.

I am an anti-authoritarian and I want more transparency and oversight.

The non-anti-authoritarians want less transparency (none) and less oversight. I think it's the ignorance is bliss theory.

[jeff47]

33. Ok.

The primary error in the discussion about the NSA is the folks angry at the NSA keep claiming the NSA is spying on US persons.

It's not. And Snowden's documents show that. But Greenwald's claims go a few light-years beyond Snowden's documents. And Greenwald's claims are much more exciting, so they're getting much more play.

That's the main way "anti-authoritarians" are wrong on this issue - they want the government to stop doing something it isn't doing.

[Maedhros]

40. But you are incorrect in stating that the documents show that U.S. citizens are not being surveilled

All data is being captured and stored for:

1. The foreign target of the surveillance.
2. Anyone who communicates with that target, which includes U.S. citizens.
3. Anyone who communicates with the persons covered by #2 above, which includes U.S. citizens.

This is not in dispute. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I can see a semantic argument over the meaning of the word "spying", which is a weasley argument but still theoretically reasonable. Is the U.S. "spying" on U.S. citizens? Probably. Are they "surveilling" U.S. citizens? Undeniably true.

[jeff47]

139. You're conflating multiple programs.

All phone metadata is being captured on US persons. Spying? Well, the information belongs to the phone companies according to the 1979 SCOTUS, and that data has already been sold to multiple third parties. Little rough to call it an invasion of privacy under current law.

But that's just storage. The documents Snowden leaked show that analyzing that metadata on a US person requires a specific search warrant.

The "Three hop" claims are based on a different program. And if you look at that PowerPoint, there's steps in the procedure to prevent analyzing data on US persons.

This is not in dispute. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Well, there's what the documents say, and there's what people in the press are claiming. Those don't match. That's pretty much the definition of "in dispute".

But there's tons of people who want to shout "This is not in dispute" in order to avoid backing up their claims.

[rhett o rick]

60. Maybe the word "spying" is getting in your way. The NSA has admitted to collecting data

on millions of Americans. They have admitted to analyzing the data at least out to two bumps. Good people like Sen Wyden, Ms. Plame, and many others have come out and said we need more and better oversight.

I want an honest investigation. I believe that the NSA and Booz-Allen would spy on Americans. They have the tools, the funds and the inclination.

You might not believe it, but you cant say they arent spying. We have seen evidence that they are spying. In any event it isnt Greenwald's fault. Gen Clapper is a Republican, he worked for Bush and now Obama. He lied to Congress and has admitted it. His lie was that he said that the NSA wasnt collecting data on millions of Americans. I call that spying, you might not. Whatever you want to call it, it violates both the FISA Law and the Constitution.

[jeff47]

135. You're close to accurate.

The NSA has collected phone metadata on US persons.

"OMG SPYING!!!" Nope. Phone metadata belongs to the phone companies, according to a 1979 SCOTUS decision. And the phone companies have been selling that data for years. Kinda hard to claim it's a violation of that US person's privacy when the information doesn't belong to them, and has been given to (non-government) third parties for years.

Is it an invasion of your privacy when your supermarket sells the data from your "Frequent buyer card"?

And that's just collection of data - the phone companies delete the data after 3 months to 5 years (depends on phone company). The government is collecting it so it is available for future investigations. And in the documents Snowden leaked, analysis of the metadata on US persons requires a specific search warrant. The existing warrants only allow the NSA to store the data.

They have admitted to analyzing the data at least out to two bumps.

On non-US persons. If one of those "bumps" is a US person, they still have to get a warrant, according to the briefings Snowden leaked.

Good people like Sen Wyden, Ms. Plame, and many others have come out and said we need more and better oversight.

Um...no. Wyden has said so. Why are you trying to claim a former CIA agent outed by Cheney and goons is an expert in NSA procedure?

I want an honest investigation

Then you'd start with what's actually in those documents Snowden leaked. They don't back up the vast majority of the objections the press have been making about the NSA.

I believe that the NSA and Booz-Allen would spy on Americans.

The contractors are the IT shop. They fix the network, install the OS, and so on. The "operators" all work directly for the US government.

Snowden has made claims that he could spy on US persons, but you'll notice he utterly failed to back up that claim. It would have been fantastic evidence for Snowden to spy on himself and release that information. And it would have been very easy to cover if he got caught - "I was just curious about what you had on me". Yet he failed to provide any evidence. He just made claims that aren't backed up by any document he leaked.

You might not believe it, but you cant say they arent spying. We have seen evidence that they are spying.

On non-US persons. Non-US persons have no Constitutional rights.

The only evidence of "spying" on US persons is the phone metadata program, and as mentioned above, it's odd to claim that program is an invasion of privacy under current law.

Wanna change the law and make that data covered by something similar to HIPPA? Go for it. But that doesn't apply to the current situation yet.

In any event it isnt Greenwald's fault.

Greenwald's "fault" is making claims well beyond his evidence, and implying claims from 2008 are violations as 2010's law. Can't really blame him - it gets him on TV and gets him LOTS more money.

Gen Clapper is a Republican

And?

I'm sorry, were we supposed to purge government employees based on political party? Isn't such activities one of the evils of the Republican party?

He lied to Congress and has admitted it.

Yep, Wyden put him in a perjury trap. Any answer besides "No", including "I can talk about this later" would leak classified information. And Wyden knew it. So, either perjure himself and "clarify" later, or go to prison for leaking classified. You can't really claim the goal was to mislead when he didn't have a legal non-misleading option.

Whatever you want to call it, it violates both the FISA Law and the Constitution.

And as I mentioned above, you are claiming you have a right to privacy that covers data you do not own, that has already been sold to multiple third parties. If you want to make that data private, you need a change in the law.

[snappyturtle]

133. Here's the lastest....a good refresher course:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3484001

Lots of links in the article with the bullet points.

If the NSA wasn't illegally spying we wouldn't have
ANY 'errors'.

[jeff47]

137. And if you actually read beyond those bullet points

You'd discover that pretty much none of the major claims are backed up by any actual evidence.

For example, those audits? Little rough to claim there's no oversight when you are pointing at oversight as your evidence.

[snappyturtle]

140. Yes I did...did you? You must be a speed reader if you

read the links! Evidence.

[jeff47]

141. Do I have to link the definition of "summary" for you?

This collection is new, but it points back to "old" information. That's why it's labeled a summary.

[snappyturtle]

142. That's the reason I used "latest" in my subject line.

The OP article concerns itself with the 2700+ 'errors'......if you look
closely at the list with links,,it has come out that the 2700+ is not
a figure representing all facilities. Unless the others were all perfect,
this is a bigger problem that what the OP opines about.

You used the word' summary' I did not. I called it a refresher trying
to bring you up to date. I won't waste my time in the future...you
can bask in ignorance.

[jeff47]

174. So you claim "Round-up" is somehow different than "Summary"

Uh-huh.

Guess what? Those errors are not new information in your linked article. You should know this because it linked to another fucking article.

I won't waste my time in the future...you can bask in ignorance.

Ah yes, the final respite of those who have trouble reconciling facts with their worldview. Just like "unskewing" the polls in 2012. How'd that work out? Poorly? Maybe you shouldn't blindly run along their path.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. How, as an "anti-authoritarian," do you ever expect to trust

anyone who would provide you transparency and oversight?

Oversight means someone has authority to do that.

Transparency means someone is in charge of releasing the data, again a position of authority.

Perhaps you are misusing the term "anti-authoritarian."

[randome]

52. I think the only 'transparency and oversight' some here will accept...

...is if they, themselves are in charge.

Sounds like an unpleasant way to go through one's life to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

73. You are once again wrong in predicting what the anti-authoritarians want.

It must be hard for non-anti-authoritarians to understand anti-authoritarians. We want transparency. You know what Pres Obama promised. We want oversight of our employees to insure they adhere to laws and the fucking Constitution.

Tell me that you dont care what the Fourth Amendment says. Go ahead. Or try to interpret it so that Booz-Allen, your new God, can collect data on millions of Americans.

[randome]

76. Booz-Allen provides IT support. They don't have access to personal data.

At least so far as we know. But it's clear that Snowden did not so that's a data point to consider against the idea that contractors can steal more than briefing documents.

We have Congressional oversight. They can do as little or as much as they want. Unfortunately, it appears that they have opted for the lazy way out. In addition, the Intelligence Committee has neglected their basic duties in informing the rest of Congress.

Obviously we need a better system of oversight. I don't see how anyone could argue against that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

89. You claim "it's clear that Snowden did not"...

...(have access to personal data).

You don't really know that. It's true that no personal data has been released, but that doesn't prove that he did not have any; and even if he did not have any, that does not prove he was unable to access any. It is possible that he chose not to take any; or that he did take some, but he and/or Greenwald chose not to release any of it. I am not claiming that is the case, just pointing out the possibility.

Again: you claim that we KNOW Snowden was unable to access such data. We do not know that. You present your belief as a fact, then claim it is "a data point to consider against the idea that contractors can steal more than briefing documents". There is no such data point; thus, your premise is without merit.

[randome]

100. We would not be having this debate if Snowden showed proof he could access personal data.

Of course there may be something still to come. But from what's been released so far, and as time goes on, it strongly appears that Snowden did not have that kind of access.

Data points can be moved when new evidence is brought to light. For the time being, Snowden's credibility is damaged when he said that, armed with only an email address, he personally could spy on anyone.

That's quite a claim but it's not backed up with evidence. My advice is not to hold your breath for evidence of that to suddenly appear.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

105. We would not be having this debate...

...if Snowden had not released a bunch of secret documents.

Anyway, your claim that we know he cannot access personal data is bogus. We do not know that. We may wish to assume that, which is a different thing. It does not rise to the level of a known fact.

[rhett o rick]

120. Gen Clapper admitted to having a "library" of data. He said they didnt look at the data

without warrant, but he admitted they have collected data. Other whistle-blowers have indicated that the NSA collects data, personal data.

But you are right, we are not apt to see evidence of that if Obama appoints Clapper to review himself and give us the verdict. But I am willing to bet that if Gen Clapper (Mr. Leader Authoritarian) says that all is well, that will be good enough for all the Follower Authoritarians.

I am an anti-authoritarian. I believe in following authority but not blindly. And always be skeptical of those in authority.

Democracy and Authoritarianism dont mix.

[rhett o rick]

119. You can not be series. We contracted with Booz-Allen for $56 billion dollars to reset passwords?

Just because you dont know something please dont give us "as far as we know". We have every reason to believe that Booz-Allen collects tons of data on millions of Americans.

"We have Congressional oversight. They can do as little or as much as they want. Unfortunately, it appears that they have opted for the lazy way out." You cant get away with making this shit up. Sen Wyden would not agree with you. Do you have any proof of this statement? "Congress chose not to use their oversight"?

"Obviously we need a better system of oversight. I don't see how anyone could argue against that. " That's not what you were singing when Snowden first exposed the NSA. Glad you're coming around.

[iamthebandfanman]

63. +1 n/r

[rhett o rick]

70. Thanks for asking. I am anti-authoritarian not anti-authority.

Big difference.

An authoritarian is:

“Characteized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

Of or relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite.”

Authoritarians are against whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, conspiracy theorists, liberals, and anyone else that dares to challenge their authoritarian leader.

I believe in authority but always skeptical. Authority can and often does corrupt.

Authoritarians want to punish Snowden and dispense with further inspections and transparency.

Anti-authoritarians want to have honest investigations and strong oversight.

Please tell us where you fall in the spectrum.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Your definitions are suspect. Your passing them around here at DU is laughable.

There are no authoritarians here at DU according to that definition.

Where do I fall on your spectrum? According to your definitions, I'm an anti-authoritarian. But an honest investigation would recognize all the facts about the NSA program and not continue to swing with the worst possible interpretation and even outright falsehoods about what's going on.

PS: "People that disagree with me about Snowden" =/= "authoritarian."

[rhett o rick]

82. Not at all but nice try. Authoritarians shouted out as soon as Snowden revealed that the

NSA was spying, that Snowden needed punishment quickly and harshly. This is typical authoritarian behavior. "Kill the whistle-blower." Any discussion about further investigations where shouted down by the authoritarians that were positive that the authoritarian leaders were not doing anything wrong. It was so very important to their authoritarian bubble.

Gen Clapper is an authoritarian leader by all definitions. His lies to Congress were worse than Pres Clinton yet the DU authoritarians will stand behind him. HE IS A FUCKING REPUBLICAN. How do you rationalize standing behind a Bush appointed Republican?? Do you think his ideology changed when Obama reappointed him? Please tell me you dont.

" But an honest investigation would recognize all the facts about the NSA program and not continue to swing with the worst possible interpretation and even outright falsehoods about what's going on. " How do you know what an honest investigation would find? Isnt it that you are so determined to stand by your authoritarian leader that you are sure that an honest investigation will find that he is taking good care of you and not dishonest. I am disappointed. Democrats should not be so gullible.

I am asking for an honest investigation. What are you asking for besides the lynching of Snowden and Greenwald?

[Bolo Boffin]

104. I want an honest investigation and strong oversight. By your def, I'm an anti-authoritarian.

Or could it be your definitions are whack?

By the way, produce a post where I have called for the "lynching of Snowden and Greenwald" or retract that lie about me and apologize. Now would be good.

[iamthebandfanman]

62. 'non-anti-authoritarians'

what exactly does that mean ??

you mean, authoritarians?

[burnodo]

30. kick to the Fizzle!

Fo SHizzle!

[baronjake]

31. Oh, Glenn, you rascal...

...........won't you and Eddie's hijinks ever end?

[Iliyah]

32. 10-15 years from now

another will exposed and again another outrage . . . on and on and on with a another generations and so forth . . .

[BumRushDaShow]

37. K&R

As the world turns.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

92. The world in your image is turning backward

[sheshe2]

41. K&R!

[wtmusic]

44. Still more histrionics about histrionics?

The poster doth protest too much, methinks.

Clapper lied, Obama refuses to launch an independent investigation.

Just what is it you don't get about this out-of-control, we-own-you-and-your-privacy surveillancepalooza?

It's obvious, and the more you shriek about it the more concerned I am.

[mick063]

46. The defenders have been debriefed and armed with the proper response.

With millions of bits of data archived, a few thousand errors are to be expected and of course no one could expect a judge to issue several million warrants a day.

[Civilization2]

47. So,. hysteria, misleading narrative, histrionics, hyperbole, gross exaggerations, hysteria,

outrage porn, hysterical headlines, grossly exaggerated and over-hyped, histrionic anlysis, outrageous headline, hype the scary story, contradictory clarifications, caveats, scary-sounding, over-hyped, completely unsupported, misleading claims, conspiracy theory, government conspiracy, anti-government hysteria, government conspiracy,. .

Ok well does that sum it up? (all from the OP!!!)

So your saying don't get so emotional, don't worry your pretty little head,. let the men handle it. The NSA is daddy and daddy should just be trusted with the right to brake the Constitution and basic human rights.

Ok then, I feel much better now. thanks for the post.

[randome]

51. No, I believe the OP is pointing out that this particular story is rubbish.

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

[Civilization2]

53. Focus on what,. the swamp gas, the reflection off a jet,. the OP links to a lame attack on reality;

hysteria, misleading narrative, histrionics, hyperbole, gross exaggerations, hysteria, outrage porn, hysterical headlines, grossly exaggerated and over-hyped, histrionic anlysis, outrageous headline, hype the scary story, contradictory clarifications, caveats, scary-sounding, over-hyped, completely unsupported, misleading claims, conspiracy theory, government conspiracy, anti-government hysteria, government conspiracy,. .

Those words are all in the kos blog post that is linked,. the author is clearly off-the-rails in their blind rage against reality. Sacred cow must have took a hit?

The reality is that the Government, the NSA, and their corporate-mercenary spook-house, has run amok. There in simple no justification for the systems they have admitted to, let alone what they still are lying about,. after being caught lying over and over again.

[randome]

55. The OP is about one particular story. That initial story was rubbish.

No one is running amok. Even Carl Bernstein said it looked to him like the NSA has good safeguards and restrictions in place.

Who lied? Clapper? You know how that goes. He was asked a question in public that he was sworn not to answer and he demurred and finally flubbed it.

You don't see Congress upset about that, do you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

66. not just amok

It appears that the NSA is now a rogue agency, not under the control of the president of the United States.

[uponit7771]

58. Nah, don't sweat the small stuff...while the 4a people are screaming about what COULD be happening

...the 15a people are screaming about what IS happening in front of our faces.

It's just funny on DU people would rather scream about what a basher and a fuck say they should scream about.

GG is a fucking loser

[randome]

68. You seem to have lost your patience with S&G antics.

Can't say I blame you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[fasttense]

49. A Fool and reality are soon parted. n/t

[The Magistrate]

54. Cold But Fair, Ma'am

There is no question some have an interest in exaggerating the matter....

[orpupilofnature57]

61. They villified Smedley Butler for hurting bsiness .

[Iliyah]

65. The USA public pretty much are

diversed in ideology and thought but alas one thing that will bring most together are threats to our nation's security. Yes, I myself don't like whats going on and agree it must be fixed but the more I read the "tone" of the leakers the more I'm getting angry.

After the revelation of Assange and I have known for quite sometime about GG, the tearing down of the US government with allies here in the US directs me to believe of one particular party.

I personally will not let that happen nor will many others.

[Dustin DeWinde]

67. great article. thank you

At a time when Americans are being systematically deprived of the right to vote, there are idiots telling us to ignore that and instead be enraged that our spy angencies a actually spy on folks.

Civil liberties are always to be guarded, but thank you for your part in helping expose the deceit and hysteria of those who wish to distract people from far more pressing concerns.

[orpupilofnature57]

71. Like Fascism, Right ?

[ljm2002]

91. Apparently we should not discuss NSA spying...

...in a thread where the OP is a bunch of excerpts from articles about NSA spying.

Nope. We should be discussing voting rights.

Oddly enough, these posts suggesting we discuss voting rights only seem to pop up in threads about NSA spying.

Funny that.

[ljm2002]

106. Ooooh, someone's got a burr under their saddle...

...and your true colors came right out.

You are mischaracterizing my remarks. I noted that you continue to try and change the subject, and you would prefer us to discuss something other than NSA spying. That is a far cry from complaining of being silenced. You are in no position to silence me and I never made any such assertion. Of course you can and do attempt to derail the topic at hand. You said, and I quote:

At a time when Americans are being systematically deprived of the right to vote, there are idiots telling us to ignore that and instead be enraged that our spy angencies a actually spy on folks.

Civil liberties are always to be guarded, but thank you for your part in helping expose the deceit and hysteria of those who wish to distract people from far more pressing concerns.

So you call people "idiots" and say they are "telling us to ignore that"; you talk about the "deceit and hysteria of those who wish to distract people"... sounds like you are the one whining that someone is trying to silence you. So by your own reasoning, that makes you a teabag troll.

You are a piece of work.

[Maedhros]

109. The NSA scandal may be inconvenient for the Administration,

but it is clearly not "phony," not by any stretch of the imagination.

But you know that! If it was phony, it would have evaporated by now and only hardcore teabaggers would be calling for investigation (cf. Benghazi). However, it's not the teabaggers who have been expressing concern over this program FOR YEARS. It's Liberal Democratic stalwarts like Ron Wyden who are leading the charge. And yes, I guess there are some of you who are deluded enough to call Wyden a teabagger (which actually happened on another thread), but that just shows how dishonest are your arguments.

[orpupilofnature57]

117. Ha Ha on your ta ta 160er, you'll last 2 minutes here .

[Th1onein]

129. Results of Jury decision

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Aug 18, 2013, 03:58 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: "teabag troll" is too over the top. This is a hot topic but that just means we need to be careful about the off the cuff insults. Hide it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with alerter, and may I add that I got a glimpse of my teen's facebook page and there was an argument going on between a bunch of kids, and with the exception of the exact subject matter, it read like more than one thread I've seen in GD, really folks we can do better
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[orpupilofnature57]

132. I would have voted Hide it, Thanks .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. "If these were supposed to be secret "internal" audits..." Why were they "secret" if so innocent?

CYA for crimes committed.

[rug]

75. "Reggid" looks like a doppelganger.

Reggid's Most Recent Diaries:


Another NSA "Bombshell" Starts to Fizzle Out, as Greenwald Pushes Government Conspiracy Theory
by Reggid
1024 Comments / 1 New on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:10 AM PDT with 140 Recommends

Yet Another Knee-Jerk Meme from Team Greenwald Proves False: Clapper is NOT Heading NSA Review Panel
by Reggid
766 Comments / 766 New on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:27 AM PDT with 63 Recommends

More "Truthiness" from The Guardian: As Usual, Latest Stunning Claims Prove to be Wildly Dishonest
by Reggid 134 Comments / 134 New on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM PDT with 6 Recommends

Breaking: Multiple Federal Employees Corroborate Free Access to DOMESTIC Communications
by Reggid
124 Comments / 124 New on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 01:38 PM PDT with 15 Recommends

Report Indicates Snowden/Greenwald Lied About Key Claims
by Reggid
1099 Comments / 1099 New on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 07:29 AM PDT with 229 Recommends

Lack of Logic from Greenwald Regarding 2011 FISC Ruling
by Reggid
150 Comments / 150 New on Wed Aug 07, 2013 at 09:08 AM PDT with 8 Recommends

http://www.dailykos.com/user/uid:174754

Et cetera.

[Maedhros]

107. In a previous post that apparently ruffled some feathers on a different thread

I had suggested that ProSense and Reggid were the same person, and that ProSense had added a wrinkle to her time-tested-and-true method of endless recursive links to herself by using recursive links to herself ON ANOTHER SITE.

I didn't see the response, because I have the responder on ignore, but I imagine it wasn't very flattering.

It looks like you made the same correlation.

[ProSense]

153. Are you serious?

"I had suggested that ProSense and Reggid were the same person, and that ProSense had added a wrinkle to her time-tested-and-true method of endless recursive links to herself by using recursive links to herself ON ANOTHER SITE. "

Seriously?

[ljm2002]

151. Good find...

...bookmarking.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. THANK GOD! Now, can we let the DEA get back to what it does best?

Namely, making sure that sick cancer patients who use pot to ease their chemo nausea are in prison, where they belong?

[MjolnirTime]

80. Liars never prosper. Glenn's cableknit sweater of bullshit is unraveling.

I'll be glad when he sits behind bars. Smarmy little ratfucker!

[Hissyspit]

127. Sits behind bars for what exactly?

[ljm2002]

86. Just repeat after me...

..."this story is fizzling out, this story is fizzling out, this story is fizzling out"...

Say it often enough, and it's bound to come true. Keep telling yourself that, and keep the faith. It's worked really well so far.

[SidDithers]

87. Leave Greenwald Alone!!...

/Crocker

Sid

[Bonobo]

98. 2006 called.

They want their meme back.

Probably best to stick with the shouting at clouds thing and leave the comedy to someone else.

[dkf]

94. Wyden and Udall say we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. So yes, they think everything

We've seen so far is a miniscule part of the overall picture.

Are you going to accuse Wyden of exaggeration?

[ProSense]

101. You know what else Wyden said?

While Senate rules prohibit us from confirming or denying some of the details in today's press reports, the American people have a right to know more details about of these violations. We hope that the executive branch will take steps to publicly provide more information as part of the honest, public debate of surveillance authorities that the Administration has said it is interested in having.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023473972

Wyden is pushing reform, and the context of his statement doesn't address the points made in the OP.

In fact, those pushing the hyped nonsense don't seem interested in the reforms Wyden and others are proposing.

Also from his statement:

We appreciate the candor of the Chief Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding the Court's inability to independently verify statements made by the executive branch. We believe that the Court is not currently structured in a way that makes it an effective check on the power of the executive branch. This highlights the need for a robust and well-staffed public advocate who could participate in significant cases before the Court and evaluate and counter government assertions. Without such an advocate on the court, and without greater transparency regarding the Court's rulings, the checks and balances on executive branch authority enshrined in the Constitution cannot be adequately upheld.”

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs

Blumenthal Unveils Major Legislation To Reform FISA Courts

Thursday, August 1, 2013
(Washington, DC) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) – joined by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) – unveiled two bills that would ensure FISA courts properly balance the need to protect national security with constitutional and statutory requirements to safeguard individual rights to privacy and liberty. The first bill – the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 – would create a Special Advocate with the power to argue in the FISA courts on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. The second bill – The FISA Judge Selection Reform Act – would reform how judges are appointed to the FISA courts to ensure that the court is geographically and ideologically diverse and better reflects the full diversity of perspectives on questions of national security, privacy, and liberty.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023388210

Blumenthal Applauds President Obama’s Support For Special Advocate In FISA Courts

Blumenthal Introduced Senate Legislation Last Week To Provide For Adversarial Process

Friday, August 9, 2013
(Hartford, CT) – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) issued the following statement after President Obama announced the he would support appointing a special advocate to the FISA courts to argue on behalf of the right to privacy and other individual rights of the American people. Recently, Blumenthal introduced the FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 , which would create such an advocate.

“I am tremendously pleased to hear President Obama’s support for appointing a special advocate to the FISA courts, an idea that is at the heart of legislation I introduced last week. Recent revelations about the size and scope of the nation’s foreign surveillance activities prove – once again – that the Constitution needs a zealous advocate. My legislation would empower such an advocate to protect precious Constitutional rights if threatened by government overreaching, and thereby strike a critical balance that serves the interests of both liberty and security. The Special Advocate’s client would be the Constitution and the individual rights of the American people. President Obama’s endorsement of this general framework today is a strong step in the right direction.

“As a skilled lawyer, President Obama knows that courts commonly make better decisions when they hear both sides. His support for this commonsense concept should give this cause compelling momentum. His statement reflects that he's receptive to reforms that make the FISA court more open and accountable – more like other federal courts and less like a secret court, making secret law through secret opinions.”

http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-applauds-president-obamas-support-for-special-advocate-in-fisa-courts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023473562

[dkf]

110. You are so missing the bigger Picture.

Obama is pretending that the entire program is constitutional, even the parts they haven't confessed to yet. Then he says that we haven't been reading about violations because there are checks and balances in place.

So he has just been checkmated on the last part of the statement because we are now speaking of the violations he said didn't occur. His excuse is they weren't "intentional". That won't fly. Intention isn't the measuring stick to determine if rights have been violated

The next and bigger part is the constitutionality of the entirety of the surveillance. Wyden believes they are unconstitutional. Yeah he tends to couch his language but really you know he wouldn't be kicking up a fuss if he thought it was all perfectly legal.

This is where the true problem lies and what we haven't seen proof of. We can only guess until we see the docs or more evidence.

Then, Obama former "constitutional law professor" will have to explain why he thinks this program is constitutional and show his legal theories or he will be exposed as having redefined the word "constitutional" and being sadly Orwellian.

His trap is that the papers have all the data they need to get Obama for every wrong statement. They are almost toying with him and daring him, yet Obama steps right into it. He is doing a Clapper, saying things others already know is a lie. He and Clapper arw two peas in a pod.

[ProSense]

112. No, I'm not.

"Obama is pretending that the entire program is constitutional, even the parts they haven't confessed to yet. Then he says that we haven't been reading about violations because there are checks and balances in place."

Not only has the program not been declared unconstitutional, but aslo many of the claims are simply hype, which is the point of the OP.

[dkf]

113. They haven't gone though the courts yet because Obama has been using the fig leaf of state secrets.

Once they aren't secret, there's no point in claiming state secrets. Then they will be judged.

Obama puts everything on the line, any credibility he has as someone who understands the law and the constitution. He is walking right into the Clapper trap. He better pull it back or he will be revealed as a political hack, not a serious person.

[orpupilofnature57]

116. +1000 !!!!

We voted for change, not fortifying ShrubCo .

[ProSense]

122. So you acknowledge that it hasn't been declared unconstitutional

"Obama puts everything on the line, any credibility he has as someone who understands the law and the constitution. "

There are a lot of people who believe they know more about the Constitution than the President, and some even believe he doesn't know what he's doing.

Of course, part of it is that some are buying into Greenwald's hype.

[dkf]

123. YET. But it is obviously so. They are relying on loopholes to keep it from Supreme Court scrutiny.

In addition to "state secrets" they are using the lack of legal standing. One little crack in the dike...like a drug case with hidden tips and parallel construction...and this whole thing blows up.

It's coming, I have no doubt about that.

[ProSense]

124. That's some theory

"In addition to "state secrets" they are using the lack of legal standing. One little crack in the dike...like a drug case with hidden tips and parallel construction...and this whole thing blows up. "

I mean, you're apparently conflating the DEA's SOD with the NSA.

[dkf]

125. Uh yeah...that's what SOD does.

Commingling the fruit of the poisoned tree will be their downfall.

[ProSense]

128. The SOD

"Uh yeah...that's what SOD does. Commingling the fruit of the poisoned tree will be their downfall."

...has nothing to do with the NSA/FISA court debate. Parallel Construct is a SOD practice that has been used for decades. It was established under Clinton.

[quadrature]

95. health records spying....coming soon ..nt

[David Krout]

97. The FISA chief judge can't verify that the "inadvertent" incident were inadvertent

But you can! That's some power, Prosense.

[ProSense]

102. What does that have to do with the OP?

"But you can! That's some power, Prosense."

Don't you have some Rand Paul legislation to push: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023479770

[ProSense]

143. That has nothing to do with the OP

"Will the apologist finally see that the authoritarians are out of control? "

Welcome to DU, and please do enjoy your stay.

[ProSense]

145. No it doesn't, and

"And you know where you can stick your threat."

...like I said, enjoy your stay.

[ProSense]

147. Are you having trouble understanding the point of the OP?

I'll say it again: Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

You already appear comfortable.

[ProSense]

148. Just so you know

DU Mail Message from drventure

Return to My InboxMark as unreadDelete this messageBlock this sender

8:54 PM

drventure

Fair Warning

The next time you threaten me, or insult me, I will immediately alert on you and not even respond.

So, PLEASE, keep your childish threats, and/or insults to YOURSELF.

Thank you very much.

...I'm a transparency buff, especially when it comes to such PMs.

Enjoy your stay.

[ProSense]

150. You sent me a weird PM and alerted the text of your PM? Did you think you could hide? n/t

[ProSense]

155. You've been here a day and are already using the label "apologist"

I'd say you're off to a bad start.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023478767#post138

[ProSense]

166. "Welcome to my ignore list, and... enjoy your stay. "

[Bobbie Jo]

158. Swing and a miss....

At Sun Aug 18, 2013, 08:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Are you having trouble understanding the point of the OP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3485646

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

I know I am new here, but I have asked this person repeatedly to stop with their childish, and not so veiled threats.

Is it common for folks to bully people just because they are new, and they disagree?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Aug 18, 2013, 09:08 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm no fan of the poster by many a lightyear but I think you may be being a tad thin skinned here. The snide snark is not missed but I don't see how it really rises to bullying. You have to stand up for your self and ideals.
TheKentuckian
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's all fun and games, until someone gets hurt.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If you're "new here," read more before you start trashing long term DU'ers.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Ignore is your friend.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ProSense]

160. I suspect

a returnee: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023485714#post15

Thanks.

[ProSense]

172. And a pizza.

[one_voice]

167. Reminds me of this person...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303173

[ProSense]

168. It disrupted poorly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=306924&sub=trans

[madinmaryland]

154. This is really odd, but is there anything that President Obama has done (or not done) that you

do not agree with?

While I don't mind cheerleaders, it seems a little odd that on a democratic discussion board, someone would view any person as perfect. Just seems really odd to me.

[ProSense]

156. Yeah, that is "really odd." It appears to be deflection. n/t

[madinmaryland]

157. So are you not going to answer a simple question?

[ProSense]

159. No, I'm not. Your question is an attempt to deflect from the OP.

Why do you think I should engage you?

[madinmaryland]

161. So you are not willing to say there is anything that President Obama has done (or not done)

that you disagree with?

[ProSense]

162. See my previous response. n/t

[madinmaryland]

163. I saw your previous response, and yet you continue to avoid my question. It is a very simple one.

I am sure that Mr. Axelrod or Mr. Plouffe could find something that they do not see eye-to-eye with the President, yet you cannot come up (or just simply refuse to) with anything that you might disagree with President Obama on.

Really??

[ProSense]

164. Does the word "no" mean something different to you? n/t

[Cha]

173. "How Histrionics and Hysteria Continue to Drive A Misleading Narrative" and it

never stops..

GG..

"This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples."

Fucking "mafia".. really?

[Scurrilous]

175. K & R

[GoneFishin]

176. Too late. The bombshell already exploded. Only thing fizzling is the rubble and ashes. nt