Sen. Al Franken: “I Assure You This Isn’t About Spying on the American People”

[Playinghardball]

Noted far right nutjob (do I need a snark tag on that?) Sen. Al Franken says he was not surprised by the Greenwald/Snowden NSA revelations.

“I’m on the Judiciary committee and the Judiciary committee has jurisdiction (over) N.S.A. and on (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the Patriot Act,” he said. “I availed myself of these briefings so nothing surprised me and the architecture of these programs I was very well aware of.”

“I think there should be enough transparency that the American people understand what is happening…But I can assure you that this isn’t about spying on the American people.”

Franken, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, also said there are aspects of security programs that he should be aware of but the public should not.

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that’s not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” he said. “Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right? And there’s a balance that has to be struck between the responsibility of the federal government to protect the American people and then people’s right to privacy. We have safeguards in place …The American people can’t know everything because everything they know then, the bad guys will know.”

He said that the data the security agency has collected have kept Americans safe.

“I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” he said.

See the video at: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42112_Sen._Al_Franken-_I_Assure_You_This_Isnt_About_Spying_on_the_American_People

[PowerToThePeople]

1. To Sen Franken: COULD it be used against the American people?

If so, then it will or already has been.

[Little Star]

2. And there in lays the problem.

[stevenleser]

15. You COULD decide to hurt someone too. Aside from your good graces, what stops you? nt

[tk2kewl]

20. for most of us its LAWS

then there are those, and always will be, who think they're above the law - and Washington is full of such people

[PowerToThePeople]

26. I think morality is the correct answer here, not laws. n/t

[tk2kewl]

33. there are plenty of amoral people who would abuse the power given to them... so i think it's laws

we need it to be illegal to collect all of this data

[Drunken Irishman]

32. I really hope it's not just a law that is holding you back from hurting someone...

[tk2kewl]

34. not the point

for some it is only the possibility of being caught and prosecuted that prevents them from doing harm.

we are talking about how do we prevent the government from using their power to spy on people.

[Drunken Irishman]

41. You made it.

So, yeah, it is the point.

[dreamnightwind]

89. So if Pres Liz Cheney wants to use this info

against us, you think it should be legal that she do so, and we should be protected by her moral grounding?

[Drunken Irishman]

91. Well I don't think we'll ever see a President Liz Cheney, so...

[dreamnightwind]

113. So you won't even look at the misuse of this data

by the worst people who will someday hold office. That's the problem right there.

What's more, is that it is only to a small degree dictated by the President. There is a career security establishment in place, a surveillance state with its own agendas, with pretty much no meaningful oversight of their activities. They're the people I believe are actually running things. You would find such people in the NSA, and the JCOS. Who is president might or might not mean much to those people. They might even control who gets to be president.

[Drunken Irishman]

117. That's the problem...

We're acting like it matters what laws are in place with these people. Clearly it doesn't. Pass all the laws you want ... it won't change anything. At least the Obama administration appears to be going about it as legally as possible. So, I don't know what else to say or accept or push. Who knows what other presidents have done with personal data. God knows what Hoover did at the FBI ... or what Nixon when he was president.

The thing is, just changing the laws won't change the crooks. They'll just find other means. So, I guess what I'm trying to say - we need to stop electing crooks.

[dreamnightwind]

118. Well that's just priceless

If it doesn't matter what laws are on the books, then we're locked in for an authoritarian future controlled by heartless profiteers. You might find that acceptable, or be resigned to the inevitability of it, or disagree with that statement altogether, but I'm certain that's where it leads.

[Drunken Irishman]

120. It leads to what we've had forever...

Do you think this is the first we've had leaders spying on American citizens ... or at least leaders who had the capabilities to spy on American citizens? Hell, Hoover made it his livelihood.

That's why it's important you elect leaders who have the moral fortitude to do what is right. But honestly, do you think the law mattered to George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? Of course not.

[dreamnightwind]

122. Big difference

Huge difference. Shocking that you would even claim it's the same ol' same ol'. It's the difference between a criminal with a slingshot and a criminal with nuclear weapons. The whole Total Information Awareness effort, using modern technology, is a beast not yet seen on this earth, nor should it ever be.

I don't think W. and Cheney always followed the law, but I think it did make a difference to them that they could someday be held accountable to those laws. That's why they went to all the trouble to have their hand-picked legal minds (such as Yoo) come up with legal justifications for their actions. And it's why they passed the Patriot Act. Your argument is empty, or worse.

[Drunken Irishman]

124. Na'. You're just naive.

But it's okay. Live in your fantasyland where presidents won't break the law in secret. It's never happened. Nope.



If you want a law on the book, urge the congress to repeal the Patriot Act and then set up laws banning it.

[dreamnightwind]

127. Naive is equating what Hoover had to TIA

And you're arguing against a claim I never made, nor would I, I have no idea where you came up with me not thinking presidents won't break the law in secret. I just don't agree that because someone might break a law that makes the law obsolete or unnecessary.

People can, and usually do, consider legality and consequences of their actions. If they break the law and we find out about it, we have some recourse. Without the law, we have none.

And I'm going to enjoy a DU without your presence. I don't like to use ignore but you've earned it by making false attribution to my claims and beliefs, then laughing at that false attribution. Bye.

[Drunken Irishman]

135. Sure they do.

Reagan really feared the law, didn't he?

C'mon now. Let's stop pretending there aren't Republicans who feel they're above the law. As Nixon said, "when the president does it, it it's not illegal..."

But like I said, urge Congress to repeal the Patriot Act and fight for them to ban the surveillance program. Make it illegal. Just don't bellyache when a President sidesteps the law.

[JDPriestly]

81. If I go to your mailbox while you are at work each Month and take out your phone bill, open it

and make a copy would you like it?

And if I go to all the mailboxes in the city and do the same thing and then scan the bills and put the scanned bills in a computer that can compile the information available from them about who talks to whom, how often and what phone calls are made within so many minutes of each call. And if I do that analysis on every phone call and every person. And if in addition to all that, I peruse transcripts (we get them from Vonage [Skype] in our e-mails for missed calls) of all your calls and e-mails for specific words like wedding or funeral or whatever code words the NSA is looking for that might be commonly used by Americans, then would you like that?

And why do you want perfect strangers having all this information about you?

And why would the NSA get a court order requiring Verizon to collect all that information if they weren't planning to use it?

To trust a Senator who is, granted very smart, but a comedian and not a former intelligence officer or a lawyer or an expert on surveillance or even a historian, to judge the wisdom of the FISA program is not wise in my view. I want to know the opinions of experts on surveillance past and present, the former intelligence officers, the lawyers for the whistleblowers in previous cases and those whistleblowers themselves. Franken's opinion after having sat through a propaganda (maybe even psy-ops or brainwashing) session presented by the administration and the perpetrators of the NSA program really is not persuasive to me at all.

Neither is Obama's self-serving "White Paper." Seen things like that. Don't trust them at all. Think about all the wonderful things that have been said about the Keystone Pipeline and the gas fracking. Good people must stay skeptical. Especially when it comes to protecting our basic freedom of privacy. We have no freedom at all if we compromise that basic one.

[Drunken Irishman]

84. I don't really understand the comparison...

In fact, I don't think your comparison makes much sense. Already, strangers have that information - it exists in data bases at companies that collect it for business reasons anyway. So, eh. Moreover, unless you can prove to me that my data has not only been collected, but read by some stranger (not just thrown into some massive data base), comparing it to one stranger coming up to my mailbox and reading my mail, or scanning it, doesn't work. It's not the same.

I'm pretty confident no one from the NSA has ever read an e-mail or checked my phone records.

[frylock]

92. what makes you that confident?

how do you know that someone you recently talked to hasn't talked to someone on a watch list?

[Drunken Irishman]

93. I really don't talk to many people.

I also have confidence my mailman isn't reading my mail.

But I can't say without a doubt she isn't.

[frylock]

99. so what you meant to say is "it doesn't effect me, so fuck your concerns."

[Drunken Irishman]

103. I'm sure it doesn't effect 99.9% of the country.

[frylock]

107. i'm sure that you're incorrect with that assessment

[JDPriestly]

111. This is information that we do not want the government to have.

Private companies are going to use that information if they get it at all to try to make a profit from their products. They aren't going to use it to control our political speech. They will try to convince us to buy their products, but they won't try to convince us to start an illegal war or hate the people of another country or agree to waste money on more surveillance.

Private companies are somewhat controlled by their obligation to make money for their owners or shareholders. It isn't much solace when compared to the amount of information they have about us, but it is some.

When the government has this information, it can use it for purposes that destroy meaningful democratic government or even any illusion of meaningful democratic elections or government or decision-making.

And above all, when we say that the government has this information, what we really mean is that a tiny clique in the government, a clique that is part of and controls our domestic and foreign military power and legal power over people's lives here and around the world. They have that information. That information that I hypothetically took from your mailbox, and unlike private companies, they can easily access all your information, not just your phone bill but your electric bill, your charges at Walmart, everything that you have entrusted to electronic transmissions.

And that tiny clique has your information, all the details of your life in their possession. Maybe they won't use it. Maybe they will.

But what is unacceptable is having that much information on so many Americans in the hands, in the databases of so few. It is like the Middle Ages where you had to check in and out at a gate as you came in and went out of town. Your movements, that vacation in Maine, that call to your old high school boyfriend in Florida, the phone return you made to Verizon, the big bills you ran up talking to your son in Ireland? All of it is within the files of a small clique of people. Do they access all of it all the time? No. But it is within their discretion to access any or all of it at any time.

East Germany did not have the capacity to place their nation under surveillance that our NSA has, and yet they wreaked havoc in the lives of East Germans.

Giving the NSA the authority to acquire all this information is too great a temptation, too great a power for government. I'm no libertarian, but I do know a bit about history.

This is the most dangerous program I have ever heard of.

[snappyturtle]

126. Great explanation even at this late hour...makes sense. It's as the 1%

that has our country in an inequality headlock is to the clique in
government to the general population.

[stevenleser]

114. And what stops you from doing that? This is the key to this whole kerfuffle

Is it possible to make it so that you are physically unable to do so? No. It's not.

It is similarly impossible to make it so that the government does not have the technical ability to get your metadata and actual data. Hackers can do this. It's not possible to put the technology genie in the bottle when it comes to the internet.

So what will constrain the government from doing this?

The same things that constrain someone from opening their neighbors mail. A combination of morals and law.

[JDPriestly]

121. Actually, in Los Angeles, people buy mailboxes with locks. That doesn't make it impossible,

but it does make it much more difficult to reach in and steal someone's mail.

I no longer trust the morals of my government, and as for the law, it no longer seems to govern us. Look at what the mortgage companies and banks were able to pull off. Biggest heist in history. And how many mortgage company managers or bankers have been prosecuted? Very, very few compared to the amount of fraud and the size of the heist.

[MrMickeysMom]

143. Well put...

"We have no freedom at all if we compromise on that basic one...

I hope every person here holds every legislative person, including Al Franken, to understanding what limit each power taken has on the rest of us. The intent of governmental powers, regardless of what positions and transitions they go through as our elected leaders is to do no harm to basic rights.

[TheMadMonk]

152. You don't have to be much of a student of human nature to know...

...that the ONLY thing keeping many people in check is fear of legal consequences and morality has little to do with it.

Indeed pretty much any time someone tries to talk about morality and law in the same sentence, it's because other people aren't "behaving right".

[JDPriestly]

86. That article was written about Franken back in June 2013 before some of the recent sessions.

6/10/13 1:52:52

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42112_Sen._Al_Franken-_I_Assure_You_This_Isnt_About_Spying_on_the_American_People

The article cited in this thread was written more recently since some of these recent sessions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325

Senator Franken's point of view appears to have evolved a little. He is now taking the administration and the NSA to task for lack of transparency.

[Recursion]

5. Police have guns and battering rams. Better take those away too.

They can definitely be used against the American people.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. True, but it is nearly impossible to do it in secret

Physical proof of the use will very likely be available.

With use of parallel construction, any political foe could be taken out. There would not be any way to know it was NSA spying. And the whole, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bullshit - we all have skeletons in our closet that, with the correct spin, could be used to ruin our lives.

[Recursion]

8. I don't know; apparently we blow up reporters' cars now

Or something like that.

Not only "can it" be done in secret, it is done in secret fairly regularly, especially to people whose skin is somewhat browner than average. But saying "police have to be unarmed" is not an option.

[Progressive dog]

11. Let's just get rid of the cops, the army, social security, medicare, the IRS, etc.

all of them have information or weapons that could be used against the American people. We could just disband the government. Good thinking, but the Libertarian-Republican-Anarchists beat you to it.

[stevenleser]

12. A hacker COULD do almost everything alleged too. How do you propose we stop that? The point of that

is, the technology exists to grab your phone records from your provider. The technology exists to listen to your conversations and hack into your emails.

There is absolutely nothing you can do to prevent someone in the government from doing this. The only thing you can do is make it illegal where appropriate and put checks and balances where appropriate. The technology to eavesdrop and hack is not going to go away.

[Scuba]

14. Is it being used against Al?

If they weren't collecting it, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with this question.

[Skraxx]

21. My Mailman Can Read My Mail Any Time He Wants To

Should we scrap the Postal System?

Any technology, any system can be used for nefarious purposes, that's why there's laws and oversight. What Franken is saying is that there is, in fact, oversight.

Now, is it truly sufficient? That's a good question, and worthy of debate.

[PowerToThePeople]

47. It is a crime to open other people's mail. n/t

[Skraxx]

51. Indeed, That's My Point, So Is Listening To Peoples Phone Calls and Reading Their Emails

Without a warrant. That's also a crime.

[PowerToThePeople]

52. I believe that is an untrue statement. n/t

[Skraxx]

53. So Listening To Phone Calls Without A Warrant Is Not A Crime? LOL! Umm, Your "Belief" Is Irrelevant

If you "believe" the earth is a cube, you'd be wrong. Feel free to "believe" whatever you want. You're still wrong, and it is a crime.

[PowerToThePeople]

54. There was more to your statement than that.

DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats

An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it's possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans' e-mail "without running afoul" of the Fourth Amendment. (CNET)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/

[Skraxx]

96. No There Wasn't; Listening to Phonecalls and Reading Emails w/out Warrants Is A Crime, Period.

Do you deny that?

[PowerToThePeople]

97. Holder does not agree with you

read my above cnet link.

[phleshdef]

58. And its a crime for NSA personel to look at stuff that isn't cleared and a national security concern

[PowerToThePeople]

62. is it a crime or just an internal policy? n/t

I do know that it is a crime to show certain things to citizens of foreign countries, as I have first hand experience in this. Is the collected data "top secret" or something? How is this data getting classified? I do not know. Do you? The closest thing to understanding the thoughts concerning this data (for me) would be the DOJ response linked above. This tells me that they consider it completely unclassified, open and available information.

edit- Even if it is a crime, where is the check and balance? Who is going to press charges? How will they know they need to press charges?

[PowerToThePeople]

29. A reply to you all.

The cat is out of the bag. There is not going to be any way to get it back into the bag. What we need is someone with some pull going to the public and letting them know that none of their digital communications are secure. They need to press to public to get all of their communications encrypted, secured from any prying eyes. We could also do this:

4th Amendment for the 21st century
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, digital footprint, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

digital footprint being any data of any form which can be associated with a citizen.

[MADem]

129. Shall not be violated?

How do you prevent Russia and China from doing that?

Ask nicely?

It's a different paradigm, these days.

[PowerToThePeople]

130. when did the Constitution EVER apply to Russia or China? n/t

[MADem]

132. So, they're welcome to our shit, then! nt

[PowerToThePeople]

133. okee dokee

[MADem]

134. Not really.

Is it "OK" if they do it?

And how are you gonna stop 'em?

[markiv]

35. they would tell us if they were planning to

lol

[brooklynite]

45. I guess you disapprove of the Income Tax?

All that personal information COULD be misused (and in the hands of Republicans probably has)

[snappyturtle]

128. I don't like the IRS's reach into my life. However, it knows what I have

fed into their system. I am aware of what they've been given. With the
NSA...not so much. And, they have much,much more than my financial
side of life. imho

[pnwmom]

75. Yeah, under a different administration.

But a different administration could pass a whole different set of laws, too. Whatever we do to make us "safer" under Obama could disappear quickly under a new Repub President. As long as we have computers and the internet, there will be the possibility of misuse.

[uponit7771]

3. Reason, but hey ... who needs that shit now. Limbaugh and Greenwald said Government = bad

....and we gottah believe em dammit!!

[Aerows]

25. Clapper and Alexander had a perfectly good forum to

not tell lies. But they did it anyway. Now you want me to throw Snowden and Greenwald to the dogs, after you have proof that two public servants lied before Congress?

That bucket isn't going to hold any water.

[uponit7771]

72. ...yeah, an idiot and a basher...throw them to the dogs and I understand clappers story

...and the question he got asked that he shouldn't have answered (told the guy to screw off would've been better)

[Aerows]

82. See, here's where the bucket fails to hold any water

WHOM do you perceive as a basher and an idiot?

[neverforget]

110. Are you talking about the question Senator Wyden asked Clapper?

If that's the one you're talking about, you think Clapper should have told Senator Wyden to screw off?

[winter is coming]

4. And we should believe the NSA has been 100% forthcoming with any Senator because...? n/t

[Gregorian]

17. Exactly.

[Aerows]

23. Two of them lied before Congress

and therefore lied before the nation.

I have enough common sense to not believe people that lie to my face.

[Recursion]

7. I think we can do better than LGF (nt)

[eissa]

9. Another corporate shill

Nothing should be classified. It's just another tactic by this tyrannical government to trash the Constitution.

[stevenleser]

10. Uh oh, time to throw Franken under the bus now.

[okieinpain]

19. lol, i understand the subject but i still

Laugh at all the people freaking out. Digital data is going to be collected, like it or not it's going to happen. They are (government, private companies), are going to stockpile information, the only way to stop collections is the usps and analog phone lines.

[truedelphi]

16. When he was running for office, and stated that we needed to keep the Big Insurers in the loop,

That let me know all I needed to know about the man.

Many of the biggest Health Insurers have their headquarters in Minneapolis/St Paul. And Franken wanted their campaign monies.

The answer to the mystery: how is a funny guy from SNL going to get a seat in The Senate? was suddenly available.

[LuvNewcastle]

43. That's how I feel about him. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

65. Rec

[starroute]

18. And just who are these "bad guys"

I'm instantly distrustful of anyone who invokes a nebulous "the bad guys" to justify government secrecy. For one thing, it's a license to keep doing it forever, because there are always bad guys of one sort of another in the world.

But the other is that it deprives the American people of things they might have an urgent need to know. If a dam upstream from you had structural weaknesses and the government kept that secret because "bad guys" could exploit the knowledge, would that be making you any safer? What about if there were safety violations at a nearby nuclear plant? And how many corporations would push to get their operations under the shield of government secrecy in order to avoid making necessary repairs or being liable for deaths and injuries if they did occur?

There's a very slippery slope here, and any line of argument which suggests that the American people can't be trusted to know about things which concern them spells death to the fundamental assumptions of democracy.

[Progressive dog]

36. Al Franken was a hero of the "Snowden=hero, Obama=bad"

people until he actually made a statement they couldn't twist to fit their story line.
Your argument seems to be that government should tell all secrets to the American people and let them decide what should be kept secret. I'm trying to figure out how that would work.

[starroute]

79. Do I need to quote Thomas Jefferson here?

http://politheo.com/thomasjefferson.html

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand."

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

[Progressive dog]

149. OMG, quotes from Jefferson,

Neither Jefferson nor the philosophers he got his ideas from were libertarians. Jefferson understood the importance and responsibilities of government.

This quote is about education, not about criminals disclosing secrets.

And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

This quote doesn't say all information.

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration."

Remember, Jefferson SECRETLY negotiated the purchase of the Louisiana territory,
from Wikipedia

As Jefferson noted in that letter, Monroe's charge was to obtain land east of the Mississippi. Monroe's instructions, drawn up by Madison and approved by Jefferson, allocated up to $10 million for the purchase of New Orleans and all or part of the Floridas.

From John Locke on government and rights

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)

[Ed Suspicious]

71. It's the Qaeda. They're out there... chattering... increasingly... sometimes not so much,

but they are always a potential source of chatter, and for that we need to have strip searches of granny at airports and damnit we need to let the NSA secretly spend billions collecting our conversations and data through coercion of corporate entities or simply by turning on my laptop mic from a remote bunker in Utah. It really is for our own good. We want to be safe, right?

[chervilant]

141. Indeed, the "bad guy" scenario

IS amorphous these days. It's become a "fill in the blank" situation.

[Progressive dog]

22. Al Franken, from hero to scoundrel in one simple sentence.

“I have a high level of confidence, that it is used…to protect us and I know that it has been successful in preventing terrorism,” he said.

Check your dailypaul for updates on Senators who are have joined the Obama conspiracy against your civil rights.

[Aerows]

28. So you believe that people that lie

before Congress will be truthful to Al Franken? He's a member of Congress.

Does common sense tell you to believe the least untruthful answer on a regular basis, or do you just call it what everyone else does, a lie?

[Progressive dog]

40. Common sense tells me that I should believe Al Franken

before some random internet poster, especially one of the Al Franken was "right until today" people.

[Aerows]

42. Common sense tells me

that politicians try to smooth things over and when the responsible people get called to Congress and stand up in front of them and lie, they will put the best face on it.

Note I haven't said Al Franken is wrong. I've said Al Franken has been lied to. As was admitted by Clapper and Alexander. Two people that supposedly were there to supposedly detail their activities, they lied about them.

[truedelphi]

76. I wish I was les scynical and could accept your logic.

I tend to see Franken as a pompous guy who thinks he knows more than those to whom his puppet strings are attached.

And he certainly thinks he is smarter than the rest of us mere plebes.

[Progressive dog]

87. Puppet strings, all government are pompous puppets, especially if they

disagree with me.

And he certainly thinks he is smarter than the rest of us mere plebes.

He already addressed that point, so he does know more than we do (it's pretty silly to think there is any point debating specific secrets in public)

“There are certain things that are appropriate for me to know that’s not appropriate for the bad guys to know,” he said. “Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right?

[truedelphi]

98. Many of us have already remarked on that "line."

We know what "line" they mean.

The One Percent are on one side of that "line" and they are seeing to it that the eternal actual combat wars, and now the inside America-and-against American-citizens-who-might-be-terrorists- wars are funded, continually. So that the profits accrue to them.

And some of us have already remarked that if there ar e people in power who think that Snowden is a traitor, for what information he has allowed us plebes to understand, that tells us all we need to know.

To be a traitor means to assist the enemy. And the only entity that has been assisted by Snowden's leaks are The American Public.

So if he is a traitor, than we are the enemy, aren't we...

[Progressive dog]

100. If the elected government does stuff we don't like,

we can vote them out. For some reason we chose to re elect that NSA enabler Obama who ran against the guy funded by the one percent.

Yep, Snowden was chased out of the US by drones. They're still out to get him and anyone who supports him. You are very brave to post "THE TRUTH' on an internet board, because the GOVERNMENT is out to get those on the other side of the "line." Line is only used by the one percent.

[pnwmom]

77. Before some random internet poster,

and before Greenwald, activist/journalist/attention-seeker and Snowden, Russian defector.

[JTFrog]

80. Fuck Ron Paul.

And just for good measure, Fuck Rand Paul too.

[Progressive dog]

151. I agree, I was mocking the obvious Pauitel Libertarians

trying to masquerade as Democrats. They twisted Franken's earlier statements to make him seem to support the Snowden Greenwald claim that the Obama administration was illegally spying on the American people. Now they have to move Franken to the fool, dupe, or freedom hater category, along with President Obama.

[baldguy]

109. If it comes down to siding with Ron Paul on one side, and Sen Frankin & Pres Obama on the other

I'm with Frankin & Obama. Ron Paul & Rand Paul - and those who support them - should be anathema to Democrats, liberals and progressives.

[Art_from_Ark]

116. If it comes down to siding with Jimmy Carter on one side

http://now.msn.com/jimmy-carter-says-the-nsa-has-eliminated-a-functioning-democracy

and Darth Cheney on the other

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589521/dick-cheney-defends-nsa-surveillance-programs/

I'm with Jimmy Carter.

[baldguy]

145. Ask Valarie Plame if Cheney isn't above breaking the law like Snowden did.

[Progressive dog]

148. Good for you, I'm with Obama and Franken

I was mocking some of the libertarian t-party garbage I keep seeing posted here. I would assume any real Democrat would agree with us.
I posted this in response to one of the
I posted this on the subthread

40) Common sense tells me that I should believe Al Franken
before some random internet poster, especially one of the Al Franken was "right until today" people.

[Orrex]

144. I"m sorry... Did you say "check your dailypaul?"

I thought so.

[Progressive dog]

146. Yes I said Dailypaul, I was mockng those supposed

Democrats who post the Snowden/Greenwald crap from there.

[Orrex]

147. Ah. Sorry--missed the joke

[MNBrewer]

24. How confident is my esteemed Senator that he's being truthfully briefed?

[Aerows]

27. Not at all

since those that brief him have already been proven to lie before Congress.

[Aerows]

30. He got the least untruthful answer

that could be offered.

Now I don't know about you, but what do you think about "the least untruthful answer"?

"Where is my money? :least untruthful answer: "I don't have it on me." (it's in a secret safety deposit box).

[markiv]

31. NOBODY can be trusted with that much power

funny how this has thrown cold water on the 'cloud computing' fad

who'da thunk putting all your data through a public trafficway would be a security/privacy risk?

the stupidity of IT continues to amaze me

[Demo_Chris]

37. We're spying on the people. That's the ONLY thing these programs do...

But according to Franken the point isn't spying. It's...er.... something else and also bad guys.

[woo me with science]

56. +100000

Franken also sold his principles to support SOPA and PIPA.

This is what systemic corruption and a purchased system reap.

[Demo_Chris]

67. Yep. nt

[leftstreet]

83. Lie vs Lie...er I mean Spy vs...er

wut?

+1

[markiv]

38. Franken voted against worker protections in the immigration bill,too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=506882

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846502

[markiv]

39. he's revived his comedy career, playing a senator who will say

anything for power

i just wish he were playing it on SNL, instead of inside the capitol

[riderinthestorm]

44. This article is 2 months old. Franken has very different comments now...

... now that the public demand for transparency and privacy protections have been heard. so much has happened between then and now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325

[wtmusic]

49. Good catch.

[HardTimes99]

66. Bravo! Important that people's views be allowed to evolve and that they

not be trapped forever into a position taken in the very early stages of the revelations.

There's a hard core of DUers on whom I have pretty much abandoned hope, but Franken's evolution is noteworthy and his current position diverges dramatically from the position he took in early June!

I note the OP has pretty much abandoned the thread, not deeming your observations worthy of comment. That in itself is noteworthy.

[SunSeeker]

94. The positions are not "very different."

In the article you cite, Al was angered by how slow certain declassifications had gone:

Speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Franken blasted top intelligence officials for delays in declassifying secret government documents authorizing the program.“I don’t want transparency only when it’s convenient to the government,” Franken said. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, he added, “has known for weeks that this hearing was coming and ODNI released this only in the minutes before this hearing began. That doesn’t engender trust.”

In the June piece, he says pretty noncontroversial truisms about the need for secrecy regarding certain government activities, because what the public knows the terrorists will know as well. Nothing in the July article suggests he now believes the NSA is spying on Americans. He just appears angry that the ODNI did not move fast enough to declassify studies regarding the program, doing it just before the hearing he needed them for apparently.

[Helen Borg]

46. Yup, Franken is still funny!

Thanks for making me laugh, Senator...

[wtmusic]

48. Are the bad guys people who get droned?

Some of them don't seem so bad. Especially the kids.

[RC]

104. But, but, but, those kids mighta, coulda maybe grown up to be bad guys.

So that makes it alright.

We'll never know, because they are now dead. But it sure improves the surviving kids chances of growing up to be "Bad Guys", and that is the whole purpose. To make new terrorist so we can continue the War on Terrorism forever. USA USA Ra Ra Ra!

[blackspade]

50. Sorry, Sen. Franken, but that doesn't wash.

What are the safeguards?
Why are there secret laws and interpretations?
Knowing what the law is does not endanger the American people.

This quote is especially disturbing:

Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right?

[RC]

106. Your last line is self explanatory.

Anything that quote the American people know, the bad guys know so there’s a line here, right?

[center][h3]WE ARE THE ENEMY![/h3][/center]

[woo me with science]

55. Franken supported SOPA and PIPA, too.

Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Ed Suspicious]

74. Mmmm... sopaipillas.

[bobduca]

112. con chile verde por favor!

[DeSwiss]

57. :-|

[AZ Progressive]

59. Wow, putting a comment that's no longer relevant, nice try at propaganda

Al Franken isn't defending NSA surveillance anymore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451325

[intaglio]

60. So all of the fantasists who are intent on loosing the Senate

have turned against one of the most outstanding Senators in Congress

They have decided - against the evidence - that the NSA actions were illegal and unConstitutional.

They have decided that the USA is now so bad that the GOP can have complete control and that that will bring on the revolution.

Awww - Didums.

Let us know when you have finished your temper tantrums.

[dionysus]

123. you got it right there!

[Warren DeMontague]

61. I hate these kinds of rides.

[Swede Atlanta]

63. Al, what happened to you?

I always considered him to be a smart, resourceful and progressive man.

But now I think he has drunk the Kool-Aid and bought the t-shirt. He believes the crap they are feeding him.

Such a shame for someone I thought was going to be a game-changer. He is still a progressive on so many issues but his attitude on unconstitutional spying surprises me. Perhaps he was offered a summer home, etc. in exchange for treason. I don't know.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

64. Imagine if terror tactics were used against US in the age before electronic communication . . .

Truly, think about this. Terror tactics being used as opposed to an army invasion by a nation. How would we have fought that?

[Waiting For Everyman]

68. That's dated June 10th. His position has changed.

Senators lash out at NSA for excessive secrecy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451666

[SunSeeker]

95. How has it changed? Does he now say the NSA spies on Americans?

The link you offer does not discuss that position.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. Please tell me that he is not a chess player.

[closeupready]

70. Franken doesn't get it. We knew this about him already.

He made similar remarks after this whole affair was exposed initially.

It doesn't MATTER who the targets are. There are things known as judicial WARRANTS. There is a 4th AMENDMENT.

[truedelphi]

78. Thank you. Your remrks are spot on. n/t

[Egnever]

125. there is no fourth amendment

for non US citizens. So ya it kind of matters who the targets are.

[closeupready]

142. That's such a right-wing meme, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[JDPriestly]

73. Franken has heard apologists for the program present the theory.

Snowden has worked in the reality of the program and presented the everyday abuses that are inherent in it.

I like Franken very much, but he is under tremendous pressure to approve this program. He does not want to be responsible should the program be ended and we have terrorist attacks. But look, the program was fully functioning and we had terrorist attacks at the Boston Marathon. So the program did not deter foreign terrorists.

Why do they need Verizon to safeguard all its billing records if they aren't targeting Americans?

Same for the other telecoms that mostly serve American phones. I don't think that terrorists are likely to communicate via AOL or Verizon, so why does the NSA want access to those records.

Sounds to me like Franken has been handed a bowl of watery soup.

So, Senator Franken, how many records of American communications does the NSA collect in an average month?

How much metadata on Americans does the NSA collect in a month?

Those are among the facts that I want to know because I have heard some horrendous numbers. Is Franken saying that Wyden has been exaggerating his concern about the programs?
Something does not make sense.

[maddiemom]

85. I loved Al Franken, but he's become the biggest disappointment since...

I dunno...Barack Obama? I could see him laying back at first due to his "comedian" fame...but now? He seems to have left his nerve back at SNL. He certainly isn't channeling the late, great Paul Wellstone, although he certainly evoked him enough. I'd actually like to see him tangle with Bill O'Reilly now. The Republican party is stuffed with outspoken people, even though most are idiots. Democrats need to get loud and proud, it being nearly impossible for them to sound as ignorant as the Repugs. Otherwise, I guess the idea that the Democrats are throwing the fight for Wall Street makes perfect sense.

[lastlib]

88. Two words: NIXON ADMINISTRATION

Do we need to say any more about this??

[SunSeeker]

90. K & R

[DCBob]

101. Totally agree with Senator Franken.

Those who had "hair on fire" should now apply extinguisher.

[JaneyVee]

102. 98.4% of you are paranoid.

[RC]

108. But that does not mean they are not after you.

The difference is, some of us are not paranoid and know they are after us. Some of us are paranoid to some degree or another and think they are after us. And then there are those that just think they are NOT after us.

[woo me with science]

153. Bullshit. And shame on you

for repeating this lying talking point.

The NSA..Plausible Deniability and 'Internet traffic'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023449501

The Wildly Misleading PR Claim re: NSA Spying: "We only monitor 1.6 percent of web traffic."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023438572

[Hekate]

105. I can see that our good friend the Senator has already been thrown under the purity bus...

... and said bus is being run back and forth over him.

Lessee, who should I trust in this situation? A man who has been on the side of truth and freedom and justice all along, or a bunch of message board denizens so hysterical with hatred for everything the government does that they can no longer distinguish friend from foe?

Hmmmmmm. That's a tough one.

[davidpdx]

137. He's been run over by the bus, backed over by the bus

thrown off the cliff, down the river, and hung out to dry by DU. The only thing I haven't seen is him being called the "t" word.

[bowens43]

139. are you another willing to toss his freedom under the bus to spout the party line?

[Hekate]

154. Absolutely. No question about it. Franken is my kind of authoritarian. You can make book on that. nt

[kelliekat44]

115. I trust and respect Franken over Snowden any day. nt

[Marr]

119. Franken is a good guy, but he's always been rather trusting of authority.

I remember listening to his radio show every day before he entered the Senate, and being shocked at how often he accepted very suspect government statements at face value.

[Helen Borg]

140. He is not a born politician...

To be one, you must be good at lying. It is unavoidable, for a career in politics you need to like very frequently (if you simply say what you think you will be buried alive). And if you lie, you know well that others are doing it as well, all the time, and that what they say needs to be verified.

[madrchsod]

131. can someone help pull al from under the bus?

[Savannahmann]

136. He forgot to add an important line.

"I have James Clappers word on it."

[bowens43]

138. and yet it is spying on the American people..... collecting the data is spying. Period.

No amount of spinning or lame attempts at justification will change that. The government has no right to gather the data.

[Rex]

150. Too late, the kabuki theater was exposed early on

when a fellow congress person went OFF script and asked a question not authorized by the NSA. The lies have been fast and furious since then.