Poll: Most Americans now oppose the NSA program
Source: USA Today
WASHINGTON -- Most Americans now disapprove of the NSA's sweeping collection of phone metadata, a new USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds, and they're inclined to think there aren't adequate limits in place to what the government can collect.
President Obama's announcement Friday of changes in the surveillance programs has done little to allay those concerns: By 73%-21%, those who paid attention to the speech say his proposals won't make much difference in protecting people's privacy.
The poll of 1,504 adults, taken Wednesday through Sunday, shows a public that is more receptive than before to the arguments made by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. His leak of intelligence documents since last spring has fueled a global debate over the National Security Agency's surveillance of Americans and spying on foreign leaders.
Those surveyed now split, 45%-43%, on whether Snowden's disclosures have helped or harmed the public interest...
The snapshot of public opinion comes as the White House, the intelligence agencies and Congress weigh significant changes in the way the programs are run. In his address, Obama insisted no illegalities had been exposed but proposed steps to reassure Americans that proper safeguards were in place.
By nearly 3-1, 70%-26%, Americans say they shouldn't have to give up privacy and freedom in order to be safe from terrorism...
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-nsa-surveillance/4638551/
Javaman
(62,439 posts)and a majority of Americans also wanted single payer.
they never listen to we the people.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Nice try.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)try to hide from it.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)It's unintelligible.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)the Stuff he blew the whistle on.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)And quiet easily.
What's a "ct"?
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)Snowden is part of the NSA story, whether you agree or not.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)A separate part of it from the abuses of power and/or crimes and/or unconstitutional activities that he exposed.
What is a ct?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)and they say I"M the conspiracy theorist!
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)Lenomsky
(340 posts)I missed that. Don't shoot the messenger.
Hope Snowden has a happy fruitful life .. maybe he'll pen a book but he didn't do it for fame in my opinion.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Even so, by 56%-32%, those surveyed say the government should pursue a criminal case against Snowden.
Comparing Snowden to Dr. King (as Greenwald is doing on twitter) is a fucking insult. Dr. King never ran away to another country - he turned himself in and paid the consequences for breaking what he considered an unjust law. That's what a real hero does.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)What do you think would happen to Snowden if he did turn himself in? Do you think he'd be given a fair trial? Do you think he'd be treated fairly in any way? I don't. Is it cowardice for him to hide from the authorities of a Nation recently known for torturing prisoners? I mean, I guess you could ask Bradley Manning...
Snowden leaked the information he did with the full knowledge that it could bring great risk to his own health and safety - and in all likelihood, his family's as well. I don't know about comparing Snowden and Dr. King, other than the fact that, the consequences, for Snowden, would almost certainly be torture and a lifetime of imprisonment. Who the hell knows where he would end up or what would be done to him.
I hope Snowden stays the hell away - and stays safe. No, I believe that turning himself in would be a very bad idea for Mr. Snowden - not because he would have to face a fair trial and suffer the consequences of a crime, but because the consequences for him would be far above and beyond what any just Nation should do to a prisoner.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I also hope Snowden stays the hell away. Russia (that bastion of freedom and free speech) is the perfect place for him.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)He'd go to Brazil if he had his choice.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)It's easy for you to say what Snowden should do, when you aren't faced with a lifetime of torture like he is.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's the absolute perfect place for him.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and faced consequences. He will always be a hero. Anyone comparing that coward Snowden to him should be ashamed of themselves.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Your prescription for Snowden is brilliant, until one includes that tiny little detail.
A person has to be insane to believe that the system would not use all of its considerable power to grind Snowden to a pulp.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)so why shouldn't he be facing years in prison? Hey, you want to glorify him, knock yourself out. I have no desire to put a halo on a criminal who ran away. Every single minority person who is arrested can claim the same thing - an unfair judicial system.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)You know, the system that took care of trouble-makers like King and the two Kennedys. Snowden's "crime" was in disclosing the crimes of this EXTRA-judicial security machine. What are the odds he could survive long enough to make it to trial?
Equating this to the racism we have built into our judicial system is a non-sequitur. They are both problems.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)he'd be the safest criminal in the country.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I was dealing with someone who thinks arafat was murdered so I'm going to back away from this before I say something very insulting.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)And the gummint offed MLK, JFK and RFK.
Because chemtrails, maybe.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Not everybody has such a utopian view. I don't blame Snowden for being realistic about that. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he holds some documents that prove that the NSA/CIA have been doing exactly that in many cases. We know they have no problem doing that overseas with drones or any other convenient means. The only point of debate is how much of that they have done domestically.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)You can bet Snowden's name is on a stickie for every Terror Tuesday kill list compilation.
Will Snowden get a fair trial, or will the Obama administration simply declare that it is not be possible to bring him to justice, and assassinate him with a Predator drone instead?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Every day and I've seen zero posts from him comparing Snowden to King
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)following Obama's speech.
For those who are interested, it is long but well worth hearing. Snowden was not alone in his doubts about the extent of the NSA's activities. The other whistleblowers are, as I suspect Snowden is, quite concerned about doing what is needed and right to protect our country from terrorism. They object to the excesses as so I.
http://new.livestream.com/accuracy/nsa-rebuttal/videos/39824993
I recognize that those leading the NSA and our government with regard to this security issue have an extremely difficult and heavy responsibility. It cannot be easy to draw the line on the surveillance of the entire world when you have the capacity to watch it all. I sincerely think they are trying to do the right thing. But their zeal is obsessive, and they face a lot of temptations -- the desire to be really, really the best at what they do, perhaps even pressure from corporate interests or even personalities to find information out either for personal gain or simply nosiness. I'm not saying that they succumb to those temptations but in a program that provides so many opportunities for snooping unrelated to American security and that is so poorly overseen by completely independent third parties, it gets very easy to just once in a while cross the line between right and wrong.
The NSA program is extremely dangerous. It will be difficult and take a lot of time for us to control the technological capacity that we have. But we have to remember that laws are made for everyone to follow. They need to be universal. What applies to the US should apply to China and Russia and Germany and Brazil and every other country. No country should claim the right to place the citizens and businesses of another country under surveillance. On the other hand, we need to define terrorism more clearly and come to some sort of international agreement about how to define and control it together. That should be an international effort, and not just the responsibility of the US or the US and a few, random allies. Sometimes one person's terrorist is another person's patriot. Deciding who is a patriot and who is a revolutionary depends on a subjective point of view.
So anti-terrorism fights are always educated by a political viewpoint. And this troubles me very much about the NSA program. Do those managing it, those doing the actual surveillance or the government oversight boards have a political agenda? If so, what is it? That is a very important question that needs to be answered.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)NSA whistleblowers are all serving life sentences.
I read so right here.
These are actors, I presume?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)William Edward Binney[2] is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA)[3] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30 years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George W. Bush administration, and was the subject of FBI investigations, including a raid on his home in 2007.
Binney continues to speak out during Barack Obama's presidency about the NSA's data collection policies, and continues interviews in the media regarding his experiences and his views on communication intercepts by governmental agencies of American citizens. In a legal case, Binney has testified in a sworn affidavit that the NSA is in deliberate violation of the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intelligence_official%29
Russell D. Tice (born 1961) is a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force, Office of Naval Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Security Agency (NSA). During his nearly 20-year career with various United States government agencies, he conducted intelligence missions related to the Kosovo War, Afghanistan, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In December, 2005, Tice helped spark a national controversy over claims that the NSA and the DIA were engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional wiretaps on American citizens. He later acknowledged that he was one of the sources that were used in the New York Times reporting on the wiretap activity in December 2005.[2][3] After speaking publicly about the need for legislation to protect whistleblowers, Tice received national attention as the first NSA-whistleblower in May 2005 before William Binney, Thomas Andrews Drake, Mark Klein, Thomas Tamm, and Edward Snowden came forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice
homas Andrews Drake (born 1957) is a former senior executive of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), a decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, and a whistleblower. In 2010 the government alleged that Drake "mishandled" documents, one of the few such Espionage Act cases in U.S. history. Drake's defenders claim that he was instead being persecuted for challenging the Trailblazer Project.[4][5][6][7][8][9] He is the 2011 recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling and co-recipient of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award.
On June 9, 2011, all 10 original charges against him were dropped. Drake rejected several deals because he refused to "plea bargain with the truth". He eventually pled to one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer;[10] Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, who helped represent him, called it an act of "civil disobedience."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake
Obama signed a new law expanding whistleblower protections for some government employees in November, and on January 2, he signed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which extends similar protections to defense contractors who expose waste and corruption. But the NDAA signing came with a caveat that blindsided the bill's backers and has some in the whistleblower community up in arms: In a signing statement, Obama wrote that the bill's whistleblowing protections "could be interpreted in a manner that would interfere with my authority to manage and direct executive branch officials," and he promised to ignore them if they conflicted with his power to "supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."
"12 million contractors are going to be out in the cold because of this," warns Jesselyn Radack, the national security and human rights director for the Government Accountability Project and a former whistleblower. "Asking employees to go to their boss before going to Congress defeats the purpose of blowing the whistle." Radack adds that presidents "use signing statements to direct their subordinates on how to interpret and administer a law, and it can have substantial legal impact." She points to George W. Bush's signing statements on torture and the USA PATRIOT Act as examples, both of which allowed the former president to dodge parts of those laws.
"The language Obama used wasn't defined, it's completely ambiguous, and it's already led to confusion," says Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight. "I can imagine contractors claiming that disclosures made by whistleblowers are 'confidential,' and I think it could likely have a chilling effect."
Peter Van Buren, a former foreign service officer who wrote a book exposing contracting waste in Iraq (and was hassled by the State Department as a result) tells Mother Jones the signing statement "is merely another expression of [the Obama] administration's hostile policy toward all whistleblowers
It disappoints me, and devalues my own efforts to bring transparency to the government."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/obama-whistleblower-protections-signing-statement
The Obama administration has been merciless in going after whistleblowers.
The man who blew the whistle on the torture interrogations of the Bush administration is an example of a whistleblower who went to jail for his courage and honesty.
Former CIA agent John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the US governments use of torture under the Bush administration, is currently serving a 30 month sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania.
His words:
Greetings from the Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania. I arrived here on February 28, 2013 to serve a 30 month sentence for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. At least that's what the government wants people to believe. In truth, this is my punishment for blowing the whistle on the CIA's illegal torture program and for telling the public that torture was official US government policy. But that's a different story. The purpose of this letter is to tell you about prison life.
At my formal sentencing hearing in January, the judge, the prosecutors, and my attorneys all agreed that I would serve my sentence in Loretto's Federal Work Camp. When I arrived, however, much to my surprise, the Corrections Officer (CO, or "hack" who processed me said that the Justice Department Bureau of Prisons had deemed me a "threat to the public safety" and so I would do serve the entire sentence in the actual prison, rather than the camp.
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/29/imprisoned-cia-torture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-pens-letter-from-loretto/
Enjoy your freedom from information in America. Whistleblowers are silenced either through intimidation or prison, and we are the more ignorant for it.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)So, no. There are no whistleblowers serving life sentences in the U.S.
The best (worst) example you cited is John Kiriakou, who was charged with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee, Deuce Martinez, in classified activities. He was tried, plead guilty, and was sentenced to 30 months. He is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution, Loretto - not exactly notorious for torture, BTW.
NealK
(1,788 posts)Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years confinement with the possibility of parole in eight years for violations of the Espionage Act. She plead guilty to ten charges. She also, BTW, was a member of the military and, as such, was subject to the UCMJ.
Still not seeing Gulags here. But keep trying, if you must.
NealK
(1,788 posts)I doubt it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And he was abused while a prisoner.
bucolic_frolic
(42,661 posts)from the libertarian right as well as the left
that the government is not to be trusted and
they have to much information
there were those cases a few months back where
details were being used to reconstruct cases against
people. That didn't build trust or confidence.
President Obama hinted at something yesterday about
selective enforcement
Citizens are not happy if most criminality goes unnoticed
but they get cited. Drunk driving at 65 miles an hour is
dangerous. Rolling through a stop sign or not wearing a
seat belt is illegal, but in a quiet suburb, does either
warrant the cost of enforcement?
Americans have a long history of preference for freedom
however they define it
spin
(17,493 posts)in this nation.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)What is wrong with her? She has been defending the security state and hating on Snowden from the very first day. Today she was marveling at the fantastic leadership Obama showed with his courageous package of hard-hitting reforms.
She is out of her ever-loving mind.
NealK
(1,788 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)eggplant
(3,891 posts)Oh wait -- someone *else* collected these opinions?
Nevermind...
NealK
(1,788 posts)Why do so many people hate Obama?
"70%-26%, Americans say they shouldn't have to give up privacy and freedom in order to be safe from terrorism..."
Bunch of traitors and Paulbots!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)NealK
(1,788 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We have to fight them here so we don't have to fight them over there. Or something.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Or do we only play the "LIBERALS BLAME AMERICA FIRST!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!" card when it isn't a majority yet? Right wing talking points are so hard to keep up with.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Just extending the argument used this past summer of course to dismiss anyone with NSA concerns.
As to your last bit, I remember one argument this summer where the professed democrat and definite NSA apologist I was debating told me that the right wingers had a point when it came to the statement that "some far-left liberals hate America."
That was a hoot!
What happens when the only people in favor of the security state are the NSA, Obama, Feinstein, al Qaeda, Rudy Guiliani, Gramps McGrumpy, and his gal Lyndsay?
Do we get a prize or something?