You didn't say that at first you were leaning in the camp of throwing the guy a parade?
And yeah, I do care about damage being done, that's why I'm okay with the metadata collection: to prevent damage from being done. But before we can even get to that, people around here need to stop saying that what happened wasn't legal. It was. It is.
"...our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbour's ground, he must justify it by law."
Lord Camden
Entick v. Carrington (1765)
The Founders' Constitution
1765
"That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted."
George Mason
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Virginia Convention of Delegates
June 12, 1776
Snowden is this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, and I thank him for it. Him and Bradley both.
But the question is, will you be able to stay consistent on that? You call yourself a libertarian and that leads one to suspect that your motives are not in the interest of anything other than opposing Obama. I suspect that as with Rand Paul, had it been a repub president he would be seeing it as a necessary thing to spy on the people in the obvious interest of national security. And one thing's for sure, if there is another successful terrorist attack against the US, it will be Rand paul and his ilk who are quick to say that Obama didn't do enough. You too?
edit: You can take solace in the fact that everyone outside your country is siding with Snowden. That could cause you some reason for concern!
Yes, I will be able to stay consistent on my opinion of both men, though I have met neither. Usually I know good men when I see them, even from a distance, through the media.
Well I do oppose Obama, just as I opposed Bush before him. And though I voted against Jimmy Carter, once he got in office I greatly admired him.
Yeah, I saw the pictures of the rallies for Snowden in Hong Kong. People carrying signs saying "Prosecute Obama, let Snowden go" or something like that. The US is the laughing stock of the world, at the same time the world's 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Sad really, I had hoped for better government.
Them and Daniel Ellsberg, Ehren Watada, and quite a few others in minor roles that seldom make the news. I'm no Obama fan, Michael. Prematurely categorizing people can backfire.eace
Good comments! No, I never did suspect that you were an Obama fan. You call yourself a libertarian and that would apparently be inconsistent with your agenda. Just apparently, not in actuality in my opinion, but that's a long hard subject to get into.
I'm not sure your exactly right on the US being the laugh of the world though. I myself don't see it that way as I realize that the US needs to spy on it's own people in order to protect it's interests. And I've already stated the reasons for which I believe that to be true. This is of course the point at which my agenda doesn't mesh with the libertarian agenda. In my opinion, your agenda is an honest one but it tends to not take into account the necessary realities of national security. And then besides that, it's a great hot button issue for Rand Paul who will do anything it takes to bring his fringe element along with him. Sadly, for him, it's only a fringe but he probably knows that as well as his father. It's going to be enough to keep him in office and that's the important part.
I have the occasional need for speed on a motorcycle, and I'm no fraidy cat. I never bought into the fear-mongering that came later, though I was traumatized by the events of 11 September. The government can't protect me from anything, and I've know that for decades. As we've given away all our constitutional rights because we're scared silly, just as Congress was when it passed the Unpatriot Act, government could not protect those folks who lived in Black Forest.
I do understand your suspicions about Rand Paul. Though I greatly admired his father, I'm not yet sure about the son.
I agree completely with this.
Even the last part.
I greatly admire Ron Paul.
Not sure about the son yet.
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee blasted the Obama administration in the wake of news that officials secretly obtained records for Verizon phone calls made in the United States, and called for hearings into the program.
“We believe this type of program is far too broad and is inconsistent with our nation’s founding principles,” said a joint statement from prominent Democrats on the committee, including ranking member Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). “We cannot defeat terrorism by compromising our commitment to our civil rights and liberties.”
The letter was also signed by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee, and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations subpanel.
“We strongly disagree with those who would assert that because this type of program appears to be long standing and Members of Congress may have been briefed, that it is acceptable to us or the Congress,” the group wrote.
“A classified briefing which does not permit any public discussion does not imply approval or acceptance,” they added.
Democrats on Thursday fired off most of the criticism against the program.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he has been briefed on some of the information generally previously and “of course” he is troubled by it.
“We’ve been unable to speak to it because it is classified,” Durbin said.
“To say that every American’s records of phone conversations are now open to government scrutiny really goes to beyond that standard,” Durbin said.
“This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans’ privacy. I have had significant concerns about the intelligence community over-collecting information about Americans’ telephone calls, emails, and other records,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in a statement.
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said the report “concerns me.”
“The administration I think owes it to the American public to comment on what authorities it thinks it has and I’ll leave it there,” he told reporters Thursday.
“I can assure you the phone number tracking of non-criminal, non-terrorist suspects was not discussed [at the administration's classified briefings],” said [Congressman Aaron] Schock. “Most members have stopped going to their classified briefings because they rarely tell us anything we don’t already know in the news. It really has become a charade.”
"By the way,” [Senator Jeff] Merkley continued. “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.”
The only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
The official version of a Pentagon report about its dealings with Hollywood over the making of “Zero Dark Thirty” omits allegations included in an earlier leaked copy, which alleged then-CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed classified information.
The Defense Department’s final version of the document appeared Friday, but in an earlier draft, which was published last week by the Project on Government Oversight, Panetta was accused of discussing classified information at a 2011 CIA event attended by the film’s screenwriter.
Bridget Ann Serchak, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon’s inspector general, said issues related to Panetta were referred to the CIA’s IG.
“As with any IG work product, the working draft was edited and revised during a rigorous internal review process,” Serchak said in a statement to POLITICO. “No third parties, to include anyone from the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Executive Office of the President, attempted to influence the content of the report or its release date.”
The final version of the IG’s report references the CIA event but omits a paragraph in the draft version that said Panetta “specifically recognized the unit that conducted the [Osama bin Laden] raid and identified the ground commander by name.” That information was protected from public release, according to the draft report, and amounted to divulging a secret.
The final report released Friday also makes clear there was resistance within the Pentagon to providing access to the makers of “Zero Dark Thirty.” Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal did not formally request the Defense Department’s support for the film but did meet with military officials as part of their research.
The report quotes “DoD’s director of entertainment media” — Philip Strub — as saying he wasn’t eager to deal with the two filmmakers because of their portrayal of the military in a previous film, “The Hurt Locker,” but was overruled by higher-ups.
“I wasn’t given the choice of whether to authorize it or not,” he said, according to the final report. “I mean, these senior people do whatever they want.”
In a 2011 email, then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Doug Wilson told Boal, “If you have any problems with [Strub] on any of this, come to me.”
Later, Wilson emailed Boal that he and other top Pentagon officials would “work to unclog the SOCOM pathway for you,” referring to U.S. Special Operations Command. Boal wanted to interview Navy SEALs as part of his research, but Special Operations Command officials had expressed reservations about making people available.
Investigators began looking into the Pentagon’s relationship with the “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmakers after a New York Times columnist wrote that Obama administration officials hoped the movie, then expected for release around the time of the 2012 elections, would portray the president in a heroic light and help him at the polls.
more leaks, more scrubbed talking points
yesterday: Leak report omits Panetta allegation - Austin Wright - POLITICO.com
a rigorous internal review process, alright
LOL!
it all depends, apparently, on just who is gettin leaked on
Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him - CBS News
remember (bush holdover) robert gates' stfu policy?
Secretary Gates’s STFU Policy - ABC News
anyone?
Good afternoon, Prof :2wave:
The more we hear about these scandals, the worse it gets! Our Security is compromised so BHO can look like a hero? Why? What game is this? :thumbdown:
If more Americans would stop and consider that your freedoms were confiscated long before Obama, they would be able to work their way through this thing with Snowden. Nothing is going to be gained for the US in hearing Snowden blow more cover but there could be lots to lose.
Before the kneejerk reaction that goes along with the phony libertarian agenda of making people angry at Obama, they should have stopped and thought of the consequences of stopping security orgs from doing their jobs. Yet, Americans don't do that and continue to believe that their rights were secure before Snowden because that's what they're supposed to be thinking.
Believe me, from a Canadian POV, you don't have near the rights that we have in countries where politics playing isn't the order of the day, every day. You've been enslaved to your system of crass and the irresponsible style of capitalism in so many ways.
The highest per capita income in the world with the world's second highest income inequality?
No affordable health care for millions of your own people?
Losing your homes to extremist capitalist corruption?
That's the kind of freedom America is all about?
excellent post!
Believe me
The Bush administration, Obama said in 2007, "puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."
Telling Americans they need to be treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed BS) or exposed to greater threats is Obama's false choice. The president and his fellow Washington elites need to start treating Americans like grown-ups.
A late-spring storm of Washington controversies has created a rare event in these partisan, polarized times: a shared I-told-you-so moment for the left and the right.
For anyone worried about the potential for government overreach, the past few weeks have brought more cause for concern.
The Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny. The Justice Department subpoenaing the records of media organizations in a search-and-destroy mission against their sources of information. The National Security Agency sweeping up phone records and secretly tapping into the Internet services that have become the nervous system of 21st-century life.
All raise questions that go beyond the ideological differences over the size and cost of government that have come to define the Democratic and Republican parties.
That explains why the newly revealed leaker of classified information about government surveillance, 29-year-old tech specialist Edward Snowden, has been hailed as a “hero” by figures as diverse as conservative commentator Glenn Beck, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.
And the scandals — or pseudo-scandals, depending on one’s point of view — land at a time when polls show the public’s trust in the federal government is at or near all-time lows.
“All of those things fit together as almost a patchwork quilt of too much, too far and too intrusive,” Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart said. “It’s not bringing people together. It’s uniting in outrage.”
Less than five months in, Obama and his administration appear knocked off balance by a barrage of controversies and criticisms exacerbating the bitter political battles that marked his first four years in office.
He's under fire from the right and left, accused by some ofconspiratorial machinations to grab even more powerthan the leader of the free world legally holds.
Headlines are dominated by scandals such as the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups and classified leaks that disclosed details of the vast data mining and surveillance apparatus created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile,Republicans and some Democrats say his attorney general should resign over various issues including secret subpoenas of journalist phone records.
Even the first lady got heckled -- at a Democratic fundraiser, no less. While the issue was gay rights, the incident showed how Obama supporters also were frustrated by what they consider to be a lack of sufficient progress on progressive issues they expect the president to champion.
To columnist and CNN contributor John Avlon, the latest Washington scandals "have put the president off balance," withthe administration on defense instead of driving the agenda.
"The choice will be in how the administration tries to deal with it," Avlon said. "If it's in denial and acts like these events are occurring outside its purview or control, that will be a big problem."
"This is a president now who's dealing with issues he never thought he was going to have to deal with," [CNN senior analyst Gloria] Borger said Monday, referring to drone strikes, government surveillance and classified leaks.
Avlon and Borger agreed that Obama must be proactive in dealing with the newly revealed details about how the government has access to phone records and Internet activity as tools in fighting terrorism.
I've got a million of them spanning a hundred years before and after the DoI
Snowden is this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, and I thank him for it. Him and Bradley both.
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.
The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian.
There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established "listening posts" that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, "whether they originate within the country or overseas." That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.
A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, says he was surprised to see the 2008 FISA Amendments Act be used to vacuum up information on American citizens. "Everyone who voted for the statute thought it was about international communications," he said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?